Iran, a Biological - Political Connection and a New Poem

A poem, a fascinating article on how biology might determine your politics, a new picture to identify and an insightful article on Iran.  That's today's Jack's Potpourri.  Send in your work and it will be published.
JL

  

                                                   * * *    * * *   * * *

The following is reprinted from www.stratfor.com.  Stratfor is a privately run intelligence service which provides information to businesses, media and indirectly to our government, some believe.  Its founder, George Friedman, is an eminent believer in geopolitics.  The recent hacking of his site by parties unknown recently made the headlines.  His book, The Next Hundred Years, makes some very interesting predictions as to the direction history will follow.  

Throughout his writings, Friedman has often made the point that sooner or later, the United States and Iran will end up working together.  Of course, Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the entire Middle East figure into his thinking.  I personally suspected that there was more to the Iranian President's recent visit to Latin America than was announced and that "something" was in the offing.  That is why this article is important.  It is reproduced here giving full credit to Stratfor, on whose web site it appeared.
Jack Lippman

Considering a U.S.-Iranian Deal

January 24, 2012

---

By George Friedman

Last week, I wrote on the strategic challenge Iran faces in its bid to shape a sphere of influence stretching from western Afghanistan to Beirut on the eastern Mediterranean coast. I also pointed out the limited options available to the United States and other Western powers to counter Iran.

One was increased efforts to block Iranian influence in Syria. The other was to consider a strategy of negotiation with Iran. In the past few days, we have seen hints of both.

Rebel Gains in Syria

The city of Zabadani in southwestern Syria reportedly has fallen into the hands of anti-regime forces. Though the city does not have much tactical value for the rebels, and the regime could well retake it, the event could have real significance. Up to this point, apart from media attention, the resistance to the regime of President Bashar al Assad has not proven particularly effective. It was certainly not able to take and hold territory, which is critical for any insurgency to have significance.

Now that the rebels have taken Zabadani amid much fanfare -- even though it is not clear to what extent the city was ceded to their control, much less whether they will be able to hold it against Syrian military action -- a small bit of Syria now appears to be under rebel control. The longer they can hold it, the weaker al Assad will look and the more likely it becomes that regime opponents can create a provisional government on Syrian soil to rally around.

Zabadani also gives outside powers something to help defend, should they choose to do so. Intervening in a civil war against weak and diffused rebels is one thing. Attacking Syrian tanks moving to retake Zabadani is quite another. There are no indications that this is under consideration, but for the first time, there is the potential for a militarily viable target set for outside players acting on behalf of the rebels. The existence of that possibility might change the dynamic in Syria. When we take into account the atmospherics of the Arab League demands for a provisional government, some meaningful pressure might actually emerge.

From the Iranian point of view, this raises the risk that the sphere of influence Tehran is pursuing will be blocked by the fall of the al Assad regime. This would not pose a fundamental challenge to Iran, so long as its influence in Iraq remains intact, but it would represent a potential high-water mark in Iranian ambitions. It could open the door to recalculations in Tehran as to the limits of Iranian influence and the threat to their national security. I must not overstate this: Events in Syria have not gone that far, and Iran is hardly backed into a corner. Still, it is a reminder to Tehran that all might not go the Iranians' way.

A Possibility of Negotiations

It is in this context that the possibility of negotiations has arisen. The Iranians have claimed that the letter the U.S. administration sent to Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that defined Iran's threats to Strait of Hormuz as a red line contained a second paragraph offering direct talks with Iran. After hesitation, the United States denied the offer of talks, but it did not deny it had sent a message to the Iranian leadership. The Iranians then claimed such an offer was made verbally to Tehran and not in the letter. Washington again was not categorical in its denial. On Friday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a meeting with the German foreign minister, "We do not seek conflict. We strongly believe the people of Iran deserve a better future. They can have that future, the country can be reintegrated into the global community ... when their government definitively turns away from pursuing nuclear weapons."

From our perspective, this is a critical idea. As we have said for several years, we do not see Iran as close to having a nuclear weapon. They may be close to being able to test a crude nuclear device under controlled circumstances (and we don't know this either), but the development of a deliverable nuclear weapon poses major challenges for Iran.

Moreover, while the Iranians may aspire to a deterrent via a viable nuclear weapons capability, we do not believe the Iranians see nuclear weapons as militarily useful. A few such weapons could devastate Israel, but Iran would be annihilated in retaliation. While the Iranians talk aggressively, historically they have acted cautiously. For Iran, nuclear weapons are far more valuable as a notional threat and bargaining chip than as something to be deployed. Indeed, the ideal situation is not quite having a weapon, and therefore not forcing anyone to act against them, but seeming close enough to be taken seriously. They certainly have achieved that.

The important question, therefore, is this: What would the United States offer if Iran made meaningful concessions on its nuclear program, and what would Iran want in return? In other words, forgetting the nuclear part of the equation, what did Hillary Clinton mean when she said that Iran can be reintegrated into the international community, and what would Iran actually want?

Recall that in our view, nuclear weapons never have been the issue. Instead, the issue has been the development of an Iranian sphere of influence following the withdrawal of the United States from Iraq, and the pressure Iran could place on oil-producing states on the Arabian Peninsula. Iran has long felt that its natural role as leader in the Persian Gulf has been thwarted, first by the Ottomans, then the British and now by the Americans, and they have wanted to create what they regard as the natural state of things.

The United States and its allies do not want Iran to get nuclear weapons. But more than that, they do not want to see Iran as the dominant conventional force in the area able to use its influence to undermine the Saudis. With or without nuclear weapons, the United States must contain the Iranians to protect their Saudi allies. But the problem is that Iran is not contained in Syria yet, and even were it contained in Syria, it is not contained in Iraq. Iran has broken out of its containment in a decisive fashion, and its ability to exert pressure in Arabia is substantial.

Assume for the moment that Iran was willing to abandon its nuclear program. What would the United States give in return? Obviously, Clinton would like to offer an end to the sanctions. But the sanctions on Iran are simply not that onerous with the Russians and Chinese not cooperating and the United States being forced to allow the Japanese and others not to participate fully. But it goes deeper.

Iran's Historic Opportunity

This is a historic opportunity for Iran. It is the first moment in which no outside power is in a direct position to block Iran militarily or politically. Whatever the pain of sanctions, trading that moment for lifting the sanctions would not be rational. The threat of Iranian influence is the problem, and Iran would not trade that influence for an end to sanctions. So assuming the nuclear issue was to go away, what exactly is the United States prepared to offer?

The United States has assured access to oil from the Persian Gulf -- not only for itself, but also for the global industrial world -- since World War II. It does not want to face a potential interruption of oil for any reason, like the one that occurred in 1973. Certainly, as Iran expands its influence, the possibility of conflict increases, along with the possibility that the United States would intervene to protect its allies in Arabia from Iranian-sponsored subversion or even direct attack. The United States does not want to intervene in the region. It does not want an interruption of oil. It also does not want an extension of Iranian power. It is not clear that Washington can have all three.

Iran wants three things, too.

First, it wants the United States to reduce its presence in the Persian Gulf dramatically. Having seen two U.S. interventions against Iraq and one against Afghanistan, Iran is aware of U.S. power and the way American political sentiment can shift. It experienced the shift from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan, so it knows how fast things can change. Tehran sees the United States in the Persian Gulf coupled with U.S. and Israeli covert operations and destabilization campaigns as an unpredictable danger to Iranian national security.

Second, the Iranians want to be recognized as the leading power in the region. This does not mean they intend to occupy any nation directly. It does mean that Iran doesn't want Saudi Arabia, for example, to pose a military threat against it.

Third, Iran wants a restructuring of oil revenue in the region. How this is formally achieved -- whether by allowing Iranian investment in Arabian oil companies (possibly financed by the host country) or some other means -- is unimportant. What does matter is that the Iranians want a bigger share of the region's vast financial resources.

                             

The United States doesn't want a conflict with Iran. Iran doesn't want one with the United States. Neither can be sure how such a conflict would play out. The Iranians want to sell oil. The Americans want the West to be able to buy oil. The issue really comes down to whether the United States wants to guarantee the flow of oil militarily or via a political accommodation with the country that could disrupt the flow of oil -- namely, Iran. That in turn raises two questions. First, could the United States trust Iran? And second, could it live with withdrawing the American protectorate on the Arabian Peninsula, casting old allies adrift?

When we listen to the rhetoric of American and Iranian politicians, it is difficult to imagine trust between them. But when we recall the U.S. alliance with Stalin and Mao or the Islamic republic's collaboration with the Soviet Union, we find rhetoric is a very poor guide. Nations pursue their national interest, and while those interests are never eternal, they can be substantial. From a purely rhetorical point of view it is not always easy to tell which sides' politicians are more colorful. It will be difficult to sell an alliance between the Great Satan and a founding member of the Axis of Evil to the respective public of each country, but harder things have been managed.

Iran's ultimate interest is security against the United States and the ability to sell oil at a more substantial profit. (This would entail an easing of sanctions and a redefinition of how oil revenues in the region are distributed.) The United States' ultimate interest is access to oil and manageable prices that do not require American military intervention. On that basis, Iranian and American interests are not that far apart.

The Arabian Factor and a Possible Accommodation

The key point in this scenario is the future of U.S. relations with the countries of the Arabian Peninsula. Any deal between Iran and the United States affects them two ways. First, the reduction of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf requires them to reach an accommodation with the Iranians, something difficult and potentially destabilizing for them. Second, the shift in the financial flow will hurt them and probably will not be the final deal. Over time, the Iranians will use their strengthened position in the region to continue pushing for additional concessions from them.

There is always danger in abandoning allies. Other allies might be made uncomfortable, for example. But these things have happened before. Abandoning old allies for the national interest is not something the United States invented. The idea that the United States should find money flowing to the Saudis inherently more attractive than money flowing to the Iranians is not obvious.

The main question for the United States is how Iran might be contained. The flow of money will strengthen Iran, and it might seek to extend its power beyond what is tolerable to the United States. There are potential answers. First, the United States can always return to the region. The Iranians do not see the Americans as weak, but rather as unpredictable. Challenging the United States after Iran has achieved its historic goal is not likely. Second, no matter how Iran grows, it is far behind Turkey by every measure. Turkey is not ready to play an active role balancing Iran now, but in the time it takes Iran to consolidate its position, Turkey will be a force that will balance and eventually contain Iran. In the end, a deal will come down to one that profits both sides and clearly defines the limits of Iranian power -- limits that it is in Iran's interest to respect given that it is profiting mightily from the deal.

Geopolitics leads in one direction. Ideology leads in another direction. The ability to trust one another is yet a third. At the same time, the Iranians cannot be sure of what the United States is prepared to do. The Americans do not want to go to war with Iran. Both want oil flowing, and neither cares about nuclear weapons as much as they pretend. Finally, no one else really matters in this deal. The Israelis are not as hardline on Iran as they appear, nor will the United States listen to Israel on a matter fundamental to the global economy. In the end, absent nuclear weapons, Israel does not have that much of a problem with Iran.

It would not surprise me to find out that the United States offered direct talks, nor to discover that Clinton's comments could not be extended to a more extensive accommodation. Nor do I think that Iran would miss a chance for an historic transformation of its strategic and financial position in favor of ideology. They are much too cynical for that. The great losers would be the Saudis, but even they could come around to a deal that, while less satisfactory than they have now, is still quite satisfactory.

There are many blocks in the way of such a deal, from ideology to distrust to domestic politics. But given the knot that is being tied in the region, rumors that negotiations are being floated come as no surprise. Syria might not go the way Iran wants, and Iraq is certainly not going the way the United States wants. Marriages have been built on less.

                                                        * * *    * * *    * * *

Scalia Defends Citizens United Decision  

Supreme Court Associate Justice Scalia, when questioned the other day about the impact of the Citizens United decision, a topic discussed at length on this blog's most recent posting, commented that those that don’t want to see the advertising made possible by the decision can either switch channels on their TV set or shut it off.  No one is forcing them to watch these messages.   

He then pointed out that the Court’s role is only to determine the legality or Constitutionality of a law, and not to change it.  That, he went on to point out, is the job of the appropriate legislative body, in this case the United States Congress.  Hence, it appears that the Supreme Court has joined Congress in contributing to the stagnation so prevalent in our government.  Their excuse, at least according to Scalia, is the separation of powers inherent in our governmental structure. 

JL

                                                        * * *    * * *    * * *   

Old Man’s Dream…or Memory? 

Sid Bolotin                 

Being three-years-old

In his crib

Sucking his thumb

In great distress

Plopped down by

The angry babysitter

Images arising

He is like Tarzan

Leading an army

Of trusted animals

Punishing all bad people

            * * *   * * *   * * *

  

Is Your Political Leaning Biologically Based?

The following article, seen on Huffinton Post, is by Stephanie Pappas, Live Science Senior Writer, where it first appeared. (Published: 01/22/2012 07:36 PM EST on LiveScience)  It was recommended to us by one of our regular followers.  It is not news to this blog that conservatives are generally more negative than liberals, who I find to be more positive.  Well, now "science" has proven it.  Sort of.  I guess.

JL

                                                          * * *   * * *   * * *

If you walk away from holiday dinners fuming that conservative Uncle Morton just can't see your point of view, or that liberal Aunt Betty just doesn't get it, a new finding may make it easier to cool your jets. According to the study, conservatives and liberals pay attention to their environments differently, meaning the two sides of the political spectrum quite literally don't see eye-to-eye.

Conservatives pay more attention to negative stimuli compared with liberals, the study found.  "They're essentially monitoring things that make them feel uncomfortable, which does feel fairly consistent with conservative policies, actually," study researcher Mike Dodd, a psychologist at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, told LiveScience. "They tend to confront things head-on that they view as threats, things like immigration and so on." 

Dodd was quick to note that the kind of stimuli a person pays more attention to does not make them better or worse than someone of another political persuasion. But the findings could suggest a biological basis for political views.

"Based on your biology, you might be experiencing and processing something in a fundamentally different way from someone else," Dodd said.

  

The idea that a person's innate biology might play into how they vote is relatively new. But researchers at the University of Nebraska and elsewhere have been uncovering a series of clues suggesting that political preference is somewhat influenced by biology. Conservatives are more squeamish than liberals, these scientists have found, while liberals pay more attention to the eye movements of others compared with conservatives.

These differences are at the level of reflexes and rely on extremely basic brain processes such as attention. Although the researchers can't prove that biology influences political beliefs and not the other way around, Dodd said there's good reason to believe that biology comes first and beliefs second.

"It's quite unlikely that just because you've adopted some sort of political temperament, that's going to change basic cognition," Dodd said. "I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm just saying it makes more sense the other way around."

In the new study, Dodd and his colleagues had 48 adults who were strongly conservative or strongly liberal look at a series of 33 pictures. Some of the pictures were pleasant, such as that of a fluffy bunny. Others, including a picture of a maggot-infested wound and another of a man with a spider on his face, were downright disgusting.

While the participants looked at the photos, researchers monitored their skin conductance, a measure of minute changes in sweating that reveals how excited and emotional someone feels, in this case, about a given image. They found that, consistent with other studies, conservatives responded more strongly to the negative images.

In a second experiment, the researchers repeated the procedure with images of polarizing politicians, including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Again, they found a political difference: Conservatives responded more strongly to politicians they disagreed with, such as Clinton, than they did to politicians they liked. Liberals, on the other hand, had a stronger physiological reaction to politicians they agreed with than they did to politicians they disliked.

But knowing that someone has a strong reaction to something tells you little about what they do about that reaction. It's possible that conservatives might look away from things that disgust them, Dodd said. Or they might pay more attention to disgusting things because they're cuing into potential threats. To find out, the researchers created collages of positive and negative images and set up an eye-tracking device to follow where participants' gazes fell. They then had 76 college students look at the collages. 

"Conservatives would orient to those negative things pretty much twice as fast, and they would spend quite a lot longer looking at them relative to the liberals, who preferred more positive things," Dodd said. He and his colleagues reported the findings today (Jan. 22) in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.

The findings provide extra evidence that basic biology may play a role in political choices, Dodd said. Of course, not every country has a liberal-conservative split like the United States. Most likely, Dodd said, you'd see a similar difference between more right-wing and more left-wing people, but the size of that difference might be smaller.

"I'm Canadian, and I would say that our right is actually fairly liberal in many regards," Dodd said. "So I think you would still expect to find some differences there, but I think it's a question of what the magnitude of those differences are."

Biology isn't destiny, Dodd added, and basic brain processes certainly interact with experiences and culture to influence politics. Nonetheless, he hopes the study will help cool political tempers.

"What we're showing here is that people just don't see things the same, even if it's the same thing," Dodd said. "I do think there's a nice potential here to move beyond stereotypes."
                                                   
                                                    * * *   * * *   * * *

                                                                                                                       

Most readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by contacting me at Riart1@aol.com.  

Also, be aware that www.Jackspotpourri.com is now available on your mobile devices in a modified, easy-to-read, format.

Our family of websites now includes www.politicaldrek.com, www.sportsdrek.com, www.healthdrek.com,  www.computerdrek.com  as well as  www.jackspotpourri.com.

Check all of them out, find out what “drek” really means and feel free to submit your thoughts and articles for publication on these sites, which, while still “under construction,” already contain some interesting content.

Jack Lippman

                                                      * * *   * * *   * * *

To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below.

   

Today is the Anniversary of the Citizens United Decision

Citizens United, the Supreme Court and Election Financing   

Back when Hillary Clinton was campaigning for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2007, a conservative group known as Citizens United produced a film attacking her. The 2002 McCain-Feingold legislation regulating political campaigns did not allow such attacks within 60 days of an election.  In litigation which finally reached the United States Supreme Court in 2010, the Court, by a 5 to 4 vote, ruled that the McCain-Feingold legislation could not deprive Citizens United of its First Amendment rights of freedom of speech.  They reasoned that entities such as Citizens United were entitled to the same freedom of speech as individuals and made it clear that this pertained to corporations, unions, political action committees and other groups.  Today is the second anniversary of this Supreme Court decision and perhaps it is time to review the havoc it has caused and will continue to cause.  

                               

While there are regulations concerning the money that political parties and candidates raise and strict disclosure rules as to where it comes from, regulation of issue-oriented, ostensibly non-political groups such as Citizens United is much looser, enabling enormous sums of money to be raised and spent on political campaigning with minimal and delayed disclosure of its sources.  Such campaigning is apart and separate from the campaigns carried on by political parties and candidates.  It does not need their approval and often is directed at issues or candidates in a negative manner.  SuperPACs, or political action committees, are particularly active in this manner with money made possible by the Citizens United decision.

If the G.O.P. Presidential primary campaign is any indication of what’s to come, the Citizens United decision has enabled large amounts of money to be used to campaign against some candidates with no real indication of where it is coming from. The organizations sponsoring such campaigning may have vague and general names (I’ll make one up: “Concerned Americans for Constitutional Liberty”) but they are entitled to the same right of free speech as any individual American citizen.  That’s what the Court said. Such groups have become a significant tool in the primary campaign and will be a still bigger tool in the General Election.  More money will probably be spent in 2012 by such groups than either the Democratic or Republican parties and their candidates will spend.  

By law, these groups do indeed have to report the source of their financial support early this year, but I suspect such reporting will be intentionally vague, and by then the Republican primaries will be history.  There are tactics to circumvent such disclosure. For example, civic leagues, social welfare organizations and local associations of employees can qualify as tax-exempt non-profit organizations under IRS Sec. 503C(4). By law, these organizations do not have to disclose where they get their money, so let us assume that a donor who wants his privacy protected gives $5,000,000 to the "Dakota Civic Social Welfare Association" (I made that one up, too), a 503C(4) tax-exempt non-profit group. That group then donates that amount to a SuperPAC (like the one I made up in the preceding paragraph) and the "Dakota C.S.W. Association" is disclosed as being the donor but the true donor remains hidden.  Then, under the Citizens United decision, this money can be spent in any way the SuperPAC wants to influence an election, without restriction, with no one knowing where it came from. Thank the Supreme Court for this.

President Obama has made two appointments to the Supreme Court, Justices Sotemayor and Kagan.  These appointments did not change the Court’s balance since these appointees replaced Justices who were of a similar mindset.  To bring about a change in the Supreme Court, and open the way for an eventual reversal of the Citizens United decision, President Obama must have the opportunity to appoint a Justice to succeed one of those who were in the majority on the case.  These were Justices Alito, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts.

For this opportunity to occur, and the decision to be reversed, the President will have to be re-elected for four more years since none of these five Justices can be counted on to leave the Court imminently.  Only when that happens will the danger of a Presidential election in this country being bought be eliminated.  And the enormous amount of money unleashed for election campaigning by the Citizens United decision can do exactly that.  Make no mistake about it!

                                         

Reversal of the Citizens United decision should be high on the agenda of anyone who believes in fair campaigning in this country, and this includes leading Republicans who were viciously smeared in their primary campaign by independent organizations (which no one ever heard of before) supporting their opponents.  Needless to say, the five Justice majority on the Supreme Court should be ashamed of itself for the worst decision that Court has made since the Dred Scott decision.

Jack Lippman

                                                       *   *   *   *   *

And from the pen of Sid Bolotin's, here's ...

                                                   THERE WAS A BOY - 2012

Sid Bolotin

The sun burned across the old man’s half closed eyes. He was sitting on the porch of his youngest son’s home in Northampton, a town in western Massachusetts. He listened to the pulse-pulse-pulse of the lawn sprinkler as it propelled itself in a circle to water the lawn and adjacent vegetable garden. He watched his two grandsons gleefully careening through the arched flow of the water’s arc and heard their squeals of sheer delight. These were two of his 9 grandchildren that he’d soon be leaving behind when he relocated to Florida. The heat, the whirring of insects, the fluttering of the butterflies exploring the blossoms on the Buddha (butterfly) bush combined like an opiate that lulled him to sleep.

                                 

The old man tossed in his sleep. His mind was racing with old images as his 7 decades of life unreeled like video on rewind. It was as if he was skipping from stone to stone going upstream along the shore of the river of his life. Each stone brought a pause, an instant stop-play of his life’s adventure. There were his grandchildren, then his children, and his wife as he traveled backward in his reflection of his life. He could see his struggles with his questions about the way of life’s meaning. The ones always asked but still not answered. Gurus, workshops, retreats, books, discussion groups, and, of course, therapy had never produced the answer that he sought for a question never really articulated. Suddenly the imaging paused on him as a young teenager in a state of awe listening to the song, Nature Boy. The old man’s tossing quieted as he absorbed the scene and its emotions. Once again he was in that state of grace, that feeling of well-being, that connection with the Eternal that had embraced him so long ago. He began to sing along with Nat King Cole as the wondrous story of the strange, wise, sad eyed, magic boy purred from Nat’s velvety throat. Tears welled up and rolled down his cheeks as he intoned the song’s immortal message: “the greatest thing you’ll ever learn is just to love, and be loved in return.”

                                                               *   *   *   *   * 

Downsizing in the Supermarket

One of the games food companies play is the reduction in the weight of their products, while leaving them in what appears to be the same size packaging.  Last year, the amount of orange juice in a typical orange juice container shrunk from 64 ounces to 59 ounces, while being packaged in the same size container.  The cost did not drop 7.8% as the quantity of juice in the container did.  And all of the companies, led by Tropicana and Minute Maid, did it at the same time.  The supermarket “house brands” followed suit within a few months.

The latest such rip-off involves tuna fish.  Up to six months ago, a typical can of tuna fish contained 7 ounces of fish, and often, an excess of water or oil.  Now, most are down to 5 ounces but the cans still look to be the same size.  (There even a few versions down to 4.5 ounces.)  Formerly, there was enough tuna in a 7 ounce can, when mixed with mayonnaise and perhaps some celery or onions, to fill two nice sized sandwiches.  Now, those two sandwiches will look a bit skimpier because the 5 ounce can is 28% smaller than its predecessor, but of course, the price is the same.

                                 

If the free enterprise system were working properly, one smart orange juice company or tuna fish packer would put a product on the market containing the original weight.  This would probably bring that company sufficient new business to more than equal the profit it would be throwing away by not conforming with their industry’s reduced quantity practices.  But that does not appear to be happening.  And I wonder how many other products have been “downsized” and escaped this consumer’s notice.

Jack Lippman

  

                                                                                 *   *   *   *   * 

The Potpourri Poll 

The poll, at the top of the right sidebar, is being revised.  It will deal strictly with the race for the Presidency.  The questions may change as we get closer to Novermber 6, but the theme will remain the same.  Who will be elected President in November.? 

                                                      *   *   *   *   *                                                                                                                        
                    
Most readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by contacting me at Riart1@aol.com.  Also, be aware that www.Jackspotpourri.com is now available on your mobile devices in a modified, easy-to-read, format.

Our family of web sites includes:

 www.politicaldrek.com

 www.sportsdrek.com

 www.healthdrek,com

 www.computerdrek.com

and our parent site, the blog where it all started, www.jackspotpourri.com.  Check all of them out and feel free to submit your thoughts and articles for publication on these sites, which, while operative, are still “under construction” in varying degrees.

Jack Lippman

                                                         *   *   *   *   *

To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below.

 

Meditating with Sid, Changes to the Blog and Richard Cordray's Appointment

You will note a few new features on Jack’s Potpourri today!  I got rid of the new template I had installed last week in favor of a more colorful one.  It was too difficult to read the “lead-in” material at the top.  An occasionally changing picture is going to be a regular feature of the new format.  I wonder how many of you can identify the location pictured.  I am leaving it at the top for a few more days.

We also are listing the six postings which have drawn the most “hits” since the blog’s inception.  I don’t control this.  It comes from Google, which is the source of the technology for the blog.  

Finally, we have instituted a poll.  The question on it now will remain there until the afternoon of January 24.  We will then come up with another polling question.  In an election year, this will be a valuable adjunct to the blog.  Please participate in the poll; I have no way of identifying who participates and what they answer.  Enjoy the rest of the blog, and please, as Sid has done, submit some of your work for inclusion in it.

                                                            ***   ***   ***

And here is a piece written by Sid Bolotin a few years ago which contains timeless truths.  Study it carefully.  It also will appear in the near future on www.healthdrek.com.

    

Jack Lippman                                                    

                                       ***   ***   ***                

                                                                          

Meditation

Sid Bolotin

If you Google “meditation,” you can delve into 36,000,000 sites; if you go on “you tube,”  you can explore 170,000 videos.

Picture the subject of meditation as a tree with multiple major branches that subdivide into smaller branches that grow countless leaves. These leaves represent the actual schools of meditation as practiced by specific groups of people. 

The underlying result of any meditative practice is the quieting of the mind. If you allow a glass of muddy, swirling water to sit on a table for a while, in time the silt will settle, and the water will become crystal clear. That’s akin to the quiet, clear mind…freed of swirling thoughts and incessant monkey-mind chattering. Buddhism refers to this clarity as “original mind”.

Techniques for quieting the mind include focus on the breath, repeating a mantra like “Om”, counting rosary beads, whirling as Sufis do, reciting Hebrew letters for the name of God as Kabbalists do, or staring at a lit candle.   

                                            

                                       

Meditation is not relaxation, dreaming, or visualization. It is silent wakefulness. It develops awareness of our thoughts, feelings, and physical sensations. And, instead of becoming attached to these inner experiences which are constantly changing, the focus is on watching without getting caught up in them…like watching bubbles rise in a glass of champagne. Dr. Steven Hayes, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Nevada, in his acclaimed modality called ACT refers to this awareness as the “Observing Self”…think of it as you in a movie-house watching the theater of your mind. While in this state, some practitioners advocate projecting love and compassion to make the world a better place. Others teach that it facilitates attraction of wealth, your soul mate, and other desires from the Universe.

All religions at their basic, mystical level promote meditation as a way to connect to God. New Age meditation addresses the Spirituality that is within all human DNA…that which makes us all One. Twenty-one years ago I volunteered at the Mind-Body Clinic at Boston’s Deaconess Hospital, to assist Dr. Herb Benson, a noted cardiologist, to teach his Relaxation Response technique to the patients for management of stress, high blood pressure, chronic pain, and anxiety. At the same time Jon Kabat-Zinn was at the U. Mass Medical Center in Worcester, MA. teaching meditation at his Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Program. Both programs are still paving the way for meditation in medicine. Neuro-scientists are using PET scans to map areas of the brains of Tibetan lamas, while they are in deep meditation.  Researchers have proven that meditation does result in beneficial, physiological changes in the body. This past Wednesday night two young women from FAU with PhD’s in Neuro-science made a presentation to my Zen group about studies of the brain waves of eight Tibetan monks who are accomplished, deep meditators with 10 to 40 years of practice between them. Their EEG’s and other tests were compared to a control group of subjects with little to no meditative experience. The results clearly prove that the monks’ gamma wave (30 to 100 Hz) activity was “off the charts” even when not meditating. And, when asked to meditate on compassion for other living beings, the gammas went thru the roof. Meditation, over time, increases awareness, produces thickening of the left prefrontal cortex, and increases communication between all parts of the brain.

Words like “thought” and “mind” are used to talk about meditation, but consider this: no one can find “the mind”, and a thought cannot be found, stopped, or its origin established. Brain scientists can identify the brain’s circuitry and its activations, but not the isness of mind or thought. One great book on this subject is: “My Stroke of Insight”, by Jill Bolte Taylor, a brain scientist who documented her own stroke.

As for me…after years of bouncing thru various disciplines and religions, I’ve returned to a Zen Buddhist meditative practice called Zazen which means “just sitting”. It involves being attentive to your breath, noticing your thoughts, and using your breath as an anchor when you notice you’ve become attached to a particular thought or feeling. 

Zen explores the nature of realty with the premise that: the world is the way it is (not the way we want it to be), everything is impermanent (nothing stays the same), and our suffering is caused by trying to keep the good stuff and change/prevent the bad stuff. Zazen meditation is an experience of just being with your life as it is…warts and all. This Zen leaf of the meditation tree is a goalless practice of non-doing…of just being in the present moment. Zen discourages meditating with a goal in mind because, to do so just creates another, stressful something to be achieved.  Zen does not purport to heal you, attract wealth, get you Tiger’s women, or fix flat tires…but, if it should happen, great. If not, that’s just as great. Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor from 161 to 180 wrote in his famous,12-book-collection of meditations: “Everything that happens, happens as it should. And if you observe carefully, you will find this to be true.”

                                                                          ***   ***   ***

Richard Cordray Appointed to Head Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Despite G.O.P. Opposition

(The following appeared on the Huffington Post last week.  The Republicans are claiming that this appointment was illegal and unconstitutional because such an “interim” appointment can be made only when the Senate is not in session.  Right now, although there are not enough Senators around Washington for a quorum, the Senate is still technically in session according to the G.O.P., as explained in the article.  The President has put the needs of the nation ahead of the games the Republicans like to play. Incidentally, though his record has long since been surpassed, Richard Cordray was a big time winner on “Jeopardy” some years ago.  He seems very devoted to protecting the welfare of the American consumer and any opposition to him is merely an attempt to attack the President.  Read the following from the Huffington Post at your leisure..) Jack Lippman

In a bold move sure to infuriate Republicans and possibly draw a court challenge, President Barack Obama announced Wednesday that he will use his executive power to bypass Congress and put Richard Cordray in charge at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The move is a rare instance of the president invoking his authority to override a months-long effort by Senate Republicans to block Cordray. They rejected his confirmation in a December vote and reiterated that, even though they like Cordray, they would keep opposing him or any other CFPB nominee until changes are made at the agency. Obama's recess appointment on Wednesday trumps their effort.

The president announced Corday's appointment during a speech on the economy in Cleveland, Ohio. Cordray, who previously served as the Ohio attorney general, flew on Air Force One to stand alongside the president at the event. Once appointed, Cordray can begin serving as CFPB director later this week and could stay in the role for at least two years.

"Today, I'm appointing Richard as America's consumer watchdog," Obama told the crowd. "That means he'll be in charge of one thing: looking out for the best interest of American consumers. His job will be to protect families like yours from the abuses of the financial industry. His job will be to make sure you've got all the information you need to make important financial decisions."

Obama called it "inexcusable" and "wrong" that CFPB still doesn't have a director since beginning operations in July. He said while he will continue to "look for every opportunity to work with Congress" to boost the economy, he has "an obligation as president to do what I can without them," hence the recess appointment.

"I will not stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people they were elected to serve," the president said to applause. "Not when so much is at stake. Not at this make-or-break moment for the middle class."

A CFPB spokeswoman declined to comment on the news. But Senate Democratic proponents of Cordray and the CFPB were thrilled.

"Republicans have been trying to make an end run around the law by denying this watchdog a leader," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement. "I support President Obama's decision to make sure that in these tough economic times, middle-class families in Nevada and across the country will have the advocate they deserve to fight on their behalf against the reckless practices that denied so many their economic security."

"Ohio families deserve a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau -- complete with a Director -- that can stand up to the special interests and look out for Ohioans' interests," said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who chairs the Senate Banking Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection.

"We asked for a fair up-or-down vote on Richard Cordray's nomination. But too many senators are willing to stand instead with Wall Street, blocking a qualified nominee for the first time in the history of the Senate based on opposition to an agency's very existence," Brown said. "Rich Cordray is fair-minded and highly qualified, which is why he enjoys widespread and bipartisan support from both the people of Ohio and those he would regulate."

With a director in place, the CFPB can now, for the first time ever, monitor the activities of non-bank entities, including payday lenders, debt collectors and credit reporting agencies. Many of these entities were "the source of some of the most harmful, deceptive, unfair and predatory lending practices" that led to the financial crisis, Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin said last month. The agency, which has been partially in operation since July, is the brainchild of Harvard law professor and now-Senate candidate for Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren. It was created under last year's Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation. 

"President Obama's decision to overrule the big banks and the Senate Republicans who are protecting them gives consumers a strong ally and advocate in Washington," Warren said in a statement. "Senate Republicans will surely complain about the recess appointment, but their refusal to allow an up or down vote on Cordray's nomination is just another example of the political games in Washington that must end."

The president's move is notable for two reasons. For one, Obama rarely invokes his recess appointment authority, compared to past presidents. Until now, he has made 28 recess appointments. By contrast, former President George W. Bush made more than 170 during his presidency and former President Bill Clinton made almost 140. Secondly, and more importantly, Obama is making a recess appointment when the Senate isn't technically in recess -- a risky step that could spark a court challenge.

White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer made the case that it is fully within the president's right to make recess appointments when Republicans are relying on "a gimmick" to prevent the Senate from going into recess:

"Here are the facts: The Constitution gives the President the authority to make temporary recess appointments to fill vacant positions when the Senate is in recess, a power all recent Presidents have exercised. The Senate has effectively been in recess for weeks, and is expected to remain in recess for weeks. In an overt attempt to prevent the President from exercising his authority during this period, Republican Senators insisted on using a gimmick called 'pro forma' sessions, which are sessions during which no Senate business is conducted and instead one or two Senators simply gavel in and out of session in a matter of seconds. But gimmicks do not override the President's constitutional authority to make appointments to keep the government running. Legal experts agree. In fact, the lawyers who advised President Bush on recess appointments wrote that the Senate cannot use sham 'pro forma' sessions to prevent the President from exercising a constitutional power," Pfeiffer wrote on the White House Blog.

                                           

                                                Empty United States Senate Chamber

That line of reasoning isn't sitting well with House and Senate Republican leaders, however, who charged Obama with threatening the constitutional system of checks and balances and warned of future legal challenges.

"This is an extraordinary and entirely unprecedented power grab by President Obama that defies centuries of practice and the legal advice of his own Justice Department," House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement. "This action goes beyond the President's authority, and I expect the courts will find the appointment to be illegitimate."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Obama has "arrogantly circumvented the American people" by installing Cordray when the Senate isn't in recess.

"This recess appointment represents a sharp departure from a long-standing precedent that has limited the President to recess appointments only when the Senate is in a recess of 10 days or longer," McConnell said in a statement. "Breaking from this precedent lands this appointee in uncertain legal territory, threatens the confirmation process and fundamentally endangers the Congress's role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch."

                                                                ***   ***   ***

       

Most readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by contacting me at Riart1@aol.com.  Also, be aware that www.Jackspotpourri.com is now available on your mobile devices in a modified, easy-to-read, format.

Our family of web sites includes:

 www.politicaldrek.com

 www.sportsdrek.com

 www.healthdrek,com

 www.computerdrek.com

and our parent site which you are reading right now, the blog where it all started, www.jackspotpourri.com. 

Check all of them out and feel free to submit your thoughts and articles for publication on these sites which, while operative, are still “under construction” in varying degrees.

Jack Lippman

                                                         ***   ***   ***

To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below.

Wall Street Bonuses and Some Political Drek

Political Drek

About Issues:  There are many significant issues with which the United States must deal.  These include foreign policy, foreign aid, national defense, relations with Latin America, the size and disposition of our defense forces, the global economy, civil rights, funding Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, eliminating unemployment, job creation and business creation and growth, structuring and funding the safety net, regulating business, banking and finance, the balance of trade, our national deficit and debt, fiscal and monetary reform, educating our children, fighting the drug-use epidemic, the world-wide technology race, global warming and climate change, the foreclosure crisis, etc. etc.  How many of these issues have you heard discussed in any depth by the aspirants for the Republican Presidential nomination?

Synthetic Issues:  While, campaigning on the issues of same-sex marriage, abortions, illegal immigrants, reduced spending and no new taxation, government bureaucracy, and referring to the Affordable Health Care Act as “ObamaCare” may result in a candidate picking up a few votes, making such points does not address the real issues the nation faces.  When the Republicans wake up to this and turn from such synthetic issues to real issues, they will have a chance to attract the middle of the road independent voters they need to win.  Until then, they are dead in the water. Sad thing is that they don't realize it.

And About Mitt:  Many Republicans have a problem with Mitt Romney  While he is clearly

                                                         

the most qualified of the Republicans seeking the nomination, he projects a sanctimonious attitude when he speaks, one I read as that of false piety.  As a businessman, he had to make hard decisions which often hurt investors and employees, but ended up with his company making money. There is nothing wrong with this.  A businessman cannot be an angel all of the time, and Romney certainly wasn’t, but he constantly projects the image of a smiling straight shooting cowboy in a white hat who has never done anything wrong, ever, and everyone knows this is just not so, even for a devout Mormon.  Could he be less than candid in what he is saying, people wonder.  

And his smile of optimism seems welded onto his face.  I wonder what his face looks like when he, as all politicians and influential businessmen must do occasionally, makes a condolence call.  Does he still sport that grin showing his perfect teeth as he comforts the bereaved family?  

And while presenting himself as a businessman is fine, why does Romney rarely mention his service as Governor of Massachusetts, another part of his background which served to provide him with valuable experience for seeking the office of the nation’s Chief Executive? Or is he so intent on denigrating the role of government that he is ashamed that he once served as part of it?   

But the Republicans have no one better.  The other potential nominees are all oriented too far to the right to stand a chance against the Democratic nominee, the incumbent President.  I predict “Smiling Mitt” will win big in South Carolina next Saturday and still bigger in Florida ten days later.  But he will win the Republican nomination this summer only after a struggle on the convention floor with the ideologues to his right in the Party who do not trust him.  He will make one of them his running mate.  But he will continue smiling. 

Jack Lippman

                                                    

                                                          

Wall Street Bonuses:  

I really don’t know too much about this subject and I may be barking up the wrong tree, but these are my thoughts.  Please correct me if I am off base.

I read the other day that some Wall Street firms are reducing their year-end bonuses and this has made some of their employees very unhappy.  Such bonuses vary from minimal amounts to amounts in the millions of dollars.  In an industry and a country where layoffs are occurring, it would appear that such bonuses are obscene and should be illegal.  But I can see why reduced bonuses would make some employees unhappy.

Join me in assuming that an effective Wall Street trader or investment banker may be salaried at $250,000 a year plus a generous benefits package.  At year end, if his activity has resulted in creating significant profits for his employer, he may get a bonus ranging from a percentage of his salary up to ten times his salary.  This is supposed to keep his talents with his present employer and avoid his looking for another firm to join.  This is a horrible way to compensate employees.  If an employee earning a $250,000 salary consistently warrants a $1,000,000 bonus, his salary should be $1,250,000 and there should be no bonus.  Some traders and investment bankers receive commissions directly.  If the commission percentage is a fair one, there should be no need for a bonus.  If, however, the trader or investment banker receives no commission or just a token amount, with most or all of it going to the firm, a bonus would be a way of passing the money he would have earned if there had been a full commission structure on to him.  A salaried investment banker or trader who receives no direct commission has a legitimate gripe, therefore, if his bonus in lieu of commissions is reduced.

                                     

In an economy in recession, with many unemployed people out there, the concept of Wall Street bonuses leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths and should be abandoned.  A trader or investment banker should be paid what he or she is worth in salary and commissions with no bonus whatsoever.  If he or she becomes a partner in a firm, however, that would present an opportunity to get a share of the profits, but until that point is reached, bonuses are a horrible alternative.

JL

                                                         

Sister Web Sites:

As I frequently mention, I have established four new websites, all of which are in various phases of construction.  They are bare-bones sites but each day they are growing a little.  These sites can be viewed at Politicaldrek.com, Sportsdrek.com, Healthdrek.com and Computerdrek.com.  There is already some content on the first two of them, but all of you are invited to contribute political, sports, health and computer articles to all of these sites. Pick your site based on the type material you are submitting. You may Email each site directly by using the “Contact” tab on their respective page-top menus.

JL


                                                   

                                                                  

                    

Most readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by contacting me at Riart1@aol.com.  Also, be aware that www.Jackspotpourri.com is now available on your mobile devices in a modified, easy-to-read, format.

 

                                                        

To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below.