Category Archives: Current Events

What Next For Our Relationship With Israel?

Posted on by

Once a necessary relationship of a superpower protecting a fragile state, the US relationship with Israel has turned into something far different. Thanks to our protection and investment, Israel is no longer helpless.  It may be surrounded by larger nations opposed to its very existence, but Israel has a more powerful military with more advanced weapons.

For example, the US invested more than $270 million to help Israel develop its Iron Dome rocket system designed to intercept rockets launched by Hamas. We also invest approximately $3 billion per year in Israel, despite the fact that the Israeli’s enjoy a higher standard of living that’s nearly comparable to ours.

What do we get in return? We get a militaristic government that continues to build new settlements on captured Palestinian lands in defiance of international law. We get a government that meddles in our politics. We get a government that has sent spies to the US in order to steal military secrets!

Yet support of Israel has become a litmus test for American politicians. Even now, President Obama’s nomination for Secretary of Defense is being attacked for disparaging the pro-Israel lobby. Apparently, no politician dares to question our “special relationship” with an ally that doesn’t even act like one.

Under Israel’s war-mongering conservative leadership, no progress has been made to negotiate peace in the Middle East. What we get, instead, is a government that continues to swallow up Palestinian lands at a rate that will soon make a two-state solution virtually impossible. Too often, Israel seems like a spoiled little brother hurling insults at its neighbors then, when challenged, hides behind big brother daring the neighbors to strike.

Our unquestioned protection of Israel has had a negative impact on our relationships with much of the world. We must recognize that, until there is a permanent peace between Israel and its neighbors, we will continue to be the target of hatred.

It’s time that our “special relationship” with Israel evolved. We must protect Israel if necessary. But we should demand something for our protection and investment. We should demand that Israel and Palestine begin to negotiate in earnest. We should demand that the Israel end its policy of settlements.

The irony is that, if Israel continues to consume Palestinian lands, it is sealing its own fate. Eventually, Palestinians will be the majority in Israel and, as such, they will control the elections. 

Drone Controversy Nothing New.

Posted on by

Sen. Rand Paul’s talking filibuster succeeded in calling attention to the issue of government-sanctioned assassinations. But this issue is far from new. The US has been using the threat of assassination for decades. The only thing that has changed is the means of killing.

Following World War II, our CIA and military planned assassination attempts of Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz Guzman, Cuban President Fidel Castro, Congo President Patrice Lumumba, Dominican President Rafael Trujillo and many more. We succeeded in having both Chilean President Salvador Allende and Chilean Armed Forces Chief Rene Schneider killed.

These plots ranged from poisons to snipers to small invasion forces.

When the CIA operations eventually came to light, President Ford issued an order banning the involvement of US government employees in such plots. The ban was renewed by President Carter and President Reagan.

Confronted with Islamic terrorism, President Clinton signed an order creating a list of specific terrorists targeted for capture or assassination. Then, in 2001, Congress gave President Bush the power to use all appropriate and necessary force against those involved with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. We’ve been carrying out assassinations of terrorist targets ever since.

One can make a strong case that the drone strikes are needed to eliminate terrorist leaders in nations that refuse to make arrests. Drone strikes are certainly better than invading those countries with troops! Nevertheless, the US needs to have a transparent policy with regard to drone strikes. We need to have oversight so that this means of assassination is not abused and so that the possibility of collateral damage is minimized.

Without such oversight, drones and other weapons intended for “surgical strikes” are bound to be misused. Imagine if Richard “The Dick” Cheney was able to control such power again. Imagine someone worse!

Let Them Eat Horse!

Posted on by

According to new studies, 1 in 3 Americans believe that hamburger tainted with horse meat should be given to the poor. In essence, they’re saying, “I wouldn’t eat it, but it’s good enough for the poor.”

Of course, in the minds of Teapublican deficit hawks, the poor are merely freeloaders who don’t deserve what the hard-working job creators enjoy. But why stop with horse meat? Why not subject the poor to other indignities?

For example, we could give them all of our outdated and spoiled food. Instead of paying rent for community food shelves, we could just throw the food in dumpsters and turn all of the poor into dumpster-divers.

Why waste perfectly good medicines on the poor? This is a perfect opportunity to get rid of expired medicines and avoid polluting the environment at the same time. And you know all of those medicines that have been deemed unsafe for consumption? If we gave those to the poor, we’d eventually have less poor – especially if we quit wasting money on MedicAid and hospitalization.

We could save even more money by throwing all of the poor out of public housing. And why waste money on educating poor children? If they learn too much, they’ll just call for class warfare. Finally, why not build a fence around our nation’s poorest land and let the poor create their own country (it worked for Native Americans). We could surround it with video cameras and broadcast it on a network channel as the hottest new reality show.

We could call it Les Miserables America.

Does Mitch McConnell Deserve The Title “Leader?”

Posted on by

Following President Obama’s dinner with Senate Republicans, the invitees were asked to comment on the evening. All said it was productive and one stated that he was surprised to learn that the president had previously offered a variety of spending cuts to prevent sequestration.

Really?!!!

This is surprising on a couple of fronts. First, the president’s proposed budget cuts have been chronicled in the national media for many months. They even have been listed on the White House website for anyone with enough curiosity to read. Second, it would appear that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is guilty of sabotaging the budget negotiations by failing to communicate with members of his own party.

How can the president hope to negotiate deficit reduction when the Minority “Leader” fails to lead?

Of course, McConnell’s failure should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed his “leadership” the past four years. In the days immediately following the election of President Obama, McConnell famously stated that his number one priority was to assure that Obama would be a one-term president.

Try as he might, McConnell even failed at that.

Despite a record number of filibusters, stonewalling, caterwauling, and every other form of obstruction, President Obama was re-elected in a landslide. Now it seems McConnell has even failed to keep his budget sabotage secret.

McConnell’s failures should not only assure defeat in his own re-election efforts. He should be locked out of any further negotiations. By ignoring McConnell and Speaker John Boehner, Congress might actually get something done.

The Real Hunger Games.

Posted on by

What’s your definition of a third world country?

When I was a child (far too long ago) third world countries were defined as those that didn’t produce enough food for their own citizens. I remember photographs of these faraway places…photos of people with blank stares and bellies bloated by starvation. If I failed to clean my plate, I was reminded that children in China were starving. (I never quite understood how my cleaning a plate helped the Chinese, but I felt sorry for them anyway.)

Today, many of those going hungry are right here…in the United States!

According to the directors of a new film, A Place at the Table, 50 million (1 in 6) Americans, including 17 million children, don’t have reliable sources of food. 1 in 2 American children will need food assistance in their lifetimes.

These aren’t the lazy layabouts who suck off the government teat that Teapublicans want you to think they are. More than 80 percent are from working families. The parents simply don’t earn enough to pay for rent, for clothes, for day care, for school books, for transportation and for food.

How is this possible in America?

It’s made possible by politicians who continue to cut taxes for the wealthy and powerful; by corporations that pay millions to CEOs and poverty level wages to workers; by politicians who refuse to raise the minimum wage even though it has lagged far behind inflation; by politicians who believe in corporate welfare but not human welfare; by politicians who want to balance the budget by cutting food stamps and access to medical care rather than our bloated defense budget.

We can change this.

We can donate to food shelves. We can volunteer to help those in need. We can support government programs to help raise families out of poverty. We can make certain that anyone who is willing to work can afford a roof over their heads and food on the table. We can demand that our politicians prioritize people over corporations. We can demand that they put people above partisanship; children above debt reduction.

We can end hunger in America. 

Since Most Americans Want Compromise, Why Elect Those Who Don’t?

Posted on by

A variety of polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans want their elected officials to compromise. Yet the US House of Representatives is controlled by those who view compromise as a weakness.

Speaker Boehner can’t even bring himself to say the word!

As a result, President Obama was forced to sign an order implementing the most ill-advised, ham-handed budget cuts in history. $89 billion will be indiscriminately cut from every federal program except critical national defense and Social Security. If allowed to stand, these cuts will have devastating effects on our nation – especially those who are out of work, the working poor and others struggling to survive.

These cuts have been made because traditional Republicans are afraid of the Tea Party nitwits within their own party. They’re afraid to end tax loopholes that allow multinational corporations to stash money offshore. They’re afraid to end tax loopholes for the wealthy who are enjoying tax rates that are near historic lows. They’re afraid to compromise with the president for fear of being “primaried” and replaced by even more teabaggers. 

Although, I admit the prospect of even more angry teabaggers in Congress is frightening, it’s time for traditional Republicans to grow a pair.

It’s not that President Obama hasn’t reached across the aisle to avoid sequestration. After stabilizing our economy in the first year of his administration, the president has cut the deficit each year. In fact, we have already seen the largest deficit reductions since the years immediately following World War II. Yet that isn’t enough for the extreme wing of the Republican Party. Teapublicans have refused offers of $2 to $3 in cuts for every $1 of revenue created by eliminating tax loopholes.

Still there is no compromise from the radical right. They refuse to negotiate with the president and they refuse to listen to the American people. Of course, they won’t suffer as the result of their actions. We will.

I hope voters remember that next election.

Arizona Tea Party Patriots Es Muy Loco.

Posted on by

I recently received an invitation to a meeting of the Sedona Tea Party “Patriots” for a “one-time” showing of Behold A Pale Horse.

Based on the title, one assumes this movie will prepare us for the coming political apocalypse. The movie “stars” Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, a leader of the Family Research Council, which has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for defaming gays and lesbians.

The film also includes country music star, Charlie Daniels. Once acclaimed for his music, Daniels jumped on the wagon to Crazytown when President Obama was elected. He accuses Obama of trying to change America into a European-style socialist country, saying that “America will never be America again.”

Of course, the movie isn’t enough crazy for these self-styled “patriots.” The meeting will also address the “looming threat” of United Nations sovereignty, the threat of the UN taking our guns, a mysterious constabulary force that can be used against American citizens, the UN Agenda 21 conspiracy, and more.

After researching these supposed threats, I’m not ready to grab my Bushmaster AR-15 and jump in the bunker quite yet. I am, however, concerned about the coming shortage of tin foil which these “patriots” will need to make their hats.

Scalia And Thomas Bring Court’s Ethics Into Question.

Posted on by

As the highest court in the land, judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States should be beyond question. The Court’s decisions should not be influenced by partisan politics, and there should be no lingering doubts that they were the result of undue influence. Yet Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas transparently allow their ideologies to enter into their every decision.

Thomas has also displayed an utter lack of concern for the appearance of impropriety.

When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, was placed on the Court docket, many expected that Thomas would recuse himself from deliberations. His wife, after all, had been paid large sums of money to lobby against the law. Yet despite Justice Elena Kagan setting an example by recusing herself from the case for having previously served as Solicitor General with the Obama administration, Thomas refused to show the same sense of ethics. He joined in the deliberations as if there was not the slightest hint of a conflict of interest.

In another display of questionable ethics, Justice Scalia made his distaste for the Voter Rights Act obvious through his obnoxious and racially insensitive remarks.

And in a case yet to be heard, Bowman v Monsanto, Thomas has again declined to recuse himself despite the fact that he once served as counsel for Monsanto.

Most local clubs, HOAs and school boards show a better understanding of ethics than that! 

Buying Elections.

Posted on by

Americans have long been opposed to the notion of candidates buying elections. But we’re just one step short of unfettered vote buying.

In 1976, while upholding a law which set limits on campaign contributions, the Supreme Court made it possible for candidates to spend unlimited amounts on their own campaigns. In essence, the Court ruled that money equals free speech.

Then in Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission, supported by the GOP, a conservative-leaning Court ruled that corporations had the rights of people, unleashing massive expenditures of corporate money in support of candidates through PACs and Super PACs.

Soon, the Court will decide yet another case, McCutcheon v Federal Elections Commission, which is being supported by the GOP in order to remove limits on direct campaign contributions to candidates.

The good news is that this may well spell the demise of PACs and Super PACs. The bad news is that multinational corporations and billionaires such as the Koch brothers will able to funnel billions into campaigns for candidates who promise to be subservient to their demands.

When that happens, the needs of ordinary Americans will be further overwhelmed by big money. The wealthy and powerful already control most of the lobbyists, and therefore, the political agenda. Imagine what will happen when they can actually buy elections.

Supreme Attack On Voting Rights.

Posted on by

Today, the Supreme Court took up a challenge to the Voting Rights Act of 1964 which was renewed in 2006. If you’re not familiar with the Act, it was passed by Congress to prevent many of the states of the old Confederacy from denying African-Americans representation and the right to vote.

For many years, in the Jim Crow South, blacks were denied the vote through a combination of literacy tests, poll taxes, outright violence and intimidation. To end, or at least reduce, those practices, Congress demanded that southern states present any changes in voting procedures and redistricting to the Department of Justice for prior approval. Frustrated by the restrictions, Shelby County, Alabama challenged the law in court with the backing of the Republican Party.

It’s no surprise that Republicans would want to repeal the Voting Rights Act so they can better gerrymander congressional districts and suppress minority votes. After all, African-Americans voted overwhelmingly for President Obama.

Why wouldn’t they? Barack Obama is the first president with African-American heritage in our nation’s history. Moreover, since the Republican Party embraced the Southern Strategy, it has consistently supported policies that discriminate against minorities. GOP economic policies have been particularly damaging to minorities.

According to a new study by the Brandeis Institute on Assets and Social Policy, the wealth gap between blacks and whites has accelerated since the early days of Trickle Down Economics in 1984. Over a 25-year period, the median net worth of white households has grown to $265,000 compared to just $28,500 for black households!

If Justice Scalia has his way in deciding the Voting Rights Act, things are bound to get worse.

During oral arguments before the Court, Scalia said the act represents the “perpetuation of racial entitlement!” Say what? Exactly how does this pompous right wing apologist think African-Americans are entitled? Entitled to less representation than they already have? To be denied the right to vote? To even less wealth?

After hundreds of years of slavery and discrimination, it is likely to take many more generations of protections for African-Americans to level the playing field. At the time of emancipation, very few were literate and most had no property or assets of any kind. They were denied adequate wages for back-breaking jobs. They were segregated into slums with inferior schools. They were denied the right to vote. More recently, they have seen multinational corporations ship their jobs overseas.

Unfortunately, African-Americans and other minorities still need help to end the cycle of poverty and violence. They still need help achieving equal representation. And they need help to fend off win-at-any-cost politicians from marginalizing their representation and denying them the right to vote.

What they don’t need is a fat white man in a robe making insensitive and racist comments before voting to limit the few protections they have.