EFTA01154025.pdf

From: Gregory Brown To: undisclosed-recipients:; Bcc: jecvacation@gmail.com Subject: .Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.... 09/21/2014 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 07:11:48 +0000 Attachments: How_come_nobody_talks_about_the_Obama_bull_market_Michael_Hiltzik_LA_Times_Sept._8,_2014.docx; Obama Outperforms_Rcagan_On_Jobs,_Growth_And_Investing_Forbes_9.5.2014.docx; Obama? s_advaictages_as_a_relucumt_warrio_r_David_Ignatius_TWP_Sept._11,_2014.docx; The_Planct_Just_Had_lts_Warmest_August_On_Record_Huff Post_Sept._15,_2014.docx; Take_a_Decp_Breath_Thomas_Fricdman_NYT_09.25.2014.docx; Obama, in_Speech_on_ISIS,PromiscsSustainedEffonto_RoutMilitantsMarkLanderNYT09.10.2014.docx; Scottishindcpendence,_Whatwouldhavchappencdif Scotland_voted_Yes,_I've_gotarough_idcaz-Scan_Ogrady_The_Independent09.19.14.docx; Wilson_Picket_bio.doex Inline-Images: image.png; image(1).png; image(2).png; image(3).png; imagc(4).png; image(5).png; image(6).png; imagc(7).png; image(8).pn image(9).png; imagc(10).png; ionise( ).png; image(12).png DEAR FRIEND In life there are people who are cut from a different cloth and march to a different drummer. John Quincy Adams would be one and obviously Abraham Lincoln. Teddy Roosevelt more so than FDR. And for my conservative friends Barry Goldwater would be on this list. One would have to include LBJ who realized that by righting the wrongs of segregation his Democrats would lose the South for generations to come. And today, I would like to add Senator Elizabeth Warren to this august list of out-liners and iconoclast. Not for what she has done as much as for what she is doing today. In Oklahoma, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and her brothers grew up in "an America that invested in kids like us and helped build afuture where we could flourish." But, as she writes in her memoir, A Fighting Chance, "Today the game is rigged — rigged to workfor those who have money andpower... The optimism that defines us as a people has been beaten and bruised. It doesn't have to be this way." Warren, a former Harvard Law School professor, is an expert on how Wall Street and the banking industry are destroying the middle class. She's put that knowledge to powerful use on Capitol Hill, rapidly becoming the most authoritative and articulate voice of the Democratic Party's progressive wing. Many are urging her to run for president and I for one believes that she would be a great President. Her mantra to everyone who will listen is, "to ask oftheir senators, to ask oftheir congressman or congresswoman: whose side are you on?Are you therefor the folks who are out there trying to workfora living, or are you just therefor the millionaires and billionaires? Because she believes that the only chance we've (the collective Americans) got is if thosefamilies will turn back to their government and say, 'I demand that you workfor me, notfor the billionaires, notfor the millionaires. That you workfor me.'" This month in an interview on Moyers & Company Here are some excerpts.... Web Link: WARREN: The middle class has been pushed right to the edge. They are on a cliff. And increasing numbers are falling off every single day. Families live in a much more dangerous economic world than they did a generation ago. They're moms and dads who worked hard, played by the rules. They went to college. They bought a house. They had kids. And then they ended up in financial collapse. MOYERS: --that first talk, and the middle class is still struggling. In fact, their income, adjusted for inflation is lower than it was five years ago, and they've lost about three percent of their purchasing power since then. Yet stocks are soaring, the economy is expanding, and the benefits are not going to the middle class families. Why EFTA01154025 can't Washington do better by them? WARREN: So I think Washington doesn't do better by them because Washington isn't trying to do better by them. If you look at Washington as a whole, I think this is the fundamental problem in our system right now. Washington works for those who can hire armies of lobbyists, armies of lawyers, and get just the rules they want. It doesn't work so well for American families. Look, we know the things we need to do. Raise the minimum wage. Nobody should work full time and still live in poverty. Minimum wage nationally hasn't been raised in over seven years. We need to make suit that we have real rules on equal pay for equal work. We need to lower the interest rate on student loans. In every case, we in the United States Senate have a majority. All of the Democrats have voted in favor of this. And occasionally, we even pick up a Republican. The Republicans have filibustered in the Senate. They won't even bring things to a vote in the House of Representatives. This is really a case where one party has said, the usual rules of governing, you know, we'll come together, we'll try to talk about these things, we'll try to work something out, their answer is no, no, no. They're not there to help middle class families. MOYERS: But isn't part of the problem that the Democratic Party is divided between its corporate Democrats, I mean, right now, more corporate and business associations, PACs, Political Action Committees, are contributing to Democrats in seven states, where the race is close this fall, than they are to the Republican challengers. Isn't the Democratic Party so divided between its progressive wing and its corporate wing that it can't really act in concert? WARREN: Well, actually, I disagree. MOYERS: Okay. WARREN: Am I unhappy with the influence of money in Washington? You bet I am. But look at these issues. We had every single Democrat who said, it's time to raise the minimum wage. Every single Democrat who said, and listen to this, it is more important to cut the interest rate on student loans than it is to protect tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires. Every single Democrat who said, equal pay for equal work matters. I should throw in one more. Every single Democrat who said, your employers, it's none of your employers' business what kind of birth control you're using. So it's-- we've got to build on our successes. And these are successes. Not in the sense that we've gotten them through yet. But in the sense that we've pulled together, we've focused on them, and we've said, these are the things that Democrats stand for. We're going to make sure Americans get a fair shot. We're going to get out there and fight for America, and these are ways that we can do it. And we've all stood up behind that. MOYERS: But if Democrats really had their act together, if they weren't, as so many people think, apparently feckless, wouldn't that message be in every speech, every ad, every campaign across the country right now? Couldn't, shouldn't they be running a national campaign on raising the minimum wage? Mich is supported by 70 percent of the public? WARREN: We have a lot of new people in the Senate in particular. And a lot of new ideas for how we should be pushing to build an America going forward. Let me put it this way, because this is how I see it. There are two key things that we need to build a country, to rebuild our middle class. The first is that we need a set of rules that just works. We knew this coming out of the Great Depression. Nobody should be able to steal your purse on Main Street, and no one should be able to steal your pension on Wall Street. We need tough rules so that financial markets are fair, so that they're transparent, so you don't get cheated. That's one part of it. The second part of it is that we have to agree together to build the things that only government can build. And I think ofit this way. The things that help us build a future, we have to make the investments in education so that every kid gets a fighting chance. We have to make the investments in basic infrastructure, in roads and bridges and power grids and all those things. And the third thing, we have to commit to and build again is our investment in research. This is what has made us such an extraordinary people. I talk about these because together, this is how we build a future. It takes lots of individual initiative, lots of people who make good decisions; some people will make bad decisions. But this is the part, the core that gives us the opportunity to build a future. And we need to be committed to that. MOYERS: But can you get that commitment if you don't have an open debate on the very issues you talk about? I mean, is it healthy? I believe you when you say you have no plans to run for president. I don't think you really want to run for president. But isn't it essential for a party to debate those issues within its own ranks? WARREN: --but it's why when you talk about— do we need to do better? Do Democrats need to do better? Of course we need to do better. Of course we do. But look at the danger these guys are poshng. We have got to make these differences clear and we've got to get people enraged to say, wait a minute, I'm not voting for somebody like Mitch McConnell who says it is more important to protect billionaires than it is to protect kids who are trying to go to college. EFTA01154026 MOYERS: It seems to me there's something official Washington won't talk about including many progressives. John Maynard Keynes, the great economist of the last century said quote *The same rule ofself-destructivefinancial calculation governs every walk oflife. We destroy the beauty ofthe countryside because the unappropriated splendors ofnature have no economic value. We are capable ofshutting offthe sun and the stars because they do not pay a dividend." And isn't it the case that we're likewise shutting out millions of Americans who work hard for a living, can't find a decent job at a living wage because our political and our financial elites consider dividends more important than the lived experience of real people? WARREN: I think that's right. I think that's exactly where we are in this country right now. And I think this is what we're trying to fight back. You know, I frame this as the question of how we build a future. And I talk about the investments we make together. And how those investments give every kid a fighting chance. That that's what we're supposed to do. We're supposed to build opportunity. This is about our children and our grandchildren. This is about the kind of country we want to be. This is about the kind of people we are. We aren't a people who are just blind in the pursuit of profits. That's not who we are. And we can't let-- those among us who are control our government and direct our country. If those are the people they want to be, so be it. But our government is supposed to be there to work for us, for all of us, for this whole country, to help build a future, not for some of our kids, but for all of our kids. That is our moral responsibility. That's what we are required to do. We are called to do this. MOYERS: I recommend people read "it Fighting Chance,"your latest book. But I tell you, I go back quite often to "The Two-Income Trap" which is what we talked about ten years ago. WARREN: We did. MOYERS: Why middle class parents are going broke. And ten years after you wrote this-- ten years after we knew this was a burning issue and you predicted that we were going to have a crisis in America if we didn't deal with it, it's worse. WARREN: You know, Bill, there are pieces we have to remember that have gotten better. We've got a consumer agency fighting on our side. We've-- we-- but it is worse. It's worse because families are pressed harder than ever. Families are squeezed right to the edge all over this country. The only chance we've got is if those families will turn back to their government and say, I demand that you work for me, not for the billionaires, not for the millionaires. That you work for me. That you put a set of rules in place that give me a chance, that give my children a chance, that give my grandchildren a chance. That's our only hope for this country. And I tell you, we're getting down to the eleventh hour on this. We can't take much more of this. We can't shut the government down again and just blow through billions of dollars for nothing. And shake the confidence of the rest of the world that looks around and says, what's happened to the United States? Here was this optimistic, prosperous country that is so intent on an internal political fight that it won't even take care of itself much less lead the rest of the world. We can do better than that and we must do better than that. My father use to say to only pull a gun out in an argument when there is an immediate threat and then understand by doing so, you have loss the argument. I say this because having just returned from London where there is a concern over what NATO should do to support Ukraine against its quarrels with Russia and then returning back home to the US where television news pundits are fanning the flames for war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Unless NATO members are willing to fight on Ukraine's behalf, the alliance should refrain from meddling, tacitly acknowledging the existence of a Russian sphere of influence, much as it did in 1956 regarding Hungary and in 1968 with Czechoslovakia. I realize that some of those incidents are seen as failures but proud moments in freedom's march onward. Because when playing the long game — the presence of Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are in the ranks of today's NATO testifies to that truth. Of course, there is a logic to what NATO is doing. It is based on the inertia of the Cold War, fueled by an economic crisis. This means that instead of transforming economic and social structures, European leadership is throwing more resources into a system that doesn't work. And this means expansion and conflict. So rather than further provoking Russia by suggesting that NATO's eastward expansion will continue, the alliance should remove any doubts about its willingness to defend the territory it currently claims. Doing so requires more than brave speeches and more than creating a modest "rapid reactionforce," which will inevitably look more impressive on paper than in reality. And putting troops in Poland and the Baltic Republics to intimidate Vladimir Putin, which some European hawks are suggesting will only validate his (sometimes justified) paranoia. As Boris Kagarlitsky wrote last week in a op-ed in the New York Times, the debate about the role ofNATO in Ukraine is starting too late: Western leaders already made a fatal decision to back the new Kiev government no matter what it is doing and no matter what the real situation is on the ground. That means that they will bear responsibility for the inevitable failures and disasters that will follow. We can debate whether what happened in Kiev in February zom was an uprising or a coup =, EFTA01154027 but one thing is dear: Ousted President Viktor Yanukovich was elected legally and democratically in a competitive election. He was corrupt, no doubt about it, but there are plenty of corrupt leaders in the West. Western logic toward Ukraine is based on the inertia of the Cold War, fueled by an economic crisis. NATO involvement will mean more conflict. Of course, Western press blames Russia for what is happening in Ukraine — it is easier to do that than to analyze a complex situation or to recognize Western leaders' own errors. And blaming President Vladimir Putin is also easy because it is true that Russia is in no way a model of democracy. The country has a well-known record of electoral fraud and plenty of political prisoners. A year ago, Ukraine represented a merging democratic model for the post-Soviet region. But now, since the November 2013 coup, the country has its share of political prisoners, death squads and electoral fraud. As for the scale of corruption, the current Kiev government seems worse than the Yanukovich administration. For two months, the Ukrainian army bombed Donetsk and Luhansk without even offering them any humanitarian corridor or letting aid workers and journalists in. While the international community is rightly unhappy with Israel's operations in Gaza, much worse is happening in eastern Ukraine with little protest. The West is wrong to see President Putin and his entourage as the enemies. These people in power in Moscow are as liberal and pro-Western as they can be given the current mood in Russia. Their only goal is to be friends of the West, and to send their children and their money to London and Zurich. They even supply the Ukrainian army with spare parts for tanks and helicopters that are being used to fight against pro-Russian Donetsk forces and Russian volunteers. If there is to be a change of government and a free election in Russia, a leadership will emerge that will be far more hostile to the West and less liberal than Putin. Back in the United States, President Barack Obama is being pressured by both Republicans and Democrats across the country to at least bomb ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria, and for the hawks he should send troops to combat the Sunni jihadists who call themselves the Islamic State and somehow a national security threat. Even uber- liberal Chris Matthew has joined the chorus demanding that if Congress refuses to vote for a war against ISIS, President Obama "should take thefight to Islamic State in Iraq andSyria. ISIS, the group that has been beheading ourfellow citizens." The key to winning the battle against ISIS, analysts say, starts with the courting countries in the region. Me most important element of this coalition is the local and the regional: said Fawaz Gerges, chairman ofMiddle Eastern studies at the London School of Economics. The US. and allies won't put boots on the ground.... The Iraqis, Kurds, andSyrians will basically be doing thefighting." Defeating the group known for horrific acts of terror -- seizing towns, slaughtering civilians, beheading many people including journalists -- will demand much more than military action, said Gerges. "The most important element is to deny ISIS its social oxygen." ISIS has blended in with local communities "toportray itselfas defender,"he said. Stopping ISIS means convincing Sunni Arabs — who have felt disaffected by the Iraqi government -- that ISIS is an enemy. The goal is to "drive a wedge between local Sunni communities andISIS," Gerges said. To that end, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, which are Sunni states, can play a critical role, Gerges said. They're home to many Sunnis, including former Iraqi military officers who fled after the U.S. invasion in 2003. "I bet you US., Saudi and Jordanian officials are working 24 hours a day to try to convince these leaders tojoin their alliance, and to in turn convince their counterparts to stand up against the Islamic State." "Saudi Arabia is the only authority in the region with the power and legitimacy to bring ISIS down,"two analysts write in The New York Times. The country "effectively eradicated al Qaeda in the kingdom," write Nawaf Obaid of Harvard's Belfer Center and Saud al-Sarhan of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies. It also "has a uniqueform ofreligious credibility and legitimacy,"sinee Saudi Arabia is the epicenter of Islam. Having Saudi Arabia "in the lead can only add to the legitimacy of the campaign against ISIL," said Dennis Ross, a former U.S. ambassador who is now with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "The Arab states in this campaign must alsoprovide military support — involvingforces, arms, training and subsidiesfor the tribes, intelligence, and diplomatic and even religious efforts to discredit ISIL." These efforts could bring about an alignment between Saudi Arabia and Iran in fighting the militants, said Stephen Biddle, a political science professor at George Washington University. "The Middle East is characterized by a welter of conflicting fault lines and interests," he said. When Muslim nations have aligned along Sunni and Shia lines, Saudi Arabia and Iran moved further apart, 'and infect waged a proxy war against each other." Now, Biddle said, new fault lines pit radical groups against authoritarian governments threatened by them -- and on that, the two nations could come together. The Iranians havefar more battle experience, particularly with asymmetric warfare, as well asfighting against guerrilla forces,"he said. The United States and Iran have a mutual interest in seeing ISIS defeated, and they should work together. The good news for President Obama is that the political winds have change as 47% of Americans say that they feel less safe than before 9/11. And as a result 61% of Amencans say that they support military action in Syria because it is in our national interest. Still, the idea that ISIS is a threat to U.S.' national security is ridiculous. Their stated goal is to create an Islamic state covering Iraq, Syria and parts of Lebanon, Jordon, Israel and Saudi Arabia, as well as parts of Turkey. With those countries as both targets and enemies, it is impossible to imagine that ISIS will continue to grow or even survive. War is ugly. Beheadings have been part of war and society for thousands of years. And to believe that ISIS is a major threat to the United States' national security because of beheadings is ridiculous. And as ridiculous, would be to restart the Cold War because the Europeans and Americans over-played their hands in the Ukraine. When are we here in the United States gonna to start playing the long game and stop being seated into every conflict. We live in a country where more than it,000 Americans die as a result of gun violence, yet a majority in Congress see no reason to enact stronger gun control laws, so why are we so squeamish over a bunch of beheadings. War is ugly.... Is ugly when there are beheadings and it is ugly when there are bombings and it is ugliest when it is hand to hand combat or street to street. ISIS/ISIL is an ugly scourge in our society and like any cancer it should be eradicated. But this has to be done by those closest taking the lead and not waiting for America to fight their fight. As important, while the cancer is being cleanse the countries at issue have to address the systemic problems that enable for organizations like ISIS/ISIL to attract followers. There will always be crazies but when crazies become Spartacus there is usually an underlying reason. And these reasons now have to be seriously addressed in the Middle East. Not by the Americans and Europeans but by the leadership in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait UAE and Qatar, as well as Iran and Turkey and of course Israel These are the players in the region and regional conflicts require regional solutions.... EFTA01154028 I somehow got into dance, mostly modern dance in the to6os. First of all for all of the wrong reasons.... Female dancers.... But I soon came to appreciate dance in all forms. I followed Alvin Ailey of course, as well as, Joth Liman, Martha Graham, Robert Joffrey Louis Falco, Merce Cunningham, Fred Benjamin, Katherine Dunham, Twyla Tharp, the American Ballet Theatre and the New York City Ballet to mention a few. I was privileged to enjoy the mastery of Judith Jamison, Mikhail Baryshnikov, Gregory Hines, the incomparable Rudolf Nureyev dancing with Prima Ballerina Dame Margot Fonteyn, dancer turned choreographer George Faison and Harold Nicholas who with his older brother Fayard were probably the greatest tap dancers ever.... And this is not being disrespectful to Bill "Bolting/es" Robinson who started in the age of minstrel shows, moving to vaudeville, Broadway, the recording industry, Hollywood, radio and television and broke more racial barriers than almost anyone else in the world of entertainment. I was a regular at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, City Center, Westbeth, Broadway and Lincoln Center when I could afford it. And like many, by the iolios I thought that both modern dance and ballet was dying if not dead. Inspired by Dick Clark and of course, Soul Train I went on to create the international dance show Discomania in the early mos that was followed by an number of other syndicate television shows including Dance Fever and Dance Party. And although club dancing from The Paradise Garage to Studio 54 to Xenon to the Latin clubs in the South Bronx and the explosion of the break dancing phenomenon that developed in inner- city neighborhoods across the country in the to8os and of course music videos, but it is today's television dancing shows, Dancing with the Stars and So You Think You Can Dance that has created the current resurgence of dance in America. Four years ago when I was first turned on to So You Think You Can Dance, not only was I amazed by the quality of the dancing but its choreography and production values were like going from black & white to color television. Ever since I have become a loyal fan. Last weekend I did a binge viewing of this (t tth) season's So You Think You Con Dance, I was blown away by just how good everythins was in every way. The young dancers who made it to the top twenty were all wonderful and the top four were spectacular. The choreography was inventive and sometimes thought provoking. And the production value was as good as it gets.... As such I would love to share several videos from So You Think That You Can Dance for your enjoyment and hopefully you will become a fan if you are not already.... Valerie & Zack: Performance in the Top 4 to a piece choreograph by Tyce (Norio to the music, Pearls by Sade Web Link: htipionutu.bei8jUKemOR3tt Top Ten Routines from So You Think You Can Dance, Season 7 Web Link: bitp.ilymiladagaaLLSZWEISS BEST TAP DANCE NUMBER EVER? EFTA01154029 While I was researching this piece I came across this video from the Nicholas Brothers preforming in the Hollywood movie Stormy Weather, as this example of their dancing shows that they may have been the best that ever was The Nichols Brothers.... From the movie: STORM' WEATHER 1943 Web Link: httpsi/www youtube romirwatch7v•DF3ligki9g1g It is said that no less an authority on dance than Fred Astaire once said that this was in his opinion the best dance number ever put on film. One thing for sure, the Nicholas Brothers were without a doubt the best Tap Dance team ever, case closed. I have included the entire number including Cab Calloway's opening vocal. The dance starts at about the 1:3o mark Peer to peer fx payment platform gaining traction allows customers to exchange euros, US dollars and sterling at the midpoint of the interbank buy and sell rates, by matching the amount it receives in one currency with the amount it receives in the other. oint the evolution of exchange If you like me make any kind of international money transfer into a foreign currency, you might be interested in a service that a friend of mine pioneered called Midpoint. The idea which is finally getting some traction after a couple of false starts is to match people who have different international payment needs by linking them on a netting platform. The business has a US patent on its computerized business method of multi-currency, multi-party matching and the net upshot is that a user can save 8o% or more off what they might otherwise pay a bank. The trick is that users are always matched at the midpoint of the interbank bid-offer spread for their relevant currency pair for a small fee. Because it is completely transparent and does not require pre-funding, users save money even more money. Money is as safe as the safest banking alternative because funds are all kept in segregated trust account at major banks in the clients name so they never take credit risk on Midpoint. If you want to know more it is publicly listed on the Canadian Venture Exchange under the ticker MPT and can be found on the web at R47 ID EFTA01154030  The Slippery Slope Begins You would think that the smart people in our country would learn from previous mistakes. Obviously they don't, as there are people in both major parties are egging on President Obama to put "boots on the ground"aspart of his announcement to the American people fight against the Islamic State — a vicious Sunni militant group known as ISIS or ISIL that is terrorizing parts of Iraq and Syria — would not mean a commitment of American ground troops. its I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission,"he said. But the Obama administration has a dilemma when it comes to the war in Iraq and Syria. On the one hand, the President desperately wants to persuade the public that the war will be limited, and that there will be no U.S. combat troops on the ground there. On the other hand, top administration officials have set the goal of "degrading and destroying"ISIS and have called it an "imminent threat to every interest we have." At a hearing this week with the Senate Armed Services Committee on U.S. policy in Iraq and Syria gave some insight into whether the administration will be able to wage a limited war against what it claims is a virtually unlimited threat. The first and perhaps most important revelation was from Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, who indicated that he would not hesitate to recommend that the president send in ground troops should the situation warrant it. So, the pledge of "no ground troops"is now "no ground troops unless we decide to send in ground troops." Dempsey was careful to suggest that if he were to recommend the use of ground forces -- or "dose combat advisers,"as he called them in one instance -- it would be on a "case-by-case basis." But the cases where he might seek approval for combat troops seemed like they could easily arise. One example was if ISIS recaptured the dam in Mosul and U.S. troops were needed to help get it back. Another was rescuing any U.S. pilot shot down in enemy territory. Even as the risk of putting ground troops into the middle of a war zone grows, the air war is accelerating. Bloomberg News has reported on the first "offensive"U.S. air strikes of the war. And at a Senate hearing on the same day, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) raised another possibility -- air strikes against the Assad regime in Syria in retaliation for attacks they might make on U.S.-trained forces there. While Gen. Dempsey tried to duck the question, but the Associated Press reported that the administration has already contemplated such a response. And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) raised the prospect of needing to use U.S. ground troops to "dig" ISIS out of Syria, suggesting that no allied security force would be up to the task. Dempsey expressed confidence that U.S. forces would not be needed to defeat ISIS in Syria, but he offered no persuasive evidence as to why that would be the case. But the real issue, is that destroying ISIS/ISIL/the Islamic State, does not and will not address the underlying conditions that allowed the current situation to happen because as Thomas Friedman wrote this week in an op-ed in the New York Times — there is an existential struggle is taking place in the Arab world today and it is theirs not ours. And what concern him and me most about President Obama's decision to re-engage in Iraq is that it feels as if it's being done in response to some deliberately exaggerated fears — fear engendered by YouTube videos of the beheadings of two U.S. journalists — and fear that ISIS, a.k.a., the Islamic State, is coming to a mall near you. How did we start getting so afraid again so fast? Didn't we build a Department of Homeland Security? Obviously we should not dismiss ISIS. The President is right that ISIS needs to be degraded and destroyed. But when you act out of fear, you don't think strategically and you glide over essential questions, like why is it that Shiite Iran, which helped trigger this whole Sunni rebellion in Iraq, is scoffing at even coordinating with us, and Turlcey and some Arab states are setting limits on their involvement? And as Friedman wrote: When I read that, I think that Nader hfousavizadeli, who co-leads the global consulting firm Macro Advisory Partners, is correct when he says: "When it comes to intervening in the Arab world's existential struggle, we have to stop and ask ourselves why we have such a challenge getting them to help us save them.- So before we get in any deeper, let's ask some radical questions, starting with: What if we did nothing? But is ISIS really a problem for the United States? "The American interest is not just stability but the existence of a dynamic balance of power in which all players are effectively paralyzed so that no one who would threaten the United States emerges.... But the principle of balance of power does not mean that balance must be maintained directly. Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia have far more at stake in this than the United States. So long as they believe that the United States will attempt to control the situation, it is perfectly rational for them to back off and watch, or act in the margins, or even hinder the Americans. The United States must turn this from a balance of power between Syria and Iraq to a balance of power among this trio of regional powers. They have far more at stake and, absent the United States, they have no choice but to involve themselves. They cannot stand by and watch a chaos that could spread to them. Therefore, doing as little as possible and forcing regional powers into the fray, then in maintaining the balance of power in this coalition.- This may not be the right answer, but it's worth debating. 'fern's another question: What's this war really about? EFTA01154031 "This is a war over the soul ofIslam — that is what differentiates this momentfrom all others,"argues Ahmad Khalidi, a Palestinian scholar associated with St. Antony's College, Oxford. Here is why: For decades, Saudi Arabia has been the top (under of the mosques and schools throughout the Muslim world that promote the most puritanical version of Islam, known as Salafism, which is hostile to modernity, women and religious pluralism, or even Islamic pluralism. Saudi financing for these groups is a byproduct of the ruling bargain there between the al-Saud family and its Salafist religious establishment, known as the Wahhabis. The al-Sauds get to rule and live how they like behind walls, and the Wahhabis get to propagate Salafist Islam both inside Saudi Arabia and across the Muslim world, using Saudi oil wealth. Saudi Arabia is, in effect, helping to fund both the war against ISIS and the Islamist ideology that creates ISIS members (some 1,000 Saudis are believed to befighting withjihadist groups in Syria), through Salafist mosques in Europe, Pakistan, Central Asia and the Arab world. But this game has reached its limit. First, because ISIS presents a challenge to Saudi Arabia. ISIS says it is the "caliphate,"the center ofIslam. Saudi Arabia believes it is the center. And, second, ISIS is threatening Muslims everywhere. Saudi Arabia cannot continue fighting ISIS and feeding the ideology that nurtures ISIS.It will hurt more and more Muslims. We, too, have to stop tolerating this. For years, the U.S. has "played the role ofthe central bank ofMiddle East stability," noted blousavir.adelt. Just as the European Central Bankfunding delays the day that France has to go through structural reforms, America's security umbrella," always there no matter what the Saudis do, "has delayed the day that Saudi Arabia has toface up to its internal contradictions,"and reform its toxic ruling bargain. The future of Islam and our success against ISIS depend on it. So now we're off to war again. For the third time in a decade, the United States will be bombing people in the Islamic world, killing Muslims and wondering as we dump yet another payload into the sands of Afghanistan, Iraq, or coming soon, Syria, why those people down there hate us so. The U.S. Congress has voted to do this, sort of. What they agreed to vote on was the arming of the Free Syrian Army, the people we hope will be fighting on our side. They refused to vote, at least until after the election, on the air strikes we are already delivering over Iraq and will soon be delivering over Syria. But let's get to the next new war. A war that in many ways is a civil war where we are trying to be supportive of both sides. Yes zokes a dangerous time but a lot more dangerous in certain places in the world than others. Sure, anything can happen. But if you take the position that it will happen, the worst case scenario, that is, you'll never get in a car and certainly not on an airplane. You'll just lock yourself in the house and watch the moo news and the latest crime reports just to get yourself a little more scared when you go to bed that night or as a friend describes... the murder and mayhem reports.... And yes that's one way to live. But America, this country certainly wasn't built that way. As such, should we be held hostage because halfway around the world a bunch of crazies are trying to goat us into war with them, using the spectacle of public beheadings of a small number of westerners Resulting in calls for war because these same crazies are somehow about to come to America to provoke unbelievable havoc. Think about it even if several do make it to our shores how much destruction do you really believe that they will be able to do? It bothers me deeply to have people worry aloud about ISIS coming to get them personally -- I'm talking to the 14 percent who told pollsters they are seriously afraid of getting hit by terrorists themselves. Do they really believe these characters over there in Syria and Iraq have their own personal number? Do they? Is there a reasonable chance that your number is up because of what's going on in the desert of Arabia right now? I know the political hucksters love pushing the fear the button. They exalt in that word "homeland", that ominous term cooked up by the neocons to drive as off to the stupidest decision in history to go into Iraq, with the bugles blowing and the ideologues brimming with talk of converting the Arab Mideast into pleasant members of the United Nations, friendly neighbors of Israel, and oh, yes, moderate democracies. But that talk was for a purpose of getting us into a stupid war. What's the purpose now? Why push the Armageddon button now? Could it be that scaring people is one way to justify just about anything right wing, anything that exploits military force, anything that turns the United States into a relentless military presence, a machine really, in the Middle East, an endless adversary and killer of Arabs and other Muslims. People who do this can call themselves anything -- neocons, hawks, patriots, etc. What they are not are reliable stewards of American foreign policy. And what they are offering is not a solution as it only treats the symptom and not the underlying issues that created and feeds the current situation. Finally the fact that our leaders are talking up war which today is as stupid as it was in 194, Viet Nam and Bush/Cheney's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and many other conflicts that are too numerous to mention as this is my rant ofthe week WEEK's READINGS Why Big Business and Industry are so negative on President °barna? EFTA01154032  Two weeks ago when the SSP 500 crossed 2,000 for the that time, you would have notched a 148% gain if you had bought stocks on the day of President Obama's Inauguration. Above, the New York Stock Exchange last week. You have to wonder why Big Business and industry are so negative on President Obama especially when they have been the beneficiaries of one of the greatest bull markets in history, except that nobody seems to call it that. Big business continues to grouse about the White House, as it has done pretty much nonstop since Jan. 20, 2009. The very day after the S&P record close (the index closed Monday at 2,001.54) came yet another attack on Obama's policies by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce this one a largely evidence-free assertion that the Affordable Care Act has incentivized employers to hire port-time workers overfull-time ones? Neither the Bureau of Labor Statistics nor the Congressional Budget Office has found signs of this effect, which is a favorite right-wing shibboleth. The hostility of business and industry to Obama has become a byword over the years, from plutocrats complaining about being disrespected to bankers complaining that they're woefully misunderstood. Yet judging by the stock market's performance, no President has been as good for the capital markets since Bill Clinton (who also was detested by the business community). By some measures Obama also handily outranks that beacon of Republican business-friendliness, Ronald Reagan. Presidents at day 2,000 Danocratsn.2•11111020•M Aynge sleCk pan Ma' 2.000 Own 1933 to prownt 171.1% 142-1% r.. I OTI u ir. Rs.^ blows* • of TttrI1 * lel r;,t ,- 114 P ”ilat IMO Fin* Here are some rough figures to ponder: After their full eight years in office, Clinton had presided over a run-up in the S&P 500 of about 210%; Reagan 118%. Obama hasn't served his full term yet, of course, but as of Monday's close the S&P is showing a gain of 148%. If the market remains flat from here or gains, Obama will also have outrun Dwight Eisenhower, who notched a 129% gain during his term. Obamabeats Reagan and trails only Clinton among postwar presidents in many partial- term measures, too. At day 2,000 of his term, as was calculated by Russ Britt of MarketWatch in July, the stock market had gained 142%; for Reagan it was up about 88% and for Clinton 176% at the same stage. And the booby prize belongs to George W. Bush, down about 39% during his term. Obama also outperforms Reagan on jobs, growth and investing. And although August's labor statistics revealed that the country only added 142,000 jobs last month but after six consecutive months of more than 200,000 jobs, even if the numbers stay at the August level America will create more than 2.5 million new jobs in 2014 and almost to million new jobs since President Obama took office on January 20, 2009. The other good news is that jobless claims were just over 300,000; lowest since 2007. This is the best private sector jobs creation performance in American history. President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President for Conservative Republicans. So a fair comparison would be the Reagan economy's performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 198os with that of President Obama and his performance during this 'Great Recession.' As this unemployment chart shows below, President Obarna's job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan. President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his sixth year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite todays number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration. And economist forecast unemployment will fall to around 5.4% by summer, 2015. A rate President Reagan was unable to achieve during his two terms. EFTA01154033  Unemployment Rate Under President Reagan and President Obama V,YTWT,VM gwint ann . .)11•06.• Jim Much has been made about the poor results of the labor participation rate, which has shown more stubborn recalcitrance as this rate remains higher even as jobs have grown. The labor participation rate adds in jobless part time workers and those in marginal work situations with those seeking full time work. This is not a bidden" unemployment. It is a measure tracked since 19oo and called 'U6: today by the BLS. As this chart shows below, the difference between reported unemployment and all unemployment - including those on the fringe of the workforce — has remained pretty constant since 1994. Labor participation is affected much less by short-term job creation, and much more by long-term demographic trends. As this chart from the BLS shows, as the Baby Boomers entered the workforce and societal acceptance of women working changed, labor participation grew. Now that 'Boomers are retiring we are seeing the percentage of those seeking employment decline. This has nothing to do with job availability, and everything to do with a highly predictable aging demographic. What's now clear is that the Obama administration policies have outperformed the Reagan administration policies for job creation and unemployment reduction. Even though Reagan had the benefit of a growing Boomer class to ignite economic growth, while Obama has been forced to deal with a retiring workforce developing special needs. During the eight years preceding Obama there was a net reduction in jobs in America. We now are rapidly moving toward higher, sustainable jobs growth." Economic growth, including manufacturing, is driving jobs. When President Obama took office America was gripped in an offshoring boom, started years earlier, pushing jobs to the developing world. Manufacturing was declining in America, and plants were closing across the nation. This week the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) released its manufacturing report, and it surprised nearly everyone. The latest Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) scored 59, two points higher than July and about that much higher than prognosticators expected. This represents 63 straight months of economic expansion, and 25 consecutive months of manufacturing expansion. New orders were up 3.3 points to 66.7, with t5 consecutive months of improvement and reaching the highest level since April, good - five years prior to Obama becoming President. Not surprisingly, this ec