ERRANT MYTHOLOGY

Myth: "A rising tide lifts all boats."
Fact: It sinks the ones with leaky bottoms.
Example: The housing bubble made many loan people
and real estate people rich, and some homeowners
and investors. But a million families (and maybe
several million) will lose their homes in foreclosure,
and face bankruptcy.

Myth: "It's a level playing field."
Fact: Only 6% of children from families at the very
bottom economically move to the very top. (That's
from the Economic Mobility Project, research led by
the Pew Charitable Trust.) In other words, only 6%
of the poorests' boats catch the tide. The rest remain
stranded on the mud flats. Hardly an egalitarian
situation, as suggested by the level playing field myth.
Explanation: Single-parent families forced off welfare
deprive kids of supervision and homework help
because mom works three minimum-wage jobs to pay
rent and utilities. Over half of these kids drop out of
school at some point. A high percentage of them fall
into crime and/or get pregnant and repeat the cycle.
We would rather spend our tax money on prisons
rather than helping when it can do some good!

Myth: "The market system is fair and self-correcting."
Fact: It is neither! Enron and World Com were
plundered by greedy execs that were encouraged to
make destructive decisions by a system of executive
compensation fueled by greed that rewarded fraud.
As Paul Krugman points out (NYT 11/23/07 "Banks
Gone Wild"), that system of executive compensation
should have been reformed after those scandals, but
wasn't. It has, in fact, led now to the sub prime crisis
and the loss of many billions of dollars by the largest
Wall Street and banking firms. Krugman writes:
"Around 25 years ago, American business -- and the
American political system -- bought into the idea that
greed is good. Executives are lavishly awarded if the
companies they run seem successful: last year the
chief executives of Merrill and Citigroup were paid $48
million and $25.6 million, respectively. But if the
success turns out to have been an illusion -- well, they
still get to keep the money. Heads they win, tails we
lose. Not only is this grossly unfair, it encourages bad
risk-taking, and sometimes fraud. If an executive can
create the appearance of success, even for a couple of
years, he will walk away immensely wealthy. Mean-
while, the subsequent revelation that appearances were
deceiving is someone else's problem."

Myth: "Afghanistan is a huge success."
Fact: It's going to hell in a hand basket: the Taliban is
not only back in force, it is now a permanent presence
in 54% of the country! And the rest is in real danger
of falling into its hands, according to The Guardian
(11/21/07). We have poured in more than $15 billion
in aid since 2001, but little of it gets to the people. Much,
if not most of it goes to war lords directly (we buy their
help), or they get their hands on it through graft,
corruption, and other criminal activities. Nato has
40,000 troops there, but at least double that are
needed. Of that 40,000, about 15,000 are ours.
We are losing the hearts and minds battle, as well as
the military one. It might help to understand the
culture, and the real nature and causes of Islamic
hostility to the West! So far, our leaders haven't a clue.

HILLARY IS SCARY

My problems with Hillary are not only her
lack of candor and carelessness with truth.
Those are obvious and troubling, but fairly
common among politicos. My most serious
concern is with who is supporting her and
why.

She is popular with both Wall Street and the
Israel lobby. That is bad news for anyone
hoping for peace in the Middle East (M.E.).
Hillary is with the Israelis in getting tough
with Iran. There are strong indications that
will lead to war.

Wall Street likes war. It's good for business,
great for the economy (in the short run, where
they live.) The Street is happily married to the
military/industrial complex. (Can you say: "The
road to fascism"?) They prosper together, but
need war or the threat thereof to justify our
insanely bloated "defense" (really war) budget.

The Israel lobby wants us to become and remain
dominant in the M.E. That will require us to
maintain permanent bases there, along with the
more or less steady hostilities that will face us
with other folks in the region. What's in it for us?
Oil, of course, the only reason we went there in the
first place. Wall Street will be pleased, along with
Haliburton and the host of other war profiteers
feeding at the military trough.

Mr. Bush and his neo-cons are joined at the hip
with Israel. He called Mr. Sharon a "man of
peace," understanding full well that Sharon's plan
for peace has always been complete and total
subjugation and control over the Palestinians,
who would be (and are now being) reduced in
territory to a few disconnected Bantustans much
like the reservations for our native Americans.
Don't think, incidentally, that anything will
change under Hillary. She's as committed to
Israel as Bush ever was. Maybe more so, Bush
has close family (and business) ties with the
Saudis. Hil doesn't.

Turning now to another obsession of the neo-
cons: their rant about "Islamofascism." It's pure
hog-wash of the most mischievous and dangerous
kind. The term is an oxymoron, like "an army of
one." Fascism, historically, is a super-nationalistic
dictatorship supported and maintained in
power by a country's industrial and financial elite.
We ourselves are moving in that direction!
Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia all
show elements of fascism,but none of them are
hostile to us or expansionist in foreign policy.
They have no interest in establishing any kind
of "caliphate," as the neos claim.

Islam is fundamentally and thoroughly inter-
national. For Muslims, their religious identity
trumps any and every national identity. While
Iran is nationalistic, it is not expansionist (as
Fareed Zacharia pointed out in Newsweek
(Oct. 29, '07). It offers a helping hand to fellow
Shia in Iraq and Lebanon (Hezbollah) and to
Sunnis in Palestine (Hamas). But the Pales-
tinians are legitimately and heroically fighting
a brutal, illegal military occupation of their
homeland (the West Bank) by U. S.-supported
Israel.

Iran is as hostile to al Qaeda and the other
Sunni crazies (like the Taliban) as we are. It is
not anti-West, not seeking war, and is not anti-
Semitic. It's own Jewish population (25,000)
lives in peace and are represented in the Irani
parliament. They want friendly relations with
us, and have repeatedly sought unconditional
negotiations with us, only to be rudely ignored.
They are not in any way part of a so called
Islamofascist bloc or movement. They have no
interest in a "restored caliphate" of any kind.
If you are interested in Iran, their aims and
their history, and their brand of Islam, I highly
recommend The Shia Revival, by Vali Nasr.
He is an American Muslim, born in Iran, and
is conversant in all the languages of the M. E.,
where he travels extensively and has friends
high in most of the governments. His book is
becoming a classic.

Wall Street may not be happy long if we go to
war with Iran. They may stop or radically alter
the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. That could
increase the price of oil so much it throws us
into a world depression. It will pretty well unite
the one billion, six hundred million Muslims
in the world against us, and pour gasoline on
world-wide terrorism. Can we really afford
another George Bush, even if she's from New
York instead of Texas?