Gerald Ford

I feel that I should depart at this point from my discussion of the pitfalls and opportunities of the Democratic victory, to address the eulogies being delivered and printed on the death of Gerald Ford.

I know that is a custom to never speak ill of the departed and to laud them in the most exemplary terms, so as to almost turn them into instant saints. I have always deplored this custom for when it comes to prominent men it is important that we not indulge in revisionist history, and assess a life as it was. Ford did some good things, and one can find those in any of the eulogies written, so the reader must forgive me if I do not repeat them here.

But I do find myself at odds with much that has been said and written about our “accidental” President though he was not so much accidental as the creature of his disgraced predecessor.

First we need to put the ascendancy of Ford into context. It was caused not only by the crimes of Richard Nixon but also by the crimes of Nixon’s Vice-President. The corruption of the Republican Party of today may well be nothing more than a continuation of the corruption of that period and even before.

Nixon’s Vice-President, Spiro Agnew, was “allegedly” guilty of both bribery and tax evasion, crimes, which he had committed before Nixon chose him to be his running mate. Yet Agnew, like Nixon was above the law. Instead of being impeached and prosecuted, he was allowed to escape prosecution in return for his resignation. It was this outrage which elevated Ford to the Vice-Presidency, and he was chosen for that post by a man who had committed even more serious crimes, Richard Nixon, and here I am talking not only of the Watergate crimes but of the manner by which Nixon was elected.

First Nixon was aided in his first election by the treachery of Henry Kissinger, who, at the time, was considered a trusted ally of Johnson emissary Averell Harriman, leader of the Paris talks. Kissinger used his contacts with the Johnson administration to tip-off the Nixon camp about an anticipated breakthrough in the Paris talks. Nixon set out to sabotage those talks by secretly offering the South Vietnamese “more” than they would get from the incumbent Democrats. The result was the negotiations floundered, Nixon was elected, the war went on for more than another four years with untold American, Vietnamese and Cambodian casualties, and was then concluded on the same terms, and conditions as had been on the table in the fall of 1968.

The decision to pardon Nixon won Ford a John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award in 2001, and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, acknowledging he had criticized Ford at the time, called the pardon “an extraordinary act of courage that historians recognize was truly in the national interest.”

I respectfully disagree. Nixon’s pardon did not end the nightmare for the nation and certainly not for Nixon’s subordinates. For years thereafter, Nixon’s subordinates were tried, convicted and many went to jail. They paid the price while the head of the conspiracy escaped and even managed to be rehabilitated.

Was the pardon an act of courage or was Ford taking care of someone who had been a close friend before, who had brought him to the Presidency and who remained a friend thereafter? Nixon’s crimes never even disturbed Ford enough to interfere with their continued friendship.

But what of the claim that Ford was a healer, a non-partisan statesman? He vetoed 66 bills in his barely two years as President. Congress overturned 12 Ford vetoes, more than for any president since Andrew Johnson. Does that sound like a man working with the opposition party?

One of the bills he vetoed was the Freedom Of Information Act one of the cornerstones of our Democracy today. That was passed over Ford’s veto.

Even though Ford in an interview released posthumously, criticized the Iraq war, he has to bear some responsibility for that fiasco, for he launched the careers of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and even Scalia.

Some give him credit for an Amnesty program for Vietnam War resisters but it should be noted that the program was widely regarded as a failure, even by the people who administered it. Only 21,800 of the 350,000 eligible persons were granted clemency. It was left to Carter to grant anything meaningful.

Ford may have been virtuous and moderate compared to the present Republican Party, or to the Nixon or McCarthy Republicans, but he was hardly the paragon of virtue, which is the image now being evoked.

May he rest in peace!

Iraq - Whence from Here?

In my last column I pointed out that the Democrats’ victory in this election does not assure success in the next election two years hence.

I urged Democrats to focus on the climate of corruption in Washington. They have made a good start in this area. Hastings was denied the chairmanship of the House Intelligence committee and while Jefferson will be seated, he will be denied any consequential committee assignment. All earmarks have been shelved.

The elephant in the room is, of course, Iraq. Here there have been many voices demanding that Democrats come up with a plan. The Left calls for an immediate withdrawal or at least a timetable, and on the Right there is a call for Democrats to come up with a plan for victory or the latest euphemism, “Success.”

I submit that this is not the time for Democrats to take a position as a party and to allow free discussion among its members.

I urge this because the decisions will in any case be made in the White House and the Congress can only marginally affect policy. In addition there is no good solution. Of course Congress has the purse strings but I would seriously doubt the wisdom of cutting off funds for our troops.

Furthermore, too many on the left at times sound too much like isolationists and/or pacifists and these positions are disastrous both from a policy and a political standpoint.

Not to recognize the serious consequences of a failed state in Iraq is as serious a “State of Denial” as the Administrations claim that things are going well, or that the decision to invade was wise. Of the few things that this Administration is right about is that failure in Iraq will have serious consequences.

The withdrawal of American troops will mean a heightened civil war in Iraq with enormous civilian casualties both among Sunnis and Shiites and is very likely to draw other states in the region into the conflict. The Saudis have already announced that if American troops withdraw they will go to the aid of the Sunni population in Iraq. This could draw Iran further into the conflict on the side of the Shiites, and potentially could lead to hostilities between those states. If this were to happen the Kurds might well decide it is time to get away from the mess and declare their independence. This would probably cause the Turkish Kurds to want to join their brethren, which would bring Turkey into the fray because they would not allow part of its territory to break away. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s have already begun to flee their homeland to escape the violence. Such increased violence would multiply the exodus to neighboring states, particularly Sunni Jordan, causing destabilization of that nation. It is almost inconceivable that with such a scenario Syria and ultimately Lebanon would not be drawn in. The conflagration is hard to imagine. Ultimately it would cause a flood of refugees to leave the Middle East and overwhelm Europe and possibly the U.S., which could not effectively keep out desperate people.

If anyone thinks that such a conflagration, or even a much smaller one, would not seriously interrupt the flow of oil they are dreaming, and while some on the left don’t think that this should be a major concern, there is little, if any, doubt, that a major reduction in Middle East oil would cause a world wide depression at least on the scale of 1929. It might eventually force a return of US troops and be the beginning of a World War on an unimaginable scale.

Lest I be accused of playing the role of Cassandra, let me remind the reader that Cassandra’s predictions were true. But even if this is a worst-case scenario, isn’t it about time that we dealt with the worst case rather than, as this Administration has done, always expecting the best and never preparing for the worst.

If this sounds like I am advocating the Bush policy of “stay the course”, or the McCain policy “of a surge” which may soon become the Bush policy, nothing could be further from the truth. Unfortunately, the damage is done and our troops at present levels are not improving the situation. While a much larger troop deployment early on could have made a major difference, it is now too late, which appears to also be the view of Colin Powell and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Thus we are caught in a dilemma. To stay serves no purpose and leaving spells disaster. What are we to do? The President is the Commander in Chief. For as long as Bush holds that position he will call the shots and any attempt to lay out a policy by the opposition serves no purpose. Ultimately, it is highly likely that we will still be in Iraq in 2008 and that it will be a major issue in the Presidential and Congressional elections. At that time the Democratic Presidential candidate will have to take a position, but it will be a position on the basis of the facts, as they then exist.

I believe that our best hope will be to make the Middle Eastern nations see a Pandora’s box opening before them, and realize that only they can deal with the situation. Before 2008 or right after the election we will have to advise them that we have done all that we can and are withdrawing. We should urge one of those countries, be it Saudi Arabia, or Egypt or Jordan to convene a regional summit and try to reach agreement among them. Their future is even more at stake than ours. They must form a multinational, multi ethnic, all Muslim (drawn from both sects) military, and impose a settlement on Iraq. We can lend logistical support, but our armies will have no further role to play. Will this work? It is a long shot, but it is less of a Hail Mary pass than any of the alternatives.

How Secure is the Victory For Democrats?

In my last two postings I address first the question of bipartisanship and explained it is unlikely that there will be much bipartisanship, if any. In the following commentary I queried whether the new so-called conservative members are likely to push the Democratic Party to the Right and concluded with a resounding NO.

Now I address just how secure the victory for the Democrats is. A look at history is instructive in how much a great victory carries over to the next election.

For this purpose I go back to the historic election of 1946. The President was Harry Truman and at that time, hardly more than three weeks before the midterm elections his approval rating dropped to 32 percent. As the reader will quickly surmise, there is a parallel here to the unpopularity of President Bush prior to the just concluded midterm elections. I should add that there was another similarity to the election now. The Democrats then had a lock on the Southern vote, just as Republicans have now.

The results of the elections of 1946 were that in the House Republicans picked up 54 seats. The GOP wound up with a 59-member dominance over the Democrats. When the new Congress convened in January, Republicans occupied 75 percent of the seats outside the South. That is a far greater victory than Democrats achieved in this election

Just as in this election, it was doubtful that Democrats could win the Senate with only one third of the Senate up for election, but Republicans picked up 13 seats to take control of the chamber, 51 to 45. Compare this to the five seats that Democrats picked up in the Senate and the approximately thirty seats they picked up in the House.

In addition the unpopular Republican President Bush will not encumber the Republican ticket in the next election. Two years after that disastrous election for the Democrats, the very same Democratic incumbent President, Harry Truman, would lead the ticket.

But a lot can happen in two years. In fact a lot can happen in one campaign. . When 1948 came Truman campaigned vigorously against the "do-nothing, good-for-nothing 80th Congress," while largely ignoring the Republican nominee, Governor Dewey. In November 1948, to the astonishment of almost everyone (Who can forget the headline, “DEWEY WINS”) and to the consternation of Republicans, Truman won reelection and Democrats recaptured Congress. They picked up nine seats in the Senate and so many seats in the House that they not only recouped their 1946 losses, but also erased all gains made by the GOP in three previous elections. Of the 50 Republican newcomers in the House in 1946 who ran for reelection, 35 went down to defeat.

Can history repeat itself in reverse? I fear that it can.

Can Democrats avoid this? I believe that they can but the point is that nothing can be taken for granted. Democrats must be prudent. Whether they achieve anything or not they must not be seen as “a do nothing Congress.” Investigations will be useful, but for the most part they will only make the outgoing Administration, which is not running for reelection look even worse than they do now. But if there is one thing we can count on, Republicans will be running away from this Administration; they are already doing so. So it will be difficult to run against the record of this Administration. It will have to be based on the record of this Congress, and if they accomplish nothing, they will have to show that they did their best and that Republican obstructionism is to blame. They will have one advantage by being in the majority. They will control the agenda.

Well then what are Democrats to do? As important as the Iraq war was in this last election one other issue may very well have been more important; and that is the issue of corruption. Democrats cannot; must not shilly-shally around on this issue. The possibility that Nancy Pelosi, the new Democratic Speaker, might have picked Alcee Hastings, a man who had once been impeached and removed for taking a bribe while a federal judge would have been a disastrous beginning.

Now Pelosi faces a new dilemma. Representative William Jefferson, Dem. of New Orleans has been reelected to his seat. He was the Democrat who hid $90,000 in his freezer. He has argued that it has been about a year since the money was found and no indictment has been handed down, proving he is innocent. All it proves that the evidence to support an indictment has not been found, but that hardly puts him above suspicion, and Democrats must show that they stand for Congressman being above suspicion. This is a hard one politically. Jefferson was just reelected by his constituents-he is black and probably will have the support of much of the black caucus in Congress, but the Democrats must show that to serve in a Congress they control, one must be above suspicion. The House has the power under the Constitution to refuse to seat members who they do not consider qualified. Democrats must refuse to seat Jefferson. The fall out within the Party will be much less, than the fallout among the American people if they seat him.

The other scandal that Democrats must address is earmarks. That is not to say that all projects that are covered by earmarks are necessarily bad, but members of Congress should approve no expenditure without full committee approval, a full vetting by the Congress and a vote on the merits. Simply, revealing who inserted the earmark is not reform. Pork will always be around, but it should never be within the control of any one member, or be inserted in the dead of night, or out of the public view, and certainly not out of the view of all the members of the Congress.

That will be a good start but Democrats need to do much more.

"Has the Election Pushed the Democratic Party to the Right?

I concluded my last commentary with, “Next time - Has the election of so called Democratic conservatives pushed the Democratic Party to the right? I respond with a resounding, NO!

I raise that question because much of the media has focused on the Democratic candidates who won in States and Districts that had in the past been heavily Republican and dubbed them “conservatives” who could not be counted on to carry out the Democratic progressive agenda.

This analysis is in my opinion misplaced because it ignores both what the term conservative means in common parlance and what the so-called Democratic conservatives believe in. (I should add that in my view the term conservative as used today is misplaced, since today’s so called conservatives want to conserve little and have a radical agenda for change.) But even in today’s context conservatives can be defined by their position on a number of crucial issues, as follows:

1.) the economic ones
2.) environmental ones
2.) the social ones
3.) the fiscal ones
4.) the foreign policy ones
5.) the racial ones

Using these broad categories as a way for evaluating the new Democratic members of Congress, let us look at two who have been dubbed “conservative” and a potential problem for the Democratic leadership in the Congress.

For example Senator elect Casey of Pennsylvania has been referred to as one of the new breed of conservative Democrat on the basis that he favors an overturning of Roe vs. Wade. Even in this area, however, he supports the morning after pill, and on abortion he favors exceptions to save the life of the mother and in case of rape & incest. In addition he favors state funding of contraception.

On Social Security he opposes Social Security privatization. On Medicare he believes that the Medicare Part D program is fundamentally flawed. He wants to fill the "doughnut hole" of missing Medicare Rx costs and wants to Expand Health Care Coverage. On the minimum wage he has stated, “A Minimum Wage Increase is Long Overdue.” On taxes he has stated, [we should] repeal the tax cut for people making over $200,000 a year.

On the environment he has stated that a clean environment should be a top priority and that Congress must help curb environmental pollution. Bob Casey supports increased funding for Brownfield clean up and reinstatement of the polluter-pays principle in the Superfund program so that polluters pay to clean up their own pollution. He opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Even on Social issues where he is most out of step with the majority of Democrats, particularly on abortion, he opposes a constitutional ban on gay marriage; approves of civil unions so as to allow gay couples to adopt & share employment benefits, favors increased penalties for “Sexual Orientation Hate Crimes” and is committed to Affirmative Action and a diverse workforce.

On fiscal policy he urges fiscal discipline to lower interest rates. He feels that budget deficits choke investment and drives business to ruin.

On Iraq policy he is more hardline than most Democrats by opposing any deadline or timeline for pulling our troops out, but he wants to ask tough questions about colossal intelligence failure.

On the racial issues he is committed to Affirmative Action and a diverse workforce, though he takes a tough stance on illegal immigration and on gun control.

The bottom line is that while he would not stand shoulder to shoulder on all issues dear to the liberal wing of the Democratic party he is hardly someone who would undermine the Democratic majority.
But is he an exception from other so called conservative Democrats elected in this election. Let us look at Senator elect Webb of Virginia who was written off as being a “Blue Dog Democrat” as soon as he was elected and before. The emphasis was that he was a Republican who served 4 years in the Reagan Administration first as Assistant Secretary of Defense, then as Secretary of the Navy. Nevertheless, shortly after his election he said,” the most important -- and unfortunately the least debated -- issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country.''

On Iraq he feels so strongly that at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, Webb ''tried to avoid President Bush,'' refusing to pass through the reception line or have his picture taken with the President. When Bush asked Webb, whose son is a Marine in Iraq, ''How's your boy?'' Webb replied, ''I'd like to get them out of Iraq.'' Bush said, ''That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?'' Webb replied, ''That's between me and my boy.''

Webb told the Washington Post: ''I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall”. No offense to the institution of the presidency, and I'm certainly looking forward to working with him and his administration.

It is impossible to review in one analysis where all the so called conservatives in the new Democratic Congress stand but on the basis of these two, who have been much maligned as not being on board with the Democratic agenda, I would say that Democrats are united as never before on most major issues, and that the obstacles to progress lies not in division within the Democratic Party, and certainly not between the newly elected Democrats and the old stalwarts, but rather by the fact that Republicans still have enough votes in the Senate to block action, and if that is not enough there lurks the Presidential veto.

These, however, are the obstacles to progress and not that newly elected Democrats shift the party to the Right.

A New Congress - What Can We Expect?

In my last commentary I said, among other things, “there has been much talk of bipartisanship by both the Administration and the Democratic leadership but that is nothing more than posturing. In almost every area of policy the parties are too far apart for compromise to be possible.”

“The Administration as one of its first acts after the recent election announced that it would renominate six of his earlier choices to sit on the federal appeals court, leaving Democratic senators and other analysts to ponder what message he is sending.

“Mr. Bush's motive in sending up the nominations has been closely analyzed, with several Democrats and liberals labeling it as provocative and a sign that he does not intend to seek compromise as he suggested he would after Republican losses in the elections last week.

“Democrats have asked the president to be bipartisan, but this is a clear slap in the face at our request,'' said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York” (From the NY Times of November 16)

Democrats on the other hand are determined to push their agenda with an increase in the minimum wage being at the top of the list. As I discussed in my last presentation this is not something Republicans are likely to accept, except as part of a deal on the estate tax, a price Democrats are not likely to be willing to pay.

Another issue likely to be on the front burner is college tuition costs. The Administration, as well as such Republican columnists as David Brooks, have said repeatedly that the solution to the nation’s growing income inequality is more education. However, even as they make that argument the Administration has been consistently cutting back on student aid. For instance Pell grants one of the most important programs for low-income college students has steadily declined. Pell Grants now cover about a third of the average costs at a four-year public school, compared with 42 percent five years ago. Government loans also have not kept pace with rising costs. Subsidized loans accounted for only 55 percent of student borrowing in the most recent academic year, down from 69 percent 10 years earlier. Democrats will undoubtedly try to reverse that trend. Republicans on the other hand are likely to oppose this as being “unaffordable.” This is likely to be another area for stalemate at least until the Presidential election two years hence.

One area that has gotten a great deal of publicity lately is the Alternative Minimum Tax. At the time this tax was enacted it was designed to prevent the super-rich from using deductions, credits, and other shelters to avoid paying any taxes. But because of rising incomes, the tax is expected to expand from 3.8 million of the upper middle class to more than 30 million of that group in 2010, a constituency both parties are courting. The mistake that was made in enacting this tax was not to have it adjust by the inflation index. Now, however, it has been dealt with on a year-to-year basis, but to hold the number of affected taxpayers steady at about 4 million, the patch would cost about $50 billion. To do away with the tax it is estimated would cost more than $1 trillion (1,000 billion) over the next decade. My own view is that the tax should not be eliminated but should be fixed permanently by making it automatically adjust by the inflation factor and that any measure passed should be revenue neutral by eliminating some other tax previously passed by the Republican Congress. Here there may be room for compromise, but I strongly suspect that Republicans would hold out for making it just another tax cut, thereby increasing the deficit, something which seems to have become almost a matter of faith with the party that once prided itself on its reputation for fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets.

Another matter in the area of taxation that will come up is the so-called marriage penalty, which I suspect is not widely understood. Essentially it is inaccurate to assume that all married couples pay a marriage penalty. Where the incomes of the partners are disparate they not only do not pay a penalty they actually get a benefit. Thus if one of the partners has a significant income and the other has none or a substantially smaller one, the married couple will in fact pay less taxes than if they had remained single. On the other hand if the couple has substantially equal incomes they will end up paying a somewhat higher tax than if they were single. One way to avoid this is to allow couples the option of filing singly or married whichever way would benefit them most. The loss in tax revenue would most likely be substantial. Furthermore, by offering this advantage to married couples we are in effect discriminating against unmarried ones who do not have this option. Furthermore, according to Microsoft Money forty-two percent of married taxpayers paid more because they were filing jointly than they would have if they remained single, according to a 1996 Congressional Budget Office analysis. The average penalty was a significant $1,380. But more couples -- 51% of the total -- paid less tax jointly than if had they not married. The average bonus these couples received: $1,300. So it may be that this is an area that should be addressed with caution.

Whether Democrats will want to touch this hot potato is questionable though Republicans will most likely try to demagogue this and try to make it a pro family issue.

Euphoria and Reality

The election is over and Democrats won to an extent that few expected, though many had hoped.

It was widely expected that the Democrats would win in the House of Representatives but while there was always hope for the Senate, it was generally considered to be a long shot. Well the long shot came in. In the outgoing Congress, which will remain under Republican control until January, the Republicans controlled the House by 15 votes. As of this moment Democrats control the House by 33 votes and eight races are still undecided. However in the Senate the control is by only one vote, which means that the death or incapacity of a single Senator in a state having a Republican governor would swing the Senate back to Republican control. Nevertheless, grounds for euphoria-absolutely.

There are even more reasons for optimism. Voters seem for the first time in a long time, to care about the political process. More than 40 percent of registered voters showed up - apparently, the highest midterm turnout in a generation. (20 years) Voters aged 18 to 29 cast an estimated 10 million votes, or 13 percent of all ballots, up from 11 percent in 2002 and they voted for Democrats by a wide margin: 22 percentage points, according to CNN's exit poll data. Democrats cracked the South, justifying Dean’s 50 state strategy, Evangelicals gave smaller majorities to Republicans than in past elections, and almost every demographic group tended more Democratic.

Governing is where the issue of reality comes in. First nothing has changed until January. Democrats, or at least some of them are talking about bringing our troops home from Iraq within 60 days, or at least within six month. This is not governing. This is grand standing. The reality is that the President, not Congress has the power to make these decisions. Clearly, Congress can pass resolutions but they are not binding on the President. Congress holds the purse strings but Democrats would not dare to cut off funding for our troops. That would be political suicide.

Congress can investigate, and intends to do so, but I predict that the President will obstruct on the grounds of national security, on executive privilege, on attorney/client privilege, etc. All this can affect the political climate, but it cannot dictate policy. So on Iraq nothing fundamental has changed, even if Rumsfeld is out. If there is a change in policy, and there may well be one in the making, it will ultimately be the President who will dictate this. This may be all to the good from a political standpoint because we are now in a loose-loose situation no matter what policy is followed, and the ability to continue to blame the Republican President may be all to the good. The President may denounce the “blame game” but the “blame game” is just another way of ascribing responsibility, the acceptance of which this President and this Administration have never been good at.

On the domestic front the picture is somewhat different but not much. There has been much talk of bipartisanship by both the Administration and the Democratic leadership but that is nothing more than posturing. In every area of policy the parties are too far apart for compromise to be possible.

One area that has been spoken of as lending itself to bipartisan action is raising the minimum wage and the Administration has indicated an interest in dealing with this on a bipartisan basis. But we have already seen what they mean by this. They will not go along on this without a quid pro quo. This was illustrated in the last session of Congress when the House voted 230 to 180 to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, from the $5.15 rate on the books since 1997. The bill also would have exempted from taxation all estates worth as much as $5 million -- or $10 million for a married couple -- and apply a 15 percent tax rate to inheritances above that threshold and as much as $25 million. For estates exceeding $25 million in value, the tax rate would be 30 percent. The measure died in the Senate after then Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid said he "is confident the Senate will defeat this fiscally irresponsible estate-tax proposal, as we have in the past."

For all the posturing Republicans will not support a minimum wage increase without their estate tax measure and Democrats will not accept it. There will be no bi-partisanship.

Once Democrats take control in January, they may be able to pass the minimum wage bill but because of a possible filibuster by Republicans in the Senate it is not likely to pass there, and if somehow it does pass the Congress without the estate tax provision, it will almost surely encounter a Presidential veto. Good from a political standpoint but not from a policy standpoint.

The reality is that under the U.S. Constitution the President wields enormous power. While the Congressional victory will give Democrats veto power over Republican initiatives, such as making the tax cuts permanent, their own initiatives face an uncertain fate. The next two years will consist primarily of posturing leading up to the Presidential Race in 2008. To the extent that Democrats may be able to accomplish anything positive it will be in areas with such great public support that Republicans dare not oppose them. Whether an increase in the minimum wage is such a wedge issue is problematic.

What Have Republicans Wrought?

As we conclude the sixth year of the Republican reign (and by Republican reign I mean having complete control of all the levers of government, the executive, both houses of the Congress and a compliant Supreme Court) it may be well to look at what has happened on their watch. We have often argued about their policies and have found them wanting, but it may be that a much more telling measure may be what they have wrought.

Let us begin with a worldview. As Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001 the country was at peace. Democracy was sweeping the globe; moderate democratic governments were in power in South America, and in much of the globe including Thailand. Iraq was contained with sanctions and no fly zones and in Iran it’s youth was clamoring for reform and had elected as its President, the moderate, Mohammad Khatami. Korea was a member of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and had admitted inspectors into it’s closed society. It had negotiated the “Sunshine Policy” with South Korea, which led to a lessening of tension, and we were witnesses to relatives from the divided nation meeting each other, amid hugs and tears for the first time in decades. In Thailand a Democratically elected government ruled the country.

Now six years later, we have extreme left wing governments in power in Venezuela and Peru and are nervous as to the direction of the populist government of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in Brazil.

In Thailand the Democratically elected government has been overthrown by a military coup and a military dictatorship reigns, without a murmur of protest from our government.

In Palestine the radical Hamas has been elected.

Iraq lies in ruins as the death toll of our troops mounts and the total casualty figure is withheld from us. As for Iraqis, their death toll has reached hundreds of thousands and total casualty figures are never mentioned, either for American troops or for Iraqi civilians, as though people who have lost their limbs, but are alive are irrelevant. And what is the response by the head of the Republican Party, who is President? After saying “We must stay the course” innumerable times, he now tells us he never meant that, but wants us to stay the course. After Washington Post columnist, Bob Woodward, published his book “State of Denial” the President assures that he actually sees the television images just as we do, after having told us they are misleading and don’t show all the good things.

He accuses his critics of a mentality of “Cut and Run” apparently never having heard of “Strategic retreats,” so that our soldiers may live to fight another day. The Republicans have lost the war and more importantly the peace in Iraq, and attack their critics for not joining them in their “State of Denial.”

Afghanistan, which was the one and only success of this Administration is back slipping as a result of neglect, and looks like a resurgent Taliban may yet turn that unhappy country into another Iraq.

In Iran, Khatami has been replaced by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the youth who once clamored for reform, now clamor for atomic power and cheer the madman. Any hope that the youth will successfully push for reform has gone down the drain.

Korea has left the NPT, kicked out the inspectors and rather than forswearing an atomic bomb brags about having one. It probably does not, but if we “stay the course” in this theater, it undoubtedly will have one before long.

In the meantime Russia’s atomic weapons are left unguarded and it is a more likely source for such weapons falling into terrorist’s hands than any of the rogue states, but negotiations to safeguard this danger have been all but abandoned.

When it comes to terrorism all attempts by the terrorists to attack our homeland were thwarted before the Republicans gained ascendancy. In the years immediately preceding that ascendancy, the terrorists tried again and again to attack our homeland. They attacked the World Trade Center but it was unsuccessful. They planned to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously. They planned to attack and blow up UN Headquarters. They planned to blow up FBI Headquarters; the Israeli Embassy in Washington; Boston airport; the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY and the George Washington Bridge. They were thwarted each time. And then Republicans gained power and 9/11 happened and somehow they reaped benefit from it. It shows that they are good at one thing!!!! PROPAGANDA. How can one reap credit for failure?

On the home front Republicans inherited a surplus in the National budget. The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion and the cumulative National debt stood at 5.7 trillion. Even though during the previous twelve years of Republican rule preceding the Clinton Administration, the Federal debt had quadrupled, the White House and the Congressional Budget office projected that the National debt of 5.7 trillion would be retired in ten years. No one questioned these projections and this Republican Administration, with the blessings of the Chairman of the Fed. Alan Greenspan, expressed fear that without a tax cut the surplus would be too large. Well. We needn’t worry about that any more. The cumulative national debt is now 8.5 trillion. While huge sums are stolen, laws are written by lobbyist for their clients instead of by legislators for the American people, and pork is rampant with appropriations for bridges to nowhere. Citizens Against Government Waste calculates that pork barrel spending has exploded from 1,439 projects worth $10 billion in 1995 to 13,997 worth $27.3 billion in 2005. The “emergency” bill for Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war included $1.8m to promote art in West Virginia. At the same time taxes are slashed for a small minority of Republican campaign contributors. How do they propose to remedy this mess? They tell us our entitlements cost too much money. The say we can’t afford Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid anymore or loans and grants for needy college students.

In the meantime wages are stagnating. In the years 2000 to 2005 total compensation for workers, which includes wages, health insurance and pension benefits, declined 2.5% as a percent of gross domestic product, according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis. This contrasts with the 1990s when Workers’ share of the economy grew by 2.3%. What makes this even worse is that it happened while productivity was increasing rapidly.

As for unemployment an area where Republicans are bragging about the low rate, it should be noted that in 2000 just before Republicans seized the Presidency and enacted their “stimulating” tax cuts the unemployment rate stood at 4%. By 2003 it was up to 6% and it is finally down to 4.5% which they claim shows how well things are working. It took them 6 years to get it close to where it was when they seized power. The pain this has inflicted on real people can be seen from the fact that when Wallmart offered it’s extremely low paying jobs without benefits, desperate job seekers lined up. On one occasion 25,000 potential employees vied for 325 available jobs. On another 15,000 people lined up to try to snag one of the 400 available jobs.

Most incredibly, even the people who supposedly are the beneficiaries of the Bush policies have not fared well. The Investor Class, whose taxes have been slashed again and again, has not fared well in this Republican era. Between the ascendancy of a Republican President to go with a Republican Congress investors have actually lost money. At the close of the market on January 19, 2001 the day before Bush took office the Dow stood at 10,587. On October 30 2006, after a very strong run up during October it stood at 12,098 or a gain of 1,511 or 14%. During this period inflation caused purchasing power to decline by 15% or a net loss to investors of 1%. But the Dow is a poor measure of the stock market because it only tracks 30 carefully chosen stocks and they are not weighted equally, so that no one can invest in its index. The S&P 500 which tracks 500 of the largest companies is a much more meaningful indicator. It stood at 1,342 at the beginning of Republican ascendancy. On October 30 it was at 1,378, a difference of 36 or 2%. Factoring in inflation, investors in an S&P index fund lost 13%. If we look at the Nasdaq we find the respective figures to be 2,770.38 and 2,359.86 a loss of 411 points or a loss of 14%. When inflation is factored in that is a whopping 29 % loss.

WHY WOULD ANYONE VOTE REPUBLICAN?????????

It seems to me that the Republican Party not only does not deserve to govern but it cannot justify it’s very existence. It deserves to follow the way of the Whigs. It needs to disappear. Then the Democratic Party can and would split into two responsible parties and we would be governed by the people, and not by experts in deception and propaganda.

“The Only Thing We Have To Fear is Fear Itself”

Franklin Roosevelt famously said, “The Only Thing We Have To Fear is Fear Itself” The present Republican Administration and Al Qaeda urge us to be afraid.

Why do they do this? The Administration because they believe that if the country is sufficiently afraid it will cede a degree of power to them, unprecedented in American history, and support their goal of maintaining power ad infinitum.

Al Qaeda because they do not have the power to win against us militarily. They have no armies; they can only commit acts of terror. And what is the purpose of terror; it is to make people afraid. And making people afraid is their main and only weapon, for as Roosevelt said in that famous speech, “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” Would bringing down the Trade Center and killing over three thousand civilians bring America to its knees. Hardly! That could not be done by the destruction of two Trade Centers, nay not by the destruction of ten. But if Americans are afraid enough, become suspicious of each other, can be made to turn against each other, and against it’s Muslim inhabitants of somewhere between 2 and 6 million, -----Ah but what a victory- if they could turn those people or even a small portion of them into terrorists-, what a victory for Al Qaeda that would be.

Throughout the world there are between 700 million and 1.2 billion Muslims, most of whom now are on the sidelines trying to lead their lives peacefully, trying to feed their families. If they could turn those people, or even a small portion of them, into terrorists-, what a victory that would be.

But how can they accomplish this. The answer is they can’t. Only we can do that for them. And we will only do that for them if we are afraid enough.

In fact if we are afraid enough we will stop traveling by plane, and then by train and then hesitate to lead normal lives and our economy would collapse. What a victory that would be.

The Administration says those who criticize it are lending “Aid and Comfort to the enemy” No, it is this Administration that is “lending aid and comfort to the enemy.

They say they want to make us safe but they didn’t take the threat seriously enough to prevent 9/11. They say there was no magic bullet that could have prevented it. That is a lie. Long before 9/11 the Israeli’s had Air Marshals on their planes. They had reinforced cockpit doors on their planes. Why didn’t we do that? They say why didn’t Clinton do that? But Clinton foiled an attack on the Trade Center; On June 24, 1993 the Clinton Administration foiled a plot to bomb several New York City landmarks. The targets were the United Nations building, 26 Federal Plaza, and the Lincoln and Holland tunnels. The plotters were connected to Ramzi Yousef and Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman. If the bombing, planned for later in the year, had been successful, thousands would have died. Eight people were arrested. Clinton recommended extensive legislation to thwart future attacks but the Republican Congress said No! They wanted to get Clinton not Al Qaeda.

Bush had eight month before 9/11 with a friendly Republican Congress and he did nothing. Terrorism simply wasn’t on his agenda. He was planning to invade Iraq to show his Daddy that the egg was smarter than the chicken. But he knew the American people wouldn’t go along. And then 9/11 happened and he saw his opportunity. With the trauma of 9/11, and carefully orchestrated lies, he led the country to war. He sent our troops there without adequate equipment and without any plan for the post war. He believed in war but not nation building, and so he created a mess so bad that “all the horses and all the kings men can’t put Humpty Dumpty together again”

He sent our troops to Iraq where they are accomplishing nothing and are sitting ducks for the insurgence. Does he think that if he gives our enemies sacrificial lambs to slaughter, they will be less interested in hitting the homeland?

He talks about protecting the homeland. But when Democrats proposed the creation of a Department of Homeland Security he opposed it, and when the public demanded it, he made it appear that it was his idea all along and that was a lie. But then he insisted that all the employees of the new Department be stripped of Civil Service protection and when Democrats objected he turned it to his political advantage by claiming that Democrats only wanted to protect unions. In fact what he wanted, and what he did, was to turn the Department into a huge patronage mill of incompetents, as became apparent when the first test for the Department came before and after Hurricane Katrina. “Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job” has become immortal as symbolic of the incompetence and the president’s detachment.

Proposals to protect our ports by checking for radioactive devices before ships leave for our land are opposed by the Administration and the Republican Congress. They say it is too expensive and inconvenient. They refuse to institute measures to protect our chemical plants from attack.

And now it turns out that our president has ordered people to disappear. They call it rendition. People are kidnapped from anywhere on the globe because somebody thinks there is something suspicious about them and they are whisked to a secret location to be tortured, only it isn’t torture, it is, well its inflicting pain, its inflicting humiliation, but the president tells us it isn’t torture. Mr. President what is torture? What kind Orwellian world are you trying to create? How does Abu Graib differ from what you admit you have sanctioned.

And we will have courts where people, who the president has decided are guilty, will be tried to find out if they are guilty. They will not be allowed to see the evidence against them so they can’t rebut it, they may not even be allowed in court some of the time, and at the end they will be found guilty. Since we know they are guilty why do we need trials at all? Or as Alice in Wonderland said, “First the sentence, then the trial.”

Shades of Pinochet in Chile. He too was protecting the home front, and so was Alberto Fujimori in Peru. And so was the military in Argentina. They are always protecting us. Only who will protect us from them. Now Pinochet is facing trial in his own country, Fujimori is a fugitive and the military in Argentina are facing an uncertain fate.

I take it back! We should be afraid. We should be afraid of people in power who want more and more power to protect us. They are the real threat.

And that is not all. The lies have already started about Iran. They are not a government any of us like, and hopefully the Iranian people will take matters into their own hands and depose them, but do we want to go to war again. What would be the consequences of war? Iraq would be a picnic by comparison. Our oil supplies would be decimated and quite possibly, maybe even likely, we would face a worldwide recession or possibly even depression. But Bush has his mission and he will scare us with a little truth, a little half-truth, and a lot of lies and he will tell us, “Be Afraid”

Are the American people really so afraid and so naïve as to be taken for this ride?

The article in the Los Angeles Times entitled, "Bush Fails to Recapture the Nation’s Post-9/11 Unity" which can be found here is recommended reading.

Israeli Invasion of Lebanon- Summation

Let me conclude the discussion about the Israeli invasion of Lebanon by pointing out that there is now general agreement in Israel that the Lebanon campaign was a disaster. My own feeling is that it had none of the earmarks of the well planned Israeli campaigns of the past.

It had all the earmarks of the Bush/Rumsfeld bungling in Iraq and I would not be surprised if it was in fact planned by Rumsfeld. We keep hearing of this Administrations staunch support for Israel. It seems to me this Administration is not so much supporting Israel as using it. Israel is to test American bombs to see if they will work in a war with Iran which the Administration is ratcheting up for. As long as the Republican party rules in the U.S. there will be endless war and endless war profiteering. Our boys in Iraq are just cannon fodder for this war machine which wages war while in the process decimates our military.

Israel should never allow itself to became the pawn for this Administration in the Middle East. Ultimately the only real security for Israel is in peace and I for one have not despaired that this is possible. Land for peace is still the formula and it is not Democracy that Israel's neighbors need, but economic viability. Nor do I buy the oft stated proposition that there is no negotiating partner. Even Hamas has stated that it would negotiate if Israel would return to its 1967 borders. Yes, there are many who would settle for nothing less that the total destruction of Israel, but they would soon become an irrelevant force if enough Palestinians felt an economic stake in peace. Until they have that stake nothing will stop the carnage. I only wish we had the martyred, by an Israeli, Prime Minister Rabin. Israel's tragedy was the rise of Likud, even though it was Likud member, Menachim Begin (who like Nixon with China) negotiated peace with Egypt. There is still time, but time is running out. Too many have ben dragged into hate as a policy, which it is not, and into the believe that peace can be imposed. It is not enough for some of the settlements in the West Bank to be dismantled they must all be dismantled, but not unilaterally. They should be available for negotiations along with a willingness to spend what it takes to make a Palestinian state a viable economic unit tied by trade to Israel.

This is not a utopian dream. There are still people of good will on both sides but they are a dwindling number as every move by each side increases the divide and pushes the moderates into the ranks of the extremes. Time is running out but it has not yet. The Nancy Boymans and Jerry Wachsmans who have a cataclysmic vision of wiping all Muslims of the face of the earth are just as dangerous as the crazies on the Muslim side of the street, while the Christian fundamentalists seek only Armageddon as a biblical prophesy and see Israel as the pawn that will lead there.

NJ Sales & Property Taxes

Two events occurred recently. First I received an e-mail from an old friend who used to work for my Congressman in Montclair, Congressman Pascrell, and since I disagreed with the contents of his communication, I replied accordingly. Subsequently, I saw a Letter to the Editor written by the President of the New Jersey Chamber Commerce with which I agreed. I set forth a copy of the letter from the Chamber as it appeared in the Fort Lee Suburbanite.

August 4,2006 

Consolidating would help lower property taxes, rising

TO THE EDITOR: 

The elephant in the room during the recent state budget battle was property taxes and how to provide relief to people just trying to make ends meet. 

Our state leaders are rolling up their sleeves at a special summer session, hopefully producing long- term solutions and ending our dubious distinction of having the. highest per capita property taxes in the nation. Everyone involved in this debate knows that in order to enact real change, radical ideas will have to be accepted and the status quo will no longer be acceptable. Property tax reform will only happen when there is consolidation of some of the more than 1,000 layers of government that currently have taxing authority.

The rationale for this system is to allow for mass democratic involvement of our citizenry. We do not have mass involvement, only massive redundancies and the costs associated with them. Consolidation, however, would mean fewer schools, fire and police departments and municipal governments and more shared services - a frightening and confusing concept for residents accustomed to the way things have always been. 

At the conclusion of the budget battle. Governor Corzine won about $600 million to help balance the budget through the imposition of another cent on the sales tax, half of which would off- set operations. The other half of the penny earned has been earmarked for property tax relief, which clearly means different things to different people. 

I am concerned that the $600 million will become just another redistribution of funds, spread so thin that the impact will be nearly meaningless. Certainly senior citizens, those on fixed incomes and the working poor can well use any dollar they get. But is that the best use of the $600 million? 

We're getting to the point in New Jersey that the rebates offered in October constitute a single digit reduction of our ever raising taxes, if that. Used more creatively, the money could get at the heart of what really drives property taxes: Schools and municipal services. 

If the money were put into a fund to incentivize municipal and school consolidations, as the governor and some in the legislature have suggested, we'd see a significant and sustainable decrease in property taxes. Home rule seems to be the boogieman that everyone points to when saying that consolidations will never happen. I, for one, don't care what community's name is on the side of the fire truck when it arrives to douse the flames engulfing my home, I suspect that most would vote for consolidation if we were to quantify the cost of maintaining and growing our own fiefdoms. 

Let's get real about who we are and what can be done to make New Jersey more affordable for all of our families and employers. Let's provide significant amounts of money to those brave communities looking for ways to maintain quality services without driving taxpayers out of their homes and businesses. Other states have done it. 

In theory, we all want to control everything in our hometown. In practice, how many of us actually do anything to control our local destiny? Take a look at the turnout for the school board elections if you're looking for a clue. 

We work hard, take care of our kids and are bright, successful people. Hard to believe that we can't grasp what every large bank in the country has figured out. There are, indeed, economies of scale. Is it worth an additional S2,000 a year in property tax to be sure that the fire truck has your communities name on it? 

Joan Verplanck 
President 
New Jersey Chamber of Commerce

Upon seeing this letter I wrote my own praising the position of the Chamber of Commerce and also set forth my exchange with the former Congressional aide. I set forth a copy of my letter as it appeared in the Fort Lee Suburbanite. 

Scheller asks Schwartz how NJ Could cut taxes

TO THE EDITOR:

I would like to express my appreciation and agreement with the letter from the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce which appeared in the Aug. 4 edition of your paper. I want to add just one caveat and that is that the letter ends with a reference to consolidating fire services. That is the easy part. Schools are the sticking point.

On the subject of taxes I would like to share with your readers an exchange I had recently with a former Congressional aide, Stephen E. Schwartz.

Mr. Schwartz wrote:

"I have never started a grass-roots campaign, although as an aide to Congressman Bill Pascrell I certainly worked with a few. I now see the need to start the back to six campaign. If you are puzzled by the plan to raise the sales tax to 7 percent only to take half the money raised and give it back in the form of property tax relief then you are not alone. Since when is the government a revolving door for our money? "It does not take an accountant to see that the numbers do not add up. The average person will still pay more in taxes. The governor and the legislature need to hear from us or they will not realize how displeased we are by this increase. Given the slump in the real estate and stock markets, rising gas costs and rising interest rates,where will we find the money to pay an extra 1 percent on each and every purchase "Given the slump in the real estate and stock markets, rising gas costs and rising interest rates, where will we find the money to pay an extra 1 percent on each and every purchase? For example a gallon of milk now costs about two cents more and a Toyota Camry now costs $182 more.

"The working men and women of this state will be extremely squeezed by this increase. Even with this so-called property tax rebate, property taxes are still too high. Now the sales tax is too high. The cost of living in New Jersey is fast becoming too high. The excuse for the increase is that; New Jersey has a big debt. Well, forcing hard working people to leave New Jersey or simply spend less money will shrink the amount of taxes collected and result in more debt.

"We need to send the governor and the legislature back to the drawing board. Please forward this email to anyone you know and have them email me directly. I will then collect the thousands of emails and forward them to the Governor's office. If I get enough emails, I will alert the media as well. Thank you for your attention.”

To which I replied:

"I find myself puzzled and dismayed by the views set forth in your message. What exactly are you advocating? Is it that New Jersey should operate by running an ever larger deficit while its credit rating plummets and the interest on its debt goes higher and higher? Surely you are savvy enough to know that this is a formula for disaster. Are you advocating that New Jersey should balance its budget by cutting expenses? If so, please spell out where you believe the cuts should be made. Should they be made in Medicaid? In highway maintenance? In the maintenance of state parks? In aid to school districts? Where do you believe cuts can be made without a cut in essential services?

"If you are objecting to the fact that the increase in the sales tax will not deal with the deficit if it is to be used to defray real estate taxes and that it should be dedicated to its original purpose to close the budget deficit as Governor Corzine intended, than I can see merit in your position, but that is hardly clear from your campaign.

"If you are arguing that a surcharge to the income tax would make more sense, particularly if it were to be limited to upper incomes such as more than $100,000, because a sales tax is regressive while the income tax is at least moderately progressive, than I can see the merit of such an argument.

"But if you are simply against all tax increases without discussing alternatives than I suggest that you are indulging in demagoguery worthy of our Republican 'friends'.

"I think you owe it to me and all those to whom you directed your appeal to explain exactly what your position is, and exactly what you are advocating”

I never received a response.

Prevarications By Supporters of Israel’s Invasion Of Lebanon

I recently received what purported to be a message that was delivered by the Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, and was supposedly published in Maariv on July 31, 2006. It turns out that the message was a hoax. It was written by one Ben Caspit, and published on a blog called NRG under the title “We Will Not Capitulate.” It was also posted on a blog called Pundit Review.

Even though it was a hoax, or at least not anything Olmert said, I believe it deserves a response because its arguments may have appeal to many and because it contains exaggerations that are so gross as to amount to lies and is in other ways misleading.

The message follows: (With my rebuttal interjected in indented form and in a contrasting color).

“Ladies and gentlemen, leaders of the world, I, the Prime Minister of Israel, am speaking to you from Jerusalem in the face of the terrible pictures from Kfar Kana. Any human heart, wherever it is, must sicken and recoil at the sight of such pictures. There are no words of comfort that can mitigate the enormity of this tragedy. Still, I am looking you straight in the eye and telling you that the State of Israel will continue its military campaign in Lebanon.

“The Israel Defense Forces will continue to attack targets from which missiles and Katyusha rockets are fired at hospitals, old age homes and kindergartens in Israel. I have instructed the security forces and the IDF to continue to hunt for the Katyusha stockpiles and launch sites from which these savages are bombarding the State of Israel. We will not hesitate, we will not apologize and we will not back off. If they continue to launch missiles into Israel from Kfar Kana, we will continue to bomb Kfar Kana.

“Today, tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. Here, there and everywhere.

My objection to this it that it gives the impression that the present conflict was started as a result Katyusha rockets fired at Israel from Lebanon. This is not true. The rockets were not fired from Lebanon until after Israel responded to what was a minor provocation, i.e. two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped, and three others were killed. A similar foray several years ago led to a prisoner-swap deal that saw hundreds of Palestinian detainees released, as well as prominent Lebanese held for decades by Israel. Thus Hezbollah had every reason to expect a similar reaction. Instead what has been achieved? As of 8 August 2006, 102 Israeli deaths, 690 Israelis injured, 500,000 Israeli’s displaced; 998 Lebanese dead, (mostly non combatants), 3,493 Lebanese injured, 915,762 Lebanese displaced. (Mostly non-combatants) and more and more rockets are raining down on Israel.

“The children of Kfar Kana could now be sleeping peacefully in their homes, unmolested, had the agents of the devil not taken over their land and turned the lives of our children into hell. Ladies and gentlemen, it's time you understood: the Jewish state will no longer be trampled upon. We will no longer allow anyone to exploit population centers in order to bomb our citizens. No one will be able to hide anymore behind women and children in order to kill our women and children. This anarchy is over. You can condemn us, you can boycott us, you can stop visiting us and, if necessary, we will stop visiting you.

The reference to “turned the lives of our children into hell” again implies that Israeli children were being bombed. This was not the case.

“Today I am serving as the voice of six million bombarded Israeli citizens who serve as the voice of six million murdered Jews who were melted down to dust and ashes by savages in Europe. In both cases, those responsible for these evil acts were, and are, barbarians devoid of all humanity, who set themselves one simple goal: to wipe the Jewish people off the face of the earth, as Adolph Hitler said, or to wipe the State of Israel off the map, as Mahmoud Ahmedinjad proclaims.

There is no doubt that Iran and Hezbollah would like to wipe the state of Israel off the map but that is a reality that has existed from various changing sources ever since the state was born. The question is not what they would wish, but how to deal with a wish as opposed to a real threat intelligently and without a total disregard for non-combatants. As to the reference to the six million Jews killed by the Nazis, that is an emotional reference, which has no bearing on present realities.

“And you - just as you did not take those words seriously then, you are ignoring them again now. And that, ladies and gentlemen, leaders of the world, will not happen again. Never again will we wait for bombs that never came to hit the gas chambers. Never again will we wait for salvation that never arrives. Now we have our own air force. The Jewish people are now capable of standing up to those who seek their destruction – those people will no longer be able to hide behind women and children. They will no longer be able to evade their responsibility. Every place from which a Katyusha is fired into the State of Israel will be a legitimate target for us to attack.

The reference to the rockets is constant but none were fired until after Israel’s unwise attack.

“This must be stated clearly and publicly, once and for all.

“You are welcome to judge us, to ostracize us, to boycott us and to vilify us. But to kill us? Absolutely not.

“Four months ago I was elected by hundreds of thousands of citizens to the office of Prime Minister of the government of Israel, on the basis of my plan

“my plan” – it was not his plan. It was Sharon’s

for unilaterally withdrawing from 90 percent of the areas of Judea and Samaria,

There is no indication that the Sharon plan called for withdrawal from 90% of the west bank. The reference to the areas as Judea and Samaria shows that the author belongs to the annexationists who consider the west bank to be part of Israel and advocate ethnic cleansing.

the birth place and cradle of the Jewish people; to end most of the occupation and to enable the Palestinian people to turn over a new leaf and to calm things down until conditions are ripe for attaining a permanent settlement between us. The Prime Minister who preceded me, Ariel Sharon, made a full withdrawal from the Gaza Strip back to the international border, and gave the Palestinians there a chance to build a new reality for themselves.

This was not done “to enable the Palestinian people to turn over a new leaf and to calm things down,” it was done because Sharon finally realized the impossibility of maintaining a situation which he had created in building the settlements. The settlements were and continue to be a lodestone around Israel’s neck. Since they were and are invariably in Arab territory they required Israeli troops in numbers out of all proportion to the settlers being protected, thus tying down and exposing those troops unnecessarily. In addition Sharon finally realized that Israel could either let the Arabs vote and end up being a minority in it’s own state or keep them from citizenship and give up all pretense to being a democracy. It was to avoid these problems and not out of an unrealistic hope that Arab hostility would dissipate that Sharon made his decision to dismantle many settlements.

The Prime Minister who preceded him, Ehud Barak, ended the lengthy Israeli presence in Lebanon and pulled the IDF back to the international border, leaving the land of the cedars to flourish, develop and establish its democracy and its economy.

The withdrawal from Lebanon was also a pragmatic tactical move. Israeli defense forces were being constantly harassed and exposed and there was general agreement in Israel that it was in an untenable position.

“What did the State of Israel get in exchange for all of this? Did we win even one minute of quiet? Was our hand, outstretched in peace, met with a handshake of encouragement?

Nothing! And it expected nothing. No, that is not entirely true. The period following Arafat’s death was one of the quietest Israel had experienced and Hamas had declared a truce.

Ehud Barak's peace initiative at Camp David let loose on us a wave of suicide bombers

This is another falsehood. The Intifada was caused by Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount with a large contingent of Israeli police. This was a deliberate provocation intended to provoke an Intifada which Sharon knew would assure his election.

who smashed and blew to pieces over 1,000 citizens, men, women and children. I don't remember you being so enraged then. Maybe that happened because we did not allow TV close-ups of the dismembered body parts of the Israeli youngsters at the Dolphinarium?

The reference to 1,000 is a deliberate exaggeration bordering on a lie. Twenty Israelis were killed and over 90 others were wounded at the Tel Aviv disco Dolphinarium.

Or of the shattered lives of the people butchered while celebrating the Passover Seder at the Park Hotel in Netanya?

Thirty people were killed and 140 injured - 20 seriously – that is not to minimize the lives lost, the injured whose lives will never be the same or the grief of the survivors. But in any serious presentation the truth is always to be valued.

“What can you do - that's the way we are. We don't wave body parts at the camera. We grieve quietly. We do not dance on the roofs at the sight of the bodies of our enemy's children - we express genuine sorrow and regret. That is the monstrous behavior of our enemies. Now they have risen up against us. Tomorrow they will rise up against you. You are already familiar with the murderous taste of this terror. And you will taste more.

“And Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza -- what did it get us? A barrage of Kassem missiles fired at peaceful settlements and the kidnapping of soldiers. Then too, I don't recall you reacting with such alarm.

Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) the president of the P.L.O. expressed great alarm and in fact there was a firefight between his forces and Hamas over this.

And for six years, the withdrawal from Lebanon has drawn the vituperation and crimes of a dangerous, extremist Iranian agent, who took over an entire country in the name of religious fanaticism, and is trying to take Israel hostage on his way to Jerusalem - and from there to Paris and London.

There is no connection between the withdrawal from Lebanon and the extremism of Iran.

An enormous terrorist infrastructure has been established by Iran on our border, threatening our citizens, growing stronger before our very eyes, awaiting the moment when the land of the Ayatollahs becomes a nuclear power in order to bring us to our knees. And make no mistake - we won't go down alone. You, the leaders of the free and enlightened world, will go down along with us.

“So today, here and now, I am putting an end to this parade of hypocrisy. I don't recall such a wave of reaction in the face of the 100 citizens killed every single day in Iraq. Sunnis kill Shiites who kill Sunnis, and all of them kill Americans - and the world remains silent.

Not true! The slaughter in Iraq has drawn the horror of the world. The American invasion loosed that horror on the Iraqi people, just as the Israeli invasion has loosed horror on the Lebanese people.

And I am hard pressed to recall a similar reaction when the Russians destroyed entire villages and burned down large cities in order to repress the revolt in Chechnya.

Not true! There was a strong reaction even though the Chechnya’s resorted to terror tactics.

And when NATO bombed Kosovo for almost three months and crushed the civilian population - then you also kept silent.

Kosovo was the west’s finest hour. We went to the defense of people being subjected to ethnic cleansing. If only we would do the same in Darfur.

“What is it about us, the Jews, the minority, the persecuted, that arouses this cosmic sense of justice in you? What do we have that all the others don't? In a loud clear voice, looking you straight in the eye, I stand before you openly and I will not apologize. I will not capitulate. I will not whine. This is a battle for our freedom. For our humanity. For the right to lead normal lives within our recognized, legitimate borders.

“It is also your battle.

“I pray and I believe that now you will understand that. Because if you don't, you may regret it later, when it's too late.”

The West will always support Israel, as it has whenever Israel was attacked. A blank check is neither in Israel’s interest nor in the interest of the rest of the world. Speaking for myself, I will not shrink from criticizing the actions either of my government or of the government of Israel. As a Jew and a survivor of Hitler’s holocaust I value the survival of Israel as much, if not more than most, but that is exactly why I feel the obligation to speak out when I believe that is what is called for.

Israel-Invasion of Lebanon-Pro and Con (Continued)

I believe an article in the New Yorker which is also critical of Israel's action in its invasion of Lebanon in worth reading. It can be found here.

Israel-Invasion of Lebanon-Pro and Con

In my posting of July 26, 2006, I indicated that Robert Malchman of Manhattan, NY was kind enough to send me an article that takes a very different view from mine, Kristoff's and the New Yorker. It can be found here.

However, I wish to post the article in full here with my rebuttal. I am reproducing the article in black and interject my comments in a contrasting color.

MIDDLE EAST CRISIS: BACKGROUNDER
Israel lives with three realities: geographic, demographic and cultural. Geographically, it is at a permanent disadvantage, lacking strategic depth. It does enjoy the advantage of interior lines -- the ability to move forces
rapidly from one front to another.

At one time this may have been relevant. After numerous wars it is evident that whatever geographic disadvantages it may have, it can and has defeated the combined forces of all the Arab countries. The threat to Israel militarily, has if anything diminished greatly. With the Soviet Union gone as a supplier of armaments and with the two largest Arab states, Egypt and Jordan, having signed formal peace treaties with Israel there is no military threat to Israel. The only threat to Israel is from terrorists and while these remain a threat not to be minimized they are not an existential threat.

Demographically, it is on the whole outnumbered, although it can achieve local superiority in numbers by choosing the time and place of war. Its greatest advantage is cultural. It has a far greater mastery of the technology and culture of war than its neighbors.

The demographics too are irrelevant. The demographics have always been heavily against Israel but have had no bearing on its ability to win every war it has fought. This has not changed in any way so as to change the dynamics against Israel.

Two of the realities cannot be changed. Nothing can be done about geography or demography. Culture can be changed. It is not inherently the case that Israel will have a technological or operational advantage over its neighbors. The great inherent fear of Israel is that the Arabs will equal or surpass Israeli prowess culturally and therefore militarily. If that were to happen, then all three realities would turn against Israel and Israel might well be at risk.

It is to be hoped that the culture will change. Rather than increasing the risk to Israel if such a change were to take place it would make possible a final co-existence since a modern culture would focus on creating and keeping prosperity and only peace can assure that.

That is why the capture of Israeli troops, first one in the south, then two in the north, has galvanized Israel. The kidnappings represent a level of Arab tactical prowess that previously was the Israeli domain. They also represent a level of tactical slackness on the Israeli side that was previously the Arab domain. These events hardly represent a fundamental shift in the balance of power. Nevertheless, for a country that depends on its cultural superiority, any tremor in this variable reverberates dramatically. Hamas and Hezbollah have struck the core Israeli nerve. Israel cannot ignore it.

This is utter nonsense. There is no indication that infiltrating a few terrorists into Israel who instead of blowing themselves up, capture two soldiers shows any increased Arab tactical prowess. The rockets being fired are very inaccurate and have caused little damage and few casualties and were not fired from Lebanon until after Israel attacked.

Embedded in Israel's demographic problem is this: Israel has national security requirements that outstrip its manpower base. It can field a sufficient army, but its industrial base cannot supply all of the weapons needed to fight high-intensity conflicts. This means it is always dependent on an outside source for its industrial base and must align its policies with that source. At first this was the Soviets, then France and finally the United States. Israel broke with the Soviets and France when their political demands became too intense. It was after 1967 that it entered into a patron-client relationship with the United States. This relationship is its strength and its weakness. It gives the Israelis the systems they need for national security, but since U.S. and Israeli interests diverge, the relationship constrains Israel's range of action.

The US is a very reliable ally. If anything it is too reliable for Israel’s own good for the blank check given by the bush administration encourages adventurism, rather than restraint which is in Israel’s long range interests.

During the Cold War, the United States relied on Israel for a critical geopolitical function. The fundamental U.S. interest was Turkey, which controlled the Bosporus and kept the Soviet fleet under control in the Mediterranean. The emergence of Soviet influence in Syria and Iraq – which was not driven by U.S. support for Israel since the United States did not provide all that much support compared to France -- threatened Turkey with attack from two directions, north and south. Turkey could not survive this. Israel drew Syrian attention away from Turkey by threatening Damascus and drawing forces and Soviet equipment away from the Turkish frontier. Israel helped secure Turkey and turned a Soviet investment into a dry hole.

It is not at all apparent what bearing, if accurate, has on the present. Turkey has been a member of NATO for a very long time.

Once Egypt signed a treaty with Israel and Sinai became a buffer zone, Israel became safe from a full peripheral war -- everyone attacking at the same time. Jordan was not going to launch an attack and Syria by itself could not strike.

Exactly! See my comments above.

The danger to Israel became Palestinian operations inside of Israel and the occupied territories and the threat posed from Lebanon by the Syrian-sponsored group Hezbollah.
In 1982, Israel responded to this threat by invading Lebanon. It moved as far north as Beirut and the mountains east and northeast of it. Israel did not invade Beirut proper, since Israeli forces do not like urban warfare as it imposes too high a rate of attrition. But what the Israelis found was low-rate attrition. Throughout their occupation of Lebanon, they were constantly experiencing guerrilla attacks, particularly from Hezbollah.
Hezbollah has two patrons: Syria and Iran.

Correct!

The Syrians have used Hezbollah to pursue their political and business interests in Lebanon. Iran has used Hezbollah for business and ideological reasons. Business interests were the overlapping element. In the interest of business, it became important to Hezbollah, Syria and Iran that an accommodation be reached with Israel. Israel wanted to withdraw from Lebanon in order to end the constant low-level combat and losses. Israel withdrew in 1988, having reached quiet understandings with Syria that Damascus would take responsibility for Hezbollah, in return for which Israel would not object to Syrian domination of Lebanon.

If this is true driving Syria out of Lebanon may have been a mistake.

Iran, deep in its war with Iraq, was not in a position to object if it had wanted to. Israel returned to its borders in the north, maintaining a security presence in the south of Lebanon that lasted for several years. As Lebanon blossomed and Syria's hold on it loosened, Iran also began to increase its regional influence. Its hold on some elements of Hezbollah strengthened, and in recent months, Hezbollah -- aligning itself with Iranian Shiite ideology -- has become more aggressive. Iranian weapons were provided to Hezbollah, and tensions grew along the frontier. This culminated in the capture of two soldiers in the north and the current crisis. It is difficult to overestimate the impact of the soldier kidnappings on the Israeli psyche.

In the past when an Israeli soldier was captured Israel was willing to negotiate an exchange. Apparently Hezbollah depended on this precedence and was not expecting or desiring a major confrontation but felt if one came it was to its advantage because it would further weaken Lebanon’s central government and cause chaos which always benefits it and helps it’s recruitment.

First, while the Israeli military is extremely highly trained, Israel is also a country with mass conscription. Having a soldier kidnapped by Arabs hits every family in the country. The older generation is shocked and outraged that members of the younger generation have been captured and worried that they allowed themselves to be captured; therefore, the younger generation needs to prove it too can defeat the Arabs. This is not a primary driver, but it is a dimension.

The willingness to wage war because two soldiers were captured is irrational. It has led to many more Israeli soldiers being killed without the captured soldiers being returned.

The more fundamental issue is this: Israel withdrew from Lebanon in order to escape low-intensity conflict. If Hezbollah is now going to impose low-intensity conflict on Israel's border, the rationale for withdrawal disappears. It is better for Israel to fight deep in Lebanon than inside Israel. If the rockets are going to fall in Israel proper, then moving into a forward posture has no cost to Israel.

From an international standpoint, the Israelis expect to be condemned. These international condemnations, however, are now having the opposite effect of what is intended. The Israeli view is that they will be condemned regardless of what they do. The differential between the condemnation of reprisal attacks and condemnation of a full invasion is not enough to deter more extreme action. If Israel is going to be attacked anyway, it might as well achieve its goals.

Moreover, an invasion of Hezbollah-held territory aligns Israel with the United States. U.S. intelligence has been extremely concerned about the growing activity of Hezbollah, and U.S. relations with Iran are not good.

Lebanon is the center of gravity of Hezbollah, and the destruction of Hezbollah capabilities in Lebanon, particularly the command structure, would cripple Hezbollah operations globally in the near future.

This is more nonsense! Hezbollah has never had global operations.

The United States would very much like to see that happen, but cannot do it itself. Moreover, an Israeli action would enrage the Islamic world, but it would also drive home the limits of Iranian power. Once again, Iran would have dropped Lebanon in the grease, and not been hurt itself. The lesson of Hezbollah would not be lost on the Iraqi Shia -- or so the Bush administration would hope.

This may be the crux of the matter. It may be that the bush administration is hoping that Israel will get it’s chestnuts out of the fire and is not only not restraining Israel but is using Israel to try to gain political points in the upcoming us elections. It is totally unrealistic to believe that what Israel does will have any effect on Iraqi Shia. The bush administration has blown Iraq and nothing – nothing will save the situation there. Iraq will be chaotic and an ally of Iran no matter what. If Iraq is part of the equation than Bush and Co. are using Israel for their own purposes.

Therefore, this is one Israeli action that benefits the United States, and thus helps the immediate situation as well as long-term geopolitical alignments. It realigns the United States and Israel. This also argues that any invasion must be devastating to Hezbollah. It must go deep. It must occupy temporarily. It must shatter Hezbollah.

It is not at all clear that this is possible but bush and co. Have constantly tried the impossible only to fail miserably. Israelis need to hope for a more responsible administration in Washington.

At this point, the Israelis appear to be unrolling a war plan in this direction. They have blockaded the Lebanese coast. Israeli aircraft are attacking what air power there is in Lebanon, and have attacked Hezbollah and other key command-and-control infrastructure. It would follow that the Israelis will now concentrate on destroying Hezbollah -- and Lebanese -- communications capabilities and attacking munitions dumps, vehicle sites, rocket-storage areas and so forth.

Most important, Israel is calling up its reserves. This is never a symbolic gesture in Israel. All Israelis below middle age are in the reserves and mobilization is costly in every sense of the word. If the Israelis were planning a routine reprisal, they would not be mobilizing. But they are, which means they are planning to do substantially more than retributive airstrikes. The question is what their plan is.

Given the blockade and what appears to be the shape of the airstrikes, it seems to us at the moment the Israelis are planning to go fairly deep into Lebanon. The logical first step is a move to the Litani River in southern Lebanon. But given the missile attacks on Haifa, they will go farther, not only to attack launcher sites, but to get rid of weapons caches. This means a move deep into the Bekaa Valley, the seat of Hezbollah power and the location of plants and facilities. Such a penetration would leave Israeli forces' left flank open, so a move into Bekaa would likely be accompanied by attacks to the west. It would bring the Israelis close to Beirut again.

This leaves Israel's right flank exposed, and that exposure is to Syria. The Israeli doctrine is that leaving Syrian airpower intact while operating in Lebanon is dangerous. Therefore, Israel must at least be considering using its air force to attack Syrian facilities, unless it gets ironclad assurances the Syrians will not intervene in any way. Conversations are going on between Egypt and Syria, and we suspect this is the subject. But Israel would not necessarily object to the opportunity of eliminating Syrian air power as part of its operation, or if Syria chooses, going even further.

At the same time, Israel does not intend to get bogged down in Lebanon again. It will want to go in, wreak havoc, withdraw. That means it will go deeper and faster, and be more devastating, than if it were planning a long-term
occupation. It will go in to liquidate Hezbollah and then leave. True, this is no final solution, but for the Israelis, there are no final solutions.

A peace treaty with a Palestinian state is the final and only final solution. It is not true that there is no negotiating partner. Abu Mazen wants negotiations and even Hamas has indicated a willingness to negotiate if the ’67 borders are not ruled out of the negotiations.

Israeli forces are already in Lebanon. Its special forces are inside identifying targets for airstrikes. We expect numerous air attacks over the next 48 hours, as well as reports of firefights in southern Lebanon. We also expect more rocket attacks on Israel. It will take several days to mount a full invasion of Lebanon. We would not expect major operations before the weekend at the earliest. If the rocket attacks are taking place, however, Israel might send several brigades to the Litani River almost immediately in order to move the rockets out of range of Haifa. Therefore, we would expect a rapid operation in the next 24-48 hours followed by a larger force later.

At this point, the only thing that can prevent this would be a major intervention by Syria with real guarantees that it would restrain Hezbollah and indications such operations are under way. Syria is the key to a peaceful resolution. Syria must calculate the relative risks, and we expect them to be unwilling to act decisively.

If Israel was being seriously threatened and I don’t believe they were, pressure on Syria and if necessary an attack in that direction would have made more sense than a strike at Lebanon with its huge toll in civilian casualties, the creation of hundreds of thousands of refugees and the destruction of the infrastructure in a state which wants peace with Israel and until Israel’s invasion wanted to disarm Hezbollah but lacked the power.

What we are seeing both in Lebanon as well as in Iraq is an attitude that American and Israeli lives are valuable but the lives of others, whether in Iraq, Lebanon or Darfur have no value. It is a morality and an equation I am not willing to countenance.

Therefore:
1. Israel cannot tolerate an insurgency on its northern frontier; if there is one, it wants it farther north.
2. It cannot tolerate attacks on Haifa.
3. It cannot endure a crisis of confidence in its military
4. Hezbollah cannot back off of its engagement with Israel.
5. Syria can stop this, but the cost to it stopping it is higher than the cost of letting it go on. It would appear Israel will invade Lebanon.

True.

The global response will be noisy. There will be no substantial international action against Israel.

True, but recruitment for Hezbollah and Al Quaeda will be enhanced, a major victory for those forces.

Beirut's tourism and transportation industry, as well as its financial sectors, are very much at risk.

Lebanon, which had begun to thrive again is being destroyed with enormous civilian casualties, hundreds of thousands of refugees and the total destruction of its infrastructure which is not to the advantage of Israel or the U.S. and morality is the ultimate casualty. If we lose that sense of morality all else is worthless.

Israel - Invasion of Lebanon

In the July 21, 2001 issue of my local newspaper there was an article with the heading, "A Sore Loser Forever." It referred to the French/Italian soccer match in which the French may have lost the match because their star player allowed himself to be provoked into an act of violence against an Italian player who had again and again trash talked about the French player's mother and sister. Wasn't it obvious that in reacting as he did, the Frenchman did exactly what the Italian wanted, i.e. he got himself tossed from the game not only depriving the French of their best player but leaving them with one player less on the field.

I mention this because this is type of behavior is playing itself out again and again in the Middle East. Arab terrorists fire rockets from recently evacuated Gaza and take an Israeli soldier captive. Why do they do this? Because they think that will cause Israel to collapse? No, they want to keep stoking the fires! They want Israel to retaliate and hopefully kill many civilians thus radicalizing more Palestinians and helping their recruiting efforts. Israel obliges just like the French soccer player and with similar results.

So what happens? Now that Israel’s enemies know that Israel can be relied upon to do what they want, Hamas and Hezbollah provoke Israel from Lebanon and Israel obliges radicalizing the Lebanese and getting more recruits for Hezbollah.

In the process few of the belligerents get killed. Many innocent civilians are killed and maimed and the Lebanese economy, which was just beginning to revive after years of internecine warfare, is destroyed. It does not discourage or hurt Hezbollah but it satisfies the rage in Israel.

Unfortunately this works both ways.

Right after Arafat turned down the Clinton sponsored peace plan, there was still a chance that negotiations would continue and peace might yet be achieved. So Sharon went to the Temple Mount with a large contingent of Israeli police. The purpose was to incite the Arabs so as to kill any chance of peace and provoke an intifada that would assure his victory in the imminent elections. Arafat and the Arabs obliged and did what Sharon wanted and Sharon won the election.

In fact the radical Arabs have always feared the moderates in Israel and so before every election there would be a new intifada intended to radicalize Israelis and assure the election of a right wing government that in turn would radicalize Palestinians. Most of the time the Israeli public has obliged.

What is it that makes people in sports or in politics behave in such a self-defeating manner? Must one always oblige ones opponents or enemies?

I dispatched this letter to the editor on Monday, July 17 but was glad to note that I was not alone in this view when the following day, July 18, Nicholas D. Kristoff in the NY Times expressed a similar view. You can find Kristoff's column entitled "Feeding the Enemy" on the web here. An article in the New Yorker of July 31, 2006 also takes a similar view.

Since then the barbarity of Israel's attacks offends all sense of decency and common sense. Lebanon, a multicultural country that was once the oasis of the Middle East, and having ejected the Syrians was looking forward to becoming a beacon of sanity and modernity in a part of the world that lacks both for the most part, is being systematically destroyed. The casualties being inflicted on its civilian population, including children, offends all sense of decency. Israel is defended on the ground that it does not deliberately target civilians but the reckless endangerment of bystanders differs only slightly from the acts of deliberate murder practiced by it's enemies, both in morality and in law.

Robert Malchman of Manhattan, NY was kind enough to send me an article that takes a very different view from mine and Kristoff's. It can be found here.

The High Price of Gasoline

I have recently received an e-mail from two different sources that is being circulated on the web. For those who may not have seen it or don't remember it, I reproduce it below:

"This was originally sent by a retired Coca Cola executive. It came from one of his engineer buddies who retired from Halliburton. It's worth your consideration.

Join the resistance!!!! I hear we are going to hit close to $4.00 a gallon by next summer and it might go higher!! Want gasoline prices to come down? We need to take some intelligent, united action. Phillip Hollsworth offered this good idea.

This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the "don't buy gas on a certain day" campaign that was going around last April or May! The oil companies just laughed at that because they knew we wouldn't continue to "hurt" ourselves by refusing to buy gas. It was more of an inconvenience to us than it was a problem for them.

BUT, whoever thought of this idea, has come up with a plan that can really work. Please read on and join with us! By now you're probably thinking gasoline priced at about $1.50 is super cheap. Me too! It is currently $2.79 for regular unleaded in my town. Now that the oil companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us to think that the cost of a gallon of gas is CHEAP at $1.50 - $175, we need to take aggressive action to teach them that BUYERS control the marketplace..... not sellers.
With the price of gasoline going up more each day, we consumers need to take action. The only way we are going to see the price of gas come down is if we hit someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their gas! And, we can do that WITHOUT hurting ourselves. How? Since we all rely on our cars, we can't just stop buying gas. But we CAN have an impact on gas
prices if we all act together to force a price war.

Here's the idea:

For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not selling any gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit. But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon and Mobil gas buyers. It's really simple to do! Now, don't wimp out at this point.... keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people.

I am sending this note to 30 people. If each of us sends it to at least ten more (30 x 10 =3D 300) ... and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 =3D 3,000)...and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth group of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers. If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends each,
then 30 million people will have been contacted! If it goes one level"

I am amazed that so many hair-brained schemes are so readily and so enthusiastically distributed on the web and the issues that prompt this outpouring of indignation. In this case it is the high price of gasoline.

First of all there are hundreds of people dying in the Dafur genocide. There are hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dying in their country even without counting our own brave soldiers. Our own country causes people to disappear - they call it rendition - and to be tortured. Some may very well be terrorists, but others are totally innocent and after being tortured are told, "so sorry, we made a mistake!" How many are never heard of again because their disposition covers up the mistake, we will never know.

We are having our phones tapped without any court warrants as provided for by our constitution and our laws. They tell us that this only involves the bad guys but how do we know. Our President tells us "Trust Me" but can we, as the Congress dominated by his cronies’ refuses to exercise any oversight. Corruption is rife. Legislation, inserted in the dead of night called "Earmarks" rewards those willing to pay either by so-called campaign contributions or by outright gifts of vacations and other "gratuities". This costs us untold billions while the Congress refuses to change the "system".

My friends there is a serious cancer growing on our body politic and we ought to rise up in anger and outrage.

BUT WHAT IS IT THAT TRULY OUTRAGES US! HIGH GASOLINE PRICES. I hate to say it but high gasoline prices are good for our nation. If high gasoline prices will cause us to use less gasoline that is a positive good. It would be better if the windfall from these high prices went into our government coffers where it could be used to repair our highways and our infrastructure, instead of into the pockets of the oil companies, but there is a finite amount of oil that can be pumped and no one has yet found a way to repeal the law of supply and demand. If the world tries to buy more oil than can be produced by suppliers prices will rise. Is there a way to prevent this? Yes! It was done during World War II. It is done with price controls and rationing. The time may come when this will be necessary but it isn't necessary yet and hopefully it will not become necessary. It should be used only during true emergencies.

I can think of many reasons not to buy from Exxon-Mobil. They are environmental predators. But boycotting them will not bring down oil prices. That is a pipe dream! What is driving the high price of gasoline is the high price of oil and that is a price that is a world price and it makes no difference where the oil is bought.

A while ago we heard of boycotting oil from the Middle East. Then it turned out that we only buy a small portion of our oil from the Middle East. Most of it we buy from Venezuela. But it makes no difference. In a sellers market if one country doesn't buy it another will. This is a true case of globalization.
Why the sudden rise in oil prices. Well the Iraq war is one. Iraq is pumping less oil now than under the oil for food program. China and India are another. They keep buying more and more. The saber rattling against Iran is probably the most immediate cause. The world and the oil markets are nervous about a cut off from that major source.

There is no short-range solution. Oil prices will fluctuate up and down over the months and maybe years to come. But there is only one trend in the long run and that is up. Get used to it!!!!!!! Get smaller, efficient cars.

Is there something our government can do? Yes! But its effects will only be long term. We can spend billions to develop alternate fuels, efficient means for using those fuels, while making sure that they do not spew CO2 into the air. If we do this we will become the suppliers to the world , a boon to our economy and to job creation and save the world in the process.

THERE ARE NO QUICK FIXES!!!!!! JUST AS THERE ARE NO FREE LUNCHES!!!!!!