Tim died this morning from a heart attack.  He was 58 years old.  He was one of the greatest interviewers of all time.  Perhaps he was the greatest.  I recorded and watched every one of his shows (Meet The Press on NBC and Tim Russert on MSNBC).  Even as I post this item on my BLOG the accolades are non-stop as they should be.  He made me feel that there was one interviewer who really asks the right questions.  The Associated Press reported that many feared the grilling he would give his guests but they knew he was the conduit to the truth. http://apnews.excite.com/article/

20080613/D919FDKO0.html

The dictionary definition of appeasement is “the policy of giving in to the demands of a hostile or aggressive power in an attempt to keep the peace.” When George W. Bush said, “some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals” http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=82477, did he mean to say that no negotiations are acceptable with our apparent enemies? After all what is the alternative to negotiations? It’s war!

All that talking to the U.S.S.R. did enable us to avoid what could have been a nuclear holocaust. Part of those negotiations included the Cuban Missile Crises. Certainly our negotiations were not appeasement. Would George W. Bush have gone to war in that event rather than reach a peaceful solution?

Israel withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon and withdrew its occupation of Gaza. Those appeasements did not result in peace with its Arab neighbors. Proving that George W. Bush is correct in saying that appeasement does not bring peace. However both Libya and North Korea have surrendered their nuclear ambitions through negotiations that did occur while George W. Bush was president. Where was George when those events took place?

The Associate Press reported today from Baghdad:     Anti-American Shiite militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his followers Saturday to defy government orders to surrender their weapons, as U.S. jets struck Shiite extremists near Basra to bolster a faltering Iraqi offensive against gunmen in the city.“We can’t fight our brothers in the Mahdi Army, so we came here to submit our weapons,” one policeman said on condition of anonymity for security reasons.

Muqtada al-Sadr had been reported to be working with the Americans and the Iraqi government during these past months since the American surge.  Now all of that has changed.  This is not surprising to me.  There never was an adequate explanation for al-Sadr’s co-operation.

 The real test has finally come and the Iraqi government has failed.  We are in the middle of an Iraqi civil war.  If John McCain has his way we will continue to have troops fighting this war indefinitely.  It is a tragic loss of American life.  Both George W. Bush and John McCain could not be more wrong on this waste of blood and treasure.

The Associate Press reported “Rockets or mortars hit the U.S.-protected Green Zone early Saturday, just a day after powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his Mahdi Army militia to extend its cease-fire by another six months.”

The pathetic reality is that we still have not brought real peace to Iraq.  We have all heard enough commentaries and evaluations from reporters visiting Baghdad to understand that country as if we had been there ourselves.  George W. Bush will most likely respond to the latest violence by maintaining the current level of military manpower.

John McCain’s pledge to keep Americans in Iraq for a hundred years if necessary, are the words of a man who believes in an American empire.  There is no proof that our army in Iraq has made the United States any safer.  To the contrary Iraq has become the training ground for terrorists.

Military oriented people like John McCain support this “arms makes right” philosophy.  Many Americans agree with this idea.  Even if  John McCain is correct in keeping troops there for the sake of peace is it worth the lost life and money spent?

“The World Is Flat is the timely and essential update on globalization, its successes and discontents, powerfully illuminated by one of our most respected journalists.”  That would be Thomas L. Friedman.    His book is an eye opener.    

Despite the recent recalls of Chinese made toys and other products distributed in the United States, China is the booming nation of the world.  It’s not a new phenomena. 

BusinessWeek ran an article last January (January 25, 2007) entitled “China Growth Blows Past Forecasts” which reported China’s 2006 growth was at the rate of 10.7%.  That growth followed a 2005 grwoth rate of 10.4%.  Reports for 2007 have not yet appeared in the media but forecasts for last year ranged from 8% to 10%.  Newsweek’s January 7, 2008 cover story is titled “CHINA NOW.”  That Newsweek section consisted of  separate articles.  One of them was written by New York City’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg. 

Reports of ever growing oil consumption, manufacturing, building and highway construction, etc. in China can only lead to one conclusion.  China is quickly becoming the second most economically powerful nation in the world.  Perhaps the most economically powerful nation in the world. 
China does not have to become an enemy of the United States if this does occur.  Economically sucessful natons can work together for the betterment of all.  Mayor Bloomberg article, A Race We Can All Win”, isn’t about beating China. It is about a competitive race that will make the world a better place. 
I believe it is important to look at the views of our presidential candidates regarding this topic.  So I looked at their web sites and here is what I found.  It’s all very disappointing.– Barack Obama wants to “work to ensure that China plays by international rules.” 

– John Edwards has no positions on foreign affairs.

– Hillary Clinton says “The United States will face a resurgent Russia whose future orientation is uncertain and a rapidly growing China that must be integrated into the international system.”                                     

– Mike Huckabee has no position on China.  He does have a page titled “National Security/Foreign Policy: War On Terror” on which he says “With a focus on renewed diplomacy and inclusion, we can accomplish the goals of our nation without having to go it alone.”                                                                          

– Mitt Romney: “China and the rapidly developing nations of Asia are growing into stronger economic competitors.”                                                                

– John McCain: under the National Security issue, “potential strategic competitors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military to protect our country’s vital interests and deter challenges to our security.”                  

– Rudy Giuliani: has no positions on foreign affairs beyond the fight against terrorists.

“The World Is Flat is the timely and essential update on globalization, its successes and discontents, powerfully illuminated by one of our most respected journalists.”  That would be Thomas L. Friedman.  His book is an eye opener.    

Despite the recent recalls of Chinese made toys and other products distributed in the United States, China is the booming nation of the world.  It’s not a new phenomena. 

BusinessWeek ran an article last January (January 25, 2007) entitled “China Growth Blows Past Forecasts” which reported China’s 2006 growth was at the rate of 10.7%.  That growth followed a 2005 grwoth rate of 10.4%.  Reports for 2007 have not yet appeared in the media but forecasts for last year ranged from 8% to 10%.  Newsweek’s January 7, 2008 cover story is titled “CHINA NOW.”  That Newsweek section consisted of  separate articles.  One of them was written by New York City’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg. 

Reports of ever growing oil consumption, manufacturing, building and highway construction, etc. in China can only lead to one conclusion.  China is quickly becoming the second most economically powerful nation in the world.  Perhaps the most economically powerful nation in the world. 

China does not have to become an enemy of the United States if this does occur.  Economically sucessful natons can work together for the betterment of all.  Mayor Bloomberg article, A Race We Can All Win”, isn’t about beating China. It is about a competitive race that will make the world a better place. 

I believe it is important to look at the views of our presidential candidates regarding this topic.  So I looked at their web sites and here is what I found.  It’s all very disappointing. 

– Barak Obama wants to “work to ensure that China plays by international rules.”                                                       
– John Edwards has no positions on foreign affairs.           
– Hilary Clinton says “The United States will face a resurgent Russia whose future orientation is uncertain and a rapidly growing China that must be integrated into the international system.”                                                         
– Mike Huckabee has no position on China.  He does have a page titled “National Security/Foreign Policy: War On Terror” on which he says “With a focus on renewed diplomacy and inclusion, we can accomplish the goals of our nation without having to go it alone.”                           
– Mitt Romney: “China and the rapidly developing nations of Asia are growing into stronger economic competitors.” 
– John McCain: under the National Security issue, “potential strategic competitors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military to protect our country’s vital interests and deter challenges to our security.”                                                 
– Rudy Giuliani: has no positions on foreign affairs beyond the fight against terrorists.

The November 12 edition of Newsweek offered a cover story about a Mike Bloomberg run for president.  It is an interesting biographical article but told readers nothing about his political positions.  Obviously it was an introduction to his possible candidacy.  Bloomberg has a political adviser, Kevin Sheekey.  Mr. Sheekey probably made contact with Jon Meacham of Newsweek to write this piece.  He is not perfect and the article certainly told readers that fact.The only mention of a decision to run for president in the article was that it would happen after the February 5 primaries and probably on March 5, the day of the Texas primary.  Mr. Sheekey says Mike Bloomberg would only run if he believed he could actually win the 270 electoral votes needed to elect a president.

Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson appeared on today’s “Fox News Sunday” to say that his plan for saving Social Security is to cut the benefits.  Mr.  Thompson has not actually said how much the benefits would be cut.   The typical monthly benefit for 2008 is $1,044.  The median savings of Americans age 51 to 62 is $63,116.  There have been discussions on the radio about the fact that 80% of the population has savings of less than $50,000.  Just how much cut in Social Security payments can the average retired family handle?  My opinion is NONE. Clearly most retired people need the monthly retirement income they receive from Social Security.  The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) published “Retirement Income The Crucial Role of Social Security in May 2005  <http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/book_retirement_income&gt;. Key conclusions were:
In examining Social Security benefits within the context of other retirement savings programs, the data show a number of striking results:

• For the typical person approaching retirement, the value of expected future Social Security retirement benefits represents the largest single source of wealth. That finding is consistent with the well-known fact that Social Security provides more than half of all income for about two-thirds of people over age 65.
• Social Security provided a larger addition to wealth than any other form of wealth between 1989 and 2001 for the average person near retirement. As labor markets tightened and annual earnings improved over that period, the expected value of Social Security benefits rose. Although stock market and home prices rose significantly over that timeframe, these increases had only a modest effect on the wealth of those in the middle of the income spectrum; their stock market holdings were too low to be affected, and increased borrowing kept home equity in check.
• In terms of the adequacy of workers’ retirement savings, the data indicate that the retirement system outside of Social Security is a system with many holes. Despite large tax incentives from the federal government for workers to save for retirement, more than one-fifth of households nearing retirement (those between the ages of 56 and 64) had no retirement savings other than Social Security. In contrast, nearly everyone can expect to receive some benefits from Social Security.
• Even among the households that have private pensions, savings are very unevenly distributed. Indeed, one of the most dramatic transformations over the last two decades has been the replacement of traditional Defined Benefit (DB) pension plans with Defined Contribution (DC) plans such as 401(k)s. This shift has actually been detrimental to a large share of the working population. Despite increased coverage by DC plans and the rise in the stock market, the total DB plus DC wealth of the typical person nearing retirement was no higher in 2001 than in 1983.
• Retirement savings, including Social Security wealth, notably improved from 1989 to 2001, although large trouble spots remain. The share of households that could expect to have retirement income of less than twice the poverty line declined. Also, the share of households that could hope to replace at least half of their current income with benefits from their savings in retirement rose from 1989 to 2001.
• There is significant inequality in the retirement preparedness of different demographic groups. Minorities and single-female-headed households saw larger than average improvements in retirement preparedness, although they remained less well prepared than other groups. Much of this inequality results from an uneven distribution of retirement savings outside of Social Security, while expected Social Security benefits are an equalizing force. The tight labor market was particularly helpful in raising the annual earnings and future Social Security benefits of these groups. In addition, these groups depend more heavily on Social Security for their retirement income than do other groups.

The many ways in which Social Security has proven superior to private retirement benefits should give pause to those who want to carve up Social Security through privatization. Social Security is universal, and its value has risen faster than other forms of retirement savings for the vulnerable households that need additional retirement benefits the most.

The Republican obsession with not raising the Social Security cap of $97,500 is remarkably out of touch with reality.  Even conservative Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve Chairman, has said that the fix for Social Security is to raise the cap. In 2006, the median annual household income according to the US Census Bureau was determined to be $48,201.00.  Clearly $97,500 is well above that average.

Yes it is true, we really want your poor and down trodden population here in the USA.  However, there is little chance we will recognize their rights to live here any time soon.  We won’t force them to return to your country but we won’t give them any legal status.  That means we will not issue them a license to operate a car nor any other legal identification. 

Basically we need those people to take the menial jobs that even our teenage children won’t do.  You know the jobs I am referring to like cutting lawns, taking care of our elderly parents, watching our children, washing our cars, and other boring and disgusting jobs.  After all those jobs only pay minimum wage or a few dollars above minimum wage.

You may wonder how I know this is true.  Just listen to our candidates for president and our congress.  The best example most recently is Hillary Clinton who now opposes giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.   She decided on that view after realizing that a majority of Americans oppose the idea.  She does not advocate forcing illegal aliens to return to their home countries.

 Mrs. Clinton is not alone in this view.  The predicament is that issuing any legal documents for any purpose to illegal aliens seems to be tantamount to granting amnesty for many politicians.  Many people do not want to grant amnesty to those here illegally and as a result we have reached a stand off that puts those poor immigrants in a limbo that creates a two level economy.  I suggest that we are creating a sub-culture that could rise up against our laws and cause considerably more harm than we are prepared to face.  There could be an American version of an Intifada.

How many of us are prepared for an uprising of the down trodden?