Sub-prime problem indicative of deeper societal isues?

Tom Sowell attacks the left for their indifference when poor succeed. There is a new documentary movie out called "What Black Men Think." It interviews black achievers about their views on failed policies that have destroyed so many Black citizens in our nation while breaking up their family unit. (See 1 below.)

George Friedman writes about how GW is a lame duck because his ability to deploy the military has been curtailed by the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and that we have no credible military reserves. He then goes on to describe how Russia is taking advantage of this fact and is making every effort to re-arrange the furniture in the world's living room. (See 2 below.)

The BBC and CNN seem to be two birds of a common feather. (See 3 below.)


Congress established The Fed so it could off load its fiscal responsibility while it scurrilously spent more than the government takes in in taxes. Deficit spending is the way politicians get re-elected and pander to special interests and then they expect the FED to monetize their irresponsible behavior.

The problem created by sub-prime lending, to my mind, is symptomatic of deeper systemic problems facing our nation. It suggests to me, the something for nothing entitlement mentality that has been encouraged and weakened our family unit, education and morals is deeper and broader than one might think.

Hamas escalates its attacks as I suspected it would be doing and have so reported in recent months. (See 4 below.)

Michael O'Shea highlights the hypocrisy of Congress. (See 5 below.)

Dick

1) An Investment in Failure
By Thomas Sowell

It is not just in Iraq that the political left has an investment in failure. Domestically as well as internationally, the left has long had a vested interest in poverty and social malaise.

The old advertising slogan, "Progress is our most important product," has never applied to the left. Whether it is successful black schools in the United States or Third World countries where millions of people have been rising out of poverty in recent years, the left has shown little interest.

Progress in general seems to hold little interest for people who call themselves "progressives." What arouses them are denunciations of social failures and accusations of wrong-doing.

One wonders what they would do in heaven.

We are in no danger of producing heaven on earth but there have been some remarkable developments in some Third World countries within the past generation that have allowed many very poor people to rise to a standard of living that was never within their reach before.

The August 18th issue of the distinguished British magazine "The Economist" reveals the economic progress in Brazil, Argentina, and other Latin American nations that has given a better life to millions of their poorest citizens.

Some of the economic policies that have led to these results are discussed in "The Economist" but it is doubtful that members of the political left will stampede there to find out what those policies were.

They have shown no such interest in how tens of millions of people in China and tens of millions of people in India have risen out of poverty within the past generation.

Despite whatever the left may say, or even believe, about their concern for the poor, their actual behavior shows their interest in the poor to be greatest when the poor can be used as a focus of the left's denunciations of society.

When the poor stop being poor, they lose the attention of the left. What actions on the part of the poor, or what changes in the economy, have led to drastic reductions in poverty seldom arouse much curiosity, much less celebration.

This is not a new development in our times. Back in the 19th century, when Karl Marx presented his vision of the impoverished working class rising to attack and destroy capitalism, he was disappointed when the workers grew less revolutionary over time, as their standards of living improved.

At one point, Marx wrote to his disciples: "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing."

Think about that. Millions of human beings mattered to him only in so far as they could serve as cannon fodder in his jihad against the existing society.

If they refused to be pawns in his ideological game, then they were "nothing."

No one on the left would say such things so plainly today, even to themselves. But their actions speak louder than words.

Blacks are to the left today what the working class were to Marx in the 19th century -- pawns in an ideological game.

Blacks who rise out of poverty are of no great interest to the left, unless the way they do so is by attacking society.

The poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994 but the left has shown no more interest in why that is so than they have shown in why many millions of people have risen out of poverty in Latin America or in China and India.

Where progress can be plausibly claimed to be a result of policies favored by the left, then such claims are made.

A whole mythology has grown up that the advancement of minorities and women in America is a result of policies promoted by the left in the 1960s. Such claims are often based on nothing more substantial than ignoring the history of the progress made prior to 1960.

Retrogressions in the wake of the policies of the 1960s are studiously ignored -- the runaway crime rates, the disintegration of black families, and the ghetto riots of the 1960s that have left many black communities still barren more than 40 years later.

Whatever does not advance the left agenda is "nothing."


2) Window of Opportunity; Window of Vulnerability
Dr. George Friedman

All U.S. presidents eventually become lame ducks, though the lameness of any particular duck depends on the amount of power he has left to wield. It not only is an issue of the president's popularity, but also of the opposition's unity and clarity. In the international context, the power of a lame duck president depends on the options he has militarily. Foreign powers do not mess with American presidents, no matter how lame one might be, as long as the president retains military options.

The core of the American presidency is in its role as commander in chief. With all of the other presidential powers deeply intersecting with those of Congress and the courts, the president has the greatest autonomous power when he is acting as supreme commander of the armed forces. There is a remarkable lot he can do if he wishes to, and relatively little Congress can do to stop him -- unless it is uniquely united. Therefore, foreign nations remain wary of the American president's military power long after they have stopped taking him seriously in other aspects of foreign relations.

There is a school of thought that argues that President George W. Bush is likely to strike at Iran before he leaves office. The sense is that Bush is uniquely indifferent to either Congress or public opinion and that he therefore is likely to use his military powers in some decisive fashion, under the expectation and hope that history will vindicate him. In that sense, Bush is very much not a lame duck, because if he wanted to strike, there is nothing legally preventing him from doing so. The endless debates over presidential powers -- which have roiled both Republican and Democratic administrations -- have left one thing clear: The courts will not intervene against an American president's use of his power as commander in chief. Congress may cut off money after the fact, but as we have seen, that is not a power that is normally put to use.

The problem for Bush, of course, is that he is fighting two simultaneous wars, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. These wars have sucked up the resources of the U.S. Army to a remarkable degree. Units are either engaged in these theaters of operation, recovering from deployment or preparing for deployment. To an extraordinary degree, the United States does not have a real strategic reserve in its ground forces, the Army and the Marines. A force could probably be scraped up to deal with a limited crisis, but U.S. forces are committed and there are no more troops to scatter around.

The United States faces another potential theater of operations in Iran. Fighting there might not necessarily be something initiated by the United States. The Iranians might choose to create a crisis the United States couldn’t avoid. That would suck up not only what little ground reserves are available, but also a good part of U.S. air and naval forces. The United States would be throwing all of its chips on the table, with few reserves left. With all U.S. forces engaged in a line from the Euphrates to the Hindu Kush, the rest of the world would be wide open to second-tier powers.

This is Bush's strategic problem -- the one that shapes his role as commander in chief. He has committed virtually all of his land forces to two wars. His only reserves are the Air Force and Navy. If they were sucked into a war in Iran, it would limit U.S. reserves for other contingencies. The United States alone does not get to choose whether there is a crisis with Iran. Iran gets to vote too. We don’t believe there will be a military confrontation with Iran, but the United States must do its contingency planning as if there will be.

Thus, Bush is a lame-duck commander in chief as well. Even if he completely disregards the politics of his position, which he can do, he still lacks the sheer military resources to achieve any meaningful goal without the use of nuclear weapons. But his problem goes beyond the Iran scenario. Lacking ground forces, the president's ability to influence events throughout the world is severely impaired. Moreover, if he were to throw his air forces into a non-Iranian crisis, all pressure on Iran would be lifted. The United States is strategically tapped out. There is no land force available and the use of air and naval forces without land forces, while able to achieve some important goals, would not be decisive.

The United States has entered a place where it has almost no room to maneuver. The president is becoming a lame duck in the fullest sense of the term. This opens a window of opportunity for powers, particularly second-tier powers, that would not be prepared to challenge the United States while its forces had flexibility. One power in particular has begun to use this window of opportunity -- Russia.

Russia is not the country it was 10 years ago. Its economy, fueled by rising energy and mineral prices, is financially solvent. The state has moved from being a smashed relic of the Soviet era to becoming a more traditional Russian state: authoritarian, repressive, accepting private property but only under terms it finds acceptable. It also is redefining its sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union and reviving its military.

For example, a Russian aircraft recently fired a missile at a Georgian village. Intentionally or not, the missile was a dud, though it clearly was meant to signal to the Georgians -- close allies of the United States and unfriendly to Russian interests in the region -- that not only is Russia unhappy, it is prepared to take military action if it chooses. It also clearly told the Georgians that the Russians are unconcerned about the United States and its possible response. It must have given the Georgians a chill.

The Russians planted their flag under the sea at the North Pole after the Canadians announced plans to construct armed icebreakers and establish a deep water port from which to operate in the Far North. The Russians announced the construction of a new air defense system by 2015 -- not a very long time as these things go. They also announced plans to create a new command and control system in the same time frame. Russian long-range aircraft flew east in the Pacific to the region of Guam, an important U.S. air base, causing the United States to scramble fighter planes. They also flew into what used to be the GIUK gap (Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom) probing air defenses along the Norwegian coast and in Scotland.

Most interestingly, they announced the resumption of patrols in the Atlantic, along the U.S. coast, using Blackjack strategic bombers and the old workhorse of the Russian fleet, the Bear. (The balance does remain in U.S. favor along the East Coast). During the Cold War, patrols such as these were designed to carry out electronic and signal intelligence. They were designed to map out U.S. facilities along the Eastern seaboard and observe response time and procedures. During the Cold War they would land in Cuba for refueling before retracing their steps. It will be interesting to see whether Russia will ask Cuba for landing privileges and whether the Cubans will permit it. As interesting, Russian and Chinese troops conducted military exercises recently in the context of regional talks. It is not something to take too seriously, but then they are not trivial.

Many of these are older planes. The Bear, for example, dates back to the 1950s -- but so does the B-52, which remains important to the U.S. strategic bomber fleet. The age of the airframe doesn't matter nearly as much as maintenance, refits, upgrades to weapons and avionics and so on. Nothing can be assumed from the mere age of the aircraft.

The rather remarkable flurry of Russian air operations -- as well as plans for naval development -- is partly a political gesture. The Russians are tired of the United States pressing into their sphere of influence, and they see a real window of opportunity to press back with limited risk of American response. But the Russians appear to be doing more than making a gesture.

The Russians are trying to redefine the global balance. They are absolutely under no illusion that they can match American military power in any sphere. But they are clearly asserting their right to operate as a second-tier global power and are systematically demonstrating their global reach. They may be old and they may be slow, but when American aircraft on the East Coast start to scramble routinely to intercept and escort Russian aircraft, two things happen. First, U.S. military planning has to shift to take Russia into account. Second, the United States loses even more flexibility. It can't just ignore the Russians. It now needs to devote scarce dollars to upgrading systems along the East Coast -- systems that have been quite neglected since the end of the Cold War.

There is a core assumption in the U.S. government that Russia no longer is a significant power. It is true that its vast army has disintegrated. But the Russians do not need a vast army modeled on World War II. They need, and have begun to develop, a fairly effective military built around special forces and airborne troops. They also have appeared to pursue their research and development, particularly in the area of air defense and air-launched missiles -- areas in which they have traditionally been strong. The tendency to underestimate the Russian military -- something even Russians do -- is misplaced. Russia's military is capable and improving.

The increased Russian tempo of operations in areas that the United States has been able to ignore for many years further pins the United States. It can be assumed that the Russians mean no harm -- but assumption is not a luxury national security planners can permit themselves, at least not good ones. It takes years to develop and deploy new systems. If the Russians are probing the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic again, it is not the current threat that matters, but the threat that might evolve. That diverts budget dollars from heavily armored trucks that can survive improvised explosive device attacks, and cuts into the Air Force and Navy.

The Russians are using the window of opportunity to redefine, in a modest way, the global balance and gain some room to maneuver in their region. As a result of their more assertive posture, American thoughts of unilateral interventions must decline. For example, getting involved in Georgia once was a low-risk activity. The risk just went up. Taking that risk while U.S. ground forces are completely absorbed in Iraq and Afghanistan is hard for the Americans to justify -- but rather easy for the Russians.

This brings us back to the discussion of the commander in chief's options in the Middle East. The United States already has limited options against Iran. The more the Russians maneuver, the more the United States must hold what forces it has left -- Air Force and Navy -- in reserve. Launching an Iranian adventure becomes that much more risky. If it is launched, Russia has an even greater window of opportunity. Every further involvement in the region makes the United States that much less of a factor in the immediate global equation.

All wars end, and these will too. The Russians are trying to rearrange the furniture a bit before anyone comes home and forces them out. They are dealing with a lame duck president with fewer options than most lame ducks. Before there is a new president and before the war in Iraq ends, the Russians want to redefine the situation a bit.

3) By Tom Gross

While regularly censoring criticism of Islamic extremism, the BBC allows highly offensive slurs about Christians and even more so about Jews, to remain on its website for weeks at a time, points out the (London) Daily Mail.

But now, after a campaign by the Daily Mail and its sister newspaper, The Mail on Sunday, "The BBC has been forced to remove statements from its website referring to Jesus as a 'bastard'."

The remarks about Jesus were left as part of a discussion about the death of the Archbishop of Paris.

However, the BBC editors have allowed anti-Semitic comments posted by the same person who wrote the Jesus "bastard" remarks, to remain. Among those still up by him on the BBC's publicly-funded, award-winning website are "The Jews in much remembered concentration camps had even better qualitity of freedom that these Palestinians have".

The Daily Mail wanted to test whether the BBC would disallow remarks critical of Muslims, while allowing anti-Semitic remarks. So one Daily Mail reader posted: "No one can surpass the Muslims for denial of their role in Terrorism and Suicide bombing." The post was "almost immediately deleted by the BBC," reports the
Mail.

The Mail points out that the BBC has, by contrast, allowed "anti-Semitic posts" to remain on its website for over a month now. Among these is: "Zionism is a racist ideology where Jews are given supremacy over all other races and faiths. This is found in the Talmud... which allows Jews to lie as long as its to non-Jews."

Even after the official Board of Deputies of British Jews wrote a polite letter to the BBC pointing out that the comment had been lifted from a notorious 19th Century anti-Semitic text, "The Talmud Unmasked," which is still sold by neo-Nazi booksellers in London, the BBC has refused to remove it, citing freedom of speech.

The Daily Telegraph today runs a lead editorial criticizing the week-long refusal of the BBC to remove the Jesus "bastard" remark and says that the BBC's continuing refusal to make public the independent Balen Report (which is widely rumored to reveal anti-Israel bias verging on anti-Semitism in some BBC Mideast
coverage) is "disgraceful."

4)Fighting escalates between Israel and Gaza Strip in fresh spiral.


In the first half of the week, at least 16 Palestinians were killed by Israel military responses to the waves of Palestinian missile and mortar fire buffeting the population living around Gaza. Hamas, Jihad Islami, Fatah-Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Popular Committees and al Qaeda-linked Salafi groups are all shooting missiles and mortars at Israeli communities around the clock – two dozen in the last 24 hours. An empty nursery school and factory were badly damaged in Sderot. The IDF has brought into action new surveillance instruments and short-range high-precision surface rockets.

Tuesday night, Aug. 21, one Hamas terrorist was killed, and several injured as they crept up to the border fence. During the day, 9 Palestinians were killed, including two children standing by a launcher near Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza, who were mistaken for a missile team.

Palestinian organizations are now fielding their Qassam missile and mortar teams day and night. Marksmen armed with sniper rifles fitted with night-vision equipment are shooting at IDF border positions, armored patrols and civilian traffic within range of the border.

Israeli farmers have been ordered by the military to work their fields only up to one kilometer short of the border.

Yet Israeli forces are not permitted to execute their plan to carve out a 1.5-2 km buffer strip inside the Gaza Strip to keep Palestinian assailants at bay, although prime minister Ehud Olmert and defense minister Ehud Barak have promised that the Israel military will not pull its punches against the enemy.

A senior officer in command of the sector complained that without this buffer, Palestinians hold the initiative of when, where and on what scale to wage war. “We are only allowed to shoot when they are near the border fence. It is therefore inevitable that the Palestinians will intensify their attacks, extend their range and start building up casualties on our side.”

Military commanders reported there is nothing to deter the Palestinians from bringing out their advanced anti-tank rockets and extended-range Qassam surface missiles against the towns of Ashkelon and Netivot, as well as the cluster of military facilities guarding the Israel-Gazan border.

They also believe that not all the tunnels running under the fence from Gaza into Israel have been found and the Palestinians intend to use them for surprise attacks.

Palestinian sources explain that local Hamas extremists have intensified their offensive, defying guidelines laid down by their political leaders in Gaza and Damascus, in order to break out of the military, economic and financial blockade clamped down on their rule by the US, Israel, Egypt and the Europeans. This stranglehold prevents Hamas from exercising government and its rule is in danger. To save themselves, Hamas’ military chiefs are driving their war with Israel to extremes. They hope for enough civilian deaths to force outside intervention for a ceasefire in hostilities. Then, Hamas can make its acceptance contingent on the reopening of the Israel-Gaza and Egyptian border crossings under their control.

5) Testing Congress: Faith and Face
By Michael J. O'Shea
Bored by playing God, Congress now plays admiral and general.

Despite endless complaints about HMOs -- not doctors -- deciding patients' fate, Congress repeats the arrogance, rejecting those

* putting their lives on the line,
* working daily with Iraqi troops and political leaders,
* seeing the patient fight back and start to stand on its own.

But Congress knows better. And toys with pulling the plug.

It's a pathetic cycle. Congress's DNA is documented in Iraq, yet it denies paternity. It then claims the pregnancy's too tough and wants to abort. It next protests that lifting a people to life is too hard and opts to abandon them to play law of the jungle to see who will survive and not caring which one does.

Which Iraqi politician has not had a family member murdered? How many governors, mayors, and other officials themselves have been slaughtered? How many days has the Council of Representatives met without mortars shrieking towards their chambers? How many can relax with their families, dine with friends, confer with rivals without fearing this moment may be their last?

Yet Congress, pampered by the Capitol police and fighter pilots overhead if need be, preaches, comforted by press, protesters, "opinion makers" - anyone except those volunteering to fight back.

Congress has introduced resolution after resolution on Iraq - and not one has dealt with helping Iraq's parliament peer to peer, legislator to legislator. Justice, Agriculture, Defense, Treasury, Commerce, the Fed -- even the Iraqi-American Chamber of Commerce & Industry - have teamed with Iraqi counterparts to help them meet problems head-on.

But not Congress. It sermonizes and doesn't hear its own hypocrisy: politicians in America pontificating to politicians in Iraq that only a "political" solution will end Iraq's woes - and taking not a single political step to help, offering not a scrap of practical political advice.

US troops under fire, Iraqi troops under fire, President Bush under fire, Prime Minister Maliki under fire, Iraqi governors, mayors, representatives under fire -- and Congress alone wilts, spooked by blogosphere barbs.

The irony: Congress abhors supposed cover-ups, as for Pat Tillman's death, yet blasts friendly fire of its own against its only Arab ally fighting side-by-side, collateral damage to that ally and to US recruiting, retention, and morale be damned. Arguing for diplomacy and dialogue, Congress does neither. Yet claims the moral high ground.

In the entire Islamic world, which leaders are struggling more for peace than Iraqis? Want Muslims the opposite of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah? Look to Iraq: there are millions -- thousands of them dying.

Troops never abandon their own; Senate leaders do, dumping Joe Lieberman - sterling enough just seven years back to be their Vice President - for a trendier chap. "Semper Fi"? Not Congress. Misfiring on Lieberman, they took out Marine General Pete Pace instead.

If politicians can't see what's at stake in Iraq, what can they see?

What heart, what mind would be changed by ditching Iraq? Nothing would change those who'll march against Afghanistan once they dangle Iraq's scalp. Al Qaeda would gloat: "We told you about pampered, effeminate Americans," then sift through thousands eager to hitch to the horse proven strong while America limps home.

Mahmoud Abbas was elected in 2004, Nouri al-Maliki in 2006: who's done more, been bolder, been ostracized by fellow Arabs, still sought out rival Sunni leaders, fired commanders and chiefs of police, told Coalition soldiers to confront all militias no matter the political or personal price to himself?

Who's lived under a death sentence from his former leader, personally has grounds for vengeance but will have none of it?

"I will not deal on the basis of tribal revenge with those who killed my family and people. I will go to courts and respect the state and law. That is exactly what we did with Saddam. We gave him every chance to defend himself after he did not give us a chance to say a word when we used to go to execution chambers. I am the person who most believes in national reconciliation."

Yet Congress demands the US deal patiently with Abbas but not Maliki? Abbas: saddled with Arafat's aftermath. Maliki: with Saddam's. Which legacy is more leprous?

General David Petraeus said in April that Maliki is

"someone who wants to lead and serve all Iraqis, but it's not enough to go to him."

Then added:

"He's not the Prime Minister Tony Blair of Iraq. He does not have a parliamentary majority."

More than its prime minister, Iraq's Council of Representatives is key to political progress in Iraq. But Congress, its American counterpart, sneers, too superior to stoop to its peer still traumatized by Saddam's horrors.

Saddam was terror incarnate, scarring Shias and Kurds for life, while Sunnis dread they'll face Shias' former fate. Both see Iran sending arms and cash, Syria permitting terrorists to seep across borders, Al Qaeda recruiting bombers to blast children, women, elders, recruits. Yet Chairman Carl Levin proclaims:

"We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves."

Eighty percent of suicide bombers foreigners, not Iraqis; 60% of US troop deaths from IEDs, many from Iran: and Iraqis must save themselves from themselves. When the doctor can't even see the disease, how can he write the prescription?

Congress cites Sadr and his supposed dominion over Maliki, never asking: If Sadr's so powerful and Maliki's under his thumb, why isn't Maliki more effective if he's doing as Sadr demands?

Some say partition Iraq: as if it were Siamese triplets with vital organs in each part and when the patient doesn't concur. Saw away anyway when the body's not your own?

Senators cry "civil war," yet dismiss Al Qaeda's bombing the Golden Mosque -- more sacred to Shias than Senate chambers are to Senate leaders -- that unleashed sectarian savagery and cost American lives.

Yet many senators hope to command those troops. Command troops, much less respect, when they can't command facts?

* Fact: American troops are better now than before Iraq, over 98% of them alive and well.
* Fact: Iraqi troops improve by the day.
* Fact: Iraqi courts are stronger.
* Fact: local, provincial, and federal Iraqi governments are wrestling with problems Congressmen dodge.
* Fact: more progress has been made in Iraq in four years than at New York's Ground Zero in six.

Yet, like children on a trip, politicians keep asking "Are we there yet?", "When are we going home?" -- deaf to what Operation Iraqi Freedom has been about from the beginning:

"a united Iraq that can govern, defend and sustain itself and is an ally in the war on terror."

It's never been a war against Iraq: it's always been a war with Iraq to destroy Islamic terrorists. If conquest had been the goal, Iraq could have been crushed in weeks if not days. Statesmen know the difference: hustlers don't.

George Bush said from the start: We'll leave. Al Qaeda said: We won't. Maliki said since taking over: Let us take charge. American commanders say: They've got fight and fight better, but need time to win on their own.

Commander after commander says Al Qaeda is like no other enemy they're ever known: ruthless, cunning, relentless, resourceful, determined, and with tools no other enemy has ever had - satellite TV, Internet, cell phones. We have precision-guided weapons: they have precision-targeted media And use them devastatingly, especially in the US.

If Al Qaeda is a match for the US, what chance would Iraqis have alone?

Al Qaeda has another advantage: influence in Congress more than any commander. It attacks, Congress cries, it explodes, Congress cowers, it dictates, Congress bows.

It is men of faith - Lieberman the Jew, Bush the Christian - who offer hope to Islam. It is warriors of the West who offer peace to the Middle East.

Faith will win in Iraq. Saving face will not