Iran - Again

What many of us often forget is that the people of Iran are human beings just like us.  Yet, a letter from the op-ed page of the New York Times stated that the only way to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons would be to bomb the country into submission.  This offends me. Iran and the USA may have been participating in a cold war against each other, but we have not been bombing each other's cities, nor have the two nations been in direct ground conflict with each other. Shouldn't diplomacy be given a chance before we see more American man and women come home in body bags?

In 1979-1980, I would have advocated blasting Iran off the map during the "Hostage Crisis". But as official US documents (carefully pieced together after having been shred) show, we were about to attempt to overthrow their democratically elected government. How could they trust any peace overture that could have been made? (especially when none were made for years.)  And yet, our current president overcame 35 years of hostilities to work with 5 other nations AND Iran to cut a deal that reduces the risk of nuclear war in the Middle East.

The following text was in an article written by Bill Moyers: 

"In its refinement of uranium, Iran has not progressed toward the level required for a nuclear weapon since its 2013 interim agreement with the global powers known as “the p-5 plus one” – for the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. Instead, Iran has dialed back the level of refinement to below 5 percent (what’s needed for generating electricity) from its earlier level of 20 percent (needed for medical research) — compared with the 90-plus percent purity to build a nuclear weapon." 

This makes me wonder - Is Iran really the threat our media has made the country out to be? I doubt it.  But, if Iran were to restart Uranium refinement, it could trigger a Middle East arms race, as noted in the New York Times op-ed piece:

Ironically perhaps, Israel’s nuclear weapons have not triggered an arms race. Other states in the region understood — even if they couldn’t admit it publicly — that Israel’s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure.

Iran is a different story. Extensive progress in uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing reveal its ambitions. Saudi, Egyptian and Turkish interests are complex and conflicting, but faced with Iran’s threat, all have concluded that nuclear weapons are essential.

If one ignores the bellicose position of the op-ed piece's author, John R. Bolton, one sees that the Saudis, Egyptians, and Turks have been considering going nuclear in response to Iran's position. Yet, the Iranians are willing to ratchet down their nuclear technology and use it (for now?) for peace. Currently, the Saudis and Iranians are on opposite sides of a war being fought in Yemen. Could you imagine what would happen if either (or both) nations had nuclear weapons at its disposal? Could you imagine what would happen (and I believe it would) if any of this material would make it out of the labs and into unauthorized hands?

To Israel, any but the most restrictive and emasculating deal is unacceptable - Iran is an existential threat to the Jewish state. But is this deal unacceptable to America's long term interests? Israel pays us no taxes. Israel does not vote in our elections. And Israel is not necessarily an ally we can trust. If the Prime Minister of Israel can destroy the hope for a two-state peace solution for Israel and Palestine in a reelection bid, can we trust him to act in other ways that benefit the United States?

Yes, gradual normalization of relations with Iran is a risk. But it is the only path that makes sense. As I see it, there will be three regional players jockeying for influence in the Middle East - Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. And it is America's interest to make sure that none of these powers becomes a hegemon - especially when the world is still addicted to Middle East Oil. America needs to disentangle itself from the Middle East, and a deal with Iran may be our ticket to leave the region. Given our headaches in the region since 1980, this may be the only time we can use that ticket and go home.  If the Chinese need that oil, let them get stuck in the regional quagmire!

Crime and Punishment

Alcatraz, The Rock....  This is where we once placed our most hardened criminals.  But what happens today?  We have "supermax" facilities which have never been escaped from, and yet congress prefers to keep people captured in Afghanistan at GITMO (Guantanamo Bay) instead of a more humane site on the mainland. This political hot potato will be around until 2017, at best, and it is something I may address at a future date.

- - - - - -

Today's entry starts with a crime that happened almost 2 decades ago. And I'm not sure if justice could have been served, given America's feelings about mental illness, crime, and punishment. 

In the mid 1990's two of my neighbors were having an ongoing feud. One of these neighbors was a retired barber, and the other was a kindergarten teacher. In America, we attach a stigma to people who suffer from mild to severe mental illness. They are told to "man up" and deal with the illness, preferably without appropriate medicines. The barber had no reality check in his life, no one to talk to, and likely had a mild depression that quickly progressed to a severe depression early in his retirement. The teacher, on the other hand, was well connected, saw reality for what it was, and was afraid of the neighbor below her.

At the time, I don't even think that their feud was on my radar. My wife was still alive, and I was seeing her gradual decline cause by the cancer which would take her life. But I was quickly awakened to the problem one weekend in January, 1996, when I saw police cars in my driveway, and police tape tied to the antenna of my car. As I remember the story (and time has made my memories much more fuzzy than I'd like) Neighbor B shot neighbor D in the chest with one of his shotguns. He went back to his apartment, and saw neighbor A on the way. She asked him "what happened?" and he said "go upstairs." Neighbor did so, and found neighbor D on the floor, saying her last words before she died....  Over the next few hours, the police were there, and traffic in my co-op's parking was paralyzed due to the presence of police cars, county mortician, etc. blocking access to the rest of the parking lot.

Over the years, I often wondered what happened to this fellow. What was his life like afterwards? If this crime had occurred in Europe, he'd have served time, but gotten the mental health treatment he obviously needed - and maybe have gotten released once he was no longer a danger to society. However, this crime occurred in America, a country which believes in harsher punishment than many of our peer nations. After he was convicted, he was incarcerated in a facility roughly 400 miles away from home (making it very hard for any family members, if any, to visit), and spent the rest of his life behind bars.

Was this justice?  I think it all depends on your viewpoint.  If you were of the victim's family, you might feel that the fellow deserved it. If you were of the criminal's family, you might feel very sad, but believe a softer sentence would be appropriate. And if you were an interested observer like me, you might be unsure - as this was a preventable situation.

- - - - - -

The night I started writing this entry, I had to deal with a problem concerning the same two apartments. And once I connected the dots between the apartments, it triggered the memories that caused me to write this entry.  However, this time, neighbor D2 was harassing neighbor B2. Neighbor D2 is not a native born American (nor was the original neighbor B). And both seem to be/have been isolated from the rest of their communities. I'd bet that neighbor D2 also is dealing with a psychological disorder, based on his actions toward his neighbor.  I'm hoping that if things start to escalate further, that the co-op board can help prevent such extreme results....

What can we do to protect someone from an unbalanced neighbor? Can we do something without violating someone's civil rights? I have no idea. But I know that justice isn't being served as long as we, as a society, allow situations like these to escalate without proper intervention....

And the race is on....

Recently, "The New Yorker" published this little satire about Ted Cruz:

A disturbed Canadian man wants to try to get into the White House, according to reports.

The man, who was born in Calgary before drifting to Texas, has been spotted in Washington, D.C. in recent years exhibiting erratic behavior, sources said.

In 2013, he gained entry to the United States Senate and was heard quoting incoherently from a children’s book before he was finally subdued.

More recently, he was heard ranting about a plan to dismantle large components of the federal government, such as the Internal Revenue Service and the nation’s health-care program.

Despite a record of such bizarre episodes and unhinged utterances, observers expressed little concern about his plans to get into the White House, calling them “delusional.”

Although I find this article amusing, it says one important thing - the race to the White House is now on.

Lately, I find myself politically leaning towards the left, only because the right has gone off the rails. In the past, being conservative only meant that one prefers a slower rate of social change, where being liberal meant that one prefers a faster rate of social change. Now, conservatives want to roll back change - in part because many people who label themselves as conservative have been sold on the idea that if we restore the values of the 1950's, everything else will fall into place, and a prosperous America will be restored.

In the case of Ted Cruz, he denies reality to stir up his base. How many of us really think it possible to dismantle the IRS? And if we did so (with the dismantling of the government that would ensue), we'd be left with a government in worse shape than the United States was under the Articles of Confederation.  Yet, the base cheers him on. But I wonder - Can any sane person take this person seriously? He is a serious risk to this country, but he's more of a bad joke being played at the expense of his base.

- - - - - -

Cruz is only one of a large field of GOP contenders for the office of POTUS. And each one of them is singing the song so popular among the GOP's base: "Repeal Obamacare." But what do any of them have to replace Obamacare? 

Obamacare is not the only issue. We also have "Pro-Choice" vs. "Pro-Life". It's hard to believe that at one time, Abortion was not an issue in our society. When "Roe vs. Wade" was being decided, it was the pro-choice side that offered a compromise that the pro-life side didn't accept. And SCOTUS gave the Pro-Choice side more than it ever dreamed of. And now, "Choice" is under siege in many states. Terrorism has been used to intimidate anyone connected with or doing business with an abortion clinic. The authors of Freakonomics have shown with statistics that there is a correlation that links legal abortion to a reduction in teenager crime in urban settings. Are we ready for the potential increase in the crime rate if abortion again is illegal?

Regardless of where one stands on these issues (and I can make good arguments against the positions I support), one should be looking at the degree of honesty between a politician's words and actions, as well as that politician's position before supporting him/her.

- - - - - -

You'll note that I painted the Abortion issue from a mildly leftist viewpoint. In order to understand the Right Wing of American politics, one has to come to it from the Left. And we're seeing a GOP (largely old and white) out of sync with America's long term demographics (largely young and people of color).

The GOP's base has some legitimate complaints. We did not bother enforcing our laws regarding illegal immigration. There are over 12 million (estimated) illegal aliens resident in the USA, almost 30 years after the blanket amnesty given during the Reagan administration. And the base is rightfully upset about successive GOP and Democratic administrations not doing anything these immigrants who (wrongfully) are seen as taking the jobs once held by white males. The reality is different and more damning - neither political party has a F'ing clue about what to do about structural unemployment. 

Fear motivates much of the base. There is a very high correlation between being religious and being an active member of the GOP - this being a result of Nixon's successful "Southern Strategy" which flipped the South from Democratic Blue to GOP Red. Many Christian fundamentalists are very fearful of the wrath of God - and internalize that fear. Tradition is extremely important to the base - breaking tradition is as much a cultural crime as it can be a legal crime, when it comes to maintaining  the social order. This is why the battle for civil rights is triggering religious lunatics to commit terrorist acts. 

When the base chooses news sources, it chooses sources that speak in the words of fear - whether or not this fear is valid. And the base is manipulated by fear. One does not have to go far to see (what should be) a small issue blown way out of proportion by lies that triggers fear in people without cause. For example, take the issue of Same Sex Marriage (SSM). There is no proof that stable marriages between people of the same sex harms any traditional marriage. Yet, traditionalists are being manipulated: "SSM will lead to marriages between men and livestock", "SSM will cause a complete moral breakdown in America", "God will destroy the world, if we allow SSM."  The conservative media chosen by the base repeats the same messages, reinforcing fears, and stirs up hatred. And in fear and the hatred of social dysfunction, the base finds false comfort.

- - - - - -

So, what happens if we elect someone to the office of POTUS who panders to this kind of fearful person?  In the past, the political machine would listen to this person (and others like him) and give him lip service. But this person (and others like him) will not be satisfied with the usual broken promises. And here is the point where the left should be concerned. 

In the past, there was a ruling clique from both parties which knew how to get things done. People like Goldwater and Kennedy knew how to reach across the aisle and find votes to achieve things that benefited people on both left and right. When Johnson (a former US Senator from Texas) fought "the war on poverty", he changed the focus of bills meant to help poor black people, to laws which helped poor people regardless of color. Johnson knew that the South would never help black people, even though the whites there were directly responsible for the poverty of Blacks. But by refocusing the Southern electorate on poverty (instead of its hatred of Blacks), Johnson was able to make the electorate see that these laws benefited them as well. 

Today, things are very different. It is virtually a crime for someone to work across the aisle. The GOP's base will not broach compromise with the left - it is tired of compromises they see as not benefiting them. They want ideological purity at all costs. Only through purity can the results they want be achieved. Sadly, reality differs from that faith....

We are now seeing a lot of "potential" candidates looking to establish funding for the race to the White House. The lunatics are out, because they are stirring up the party base for funds and early primary votes. Thankfully, most are unelectable. But what would happen if one of these candidates actually wins? I doubt the base will get what it wants. Instead, I see something like the Iranian Revolution of 1979 happening here - the powers that be will enforce laws to maintain (or roll back to) a conservative cultural conformity we haven't seen since the 1930's, and will not show any restraint in harming Gays, Transgenders, Political Apostates, and People of Color. "Ozzie and Harriet" would be considered leftist by the new standards of the day.

- - - - - -

I am afraid that the Democrats have (mostly) selected Hillary Clinton as their nominee designate. She will not have to fight for her nomination, and as such, she will not be at the top of her game if an energized GOP candidate opposes her. Like many centrists, I will hold my nose if I have to vote for her, as she is someone I can't trust. There is too much history behind this person for me to feel comfortable with her (or anyone named Clinton). A Machiavel like her would make a good president - but only if the people who "own" her have a desire to benefit this country at their own expense. Otherwise, a person like Hillary will use the office of POTUS for her own gain at our expense.

Let's say that something happens to Hillary. Election day 2016 is still a long time away, and anything (such as a health issue) can take her out of the running. Who do the Democrats have on their back bench that can replace her and win the votes needed to keep 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Blue? I do not have a clue. Jerry Brown of California? Possibly - but he isn't running. But who can speak the "fearful" language of the South and gain its trust? Bill Clinton is no longer available, save as someone who can help Hillary. And Obama deserves the much needed rest that he will be required to have....

- - - - - -

It is a good thing that the office of POTUS has term limits. But I wish we had a better filter to prevent unqualified people from holding the office in the first place....

Our Transportation Infrastructure

The above image (from 2007) shows some of the decay in one of America's most iconic bridges. Given the "over building" of this bridge over 100 years ago, I am not afraid to drive across the East River using the Brooklyn Bridge. However, this is the tip of the iceberg when problems with our transportation infrastructure are involved....

- - - - - -

When the snow started to melt recently, many potholes began to grow in the region's roads. From Somers, NY to Carmel, NY on a recent trip, I was afraid to drive at posted speed limits, in part because the roads were in such a state of poor repair. And this, I consider to be a minor problem, compared to other problems across the country. In 2013, CBS News reported "Thousands of bridges around the U.S. may be one freak accident or mistake away from collapse, even if the spans are deemed structurally sound." In addition to the bridges which are poorly maintained, there are others which are vulnerable to accidents, and even more that are beyond their expected life span.  

Bridges alone, are not the whole problem. In the NYC region, for example, we have a network of parkways leading North and East from the city, many of which have dangerous entrances and exits - none of which would ever been built today. Add to this problem that these roads are not all "limited access" and have intersections (some with control lights, others without), and one can see danger lurking.  (Recently, a woman got stuck on the railroad tracks paralleling the Bronx River/Taconic Parkway in Valhalla, possibly as a result of the traffic control at the intersection, and the resulting railroad accident resulted in 5 deaths.) Sadly, there is only so much one can do to retrofit these roads to make them safer. As a result, we continue to live with greater risk from obsolete road design that can not be fixed.

Much of this infrastructure was built without being sure that an adequate income stream would be there to maintain these roads and bridges. The Federal Gas tax has not been increased in years - even though inflation and new technology keep pushing up the price of keeping these roads and bridges in shape. The same goes for many state taxes on gas - no one wants to increase taxes, and even indexing taxes to account for inflation would be a non starter in today's polarized politics. As a result, maintenance tends to get deferred, except where adequate tolls are charged. And then, much of this revenue gets allocated to other purposes.

In New York City, the price of a single ride on a bus or on the subway is going to be raised to $2.75. Although the MTA bridges and tunnels are being maintained with this money, much of it is being siphoned off to subsidize New York's mass transit systems. (Similar money siphoning is also being done at the PA for the PATH system and other pet projects.) And yet, the NYC subway is not in a state of good repair. If one looks at stations such as Chambers Street on the 7th avenue line, one will see (last I was there) one wall that hasn't been cleaned in many years, with tiles falling away from the wall. What else is going on behind the scenes that we don't know about?

I have not ignored the air traffic infrastructure. Three of our nation's most important airports are in locations that wouldn't make sense if one had 20/20 future vision: La Guardia, (Reagan) National, and San Francisco International. There is only so much one can do with these airports, as the flight paths go over some very sensitive real estate, and all have short and tricky landing approaches combined with short runways. Add to this, many airports have poor access via mass transit, and one has a Gordian Knot that makes travel extremely inconvenient....

When much of this infrastructure was built, people assumed that America would never stop growing, and that we would continue to be a nation of unlimited wealth. No one thought of establishing maintenance trust funds for all of this infrastructure - they expected to use current account cash flow - operating expenses, instead of planning for maintenance as capital expenses. (I hope I have my accounting principles correct, for purposes of this discussion.) One can not rescue a system by deferring maintenance - one only kicks a problem further downstream until some poor jerk can't avoid the blame for paying the full bill with interest.

Some cities have gotten creative - Youngstown, OH and Detroit, MI have taken the extreme step of eliminating the infrastructure in areas of town meant to be "decommissioned". This means, that entire city blocks will be razed, and vacant land left - so that the costs related to sparsely lived in areas can be eliminated. Roads will be left to decay, as they will not be maintained. Over time, new developments can pay the cost of rebuilding the infrastructure - but with those developments come the very people who will be paying the taxes to maintain it.

Cities, states, and nations need to maintain an adequate transportation infrastructure. They can no longer scrimp on mass transit, as people are moving back to the core cities without their cars. The Interstate highways need to be maintained, lest people nation wide are prepared to suffer delays in receiving goods attributed to road and bridge failure. The private railroads need to make money from investing in their own infrastructure, as we can not afford for many of the goods we depend on to be delayed. In short, because we are no longer a network of local economies, but one large, pulsing national economy, we need a reliable transportation infrastructure for all of America.

Hypocrisy and Bias in Media

Gone are the days where we could trust our newscasters to provide us with a version of the news biased towards the middle of the road. We as a nation may not have been objective, but we trusted our newscasters to be so - even when the news didn't agree with our political views. Today, we have "Narrow-casted" news, where cable channels broadcast to narrow market segments, feeding them the pablum they want to hear, and interpreted through the lenses of people who agree with them - never challenging the viewer to look at the world through a different perspective.

Recently, Brian Williams has been in the news for not being truthful in his news reports. Supposedly, he will be out for 6 months - until things cool down - but I'm not sure if he'll be back for long. I don't think people like him are the real problem in news. Instead, the problem is the firms that encourage excessive bias in the news. 

Years ago, I learned a simple fact. If a country had to use "Democratic" in its official name, the odds were that the country had an authoritarian regime. A good example of this is the DPRK - Democratic People's Republic of Korea. I don't believe that anyone outside North Korea believes that the Kim family really cares for its subjects. But I digress. The same idea also applies for news outlets. If an outlet claims to be "Fair and Balanced", the odds are that it is Unfair and Biased. I am very wary of claims from both the left and the right - both tribes are led by opportunist conspirators, and will cloak themselves in the garb of caring for the little fellow.

Why is it that MSNBC ignores Al Sharpton's past? Even though he might be a reformed man now, he still strikes me as an opportunist who works on a more subtle level than when he was younger. And why has Fox News ignored the lies coming from its own editorial staff? If one of its big shows claims to be a "No Spin Zone", why did a high school have to take his show to task for violating journalistic ethics? It seems like both sets of talking heads get their marching orders, and ignore the indiscretions of their own teams in order to sell their agendas to the unthinking public.

One of my friends believes in every conspiracy theory that comes her way. Most have been proven false. However some might be true - but not in the way she understands the world. The way I look at it, 99.44% of us are effectively pawns in the games of the rich and powerful. There are many power blocs among the elite, and they conspire against each other for greater power. Some of them believe in over population (which results in lower wages and fear of job loss), as this is an easy way for this elite to maintain positions of power. Other groups within the elite believe that greater wealth and power can be gained by fulfilling the wishes and needs of the other 99.44%. And still others benefit from dividing the 99.44% against each other. It is plausible that blocs within the elites conspire against each other, and we are affected, being mere pawns in the game.

I attempt to see reality by skipping over the BS being spewed by the two major factions in our society, and by reading media from sources (often overseas) who have less skin in the games being played in America. I compare their reporting against what is being said in America to develop a better idea of what the truth might be, and test that idea against the objective facts as I know them. And so far, luckily, I have been on target more than I would have been otherwise. Is the media biased? Yes. Are the spinmeisters hypocritical? Of course. But that doesn't make it impossible to see the truth - if one is willing to let one's own prejudices drop by the wayside....