Facts, Facts, Facts! They are pesky things

In my last posting to my blog "People Can’t Seem To Get Their Facts Right! (Comments)," I shared with my readers the reaction to my posting of two Letters to the Editor, the first of which set forth certain erroneous “facts,” and the second was my responding letter setting the record straight.

Not long after another letter appeared in The Record again setting forth facts, which I found to be erroneous. A transcript of the letter follows:

Obama hurting U.S. prestige

 What is apparent to me regarding the progress of the negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which are to be "fully" spelled out by June 30, is that the United States' status and perception as a superpower worldwide has been vastly diminished. Iran's quest for regional hegemony has been greatly enhanced.

 There is little doubt that American military and economic strength was unable to secure significant concessions from a low-grade military power and economically stressed nation.

 On this president's watch we have witnessed political chaos in Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Tunisia. Need I point out how the president has bowed to the will of Vladimir Putin in his aggressive goals toward Ukraine?

 Jerrold Terdiman 

Woodcliff Lake, April 8

It did not take me long to respond, as set forth below:

The Letter to the Editor “Obama hurting U.S. prestige" (Record April 11) is way off the mark.

It ignores history. Did the US do better under past Administrations in dealing with an even lower grade power, North Korea, which continues to be a greater threat then Iran is, or  will ever be.

Also focusing on the President in office as the culprit when things go wrong is naïve.

As Shakespeare said: “What’s past is prologue”.

Iran is the power that it is as a direct result of our ill-advised invasion of Iraq. Before that invasion Iraq was a counterweight to Iran and fought a long and bitter war against that country. Now it is an ally.

Iran used to be a democratic state, until the Eisenhower Administration overthrew the government, and installed the hated Shah, which led to his overthrow by the present regime.

Reagan strengthened the Ayatollah in the infamous Iran/Contra scandal.

Russian aggression was encouraged when the G.W. Bush Administration did nothing in response to the invasion by Russia of Georgia in 2008.

And of even greater importance are the slanders and the lies that are now directed at Hillary Clinton, and particularly the Clinton family’s great achievements in dealing with a variety of problems both Domestic and International through the Clinton Foundation.

Thus the Right Wing publication The National Review published a smear of the foundation under the heading "The Clinton Foundation Is Not a Charity" and then among its many unsupported and false allegations there appears this:

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities.

Wow! That’s pretty damning, if that reputable organization had said that, but here is what they in fact did say:

Why isn't this organization rated?

 …this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity.

 What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

 A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

Charity Navigator then goes on the explain:

Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation is on Charity Navigator's Watchlist. Here's why:

 On February 18, 2015, The Washington Post reported that, "the foundation has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support, with members of the George W. Bush administration often participating in its programs."

The article also states that:

...in posting its donor data, the foundation goes beyond legal requirements, and experts say its transparency level exceeds that of most philanthropies.

(The link attached to the quote from the National Review about Charity Navigator simply takes you to the National Review website, if you want to see the actual Charity Navigator comments I suggest this link.

What an incredible difference between what the National Review claimed and the truth.

Finally, the reader might ask where did the National Review get this story? it was taken verbatim from an article in the Murdoch-owned New York Post (I assume with permission) but none of it is true, as a quick check with the Navigator site reveals.

And what do we find out about the Clinton foundation. Let us look at Wikipedia.

It has some negative things to say in quoting from the Right Wing lawyers association The Federalist, but it then goes on to say:

The Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) is a global health organization committed to strengthening integrated health systems in the developing world and expanding access to care and treatment for HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Organizations such as the Clinton Foundation continue to supply anti-malarial drugs to Africa and other affected areas; according to director Inder Singh, in 2011 more than 12 million individuals will be supplied with subsidized anti-malarial drugs. As of January 1, 2010, the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative, an initiative of the Clinton Foundation, became a separate nonprofit organization called the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI).

 CHAI strives to make treatment for HIV/AIDS more affordable and to implement large-scale integrated care, treatment, and prevention programs. Since its inception, CHAI has helped bring AIDS care and treatment to over 750,000 people living with HIV/Aids around the world. Its activities have included AIDS care and treatment in Africa, including the brokering of drug distribution agreements. During President Clinton's 2006 trip to Africa, CHAI signed agreements with several new countries. Over the course of the past year, CHAI has expanded its partner countries and members of the Procurement Consortium to over 70 including 22 governments, who are now able to purchase AIDS medicines and diagnostic equipment at CHAI's reduced prices.

 CHAI launched the Pediatric and Rural Initiatives in 2005 to focus on bringing AIDS care and treatment to those most often marginalized— children and those living in rural areas. CHAI also negotiated agreements that reduce the prices of second-line drugs and rapid diagnostic tests. In May 2007, CHAI and UNITAID announced agreements that help middle-income and low-income countries save money on second-line drugs. The partnership also reduced the price of a once-daily first-line treatment to less than $1 per day.

 In addition to drug access programs, CHAI also focuses on country operations, with programs that help governments with pediatric care and treatment, improving rural health care and human resources for health and the prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT). In 2008, approximately 185,000 children benefited from increased access to infant diagnosis aided by the training of 8,500 health care workers who offered pediatric antiretroviral treatment (ART). 2008 also saw six PMTCT country programs launched which ensured that every HIV pregnant woman in the program catchment area was provided with prevention, care and treatment services including counseling, testing and feeding recommendations.

 In the Summer of 2008, CHAI's Executive Vice President, Inder Singh, announced the closing of cost-reduction agreements with several suppliers of malaria medication, which will be extended to CHAI partners as part of its care and treatment program.

Does that sound like an organization that should be criticized and condemned ? Its legitimacy questioned? Why is the media, looking for points of criticism?

Would anyone criticize and condemn it, if it were not associated with the Clintons?

But as is often said: “No good deed goes unpunished.”

One of the leading contributors to this foundation, which is one of many foundations the Clintons support, is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

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.

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

Speculators and the Price of Gasoline - Discussion

This is an issue that I had not originally intended to discuss. But since it is one of the favorite hobbyhorses of the Left and since Eric Offner of Manhasset Hills, NY has been raising this issue forcefully, I discussed it in my post of March 29, under the heading "Control of the Weather (Discussion)." Offner has now chosen to pursue this, which prompted me to do a fairly long dissertation on the subject. I now want to share my analysis with my readers.

Offner wrote:

First see the article in Business Week entitled "Why Obama's Crackdown on Oil Speculators Won't Work." 

Then answer these questions:

1.) If a crackdown on oil speculators won’t work, does it not imply that there are oil speculators?

2.) Is it possible that Wall Street oil speculators affect the price of oil?

3.) The bigger question is whether speculation on food, water and other necessities exists and whether such action is ethical?

4.) Is failure to restrict unethical behavior unethical?

My response to his questions is set forth under corresponding numbers:

1.) Yes of course there are. The question should not be whether there are speculators but whether it is ever possible to eliminate them and whether they are bad. The answer is that it is not possible to eliminate them and in many cases not even possible to regulate them. Sometimes they are bad, sometimes good, most often neither.

2.) It is not only possible, it is probable. But that is not necessarily bad. Look at the article you sent me. He argues convincingly that speculators even-out the speed at which prices change. Without them, as happened some years ago the price can quadruple almost over-night and a more gradual rise is better for the economy and consumers.

3.) Yes and Yes. Let me take this down to basics. There is a rumor that sugar, or for that matter water, will be in short supply. Most people, i.e. consumers upon hearing this will head for the markets and hoard it. The result is the price goes up and soon the shelves are empty. A self-fulfilling prophecy. Now let us suppose a larger speculator wants to take advantage of the situation and so he goes out and buys many tons of sugar, puts them in a ware house (or he buys futures) and then taking advantage of the rising prices resells it at a hefty profit. As he and others begin to sell the price goes down. Is he/she now a good speculator? How do you stop this? Do you make it illegal for anyone to buy more than a certain amount? How do you determine the amount? How would this effect a legitimate store or a legitimate wholesaler, who by the nature of their trade must buy large amounts?

The way to stop this is price controls and rationing which brings about a black market, where the price is even higher and even less sugar in the stores. We are now seeing this in Venezuela.

Are there times when rationing and price controls are appropriate? Yes!!! But only in extreme cases, such as war-time, when the evils of the black market are preferred to letting hoarding control, but it is always a close question. Where the hoarding is by a limited group, intent on creating shortages and raising prices, it falls afoul of the anti-trust laws and definitely should be prosecuted.

Is Obama's approach sound? I don't know, but it is good politics. He is doing something!!!

Raising the margin price on commodities speculation seems like a sensible thing to do, but it takes someone more knowledgeable than I to analyze the consequences. The article you sent me seems knowledgeable and objective.

I will say this. When Allan Greenspan talked about the stock market suffering from irrational exuberance, the obvious thing to do, as far as I could see and still believe, was to raise the margin requirement, which was within the power of the Fed, but because of Greenspan's hostility to all regulations this was not done - ditto for so many other things that could have headed off the crash.

But I don't know the commodities market - We apparently have regulations but we need money to enforce them. Everything else is shooting in the dark. Simplistic answers whether from Left or Right rarely have any merit.

The article in Business Week appears to be an intelligent one. It recognizes that regulations are important and need enforcing by the CFTC. Thus it is apparent that we have regulations in place that are not being enforced, or at least not being enforced adequately. But the Republican Congress will never appropriate the money needed. Instead, they will make sure that what can be done is not done, and then blame the President, who can only do so much without Congress' help.

There are many problems with the world's food supply that are exacerbated by US policy.

The use of US ethanol as an additive to gasoline has created a shortage of corn and driven the price higher, but the corn lobby will prevent Congress from changing this.

Our foreign aid program with food is counter-productive. The law requires that we not give money to aid organizations for food aid, but rather buy the food from American farmers at much higher prices than we could buy it on the world market and it must be shipped in US vessels. If the law would allow our aid to be by buying the food from African farmers, we would save money both in the price of the food and in the shipping costs and we would aid the African economy. Now it enriches the American corporate farmers and hurts the African economy because it competes with the African grown food and drives that price down.

4.) No and the question is irrelevant since I have said such action is not unethical. But even where it is unethical there is always a weighing of unintended consequences. Simplistic questions and simplistic answers to complex problems are, well, simplistic.

I then added:

The oil market is a world market. How do you regulate trades made outside the US? If you rationed gasoline in the US, it would have no effect on the price of oil on world markets. If you had price controls on gasoline that were below the world price of oil, no one could afford to sell gasoline, since they would lose money on every gallon. World markets and globalization make a new ball game. But we can no more change it than we could stop the industrial revolution and now the technological revolution that brought about globalization.

Furthermore a high price of gas is not bad. It makes clean energy and conservation much more competitive

Even boycotts have limitations. We put a boycott on Iranian oil. But if China does not join the boycott, can it be effective? The boycott might force the price of Iranian oil to go down, in which case China gets a windfall. How do you stop this? Only with a full fledged blockade of Iran, an act of war, which would put us in conflict with China and get Iran to try to close the Straight of Hormuz. Can you imagine what the price of oil would go up to? Speculators will make a lot of money, but they are not causing the price rise - they are taking advantage of it. Is there anything we can do - yes, but I am not smart enough to know what. Ask Barney Frank - he understands these things better than I do, and while I am talking about Barney Frank I commend to you an interview of him, which appeared in New York Magazine.

Also we do have laws on the books and the Commodities and Exchange Commission, which needs more funding as recommended in the article you sent me to enforce the laws and regulations. But the Republicans will never authorize this. What can we do? Get rid of them to whatever extent we can.

But I get tired of the Left and their "it’s the speculators.”

Finally allow me to add that while normally a two party system benefits the country, now a defeat of the Republican Party to the point where we have only one party has the best hope of reforming the system. Now it is broken and can't be fixed. In our system a one party system would not last long. The Democratic Party would split in two.

Talk of a third party in our system is very counter-productive. It would make sense if we had run-offs as e.g. the French and most of the world do.

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.

Control of the Weather (Discussion)

My last post "Control of the Weather" was distributed on March 23. I was greatly gratified when Eric Offner, impresario of Jazz concerts, author and lecturer on the law, humanist and mental health advocate (See here for a description of Offner in Who's Who in America) seconded the compliments from Pearl Duncan writing:

I agree with Miss Duncan. I learn a lot from your articles.

And then added:

Today I disagree with you. The price of gas is set by speculators. I would outlaw speculation on most commodities.

To which I responded:

I am glad to receive your disagreement. I receive disagreements so rarely, and yet differences of opinion are useful in arriving at intelligent conclusions.  

Your view on speculators is not unique and you may have noted that in the discussion on the PBS NewsHour referred to in my post and accessible here, Daniel Weiss, of the Center for American Progress (a left wing think tank) mentions Wall Street speculators as one of the causes for the high prices, and speculators are a favorite target of the Left for everything that may go wrong in our economy. But who are speculators? They are the people who buy and sell stocks and commodities. They are people like me, who invest in the stock market in the hope of making a gain, but sometimes sustain a loss. They are the union and other pension funds who invest in the market. They are as much to blame, or rather deserve credit when prices go down. Without them there would be no market in anything, because all traders, and that in effect means all merchants are speculators. You say you "would outlaw speculation in most commodities,” but you can't do that without outlawing all trading in commodities. 

They are a convenient scapegoat whenever anything undesirable happens in the market, but they reflect market conditions, they don't create them. 

What I have not mentioned, heretofore, and which needs mention, is that another factor that drives up world oil prices is the saber rattling about Iran. Netanyahu with his threats drives up the price of oil, and so do the Republicans with their demands that we use military force, again. They play a clever political game, because the are complicit in driving up the price of oil, and then seek to profit politically from the higher prices, which they helped to generate, and finally Obama himself, when he says we will use military force if that is necessary to stop Iran from getting the bomb, a position he was forced into, as the only way to keep Netanyahu from his own military action. And of course Iran, every time they talk of closing the Strait of Hormuz. 

Surprisingly, OPEC, which used to be the culprit in past oil rises, is not complicit this time.  

Next time I want to tackle a very important and complicated subject, i.e. the role that race plays in American life and politics. It will be entitled: “It’s All About Race”, but I am postponing that discussion because it will, of necessity, be long, and multi-parted, and so, rather that append it to this concluding discussion on the price of oil, I will let it go till next time.

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.

Bush's Third Term

The Obama campaign keeps warning that John McCain is running for a third Bush term. I have concluded that as bad as that would be, a third Bush term would not be as bad as a McCain/Palin administration. Some of you might wonder how I could make such assertion, but when we look at the record we see that Bush in the waning days of his Presidency, and in an effort to save something of his legacy, has begun to moderate his confrontational foreign policy. After years of denouncing Clinton’s diplomatic approach to North Korea, which yielded increasing concessions by that dangerous regime, and after spending seven years of his Presidency with nothing but belligerency toward that nuclear power, even calling them one of the “axis of evil”, Bush has been resorting to diplomacy. His previous policy resulted in North Korea exploding a nuclear device in 2006. The new diplomatic stance has resulted in North Korea agreeing to resume disabling a plutonium plant and allowing some inspections to verify that it had halted its nuclear program as promised months earlier. John McCain who had earlier criticized the diplomatic effort, quickly expressed concern. (NY Times October 12, 2008)

Barack Obama has called for negotiations without preconditions with Iran as having more promise of getting results than simply making threats. The preconditions which Bush had demanded were that Iran stop reprocessing plutonium before we would talk to them, which of course would mean that Iran would have conceded the very thing which negotiations are supposed to accomplish. The Bush Administration has heeded Obama’s call for unconditional talks and sent a high-ranking diplomat to meet with the Iranians. (cnnpolitics.com July 16, 2008)

McCain has denounced such an approach and continues to insist on no talks until our conditions are met first. He thinks bombing Iran is a joke and sang, “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of Barbara Ann. His running mate Sarah Palin and the person who would become Commander in Chief with her finger on the atomic button if anything should happen to McCain, said in her first interview since becoming the Republican nominee for vice president that the U.S. might have to go to war with Russia under certain circumstances. (The Chicago Tribune, September 12, 2008)

If the election were to be between a third Bush term and McCain I would vote for Bush. Thank God that is not the choice I, or anyone else, has to make. Yes, the economy and McCain total lack of comprehension as to what got us into this mess or how to get us out of it is what is on most people’s mind and national security is supposed to be McCain’s strong suit. But if anything, I find him and the woman he has chosen to be his running mate even scarier on defense policy than on the economy. But what have they offered us on the economy. They decided to change the subject. With the Standard and Poor having dropped 37.7% as of October 11 from the beginning of this year (even more since its last high) and having dropped 18.2% just the week of October 6th McCain took to a campaign of slander, with Palin accusing Obama of “hanging around with terrorists.” (October 4, 2008 Associated Press) Of course aside from the fact that Obama’s connection to William Ayers, a 1960s radical, is tenuous at best, they are trying to give the impression that Obama has a connection to what they call “Islamist terrorists” or specifically Al QAEDA, which of course fits into the underground slander, which claims Obama is a Muslim, when they know he is a Christian, and the use of Obama’s middle name, Hussein.

That didn’t seem to work and, lo and behold McCain switched tactics again. The Washington Post of October 11, 2008 reported:

“At the end of perhaps the most charged and negative week of the presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain sought to tone down his rhetoric toward Sen. Barack Obama even as his running mate, allies and his own advertising continued to attack the character of the Democratic nominee.

“On Friday, McCain urged a crowd of skeptical supporters at a town hall forum in this Minneapolis suburb to be respectful of his rival for the presidency despite their deep policy differences with Obama.

“The Republican nominee drew a cascade of boos from the crowd when he called Obama ‘a decent person’ and told an expectant father that he does not have to be scared if he is president of the United States.

"We want to fight and I want to fight, but we will be respectful," McCain said, again prompting loud boos when he declared that he admires Obama's accomplishments. "I want everyone to be respectful, and let's be sure we are. . . . That doesn't mean you have to reduce your ferocity. It's just got to be respectful."

“At one point in the event, McCain grabbed back the microphone from an elderly woman who had begun to say that she didn't like Obama because he is an Arab. “ No, ma'am. No, ma'am," McCain said. ‘He's a decent family man, a citizen who I just happen to have serious differences with on fundamental questions."

“His comments came a day after an angry crowd at a Wisconsin rally shouted epithets about the Democratic nominee, pumped their fists angrily in the air and catcalled repeatedly when Obama's name was mentioned. Several called him a "socialist," and many flipped their middle finger as a press bus drove by.

“McCain appeared determined to respond Friday, saying that he respects Obama and only quieting the boos by saying "if I didn't think I would be one heck of a better president, I wouldn't be running."

“But throughout the day, McCain's allies and advertising unleashed a flurry of attacks on his rival's ethics, touting Obama's ties to a Vietnam War-era radical and accusing him of being connected to a group accused of engaging in voter fraud.

“He launched a tough new television ad linking Obama to William Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground, which bombed U.S. facilities in protest of the Vietnam War. The narrator in the ad says Obama "lied" about his relationship with Ayers and accuses the Democrat of "blind ambition, bad judgment." (For those who might want to hear McCain’s actual words defending Obama click here)

My first reaction upon seeing this video clip was to react positively and to say to myself, “Finally the old McCain is back, he may have the wrong policy prescriptions, but he is showing integrity” but then I realized that this is just another zig-zag in a McCain who will do anything to keep his chances of the Presidency alive. The smear was backfiring. The crowd, which he was addressing, was small and the media audience would be large. Maybe, just maybe, this might get him some independent voters. It is just another campaign tactic in the erratic and indecisive McCain campaign.

Jewish voters in Florida having been flooded with smears leaving many of them believing that Obama is a Muslim, which he is not, that he is an Arab, which he is not, that he is anti-Israel, which he is not. If McCain is sincere about his newfound integrity let him go to Florida and address elderly Jewish voters down there and tell them the truth. It may not get him elected, but at least he will have regained some measure of his integrity.

These Jewish voters as well as other voters may be interested in an article that appeared in the NJ Jewish Standard of October 10, 2008, which has the headline, “FOR SECOND TIME IN A MONTH, GOP THWARTS IRAN SANCTIONS” and goes on to say, “WASHINGTON – Republicans in the U.S. Senate have sunk anti-Iran sanctions for the second time in less than a month, drawing allegations that they are putting politics ahead of the need to confront Tehran’s nuclear program.

“Senate Democrats made one final bid last week to pass legislation that would tighten sanctions aimed at getting Iran to stand down from its suspected nuclear weapons program. Among other things, the stalled measure would facilitate efforts to divest from the Islamic Republic.

“Republicans blocked it the evening of Oct. 2, leading Democrats once again to suggest that the GOP was playing politics by obstructing legislation championed by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

“We’ve tried to get this done in this body; there’s been objection by the Republicans. That’s unfortunate,” said Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Senate majority leader. He made his comments after Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) exercised his prerogative to obstruct the legislation.

“Senate Republicans continue to block anti-Iran sanctions introduced by Democrats, including U.S. Sens. Barack Obama and Chris Dodd."

So much for Obama being soft on Iran or anti Israel.

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.