19 March 2017
Oh my!
After fifty some days of the presidency of Donald Trump, what can one say but, "Oh my!" I don't know where to begin commenting on the changes I see. Part of my difficulty stems from being of an age that society relegates to the sidelines, for the most part, leaving only commentary and observation to be the only functions appreciated.
At 72, I can no longer avoid the reality of being old. In my sixties, I could imagine that those television ads about strength and vigor were directed at me, too. Those ads promoting arthritis and other pain medications were for old folks, even though the actors therein were in their late-forties. My mental self-image continues to confound society's: I think as if I were 37 still. What to do? I do enjoy napping more than before and I appreciate not having a tight schedule for my days. Nevertheless, there is this overshadowing fact that I am in my seventies and society considers me to be peripheral to the mainstream, no longer a gym enthusiast or a national figure in higher education and health care administration.
It is with this existential awareness that I observe the Trump Administration. There are plenty of liberal sources declaiming the evils of the manner in which Trump has staffed his cabinet. In a manner recalled from childhood, Trump decided to "get back" at the individual departments that his base debases. The EPA and Energy Department are two of the most obvious, with long-time political enemies of their regulations being put in as director and secretary. What better revenge than to put someone in charge of the very thing they despise! With juvenile delight, Trump manages his staffs through particularly insidious manipulating of selective meeting invitations, listening to Bannon and Miller, ignoring traditional and internationally recognized protocols of including cabinet secretaries in his face-to-face meetings with foreign dignitaries, and tweeting nonsensical comments around his own communications staff.
Even the way he schedules his travel between the White House and Mar-a-lago communicates a distance from the everyday work of being President. Without appointing deputies to his cabinet secretaries, and displaying a disconnect between himself and those secretaries already in place, President Trump sort of hangs out there in suspended reality that gives the impression of being disconnected from his own administration. Because of the 2016 election results, I don't see an opportunity for changing this disconnect before the 2018 elections.
The Republicans seem unaffected by the town meetings that various groups have insisted upon. After all, most of those attending voted against the incumbent, viz. winner. Why should the representative in Congress pay attention to those clamouring for input into their agendas when the Speaker can affect their daily lives more directly than the voters? Hopefully, the spirit of objection and rallies against Republican incumbents will last for the next two years and result in changes to the partisan make-up of the House and Senate. A vote is the remaining tool I have to affect the national agenda. Perhaps the power of the pen can resurface in this country to allay some of my fears and qualms.
After fifty some days of the presidency of Donald Trump, what can one say but, "Oh my!" I don't know where to begin commenting on the changes I see. Part of my difficulty stems from being of an age that society relegates to the sidelines, for the most part, leaving only commentary and observation to be the only functions appreciated.
At 72, I can no longer avoid the reality of being old. In my sixties, I could imagine that those television ads about strength and vigor were directed at me, too. Those ads promoting arthritis and other pain medications were for old folks, even though the actors therein were in their late-forties. My mental self-image continues to confound society's: I think as if I were 37 still. What to do? I do enjoy napping more than before and I appreciate not having a tight schedule for my days. Nevertheless, there is this overshadowing fact that I am in my seventies and society considers me to be peripheral to the mainstream, no longer a gym enthusiast or a national figure in higher education and health care administration.
It is with this existential awareness that I observe the Trump Administration. There are plenty of liberal sources declaiming the evils of the manner in which Trump has staffed his cabinet. In a manner recalled from childhood, Trump decided to "get back" at the individual departments that his base debases. The EPA and Energy Department are two of the most obvious, with long-time political enemies of their regulations being put in as director and secretary. What better revenge than to put someone in charge of the very thing they despise! With juvenile delight, Trump manages his staffs through particularly insidious manipulating of selective meeting invitations, listening to Bannon and Miller, ignoring traditional and internationally recognized protocols of including cabinet secretaries in his face-to-face meetings with foreign dignitaries, and tweeting nonsensical comments around his own communications staff.
Even the way he schedules his travel between the White House and Mar-a-lago communicates a distance from the everyday work of being President. Without appointing deputies to his cabinet secretaries, and displaying a disconnect between himself and those secretaries already in place, President Trump sort of hangs out there in suspended reality that gives the impression of being disconnected from his own administration. Because of the 2016 election results, I don't see an opportunity for changing this disconnect before the 2018 elections.
The Republicans seem unaffected by the town meetings that various groups have insisted upon. After all, most of those attending voted against the incumbent, viz. winner. Why should the representative in Congress pay attention to those clamouring for input into their agendas when the Speaker can affect their daily lives more directly than the voters? Hopefully, the spirit of objection and rallies against Republican incumbents will last for the next two years and result in changes to the partisan make-up of the House and Senate. A vote is the remaining tool I have to affect the national agenda. Perhaps the power of the pen can resurface in this country to allay some of my fears and qualms.
22 December 2016
Why Iran Seeks a Nuclear Deal
Iran's nuclear deal, despite the obvious shadow it might cast on its sense of national destiny and independence among nations, accomplishes now what its nuclear objectives were. Why would the conservative, theologically rigid mullahs allow the civilian governing party to negotiate such controls over Iran's nuclear program?
The reason for Iran's negotiating now has three possible reasons: 1) the sanctions imposed by the West are too stringent and are weakening the ruling party's ability to govern effectively; 2) the dissolution of Iraq as a Sunni-led country has enabled Iran to create a servant government in Bagdad, a suzerainty of Shi'ite muslims who will create a safety barrier in the Eastern provinces of Iraq; and 3) Iran can wait its turn for acquiring nuclear weapons and take advantage of newer technology in 15 years. Of these three possible reasons for negotiating with the West, the second one seems most important.
Iran's significant armed forces are already embedded into Iraq's military in the efforts to counter ISIL in the northern provinces. Taking back Tikrit, with its oil production capacity, and securing Bagdad's dependence on the Shi'ite militias and the major portion of Iraqis providing the Shi'ite government's legitimacy, Iran is accomplishing its territorial ambitions quite well without nuclear weapons.
By dint of infusing Iranian military leadership on the ground against ISIL to support Bagdad's troops, Iran achieves a de facto Shi'ite Iraq. Iran supports the Syrian government, Hamas, Hezbollah and now the Houtis of Yemen in addition to its support of Bagdad's Shi'ites. Supposing that ISIL fails and its radical Sunnis disburse into Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, which is a big supposition, there would be a significant realignment of Shi'ite and Sunni muslim nations within the Middle East. The United Emirates continue to be Sunni dominant and are aligned with Saudi Arabia and Jordan against ISIL and the Yemeni Houtis.
If Iran creates a puppet government in Sana'a to align with its pupil in Bagdad, the royal houses of Sunni conservatism will find themselves surrounded by heretic Shi'ite countries with ultimate loyalty to the mullahs of Teheran. In terms of religious demography, Iran will have achieved a much greater nation status than it could have hoped for with Iraq being run by the Ba'athists.
01 February 2016
Where Does Your Anger Go?
What does your anger cause you to do? Where does one hide it and on what conditions does one show anger?
A common theme among prospective voters in this year's presidential primary season is that the supporters of Donald Trump, Ted Cruze and Barney Sanders are angry persons. Most often, these supporters feel betrayed by their in-office representatives, senators and the president (for whom they may not have voted). Social and economic conservatives are angry that government spending seems to go on without any real attention paid to the desires of the religious right, and those who want to shrink the size of government and reduce the government's interference with their personal and business decisions. Social liberals and economic conservatives are angry because the Republican Congress continues to attack Obamacare and Planned Parenthood, yet also feel that the government spending is out of control and has been since the Iraq and Afghanistan wars overtook our foreign military engagements.
Progressive voters are angry because there were no criminal charges brought against the Wall Street hedge fund managers and giant bank executives for the Great Recession they caused. "Too big to fail"
has become the mantra of those targeting big banking institutions and insurers who failed to manage their investment risks sufficiently to prevent the nation-wide mortgage crisis and subsequent credit crisis of the Middle Class.
Each political party has a new force coming into the presidential election season that is populist at its base and fueled by the anger of those who feel they have been disenfranchised politically and financially. The makeup of this base comes from persons who have lost their social standing as part of the Middle Class and those persons who aspire to the American Dream from lower income classes.
One policy target for expressing extreme dissatisfaction with the status quo is immigration. Donald Trump said he would build a wall along the Mexico-US border and get Mexico to pay for it. He then characterized the illegal Mexican immigrants as rapists and opportunists to get anchor-babies with US citizenship. The anti-immigrant stance has since been extended to Muslims, including American citizens who are muslims. Clearly, this racist, chauvinistic and religiously prejudiced policy position by Mr. Trump feeds into a sense that immigrants have taken away jobs from American citizens and are trying to establish an anti-Christian country in the US. His campaign rallies draw thousands. He offers no details, except that he would expel all of the estimated 11-million undocumented immigrants to their countries of origin "in a very humane way." How he would accomplish this way of tears remains unclear, except that he would begin with all incarcerated persons.
Observing the popularity of Mr. Trump's immigration policy, all of the other Republican candidates have taken strong positions demanding a wall on the border and some espouse deportation extremes as well. Trump even called for the State Department to suspend all visa privileges for Muslims --both foreign and US citizens-- seeking entry or re-entry into the US following the Paris terrorist massacre last Fall. We have seen such demonization of races before in this country and in Europe during the last century. The most poignant example was Hitler's extreme anti-Semitism that began in Germany to remove all traces of Jewish life from Europe as a means of purifying the culture. Hitler was fond of large, spectacular rallies of the Nazi and other sympathisers during which he would speak his venumous ideas. After being defeated in World War I, Germany was experiencing runaway inflation and political instability that left many Germans ripe for a charasmatic, authoritarian leader who promised to make Germany great again. Are we seeing a similar phenomenon in Donald Trump 90 years later? As the Greatest Generation dies off, are there sufficient number of thinking people in the US who recall the social and economic forces that resulted in World War II?
What is the angry American supposed to do with his or her anger today? Is voting sufficient? There doesn't appear to be any compromise in the policy statements being made by the Republican candidates this year. Senator Bernie Sanders draws large crowds with his progressive, democratic socialist economic policy war against Wall Street. Running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, he calls for "an economic revolution" in this country. His following includes many disillusioned Progressive democrats, young people who are just beginning to make their political statements in their communities, and many liberals who want to punish Wall Street executives for the Great Recession of 2008-2010.
The anger expressed by Sanders' followers is different from Trump's followers. The anger of Sanders' followers is at its base populist, with feelings of disenfranchisement due to the lack of economic growth in their futures and real animosity toward the Republican Congress' efforts to obstruct any and all policies of the Obama Administration. Further, there is real anger against Republicans for failing to acknowledge the results of the Bush-Cheney Administration's leading America into an unnecessary and very costly war in Iraq and the concomitant hiding of the war's cost from the federal budget discipline. Those costs gave President Obama a deficit of $1.7 trillion at the beginning of his presidency. In addition, the Republicans' antipathy toward financial regulation is seen by Progressives as the fault that created the Great Recession.
The inability of any constructive Congressional-Presidental discourse during the entire Obama presidency remains at the heart of the anger one sees in Bernie Sanders' followers. Since Sanders is the underdog in the minds of most Democratic Party potential voters, there is worry in the Hillary Clinton camp that her more centrist policies may not be sufficient to attract Sanders' followers to her campaign. Nevertheless, Secretary Clinton's bona fides as a senator, social liberal policy advocate for women, and as a Secretary of State offer a hopeful, not angry base to the Party.
The question is: can Hillary get more done with a Republican Congress than Bernie can? More and more people are concluding that she can. Instead of sowing gloom and doom, Hillary at least represents hope for some positive change in the coming years.
A common theme among prospective voters in this year's presidential primary season is that the supporters of Donald Trump, Ted Cruze and Barney Sanders are angry persons. Most often, these supporters feel betrayed by their in-office representatives, senators and the president (for whom they may not have voted). Social and economic conservatives are angry that government spending seems to go on without any real attention paid to the desires of the religious right, and those who want to shrink the size of government and reduce the government's interference with their personal and business decisions. Social liberals and economic conservatives are angry because the Republican Congress continues to attack Obamacare and Planned Parenthood, yet also feel that the government spending is out of control and has been since the Iraq and Afghanistan wars overtook our foreign military engagements.
Progressive voters are angry because there were no criminal charges brought against the Wall Street hedge fund managers and giant bank executives for the Great Recession they caused. "Too big to fail"
has become the mantra of those targeting big banking institutions and insurers who failed to manage their investment risks sufficiently to prevent the nation-wide mortgage crisis and subsequent credit crisis of the Middle Class.
Each political party has a new force coming into the presidential election season that is populist at its base and fueled by the anger of those who feel they have been disenfranchised politically and financially. The makeup of this base comes from persons who have lost their social standing as part of the Middle Class and those persons who aspire to the American Dream from lower income classes.
One policy target for expressing extreme dissatisfaction with the status quo is immigration. Donald Trump said he would build a wall along the Mexico-US border and get Mexico to pay for it. He then characterized the illegal Mexican immigrants as rapists and opportunists to get anchor-babies with US citizenship. The anti-immigrant stance has since been extended to Muslims, including American citizens who are muslims. Clearly, this racist, chauvinistic and religiously prejudiced policy position by Mr. Trump feeds into a sense that immigrants have taken away jobs from American citizens and are trying to establish an anti-Christian country in the US. His campaign rallies draw thousands. He offers no details, except that he would expel all of the estimated 11-million undocumented immigrants to their countries of origin "in a very humane way." How he would accomplish this way of tears remains unclear, except that he would begin with all incarcerated persons.
Observing the popularity of Mr. Trump's immigration policy, all of the other Republican candidates have taken strong positions demanding a wall on the border and some espouse deportation extremes as well. Trump even called for the State Department to suspend all visa privileges for Muslims --both foreign and US citizens-- seeking entry or re-entry into the US following the Paris terrorist massacre last Fall. We have seen such demonization of races before in this country and in Europe during the last century. The most poignant example was Hitler's extreme anti-Semitism that began in Germany to remove all traces of Jewish life from Europe as a means of purifying the culture. Hitler was fond of large, spectacular rallies of the Nazi and other sympathisers during which he would speak his venumous ideas. After being defeated in World War I, Germany was experiencing runaway inflation and political instability that left many Germans ripe for a charasmatic, authoritarian leader who promised to make Germany great again. Are we seeing a similar phenomenon in Donald Trump 90 years later? As the Greatest Generation dies off, are there sufficient number of thinking people in the US who recall the social and economic forces that resulted in World War II?
What is the angry American supposed to do with his or her anger today? Is voting sufficient? There doesn't appear to be any compromise in the policy statements being made by the Republican candidates this year. Senator Bernie Sanders draws large crowds with his progressive, democratic socialist economic policy war against Wall Street. Running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, he calls for "an economic revolution" in this country. His following includes many disillusioned Progressive democrats, young people who are just beginning to make their political statements in their communities, and many liberals who want to punish Wall Street executives for the Great Recession of 2008-2010.
The anger expressed by Sanders' followers is different from Trump's followers. The anger of Sanders' followers is at its base populist, with feelings of disenfranchisement due to the lack of economic growth in their futures and real animosity toward the Republican Congress' efforts to obstruct any and all policies of the Obama Administration. Further, there is real anger against Republicans for failing to acknowledge the results of the Bush-Cheney Administration's leading America into an unnecessary and very costly war in Iraq and the concomitant hiding of the war's cost from the federal budget discipline. Those costs gave President Obama a deficit of $1.7 trillion at the beginning of his presidency. In addition, the Republicans' antipathy toward financial regulation is seen by Progressives as the fault that created the Great Recession.
The inability of any constructive Congressional-Presidental discourse during the entire Obama presidency remains at the heart of the anger one sees in Bernie Sanders' followers. Since Sanders is the underdog in the minds of most Democratic Party potential voters, there is worry in the Hillary Clinton camp that her more centrist policies may not be sufficient to attract Sanders' followers to her campaign. Nevertheless, Secretary Clinton's bona fides as a senator, social liberal policy advocate for women, and as a Secretary of State offer a hopeful, not angry base to the Party.
The question is: can Hillary get more done with a Republican Congress than Bernie can? More and more people are concluding that she can. Instead of sowing gloom and doom, Hillary at least represents hope for some positive change in the coming years.
10 March 2015
How Far Will They Go?
It should come as no surprise that forty U.S. senators would decide their role included inserting themselves into the conduct of foreign affairs of the nation. Many of these senators are first termers, conservative and naive about the ways of governing. A telling aspect of these senators' naïveté is that their letter was sent in both English and Arabic. Iran is Persian; Iranians are not Arabs. These senators should be less eager to weaken Obama and try to understand the actual facts of the international situation. Arabic, indeed.
President Obama has to deal with continual challenges to his leadership even when conservative pundits decry his lack of leadership. They only conclusion I can discern is that all of this opposition--beginning with Mitch McConnell's stated goal to make Obama a one-term President--stems from deep racism across the Republican spectrum.
President Obama has to deal with continual challenges to his leadership even when conservative pundits decry his lack of leadership. They only conclusion I can discern is that all of this opposition--beginning with Mitch McConnell's stated goal to make Obama a one-term President--stems from deep racism across the Republican spectrum.
The letter itself innocuously describes our Constitution's delegations of powers regarding international treaties. Its conclusion, however, is troubling: that no agreement that the President might negotiate will be rendered null and void if not approved by the Congress. Why these senators believe they were responsible for educating the Iranian negotiators remains a mystery, unless one considers it an attempt to weaken Secretary of State Kerry's negotiating strength within the international negotiators trying to contain Iran's nuclear programs. The letter does not make any negotiating position nor does it predict failure in the Congress for any treaty that may emerge from the current negotiations. These senators are meddling into affairs of state prior to there being anything of substance in which to meddle. They just want to weaken President Obama on the international stage.
Undercutting a President's ability to conduct foreign affairs according to the Constitution's division of powers is a very serious political tactic that portends a more harmful strategy for the United States. One significant preceding example occurred when General MacArthur challenged President Truman's authority duriing the Korean War. Truman had the ability to handle that challenge within the boundary of the Executive Department. In the instance of this letter, however, the Congress is not constrained by a chain of command.
First, Speaker Boehner invited Prime Minister Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress without involving the State Department. Second, forty senators send an "open letter" to the leadership of Iran denigrating the power of the President and his Secretary of State to negotiate foreign treaties as permanent agreements. How much further will this racist Republican dissension go? To what end will these Republicans go to discredit Barak Obama, our President?
25 November 2014
A Secret Trial
A secret trial. A SECRET TRIAL! Cast aside the Constitution for political expediency and protection of the Jim Crow status quo in St. Louis County, Missouri. As one reporter noted, the grave of Dred Scott was just a mile and a half down the road from Ferguson, MO. The prosecutor staged a secret trial by Grand Jury, rather than pursue an indictment of wrongful death against a police officer. Due process in this instance should have been a trial in front of a judge and jury with the police officer as defendant and the state as prosecutor representing the man who was killed.
The prosecutor’s explanation of the “verdict” was tantamount to a defense attorney’s summation remarks in a trial. By his sending the incident to the Grand Jury—unarmed Michael Brown being shot to death by police officer Darren Wilson—with instructions to find all relevant evidence to inform the prosecutor if Officer Wilson committed a crime. Last night’s drama was staged by the prosecutor and the local law enforcement agencies, with the complicity of the governor, to ensure that there would be a violent, made-for-television, angry protest when the Grand Jury rendered its verdict. The Grand Jury returned its verdict that Officer Wilson was not guilty of any crime. It is hardly a surprise that within the hour of the announcement, riots began in Ferguson with several cars being burned, four stores looted then burned, and police using anti-riot tactics to clear the streets. Across the nation, large demonstrations were held in New York City, Los Angeles, Oakland and Seattle. Unlike so many previous demonstrations and protests, no one was killed, property damage was minimal, and there were relatively few arrests by police. Most likely, the lack of a surprise verdict contributed to the tenor of the protests.
From the announced findings, it appears that Officer Wilson decided that Mike Brown and his companion were the men who had robbed a convenience store of some cigars—based on their being Black, wearing a red baseball hat and yellow socks—and were fleeing the scene in their neighborhood. It is clear that Officer Wilson identified the suspects, with whom he was already in contact, and challenged Mr. Brown and his friend. This police officer made the guilt and arrest decisions within a few minutes for a minor shoplifting crime he heard about on his police radio. Officer Wilson made the verdict that Mr. Brown and his companion were guilty and should be arrested—on his own. He then decided Mr. Brown’s fate by resorting to deadly force in the process of arresting his guilty persons. Was Officer Wilson trained for such decision-making? Did he have any training that led him to escalate his tactics to deadly force once a suspect challenged him?
What did not come out of the Grand Jury was anything regarding the use of deadly force by a police officer against an unarmed assailant. Nor was there any comment regarding the need for civilian oversight of police practices and actions within a community. Nothing was said about the rights of an unarmed civilian to be preserved during apprehension, arrest or interrogation by police services. There were no findings about the crime scene procedures that allowed Mr. Brown’s deceased body to lie in the middle of the street for four hours; there were two autopsies performed, one funded by Mr. Brown’s parents; there did not appear to be any structured attempt to take witness statements at the time of the incident. There were no recommendations whatsoever beyond the finding that Officer Wilson did not commit a crime when he apprehended and killed Mike Brown.
10 September 2014
Oh, Suleiman, You Were So Right
During his hayday, Suleiman the Magnificent, a Kurd, established the largest caliphate throughout the Levant and North Africa. History records that he had half of his forces keeping peace among the Shi'ites and the other half among the Sunnis. The rest kept the Shi'ites and Sunnis from killing each other. I said he was magnificent. Tonight, President Obama faced a confused nation and world about the President's strategy for solving the ISIL, Syrian, Iranian incursions into Iraq, the weak Iraq military, among other problems roiling through the Middle East and North Africa. I think he did mention Afghanistan once, but not as a major part of his strategic resolve.
To be fair to the President, his biggest challenge is to create consensus, agreement on what the problem is. His speech laid that out: to eradicate current terrorist groups in the Levant, including those elements within Syria, without creating a political void into which other terrorists could slide. Slime slides. The President separated the enemy terrorist groups from Islam and from any legitimate political movement recognized outside its own foxholes. The President described the tools: 450 additional advisors and continued use of our airpower and drones against terrorists wherever they are.
I gleaned from the speech that the President has named the problem: eradicate the unrestrained, secular, inhumane terrorists who demonstrate no moral standards fit for this world. I anticipate future speeches will focus on building the domestic consensus for his view of the problem and for the Congress to join into this consensus of purpose.
The most important step in any effort is to articulate who, what, when and why a war has to begin. At least, President Obama is upfront about these key knowledge points of a war he has begun. Already the critics are harping on the fact that the President did not articulate "how" the war would proceed. He did not say anything about the aftermath of our efforts, about collateral damage, about political ramifications, about national boundaries, about Assad or about Turkey and its Kurds. Obama sent the message, however, that the terrorist leaders should keep looking over their shoulders to see if they are about to be annihilated by a drone, a cruse missle or a bomb dropped out of heaven.
The last war in Iraq was a scheme to enrich our oil holdings being horded by Saddam Hussein. The American people were never told this. Instead, the Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld junta claimed its purpose was to remove weapons of mass destruction and to strike back for the 9/11 attacks on US soil. Fear generated a false consensus and 5,000 dead military personnel, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children never learned that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that all of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi nationals. Remember this when Dick Cheney offers advice on the current situation, or when John McCain tries to organize his thoughts along those lines.
Heaven help us all. We are going to war in Iraq and Syria against ISIL, remnant Al Qaeda fighters, and all other domestic and foreign/Irani fighters intended to destroy the Sunni dominance in various areas of the Levant. Oh, don't forget that if Jordan falls, Israel is not far behind. Geez, this reminds me of the Indo-Chinese domino theory.
18 August 2014
Ferguson, MO
Ferguson, MO
Having lived in St. Louis for a year (1994-95) I observe the current trials and tribulations of the people of Ferguson with a heavy heart. Very little seems to have changed regarding race relations in that central part of the country. I remember remarking to a classmate that I had never seen a city with racial division as much as I experienced in St. Louis. There was the physical separation of the Black and White communities according to specific East-West streets across the city, it was if the white community had a shadow that was there but did not affect one’s daily life. The African-American community had its own major newspaper, so subscribers to the St. Louis Post Dispatch had primarily white readers and the St Louis Independent American had its roots in the African-American readership. Two major regional newspapers that presented the news to separate communities in the wider metropolitan area. One rarely saw mixed groups of people and I felt I had walked into a 1950’s time warp.
Residents of Ferguson were alarmed by their police department as it deployed “to protect and serve” somebody—who, it appears, meant the white residents and white-owned businesses. The appearance and demeanor of the police was that of an Army platoon, complete with its APC and bomb-proof assault vehicle. Rifles were pointed at the demonstrators as they reacted in demonstrations about the killing of Michael Brown by a Ferguson policeman on August 9th. I think if I looked down the street and saw such a platoon, armed to the teeth and wearing Army fatigue uniforms, I would be more than a little disturbed. Part of me would want to get away from the scene as quickly as possible and part of me would be so offended that I would want to confront the police for escalating the violent aspects of the scene.
Yet, even after the federal Justice Department opened its own investigation of Mike Brown’s killing, and after the Missouri governor relieved local police leadership and brought in the state’s highway patrol, local officials remained ignorant of the fact that they were no longer in charge of their town. Here is what remains unacceptable from the effort to discredit the victim and the insensitivity to public perception of Ferguson’s awareness and competence.
- First, using military garb and weaponry when confronting a demonstration by the citizens of Ferguson, the police created an “us vs. them” dynamic that inhibited any peaceful outcomes those first few nights. Even though 70+ percent of Ferguson residents are African-American, the police assumed they were wrong on site; because they were black. Some police referred to the crowd as “animals”.
- The appearance in the minds of the neighborhoods was that Mike Brown was murdered, yet as of eight days after his killing, local officials have yet to release the police report on the shooting nor the initial autopsy. Would the same process have been followed if Mike Brown were white? Perhaps the community’s reaction to the shooting would not have been a volatile and large, nevertheless would the police have been as aggressive against a gathering of white people asking for information about the circumstances of the killing of an unarmed man by a policeman? I doubt it, even if the victim had tried to assault the officer before being shot.
- This afternoon and tonight there will be another demonstration by Ferguson citizens demanding more information about the killing of Mike Brown. Last night there was some looting and the police responded with smoke and tear gas grenades. The police were outfitted like a military platoon. The police leaders chose to escalate the level of violence. One has to ask why the police do not approach demonstrators who are violating the curfew with demands to disburse or to receive citations on the spot—not arrest—for curfew violations. Given the overwhelming armaments and physical outfitting of the police, they could engage individuals calmly without threatening arrest or injury. If there is looting, then a squadron could be dispatched to prevent further property damage without trying to arrest everyone in sight first. Let the community punish the looters; let the community disenfranchise the outsiders who are trying to roil the situation into a race war. If the Missouri Highway Patrol cannot contain the actions of the local police, then I think President Obama should activate the National Guard to restore peace and to separate the community from an out-of-control police department at city and county levels. Local police units should be shut down until new leadership can retrain and redeploy police officers with the mission of “to protect and to serve, not corral and intimidate.” If not already in place, the City Council should require all city employees, including police, to live within the boundaries of Ferguson. Military gear, weaponry and vehicles should be decommissioned within the police department and given to the Missouri National Guard. Neighborhood policing on foot should become the norm within Ferguson so that residents can learn who their police protectors are and vice versa.
- If these reforms cannot occur, then the residents should demand the Council create a Citizens Review Board to oversee police department activities.
12 July 2014
Domestic or International Migrant Crisis?
It is ironic that the Republican Party, which historically is viewed as the most flag-waving political party, should oppose immigration reform as well as obstructing the President’s call for emergency funds to deal with the migrant crisis at hand. Perhaps this is just another manifestation of using immigration reform as a chimera, a political means of diverting attention from real issues while, at the same time, sending an appealing message to the most recalcitrant base of Tea Party Republicans. As one Democratic representative pointed out on national news, Speaker Boehner (R-Ohio) could cancel the upcoming recess of the House to vote on appropriating supplemental funds the Administration needs to address the migrant crisis.
Mr. Boehner has little incentive to keep the House in session as he helps his fellow Republicans ramp up for the November mid-term elections. He wants to paint the picture of a President doing nothing; while obscuring the fact that it is Mr. Boehner who must bring a bill to the floor that enables the President to act. At the same time, President Obama says his hands are tied without enabling legislation from Congress--to wit, the House--giving him supplemental funding plus authorization to federalize the Texas National Guard for border duty.
The governor of Texas has the constitutional authority to call out his state's national guard for two years, should he deem it necessary. Governor Perry, despite his statements, has the ability to do this at any time; he does not have to wait for the President to do it and he claims an immediate need. Of course, Perry's real reason is that he doesn't want to pay for the Guard's activation and deployment. He wants Washington to fund it.
President Obama lost an opportunity for demonstrating leadership when he declined going to the banks of the Rio Grande last week. He ignored the power of a symbolic President-in-charge, even though he had members of his Administration working locally with the Texas-based resources trying to handle the crisis. Being a symbol is a requirement that many CEOs ignore, dislike or distain. There is no one else, however, to whom the average person can look during a time of crisis. It is expected that there would be resources already working to alleviate the crisis, but the visual symbol of caring cannot be delegated or assumed to be known. This was a mistake not to go.
Potential acts are not all reliant on action in the House. The President could call for a convening of the Organization of American States (OAS) to deal collectively with the crisis of migrations from three of its members into other countries. As is sometimes pointed out, the crisis of migration of women and children from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala has hit other countries in Central and South America.
Why should not all affected countries meet to discuss the reasons behind migration and potential means of addressing same. There may be opportunities for foreign aid going to countries most affected by this migration and those funds might be more effective than establishing domestic responses within the United States. There may be other diplomatic initiatives through the United Nations. So far, the Administration has viewed the migrant crisis as a domestic, US issue rather than a regional phenomenon to which multiple nations can combine to respond.
Maybe the White House staff need their butts kicked to acknowledge that there are two and a half years left in President Obama's term of office. There is still so much to do.
02 July 2014
Capitalism 2014: Profit Versus Women's Health Policy Parity
The Supreme Court this week ruled that a for-profit corporation can establish religion-based criteria for health care benefits, carving new turf in the battlefield of established religion vs. the First Amendment's prohibition thereof. The case should never have been brought to SCOTUS, but apparently two, family-owned (closely-held) corporations decided that their religion was impinged by the Affordable Care Act of 2010's mandate that employer-provided health care insurance include coverage for the cost of contraceptive medicine for women. The majority of the Court went to great lengths in its affirmation of the plaintiffs when it noted that for-profit corporations often donate money to particular charitable causes, so they are not different in this single instance from non-profit corporations with charitable missions when they claim exemption.
The dissenting justices offered what should have been overwhelming evidence of the error being made by the majority. Precendent, legislation and plain reasoning could not budge the five men who ruled that if a for-profit corporation was closely held its owners could refuse to offer contraceptive medicine insurance coverage as mandated by the ACA. The majority opinion will make many graduate students delighted because they will be able to reveal the heuristic bias of the majority justices: teachings and socialization of the Roman Catholic Church. Every justice ruling in favor of the plaintiffs is Catholic and male. It would appear that capitalism's basic tenent of commerce, the purpose of business is to acquire capital or wealth for the owners, now has a caveat. Three of the four justices dissenting are women.
Even Adam Smith distinguished between an owner's profit purpose and that owner's public responsibility in using capital. The local religious bookstore seems covered by this exception to the purpose for which the owners' incorporated their assets.
One has to wonder whether another religious belief would rate equal worth in determining the health care insurance coverage for a corporation's women employees. What criteria beyond the number of shareholders will qualify an employer for a coverage-exemption to ACA? This ruling is a can of worms just waiting to complicate federal regulations. Look forward to another 600+ page set of regulations arriving from HHS.
The dissenting justices offered what should have been overwhelming evidence of the error being made by the majority. Precendent, legislation and plain reasoning could not budge the five men who ruled that if a for-profit corporation was closely held its owners could refuse to offer contraceptive medicine insurance coverage as mandated by the ACA. The majority opinion will make many graduate students delighted because they will be able to reveal the heuristic bias of the majority justices: teachings and socialization of the Roman Catholic Church. Every justice ruling in favor of the plaintiffs is Catholic and male. It would appear that capitalism's basic tenent of commerce, the purpose of business is to acquire capital or wealth for the owners, now has a caveat. Three of the four justices dissenting are women.
Even Adam Smith distinguished between an owner's profit purpose and that owner's public responsibility in using capital. The local religious bookstore seems covered by this exception to the purpose for which the owners' incorporated their assets.
One has to wonder whether another religious belief would rate equal worth in determining the health care insurance coverage for a corporation's women employees. What criteria beyond the number of shareholders will qualify an employer for a coverage-exemption to ACA? This ruling is a can of worms just waiting to complicate federal regulations. Look forward to another 600+ page set of regulations arriving from HHS.
04 April 2014
Corruption In the United States of America
Do you consider the United States of America to be a nation of corrupt public figures, of persons willing to bribe public servants for relevant favors? What represents bribery, corrupt practices or personal favors from public servants? Do we as a nation, through our political leaders, have the right to criticize other nations or public figures as being corrupt and, therefore, somewhat less than the “good nations” of the world?
Within the past two years, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on such matters for corporations, unions and private persons (collectively or individually) using a particularly defined behavior known as ‘bribery’. Adherents to liberal, conservative, libertarian and progressive political ideologies react to the specific rulings of Citizens United and McCutcheon in different, mostly opposed manners. Citizens United stuck down federal legislation that limited the amounts that collective entities, such as corporations, labor unions, political action committees, can donate to political campaigns on any given issue or in support of particular candidates (up to $2,600) without restriction by the federal government’s Fair Elections Campaign Act (FECA).
In the very recent ruling McCutcheon, the Supreme Court eliminated all restrictions, except for bribery, on individuals’ donations to political campaign committees, political parties and individual candidates (up to $2,600). These two rulings effectively eliminated the primary controls on perceived election influencing that FECA attempted to establish. Dissenting from the Court’s majority, Justice Breyer criticized this laissez-faire ruling as using too narrow a criterion of corruption: the quid pro quo basic element of ‘bribery’. In essence, a quid pro quo donation, gift or facilitation of process alters the behavior of the recipient in favor of the giver. For example, a defense contractor pays a Department of Defense equipment purchaser to buy only from that contractor. Whether the outcome is beneficial to the cost of materials or to the speed of delivery to the government is irrelevant. The use of a bribe to create the business transaction is the crime, the instance of corruption within purchasing procedures.
Suppose a different situation arises and is put to the test of corruption versus free expression guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. This situation concerns elections, political manipulation for ideological reasons, and donations of vast amounts of money in a planned strategy to achieve a given electoral result. Given the two Supreme Court rulings and the legal limit of $2,600 donation by an individual to a particular candidate, how do the rules change enable corruption in a broader sense?
Joyce Doe has a personal wealth estimated at $12 billion of which $800 million is in fairly liquid assets. Jon Smythe, the chairperson of the National Republican Party approaches Joyce with a proposition to become part of a national strategy for electing Republicans to state legislatures, to contested seats in the House of Representatives, and to the Senate of the United States. John knows that Joyce has favored libertarian candidates in the past and sees her best interests in minimizing federal regulation of the internet and net-based companies.
John first lists the state legislatures where Republicans have lost control or have only a slim hold on their majority status, such as California and Idaho. Not only does John want Joyce to contribute $2,600 to 12 candidates in those states, he wants her to donate $2.5 million to a Political Action Committee (PAC) that is attempting to undermine any expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act of 2010. The total bill for the local state effort would be $31,200 to individual candidates and $5 million for undermining the ACA.
Next, John proposes to expand the donations from Joyce to encompass anti-immigration issues, tiered access to the internet as a competitive environment and the start-up costs of the ACA for small businesses and negative effects on access to care in rural areas of the country. Joyce agrees that these issues are important to her and to her businesses, so she will donate funds for media campaigns in print, on television and for “infodocumentaries" for airing on conservative radio and television stations around the country. No particular dollar amount is given to Joyce, though she understands that some donations may be considerable.
John emphasizes that Joyce’s donations will be commingled with those of other, major donors to avoid any negative publicity from her donations other than to specific political candidates.
Is Jon Smythe’s strategy for major donors corruption? There could be an implicit quid pro quo for candidates receiving election funding to vote according to the wishes of Joyce and her companion donors. Yet, who is to say that the legislator is only voting according to his or her campaign promises? Does it matter if the opposition’s candidate cannot compete for campaign funding on a level of Joyce’s candidates? Probably not, at least in the terms established as First Amendment rights by the Supreme Court.
Among the implications of First Citizens and McClutcheon for the 2014 and 2016 elections will be a change in donor strategy for media attempts to sway voters’ opinions one way or another. As for the Presidential election, campaign war chests are already being gathered. The Democratic Party has had the advantage of a sitting President with a known legislative agenda. It also seems likely that Hilary Clinton will run for the nomination, but there are significant ideological and stylistic issues her campaign will have to overcome for her to succeed. The absence of a contender bodes well for her.
The Republican Party’s war chest for 2016 is quite small because the party’s focus is on gaining control of the Senate and solidifying its hold on the House. None of the potential candidates for nomination have shown national appeal nor have any one candidate distinguished himself as electable even within the party itself.
Having mastered the PAC media and ideological attack tactics in the 2012 election of state and federal legislators, the national Republican effort will attempt to demonstrate the weakness of President Obama’s foreign policies, the continued slow recovery from the Great Recession and the crude startup of the ACA’s national registration procedures. Ironically, the role of fact-checking organizations will gain increasing importance as the media offenses attempt to present factoids and partial truths in support of all ideological solutions to governing the nation.
11 February 2014
Insurers Get A Free Ride
Why are the health care insurers getting a free ride from the media and the public? It seems obvious by now that, with the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the insurance industry began planning for its overhaul of individual and family policies. Back then, the industry had to come up with new plans to accommodate pre-existing conditions and other aspects of the law that took effect upon passage. Then they sold these new plans to their existing customers in the form of renewals and updates. Many of the updated plans did not meet the requirements of the full scope of Obamacare, but they were legal at the time. I am sure that since 2010, many insurers changed the content of their plans before the deadline of January 1, 2014, when the full scope of the health care law takes effect.
Some Questions, Thoughts and Observations for Today
Hockey
What a charge to watch the women's ice hockey games! No body checking allowed! The game emphasizes skill rather than brute strength, although I would not like to cross any of the players. Another rules difference from professional hockey is that a goal during a power play does not erase the remaining time on a penalty. Today, the Japanese team was robbed of a goal and yet came on so strong in the first of the third period with a brilliant goal.
US versus Canada tomorrow. Must watch game!
Politics
Yesterday the House voted to prevent the EPA from enforcing its rules and regulations on federal lands. What arrogance! If the EPA cannot keep federal lands (meaning those that belong to all the people) then what agency will? The history of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is not exactly pristine in the trade offs between commercial interests and the people's interests. This is just another Republican attempt to emasculate the EPA, one of Nixon's primary achievements. It is also a Christian premise to be the stewards of God's Creation and I cannot see how this legislation furthers that objective. Talk about your cafeteria Christianity.
Music
This weekend's tributes to the Beatles brought back so many good memories of the 1960s. Good memories are not numerous on my memory list for those years, and much of my discontent was fostered by the disconnect between what the "greatest generation" was doing to the country politically and in Indo-China. I wish the musical tribute had included "Imagine," a humanist charter of peace and community for the world. It seems we cannot achieve the ideals of this song, so I hope God will listen to our intentions to achieve John Lennon's words.
Wars
Are there still wars in Afghanistan? Syria? Egypt? Ukraine? South Sudan? Ethiopia and Somalia? One has to chance upon any television news concerning any conflict in the world as long as the Olympics are going on.
Bully Politics
Of course, MSNBC continues to keep the world informed about Christie's bully politics in New Jersey. Seems ordinary to me. Remember Teddy Roosevelt? If you do, you're very old. The historians and biographers have shown us how this Bull Moose was admired for his aggressive personal style in politics and war.
NSA
Has no one realized a valid reason for listening to Chancellor Merkel's phone calls? We want to know what trade negotiation tactics and strategies the Germans are going to use when they negotiate trade agreements with the US and with other countries. Trade! The two significant, opaque trade agreements being negotiated today are the TPP in the Pacific Rim and an unnamed one with Europe both along the lines of NAFTA. Remember the promises of NAFTA for US commerce? See how NAFTA has ruined self-sufficient agriculture in the Americas. How many US jobs went south--because they went South. Now the US Trade Representative wants to fast-track these two new trade agreements through the Congress. There is more transparency in our Afghanistan plans. Watch the NSA continue to monitor trade issues through its new, mega-databases. The original intent for NSA was valid during the Cold War, but is industrial espionage worth the money spent in secret and the amount of un-monitored activity?
Drone Warfare
It appears another American citizen was killed by a drone (not sure if it was a CIA or DOD weapon) this week. When asked about the process for permitting this kind of murder, the official responded with an equally alarming statement.
Ignorant of the phone call content, NSA can be a party to this reporter's execution by drone, justified as his being an enemy combatant in contact with Al Qaeda.
Think this could never happen? How reliable a system do we have? Is the President forever immune from sanction or prosecution for ordering the assassination of an American citizen through this type of "due process?" Before answering "yes?" remember the Lettres de Cachet under the French kings that put people in the Bastille for indefinite periods of time without trial or recourse to appeals. Also, recall that the idea of appeals following an execution is rather moot.
Keystone Pipeline
This project is bad for the country. First, why do we need to risk our central plains watershed and aquifer so that Canadian oil companies can send their dirty, shale oil to Texan refineries? How many permanent jobs will remain after the pipeline is built? 50? No one states or estimates an exact answer. With the Texan refineries already operating at full capacity processing American Sweet Crude, where will this Keystone petroleum go? Onto the world market, that's where. Since this is Canadian product, the only income the US will gain are transport fees, distributor commissions, and shipping fees for the international trade. I wonder if the State Department asked if there would be a net increase in the risk of environmental damage due to the increased ship traffic for this exported Canadian oil. "No problem, we've all the protections in place," or words to that effect.
Why do we need this project? We have our own supply and let Canada pollute the rest of the world with its dirty crude. Why should we be complicit when the western Canadian provinces refuse to allow a pipeline across to the Pacific?
That's enough for today. Be sure to send your comments and to forward these snippets to your friends. Comments should be addressed to <sherfdog@mac.com> or as listed below.
What a charge to watch the women's ice hockey games! No body checking allowed! The game emphasizes skill rather than brute strength, although I would not like to cross any of the players. Another rules difference from professional hockey is that a goal during a power play does not erase the remaining time on a penalty. Today, the Japanese team was robbed of a goal and yet came on so strong in the first of the third period with a brilliant goal.
US versus Canada tomorrow. Must watch game!
Politics
Yesterday the House voted to prevent the EPA from enforcing its rules and regulations on federal lands. What arrogance! If the EPA cannot keep federal lands (meaning those that belong to all the people) then what agency will? The history of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is not exactly pristine in the trade offs between commercial interests and the people's interests. This is just another Republican attempt to emasculate the EPA, one of Nixon's primary achievements. It is also a Christian premise to be the stewards of God's Creation and I cannot see how this legislation furthers that objective. Talk about your cafeteria Christianity.
Music
This weekend's tributes to the Beatles brought back so many good memories of the 1960s. Good memories are not numerous on my memory list for those years, and much of my discontent was fostered by the disconnect between what the "greatest generation" was doing to the country politically and in Indo-China. I wish the musical tribute had included "Imagine," a humanist charter of peace and community for the world. It seems we cannot achieve the ideals of this song, so I hope God will listen to our intentions to achieve John Lennon's words.
Wars
Are there still wars in Afghanistan? Syria? Egypt? Ukraine? South Sudan? Ethiopia and Somalia? One has to chance upon any television news concerning any conflict in the world as long as the Olympics are going on.
Bully Politics
Of course, MSNBC continues to keep the world informed about Christie's bully politics in New Jersey. Seems ordinary to me. Remember Teddy Roosevelt? If you do, you're very old. The historians and biographers have shown us how this Bull Moose was admired for his aggressive personal style in politics and war.
NSA
Has no one realized a valid reason for listening to Chancellor Merkel's phone calls? We want to know what trade negotiation tactics and strategies the Germans are going to use when they negotiate trade agreements with the US and with other countries. Trade! The two significant, opaque trade agreements being negotiated today are the TPP in the Pacific Rim and an unnamed one with Europe both along the lines of NAFTA. Remember the promises of NAFTA for US commerce? See how NAFTA has ruined self-sufficient agriculture in the Americas. How many US jobs went south--because they went South. Now the US Trade Representative wants to fast-track these two new trade agreements through the Congress. There is more transparency in our Afghanistan plans. Watch the NSA continue to monitor trade issues through its new, mega-databases. The original intent for NSA was valid during the Cold War, but is industrial espionage worth the money spent in secret and the amount of un-monitored activity?
Drone Warfare
It appears another American citizen was killed by a drone (not sure if it was a CIA or DOD weapon) this week. When asked about the process for permitting this kind of murder, the official responded with an equally alarming statement.
First, there are several sources of information brought forward to identify an enemy combatant who is an American citizen. CIA, other informers, self-identification, and NSA-obtained phone data are analysed within the National Security Administration with conclusions forwarded with recommendation as to the accuracy of identity to the National Security Council members. The NSC, which included the Defense Department and CIA input, makes a recommendation "up the line" ultimately to the President for a decision.There is for me a serious omission in this vetting process: the NSA's stated database content. To allay privacy opponents within the US, the NSA has repeatedly said that it only records the telephone numbers of all conversations and never the content. How can a life-and-execution decision use such data without knowing the content of the phone call(s)? Suppose suspect X phones Pasha Pizza in downtown Tripoli. NSA considers Pasha Pizza to be an Al Qaeda front. The NSA, according to its stated protocol, identifies suspect X as contacting Al Qaeda and sets up suspect X's call as a probably enemy combatant communication. All they need is a pattern for pizza-loving X's calls to Pasha Pizza for X to be labeled an enemy, who happens to be a Brooklyn-born freelance reporter living in Libya.
Ignorant of the phone call content, NSA can be a party to this reporter's execution by drone, justified as his being an enemy combatant in contact with Al Qaeda.
Think this could never happen? How reliable a system do we have? Is the President forever immune from sanction or prosecution for ordering the assassination of an American citizen through this type of "due process?" Before answering "yes?" remember the Lettres de Cachet under the French kings that put people in the Bastille for indefinite periods of time without trial or recourse to appeals. Also, recall that the idea of appeals following an execution is rather moot.
Keystone Pipeline
This project is bad for the country. First, why do we need to risk our central plains watershed and aquifer so that Canadian oil companies can send their dirty, shale oil to Texan refineries? How many permanent jobs will remain after the pipeline is built? 50? No one states or estimates an exact answer. With the Texan refineries already operating at full capacity processing American Sweet Crude, where will this Keystone petroleum go? Onto the world market, that's where. Since this is Canadian product, the only income the US will gain are transport fees, distributor commissions, and shipping fees for the international trade. I wonder if the State Department asked if there would be a net increase in the risk of environmental damage due to the increased ship traffic for this exported Canadian oil. "No problem, we've all the protections in place," or words to that effect.
Why do we need this project? We have our own supply and let Canada pollute the rest of the world with its dirty crude. Why should we be complicit when the western Canadian provinces refuse to allow a pipeline across to the Pacific?
That's enough for today. Be sure to send your comments and to forward these snippets to your friends. Comments should be addressed to <sherfdog@mac.com> or as listed below.
