Post Portugal!

An Irish Man sitting in the pub with his wife and he says, "I love you." She asks, "Is that you or the beer talking?" He replies, "It's me talking to the beer." --- PJTV.com: Click on:"Instavision: Regressive America: Joel Kotkin on Elitist Efforts to Destroy America's Standard of Living Could it be that progressive politics are actually reversing American living standards? North Dakota is booming, but California is not. What accounts for the difference? Is North Dakota focusing on the basics, while California be losing its sense of optimism? Joel Kotkin thinks that older people in California are benefiting from rich pensions and inequitable tax laws, but young people are not. Find out more as geographer Joel Kotkin talks about demographics and geography with Glenn Reynolds." --- Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2010 LEGEND: Republican Democrat On the fence = Between 40% and 59% to both parties = Leans Dem/Repub (60%-69%) = Strongly Dem/Repub (70%-89%) = Solidly Dem/Repub (over 90%) Rank Organization Total '89-'10 Dem % Repub % Tilt 1 ActBlue $51,124,846 99% 0% 2 AT&T Inc $46,292,670 44% 55% 3 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $43,477,361 98% 1% 4 National Assn of Realtors $38,721,441 49% 50% 5 Goldman Sachs $33,387,252 61% 37% 6 American Assn for Justice $33,143,279 90% 8% 7 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $33,056,216 97% 2% 8 National Education Assn $32,024,610 93% 6% 9 Laborers Union $30,292,050 92% 7% 10 Teamsters Union $29,319,982 93% 6% 11 Carpenters & Joiners Union $29,265,808 89% 10% 12 Service Employees International Union $29,140,232 95% 3% 13 American Federation of Teachers $28,733,991 98% 0% 14 Communications Workers of America $28,376,306 98% 0% 15 Citigroup Inc $28,065,874 50% 49% 16 American Medical Assn $27,597,820 40% 59% 17 United Auto Workers $27,134,252 98% 0% 18 National Auto Dealers Assn $26,311,758 32% 67% 19 Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union $26,229,477 98% 0% 20 United Parcel Service $25,290,039 36% 62% 21 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $25,226,733 98% 1% 22 Altria Group $24,643,651 27% 72% 23 American Bankers Assn $24,048,220 40% 59% 24 National Assn of Home Builders $23,461,905 35% 64% 25 EMILY's List $23,391,763 99% 0% 26 National Beer Wholesalers Assn $22,757,795 34% 65% 27 JPMorgan Chase & Co $22,514,838 51% 48% 28 Microsoft Corp $21,691,408 53% 46% 29 National Assn of Letter Carriers $20,943,434 88% 10% 30 Time Warner $20,327,541 72% 27% 31 Morgan Stanley $20,245,499 44% 54% 32 Lockheed Martin $19,839,004 43% 56% 33 General Electric $19,725,132 51% 48% 34 Verizon Communications $19,690,873 40% 58% 35 Credit Union National Assn $18,908,979 48% 51% 36 AFL-CIO $18,900,396 95% 4% 37 FedEx Corp $18,816,940 40% 58% 38 Bank of America $18,699,265 46% 53% 39 National Rifle Assn $18,209,746 17% 82% 40 Blue Cross/Blue Shield $18,197,594 39% 60% 41 Ernst & Young $18,183,788 44% 55% 42 Sheet Metal Workers Union $18,111,313 97% 1% 43 International Assn of Fire Fighters $17,731,993 81% 17% 44 Plumbers & Pipefitters Union $17,635,976 94% 4% 45 American Hospital Assn $17,562,729 53% 45% 46 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu $17,445,497 35% 64% 47 American Dental Assn $17,371,235 46% 53% 48 Operating Engineers Union $17,122,185 85% 14% 49 PricewaterhouseCoopers $16,699,488 37% 62% 50 Air Line Pilots Assn $16,586,697 84% 15% 51 UBS AG $16,428,222 40% 58% 52 Natl Assn/Insurance & Financial Advisors $15,984,854 42% 57% 53 AFLAC Inc $15,832,719 44% 55% 54 Boeing Co $15,641,085 47% 52% 55 Pfizer Inc $14,900,921 31% 68% 56 Union Pacific Corp $14,883,203 25% 74% 57 United Steelworkers $14,677,901 99% 0% 58 United Transportation Union $14,475,010 88% 10% 59 Merrill Lynch $14,295,360 37% 61% 60 Ironworkers Union $14,142,975 92% 6% 61 Reynolds American $13,687,778 24% 75% 62 Northrop Grumman $13,560,724 43% 56% 63 American Institute of CPAs $13,367,435 42% 57% 64 American Postal Workers Union $13,312,673 95% 3% 65 Credit Suisse Group $13,138,060 44% 55% 66 National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn $13,029,671 51% 48% 67 BellSouth Corp $12,993,782 45% 54% 68 Anheuser-Busch $12,862,221 48% 51% 69 General Dynamics $12,566,267 47% 52% 70 Comcast Corp $11,888,339 56% 43% 71 American Financial Group $11,760,437 18% 81% 72 Walt Disney Co $11,753,831 68% 31% 73 Exxon Mobil $11,677,631 13% 85% 74 National Air Traffic Controllers Assn $11,630,988 80% 18% 75 Chevron $11,530,759 24% 75% 76 GlaxoSmithKline $11,522,090 29% 70% 77 KPMG LLP $11,478,786 34% 65% 78 Club for Growth $11,357,288 1% 96% 79 DLA Piper $11,357,157 67% 32% 80 Raytheon Co $11,333,292 46% 52% 81 News Corp $11,270,692 58% 41% 82 Natl Active & Retired Fed Employees Assn $11,265,500 77% 21% 83 Koch Industries $11,002,235 10% 89% 84 Honeywell International $11,001,355 47% 52% 85 Human Rights Campaign $10,501,271 90% 9% 86 National Restaurant Assn $10,354,545 16% 82% 87 New York Life Insurance $10,274,174 52% 46% 88 Associated Builders & Contractors $10,264,858 1% 98% 89 Wal-Mart Stores $10,178,938 27% 71% 90 Southern Co $10,162,887 31% 67% 91 Saban Capital Group $10,139,185 99% 0% 92 American Health Care Assn $10,114,879 52% 46% 93 American Academy of Ophthalmology $10,043,708 52% 47% 94 Prudential Financial $10,033,181 50% 49% 95 MBNA Corp $10,029,256 17% 82% 96 Newsweb Corp $9,957,850 98% 0% 97 UST Inc $9,950,761 21% 78% 98 American Society of Anesthesiologists $9,867,537 42% 57% 99 MetLife Inc $9,867,248 54% 45% 100 AIG $9,828,364 50% 49% 101 Freddie Mac $9,819,600 43% 56% 102 American Crystal Sugar $9,792,339 62% 37% 103 CSX Corp $9,791,929 33% 65% 104 Associated General Contractors $9,753,590 15% 84% 105 Indep Insurance Agents & Brokers/America $9,698,525 40% 59% 106 General Motors $9,678,878 39% 60% 107 Securities Industry & Financial Mkt Assn $9,678,182 44% 55% 108 Eli Lilly & Co $9,630,679 31% 68% 109 National Cmte to Preserve Social Security & Medicare $9,610,115 80% 18% 110 Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance $9,606,748 39% 59% 111 American Optometric Assn $9,477,163 59% 40% 112 Lehman Brothers $9,357,030 54% 44% 113 American Maritime Officers $9,285,471 46% 52% 114 Transport Workers Union $8,994,649 95% 4% 115 Amway/Alticor Inc $8,872,278 0% 99% 116 Seafarers International Union $8,727,594 85% 14% 117 National Cmte for an Effective Congress $8,707,940 99% 0% 118 National Fedn of Independent Business $8,608,362 7% 92% 119 Archer Daniels Midland $8,522,673 44% 55% 120 American Airlines $8,467,294 47% 52% 121 Ford Motor Co $8,453,192 38% 61% 122 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp $8,383,535 31% 68% 123 Fannie Mae $8,362,326 54% 45% 124 Painters & Allied Trades Union $8,337,796 88% 10% 125 National Assn of Broadcasters $8,218,537 45% 54% 126 Skadden, Arps et al $8,135,046 78% 21% 127 MCI Inc $8,092,972 46% 53% 128 Wachovia Corp $8,059,347 31% 68% 129 American Council of Life Insurers $7,930,665 38% 61% 130 Amalgamated Transit Union $7,776,918 93% 6% 131 Aircraft Owners & Pilots Assn $7,713,366 45% 54% 132 American Trucking Assns $7,704,240 28% 71% 133 Marine Engineers Beneficial Assn $7,598,877 74% 24% 134 Bristol-Myers Squibb $7,370,699 22% 77% 135 Bear Stearns $7,145,772 55% 43% 136 Enron Corp $6,548,235 28% 71% 137 Andersen $6,253,977 37% 62% 138 BP $6,231,474 28% 70% 139 MGM Resorts International $6,190,170 48% 51% 140 Vivendi $4,704,596 66% 32% --- When all else fails lower your standards. (See 1 below.) --- Not too late? Posting before I leave for abroad trip. Let's see when I get back on April 6. (See 2 below.) --- Arabs may hate us but they still want us to pull their chestnuts out of the fire! (See 3 below.) --- I have now returned from a trip to ortugl and when I have time I will post about that marvelous country and its equally great people who are in the throes of a serious economic downturn which is driving youth to seek jobs elsewhere. Until I do I will post some of the things I have been sent since I left. (See 4 below.) --- The U.S. president talks a good game about democracy and liberty, but when confronting a stubborn foe like Gadhafi, he tends to back down - as Netanyahu and Abbas have noticed. (See 5 below.) --- Stratfor's Friedman on Japan, The Persian Gulf and Energy. (See 6 below.) --- Dick ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1)DAYTON -- The Dayton Police Department is lowering its testing standards for recruits. It's a move required by the U.S. Department of Justice after it says not enough African-Americans passed the exam. Dayton is in desperate need of officers to replace dozens of retirees. The hiring process was postponed for months because the D.O.J. rejected the original scores provided by the Dayton Civil Service Board, which administers the test. Under the previous requirements, candidates had to get a 66% on part one of the exam and a 72% on part two. The D.O.J. approved new scoring policy only requires potential police officers to get a 58% and a 63%. That's the equivalent of an ‘F’ and a ‘D’. “It becomes a safety issue for the people of our community,” said Dayton Fraternal Order of Police President, Randy Beane. “It becomes a safety issue to have an incompetent officer next to you in a life and death situation." “The NAACP does not support individuals failing a test and then having the opportunity to be gainfully employed,” agreed Dayton NAACP President Derrick Foward. The D.O.J. and Civil Service Board declined Dayton’s News Source’s repeat requests for interviews. The lower standards mean 258 more people passed the test. The city won't say how many were minorities. “If you lower the score for any group of people, you're not getting the best qualified people for the job,” Foward said. “We need to work with the youth and make them interested in becoming law enforcement officers and firefighters,” said Beane. “Break down the barriers whether they are real or perceived, so we can move forward in this community.” The D.O.J. has forced other police departments across the country to lower testing standards, citing once again that not enough black candidates were passing. The Dayton Firefighter recruit exam is coming up this summer. The chief said it’s likely the passing score for that test will be lowered as well.Civil Service Board Announces Police Recruit Scores ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2)It's Not Too Late to Save Libya Defense Secretary Robert Gates has acted as if imposing a no-fly zone would be a military operation on the order of D-Day. In reality, it wouldn't be hard to ground Gadhafi's decrepit air force. By MAX BOOT I have not been one of those castigating President Obama for decreasing American power—either deliberately or inadvertently. His muscular policy in Afghanistan, for example, belies this charge. But there is no question that his weak, vacillating response to the slaughter now unfolding in Libya will reduce American power and prestige in ways that will do us incalculable long-term harm. On March 3, President Obama said that "Colonel Gadhafi needs to step down from power and leave. That is good for his country. It is good for his people. It's the right thing to do." When the president of the United States publicly proclaims that the head of another state needs to "step down," his words carry considerable weight—or at least they should. Yet what has Mr. Obama done to back up his rhetoric? Not much beyond saying that "no option" is "off the table" and that he is actively "consulting" with American allies about how to act. At the rate those consultations are going, Gadhafi will have snuffed out the rebellion by the time that Mr. Obama decides on a course of action. A month has now elapsed since the revolt began on Feb. 15. At first, Gadhafi appeared to be on the way out as rebels seized much of eastern Libya and many officials of Gadhafi's own government defected to their cause. But since then, employing his own troops and foreign mercenaries, Gadhafi has mounted an effective counteroffensive. Not only has he secured the capital, Tripoli, but he has begun to drive the rebels back, recapturing several towns along the Mediterranean coast. At this rate, he could be in Benghazi—Libya's second city, which the rebels captured early—within days. Some policy makers in Washington may be fine with this outcome, because in 2003 Gadhafi gave up his weapons of mass destruction and his support for terrorism. But make no mistake: A resurgent Gadhafi would be a catastrophe on many levels. Most obvious is the human cost of this dictator continuing his 41-year reign: His throne rests on an ever-growing pile of corpses. But there is also the strategic cost. Given the way the U.S. and our allies have turned against Gadhafi, at least rhetorically, he could easily decide to seek revenge by returning to his old tricks. Considering that Gadhafi was responsible for the midair bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988, among many other acts of terror, that is no idle threat. Moreover, if he is able to keep power by force, it will encourage other Middle Eastern despots to emulate his example. Already the Saudis have sent an armored column to quell protests in Bahrain. Expect more of the same if Gadhafi clings to power. The Arab Spring could easily turn into a very dark winter that will arrest and reverse the momentum of recent pro-democracy demonstrations. That means consigning the entire region to a dysfunctional status quo ante in which the long-term winners will be al Qaeda and their ilk. It's not too late to prevent this dire outcome. All that would be required is for Mr. Obama to show as much political courage as France and the Arab League. Neither is known for its principled support of freedom, but both have called for the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya. The Pentagon, from Defense Secretary Robert Gates on down, has reacted as if this would be a military operation on the order of D-Day. In reality, it would not be hard to ground Gadhafi's decrepit air force. The job could probably be performed with just one American ship—the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, now in the Red Sea, which has 34 F/A-18F Super Hornets and 10 F/A-18C Hornets along with a full complement of electronic-warfare aircraft. The Enterprise strike group could also unleash a devastating array of Tomahawk cruise missiles. And the Enterprise would not have to fight alone. It could easily be joined by numerous American, British and French aircraft flying out of Aviano and other NATO bases in Italy. A forward operations base could be established at the Gamal Abdul el-Nasser airfield, one of Libya's major air force bases (built by the British), which is located south of Tobruk and has already been captured by the rebels. As the enforcement of no-fly zones over Bosnia and Iraq should have proved, the risks of such an operation are minimal—especially if we first neutralize Gadhafi's air defenses. By itself, a no-fly zone might not be enough to topple Gadhafi. At the very least, however, it would dishearten Gadhafi's supporters and buy time for the rebels. We could further tilt the balance in their favor by bombing Gadhafi's installations and troops. It may also be necessary to send arms and Special Forces trainers to support the rebels. Without committing any combat troops of our own, we could deliver the same kind of potent combined-arms punch that drove the Serbs out of Kosovo when NATO aircraft supported ground operations by the Kosovo Liberation Army. The Libyan opposition movement, led by Gadhafi's former justice minister, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, has been desperately asking for international aid in the form of a no-fly zone. If we finally delivered, you can bet that he and other Libyans would be grateful. Kosovo's capital, Pristina, today has a major thoroughfare named Bill Clinton Boulevard crowned with a 10-foot statue of their savior. It is not far-fetched to imagine a Barack Obama Boulevard in Tripoli if the president finally finds the courage to act. If he does not, you can bet that his name and that of the country he leads will be reviled by democrats across the region—not only in Libya. Mr. Boot is a senior fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3)Arabs Love the Pax Americana Fearing a U.S. retreat, the Saudis move into Bahrain. The Arab League's call this weekend for a no-fly zone over Libya is startling news and has sent diplomats scattering. We'll now see if the "international community" (to use the Obama Administration's favorite phrase) decides anything before Moammar Gadhafi's forces overrun the rebel stronghold in Benghazi. The odds favor Gadhafi. But the 22-member league's decision also tells us a lot about Arab views of U.S. power. Throughout the Libyan crisis, we've heard from pundits and politicians that the Iraq war tarnished brand America beyond repair, and made U.S. leadership non grata in the Mideast. Both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have insisted that the U.N., NATO, the Europeans, Arabs, anyone but Washington take the initiative on Libya. The Arab League is begging them to reconsider this abdication. With the unsurprising exceptions of Iranian client Syria and Libya's neighbor Algeria, the group took the extraordinary step of calling publicly for American intervention in the affairs of an Arab state. Though the League formally asked the U.N. Security Council to approve a no-fly zone, there's little doubt that the U.S. would carry the military and political burden in imposing one. The Arabs know this well, and their message couldn't be clearer. Maybe they even thought Mr. Obama meant what he said in calling for Gadhafi to leave power. The weekend decision confirmed what we've heard privately from Arab leaders for years about America's continued engagement in the Middle East. The only people who suffer from an "Iraq syndrome" are American liberals and the Western European chattering classes. The pro-Western Gulf or North African allied states have nothing to gain in seeing American influence or military power devalued in their region—either by others, or as is the current fad in Washington, through American self-abnegation. Their immediate interest may be to reverse Gadhafi's recent gains against the lightly armed rebels in eastern Libya. Arab hostility to him goes back many years. As neighbors they have much to fear from a post-revolt Libya turned back into a terrorist haven and pariah state. For the proverbial "Arab street," the defeat of the Libyan uprising would be a dispiriting coda to this springtime of democratic revolutions. If he survives, Gadhafi will have taught other dictators that the next time young people demand accountable leadership, turn your guns on them and exploit American diffidence. Beyond those pressing worries lie bigger Arab concerns over the changing power dynamic in the Middle East. New and unpredictable regional players are a neo-Ottoman Turkey and especially an Iran determined to get nuclear weapons. However much the Arabs like to complain about America, they know the U.S. is a largely benign force and honest broker. Propelled by a strong domestic economy, the Turks have built their recent regional standing through trade and a political shift from its longstanding alliance with the West. Tellingly, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan opposes a no-fly zone. "We see NATO military intervention in another country as extremely unbeneficial," he said. Turkey had no such qualms when NATO came to the rescue of Europe's besieged Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo, but in the 1990s Ankara saw America as an ally, not a potential competitor. The Sunni Arab states fear the nuclear ambitions of Shiite Iran as much as Israel does. It's not lost on them that while democratic uprisings toppled two Arab regimes friendly to the U.S. and threaten several others, Tehran has squelched the opposition Green Movement without inhibitions. The nuclear program, meanwhile, is Iran's secret weapon to become the dominant regional power. The Administration chose to hear the Arab appeal for American leadership this weekend as if it were no big deal. White House spokesman Jay Carney used the word "international" three times in three sentences and didn't back a no-fly zone or any other military step. The G-8 foreign ministers yesterday failed to support it as well. A draft Libya resolution (sponsored by Lebanon!) is bouncing around at the Security Council, and likely headed nowhere. Not by coincidence, Saudi Arabia and fellow Gulf states on Monday sent military forces into Bahrain to help put down an uprising by the majority Shiites against the Sunni monarchy, which yesterday declared a state of emergency. The Saudis fear that the Bahrain contagion, perhaps fueled by Iran, will spread to them. But their intervention also reflects a lack of confidence that America will assert itself in the region. Remarkably, the Saudis ignored U.S. advice not to intervene in Bahrain. They don't believe they can count on the U.S. to stop an imperial Iran. When the U.S. fails to lead, every nation recalibrates its interests and begins to look out for itself first. While the "international community" fiddles, Gadhafi's troops continue their march eastward, yesterday taking the strategic town of Ajdabiya, the last significant population center before Benghazi. His victory would be a tragedy for Libya's people. But it would diminish America's global standing as well, which is an outcome that makes Arabs as nervous as it ought to make Americans. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day Seems like these days I hear a lot of whiney whiners whining about "out of control government spending" and "insane deficits" and such, trying to make hay out of a bunch of pointy-head boring finance hooey. Sure, $3.7 trillion of spending sounds like a big number. "Oh, boo-hoo, how are we going to get $3.7 trillion dollars? We're broke, boo-hoo-hoo," whine the whiners. What these skinflint crybabies fail to realize is that $3.7 trillion is for an entire year - which translates into only a measly $10 billion per day! Mister, I call that a bargain. Especially since it pays for all of us - you and me, the whole American family. Like all families, we Americas have to pay for things - health, food, safety, uncle Dave America with his drinking problem. And when little Billy America wants that new quad runner they promised, do Mom and Dad America deny him? No, they get a second job at Circle K, because they know little Billy might have one of his episodes and burn down the house. So let's all sit down together as an American family with a calendar and make a yearly budget. First, let's lock in the $3.7 trillion of critical family spending priorities; now let's get to work on collecting the pay-as-we-go $10 billion daily cash flow we need. 12:01 AM, January 1 Let's start the year out right by going after some evil corporations and their obscene profits. And who is more evil than those twin spawns of Lucifer himself, Exxon Mobil and Walmart? Together these two largest American industrial behemoths raked in, between them, $34 billion in 2010 global profits. Let's teach 'em both a lesson and confiscate it for the public good. This will get us through... 9:52 AM January 4 Okay, maybe I underestimated our take. But we shouldn't let Exxon and Walmart distract us from all those other corporate profiteers out there worth shaking down. In fact, why don't we grab every cent of 2010 profit made by the other 498 members of the Fortune 500? That will net us another, let's see, $357 billion! Enough to get us to... 2:00 AM February 9 So we're running out of corporate cash, but look - it's Super Bowl time! As we all know, the game has become a crass disgusting festival of commercialism. So let's take all the TV ad money spent on stupid Super Bowl ads, and apply that to government needs. That would be $250 million, enough to fund us for, let's see... 36 minutes. The half time show, at least. But why stop there? Let's take every cent of ad money spent on all 45 Super Bowls, a cool $5 billion, which would cover us until... 2:00 PM February 9 Speaking of sports, why should the players be immune to our pressing public needs? Lord knows professional athletes make obscene salaries for playing a dumb game. So let's take the combined salaries of all players in the NFL, Major League Baseball, the NBA, and the NHL. Hey, they've got endorsement deals, they'll hardly miss it. Throw in the total winnings of everybody on the PGA tour and NASCAR, and we get $9.4 billion, enough to get us through until... 1:00 PM February 10 Okay, it's time to stop messing around. Athletes aren't the only ones greedily raking it in. What about America's rich - those fancy pants fat cats living the high life in the above-$250,000 income bracket? According to IRS statistics, these 1.93% of US households are hogging 25% of US income. And why do they need it? For crying out loud, they probably stole it anyway. I say let's take 100% of every penny they make above $250,000. They can use the rest to pay their state and local taxes. Now we're talking big bucks, brother. How much? Let's see... A: Number of US households: 116,000,000 B: Average US household income: $68,000 (median = $52,000) C: Total US household income (A * B): $7.89 trillion D: Percent of households above $250k income: 1.93% E: Number of households above $250k income (A*D): 2,238,800 F: Percent of national income earned by households making $250k or more = 25% G: Total income of households making $250k or more (C*F): $1.97 trillion H: Total income of households in excess of $250k (G - E*$250,000) = $1.412 trillion Alright! Take that, fat cats! Our $1.412 trillion windfall has us covered for the next 141 days, or until... 6:00 PM July 2 Well, I guess maybe there are a few items we can cut from the budget. Those quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. Why don't we end all funding for those wars, and bring our troops home to march in the Fourth of July parade? That would save us $105 billion Afghanistan and $159 billion in Iraq, a total of $264 billion - enough savings to cover us until... 4:00 AM July 29 Summer blockbuster season! And of course the biggest blockbuster of all time was Star Wars. To punish George Lucas for those stupid sequels, let's confiscate every penny of revenue generated by the Star Wars franchise since 1977 - movies, TV rights, books, toys, action figures, everything - which nets us $25 billion. Enough to keep the lights on until... 4:00 PM August 1 Well, there's plenty more money in Hollywood to go after. So, for the national good, let's evict everyone in Beverly Hills and sell their homes at current market value. 15,000 homes at $2 million per gets us another $30 billion, paying the bills through... 4:00 PM August 4 The kids will be going back to school soon, so we're gonna have to bring out the big guns and really go after those moneybag plutocrats like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. Between 'em, those two bastards have amassed a combined fortune of $100 billion. What kind of jerk needs that kind of money? The worst thing is they're shielding it from the public treasury using the oldest trick in the billionaire playbook - by continuing to live. Once they kick the bucket, and after we close the estate tax loopholes, the American public will get the 50% of their ill-gotten loot we so richly deserve. So let's say we arrange a couple of unfortunate "accidents" for Mssrs. Gates and Buffett. Now we've got another $50 billion for the US coffers, enough to get us to... 4:00 PM August 9 Aw, screw it. There are plenty more American billionaires to go after - 398 more to be precise, according to the latest Forbes 400, with a combined total net worth of $1.29 trillion. 398 more "accidents," 398 more estates taxed at 50%, and we've got another $650 billion to tide us through... 4:00 PM October 13 Crap. Okay, let's just kill all the billionaires and take all their money. Add in another 100 or so of the almost-billionaires, and that buys us an additional 73 days until... 4:00 PM December 25 Merry Christmas! Just one more week to go. In the spirit of the season, let's give the surviving conservative wingnuts a few of the budget cuts they've been bitching for, like getting rid of foreign aid. This saves $50 billion - getting us to... 4:00 PM December 30 Only 32 hours to go! To cover the remaining $12.5 billion vital federal program tab, let's pass the cash bucket and demand every surviving American man, woman and child to kick in another another $40 bucks. I'm pretty sure they will, after all those previous "accidents." 12:00 AM January 1 Happy New Year! See? Easy peasy lemon squeezy. Time to do it all again, except this time we'll need to come up with $11 billion per day. I'm sure we'll figure it out somehow. Do you know where we can get some more plutocrats? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5)Exercises in futility By Aluf Benn Libya's ruler Col. Muammar Gadhafi has revealed the weakness of President Barack Obama. The leader of the superpower called upon Gadhafi to leave - and Gadhafi wasn't scared. The whole world saw how very easy it is to preach democracy and liberty from afar, and how much harder it is to back up the verbiage with military action against a cruel tyrant who slaughters his own citizens. Gadhafi's determination has tipped the balance, at least for the present, in the struggle for survival by rulers of Arab countries against their peoples in revolt. Saudi Arabia has followed in his footsteps, and has sent its army to Bahrain to rescue the regime of the Sunni minority from the wrath of the Shi'ite majority. The Americans demanded reforms and openness in Bahrain, and the Saudis have in effect occupied the neighboring island, which is linked by a bridge to their country. The harsh and cruel Gadhafi has always tested the normal limits of the behavior of states and leaders. He has already shown it is possible to survive for years in power under sanctions, threats and even American bombardment. However, the Middle East is full of leaders and governments who have heard demands and dictates from Obama and have simply said, "We've heard you" - and continued doing as they liked unscathed. During the past two years, for example, Iran has advanced its nuclear program and paid no heed either to Obama's lures or his warnings. For its part, Israel slowed down settlement expansion for a while, because the president demanded it, but then went back to building in the territories. Even Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said "No" to Obama, when the president suggested he waive a condemnation of Israel at the United Nations in exchange for a package of benefits and incentives. Fifty minutes on the telephone, and Abbas didn't budge. Obama always goes with the strong and kicks the weak. When the opposition demonstrations in Iran were brutally suppressed after the falsification of the presidential election results in 2009, Obama disassociated himself from the demonstrators and in effect supported President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He apparently assessed the regime would survive and hoped his neutrality would lead to a thaw in the relations between the United States and Iran. But the Iranians interpreted Obama's stance as weakness and showed no interest in the dialogue he offered them. In Egypt the masses went out to demonstrate in the streets, and the moment Hosni Mubarak was weakened and the army disassociated itself from him, Obama wiped out 30 years of alliance and cooperation. When it emerged the army had taken control of Egypt, the U.S. president supported the generals. Mubarak and the deposed president of Tunisia hesitated to open fire on the demonstrators and were dethroned. Gadhafi fought back and his rule has been saved. For now. Cart before the horse Obama's successful race for the presidency, centered on the sweeping promise of "change," aroused tremendous expectations. In an instance of putting the cart before the horse, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize without having done anything. His supporters say that due to the very fact of his presence and the positions he has articulated, he has encouraged supporters of democracy in the Arab world and has lowered the flames in the Middle East. Their claim is not entirely unfounded. Even before the street revolts in Tunisia and Egypt, the Obama administration had advanced Southern Sudan toward independence. The borders between Israel and its neighbors have been a lot quieter since he took office than they were during the terms of his predecessors Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Nevertheless, a far more activist foreign policy was expected of Obama. Both those who admire him and those who do not assessed he would force Israel to quit the territories and would establish a Palestinian state in them. And, indeed, Obama went further than his predecessors and declared that the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a national interest of the United States. Right after his inauguration, he appointed George Mitchell, who successfully mediated in Northern Ireland, as special envoy to the Middle East. Here in the Middle East, it was immediately realized that Mitchell was of no value, although he continued to be hosted for futile discussions. He has not been seen for some time now in Jerusalem and Ramallah, even though formally he still holds the envoy position. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is working with Washington now through Mitchell's rival, Dennis Ross. When he took office, Netanyahu assessed that Obama would try to depose him. His fear of the president led Netanyahu to impose a settlement freeze at the end of 2009. The fear evaporated when the Republicans regained a majority in the House of Representatives last November and positioned themselves as a shield against administration pressure on Israel. The stance of the House, whose Democratic leaders also offered their support of Jerusalem, pushed Obama to impose a veto on the UN Security Council resolution condemning the settlements - contrary to his administration's position. But recently, when a veteran right-winger asked Netanyahu why he will present a diplomatic plan in the near future, the prime minister explained: "Obama will be elected for a second term." Since his party's defeat in the congressional elections, Obama has preferred to reach agreements with the Republicans and to rule from the center. His energies are already focused on his campaign for re-election, and at a time like that one doesn't wrangle with powerful sectors and lobbies, like supporters of Israel. It seems he is waiting for the diplomatic battle expected this summer in advance of the Palestinian declaration of independence. At that time Obama will have an opportunity to apply pressure to Netanyahu and Abbas - both will be in need of his support. It is doubtful he will take advantage of this opportunity at the start of his election year. But even if Obama makes public a plan for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement, the sides will likely reject it. And until summer arrives, Obama will have to deal with the waves of revolt in the Middle East and Netanyahu's insistence upon keeping control of the West Bank. "We don't want Iran 14 miles off our coast, and that's not going to happen," a Saudi official told Washington Post columnist David Ignatius in no uncertain terms. This is how the Saudis are justifying the dispatch of their army to Bahrain - and this is exactly how Netanyahu is explaining his demand to maintain control of the Jordan Valley and the ridges overlooking it, where the settlement of Itamar is situated. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6)Japan, the Persian Gulf and Energy By George Friedman Over the past week, everything seemed to converge on energy. The unrest in the Persian Gulf raised the specter of the disruption of oil supplies to the rest of the world, and an earthquake in Japan knocked out a string of nuclear reactors with potentially devastating effect. Japan depends on nuclear energy and it depends on the Persian Gulf, which is where it gets most of its oil. It was, therefore, a profoundly bad week for Japan, not only because of the extensive damage and human suffering but also because Japan was being shown that it can’t readily escape the realities of geography. Japan is the world’s third-largest economy, a bit behind China now. It is also the third-largest industrial economy, behind only the United States and China. Japan’s problem is that its enormous industrial plant is built in a country almost totally devoid of mineral resources. It must import virtually all of the metals and energy that it uses to manufacture industrial products. It maintains stockpiles, but should those stockpiles be depleted and no new imports arrive, Japan stops being an industrial power. The Geography of Oil There are multiple sources for many of the metals Japan imports, so that if supplies stop flowing from one place it can get them from other places. The geography of oil is more limited. In order to access the amount of oil Japan needs, the only place to get it is the Persian Gulf. There are other places to get some of what Japan needs, but it cannot do without the Persian Gulf for its oil. This past week, we saw that this was a potentially vulnerable source. The unrest that swept the western littoral of the Arabian Peninsula and the ongoing tension between the Saudis and Iranians, as well as the tension between Iran and the United States, raised the possibility of disruptions. The geography of the Persian Gulf is extraordinary. It is a narrow body of water opening into a narrow channel through the Strait of Hormuz. Any diminution of the flow from any source in the region, let alone the complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz, would have profound implications for the global economy. For Japan it could mean more than higher prices. It could mean being unable to secure the amount of oil needed at any price. The movement of tankers, the limits on port facilities and long-term contracts that commit oil to other places could make it impossible for Japan to physically secure the oil it needs to run its industrial plant. On an extended basis, this would draw down reserves and constrain Japan’s economy dramatically. And, obviously, when the world’s third-largest industrial plant drastically slows, the impact on the global supply chain is both dramatic and complex. In 1973, the Arab countries imposed an oil embargo on the world. Japan, entirely dependent on imported oil, was hit not only by high prices but also by the fact that it could not obtain enough fuel to keep going. While the embargo lasted only five months, the oil shock, as the Japanese called it, threatened Japan’s industrial capability and shocked it into remembering its vulnerability. Japan relied on the United States to guarantee its oil supplies. The realization that the United States couldn’t guarantee those supplies created a political crisis parallel to the economic one. It is one reason the Japanese are hypersensitive to events in the Persian Gulf and to the security of the supply lines running out of the region. Regardless of other supplies, Japan will always import nearly 100 percent of its oil from other countries. If it cuts its consumption by 90 percent, it still imports nearly 100 percent of its oil. And to the extent that the Japanese economy requires oil — which it does — it is highly vulnerable to events in the Persian Gulf. It is to mitigate the risk of oil dependency — which cannot be eliminated altogether by any means — that Japan employs two alternative fuels: It is the world’s largest importer of seaborne coal, and it has become the third-largest producer of electricity from nuclear reactors, ranking after the United States and France in total amount produced. One-third of its electricity production comes from nuclear power plants. Nuclear power was critical to both Japan’s industrial and national security strategy. It did not make Japan self-sufficient, since it needed to import coal and nuclear fuel, but access to these resources made it dependent on countries like Australia, which does not have choke points like Hormuz. It is in this context that we need to understand the Japanese prime minister’s statement that Japan was facing its worst crisis since World War II. First, the earthquake and the resulting damage to several of Japan’s nuclear reactors created a long-term regional energy shortage in Japan that, along with the other damage caused by the earthquake, would certainly affect the economy. But the events in the Persian Gulf also raised the 1973 nightmare scenario for the Japanese. Depending how events evolved, the Japanese pipeline from the Persian Gulf could be threatened in a way that it had not been since 1973. Combined with the failure of several nuclear reactors, the Japanese economy is at risk. The comparison with World War II was apt since it also began, in a way, with an energy crisis. The Japanese had invaded China, and after the fall of the Netherlands (which controlled today’s Indonesia) and France (which controlled Indochina), Japan was concerned about agreements with France and the Netherlands continuing to be honored. Indochina supplied Japan with tin and rubber, among other raw materials. The Netherlands East Indies supplied oil. When the Japanese invaded Indochina, the United States both cut off oil shipments from the United States and started buying up oil from the Netherlands East Indies to keep Japan from getting it. The Japanese were faced with the collapse of their economy or war with the United States. They chose Pearl Harbor. Today’s situation is in no way comparable to what happened in 1941 except for the core geopolitical reality. Japan is dependent on imports of raw materials and particularly oil. Anything that interferes with the flow of oil creates a crisis in Japan. Anything that risks a cutoff makes Japan uneasy. Add an earthquake destroying part of its energy-producing plant and you force Japan into a profound internal crisis. However, it is essential to understand what energy has meant to Japan historically — miscalculation about it led to national disaster and access to it remains Japan’s psychological as well as physical pivot. Japan’s Nuclear Safety Net Japan is still struggling with the consequences of its economic meltdown in the early 1990s. Rapid growth with low rates of return on capital created a massive financial crisis. Rather than allow a recession to force a wave of bankruptcies and unemployment, the Japanese sought to maintain their tradition of lifetime employment. To do that Japan had to keep interest rates extremely low and accept little or no economic growth. It achieved its goal, relatively low unemployment, but at the cost of a large debt burden and a long-term sluggish economy. The Japanese were beginning to struggle with the question of what would come after a generation of economic stagnation and full employment. They had clearly not yet defined a path, although there was some recognition that a generation’s economic reality could not sustain itself. The changes that Japan would face were going to be wrenching, and even under the best of circumstances, they would be politically difficult to manage. Suddenly, Japan is not facing the best of circumstances. It is not yet clear how devastating the nuclear-reactor damage will prove to be, but the situation appears to be worsening. What is clear is that the potential crisis in the Persian Gulf, the loss of nuclear reactors and the rising radiation levels will undermine the confidence of the Japanese. Beyond the human toll, these reactors were Japan’s hedge against an unpredictable world. They gave it control of a substantial amount of its energy production. Even if the Japanese still had to import coal and oil, there at least a part of their energy structure was largely under their own control and secure. Japan’s nuclear power sector seemed invulnerable, which no other part of its energy infrastructure was. For Japan, a country that went to war with the United States over energy in 1941 and was devastated as a result, this was no small thing. Japan had a safety net. The safety net was psychological as much as anything. The destruction of a series of nuclear reactors not only creates energy shortages and fear of radiation; it also drives home the profound and very real vulnerability underlying all of Japan’s success. Japan does not control the source of its oil, it does not control the sea lanes over which coal and other minerals travel, and it cannot be certain that its nuclear reactors will not suddenly be destroyed. To the extent that economics and politics are psychological, this is a huge blow. Japan lives in constant danger, both from nature and from geopolitics. What the earthquake drove home was just how profound and how dangerous Japan’s world is. It is difficult to imagine another industrial economy as inherently insecure as Japan’s. The earthquake will impose many economic constraints on Japan that will significantly complicate its emergence from its post-boom economy, but one important question is the impact on the political system. Since World War II, Japan has coped with its vulnerability by avoiding international entanglements and relying on its relationship with the United States. It sometimes wondered whether the United States, with its sometimes-unpredictable military operations, was more of a danger than a guarantor, but its policy remained intact. It is not the loss of the reactors that will shake Japan the most but the loss of the certainty that the reactors were their path to some degree of safety, along with the added burden on the economy. The question is how the political system will respond. In dealing with the Persian Gulf, will Japan continue to follow the American lead or will it decide to take a greater degree of control and follow its own path? The likelihood is that a shaken self-confidence will make Japan more cautious and even more vulnerable. But it is interesting to look at Japanese history and realize that sometimes, and not always predictably, Japan takes insecurity as a goad to self-assertion. This was no ordinary earthquake in magnitude or in the potential impact on Japan’s view of the world. The earthquake shook a lot of pieces loose, not the least of which were in the Japanese psyche. Japan has tried to convince itself that it had provided a measure of security with nuclear plants and an alliance with the United States. Given the earthquake and situation in the Persian Gulf, recalculation is in order. But Japan is a country that has avoided recalculation for a long time. The question now is whether the extraordinary vulnerability exposed by the quake will be powerful enough to shake Japan into recalculating its long-standing political system. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------