People Can’t Seem To Get Their Facts Right!

Not long ago a Letter to the Editor appeared in the North Jersey Record. I reproduce it below:

Since it may be difficult to read, as reproduced from the newspaper I set forth the text below:

U.S. needs all the friends it can get

 Two things really trouble me.

 One is that the United States always stood by the mantra of “We do not negotiate with terrorists."

 Iran is a main player in terrorism. Our sanctions are really doing the job. We should stay the course and make them come to us for a deal.

 Also, Israel and the United States shared a great friendship under the leadership of every past president, except President Obama, who seems determined to change that relationship.

 These are very dangerous times with terrorist groups popping up everywhere. We need to keep every friend we have if we are going to win this battle.

 Sam Levine 

Oakland, March 25

Since the facts set forth in this letter were flagrantly erroneous, and since I am a stickler for factual accuracy I dispatched a Letter to the Editor of the Record a reproduction of which appears below.

As I indicated above, the reproduction may be difficult to read and so I reproduce the text below:

U.S.- Iran Negotiations 

 Regarding "U.S. needs all the friends it can get": 

 The letter writer shows ignorance of the relevant facts.

 He writes "Israel and the United States shared a great friendship under the leadership of every past president..." 

 That isn't true. 

 In 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower threatened to cut off private donations to Israel, along with other measures, including ending military assistance. In 1975, President Gerald Ford ordered arms deliveries to Israel frozen and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger ordered Israel to be put "at the bottom of the list." President Ronald Reagan in 1985 told reporters "the bloodshed must stop," adding, "I lost patience a long time ago." One year earlier, the United States voted to condemn Israel at the Security Council and temporarily blocked the sale of four F-16s to Jerusalem. And in 1991, President George H.W. Bush didn't want to guarantee loans unless the Israelis promised not to build housing over the so-called Green Line. 

 The non-partisan Foreign Policy magazine
 headlined an article two years ago with "Obama has been great for Israel - anyone who tells you otherwise is distorting reality." 

 As for Iran, the writer says, "We should ... make them come to us for a deal."That is exactly what has happened. They have come to us for a deal. Now we need to consummate it, rather than lose the opportunity. Are there any realistic alternatives? 

 Emil Scheller 

Fort Lee, March 30 

As usual, comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

We are Americans!

In my post I entitled "The Media in General and the New York Times in Particular" I decried the tendency on the part of the media and in that case PBS to “create an artificial or false equivalence…”

That is even truer as between the parties. As I watch the present campaign rhetoric and compare it to history I am struck by the fact that Democrats, as a group tend to be more American first and Democrats second, while the reverse is true about Republicans.

This came to me quite by accident as I was reviewing some old material on my computer. I found the following first person description of one who was in the World Trade Center on 9/11. It is very dramatic and I urge the reader to read it here. 

But the point that struck me most of all was the ending of that piece. Allow me to quote it here:

Today the images that people around the world equate with power and democracy are gone but “America” is not an image it is a concept. That concept is only strengthened by our pulling together as a team. If you want to kill us, leave us alone because we will do it by ourselves. If you want to make us stronger, attack and we unite. This is the ultimate failure of terrorism against The United States and the ultimate price we pay to be free, to decide where we want to work, what we want to eat, and when & where we want to go on vacation. The very moment the first plane was hijacked, democracy won.

Compare that to the long running smears against Democrats that I related in my post: "The Election (Discussion)" Allow me to quote:

… for some reason Democrats have always been held to a much higher standard than Republicans. You will remember Joe McCarthy's charge during the Truman Administration of "twenty years of treason." What was worse is that when the Democratic led Tydings Committee "concluded that the individuals on McCarthy's list were neither Communists nor pro-communist, and said the State Department had an effective security program" and "labeled McCarthy's charges a "fraud and a hoax". Republicans responded in kind, with William E. Jenner stating that Tydings was guilty of "the most brazen whitewash of treasonable conspiracy in our history.” The full Senate voted three times on whether to accept the report, and each time the voting was precisely divided along party lines.”

But that is not even ancient history. Ann Coulter, a darling of Republicans recently, wrote: "Twenty years of treason hasn't slowed them down." and charged "50 years of treason.” 

Now compare that to the reaction as shown in the quote above. In response to 9/11 Democrats rallied around the President. They did so even though there were many questions about Bush’s negligence in not stopping the attack. The outgoing Clinton Administration had warned the President that a major attack on the US was a serious threat. It was ignored.

The hijackers were training for the attack in American flight schools, and agencies of the Bush Administration knew about it, but they did not “connect the dots.” The Bush Administration was clearly negligent in a major and dangerous way. But this was not the time for recriminations. Democrats held their fire. The said we are Americans first and partisans second. This was a time for unity.

Contrast that with the way Republicans are treating the attack in Ben Gazi, Libya, (Which by the way is not the capital of Libya and is not where our Embassy is located. What was attacked was a Consulate. The Embassy is in Tripoli.) Again we have been attacked. A time for unity? Not for Republicans! It is, as it has always been, a chance for divisiveness. Not for patriotism. Not for unity. A chance to divide the country on National Security.

Have they, or we, already forgotten how even after 9/11 Al Qaeda continued its terrorist attacks, if not on our territory on the territory of our allies. Have we forgotten the bombing of the London subway, or the attacks on our allies in other parts of the world? Obama put a stop to it even before he tracked down and killed Osama bin Laden. A decimated Al Qaeda staged they Libyan attack in order to seem relevant again. And Republicans, led by Romney and Ryan are giving them the stage they were, and are, seeking.

For shame! For shame!

They wave the flag! They wear flag pins! And they don’t know the meaning of patriotism. Only how to advance their agenda.

And what is their agenda? They accuse the President, “No Drama Obama” of being soft. He may have been in the first debate, but he sure isn’t when it comes to being what he was elected to do. He isn’t the best at blowing his own horn, or exposing the hypocrisy of his opponent, but as President, as Commander in Chief, he is always there.

Ryan during his Debate with the VP criticized Obama on Iran. He claimed that it took Republicans in Congress to toughen sanctions. Wow, we got a bipartisan bill through Congress 421-6 in the House and by voice vote in the Senate and it is promptly signed into law by “No Drama Obama” and Ryan claims this somehow reflects badly on the President and/or Democrats.

But of course no unilateral sanctions by the US has any meaning unless such sanction are imposed by a multiplicity of countries. That has been the genius of this Administration. They got something, that none of these unilateralist could have gotten! They got effective international sanctions against Iran.

Bloomberg news reports: 

Iran’s freefalling currency is turning meat into a luxury, sparking overnight price surges and spurring shoppers to stockpile goods…. Iran’s rial is in a tailspin, having lost more than half of its value against the dollar in street trading in the past two months as U.S. and European sanctions aimed at curbing the country’s nuclear program bite. Riot police yesterday fired tear gas and sealed off parts of downtown Tehran after the currency’s plunge triggered street protests.

Short of military action, whose effectiveness is problematic, and which Romney/Ryan do not advocate, (or maybe they do ---who knows, they make statement all over the map) what more could have been done. It has now been effective beyond any expectation or hope. It might end up bringing the regime down.

But how did we get here in the first place? 

It was Republican Secretary of State, Foster Dulles, and his brother Allen Dulles head of the CIA, in the Eisenhower administration who overthrew an Iranian Democratically elected government and installed the hated Shah, which in turn led directly to the Shah’s overthrow by the Ayatollah.

It isn’t just people. Parties matter. And while Democrats are not angels, (the system will not allow it) the differences between them are like night and day.

They (Republcians – Romney – Ryan) say Obama has not created enough jobs since he took office in January. They do this by counting the job losses the country sustained on the day the President took office. This is an absurd approach. Presidents don’t control events on the day and in the months immediately after they are sworn in. Obama acted fast! He got the stimulus bill signed into law on February 17, 2009 less than a month after being sworn in. It took until the end of March to have an effect. Look at the graph below: 

By April job losses had gone from 850,000 the day he took office to only 200,000 by May and except for a small spike in the middle of summer, the trend has been for the better every year. Republicans have been touting “Unemployment is still over 8%.” Well, it isn’t any more. This is a party that celebrates unemployment. It may not be good for the country, but it is good for the party.

But say Republicans through the mouth of Romney and Ryan does he (Obama) have any other plans. Well yes! On August 2, 2011 Business Insider had the headline “Congress AWOL ON Jobs.” They hold the country hostage and then blame our President. That is their patriotism.

And what of their nominee? He is the Invisible man*! Well, he may not be invisible, but his plans for the American people are top secret. He will cut $5 trillion in taxes, mostly for the rich, and make it up with ------ “it’s a secret.” He will find it in tax expenditures, but not of the most important kind, not the advantaged (for the rich) capital gains tax – that’s off limits. Dividends mostly earned by the rich – that’s off limits. Inheritance taxes, the means by which inherited aristocracies are built – that’s off limits. What’s left –it’s a secret.

           

What nefarious secrets are contained in his tax returns? We don’t know. It’s a secret.

This shouldn’t be a close election. Obama ought to win by a landslide and get a Congress that will work with him. But the American people, or about half of them, are deluded and deceived.

I pray for the future of my country, for I AM AN AMERICAN.

----------------------------------------------------------

*Borrowed from the book by that name by H.G. Wells

The Inscrutable Center Keeps Moving Rightward (Continued III)

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

In my last post entitled "The Inscrutable Center Keeps Moving Rightward (Continued II)" as well as in the posts preceding that, namely "The Inscrutable Center Keeps Moving Rightward (Continued)" and "The Inscrutable Center Keeps Moving Rightward," I discussed at length how the Republican Party has drifted further and further Right, with that movement having now accelerated beyond anything that preceded it with the advent of the Tea Party basically taking over the G.O.P.

Most would assume that this rightward trek started with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, but it actually began long before. In 1964 while Lyndon Johnson was basking in his Congressional successes and was getting ready to run for re-election in his own right, after succeeding the martyred John F. Kennedy, a battle for the soul of the Republican Party was taking place. Barry Goldwater, representing the extreme Right of the Republican Party, ran for the party’s nomination against Nelson Rockefeller, who even though now identified with the infamous Rockefeller Drug Laws, was considered the liberal wing of the Republican Party. Goldwater won the nomination and even though he went on to a landslide defeat at the hands of Lyndon Johnson, the Right-wing control of the G.O.P. was never seriously in doubt thereafter.

Today, we are shocked as we see moderate and even conservative Republicans lose primary contests to the extreme Right wing of that party, but most have undoubtedly forgotten just how long this has been going on.

Yet it was as early as 1978 (two years before the election of Ronald Reagan) that Republican Senator Clifford P. Case, a liberal Republican from New Jersey, was defeated in the Republican primary, presaging the Rightward march that has since been identified with Ronald Reagan.

The Republican Party has now marched so far Right that Ronald Reagan would undoubtedly be considered a RINO (Republican In Name Only) by today’s standards. After all it was he who was enough of a pragmatist, despite his rhetoric, that when he was faced with a growing deficit introduced TEFRA, which is described by the Right-wing blog The Free Market as “the largest tax increase in American history”

And so we now have a Republican party that is so far Right that the Cato Institute, The Libertarian Think Tank speaking through its spokesperson, Daniel Mitchell, on the Newshour, referred to Nixon and Bush as: “big-government interventionists.” What might he have said of President Eisenhower who warned that “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” And added.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. 

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. 

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. 

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. 

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. 

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. 

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. 

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road. the world has been taking. 

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

But the party has gone so far Right that its official Ryan “budget” endorsed by its Presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, was denounced by the Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in these words:

I reiterate our strong opposition to an unfair proposal that would alter the Child Tax Credit to exclude children of hard-working, immigrant families,” wrote Bishop Stephen Blaire of Stockton, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development. “Denying the credit to children of working poor immigrant families--the large majority of whom are American citizens--would hurt vulnerable kids, increase poverty, and would not advance the common good.   

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), provides vital food security to families during tough economic times,” Bishop Blaire added. “It is estimated that cuts proposed in this bill would deny assistance to two million families, and cut the benefit for everyone else. No poor family that receives food assistance would be unaffected, constituting a direct threat to their human dignity.   

The Social Services Block Grant is an important source of funding for programs throughout the country that serve vulnerable members of our communities--the homeless, the elderly, people with disabilities, children living in poverty, and abuse victims,” he continued. “We should prioritize programs that serve “the least of these,” not eliminate them.   

The Catholic bishops of the United States recognize the serious deficits our country faces, and we acknowledge that Congress must make difficult decisions about how to allocate burdens and sacrifices and balance resources and needs,” Bishop Blaire added. “However, deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility efforts must protect and not undermine the needs of poor and vulnerable people. The proposed cuts to programs in the budget reconciliation fail this basic moral test.

And Bishop Stephen Blaire, the chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice, Peace and Human Development, added:

Just solutions, however, must require shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and fairly addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs. The House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria.

And on their web site the US Conference of Catholic Bishops set forth these criteria for evaluating a budget.

1.Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity.  

2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first. 

3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times…  

Just solutions, however, must require shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and fairly addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs.

In April 16 and April 17 letters to the House Agriculture Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee addressing cuts required by the budget resolution, Bishop Blaire said:

The House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria.

Bishop Blaire also wrote that cuts to nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP- food stamps) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC) will hurt hungry children, poor families, low-income workers and other vulnerable people. Additionally, he wrote that if cuts to the federal budget need to be made, savings should first be found in programs that target more affluent and powerful interests.

Altogether three letters were written by the Bishops. The can be found here, here and here.

Other religious leaders' statements can be found here.

But our so-called middle and even many on the so-called Left do not find it in their hearts to express outrage and our media -- – Well, They see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil.

They are busy analyzing events only from the perspective of a horse race.

But I have gone far afield from where I intended to go. In my last post I concluded with: “But before I close this subject I must examine one more column by [David] Brooks. It is dated April 16, 2012 and is entitled “The White House Argument.” I suggest the reader examine it before my next post. It is one of Brooks’ best jobs yet at sophism. But like all his others, it does far better at obfuscation than at clarification.

Well, I guess that will have to wait till next time.

If you have read this please click here: es628@columbia.edu put "read" in the subject and hit send. A note will be welcome but it is not necessary.

Borrowing, Taxes & Deficits – A Discussion Continued

In my post of November 2, 2011 entitled "Borrowing, Taxes & Deficits – A Discussion," I referred the reader to an article written by Professor Robert Malchman and posted on his blog entitled "Real Interest Rates," and the exchange that followed, which appears as four comments below the post. In my post referred to above, I rebutted the view of Professor Malchman, and to a greater extent those of Bunny42.

(I interrupted that exchange to focus on the controversy regarding "Contraception, Abortion and Komen.")

My rebuttal was reproduced on that blog and provoked two more rebuttals by Bunny42 below the post, which you can find here.

I thought that her rebuttal was so misguided that I feel it incumbent upon me to respond to it, and so here is my rebuttal:

Bunny, you have every right to be taken seriously because you do not run away from opinions that are contrary to yours. I can assure you that most people close their ears when confronted with contrary views, and only want to hear opinion, and indeed facts, that reinforce their views.

Furthermore, you are far more knowledgeable than most people. You are familiar with the Keynesian economic theory. Please watch this video on YouTube. You say that “(Your) impression has been (and still is) that reducing taxes on industry allows for expansion, and that includes new jobs.” It is no wonder that this is your impression, since this has been the message repeated over and over again. It is part of what is known as staying on message. But that doesn’t make it true and it isn’t. Right now corporations are sitting on $2 trillion and are not investing according to a New York Post, [a News Corporation subsidiary (i.e. Rupert Murdoch's)] article that goes on to say: “US consumers are stretched financially. Rosenblatt says there's no incentive for many companies to expand. Why go out and make 110 widgets when I can only sell 100?" he asked. Which sums up the situation.” See here. See also here.

Taxes have nothing to do with it. In fact right now we have one of the lowest tax rates in our history. When Eisenhower (R) was President (1960) the top rate for all those making over $400,000 was 91% and our economy did very nicely, thank you very much. When Ronald Reagan was President and after he sharply reduced taxes (1985) the top tax rate was 50% on incomes over $169,000 (See here) and our economy did very nicely, thank you very much. When Clinton became President he inherited a slow down and increased taxes and the economy boomed. But I said all this in my previous posts, but apparently it didn’t sink in. Impressions are hard to shake.

Consumer spending accounts for 70% of US economic activity. See here. When consumers spend, businesses make products to sell. When consumers don’t have the money to buy, business contracts, and jobs are lost. During inflationary times, when consumers want to buy more than business can produce the emphasis must be on increasing production. During deflationary times or during recessions when business capacity is greater than the demand, emphasis must be on increasing demand, not supply. That is not only economic theory. It is common sense.

It is not a coincidence that in 1929 just before the great depression the income disparity was huge just as it is now, or to quote from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Taken together with prior research, the new data suggest greater income concentration at the top than at any time since 1929.” See here. Henry Ford, not known as a left wing radical said, “One's own employees ought to be one's own best customers. Paying high wages is behind the prosperity of this country.” See here.

But as I write this, I begin to wonder if I am giving you too much credit, Bunny. It seems like I am going over much of what I covered in my last post, which essentially you ignored, as undoubtedly you will ignore the facts here, because they do not comport with your “impressions.”

You say that, “One of our problems involves not having enough skilled labor available to fill those jobs.” This is not the major problem in our economic malaise, but it illustrates another problem in our society – we are not spending enough money on education, we have fallen way behind the rest of the world in educating our young, and college education, has become far too expensive. When I climbed out of poverty to a prosperous upper middle class existence, my college was free. Without that I could not have moved up. But we no longer have those rungs on the ladder.

Bunny, you are entitled to your opinions, but not if they are based on misconceptions. You talk about a slippery slope. But you ignore that the slippery slope has been in the opposite direction. It’s not a little tax there and a little tax here. It a big tax cut and another big tax cut. I have shown you how much taxes have been reduced over the years, but it makes no impression on you. You refuse to focus on the facts.

“Remove Incentive” worries you. But nothing in the present or the past would remove incentive. Look at the facts!!! “(You) dispute my assertion that most of the wealthy have inherited their money. According to Forbes “The top 0.1% -- about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million -- are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.” What does that mean. It means that the very rich are making their money, not by working, but from the returns on their wealth. Now where did they get their wealth? By working? Not likely! Even the “captains of industry” make only millions. Billions are acquired on a multigenerational basis, i.e. through inheritance. Yes, some like George Soros and Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have made it in one lifetime, but most inherit it and they live off their money. Nothing makes money more easily than money, and because of that more and more wealth concentrates at the top, and when we tax such money at a lower rate than money earned working, it exacerbates it all the more.

What we are getting is something very similar to the inherited monarchies that we rebelled against. A permanent, wealthy aristocracy and their subjects, with elections getting more and more meaningless because money controls that too. Power goes to money, and money goes to power, ad infinitum.

From the Gotham Gazette:

The median personal income of those who do not receive any unearned income is $15,000 while for those that do, it is at least $191,200 (and may be much higher.) Only about one-quarter of those who are receiving such income are working, and about 10 percent are making more than $100,000, so many members of the group choose to spend their time in other ways. Indeed, very few report social security income, business or farm income, retirement income or wages and salaries. In short, their investment income is their main source of income. They are substantially older than all New Yorkers older than 15, but even among the younger ones only a small fraction work.

Unfortunately, we can not put together a picture based on the statistical data of how they spend their time, though we know that only a few are working full-time. Some undoubtedly volunteer their time, spend time at vacation spots, or work at jobs that pay relatively low wages, such as docents in art museums or other rewarding pursuits. There are very few surveys that would have enough information to even begin to depict the idle rich.

Donald Trump pretends that he made his money, but what he shows is how to “make yourself richer when you inherit an established business and have millions of dollars plunked into your waiting hands after your Dad has sent you to Wharton.” See here.

You mention that your mother depended on Medicaid. Do you really want that eliminated? It’s taxes on the rich that make it possible. It isn’t funded by Bill Gates, nor could it be. Nor could our schools, or our libraries, or the agencies that protect our health, and our food and our children’s toys. Yes, you are entitled to whatever philosophy suits you, but you shouldn’t base a philosophy on total misconceptions of facts.

Now let me take your comments on Social Security and Medicare, and how you paid into them all your life. Yes you did, but unless you die early you would get a multiple of what you paid in. The way it works is that each succeeding generation supports a previous generation. You are not being paid out of the money you paid in. That was used to pay another generation. Your payments come out the money accumulated by generations later than yours and that money is there. They have not been “pillaged, misused and depleted.” How can you have sound opinions when your facts are so wrong? That money has been invested in Treasury bonds, the safest investment in the world with the Full Faith and Credit of the US behind it. The same bonds China invests in. The problem Social Security faces is that with people living longer, the baby boomers coming into the age where they draw on Social Security, and our young population not growing fast enough to meet the demands, the disbursements of the trust fund are projected for the first time ever to become larger then the income being generated. This means that the SS payment are coming out of the trust fund, or soon will be, and the trust funds assets will slowly be depleted.

Thus unless we find a way to either decrease the disbursements, e.g. increase the retirement age, or increase its income, i.e. increasing the top income from which taxes must be paid, (it is now capped at $106,800 of gross wages, and capital gains income is exempt) it will not be possible to continue paying the benefits after a certain time. No Bunny, “Government run amok has (not) created this problem.”

Your idea of voluntarism sounds wonderful, but it doesn’t work in the real world. If taxes were voluntary, very few would pay them. Social Security could not exist if all people were not required to pay their FICA taxes. The military could not function, if only volunteers were sent to the front. They obey orders. Our government could not exist with voluntary taxes, and could never get enough revenue without getting it from those who can afford to pay it, without hardship.

Bunny, it isn’t a question of your being entitled to have whatever opinion you choose. But your opinions should be based on an understanding of the facts, not on misconceptions. Horatio Alger was an author who wrote fictitious stories of people coming out of poverty into the middle class. These happen occasionally in real life, but the chance I had, was because of a government that gave me my chance with a free education, and cheap public transportation. Sadly, this is long behind us, and Republicans are trying to make it harder and harder to succeed unless you are born into it or, as Rick Santorum did, by being elected to Congress, and after retiring from it, selling your connections. See here.

If you truly want a country where your status in life is determined by who your ancestors are, and where very few overcome the barriers keeping them from rising up in our class structure, then I have no problem with your views. What do you think your chances, or those your children, of making it to the top are?

Comments are welcome and will be distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

Expansionism Abroad - Discussion IV

Ivan Garret of Fort Lee, NJ sent me two items without comment, one entitled "A Letter to the Editor of Edinburgh U" which you can access by clicking here and another to which I gave the title "Sophistry and Hate Mongering" which you can access by clicking here, prompting me to respond as follows:

Dear Ivan,

I have been reluctant to respond to your two e-mails because I make it a policy not to respond to articles forwarded to me without the sender's view with regard to the article. I do not consider it appropriate to ask me to spend time commenting on an article when the sender will not take the time to express his own view. I will make an exception in this case, but will not do so in the future.

The articles are quite different from each other. The Edinburgh U. letter is right on the mark. It makes it clear that it is not complaining about, "ordinary criticism of Israel" but rather "a hatred that permits itself no boundaries". There is no doubt that some of the attacks on Israel have their foundation in the virulence of anti-Semitism, and the letter points out that the 270 students who sponsored this attempted boycott chose Israel for its opprobrium when there are so many other states which aught to stand far in front of Israel for condemnation of its policies. Why Israel is a reasonable question and one cannot escape the suspicion that anti-Semitism lies at its root.

However, as the author states, fair criticism is another matter and Americans who with their taxes give more support to Israel than to any other country have more than enough right to such fair criticism and even to demand as a condition of such support that policies inimical to the interests of the US and even to the interests of Israel itself must be changed. In the long history of this relationship President Eisenhower called for sanctions in the UN when Israel along with England and France threatened to seize the Suez Canal.

Just as Americans have not only a right but a duty to criticize policies of the US that are immoral or simply ill advised, so Jews, with their special relationship to Israel have that same duty and right.

For Israel and its lobbies to claim that all criticism is founded in Anti-Semitism is ill advised, unsupported and an outrage. No, Israel is not an apartheid state, but if the policies of the settler movement and of Netanyahu are carried out it will become one, and while there is no discrimination against Arabs or Muslims in Israel proper, its unending occupation of Palestinians in their territories, who do not have the rights of Israelis, gives some credence to this charge.

Now, the diatribe attributed to Dennis Miller is another story. It actually was written by Larry Miller as long ago in 2002, and circulating on the Internet ever since. To say there are no Palestinians is to deny their humanity. Clearly it does not matter whether we call them Palestinians or by some other name. They are people who lived in Palestine for generations, and even centuries, long before the state of Israel was founded. The author says: "Before the Israelis won the land in the1967 war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, the West Bank was owned By Jordan, and there were no Palestinians." By that reasoning there were no Jews during the diaspora. The fact is, and facts can be unpleasant, that a Palestinian territory existed long before the area was occupied by the various states that occupied it. In 1922 the then League of Nations created The British Mandate for Palestine. this was only a few years after the British issued the The Balfour Declaration in 1917 which became the foundation for creating a modern Jewish homeland in, yes that's right, in Palestine.

But it doesn't matter what we call them. There are people living in the West Bank and they are not going to disappear. They will either be allowed to have their own country large enough and contiguous so as to be politically and economically viable, which means the '67 lines with modifications or be ejected, which amounts to ethnic cleansing, or will be incorporated into Israel without the right to vote, (an apartheid state) or they will be allowed to vote which would end the Jewish state.

Those are the choices!!! No amount of sophistry can change that.

As for terrorism, I don't think we should be too quick to condemn all terrorists. I was recently in Jerusalem and a sign on my hotel reminded me of what the Irgun, from which Likud sprang, did.

Whether such notice was given is in dispute.

The rest of that letter is simple pure hate mongering, and I will not dignify it by even responding.

Allen Schechtman, who had forwarded the Letter to the Editor of Edinburgh U and who I copied with my remarks, rejoined as follows:

I did not see the choice of a two state solution. Although Jordan usurped much of the Palestinian land and they keep tight control on them since they make up the vast majority of the population, (and slaughtered thousands of them) there still exists the hope and possibility of a two state solution. This assumes that the Palestinian state not be used as Gaza has been which is to destroy the infrastructure and industry left behind and turned into an armory and missile launching site. The mideast was carved up by Europe into a dozen countries. People were shifted, evicted renamed tribes were ignored etc. Yet one questions the legitimacy of those states. Only the tiny piece of land set aside for Jews where they had a continuous presence for 3000 years including during the diaspora was denied acceptance.

I replied:

Indeed that is what I have been talking about and urging all along. When I spoke about ethnic cleansing etc. I meant those were the only possible alternatives to a two state solution. See my extensive posts on my blog beginning with "Hostage Taking at Home and Expansionism Abroad" and the three posts following "Expansionism Abroad - Discussion" "Expansionism Abroad - Discussion II" and "Expansionism Abroad - Discussion III," all of which directly or indirectly seek a two state solution, but which express my fear that the Netanyahu government is not interested in a two state solution, or at least not one that would give the Palestinians a viable economic entity. The desire under all sorts of smoke screens, appears to be to expand settlements indefinitely and to shrink any possible future Palestinians state into a tiny canton which would not be viable either economically or politically. The Israeli settler movement appears to have gained ascendency and is now the primary force propelling Netanyahu policy.

And it is not true that the piece of land set aside for Jews was denied acceptance. It was created by UN mandate and is recognized by most countries of the world, including Egypt and Jordan. One does not have to be anti-Israel to have the humanity to be concerned about the Palestinians, not only in Palestine, but in their diaspora.

What I am urging is what has been US policy for decades and what has recently been reiterated by our President. This is the only way to a two
state solution.

I question your comments on Gaza but that would take too long to fully address.

The 2010 election

There is every reason for Republican optimism and Democratic caution. Realistically Democrats have a two-year window to enact their programs and to modernize America. Two years to bring the economy out of its doldrums, or at least make the country feel that success in just around the corner. If they do not come into the 2010 Congressional election with the country feeling great confidence in the incumbents, they may want a change and a Republican landslide is possible.

But even if Obama is as popular as he is now, or even more so, and even if Democrats keep all the trends that have favored them in the last two years, they will be facing severe obstacles in holding their gains, not to speak of adding to them.

It must be understood that Democratic successes have depended on certain demographic groups who have turned out in large numbers for them, particularly in the last election. These groups are the young, African-Americans, Hispanics, and the poor, who have not historically voted in large numbers. It is safe to assume that in an off-year election they will be voting in lesser numbers, and Republicans and their allies are doing all they can to suppress this vote. Since these are the primary, or at least a crucial component of the Democratic coalition, their voting in lesser number represents a significant danger to Democratic successes.

In addition Democratic successes in past elections pose their own dangers, for as they won in swing states and in swing districts, it became the Democrats who became more vulnerable to losses in close elections. In addition, there is less and less low hanging fruit to be picked up, since the districts most likely to swing Democratic, are already in their column.

Finally, Democrats will be up against a historical pattern. Almost invariably the Presidents party loses seats in the election immediately following the Presidents ascension, and this appears to be true even when the President is popular, his popularity affecting only the degree of the losses. Thus following Eisenhower’s victory in 1952, and with Eisenhower having a popularity rating of 59%, Republicans lost 18 House seats in 1954. Kennedy was elected in 1960, had a popularity rating of 68% and Democrats lost two House seats in the following election. After Johnson’s victory in 1964, and with a low standing in popularity of 46%, Democrats lost a whopping 47 seats. Following Nixon’s election, Republicans, two years later, lost 12 seats. After Carter’s election, Democrats lost 15 seats, and following Reagan’s election his party lost 27 seats, though at that point Reagan’s popularity was down to 43%. Two years after the first Bush was elected, in 1990 Republicans lost 8 seats, but after Clinton’s victory in 1992, Democrats two years later, in 1994, not only lost 54 House seats, but lost control of both Houses of Congress, leaving them in the minority until 2006. George W. Bush was the first President since FDR to see his party gain seats during the first mid-term election following his own election two years earlier, but this was after 9/11 and with his popularity at 62%.

This is graphically summarized in a graph courtesy of the National Committee for an Effective Congress:



Thus if history is a guide, and it might not be, Obama only has two years to enact his long range programs, before loss of Congress, or at least reduced majorities make overcoming determined filibusters, all but impossible.

There is therefore great urgency in enacting the Presidents program, and even now with not quite enough votes to overcome a filibuster against a united and determined Republican minority, the obstacles are obvious, if not entirely insurmountable.

There are striking and worrisome parallels between 1994 and 2010. In 1994 Democrats controlled the Presidency and both Houses of Congress. Presidential coattails enabled Democrats to win seats in historically Republican districts. Similarly, Democrats have far fewer election targets in 2010 than Republicans, much as they did in 1994. An analysis shows that there are as many as 60 potentially vulnerable Democrats in the House in 2010. With the present lineup being 255 Democrats and 178 Republicans, a 60 vote swing would give Republicans 238 seats and Democrats 195 ceding control to Republicans. Of course vulnerable doesn’t mean a lost seat and if we assume a loss of half of the vulnerable seats, Dems would have 225 seats and Republicans 208, keeping a reduced but still workable majority for the Democrats.

REASON FOR DEMOCRATIC OPTIMISM

The 1994 parallel is far from full proof, as not every electoral indicator favors the Republicans. First, in 1994, 22 of the seats gained by Republicans stemmed from Democratic retirements in competitive districts. So far in this cycle, only one Democrat from a competitive district, New Hampshire's Congressman Paul Hodes has indicated that he will vacate his seat in 2010. Hodes is seeking the Senate seat in New Hampshire. However, it is too early in the cycle to draw any conclusions about future retirements. Conversely, speculation suggests that several Republican incumbents, frustrated by minority status, could retire between now and Election Day.

Second, Barack Obama is off to a far more auspicious beginning than Bill Clinton was in 1993. That assumption must be tempered by the unclear economic climate. A slip in Obama's approval rating due to the continued problems in the economy could raise the likelihood of the Democrats losing a significant number of seats. As I have pointed out, the incumbent President's approval rating going into a midterm election can have a huge effect on his party's fortunes. If President Obama can maintain an approval rating above 60 percent, he can help mitigate some of the potential losses and maybe turn them into gains.

Third, regional dynamics that are no longer in place today helped produce the Republican take over in 1994. For example, about half the districts lost by Democrats in 1994 were located in the South, in Border States, or in the rural West. Republican success in these regions continued through the 2004 election, but those trends have waned and partially reversed since 2006. Presently there are far fewer Democratic targets in those regions for the Republicans to unseat.

Conversely, from a regional standpoint, the Republicans have sustained a meltdown in the East, with no immediate end in sight. With the loss of Chris Shays seat in Connecticut in 2008, the Republicans have zero seats in all of New England. They have also sustained further losses in the West, which is sure to gain seats after the next census. Evidence of a potential Republican comeback will be scrutinized in 2009 gubernatorial contests both New Jersey and Virginia. Previously, these off year elections have been useful indicators for the mood of the electorate heading into the midterm campaign. In 2005 Democrats won the gubernatorial races in both of these states, which served as a precursor to the huge gains seen by Democrats in 2006. No Republican has won a gubernatorial election in either state in the 21st century.

In the Senate, and this could change quickly, it looks promising, and since this is where filibusters must be overcome, doing well is particularly important. Based on available polls a reasonable outlook would give Democrats a net gain of three seats, more than enough to prevent filibusters. This assumes pickups of five seats and two losses, with the pickups projected in the following four states: Florida, Missouri New Hampshire and Pennsylvania and one from the following two states: North Carolina or Ohio. Pennsylvania may have been considered doubtful, but with Sen. Specter defection to the Democratic Party, it is safe to assume he will win re-election as a Democrat. Here it is interesting to note that North Carolina is listed in the doubtful column despite the fact that according to Newsweek’s April 27, 2009 issue, incumbent Republican Senator Jim Bunning has an approval rating of 28%.

Losses are expected in Delaware and in one of the following two states: Colorado or Connecticut.

It appears that the outlook for Democrats is cloudy, with the sun peeking from behind the clouds.