Category Archives: Current Events

Getting Away With Murder.

Posted on by

George Zimmerman isn’t the first person that the courts have allowed to get away with murder. But he is one of the few to be acquitted after admitting to intentionally shooting an unarmed person. Zimmerman can thank Florida’s ill-conceived “Stand Your Ground” law for that, along with an inept prosecution and seemingly naive jurors.

The “Stand Your Ground” law was created as “model” legislation by the NRA (National Rifle Association) and ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) then introduced to state legislatures throughout the country. Designed to protect rootin’ tootin’, gun totin’, cowboy wannabes from prosecution, the law removes any obligation for gun owners to back away from a confrontation. If a pistol packin’ nitwit fears that his or her life is endangered or fears great bodily harm (an arbitrary standard as demonstrated by the Zimmerman trial) it appears that it is now legal to blast away.

Without this law, Zimmerman would have been forced to demonstrate that he tried to avoid a lethal confrontation. Without this law, the jury would have been obligated to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter. In other words, the fact that Zimmerman stalked his victim against the advice of a police dispatcher would have been reason enough to find him guilty.

The ensuing comments of juror B37 also demonstrate a lack of understanding of violent confrontations by the all female jury. The jurors apparently do not understand the difference between a fistfight and a life-endangering situation. Zimmerman’s wounds (and I use the term loosely) were consistent with the effects of a single punch. In no way do they meet the criteria of life-threatening or great bodily harm. Almost everyone who has ever been in a schoolyard fight has suffered worse.

There was no evidence that Zimmerman’s head had been repeatedly slammed onto concrete as he claimed. And that was just one of the flaws in Zimmerman’s story exposed during the trial.

The worst was Zimmerman’s claim that, when Martin was on top of him, Martin reached for Zimmerman’s gun. If the situation was as Zimmerman claimed, Martin could not have seen the gun behind Zimmerman’s right hip, let alone reached for it. Moreover, in the situation described, it would have been impossible for Zimmerman to have reached for it. Martin’s lower leg would have blocked access to it. (Having taught martial arts, including ground fighting, I have been in a similar position many times.)

The prosecution failed to clearly demonstrate this critical point. Had they done so, the jury might have reached a very different verdict.

Even more troubling than the outcome of the trial are the inconsistencies of our justice system and the perverse voyeurism of our media. As Zimmerman was getting away with murder, a Florida woman was sentenced to 20 years in prison for merely firing a warning shot to keep her estranged husband from attacking her. No one was shot. No one was hurt. The clear message is that, if you’re going to fire your gun during a confrontation, you better make sure the shot is fatal. And since the woman is black, the two incidents demonstrate the duality of our justice system.

Such inconsistency, especially the appearance of racism, deserves a serious public discussion…one free of the sensationalism demonstrated by media coverage of the “trial du jour.” Unfortunately, in search of ratings, our media would rather treat our judicial system as a series of reality shows.

Only Crimes Issa Has Exposed Are His Own.

Posted on by

For more than two years, Congressman Issa has been digging under rocks to find dirt on President Obama and his administration. He has claimed that his investigations would prove that the federal loan to Solyndra would expose a “sweetheart” deal for one of Obama’s political contributors. Instead, he proved that the loan process was well underway during the Bush administration.

Issa claimed that his investigation into Fast & Furious would show the president or, at least his Attorney General, ordered ATFE agents to allow gun trafficking to Mexican drug cartels. What he proved was that, out of frustration, a single unit of the ATFE allowed guns to “walk” in hopes of them leading to cartel leadership.

Most recently, Issa claimed that an investigation would show that President Obama, or his campaign, ordered extra scrutiny for Tea Party groups seeking non-profit status for their political operations. What Issa proved is that a self-professed conservative Republican agent in Cincinnati used search terms to learn more about the groups, and that those search terms included Tea Party, Patriots, and 9/12. They also included words like Democrat, Blue, Progressives, and Liberals. (I can attest to this because I’m a member of a Democratic group targeted, and I filled out the paperwork myself.)

Instead of proving that these “scandals” led to the White House, Issa proved that there were no scandals at all! Indeed, all he has accomplished is to prove otherwise. He has also caused writers like me to look into his sordid past. On doing so, I learned that Issa was twice indicted for Grand Theft Auto. I also learned that he quite likely torched his own business shortly after increasing the insurance by more than 400 percent!

It appears the only reason Issa is so determined to prove crime by others is to damage a presidency, ingratiate himself to other members of his own party and to rationalize his own past.

Abolish The IRS?

Posted on by

Tea Party favorite, Sen. Rand Paul, is featured in a TV commercial calling for viewers to sign a petition to abolish the IRS. Paul and his fellow Tea Party parasites are capitalizing on what they falsely call an unconstitutional attack on conservatives to get what they really want…a flat tax.

The flat tax is a horrible idea that has long been pushed by the wealthy and conservatives. It doesn’t sound bad; you just total up the income you received for the year and pay a flat percentage of that income. No accountants or tax preparers needed. But since everyone would pay the same percentage, the flat tax would be a huge victory for the wealthy and an unprecedented attack on the poor.

The very conservative Heritage Foundation recommends that the tax rate be set at 28 percent. It would eliminate payroll taxes, estate taxes, excise taxes and taxes on savings. It would give a modest tax credit to the poor. The only other tax deductions would be for higher education, gifts and charitable deductions.

Of course, the poor and modest income households don’t make enough to have savings. So eliminating a tax on savings only benefits the wealthy. Likewise, only the wealthy would benefit from eliminating estate taxes. The wealthy would certainly benefit the most from the charitable deductions. And since the top marginal tax rate is now 39.6 percent, the flat tax would give those making $400,000 and up a tax cut of 11.6 percent!

The real effect of the flat tax proposal would be to dramatically cut taxes for the wealthy and raise taxes on those who can least afford it.

The flat tax is just another Trojan horse concocted by conservatives to benefit their wealthy masters. It would move even more of the tax burden onto the middle class and make the plight of the poor utterly hopeless. A better idea is to rid our current tax code of the deductions, tax shelters and subsidies created by conservative politicians to help their campaign contributors avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

A flat tax will simply help them avoid taxes altogether.

Since no one actually likes paying taxes, the IRS has few friends. Yet, without the IRS, who would track down the thousands of tax cheats? With no enforcement, thousands more would be encouraged to avoid paying taxes. And, though a flat tax may sound like a good idea, if it ever happens, the American dream will become a nightmare for all but a very few.

What Egypt Reveals About US Foreign Policy.

Posted on by

In one of the most ironic foreign policy twists of all time, Egyptian journalists are reporting that a majority of Egyptians now link the US with the Muslim Brotherhood and deposed President Mohamed Morsi.

No, it’s not because President Obama is the socialist Muslim Teapublicans think him to be. The reality is much less interesting. It stems from our undying belief in democracy, and the fact that Americans equate democracy with freedom. But, as we’re learning, democracy does not always lead to freedom, and it doesn’t always represent the will of the people.

Egypt is a great case in point.

When Morsi was elected president, it had less to do with his vision for the future of Egypt than the fact that his Freedom and Justice Party representing the Muslim Brotherhood was more organized and more powerful than the opposition parties. After all, political parties had not previously played a large role in Egyptian government because Egypt had never before held democratic elections. Nevertheless, the US felt it necessary to embrace Morsi after he won election.

Once Morsi gained power, he ignored the economic issues of poverty and joblessness that led to the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak. Instead, Morsi focused on consolidating power in order to ensure that Freedom and Justice Party candidates could not be defeated in future elections. He also took steps to replace the current legal system with Islamic law.

To that end, Morsi reinstated the Islamist-dominated parliament that was disbanded by the Supreme Constitutional Court. He then ordered the return of legislators elected a year earlier, a majority of whom are members of his own party or other Islamist groups. Morsi objected to a constitutional provision that would limit his presidential power and announced that any constitutional amendments restricting the president’s powers would be annulled. And late last year, he issued a declaration purporting to protect the work of the assembly convened to draft a new constitution from judicial interference. But, in effect, that declaration immunized his actions from any legal challenge.

By this time, most Egyptians had had enough. But the Obama administration, like so many of the administrations before it, felt it had little choice but to continue to support a democratically-elected president. So we continued to provide billions of military aid to Egypt.

Now the US is left in a very awkward position.

US law dictates that we cut off military aid to any nation that removes a democratically-elected leader through a military coup. Yet one can easily argue that the Egyptian military was directed by the will of the people. And if we do cut off military aid, we risk alienating the military leaders, the most powerful political force in Egypt. Furthermore, it would lend more credence to the notion that we support the Muslim Brotherhood over the will of the people.

We likely wouldn’t be in this dilemma if our foreign policy put more emphasis on humanitarian aid versus military aid. For decades, we have continued Cold War policies of providing weapons to nations (including those run by brutal dictators) that support our corporate…er…national interests. At the same time, we have tended to ignore the health and welfare of ordinary people.

The resulting void is too often filled by terrorists and militant organizations.

Such organizations have endeared themselves to ordinary citizens by building schools, mosques, water treatment plants, medical facilities and other things that directly benefit a majority of the people. That helps them more easily recruit members and enables them to draw a stark contrast with the US. And when these nations inevitably erupt in political turmoil, our own weapons are often turned against us.

Why do we continue such bone-headed foreign policies? In a word, money. Selling weapons to governments that support our multinational corporations is very profitable for our military-industrial complex. Building infrastructure and creating jobs…not so much. Moreover, economic disparity and poverty provide a ready source of cheap labor for multinational corporations in search of places to send our manufacturing jobs.

Grand Old Party Of Hate.

Posted on by

After last year’s failure to elect a president, you would think that the GOP would stop trying to be the stupid, anti-minority, anti-woman, anti-poor party.

You’d be wrong.

Confirming that the Tea Party Parasites are firmly in control of the GOP, red states across the country are refusing to expand Medicaid making it difficult for the working poor to get access to healthcare. Many states are also using bullying tactics and tricks to pass legislation that not only takes away a woman’s right to choose. The same legislation is forcing women to pay for ultrasounds they neither want nor need; to eliminate women’s health clinics; to limit women’s access to contraceptives.

Already this year, Speaker John Boehner has stated that he will not bring forward the Senate’s immigration reform bill. GOP legislators are, once again, trying to suppress the voting rights of minorities. And GOP legislators and congressmen are still trying to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.

What all of these issues have in common is that they are attempts to deny rights to individuals.

Instead of following their oft-stated goal of limited government, GOP leaders are trying to use the government to discriminate against large segments of our population. And they’ll continue their politics of discrimination and hate until voters make them pay. Not just for a single election year, but for three or four election cycles. Long enough to force a permanent change in the party.

A Divided Nation.

Posted on by

I began this blog several years ago with a post “Why We’re Divided.” The point was that our political divide is not merely the result of differing ideologies. It’s the result of differing “facts.”

Never has that been more clearly demonstrated than by two competing advertising campaigns running on this Independence Day. In my state’s largest newspaper, there is an ad bearing the headline “In God We Trust.” Paid for by a company that is owned by a religious zealot, the ad uses a variety of quotes from our Founding Fathers to support the claim that our nation was founded on Christianity.

A few pages later, there is an ad bearing the headline “Celebrate Our Godless Constitution.” Paid for by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, it, too, uses a variety of quotes from our Founding Fathers to support the claim that our nation was built on the principle of separation of Church and State.

This is a classic example of proof-texting – selectively choosing quotes that support a particular point of view. This technique is often used by the religious to justify actions or beliefs. Religious leaders use verses from the Bible to justify war, to rationalize genocide, to discriminate against gays and others, to ignore – indeed blame – the poor for struggling as the result of policies they didn’t create, etc.

No matter how ugly your point of view, you can find a verse in the Bible, the Torah or the Qur’an to justify an action or inaction.

The same is true when it comes to quotes by our Founding Fathers. As Michael Austin writes in his book That’s Not What They Meant! Reclaiming the Founding Fathers from America’s Right Wing, the Founders were so diverse, you can find a quote from one of them to support almost any point of view. Among the Founders were Protestants, Catholics, Quakers, Jews, Deists, Agnostics and Atheists. There were idealists and slave owners. There were farmers, plantation owners, printers, attorneys, inventors, ship owners and many others.

There were Founders in favor of a strong central government and those who believed the power should reside exclusively with the states.

So which ad is correct? Both of them. And neither of them.

Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison, who authored our Constitution’s Bill of Rights, strongly believed in separation of Church and State. The majority at the Constitutional Convention agreed. However, many of the Founders spoke of “divine providence” and the “principles of Christianity.”

More important, the ads demonstrate the growing divide between Americans; between the Federalists and those who believe in states’ rights; between the devoutly religious and the agnostics; between science and religion; between those who trust government and those who despise it; between the wealthy and the poor; between red and blue; between black, brown, red and white; between the educated and the uneducated; and between those who believe the US is the greatest nation on Earth and those who recognize its faults and intend to change them.

I think it no exaggeration to write that our nation is at a crossroads, more divided than at any time since the Civil War. Independence Day is the perfect time to consider the consequences of such a divide. Committing to compromise and finding common ground are imperative to the future of our nation.

The New Jim Crow.

Posted on by

When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law in 1965, everyone thought that would be the end of Jim Crow laws that mandated segregation throughout the South and prevented African-Americans from exercising their right to vote.

Everyone was wrong!

Within days of the Supreme Court striking down the portion of the law that forced many southern states to seek pre-clearance from the Department of Justice before changing their voting laws, the Republican-dominated legislatures in Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia have introduced laws designed to restrict minority voting. South Carolina and Mississippi are also considering changes designed to marginalize minorities.

Thanks to the conservatives on the Supreme Court, minorities in these states no longer have the protection of the Department of Justice. Their only recourse is to file lawsuits. By the time these lawsuits wend their way through the court system, the damage will have already been done.

In other words, the Supreme Court and the GOP have set the Way Back Machine to 1964!

This is at the heart of the new GOP strategy. Following the Romney defeat last November, Republican strategists realized that the party was unlikely to win if Democrats continued to dominate the growing minority vote. Then the more conservative wing of the GOP stepped forward with an alternative strategy. Instead of pandering to minorities, they intend to institutionalize racism by focusing almost exclusively on white voters – particularly those struggling in the new GOP economy.

After reviewing the demographics of the 2012 presidential vote, GOP strategists discovered that there was a sizable portion of white people who didn’t vote. So the new strategy is to maximize the white vote while suppressing the votes of minorities.

If you’re white, uneducated, religious and poor, the GOP wants you.

Too Cute By Far.

Posted on by

I don’t know if Edward Snowden is a hero or a traitor; an honorable whistleblower or a self-serving snitch. Those distinctions will be up to history, the public and the courts to decide. But I do know that, if his revelations ultimately show as he claims, that US spying is out of control, he is going about his mission the wrong way.

The initial revelations were really nothing surprising. But they did get the attention of the entire nation and initiated a useful discussion of how much surveillance is necessary to protect us from terrorists. In that regard, Snowden did us all a great favor.

The fact that he obtained his information through lies and deception, however, raises as many questions about his character and his methods as it does about the NSA. And the fact that he is on the run, seeking asylum from some of our nation’s adversaries, raises questions about his motives.

Snowden’s most recent claims are as unsubstantiated as they are sensational. Moreover, they have caused great embarrassment to the US and strained relationships with our allies.

All of this leads me to believe that, if Snowden’s motives were honorable, he would have approached his task in a much different way. Before going public with his revelations, he could have approached Congressmen or Senators to see if he could find a receptive ear. There are many, like Senator Ron Wyden, who would have helped him accomplish his goals in a more effective and legal, but less sensational, way. If that approach wasn’t to Snowden’s liking, he could have had the courage to stay in the US, divulge his information to the press, and continue his quest through the courts, if necessary.

If he found either of those paths too daunting, he could have protected himself by providing all of his information to his accomplice, Glenn Greenwald, as insurance that it would eventually be made public. If his goal is, indeed, to protect the American public, the American people would have his back and prevent any extraordinary consequences. He would have been viewed as the hero he apparently thinks himself to be.

But Snowden chose a more cowardly, sensational path.

As a result, he finds himself trapped in a Russian airport and denied asylum by other nations. If he returns to the US, he will be arrested and spend a lengthy time in jail while awaiting trial. If he travels to most other countries in the world, he will likely face extradition. And any nation that will grant him asylum is likely to be one in which he won’t want to live.

I, for one, will not feel sorry for him. He had other, and better, options.

The War Within.

Posted on by

During the Cold War of the 1950’s, 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, the US and Soviet Union armed proxy nations with the world’s most sophisticated weapons. It was good business for the defense industries of both participants. And when the proxy nations went to war with one another, business got even better.

Now we’re seeing a similar phenomenon within the US.

Arms makers such as Glock, Sturm-Ruger, Smith & Wesson and Winchester continue to design and produce increasingly more lethal weapons. Thanks to the NRA, semi-automatic handguns, tactical shotguns and assault rifles are readily available to all Americans…criminals and the mentally unstable included. These weapons are aggressively marketed through dozens of magazines, TV networks and action movies.

The gun makers even promote guns that are currently banned in the US. Ads for semi-automatic weapons are placed directly across from ads offering kits to convert the semi-automatics into illegal, fully-automatic weapons. (Of course small type in the ads note that the conversion of guns is illegal.)

But that’s not the height of the cynicism of these murder-for-sale businesses.

In addition to marketing weapons to the criminal element, the weapons industry markets even more lethal weapons (including tanks) to police and security forces. That way, they profit from both sides in an ever-escalating war of lethality. The criminally insane obtain more and better weapons. Then the police increase their armaments. And so it goes.

I’m reminded of the game played by the manufacturers of radar guns for police. Once they had upgraded the majority of police departments to the latest technology, they began selling radar detectors to help motorists avoid speeding tickets. Then they introduced improved technology for the police.

The only ones to benefit from such policies are the manufacturers.

The States’ Rights Court.

Posted on by

Now that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on three highly controversial cases, it seems that the decisions all have one thing in common – a desire to protect states’ rights. Even though the justices behind the majority opinions changed from one case to another, the Court showed a willingness to defer, when possible, to the states.

In the case of the VRA (Voting Rights Act), it seems that the majority believes that the VRA is an intrusion on the affected states. In voiding the criteria for pre-clearance of changes in voting laws in states that have a history of discriminating against minorities, the Court challenged Congress to create new criteria that reflect today’s political environment.

Disregarding the fact that the VRA has been a target of John Roberts since 1980, the majority opinion seems to be a win for those who believe in states’ rights. Unfortunately, on the issue of voting rights, many of our states have demonstrated that they can’t be trusted to protect the voting rights of minorities. In states like Alabama and Texas, the ink on the Court’s opinion wasn’t dry before Republican legislators introduced new efforts to suppress minority votes. Indeed, the Republican Party has been trying to suppress minority votes across the country.

If the Court was serious about protecting voting rights, it would have subjected all states to pre-clearance of changes in voting laws. It most certainly wouldn’t have passed responsibility along to our dysfunctional Congress.

In the cases of Prop 8 and DOMA, a different majority of the Court ruled. But the outcome was much the same.

On Prop 8, the Court ruled that, since the State of California chose not to defend the constitutionality of its own law in court, surrogates could not. On DOMA, the majority ruled that the legality of gay marriage is up to individual states, and it ruled that the federal government cannot deny benefits to gay couples who have been legally married.

As you can see, both of these rulings also seem to support states’ rights.

If the Roberts Court is so committed to protecting states’ rights over the federal government, a position most famously attributed to Thomas Jefferson, the justices would be wise to remember what Jefferson wrote in defense of separation of Church and State: “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

The same reasoning would be well applied to all civil rights. To paraphrase: The right of other citizens to vote, or to marry whom they choose, does me no injury. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.