The Wealthy Rather Spend Their Money On Crap Coffee Than Pay More In Taxes
"Above all things good policy is to be used so that the treasures and monies in a state be not gathered into a few hands... Money is like fertilizer, not good except it be spread about." Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
That good advice has been ignored for four decades by the USA, the modern, western nation with the highest level of wealth and income inequality. (Turkey, Mexico and Chile, the world leaders in this unsavory category have higher levels of wealth inequality than we do.) American "exceptionalism" is often explained as a result of our freedom, economic opportunity and equality. But today we discover that those commendable national values have been compromised in the last three or four decades by the concentration of wealth into the hands of a very few. The USA has one of the lowest rates of upward mobility, stagnant middle and working class incomes, and we suffer from a situation in which the top 20% of the the population control more than 85% of the nation's wealth and income. That level of wealth disparity is found only in South America (such as in Mexico and Chile) and other tin-pot dictatorships where the "Jefe" and his family and friends control all the wealth.
Back to the USA. Do the math. Our wealth distribution leaves the lower 80% of the population with only 15% of the nation's wealth and income. Like cow manure on a Vermont dairy farm where help is scarce, the smelly stuff is sometimes piled high in the cow enclosure. It remains concentrated where it was dropped and is not being spread onto the fields where it would green the grass, nurture the cows, and bring higher income to the farmer. In Vermont, such circumstances lead to rotting piles of manure, bad smells, flies, contaminated domestic water wells, and pollution seeping into local streams. In the economic realm, it leads inequality, weak demand, long recessions, and a slow decline of national vigor.
In the US economy, where enormous wealth is concentrated in the upper one tenth of one percent, "weak demand" is almost universally blamed as the major cause of our present long and deep recession (the 2007 Great Recession). When 85 % of the nation'a wealth and income is confined to the upper 20%, the vast majority of our citizens in the bottom 80% must struggle to make do with only 15% of the nation's wealth-income pie. They do not have enough money in hand to make purchases which would boost demand. That is bad for the general economy. To make matters worse, the affluent use their wealth to lobby the government for reductions in their taxes and restrictions on government spending, policies which inhibit the government’s ability help alleviate the plight of the struggling middle class by putting money in the hands of those who would spend it and increase demand. Given our political system, the wealthy are often successful in this goal, creating the vicious cycle of lower taxes on the upper level earners, increased wealth disparity, low demand, poor business profits, high unemployment, and shrinking incomes for the lower four fifths of the wealth distribution---resulting in even less demand.
Francis Bacon put his finger on the problem way back in 16th Century. The spending habits and cash-use patterns of the super affluent do not “fertilize” the broader economy. These people do not buy automobiles, washing machines, local dairy products or local homes. Their numbers are few and their ability to spread their wealth by spending is limited, but more importantly they spend their money in ways that do not nurture wealth and job generation for the vast majority of Americans. Their money remains in one place, like a pile of Vermont cow manure, and if it is not spread on the fields it begins to stink.
One example of the disfunction caused by concentration of wealth is the explosion of weird, bizarre and exotic foods, drinks and accoutrements sold in upscale stores and on the world markets for the super affluent. These lucky folks, often the "nouveau riche", are determined to possess and display exotica to establish and proclaim their wealth status. One of the more bizarre examples of this kind of spending is the world's most expensive coffee--Terra Nero coffee, which sells in London’s Harrods for about £6500 ($10,400) and is said to come packed in 24 karat gold-foil bags.
Terra Nero is a form of crap coffee. In Indonesia's coffee-growing regions, local coffee-berry pickers discovered perhaps a decade ago that the the wild Indonesian civet cat, or Asian Palm Civet, made night visits to the coffee plantations where the pickers labored. In the morning, the workers found the evidences of civit depredations in the form of ripe berries stripped from the coffee branches, and on the ground, the tell-tale scat (excrement) of the Palm Civit. The scats or civit stools were studded with the evidence of what the civit ate: the indigestible part of the coffee berry--coffee beans. (The Palm Civet is a relatively rare, small, omnivorous mammal, about the size of a house cat. They are widely distributed in Africa and throughout southeast Asia. In the wild, they inhabit the ecological niche of the raccoon or opossum of North America.)
Perhaps one of the coffee-berry pickers was desperate for some partly-dried coffee beans and collected the scats, separated out the berries and roasted them, then brewed a quick cup of coffee. He found the flavor of the brew "distinctive”. The cause of this flavor may result from the fact that the Palm Civet is known to have a powerful defense mechanism in the form of a perineal (anal) scent gland which exudes a smelly substance during defecation which may flavor the beans. Or perhaps the simple passage of the beans,through the digestive tract of this critter, where the beans come into intimate contact with other civit foods, such as over-ripe fruits, partially-chewed-up insects, and small mammal remains all typically found within the alimentary tract of a nocturnal omnivore. But for whatever reason, the coffee pickers just loved the crappy stuff, calling it "kopi luwak" and avidly collecting it to savor the “distinctive” aroma of the beans and the "wild" taste of the coffee brewed from them. As you might expect, collecting civet poo from under brambles and thick brush on a steep Indonesian hillside might be quite messy and difficult. Also Palm Civits are not that common and thus their cat poo is also quite rare. The old economic adage concerning demand versus supply makes Asian Palm Civet crap and the beans found within the stools very valuable. Since only some 500 kilograms (or about 1000 lbs) are collected each year from selected major coffee plantations, the cost of the beans may reach $400 dollars a kilogram or about $200 dollars per pound.
As with other exotica, like North American black bear gall-bladders, shark fins, rhino horns, and elephant tusks, once the product becomes established as a status symbol, a market will develop for it among the super wealthy. This jacks up the price and tends to draw in entrepreneurs who attempt to streamline production and increase output and profits. At the present time, it is virtually impossible to find “wild” kopi luwak on the market. Chinese and Indonesian businessmen have largely taken over production. They have eliminated the coffee bean pickers, and wasteful time-consuming searching on steep hillsides. Many kopi luwak crap coffee producers generate their beans by force-feeding caged Palm Civets, or other other unrelated critters, collecting the feces from below their confining cages and generating a agro-business version of kopi luwak crap coffee.
Each year the wealthy buy up the last gold-foil wrapped kilogram of crap coffee, however disgusting it sounds or weird it tastes. They much prefer to spend their money on crap coffee than on slightly higher taxes. They don't buy products that generate jobs in the real economy like those from the local corner store, or the local factory. But for the rest of us it is wise to remember Francis Bacon's warning that keeping the fertilizer in the cow corral is not good for our economy. It tends to produce useless, ecologically questionable stuff like “crap coffee” and to increase the wealth gap, and prolong our deep, dreary economic recessions.
Get the picture?
k
rjk
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Saturday, September 14, 2013
NSA SHARES RAW DATA WITH ISRAEL, MAKES MOCKERY OF FOURTH AMENDMENT
I know our National Security Agency (NSA) is out there snooping on our emails, texts, phone calls and so forth. I don't like it. Government spying on its own citizens seems truly un-American to me. This is supposed to be the "land of the free" where our persons, houses, and papers are protected from government seizure. That includes our phone calls, emails and text messages as well. That is what makes us "exceptional".
But like most of us, I can be persuaded that with safeguards to do the right thing--the American men and women of the NSA will follow the rules and protect our rights. They come from the same culture, speak the same language and understand our laws and ways of expressing ourselves. So as Americans too, we would expect that they would diligently protect (most of the time) our Fourth Amendment Rights. (Recall that one? Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...etc.) But after reading the latest Ed Snowden leak, I am not so certain, we can claim that as one of our exceptional rights as Americans.
Recent revelations of formal Israeli and US documents leaked by Edward Snowden and published in the LA Times September 13, 2013(www.latimes.com/.../la-fg-wn-nsa-intelligence-israel-edward-snow)in a piece by by Ken Dilanian, reveal that the National Security Agency---our own NSA---routinely shares “raw” intelligence data (emails, phone calls, electronic data, phone call content, names, etc., etc.) with Israel. Israel is an ally, but has a long history of going it alone, of illegal, extra-juridical assassinations, and of intensive spying efforts on the USA. I am not comfortable with some Israeli "techie"going over MY personal data, my phone calls, my emails. There is an historic, political, cultural and language divide between us and much greater chance that information can be misconstrued and misunderstood----and misused. Such raw data can certainly include sensitive information about Americans. Information which could be perverted by some foreign power. Such a policy makes a mockery of our Constitutional protections. It is very, very disturbing.
The leaked formal US documents indicate that Israel is "required to respect" the Fourth Amendment rights of any American's data "hoovered" in by the NSA and then without perusal passed on to the Israelis. But the formal document of understanding includes no actual sanctions or punishment if the foreign power fails to follow those rules. (It gives the impression that the the phrase "required to respect the American Fourth Amendment" is only a "wink wink" nudge nudge" pro forma inclusion in the boiler plate which means nothing and has no teeth.) Furthermore, the agreement permits the Israelis to hold on to the data for "a year" again with no oversight or controls, and there are no controls on what the Israelis do with the data, or who THEY can share it with. There is no way to logically explain such a breech of our own personal rights and security as this "handover" of NSA raw data to Israel. It must be addressed and changed.
What has, in effect, happened here is that the NSA, under President Obama, has handed over the protection of our Fourth American Constitutional rights to a foreign power with the NSA data. This is a astounding infringement on our rights of privacy from government intrusion...by our own government in collusion with a foreign power. That is a serious breach of the President's responsibility to protect our Constitution and our rights as Americans. How can President Obama, our Constitutional-law professor in the White House know about this and continue to permit it to occur? For this act makes a mockery of our Constitutional protections.
Get the picture?
rjk
But like most of us, I can be persuaded that with safeguards to do the right thing--the American men and women of the NSA will follow the rules and protect our rights. They come from the same culture, speak the same language and understand our laws and ways of expressing ourselves. So as Americans too, we would expect that they would diligently protect (most of the time) our Fourth Amendment Rights. (Recall that one? Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...etc.) But after reading the latest Ed Snowden leak, I am not so certain, we can claim that as one of our exceptional rights as Americans.
Recent revelations of formal Israeli and US documents leaked by Edward Snowden and published in the LA Times September 13, 2013(www.latimes.com/.../la-fg-wn-nsa-intelligence-israel-edward-snow)in a piece by by Ken Dilanian, reveal that the National Security Agency---our own NSA---routinely shares “raw” intelligence data (emails, phone calls, electronic data, phone call content, names, etc., etc.) with Israel. Israel is an ally, but has a long history of going it alone, of illegal, extra-juridical assassinations, and of intensive spying efforts on the USA. I am not comfortable with some Israeli "techie"going over MY personal data, my phone calls, my emails. There is an historic, political, cultural and language divide between us and much greater chance that information can be misconstrued and misunderstood----and misused. Such raw data can certainly include sensitive information about Americans. Information which could be perverted by some foreign power. Such a policy makes a mockery of our Constitutional protections. It is very, very disturbing.
The leaked formal US documents indicate that Israel is "required to respect" the Fourth Amendment rights of any American's data "hoovered" in by the NSA and then without perusal passed on to the Israelis. But the formal document of understanding includes no actual sanctions or punishment if the foreign power fails to follow those rules. (It gives the impression that the the phrase "required to respect the American Fourth Amendment" is only a "wink wink" nudge nudge" pro forma inclusion in the boiler plate which means nothing and has no teeth.) Furthermore, the agreement permits the Israelis to hold on to the data for "a year" again with no oversight or controls, and there are no controls on what the Israelis do with the data, or who THEY can share it with. There is no way to logically explain such a breech of our own personal rights and security as this "handover" of NSA raw data to Israel. It must be addressed and changed.
What has, in effect, happened here is that the NSA, under President Obama, has handed over the protection of our Fourth American Constitutional rights to a foreign power with the NSA data. This is a astounding infringement on our rights of privacy from government intrusion...by our own government in collusion with a foreign power. That is a serious breach of the President's responsibility to protect our Constitution and our rights as Americans. How can President Obama, our Constitutional-law professor in the White House know about this and continue to permit it to occur? For this act makes a mockery of our Constitutional protections.
Get the picture?
rjk
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
OBAMA OUTFOXED BY RUSSIA
I can't complain about the recent developments in Syria. Fewer people will die in bomb blasts. But one must wonder at the serendipity of foreign affairs. One slip of the Obama lip got us caught up in war fever and another by John Kerry may have extricated us out of it. Secretary Kerry's off-the-cuff remark, "Let them get rid of their chemical weapons", in answer to a reporter's question on what would dissuade Obama from his determination to attack Syria did it. Kerry did not realize it then, but that statement was to make history.
The following is my analysis of why I think that Obama lost and the Russians won. (Well so far. We will have to see how this plays out.)
The long term Obama Middle East strategy was to somehow get rid of Assad, and in that way protect Israel, and importantly weaken and break up the "Shia Crescent", a zone comprised of Iran, Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Iraq. The Syria civil war was the best hope of the proponents of this strategy. As the war progressed the US secretly and with denials supported the anti-Assad rebels, through sending small arms, intelligence, cash flow by way of Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Turkey, and by "shoes" on the ground in the form of CIA and other agents provocateurs. For the pro-Israeli right and the AIPAC left this was a dream come true. Eliminate Assad and then deal with a weakened Hezbollah and the "evil" Iran.
But as the civil war deepened and intensified, the Syrian insurgency turned increasingly radical and fractured. There were no "reasonable centrists" fighting Assad. It seemed all the radical Sunni forces in the Moslem world had joined in to oppose the Syrian dictator. The logical answer was for the west to keep hands off Syria, but the political situation in the US made that option untenable. It soon became difficult for US operatives to distribute aid for fear it would wind up in the hands of dangerous al Qaeda elements and others. But the US persisted in its policies to weaken Assad in the hopes of a long war "al la Iraq-Iran" in which a third party can, by supporting the weaker element in a fight prolong the conflict and weaken both unpalatable combatants. A stalemate was what Obama was looking for that would weaken both Assad and the insurgency. This was not a politically strong position for our President for it opened him to criticism from both left and right. He was not satisfying the blood lust of the neo-con right or the passivity of the anti-war left.
On the home front, at this time, Obama's second term descended abruptly into political limbo. His political "mojo" appeared to be slipping through his long slim fingers. Several embarrassing scandals marred the early part of his first year. His popularity dropped to the lowest level of his presidency. About this time in August 2012 he made the off-the-cuff remark---the "red line"--statement which boxed him in to a response if Syria used chemical weapons. He also faced several severe domestic issues, immigration, implementation of the Affordable Care Act, the debt ceiling, etc.,etc. In effect Obama confronted both domestic and foreign stalemates. He feared if nothing changed, he was going to go down as a hog-tied president...with very little accomplished.
In Syria, Hezbollah and Iran had joined the Syrian forces in attempting to quell the insurgency. The war began to look like a proxy fight between the Sunni and Shia elements of the Moslem world. With the help of Russia, Hezbollah and Iran, Assad's prospects began to turn around and looked brighter. It seemed that Assad was going to be able to maintain his position. The idea of a fight to the death, was less likely and Assad, with Russian help looked to be gaining power and control. Obama and his allies were about to loose strategically, so they played down and ignored all efforts by the Russians and others for a diplomatic settlement.
Then someone fired off several canisters of Sarin gas into the suburbs of Damascus.
The tragedy, Obama's weak position at home, and his careless "red line"remark forced him to act belligerently or to appear weak and inconsequential. No president would want the latter so he was forced into the former action. The gas attack provided an opportunity--a causus belli--though for the US without a UN sanction it was an illegal one--to change both Obama's domestic and foreign policy stalemates. But how to do it? He decided to follow the Bush play book. Use the sarin gas incident to initiate a war with Syria. That might break up the Middle East log jam, get rid of Assad and have some positive out-come in the foreign policy area. It would also act to distract the public from the embarrassing in effectiveness of the administration's second term.
Obama announced his plan to bomb Syria, just the way Bush, Cheney and Don Rumsfeld would have. It was disappointing and disheartening to see Obama and his team morph into Neo cons. Their behavior overturned the will of the people in two elections in the blink of an eye. They should be roundly condemned for that.
The President's decision rightly faced a firestorm of criticism from all sides. Major allies chose not to participate. The UN labeled Obama's intentions "illegal", NATO, EU, the Arab League, and famously the UK, our obedient "shadow" in all of our, even foolhardy ventures, failed to join the march to war. The President stood all alone, in his illegal belligerency.
With few allies to follow him over the cliff (except the unfortunate Msr. Hollande of France) Mr. Obama finally paused to reconsider. After thinking long and hard, but not too deeply, he decided to throw the Syria bombing question to the Congress. He followed this stunning move with a pro-war propaganda barrage of lies, half-truths and innuendo that matched that of George Bush and Dick Cheney during the run up to the Iraq War. The people were unimpressed, his approval numbers did not rise, and polling in the House indicated an insuperable majority of "nays". It was apparent Mr. Obama's war proposal might pass the Senate, with arm twisting but not the House. Congress was not going to go with Mr. Obama's foolhardy war. This President would have to bomb Syria without Congressional approval.
But another slip of the lip by his new, war-zealot Secretary John Kerry blew all Obama's foolhardy plans away. A day after that, on September 10, the Russians and Syrians agreed to go ahead with a proposal for Syria to put its chemical weapons under international supervision. The President was boxed in again. Out foxed by Putin, he was not going to be able to bomb Syria. A new thrust for a diplomatic settlement would surely follow that Mr. Obama would have to acknowledge and support.
The Russians would still keep their economic ties and port facilities in Syria. Assad would probably not be unseated. The US would not have the opportunity to "degrade" Syria's military. It would not be able to shatter the Shia crescent. Iran would keeps it Syria ally (a bit weakened). Hezbollah would mainain its arms channel open to the east via Syria. The basic status quo would be reinstated. All negatives the way Obama saw it.
Mr Obama goes back to a hostile Congress, no longer distracted by foreign affairs and the Syrian war drum beat, with lower poll ratings and a weaker political position. He must still face the scandals of Benghazi, IRA, NRA, and the drip drip of embarrassing secrets from Mr. Snowden, etc. He must deal with the problems such as efforts to defund the ACA, lack of action on immigration, and the looming debt limit. His plan to further undermine and weaken a part of the world he (mistakenly in my view) sees as a threat to US interests has been avoided.
So this was not an Obama win. Though that is not how he and his minions will spin it. Expect them to claim the opposite. The truth is Mr. Obama brought us to the brink of war by his own bumbling and off the cuff remarks. For our deliverance we must thank the wise men of our own Congress and Senate (particularly Sen. Rand Paul), the British Parliament, the Russians(!) the cooler heads in the UN and the EU and others around the world for resisting the call to a senseless war. So Obama loses and perhaps those of us who see the world from a less parochial perspective have won. Let us hope we have learned a new lesson. The Bush style "cowboy days" are gone. In the future, a call to arms by the USA for no good reason may again result in the embarrassing silence and put down that Obama received.
Get the picture?
Rjk
The following is my analysis of why I think that Obama lost and the Russians won. (Well so far. We will have to see how this plays out.)
The long term Obama Middle East strategy was to somehow get rid of Assad, and in that way protect Israel, and importantly weaken and break up the "Shia Crescent", a zone comprised of Iran, Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Iraq. The Syria civil war was the best hope of the proponents of this strategy. As the war progressed the US secretly and with denials supported the anti-Assad rebels, through sending small arms, intelligence, cash flow by way of Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Turkey, and by "shoes" on the ground in the form of CIA and other agents provocateurs. For the pro-Israeli right and the AIPAC left this was a dream come true. Eliminate Assad and then deal with a weakened Hezbollah and the "evil" Iran.
But as the civil war deepened and intensified, the Syrian insurgency turned increasingly radical and fractured. There were no "reasonable centrists" fighting Assad. It seemed all the radical Sunni forces in the Moslem world had joined in to oppose the Syrian dictator. The logical answer was for the west to keep hands off Syria, but the political situation in the US made that option untenable. It soon became difficult for US operatives to distribute aid for fear it would wind up in the hands of dangerous al Qaeda elements and others. But the US persisted in its policies to weaken Assad in the hopes of a long war "al la Iraq-Iran" in which a third party can, by supporting the weaker element in a fight prolong the conflict and weaken both unpalatable combatants. A stalemate was what Obama was looking for that would weaken both Assad and the insurgency. This was not a politically strong position for our President for it opened him to criticism from both left and right. He was not satisfying the blood lust of the neo-con right or the passivity of the anti-war left.
On the home front, at this time, Obama's second term descended abruptly into political limbo. His political "mojo" appeared to be slipping through his long slim fingers. Several embarrassing scandals marred the early part of his first year. His popularity dropped to the lowest level of his presidency. About this time in August 2012 he made the off-the-cuff remark---the "red line"--statement which boxed him in to a response if Syria used chemical weapons. He also faced several severe domestic issues, immigration, implementation of the Affordable Care Act, the debt ceiling, etc.,etc. In effect Obama confronted both domestic and foreign stalemates. He feared if nothing changed, he was going to go down as a hog-tied president...with very little accomplished.
In Syria, Hezbollah and Iran had joined the Syrian forces in attempting to quell the insurgency. The war began to look like a proxy fight between the Sunni and Shia elements of the Moslem world. With the help of Russia, Hezbollah and Iran, Assad's prospects began to turn around and looked brighter. It seemed that Assad was going to be able to maintain his position. The idea of a fight to the death, was less likely and Assad, with Russian help looked to be gaining power and control. Obama and his allies were about to loose strategically, so they played down and ignored all efforts by the Russians and others for a diplomatic settlement.
Then someone fired off several canisters of Sarin gas into the suburbs of Damascus.
The tragedy, Obama's weak position at home, and his careless "red line"remark forced him to act belligerently or to appear weak and inconsequential. No president would want the latter so he was forced into the former action. The gas attack provided an opportunity--a causus belli--though for the US without a UN sanction it was an illegal one--to change both Obama's domestic and foreign policy stalemates. But how to do it? He decided to follow the Bush play book. Use the sarin gas incident to initiate a war with Syria. That might break up the Middle East log jam, get rid of Assad and have some positive out-come in the foreign policy area. It would also act to distract the public from the embarrassing in effectiveness of the administration's second term.
Obama announced his plan to bomb Syria, just the way Bush, Cheney and Don Rumsfeld would have. It was disappointing and disheartening to see Obama and his team morph into Neo cons. Their behavior overturned the will of the people in two elections in the blink of an eye. They should be roundly condemned for that.
The President's decision rightly faced a firestorm of criticism from all sides. Major allies chose not to participate. The UN labeled Obama's intentions "illegal", NATO, EU, the Arab League, and famously the UK, our obedient "shadow" in all of our, even foolhardy ventures, failed to join the march to war. The President stood all alone, in his illegal belligerency.
With few allies to follow him over the cliff (except the unfortunate Msr. Hollande of France) Mr. Obama finally paused to reconsider. After thinking long and hard, but not too deeply, he decided to throw the Syria bombing question to the Congress. He followed this stunning move with a pro-war propaganda barrage of lies, half-truths and innuendo that matched that of George Bush and Dick Cheney during the run up to the Iraq War. The people were unimpressed, his approval numbers did not rise, and polling in the House indicated an insuperable majority of "nays". It was apparent Mr. Obama's war proposal might pass the Senate, with arm twisting but not the House. Congress was not going to go with Mr. Obama's foolhardy war. This President would have to bomb Syria without Congressional approval.
But another slip of the lip by his new, war-zealot Secretary John Kerry blew all Obama's foolhardy plans away. A day after that, on September 10, the Russians and Syrians agreed to go ahead with a proposal for Syria to put its chemical weapons under international supervision. The President was boxed in again. Out foxed by Putin, he was not going to be able to bomb Syria. A new thrust for a diplomatic settlement would surely follow that Mr. Obama would have to acknowledge and support.
The Russians would still keep their economic ties and port facilities in Syria. Assad would probably not be unseated. The US would not have the opportunity to "degrade" Syria's military. It would not be able to shatter the Shia crescent. Iran would keeps it Syria ally (a bit weakened). Hezbollah would mainain its arms channel open to the east via Syria. The basic status quo would be reinstated. All negatives the way Obama saw it.
Mr Obama goes back to a hostile Congress, no longer distracted by foreign affairs and the Syrian war drum beat, with lower poll ratings and a weaker political position. He must still face the scandals of Benghazi, IRA, NRA, and the drip drip of embarrassing secrets from Mr. Snowden, etc. He must deal with the problems such as efforts to defund the ACA, lack of action on immigration, and the looming debt limit. His plan to further undermine and weaken a part of the world he (mistakenly in my view) sees as a threat to US interests has been avoided.
So this was not an Obama win. Though that is not how he and his minions will spin it. Expect them to claim the opposite. The truth is Mr. Obama brought us to the brink of war by his own bumbling and off the cuff remarks. For our deliverance we must thank the wise men of our own Congress and Senate (particularly Sen. Rand Paul), the British Parliament, the Russians(!) the cooler heads in the UN and the EU and others around the world for resisting the call to a senseless war. So Obama loses and perhaps those of us who see the world from a less parochial perspective have won. Let us hope we have learned a new lesson. The Bush style "cowboy days" are gone. In the future, a call to arms by the USA for no good reason may again result in the embarrassing silence and put down that Obama received.
Get the picture?
Rjk
Monday, September 9, 2013
OBAMA'S SYRIA WAR TO SAVE LEGACY
Our President Obama, (an undeserving Noble Peace Prize Laureate) is beating the drums for a war in Syria. He embarrasses us all as he unashamedly channels George Bush and Dick Cheney in his attempts to twist unwilling arms and propagandize for war. He is attempting to make the case for an illegal bombing campaign against Assad, allegedly to stop him from killing "innocent civilians". While Obama is propagandizing for a humanitarian cause from one side of his mouth, he was authorizing (Sept 7-8) more of his lethal drone strikes on a target in southern Afghanistan. The Pentagon bragged that that particular strike (on a vehicle) killed "ten" Afghan "militants". The officials on the ground however, picked up the mangled' charred bodies of four children and five women and the bus driver. That makes ten. The President and his men in the Pentagon do not count or discriminate so well from their drone perch at 10,000 feet above the surface. As the President tries to convince us that we should launch an "humanitarian" military attack on Syria to stop Assad's indiscriminate killing of women and children we learn he is authorizing attacks which amount to the very same crimes against humanity. Obama has made this a signature of his administration, authorizing over 350 such strikes in Pakistan alone, (let us for now ignore Afghanistan, Yemen and elsewhere he has used this lethal inhuman method) in the process, killing more than 2300 Pakistani innocent civilians. Fewer than 34 "militants" were killed in those strikes. Our President has some chutzpah to point his blood-stained finger at Assad, in an attempt to get us into a wider bloody, body strewn war in the Middle East.
Now about his war-drum beating on Syria.
President Obama carelessly drew his own "line in the sand" or "red line" on Syria's possible use of chemical weapons in an off-the-cuff remark to a reporter in an August, 2012 speech. That was a classic diplomat's mistake. Wise politicians and experienced diplomats learn not be so casual in their comments. His verbal carelessness certainly encouraged those, such as the jihadis and others (Saudi Arabians and Israelis) who would use lies, deception and subterfuge to force the US to intervene in this civil war, perhaps by firing Sarin gas weapons in a "false flag" attack. But more importantly, his own loose speech boxed Mr Obama into a set of responses perhaps he did not want to make. It removed any ability for this President to make nuanced decisions when and if those events did occur. Now in the face of the alleged use of Sarin gas against civilians in Syria, the President found himself with his self-imposed limited options. He was now forced to make good on his threats. If he does not act decisively HIS international credibility is weakened. But his greater fear is a domestic one. He fears most that his political rivals would batter him with charges of being a blabbermouth, a lousy diplomat and a weakling. The name calling he might not mind, being a politician. Of great concern to Obama is that his perceived weakness would emboldened his domestic opponents. They might be able to stall or nullify the Obama second-term political agenda. His whole political career and his legacy as first black president might be threatened by a stupid "slip of the lip" on Syria. For a politician that would indeed be a big pay out....too big to take on the chin. He had to try and undo his faux pas. How? Start a war!
So let us be clear, the President's motivation is not humanitarian...if that bothered him, he would simply stop blowing up Pakistanis and Yemenis by the dozens with drone attacks. He is attempting to get the US to fight a war to protect HIS legacy and the remains of HIS presidency. To protect that legacy and his position in the history books he is willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of innocent Syrians and perhaps hundreds of our young men and women in uniform. He is willing take the very likely chance that his "little" cruise missile attack does not start a larger war. He is willing to spend tens of billions of dollars (or very much more). He would open our dusty near-empty treasury vaults, still crammed full of IOUs from Bush's wars, and have to add more IOUs for this new Obama war to further stultify the US economy.
Presidents make mistakes. They are THEIR mistakes. President Obama can not RIGHT his mistakes by leading the nation in a phony, illegal war of his own making. Syria's civil war does not threaten us or our allies. Bombing it woud not make a significant difference in the war outcome. US bombing would only kill and maim more innocents. There are no humanitarian wars. If he is determined to respond to the deaths of these civilians. If he is really moved by humanitarian instincts, as he claims, he should put his energies into easing the plight of the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees in that part of the world. He should convene a conference to find a peaceful solution to the Syria conflict. He could also stop killing innocent women and children in Afghanistan and in Pakistan by his "secret"drone war.
Get the picture?
rjk
Now about his war-drum beating on Syria.
President Obama carelessly drew his own "line in the sand" or "red line" on Syria's possible use of chemical weapons in an off-the-cuff remark to a reporter in an August, 2012 speech. That was a classic diplomat's mistake. Wise politicians and experienced diplomats learn not be so casual in their comments. His verbal carelessness certainly encouraged those, such as the jihadis and others (Saudi Arabians and Israelis) who would use lies, deception and subterfuge to force the US to intervene in this civil war, perhaps by firing Sarin gas weapons in a "false flag" attack. But more importantly, his own loose speech boxed Mr Obama into a set of responses perhaps he did not want to make. It removed any ability for this President to make nuanced decisions when and if those events did occur. Now in the face of the alleged use of Sarin gas against civilians in Syria, the President found himself with his self-imposed limited options. He was now forced to make good on his threats. If he does not act decisively HIS international credibility is weakened. But his greater fear is a domestic one. He fears most that his political rivals would batter him with charges of being a blabbermouth, a lousy diplomat and a weakling. The name calling he might not mind, being a politician. Of great concern to Obama is that his perceived weakness would emboldened his domestic opponents. They might be able to stall or nullify the Obama second-term political agenda. His whole political career and his legacy as first black president might be threatened by a stupid "slip of the lip" on Syria. For a politician that would indeed be a big pay out....too big to take on the chin. He had to try and undo his faux pas. How? Start a war!
So let us be clear, the President's motivation is not humanitarian...if that bothered him, he would simply stop blowing up Pakistanis and Yemenis by the dozens with drone attacks. He is attempting to get the US to fight a war to protect HIS legacy and the remains of HIS presidency. To protect that legacy and his position in the history books he is willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of innocent Syrians and perhaps hundreds of our young men and women in uniform. He is willing take the very likely chance that his "little" cruise missile attack does not start a larger war. He is willing to spend tens of billions of dollars (or very much more). He would open our dusty near-empty treasury vaults, still crammed full of IOUs from Bush's wars, and have to add more IOUs for this new Obama war to further stultify the US economy.
Presidents make mistakes. They are THEIR mistakes. President Obama can not RIGHT his mistakes by leading the nation in a phony, illegal war of his own making. Syria's civil war does not threaten us or our allies. Bombing it woud not make a significant difference in the war outcome. US bombing would only kill and maim more innocents. There are no humanitarian wars. If he is determined to respond to the deaths of these civilians. If he is really moved by humanitarian instincts, as he claims, he should put his energies into easing the plight of the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees in that part of the world. He should convene a conference to find a peaceful solution to the Syria conflict. He could also stop killing innocent women and children in Afghanistan and in Pakistan by his "secret"drone war.
Get the picture?
rjk
Sunday, September 1, 2013
VOTE NO! TO SYRIA WAR!
A "YES" VOTE WOULD OPEN DOOR TO WIDER WAR
I urge a NO vote on any legislation giving the President authority to attack Syria. Was Sarin gas used? It may have been. But who used it? That is the key question we must answer first before we commit to war. Obama and his team are attempting to obscure and conflate those two questions. More importantly such legislation would hand authority over to Obama to engage in a wider war...if he so desires. Not a sound idea, given our history with the Iraq War Resolution. Finally, a "no" vote by Congress would not send a "wrong message". That argument is specious and a red herring.
FIRST, we have only limited, and conflicting evidence concerning WHO authorized the gas attack. President Obama's assertion that he had "evidence" before the attack, has never seen the light of day, and thus has the credibility of Powell’s “vial of phony powder” at the UN. We do not know what that evidence is. It seems to be that Sarin gas was used. But that is not the key question. The Obama team seems to want to conflate these two unrelated questions (a la George Bush in the run up to the Iraq conflict). Thus the President's assertions remain unsubstantiated, conveniently hidden by his self-imposed vail of secrecy. Such secret evidences are not what a government needs to establish guilt in a court of law, or on the international stage. They do not rise to the level needed to actually convict a government and punish them, along with many innocents by starting a war....which is what Mr. Obama is asking for.
SECOND. A formal vote--even for a limited strike----is tantamount to a declaration of war! It can be used and abused to engage in a wider conflict, by President Obama, and anyone who comes after him, even if that document is very carefully worded. The example of the post 9-11 Iraq War Resolution Act the Congress handed over to President Bush is the prime example of the mis-use of such legislation. That document has been used to keep us at war for over a decade, in countries as far afield as Libya and Yemen. That resolution continues to plague us.
THIRD. The last thing this nation needs is ANOTHER WAR in the Middle East. Know this, that we must borrow the funds necessary just to rattle sabers and send the fleet into the Mediterranean. We are in sequestration now. That amount, costing us in the billions, were it spent here at home, is enough to solve the fiscal problems of a whole city like Detroit and it's millions of inhabitants. Imagine the additional costs of an actual strike and ---the unpredictable costs of an expanding war! We must attend to our own nation's needs first. We simply can not afford such a Syrian fiasco.
FOURTH. The hawks like to use the argument that we are sending the "wrong message" by not attacking. That is a classic red herring. Our credibility is NOT at stake here on this issue. On matters that are truly critical to our own national interests we have in the past and would continue to stand strong and do what is necessary and appropriate. With our overly robust military (by far the largest and the best in the world) we have no need to establish and reestablish our determination and military ability over and over again. So the argument of appearing weak and vacillating and sending a “wrong message” to Iran and other possible enemies by not striking Syria is a red herring and does not stand up to scrutiny. That argument also gives false options. To attack or not attack are not our only options. We can appear strong and engaged by encouraging and actively supporting a truce and diplomacy. Sadly Obama and his crowd seem to have abandoned that idea.
What choices the people of Syria make are their own and should be. We have no right to interfere. Our intervention can only muddy the waters, make no significant contribution to peace, harm more people than we help and have the likely potential of sliding us into a more expansive war by “mission creep”. Please remember, there are no humanitarian wars...only messy, bloody, expensive and unpredictable ones.
Get the picture?
rjk
I urge a NO vote on any legislation giving the President authority to attack Syria. Was Sarin gas used? It may have been. But who used it? That is the key question we must answer first before we commit to war. Obama and his team are attempting to obscure and conflate those two questions. More importantly such legislation would hand authority over to Obama to engage in a wider war...if he so desires. Not a sound idea, given our history with the Iraq War Resolution. Finally, a "no" vote by Congress would not send a "wrong message". That argument is specious and a red herring.
FIRST, we have only limited, and conflicting evidence concerning WHO authorized the gas attack. President Obama's assertion that he had "evidence" before the attack, has never seen the light of day, and thus has the credibility of Powell’s “vial of phony powder” at the UN. We do not know what that evidence is. It seems to be that Sarin gas was used. But that is not the key question. The Obama team seems to want to conflate these two unrelated questions (a la George Bush in the run up to the Iraq conflict). Thus the President's assertions remain unsubstantiated, conveniently hidden by his self-imposed vail of secrecy. Such secret evidences are not what a government needs to establish guilt in a court of law, or on the international stage. They do not rise to the level needed to actually convict a government and punish them, along with many innocents by starting a war....which is what Mr. Obama is asking for.
SECOND. A formal vote--even for a limited strike----is tantamount to a declaration of war! It can be used and abused to engage in a wider conflict, by President Obama, and anyone who comes after him, even if that document is very carefully worded. The example of the post 9-11 Iraq War Resolution Act the Congress handed over to President Bush is the prime example of the mis-use of such legislation. That document has been used to keep us at war for over a decade, in countries as far afield as Libya and Yemen. That resolution continues to plague us.
THIRD. The last thing this nation needs is ANOTHER WAR in the Middle East. Know this, that we must borrow the funds necessary just to rattle sabers and send the fleet into the Mediterranean. We are in sequestration now. That amount, costing us in the billions, were it spent here at home, is enough to solve the fiscal problems of a whole city like Detroit and it's millions of inhabitants. Imagine the additional costs of an actual strike and ---the unpredictable costs of an expanding war! We must attend to our own nation's needs first. We simply can not afford such a Syrian fiasco.
FOURTH. The hawks like to use the argument that we are sending the "wrong message" by not attacking. That is a classic red herring. Our credibility is NOT at stake here on this issue. On matters that are truly critical to our own national interests we have in the past and would continue to stand strong and do what is necessary and appropriate. With our overly robust military (by far the largest and the best in the world) we have no need to establish and reestablish our determination and military ability over and over again. So the argument of appearing weak and vacillating and sending a “wrong message” to Iran and other possible enemies by not striking Syria is a red herring and does not stand up to scrutiny. That argument also gives false options. To attack or not attack are not our only options. We can appear strong and engaged by encouraging and actively supporting a truce and diplomacy. Sadly Obama and his crowd seem to have abandoned that idea.
What choices the people of Syria make are their own and should be. We have no right to interfere. Our intervention can only muddy the waters, make no significant contribution to peace, harm more people than we help and have the likely potential of sliding us into a more expansive war by “mission creep”. Please remember, there are no humanitarian wars...only messy, bloody, expensive and unpredictable ones.
Get the picture?
rjk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)