New York Times Op-ed, "Envisioning a Deal With Iran": Baloney!

"Baloney"? Isn't this a little harsh? Actually, given my inclination to employ a more colorful adjective, this is the outcome of my struggle to remain "diplomatic" this morning.

In a New York Times contributor op-ed entitled "Envisioning a Deal With Iran" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/opinion/sunday/envisioning-a-deal-with-iran.html?ref=opinion), former career diplomats Thomas Pickering and William Luers argue that the US should seek to use diplomacy to avoid conflict with Iran. Referring to the tripartite technique used by Nixon to engage China ("What do they want, what do we want and what do we both want?"), Pickering and Luers explain how this same methodology can be used to reach agreement with Iran:

"Iran wants recognition of its revolution; an accepted role in its region; a nuclear program; the departure of the United States from the Middle East; and the lifting of sanctions. The United States wants Iran not to have nuclear weapons; security for Israel; a democratic evolution of Arab countries; the end of terrorism; and world access to the region’s oil and gas. Both Iran and the United States want stability in the region — particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan; the end of terrorism from Al Qaeda and the Taliban; the reincorporation of Iran into the international community; and no war."

What does Iran want? Pickering and Luers fail to mention that Iran wants to "wipe Israel off the face of the map."

Iran "wants stability in the region"? I suppose that is why Iran has been terrorizing its Baha'i, Kurdish and Sunni minorities. I suppose that is why Iran provided equipment and training to murder American soldiers in Iraq. I suppose that is why Iran is engaged in an ongoing proxy war with Saudi Arabia in Yemen. I suppose that is why Iran lays claim to Bahrain. I suppose that is why Iran bankrolls Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and the Assad regime in Syria. I suppose that is why Iran was responsible for the bombing of the Jewish community center in distant Buenos Aires and continues to finance terror throughout the world.

Regarding their credibility, Luers, Pickering and Dr. James Walsh authored a March 20, 2008 article in The New York Review of Books entitled, "A Solution for the US–Iran Nuclear Standoff" (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21112), which began by stating:

"The recent National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion that Tehran stopped its efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2003, together with the significant drop in Iranian activity in Iraq, has created favorable conditions for the US to hold direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program."

As recently acknowledged by US Defense Secretary Panetta (see: http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=249800), Iran is now one year away from building a nuclear bomb.

More interesting than Pickering and Luer's op-ed is the question why The New York Times, the unofficial mouthpiece of the Obama administration, continues to publish this twaddle, disseminated in the past by contributor op-eds penned by the Leveretts (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/01/open-letter-to-andrew-rosenthal-yet.html).

Compugen: Further Validation of Predictive Drug Discovery

Today, Compugen announced test results demonstrating the therapeutic potential of CGEN-15001T as a drug target for treatment of multiple cancers by means of monoclonal antibody (“mAb”) therapy. CGEN-15001T is a membrane protein, predicted by Compugen to be a B7/CD28-like protein. The B7/CD28 family of proteins is known to be involved in regulation of the immune system in immune related disorders and in cancer.

Of particular interest, as noted in Compugen's press release (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Compugen-Cancer-Target-bw-2304211202.html?x=0), is the tripartite mechanism of action postulated for a monoclonal antibody directed against this target:

"Taken together, the expression profile of CGEN-15001T and its proposed immunomodulatory profile suggest that a single therapeutic antibody against CGEN-15001T may attack cancer cells through three key mechanisms. One mechanism is by direct targeting and killing of the cancer cells expressing CGEN-15001T. Since CGEN-15001T is expressed on numerous cancers, an antibody against CGEN-15001T has therapeutic potential for various cancer indications. Another mechanism of the therapeutic antibody may be achieved by blocking the inhibition of the immune system induced by CGEN-15001T, whether expressed on the cancer cells and/or the immune cells within the tumor. And third, the same mAb for CGEN-15001T may promote the immune system component which acts against the tumor (Th1), while inhibiting the component which promotes the cancer (Th2). The significant potential of having all three mechanisms in a single therapeutic antibody to CGEN-15001T is being pursued actively by Compugen as part of its expanded mAb activities within its Pipeline Program."

Also meaningful is the fact that Compugen’s Protein Family Members Discovery Platform, underlying the discovery of both CGEN-15001 (see, most recently: http://www.cgen.com/Content.aspx?Page=press_releases&NewsId=595) and CGEN-15001T, was announced little more than a year ago (see: http://www.cgen.com/Content.aspx?Page=press_releases&NewsId=524). The speed with which the platform was created, and the resultant rapid discovery and validation of CGEN-15001, CGEN-15001T and other B7/CD28-like proteins, all at a cost dwarfing typical discovery of new therapeutic candidates, attest to the power of Compugen's predictive discovery science. Although there can be no assurances that any of these early stage candidates will become commercialized products, the manner in which these candidates were created and their promising test results speak for themselves, and, in my opinion, augur a new era of drug discovery.

[As noted in prior blog entries, I am a Compugen shareholder, this blog entry is not a recommendation to buy or sell Compugen shares, and in September 2009 I began work as a part-time external consultant to Compugen. The opinions expressed herein are mine and are based on publicly available information. This blog entry has not been authorized, approved or reviewed prior to posting by Compugen.]

Roman Halter, of Blessed Memory

The obscenity of Holocaust denial is regrettably alive and kicking. Earlier this week, Iran's Press TV denounced the decision of Turkish public television to broadcast a Holocaust documentary (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/223743.html):

"Turkey's move can be considered as controversial and unacceptable since Muslim nations hold that Holocaust believers have lost touch with the reality and that western governments are using the saga to play the role of innocent victims.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has on several occasions called for a historical research to find realities about the Holocaust. His remarks have sparked outrage among the pro-Israeli powers, which labeled him a Holocaust denier.

Prominent American scholar Norman Finkelstein argues in his book The Holocaust Industry (2000) that many exploit the myth of Holocaust as an 'ideological weapon', saying this is also the case with Israel, 'one of the world's most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, [can] cast itself as a victim state' in order to garner 'immunity to criticism.'

. . . .

A French court fined author Roger Garaudy $20,000 in 1998, for questioning the Nazi Holocaust during the World War II.

The French scholar was convicted of challenging crimes against humanity and of racial libel.

In his book The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics, Garaudy argued that Hitler's killing of the Jews could not be described as genocide.

He also questioned whether gas chambers were used for mass slaughter."

Ahmadinejad has called for a historical inquest to "find realities about the Holocaust"? This monster should begin by reading Roman Halter's autobiographical book, "Roman's Journey" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/search/label/Roman%20Halter). As summarized by its jacket cover, this gripping work recounts how Roman Halter, a Polish schoolboy, miraculously survived the Nazi nightmare years:

"Roman Halter is an optimistic and boisterous schoolboy in 1939, when he and his family gather behind their net curtains to watch the Voldeutsch neighbors in their small town in western Poland greet the arrival of Hitler's armies with kisses and swatstika flags. Within days, the family home has been seized, 12-year-old Roman is a slave of the local SS chief, and, returning from an errand, silently watches his Jewish classmates being bayoneted to death by soldiers at the edge of town. And there begins the journey - first into the Lodz ghetto, then on to Auschwitz, then Stutthof and a firebombed Dresden - a remarkable six-year journey through some of the darkest caverns of Nazi Germany, which claimed the lives of every other member of his family and the 800-strong community of his boyhood."

As noted by Sir Martin Gilbert in the book's preface, Roman Halter near the end of the war was sheltered by "a courageous German couple, the husband of whom was killed after the war by his neighbors for hiding Jews." It should come as no surprise that latent anti-Semitism still affects 20 percent of Germans (see: http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=255105).

Perhaps if President Obama were to read this book, he would better understand Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's thoughts and motivations. Politics aside, Netanyahu is faced with the dilemma of preserving the existence of Israel, which faces an arsenal of 200,000 missiles (see: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=256152), amassed by the allies of Iran -- Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Islamic Jihad in Gaza -- and Iran itself, whose president demands that Israel "be wiped off the face of the map." According to Israeli intelligence experts, Iran would be willing to sacrifice half of its population as part of an effort to eradicate Israel, i.e. perpetrate a second Holocaust.

Sadly, Roman Halter passed away last week. I knew Roman Halter, who moved to England after the war, became a noted architect, teacher of architecture, author and artist, renowned for his stained-glass windows. Roman Halter, who never lost his passion for life, also built a family, and I am privileged to be the friend of his remarkable children.

I am now rereading "Roman's Journey." I strongly urge that those who read this blog take the time to read this monumental book.

My love and condolences go out to the bereaved family of this courageous, resilient and extraordinary man.

Maureen Dowd, "Who’s Tough Enough?": Obama Is a Ramrod, Not a Pussy

Obama is obviously troubled by Republican chatter that he isn't strong enough to lead, and, as observed by Maureen Dowd in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Who’s Tough Enough?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/opinion/dowd-whos-tough-enough.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fopinion%2Findex.jsonp), Joe Biden has been delegated the job of telling anyone who will listen that the president is a "ramrod." Dowd describes assurances given by the vice president to House Democrats:

"'I just want to tell you, this guy’s got a backbone like a ramrod,' the vice president assured House Democrats last week at a retreat in Cambridge, Md.

He repeated a line he’d heard to sum up what his party should campaign on: 'Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.'

. . . .

The vice president concluded triumphantly: 'This guy doesn’t lead from behind. He just leads.'"

Obama's decision to assassinate bin Laden was indeed gutsy, and General Motors is still building cars owing to Obama's praiseworthy intervention. So why are the Democrats disturbed? Maybe because the president has proven incapable of standing up to Iran and Russia.

US Defense Secretary Panetta acknowledged two weeks ago that Iran is only a year away from building a nuclear weapon (see: http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=249800), yet Obama continues to send mixed signals to Tehran concerning American resolve to prevent this nightmarish scenario from becoming a reality (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/12/iran-and-obama-administration.html). Obama's refusal in 2009 to provide anti-government protestors in Iran with any sign of support remains a stain upon his administration's record. Similarly, Obama's delay in condemning atrocities perpetrated by Syria's Assad, an ally of Tehran, against unarmed opponents, also does not bespeak courage.

Determined to "reset" US relations with Russia, Obama cancelled the erection of a missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland, which Putin opposed. Appeasement in this instance, at the expense of Central European allies, has been rewarded by Moscow's refusal to assist in implementing sanctions against Iran and by continued arms sales to Syria.

Obama's attempt at bullying Israel at the beginning of his first term? We can only wonder how Obama will "ramrod" Israel if he is re-elected.

Obviously, there is a reason Democrats are worried by allegations that Obama has no spine. Moreover, Joe Biden should be watching his own back: It remains to be seen whether Obama will diss Biden as his running mate later this year in favor of Hillary Clinton.

David Brooks, "The Great Divorce": Have a Look at Israel

A National Service Program for all Americans?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Great Divorce" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/opinion/brooks-the-great-divorce.html?ref=opinion), David Brooks proposes this solution to remedy inequality in the US. Citing Charles Murray’s new book “Coming Apart,” Brooks asserts:

"Democrats claim America is threatened by the financial elite, who hog society’s resources. But that’s a distraction. The real social gap is between the top 20 percent and the lower 30 percent. The liberal members of the upper tribe latch onto this top 1 percent narrative because it excuses them from the central role they themselves are playing in driving inequality and unfairness."

How to fix this mess? Brooks writes:

"I doubt Murray would agree, but we need a National Service Program. We need a program that would force members of the upper tribe and the lower tribe to live together, if only for a few years. We need a program in which people from both tribes work together to spread out the values, practices and institutions that lead to achievement."

Well, that "National Service Program" already exists in Israel, and it's called the Israel Defense Forces ("IDF").

There is significant economic inequality in Israel that has regrettably been perpetuated by the government. Much of Israeli industry is owned by several dozen families, and even companies whose shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange are often majority-owned or controlled by these families.

Notwithstanding this economic inequality in Israel, the IDF is indeed a place where, as Brooks puts it, "the tribes get jammed together." Upon induction, Israeli youngsters who grew up in wealthy neighborhoods often meet for the first time in their lives underprivileged youths and newcomers from Russia and Ethiopia, with whom they quickly learn to work and sweat together.

To smooth this interaction, children inducted into the IDF without adequate schooling are given remedial courses. Special efforts are made by the IDF to assist children from troubled families with their emotional problems.

Beyond compulsory service, the IDF continues to serve as a mixing pot for Israelis from all strata of society. For almost 20 years I served in a reserve artillery unit, which demanded both brains (to operate the computer assisted firing systems) and brawn (to lug the shells). For up to two months each year, I strained night and day and bonded with other reservists who, in civilian life, I would never encounter in my line of work.

The other advantage of a National Service Program, which goes unmentioned by Brooks, is that it would delay the entry of a significant number of young people into the workforce, thereby reducing unemployment.

Might this be practical in the US? Would privileged families in the US agree to send their children away for two or three years to engage in community work or forestry and not seek exemptions? You tell me.

Paul Krugman, "The Austerity Debacle": Worse Than the Great Depression?

Paul Krugman is back to telling us -- you would never guess in a million years -- that the US and Europe need to spend their way out of the current economic malaise.

In "The Austerity Debacle" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/opinion/krugman-the-austerity-debacle.html?ref=opinion), Krugman observes that the UK did a better job recovering in the 1930s from its economic woes than today. Citing a chart released by National Institute of Economic and Social Research, Krugman observes:

"Britain is doing worse this time than it did during the Great Depression. Four years into the Depression, British G.D.P. had regained its previous peak; four years after the Great Recession began, Britain is nowhere close to regaining its lost ground."

Krugman claims that the "policy elite" in the UK and elsewhere threw "hard-won knowledge out the window" by slashing spending to promote economic growth. And although the US federal government "avoided all-out austerity," state and local governments are running out of federal aid and being forced to reduce their budgets, thus creating "a major drag on the overall economy." Krugman concludes:

"The infuriating thing about this tragedy is that it was completely unnecessary. Half a century ago, any economist — or for that matter any undergraduate who had read Paul Samuelson’s textbook 'Economics' — could have told you that austerity in the face of depression was a very bad idea. But policy makers, pundits and, I’m sorry to say, many economists decided, largely for political reasons, to forget what they used to know. And millions of workers are paying the price for their willful amnesia."

But have conditions changed since the Great Depression? Manufacturing jobs are being eliminated by robotics. Even in the pharma industry today, one exceptional scientist empowered by a laptop, is worth more than an entire mediocre R&D army.

Could it be that in today's brave new world, money spent on infrastructure, e.g., bullet trains, and education no longer ensures the creation of sustainable jobs? Whereas I agree with Krugman that spending cuts do not create jobs, I am far from convinced that government spending 80 years after the Great Depression necessarily gives rise to sustainable employment.

Sadly, the US may never again see anything approaching full employment, with or without deficit spending.

Thomas Friedman, "Made in the World": It's Raining Twaddle at The New York Times

It's raining twaddle at The New York Times.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Made in the World" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/opinion/sunday/friedman-made-in-the-world.html?ref=opinion), Thomas Friedman makes the case for global outsourcing. Friedman refers to a February 2011 meeting between Obama and Apple's Steve Jobs:

"The president, understandably, asked Jobs why almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were made overseas. Obama inquired, couldn’t that work come back home? 'Those jobs aren’t coming back,' Jobs replied."

Moreover, Friedman sees no danger in US outsourcing of manufacturing, owing to talented immigrants arriving on America's shores, IP protection, secure capital markets, high returns on innovation, government funding of new techology, and logistics jobs available to middle-class workers.

So the US should forfeit its manufacturing muscle and enjoy the cheap benefits of Chinese and Pakistani slave labor (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2012/01/thomas-friedman-average-is-over-when.html), and the middle-class should be content with finding work with FedEx and U.P.S. Sorry, but I will never accept this, even if it means doubling the price of iPhones.

Friedman concludes:

"If only — if only — we could come together on a national strategy to enhance and expand all of our natural advantages: more immigration, most post-secondary education, better infrastructure, more government research, smart incentives for spurring millions of start-ups — and a long-term plan to really fix our long-term debt problems — nobody could touch us. We’re that close."

Or in other words, Friedman would have the US spend trillions of dollars on a dozen different programs while somehow reducing long-term debt. "We're that close"? Yeah, right. For now, I would prefer to see the US provide incentives to keep manufacturing jobs in the US and to allow ordinary families, which cannot find work in hi-tech, to put food on their tables and pay their mortgages.

This is one instance where Obama is right.

[No, I haven't developed a soft spot for Obama. During the Procrastinator-in-Chief's February meeting mentioned by Dowd, Jobs, according to Ryan Lizza in an article in The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all), "was most annoyed by Obama’s pessimism—he seemed to dismiss every idea Jobs proffered. 'The president is very smart,' Jobs told his biographer, Walter Isaacson. 'But he kept explaining to us reasons why things can’t get done. It infuriates me.'"]