California Free Press

Jazz at the Handlery

by John Lawrence from the San Diego Free Press

There is a nice little jazz series running in San Diego at the Handlery Hotel's 950 lounge at 950 Hotel Circle North. This has been put together by Holly Hofmann who has been presenting concerts in San Diego for 30 years or more. In addition she plays a helluva flute. Recently I saw Stef Johnson with Rob Thorsen and the week before Gilbert Castellanos and Bobby Cressey. The place has a nice happy hour menu and reasonably priced libations. There is no admission or cover charge. Parking is free with validation.

Jazz does not have that many dedicated venues in San Diego so the jazz loving public has to rely mainly on the musicians themselves to create their own gigs. There are no institutional venues such as classical music has. No Symphony Halls. No billionaire sponsors. For that you have to go to New York City, the epicenter of jazz. We do have a dedicated jazz radio station - KSDS-FM - 88.3. Now we just need a billionaire to step up and underwrite the equivalent of New York's Dizzy's Club Coca Cola at Lincoln Center. Holly would make a wonderful impresario for such a venue because her connections in the jazz world are endless and her dedication, nonpareil.

San Diego Has Great Jazz Talent

The talent pool in San Diego and LA is considerable. Many jazz musicians have attempted to make a go of it in San Diego, but then moved on to greener pastures when prospects became untenable. One such was Hal Crook who started a school here and had an excellent big band which performed weekly. Like Hal said about his book, How to Improvise, at a workshop I attended, "My book will explain to you what to play, when to play, how to play. The only thing it can't tell you is where to play." That's the hard nut to crack. Having moved on, Hal is now at the Berklee School of Music in Boston.

The aforementioned Bobby Cressey, in addition to playing jazz organ at the Handlery, is also the organist for the San Diego Padres. A man of many hats, in addition to jazz he plays electro, hip hop, dubstep, reggae, classical, rnb, ska, gospel and blues. He currently plays with the world famous DJ Skee’s Skeetox band. I guess one has to be involved in many aspects of the music business these days to make a go of it. But maybe he's spreading himself too thin as a jazz artist. Just sayin.

On the other hand Gilbert Castellanos, winner of San Diego Music Awards artist of the year in 2013, is a full on dedicated jazz musician. His mastery of the trumpet has increased by leaps and bounds over the years that I've been following him. Gilbert honors the history and tradition of jazz with every performance. In particular he played Clifford Brown's composition "Delilah" and Charlie Parker's "Segment." Clifford Brown and Charlie Parker were two of the most important musicians in the development of jazz. Unfortunately they both died young, much too young.

Quincy Jones: Brown Was the Very Essence of Musical and Moral Maturity

Charlie Parker was a heroin addict and died at the age of 34 on the Jazz Baroness', Pannonica de Koenigswarter's, couch. He had multiple organ failures. He created the greatest revolution in any art form in the 20th century. Unfortunately, he couldn't overcome or transcend the racist society he grew up in or his own lifestyle.

Clifford Brown was clean living, hardly even touching alcohol. He was an inspiration to other players who had thought that they had to be high to play well. On going through my old vinyl albums recently, I spent some time reading the liner notes of a few rare Clifford Brown albums which went into detail about that tragic rainy night when Clifford lost his life in an auto accident on the Pennsylvania Turnpike on his way to the next gig. It was in 1956.

He and pianist Richie Powell were catching some shut eye while Powell's wife, Nancy, was at the wheel. Nancy was known to be an erratic driver. There were no seat belts in those days. Brown and the Powells were all killed instantly after the car hit a bridge abutment. It was Clifford's second wedding anniversary with his wife LaRue. It was her 22nd birthday. Clifford was 25 and, despite having spent a year in the hospital following a prior auto accident in 1950, is a major part of jazz history having only been active for about four years.

Nearly everyone who knew Clifford agree on his likeability and welcoming personality. “To me, the name of Clifford Brown will always remain synonymous with the very essence of musical and moral maturity,” Quincy Jones said. “This name will stand as a symbol of the ideals every your jazz musician should strive to attain.”

After his death, Clifford's wife LaRue remained active in the jazz world establishing in 1994 the Clifford Brown Jazz Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to Brown's memory and inspiring a love for jazz among young people. The Foundation is currently under the direction of Clifford Brown III, Brown's grandson and a respected Bay Area trumpeter and music producer.

Clifford's son Clifford Brown Jr has received the Ampex Award of Excellence as the nation's top jazz Program Director, and in 1996 he received the Beverly Anne Johnson Media Award for his many years of being a "positive Black male role model." Since 1979 Clifford Brown Jr. has been one of the most popular radio personalities in the San Francisco Bay Area and has made the Brown name synonymous with broadcasting there.

So life goes on.

Clifford Brown Is My Ideal As a Jazz Trumpet Player

Clifford Brown is my ideal as a jazz trumpet player and composer - beyond Miles Davis or Dizzy Gillespie. He adhered to and transcended the tradition of Charlie Parker who pointed the way for others before his young life came to an end. Gilbert Castellanos, Holly Hofman, Rob Thorsen and a few other local San Diegans follow in that venerable tradition while expanding it at the same time. Who knows what heights could have been scaled had Clifford Brown survived that crash that rainy night?

While Pannonica de Koenigswarter was called the Jazz Baroness, Holly Hofmann certainly deserves the epithet: Jazz Empress of San Diego. Holly has presented concerts at Diego's Loft from 1988-90; Horton Grand from 1990-1997; Bristol Hotel from 1998-2000; San Diego Museum of Art from 2002-2009; Birch North Park Theater from 2010-2012 and Croce's First Thursdays from 2015-.

In addition to her impressive resume as an impresario, she placed eighth in the flute category of the Down Beat Critics Poll last year. On her latest CD, "Low Life," made with her husband, pianist Mike Wofford, she plays the alto flute exclusively. Jazz critic Dan McClenaghan says this in his review of the album:

Holly Hofmann, one of the jazz world's premier flutists, explores a deeper-toned territory with Low Life: The Alto Flute Project. Primarily a conventional C flautist—with an impressive discography—Hofmann has broken out the lower tone of the alto flute in her concerts, and occasionally on record. Now it's time for a full length CD featuring her expertise on the instrument....

Hofmann's lone writing contribution to the set, "Lumeiere de la Vie," is a five minute long gold nugget of a tune, a smooth and gorgeous masterpiece, and the CD's closer, guitarist Pat Metheny's "Farmer's Trust" blossoms like a spring flower, a sweet and unpretentious ballad, so delicate and lovely in the hands of this band and flutist Hofmann that it can make a grown man cry.

This Friday, October 30, Rob Thorsen will be at the Handlery with L.A. guitarist Steve Cotter. Steve comes from the Wes Montgomery school of great, swinging guitarists. Fernando Gomez is back on drums.

Upcoming in November:

11/6 Latin Percussionist Tommy Aros with Irving Flores, piano and Dean Hulett, bass.

11/13 Guitarist Peter Sprague with Mackenzie Leighton, bass and Charlie Weller, drums

11/20 Los Travellers: Carlos Vasquez, drums, Ray Briz, piano and Glen Fisher, bass

11/27 Two Guitar Trio: Mundell Lowe, Bob Boss and Rob Thorsen, bass

Extreme Weather Watch: September 2015 - Fires Devastate Homes in California

by John Lawrence

2000 Homes and 200 Square Miles Up in Flames

On September 13 California Gov. Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency in Lake and Napa counties. He also had issued a state of emergency in Calaveras and Amador counties. Four firefighters were injured in the fire called the Valley fire. Thousands fled as mandatory evacuations were ordered for the communities of Cobb, Middletown, Harbin Hot Springs and Big Canyon Road.

More than 1,300 people fled Middletown, north of San Francisco, as their homes were consumed by the flames. Main Street in Middletown burned up. 600 homes gone. More than 5,000 were without power. The Valley fire burned 40,000 acres in just 17 hours. On Sept. 13 it was reported that 1000 homes gone. As of October 5, the Valley fire was 99% contained. 1,958 structures were destroyed, 93 structures damaged.

A separate blaze — called the Valley Fire — in Lake County, about 170 miles to the northwest, has killed three people, destroyed nearly 600 homes and burned hundreds of other structures.

As of the middle of September, the Butte Fire in Amador and Calaveras counties, about 70 miles east of Sacramento, had grown to 100 square miles. It had destroyed at least 85 residences and 50 outbuildings and threatens 6,150 homes. As of Sunday the 13th fire officials said a blaze that had destroyed more than 100 homes north of San Francisco had grown to 78 square miles.

The Butte fire claimed two deaths. The two killed by the Butte fire — 66-year-old Mark McCloud and 82-year-old Owen Goldsmith — died after rejecting orders from authorities to evacuate, Cal Fire spokeswoman Lynnette Round said. As of October 1, 475 residences, 343 outbuildings, 45 structures were burned or damaged in the Butte fire. It was 100% contained as of October 1.

Totals for California for the month of September 2015: 3914 homes and structures burned or damaged. Tens of thousands were forced to evacuate their homes.

Japan Floods

Sept 13: Japan advised almost 3 million people to evacuate after heavy flooding killed seven people and left at least 15 missing in the eastern region of the country.

Seven people are now confirmed dead and 15 remain missing in the wake of torrential rains associated with former Tropical Storm Etau that dumped unprecedented rainfall on parts of eastern and northern Japan

At least 27 people have been injured across 10 prefectures since floods inundated parts of eastern Japan after a tropical storm, the Fire and Disaster Management Agency said.

Up to 26 inches of rain fell in eastern Japan Sunday through Friday due to Tropical Storm Etau.

In Tochigi, more than 19 inches of rain fell in 24 hours in places, double the amount that normally falls there throughout the whole of September, according to Japanese public broadcaster NHK.

The city of Joso, north of the capital, Tokyo, was hit by a wall of water after the Kinugawa River burst its banks. Helicopter rescue teams have been plucking people from rooftops. More than 100,000 were ordered to leave their homes.

Floods and landslides resulted in 8 dead, 46 injured.

The heavy rain caused additional leaks of radioactive water at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

The plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), said rain had overwhelmed the site’s drainage pumps, sending hundreds of tons of contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean.

Workers at the Fukushima plant have had to store huge quantities of contaminated water used to cool melted fuel in three badly damaged reactors in thousands of steel tanks.

Flash Floods in Utah and Arizona Sept. 15

Zion National Park in Utah: Hours after they entered Keyhole Canyon, dark skies unleashed fierce rains that sent water surging through the chasm, sweeping seven people to their deaths. Rangers received a report of a group of seven individuals canyoneering in Keyhole Canyon shortly before the flooding began. Their unoccupied vehicles were located on Monday evening and a search began the morning of Tuesday, September 15, 2015 when it was determined that these individuals had not exited the canyon.

Twenty miles away, in the polygamous community of Hildale, an SUV and van carrying 16 women and children were swept away by one of the biggest flash floods locals had ever seen. Flash floods along the Utah-Arizona border engulfed the two vehicles and swept them into a waterway that is normally dry. Three victims survived, and one was transported to a hospital.

Flash flooding near the Utah-Arizona border claimed a death toll of 20 from the violent rainstorm.

Extreme Weather Has Killed Thousands in 2015

Poorer nations suffering from extreme weather disasters, so much so that their citizens are seeking refuge in safer terrains outside their borders, want rich nations like the United States to pay for reparations and to relocate populations.

Preparatory talks ahead of the United Nations Conference on Climate Change to be held in Paris in December has representatives from developing nations asking for more than an already agreed upon $100 billion per year for climate change mitigation measures. They want additional compensation for weather-related disasters as well as a "displacement coordination facility" for refugees. And they want all this to be legally binding as part of the larger anticipated Paris accord.

The U.S. and wealthier nations in the European Union are balking.

Governor Brown Signs Climate Change Bill to Spur Renewable Energy

This just in from the LA Times October 7:

The legislation, SB 350 by Senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), was amended to remove a third component that would have required reduced gasoline use on California roads. The battle over the controversial proposal dominated the closing weeks of the legislative session last month.

Despite ceding some ground in a tug-of-war with oil companies, Brown and De León have touted the remaining parts of the legislation as significant steps in California’s fight against climate change. ...

The bill will require California to generate 50% of its electricity from renewable sources such as solar and wind by 2030, up from the current target of 33% by 2020.

Guns

by John Lawrence from the San Diego Free Press

We live in a sick society where little kids play violent video games, you can't flip through the channels on a TV without seeing drawn handguns, and hunters use automatic weapons to kill innocent animals. It's a culture of violence in movies and TV, a culture of violence in video games and a culture of violence in terms of unending wars and people blown to smithereens every night on the nightly news.

It was disheartening to me to see a few days after the horrific mass murder at Umpqua Community College, pro gun demonstrators protesting the American President as he landed there to give comfort to the families who had lost loved ones. Where were the anti gun protesters? Where were the ones who protested the taking of innocent lives by sick minds who are bolstered every day of their lives by a sick culture, a culture which glorifies and celebrates gun violence. It's ubiquitous. It's celebrated and it's done in order to make money from "entertainment."

That's right. We're entertained by people killing each other with guns. Is there an action movie in which there are no guns? I don't think so. How many video games don't involve the player or shooter not pulling a trigger. We train them up young with hand/eye coordination. Then we send them to schools in which there is no recess so that their energy and anger builds to the point that they feel justified in blowing people away for no justifiable reason.

Let's face it folks. We're more in danger from Americans with sick minds blowing children away than we are from terrorists. Yet we spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year defending ourselves from terrorists and hardly anything defending ourselves from ourselves . As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and the enemy is us."

Why wasn't the FBI monitoring websites for the "involuntarily celibate"? These are the websites that Elliot Roger and Christopher Harper-Mercer telegraphed their intentions on. Why wasn't the FBI tracking them? And why are violent young men, who willingly state online their murderous intentions, allowed to purchase guns regardless of the fact that they've never before been convicted of a crime?

In a recent post on Love-shy.com, a forum for the dateless and sexless, a man wrote, “I am seriously thinking about just getting a gun and shooting everything up. I fantasize about it everyday … that’s how fucked up my mind is.” The truly “fucked up” thing is that this isn’t another newly discovered online posting from Elliot Rodger, the 22-year-old who went on a shooting rampage in Isla Vista, killing six people. These are just the words of yet another angry man on the internet expressing rage at society — especially women — over his own celibacy.

President Obama should have had a hundred anti gun demonstrators waiting for him when he got off that helicopter in Roseburg. Instead he was met by a bunch of yahoos who all they can think about is their freakin guns. These people are a bunch of angry a-holes who have nothing better to do than to be worried about their guns right after 10 people from their own community, Roseburg, have just been rubbed out, their young lives lost forever, in a hail of bullets. Their answer is to arm everyone? Preachers in pulpits are now carrying guns. Principals in schools are now carrying guns. Anger and guns. They now characterize American society. Oregon is one of seven states with provisions, either from state legislation or court rulings, that allow the carrying of concealed weapons on public post-secondary campuses. How friggin convenient for Harper-Mercer!

Do I have to detail all the tragedies perpetrated by sick individuals who not only had possession of but were even encouraged by their parents to possess guns? There was Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook who fatally shot 20 children and 6 adult staff members. Surely he was affected by a culture of violence which makes it seem "routine" to off people. President Obama has said that mass killing of Americans by Americans has become routine. "Somehow this has become routine. The reporting is routine. My response here at this podium ends up being routine, the conversation in the aftermath of it ... We have become numb to this," he complained. During his presidency, President Barack Obama has had to deliver statements on gun violence 15 times.

No longer can we "wonder at the gunman's motives" or think this is a"rare occurence." It's routine, folks; it's happening every day. Get ready for the next one. Your children could be next. In fact it already happened just 8 days after the shootings in Roseburg. Gunmen opened fire on campuses in Texas and Arizona. Copycats? Perhaps. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold got the ball rolling at Columbine. They paved the way for the others. That's their legacy. They were first.

The others: Dylan Roof who killed 9 people at a black church in Charleston, SC, Elliot Rodger who killed 6 people in Isla Vista, CA, Aaron Alexis, a Navy contractor and former Navy enlisted man, who killed 12 people in Washington, DC, John Zawahri who killed 5 people in Santa Monica, CA, Radcliffe Haughton, a 45-year-old former Marine, who killed 3 people in Brookfield, WI,

Wade Michael Page, an Army veteran, who killed 6 people at a Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, WI, James Holmes who killed 12 people and injured 58 others in Aurora, CO, One L. Goh who killed 7 in Oakland, CA, Scott Dekraai who killed 8 in Seal Beach, CA, Jared Lee Loughner who killed 6 in Tucson, AZ including the attempted killing of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Omar S. Thornton who killed 8 in Manchester, CT,

Amy Bishop, a neurobiologist and assistant professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who killed 3, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, who killed 13 and injured 32 at Fort Hood, TX, Jiverly Voong who killed 13 in Binghamton, NY, Steven Kazmierczak who killed 5 in a geology class at Northern Illinois University in Dekalb, IL,

Robert Hawkins who killed 8 at a shopping center in Omaha, NE, Seung-hui Cho who killed 32 on the Virginia Tech campus, Sulejman Talovic who killed 5 at a Salt Lake City shopping mall .... And the list goes on.

A rather long sentence, isn't it, the preceding. Many of the perpetrators were students, many were former Marines or Army vets. They all had grudges; they all had violent uncontrollable anger. They all had access to guns. They all purchased their guns legally. They all had Intermittent Explosive Disorder. According to Wikipedia: "Intermittent explosive disorder (sometimes abbreviated as IED [what an apt acronym!]) is a behavioral disorder characterized by explosive outbursts of anger, often to the point of rage, that are disproportionate to the situation at hand..." There is no need to probe these people's minds any further, to ask ad nauseum "what was the gunman's motive." They were all sick and they all had legally purchased arsenals at their disposal. They all planned their killing sprees. Most of them telegraphed their intentions on social media. Some were even cheered on.

Can we learn nothing from other countries which have strict gun control and far fewer gun deaths than the US? Why is there even a debate as to whether more guns or less guns is the solution?

Does the FBI even read the Washington Post which had a really informative article: "Incels, 4chan and the Beta Uprising: making sense of one of the Internet’s most-reviled subcultures"? Incels are INvoluntarily CELibateS by the way. Maybe society should just get them all girlfriends or sex workers. It might just solve a lot of problems.

The following is from the website, dailymail.com in the UK:

Chris Harper-Mercer wrote the anonymous message on bulletin board 4chan: 'Don't go to school tomorrow if you are in the northwest' 9 hours before the killing began. It was written at 1.19 AM yesterday morning and the first shots were fired at Umpqua Community College at 10.38 AM.

Under the disturbing message, many users encouraged the person to go ahead with their threat and even advised the poster on the best ways to kill people. One user wrote: 'I suggest you enter a classroom and tell people that you will take them as hostages. Make everyone get in one corner and then open fire.

'Make sure that there is no way that someone can disarm you as it is possible. I suggest you carry a knife on your belt as last resort if someone is holding your gun.' While another user wrote: 'You might want to target a girls school which is safer because there are no beta males throwing themselves for their rescue. 'Do not use a shotgun. I would suggest a powerful assault rifle and a pistol or 2x pistols. Possibly the type of pistols who have 15+ ammo.' 'If you are suicidal and hate people, then do it. If not then stay away from what will ruin your life,' another user wrote.

A user wrote: 'In this very clearly hypothetical situation you actually shoot people in your high school or college, try to aim for s***** people at least. Spare the kind fools, humdrum druggies, and churchies and go for he whom really terrorises the populous: Chads and Stacies who have scorned many and yourself. The post continued: 'You'll do the world a favour by purging part of the population that only exists to consume resources and act for themselves.'  In 2013, 18-year-old student Neil Allan Macinnis shot dead two women at a Virginia college - before the killing he posted on 4chan asking users to 'wish him luck.' 

Some of the posters on the site even tried to contact the FBI tip line. Evidently, they were asleep at the switch. I guess they're only interested in foreign terrorists not domestic ones. They better wake up that this is a phenomenon that is not going away. Prevention is the only alternative at this point in a nation that is locked and loaded and ready to pull the trigger over the slightest grievance especially at schools and on campuses.

How many remember San Diego's own mass shooting on campus in 1996? Next year will be the twentieth anniversary of the killing that took the lives of three San Diego State professors.

Wikipedia sums it up nicely:

The San Diego State University shooting was a school shooting that occurred at the San Diego State University (SDSU) engineering building on August 15, 1996 in San Diego, CA. Three professors were killed by master's degree student Frederick Martin Davidson. Three months later, a copycat threat flier was sent, with threats against professors and racial insults.

Davidson, the three faculty members, and three other engineering students assembled in the classroom shortly before 2:00 p.m. The three students were there to support Davidson, and to witness a Master's thesis defense. Liang stood, formally introduced Davidson, stated the purpose of the meeting, and sat back down. Davidson then handed Liang a printout of an e-mail, from a prospective employer who was interested in hiring Davidson, that stated that his future employment with the company hinged on a successful Master's thesis defense.

Without time for comment from Liang, and without saying anything himself, Davidson turned to the first aid box on the wall, removed a 9 mm handgun, and immediately started firing. He hit Liang first, killing him while he was still seated at the faculty table. Lowrey and Lyrintzis were also hit. However, Lowrey tried to escape out the only main access door to the room. There were other doors in the room, but only one door led out to the hallway, and other parts of the third floor of the Engineering building.

Davidson was between the main door and the faculty table, and shot Lowrey several times; he died on the floor in the main doorway. Lyrintzis fled from the main door and Davidson, into an adjoining classroom, and hid under a table. After killing Lowrey, Davidson reloaded another magazine into the handgun, and pursued Lyrintzis into the other room. There, he shot and killed Lyrintzis while the latter was still under the desk. Overall, Davidson fired 23 rounds, with 16 rounds hitting the professors.

The three students attending the thesis defense were not shot, and escaped without injury. One of the students made it out through the main doorway, and notified the third-floor students and faculty to evacuate. Davidson later commented that he was not angry at the students, and had no intention of killing them.

After the shooting, Davidson himself called 911. Police arrived to find Davidson in the third-floor hallway still holding the handgun. He was reportedly sobbing and begging for police to kill him. He soon surrendered to police without further incident. Davidson had intended to kill himself after the shootings, but could not due to "pure cowardice". Davidson had left a murder-suicide note in the hallway for the police to find, detailing the location of evidence and computer files in his house.

Guns and angry people. To say they have no impulse control would be an erroneous statement. They had to purchase guns in the first place, laying the groundwork for future misdeeds. They had to work up a head of steam about some real or perceived mistreatment or grievance, and, finally, they had to load up the guns and take them to the killing field. At any point in time along the way, they could have turned back. They not only had a preconceived plan; they probably fantasized about it for months.

Many Americans are so obsessed with the Second Amendment that they can't even imagine that other societies might be doing things differently with much better outcomes. See A Cultural Comparison: Gun Violence in the US and Europe in 3 parts by Frank Thomas and myself for alternatives to the violence and gun ridden society of Amerika and for some alternatives that actually work, that is if we can give up our love affair with guns.

In Drought Conditions, the Rich Are Using Millions of Gallons of Water

by John Lawrence from the San Diego Free Press

In Bel Air One Household Used an Astonishing 11.8 Million Gallons

Hey, we're in a drought and people are being encouraged to take shorter showers and only wash their cars sparingly. But that doesn't apply to the rich. They are using millions of gallons of water and neither the state or local water districts are limiting them in any way. The water bill for this 11.8 million gallon user for the 12 months ending April 1 was $90,000. This guy was only charged 0.76 cents a gallon! No wonder he consumed water excessively; it was so cheap! California is in the fourth year of a water crisis, but the rich are using water as if there were no tomorrow.

Mother Jones nailed the zip code data on this although no water district would reveal their excessive users by name. Privacy trumps the public's right to know who these water gluttons are, but it's not hard to guess. They all come from exclusive neighborhoods. Take San Diego, for instance. There are 92 persons or families who have consumed more than a million gallons, mainly in La Jolla and Carmel Valley. The biggest single user in San Diego was someone who consumed 4.6 million gallons in a year. Anybody want to step forward and admit what a scofflaw you are and try to justify your excessive water usage?

The rest of us are encouraged to stop watering our lawns, even rip them out and put in desert plants. (Take a virtual tour of the water conservation garden at Cuyamaca College led by Ms. Smarty-Plants.) But there are two sets of rules, just like in everything else: one set for the rich and another set for the rest of us. While the water districts have mounted a campaign to get us to cut our water use, these big shots continue their wanton and profligate ways. Hey, after all, it's the drought of the century. But that's only as far as poor and middle class people are concerned. For the rich it's business as usual. Don't ask them to rip out their manicured lawns and private golf courses. When the rest of us are dying of thirst, their lawns will still be green.

While the water agencies have fined hundreds of Californians for watering down their driveways or not replacing broken sprinkler heads, the rich go their merry ways indulging their gargantuan appetites for a boundless supply of agua pura. David Wilson got fined $600 for watering his lawn on the wrong day of the week and letting runoff flow into the street.

But you can bet that the richies are spraying their private orchards with the good stuff, not gray water. Only the best for them. Money talks and the rest of us will be fined for disobeying the water agency's silly rules. Here's a rule for you. Limit their water intake and charge a premium for any water use over what the average household uses.

Angelenos can pump as much water as they want said Martin Adams, senior assistant general manager for the water system at the Department of Water and Power. "There's no ordinance on the books in Los Angeles to go after an individual customer strictly for their use," he said.

San Diego Has Some of the Biggest Water Guzzlers

When it comes to million gallon plus users, San Diego is no slouch. San Diego's biggest user weighing in at 4.6 million gallons lives in La Jolla where Mitt Romney and John McCain have homes. Is it one of them? Two other La Jolla residents consumed 4.5 million gallons. 29 La Jollans consumed more than a million gallons in a year, the third highest number of million gallon users in the state. That's a lot of grass kept green. Or maybe they have orchards and vineyards in their back yards. For sure swimming pools and fountains. Luxury knows no bounds. Just go ahead and gorge yourselves, richies. Us plebes will go on conserving water as best we can so you can enjoy your rich lifestyles.

Carmel Valley had 36 customers who used a million gallons or more. Must be growing tomatoes or avocados in their yards. Or maybe it's those half hour showers from 10 Rainfall shower heads. Even Rancho Bernardo weighed in as having the tenth largest number of million gallon users in the state: 12.

During the 1991 drought it was a matter of public record who the biggest water users were, and they could be identified by name. But guess what happened? Rich people got the law changed to protect themselves so their identities could not be revealed in the future. The law was pushed by the City of Palo Alto citing the privacy concerns of Silicon Valley executives. Think the deck is not stacked against you if you're not rich? This is only one small instance of how rich people are changing the nature of democracy to favor themselves. Magnify that small change in the law by a million and you get some sense of what has happened to turn this democracy into a plutocracy.

In The Divide Mat Taibbi details how America has turned into a nation that has one set of laws for the rich and quite another for the poor. Witness: rich people caught using drugs go to rehab. Poor people, especially poor black people, go to jail. Taibbi wrote this book to demonstrate that unequal wealth is producing grotesquely unequal outcomes in criminal justice. Taibbi shows that, just as income disparities are growing ever wider, so are disparities in who attracts the attention of cops and prosecutors and who doesn’t. Strangely enough, the Divide also applies to water usage.

Water Usage of the Rich and Famous

LA has 92 of the top water users in the state. On average LA's mega-users pumped 4.2 million gallons of water per year apiece. They live in the zip codes of the rich and famous: Hollywood actors and moguls, real estate executives, lawyers, plastic surgeons and such. What they pay for water is just a small blip in their portfolios. Maybe they should pay more, a lot more, just as they should pay a lot more in taxes, especially on the billions held offshore that go tax free.

Bel Air harbors not just the biggest water user in the state but four of California's top five with water usage ranging from 7.4 million gallons to 11.8 million gallons. Beverly Hills zip code, 90210, is not far behind. In the 90210 lives the third most gargantuan appetite for water. His or her consumption is enough for 60 normal families - 8 million gallons per year. This exorbitance and extravagance when it comes to water usage reflects the other aspects of their lives. Too much is never enough!

Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting sought information on the biggest users. At most they got information for zip codes. Here are some of the lame excuses they got: "City does not maintain records", "wanted $2100 for 'programming' to produce data", "by law, data is exempt from disclosure", "district does not have an existing list of big users."

So average Joe Schmoes, you better watch your butt if you wash your car on the wrong day or your sprinkler heads are not in good working order. And just jump in the shower, get wet and jump out again before you soap up. Then feel free to turn the water back on, jump back in and wash the soap off. The other guys behind those tall hedges and locked gates don't have to worry about a thing. They can shower at leisure, and who cares if they leave the water running while they take an important phone call. Their water districts are protecting their identities.

Judy's Life Video Prepared by Justine Wynn

Effective Altruism: Is It Up To Rich People To Save the World?

by John Lawrence from the San Diego Free Press

Peter Singer has written a book The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically (Yale University Press, 2015). Singer has been called "the world's greatest living philosopher" and is currently a Professor at Princeton so we must take his work seriously. Yet I'm bothered by the implications of his work as condensed in an essay: How You Can Do the Most Good: It's Not as Simple as You Think.

He tells about one of his students who, though caring to extreme about the plight of poor people in the world, nevertheless, chose to go to work on Wall Street when he graduated. His reasoning was that he could help the most poverty stricken by dedicating a large amount of his considerable salary to helping them rather than going to work as a volunteer working directly with them in Africa, for instance. A huge amount of money contributed to the right charities would alleviate the conditions of more people than would be helped by a person of meager resources who devoted his working efforts to their cause.

The utilitarian part of me can't argue with this approach to helping the poor. However, I'm bothered by the fact that this guy went to work for the Evil Empire (pardon my hyperbole) in order to do good for others. This isn't exactly the Robin Hood approach. Robin Hood didn't go to work for the devil; he stole from him. To my way of thinking this is an ethically better approach.

I consider many occupations to be unethical including working on Wall Street. To say that a greater good can be accomplished by taking ill gotten gains after contributing to an enterprise's evil activities can't be justified by saying that, on a utilitarian basis, more good can be accomplished than bad created. Singer is saying that those who go into teaching because their passion is helping children would do better by going into a profession in which they could earn far more money and then using a portion of that money to help the uneducated. This is pure nonsense. When taken to extremes he justifies the sacrifice of some people for the greater good of saving a larger number.

For example, suppose you were faced with the proposition that you could earn a million dollars by killing someone. With that million dollars you could help 100 poor children escape poverty. Does that justify killing one person? I don't think so.

Should One's Life Work Be Ethical?

I consider one's life work to be something that should be considered from an ethical viewpoint. There are jobs and occupations which, although legal, are from my viewpoint unethical. Take for example petroleum engineering. There are very high salaries for college graduates in this field and jobs are readily available. But in an age where climate change is being exacerbated by the burning of fossil fuels, I consider it unethical to go to work for the fossil fuel industry.

There are other jobs and professions I consider to be unethical and others that I consider ethical. This is just my own personal assessment. Others would disagree, but I consider working for the military-industrial complex unethical because it supports the war industry instead of putting time and energy and money into the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps. I consider working in the advertising industry unethical because it exists to convince people to part with their money for the enrichment of corporations while pretending to be concerned about the welfare of the individuals they seek to influence. It promotes "unbridled consumerism" as Pope Francis has said.

The pharmaceutical industry which charges what the market will bear for life saving drugs is clearly unethical. The drug, called Daraprim, was acquired by a former hedge fund manager. The price was immediately raised to $750 a tablet from $13.50, bringing the annual cost of treatment for some patients to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I consider teaching, care giving, nursing, providing services to the local economy such as those provided by tradesmen or craftsmen to be ethical. Factory farms I consider to be unethical; organic farms I consider to be ethical. I could go on creating two lists: ethical and unethical jobs and occupations but I won't.

Other people can make up their own lists. Most Americans would probably consider any legal job or occupation to be ethical. I disagree obviously.

Here is Singer's very persuasive argument:

I met Matt Wage in 2009 when he took my Practical Ethics class at Princeton University. In the readings relating to global poverty and what we ought to be doing about it, he found an estimate of how much it costs to save the life of one of the millions of children who die each year from diseases that we can prevent or cure. This led him to calculate how many lives he could save, over his lifetime, assuming he earned an average income and donated 10 percent of it to a highly effective organization, such as one providing families with bed nets to prevent malaria, a major killer of children. He discovered that he could, with that level of donation, save about one hundred lives. He thought to himself, “Suppose you see a burning building, and you run through the flames and kick a door open, and let one hundred people out. That would be the greatest moment in your life. And I could do as much good as that!”

Two years later Wage graduated, receiving the Philosophy Department’s prize for the best senior thesis of the year. He was accepted by the University of Oxford for postgraduate study. Many students who major in philosophy dream of an opportunity like that—I know I did—but by then Wage had done a lot of thinking about what career would do the most good. Over many discussions with others, he came to a very different choice: he took a job on Wall Street, working for an arbitrage trading firm. On a higher income, he would be able to give much more, both as a percentage and in dollars, than 10 percent of a professor’s income. One year after graduating, Wage was donating a six-figure sum—roughly half his annual earnings—to highly effective charities. He was on the way to saving a hundred lives, not over his entire career but within the first year or two of his working life and every year thereafter.

Should One Sell His Soul to Wall Street in Order to Do Good?

So Singer apparently considers working for Wall Street a more ethical job than being a professor. I don't think so. He doesn't stop to consider the ethically corrupting influence that Wall Street will have on Wage himself who may at any time decide his money will be better spent on his own noncharitable predilections or may decide that selling his soul to Wall Street, even for a good cause, is something he can no longer do.

He doesn't stop to consider how much evil Wage will be participating in simply by doing his job. He doesn't consider the corrosive influence that working in a toxic environment will have on Wage's soul. He doesn't consider that Wage might not be able to tolerate working in that environment for more than a short time like many young people who went to work on Wall Street right after college. In short Wage is selling his soul for a mess of pottage, pottage to be sure that he intends to give away to help others, but pottage gained by losing his soul, his humanity and his integrity nevertheless.

Singer's argument suggests that it's up to rich people to save the world. In fairness rich people do a lot of good through their charities. But it's not an unmitigated good. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has done much good in the world which wouldn't have been possible without the success of Microsoft Corporation. The Gates Foundation is not without controversy, however, including their support for GMOs and charter (privatized) schools. Gates and other rich people who have gotten rich off of technology naturally feel that there's a technological solution for every problem.

So is it up to billionaires to do the most good in the world because they possess the most resources? We also must consider that not all billionaires are up to doing good with their money. Many of them use their considerable resources, instead of helping people, to maintain a system of oppression over people lest those people take their resources away from them. That's why we can't trust that billionaires are going to save the world. Many of them are up to making it worse, particularly the plight of the least well off.

An article in Salon says it better:

As H.L. Mencken writes, "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve." While some philanthropists support good causes (like Bloomberg’s fight against Big Tobacco), other pet causes are not so humanitarian. While we may applaud the work of Bill Gates, many philanthrocapitalists, like the Adelsons and the Kochs, have decided that their philanthropic venture will be empowering the Ted Cruzes of the world to wreak havoc. Wealth is power, and concentrated wealth is concentrated power. The most benevolent inventions are also the cruelest.

A better approach might be to limit the economic power that can be accumulated by corporations which then ends up in individual hands. Some billionaires do a lot of good in the world; some do bad, but not everyone can be a billionaire. Everyone can aspire to working in an ethical job or occupation. A system that results in the accumulation of economic power by the 1%, no matter how much resultant good comes with it, is not ethical especially when that means that the plight of the lower classes worsens from year to year. A good society would distribute economic well being more equitably and democratically. Then we all wouldn't be so dependent on the noblesse oblige of the rich.

Charity is Good But What About Justice?

Some make a distinction between charity and justice. Charity deals with the immediate needs of desperate people. Justice deals with setting things up so that they don't become desperate in the first place:

Justice directly confronts the challenge of preventing people from ending up in vulnerable situations. What causes over 15 million children in the U.S. to go to bed hungry each night? Why don’t we have universal public health care? Why aren’t public colleges and universities tuition-free like high schools in the U.S. and [colleges in] most western European countries? Why are our public works crumbling and creating unnecessary obstructions for disaster relief (reaching people stranded after hurricanes)?

It is advocacy promoting justice that seeks the prevention of the causes that lead to so much misery, institutional harm, poverty, and the loss of human life and potential. Repairing the wreckage of wars places huge demands on charity. Waging peace and negotiating arms control agreements places huge demands on justice.

Singer says, "Living a minimally acceptable ethical life involves using a substantial part of our spare resources to make the world a better place." You can't argue with that, but that applies to everyone in the economic spectrum not just to rich people. And many are so hobbled economically that they don't have any spare resources. They need an inflow of charitable or societal resources just to make ends meet. They should not be contributing to charity at all.

If society provided more opportunities for people to do good ^i.e. by transferring resources from the war machine to the Peace Corps for instance, more people could work in ethical occupations and pull themselves and others out of poverty at the same time. Too often, however, what the American society provides is opportunities to work in unethical occupations which are rewarded handsomely while working in ethical occupations is rewarded minimally or not at all. If the budgets of the military-industrial complex and those of the Peace Corps were transposed, a massive movement of those working in ethical occupations would provide a greater force for good than the combined forces of ethical billionaires.

Reliance on billionaires to do good in the world is a return to feudalism where kings were the only forces for good or bad in the world depending on whether they were enlightened despots like Catherine the Great and Frederick the Great or just plain despots like Ivan the Terrible or Caligula.

We must consider whether a society which creates "opportunities" for some people to become obscenely wealthy, even though they can then supposedly turn around and use their money to do good, is as good a society as one which creates opportunities for most people to work in ethical occupations and do good at the same time.

Singer's world view is one where everyone is well off and gives to charity without sacrificing any of their own self-interest at all. They needn't do that because after all they are billionaires and have much more money than they ever could spend on themselves. It's not the real world. It applies to a small fraction of rich people - those who want to use their money for good purposes. They barely, if at all, offset the rich who use their money to perpetuate bad purposes.

Perhaps Wage will find out that he cannot sacrifice his own soul to gain the world even if he gives half of it away.

In an article in Salon Sean McElwee says : Charity is great, but it won't bring real change — and worse, it perpetuates the myth that we need the ultra-rich:

Think of the planet’s best human being. Who are you thinking of? Pope Francis? Your parents? Justin Bieber? According to Business Insider, it’s Mark Zuckerberg. Why? Because he’s planning to donate $1 billion (less than 5 percent of his massive fortune) to charity. While it’s certainly welcome, philanthropy is far more insidious than it appears at first sight. It tends to lead to fawning press coverage, but little in the way of good reform. Worse, it perpetuates the myth that society’s problems can be solved by the rich and powerful. ...

There’s a very real sense in which it would be hard for Zuckerberg to have done less for the poor. After all, he and his rich Silicon Valley friends regularly use their wealth to lobby for policies that would make them even richer — even if in the guise of social responsibility.

Billionaires Do Not Always Use Their Money for Good Purposes

And that's the rub. The rich in addition to their charitable endeavors also use their money to perpetuate the system that made them wealthy in the first place even if that system fosters subjugation and oppression for the vast majority. McElwee writes: "In charity, the rich approach the poor not as equal citizens but rather [as] benefactor and serf. It perpetuates a class society, where the poor and middle class are dependent on the wealthy."

We must also consider the rationale and ethics of a society that makes some people insanely wealthy for inventing things of questionable and even trivial value. For instance, take Snapchat. Snapchat has made its corporate owners, Evan Spiegel and Bobby Murphy fabulously wealthy.  Using the application, users can take photos, record videos, add text and drawings, and send them to a controlled list of recipients. These sent photographs and videos are known as "Snaps". Users set a time limit for how long recipients can view their Snaps after which Snapchat claims they will be deleted from the company's servers.

The main purpose of SnapChat is so users of the application can take pictures of their "junk", send them out and then not have to worry that a prospective employer might view them. In June 2013, Snapchat raised $60 million in a funding round led by venture-capital firm Institutional Venture Partners. According to Forbes, Snapchat’s chief executive Evan Spiegel and co-founder Bobby Murphy, have made it to the 2015 Forbes 400 list. Mr. Spiegel, who is 25, is now the youngest billionaire in the world and currently his net worth sums up to $2.1 billion. Don't tell me that we live in an ethical society when a piece of crap like SnapChat can raise $60 million, make Spiegel a billionaire and poor kids go hungry.

In addition it turns out that Spiegle didn't even invent SnapChat. It was invented by former "friend", Reggie Brown, who was subsequently shut out of the company. This is reminiscent of Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg who shut out the Winkelvoss twins, who actually invented Facebook, and later settled with them for $65 million, a large amount to be sure, but not the $35.7 billion Zuckerberg is worth. Long story short, people screw their friends over huge amounts of money. This is an ethical society when things like this can happen and people can make huge amounts of money for crapola?

On May 9, 2013, Forbes reported that Snapchat photos do not actually disappear, and that the images can still be retrieved with minimal technical knowledge after the time limit expires. The Electronic Privacy Information Center consequently filed a complaint against Snapchat with the Federal Trade Commission, stating that Snapchat deceived its customers by leading them to believe that pictures are destroyed within seconds of viewing.

Snapchat eventually settled with the Federal Trade Commission over allegations it deceived users over the amount of personal data it collected and was responsible for a security breach that impacted 4.6 million customers. It will face privacy monitoring for 20 years.

That's the story in a nutshell. Unethical people making huge sums of money in unethical enterprises while the poor and people striving in ethical professions such as teaching and caregiving starve to death. Capitalism, especially as it is currently conceived, manifested and practiced, is unethical. Make no mistake about it: capitalism is not some absolute thing-in-itself that has always existed from time immemorial. It is a moving target, continuously being reinvented and updated to advantage the already rich with every new wrinkle that some financial expert can come up with.

In other words, it evolves and not necessarily in benign ways. Its original purpose, to develop pools of money that could be used in enterprises which would benefit society, has long been forgotten. It allows for despoiliation of the environment, the granting of huge rewards to insiders who come up with stuff that only degrades the culture and the complete neglect of the kinds of enterprises that are necessary to make peace in the world and build a better and stronger society.

US Foreign Interventions Are Proliferating More Havoc Than Order

by Frank Thomas

Introduction

Middle Eastern states are breaking down in an endless escalation of civil wars where Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq are near collapse. Deeply complex, sectarian conflicts, historically long in the making, have evolved in a region acutely divided along Sunni vs. Shiite lines. The instability and power vacuums created are exploited by military factions and radical jihadists, like ISIS – igniting sectarian wars and threatening most of the Middle East. Ironically, Iran has evolved as one of the most effective regional opponents of ISIS whose original funding came from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

U.S. counterproductive regime change interventions – by military engagement, funding, training insurgency groups, supporting coups d’etat, protecting regional dictatorships – have intensified instability and conflagrations in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Egypt and Afghanistan. Emerging relatively unscathed in these interventions, the US then leaves the wreckage behind and goes on to the next trouble-spot intervention.

On the positive side, Iran’s recent Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) accord – signed with China, France, Russia, UK, US plus Germany (P5+1) – presents a good chance to improve Middle East security and make it a safer place. While not perfect, this nuclear weapon non-proliferation accord sets exacting constraints on Iran’s nuclear programs. But distrust and fear of Iran’s nuclear intentions and striving for regional hegemony are triggering counter-reactions by the Saudis and others.

Nuclear Considerations Complicate Things Even Farther

Arab states and Saudi Arabia now feel pressed to provide existing and new civilian nuclear power plants with a "latent" nuclear weapon capability for clandestine military nuclear programs. All to create a nuclear deterrence and military balancing of power with Iran. As one Middle East authority stated, Iran must know that the Gulf states and US will not allow the JCPOA accord to become a cover for Iran’s own aggression. But tragically this is giving rise to relying on nuclear weapons as the ultimate guarantee of existence – which seems counter to strategic logic knowing that ISIS is the Common Enemy.

But the only answer is a credible, workable strategy that contains nuclear weaponry proliferation and reins in the growing sectarian wars in the Middle East. This will require exceptional restraint, judgment and cooperation. More military destruction, human mutilation and slaughter is not the solution. Four years of Western bombs have not stopped the Common Enemy - ISIS.

If Syria falls, ISIS will likely take it over. It has no limits on targets. Lebanon, Jordan, Iran, Israel, Europe, and the US will be next. This raises the question, should Assad’s regime and ISIS be removed to restore Middle East stability as some suggest? Of course, Russia, China and Iran would have to agree – a reminder of just how complex the Syrian apocalyptic development is.

Russia militarily supports the amoral dictator, Assad. America bombs ISIS in Syria and wants to get rid of Assad. What is the lesser evil? It’s the dilemma faced at onset of WWIl – do we fight with Stalin (Assad) against Hitler(ISIS)? America did just that back then. The Syrian mayhem is so catastrophic for everyone in the region and the world that that question should be asked.

But Vladimir Putin’s words this week surprisingly hit the nail on the head: "Healthy common sense and responsibility for global and regional safety demand a united effort from the international community against the threat posed by ISIS." What’s critically vital is to spark debate of counter-arguments that force engagement of alternatives to quell the unending Middle East civil wars. (see: "U.S. Policy Towards the Middle East After the Iranian Nuclear Agreement," by Kenneth M. Pollack, 07-05-2015)

Discussion

Iran's nuclear uranium enrichment program started in the 1980s. A facility in Natanz was built to install 50,000 centrifuges. Under the Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran was legally bound to inform the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about this program but did not do so. In the past, Iran often lied about its nuclear weapons work and was not forthcoming about the possible military dimensions of its nuclear program. Iran's clandestine centrifuge program at Natanz was exposed in 2002.

This started Arab states and Saudis on a path of soliciting bids from the US and France for nuclear power facilities. Gulf states could live with Israel's concealed nuclear weapon capability, but they were fearful of nuclear weapons coming into Iran's hands and disturbing the balance of power. Since 2002, Washington and Paris have been providing nuclear power plant infrastructure know how and aid to Arab states and the Saudis. Nuclear power technical assistance has also been sought from China and Russia and provided. Both countries are seeking strategic footholds to counter US hegemony in the Middle East. Russia helped Iran complete its Bushehr nuclear power plant.  

Increasing Arab investments in nuclear power are telling Iran that Arab states and the Saudis can also convert civilian nuclear power technology to nuclear weapons – thereby holding Iran at risk should it be caught enriching uranium in violation of the JCPOA accord. The accord reduces Iran's installed centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,000. For 15 years, it limits uranium enrichment to 3.67% and ceases enrichment at the Fordow facility. Iran has agreed to make changes at several facilities to prevent them from being used to create nuclear weapons.

But are there still some weak conditions in the accord? Yes. These include:

• Iran can continue running nuclear centrifuges at an underground site once suspected of housing illicit activities.

• Iran says inspectors will be removed if they try to enter sites Iran considers "sensitive".

• Iran is permitted to keep many of its controversial military sites closed to inspections.

• Iran can delay inspections of disputed facilities for at least 24 hours which gives time to sanitize the site.

• Iran can only use IR-1 centrifuges but has begun using IR-8 centrifuges that enrich uranium 20 times faster than IR-1 centrifuges.

Can Iran still cheat?

Yes. Will it inevitably be detected in time? Yes. Why? Unlike North Korea which China now reports has 20 nuclear warheads – a tough regime of IAEA inspections plus close observations of US and Israel make it highly improbable any cheating by Iran is not spotted in a timely manner. Will the repercussions for cheating be severe? Yes. To avoid (or greatly limit) a regional nuclear arms race, is it worth the risk to test whether Iran will abide by the JCPOA accord, restricting Iranians to civilian nuclear power and conventional weapons capabilities? Yes.

Why is it that Iran is inciting a major counteraction of Arab civilian nuclear power proliferation when Israel - the arch enemy of Arab states in two major wars – started developing nuclear weapons and an atomic bomb 40 years ago and has since had an active military posture without inciting a counteraction?

Arab states are now accelerating investments in nuclear power plants and modern, longer range ballistic missiles to compensate for their conventional military shortcomings and to deter Iran from violating the JCPOA accord. The upsurge of Arab interest in nuclear power plants creates a latent nuclear weapon capability. The spread of plutonium produced by civilian nuclear power reactors produces latent nuclear weapon proliferation – the ability to technically transition quickly to deliverable nuclear weapons. The more nuclear power plants and plutonium produced, the more latent nuclear weapon proliferation is produced. The dangerous downside is undermining regional non-nuclear proliferation and enhancing the risk of small nuclear wars and/or nuclear terrorism.

So again, why is Iran's civilian nuclear power program seen as a more acute future threat than Israel's nuclear weapons program and atomic bomb capability?     

A key reason is that Israel's nuclear weapon capability was initially seen and is still seen as being a deterrent strategy and for defense only, not for aggressive expansion of its territory. So the bombing of Iran’s nuclear power facilities, the ongoing occupation of West Bank, the wars of 2008-09 and 2012, the Gaza slaughter, the buying of US Arrow ballistic missiles, Iron Dome anti-rocket systems and possibly cruise missile submarines all qualify as self-defense for Israel. On the other hand, Gulf States and Saudis automatically see the JCPOA accord as inherently dangerous and opens the door for Iranian territorial aggression and hegemony in the region.

Iran's support of Shiite factions in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq spawns Saudi Arabia’s overstated fears of being permanently encircled by Iran – that Iran is on plan to 'take over' Yemen on Saudis' southern border and Iraq on Saudis' northern border. But, as most experts agree, Iran is not controlling events in the region. It is mostly reacting to them. Like the US, it is filling trouble spot holes but not with the intention of taking over territory.

Nevertheless, Arab states and especially Saudi Arabia view Iran as a potential military and nuclear weapons aggressor despite following deterrents:

• recent non-proliferation accord prohibiting Iran (under strict protocols and inspections) from undertaking uranium enrichment or reprocessing technology

• added security measure of Arab states and Saudi Arabia to match the dual-use feature of Iran's civilian nuclear power capability that could serve as an intermediate step to nuclear weapons capability in the distant future. 

Can Saudi Arabia Be a Deterrent to Iran?

As noted, the civilian nuclear power push by Iran's Arab neighbors, led by Saudi Arabia, is a security hedge to provide a means for nuclear weapons if Iran does not cease its uranium enrichment activities – thus a latent nuclear weapons deterrent. This hedge helps counterbalance Iran's regional influence and any aggressive attempts at extended territorial reach. Iran will realize it cannot achieve a unique civilian nuclear power status – that produces latent nuclear weapon capability – without being regionally challenged.

Given these countervailing forces, why would Iran be so recklessly stupid as to invite unfathomable military destructive retaliation if caught covertly developing nuclear weaponry or an atomic bomb capability?

The JCPOA accord prohibits uranium enrichment by Iran for 15 years. If no such 'cap and constrain' deal had been reached, Iran might indeed be emboldened to risk developing a nuclear weaponry deterrent.

Despite the "death to Americans" propaganda by Iran's radical right groups, Iran's 'must-priorities' now are to renew its infrastructure and spur broad economic growth. But resurgent Iranian competition, wealth and economic progress, supported by vast oil reserves, add to fears of Iran's increasing regional hegemony – bolstering Gulf States and the Saudis to match Iran's latent nuclear capability, thereby bolstering their own political and economic influence in the region.  

Arabs states and the Saudis are the world’s largest importers of armaments. University nuclear science and engineering programs are being offered for talented people to run nuclear reactors and keep pace with Iran. Gulf states are relying on France, US, China, Russia, among others for technical assistance to install their civilian nuclear power facilities and make them operational. As stated, the technical competence subsequently acquired makes it possible to redirect nuclear power technology to the military – should that for security reasons become a necessity.   

Nuclear plant equipment and weapon sales are commercially booming, profitable businesses. American, French and other foreign firms have been selling their nuclear power wares for billions of dollars annually to Middle Eastern states for years. The West, notably the US, has been aggressive in selling high performance aircraft that can be adapted to carry nuclear warheads. The Pentagon has just completed a $1 billion weapons deal with Saudi Arabia.

China and Russia are capable of offering modern ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. Russia, like Iran, is strengthening its military presence in Syria. This might lead to setting up missile defense systems against invading Western aircraft missions. Will Russia or China be lured to break international restrictions and provide cruise missiles with nuclear warheads if Arab states and Saudi Arabia show interest?     

Summary

US regime change policies and Western weapon inflows have exacerbated the falling apart process in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Egypt, not to mention Afghanistan. This strategy has invariably backfired and facilitated the rise of ISIS. The Middle East destructive violence epidemic has forced 11 million Syrians to flee their homes, over 4 million of whom have fled their country, escaping to Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and in huge waves to Europe. Refugees are not welcomed nor admitted into Saudi Arabia and Qatar – the very countries originally funding ISIS's birth, but now know the world monster they have helped create.

Upgraded military weapon flows and contiguous civil wars are bringing the Gulf States closer to seeing nuclear weapons as the ultimate security guarantee of their existence – Israel’s long-held position.

But plowing ever more sophisticated military weaponry into the Middle East chaos, capable of carrying nuclear warheads, risks precipitating a human Holocaust of calamitous global dimensions. Einstein warned, “I know not with what weapons WWIII will be fought, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

Hopefully, the potential for a subtle, slow wave of nuclear weapons proliferation and a widening arms race can be contained. The US, China and India acknowledge how dependent they are on Middle East stability to ensure the free flow of oil. Amazingly, good things could happen if these and other great powers, ^e.g. Germany, UK and Gulf state producers came together to secure regional stability by other alternatives than 'scorched earth' military bombing missions mainly exterminating innocent families and children.

Following are words from a speech made before the Middle East Policy Council: “Responding to Failure: Reorganizing U.S. Policies in the Middle East,” by former Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. (USFS, Ret.), March 10, 2015.

_____________________________________________________________

"The results of our efforts to coerce political change in the Middle East are not just failures but catastrophic failures. Our policies have nowhere produced democracy. They have instead contrived the destabilization of societies, the kindling of religious warfare, and the installation of dictatorships contemptuous of the rights of religious and ethnic minorities.

Frankly, we have done a lot better at selling things, including armaments, to the region than we have at transplanting the ideals of the Atlantic Enlightenment there. The region’s autocrats cooperate with us to secure our protection, and they get it. When they are nonetheless overthrown, the result is not a democracy or rule of law but a socio-political collapse and the emergence of a Hobbesian state of nature in which religious and ethnic communities, families, and individuals are able to feel safe only when they are armed and have the drop on each other. When we have engineered or attempted to engineer regime change, violent politics, partition, and ethno-religious cleansing have everywhere succeeded unjust but tranquil order. One result of our bungled interventions in Iraq and Syria is the rise of Daesh (ISIS). This is yet another illustration that, in our efforts to do good in the Middle East, we have violated the principle that one should first do no harm.

Americans used to believe that we could best lead by example. We and those in the Middle East seeking nonviolent change would all be better off if America returned to that tradition and forswore ideologically motivated hectoring and intervention. No one willingly follows a wagging finger. Despite our unparalleled ability to use force against foreigners, the best way to inspire them to emulate us remains showing them that we have our act together. At the moment, we do not.

In the end, to cure the dysfunction in our policies toward the Middle East, it comes down to this. We must cure the dysfunction and venality of our politics. If we cannot, we have no business trying to use an 8,000-mile-long screwdriver to fix things one-third of the way around the world. That doesn’t work well under the best of circumstances. But when the country wielding the screwdriver has very little idea what it’s doing, it really screws things up."

Frank's bio:

A graduate of Bowdoin and Dartmouth colleges, for many years I was an independent management consultant and entrepreneur working with Dutch international shipbuilding and offshore oil/gas contracting firms. In past years up to recent retirement at 77, I have been a trainer for firms such as ING, DSM, Siemens, the Dutch Ministries of Foreign and Economic Affairs and Justice in the Hague and also a teacher/lecturer at The Hague University and NTI University in Leiden. Subjects covered have included finance, commercial law, legal writing, report writing, presentations, etc. All my time now is devoted to research for writings on grave national and global issues.

I’m an independent-minded Mainer, a liberal-conservative. Over time, I have come to loath the mind numbing indoctrination inherent in the “ideological-pure and money talks” political culture poisoning and grid-locking our national dialogue on extremely serious structural societal problems. Such times of volatile change call for a fusion of the ‘brightest and best’ ideas/reforms that ensure a prudent, fair balancing of legitimate public interests, concern for the common folk’s progress in concert with a thriving market-innovative capitalism. Frank Thomas – 09-23-15