The Demise of Capitalism in America by Robert R. Odle

The GDP Myth by Robert R. Odle, Ph.D.

Who is right? The GOP or Exxon?

What upsets you more? 30,000 blacks killed or 14 killed by Terrorists?

The Evil Twins: Hillary and Isis by Robert Odle

Trump is Radicalized

Trump is Radicalized—Robert OdleDocs.com

Basic Income for All ... by RRO

Basic Income Level for All to Replace Complicated Welfare Systems—Robert OdleDocs.com

I am disappointed in Trump followers by RRO

This is a Dumb War by Serge Halimi and Comments by DRJ

To call it a dumb war is an understatement. However, under current circumstances this reasoned analysis isn't anymore likely to be heard by the viewers of Google News, CNN, Fox News, etc.  than were the voices of reason and common sense who raised similar objections to our blundering into the Iraq war disaster. And no, it isn't a matter of 20-20 hindsight. And no, it wasn't a matter of faulty intelligence. It was obvious to anyone paying strict attention that it was going to be a dumb war before it began. All you have to do to know that the present war against ISIS is certain to also end badly is to take a look at who the members of the so called 'coalition' are and who they aren't. Then also take a look at what the motivations and end goals are of both the members and nonmembers are and I think you will have to conclude there is no way such a divergent group can possibly merge into an effective coalition. A major reason for the success of the allied forces in WW II was that despite their many differences they shared an overriding  common purpose and a common goal. Nothing like that exists today in the second, or is it the third or fourth, dumb war in the Middle East.

Paris attacks: terror at home and away

This is a dumb war

by Serge Halimi

A little-known US senator named Barack Obama said in 2002: “I don’t oppose all wars. [...] What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. [...] A war based not on reason but on passion.” Americans were angry after 9/11 and President George Bush Jr chose to channel their anger not against Saudi Arabia (most of the Al-Qaida terrorists involved came from there), but against Iraq, which the US invaded six months later. The media wanted the war and most Democratic senators, including Hillary Clinton, favored it too. But the invasion of Iraq created the chaos that produced so-called Islamic State (ISIS).

The Paris killings of 13 November are about to help realize ISIS’s two main objectives. The first is to create a coalition of “apostates”, “infidels” and “Shia renegades” who will come to fight it in Iraq and Syria, then in Libya. The second is to make the majority of westerners believe that their Muslim compatriots could be a fifth column hiding in the shadows, a “domestic enemy” in the service of the jihadists.

War and fear — even an apocalyptic objective contains a grain of rationality. The jihadists have calculated that the “crusaders” and “idolaters” may launch airstrikes on Syrian cities or patrol Iraqi provinces intensively but will never manage to occupy an Arab country for long. ISIS also hopes that its attacks in Europe will stir up mistrust of western Muslims, and lead to heavy policing of them. This will breed resentment, and some will want to join the “caliphate”; only a very few, but then the followers of Salafist jihad aren’t trying to win an election. In fact, an anti-Muslim party win would advance their cause.

“France is at war,” François Hollande told the French congress on 16 November. He has been trying for a long time to intervene militarily in Syria, and has been pushing for greater US involvement. What is peculiar is that Hollande now wants to fight ISIS in Syria, yet two years ago, seized by the same war fever, he was trying to convince the US to punish Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Will Obama persist in opposing Hollande’s “dumb” war? The pressure on Obama is all the stronger because ISIS wants the same thing as Hollande. As Pierre-Jean Luizard, a researcher at France’s Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), says, it was at first “as if ISIS had consciously made a list of everything that would disgust popular opinion in the West: infringing the rights of minorities and of women, particularly through forced marriage, executing homosexuals, reinstating slavery, [...] beheadings and mass executions” (1). When this macabre catalogue was not enough, ISIS cut the throat of an American hostage, posting a video of it, then carried out deadly shootings in Paris. At this point, ISIS expected the “crusaders” to respond.

A head of state is almost duty bound to react to such spectacular acts. He is under political pressure to announce some kind, almost any kind, of response — the destruction of a warehouse or a munitions depot, airstrikes on a city. He is expected to show determination, to promise new, even tougher, legislation and condemn those in favour of appeasement. He must use martial language, talk of blood and assert that retaliation will be ruthless. Thus, he will seek standing ovations, and his approval rating will go up ten points. Eventually, all of this will prove “dumb” — but not until a few months later. And the temptation to escalate grows ever stronger, especially with frenetic 24/7 news coverage making it seem that every act, every statement, requires an immediate answer.

During the Gulf war in 1991, US hawks criticised George Bush Sr for not ordering the troops that had just freed Kuwait to go on to Baghdad. Four years later, chief of staff General Colin Powell justified their relative restraint: “From the geopolitical standpoint, the coalition, particularly the Arab states, never wanted Iraq invaded and dismembered. [...] It would not contribute to the stability we want in the Middle East to have Iraq fragmented into separate Sunni, Shia, and Kurd political entities. The only way to have avoided this outcome was to have undertaken a largely US conquest and occupation off a remote nation of twenty million people. [...] It is naïve however, to think that if Saddam had fallen, he would necessarily have been replaced by a Jeffersonian in some sort of desert democracy where people read the Federalist Papers along with the Koran. Quite possibly, we would have wound up with a Saddam by another name” (2). In 2003 George Bush Jr completed his father’s military project. The neocons hailed in him a new Churchill, courage, even democracy. But Powell had forgotten to read his own book, as the fears he had once expressed came true under the president he was serving as secretary of state.

Bush Jr was criticised for the childish, almost criminal naivety of his war on terror. He seems to have found his true heirs in Paris. “Let’s put it simply,” France’s foreign minister Laurent Fabius said, talking down to us like a teacher to a class of small children. “ISIS are monsters, but there are only 30,000 of them. If all the countries in the world are unable to eliminate 30,000 people who are monsters, then nothing makes sense any more” (3).

Let’s try to explain it to him: the 30,000 monsters have widespread support in the Sunni regions of Iraq and Syria, where the armies they face are often seen as instruments of Shia dictatorships, themselves responsible for many massacres. That is why ISIS was able to capture some cities without any fighting, when the soldiers holding them fled, abandoning their weapons and uniforms. The US has tried funding the training and equipment of more than 4,000 “moderate” Syrian fighters but, according to the Americans, only four or five are operational — and the unit cost has been several million dollars. At Mosul, 30,000 Iraqi troops were defeated by 1,000 ISIS fighters, who captured more than 2,000 armoured vehicles and hundreds of millions of dollars from the vaults of local banks. At Ramadi, the jihadists defeated 25 times their number of Iraqi troops. Syria’s armed forces are exhausted by four years of war. And the Kurds are not prepared to die for territory they do not claim. “In reality,” Luizard observed, “ISIS is only strong because its opponents are weak, and is flourishing on the ruins of institutions that are in the process of collapsing” (4).

It’s the same in Libya. Under the influence of strong emotions and led by the shock team of Nicolas Sarkozy and Bernard-Henri Lévy, France made an important contribution to the fall of Muammar Gaddafi. It imagined that getting a dictator lynched would be enough to bring about a western-style liberal democracy. But Libya has fallen apart and ISIS controls several cities from which it attacks neighbouring Tunisia. France’s defence minister has admitted: “I am very concerned about Libya. Daesh [ISIS] has moved in, taking advantage of internal clashes between Libyans,” but “if Tobruk and Tripoli were to work together, Daesh would no longer exist” (5). That problem had presumably been solved, three years ago, when Lévy explained: “Contrary to what the Cassandras predicted, Libya has not split into three confederate entities. [...] Tribal law has not prevailed over the sense of national unity. [...] Compared to Tunisia and Egypt, Libya appears to have achieved a successful [Arab] Spring — and those who helped it can be proud of themselves” (6). Proud indeed: apart from Bernard Guetta, who broadcasts the French foreign ministry’s viewpoint (7), nobody is better at tall stories.

Hollande now wants “a grand and unique coalition” against ISIS. This would include Assad. But Assad has already replied: “You cannot fight Daesh and still be allied with Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are arming the terrorists” (8). President Vladimir Putin feels that Turkey, another presumed member of the coalition, has stabbed Russia in the back by shooting down one of its planes on 24 November. As soon as the motley coalition that France is trying to cobble together had won the war, it would face the question of what next, under even more difficult conditions than in Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya. US neocons have already forgotten all these failures (as has Hollande), and are demanding that 50,000 troops be sent into the ISIS-occupied zone (9).

In Foreign Affairs, Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson, experts on the Middle East, list the conditions for a sustainable western military success on territory currently controlled by ISIS: “the support of the American public; a large cadre of deployable civilian experts in reconstruction and stabilisation; deep knowledge of the society for whose fate a victorious United States would take responsibility; [...] a sustained military force to provide security for populations and infrastructure [...] local constituents or clients, or indeed allies, to assist.” They point out that “if this sounds familiar, it is because it is the same list of things that Washington wasn’t able to put together the last two times it launched major military interventions in the Middle East [Iraq and Libya]. [...] The United States would likely lose another war in the Middle East for all the same reasons it lost the last two” (10).

France, already heavily engaged in Africa, cannot win a war in the Middle East. The fact that ISIS is trying to draw it into this trap should not lead Hollande to rush into it, taking with him a coalition of countries that are often more cautious. Terrorism kills civilians, but so does war. The intensification of western airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, which will create as many jihadist fighters as they kill, will not restore the territorial integrity of those countries, nor the legitimacy of their governments in the eyes of their peoples. A lasting solution will depend on the peoples of the region, on a diplomatic solution, not on former colonial powers or the US, which are disqualified both by their support for the worst policies of Israel and by the disastrous results of their military adventurism — disastrous from their own viewpoint too, since by invading Iraq in 2003, after supporting Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran (which killed more than a million) for eight years, they turned Iraq into an ally of Iran. And states that sell arms to the oil dictatorships of the Gulf, propagators of Salafist jihad, are not qualified to talk of peace, or to teach Arabs the virtues of pluralist democracy.

Historian Eric Hobsbawm wrote that when they operate in stable states with stable regimes and do not have significant support from a section of the population, small groups of terrorists are a police problem, rather than a military one. He added that it is understandable that such groups make the population very nervous, especially in major western cities, and especially when government and media are working together to create a climate of fear (11).

This creation of a climate of fear, and repeated denigration of those who refuse to face up to reality, make it possible to stifle the voices of those who reject the accumulation of repressive measures that are not only ineffective but threaten civil rights. Xenophobic measures (as demanded by the National Front) have been added to the mix, such as revoking the French nationality of some citizens with dual nationality. The declaration of a state of emergency was approved almost unanimously by French parliamentarians, and, as if this was not enough, the prime minister asked them not to refer to the constitutional council the legally shaky measures he wanted them to approve.

Obama told Bush in 2002: “You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that [...] the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. [...] Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East [...] stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality [...] so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.” Obama has not taken his own advice, and neither have other heads of state. Hence, the situation we are in today. ISIS attacks and France’s disastrous foreign policy have led to a new “war”, solely military and therefore already lost.

We sell weapons around the world and locally to terrorists. by RRO

Our Stories by RRO

Disenfranchised :When You Don't Have Hope by RRO.

When you don’t have hope then lots of things look good:

• Drugs

• Radical religion

• Riots

• Protests

• Guns

• Violence

• Hate Groups

• Revolution

• Terrorism

Do you know where most of the terrorists came from in Paris? Well, the answer is Brussels. What part of Brussels. The Brussels neighborhood of Molenbeek.  What’s it like?  Well it might be called the Fuller Park of Brussels.  Fuller Park is a rough neighborhood in Chicago.  Both have high unemployment, poverty and a great deal of hopelessness.  Kids in schools in these two neighborhoods don’t graduate from high school, they don’t go to college.  Sometimes, they don’t even eat.
Last week the Chicago please released a video of a teenager in Chicago being gunned down in what looks old fashion murder to me.  He was on drugs, PCB, and had a knife in his hand.  He was walking down the middle of the street.  The police pulled up and shot him.  The first bullet took him to the ground.  He was shot an additional 15 times.  You can see the puffs of steam rise from his body as each bullet penetrates his body.  That certainly solved his drug problem.
.

Detached from our reality

.

A moderate amount of PCP often causes users to feel detached, distant, and estranged from their surroundings….may be accompanied by a sense of strength and invulnerability.  Its bad stuff.  But, who is to JUDGE that we would not want to feel detached from our surroundings if we grew up in Gaza, or Fuller, or Molenbeek.
Personally, drugs are not my style. I think I would detach by starting a violent revolution, which might look like terrorism to some.

.

Bigotry is one Response to “Such People”

.
We respond to drugs, terrorists, and all forms of radical behavior in this country with one simple emotion: Judgment.  It is one thing to condemn such behavior, but to make a Judgment that we are superior to all these people, to say that if we were raised in a pocket of hopelessness that we would quietly suffer and do no harm is a huge judgment against a large part of humanity in the world today — much of it inside our own borders.
And our primary action to deal with all these problems.  Violent force.  Guns.  Bombs. Military Task Forces.  Drones.  Wars. Prison.  Capital punishment.  And yet, has we kill millions, millions more rise up from the infinite supply of the disenfranchised.
Trump is the champ of bigotry.  Never in my nearly 70 years on this planet have I seen anyone that is a dangerous as this man.  He is bigoted against Mexicans, Immigrants, Palestinians, Muslims, handicapped, Democrats, his fellow Republican candidates for President, and anyone else that he can make fun of to feel superior.  Trump would never look below the surface to find out where terrorism, drug use, and all other forms of disenfranchisement is coming from … it would be beneath him to treat others as humans.  And what is worse, he speaks to what is the worse parts of all of us:  that little (or big) core of bigotry that exists in all of us.  Hitler was the last one that did this well.  Trump is going down the same road disguised as a savior appealing to disenfranchised religious right.

.

Compassion, Loving our Neighbor, Being our Brother’s Keeper

.
If we want to change the world, make it a better place,  using deadly violence against all the disenfranchised in our country and the world will lead to the long advertised apocalypse.  If we do not look at the core problems behind wealth inequality in our country and much of the globe, then the world will continue to unravel as we mass produce the disenfranchised.  If we ever needed some serious dialogue on the issues, it is now.  Two of the candidates for President in my mind are approaching some of the issues with openness and candor.   Bernie is good on helping the working man and down trodden.  Rand Paul is good on addressing the financial mess our congress has got us in.  Both are against attempting to solve everything with our price gouging military industrial complex.
We need to start talking … and taking the best of every point of view.

Where is the Arab Coalition Fighting ISIS? by DRJ

Without condoning it, I can understand why the Sunni majority countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Turkey, etc. are reluctant to attack ISIS, but where the hell is Israel? The United States spends billions arming them to the teeth with the most sophisticated high tech weapons in the world so they can bomb the civilian population in Gaza back to the stone age, but when it comes to ISIS, all we hear from them is how it is the duty of the Americans and Europeans to destroy Israel's enemies in Syria, Hezbollah and Iran. In other words, those who along with the Kurds are providing the only effective ground forces fighting ISIS.

 

For reasons I certainly don't understand, it appears that ISIS and the other jihadist terrorists operating in neighboring Syria are beyond consideration as targets for the US supplied F-15 and F-16 fighter bombers that make up the Israeli air force. As if that isn't enough to make you wonder what the hell is going on, consider this; apparently the United States is prohibited from deploying its own combat aircraft for operations against ISIS from the territory of Israel, our greatest ally in the war against terrorism. You figure, I can't.  

Donald Johnson

Elderly Black Man Paralyzed by Police. ...by RRO

A few years ago, an older man was walking down the sidewalk from his son's house to his grandson's house.  Someone called into the police that a black man was wandering down the sidewalk looking into garages. Further, he had done the same thing the day before.  He was a 57 year old man from India.  He had been in the country for one week.  He knew little English but enjoyed spending time with his grandson.  His real crime, being black.

Elderly black man paralyzed by Alabama Police

Well, the police shows up and asks him what he is doing walking down the sidewalk.  He tries to point to his house and tell them he is from India and doesn't speak English.  As he tries to point toward his son's house, where he lives, they tell him in a language he doesn't understand not to walk off again.  Shortly after that, he tries again to point at his house and of course walks toward it pointing.  The policeman, Eric Parker, body slams him to the ground.  He then tells him to stand up, but being paralyzed of course, the Indian man can't stand up.

Eric Parker, the policeman, was fired.  He was charged with assault and has gone to court twice to face these charges.  Both time the jury has been hung up, unable to come to a consensus.  His defense, the man from India should know how to speak English if he is going to be in America.

ISIS Is But a Stage by RRO

We somehow want to believe that ISIS can be defeated with physical weapons.  Actually, it can't be defeated by our military or anyone else's military.   ISIS is just a manifestation of something that is much bigger.  They are just the latest reincarnation of the hate we have created in the world.  ISIS is but a stage where this hate is now gathered.  It will reappear on another stage unless we address the core problems facing our existence.

At best, ISIS can be contained like Israel contains the Palestinians.  Israel occupies the West Bank and Gaza and runs it as a military state.  We did this same thing in Iraq, we occupied the country and ran it as a military state.  It took a hundred thousand troops and half a trillion in loose change each year, but it is doable.  And that is what it will take if we chose the military option ... many decades of war, perhaps until Rome falls.

First, you have to realize that we are not talking about two separate things, the Palestinians and ISIS, not to ISIS followers.  In their mind the injustices against the Palestinians, and they are plentiful, are injustices against all Muslims.  And, who are we to say they are wrong, besides it really doesn't matter what we think.  

And when we attack Pakistan, Yemen and a dozen other countries with drones across the world, do you think ISIS might consider their people are being attacked.  When they sign up new recruits I am sure they praise America for keeping peace with the drones.  Sure.

Until we are smart enough to realize that all of our actions have consequences, that all of our actions are part of the whole, we can not begin to successfully fight the ideological war in which we are now engaged.  For instance, if we can not find a way to find a way to keep the promise we made to the Palestinians in 1947 and quit coming up with excuses because we don't want to strong arm Israel, we can't begin to stop the tide of hate building up against us. 

And don't get confused, they do not hate us for doing good things in their country or for living by American values.  All the things they really hate us for involves our military, either by us directly, or by our proxy (Israel, Saudi's, NATO, etc.)  On just religious principles, they couldn't get sufficient traction against us. 

Of the two billion Muslims in the world, about 200  million of them probably are not our friends based on the way we have treated people in the Middle East as noted above.  In short, there is an infinite supply of people that hate us for good cause. 

So one option is to spend our way into poverty bombing all the people that hate us, or the second option is to change our actions that produces the most hate.  Our (U.S., Israel, NATO) military-industrial-complex (MIC) is responsible for most of the hate for America around the world.  We use our  MIC to secure oil rights in the Middle East and pretend because we need the oil it makes what we do okay.  Actions that are motivated by greed are never, never, ever okay. When we chose our friends by how much oil they have in the ground, we can not expect it to turn out well.

Even when our politicians mouth off about Muslims should not be allowed to be President, even when we call Obama a Muslim like it is a dirty word, even when we reject Syrian refugees, etc. we are rightly creating hate against America.  

Now that we have created an ungodly mess in the Middle East with our MIC, what now?  Step one, we need to realize that we can't defeat hate, especially hate that is justified, with bombs.  We have to re-evaluate the impact that our MIC has had on not only the well-being of the Middle East, but our well-being.  If we don't, we will not only be bombing our enemies to hell, but ourselves with them.

Dear Mr. President, Are you Kidding Me. by DRJ

Patrick Cockbum. ISIS Bombers Will Always Get Through

Dear Mr. President,

With all due respect Mr. President, are you kidding me? You say that "Tens of thousands have been killed by the dictatorial regime of Bashar al-Assad, millions have fled for their lives, and terrorist groups like ISIL are exacerbating the strife."  Does that mean I am to believe all those opposition forces sent into Syria by Saudi Arabia and Turkey to kill the kafirs, i.e. the Alawites, Armenians, Assyrians, Druze, Kurds, Yazidi, Arab Christians, Shiites and secular Sunni Muslims are altogether blameless for the Syrian tragedy? You even seem to want to give ISIL a pass for merely exacerbating the strife which you apparently believe Bashar al-Assad is solely responsible for. I know you are not a foolish person Mr. President, so I can only conclude you must be kidding me.

 

You say, "America’s objectives in Syria are clear:  we will continue to go after terrorist groups that threaten the United States and our allies and partners, we will work to relieve the humanitarian suffering, and we will support a political transition away from the Asad regime." But I say, and I believe the preponderance of the available evidence supports me, is that the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria is no more a threat to the United States than the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq or the Muammar Kaddafi regime in Libya were a threat to the United States. You know, I know, in fact everyone, with the possible exception of Dick Cheney and John McCain, knows that those two examples of what you call 'political transitions' but I call 'regime changes' did precious little to advance American interests in this world. 

 

You say we will continue to go after the terrorist groups in Syria. I assume by 'terrorist groups' you mean ISIL, al- Qaeda and  affiliated groups like Jabhat al-Nusra.That's good. I agree with you. We should do that. I also agree with what you said about not committing large numbers of American ground troops to take part in the Syrian civil war. So why then are you intent on removing Bashar al-Assad from power when his Syrian army with support from Iran and Hezbollah is the only effective on the ground fighting force opposing ISIL, al-Qaeda and the many other jihadist groups in Syria? No, I haven't forgotten about the CIA backed so called 'moderate' rebel forces who are also on the ground and supposedly committed to opposing ISIL at the same time they are opposing the Syrian army. The problem with them, aside from the fact they have been relatively ineffective as a fighting force, is that just like the CIA backed mujahedeen in Afghanistan way back when, it is a fiction to call them 'moderate' if by that term you mean they are secularists whose objective is to replace the Assad regime with a democratic government dedicated to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by all the people of Syria. The truth is this current brand of CIA backed jihadists you call 'moderates' are no different than the former brand of CIA mujahedeen in Afghanistan who morphed into what we now call al-Qaeda and ISIL. These 'moderates' may be taking their direction and getting their pay from the CIA today, but you can be certain that when the time is right they will revert to form and join with their band of blood brothers in ISIL and al-Qaeda to join in the attack on the kafiri infidels, which includes you and me just as much as it includes Bashar al-Assad.

 

Again, with all due respect Mr. President I feel you are being somewhat disingenuous in the second paragraph of your reply by pointing the finger at Bashar al-Assad alone for the deaths of all the Syrians killed in their civil war without even mentioning the fact that the Syrian army isn't the only armed force in the country. I'm sure you are aware of what has recently taken place in Palmyra, and I don't think you can blame Assad for those atrocities. Isn't casting the blame entirely on Bashar al-Assad for the civilian deaths in Syria akin to saying President Abraham Lincoln was solely responsible for the estimated 200,000 civilians killed during the American Civil War? With that said I won't comment any further on the second paragraph of your reply except to say I commend you for your concern over the plight of the Syrian refugees. Lets all hope that the aid and assistance you speak of actually reaches the Syrian people.

 

In your third paragraph you say finding an end to the war in Syria is not possible as long as Assad remains in power, but you don't explain why you believe that. Certainly you must understand that if the war ends because the jihadist forces are successful in deposing Assad, Syria is sure to wind up as another Libyan style disaster. No Mr. President, I'm afraid you are mistaken on this one too. The war can be ended while Bashar al-Assad is still in power and without turning the country into another failed Middle East state. How? First of all, by doing exactly as you have suggested. Pressing (I would prefer you say 'negotiating with') Iran and Russia to effect an immediate cessation of all offensive military action by the Syrian Army and its supporters, and at the same time negotiating with (or 'pressing', if you like) Saudi Arabia, the other GCC countries, and Turkey to end all aid and assistance to ISIL, al-Qaeda and other Jihadist rebel forces in Syria. At the same time, working in conjunction with Iran and Russia, The United States must do everything it can to convince the Saudis, the Turks and our own CIA that they have no other viable option than to order their proxies to also cease all offensive military action. Any group that dares to ignore the order to lay down their arms, be it either the Syrian army or Hezbollah, the 'moderate' opposition or the 'extremist' jihadists must understand that that they will be completely annihilated for their transgression by a combined U.S., Western European, Russian and Iranian military force operating with UN Security Council authorization. Once a cease fire is firmly in place under these conditions, the Syrian people, and only the Syrian people, should be allowed to freely decide their own future, including how and by whom they are to be governed.

 

I know what I am suggesting is overly simplistic, but there should be enough there in principle to get started on finding a way out of the morass that is Syria today.

 

I want to thank you for replying to my e-mail, and I also want to wish you every possible success during the time remaining in your second term. I believe you and Secretary Kerry did a fantastic job in negotiating the Iran nuclear deal, and I hope you can build on that success by employing a similar diplomatic solution to end the disastrous war in Syria.

 

Sincerely,

Donald Johnson

#PrayforParis

Well, the world is not okay tonight.  The country that gave us the Statue of Liberty is under attack from terrorists.  Like the children in the gangs in Chicago, LA, Atlanta, and every big city in America.  More will die in the U.S. this weekend than will die in Paris.  

Paris will probably be a call to action for the West to attack ISIS with more vigor.  Bigger bombs, it is what we understand.  

There will be no call to action to change what happens on American streets.  There is no big bomb, there is no one we can deliberately hurt to change things.  The children dying in the gangs are black and hispanic mostly, their moms single, their dads uneducated.  We will give no bomb of help to their moms to keep these children in school, or even fed them.    The next generation will be the same as the last, our lack of commitment guarantees it.  And some day, the child can grow up hoping to join ISIS and we won't understand.

It Doesn't Really Matter which Establishment Candidate Wins, We Lose

There is a lot of talk about who is going to win the primaries on the Republican side to run against Hillary.

First, it will be an establishment candidate for the Republicans.  It will not be Trump, Carson or Fiorina.  The establishment will at some point crush these three outsiders and elect one of their own, Rubio or Bush most likely.  It really doesn't matter what you want or what we want.   There are billions of dollars that can be mobilized when it is time that will unite behind one of their own and they will simply roll over the outsiders.  

Of course, there are the friendly outsiders, like Bernie on the democratic side and Rand Paul on the Republican side.  Both are outsiders but are not considered serious threats.  Bernie has already pledged to support Hillary if he loses giving up any negotiating power he might have in moving the democrat party toward a more progressive agenda. He is simply warming up the electorate mare for the Hilliary stallion. 

Rand Paul, the only real fiscal conservative that believes you should pay for what you spend does not have enough Americans behind him who are committed to sound fiscal policy.  On both sides of the aisle, we want to spend more than we can afford and we have swallowed the military-industrial-complex lie that spending more money for military than the next 10 countries combined for defense is not enough to keep us strong.  Obviously because we are too stupid to spend the money well or efficiently?  And yes, the majority of democrats believe this lie too.  

The New President

The new President, whoever he or she is, will be part of the corporate oligarchy that controls this country.  No one has ever been more a part of the corporate machine than Hillary and the Clintons.  She has shackles around every inch of her body that is anchored in corporate America.  And, you have to believe that Rubio who struggles with his personal finances will never have to worry again when he is adopted by the establishment.  

Under this new President a few things can be counted on to happen including:

• The Military Industrial Complex will expand,
• Corporate Taxes will decline (a good thing),
• Obamacare will morph into something else for the Healthcare Insurance Industry
• The minimum wage will be increased moderately (a token contribution to the working people).
• Illegal Immigrants will be punished somehow (fines perhaps) and be granted a path to citizenship.
• We will continue to fight profitable wars in the Middle East.
• Unions will continue to lose power
• Banks too big to fail will get bigger and hold us hostage.
• The Present will gain power, the Congress will lose power.
• The progressive social agenda will move forward
• Irresponsible spending by the Feds of more than we have will continue, burying our kids in debt.
• Literacy rates in America will decline.
• The labor participation rate will drop below 60% and continue to decline.
• Automation will accelerate reducing the number of jobs for all, 
• Homelessness will increase.
• Poverty rates will increase
• Dropout rates in high school will increase
• The number of mentally ill in jail will increase.
• The number of illegal immigrants will decline (as joblessness in America increases)
• Our traditional infrastructure will not get rebuilt
• Our digital infrastructure will not expand to the poor.

What will not happen:

• A great wall across the Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California border to Mexico will not be built at the cost of billions of dollars to build, man and maintain.
• Israel and the U.S. will not let the Palestinians have their own country or self-determination
• We will not lower the interest rates on the profitable loans to indebted college students, future or past.
• We will not equally fund education for poor black or hispanic kids.
• We will not provide affordable college education to our children.
• We will provide Universal Health care for our people like most modern countries 
• We will not end for-profit prisons in America.
• We will not provide help to drug addicts
• We will not end the war on drugs
• We will not start the war on poverty
• We will not address the challenge of the homeless or the mentally ill people in this country.

How do I know all these things for a fact?   It is elementary, Watson.  What is best for corporate America?  What is good for the Oligarchy?  What increases corporate profits?  Answer that question on each issue and that is how it will go whether a Republican or Democrat is in Presidency.  The difference that occur are really very minor, nothing will change on the major issues, see above.

There is no universal vision for our future.  There are very few that can image how our society has to evolve to prosper in a world where birth rates our declining, automation is exploding, labor is no longer valuable, and values are essential for future prosperity.  In short, we are screwed.

Republicans, its not complicated why the rich get richer.

In the  previous Republican debate last night there seemed to be a lot of confusion about wealth inequality.  Why it occurs and how to fix it.  And it is so very simple ... 

Ordinary people get their income from wages.  Income tax is progressive and takes away more money has one moves from poverty to middle class.  It is like a rubber band, the further you get away from poverty, the income taxes pull you down harder.  Top rate is 39.6 %. 

Rich people get their income from capital gains ... increases on the value of their stocks and investments.  Capital gain taxes are less progressive.  Top rate is 20%.  The rubber band is looser.  And here is the real kicker.  It is only charged when you sell the stock or asset.  So, if you sit on an investment for 20 years it accumulates tax free all those years ... with the power of compound interest.  Rich people like Buffett buys and holds a stock forever.  If he needs some money, he simply uses the stock as collateral, and buys some more stock/assets.  And in his case, he usually picks winners and companies that turn out good cash flows.  The cash can pay back the loans, keeping the original stock earning cash tax free. Its a money machine untouched by our tax system.

For example, the average return on the stock market is 7%. One billion dollars invested at this rate doubles in ten years. The rich now control 10, perhaps 20 trillon dollars, that is doubling mostly without taxation every 10 years. Unless they have invested in a dog, in which case they sell their stock paying little to no taxes since there was little gain, and buy a new stock and restart the wealth accumulation without taxes.  For the rich, there is little need or motivation to sell their stocks/assets.   

Of course, Buffet will die one day and his heirs will pay an inheritance tax, or death tax. This tax tends to be higher when Democrats are in power and lower when Republicans are in power. Currently,  the rate is 40%.  I'm guessing Buffet et al, have trusts set up to avoid these taxes, or has all his assets held offshore.  I'm getting my lawyers on this to understand how it works. Wait, I don't have enough left on my credit card to pursue this now.

Automation is compounding the impact of how capital gains taxes are making the rich, richer.  As machines take over jobs less people have good jobs or any income at all.  Automation makes companies more profitable,  their stock prices rises faster, capital gains rise faster. The gap between rich and poor opens at an ever accelerating rate.  The only bug in this equation is that as we destroy workers we are also destroying customers. Soon we have rich people living in a sea of impoverished slaves. It's simple mathematics.  Of course, one day the pions should revolt, but we are a decade or so away from a true bloody revolution.

Of course,  anyone in Congress for more than a few terms is rich via book or speaking deals, etc.  Obama has got two libraries at a half billion each in the planning and as already started planning his $150,000 per speech speaking tour.  And yes, the Clintons did it, too. The Saudi's helped the Bushes out.  In short, they are part of the system.

So, what are the odds of getting a more progressive capital gains tax?  Perhaps some will listen to a voice from the past? During Reagan's term, the top income tax rate and the top capital gain tax was the same 29%.  While this does not remove the impact of compounding without taxation, it is at least a move in the direction of restoring equality.

Of course the other half of the equation is what politicians do with the taxes collected from capital gains.  If the funds are not used to invest in America's future in digital and physical infrastructure,  in education and development of the impoverished and the outdated, in the development of our weakest and brightest, then fixing the tax code will be an exercise in futility. Finally, we must use funds to retire our 20 trillion in debt which will become unmanageable as interest rates rise starting now.

So, if we do nothing with capital gains taxes, the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer.  It is just mathematics.

32 Children Neutralized by Israel

Well, Israel now has a master plan.  Kids that throw rocks or try to stab Israeli citizens or police are neutralized (shot on the spot).  No, it doesn’t make a difference if they throw rocks or try to stab someone.  Neutralized. No arrest, no trial, no prison.  Just neutralized.  And then, they go find the children’s house and bull doze it.  Parents are smart enough not to protest, because they unlike the children, have been beat down by the Israelis and they do not want to be neutralized. They have neutralized 32 children and young men this month.

Well, as you might imagine, the Palestinians find this type of policing by the military abhorrent as does everyone in the world except the U.S.   Their good policemen (except they are the military) are worse than our worst policemen.

But now the Israelis have come up with a new plan.  They are not returning the children’s bodies to the parents, but instead keep the children’s bodies and dump them in unmarked graves (read plastic bags in the local dump).  

Hmmm.  Basically, the Israelis continue to kick the Palestinians like stray dogs and wonder why they keep getting bit. How would you react if your captors did this to your kids.

NRA 297 Children 0

297 is the number of mass shootings in the United States in 2015.  74 is the number of mass killings in schools since Newtown.  Yes, there are more on average than one mass shooting in the United States everyday, most don't make national news.  A group called Mass Shooting Tracker  keeps a running total of the mass killings in this country since 2013.  The numbers are staggering. 

There have three more mass shootings since new victims in Umpqua in Oregon.

There are too many Mass Killings to Report on National TV

Yes, there are on average more than one mass shooting per day in the United States.  An entire news channel could be devoted to just tracking mass shootings.  I wish the website above had pictures of all the victims, or perhaps we need a social media website dedicated to the victims and another to their shooters.  Friends of victims could post them on FB, Instragram, etc. But, I'm thinking it wouldn't matter, as Americans we are content with the way it is.

NRA wins again

I am always amazed at the power of the NRA, the most powerful lobbyist in America.  They effectively block any legislation to strengthen background checks, databases to track those killed by firearms, increased efforts to identify and help the mentally ill, and anything else to try to slow mass killings.  Congratulations for your continued success, NRA.  You have the power, it is up to you to offer up some answers, it is up to you to propose regulations that would help reduce the number of mass shootings in the United States.  You don't like anything anyone helps comes up with. 

With much power, NRA, comes much responsibility. We are asking you to stand up and fight for our kids. We are not asking for perfection, and we are even willing for some of your plans and laws to be ineffective.  We just want you to try something, anything to stop the murdering of our children. And, if that fails, we want you to lead the charge to try something else.  You have the power, not us, not the children of this country.  

Keystone Pipeline Compromise

There is a lot of controversy over it whether or not the Keystone pipeline should be built. Many want to make the key question on building the pipeline this: should we use fossil fuels for our energy source or should we use renewable sources. The pipeline might make a small amount of difference on this question because oil might be slightly cheaper if this pipeline is installed. But the major driver of whether or not we us renewable sources is the price of those renewable sources compared to the global price of fossil fuels. Using renewable Energy will depend on developments in that field and the willingness of our government to subsidize renewable energy sources until their price comes down.  Increased research in renewable technologies could also drive prices lower in the long run. But, our country is doing precious little for the future.

The correct question to ask about the Keystone pipeline is this: is it safer to deliver oil via a pipeline or via rail cars and trucks. Given the fact that trains crash in this country on a fairly frequent basis and that our infrastructure is in bad need of modernization, this question is really very straightforward: the pipeline is much safer than rails and trucks.

The pipeline has become a very political subject. However I think we can get past it being political if we ask the right questions. 

I am an independent strongly leaning toward Barry Sanders, but that does not mean I can't break ranks and have a different opinion.  In fact, on economic issues I agree often with Republicans and I can usually imagine reasonable compromises.  On social and issues of compassion, I'm squarely in the democratic camp.

How about using the pipeline as a bargaining chip to get free public education through college? That's how we got stuff done in America in the good old days like with Regan, Clinton, Johnson,  Eisenhower, etc.  How about agreeing to the pipeline if the bill includes a tax on the oil that would fund college for all our citizens, or provide health care to its citizens, or rebuild our infrastructure ... or  do something we think is important for our country.  

The pipeline is a chip to be used in bargaining for something we progressive, compassionate loving people could use for something our country needs ... 

The Evil Immigrant Story

Once long ago, a leader rose up and told his people that the outsiders (the immigrants) were destroying their country, that these people were inferior and that they were bringing the entire country down.  THEY are not like US, he declared. He united his people and the country rose to new levels of power and dominance in Europe and drove out and killed the immigrants.  But, he was stopped largely by the eight million Russians that did not see the world like he did.

During WWII, we came obsessed and fearful of the danger posed by those that looked like our enemies.  The color of their skin, the slant of their eyes, their dark hair and short stature.  THEY were not like US, we declared.  They should be put in camps  They should be put in camps, the men separated from their wives and child until the war is over.  We acted quickly and saved ourselves from their threat.

Now, a new threat has risen.  They have come here under the pretense of wanting a better life.  But, in reality they have just come here to have their children on our soil so they and their citizen children can tap into our welfare system.  It doesn't matter if they could not afford the price of legal immigration, they should have stayed home.  Their drug wars have nothing to do with us, it's their problem.  THEY are not like US, They are not like the immigrants that have come here before them.   In fact we suspect their governments are sending the worst of the worst to us, like rapists, so they won't have to deal with them. 

And yet and even greater threat has arisen, more evil than the feared Mexican -- the Syrian Refuge.  We had nothing to do with his problems, its not like we messed up the Middle East or contributed to its instability.  But, Carson is prepared to save us from this threat by not letting any Syrian refugees into our country, not even one hungry child is going to darken our borders.

Planned Parenthood and Compassion

8

I believe in birth control.  I believe the state should provide birth control to those too poor to afford it.  To not take any chances, I would make it available to any woman who asked for it no questions asked.  Yes, and I would throw in the recommended doctor visits, etc. to do the job right.  The other choice is to risk a woman having a child or pregnancy she doesn't want and can't afford.  Neither a good outcome, nor a necessary one in our prosperous society.

Based on their website, Planned Parenthood provides services relating to reproduction and sexual health.  Sounds good.  I assume patients on medicaid or medicare can use their services.  Birth control is high on their agenda! Good!

Defunding Planned Parenthood

There is a push on to de-fund planned parenthood because of some videos on line from Center for Medical Progress (CMP) who interviewed Planned Parenthood (PP) management about buying fetal tissue from abortions.  PP does seem to be on the ragged edge of selling fetal tissue in these interviews, although their position is that they are just covering shipping and handling costs.  However, if they are just covering costs, that should just be a number furnished by accountants with minimal wiggle room.  The negotiation did sound like a negotiation over a price, not a cost. 

PP also seemed willing to alter their procedure to minimize damage to the tissue from the fetus.   CMP implies they are doing partial birth abortions, which is illegal, and if true should be prosecuted.  I am not a lawyer or a prosecutor, but if they broke the law then some appropriate prosecutor should charge them.   (I don't understand the rationale for the law that was passed under Bush's Presidency.  But, if it is the law, then we should follow it or change it.)

CMP also interviewed someone that they claimed was an ex-employee of Planned Parenthood.  I have no idea if what she said was true or a lie or if she was really an ex-employee.  In either case, she described a pretty gross procedure to remove the brain tissue of a live fetus.  Again, I think CMP is implying PP broke the law.  Again if the law was broken, it should be prosecuted.  And if true, and legal it is still pretty sickening stuff.  Abortions at best are an ugly business. And, if we must have abortions, maybe there is some room for defining what is allowed in an abortion. 

Quantity of Abortions in the U.S.

There are about a million abortions a year in the U.S. and about two million unwanted pregnancies.  See Facts about Abortion from Guttmacher Institute and Centers for Disease Control.   People on medicaid are about 3.7 times as likely to get an abortion than the rest of the population.  About 57% of their services of PP are paid for by the clients, the balance split pretty evenly between insurance and medicaid. The federal government kicks Iin about $500 million a year.

I looked at the foot print of PP ... it is huge and offers thousands of people services everyday.  It looks like mostly birth control, cancer screening, ultrasounds to check baby health, and similar.  And yes, also Abortions.   

Impact of Defunding PP

When I heard Republicans in Congress are attempting to defund PP it must mean that they want to stop poor people on medicaid from being able to get abortions.  My gut reaction is that this is an alliance between Rich people and those that believe abortions are wrong.  Poor women, and the children born, will be the ones to suffer.  However, I found out that medicaid can only be used in 15 states for abortion.  So, in the other 35 states defunding medicaid would mean that poor people using medicaid for birth control, cancer screening, etc. would be defunded.  So, the biggest effect of defunding PP would be to reduce birth control to poor people which would result in more unwanted children being born and perhaps more future abortions, not less. Ironic!

And yes, the $500 million from the federal government Can not be spent on abortions. So, cutting that money out means more unwanted pregnancies! More unwanted births, probably more people in poverty and on welfare.  Great plan. Before we throw out the bath Water we need a plan b.

The Bigger Picture

Here is the shame I see ... 

1,000,000 abortions means birth control (availability, use, education, or efficacy) failed 1,000,000 times.  We must be able to do better. More morning after pills, or something.  Shouldn't we all be working together to do a better job with birth control? What am I missing? 

So what do I vote?

So, my vote is to let Planned Parenthood keep providing services to the poor, mostly birth control, using medicaid.  And prosecute PP if they broke the law or if they do break the law.  And CMP, if you think PP broke the law, find a prosecutor somewhere, give him your evidence and see where it goes.  I am inclined to believe that CMP is very biased and they have carefully edited what they have to look as bad as possible and they have prompted the ex-employees to exaggerate, but I could be wrong.

It seems the biggest impact of stopping medicaid from funding services by PP would be to reduce poor people's access to birth control in 35 states ... .  I say let's have compassion on these women and let's make sure they get birth control.