READ THE NEWS WITH CAUTION
When I was a younger man, in the 1960s and 1970s legitimate newspapers like the Washington Post and NY Times, even the NY Daily News could be trusted to inform the reader. In those days TV news was dominated by the likes of John Cameron Swazye and Walter Cronkite. These men were former print journalists who actually wrote their own news scripts taken off the “wires”. Then they sat down in front of the cameras and shared these stories with the public. We knew that these men and women had a “point of view” but we were secure in knowing that they were honestly attempting to disseminate actual events —“news articles” which would inform the citizen and the voter. Their function of information-gathering and presentation were critical to the proper functioning of a democracy where voters have a responsibility to be informed so they could vote intelligently.
In those days too—we also had the supermarket tabloids, sold on the A&P checkout line and filled with unsubstantiated gossip, and sensational stories. The blaring deceptive headlines in bold colors with lurid pictures were designed to attract the bored, uninformed or curious. Most of us knew that underlying function of theses publications were simply to sell the printed sheets of paper. The headlines were intended only to deceive.
A bored tabloid reader waiting on line might be eventually attracted to a blaring front page in bold typeface taking up half of the front page. The headline might have read: “Bill and Hillary Planning a Divorce,” only to discover when reading the article inside that the Clintons were involved in trying to dissuade two close friends from a marital separation. Searching the piece one may actually find some facts—perhaps the “friends” did actually exist. . But it was soon apparent that the headlines had no relationship to the actual story and were designed explicitly to deceive. The object of the tabloids was only to get you to pick up the paper and buy it. It had no higher function than the sales display it sat next to in which blared the benefits of smoking Camel cigarettes. The tabloid had no informational function. At its very best it was a low form of entertainment. It was “fake news”. Bored checkout line standers were soon educated to the deception...and only read the headlines...knowing that the story was a phony.
Unfortunately all our main stream media have become tabloidized. Post 2016–all our news outlets (with rare exceptions) have turned into supermarket tabloid news—the headlines are deceptive and intended to deceive. Read (or listen) to headlines with caution. The stories that follow are too often a distortion of the facts, or designed for outright misperception. Modern news even goes a bit farther than the tabloids—which conspired only to deceive you to purchase their product. The modern tabloidized media have added to their deception for profit and increased sales— the sinister intention of propaganda generation. Propaganda is the intention to mislead, generate false perceptions which push a generally left-wing, anti Trump agenda . These developments are an existential threat to our democracy...which depends on unbiased, information to provide for an informed citizenry.
So as in so many other things from the past. Things change, but our perceptions about them sadly remain static or lag too far behind. We listen to the news reports and think they are real news...like in the old Swayze and Cronkite days. No! Circumstances have changed in the news business.
Sadly today as we listen to the news or read it—we must remind ourselves of those earlier days of standing on that old supermarket checkout line and reading the blaring headlines we knew were only deceptive supermarket tabloid news. It is a sad comment on our nation and modern times.
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Saturday, October 28, 2017
SECRET TROOP DEPLOYMENTS—NOT A WAY TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT
Many years ago, (@ 1989) while conducting a field archeology course abroad on a tiny Greek Island—one of the smaller, least-touristed Cyclades—I stumbled upon a US Military installation. Climbing an isolated wooded hill near the center of the tiny island I was startled to encounter a sturdy Cyclone fence, topped by barbed wire blocking my way to the top. I thought it might be a Greek government military site. But the fence was festooned with red and white signs blaring “No Photographs” in English and Greek. Walking a little further along the razor wired boundary fence, I was shocked to find—not the blue and white flag of the Hellenes but the Stars and Stripes! The banner was on a staff poking up from the top of a small square building with no windows, painted in military olive drab. The familiar flag fluttered gently in the breeze wafting up from the Aegean Sea. A muddy military Jeep with “USA” stenciled on its hood was parked outside. I slunk off down the hill seeing no one and wondering why our nation would have a presence in the this seemingly insignificant Greek island. Many years later I learned that site was only one of the smallest of the estimated 800-900 US bases posted overseas in about two hundred different nations.
Just this last week we all learned to our surprise of our military presence in the tiny, land-locked west African nation of Niger. There sadly five of our brave Green Beret troops were killed in an ambush. Why were they there? What were they doing? Why were they killed? What enemy do we have there? All questions that no one in government seems able to answer.
After some complaints from the Senate...where no one among the “illustrious 100” knew of our troop deployment to Niger...we learned that President Obama sent them there in the latter part of his second term. We now know there are at least 800 troops stationed there. They are supposedly there “to gather information on Al Qaida or ISiS.” But there is no certainty on that either. It seems to me that the function of gathering information would be better served by a swarthy, bearded, sandal wearing US citizen turned Niger spy—not a squad of heavily armed Green Berets. (Unless—as in Vietnam—we sent our squads of troops to act as targets for enemy fire).
Based on 2014 figures it costs about $2,000,000 per year to deploy one trooper overseas. Today’s costs may even be higher. But using those figures 800 troops deployed in Niger is costing taxpayers $1,600,000,000...or $1.6 billion annually.
That is a significant sum of money even for our bloated military spending practices. Think of what could be done for the nation’s infrastructure and jobs problems if we were to decide to ignore Niger and concentrate on building up our own nation. Like perhaps that idea of “making America Great Again”..
By shunting vast sums of money into trumped up (no pun) foreign threats...we are shunting our wealth into a rat hole...making our nation a muscle bound giant in military might but a puny third world weakling when it comes to factors that actually make us a great nation. Our infrastructure is crumbling, our schools are no longer up to standards, our borders are porous...our middle class is being hollowed out and our economy is stuttering.
Secretly deploying troops into regions of the world where they become targets of every diverse and assorted enemy is bad for them, bad for our economy and counter to the principles upon which this nation was founded . Before expensive forces are deployed —where their very presence may incite counter attacks and often counter-productive creeping expansion of their mission—we must have a national debate. We must debate whether the nation’s citizens want to funnel a good half of our national wealth every year into military adventures—or instead to forego this adventurism and put much of that money into rebuilding and maintain the very economic machinery which ultimately supports that military—our businesses and our middle class.
Secret troop deployments are very much the wrong way to proceed to make America great again!
Just this last week we all learned to our surprise of our military presence in the tiny, land-locked west African nation of Niger. There sadly five of our brave Green Beret troops were killed in an ambush. Why were they there? What were they doing? Why were they killed? What enemy do we have there? All questions that no one in government seems able to answer.
After some complaints from the Senate...where no one among the “illustrious 100” knew of our troop deployment to Niger...we learned that President Obama sent them there in the latter part of his second term. We now know there are at least 800 troops stationed there. They are supposedly there “to gather information on Al Qaida or ISiS.” But there is no certainty on that either. It seems to me that the function of gathering information would be better served by a swarthy, bearded, sandal wearing US citizen turned Niger spy—not a squad of heavily armed Green Berets. (Unless—as in Vietnam—we sent our squads of troops to act as targets for enemy fire).
Based on 2014 figures it costs about $2,000,000 per year to deploy one trooper overseas. Today’s costs may even be higher. But using those figures 800 troops deployed in Niger is costing taxpayers $1,600,000,000...or $1.6 billion annually.
That is a significant sum of money even for our bloated military spending practices. Think of what could be done for the nation’s infrastructure and jobs problems if we were to decide to ignore Niger and concentrate on building up our own nation. Like perhaps that idea of “making America Great Again”..
By shunting vast sums of money into trumped up (no pun) foreign threats...we are shunting our wealth into a rat hole...making our nation a muscle bound giant in military might but a puny third world weakling when it comes to factors that actually make us a great nation. Our infrastructure is crumbling, our schools are no longer up to standards, our borders are porous...our middle class is being hollowed out and our economy is stuttering.
Secretly deploying troops into regions of the world where they become targets of every diverse and assorted enemy is bad for them, bad for our economy and counter to the principles upon which this nation was founded . Before expensive forces are deployed —where their very presence may incite counter attacks and often counter-productive creeping expansion of their mission—we must have a national debate. We must debate whether the nation’s citizens want to funnel a good half of our national wealth every year into military adventures—or instead to forego this adventurism and put much of that money into rebuilding and maintain the very economic machinery which ultimately supports that military—our businesses and our middle class.
Secret troop deployments are very much the wrong way to proceed to make America great again!
Saturday, October 21, 2017
EMPTY BARRELS
Empty barrels are noisy when rolled along a cobbled street. And by definition “empty” i.e.: providing no benefit (no salt, no oil, no foodstuffs) for all the effort and noise that they make when they are moved.
We have too many of these in the nation these days. Too many of our citizens and leaders and former leaders are eager to make noises that provide no benefit to the nation. They undermine the PEOPLE’S CHOICE for no valid or meaningful reason—and in doing so undermine our entire democratic system.
The sacred (yes sacred) aspect of our US quadrennial elections is that they return the power to THE PEOPLE ..for that brief period of time we spend in the ballot boxes. The people make a choice—it is a reaffirmation of the very basis or our national philosophy—that the power to govern resides in the people. Power resides not in past or former government officials, the media, past Presidents, scions of political dynasties, or poplar leaders— but only in the ballot box! And that decision of the people must be honored by those in the minority (the losers) of the electorate. Without that agreement and compromise of the electorate to quietly honor the change in leadership and the (temporary-until the next election) power of the majority over the minority— we all lose. There will be no United States of America. If we were to permit the empty barrels to force us to give up that critical basic idea—we become only another of many tin-pot dictatorships of the new world.. With these developments we are moving toward a dystopian system in which chaos and internal strife will mark each change in government leadership.
The rumbling, noisy empty barrels of this nation have to be silenced. The threat to our democracy comes not from the President—who was legitimately elected (like him or not) but from the resisters—the sore losers, whiners, and empty barrels—those who persist in delegitimizing the choice of the people—the empty barrels who would undermine our whole system for their own selfish purposes and ends. .
We have too many of these in the nation these days. Too many of our citizens and leaders and former leaders are eager to make noises that provide no benefit to the nation. They undermine the PEOPLE’S CHOICE for no valid or meaningful reason—and in doing so undermine our entire democratic system.
The sacred (yes sacred) aspect of our US quadrennial elections is that they return the power to THE PEOPLE ..for that brief period of time we spend in the ballot boxes. The people make a choice—it is a reaffirmation of the very basis or our national philosophy—that the power to govern resides in the people. Power resides not in past or former government officials, the media, past Presidents, scions of political dynasties, or poplar leaders— but only in the ballot box! And that decision of the people must be honored by those in the minority (the losers) of the electorate. Without that agreement and compromise of the electorate to quietly honor the change in leadership and the (temporary-until the next election) power of the majority over the minority— we all lose. There will be no United States of America. If we were to permit the empty barrels to force us to give up that critical basic idea—we become only another of many tin-pot dictatorships of the new world.. With these developments we are moving toward a dystopian system in which chaos and internal strife will mark each change in government leadership.
The rumbling, noisy empty barrels of this nation have to be silenced. The threat to our democracy comes not from the President—who was legitimately elected (like him or not) but from the resisters—the sore losers, whiners, and empty barrels—those who persist in delegitimizing the choice of the people—the empty barrels who would undermine our whole system for their own selfish purposes and ends. .
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Constitution of the United States (1789)
Amendment II.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
For most nations maintaining a standing army was too great of an expense. So for most of history nation-states depended upon citizen warriors for their defense. But wielding weapons effectively required some level of expertise. To insure that conscripts would be prepared to defend their homeland, governments and leaders often required citizens to maintain certain weapons and be proficient in their use.
In 1511 King Henry VIII of England, decreed in a law entitled: “An Act Concerning the Shooting of Longbows” The law imposed a requirement on all male subjects under the age of sixty years to keep and maintain a long bow and arrows and practice the shooting of this weapon. They were also required to provide weapons and instructions for their sons and male attendants, staff, and include them in shooting practice. The act states that all subjects had to “use and exercise shooting in longbows and also have a longbow and arrows ready continually in his house to use himself...”
Between about 1250 to 1450, the English long bow was the dominant weapon —-one might say it was the AK 47 of the Middle Ages. The English longbow was constructed from the wood of native yew tree , and was often more than six feet long and may have a “draw weight” of more than 140 pounds. This factor —the physical strength needed to pull or “draw” the bow and maintains aim—-required long training to master and to become proficient for war fighting. In the hands of an experienced bowman the bow was an effective and powerful weapon of war. The English bowmen were famous for their deadly use of the long bow against the French during the Hundred Years War and famously at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415.
King Henry’s edict was a sensible one. During the 1500s Europe was a dangerous place with fluid borders, conflicting dynastic claims, and many disputes. During his reign Henry sent troops into battle with France, Spain, the Hapsburgs (Austria), as well as with the Scotch. His realm could not afford to maintain a standing army. It was also politically dangerous to do so, since such a standing force could be commandeered by opponents and used to unseat a king. For these reasons the English kings were heavily dependent upon the able bodied male citizenry to form the backbone of their armies in time of need. This need was the impetus of his 1511 edict on longbows. Our Second Amendment served much the same purpose.
In the USA the Founders eschewed the formation of a standing army. It was at once too great a financial burden on the young nation and also was rightly seen as a dire threat to democracy and liberty. The Founders often warned against standing armies as being counter to democracy. James Madison famously stated that “ A standing military force...will not be long a safe companion(s) to liberty.”
For this reason, the same motivation which drove King Henry to force his citizenry to own and practice with the longbow encouraged the Founders of the Constitution to include the Second Amendment in the document in 1789. The Founders understood the shortcomings and dangers of a standing army yet they clearly perceived the need for well trained conscripts and volunteers in the dangerous world of their times. In a few short years the young nation would be at war again with the British in the War of 1812. To serve effectively these citizen soldiers would have to know how to use the weaponry of the day. The muzzle loader of those times required a good deal of practice to load, aim and fire effectively and in a timely fashion There were no belts of brass cartridges, or bump stocks. No one could just pick up and begin firing the muzzle loading, flintlock smoothbore weapon of the day. After a long training a soldier might be able to load and fire a muzzle loader at a rate of two or three shots a minute. It would take additional training for the conscript to actually learn to aim the barrel at specific targets! Long training was essential to achieve this level of expertise. Thus the need for the Founders to encourage the “People to keep and bear arms.”
The reason for the Second Amendment seems to have evaporated with the advent of our massive million person standing army in recent times and the technological development in weapons which require almost no prior experience for any individual to pick up a modern weapon and even without a “bump stock” fire off 60 bullets every minute.
That is the truth about the Second Amendment.
Thursday, October 19, 2017
BLACK WALNUT: SEED DISPERSAL—SPHEROIDAL “FRUITS”—SLOPE AND GRAVITY
Black Walnuts seed dispersal. Hard, impact and decay resistant spheroidal fruits (drupes) like those of the Black Walnut (Juglans niger) can roll long distances from its parent tree and this process may be an important factor in its seed dispersal.
An ancient and much-admired Black Walnut (Juglans niger) tree grows not far from my home on Long Island’s north shore. At this time of the year (late October of 2017) the near baseball-size green spherical seeds (known as a “drupe” in botany) hang heavily from the tree like big green Christmas ornaments After every windstorm many fall to the ground and roll away from the drip line of the tree, many often accumulating in in long “windrows” in depressions downslope from the tree. In areas with steep slopes where this species grows, I have observed the green dupes roll tens of meters from the base of the tree. In one instance accumulating in an intermittent stream bed, then to be presumably washed down stream during a heavy rainfall.
Simple rolling downhill, under the influence of gravity seems a natural means of seed dispersal for this species, but one which seems little discussed by ecologists and botanists who study this species.
The green husk of the fruit is very tough and thick, as anyone knows who has attempted to get at the very nutritious and tasty nut-meats inside the shell. The drupe is hard as a baseball and resists deformation when it hits the ground even from great heights. The green thick husk is impregnated with a strong herby smelling substance ( I find it pleasant) that appears to slow the decay process. However, when decay does take place, the partly decayed darkened husks will stain your hands a near-]permanent brown color. I have heard from old timers that this (decayed husk) substance was used as a staining agent and mordant (a substance which will combine with a dye and fix it permanently in a fabric —or on your skin) by our local colonists. Local woodlore claims that black walnut husks were used to make a brown fabric dye, a permanent ink, and even to dye the graying hair of early colonists. As a consequence of the sturdy physical character and decay-resistant chemical substances in the husk, the drupes tend to resist deformation, biological decay and physical abrasion and remain in their original sphere-like shape over a long time, enabling it to continue to roll over relatively long periods of time, encouraging its movement from its parent tree.
An old timer I knew with a great store of wood lore and a powerful desire and taste for walnut meats used an interesting technique to remove the tough husks. He secured a two-foot square piece of 3/4 thick exterior plywood in which he drilled a walnut-sized hole in the center. He placed the plywood square on top of a sturdy metal pail (or an empty ten gallon plastic paint pail) and setting the green-husked drupe on the slightly smaller drilled hole, he struck the green orb with a heavy mallet. The walnut passed through the hole into the pail while the green husks remained on the outside. He wore heavy gloves to protect his hands.
When I admired this technique he remarked that it was a great improvement over his original system which was simply stomping the partly decayed drupes on the asphalt surface of his driveway.
I often wondered how these huge seeds were dispersed. The most common explanation is that they are commonly eaten by our local Gray Squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) These arboreal rodents ( as well as Sciurus niger the Fox Squirrel) are known to practice a hoarding system in which they bury the drupes. The fruits are collected and carried away from the tree by the squirrels and buried in scattered locations to protect their nutritious hoard from the depredations of other squirrels. Some of the buried fruits of course are lost or never recovered and thus sprout into new trees at some distance from the parent tree.
I am certain that this is a major means of seed dispersal for this species. I have seen grays eating the dehusked walnuts and often find the fragments of opened nuts at squirrel feeding posts on the tops of large boulders or tree stumps. I also observed others carrying the big heavy drupes in their jaws.
But here I suggest that another method of seed dispersal for the Black Walnut is simple rolling. The spherical drupe of the black walnut can roll long distances away from its origin simply by the near universal fact of topographic slope and gravity. This “seed” is almost perfectly adapted to moving over the earth’s surface on even gentle slopes, and to remain intact as a sphere and continue that motion over relatively long periods of time during the fall season. I suggest that even in the absence of rodents the tree would continue to effectively disperse its seeds based on the spherical nature of its seed.
An ancient and much-admired Black Walnut (Juglans niger) tree grows not far from my home on Long Island’s north shore. At this time of the year (late October of 2017) the near baseball-size green spherical seeds (known as a “drupe” in botany) hang heavily from the tree like big green Christmas ornaments After every windstorm many fall to the ground and roll away from the drip line of the tree, many often accumulating in in long “windrows” in depressions downslope from the tree. In areas with steep slopes where this species grows, I have observed the green dupes roll tens of meters from the base of the tree. In one instance accumulating in an intermittent stream bed, then to be presumably washed down stream during a heavy rainfall.
Simple rolling downhill, under the influence of gravity seems a natural means of seed dispersal for this species, but one which seems little discussed by ecologists and botanists who study this species.
The green husk of the fruit is very tough and thick, as anyone knows who has attempted to get at the very nutritious and tasty nut-meats inside the shell. The drupe is hard as a baseball and resists deformation when it hits the ground even from great heights. The green thick husk is impregnated with a strong herby smelling substance ( I find it pleasant) that appears to slow the decay process. However, when decay does take place, the partly decayed darkened husks will stain your hands a near-]permanent brown color. I have heard from old timers that this (decayed husk) substance was used as a staining agent and mordant (a substance which will combine with a dye and fix it permanently in a fabric —or on your skin) by our local colonists. Local woodlore claims that black walnut husks were used to make a brown fabric dye, a permanent ink, and even to dye the graying hair of early colonists. As a consequence of the sturdy physical character and decay-resistant chemical substances in the husk, the drupes tend to resist deformation, biological decay and physical abrasion and remain in their original sphere-like shape over a long time, enabling it to continue to roll over relatively long periods of time, encouraging its movement from its parent tree.
An old timer I knew with a great store of wood lore and a powerful desire and taste for walnut meats used an interesting technique to remove the tough husks. He secured a two-foot square piece of 3/4 thick exterior plywood in which he drilled a walnut-sized hole in the center. He placed the plywood square on top of a sturdy metal pail (or an empty ten gallon plastic paint pail) and setting the green-husked drupe on the slightly smaller drilled hole, he struck the green orb with a heavy mallet. The walnut passed through the hole into the pail while the green husks remained on the outside. He wore heavy gloves to protect his hands.
When I admired this technique he remarked that it was a great improvement over his original system which was simply stomping the partly decayed drupes on the asphalt surface of his driveway.
I often wondered how these huge seeds were dispersed. The most common explanation is that they are commonly eaten by our local Gray Squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) These arboreal rodents ( as well as Sciurus niger the Fox Squirrel) are known to practice a hoarding system in which they bury the drupes. The fruits are collected and carried away from the tree by the squirrels and buried in scattered locations to protect their nutritious hoard from the depredations of other squirrels. Some of the buried fruits of course are lost or never recovered and thus sprout into new trees at some distance from the parent tree.
I am certain that this is a major means of seed dispersal for this species. I have seen grays eating the dehusked walnuts and often find the fragments of opened nuts at squirrel feeding posts on the tops of large boulders or tree stumps. I also observed others carrying the big heavy drupes in their jaws.
But here I suggest that another method of seed dispersal for the Black Walnut is simple rolling. The spherical drupe of the black walnut can roll long distances away from its origin simply by the near universal fact of topographic slope and gravity. This “seed” is almost perfectly adapted to moving over the earth’s surface on even gentle slopes, and to remain intact as a sphere and continue that motion over relatively long periods of time during the fall season. I suggest that even in the absence of rodents the tree would continue to effectively disperse its seeds based on the spherical nature of its seed.
Monday, October 9, 2017
DUMB DEAL DECERTIFYING IRAN-ENCOURAGES NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION
I have listened with patience and diminishing hopefulness to the President's bluster and bombast—on many issues. The President has the gift of being able to put his finger on issues like “the wall”, the need for immigration control, bad trade deals, misguided regulations that are in need of action. He has also had the insight to encourage efforts to bring back jobs to America, efforts to help the working classes so long ignored by both parties.
But on this issue of Iran, where the situation in the ME has been stabilized and generally peaceful, the President has gone off the reservation. Why stir the pot there, when we have a real existential threat on the opposite side of the world,,,North Korea?y
His threat to "decertify" the Iran deal is simply STUPID. It creates exactly the wrong effect. It encourages nuclear proliferation. If no “rogue nation” could ever expect to “make a deal” with the USA that sticks THEIR OONLY OPTION FOR SURVIVAL IS A NUCLEAR ARSENAL!
The President’s threat of decertfying is first of all...it is only a showman's stunt. Decertification will not "undo the deal" as he naively and foolishly promised on the campaign stump. The actual effect of his decision to decertify (really not necessary on his part) is only to dump the decision-making-process of maintaining the agreement into the hands of the Congressional clowns. Who knows what that diverse and wild group will do with it? Perhaps they will pull out of the deal...as some of the war-mongers and neocons so fervently hope. Perhaps they will draw up other more aggressive sanctions on Iran. It is possible that they will simply agree that— like Obamacare....we are better with what we have —a stable agreement—than what the GOP and Trump are likely to give us.
In this action Trump is foolishly giving away his executive authority to the unpredictable mob in Congress. That does not seem like a smart move for our self professed "negotiator in chief". Would he pass on the right to compose the specifics of a contract to buy a Manhattan apartment building to the disgruntled tenants of the place? Not likely. But that is what he is doing here---putting a decision making process which the Constitution reserves for the chief executive—the one person at the head of the government who should be looking out for the well-being of the entire nation—putting that decision into the hands of a mob.
The Founders would be aghast.
Furthermore, the entire world, our own military and our intelligence services are all in agreement that Iran has complied with the tenets of this document. When we decertify and attempt to change the document we are in noncompliance. Is that how we want to be perceived?
Also this international deal was a group effort. The USA as well as the nations of Russia, Germany, France, Britain and China were all signatories with Iran. They all agreed to it. Do we want to betray them all, signifying that we are not a nation that can be trusted to comply with international order? Decertifying will certainly sully our reputation for the foreseeable future—with Trump as our President. Other international agreements in need of cooperation from the major powers—perhaps in regard to North Korea’s nuclear arsenal— will be—after this— very difficult to implement. This is indeed a very stupid short sighted movie.
Finally, the international sanctions which actually brought Iran to the table worked because we had the cooperation of these five nations as well as the wider community of nations. Any additional sanctions we impose on Iran will be only those we impose. We can be certain the we would no longer have the cooperation of Russia, or China...it is unlikely that Germany or France would join us as deal breakers.
Or is this bluster of Trump just a way of moving attention away form North Korea...a nation which now has nuclear weapons and is difficult or-impossible to control...to change the subject to Iran which is a still non nuclear and unarmed?
That would be really dangerous and dumb.
But on this issue of Iran, where the situation in the ME has been stabilized and generally peaceful, the President has gone off the reservation. Why stir the pot there, when we have a real existential threat on the opposite side of the world,,,North Korea?y
His threat to "decertify" the Iran deal is simply STUPID. It creates exactly the wrong effect. It encourages nuclear proliferation. If no “rogue nation” could ever expect to “make a deal” with the USA that sticks THEIR OONLY OPTION FOR SURVIVAL IS A NUCLEAR ARSENAL!
The President’s threat of decertfying is first of all...it is only a showman's stunt. Decertification will not "undo the deal" as he naively and foolishly promised on the campaign stump. The actual effect of his decision to decertify (really not necessary on his part) is only to dump the decision-making-process of maintaining the agreement into the hands of the Congressional clowns. Who knows what that diverse and wild group will do with it? Perhaps they will pull out of the deal...as some of the war-mongers and neocons so fervently hope. Perhaps they will draw up other more aggressive sanctions on Iran. It is possible that they will simply agree that— like Obamacare....we are better with what we have —a stable agreement—than what the GOP and Trump are likely to give us.
In this action Trump is foolishly giving away his executive authority to the unpredictable mob in Congress. That does not seem like a smart move for our self professed "negotiator in chief". Would he pass on the right to compose the specifics of a contract to buy a Manhattan apartment building to the disgruntled tenants of the place? Not likely. But that is what he is doing here---putting a decision making process which the Constitution reserves for the chief executive—the one person at the head of the government who should be looking out for the well-being of the entire nation—putting that decision into the hands of a mob.
The Founders would be aghast.
Furthermore, the entire world, our own military and our intelligence services are all in agreement that Iran has complied with the tenets of this document. When we decertify and attempt to change the document we are in noncompliance. Is that how we want to be perceived?
Also this international deal was a group effort. The USA as well as the nations of Russia, Germany, France, Britain and China were all signatories with Iran. They all agreed to it. Do we want to betray them all, signifying that we are not a nation that can be trusted to comply with international order? Decertifying will certainly sully our reputation for the foreseeable future—with Trump as our President. Other international agreements in need of cooperation from the major powers—perhaps in regard to North Korea’s nuclear arsenal— will be—after this— very difficult to implement. This is indeed a very stupid short sighted movie.
Finally, the international sanctions which actually brought Iran to the table worked because we had the cooperation of these five nations as well as the wider community of nations. Any additional sanctions we impose on Iran will be only those we impose. We can be certain the we would no longer have the cooperation of Russia, or China...it is unlikely that Germany or France would join us as deal breakers.
Or is this bluster of Trump just a way of moving attention away form North Korea...a nation which now has nuclear weapons and is difficult or-impossible to control...to change the subject to Iran which is a still non nuclear and unarmed?
That would be really dangerous and dumb.
Sunday, October 8, 2017
HOW TO HELP PR ECONOMY
How to help Puerto Rico?
The hard working and decent people of Puerto Rico deserve every effort to help them recover from the awful devastation of hurricane Maria.
Some thoughts on how we might proceed.
First we must reduce the Puerto Rican debt burden..Investors in PR bonds and other financial instruments will have to forgive much of the $70 billion in loans the government has accumulated. Prior to the hurricane it was impossible for the commonwealth of three million islanders to pay back such a burden given their economic situation--after the devastation of hurricane Maria it is unthinkable. The island’s infrastructure and economy are in tatters. There can be no thought of full repayment. But neither should the burden of loss be shunted onto the shoulders of mainland taxpayers for repayment. Well meaning financial help for aid for infrastructure repair should not be funneled from the PR government into the coffers of Wall Street investors. The investors themselves must take responsibility and the loss for their failed investments.
Then Congress and the Trump Administration must make it more appealing for industry to return to the island. Years back before the impact of globalization and the drain of jobs to Mexico and China, the island was a good place to establish a business. In those days Puerto Rico had a deal with Washington. Companies which located on the island got a tax break.. That good deal was rescinded during the Clinton or Bush Administrations---for some unknown reason. That was too bad. It should be restored.
Also some of the rules and regulations which apply to US states are simply wrong or out of place on a tropical island situated in the balmy Caribbean. The USA minimum wage law is one of these. The cost of living on the island is generally lower than on the mainland USA (although most food is imported and manufactured goods cost more due to transportation costs). These lower living costs should be reflected in lower wages--a fact that would be an advantage to the PR economy. Forcing companies to pay USA standard minimum wages to island workers has eliminated one of the key advantages that tendered to attract manufacturing firms to the island. This fact (with others noted below) are one important reason why the unemployment rate is so high--about 12%---in Puerto Rico.
Like Greece...which was economically disadvantaged by having to use the high value Euro as its currency, PR is similarly saddled with the US dollar. The dollar is a high value currency, the value of which is set in Washington. The island government can not alter the value of its money to attract business or adjust to economic circumstances. There seems no obvious direct solution to that problem. Though tax breaks and other economic stimuli may be the answer. But it does shed some light on the source of economic problems the island faces.
Then there is the "Jones Act" which prohibits foreign flagged (non USA ships) from docking in PR ports. The result of this law is that all goods entering or leaving PR have additional transport costs. For example, manufactured goods bound for PR and imported from say Japan or Canada must first land in a US port..perhaps Jacksonville FL, where the products are off loaded, repackaged and reloaded on an American flagged ship for transit to Puerto Rico. These add significant costs to the price of goods, and contribute to the higher costs for imported products in PR vs the mainland. In like manner, products manufactured on the island must also be first trans-shipped from PR by an American ship before they can actually be sent abroad....adding to their costs. and as a result making PR manufactured goods less competitive than materials produced on the mainland. These US policies have contributed immensely to the decline of the economy on the island and have discouraged companies from locating there.
Finally, Puerto Rico suffers from a brain drain and youth drain. The population is aging faster than it should, due to rampant out-migration. Young people in the prime of their productive lives leave the island for better jobs, and other attractions on the mainland. That leaves a smaller and older, less productive population to shoulder the tax burdens needed to sustain the economy and infrastructure of the island.
In this last matter only Puerto Ricans can change the status quo.
The hard working and decent people of Puerto Rico deserve every effort to help them recover from the awful devastation of hurricane Maria.
Some thoughts on how we might proceed.
First we must reduce the Puerto Rican debt burden..Investors in PR bonds and other financial instruments will have to forgive much of the $70 billion in loans the government has accumulated. Prior to the hurricane it was impossible for the commonwealth of three million islanders to pay back such a burden given their economic situation--after the devastation of hurricane Maria it is unthinkable. The island’s infrastructure and economy are in tatters. There can be no thought of full repayment. But neither should the burden of loss be shunted onto the shoulders of mainland taxpayers for repayment. Well meaning financial help for aid for infrastructure repair should not be funneled from the PR government into the coffers of Wall Street investors. The investors themselves must take responsibility and the loss for their failed investments.
Then Congress and the Trump Administration must make it more appealing for industry to return to the island. Years back before the impact of globalization and the drain of jobs to Mexico and China, the island was a good place to establish a business. In those days Puerto Rico had a deal with Washington. Companies which located on the island got a tax break.. That good deal was rescinded during the Clinton or Bush Administrations---for some unknown reason. That was too bad. It should be restored.
Also some of the rules and regulations which apply to US states are simply wrong or out of place on a tropical island situated in the balmy Caribbean. The USA minimum wage law is one of these. The cost of living on the island is generally lower than on the mainland USA (although most food is imported and manufactured goods cost more due to transportation costs). These lower living costs should be reflected in lower wages--a fact that would be an advantage to the PR economy. Forcing companies to pay USA standard minimum wages to island workers has eliminated one of the key advantages that tendered to attract manufacturing firms to the island. This fact (with others noted below) are one important reason why the unemployment rate is so high--about 12%---in Puerto Rico.
Like Greece...which was economically disadvantaged by having to use the high value Euro as its currency, PR is similarly saddled with the US dollar. The dollar is a high value currency, the value of which is set in Washington. The island government can not alter the value of its money to attract business or adjust to economic circumstances. There seems no obvious direct solution to that problem. Though tax breaks and other economic stimuli may be the answer. But it does shed some light on the source of economic problems the island faces.
Then there is the "Jones Act" which prohibits foreign flagged (non USA ships) from docking in PR ports. The result of this law is that all goods entering or leaving PR have additional transport costs. For example, manufactured goods bound for PR and imported from say Japan or Canada must first land in a US port..perhaps Jacksonville FL, where the products are off loaded, repackaged and reloaded on an American flagged ship for transit to Puerto Rico. These add significant costs to the price of goods, and contribute to the higher costs for imported products in PR vs the mainland. In like manner, products manufactured on the island must also be first trans-shipped from PR by an American ship before they can actually be sent abroad....adding to their costs. and as a result making PR manufactured goods less competitive than materials produced on the mainland. These US policies have contributed immensely to the decline of the economy on the island and have discouraged companies from locating there.
Finally, Puerto Rico suffers from a brain drain and youth drain. The population is aging faster than it should, due to rampant out-migration. Young people in the prime of their productive lives leave the island for better jobs, and other attractions on the mainland. That leaves a smaller and older, less productive population to shoulder the tax burdens needed to sustain the economy and infrastructure of the island.
In this last matter only Puerto Ricans can change the status quo.
Friday, October 6, 2017
TRUMP CORRECT: WALL STREET MUST TAKE HAIRCUT ON BAD LOANS TO PR
ON THE PLIGHT OF PUERTO RICO, WALL STREET AND BAD LOANS
DO NOT HELP PAY OFF BAD WALL STREET LOANS WITH US TAX DOLLARS
The President was right- when he said after his visit to hurricane devastate Puerto Rico: "Wall Street bankers and investors will have to take a "hair cut" on their Puerto Rican investments." This off-the-cuff statement caused hurricane-like waves in the canyons of lower Manhattan, where accepting less than full return on a loan is considered "obscene" speech and is the only verbiage universally condemned and disdained. These 'obscene" musings of our businessman-president were immediately criticized. But for the rest of us taxpayers, they should be taken very seriously and accepted as fact.
This is what must have gone through Mr. Trump's business-oriented mind, He reasoned this way: how could the PR Commonwealth (a long-time territory of the USA) with an approximately $100 billion dollar GDP, annual revenue (2010) of $31 billion and expenses (2010) of $29 billion, with 12% of its work force unemployed, and a foundering economy---which also owes Wall Street investors about $70 billion dollars in loans (which even prior to Maria the island was struggling to pay back) make good on these outstanding debts? The outcome was uncertain then. But NOW after Maria leveled the island, causing massive destruction to its fragile infrastructure--estimated by many as amounting to $90 billion dollars--any ability to repay those loans evaporated like morning dew on a dangling, red-dappled mango hanging from a tree over a sun-drenched cobbled street in old San Juan.
The devastation of Maria should not change these facts. Wall Street banks and investors took a risk when they accepted the government of Puerto Rico as a debtor. They assumed they would get the seventy billion dollar principle of the loan amount back, plus a sizable profit. This profit was carefully calculated by their accountants and attorneys to be commensurate with the risk they were taking. Risk-taking is why investors make a profit on the money they lend. But in the case of Puerto Rico--obviously the bankers did not do their required "due diligence". They did not take into account--status of the tropical island workforce, their ability to pay, globalization effects, the high costs of living in PR, and the effects of man-induced weather intensification (climate change). The "haircut' that the banks are due...is all their own responsibility. There is no good reason why we should underwrite their miscalculations regarding these loans. That after-all is what risk taking and profit generation are all about.
The banks will have to take a haircut. We should not let them attempt to pass off those bad loans on to the American taxpayer.
NO MONEY TO PAY BACK INVESTORS SHOULD BE TAKEN FROM USA TAX FUNDS
So what can the rest of us do. Let us first say what we should not do. We can not hand out federal money to the PR government to solve their CASH FLOW problem. Money is fungible.
WE TO DO THAT IT would be equivalent to taking tax dollars OUT OF the pockets of Joe and Jane in Wisconsin and handing it over to Jose and Anna in Ponce--who WILL PASS ON THESE FUNDS as loan repayment into the coffers of the Wall Street investors.
In effect pouring hard earned US taxpayer's dollars into the full coffers of the banks in lower Manhattan.
In terms of what we should do--after the bakers agree to accept a reasonable return on their loans.
We should make every effort to help the decent hardworking people of Puerto Rico rebuild after the devastation of Maria.
But that is another blog.
DO NOT HELP PAY OFF BAD WALL STREET LOANS WITH US TAX DOLLARS
The President was right- when he said after his visit to hurricane devastate Puerto Rico: "Wall Street bankers and investors will have to take a "hair cut" on their Puerto Rican investments." This off-the-cuff statement caused hurricane-like waves in the canyons of lower Manhattan, where accepting less than full return on a loan is considered "obscene" speech and is the only verbiage universally condemned and disdained. These 'obscene" musings of our businessman-president were immediately criticized. But for the rest of us taxpayers, they should be taken very seriously and accepted as fact.
This is what must have gone through Mr. Trump's business-oriented mind, He reasoned this way: how could the PR Commonwealth (a long-time territory of the USA) with an approximately $100 billion dollar GDP, annual revenue (2010) of $31 billion and expenses (2010) of $29 billion, with 12% of its work force unemployed, and a foundering economy---which also owes Wall Street investors about $70 billion dollars in loans (which even prior to Maria the island was struggling to pay back) make good on these outstanding debts? The outcome was uncertain then. But NOW after Maria leveled the island, causing massive destruction to its fragile infrastructure--estimated by many as amounting to $90 billion dollars--any ability to repay those loans evaporated like morning dew on a dangling, red-dappled mango hanging from a tree over a sun-drenched cobbled street in old San Juan.
The devastation of Maria should not change these facts. Wall Street banks and investors took a risk when they accepted the government of Puerto Rico as a debtor. They assumed they would get the seventy billion dollar principle of the loan amount back, plus a sizable profit. This profit was carefully calculated by their accountants and attorneys to be commensurate with the risk they were taking. Risk-taking is why investors make a profit on the money they lend. But in the case of Puerto Rico--obviously the bankers did not do their required "due diligence". They did not take into account--status of the tropical island workforce, their ability to pay, globalization effects, the high costs of living in PR, and the effects of man-induced weather intensification (climate change). The "haircut' that the banks are due...is all their own responsibility. There is no good reason why we should underwrite their miscalculations regarding these loans. That after-all is what risk taking and profit generation are all about.
The banks will have to take a haircut. We should not let them attempt to pass off those bad loans on to the American taxpayer.
NO MONEY TO PAY BACK INVESTORS SHOULD BE TAKEN FROM USA TAX FUNDS
So what can the rest of us do. Let us first say what we should not do. We can not hand out federal money to the PR government to solve their CASH FLOW problem. Money is fungible.
WE TO DO THAT IT would be equivalent to taking tax dollars OUT OF the pockets of Joe and Jane in Wisconsin and handing it over to Jose and Anna in Ponce--who WILL PASS ON THESE FUNDS as loan repayment into the coffers of the Wall Street investors.
In effect pouring hard earned US taxpayer's dollars into the full coffers of the banks in lower Manhattan.
In terms of what we should do--after the bakers agree to accept a reasonable return on their loans.
We should make every effort to help the decent hardworking people of Puerto Rico rebuild after the devastation of Maria.
But that is another blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)