A short note on a small plot of land.

In an ideal world, the map of Israel (and its neighbors) would look something like the map above. Israel could be the orange shaded nation in the middle, while Palestine would be tha nation shaded in gray.  This is the "Two-State" solution that most people want and believe in.

With the effective annexation of the West Bank, successful negotiations could have taken place on Israel's terms, as it would control what land would have been given to Palestine for nationhood.  But this was, is, and probably not be what Israel wants to do.  Instead, it has placed illegal settlements in key sites in the West Bank, making it impossible for a practical two-state solution to be negotiated.

There is no way to say any one party to this inter-generational conflict is guilty or innocent. The forebears of today's Israelis were kicked out of the land by the Romans roughly 2,000 years ago.  The British promised this land to both Jews and Arabs at the end of World War 1, and the aftermath of World War 2 made it necessary for Jews to establish a home in their traditional homeland.

- - - - - -

Recently, the US abstained from a vote condemning Israel for its illegal settlements on the West Bank. Trump went wild, saying that Obama has betrayed our national interests.  But whose interests come first - USA's or Israel's?  The only reason that America doesn't abandon Israel is the political support Israel gets from American Jews and Christian Fundamentalists who want a place for the Messiah's second coming.  Both groups support Israel for religious reasons, and not for reasons that benefit America.

There is only one reason for America to support Israel, and that is a moral one. We should support democracies wherever they are found, and respect them even when they act in their interests, not ours.  But if we did that as a policy, we'd never have had the pissing match with Iran, we'd have never have used the CIA to overthrow Salvador Allende, and we'd insisted on an official "Two-China" policy.  Sadly, Israel is evolving into an Apartheid state, and none of the pro-Israel camp seems to care.  Soon, demographics being what they are, there will be more disenfranchised Arabs in the lands Israel controls, and no way to allow them a voice in their lives - as that would come out as "Death to Israel!"

Time is running out for a Two-State solution, and Israel's actions are only making matters worse for that solution.  Our Secretary of State has effectively said, that in a Single State solution, Israel could either be a Jewish state or a Democracy, but not both. Most people want the Two-State solution, but radicals are making this impossible.  Is helping the radical element a way to make peace?  I doubt it. 

- - - - - -

Today's GOP is filled with people who would usurp the power of the presidency and invite the Prime Minister of Israel to speak to Congress, bypassing the State Department.  It looks like they will give Israel everything it asks for - and then some. This is not a healthy development.  It'll be like a kid in a candy store, and mistakes of excess will likely be made. Slow moving initiatives with countries such as Iran will be scuttled.  Who knows what will happen then?

Every nation has a right to be secure in its borders.  And every people have a right to be treated fairly in the nations in which they live. The Israel-Palestine conflict will likely be with us for generations yet to come, as both sides are taking positions only meant to stir up people for the benefit of those other than themselves.  Religious zealots living in Israel have no desire to live in peace with their Muslim neighbors. The Arab side is no better, as Muslims have been taught for generations that the Infidel is their sworn enemy, and that the Infidel must be expelled from Muslim territory.

In a way, the Arab nations are right.  Solve the problem of Jerusalem and you'll solve the problem of the Middle-East.  Sadly, I don't see a huckster real estate promoter being up to the challenges this region will present him in the next four years....

Armistice Day

Armistice Day.  We now call it Veteran's Day, as a way to honor those who served.  But, in America, we've lost the true meaning of the holiday.

There are many cemeteries in Europe in which are buried the bodies of soldiers who died in World War One.  This was the first global war in our world's history, although most of the killing was done by the European powers and their proxies.  It was considered "the war to end all wars", and yet, there was another world war within a generation.

What is it about humanity that leads us into war?  Could it be the nature of the Alpha Male is getting out of hand when large populations are involved?  I have no idea. But one would think that as a species, we'd have learned how to dampen this tendency in humans.  Sadly, we haven't yet learned how to do this.

- - - - - -

We have one political party which has had a collective myopia, being hawkish about getting into war, but with no clear plan of what to gain from making that war.  Have they learned anything from the lessons of 11/11/1918?  I doubt it.  They were responsible for us squandering billions of dollars in Iraq, claiming that we needed to make that nation "Safe for Democracy".  Does anyone think that Iraq became better off because of our involvement? And then, this party wanted us to invade Syria and remove another dictator.  Do they want to keep getting us involved in areas of the world, where a potential removal of our troops (once there) would create worse problems than had we not invaded in the first place?  Do they want "Forever Wars" only to keep the Military-Industrial Complex profitable?

- - - - - -

Wars should be rare things, not forever things.  America has made the big mistake of empire - we're using war to get our way in the world, and this is a tool that becomes much more expensive over time.  In addition, history has shown us that a propensity towards war is the sign of a dying empire.  Instead, we should be using diplomatic and economic power to get our way, to keep this empire.  It's one of the better ones that have existed, as it did help people become free and prosper around the globe.  But we can't make all the world safe or prosperous - the people and their cultures in areas that we have influence must want what we want for this to happen.  That's why Iraq and Syria were failures for us.

- - - - - -

The fields of Europe hold many a cemetery from both world wars.  Can we afford to add fuel to a fire which may result in another world war?

The fear of markets, and the disciplines they enforce.

It's hard to believe that the New York Stock Exchange once looked like this.  The stock market was less regulated then, but never a place for a timid person to risk his/her money.

- - - - - -

One of the things I've said for years is that I believe in open, fair, and transparent markets. In an ideal world, these markets would be self regulating. However, powerful players love to distort markets via the use of rules, and via a lack of transparency.  In the case of the stock market, most disputes are settled via arbitration - which is often rigged in favor of the large firm by the nature of familiarity.  Precedents from one settlement are not applicable in the next case, so the large firms have an edge which is almost impossible overcome.

However, the lack of transparency affects more markets, and has an even greater effect. For example, the current practice of "Non-Standard" sizing makes it much harder for a person to "compare apples to apples" when determining the price of goods. In the case of a carton of Orange Juice, the standard 64 oz. size was shrunk by all players to 59.5 oz. - making it much harder for people to determine what the real price was.  Also, the shrunken size went less far, so the customer had to buy more containers to sate their needs for Orange Juice.  Something similar happened in the size of Tuna cans - a few years ago, the standard size was 6 oz. - now it's 5 oz.!  No one asked the consumer (in these terms) whether we wanted to pay the same money for smaller size packages, or more money for the same size packages.  If they did, the marketplace would have chastised the sellers of these goods - something they avoided by obfuscating their price hikes with package size changes.

- - - - - -

Right now, people are starting to see a crisis with student loans.  This is another example of marketplace interference creating disastrous effects.  A little over 150 years ago, it was "easy" for a person to attend some of the nation's most prestigious universities.  All they had to do was learn the "basics" - which included Latin, and other skills no longer needed in the real world - and then pay the bills for school - which weren't that expensive.  However, after World War 2, the GI Bill made it easier for students to afford college - and a college education was seen as the ticket to middle class success.  Years later, our nation's policies changed to provide poor people with grants to go to college, trying to create a more diverse student base in these schools. And then came the age of college loans - which I see as a total disaster.  Instead of increasing the supply of college seats (which would have reduced prices and increased availability), policy simply increased demand for college seats by making student loans cheap, easy to get, and with no demand that a student comes out with a salable skill.  The only effect here was to raise the price for seats in a good school.

What happened to the students?  Many got saddled by debt, studying in majors that would not prepare them for jobs in the outside world.  When a student owes money on a student loan, it is almost impossible for it to be discharged in bankruptcy.  As a result, the interest on the debt makes the student loan virtually impossible to pay off.  

But what would happen if we eliminated the Federal guarantee of payment?  What if these loans could be discharged in bankruptcy?  Well, many of the private lenders would cease lending money, marginal students would stop going to college, and colleges might be forced to lower their prices for study.  The powers that be don't want that.  The banks making a lot of these student loans would cease making loans - and making guaranteed profits.

I posed a question to a couple of people and got the same negative response - therefore I know I'm on to something....  What if (1) there were no guarantees of student loan repayment by any level of government, and (2) a student loan lender could insist that a student loan borrower major in a field likely to result in a job?  Both people said that this would be wrong - the student has a right to study what he/she wants to study.  But at whose expense?  The student is usually way too immature to make many decisions which will impact the rest of his/her life. Part of college's function in society should be more than that of a trade school - it should teach a person how to think, and how to look at life with a long term perspective.  One of these people said that if he were to take out a bank loan for a car, that the bank has no right to tell him what car to buy.  Yet, one could counter - that if a car manufacturer's finance arm offers you the loan on the car, it should have the right to tie you into buying one of their cars.

In short, the lack of a efficient market (with rules for proper debt discharging) for funding higher education has caused a crisis in higher education that also affects non-students. If a former student is saddled with too much student debt, that same person may not be able to afford getting married and having children. And if this person has children, he/she may not be able to pay enough in school taxes to educate the children - a long term risk for society.

- - - - - -

Not all problems in society can be resolved by market forces.  Other methods must be used to limit consumption of resources.  Great Britain spends about 35% of what America does on health care, and has a roughly equivalent standard of national health.  Canada spends about 50% of what America spends.  And other developed nations are in the same league. What is different?  They all recognize that health care doesn't work with a marketplace model. So, instead, they ration care in ways that Americans would consider unacceptable. Britain uses results based medicine, and when in doubt, chooses the cheapest alternative. There is a waiting line for almost everything except acute emergency care - and even then, there are rules and regulations that apply - as if one were part of a giant HMO.

I do not advocate the British or Canadian models, because they err in ways Americans would not accept.  But the German and French models have a lot to offer - if only we would examine them more closely.

- - - - - -

Americans like the idea of free express roads that take them from town to town, and city to city.  There is one big problem - the price - FREE.  This has encouraged the growth of the trucking industry over that of the railroads who pay for the upkeep of their track.  One might say that truckers pay gas taxes that should maintain the roads. But in many states, especially in the South, these gas taxes have not been raised in years, nor have they been indexed to inflation.  As a result, we're seeing part of our transportation infrastructure neglected by lack of proper funding, and now at great risk - as many structures are at the end of their life spans.

What happens when people have to pay to use a road?  People actually think - do they need to make this trip?  And this is an important question, as it reflects a market helping to shape a behavior. There is a discipline that takes place in a well functioning market.  The trick is to design a market well, regulate that market well (but minimally), and make sure that only the right things are governed by that market.... This, as I see it, is the big challenge of the 21st century.

Persia, Iran, no matter what one calls this nation, we must deal with it.

I can still remember that in my lifetime, the United States once considered Iran as one of its closest allies. And there is no reason not to do so today, save for a 35 year pissing match that was triggered by the Embassy Hostage Crisis and the United States getting exposed as preparing to overthrow the duly elected government of Iran.

This conflict between nations should not only be examined from the American side (we have just complaints), but from the Iranian side as well (where they also have just complaints). What would be the key issue getting in the way of normalizing relations between the two countries after a generation and a half, if Israel was not given a veto over our actions in the Middle East?  Both countries want to crush ISIS. Both countries want stability in the region. And both countries have legitimate concerns about the balance of power in the region.

Looking at the above map, one can easily see the regional importance of Iran - it borders part of the former USSR, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and shares the Persian Gulf with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, The U.A.E. and Oman. This country could either cause a lot of mischief, or be a valuable power for peace. But without normal diplomatic and trade relations, we have no direct way to influence them to work with us. (I must note that American soldiers are reported to being ferried over Iranian airspace to Afghanistan via foreign flagged aircraft, with the tacit approval of the Iranians. So there is something going on behind the scenes that few people want to talk about in a loud voice.) So it only makes sense to find ways to openly work with this country, if only because they hold a strategically important position in the region.

- - - - - -

When I started writing this entry, the P5+1 (5 Permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany - a major Iran trading partner) negotiations are taking place to resolve the West's issues with Iran's stated plans to develop nuclear technology for peaceful uses. These negotiations have been extended for several months because both sides realized the importance of cutting a deal everyone could live with. 

As it was 35+ years ago, both sides have legitimate issues. From our perspective in the West, it's easy to understand our goal - this world does not need another nation with the capability of making nuclear weapons. When India and Pakistan developed their bombs, it took a lot of diplomacy to develop deals that preserved most of the pre-bomb status quo, and allowed both countries to save face while not getting into a nuclear arms race as the USA and USSR did after WW2. But Iran has a legitimate issue that we in the West don't think of - Tehran is one of the most polluted cities on Earth. Iran's leadership knows that it must lead the country out of the fossil fuel age, and sees nuclear energy as the best short term way to bridge the gap from a fossil fuel age and a renewable fuel age. They simply want to control their destiny - and this is very understandable.

When the Israeli PM, Bibi Netanyahu, was invited to speak to Congress, it was a slap in our president's face, and a violation of protocol. Congress does not make foreign policy. That power is solely invested in the executive branch of government. When Bibi spoke, he was against a deal with Iran, considering that nation's policies to be an existential threat to his country. And most in the GOP support Israel with unquestioned loyalty - as if they want to accelerate the "Second Coming" via support of Israel's bellicose policies. Bibi had no alternative to negotiations - and it appeared that he wanted the USA to fight a war against Iran that his country couldn't win alone.

Luckily, Obama is more cerebral in his thought patterns. He knows that we have a once in a generation chance to gradually shift Iran into a partner for peace. With the exceptions of Egypt and Jordan, no Middle East Muslim country has relations with Israel. Officially, they all call for Israel's destruction, while working very quietly with Israel on the side. This is what we would likely see several years after a deal with Iran. But it will take time to get there.

- - - - - -

Sadly, 47 US Senators wrote a letter to Iran attempting to undercut Obama's ability to work with the Iranians in negotiating a nuclear technology treaty. The NY Daily News labeled these Senators as traitors on its front page. And the Washington Post simply considers the actions of these senators irresponsible. Luckily, the Iranian leadership recognizes this as a Propaganda Ploy and responded accordingly, enlightening these Senators about what our Constitution and International Law say about the subject. And in an article in the Daily Kos, they note that Al Jazeera got it right - The Iran deal will be a Security Council Non-Proliferation Treaty Resolution, and likely be covered by a previous treaty ratified by our Legislative branch of government. I'll bet that these Senators now wish they had tried to make their point with softer words and actions....

- - - - - -

As I said in this entry's title - Iran is a country that must be dealt with. And it only makes sense for us to deal with Iran from a position of mutual respect, as only with respect will we be able to resolve our differences.....

The failures of American Society

The American Empire is in decline, and the elite does not see this for what it is - a breakdown of the ties that bind us together as Americans.

America, like much of the Western world is suffering from structural unemployment. In short, we have too many people and too few jobs to go around. Neither political party has a clue about what has to be done, and even if one did, its actions would be negated by the other party. Winning the game of politics has become much more important than serving the people.

If the problem were structural unemployment alone, we might look back to the Great Depression and develop "make work" programs such as the WPA, using the labor to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. Sadly, this is not the case. Many of America's social problems go back to the post WW2 era, and the slow desegregation of American society. Whites did not want to have their children educated in the same schools as "colored" children, and busing began to be used to desegregate the schools. The Southern churches became a hot bed of activity on both sides of the battle.

Richard Nixon sensed that the South could be flipped from Blue to Red, and implemented the GOP's "Southern Strategy" - opposing busing at all turns, and aligning the party with fundamentalist ministries who, in the past, had no political allegiance. Within a generation, the South had flipped from Blue to Red, and the traditional mix of power in both political parties had changed for the worse. The Democrats became a party of urban liberals, while the GOP became a party of rural conservatives. No longer was there a tie in either party that held rural and urban states together.

Culturally, we have become very divided.  Jonathan Haidt identified 5 basic moral triggers that people use to judge right from wrong, and they include:

• Harm/care: People are sensitive to suffering and have negative feelings toward those who are harmful and cruel. They value kindness and compassion.
• Fairness/reciprocity: A history of cooperation means humans have evolved a sense of fairness and reciprocity, leading to altruistic actions.  
• Ingroup/loyalty: People place moral value on those who do what's good for the group; are loyal to the group; and dislike disloyal members. 
  
• Authority/respect: Humans tend to respect authority and tradition.
• Purity/sanctity: The idea that we view our bodies as sacred. This idea ties into religious views about the body and human actions.

Liberals tend to care only about harm and fairness when considering whether something is moral or not, while conservatives have a more traditional moral structure, and tend to care about all five morality factors. Couple the conservative viewpoint with a belief that economic failure is a result of moral failure, and one will have problems when addressing major economic issues such as structural unemployment.

In the past, we once had common broadcast news outlets, where reporting bias had to be skewed toward the middle in order to keep a nationwide audience. Was there really much difference between CBS, NBC and ABC, save for their anchors (Cronkite, Huntley/Brinkley, and Smith)? I don't think so. Without the ability to choose narrowcasted news, the American public got a balanced idea of what was happening in the world. This is not the case today. Cable allows us to select the narrowcasted news outlets of our choice, and we are fed the pablum that our biases want to hear - be it Fox News, MSNBC, or CNN. It's much harder to see things clearly when our news outlets have been chosen because they reinforce our political biases.

Why is narrowcasted news a problem? In the past, objective news coverage from Vietnam helped cause the removal of American troops from that country and end an unneeded war. Today, with narrowcasted news, there is little pressure to check and balance what the politicians are doing - and this has allowed the Military/Business elite (that Eisenhower warned us about) to put us in a position of fighting a "forever war".

"Forever Wars" take resources away from the needed rebuilding of our country's physical infrastructure. As a result, we've seen bridges fail, water mains fail, the electric supply grid fail, among other infrastructure problems. And little is done. When Hurricane Sandy hit New York a while back, we were woefully unprepared. The rebuilding of infrastructure is costing much more than it should, as we no longer know how to build and/or repair things at a reasonable cost. 

We've evolved to having an "us/them" society. If I talk about poverty, the first thought that comes to many minds is of a poor black "welfare mother" who leeches off our system. What most people don't see is that there is just as much rural poverty as there is urban poverty. Do those poor white mothers leech any less off our system?  I doubt it.  Both urban and rural poor are doing all they can do to get by on a daily basis - but the system is stacked against them.  Strangely enough two of the best posts I've read about poverty in this country came from cracked.com, the humor site....

• 5 Things That Nobody Tells You About Being Poor
• 5 Stupidest Habits One Learns Growing up Poor

And the sentiment is now being echoed in mainstream websites, such as in this article appearing in slate.com.

• Why Poor People Stay Poor

What people aren't noticing is that poverty has now come to the supposedly "safe" suburbs. Structural unemployment has left many families in need. And now, suburban food pantries are just as busy as urban food pantries.

The business elite no longer feels that it has to be in the same boat as the workers in the firms they manage. In the past, a CEO would rarely earn more than 30x-50x the salary of the firm's average worker. Now, CEO's tend to get 300x-400x the salary of the firm's average worker. Are the CEOs any better than they used to be?  I doubt it. A while back, the firm I worked for decided to merge with one of its competitors in the worst of economies. Cost savings, in part, would be achieved by letting people go - when the odds were very much against these former workers finding work at a livable wage. Who gained? The workers? No. The Stockholders? Not in a reasonable time frame. Upper Management? Of Course! But my old firm is only one of many. A major technical firm has outsourced many of its employees, so that it achieves the flexibility of having a labor force without rights. Who gains?  Certainly not labor.  Nor do the states where this firm has located its business units.

So, is there any hope? If we go back to Jonathan Haidt's moral value structures, we also find that liberals and conservatives have a lot in common - when they can stop talking past each other. They both want to resolve the problems of society, but they are caught in webs (as I see it) of tribal loyalties. If we can begin to recognize that all the stake holders in our society have legitimate grievances, only then can we start to repair the damage caused by our dysfunctional, disconnected elites....