Category Archives: Current Events

A Failure Of Journalism.

Posted on by

The impasse in Congress that has shut down our federal government is not only the result of a political failure. It’s the result of a journalistic failure. As evidenced by statements from NBC’s Chuck Todd, too many reporters believe that their job is simply to report the positions of both sides and let the public decide which side is telling the truth.

Few make any attempt to bring perspective to the debate by fully explaining the issues or determining which side is telling the truth. As a result, politicians are able to lie with impunity.

This so-called journalism is completely counter to what I was taught in journalism school. Moreover, it’s a disservice to the great newsmen of the past. The great Edward R. Murrow exposed the excesses and cruelty of Senator Joe McCarthy’s communist witch hunt. Murrow exposed the plight of migrant workers. And Walter Cronkite effectively brought an end to the Vietnam War by reporting the reality of the war from the combat zone.

Indeed, Cronkite once said, “My job is not merely to report the facts. My job is to report the truth.”

Of course, there are a few writers who have reported the reality of our dysfunctional Congress. In their book, It’s Even Worse Than It Looks, Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein explain how the issues are very much one-sided, caused by a growing extremism of the right. Fareed Zakaria, Bill Moyers and Charlie Rose have done an excellent job of thorough and unbiased reporting. Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone and others have also reported in depth. But their audiences pale in comparison to the national mass media. And their articles require a willingness to read with an inquisitive and open mind.

That’s probably expecting far too much of today’s Twitter-fed millennials and older generations fueled by Faux News Channel and Rush Limbaugh who refuse to let facts get in the way of a good political fight. They tend to view politics as a blood sport and they have already chosen sides. Cronkite and Murrow combined probably couldn’t change their minds!

In reality, the only way out of this mess is for the news media to realize what their predecessors did. That being a reporter and a journalist is a privilege. And that the position comes with a responsibility. Not just to report the news…but to give it context so that the audience can readily understand the truth. The whole truth.

Why You Can’t Negotiate With Terrorists.

Posted on by

Long ago, our law enforcement agencies learned that you can’t negotiate with terrorists, especially those who take hostages. The reason is that their demands are always unreasonable and they never live up to the negotiated agreement.

House Republicans are no different.

The President and Senate have been negotiating the federal budget for more than four years, trying to strike a fine balance between keeping our fragile economic recovery going and bringing deficits under control. Under President Obama, the deficit has dropped faster than at any time in history. And Democrats reluctantly agreed to make permanent the $70 billion in cuts to the federal budget that were part of the sequester. But after agreeing to the cuts, Speaker of the House betrayed the Senate Majority Leader by allowing the defunding of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be included in the budget bill.

When the President and Senate refused to agree to the measure, the House offered a ”compromise” by attaching an amendment that would delay “Obamacare” for one year. Some compromise.

Since House Republicans have already voted to repeal or defund “Obamacare” more than 40 times, what assurance is there that they won’t vote to repeal the law another 40 times over the coming year?

After all, terrorists seldom live up to their word. And if they are willing to take our government and economy hostage once, they’re likely to do it again. Indeed, this is at least the third time in my lifetime that Republicans have shut down the government.

Republicans and their Tea Party parasites are always quoting the Constitution. It’s time they actually read it. Not just the 2nd and 10th Amendments…but the entire Constitution. If they would, they’d find that the House is only one part of the federal government, and it doesn’t have veto power. If they want to have a bill passed, they have to find agreement with the Senate and gain the signature of the President.

Only the President has veto power.  And the House doesn’t have the votes to override a presidential veto.

That means the House terrorists have only one option – to fund the government, at least temporarily, and then demonstrate that they can negotiate in good faith.

I, for one, don’t think they’re capable of that.

House Teapublicans Throw A Snitfit.

Posted on by

Recognizing that out-of-control medical costs represented a growing threat to the health of Americans and the health of our nation, then-candidate, Barack Obama, vowed to overhaul our health care system if elected president in 2008.  Almost immediately after being sworn into office, President Obama challenged the Democratic-led Congress to deliver a health care reform bill for his signature.  After much debate and many Republican-sponsored amendments, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act promising to contain health care costs and to provide health insurance to nearly 50 million uninsured Americans. The president signed the bill into law. More than a year later, a conservative Supreme Court ruled the law constitutional. And in 2012, the public showed its approval by re-electing President Obama and Senate Democrats.

That’s how democracy works. Or, at least, that’s how it’s supposed to work.

Despite all of this, the Republican majority in the House of Representatives refuses to accept the law, having voted to repeal or defund it 41 times. In a final lack of defiance, they refused to fund it as part of their government funding resolution despite statements by Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, that the bill would be “dead on arrival” in the US Senate and statements by President Obama that he would veto the bill.

They passed the bill anyway, trying to place the blame on President Obama and Democrats.

In response, Congressional Republicans claimed to compromise by passing a spending bill that would delay funding of “Obamacare” for a year. Apparently, they believed that Democrats would be stupid enough to think that the delay was any more than a public relations attempt to deflect blame for the government shutdown.

So here we are. Our entire government has come to a standstill because of a Teapublican tantrum against a health care law their own party proposed during the 1996 presidential campaign to counter President Bill Clinton’s universal health care initiative.

Ironically, the Teapublican snitfit has not affected the implementation of “Obamacare.” Millions of Americans have signed up for health insurance exchanges since the government shutdown. Moreover, although the budget passed by the House does not fund “Obamacare,” it includes the savings which will be realized by the law.

Without “Obamacare,” the government budget being pushed by Republicans doesn’t add up! In other words, it’s ideological. But not mathematical. Indeed, it has been estimated that the government shutdown will cost taxpayers $10 billion per week! And that doesn’t even include losses by individuals.

Obviously, House Teapublicans need a time-out.

How long will Teapublicans whine, scream and cry before voters lose patience and slap them on their considerable behinds? No one knows. While tens of thousands of government workers go without paychecks, the congressmen behind the shutdown will continue to collect theirs. And, if you think that they will feel threatened by their constituents, think again. Most congressional districts have been so gerrymandered, they will likely be re-elected no matter how bad their behavior.

Despite this, there is reason to hope. Yesterday, it was announced that 17 moderate Republicans are willing to vote for a clean bill that would fund the federal government and “Obamacare.” Assuming that all House Democrats would vote for such a bill, that’s enough votes to end the government shutdown. But it requires Speaker Boehner standing up to the Tea Party parasites in his caucus and bringing the bill to a vote.

In other words, don’t hold your breath.

An Ugly GOP Strategy Gets Even Uglier.

Posted on by

As long ago as the late sixties and early eighties, Republican leaders developed a unique election strategy. They intentionally made politics so messy; so reprehensibly ugly; so divisive that many moderate voters became disgusted with the whole political process and tuned out. The idea was that by diminishing the votes of moderates, the primaries and elections would be decided by the most rabid conservative base.

At the same time, they attacked the mainstream news outlets in order to create distrust of the media and objective reporting. This allowed partisan talk show hosts and conservative pundits to confuse voters and control the political message.

It worked.

This strategy was at the heart of many GOP victories over the past 40 years. It was never more obvious than in the events leading up to the 2010 mid-term elections. And it would have worked again in 2012 if not for an energized  Democratic majority and a bartender who captured Mitt Romney’s comments about the 47 percent.

Not content with demoralizing and repulsing a large number of moderates, the GOP and its Tea Party parasites have set about passing voter ID laws designed to diminish the participation of other segments of the electorate…including the poor, the elderly and minorities. The fewer of these Democratic-leaning voters who participate, the easier it will be for conservatives to win elections.

Combine these strategies with the financial backing of large corporations and wealthy contributors such as the Koch brothers, and we might see a conservative landslide in 2014.

Given the changing demographics of our nation and the coming minority majority, these cynical GOP strategies can’t work for long and Teapublicans know it. But they can create a lot of mischief in the meantime. You need only look at the ultra-conservative bills that have been pushed through states with a Teapublican majority in the legislature and a Teapublican governor.

Arizona, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Texas and others have acted like States Gone Wild with their anti-woman, anti-abortion, anti-tax, anti-union, anti-minority and pro-gun legislation. Many of their measures are unpopular with a majority of their citizens. But the majority is helpless to do anything to stop the bills or overturn them until there’s a change in state governments. And change is unlikely anytime in the near future because of Teapublican gerrymandering designed to keep them in power for years.

The only chance for change is for moderates to become re-engaged; to tune out the relentless negative campaign ads; to look beyond the headlines; to ignore the sound bites; to approach elections by studying the candidates and their policies with the same attitude as studying for a college final; then vote!

Demanding A 50 Year Cover-Up For Doing Your Job?

Posted on by

Our nation was built on representative government.  But our representatives are so concerned with re-election that many are now afraid to do what’s best for our nation. So much so, that they try to hide their actions from the very people they represent.

The on-going debate over the federal tax code is a case in point.

Before many senators were willing to venture opinions on the tax code, they needed to be assured by Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that any suggestions would be kept secret for 50 years! Exactly what, or who, are they afraid of?

In a word, you.

Thanks to the Baucus-Hatch declaration, senators may now solicit favors from the K Street lobbyists without fear of repercussions. They are now free to recommend tax loopholes for their largest campaign contributors and special interests without fear of discovery by the people they are supposed to represent. By the time anyone finds out, they’ll be dead and forgotten.

Not exactly representative government, is it?

In one declaration, Baucus and Hatch have exposed everything that’s wrong with our government. And it’s not just a problem with the federal government. Such secrecy and tricks are used and abused by governments at all levels…city, county and state.

Those with money can buy access to those who make the laws. After all, it takes money to run for office these days…lots of it. So defense contractors, the American Medical Association, health insurance, Big Pharma, Big Oil, Wall Street, multinational corporations, billionaires, the NRA and others write our laws. They write the very regulations that will govern them, and because they write them, they feel free to break them.

No money.  No access.

Only a very few politicians have demonstrated through their actions that they are immune to such power.  Senators Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders and a very small number of others have stood on priniciple. They seem willing to do the right thing and explain their decisions to those who elected them.

Far too many others say one thing in public and do something far different behind closed doors. The Baucus-Hatch declaration…along with Senators Baucus and Hatch…needs to go.

A Recipe For Failure.

Posted on by

Since 2009, many conservatives have believed that Barack Obama is an anti-American socialist who was born in Kenya and, therefore, is an illegitimate president. Many in Congress refuse to recognize him as president, let alone negotiate with him. Even after he was re-elected in overwhelming fashion, they refuse to accept the results believing that he bought votes by offering “stuff” to the 47 percent they claim do not pay taxes.

On the other hand, Democrats in Congress believe that Tea Party conservatives were elected based on an avalance of misinformation and spending from billionaire ideologues. They also believe that many were the beneficiaries of conservative gerrymandering.

So where does this leave us?

It leaves us with a government that simply doesn’t function. If it were not for presidential orders, the government would be at a complete standstill. Congress and the president cannot agree on a budget, on foreign policy, on military action, on job creation…they cannot even agree on laws that have already been passed. The House continues to vote to repeal “Obamacare” without hope of actually doing so. Why? Merely because conservatives in Congress want everyone to know how much they dislike President Obama.

Conservatives in both the House and the Senate refuse to negotiate a budget deal. They merely want to dictate. In 2011, that led to an impasse over the debt ceiling that damaged the credit rating of government bonds, collapsed the stock market and brought economic recovery to a standstill. In 2012, it led to sequestration which created further problems.

Now conservatives in the House are threatening to pass a budget that will defund “Obamacare” and, unless they get their way, they not only threaten to refuse to raise the debt ceiling. They plan to shut down the government entirely.

In an attempt to reach some form of compromise, President Obama reached his hand across the aisle. In return, conservatives merely extended their collective middle finger.

Given the circumstances. it’s not at all clear which side will win. But I do know that we will all lose.

Could We Be On The Verge Of Peace In The Middle East?

Posted on by

The key to unlocking peace in the Middle East may have just been handed to us by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani who told NBC News national and international correspondent, Ann Curry, that Iran has no intention of creating nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction of any kind. When asked about Iranian denial of the Holocaust, Rouhani replied that those statements were made by his predecessor.

He also revealed that he has requested a diplomatic meeting with President Obama.

Apparently, this is in response to a letter from President Obama congratulating Rouhani on his election, followed by a series of letters discussing issues. It certainly didn’t hurt that the US agreed to Russia’s agreement to remove chemical weapons from Syria rather than a military strike.

It is not yet certain if these overtures will result in a renewed relationship with Iran. But no matter what happens, it shows that diplomacy is a far better option than military strikes and senile threats such as “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!”

It also demonstrates that statesmanship can work better than military force. It almost always shows more strength to resist the temptation for violence than to make threats and attempt to bully others. Moreover, it shows what can happen when we have leaders determined to get us out of ill-conceived wars than to get us into them.

If we are able to eventually normalize relations with Iran, it not only would release the pent-up energy and intellectual capital that has been strangling in Iran as a result of religious fundamentalism and our economic sanctions. It could reduce poverty in the country and eliminate one of the greatest destabilizing forces in the region. Instead of sponsoring terrorists, Iran could redirect the money to help others who are struggling economically.

After spending all but 33 years of our history at war, wouldn’t it be interesting to finally enjoy the fruits of peace?

More Guns = More Homicides.

Posted on by

Without the heavily-financed propaganda from the NRA, it’s doubtful that anyone would ever question the relationship. But since the gun industry has spent hundreds of millions to convince us otherwise, it has become the job of academia to bring us back to reality.  That’s just what Professor Michael Siegel from Boston University and his two coauthors have done in an exhaustive study to be published in an upcoming issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

The study looked at other academic literature which had concluded that where there are more guns there is more homicide. It compared gun availability and homicides using data from 26 developed nations. It analyzed the relationship between gun ownership and homicides using data from 50 states over a 10-year period.  The study even took into account many other factors including race, poverty and overall levels of violence.

The study’s inescapable conclusion is that more guns equal more homicides.

The plain fact is that guns make it easier to kill others and yourself. When someone snaps, guns become the weapon of choice. And thanks to the NRA, guns are readily available in every US city and every state.

Further, the act of concealing and carrying a gun doesn’t make us safer. It endangers us. That should be clear to everyone following the mass shooting at the Navy Yard in Washington, DC. The shooter, who had a history of gun violence and mental illness, was able to easily purchase a shotgun because all charges had been dropped and thus were not in the national database.

Although he entered the Navy Yard armed with only a double-barreled shotgun, he was able to acquire a semi-automatic pistol and an AR-15 assault weapon. How? The bad guy with a gun shot the good guys with guns and took their weapons.

So much for Wayne LaPierre’s post-Newtown argument.

And, in that regard, the Navy Yard shooting was not unusual. Data shows that most people who carry guns are more likely to be shot with their own guns than to use their guns to shoot an attacker. This is simply common sense. A gun is not a defensive weapon. It’s an offensive weapon. It cannot stop bullets. It can only stop another shooter if you see the shooter first, recognize the threat first and shoot first.

If we are to ever stop mass shootings and reduce gun homicides, we must reduce the number and lethality of guns. There is no justifiable reason why a private citizen should have more firepower and higher capacity magazines than law enforcement.  And there is no reason why we can’t have universal background checks for all gun purchases. Neither of these actions are a breach of the Second Amendment.

At the same time we have to look in the mirror and change our culture. Perhaps our movies and video games would not be so violent if we weren’t at war all the time. Maybe we would have less mental illness if we weren’t sending our citizens off to war zones, traumatizing them and returning them to our streets without careful examination. And maybe we’d have fewer of the criminally ill if we treated mental illness for what it really is…illness. There should be no shame or repercussions for a troubled individual seeking therapy anymore than there is for someone seeking treatment for cancer.

We shouldn’t stigmatize them. But we shouldn’t make it easy for them to purchase guns, either.

How Many Mass Shootings Will It Take?

Posted on by

Recent polls have shown that, after being mired in continuous conflicts for the past 12 years, Americans seem to have lost their appetite for war. Various polls found that more than 6 in 10 Americans were against any form of military action in Syria.

But we’re in the midst of our own war right here at home.

Monday’s shooting at the Washington, DC Navy Yard is just the latest in a long line of mass shootings in America. There has been an average of one a month since early in 2009! The victims have included theater-goers, citizens visiting with their congressional representative, elementary school children…even dozens of military and military contractors. In addition, there are many individual gun homicides – more than 11,000 per year according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The reaction from the NRA and other ideologues is to fight any form of common-sense measures such as universal background checks and bans on high-capacity magazines which allow mass shooters to fire up to 100 rounds as fast as they can pull the trigger without the need to reload. In order to intimidate anyone contemplating such measures, the NRA and other gun nuts targeted two of the Colorado legislators who actually had the intestinal fortitude to help pass such legislation. That may intimidate politicians, but it shouldn’t intimidate the majority of Americans who favor universal background checks.

After all, we’re the ones who elect these people.

Of course, the NRA responds to each shooting by first saying, “This is not the time to discuss gun legislation.” Then, after the shock from each event dies down, they come out with another lame statement such as that following the Sandy Hook massacre. “The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

Obviously, that is utter nonsense.

At both the Navy Yard and Fort Hood, there were dozens, if not hundreds, of armed and trained guards in the immediate area.  At Fort Hood, 13 were killed and 32 were wounded before the armed good guys could stop the shooter. At the Navy Yard, at least 12 were killed before the shooter was stopped.  Those numbers are not significantly different from the mass shootings in which victims were unarmed.

By comparison there were 13 fatalities at the Columbine High School, 6 at the Tucson “Congress on Your Corner” event, 12 at the Aurora, Colorado movie theater, and 26 at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. (The number of deaths at Sandy Hook likely had more to do with the size of magazines used by the shooter and the ages of the victims.)

Moreover, the most thorough study to date on the availability and presence of firearms by Professor Michael Siegel and two coauthors at Boston University clearly shows that more guns equal more gun deaths, either by suicide or homicide.

In other words, good guys with guns do not diminish gun homicides.

As for the NRA’s fear that universal background checks will lead to a national gun registry, there is already a gun registry. Not by the government. By the NRA!

Another specious argument by the NRA and its cowboy wannabes is that gun ownership is the only deterrent for a tyrannical government. That presumes that hunting rifles, shotguns, handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons could deter a government military with tanks, fighter jets, bombers, attack helicopters and drones. Besides, if you’re so fearful of our democratically-elected government that you’re watching the skies for the black helicopters, you should just go ahead and join the Sovereign Citizens movement, renounce your US citizenship and move abroad. You’re too paranoid and too dumb to remain in the US!

It only took 17 mass shootings in Australia before the Australian government banned semi-automatic weapons and most other guns. We have nearly that many mass shootings a year and we can’t even pass universal background checks. Are we that much different than our Aussie friends?

Marketing Addiction.

Posted on by

The development of e-cigarettes was a good thing. It provided an opportunity for those addicted to nicotine and the act of smoking to replace tobacco cigarettes with something less harmful…not only less harmful to themselves, but everyone around them.

Of course, some greedy corporations can’t settle for a good thing. They have to find ways to turn a positive into a negative and, in the process, make millions.

Not content to sell e-cigarettes as a replacement for tobacco, companies like Lorillard have decided to create a whole new generation of buyers by marketing e-cigarettes in a variety of candy flavors and using celebrities to make their products seem cutting-edge “cool.” It’s a strategy right out of the playbook of tobacco cigarette brands from the fifties through the eighties. (Remember Joe Camel?) And, though tobacco companies have been forced to diversify, they have continued the same marketing strategies in Asia and other countries that lack regulations.

Unfortunately, the tobacco and e-cigarette industries are not alone. It’s well-known that the largest brewers in the US aim their advertising at males aged 30 and younger… the younger the better. The idea is that, if brewers can capture the attention of males who are younger than drinking age, those males will have already established brand preferences by the time they’re old enough to buy beer.  That explains the preponderance of TV commercials with girls in bikinis and adolescent humor.

Such tactics, while not illegal, are certainly unethical. But given the rampant greed of corporations, they’re unlikely to change.