Mukasey -- The Orthodox Jew Who Is A Disgrace To Our Religion -- Again Protects Evil.

July 31, 2008

Re: Mukasey -- The Orthodox Jew Who Is A Disgrace
To Our Religion -- Again Protects Evil.


On December 14, 2007 I wrote a post that assailed Michael Mukasey for a statement -- that he doesn’t know if waterboarding is torture -- which was a sheer disgrace for someone born into his religion, the same one I was born into, and whose parents were Russian Jewish immigrants who fled evil, as were mine. A difference between us, of course, is that he went to an Orthodox Jewish prep school and his wife was the headmistress at an Orthodox Jewish school, while I went to public schools and for practical purposes have never practiced religion. Another difference is that he seems to be the kind of guy who does what it takes to get ahead in the conventional world; he became, after all, a federal judge and then Attorney General for the Axe of Evil.

Yesterday I read a piece about Mukasey in the July 28-August 3 issue of The National Weekly Edition of the Washington Post. Obviously speaking of Democrats’ desires for an investigation of torture, the Post, immediately after saying that Mukasey had appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the destruction of CIA torture tapes, said this: “He has resisted Democrats’ other requests in part by arguing that their allegations are thin and that coercive questioning strategies were blessed by administration lawyers at the time.”

Is the Post kidding? Did he really say what the Post claims he said? If he did, is Mukasey kidding? The allegations supposedly are thin? Has he read any of the numerous books and articles which now have detailed much of what occurred? Gimme a break. This jerk knows the allegations of torture are overwhelming, not thin. If he said what the Post claims, he was deliberately lying. Is that what they teach you to do in Orthodox Judaism? It would be hard to believe.

And how about the claim that he won’t act because “coercive questioning strategies were blessed by administration lawyers at the time.” Those strategies were not blessed by all administration lawyers. As books and articles make clear, some strongly opposed them. The military JAGs, two of the civilian general counsels of the services (notably Alberto Mora), a State Department lawyer, an FBI man with a legal degree named Clemente, and others whose names and/or positions don’t trip quickly off my tongue (for which I apologize).

The truth is that not all Government lawyers favored torture. But there was a small group who did favor it, and who hijacked the Government’s decisionmaking process with the approval of such as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith (himself a lawyer) and other high officials. The hijacking lawyers included the likes of Yoo, Gonzalez, Addington, Chertoff, Bybee, Haynes, Bradford, apparently Rizzo and Philbin, Goldsmith (who is managing to get himself white-washed), and others, who of course were urged on by nonlawyers and acted in secrecy -- including secrecy that deliberately kept their conduct from the knowledge of other lawyers who would have been likely to oppose (or further oppose) what they were doing. This all was put brilliantly by Andrew Bacevich in a recent review of Jane Mayer’s new book, The Dark Side. As Bacevich wrote:

With the appearance of this very fine book, Hillary Clinton can claim a belated vindication of sorts: A right-wing conspiracy does indeed exist, although she misapprehended its scope and nature. The conspiracy is not vast and does not consist of Clinton haters. It is small, secretive and made up chiefly of lawyers contemptuous of the Constitution and the rule of law.


* * * * * *

Recast as a series of indictments, the story Mayer tells goes like this: Since embarking upon its global war on terror, the United States has blatantly disregarded the Geneva Conventions. It has imprisoned suspects, including U.S. citizens, without charge, holding them indefinitely and denying them due process. It has created an American gulag in which thousands of detainees, including many innocent of any wrongdoing, have been subjected to ritual abuse and humiliation. It has delivered suspected terrorists into the hands of foreign torturers.

Under the guise of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” it has succeeded, in Mayer’s words, in “making torture the official law of the land in all but name.” Further, it has done all these things as a direct result of policy decisions made at the highest levels of government.

In refusing to act on the ground that administration lawyers blessed torture, Mukasey chooses to ignore all the dissenting administration lawyers whom history will laud while it reviles the Yoo crowd, and he chooses to side instead with the Addington, Yoo, Haynes crowd who have committed evil and greatly injured this country. Nice work for a guy who attended an Orthodox Jewish School, whose wife was headmistress of an Orthodox Jewish school and whose parents fled the style of conduct which he allows Bush, Yoo and company to get away with.

One further point. It is often said that Jewish neocons -- guys like Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Kristol, Abrams, Lieberman, in my judgment Mukasey, and others -- take the positions they do (on Al Qaeda, Iran, etc.) because of their concern for Israel. It is also said that they have had outsized influence during the last eight years. I cannot say these accusations are wrong. Truth be told, I think they are right. But my deep concern for Israel and for Jews as a people lead me to revile those bastards because not only have they been a disaster for the United States itself, but they also seem to have gone far toward achieving the very opposite of what they wanted to achieve in behalf of Israel. By leading the U.S. down a terribly wrong path, they have caused many Americans -- with whom I agree about most other things -- to revile Israel, they have caused Arabs to hate Israel even more, and they have lessened, not increased, Israel’s security. Nice work, guys.

A while ago, on July 31, 2006, when discussing America’s horrible misconduct towards Iran in the early 1950s, misconduct which turned Iranians from a people friendly to America into a nation that has now hated us for over 50 years, I described actions that -- however unrealistic opponents will proclaim them -- would create a permanent peace between Israel and its neighbors. Naturally, none of the big shots ever considered such actions -- to be ignored is the fate of non bigshots. But I still think what I said is right, and have appended pertinent parts of the previous post because the actions listed there would be a way of undoing the harm and evil done by the neocon group, a group to which Mukasey so obviously appears to belong. Truth to tell, of course, the chances that the appended ideas will be considered now by the big shots is about the same as it was then. To wit, zero.



Excerpt from Posting

Of course, it is obviously desirable at this point -- maybe even essential at this point -- that there be some kind of overall Middle East settlement, or as close to one as we can get, regardless of the fact that we largely caused the Iranian part of the problem. With this in mind, my off-the-top-of-the-head recommendation, which should be attempted via a general conference of all the parties (including Hezbollah and Hamas -- let’s have none of the shape of the table bullshit of Viet Nam days) would be this:

1. Pace George/DICK, but the United States would apologize to Iran for what America did to Mossadegh.

2. Syria, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah would agree no longer to ever attack Israel in any way, whether directly, by guerrillas or by terrorists.

3. The area of Lebanon south of the Litany River will forever be a demilitarized zone: no rockets, no tanks, no artillery, no mortars, no heavy weapons of any type. This will be monitored and enforced by either a United Nations or a NATO force.

4. Hezbollah will disarm completely.

5. Israel will pledge not to bomb or invade southern Lebanon or any part of Lebanon.

6. There will be a Palestinian state in Gaza and wherever else it has already been decided that there should be such a state. That state will be a demilitarized one: no rockets, no tanks, no fighter planes or bombers, no artillery, etc. This will be monitored and enforced by either a United Nations or a NATO force.

7. Hamas will be totally disarmed.

8. Israel will agree never to militarily attack the Palestinian state (which will in turn agree never to attack Israel (and will be demilitarized anyhow).

9. Iran (and Syria too) will forsake nuclear weapons.

10. Iran and Syria will agree not to sponsor, assist, or finance terrorism anywhere in the world.

11. The United States will agree not to invade or take military action against Iran or Syria.

12. A group of the world’s more powerful nations, together perhaps with some Muslim countries, will be the guarantors of the entire arrangement, with the obligation to act militarily against a violator if necessary to prevent or stop the violation. The guarantors will include the United States, even though it will also be an obligated party under the agreement and could in theory be the target of military action by other guarantors if it were to violate the agreement.

It is always possible for, and often occurs that, international agreements are broken or prove unenforceable. Nonetheless, an agreement along the foregoing lines would, one think, mean peace. Is such an agreement achievable? Is it not achievable because it asks too much, is too idealistic as to what can be accomplished? Quite possibly, especially because all parties would have to be reasonable for it to be achieved. Unhappily, history shows that a need for reasonableness is the biggest argument against it. But it may nonetheless be worth a try. For it is transparent that a failure of settlement -- of overall settlement -- could be truly fraught.





*This posting represents the personal views of Lawrence R. Velvel. If you wish to comment on the post, on the general topic of the post, or on the comments of others, you can, if you wish, post your comment on my website, VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com. All comments, of course, represent the views of their writers, not the views of Lawrence R. Velvel or of the Massachusetts School of Law. If you wish your comment to remain private, you can email me at Velvel@VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com.

VelvelOnNationalAffairs is now available as a podcast. To subscribe please visit VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com, and click on the link on the top left corner of the page. The podcasts can also be found on iTunes or at www.lrvelvel.libsyn.com

In addition, one hour long television book shows, shown on Comcast, on which Dean Velvel, interviews an author, one hour long television panel shows, also shown on Comcast, on which other MSL personnel interview experts about important subjects, conferences on historical and other important subjects held at MSL, presentations by authors who discuss their books at MSL, a radio program (What The Media Won’t Tell You) which is heard on the World Radio Network (which is on Sirrus and other outlets in the U.S.), and an MSL journal of important issues called The Long Term View, can all be accessed on the internet, including by video and audio. For TV shows go to: www.mslaw.edu/about_tv.htm; for book talks go to: www.notedauthors.com; for conferences go to: www.mslawevents.com; for The Long Term View go to: www.mslaw.edu/about¬_LTV.htm; and for the radio program go to: www.velvelonmedia.com.

More MSM Malfeasance -- The Conyers Hearing And Tom Brokaw's So-Called "Interview" Of Obama.

July 28, 2008

Re: More MSM Malfeasance -- The Conyers Hearing And Tom Brokaw’s
So-Called “Interview” Of Obama.


Here are two recent impressions. They will be stated in conclusory fashion, without the usual supporting elaboration and details.

Last Friday John Conyers held a hearing where several witnesses (e.g., Vincent Bugliosi, Bruce Fein, Rocky Anderson, Elliott Adams) made truly powerful statements about the immorality, criminality, and incompetence of the current administration. The hearing was carried live on CSpan.

Did the mainstream print media write about the hearing the next day, Saturday? The New York Times didn’t – there was not one word about it in Saturday’s Times. No doubt the geniuses who brought us WMDs and didn’t tell us about NSA spying before the 2004 election -- thus respectively bringing us Iraq and a second term for Bush -- thought that what was said at the hearing on Friday shouldn’t be written about because much of it is old news in their minds. Thus, better to fill the paper with numerous lengthy stories whose details, or even existence is often of little interest or consequence to most of us. The Boston Globe did write about the hearing, but almost entirely failed to write about the crucial parts while extensively covering the excuse mongering Republican Congressmen who were engaged in pretenses from the get-go.

I don’t know what other print media did on Saturday, but to me the responses of the Times and the Globe on Saturday say it all about the long term bad impact of the corporate MSM.

Then there is Tom Brokaw, who originally hailed from reactionary North Dakota (didn’t he?), with the smooth good looks and mindless hero worshipping characteristics that lead to success in America, especially on mindless corporate television. I happened upon Brokaw interviewing Obama on Meet The Press on Saturday morning. Now, I don’t watch TV much, but anyone sensate has seen Brokaw a fair amount over the last 20 or 25 years. But never have I seen him so obviously angry, so obviously antagonistic, as when interviewing Obama. It was palpable, and it tells you yet again where the corporate MSM’s collective heads are at.

Let me say for Obama that he made an intellectual monkey out of the transparently stone dumb fool who was interviewing him. Obama remained calm, articulate, thoughtful, parried Brokaw’s most strident efforts, and at times even joked when Brokaw did something especially stupid like reading a tremendously long excerpt from a column by David Brooks disparaging Obama -- a reading far longer than any I have ever seen directed at any presidential candidate before.

Brokaw’s conduct was yet another example of where the corporate MSM’s collective heads are at, while Obama’s measured speech and conduct will only make the MSM fear and dislike him the more because even vicious efforts by a major MSM figure seemed unable to rattle him.*


*This posting represents the personal views of Lawrence R. Velvel. If you wish to comment on the post, on the general topic of the post, or on the comments of others, you can, if you wish, post your comment on my website, VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com. All comments, of course, represent the views of their writers, not the views of Lawrence R. Velvel or of the Massachusetts School of Law. If you wish your comment to remain private, you can email me at Velvel@VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com.

VelvelOnNationalAffairs is now available as a podcast. To subscribe please visit VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com, and click on the link on the top left corner of the page. The podcasts can also be found on iTunes or at www.lrvelvel.libsyn.com

In addition, one hour long television book shows, shown on Comcast, on which Dean Velvel, interviews an author, one hour long television panel shows, also shown on Comcast, on which other MSL personnel interview experts about important subjects, conferences on historical and other important subjects held at MSL, presentations by authors who discuss their books at MSL, a radio program (What The Media Won’t Tell You) which is heard on the World Radio Network (which is on Sirrus and other outlets in the U.S.), and an MSL journal of important issues called The Long Term View, can all be accessed on the internet, including by video and audio. For TV shows go to: www.mslaw.edu/about_tv.htm; for book talks go to: www.notedauthors.com; for conferences go to: www.mslawevents.com; for The Long Term View go to: www.mslaw.edu/about¬_LTV.htm; and for the radio program go to: www.velvelonmedia.com.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Lawrence Wilkerson, And Barack Obama On Afghanistan.

July 23, 2008

Re: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Lawrence Wilkerson, And Barack Obama On Afghanistan.


As known by readers of these posts, I consider it rare for my views to meet approbation when first expressed. It usually takes months or years for agreement to arise, if then. People do resist logic and facts, you know.

Some of this sounds pretty arrogant, I suppose. But it’s the way I feel. (Paul Krugman occasionally expresses a similar feeling, as sometimes commented here.) I feel this way to the extent that, if my views meet immediate approval among the cognoscenti, I jokingly say that perhaps I should reassess my opinions.

I was therefore very surprised when yesterday, Tuesday, two major Washington figures expressed views very similar to ones posted here the day before, on Monday. Monday’s post questioned the wisdom of the position taken by both McCain and Obama that we should fight a larger war in Afghanistan. This seems to be a position Obama is repairing to in order to gain political cover for his desire to withdraw from Iraq, or perhaps to obtain middle of the road and other votes, or perhaps out of true belief, or perhaps out of some combination of these. But yesterday, on Tom Ashbrook’s On Point, both Zbigniew Brzezinski and Lawrence Wilkerson expressed opposition to a heavy additional militarization of our efforts in Afghanistan. Their positions seemed not greatly different from my own, although, in the part of the program that I listened to (I didn’t hear all of it), I don’t recollect them delving too deeply into reasons, especially some offered here on Monday. Maybe this is a failure of memory on my part, or maybe they elaborated during some part of the program I didn’t hear. Whatever the case, and without reiterating the reasons given in Monday’s post, it was very surprising to hear two Washington figures, at least one of whom is a Democrat, take a position similar to my own and contrary to Obama’s. It was so surprising that this current post was written to take notice of it.

As for Obama himself, he seems to be drinking the same Kool Aid that was drunk by, and destroyed the presidencies of, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. He is spouting apocalyptic visions combined with a possible need for unilateral warmaking. In a Sunday, July 20th transcript of an interview with CBS News (which I read on Tuesday the 22nd), Obama says Afghanistan must be the “central front,” it is where “they can plan attacks” and “have sanctuary,” where they gather huge sums from the drug trade. He says we must “rebuild roads” and “provide electricity” and show people we are there “to stay over the long haul.” It is all very reminiscent of -- in parts identical to -- Johnson’s and Nixon’s statements about Nam, Nixon’s about Cambodia (a claimed sanctuary for planning and refitting), Bush II’s about Iraq. Without getting into reasons canvassed on Monday as to why this all seems doomed foolishness in Afghanistan, suffice to say here that statements made by Obama to CBS News would indicate he has learned nothing from the debacles in Indo China and Iraq. They are especially dumb for having been made by a guy who is quite smart (unlike Hillary Clinton or McCain). They illustrate that one courts disaster when one makes statements for political purposes regardless of their truth or accuracy (which I think a possibility here). If Obama, as President, were to really follow the prescriptions he gave CBS News, it would destroy his Presidency almost as surely as Nam and Iraq destroyed Johnson’s, Nixon’s and Bush II’s. Britain and Russia, both at the height of empire, met disaster in Afghanistan, and so would Obama in all probability. As Brzezinski said on Ashbrook’s program, one can create apocalyptic visions that lead one to disaster in an effort to ward off the envisioned apocalypse. (In Nam the apocalyptic vision was the domino theory, which is just a version of the lamentable, false lawyer’s logic which says if A, then necessarily B, if B, then necessarily C, if C, then necessarily D, etc., etc., until we supposedly will be fighting the commies in the streets of San Francisco.)

If, on the other hand, Obama retreats from his prescriptions when they come under attack -- attacks that could well occur when you consider that Washington insiders like Brzezinski and Wilkerson, already disagree with them -- he will be accused again of flip flopping. This could be especially harmful to him if he has to retreat before November 4th, since he already is being accused of being a flip flopper, of being someone who trims his sails to the political winds. He thus seems to have gotten himself into a trap, at least if the attack on his views comes before the election, a trap in which he must either continue with an apocalyptic position, or flip flop, or seek, not very convincingly, to deny what is plain on the face of the transcript.

The whole business reminds one of a story about FDR and, I think it was, Sam Rosenman, one of his major aides. Before an election, in a speech in Pittsburgh, FDR made some promise or other. After being elected (or reelected), FDR did the opposite of what he promised (like the first Bush raising taxes after saying “No new taxes”). Roosevelt began taking heat for his flip flop, so he asked Rosenman to take a look at what he had said in Pittsburgh in order to try to reconcile his later action with his earlier Pittsburgh statements. Rosenman read the Pittsburgh speech and reported back his conclusion. The only thing you can do, he told FDR, is to deny you were ever in Pittsburgh.

Just so. Obama has trapped himself. The only thing he can do to escape may be to deny he ever was interviewed by CBS News.*

* This posting represents the personal views of Lawrence R. Velvel. If you wish to comment on the post, on the general topic of the post, or on the comments of others, you can, if you wish, post your comment on my website, VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com. All comments, of course, represent the views of their writers, not the views of Lawrence R. Velvel or of the Massachusetts School of Law. If you wish your comment to remain private, you can email me at Velvel@VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com.

VelvelOnNationalAffairs is now available as a podcast. To subscribe please visit VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com, and click on the link on the top left corner of the page. The podcasts can also be found on iTunes or at www.lrvelvel.libsyn.com

In addition, one hour long television book shows, shown on Comcast, on which Dean Velvel, interviews an author, one hour long television panel shows, also shown on Comcast, on which other MSL personnel interview experts about important subjects, conferences on historical and other important subjects held at MSL, presentations by authors who discuss their books at MSL, a radio program (What The Media Won’t Tell You) which is heard on the World Radio Network (which is on Sirrus and other outlets in the U.S.), and an MSL journal of important issues called The Long Term View, can all be accessed on the internet, including by video and audio. For TV shows go to: www.mslaw.edu/about_tv.htm; for book talks go to: www.notedauthors.com; for conferences go to: www.mslawevents.com; for The Long Term View go to: www.mslaw.edu/about­_LTV.htm; and for the radio program go to: www.velvelonmedia.com.

Forgetting The Fundamentals In Regard To Oil And Afghanistan.

July 21, 2008

Re: Forgetting The Fundamentals In Regard To Oil And Afghanistan.


Forty plus years ago, when friends and I were young, recently graduated government lawyers doing tax or antitrust work in Washington, D.C., five of us used to carpool to and from work every day. There occasionally would be a subtraction from and consequent new addition to the cast, but it was always limited to five as I remember. How many men, after all, some of them pretty sizable, could you squeeze into a VW bug, which is what I had.

The other members of the group were very bright fellows who went on to prominent professional careers in law firms. One, whom I will call Jacques, had graduated first in his class at the Harvard Law School, gone to work for a prominent Midwestern-based law firm, and, around 1964 or 1965 (I don’t remember exactly), had come to Washington temporarily to write briefs in and argue Supreme Court tax cases for the Solicitor General, who was then Archibald Cox, I believe. In later years Jacques became the highly regarded managing partner of his prominent law firm, which grew into one of today’s behemoths.

Jacques had an unforgettable way of arguing. When a question was being debated, he would start at square one. To take a hypothetical, non legalistic example, if the debate were over the merits of two different kinds of chairs, Jacques would begin by saying, “To create a chair, you must first take a piece of wood.” (Or metal or plastic.)

This type of argument -- beginning at square one -- could be very frustrating because most arguments assume the basic premises. We all know what the hell a chair is, after all. When debating which of two chairs is better, we don’t have to be told that to have a chair you must first start with a piece of wood (or metal or plastic).

Yet, there can be real value in Jacques’ style of argument because too often we ignore the basics, the fundamentals. Too often we argue and reach conclusions on the basis of assumptions which are false and which cause our conclusions to be wrong. So there can be real value in going back to basics, as they say. It sure didn’t hurt Jacques, who was an immense success.

Two especially prominent examples of ignoring the basics are in the news these days. One deals with the price of oil. It was pointed out here a long time ago -- a couple of years ago, I think -- that the price of oil was rising because of speculation on the oil futures markets, that the oil industry had existed without futures markets for its first 100 years or so, and, if memory serves, that the oil companies had welcomed the creation of futures market because they knew they could peg their prices to the price on those markets and the markets’ prices would likely be higher because of speculation. This information was obtained from a Naderite expert whom I interviewed on television and who approved the accuracy of the written work that was set forth here and was based on what he said.

At the time, however, you simply could not get anyone in the mass media to mention even the possibility that the futures markets were responsible in whole or in part for rising oil prices. Caught, as ever, in the eternal mediocrity of the prevailing conventional wisdom of the moment, the MSM would not get near the idea that speculation on the futures markets could be responsible for the price rise. I had the unforgettable experience of listening to Tom Ashbrook conducting a one hour discussion of rising oil prices on his national radio show “On Point” without Ashbrook or any panelist so much as mentioning the possibility that the futures market could be contributing to the rise in oil prices. Amazingly, the very Naderite whom I had interviewed, and who had approved the accuracy of written work posted here, was one of the panelists, and he too completely failed to mention speculation in the futures markets.

I phoned Ashbrook’s (call-in) program before it was over to ask on the air why they were ignoring the futures markets. But naturally they would not put me on the air to ask the question. (Such a question might interrupt the otherwise conventional wisdom they were purveying, right?) So, in high dudgeon as the saying goes, I wrote an email or a letter strongly criticizing their failure to so much as mention speculation on the futures markets as a possible cause of the increases in the price of oil.

To my shock, a young woman who had done the research for and, I think, written the questions for, Ashbrook’s program replied to me. When we spoke she seemed to feel guilty in a way that they had ignored the effect of the futures markets. She told me that they had not been able to get anybody (aside from the Naderite, I guess) to agree that the futures markets might have anything to do with the price of oil. So they felt they could not have the question discussed on the air. She told me to find material agreeing that the futures market had an effect (material she inadequately had been unable to find) and explicitly said, or plainly implied, that if I did they would use it on the air. I did (in Senate reports). They didn’t.

So in thrall to the conventional wisdom and the views of big shots is the MSM, including NPR and people like Ashbrook, that they wouldn’t even allow the effect of the futures market to be discussed on the air. Wow. No wonder so many millions of us despise the MSM.

Today, of course, the conventional wisdom has somehow changed 180 degrees. Today people are saying right and left that speculation on the futures markets is the cause of the run up in the price of oil. Some are even saying it is the whole story. One expert told Congress that, but for the speculation, the price of oil would be about $60 per barrel. Now the oil industry shills, and the Wall Street type investment shills and economic shills, find themselves in the position of desperately trying to persuade Congress that the futures markets are good things, desirable things, things that are useful to legitimate hedgers and so on (though we didn’t have or need oil futures markets for about 100 years, until financial types figured out they could make a killing from them, no doubt). The shills are trying to once again get people to believe the price of oil is governed solely by legitimate supply and demand, insufficient exploration, and so forth.

But in all the sturm and drang of the new conventional wisdom and its continuing opponents (who’ve made fortunes from bovine defecation about oil in the past), people are ignoring Jacques’ point that, to have a chair, you must first start with a piece of wood. Here is what I mean:

It is a basic principle of economics, -- perhaps the basic principle of economics at least since Alfred Marshall if not long before him -- that price is supposed to consist of the cost of producing a good or service plus a reasonable profit. (Profit is actually considered a cost in economics, but this is no never mind here.) But nobody -- I mean nobody -- is claiming that the price of oil these days is based on its cost -- including production and transportation, plus refining cost when you’re discussing fuel. The great thing, so to speak, about the futures markets is that they have enabled price to be totally divorced from cost -- the price goes up because speculators think there will be future panics that will drive price even higher, etc. etc., and the question of cost plus reasonable profit doesn’t come into it, doesn’t get within a thousand miles of it, even though the concept of price being based on cost plus a reasonable profit is a fundamental basis of the capitalist system.

Basing price on cost plus profit is the way most businesses are forced to operate, of course. Yet there have been many prior cases in history in which companies obtained the power to set prices far higher than cost plus profit. Often, even usually, these were in industries that were monopolies or oligopolies. The problem was met by imposing regulation, or breaking up companies, or opening markets to new competitors -- often foreign ones. And maybe I am just ignorant, but I have never heard of the problem being solved by the use of futures markets.

It seems to me that in considering what to do about the price of oil, our legislators should consider the question of how you bring prices back down to where they represent costs plus a reasonable profit (with due account being taken of exploration costs, which are a cost of doing business in the oil industry). Maybe you have to do away with the speculating financer’s friend, the futures markets. Maybe you need a law forbidding oil companies from pegging their sales prices to prices on the futures markets. Maybe you need to have regulation of prices. But whatever you have to do, it seems to me that the politicians and the ignorant media should start focusing on the piece of wood which you need to build a chair -- should start focusing, that is, on the basic economic principle of what is the cost plus a reasonable profit to produce oil and gasoline, and what do you need to do to ensure that the price is at that level, not at some artificially high level set by a speculative futures market on which some financers make killings while hundreds of millions of ordinary people get screwed at the gas pump.

I turn now to Afghanistan.

John McCain and Barack Obama seem to have different views on Iraq. McCain, who appears never to have met a war he didn’t like, wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely. Obama seems to want out as quickly as possible. But different as they may be on Iraq, they seem to be clones with regard to Afghanistan. They both would do more war there, would increase our warring there. The politicians and media seem unanimously to agree with them -- all feel we should increase our military action there.

So let me ask the start-with a-piece-of-wood question, the fundamental question. That question is, why? Why should we now fight a bigger war in Afghanistan? What is our reason, our basis?

It is easy to understand why we initially fought in Afghanistan -- we wanted to destroy bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan, and as much of his manpower there as we could. Bin Ladin was the guy who attacked us on 9/11. It is also not hard to understand why we should have attacked the Taliban there -- they had given shelter to bin Ladin and presumably would have done so again if they remained in power. But what is our basic reason for, what are we accomplishing by, fighting in Afghanistan now? Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda have moved to Pakistan (one of our purported allies no less). They don’t need to use Afghanistan as their base and, as I understand it, aren’t. Are we fighting the Taliban because, if we don’t, bin Ladin and company will move back to Afghanistan (move back to where Predators might be able to locate them and we could then drop missiles on them)? Our government hasn’t said this as far as I know (and I am here assuming one could believe something that pack of notorious liars say), and why should Al Qaeda move back to Afghanistan when it is so impossible to get at it in Pakistan, where apparently we dare not attack even if we wanted to, because significantly jihadist Pakistan -- the land of Musharraf and Madrassas -- supposedly is such a wonderful friend of ours.

Afghanistan, moreover, has twice in less than 200 years defeated the world’s greatest empires. Remember the British column, 15000 men or so, was it? -- that went through the Khyber Pass at the height of the Empire and only one or two men, or anyway just a few men, of the column lived and returned to tell the tale. Remember the Soviets in the 1970s and ‘80s, one of the most powerful empires the world ever saw and second only to us at the time, who were defeated and destroyed in Afghanistan? We couldn’t even win in Iraq, yet we are going to fight ever more in the nation which already defeated the British and Soviet empires? And we are going to fight in that nation even though Al Qaeda is now ensconced in Pakistan and has no need of Afghanistan? What is it with the United States -- does it have some kind of horrific national death wish? Or is it just the gross stupidity that Arthur Schlesinger identified shortly before he passed away, plus the failure of nearly all Americans to know history.

Anyway the fundamental question -- the piece-of-wood-is-needed-to-create-a-chair point -- is why. Why do both Obama and McCain say we have to fight a bigger war in Afghanistan? What is their basis? What is their fundamental reason? Is it really only a desire not to be seen as wimps on national security? Is there something more -- something both sound in reasoning and accomplishable in fact? If so, what is it? So far I know of nothing. Let them enlighten us if I am wrong.*





* This posting represents the personal views of Lawrence R. Velvel. If you wish to comment on the post, on the general topic of the post, or on the comments of others, you can, if you wish, post your comment on my website, VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com. All comments, of course, represent the views of their writers, not the views of Lawrence R. Velvel or of the Massachusetts School of Law. If you wish your comment to remain private, you can email me at Velvel@VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com.

VelvelOnNationalAffairs is now available as a podcast. To subscribe please visit VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com, and click on the link on the top left corner of the page. The podcasts can also be found on iTunes or at www.lrvelvel.libsyn.com

In addition, one hour long television book shows, shown on Comcast, on which Dean Velvel, interviews an author, one hour long television panel shows, also shown on Comcast, on which other MSL personnel interview experts about important subjects, conferences on historical and other important subjects held at MSL, presentations by authors who discuss their books at MSL, a radio program (What The Media Won’t Tell You) which is heard on the World Radio Network (which is on Sirrus and other outlets in the U.S.), and an MSL journal of important issues called The Long Term View, can all be accessed on the internet, including by video and audio. For TV shows go to: www.mslaw.edu/about_tv.htm; for book talks go to: www.notedauthors.com; for conferences go to: www.mslawevents.com; for The Long Term View go to: www.mslaw.edu/about­_LTV.htm; and for the radio program go to: www.velvelonmedia.com.