Sunday, November 25, 2012

5 mid-east

"Crude, garage-built Palestinian rockets are no match for modern precision missiles, helicopter gunships, bombers and drones. Fortunately for the Israelis, the rockets failed to reach any population centers 99 percent of the time. It was a mystery even to the Israelis why the unchallenged Israeli air force and ground artillery did not knock out the primitive Gaza launching sites, given its spies, informants and knowledge of every block in Gaza."
Ralph Nader

"Led by President William Jefferson Clinton, the United States pushed for the expansion of the military alliance NATO to include the newly independent Eastern European countries. This was partly a business deal to get these countries to buy United States fighter aircrafts from Lockheed Martin and partly a needless provocation of a transformed adversary trying to get back on its feet."

"Fortunately for the Israelis, the rockets failed to reach any population centers 99 percent of the time. It was a mystery even to the Israelis why the unchallenged Israeli air force and ground artillery did not knock out the primitive Gaza launching sites, given its spies, informants and knowledge of every block in Gaza." Ralph Nader

full article from above link
The Crisis in Gaza
The World’s Largest Open-Air Gulag
Have you heard much lately about the 1.5 million Palestinians illegally imprisoned by the Israeli government in the world’s largest open-air Gulag? Their dire living conditions, worsened by a selective Israeli siege limiting the importation of necessities of life – medical items, food, water, building materials, and fuel to list a few – has resulted in an 80 percent unemployment rate and widespread suffering from unlawful punishment, arbitrary arrests and imprisonment in Israeli jails.

The horrific conditions were a result of the Israeli invasion of Gaza in late 2008, ignited by Israel’s breaking of a truce with Gaza on November 4. Fourteen hundred people died, nearly three hundred of them children, and thousands were injured. The terror bombing of the Gazan population smashed into homes, hospitals, schools, ambulances, mosques, subsistence farms, UN facilities, and even the American International School. Israeli bombers destroyed over 30 members of one extended family in their home. That toll alone was three times the amount of Israeli fatalities, which included friendly fire.

The humanitarian crisis in crowded Gaza – about twice the size of the District of Columbia – “is now more dire than ever.” That is the judgment of Norwegian physician and professor of medicine, Dr. Mads Gilbert, who just finished a ten-day speaking tour in the U.S. Dr. Gilbert, returning from a recent visit to Gaza, was one of the only two foreign doctors inside Gaza during the massacre of December 2008 to January 2009.

He says: “During the Israeli attack, I saw the effects of new weapons including drones, phosphorous and also DIME [Dense Inert Metal Explosives], which leave no shrapnel, but I witnessed their capacity to cut a child in two; they also leave radioactive traces.”
Today, anemia and protein deficiency are widespread, reports Dr. Gilbert, especially among little children. UN and other relief supplies are inadequate, and UN humanitarian relief staff is often harassed by Israeli officials. Rebuilding pulverized Gaza is seriously obstructed by Israel blocking the imports of building materials.

Dr. Gilbert comments that he has “worked in other desperate situations in other places and Gaza is unique in a number of respects. It’s a captive population – usually if civilians are being attacked, there’s a safe place they can take refuge and then come back to their homes when the fighting has stopped. That doesn’t exist for the people in Gaza since they are effectively imprisoned by the Israeli siege.”

Writing in the prestigious British medical journal “The Lancet” in early 2009, Dr. Gilbert provided clinical details of the slaughter, including the destruction of ambulances and medical facilities that tend to the dying and the wounded.

He described a “shattered, attacked, and drained health-care system trying to help an overwhelming amount of casualties in a war between clearly unequal powers, where the attacker spares no civilian lives – be it man, woman, or child – not even the much-needed health workers of all professions.”

It is no wonder the Israelis banned all foreign reporters, including those from the U.S. – the very country that provided the weaponry – thereby preventing the world from seeing the carnage as it happened.

The media ban made it possible for George W. Bush and president-elect Barack Obama to get away with describing this aggressive war with the identical phrase “Israel has the right to defend itself.” But apparently, the Palestinians do not have any way to defend themselves against the second-most modern military arsenal in the world; and their pleas about who broke the truce and started the bloodshed are unheeded.

Crude, garage-built Palestinian rockets are no match for modern precision missiles, helicopter gunships, bombers and drones. Fortunately for the Israelis, the rockets failed to reach any population centers 99 percent of the time. It was a mystery even to the Israelis why the unchallenged Israeli air force and ground artillery did not knock out the primitive Gaza launching sites, given its spies, informants and knowledge of every block in Gaza.

Reporters would have dug out these stories were they allowed inside Gaza. Since 2009, the focus of both the Israeli and U.S. government toward Iran has taken Gaza, the thousands of Palestinians in Israeli prisons, and the swallowing up of more land in the Palestinian West Bank, off of the news screens in the West.

It is remarkable how successful the Israeli propagandists have been in controlling the news coverage. They have even sidelined prominent retired Israeli security, military and political leaders, who along with civic and peace advocates are seeking a two-state solution, an end to confiscation of Palestinian land and houses, and debunking war talk against Iran, designed for domestic political purposes in Israel and the U.S.

For example, Meir Dagan, director of the Mossad – Israel’s CIA – from 2002 until 2010, called bombing Iran “the stupidest thing I ever heard.” In agreement are many other Israelis in the know. But, as in the U.S. during the months before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, experienced voices of realism and sanity are not heard. Nor are sobering words of candor, as voiced by Israel’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion, who said, of the dispossessed Palestinians years ago, “we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”

Isn’t bringing these prominent Israeli truthsayers, peace advocates and military refuseniks to the U.S. Congress for their first-ever public hearing way overdue? At stake is peace or more wars in the Middle East. Also at stake is the possibility of another U.S. “war of choice” against Iran and the likely uncontrollable consequences that such belligerency would provoke. Would members of Congress let the AIPAC lobby block Israelis from coming here to present such testimony?

Or are the Senate Foreign Relations and House Foreign Affairs Committees, chaired respectively by Democratic Senator John Kerry and Republican Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, satisfied with following their party lines?

King Jehoshaphat  & King Ahab

Yes, I had that thought last night re "inverted totalitarianism." We know conquerers of yore had delusions of grandeur. They over extended. What I was asking myself last night was what happens when instead of one personal force pumping up conquering armies, there's sort of a coterie of plutocratic neocon "warrior intellectuals"? A meritocracy is supposed to be too smart to over extend. National Security Staff (NSS) the Dept of State are supposed to weigh evidence, a lot of evidence. And they are supposed to have access to a multitude of expert opnions. But suppose the relevant parties allow themselves to become somewhat polluted by hawkish thinking of the warrior intellectuals, and in time begin to buy into their rationalizations of Realpolitik. Yes, suppose that rather than staying grounded in defensive modalities...they allow themselves to begin to think of the desirability of more economic satellites? Suppose they conspire to oust parties or rulers in nations not amenable to becoming the kind of trading partners they like (the kind this persuasive neocon interventionist contingent likes)? And then suppose their designs entail more heavy handedness abroad than they've let on to the populace at home. And then suppose further that the people influenced by this heavy handedness come to resent it greatly. If a so called "meritocracy" goes this far, then it must have gotten away from any kind of balanced forum weighing options. I'm tempted to say at that point you couldn't call it a meritocracy any longer. It does seem as if the neocon "gang" has come to act like one autocratic power tripping mind. There can't be enough smarts or wisdom in just one mind when it comes to things like this. If you're looking for bout looking "in the multitude of counselors." You may remember the story of King Ahab and King Jehoshaphat gathering 400 prophets for advice on whether or not to take back some land annexed by the kingdom of Aram (where Syria is today; I remembered it vaguely before searching). Micaiah, likely the lone dissenter if anyone would have been, Ahab himself summoned after all the Yea votes. They coaxed Micaiah's actual dissent/warning outta the dude, but still weren't persuaded to hold back (First Kings). This was sort of approaching meritocracy, but I think one of meritocracy's hallmarks is that the merit's supposed to be evidenced by performance, faith affliations precluded. War is a dangerous enterprise, and the "theory" of counsel bearing on it having'd think would be a bare minimum requirement. But this is probably a first in world history...a nation claiming meritocracy as it goes to war while the nature of the war fighting itself precludes said status. It might have applied to the French Revolution too though in a way, as the revolutionaires went a little berzerk at the end. Then more karma.

Kipling, Kim, great game

OT world (look up this one again, got messed up)

middle east history

disputed border

disputed border came from this search

late 2012 re ongoing austerity

The so-called "Fiscal Cliff"

So what exactly is the "fiscal cliff"? At the end of December 31, 2012, two things will happen if some sort of deal isn’t cut to prevent it. One is that the Bush tax cuts for the rich will expire, and the top marginal tax rate will go back to the 39.6% that it was during the Clinton administration. That in itself would go a long way towards reducing our federal deficit. And it would not reduce jobs or slow down job growth. During the Clinton Presidency our economy was much better, unemployment was much lower, and
small businesses grew twice as fast
as after the Bush tax cuts for the rich. And we then had a budget surplus.

Along with taxes on the rich going back up to Clinton era levels, there would also be a modest rise in taxes on the middle class. So how could that be rectified? Legislation has already been passed by the U.S. Senate to restore the middle class tax cuts in 2013, and President Obama has vowed to sign that into law if the House goes along with it. Would the House dare to refuse to do that? What would that do to their re-election chances?

The other thing that will happen after the end of this year if a deal isn’t cut first is that there will be various automatic cuts to domestic and military spending. Those consequences are not cut in stone, but rather are
a Tea Party/GOP manufactured crisis. They demanded those future automatic cuts in the summer of 2011 in return for their agreeing to raise the debt ceiling so that our country could pay its debts and avoid crashing the economy. It was blackmail. Right wing zealots in Congress created this "crisis", and they could just as easily un-create it by acquiescing to a reversal of the spending cuts they voted for in 2011.

This is what Nobel Prize-winning economist
Paul Krugman had to say about the so-called "fiscal cliff": Contrary to the way it’s often portrayed, the looming prospect of spending cuts and tax increases isn’t a fiscal crisis. It is, instead, a political crisis brought on by the G.O.P.’s attempt to take the economy hostage. And just to be clear, the danger for next year is not that the deficit will be too large but that it will be too small, and hence plunge America back into recession.

And as for their motives:

It’s not just the fact that the deficit scolds have been wrong about everything so far. Recent events have also demonstrated clearly what was already apparent to careful observers: the deficit-scold movement was never really about the deficit. Instead, it was about using deficit fears to shred the social safety net. And letting that happen wouldn’t just be bad policy; it would be a betrayal of the Americans who just re-elected a health-reformer president and voted in some of the most progressive senators ever.

The real crisis

So why did Krugman say that the danger "is not that the deficit will be too large but that it will be too small"? Our federal deficit at this time is not all that much larger as a percentage of our GDP than it has been in the past, as you can see from this chart:

Our major problem at this time is our very weak economy and the joblessness that goes along with it. Economists have long known that this kind of problem is not solved by decreasing spending, but by increasing it on things that put people to work. It is exacerbated by the kind of severe income and wealth inequality that our country is now experiencing and that our right wing elites want to make even more severe. It is exacerbated by cuts to social safety net programs that our right wing elites want to privatize and destroy.

Robert Borosage explains: Virtually every aspect of this hysteria is wrong. The United States does not have a short-term deficit problem, and the fundamental long-term problem isn’t one of soaring debt; rather, it is the lack of a foundation for sustainable growth that includes working people…

Austerity is, paradoxically, likely to undermine the stated goal of deficit reduction. Cutting spending… in a weak economy destroys jobs and slows growth. The increased unemployment leads to declining tax revenue as well as increased demands on government services, all of which adds to the deficit. This is the famous "debt trap" recently experienced in much of Europe, where premature and harsh austerity drove many EU countries into recession…

Putting people back to work does more to reduce deficits than any other factor. That requires more federal spending now, preferably in areas vital to the economy, like modernizing our infrastructure and keeping teachers on the job. Once the economy is growing and people are working, the deficit will come down. Additional steps can be taken, if necessary…

What Americans do not want

Most Americans are against what the right wing elites are trying to force upon on with their "fiscal cliff" scare. They are against "requiring deep cuts in domestic programs without protecting programs for infants, poor children, schools and college aid" (75%); they are against "cutting discretionary spending, like education, child nutrition, worker training and disease control (72%); they are against cutting taxes for the rich and corporations (67%), and; they are against "reducing Social Security benefits by having them rise more slowly than the cost of living" (62%). And all this is despite the massive propaganda efforts of our right wing elites.

What we should do

Robert Borosage sums up the situation that we now face, and how we should address it:

The essential dynamic is that Democrats reward Republican intransigence with concessions. Republicans refuse to hike taxes, so to entice them, Democrats offer the crown jewels: Medicare and Social Security. Republicans still resist tax hikes, so the austerity crowd suggests "reform" that will in theory bring in more revenue while lowering tax rates (on the rich)….

The debate we should be having is about how to make the economy work for working people again, how to revive a broad middle class and make the American Dream more than a nostalgic fantasy….

A serious long-term commitment to rebuild America would renovate our infrastructure to withstand the extreme weather that is already upon us. It would break up the big banks and shackle finance so that it serves, rather than threatens, the real economy. Measures to transform corporate governance, curb excessive executive compensation, and empower workers to organize and bargain collectively would help counter extreme inequality…

It would feature progressive tax reform, compelling the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share. It would continue healthcare reform and guarantee affordable care as a right for every citizen, not a privilege allowed only to those who can afford it…

Reaching no deal is preferable to a bad one that cuts entitlements. Going over the so-called fiscal cliff is perilous, but probably preferable to a bargain under the terms currently in play. With no agreement, the Bush tax cuts would expire. In January the Senate would immediately push to revive the lower rates for everyone but the top 2 percent…."

article at DU

No deal on fiscal cliff without cuts in Obamacare
House Republicans are all over the place as they try to figure out what approach to take to protect tax cuts for the rich. If you don’t know about the fiscal cliff – you should read this first HERE. See if you can follow this timeline of events:

November 6th, 2012: Obama wins re-election by large electoral college blowout.

November 7th, 2012: House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) says Republicans are willing to look at new revenues to address the concerns about the fiscal cliff. He then says they will not raise taxes on the rich and proposes the exact same policy agenda Mitt Romney ran on as the GOP Presidential nominee (
November 8th, 2012: Speaker Boehner is interviewed by Diane Sawyer wherein he says Obamacare is "the law of the land" (
November 8th, 2012: Speaker Boehner tweets a clarification saying his goal is still full repeal (
source). November 11th, 2012: President Obama says he will not do a deal with Republicans unless taxes go up on the rich (
source). November 12th, 2012: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says he isn’t raising taxes on the rich (
source). November 20th, 2012: Republicans are proposing to extend tax hikes for the rich and the "fiscal cliff" for an additional year (
source).With the looming fiscal cliff and automatic sequestration spending cuts and Democratic opposition to extending tax cuts for the rich for another year – Republicans are taking a different tact. Today House Speaker Boehner wrote an op-ed in the Cincinnati Enquirer saying that any deal on the fiscal cliff should include cuts to Obamacare. He wrote

President Obama has won re-election, but his health care law is still driving up costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire workers. As was the case before the election, Obamacare has to go.
The tactics of our repeal efforts will have to change. But the strategic imperative remains the same. If we’re serious about getting our economy moving again, solving our debt and restoring prosperity for American families, we need to repeal Obamacare and enact common-sense, step-by-step reforms that start with lowering the cost of health care.
The president’s health care law adds a massive, expensive, unworkable government program at a time when our national debt already exceeds the size of our country’s entire economy. We can’t afford it, and we can’t afford to leave it intact. That’s why I’ve been clear that the law has to stay on the table as both parties discuss ways to solve our nation’s massive debt challenge.
This is a total non-starter. First off – even Fox News has admitted that Obamacare reduces the deficit (
source); so it makes no sense to get rid of a program that reduces the deficit in order to cut the deficit. According to The NY Times -Boehner ignores the plain words of the most reliable and non-partisan judge of these things — the Congressional Budget Office — which said in July that the Affordable Care Act does not add to the debt, it lowers the debt. Repealing the law would add $109 billion to the debt through 2022. (The Supreme Court, in fact, made the law $84 billion cheaper when it ruled that states don’t have to accept the law’s Medicaid expansion.)Secondly – President Obama won his election on his agenda relative to Obamacare and a plurality of Americans want to keep or expand Obamacare (
source). More broadly, though, Mr. Boehner is not simply ignoring the results of this month’s election, he is openly defying them. Not only did Mr. Obama and many congressional Democrats win with full-throated support for the reform law, but exit polls showed that only 25 percent of voters agree with the Republican goal of full repeal.Thirdly – as we shared
HERE - kicking the can down the road on tax policy will hurt the economy even further since private business won’t know what to plan for according to Moody’s Chief Economist Mark Zandi.It’s not going to happen. If Republicans aren’t going to do the right thing – go over the fiscal cliff and propose tax cuts for the middle class on day one; let Republicans try to block those tax cuts. My best on that.