Sic Semper Tyrannis

"When Governments Go Bad" David Brooks

"Everyone is treating the I.R.S. issue as a bigger deal, but the Justice Department scandal is worse. This was a sweeping intrusion that makes it hard for the press to do its job. Who is going to call a journalist to report wrongdoing knowing that at some future date, the government might feel perfectly free to track the phone records and hunt you down? I would have thought a dozen Justice Department officials would have risen up and splashily resigned when they learned of the scope of this invasion. Aren’t there some lawyers in the Justice Department, and, if so, did they go to law schools where the Constitution is left unassigned?"  David Brooks

-----------------------------------

Brooks has it right here.  In the last years I have had occasion  to watch the Justice Department increasingly behave not as a servant of the constitution but rather as a single minded instrument for obtaining convictions desired by the administration, and willing to lie, cheat and suborn witnesses in order to get them.  In one case in which I was a witness, (now long settled) Justice Department lawyers  with the support of an FBI agent changed  the status of a character witness to that of a fact witness and then carefully abstained from informing the defeense of that change until after the defendant had been convicted and sent to prison.  This change in status was accompanied by the promise of a fee to be paid to the witness after conviction of the accused.  The amount of the fee was many times that allowed by federal guidelines. Several months elapsed before this malfeasance  was discovered  by the US Attorney for that district when the miscreants submitted a voucher for payent of the fee.  In that period the convicted man had resided in prison.  If you think that is an isolated case theink of the case of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.

And then we have the behvior and language of Erc Holder testifying before  a House committee this week.  His behavior was contemptuous and insulting and he should have been so cited.  pl  

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/opinion/brooks-when-governments-go-bad.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130517&_r=0

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/05/16/why-house-republicans-and-eric-holder-hate-each-other/

Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Sequester - Trust?

-Syria .   So now we have the emergence of supposed proof of Assad's government being in violation of the self assigned "red line" of poison gas use against the rebels. Let's see the proof.  Let's see and hear something beyond Andrea Mitchell beating her drum for war.  This is especially important on this day when the arch deceiver (or buffoon) is fawned over at his presidential library.  He still does not admit that his administration chose to believe fabricated information in the matter of Iraq's posession of nuclear weapons and poison gas. Now we have Obama and his Sancho Panza man (Biden) walking the American people toward war in Syria in pursuit of god knows what interest of the US. Don't think for a minute that a "no fly zone" over Syria is anythng but war against the Syrian government.  There would be massive movement of air assets to Turkey, Israel and Jordan.  There would be sufficient air to air combat to destroy the Syrian Air Force.  There would be Search Air Rescue operations in Syria for downed air crew.  And at the end there would be a Saudi satellite jihadi state in Syria.  We should be trusting about this?

- Iraq.  Civil War on sectarian lines has begun again in Iraq.   We were told that we had done a good thing in Iraq.  GW Bush still says we did.  What good did we do?  We replaced one dictator with someone who is rapidly becoming another.  The government of Iraq is at war with the Sunni Arab population.  Is that not clear?

- Afghanistan.  Is it not clear that our effort to transform Afghanustan has failed?  Is it not clear that we should leave as soon as possible and stop throwng good money and people after bad and foolish efforts?

-The Sequester.  In the gun fight in the senate, the Obama Administration used every trick of propaganda and tear jerking to try to get its way.  All those efforts failed, failed miserably.  Now the same techique is being used to try to influence the American people to force the Congress to adopt Obama's budget.  IMO sequester cuts are being structured to cause maximum pain and inconvenenience to the general public.  White House tours are cut.  National monuments are closed.  Air traffic controllers are laid off so as to cause delays in air traffic with travelers waiting hours in aircraft for take offs.  At the same time, major defense contracters report no change in their bottom line.  that will probably change but for now...

Should we be trusting?  pl 

Obama is "betting the ranch."

 

President Obama is betting that he can "have it all."  He has chosen to press hard on issues in which it is likely that he will lose badly and become a lame duck long before this usually occurs in 2nd presidential terms:

- Guns.  It is transparently obvious that the president as the head anti-gun person wants severe restrictions on gun ownership in the United States.  His allies in this matter frequently slip in public speech and mention that what they want now is just a first step.  The widespread deception involved in the propaganda against gun ownership involves the mis-stated results of polling.  Examples:  The supposed 90% of Americans who want more inclusive sales background checks - Yes, they want that but what kind of background checks? The supposed 40% of gun sales that are unchecked, yes, but what sort of sales are those?  The implication in the propaganda is that these are sales conducted by unlicensed commercial sellers operating on the fringes of gun shows.   This is untrue.  Such chicanery has confirmed  gun owner belief that whatever legislation is passed this year, it must be held to rigid minimums.  This view will prevail and Obama will be forced to accept that.  That will weaken him.

- Immigration.  A compromise is possible, but any provision in the bill that creates a veiled amnesty will cause it to fail in the House.  The notion that a mere statement on the part of the DHS that they have a comprehensive plan for border control should serve as a trigger for a quick beginning of "the path to citizenship" will cause the bill to fail.  That would weaken Obama.

- Foreign Policy.  We have the spectacle of John Kerry traveling the world attempting to dictate behavior to one and all.  Israel, Turkey, Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, NE Asia, Egypt.  How absurd!  How mistaken this is as to the true nature of international politics.  This process is bound to fail and the failure will weaken Obama.

- Obama's Budget.  Chained CPI is the least of the issues that Obama's base has with this document.  BHO has revealed himself as someone who is quite willing to abandon the ideals of the Democratic Party.  This will weaken him.

"I am the president, clothed in immense power!"  "The fate of mankind rests in our hands!"

Obama's problem is that he lacks Lincoln's power, a power fortuitously given by civil war to "the great emancipator."

No, he is much more like Grant in his second term.  pl

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-domestic-legacy-in-lawmakers-hands-obama-considers-his-options/2013/04/13/9067a1e4-a38b-11e2-9c03-6952ff305f35_story.html

Obama encourages more unsupportable mortgages.

 

"The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit, an effort that officials say will help power the economic recovery but that skeptics say could open the door to the risky lending that caused the housing crash in the first place. President Obama’s economic advisers and outside experts say the nation’s much-celebrated housing rebound is leaving too many people behind, including young people looking to buy their first homes and individuals with credit records weakened by the recession."  Washpost

------------------------------

Wait a minute...  Wasn't one of the big problems in the housing crash debacle the Congress's insistence that banks should be encouraged to make loans to people who could not afford to make the payments?

The banks responded by doing that while supported along the way by Fanny and Freddy and then sold the loans to other paper mills that chopped them up into little bits that could be made into derivative securities.  Those houses then sold these securities to all sorts of clients while simultaneously betting against the clients in the credit swap defaults markets.  A further refinement was that the credit swap default market did not even care if the person taking out the "insurance" owned the security.  That was a mouthful.

Now the Obamanoids are encouraging a re-run of this process?  OK.  I see.  Social and political objectives trump financial common sense.  Latinos and African Americans are a key part of the Democratic Party base.  This is a pay-off for votes,

All this is interesting in the context of constant attacks by Democratic Party adherents in the media and the wonkery against Republican legislators who have the temerity to listen to their constituents on such the issues as gun law.  pl  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-pushes-banks-to-make-home-loans-to-people-with-weaker-credit/2013/04/02/a8b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html?hpid=z1

 

 

 

 

Local Government Corruption

"State Senator Malcolm A. Smith arranged payments to get on the ballot of the New York City mayoral race, according to federal prosecutors. Mr. Smith, a Democrat, wanted to run as a Republican, and needed approval from Republican leaders. A criminal complaint detailed transactions that led to the arrests of six officials. "  NY Times

--------------------------

Naughty.  Many will say that this kind of thing is typical of the fantasy archipelago of places like New York City, Washington, Atlanta, Chicago, etc.  It is, and the ridiculous teacher corruption scandal in Atlanta comes to mind.

On the other hand, our popular governor, Bob McDonnell is reported to have allowed a developer who needed state help to pay for much of his daughter's wedding.  This was in the ever hateful to Virginia Washington Post. 

I have a deep and abiding loathing for state and local governmental pursuit of graft, and particularly the pursuit of developer money in zoning and re-development proposals.

The Department of Justice and the FBI have been zealous in pursuing such corruption in the Washington metro area north of the river.

Are we not deserving of their vigilance in the Old Dominion?  pl  

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/04/02/nyregion/mayor-plot.html?_r=0

Freedom to Marry

Correct me if I am wrong but it appears that the Proposition 8 and DOMA cases are being argued by opponents on the basis of a supposed absolute right to marriage contained somewhere in the constitution of the US.

This is quite different from a challenge that could have been made on basis of the "normality" of such marriages. 

If the argument that people have a right to marry whom they please without government interference is successful, it would seem inevitable that laws banning polygamy will be challenged. 

What is the social benefit derived from laws against polygamy? As a libertarian constitutionalist I do not understand the laws against polygamy as being other than derived from Judeo-Christian tradition.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-case.html?_r=0

Cyprus - Where is YOUR money today?

If I understand the EU bail out deal for the Cypriot government, all deposits of over 100,000 Euros will be subject to confiscations of 40% or more.  this will be for the purpose of funding the bail out.

I would imagine that there are quite a few people here on this blog who have enough money in the bank to "qualify' for the Cypriot "haircut."

What do you think of the deal and the precedent it creates?  pl

"Drinking the Koolaid." W. Patrick Lang

This was written in the autumn and winter 0f 2003/2004 and published in The summer number of "Middle East Policy" after "Harper's" who had commissioned me to write the piece refused to do so.  pl

(Now, in 2013 another band of manipulators is seeking to take  the US to war in Syria.  Americans - Beware!  pl)

Download Drinking the Kool-Aid

The federal courts begin to act on classification issues

"A US judge has ordered the FBI to stop its "pervasive" use of National Security letters to snoop on phone and email records, ruling Friday that the widespread tactic was unconstitutional. The order issued by US District Court Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco came as a blow to a measure heavily used by the administration of President Barack Obama in the name of battling terrorism "  globalpost

********************************

"Garland rejected an effort by the Obama administration to keep secret any aspect of the C.I.A.’s interest in the use of drone strikes to kill terrorism suspects abroad. It does not necessarily mean the contents of any of those records will ever be made public, and it stopped short of ordering the government to acknowledge publicly that the C.I.A. actually uses drones to carry out “targeted killings” against specific terrorism suspects or groups of unknown people who appear to be militants in places like tribal Pakistan. The Obama administration continues to treat that fact as a classified secret, though it has been widely reported."  NY Times

----------------------------------------

There has been a consistent pattern in which  federal judges have been willing to uncritically accept the Executive Branch's arguments with regarding to classification issues regarding evidence.

It often seems that any argument at all from the Justice Department will suffice in most courts.  This different.  pl  

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130315/fbi-snooping-tactic-ruled-unconstitutional

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/us/court-says-cia-must-yield-some-data-on-drones.html?_r=0

 

 

Expansion of Metrorail, a sensible idea

"Northern Virginia’s growth shows no signs of slowing. So two congressmen from our area, Gerry Connolly and Jim Moran, have introduced the “Northern Virginia Metrorail Extension Act,” which would study extending the Orange line to Centreville, the Yellow line down Route 1 to Fort Belvoir, and the Blue line down I-95 to the Potomac Mills mall in Woodbridge."  Washpost

--------------------------------------------

As an Alexandrian I heartily endorse such a long term plan.  In the city of Alexandria we have the daily spectacle of cars  pouring through our streets in a flood twice every work day.  The pressure of this traffic is steadily increasing.  State and federal government need to act on this proposal.  Much of the traffic is the daily commuting of federal workers to Washington.

At the same time consideration should be given to extending the Virginia Railway Express Manassas line to Strasburg Junction over existing track.  pl  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-state-of-nova/post/extend-metro-to-centreville-woodbridge-and-ft-belvoir-connolly-and-moran-put-idea-on-table/2013/03/11/76d5603c-8a6c-11e2-a051-6810d606108d_blog.html

"No state, without its consent ..." Article Five

“Legislators represent people, not trees or acres,” Chief Justice Warren wrote for the court in 1964, rejecting the argument that state senators, like federal ones, could represent geographic areas with varying populations. “Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.” Applying that principle to the Senate would be very hard. Even an ordinary constitutional amendment would not do the trick, as the framers of the Constitution went out of their way to require states to agree before their power is diminished. Article V of the Constitution sets out the procedure for amendments and requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or action by two-thirds of state legislatures to get things started. But the article makes an exception for the Senate. “No state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate,” the article concludes.?  NY Times

------------------------------------------

Aw Shucks!  Guess what coasties? This is still a federal republic.  The Great Compromise that created the senate was built to lure the smaller states into the union of the thirteen.  It worked, and now you big Democratic Party dominated lands of wonderfulness are stuck with it.  You know very well that no state will agree to its own diminution.  A coalition of the giants?  Let's see that in action.  IMO such a grouping would last until the interests of the states, as states, began to conflict.

The outcome of the CW/WBS was the big opportunity to fiddle with this system.  Nothing happened.  Why would it?  The bog states benefited from the war.

Solutions -

1- California, New York, etc could secede from the Union.  No? 

2- OK - The big states could petition to be allowed to divide themselves into two or more states.  California could become; Movielandia, Cowlandia and Redwoodia or maybe (Sasquatchia).  New York could become; Bloombergia, Mohawkia and Albania.  Oops, that one is taken.

This might not work out all that well for the fantasy island big city people.  The county by county electoral maps are revealing.  pl 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/11/us/politics/democracy-tested.html?_r=0#/#smallstate

"Did Black People Own Slaves?" Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

"And for a time, free black people could even "own" the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well. Free blacks owned slaves in Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat Butler "regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade," Halliburton wrote."  Dr. Henry Louis Gates

------------------------------------------

I have previously expressed my admiration for the scholarship of Doctor Gates.  He is a man who truly understands that "the truth shall make you free."  pl  

http://www.theroot.com/views/did-black-people-own-slaves

Mitch McConnell - Stop Brennan's confirmation!

"With more and more of Washington turning their television sets over to C-SPAN to see what Paul was up to, the freshman lawmaker repeatedly hammered home his desire to get a straight answer from the White House. "I don't question the president's motives. I don't think the president would purposely take innocent people and kill them. I really don't think he would drop a Hellfire missile on a cafe or a restaurant like I'm talking about. But it bothers me that he won't say that he won't," Paul said. "And it also bothers me that when he was a senator in this body and when he was a candidate, he had a much higher belief and standard for civil liberties, and that he seems to have lost that as he's become president." Paul added: "I have a great deal of concern about this slippery slope of saying that there won't be accusations, there won't be trials, that we will just summarily execute people. And the question is, will you execute noncombatants? If he's not going to, he ought to say so." "  PBS

-------------------------------------------------

McConnell stated last night that he would oppose Brennan's confirmation.  Let's see if he puts his "money where his mouth is."  

Holder's performance before the senate yesterday was appalling.  He doesn't think a non-judicial execution of an American citizen in a non-imminent sitation is unconstitutional?  Someone should think about impeachment as a remedy with regard to Holder.  pl 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/03/paul-launches-filibuster-strike-against-administrations-drone-policy.html

New FBI surveillance video release reopens IAI Nozette espionage question--IRmep

New FBI counterespionage surveillance video release reopens concerns about Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd. On March 21, 2012 U.S. prosecutors played FBI surveillance video in court of former NASA employee Stewart Nozette agreeing to sell U.S. government secrets to Israel. Nozette was then sentenced to thirteen years in prison. The FBI surveillance video, obtained by IRmep under the Freedom of Information Act, is now available on YouTube and Vimeo. An imperfect redaction reveals Nozette appearing to say he sold classified U.S. government information to "Israeli Aircraft," also known as Israel Aerospace Industries and IAI.

YouTube: http://youtu.be/UKaL-adh1T4

Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/61086025

In 2007 the FBI obtained a sealed warrant to search Nozette's home. They discovered a huge cache of classified U.S. government files unlawfully stored on Nozette's computer. One document named "Proposed Activities for 2005-6" ominously contained a section titled "Penetration of NASA" on behalf of a foreign client. The FBI soon discovered that between 1998 and 2008 a nonprofit run by Nozette received $225,000 in "consulting fees" from Israel Aerospace Industries. IAI tasked Nozette to obtain "technical data" beginning in November of 1998. Nozette complied with IAI's requests in exchange for "regular payments" according to criminal complaints filed in court. In the 1950s the state-owned IAI was established and led by Adolph "Al" Schwimmer, an American felon convicted for serially violating U.S. arms export controls. Schwimmer fraudulently obtained heavily discounted surplus U.S. aircraft from the War Assets Administration. In the 1960s IAI obtained stolen French Mirage 5 jet fighter plans in order to build its own copycat Kfir jet fighter. In the 1980s IAI relied on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to win U.S. funding for the development of the troubled Lavi jet fighter. The Lavi program was terminated in 1987 after questionable Israeli technology transfers to China. The U.S. has paid for half of the jointly developed IAI/Boeing Arrow Anti-Missile system since 1988. Since 2007 the AIPAC has lobbied for hundreds of millions in additional U.S. taxpayer funding for the new Arrow III, beyond the $3 billion in military aid already provided to Israel annually. Today AIPAC DC convention attendees will lobby Congress against cutting under sequestration any funding to IAI or other aid to Israel. On May 4, 2012 US Attorney Ron Machen was confronted on WAMU radio (YouTube) for officially stating no classified information was passed by Nozette to Israel.

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RK-acJmFPg

This was contradicted by court filings and now surveillance video. Machen could not credibly explain why the Justice Department limited its criminal investigation to only Nozette.  IRMEP

Two thoughts

 

Happy Sequester Day! 

- SCOTUS is hotly engaged in issues involving a suit brought by Shelby County, Alabama regarding the designation of particular jurisdictions in the United States as past and present sinners in the matter of voting discrimination directed at African-Americans.  The crux of the matter is the ability of the Congress to imply by designation that some Americans are more racist than others and that this proclivity is a feature of geographical and cultural concentration mainly in the South.  This is a notion dear to the hearts of many in the North who continue to think of the South as a conquered land that is inhabited by primitives who must be firmly "guided" towards virtue.  I think of this as the Thaddeus Stevens theory of American Salvation.  Not surprisingly many Southerners resent this paradigm.  SCOTUS may well overturn part of the law.  I actually think that would be unfortunate.  There HAS been widespread voter dicrimination in parts of the US.  Indeed, there are places in the North that are covered by the strictures of the present act.  IMO, the best remedy for the problem of differential application of the law would be to make the law applicable to all jurisdictions within the US.  "What is good for the goose is good for the gander."

- In the context of the sequester DoD needs to have authority to transfer funds from one designated appropriation account to another as needed to make sure that DoD has the ability to make rational reductions of expenditures rather than blindly applying funds to categories that Congress happened to put money in during more hopeful times.  pl

The Army Chief of Staff on civilian gun control

General Raymond Odierno is the chief of staff of the United States Army.  As such he is the institutional head of the army.  He is not the political head of the army.  That vestigial role is fulfilled by the civilian Secretary of the Army who is normally a politician of some sort.  It is long understood in the United States that active duty army officers, and especially the chief of staff will scrupulously eschew any intervention in political matters.

Odierno appeared today on "Morning Joe" the New York City chat show that reflects the mentality of that most prominent of American "fantasy islands."  He had clearly been dispatched there to rail against the sequester, much as Susan Rice was sent to her doom on the morning Sunday newsies.  His appearance against the sequester was unfortunate.  The resolution for sequestration is a political matter.  The chief of staff should not be appearing on national TV (well, MSNBC) seeking to influence a civilian political decision, but he did so.  This is a sadly degenerate time in US national life, and any sense of what is appropriate seems to have been lost. 

To make matters worse, Zbig's daughter, Mika, pressed Odierno for his views on gun control legislation for the general civilian public.  She wanted to know if he favored registration, banning of "assault weapons,"  etc

The appropriate response for him would have been to say that he had no role in such civilian political matters and would not comment.   Instead, he seemed to become confused between 1 - gun control for private ownership within the army and 2 - civilian gun control generally.  As a result he ended by seeming to endorse Mika's obsessions.

This man sits in George Marshall's chair?  pl

 

Neil Richardson on the US Army's future.

Dear Col. Lang: If we're indeed looking at 25 brigades by 2014 with perhaps further cuts in the remaining decade (I suspect 20 brigades would be the floor that the Army would be willing to accept), perhaps the Army could institute a few changes in deployment policy. First, shorten rotation cycles to 6 months with 24 mos dwell time (24mos is now the policy as of 2012). The Army announced last year that it would "regionally align" forces. One of the biggest obstacles to retention of qualified personnel has been long deployment cycles with little dwell time. I Corps (or even 2ID if DoD sees it fit to withdraw the division HQ entirely after 2015) could focus on ROK. As future BCT structure allows, the Army could allocate 4 BCTs plus a fires bde to 2ID at Lewis. Yakima isn't an ideal training ground for operations in ROK, but a BCT could work up battalion and brigade-level integration prior to deployment in ROK. Terrain familiarization probably would take a month after deployment, and the outgoing brigade should provide overlap coverage during this period. I'd also cancel proposed changes in USFK dependents policy. If a war breaks out in ROK, we would have to execute a massive NEO. If shooting starts, the last thing anybody in 2ID needs is wondering whether his family would be able to successfully run a gauntlet to evacuation sites. Second, cross-train and cross-fertilize personnel within combat arms. Longer dwell time means there's no longer an excuse to take shortcuts in training prior to deployment. Branch-specific core competencies must be maintained, but too often a tank coy CO has little understanding of what light infantry can and cannot accomplish even though the Army has been practicing cross-attachment since WWII. (It was a little better with mechanized infantry, but heavy-light and light-heavy integration has been a problem that's been around after every major war IMO as the Army has a tendency to forget very expensive lessons.) With the adoption of Combined Arms Battalion and the recent decision to restore a third maneuver BN to BCT (no more RSTA squadrons pretending to be a substitute), Gen. Dempsey had set in motion these overdue changes that would address imbalances at tactical level when he was at TRADOC. I would also like to see light infantry spend more time training with heavy BCTs instead of spending one or two weeks a year. Tank-infantry coordination certainly isn't rocket science, but it takes repetition to build competence. The Ranger BNs paid a terrible price at Cisterna while the First Special Service Force avoided it during its advance to Rome. Gen. Frederick had made certain that his men trained with TF Howze. I believe the Army will become a cadre force and cross-training will be criticial as was the case with the Reichheer during the interwar period. Third, retain and preserve the "seed corn" for future force transformation. Although its impact on reconnaissance has been institutionalized down to the small unit level, there are a lot of unanswered questions regarding the potential impact of robotics on logistics, economy of force and security operations at tactical level, etc. While investing in new systems might be fine in an ideal world of unlimited budget but in an era of austerity, I believe the retention of right personnel is more important than keeping up with generational upgrades. Men like Guderian adn Patton ironed out tactical doctrines while training with cardboard tanks mounted on bicycles or cars. Continued investment on R&D is obviously critical, but IMHO personnel matter just as much if not more. I strongly suspect that the Army senior leadership will opt for new weapon systems and cut training, but I think this would be a serious mistake. If 20 brigades is the likely floor for the active force, I think one heavy/Stryker hybrid division (2ID if the United States keeps a BCT in ROK or the 1st Cav if we don't), 82AB, 101AB, 1ID, independent light infantry brigades (IIRC AFRICOM is supposed to get a regionally aligned bde and I also expect one bde to remain in Europe) plus fires brigades could be one possible option for the near future. Essentially, 82AB and 101AB would remain as light infantry divisions with unique set of capabilities (However, I'd also attach a tank BN to each division's TO&E). I'd suggest that 1ID should become a test-bed division which would combine heavy, Stryker, light and air assault bdes and work on operational art with future force transformation in mind. A large portion of the existing heavy force will be transferred to reserve component (NG). IMHO that's not a problem as current trends in offense-defense balance for armor probably will not be favorable for some time. And there will be a lot of experienced tankers, infantrymen and gunners who will become available as RIF takes place. (There are enough young tankers who'd even pay their own money to train once a month. And crew stability is an asset among NG armor units as we've seen over the years at NTC) The key again would be whether the senior leadership can make sure there are enough resources allocated to training not only active units but NG units who will assume a critical role (at least until we know that armor has indeed gone the way of horse cavalry).

US Army to lose 200,000 soldiers

"Odierno told Congress earlier this week that sequestration might force the Army to cull another 100,000 troops from its ranks. Speaking at Brookings he went further, estimating that beginning with the 80,000 already scheduled, “in the end, it’ll be over 200,000 soldiers that we will have to take out of the active duty component National Guard and Army Reserve” if sequestration is implemented for the long term. “We’ll take almost a 40 percent reduction in our brigade combat teams once we’re finished,” he cautioned"  Defense News

-------------------------

The USMC will of necessity take a similar cut.  It will take a while for reality to set in among the service staffs and the JCS but in the end procurement of equipment and sponsored R&D will slow to almost nothing and a lot of force structure will be shifted into the reserve components.  They are inherently less expensive.

The BHO Administration can talk all it wants to about a "pivot to the Pacific" but there will be neither forces for aland war there, nor the money with which to fight such a war on the Pacific rim.

Basically, this will mean the end of an era of  hegemonism in US political thinking.

IMO the US Navy and USAF will be the "favored children" in this new world.  pl  

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130215/DEFREG02/302150020/Chief-Sequestration-Could-Cost-U-S-Army-200-000-Soldiers?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

BHO's agenda vs the US Constitution

 

There can be little doubt that the corporate MSM represent the collective opinion of the "fantasy island" cities of the east and west coasts of the US.

At the same time, the corporate right wing media represent the collective opinion of much of the rest of the country.

God help us!

The president of the US has a well developed left wing agenda.  Let us not be fooled by all the talk of concern for the welfare of the "middle class," whatever that might be in the US.

He and his allies in "the archipelago" seem to believe that an inevitable acceptance of the virtue and wisdom of their belief in the specifics of their dream of "the future" will take place.  In pursuit of that goal all sorts of foolishness is taking place.  Some is serious.  Some is just silly.

- The phrase "a more perfect union" is often quoted from the preamble to the constitution in the hope that the sheeple will believe that it was meant to signify a belief in the possibility of perfection of The Republic as a sort of earthy garden of delights.  In fact, what was meant was the improvement of the mechanism of federal government.

- Country-wide statistics of polls regarding issues of importance to Archipelegian politics are cited as evidence that the preponderance of opinion in the "islands" will surely sweep all before it.  Surely!  This morning Chris Cillizza (?) badgered a member of the House from outside the archipelago to accept the idea that SURELY! there would have to be gun control sufficient to satisfy the islanders.  It should be remembered that Cillizza, by his own admission, is badly infected with Connecticutt Fever.

- What is missed by the islanders is that the US is still a federal republic.  It was built that way deliberately for the purpose of holding the political ambitions of the archipelago at bay.  That was the motivation behind the Great Compromise that gave Wyoming and California each two senators.  In addition, many senators represent constituencies where "guns" is not a four letter word.  That would include many non-islander Democrats.   These people will not vote for very much of BHO's agenda.  That would include the gunster dreaming.  No amount of demagogic speechifying will change that.

- The Republicans hold the House and they hold it with members by and large elected in districts outside the archipelago.  That would include in states where island city states are located.  These folks know what their chances are if they back the islanders against their own people.  That would also include some Democrats.

- Finally, BHO has to get any new laws or executive orders past SCOTUS.

There is a lot talk about the changing demographics of the US.  Yes, but the demographics of the US have changed many times before.  They always continue changing.  The islanders should beware of the future.  It is an "undiscovered country."  pl

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

 

Let's debate Judicial Review of drone killings.

Senator Feinstein yesterday repeated the suggestion made here that judicial review of GWOT targeting of individuals for execution by drone or other means is a serious possibility.

Most of these killings are done in circumstances that the military would describe as "deliberate," that is, without a serious time constraint.  That being the case, "deliberate" execution decisions could be reviewed by a FISA like federal court BEFORE THEY ARE CARRIED OUT.  pl

Bits and Pieces

-  Feinstein has decided not to allow witnesses at Brennan's hearing today.  I suppose that her sympathy for the goals of the drone and other assasination programs is so great that she could not do anything else.  Bruce Fein wanted to testify.  He has opinions somewhat different than hers seem to be.  IMO the main problem with the program described in the White Paper is the lack of judiciary review for decisions to kill that are NOT made in a situation of "imminent" attack on the US or Americans.  I don't think many would fault the government for strike missions conducted when attacks are actually "imminent" but the White Paper does not require true imminence for a strike to be made solely as an Executive Branch decision.  A solution is available.  A federal court can be created, analogous to the FISA courts to review the evidence and decide on the sufficiency of need.  This should apply to all such "kill orders," not just to those applied to Americans.

- "Universal backgrund checks," "Gun trafficking," and "Mental health inputs to gun sale data bases" are emerging as legislative items that might be passable  in Congress.  If the advocates for these measures want something other than an opportunity to vent their scorn for those who disagree with them they need to make public as soon as possible the exact text of what will be proposed in Congress.  the details will matter greatly.  Does "universal" include family transfers of firearms or sale to a neighbor?  Does "universal" require background checks for the loan of a weapon at a range or on a hunting trip?  Will "gun trafficking" include the sale of a firearm to someone who lives across any state border?  i.e., if I wish to sell a rifle to someone in West Virginia would a background check be required?  Will the federal or state government be allowed to retain a record of the sale of a firearm?  Will proposed law allow and require the transfer of mental health data to firearms background checks data bases?  If so, what kind of data can be transferred?  pl

"Kill List" justification from "Justice"

 

"The 16-page document says it is lawful to target al-Qaida linked U.S. citizens if they pose an “imminent” threat of violent attack against Americans, and that delaying action against such people would create an unacceptably high risk. Such circumstances may necessitate expanding the concept of imminent threat, the memo says. “The threat posed by al-Qaida and its associated forces demands a broader concept of imminence in judging when a person continually planning terror attacks presents an imminent threat,” the document added. "  Washpost

----------------------------------------------

According to this memo the government can decide that you are dangerous and then make an administrative decision to kill you based on a judgment of what you might do.  This applies to American citizens resident outside the US.

Does that bother you? It does bother me.

An imperfectly analogous situation would have been that of an American citizen serving in WW2 in the German or Japanese armed forces.  Such a person would have been a legal target for the US armed forces, but if captured would have been tried for treason to the United States by either a military or civilian court.  In this case AQ & Company are not a regular armed force but are nevertheless actively engaged in lethal operations against the US.  Are those American citizens suspected of active involvement in terrorism against the US legitimate subjects for executive branch "kill orders" without due process?  I think not.  IMO, a judicial process within the federal courts should be created to deal with this on a case by case basis.

John Brennan's "fingerprints" don't seem to be on this document from the Department of "Justice," but given his placement in the process of deciding who goes on "kill lists" and in public defense of the rectitude of such decisions he certainly must be connected to the thinking in this paper.

Directly and undeniably connected to this document is the Attorney General, Eric Holder.  He is on record here as approving the assasination of American citizens without due process.

I have criticised Brennan before.  I have also half jokingly written that he should have been nominated to be DNI rather DCIA.  I stated the latter on the basis that Clapper has effectively been working for Brennan for years.  To reverse the statutory roles now is a mockery of the law.

I withdraw that suggestion.  IMO neither Brennan nor Holder are accepting of anything but their own tortured version of law.  They should go.  Their presence encourages BHO in his evident desire to exercise the prerogatives of a monarch.  pl  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-dept-memo-details-when-its-ok-to-kill-us-citizens-abroad/2013/02/05/200aa3f6-6fa1-11e2-b35a-0ee56f0518d2_story.html

"Garrow's Law" a must see drama

 

"Set around trials at the Old Bailey in Georgian London against a backdrop of corruption and social injustice, Garrow's Law is a legal drama inspired by the life of pioneering barrister William Garrow. The series, co-created by Tony Marchant, is based on real legal cases from the late 18th century, as recorded in the Old Bailey Proceedings. Andrew Buchan as Garrow leads a cast including Alun Armstrong and Lyndsey Marshal. From rape and murder to high treason and corruption, each episode begins with the investigation of a real crime sourced from the published accounts of Old Bailey trials, available in a fully searchable edition online. In an age when few of the accused could afford defence counsel, the youthful Garrow and his associate John Southouse (pronounced soot-house), a solicitor, work to uncover the truth or fight for justice, championing the underdog and pioneering the rigorous cross-examination of prosecution witnesses that paved the way for the modern legal system. " Wiki

-------------------------------------------------

The state of British criminal justice in the 18th Century is fully developed in this BBC production.  The reasoning and experience that led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution are made evident.  pl  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrow%27s_Law

"The Military Draft' by Haviland Smith

 
 

"Representative Charles Rangel of New York has long been an opponent of the all-volunteer army. Over three decades, he has repeatedly (and unsuccessfully) introduced legislation to reinstitute the draft. His motivation is simply that "the poor, black and brown shouldn’t be the only Americans fighting and dying” in wars, and that "fairness dictates that the sons and daughters of the white middle and upper classes share the burden of war". And he certainly does have a point, but not the only point arguing for the reinstitution of the draft."  Haviland Smith 

Download MILITARY DRAFT

Make Brennan DNI, not DCIA

James Clapper has effectively been working for John Brennan during Obama's first term.  Now the president wants Brennan to be the Director of the CIA.  In that position Brenan would be one of Clapper's statutory subordinates in his role as Director of National Intelligence.  Does that make any sense?

The position of DNI has been given most of CIA's former functions in coordinating the actions of the IC as well as the writing of National Intelligence Estimates.

CIA has been properly limited to the "ownership" of the National Clandestine Service.  CIA is unhappy with that and seeks continuously to break out of the "box" that it finds itself in.  It's fascination with the drone war over Pakistan is a reflection of that psychology.

John Brennan is a vigorous 57 year old executive.  If he returns to CIA will he be content to work within the present IC structure or will he seek to restore the ancien regime in the community.

Would it not make more sense to put Brennan in charge of the whole community as DNI?  pl

 

More on Senator Hagel

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

Like COL Lang, I'm also very pleased that Senator Hagel was nominated.  Back in 2007 Esquire ran an in depth profile of Senator Hagel.  It was written by Charles Pierce, who is now their primary writer/correspondent at their Daily Politics Blog.  While he put up a short column on the Senator's nomination and why it is a good thing today, click over and read the much more in depth reporting he did back in 2007 if you're interested in more detailed information about Senator Hagel.**

Then go pop the popcorn, get your beverage of choice ready, and watch the show as the Senate, the news media, the blogosphere, and specific interests groups and think tanks like AIPAC, the Emergency Committe for Israel, AEI, Brookings, etc amuse us with their dysfunction, err, demonstrate why we have a mature and effectively functioning political system and news media!

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do NOT necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and or the US Army.

** Esquire does some really good in depth political reporting.  In the past couple of years they've done profiles or reporting on Congressman Paul, Roger Ailes, John Demjanjuk and often post the full transcripts of the interviews shortly after publishing the stories.

Flash! Hagel is outside the DC "consensus" on Israel

Dan Senor was the "mouthpiece" for the disastrous CPA government in Baghdad.  This shifty eyed neocon front man was on "Chuck" Todd's morning MSNBC show today to do what he could to stop Senator Hagel's progress towards the Pentagon.  Todd, himself, is a thinly disguised opponent of Hagel's nomination.

When he wasn't rolling his eyes or smirking over the very idea of Hagel, Senor was busy telling us all that "there is a 'consensus' on Israel in Washington" and that Hagel is outside it.

Yes, there is such a "consensus."  It is a consensus that results from decades of intimidation, illegal finance contributions and suppression of the opinions of anyone who does not accept the primacy of Israel in US policy.  Hagel is not intimidated.  His appointment to be Secretary of Defense would threaten the "consensus."

That is what people like Senor are afraid of.  pl

It's the "Sequester," stupid!

"It’s not clear exactly what the two-month postponement will mean. Do Washington bureaucrats now have two months to figure out how to soften the cuts? Or will the sequester bomb simply be dropped March 1 instead of Jan. 2? We suspect the latter." NWF Daily News

-----------------------------

Yes, me too.  The media are once again focused on the wrong thing.  The GOP has been beaten once by BHO in his struggle to intimidate the Congress and get it under control.  IMO the Republican House will lack the guts to push the debt limit far enough to shut the government down and devalue US government debt.

The Sequester is another matter.  These massive cuts will be automatic in March unless there is agreement on what to cut.  For DoD such cuts will be devastating because they are on top of another 400 billion odd in cuts already scheduled.  The hyper-nationalist present day Republican Party surely does not want that.  How will they rule (protect) the world without massive forces?  But, what will they be willing to give BHO in domestic spending that would compensate for "lost" defense cuts?

The great piece of "statesmanlike" legislation signed a few days ago actually makes the situation worse.  The higher "rich people" rates are nothing compared to the real money that would have flowed in from higher middle class taxes.  I speak not of the working poor because they do not pay regular direct income taxes although they pay other kinds of tax on their income.

Yes, we could have broken the back of the debt problem with higher (Clinton era) tax rates all around, a withdrawal from non-CT military activity on the ground overseas, a reduction in conventional ground force size, and older ages for Medicare eligibility, but we did not.

The Sequester is coming!  pl 

 

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-sequester-will-fester-till-march-1.73779

Thoughts on Gun Control Hysteria--by Foresman

I am not a libertarian; nor am I conservative or liberal; in fact I guess I am a moderate whose views are shaped by the ideologies of libertarianism, conservatism, and liberalism.

Calm Down on Gun Control

 
 

"... Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who said after the shootings: "If now is not the time to have a serious discussion about gun control and the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our society, I don't know when is." Or CNN's Piers Morgan who, on his show, asked a defender of the Second Amendment: "How many more kids have to die, before you guys say, 'We want less guns, not more'?" Or New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who recently demanded that Congress pass gun-control legislation and said this: "If this moment passes into memory without action from Washington, it will be a stain upon our nation's commitment to protecting the innocent, including our children." Intending to capitalize on the tragedy, the antigun crowd insists that this is precisely the time to talk about toughening the nation's gun laws. After all, they say, you want to have such a dialogue when people are thinking about the issue."  San Francisco Chronicle

------------------------------------------

Piers Morgan is a "no-class" carpetbagger from the UK and the other two are, after all, New Yorkers, so what can one expect? 

This author, who is from the Washington Post writers group, has a valid point.  This level of tragedy should demand something other than the crude hucksterism of perpetually weeping TV "newsies" intent on bull-dozing their way to their goal of a disarmed US public.  pl 

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/navarrette/article/Gun-debate-needs-a-waiting-period-4129691.php#ixzz2FVFwxQST

 

Madison, Federalist # 46 and gun rights

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

James Madison (Publius) in Federalist Paper #46
arguing for the ratification of the present Constitution including the Second amendment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

To "sweeten" the medicine of an insistence on individual gun rights in the US, it is usually claimed now that Americans want guns for; hunting, target shooting, home defense, collecting...

In fact "Publius" argues here that the possession of firearms by the citizens and the potential for resistance to tyranny implicit in that possession is necessary as part of the system of checks and balances that holds tyranny at bay. 

As one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers Madison is engaged in trying to persuade the states to ratify the present constitution.  Without such assurances as this one, it is quite possible that the constitution might never have been ratified.  In fact, two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island had voted against ratification by the time that Virginia voted in favor by the slimmest of margins thus establishing a majority.

NB that the private possession of weapons is mentioned by Madison BEFORE he mentions the similar effect of armed militias belonging to the states.  It is stated as an absolute good.  This explains the structure of the clauses in the second amendment.  The militia clause is intended to stand as an example of what in Madison's view was an absolute right of the citizens.

For those who would reply that an armed citizenry could have no effect against a modern army, it is only necessary to direct their attention to the history of the last years.

To those on the left or right who think an unarmed citizenry is a good idea, consider your true thoughts regarding the scruples of government servants and possible future regimes.  pl

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

"...Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs"

  
 

"... provide departments and agencies with the minimum elements necessary to
establish effective insider threat programs. These elements include the
capability to gather, integrate, and centrally analyze and respond to key
threat-related information; monitor employee use of classified networks; provide
the workforce with insider threat awareness training."  Presidential Memorandum

--------------------------------

This memo enjoins the creation of internal spying within US government departments and agencies in order to block through fear the possibility of "whistle blowing" to Congress or anyone else.  pl

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/11/21/presidential-memorandum-national-insider-threat-policy-and-minimum-stand

We are headed for the cliff.

 
 

"Late Thursday, House Republicans said they rejected an offer from the Obama administration that was presented by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and White House Congressional Liason Rob Nabors in meetings with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. The $4 trillion offer would have raised taxes $1.6 trillion over a decade and cut $400 billion from Medicare and other entitlements, to be worked out next year. It would also have extended the payroll tax cut, raised the estate tax to 45 percent on inheritances over $3.5 million, kept Medicare reimbursement rates from being cut (the "doc fix"), extended unemployment insurance and added $50 billion in infrastructure/stimulus spending in the first year, with more such spending in the future. House Republicans characterized the offer as a joke. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, called it a "step backward, moving away from consensus and significantly closer to the cliff, delaying again the real, balanced solution that this crisis requires."   CBS News

-------------------------------------------------

I am coming to the conclusion that neither party wants a solution to the "fiscal cliff" dilemma.  If they did they would make a deal and they would do it today.  Instead, the parties seem to see an advantage in allowing the various disasters to occur.  If they do that then it becomes theoretically possible to blame the other side for; higher taxation, higher unemploymet, lower securities markets, etc.  If that is what they are doing it is a reprehensible and risky idea.  pl 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57556312/obama-taking-fiscal-cliff-fight-to-the-public/

The Army at a Crossroads - TTG

For much of this year, Sgt. Maj. Raymond F. Chandler III, the Army’s top enlisted soldier, has traveled to bases around the world with a simple message: “We’ve allowed ourselves to get out of control.” His solution has been a raft of new regulations governing tattoos, the length of soldiers’ sideburns and the color of the backpacks they are allowed to carry while in uniform. The tighter standards are intended to improve discipline in a force that is recovering from an exhausting decade of war. But some of his fellow troops viewed the new regulations as one piece of a larger, more worrisome trend in the Army as it confronts an uncertain future. Instead of embracing change, some officers worry that the service is reverting to a more comfortable, rigid and predictable past. 

“We are at a crossroads right now, and I don’t get the sense that we know what we are doing,” said Maj. Fernando Lujan, a Special Forces soldier who has served multiple combat tours. “I am worried about the Army.” (Wash Post)

-------------------------------------------------

So says Greg Jaffe in today's Washington Post. The Army may be at a crossroads, but I do not share the apparent trepidation over the Sergeant Major of the Army's raft of new regulations and tighter standards. Nor am I as worried about the Army as Major Lujan is. 

The world is changing, belts will tighten and the Army will change. That is inevitable. SMA Chandler is doing what he can to manage this change. He wants a disciplined force capable of handling whatever comes its way. For more than a decade I've seen Army enlisted personnel and officers wearing every combination of uniform imaginable in the Military District of Washington. It bothered me. At times, it embarrassed me. I grew up with Army Summer and Army Winter. Our uniforms were… uniform. I'd say we're about due for some tighter regulations. 

However this is not the focus of the story. What will the Army do with less resources and a changing defense strategy. We've been through this before. I began my career in the days of the hollow Army. We were undermanned and under equipped, supposedly suffering from a post Viet Nam syndrome or something. My twenty-five man rifle platoon was full of pot smokers and wise guys. They were a pain in the ass in garrison, but they were a fighting force to be proud of in the field. Their godfather was Command Sergeant Major Snead. The soldier in the picture. He would take each soldier arriving in the battalion on a tour of the hall of honor explaining the regimental history and pointing out each battle trophy. It was a chilling experience hearing him call out each battle streamer as he held it over his head before clipping it on the battalion colors during our organization day parades. To this day I can only refer to him as Command Sergeant Major Snead. This is the kind of intangible thing that glues the Army together during rough times. 

We made do with what we had. When the battalion had no fuel for training, we walked to the training areas with the mortars and 90mm recoilless rifles. We trained heavily in strongpoint defense, withdrawal under pressure and breakout from encirclement. We also trained to meet every other ARTEP task. Knowing the basics, we would adapt to all else. We were prepared to deploy anywhere in the Pacific, SWA or even Europe. Ambiguity was a way of life. The Army emerged from this period as a strong disciplined fighting force. We will do so again this time. 

Jaffe mentions the Army plan to "regionalize" combat units. Brigades and divisions will focus their training on specific deployment plans. They will conduct training missions and joint exercises with friendly forces in the region. This is nothing new. We did this in the hollow Army, too. However the added emphasis on cultural and language training is new. Jaffe probably learned this from Major Lujan. This is how Special Forces have always trained and always will train. I like this idea for combat units as long as the basic tasks of combat are not forgotten. Do not try to make the conventional Army into a Special Forces light. It won't work. 

The Army will downsize. I hope they will start by replacing the vast majority of contractors with active duty personnel. We need mess halls and mess teams, not dining facilities run by DynCorp. Then dump half the generals. There will still be plenty. At some point the defense strategy must change. It should happen before the Army starts adapting to the new reality, but I'm not holding my breath. No matter what happens, the Army will emerge just fine and remain true to its motto… This we'll defend.

TTG

My "Dream Team" at Defense and State

I think that nomination of Susan Rice to be Secretary of State would be a bad idea.  This has nothing to do with the Benghazi canard.    She recited the administration's screed on the attack in Libya.  BHO said at his 14 November press conference that he, and not Rice, is the proper target for their animus over Benghazi.  He was quite correct in that statement.  My problem with Rice is that she has often been described to me by those close to her as a hyper-ambitious and ruthless person who would be a threatening presence in the state Department headquarters in Foggy Bottom

At the same time, I think the appointment of Senator John Kerry to be Secretary of Defense would be an insult to the armed forces that he falsely denounced in lying testimony and statements after his return to Vietnam during the war.  The same Kerry faked his participation in a "ceremony" in which he and other malcontents threw their military medals away.  Kerry had bought copies to throw in order to be able to keep his own.

-------------------------------------

IMO the president should nominate former senator Bob Kerrey to be Secretary of Defense.  Kerrey was a long serving and moderate member of the senate from Nebraska.  He was awarded the Medal of Honor for his service in VN as a SEAL officer.  He was badly wounded in the same war.  Kerrey was president of the New School University in New York for a long time.  He would be respected by the armed forces.

John Huntsman, Jr. would be my choice for Secretary of State.  A moderate Republican, his nomination would demonstrate the sincerity of BHO's desire to "work across the aisle."  Huntsman was US ambassador to China and speaks fluent Chinese.  China should be a major focus of our diplomacy.  To have a secretary of state so familiar with that country would be a significant advantage.  pl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Kerry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman,_Jr.

 

Electoral College Results by Population

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

In comments to the recent post on what happened to the White Vote, TTG asked about the electoral college results map adjusted for actual population density.  Its an excellent question, because what we have is that the portions of the non population adjusted map show a LOT of red compared to the blue, the reality is that a LOT more people live in the blue areas than the red.  

For instance in this map from Mark Newman at U Michigan's Center for the Study of Complex Systems shows the red/blue state map by population density (this is NOT the electoral college map, that's below):

Below you can find several maps that adjust for population density and see what I mean.  Links back to the original site below them.

2012 Electoral College Results Map from the Denver Post (showing FL for President Obama as projected):

2012 Electoral Map by population density from Mark Newman at U Michigan:

Here are the 2008 results adjusted for population, also from Mark Newman:

If you click through he's also got this down to the county level for both years with very good explanations of how he's done the weighting for density and what it means.

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army.

John Brennan and the engine of death

"The “playbook,” as Brennan calls it, will lay out the administration’s evolving procedures for the targeted killings that have come to define its fight against al-Qaeda and its affiliates. It will cover the selection and approval of targets from the “disposition matrix,” the designation of who should pull the trigger when a killing is warranted, and the legal authorities the administration thinks sanction its actions in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond. “What we’re trying to do right now is to have a set of standards, a set of criteria, and have a decision-making process that will govern our counterterrorism actions — we’re talking about direct action, lethal action — so that irrespective of the venue where they’re taking place, we have a high confidence that they’re being done for the right reasons in the right way,” Brennan said in a lengthy interview at the end of August." Karen de Young



 -----------------------

"a lengthy interview..."  What are they playing at?  Interviews are not granted on subjects like this without a specific goal.   Ah, the election, yes that is what they are playing at.   Given the president's apparently desparate situation it seems likely that the Post was encouraged to get this series out on the street NOW!

I knew Brennan when he was a very junior CIA analyst working in Saudi Arabia for Alan Fiers.  Remember him? He seemed incredibly solemn and resolute.  What he was resolute about was unclear (to me).  The women in the embassy had aerobic dance classes in a little building on the embassy compound.  I remember seeing him in there running and hopping with them (and his wife).   My, how people do rise in the world!  Apparently he is quite religious?

I have to say that I agree with much of what he is said to be doing.  The neocon imperial wars are ending (unless Romney is elected).   The war against foreign terrorists of every stripe who seek to attack us must continue.  Brennan's plan is to consolidate and systematize procedures so that the anti-terrorist war is both effective and controlled by centralised authority.  At the same time he wants to get CIA DO out of the business of executing violence and back altogether in the business of espionage and black propaganda.  He wants to return all policy driven external violence performed by the US Government to the department of Defense.  IMO, this is a good idea.  CIA is too "loose" an organization to have that kind of function.  The complex bureaucracy of the military and the civilian world of OSD are better places for that function to reside.  Supervision is a lot tighter.

In one of the debates,  BHO said "people like me should be reined in."  He is right.  It looks like Brennan in trying to do that on an institutional basis.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-veteran-john-brennan-has-transformed-us-counterterrorism-policy/2012/10/24/318b8eec-1c7c-11e2-ad90-ba5920e56eb3_story.html

"A republic if you can keep it..."

Republics may or may not be democratic.  They may be more or less democratic.  They are not monarchies, although monarchies may be democratic.  My father delighted in telling people (often me) that the United States was not a true democracy.  He considered true democracies to be governments ruled by mobs of the ignorant.  He said that the United States was a federal republic with a limited form of democracy.  For him the constitution of the United States was the bulwark of this federal republic against mob rule.  On this, he and I are still in agreement although he is long gone.

We have always had a certain element in the population who want unlimited democracy in the US, a democracy run on the basis of an even more generous franchise, abolition of the electoral college, reduction of the state governments to administrative districts along the line of French departments, one law code for the whole country, and allocation of senators by state population size.

The 24/7 news media are in favor of most or all of these things.  Their incessant and usually mindless propaganda for their favorite "hobby horses," drives the ignorant sheeple toward the slaughter pens set up on electoral days.  The advertising industry functions in this process in the same way that sheep dogs move the mutton toward the knife.

The American people (if there is such a thing) have been endlessly dumbed-down in schools where "all the children are exceptional" except for the truly exceptional who attend different schools that are either private or resident within public schools.  The rest have grown to something called adulthood on a diet of; action movies, reality TV,  social media half thoughts, hip-hop, etc.  As a result the average potential elector has almost no span of attention, little knowledge of anything but the trivia of their daily lives and an inability to find almost anything on a map.

These people are ripe for exploitation by a regime that could be modeled on Orwell's "1984."  (He was a British author who lived in the 20th Century)

We no longer deserve a republic.  IMO an election in which Romney wins the national popular vote and BHO the electoral college would be intensely entertaining.  We had  that in 2000 until SCOTUS spoiled the fun.  Pete Williams, the NBC courts reporter correctly says that such a thing would not be a "constitutional crisis."  It would simply be the system at work.  pl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_presidential_candidates,_2012

 

On Ole Tailgunner Joe...

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

MS2 in the comments to COL Lang's recent post about Marshall asked about where to go to get started reading about these things.  In regards to the Senator McCarthy material I highly recommend Oshinsky's biography entitled A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy.  I found it very easy to read, well researched, and the author, clearly dealing with a controversial subject, actually manages to show Senator McCarthy's humanity while clearly articulating how far off the rails he had gone.

The transcript for the Army/McCarthy Hearings can be found at this link.

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army. 

"pools of ineptitude, civil liberties intrusions" Washpost

 

"... after nine years — and regular praise from officials at the Department of Homeland Security — the 77 fusion centers have become pools of ineptitude, waste and civil liberties intrusions, according to a scathing 141-page report by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs permanent subcommittee on investigations."  Washpost

-------------------------------

A lot of "loopy" things were done during the hysteria that folllowed that awful day.  Vast amounts of money were "borrowed" by the government.  That money was spread far and wide throughout the government and among contracting companies that serve the government.  Some of it came my way.  I was pleased to accept it.  It was not hard to see then, and easier now that the institutional "empire building" and open handed distribution of "the spoils" of counter-terrorism were excessive and are excessive yet.  The same thing applies to the national defense establishment in general.

We need to "build down" the whole national security apparatus.  There are too many groups doing overlapping tasks.  There are too many "fusion centers,"  CT centers, joint task forces on "this or that."  There are too many contracter employees in the Pentagon doing the work that active duty military people should be doing for themselves rather than spending their time "politicking" for promotion.  CIA?  The "game" has not been different there.

Once again, we should have just one army.  The USMC has grown and "morphed" into a second army for the United States.  Once upon a time, the marines were a small service dedicated to the prosecution of the land aspects of a naval campaign, as well as various small "jobs" like; running naval prisons, guarding admirals from sailors and serving as legation guards in places far away.  In WW2 the Army and USMC were about equally successful in conducting bloody, bloody amphibious landings.  Normandy and Iwo Jima would be examples. 

Today the USMC is larger that the British and Canadian armies combined.  The USMC is now a large land mass operations service.  Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated that.  We should combine he two services into one.  The resultant savings in the now duplicated education, training and logistics establishments would be large.  Such a merger would also put an end to the endless bickering and hostility that mark today's situation.

Contrary to popular belief smaller is often better, better in the retention of the best and discarding of the worst.  Let's get smaller.  pl

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/dhs-fusion-centers-portrayed-as-pools-of-ineptitude-and-civil-liberties-intrusions/2012/10/02/10014440-0cb1-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html

"Artists versus Bureaucrats" once again.

 

Basilisk suggests that this old article of mine has relevance to the present discussion on the importance of expertise as opposed to a generalist managerial background.  This was written before the intelligence community re-organization that created the DNI.  pl

Download Artists Versus Bureaucrats...

 

What the US Constitution is really about

Among all the other rubbish to be heard in the MSM, certain errors stand out wth regard to the US Constitution. 

One of them is the statement that since the constitution forbids "an establishment of religion," citizens should not include someone's religion among the factors that influence a decision with regard to choosing a candidate.

Another old saw, this one much favored by Democrats is to imply that the phrase "to form a more perfect union" was intended to set the stage for an effort to create an earthly paradise.

Both of these thing are wrong.

The framers of the constitution sought to create a federal government that would function more effectively and efficiently.  That is what they meant by "a more perfect union."  Read about the drafting of the document.  All will be made clear.

As for the establishment clause, the phrase must be understood in the context of the purpose of the whole document.

The US Constitution is about the structure, powers and lack of powers of the federal government and eventually through various amendments, the powers and limitations of the state governments.  Everything in the constitution deals with government, what it may do and what it may not do.  Where the line of demarcation between these two things lies has been and will continue to be the business of endless amendment and litigation.

Some things in the constitution appear, at first consideration, to be concerned with the behavior of individuals but on closer examination, they are not.

Examples:

- The 14th Amendment gurantees equal rights before the law across the union.  The impression is that the amendment itself forbade people engaged in business from discrimination on the basis of  race, religion, etc. In fact this amendment required the federal and then the state governments to create law to implement the amendment.  The amendment itself does not directly affect individuals.

- The 16th Amendment allowed the federal government to enact law establishing an income tax on individuals.  By implication it allowed states to do the same thing. Some have and some have not.

- The 2nd Amendment established a basic right among the citizenry for individuals to own and bear arms.  SCOTUS has recently ruled that all governments have a very limited (still unsettled as to extent) ability to interfere with that right.

- The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, assembly and religion.  These provisions are all limits on the power of government to control individual behavior.

- Article Six clearly states that there shall never be "a religious test for office" under the US Government.

Nothing in Article Six or the 1st Amendment forbids a citizen casting his or her vote on the basis of religion or voting against someone on the basis of religion or any other basis. race, etc.  Let's be careful about what we say concerning things like this.  You may be unhappy that someone would vote on the basis of religion (as would I) but you do not have the constitution behind you in asserting or implying that such behavior is somehow illegitimate.  pl

 

 

 

"... Leon Panetta avoids bold moves" - Washpost

"In an interview describing his defense strategy, Panetta said he has helped craft an approach that hedges bets against a range of potential enemies. “It really does provide maximum flexibility,” he said. “The military is going to be smaller, but it is going to be more agile, more flexible and more deployable so that it moves fast and stays on the cutting edge of technology.” Panetta’s vision is notable for some of the big questions left unanswered. A highly touted promise to shift the military’s focus to Asia has produced little in the way of major new deployments. Nine months after it was unveiled, there is scant evidence of how it will be implemented."  Washpost

---------------------------

Jaffe, the author of this article seems to believe the popular drivel about a "new era" in warfare.  In this gospel, there are are "generations" of warfare and "evolution."  Rubbish.  Tevhnology changes.  War does not.  War is a social process reflecting the ambitions of leaders and peoples.  There has always been guerrilla warfare.  There has always been land mass warfare involving force on force combat between main forces.  There has always been naval warfare.  It was important before Mahan wrote his book and it continues to be.  Is air power new?  No.  Airplanes project into the third demension capabilities that have always been extent in artillery, catapults, and other forms of missile throwing.

It is impossible to closely predict the exact nature of future warfare.  Very few people have really clear crystal balls and those who do are too smart to attempt that kind of prediction.  Pompous prognosticators like Eliot Cohen want to run the armed forces in place of the flag offciers.  Their conceit is that they think that surely the professoriat know better than the "blockheads" in uniform.  Based on that conceit the professors want to have the lead in re-designing the armed services, services they never served in and know only from books and libraries. 

Panetta seeks a smaller, more flexible ground force (US Army and USMC).  Does Panetta intend to have massively effective naval and forces? Thats a good idea.  I applaud his "humility."  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/with-military-at-turning-point-defense-chief-leon-panetta-avoids-bold-moves/2012/09/03/6188c902-f297-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_story.html?hpid=z2

 

Romney, business and the presidency

"Paradoxically, the bar was high for Mitt Romney's speech to the Republican convention not because much was expected of him but because it was not.

In six years of campaigning for the presidency, he has managed to leave such a hazy and sour impression in the minds of the mass of American voters that he is barely regarded as a human being. In the days and hours leading up to Romney's big moment, delegate after delegate at the convention told me, with a glint of panicked hope in their eyes, that in Romney's speech he would finally have a chance to introduce himself -- to seem real, to be understood."  The Atlantic

----------------------------

I didn't watch any of the convention and will not watch the infomercial in NC either.  In my distant youth, national political conventions were fun.  The issues were settled in lovely smoke filled rooms.  Demonstrations marched about the hall and journalists of high reputation presided over black and white images that they clearly did not take seriously.  Now.....  Sigh....  The commercializtion of America is nearly complete, as is the momification, the political cleansing, etc.  As part of that, the idea has taken hold that politics is merely a sub-division of marketing.  People prattle of "market shares,"  "media markets,"  TV "buys,"  and above all "branding," as though we are engaged in buying f-----g toothpaste.  The old guys on Mt. Rushmore would not be pleased.

Included in this mess is the notion, seemingly accepted by all that the president is the "commander in chief" of the United States.  He is not.  He is commander in chief of the armed forces.  He has no more right outside civilian law to command civilians than does Alfred E. Newman.  (Look it up) 

An even more egregious folly is the notion that the president of the US is CEO of the USA.  The United States of America is nothing like a business corporation.  I have been in government as a civilian and I have been in business as a corporate officer of a large international company and I assure you that business and government are not alike at the top in the USA.

The CEO of a large corporation has freedom of action within the guidance of the board of directors of the company.  He/she is hired to make money for the company.  Other than going to jail, the only thing the board of directors is concerned with is the bottom line on the balance sheet that represents the only reason for the company's existence.  This is MONEY.  How much money (profit) did we make this year and how much are we likely to make next year?  Those are the only really important questions for a business.  General Motors does not exist to make vehicles.  It exists to make PROFITS.  If that does not occur then the board and/or the stockholders get a new CEO.  Until that happens the CEO has a free hand to make money for the owners doing pretty much what he/she wants to do.

The president of the US exists within a very different system.  He does not have a free hand, except perhaps within the bounds of certain foreign policy and war making features that originated in the Cold War.  The constitution of the US created a system designed to limit power, not to enable it.  The assumption was that the power of those who have the money and guns is unlimited unless it is restrained by law. In the president's world, the board (Congress) sits every day properly watching to insure that the non-CEO president does not exceed the standing and ever  changing authorizations of power and money that the Congress grants or has granted.  In BHO's case the Republicans in Congress began to limit his freedom of action within weeks of the inaugural. They have never ceased to do so and will continue if he is re-elected.  In Romney's case, his cretin business friends seem to believe, as does he, that he would arrive in Washington with the discretionary power of a corporate CEO.  He would not.  Unless the Republicans win the presidency and control of both houses of Congress, Romney will be in the same position that BHO has been in for four years.  "Payback is a bitch."  What do they think Romney is going to do, stage a coup against the Congress?

Government does not have a "bottom line" in the business sense.  The US Government is not like a third world government.  Individuals can measure how much they made from government contracts, but the government itself is a "cost center" (business speak) not a "profit center."  It is a non-profit entity that provides services without earning money to pay for them other than fees at parks and similar trivialities.  It gets its money by a levee on the consumers of the services.  It also borrows money and has the ability, along wth banks, to create money by simply putting the right numbers on paper.

In this set up, how would Romney and the Republicans measure their "success?"  Would it be by any growth that occurred in GDP?  Would it be by reduction in expenditure for social services?  Great!  Let's see them do it!  pl

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/mitt-romney-capitalist-saint/261823/

Anonymous on what ails the US Government

My willingness to embarrass myself knows no bounds.  If my eyes are not deceiving me there were many a Middle-east old hands in the State Dept. who had to be put aside so the neoconnized new blood could take his place. And that happened elsewere too, while slowly the stupidest guys on earth could feel at home in their politically appointed seats.  And oil, of course, the snake oil of equality that made it imperative to throw aside the more competent people so the miriads of Jennifer Lynne Matthews could prove how smart they are and the miriads of Obamas could find their ways open, in fact so open that they could change even their countries of birth as many times as needed for the purpose of milking the affirmative action plus foreign exchange paths of academia and enter politics with the best of resumes.  So there they are, the ambitious, but all accomodating women careerists, the young know-nothings and obamases and the surviving sycophants of officedom put in decision places to fill the void created by the dismissal of those who knew something about the Middle-east and were an obstacle to the zionists and the politicians under their sway (usually of democrat extraction). And this process will never end because it takes a lot of time and a lot of able-brain willingness to regain the lost knowledge. A thing impossible in a country where "this belief [that] springs from the notion that humans are so much alike everywhere that surely they must all want to become part of the West and in doing that reject their "worthless" outmoded ways" is as valid in foreign policy as it is in internal affairs, where the absurd laws of disparate impact and the quota-everywhere people are making life especially hard for the competent, who are usually of the wrong sex and skin color, while everyone waits for the flash mobbers to westernize somehow and the girls to grow some balls other than those prosthetics of feminazi making whose only use is in the calling of hard-thinking men wussies when they do not agree with their dogmatic certainties. But perhaps my comments have no resemblance to reality, not in this age where nulities like Elena Kagan can rise to be a Supreme Court justice while people still have the obstinate blindness to attribute such feats of tribal manipulation to raw intelligence. Let's wait till reality becomes a bit more clear and people start to remember that foreign policy in the Middle-east was really better when the offices responsible for it were considered to harbor plenty of antisemites.  Anonymous

When hope was a policy...

Most Americans believe in the idea of the inevitability of "progress" in human affairs.  This belief is descended from the hubris of the "divines" among our puritan founders in New England and the eventual triumph in our history of their thinking.  There were competing idea systems but they lost in the struggle for supremacy that came to blows in 1861.  Since then the notion of a "city on a hill,"' a kind of earthly paradise divinely sanctioned for 'right thinkers" ha prevailed.  This is ironic in light of the simple truth that so many of the "right thinkers" are now unbelievers with regard to the Providence needed to give coherence to their assumptions concerning humanity.  Nevertheless, over the decades, indeed, now centuries, the "center of gravity" in US  thinking with regard to self-image as "savior" of mankind has grown stronger and stronger until we now reach a state of perfection in our own minds that is matched only by the defects in our present situation.

The foreign policy establishment of the US is now dominated by three groupings

1- The neocon/jacobin group who have an unlimited faith in American destiny as the world power, a force for world revolution in pursuit of ancient jacobin goals of "liberte, egalite, fratenite" and also a clear allegiance to Israel as America;s "friend."  The neocons believe that the US "won" in Iraqbecause there is revolution throughout the Arab Wordl.  They seem to believe that the outcome of revolution is irrelevant.

2- There has emerged  what for lack of a better term might be called the Tea Party hyper natonalist group.  For these people  everything is a case of "my country, may she always be in the right, but, my country right or wrong." (Stephen Decatur)  Stephen Colbert does a marvelous job of ridiculing this group, but then, they don't watch his program any more than they read SST.  Mitt Romney seeks their support through a pretentious display of mediocrity.

3- The last, and presently controlling, element in the Executive Branch is the liberal/internationalist/IR trained group.  These people see themselves as shepherds for mankind.  Theiy believe that the US should support and sponsor "democratic" revolution everywhere in the belief that "popular" revolution must lead to good things for the masses across the world.  The possibility that "popular" revolution may disguise itself and secretly harbor regressive political ambitions that can lead to theocracies and sectarian oppression is not given much credence by this group.  The people in this group were taught in university that professions of adherence to ancient idea systems are merely a "surface" illusion, beneath which lie essentially economic realities. They have some things in common with the neocons but are not as fonf of military intervention.  They are often called "neo-wilsonian."

The third group rules.  BHO, HC, Anne Marie Slaughter from Princeton and oh, so many others are firmly in this "camp."  As a result the US believes the drivel fed them by the MB in Egypt, thinks that Turkey is run by "moderates," accepts the idea that fighters in Syria are liberal democrats (like them),even as those these figters cry out for defeat of the "infidel' government and proudly wear the beards that are a symbol of their faith.  Support from the Saudi theocratic plutocracy for those fighters does not seem to have meaning for the the ruling group in the US.  Ah, I forgot, they think Saudi Arabia is a "firend" to the US.  maybe that is what BHO's bow was about.

It will be said in comments here that everything in American foreign policy is secretly about ne-colonialist economic looting.  Ah, well....

I see no particular benefit in foreign policy that would emerge from a Republican victory in November.  All three groups are sailing  aboard a "ship of fools."  pl

US Marine occupation battalions

 

"Defense analyst Loren Thompson said the battalions make sense given the nature of today's global threats, which include powerful drug cartels and other criminal gangs that often mix with religious and political extremists, who use the profits to buy their weaponry.

"This is a smart idea because the biggest single problem the Marines have in dealing with low-intensity types of threats is that they basically are trained to kill people," he said. "It's good for the Marines to have skills that allow them to contain threats without creating casualties."

Gary Solis, a former Marine Corps prosecutor and judge who teaches law of war at Georgetown University, said Marines have already been doing this kind of work for years but now that it has been made more formal by the creation of the battalions, it could raise a host of questions, especially on the use of force. The law of war allows for fighters to use deadly force as a first resort, while police officers use it as a last resort."  Stars and Stripes

--------------------------------------

"A day late and a dollar short..."  The US will not be occupying any more countries for quite a while.  pl

 

http://ap.stripes.com/dynamic/stories/U/US_MARINES_LAW_ENFORCEMENT_BATTALION?SITE=DCSAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-07-22-10-01-29

Edmund Burke in 1775

"... the great contests for freedom in this country were from the earliest times chiefly upon the question of Taxing. Most of the contests in the ancient commonwealths turned primarily on the right of election of magistrates; or on the balance among the several orders of the state. The question of money was not with them so immediate. But in England it was otherwise. On this point of Taxes the ablest pens, and most eloquent tongues, have been exercised; the greatest spirits have acted and suffered. They took infinite pains to inculcate, as a fundamental principle, that in all monarchies the people must in effect themselves, mediately or immediately, possess the power of granting their own money, or no shadow of liberty can subsist."  Edmund Burke

-------------------------------

"The Hard Hearted Empath" send me this.  The document is a gem and has much relevance to our present situation.  pl

Download Burke - On Moving His Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies

HARPER: ANOTHER GLASS STEAGALL MOMENT

Two recent developments have put real momentum behind a return to the full separation of commercial and investment banking that existed from 1933-1999 under the Glass Steagall Act; and the prospects of such a long-overdue divorce are moving forward both in the United States and the United Kingdom. 

On July 4, the Financial Times published a lead editorial under the headline "Restoring Trust After Diamond," explicitly calling for the total separation of what in Britain are called retail and merchant banks.  "The clash between retail and investment banking," the editors wrote, "has always been evident.  What is now clear, however, is that the hard-charging, revenue-seeking investment banking culture predominates when they are pushed together.  The more herbivorous retail banking ethos--with its emphasis on patient stewardship--is marginalized.  this seems to lead ineluctably to the proliferation of socially questionable trading activities and abuses such as the Libor scandal... While the FT supported those conclusions [of the Vickers Commission calling for partial separation of the banks--ed.] we are now ready to go further.  For all the diversification benefits, the cultural tensions between investment and retail banking can only be resolved by totally separating the two, on formal Glass-Steagall style line."

The Financial Times embrace of Glass Steagall came in the immediate aftermath of revalations that the British Banking Association, in league with 18 major banks and, perhaps, some officials of the Bank of England, had been rigging the London Interbank Overnight Rate (Libor) to facilitate insider trading on the derivatives market and other serious financial crimes.  Three top officials of Barclays Bank were forced to resign, investigations are now underway in the UK, the United States and Switzerland, and the prospects of bankers being jailed over this scandal is looking more and more likely.  The Libor rate determines more than $350 trillion in mortgage, credit card and other interest rates worldwide.

The second development that produced a flurry of calls for a return to Glass Steagall was the recent Brussels summit meeting of European heads of state, at which German Chancellor Merkel, French President Hollande, Italian Prime Minister Monti, Spanish Prime Minister Rajoy and others took the equivalent of a blood oath to preserve the euro single-currency system at all costs.  Some more experienced bankers in London took this as a signal that continental Europe will be going through months, if not years, of financial turmoil and potential hyperinflation, that will likely spill over into the business of the City of London.  For one thing, British banks have forged extremely close ties to some of the largest and most fragile Spanish banks, as their gateway into South America.

The Financial Times editorial was both preceeded and followed by a number of other strong statements for Glass Steagall coming from very senior voices in the City of London.  Lord Paul Myners, a former Treasury official under Gordon Brown, a former publisher of the Guardian and Observer, and an affiliate of Lord Jacob Rothschild, gave an interview to Britain's Channel 4 TV, echoing the Financial Times.  Paul Hambro, now a Russian gold trader, but a member of one of Britain's oldest merchant banking families, added his name to the chorus promoting the complete separation.

Expect these calls to resonate in the United States, where a bill is already in the House of Representatives, HR 1489, to restore Glass Steagall separation.  The bill was introduced by Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Oh.) and now has 70 co-sponsors, including half a dozen Republicans, including several Tea Party Republicans.  Thomas Hoenig, the former President of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank, and now the Vice Chairman of the FDIC, gave a recent interview to Bloomberg Radio, in which he made a powerful argument for Glass Steagall.  Hoenig is widely respected among Main Street Republicans in the Congress.

The point is obvious:  The European debt crisis is far from over, and the cries for new bailouts, coming from Spain and (soon) Italy will overwhelm the capacity of the European Central Bank and the not-yet ratified European Stability Mechanism (ESM) to meet the bailout demands.  Spain is being forced to pay nearly 7 percent yields on ten year sovereign debt, Italy is not far behind, and Greece is still in a state of economic and political disintegration.  The prospects for a European turn-around are grim, and the recent JPMorgan Chase losses on the derivatives market of European debt ($9 billion and rising) makes the obvious point that Wall Street is up to its eyeballs in the crisis across the Atlantic. 

Glass Steagall will not solve all the problems, but it is a long-overdue first step towards at least protecting commercial banking from the wild leveraged gambling activities of the investment bankers and hedge fund managers, who were reckless because they believed that they would be bailed out by American and European taxpayers, no matter what they did.   Harper

Middle Class is a million a year in NY City?

I understand that Senators Menendez of New Jersey and Schumer of New York, Democrats both, are saying that in the New york City metropolitan area, the upper end of the income "bracket" for Middle Class families should be a million dollars a year rather than the $250,000 proposed by BHO.

And today on "Morning Joe,"  Dan Senor, the neocon mouthpiece, solemnly agreed that this was the case.  "After all," he said,. (paraphrasing) "a fireman and a schoolteacher" (sniff) "make that much in the tri-state area."

So, someone who lives in "flyover America" who lives on much less than $250,000/year is just not to be taken seriously as, what?  A political adult? 

This, of course, reduces to rhetorical penury everyone who serves the US Government.  soldiers, generals, IRS agents, postmen, Border Patrol agents, etc.

So, people really think that we are one people?  pl