Donald Trump’s New Book

How to Make Enemies and Squander Influence.

This was my reaction to Trump’s opening of the new U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem.

With apologies to Dale Carnegie’s How to Make Friends and Influence People.

Hypocritic oath and an ignored reading

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

U.S. Constitution, Article VI

Somehow, we have a Congress that gave an oath to the Koch brothers and made sure they passed the religious anti-tax test of Grover Norquist.

Every year the Senate has a public reading of George Washington’s “Farewell Address” and the next day they ignore what he wrote.  Maybe many of them stayed away during the reading or slept through it.

"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all; religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.  Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it?  Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

"In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim."

Who has the U.S. become beholden to either as a friend or as an enemy: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, North Korea, Cuba .

Foreign policy foreign to Founders

What would George Washington think of the foreign relations of our Presidents for the last 100 years?  Or even two hundred years?

Consider what George Washington wrote in his “Farewell Address”:

“Hence likewise they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”

Poor George probably spun in his grave when Madeleine Albright said, “What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?”

“…the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party … opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”

How often does the influence of Israel hamper U.S. policy in the Middle East?  Sometimes the Democrats and Republicans both work overtime to show how great their support of Israel is.

“Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.”

Japan and Vietnam have forgiven the U.S. for the damage done to them.  I wonder when the U.S. will get around to forgiving Cuba and Iran for the minor damage done to it.

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”

I wonder if George Washington would appreciate being called “the leader of the free world”?

“Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?”

George Washington really would really disapprove of the hundreds of U.S. bases around the world.

“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world—so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy)—I repeat it therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”

Would George Washington approve of the U.S. staying in NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union?

“But if I may even flatter myself that [these counsels] may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good, that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism—this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated.”

Unfortunately, faction arose strongly shortly after Washington left office – Jefferson and Adams became strong political opponents.  Fortunately, they did become friends later in life.

Both Jefferson and Madison waged war on the Barbary Pirates who demanded tribute to not attack U.S. ships in the Mediterranean and ransom for captured sailors.  These were wars with limited objectives that ended with treaties favorable to the United States.

On the other hand Madison’s war with Great Britain was called just that by those opposed to it – “Mr. Madison’s War”.  The opposition was particularly strong in New England where many merchants continued to trade with Britain.

One of the first major expansions of U.S. influence was the Monroe Doctrine to curb any influence by European powers over the newly independent countries of Latin America.

“The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.”

How often did the U.S. interfere with “the free and independent condition” of these countries?  George Washington’s “foreign intrigue” certainly was practiced in Latin America by many of his successors.

The very faction that Washington warned against, one section of the country against another, led to the Civil War.

And on and on it went, war after war.  Some required U.S. involvement; many didn’t.  Some of the latter were called “wars of choice” by critics.

Those who signed the Constitution and promoted it knew that circumstances and the Constitution would change, but would they approve of all the changes?

When the big boys play, the little kids get hurt

I’m not talking about playgrounds but battle grounds.  And too many big boys want to make everywhere a battle ground.

Does anyone really know what Vladimir Putin’s game is with Ukraine and other countries bordering Russia?  Is he on a power trip or is he concerned that the West is encroaching on Russia and is a threat to the existence of Russia?

If it is strictly a power trip, then he is following in the steps of the Tsars and Stalin.  The Tsars and Stalin used their populations as cannon fodder for their own ends.  How many people are going to die before Putin’s goals are met.  Will the shooting down of Malaysia Air 17 give him pause in his power trip.

If he is concerned with the West encroaching on Russia, maybe he should join the West in providing a parliamentary and economic framework for all of Europe.  Major threats to Russia have all but disappeared.  Napoleon is dead and today’s France has no interest in attacking Moscow.  The Kaiser and Hitler are both dead and today’s Germany has no interest in attacking Leningrad or Stalingrad.

Whatever Putin’s game is with Ukraine, let’s hope that he takes to heart that his big boy play has really hurt lots of “little kids” who have nothing to do with his game.

Israel is a parliamentary state with many political parties.  No party ever seems to gain a majority of seats.  In order to govern, parties have to form coalitions.  Too often these coalitions include some religious party that believes that God gave Israel to the Jews about 3,000 years ago.  About 2,000 years ago the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem and Jews fled to Europe and Africa.  Others moved in and eventually became today’s Arabs.

About eighty years ago Hitler with his big boy games decided that Jews were not part of these games and started executing them in obscene numbers.  Those Jews who could fled the areas Hitler controlled, some of them fleeing to Palestine.

To simplify history, all hell broke loose when the big boys of the European and American powers declared through the U.N. that a certain part of Palestine would become the new state of Israel. Now another set of big boys is playing various games that never seem to end.  The latest games are kidnapping and killing teenagers for no other reason that they were of the “other”.  Now that game has escalated with all the “little kids” in Gaza wondering where they can flee to escape the violence of the game..

Nicholas Kristoff wrote a good column on how the intransigence of both sides perpetuates the problem.  See “Who’s Right and Wrong in the Middle East?”, New York Times Sunday Review, July 20, 2014.

Mosaddegh was the duly elected prime minister of Iran.  He decided that Iran wasn’t getting enough marbles from the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and nationalized it.  The big boys in Whitehall and Foggy Bottom arranged to have Mosaddegh overthrown and have Reza Pahlavi reinstated as Shah.  Among other things the Shah did was have his secret service, Savak, take out the little kids that didn’t play the Shah’s way.
Savak’s dirty tricks were no secret.  In fact, a colleague who was supporting a Univac computer in Tehran asked me to join him.  No way did I want to move from Sweden to a country like Iran.  In fact, in the last year I was in Sweden (1974), Iranian students were demonstrating in Stockholm against the Shah.

By 1979 Ayotollah Khomeni had overthrown the Shah and set up a new set of big boy rules; many of these rules were not to the little kids’ benefit.

But the big boys in Washington were not happy with the overthrow of the Shah, especially when the U.S. Embassy was taken over and diplomats held prisoner.

And matters got worse.  First, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran, even when he used poison gas on Iranian troops.  Second when the U.S. decided Saddam was not to its liking and went to war against him, the U.S. shot down an Iranian airliner with over 200 “little kids” on board, few if any who were part of the big boy games.

And still the games go on, although in a more civilized manner than for the last two decades.  Iran is negotiating with the U.S. and others about how much nuclear capability Iran should have.  But the big boys like the U.S. and the U.K. aren’t offering to reduce their nuclear capability, a capability that some hawks wouldn’t hesitate using to flatten Iran, including all the “little kids” who have nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear capability or intentions.

Another big boy game going on is China’s assertion of sovereignty over offshore islands.  I recently read an article by a Chinese or Vietnamese author who said that China really has more to gain by playing nice than by throwing its weight around.  It is ironic that China is still holding a grudge about another nation that threw its weight around to gain supremacy in the Western Pacific: Japan.

The “little kids” sing, “When will they ever learn” and the big boys never do.

This was also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, July 24, 2014 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/07/24/3781_when_the_big_boys_play_the_little_kids_get_hurt.

Politicians kiss what?

Once upon a time, the running gag about political campaigning was that vote seekers were out kissing babies.  Now it seems that politicians are out kissing rich old men and not on their foreheads.

The latest kowtowing was the parade of Republican hopefuls to visit Sherman Adelson to seek his blessing on their quest.  The worst groveling was when Gov. Chris Christie apologized to Adelson for a remark about Israel.

This obscene parade is a sign of how much we have moved from a “democracy” to a definite plutocracy.

Have we become like Iran where the ayatollahs have to approve the candidates?

I can’t say it too much.  The best way to stop this trend is to be sure to always vote in every election.  We have too many elections where the “winner” comes in a distant second to a de facto “none of the above”.  A majority of the registered voters don’t show up for the primaries.  More people don’t vote in the regular elections than vote for the supposed winner.

Quote of the day: Negotiate with who?

"As another defense minister, Moshe Dayan, once observed: 'If you want to make peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.'”
- Bill Keller, "Chuck Hagel's War", New York times, 2013-01-20

Iran - Questions for American hawks

First, a little history.  In 1914 the Archduke Frantz Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated in Sarajevo, Serbia.  The Austrian government gave an ultimatum to Serbia, of which Serbia agreed to most terms except allowing Austrian police to participate in the investigation of the assassination.  Rather than negotiate, Austria attacked Serbia.  The consequences were as bad as all the participants believed they would be and worse.  We are still living with those consequences nearly a century later.

Now many demands are being made of Iran concerning its nuclear ambitions.  Many in the U.S. and Israel are ready to go to war against Iran if those demands aren't met.  Have these hawks considered ALL the possible effects of such a war?

Let's ask some "trivial" questions first.

Many of these hawks want low taxes.  If taxes are low and kept low, where is the money to come from to wage a new war?

Many of these hawks want low oil prices.  If Iran is attacked, what will happen to oil prices?

Many of these hawks want to protect the unborn.  If Iran is attacked, how many unborn children will die?  Do you really think only soldiers will die in any modern war?

Now let's look at some more global issues.

If Saudi Arabia feels threatened by Iranian nuclear ambitions, shouldn't Saudi Arabia be the country to act?  After all, the U.S. has sold them many, many advanced military aircraft.  Shouldn't Saudi pilots be able to operate these aircraft efficiently and effectively?  If not, why sell the aircraft to Saudi Arabia in the first place?

If the U.S. attacks Iran, this will be the third Muslim country the U.S. has invaded in a generation.  What will be the reaction be of many Muslims throughout the world?  Will there be a rush of Mujahideen to Iran?  What side will various Muslim governments take?

Will a U.S. attack on Iran bring about the fall of many pro-U.S. Muslim governments.  If so, which side will the new governments take?  If the government of an oil-producing nation falls, will the new government continue or cease oil deliveries to the U.S. or to European countries?

What will the reaction of Pakistan be to an attack on Iran?  Will the current generals do nothing?  Will they be replaced in a coup by more hawkish officers?  Officers who will be quite willing to aim nuclear weapons at U.S. forces or even U.S. territory?

There are more Muslims living in India than in Pakistan.  Would Indian Muslims stage a coup and join in resisting a U.S. attack on Iran?  India also has nuclear weapons.

What side will Russia and China take?

If Iran is attacked, what will North Korea's reaction be?  It has been unpredictable and is not known for acting in its long-term interests.

I think it is safe to say that if the U.S. (or Israel) attacks Iran, many people will die who have nothing to do with the current Iranian government or its nuclear programs.  Also, I think it is safe to say that the negative repercussions of an attack will last for at least two generations and maybe even a century.

Meanwhile, for over two generations the U.S. has called the largest offensive military force in the world "defense".  At the same time. those who have been the biggest proponents of the military have done their best to sabotage a true defense - energy independence.  They have opposed many efforts for alternative fuels and for greater energy efficiency.

"When will they ever learn?"  "The answer is blowin' in the wind."  They didn't.

The Iranian Revolution Lives!!

AlJazeera has posted a 47-minute video of the ongoing struggle in Iran, "Letters from Iran".

It is not a pretty story given the brutality of the current regime, but there are cracks. A few in the regime are not happy with what is going on.

Given that hawks in the U.S. are once again raising an alarm about a nuclear-armed "enemy"., I've been mulling over who created the current regime in the first place. Well, not directly, but the CIA and others who wanted a compliant Iranian government overthrew the elected Mohammed Mossadegh to protect "our oil". The CIA was active in putting Shah Reza Pahlevi on the throne. The CIA also helped him by creating SAVAK, a hated secret police. When Khomenei took power, what happened to SAVAK?

While watching "Letters from Iran", I wondered if the Basiji would meet the same fate as those in SAVAK. Guess what, Khomeini converted them into SAVAMA, his own secret police. See "Why did Khomeini absorb the CIA's SAVAK?"

This leads me back to the topic I had been mulling over: You reap what you sow! The U.S. government decides that America's "interests" (not necessarily the long-term interests of the American people, but the short-term interests of certain corporations) must be protected. But the people in the target country don't necessarily agree with the intervention to "protect" those "interests". Eventually they rise up and overthrow the installed government. The result may be better, the result may be worse. In this case, for many Iranians, it was worse.

So, what happens if Israel or the U.S. attacks Iran? Who dies and why? Will only people who support the current regime die? Or will more innocent people die than have been killed by the "Islamic" "Republic"?

Oh, oh! Such attacks could have already started. I was going to end this entry with a reference to Tehran Bureau, a U.S.-based website now hosted by PBS. Its staff does its best to publish as much Iranian news as possible. One of the stories was "At Least 17 Dead After IRGC (Republican Guard) Blast".  Iranian authorities claimed the arms depot blast was an accident and that an investigation is underway. But at least one commenter thought that it may have been a U.S. or Israeli air strike.

It could be, the blast story has a link to "Israeli Source Claims Depot Blast Mossad/MKO Operation".

It will probably take weeks or months to sort out what really happened. Even then, who and what shall we really believe? Almost all involved have their own agenda and the truth is not part of those agendas.

A prime example of the stupidity of war

You won't get through this with dry eyes: "A Mideast Bond, Stitched of Pain and Healing", Ethan Bronner, New York Times, 2009-12-30.

An old troublemaker as a peacemaker

Muammar Qaddafi has written a very interesting op-ed piece in the New York Times, "The One-State Solution" for Israel and Palestine; he calls the proposed state Isratine.

He argues that there is already much co-operation between Jews and Palestinians with Arabs in politics in Israel and Israeli factories in Palestine.

Judge for yourself if he makes sense.

Do robots have rights? The ramifications of the answer

I was intrigued by the article in the latest issue of Wired: "Do humanlike machines deserve rights?"

It briefly described the latest Fisher-Price Elmo, Elmo Live, which kids readily relate to.

The Wired article also described some of the vicious things that people do to some of these life-like toys. It posed the question that if robotic devices become more human-like, should they have rights?

One commentator said that it is not what we are doing to the machines but what are we doing to ourselves.

Long ago I read that evil is treating other people as things. Are some of our things becoming so humanlike that we have a hard time distinguishing things from people? Or are some of our things so removed from humans that we don't even consider human beings in their use.

The 9/11 terrorists treated the people in the World Trade Center as things to be obliterated for their twisted goals. Some of the people in the World Trade Center treated people as things to be manipulated in the running of large corporations. Hamas treats Israelis as things, having no idea who their rockets hit. Israel considers the residents of Gaza as things who happen to be in the way of destroying Hamas. When a bomb strikes a building, is it only the handful of "bad guys" inside that are killed, or several kids that aren't even old enough to understand politics?

Country after country wants nuclear weapons so they can easily take care of their enemies. But who is the enemy? Do the vast majority of the people who would be obliterated by a nuclear weapon have anything to do with the grievances of the attacking country?

Hillary Rodham Clinton says she would obliterate Iran if it continues to develop nuclear weapons. How many Iranians are actually developing those weapons? Even if they support the development of those weapons, do they deserve to die because another country doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons?

We just had an inauguration in which God's guidance and help were invoked to help us through our various crises. But those who invoked God's guidance subscribe to the teachings of Jesus. Did Jesus not say "Love thy neighbor as thyself"? This has also been interpreted as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

If we don't want others to have nuclear weapons, should we? If we don't want 500-pound bombs slamming into our houses, should we slam bombs into other people's houses?

Peace in the middle east?

Daniel Terdiman thinks that cheaper desalinization might be the most pressing problem to solve (What innovations are most important to world's future?, CNET News, 2008-11-14). He also suggests that water access may be a more important issue between Israel and Syria.

If Israel could desalinate water and sell it cheaply to Syria, Jordan, and Palestine, it may make itself indispensible to the supposed enemies.

See also his Space Station residents to drink recycled urine", CNET News, 2008-11-14.