I have given up my Economist subscription, but they have yet to stop sending me a copy. Each week I expect that to happen, but so far it has come. I know it will not last.
But, it came last week and I got to read the obituary for Boris Nemtsov. He was a great man for what he did not do. He did not become an oligarch even though he was a very smart guy. He was humble and aspired to have good government and a clean market economy. He was the anti-Putin who worried that Russia is becoming a fascist state where if you don't agree with the government, you are killed. And he liked to windsurf.
Boris Nemstov died too young, and I have no doubt that Putin is behind it somehow and that it will never be proven. That is how dictators work.
Meanwhile, the NRA has fought and defeated a proposal to ban cop killer bullets. You would think people who want the police to be safe (which is almost everyone) would be for this. But not the NRA and not the GOP politicians that are scared of them. They will bemoan the death of a policeman from a cop killer bullet (and it could have been the shootings in Ferguson, MO last night), but they will not act. The way the NRA and the Heritage Foundation act today, it almost seems like they are trying to emulate Putin.
The Senate cannot pass a bill showing support for our efforts against ISIS because the Democrats think the authorization allows too much and the Republicans think it does not go far enough (and they don't want to be seen as supporting a policy that might fail because we are showing restraint). I have two thoughts about this: (i) Is it any wonder that Presidents don't want to go to Congress for authorization on International stuff? Congress cannot do it's basic job and hold votes and they don't do anything quickly. And they don't seem to care that they don't do anything. Congress is disgusting; (ii) What do you think Iran thinks about this? Chaos in policy making, threats of policy retreat and disavowal, who would want to cut a deal with the U.S.
All I know is Iran is next door to Iraq. Syria is next door to Iraq. We took out Saddam Hussein who stood up to both of them and now the GOP is complaining that Iran is getting involved with the Shia led Iraqi anti-ISIS forces. Only Muslims can defeat ISIS. Widespread involvement of the U.S. will lead to jihadists pouring into Syria to kill Americans. Civil Wars need to be settled by the locals and their neighbors. There is only so much people with stretched supply lines can do.
Why can't the Senate agree on a bill that supports a prudent middle ground approach to fighting ISIS? Are they responsible leaders or just leaders when it fulfills a need? I suspect it is the latter.
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
The GOP/Netanyahu Coalition Source is Found, Follow the $$$$
And not surprisingly, Citizens United after effects come right to the forefront.
Thomas Friedman has the details to identify Sheldon Adelson's vision behind all this. His influence is deep and pervasive and legal. But it is the influence of one man (and his wife).
Link to Thomas Friedman's column
The Adelson's oppose a Two State Solution and support Settlements. They are convinced that Iran must not get a nuclear weapon even if it takes military action to prevent it and deeply distrust the global coalition that has imposed sanctions on Iran and gotten them to the negotiating table.
They fail to see how their policies create both the motivation for the very despair that feeds the terrorism they fear and the potential for Israel to become an apartheid state.
My friend RedStateVT put forth a comment that Israel needs the Settlements to buffer against terrorist attacks. My feeling is if you can defend the Settlements in the West Bank, you can defend the natural borders of Israel. After all, it was the inability to defend the Settlements in the Gaza Strip that led Israel to force the Settlers to return to Israel proper and abandon those Settlements. Israel still defends its border with Gaza and when Hamas fails to act as a responsible government, military action is the justified hammer. A similar situation on the West Bank with the PLO seemingly naturally in charge could be a shining example for whatever emerges from the chaos in Syria and Western Iraq. With a 2 State Solution, a natural bulwark against such chaos would exist with Israel Palestine and Jordan. I have no doubt that Israel may well have to protect itself against rouge elements originating in a PLO controlled West Bank, but they have to protect themselves against the same rogue elements in any case.
Anyway, I was wrong yesterday when I thought the military industrial complex was behind all this. It is just Sheldon Adelson and he is a gambling magnate.
Thomas Friedman has the details to identify Sheldon Adelson's vision behind all this. His influence is deep and pervasive and legal. But it is the influence of one man (and his wife).
Link to Thomas Friedman's column
The Adelson's oppose a Two State Solution and support Settlements. They are convinced that Iran must not get a nuclear weapon even if it takes military action to prevent it and deeply distrust the global coalition that has imposed sanctions on Iran and gotten them to the negotiating table.
They fail to see how their policies create both the motivation for the very despair that feeds the terrorism they fear and the potential for Israel to become an apartheid state.
My friend RedStateVT put forth a comment that Israel needs the Settlements to buffer against terrorist attacks. My feeling is if you can defend the Settlements in the West Bank, you can defend the natural borders of Israel. After all, it was the inability to defend the Settlements in the Gaza Strip that led Israel to force the Settlers to return to Israel proper and abandon those Settlements. Israel still defends its border with Gaza and when Hamas fails to act as a responsible government, military action is the justified hammer. A similar situation on the West Bank with the PLO seemingly naturally in charge could be a shining example for whatever emerges from the chaos in Syria and Western Iraq. With a 2 State Solution, a natural bulwark against such chaos would exist with Israel Palestine and Jordan. I have no doubt that Israel may well have to protect itself against rouge elements originating in a PLO controlled West Bank, but they have to protect themselves against the same rogue elements in any case.
Anyway, I was wrong yesterday when I thought the military industrial complex was behind all this. It is just Sheldon Adelson and he is a gambling magnate.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
The GOP Senate Wants to Boost Spending on the Military Industrial Complex
That can be the only concrete reason for their wanting to start a War with Iran. However before they can get their way, they will have to convince our EU Allies that is the correct path as Iran is not simply negotiating with the U.S.; the negotiations are under the auspices of the U.N. and the Security Council plus Germany. So any agreement with Iran will include Britain, France, Russia, China, the U.S. and Germany.
So if an agreement is reached with Iran, it will be with those parties, of which the U.S. is only one. And if the U.S. reneges on any agreement under a future GOP President, he will be upsetting not only Iran, Russia and China, but also Britain, France and Germany. And if the U.S. really wants to invade Iran alone without any support from the rest of the world, well I can only imagine the turmoil the resulting high level of casualties will cause in the U.S. We might well see turmoil in the streets not seen since the Vietnam War.
I just wish I saw one iota of insightful thinking on the part of the U.S. Senate on either side of the aisle. It has been years since there has been thoughtful debate and consideration on the legislative side of our democracy. It's just SPIN, SPIN, SPIN in support of the permanent campaign for funding to run in the next election.
Thank you Supreme Court for Citizens United. I know that wasn't the cause of all this, but it certainly supports the perpetuation of it.
So if an agreement is reached with Iran, it will be with those parties, of which the U.S. is only one. And if the U.S. reneges on any agreement under a future GOP President, he will be upsetting not only Iran, Russia and China, but also Britain, France and Germany. And if the U.S. really wants to invade Iran alone without any support from the rest of the world, well I can only imagine the turmoil the resulting high level of casualties will cause in the U.S. We might well see turmoil in the streets not seen since the Vietnam War.
I just wish I saw one iota of insightful thinking on the part of the U.S. Senate on either side of the aisle. It has been years since there has been thoughtful debate and consideration on the legislative side of our democracy. It's just SPIN, SPIN, SPIN in support of the permanent campaign for funding to run in the next election.
Thank you Supreme Court for Citizens United. I know that wasn't the cause of all this, but it certainly supports the perpetuation of it.
Monday, March 9, 2015
Will the GOP EVER Acknowledge Reality?
The Florida coast line is pretty much ground zero for exposure to higher sea levels generated by global warming. Sea Levels have risen @30 centimeters since 1950. That is close to one foot and since sea level has been rising ever since the last Ice Age, you would think politicians in a state that is certain to be effected by the rising sea level would want to discuss the issue. But not the Florida GOP. They have banned any use of the words global warming or any issues surrounding global warming. Even if you want to deny that human activity is causing global warming (although science has proven unequivocally that CO2 emissions cause atmospheric warming), why would you want to deny the sea level rising? I guess if you don't believe in evolution or want to avoid offending those who don't believe in evolution, you have to deny the Ice Age too because it wasn't in The Old Testament.
Then, of course there is ObamaCare, where it is now clear that the cost curve of health care is bending downward. It is difficult to separate the effects of ObamaCare and the effects of the Great Recession, but one thing is clear, the old system allowed our cost of health care to go from 9% of GDP in 1980 to 17% of GDP presently. I guess I should be glad our cost of health care is only 12% of our monthly budget. Meanwhile, the supposed best health care system in the world for that highest cost level in the world produces a worse than median outcome (that is the lower half for the statistically challenged) in the developed world for diabetes, infant mortality and life expectancy. And all the GOP can whine about is how great it would be to go back to the old pre-ObamaCare system that bankrupted almost anyone who got sick while they were not covered by employer paid health insurance. The old system was broken, so if you are going to repeal ObamaCare, you better have a solution. I know any GOP readers will not want to hear about it, but Heritage Fondation/RomneyCare/ObamaCare was the GOP solution to this unending increase in the aggregate cost of health care.
And finally, there is the complete irony that the GOP Senators are now completely aligned with the hard core conservatives in Iran who want a bomb. They know that as long as they can sell oil, they will have enough money to build a nuclear bomb. And sanctions cannot stop the selling of some oil, look at ISIS from whom nobody will admits to buying oil but they still get $$$ from somewhere for their oil. The Nuclear Wanna Be conservatives in Tehran know there is no way their capacity can be bombed out of existence. They know that a growing economy with an improving life style for the population combined with tight international supervision is the only thing that can stop them from building a nuclear bomb. And that is who the GOP Senators who signed this letter have aligned themselves with. Do these guys think about anything from a base in reality? It seems like all they can do is say, if Obama wants it, we are against it.
They think they aligned themselves with Bibi Netanyahu, but his denial of reality aligns himself with those Tehranian based conservatives. And his denial of a Two State Solution shows he has no grasp on reality on almost anything other than his domestic political position.
I don't know which of these is most outrageous, but it really makes me sad that the Democrats cannot come up with some candidates to challenge Hillary.
Then, of course there is ObamaCare, where it is now clear that the cost curve of health care is bending downward. It is difficult to separate the effects of ObamaCare and the effects of the Great Recession, but one thing is clear, the old system allowed our cost of health care to go from 9% of GDP in 1980 to 17% of GDP presently. I guess I should be glad our cost of health care is only 12% of our monthly budget. Meanwhile, the supposed best health care system in the world for that highest cost level in the world produces a worse than median outcome (that is the lower half for the statistically challenged) in the developed world for diabetes, infant mortality and life expectancy. And all the GOP can whine about is how great it would be to go back to the old pre-ObamaCare system that bankrupted almost anyone who got sick while they were not covered by employer paid health insurance. The old system was broken, so if you are going to repeal ObamaCare, you better have a solution. I know any GOP readers will not want to hear about it, but Heritage Fondation/RomneyCare/ObamaCare was the GOP solution to this unending increase in the aggregate cost of health care.
And finally, there is the complete irony that the GOP Senators are now completely aligned with the hard core conservatives in Iran who want a bomb. They know that as long as they can sell oil, they will have enough money to build a nuclear bomb. And sanctions cannot stop the selling of some oil, look at ISIS from whom nobody will admits to buying oil but they still get $$$ from somewhere for their oil. The Nuclear Wanna Be conservatives in Tehran know there is no way their capacity can be bombed out of existence. They know that a growing economy with an improving life style for the population combined with tight international supervision is the only thing that can stop them from building a nuclear bomb. And that is who the GOP Senators who signed this letter have aligned themselves with. Do these guys think about anything from a base in reality? It seems like all they can do is say, if Obama wants it, we are against it.
They think they aligned themselves with Bibi Netanyahu, but his denial of reality aligns himself with those Tehranian based conservatives. And his denial of a Two State Solution shows he has no grasp on reality on almost anything other than his domestic political position.
I don't know which of these is most outrageous, but it really makes me sad that the Democrats cannot come up with some candidates to challenge Hillary.
Saturday, March 7, 2015
Human Capital vs Redistributionist Progressivism & Why Not Hillary is best
I thank David Brooks for outlining this predicament and highlighting for myself why I am a Human Capital Progressive and not a Redistributionist Progressive.
Link to David Brook's column
I have been rather silent on the Democratic side of the 2016 Presidential campaign because there hasn't been much to talk about. On the GOP side, I am just thankful that Jeb Bush, who is not a wild eyed crazy, is getting some early traction, although it is far to early to say whether he will be successful navigating the Primaries.
On the other hand, I don't relish the thought of another Bush Presidency because, frankly, I don't think he or George II are of the caliber of the George I for clear thinking and belief that balance in needed in government.
But this is about the Democrats. I hope someone runs against Hillary or even that "E-mail gate" convinces her that she should just enjoy being Grandma. Because, I think the GOP can beat Hillary. She will have been part of the NY/D.C. scene for 24 years in 2016. If that doesn't make you establishment, I don't know what does. And I don't think someone who is part and parcel of the mess we have in D.C. can be a solution (that goes for both parties). "E-mail Gate" illustrates how out of touch with reality Hillary is. Yes, she will promote policies that I believe in, but she is also too desperate to be President. Why else would a 67 year old even contemplate running for President?
As for the Progressive change in focus from Human Capital to Redistribution, while it is fine to focus on income inequality as an issue, it remains true that you can only find so much money in redistribution and that is primarily by closing loopholes of which there are only a couple of significant ones left. You cannot raise marginal rates any higher: the GOP won't allow it and it is bad economic policy to have a dollar of income taxed at greater than 50% on the margin and we are not far below it now (39.1% Fed + 2.3% Medicare (I think I have that right) + whatever State rate someone has, 7.9% in NY).
Redistribution, other than closing the Carried Interest loop hole, is a losing proposition in this country. The fact that we have a Supreme Court dominated by Conservatives who see no evil in Citizens United is thanks to Bill Clinton whose Monica Lewinsky scandal cost Al Gore the 2000 election. Now Hillary will probably run, may well lose because of her desperation, and the liberal justices who retire between 2017 and 2021 will be replaced by conservative justices. Money will be dominating U.S. politics for decades to come.
I don't know who is a great Democratic candidate for 2016. I just know Elizabeth Warren progressivism is a losing proposition.
Link to David Brook's column
I have been rather silent on the Democratic side of the 2016 Presidential campaign because there hasn't been much to talk about. On the GOP side, I am just thankful that Jeb Bush, who is not a wild eyed crazy, is getting some early traction, although it is far to early to say whether he will be successful navigating the Primaries.
On the other hand, I don't relish the thought of another Bush Presidency because, frankly, I don't think he or George II are of the caliber of the George I for clear thinking and belief that balance in needed in government.
But this is about the Democrats. I hope someone runs against Hillary or even that "E-mail gate" convinces her that she should just enjoy being Grandma. Because, I think the GOP can beat Hillary. She will have been part of the NY/D.C. scene for 24 years in 2016. If that doesn't make you establishment, I don't know what does. And I don't think someone who is part and parcel of the mess we have in D.C. can be a solution (that goes for both parties). "E-mail Gate" illustrates how out of touch with reality Hillary is. Yes, she will promote policies that I believe in, but she is also too desperate to be President. Why else would a 67 year old even contemplate running for President?
As for the Progressive change in focus from Human Capital to Redistribution, while it is fine to focus on income inequality as an issue, it remains true that you can only find so much money in redistribution and that is primarily by closing loopholes of which there are only a couple of significant ones left. You cannot raise marginal rates any higher: the GOP won't allow it and it is bad economic policy to have a dollar of income taxed at greater than 50% on the margin and we are not far below it now (39.1% Fed + 2.3% Medicare (I think I have that right) + whatever State rate someone has, 7.9% in NY).
Redistribution, other than closing the Carried Interest loop hole, is a losing proposition in this country. The fact that we have a Supreme Court dominated by Conservatives who see no evil in Citizens United is thanks to Bill Clinton whose Monica Lewinsky scandal cost Al Gore the 2000 election. Now Hillary will probably run, may well lose because of her desperation, and the liberal justices who retire between 2017 and 2021 will be replaced by conservative justices. Money will be dominating U.S. politics for decades to come.
I don't know who is a great Democratic candidate for 2016. I just know Elizabeth Warren progressivism is a losing proposition.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Guantanamo Diary, Where is the Obama Administration on this?
I am almost done with this book. It is a complete indictment of the insanity that revolves around Guantanamo. Of course, there are bad guys at Guantanamo and I believe they should be in a proper jail, where they can be given a death sentence by our patriotic gang members who would also be in the population of a maximum security prison.
On the other hand, there are clearly some very innocent people still in Guantanamo. Mohamedou Ould Slahi, the author, is a Mauritanian who was arrested in Mauritania, had not been in Afghanistan since he was a jihadist fighting the Russians (and being supported by the CIA), went to Germany and learned computers, which he was working at in Mauritania, when the CIA decided they wanted to question him about the Millennium Bombing plan, of which there is no evidence that he ever participated in. For that, he has been in the CIA's custody ever since September 2001. And he even won a Supreme Court decision that he was entitled to habeas corpus, but he is still in Guantanamo and has not been sent back to Mauritania.
Why does the Obama Administration keep a guy like this? Unless the book is a complete set of lies, which neither the author's lawyer or the book's editor believes, the only reason for keeping him can be what he knows about the torture techniques used on him and the fear of some liability arising from that. And if the CIA has evidence that he is lying, convict him in a judicial setting and put him in a proper jail. Because right now, I think he is innocent and this is a shame on the United States of America. Killers and rapists have gotten less punishment than this guy who did nothing wrong except somehow come to the attention of the CIA as someone to investigate.
His arrest and torture are an indictment of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld Government. His continuing incarceration is an indictment of the Obama/Panetta etc Government.
On the other hand, there are clearly some very innocent people still in Guantanamo. Mohamedou Ould Slahi, the author, is a Mauritanian who was arrested in Mauritania, had not been in Afghanistan since he was a jihadist fighting the Russians (and being supported by the CIA), went to Germany and learned computers, which he was working at in Mauritania, when the CIA decided they wanted to question him about the Millennium Bombing plan, of which there is no evidence that he ever participated in. For that, he has been in the CIA's custody ever since September 2001. And he even won a Supreme Court decision that he was entitled to habeas corpus, but he is still in Guantanamo and has not been sent back to Mauritania.
Why does the Obama Administration keep a guy like this? Unless the book is a complete set of lies, which neither the author's lawyer or the book's editor believes, the only reason for keeping him can be what he knows about the torture techniques used on him and the fear of some liability arising from that. And if the CIA has evidence that he is lying, convict him in a judicial setting and put him in a proper jail. Because right now, I think he is innocent and this is a shame on the United States of America. Killers and rapists have gotten less punishment than this guy who did nothing wrong except somehow come to the attention of the CIA as someone to investigate.
His arrest and torture are an indictment of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld Government. His continuing incarceration is an indictment of the Obama/Panetta etc Government.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Putin Kills Again (but he is learning to cover his tracks)
Watching Putin operate I have come to realize we are getting to see how a Mafia Don gains and maintains power.
Putin learned from his shooting down the Malaysian Air Jet that you have to create the path of deniability in order to avoid blame for things you are obviously responsible for. He hasn't done that in the Ukraine so Russia is suffering from the sanctions that the West was able to agree to.
Now he has had a political opponent murdered, but by immediately calling for an investigation he has created a path of deniability unless someone (very unlikely as they would likely be murdered as well) can actually prove who the killer was and get them to talk, which would likely involve getting at least 2 or 3 other people to talk if you can even find them.
Russia deserves better than this, but as I have written before, Putin is modeling himself on Peter the Great and no doubt will use the power of government to stay in power until he dies of natural causes in 20 or 30 years, at which point I will likely be dead and won't see what happens next.
I don't understand why the neo-conservatives in the U.S. were saying we needed a President like Putin a year or so ago. They are probably hoping people forget what they said.
Farewell, Russia, home to 1/4 of my heritage.
Putin learned from his shooting down the Malaysian Air Jet that you have to create the path of deniability in order to avoid blame for things you are obviously responsible for. He hasn't done that in the Ukraine so Russia is suffering from the sanctions that the West was able to agree to.
Now he has had a political opponent murdered, but by immediately calling for an investigation he has created a path of deniability unless someone (very unlikely as they would likely be murdered as well) can actually prove who the killer was and get them to talk, which would likely involve getting at least 2 or 3 other people to talk if you can even find them.
Russia deserves better than this, but as I have written before, Putin is modeling himself on Peter the Great and no doubt will use the power of government to stay in power until he dies of natural causes in 20 or 30 years, at which point I will likely be dead and won't see what happens next.
I don't understand why the neo-conservatives in the U.S. were saying we needed a President like Putin a year or so ago. They are probably hoping people forget what they said.
Farewell, Russia, home to 1/4 of my heritage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)