ISRAEL’S MOSSAD BEHIND SARIN GAS ATTACKS IN SYRIA?

My neighbor up here in the heart of the Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont is a guy I’ll just call “Tony”. He looks and speaks just like Steve Van Zant of the Netflix series “Lillehammer”. Tony, who seems so out of place in the quiet, spruce and fir-robed hills in the “Greens” has lived here for decades. The local IGA even “special order” the herb arugula just for Tony. The locals have always secretly suspected him of being in the Federal Witness Protection Program, though no one knows for sure. But just looking at him it is apparent that he has lived a hard, tough life for most of his sixty plus years.  He is a friendly and garrulous guy (one more reason, besides the arugula, he stands out as a stranger in this land of stolid and silent Vermonters) and will without hesitation give you his opinion on any number of subjects.  One of his most used phrases in response to the questions of “who did it? or who is responsible?”, is: “It's simple, ya jest follow the money."


Sometime last week, I read a piece in the Israeli journal Haretz, (in English) regarding “new” evidence of Syrian use of poison gas. Soon after, NPR (April 25) reported that our fresh-faced Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, who on his return from a trip to Israel, where he offered the Israelis more cheap armaments, immediately informed Congress that there is “new evidence” that Syria has used chemical weapons against its own citizens. That same day, I bumped into Tony at the Depot and asked him what he thought of these troubling developments.  He responded in his typical way, beginning with a silent stare, then, raising his eyebrows and extending his lower lip, he made a head nod and a shrug which just about buried his thick, bull neck.


 “First,” he said, using his big, soft hands like a conductor, “Obam was a jerk to put out that “red line”. Dat’s what I think. He got hisself pushed into a corner. He makes his own problems, that guy.”


“Yeah, I knew that,” I said, “but who’s really responsible? Assad?  The insurgent rebels? The Israelis? Maybe some right wing elements in the CIA?”


Hey “wallione”, what did I say? You don't remember good?  Jes follow the money!”


Later that night,  I read in The Daily Kos (April 25, 2013) a story that suggested that events were heating up, and sadly, beginning to reprise events prior to the Iraq war.  The administration informed select members of the Senate and Congress with a letter, an excerpt of which appeared in the Kos blog and which I duplicate below.


“Our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin. This assessment is based in part on physiological samples. Our standard of evidence must build on these intelligence assessments as we seek to establish credible and corroborated facts. For example, the chain of custody is not clear, so we cannot confirm how the exposure occurred and under what conditions. We do believe that any use of chemical weapons in Syria would very likely have originated with the Assad regime. Thus far, we believe that the Assad regime maintains custody of these weapons, and has demonstrated a willingness to escalate its horrific use of violence against the Syrian people.

Because of our concern about the deteriorating situation in Syria, the President has made it clear that the use of chemical weapons—or transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups—is a red line for the United States of America. [...]”


The key words here are “varying degrees of confidence”, “on a small scale”...the “chain of custody is not clear”, the Sarin gas exposure is “VERY LIKELY to have originated with the Assad Regime”, and last, the statement, "how exposure occurred and under what conditions” is not certain.  This there seems to be a lot of unknowns and inexplicable circumstances associated with this revelation which should make one very wary of drawing firm conclusions too quickly.


The next day, I listened to the “Economist” April 26, 2013 podcast, on Syria and its use of poison gas. It provided some further pertinent information. Apparently, the determination of the presence of Sarin was based on human tissue and soil samples smuggled out of the country. But more importantly, the incidents occurred over a short time and in THREE different places. Robert Fisk of the Independent (UK) reported on Sunday April 28, 2013 that the three “exposures” occurred in Homs, Aleppo, and the outskirts of Damascus. Fisk questions the veracity of the reports. But assuming they are valid, what do they tell us?


Using Tony’s dictum, “follow the money” (or in this case, follow the trail of motivations or perceived strategic advantages), one must wonder why the Assad Regime would use “small” quantities of Sarin gas, in which only a few people were sickened and which resulted in few if any deaths. And why in three different places?  What tactical,or strategic purpose could that serve a regime attempting to put down an insurrection? What for? Just to antagonize the international community and bring hovering drones and cruise missiles down on Assad’s palace?   An accident or a stray shell striking a storage depot might be the cause of small gas releases except that the evidences were found in three DIFFERENT locations. The facts that we have at hand, if correct, seem to suggest purposeful small releases, perhaps to make sure the evidence became available to a wider audience.  The insurgents present an obvious possibility as a source. But there is a need for special expertise and equipment to deploy this gas, these circumstances especially the small controlled releases are unlikely to be within their abilities. If they had the materials and expertise would it not be more likely that they would use it massively against the regime?


With present evidence it seems we must eliminate the possibility of accidental releases. And second there seems no rational motivation for the Assad Regime to use its weapons in the way described. That leaves the possibility of a third party attempting to manipulate the outcome of this tragic conflict.


All the major actors in the Middle East are well aware of Obama’s red line warning to the Syrian regime. I agree with Tony, Obama painted himself (with his own statements) into the box he and his administration find themselves. Why tie your own hands with unnecessary lines drawn in the sand and make the possibility of carefully considered decisions more difficult and politically fraught? Also the drawn sand line sets up the situation where a third party may intervene to precipitate an American response. It was a mistake, but being plagued with the reputation as a weak leader, perhaps Mr. Obama had to blab the way he did prior to  to insure his reelection.


But using Tony’s dictum, “follow the money” one must ask who could benefit from such evidence reaching the west and the US press. The data was reportedly unearthed and in the hands of the Israelis, British and French.  We can probably eliminate the French and British.  Why would they wish to antagonize Obama or press him into a war they do not want either? Our own CIA? That seems a bit of a stretch, more perhaps for a movie script than real life.


But let’s look at the Israeli balance sheet. What would their motivations be? They would gladly like to hold our coat while we pummel Assad into the Stone Age. The small release of Sarin gas in elected locations might be just the means of tripping Obama into a wider engagement in Syria. That would be a positive development in itself for the Netanyahu government. But suppose the US engagement in Syria was to bring Iran (who Israel considers its real enemy) into the fray. Iran and Syria are allies. Would that set up a situation in which Iran might be goaded into actions which could be considered a causus belli by the the US and Israel, who might then use that as an excuse to bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities?  This may seem a long shot. But given our present information it is a distinct possibility. Perhaps this hypothesis is more likely than what the President and the US press are presently spouting.  The release of Sarin gas in Syria in three different locations in small quantities has all the handprints of a Mossad operation....”jest follow the money”.


Get the picture?


rjk

OBSERVATIONS ON THE 2013 MASTERS AND GOLF RULES

The 2013 Masters at Augusta was marred on Friday when, Tiger Woods' approach shot to the 15th hit the pin hard, rattled it, ricocheted backward and bounced off the green into a water hazard. Tiger had the right to retrieve his ball, take a penalty-stroke and move back along the line of where the ball entered the water (as far back as he wanted) to take his drop. But as he stated on TV, he looked over the area near the water hazard and decided "it was too wet". Tiger chose instead to go back to the fairway and (Rule 26-1) take a drop from where he hit the errant approach shot. He did, hitting a fine shot up to within three feet of the pin and sunk the hole for a bogey.

An astute observer watching the events at home on TV noted that Tiger had not dropped his ball as close to his "original stroke position as possible", as the Rules of Golf require and texted that information to the Rules Committee. After the game that day, Tiger, still unaware of the text message and the brewing controversy, was interviewed on TV and admitted over the air that he "moved the ball back two yards to take a few yards off the ball". It tells one how Tiger's mind works. Tiger realized it was to his advantage to take his drop and the "replay approach" shot from a position where he knew exactly how far the shot would go, rather than the spot near the water hazard. In fact, he calculated he had to "take a few yards off the shot" to get it up close. Too bad, but that's not exactly how the game is played.

The event seem to underscore that it now unfortunately appears to many fans that there two sets of rules. Tiger's rules and those for the rest of the field. Tiger, must have ( or should have) clearly known he was taking unfair advantage when he decided to "take some yardage off that shot" and took his drop two yards behind his divot (more than the "several feet" the New York Times politely reports). The speed which Tiger's first ball hit the pin (about 1/3 way up from the ground) indicated that had it not hit the pin, it would have flown well over the back side of the green. There must have been a host of players that day who would have been overjoyed to have an opportunity to take a replay shot after they sent "air mail" over the pin. Tiger, the big draw and No 1 player, signed his card that day and got away without a "DQ" or disqualification. But the 14 year old Chinese youngster, Tianlang Guan, "a nobody" to the Rules Committee, was penalized with a penalty stroke, when he took too much time wringing out his golf glove and changing clubs in the rain. Taking too much time and making a concertina out of the foursomes who follow is a common problem at the Masters, but young Mister Guan was the first ever to be assessed a penalty stroke. The Rules Committee has to do better than this. It's main objective should be to maintain the integrity of the world's greatest game, and must at a minimum, sustain the public perception that the deck is not stacked in favor of the big guys who draw the crowds, money and TV cameras like Tiger. Admittedly, it would have been difficult to DQ Tiger, but that's what the rules are for are they not? But letting Tiger slip by and slapping young Guan was too much for some of us to swallow without comment. Some seem to suggest that the Rules Committee members may need a belly putter stuck up their collective backsides to give them some semblance of a spine.

This is one of the many historic events in a Masters, the kind of things fans remember. It may well hang around to haunt Tiger in the future. What I was hoping to see from him was a self-imposed DQ. It would have been the elegant thing to do and would have changed the public"s perception of this great golfer and perhaps even give him a career lift. Remember Bobby Jones who called a penalty on himself in the 1925 match against Walter Hagen? But then, again Bobby was an amateur, and that was a long, long time ago, and far, far away.

Get the picture?

rjk

LONG TERM UNEMPLOYMENT--BECOMING JAPAN

The GOP (“Gallant Old Party”, “Guardians of Privilege”, party of “Greed, Obstructionism and Paranoia”) has used the tragic events of the Great Recession (GR), most of which their policies either precipitated or encouraged, to press for austerity. The economic proposals of these “austerians” would slash the budget and cut discretionary spending to the bone, rather than build consumer demand by pumping money into the economy in these tough times. Their real motives seem to be to keep the economy in a mess up to the next election so as to maintain power and weaken the Democratic Party, and advance the goals of the rich clients who support them. Following this agenda, they often claim that our budget deficits will make us into another economic basket-case like Greece. But the “austerians” are really setting us up to become another kind of basket case---Japan.

The economy of Japan, once the third largest in the world, has been faltering for the last two decades. Economists and other commentators frequently refer to Japan’s “lost decade”. In circumstances similar to our own GR of 2007-2008 Japan experienced the collapse of a massive real-estate-bubble in 1991. Its economic depression lasted a decade--to 2001 and the faltering recovery continued over the last decade and into present. The Economist magazine published an article by R.A. in August 3, 2012 on Japan's economic plight in August 3,2012 entitled: “Lost decades, The Japanese tragedy”. the author characterized the economic consequences of Japan's “lost decade” thus: “Japan (its GDP) is now 40 to 50 percent below what the world in 1991 would have estimated their GDP to be in 2012.”

Back in the USA, With the austerians in charge in the (gerrymandered) House of Representatives and a similar group in the (“60 votes needed to belch”) Senate, it appears that we may be heading toward our own Japanese style “setting sun” of economic stultification. One factor that appears to support this dire prediction is our persistent unemployment problem. With the political party of “privilege and paranoia” forcing Obama into a “cut-the-budget economic box”, and with a hardening cadre of 12 million unemployed, our economy is puttering along without sufficient consumer demand, and it will continue to fizzle and sputter like a tenderfoot's rainy-day campfire until something is done to increase demand. Austerity will turn us into a Japan----not Greece. Persistent high unemployment is the canary in the miner’s cage that warns us of this Niponese-like future.

Cultural and other factors have traditionally tended to keep Japan's unemployment rate very low---in the 1-2% range. That rate is unheard of for modern western nations. But after the Japanese real estate bubble burst, post 1991, the rate of unemployment skyrocketed (in Japanese terms) to 5-6%, and during the last decade of slow recovery it has hovered in the 4-5% range, or more than double what its traditional levels were. In western terms, that would be about what we are presently experiencing, rates hovering in the 7-8% level. (See Google “images” of Japanese unemployment rates). Is that what we can expect for the next decade or longer?

In his recent NYT article, Prof Krugman underscores some startling facts about US unemployment. In our nation, even in good times, unemployment generally hovers at about 5%, a figure which is expected in an ethnically diverse country, with a vibrant, changing and evolving economy where employees lose jobs, change jobs, or seek higher salaries or better positions. Krugman reminds us that back in 2007 on the cusp of the Great Recession, there were about 7 million unemployed (out of a workforce of about 153 million, about 4.6% out of work). But according to Krugman, only a bit more than ONE MILLION of these individuals were unemployed for more than six months.
After the financial crisis of September 15 2008, the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and our “terrifying economic plunge”, a slow, stumbling (Japanese-like) weak, recovery followed. The market recovered, the banks and businesses are sitting on trillions of dollars, but the economy is not generating enough jobs to make up for the natural growth of the population and its work force. When businesses are not selling the widgets they have in stock why make more or hire new employees. Today, almost five years after our GR, unemployment remains elevated above “average norms” with about 12 million out of work (or about 7.8 %). (Also see “America's labour force and the economy,”The missing five million), The Economist, May 4th 2012, 20:55 by G.I., Washington, D.C.)
But what really strikes Krugman, and this author, as significant is the “huge number of long-term unemployed”. Today, according to the Nobel laureate economist, nearly 5 million are unemployed for more than six months, or nearly FIVE TIMES what we experienced prior to the GR, while over three million have been jobless for more than a year. These long-term unemployed may never return to the work force or to the skill level of employment they achieved prior to the GR.
Krugman states “It goes without saying that the explosion of long-term unemployment is a tragedy for the unemployed themselves. But it may also be a broader economic disaster.” The disaster of persistent unemployment means lower consumer incomes and spending and reduced rate of household formation both of which directly affect consumer demand and growth expectations for the economy. Those factors adversely affect government tax revenues and increase costs to the States which pay for unemployment benefits, all contribute to the slow recovery and also make the deficit worse not better.

But the problem goes further, ignoring the stress and tension of unemployment on the individual which can lead to coronary disease or shortened life spans, the erosion of the skills of the long-term unemployed impacts our national efficiency. Bank accounts shrink when workers have to tap their savings and retirement accounts, causing future economic woes down the line. Some workers will, out of necessity, curtail spending on their or their children’s education, wasting natural talent and creating supra-generational consequences. Social unrest, political unrest and simple lack of confidence in the future all have decade-long consequences for an economy, especially ours in which 70% is driven by consumer demand. Indeed, even our medical and health care systems may be threatened. Hospitals are often in precarious balance with their costs and expenses. Typically they only break even when servicing Medicaid and Medicare patients. It is while providing care to the 150 million workers who have employer-sponsored health care that they are able to maintain a knife edge profitability. Hospitals typically glean about 35% of their revenue from these employed, younger, and higher paying patients. Without them (recall that there are now more than 12 million un employed and without such care), hospital profitability, solvency and operational viability may fall and with these declines so falls our excellent and vaunted national medical system. Long term unemployment is indeed a pending disaster.

Get the picture?

rjk Peru VT.

DEFENSE SPENDING AT $1.6 TRILLION, UNDERMINES OUR FUTURE!

LET'S NOT CALL IT “DEFENSE” SPENDING


In 2013 the US federal budget expenditure is estimated at nearly $4 trillion dollars, while our total revenue is expected to be about $3 trillion dollars.  Thus our deficit for this fiscal year will be just about one trillion dollars.  Unbelievably our government spends four dollars for every three  we take in revenue.   That is the problem!  And is the basis for much of the demand for austerity measures by the Republicans and some Democrats.  The Republicans see any and all domestic spending as a giveaway to "buy" votes, and they focus only on the need to cut domestic spending.  They claim runaway social spending is the main problem.  While they decry government outlays to the poor, ill, young and elderly they continue to support military adventurism abroad and military spending in general.
They claim Social Security (a pay as you go insurance program) and Medicare are the big problem items in our budget that must be cut to achieve fiscal balance.  They love to ignore the real problem, the elephant in the room, the bloated and sacrosanct defense budget.  The fact is the military and defense budget is our main problem.  Were we to get  that under control we could return to a balanced budget and still have more than enough for investment in our future, a world of scarce energy, and for the real needs of our young, our elderly, poor and infirm.

The fact is that few of us know what  our real defense expenditures are.  Those so-called "defense" figures are difficult to come by. The government, whether Democrat or Republican, likes to keep us thinking that the defense budget is smaller than it is. To do that they tend to spread out the costs, sliding them into other budget categories so we actually have to ferret the figures out, then burn up more mental energy to add them up...and most of us do not like to deal with those awfully big numbers.

How much we actually spend on the defense and materiel is difficult to pry out of government documents. But, let us try.  A recent Department of Defense (DOD) press release indicates that of nearly four trillion dollars total US expenditures for fiscal year (fy) 2013, the so called “defense” budget amounts to $525.4 billion to fund “base defense programs”, and an additional $89 billion for the continuing conflict in Afghanistan (a drop from the 2012 budget where Afghanistan cost us $115 billion).  Thus the official DOD "total" for 2013 fy is claimed to be $614 billion.

But that figure does not include “incidental” costs, such as an additional $59 billion  Pentagon spending which brings the total up to about $673 billion for 2013.

Most of us would agree that the Natonal Security Agency (NSA) and the CIA are clearly defense-related cost. But the US government keeps them separate. Costs associated with the NSA and the CIA’s intelligence gathering and increasingly wide ranging covert wars, and illegal foreign assassination programs are defense related costs. These amounted to another $53 billion.  (New total: $726)

Nuclear war and arms are expensive too. Just maintaining our huge stockpile as well as additional bomb-making and other costs will encumber us with another $20billion this year. (New total: $796 billion)

We will spend another $13 billion on Homeland security (New total:$809 billion) and an additional $11 billion on the Coast Guard. (New total: $820 billion)

And as noted noted above, our profligate spending habits are such that for every dollar we spend we must borrow 25 cents, which means we have a substantial outstanding balance to pay interest on.  Thus our costs must include the interest on our debt related to these expenditures. (In 2012 it was $432 billion) Furthermore,  we have a large standing army the members of which are all rightly entitled to excellent and expensive comprehensive medical care. Those medical expenses extend to the millions of veterans of past wars for whom we pay medical benefits each year, as well as specialized medical procedures and services for those soldiers who came back severely wounded, as well as survivor benefits to the wives and children of those who unfortunately and tragically did not come back. These added costs are often included under social and medical expenses, and they add another $800 billion or so to our all-encompassing defense spending.

So adding all those direct costs and hidden costs that the government does not want to advertise, the “all encompassing” national security bill for the nation’s “defense” is comes to a whopping $1.6 trillion dollars. (See: “The Uncalculated, unreported,real defense budget” by Joan McCarter, The Kos, February 1, 2013).  Therefore the actual costs of "defense" are not $500 billion plus, the DOD press-releases indicate, or even the $700 billion the NY Times and other media sometimes claim, but more than double what is generally stated (depending on which misleading figures you begin with).

The actual "all-encompassing" defense expenditure of $1.6 trillion makes so-called "defense” the largest outlay in our annual budget!  That is not how our government bureaucrats and media elites would like you to see it.  Based on our $3.8 trillion dollar budget for 2013, that amount ($1.6 trillion) represents just about 42% of the total. (Not the more reasonable looking 24% often indicated on government charts.)  Washington therefore spend about 42 cents out of every dollar on defense and defense-related matters. That huge amount, greater than the total of the entire world's defense expenditure makes our military truly the largest and most expensive military in the entire world.  The emphasis on militarism here in the US and the diversion of two-fifths of our income into purely military pursuits, clearly explains why, in comparison to other modern western nations, we have the lowest life expectancy, highest infant mortality, poorest health care results, a weak and faltering education system, the most paltry social safety net, rickety railroads, skimpy and spotty broadband, and third-world class infrastructure (such as pot-holed roads and dangerous bridges).   We have built a world class military and are living in a nation headed into third world status. Ironically our military defense posture and profligate defense spending appears to be more of a threat to our well being and security than a benefit. We are in the process of squandering our wealth on a bloated military.  Furthermore, it is truly criminal that in a nation that prides itself on being the premiere open democracy in the western world, that we allow our government to obfuscate and fudge the essential figures on the military and its spending the way they do,so it becomes nearly impossible for  average citizens to actually have an open discussion on these matters.

In 2013 the US treasury awaits annual revenue of $2.9 trillion. Of that amount $1.7 trillion is expected from income taxes, $1.0 trillion from Social Security and payroll taxes, while $100 billion is expected from business taxes, and $200 billion from value added taxes.   The number that stands out in this array is the $1.7 trillion in tax revenue. As Joan McCarter has pointed out (op cit) so well, that means that amost every dollar of the largest chunk of income the government takes in will all go to defense spending ($1.6 trillion). Let me repeat that. Our military and defense spending out lay is just about equal to nearly all the revenue we take in in income taxes! That is truly astounding! Or as Ms McCarter notes, it is "mind blowing".

We might note here as well that the $1.6 trillion dollar figure represents just about 10% of our GDP or Gross Domestic Product. That is an enormous hit on our GDP and not matched by any other democratic western nation which typically have defense budgets in the one and two percent range.
The facts: For every three dollars we take in, we spend four. Our spending should be reined in, but where are we spending most profligately? We spend $1.6 trillion annually on defense and its related costs. That is ten percent of our GDP and 42% of our annual budget,  and by far our largest government expenditure.   Were we to count only the DOD "base costs" ($525 billion), our nation still out-spends the combined defense budgets of the next top thirteen well armed nations. Let me make that clear, if we add up the defense budgets  of China, Russia, France, Spain, Japan, Germany, Italy,etc. etc. etc. the total amount they spend combined is still less than our "base defense" budget. Who could we possibly be gearing up to fight? We are by all accounts over armed. The facts are that the real threat to our nation's well being is not our domestic entitlement spending but our bloated military spending which will eventually make a pauper nation out of us without radical trimming. Those legislators who claim that they are pure in heart and their aims to balance the budget are for the benefit of the nation, must first look to that $1.6 trillion in defense and military spending. That is where the fat is, not on the boney backs of the poor, the weak, the young and the ill. Spending $1.6 trillion, 42 % of our budget, 10% of our GDP, equivalent to the amount we all pay in income txes each year on defense weakens our economy and undermines our nations future.

Get the picture?


rjk


Budget breakdown for 2012 DOD spending $707.5 billion "base budget" plus FBI counter-terrorism @ $ 3 billion International Affairs. @ $63 billion (maximum) Energy Department, defense-related @$22 billion Veterans Affairs @$70 billion Homeland Security. @$40 billion NASA, satellite surveillance up to $9 billion Veterans pensions @$55 billion Other defense-related mandatory spending @ $8 billion Interest on debt incurred in past wars Up to $432 billion Total Spending for 2012 @ $1.4 trillion