Re: How Will the Poorest Be Educated?

I find it interesting that Rozeff didn't beg for the poor.
He is not afraid to address what is going wrong in America.

AIPAC: Anti-Iran, Interventionist, Warmongering
by Michael S. Rozeff
Published : February 29th, 2012

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is an anti-Iran
influence on U.S. foreign policy that cannot be ignored.
In its words, AIPAC wants to "prevent Iranian nuclear weapons
capability". Yet Israel has that capability and far beyond. Israel has
actual nuclear weapons.

Note the following four contrasts between Israel and Iran:

(1) Israel has not entered into the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Iran has been a signatory to the NPT since
1968.

(2) The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) does not inspect
Israel for nuclear-related activities. It regularly inspects Iran.

(3) Israel is thought, not only to have the capability of building
nuclear weapons, but to have an arsenal of nuclear bombs. Iran has no
nuclear weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Iran
does not.

(4) Israel threatens to attack Iran preemptively. Iran does not
threaten to initiate an attack on Israel. It threatens to respond with
force only if it is first attacked by Israel.

AIPAC's "prevention" position does not respect Iran's rights. AIPAC
does not contest Israel's nuclear weapons of mass destruction, but it
wants to violate Iran's right even to have the knowledge that it takes
to build a nuclear weapon.

Has Iran given up rights by some sort of recognizable aggressive
behavior with respect to Israel, such that Israel may attack Iran and
claim self-defense? Not at all. Iran has not attacked Israel in any of
the wars that Israel has fought since it became a state.

The closest one can come to such an attribution of Iranian aggression
occurred in 2006. On the occasion of the July war in 2006 or the
second Lebanon War, Foreign Ministry Deputy Director-General for
Public Affairs Ambassador Gideon Meir said that Hizbullah was a party
to the Government of Lebanon. He also said that it had "clear Syrian
sponsorship". He also said that Iran "provides funding, weapons and
directives" for Hizbullah and "For all practical purposes, Hizbullah
is merely an arm of the Teheran Jihadist regime."

However, Israel didn't make an official or public case against Iran.
It didn't argue that Iran had intended or instructed the war to take
place, and it didn't declare war on Iran. It is not even clear that
Hizbullah had the intent of starting a war at that time since there
had been problems along the border for some time before the war began.

The word "capability" in AIPAC's objective is an extremely strong
word. It is a much stronger limitation or restriction than to prevent
development, production or acquisition. It's one thing to say someone
should not possess or have a gun in hand. It's far more restrictive to
say that someone should not have whatever it takes to make a gun if he
wanted one.

AIPAC's position on Iran and nuclear weapons is extreme. According to
AIPAC, Israel may possess the requisite knowledge and utilize it to
produce weapons of mass destruction, but Iran must remain in some kind
of repressed Dark Age condition with respect to nuclear technology.

The term capability means a potentiality or a mental ability. This
means that AIPAC wants to make impossible that Iran have even the
scientific and engineering personnel who know how to build nuclear
weapons or who might learn how to build nuclear weapons. This is an
unreasonable and unattainable objective without seriously infringing
on Iranian rights. AIPAC wants to preclude Iranian knowledge of the
processes involved in building nuclear weapons. This too is
unreasonable. Since computer simulations and lab experiments develop
such knowledge, AIPAC wants to rule out such scientific and
engineering work. Since the manufacture of uranium-enriched fuel rods
is such a step, AIPAC would also support the interdiction of Iran's
peaceful nuclear energy program.

Israel, on the other hand, which has already gone through all these
preliminary steps and more in developing its nuclear arsenal, stands
on some kind of pedestal that gives it special rights that Iran may
not have.

AIPAC intentionally has chosen its position on capability, because
elsewhere it distinguishes capability from development:

"While the administration has emphasized that the United States will
prevent Iran from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons, the United
States must also make clear Iran will not be allowed to acquire the
capability to quickly produce a nuclear weapon."

AIPAC clearly takes the side of thwarting Iranian rights. Its
preferred method at this time is sanctions. AIPAC says "More Sanctions
Are Needed":

"Sanctions on Iran's ports and airline are putting extreme pressure on
the regime and leading to economic disruption. The Iranian energy
sector is also suffering as international energy firms and financial
institutions refuse to work with Iran.

"While sanctions are having an unprecedented impact on Iran, they have
not yet reached the level sufficient to end the regime's nuclear
weapons pursuit. The United States should impose crippling sanctions
on Iran, including Iran's Central Bank."

Sanctions do not generally work. In this case, how could sanctions
possibly stop the Iranians from gathering the knowledge that is their
right to gather if they are determined to do so? If sanctions ever do
cripple Iran, which I doubt, their incentive to go forward with
nuclear development may actually increase. It need not necessarily
decrease. A more deprived Iran might view nuclear weapons as a way to
redress the pressures applied to them or equalize their power.

It is unlikely that sanctions will do anything but isolate Iran from
the West while leading her to do barter deals with other countries and
improve relations with Russia, China and other countries in Asia. It
won't be long before Israel and the West are right back where they
started.

What's AIPAC's position if sanctions don't work? Attack Iran:

"At the same time, the United States must make clear that all options
remain on the table to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons
capability."

"All options" means the "military option" to which Washington's
warmongers have lately been referring. Military option means bombing
Iran. It means a preemptive armed attack on Iran.

The internet dictionary defines a warmonger as "A sovereign or
political leader or activist who encourages or advocates aggression or
warfare toward other nations or groups." With its coded language,
AIPAC places itself in the warmonger camp.

What does the word "prevent" mean in the AIPAC lexicon? AIPAC has a
memo on Iran dated Feb. 10, 2012 with the title "Iranian Nuclear
Weapons Capability Unacceptable". The lead paragraph says that "The
United States must make clear that Iran will not be permitted to
achieve a nuclear weapons capability." Prevent is to be taken in the
strongest possible sense.

Prior to the U.S. attack on Iraq, the policy of the U.S. was
containment of Iraq. AIPAC does not want the U.S. to "contain" Iran:

"The United States also should not adopt a policy oriented toward
containing a nuclear Iran."

The AIPAC position is as extreme as it can get. If Iran does not kneel
down to Israel and the West's demands, then attack and bomb Iran in
order to stop it from having any nuclear weapons capability.

The AIPAC positions discussed here are far from being academic, for
Senator Joseph Lieberman, Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Bob Casey
have this month gotten 29 other senators to sign on to a resolution
that contains the "capability" language. In particular, it says that
the Senate

"(1) affirms that it is a vital national interest of the United States
to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from
acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;"

The close correspondence between this language and AIPAC's words is
astounding. We do not know who is saying what to whom when and who is
originating and propelling these political events, but we know the end
result. AIPAC and a good many senators are on precisely the same page.

The proposed Senate resolution mirrors AIPAC's position (or vice
versa) on containment as well. The Senate

"(6) rejects any United States policy that would rely on efforts to
contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran; and

"(7) urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran
with nuclear-weapons capability and oppose any policy that would rely
on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear
threat."

The resolution has a tone of frustration and anxiety with not having
achieved its objectives already. It says that the Senate

"(2) warns that time is limited to prevent the Iranian government from
acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;"

It repeats that the Senate
"(5) strongly supports United States policy to prevent the Iranian
Government from acquiring nuclear weapons capability;"

Although AIPAC bills itself as "America's pro-Israel lobby", this is
misleading because AIPAC does not speak for all Americans who are pro-
Israel. AIPAC is a right-wing influence on American foreign policy in
the Middle East. It supports the right wing in Israel. As such, it
acts to support, encourage, continue, enlarge and firm up the
interventionist and pro-Israel policies of the U.S. government in the
Middle East.

Jewish Americans are not monolithic in their political views and
neither are Jews in Israel. A Washington Post article in 2008 reported
the formation of a left-wing Jewish lobbying group as a "counterpoint"
to AIPAC. Its name is J Street. This is solid evidence from American
Jews themselves that AIPAC does not speak for all Jewish Americans.
That article began by saying

"Some of the country's most prominent Jewish liberals are forming a
political action committee and lobbying group aimed at dislodging what
they consider the excessive hold of neoconservatives and evangelical
Christians on U.S. policy toward Israel."

"Organizers said they hope those efforts, coupled with a separate
lobbying group that will focus on promoting an Arab-Israeli peace
settlement, will fill a void left by the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, and other Jewish groups that they contend
have tilted to the right in recent years."

A leader in forming J Street, Alan Solomont, said

"The definition of what it means to be pro-Israel has come to diverge
from pursuing a peace settlement. We have heard the voices of neocons,
and right-of-center Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals, and the
mainstream views of the American Jewish community have not been
heard."

The article says that
"Many prominent figures in the American Jewish left, former lawmakers
and U.S. government officials, and several prominent Israeli figures,
as well as activists who have raised money for the Democracy Alliance
and MoveOn.org, are also involved."

Not all Jews in America or in Israel identify themselves as being on
the left or right. There are libertarian Jews too. An example is
Walter Block who has formed the organization Jews for Ron Paul. For a
blog from a freedom-loving Israeli who is sympathetic to Ron Paul and
to Jews for Ron Paul, go here.

The money paid by AIPAC to U.S. legislators is listed here. A similar
and more detailed list covers all money paid by all pro-Israel PACs to
U.S. senators. A lot of money is spread around to a lot of
legislators, with special attention on those who are on important
committees. There is good theory and evidence that this substitutes
for outright bribery. Some of the career totals are very large indeed:

Joe Lieberman at $373,851

Richard Durbin at $373,421

Mark Kirk at $336,386

Tom Harkin at $552,950

Mitch McConnell at $485,141

Carl Levin at $728,737

Max Baucus at $349,648

Harry Reid at $393,001

Frank Lautenberg at $503,578.

PAC contributions help elect candidates who support the PAC's
positions. Some evidence is here.

Although I have no evidence in the specific case of AIPAC that these
contributions caused or influenced these or other legislators to vote
as they did, I have no doubt that money buys access to legislators,
access to the drafting of laws, and influences votes. There is
evidence in other instances that is historical, anecdotal and of more
systematic academic origin that confirms this. Voting on the $700
billion bank bailout bill was influenced by PAC contributions from the
American Bankers Association. There is strong evidence that lobbying
from agricultural PACs results in higher tariffs, export subsidies and
nontariff barriers. There is evidence that both PAC contributions and
contributions of chief executive officers reduce the severity of
enforcement penalties of the Securities and Exchange Commission and
the Department of Justice. The link between Wall Street's
contributions and financial regulation is well-established.

No matter what the incestuous relations are between AIPAC and U.S.
legislators, AIPAC is yet another anti-Iran voice in Washington. It is
an interventionist voice seeking to propel America into another war
which, for Americans, is entirely unnecessary. AIPAC's voice is the
voice of a warmonger.

Michael S. Rozeff


On Jul 10, 3:31 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> How Will the Poorest Be Educated?Posted byMichael S. Rozeffon July 10, 2012 01:29 PM
> My correspondent worries "As a society, don't we have to chose to either pay for basic  schooling via taxes for the poorest children versus simply letting these children grow up without an education and thus without any skills to ever create capital goods?" There must be hundreds of articles written by free market advocates on how education might evolve without coercion by taxes.Ideas in Libertyno doubt has a great many articles.
> Aside from recommendingIdeas in Libertyas a source of answers to this question, I have the following thoughts:
> First, stop thinking in terms of "we" and "as a society" and "what we should do." Choices are not given to this "we" but to each of us. I'm not you, and you are not anyone else, and there is no "we" that exists except what you and I and others agree to. There exists no single "society" that can be identified as a legitimate or proper decision-maker in this field or any other field. On the other hand, each person is an appropriate locus of decision-making naturally, since each of us has his own brain, will, desires, motives, values, knowledge, aims, bodies, and so on. There is no such naturally existing organization (such as society) that corresponds to this. All such groupings are either what we as persons construct via agreements and consent, i.e., voluntarily, or else what others force us into.
> Second, do not assume that "the poorest children" won't find funding sources from other persons or organizations or benefactors or prospective employers or through scholarships or money funded for scholarships from benefactors, employers, religious organizations, and so on.
> Third, do not assume that parents and extended families or groups of families will not provide education. Assume that mutual aid will occur. For example, it was the wife of slave Frederick Douglass's master who taught him the alphabet.
> Fourth, assume that when schools are no longer public but privately run, education will become far more innovative and the cost of it will decline, so that it will be far more widely available.
> Fifth, assume that self-education will increase and self-help to get education will increase.
> Sixth, assume that innovation combined with internet delivery will greatly increase.
> Seventh, assume that many learned folks will give away knowledge, create free modules and learning experiences.
> Eighth, assume that with the dead hand of public rules and regulations gone, and with the dead hand of enforced curricula gone, and the dead hand of lousy textbooks gone (because of the increased competition), education technology will make great strides, bringing its cost down to the point where even the poorest can afford it.
> Ninth, do not assume that today's costs will be tomorrow's costs. Brick and mortar may decline in use for schools.
> Tenth, assume that with freedom to choose education, resources will be vastly redirected. Parents who want swimming pools will have to pay for them, or their use can be separated from schools rather than be linked by force.
> Eleventh, assume that being forced into cohorts by age will become a thing of the past. The freedom to progress according to one's own advancement and not be forced into certain groups will further reduce education costs.
> Twelfth, do not think of "the poorest" as being dependent and as having to be told what education serves their needs. Think of them and everyone as having the capacity to choose and decide on their own.
> Thirteenth, assume that the quality of education will rise sharply as teacher unions and lousy schools of education are undermined by competition.
> Last, look into how poor people acquired education before there were public schools. Look into how this happened and the extent to which it happened when standards of living were vastly lower than today. I suggest, for example, that one look atself-help educational effortsand accomplishments of slaves in America.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.