Category Archives: Government

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.

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.

A Healthcare System Only The Mafia Could Love.

Posted on by

Actually, I should offer my apologies to the Mafia.  Because not even the Mafia could create such a blatantly expensive and inefficient system as the one we have in the US. In fact, when Singapore recently decided to create a national healthcare system, they first looked to the US…in order to learn what NOT to do.

We spend $2.7 trillion a year on healthcare with astoundingly poor results. Per capita, we spend more than double that of other any other advanced nation. We also spend $300 billion on pharmaceuticals…nearly double the amount spent by the the rest of the world combined!

The ugly truth is that Americans are addicted to pharmaceuticals. But we’re certainly not addicted to health. We overeat. We eat all of the wrong foods. We refuse to exercise. And we lead overly stressful lives. As a result, we die sooner…our lifespan ranks just 50th in the world!

Not surprisingly, most medical schools don’t teach nutrition, and most don’t offer courses on pharmaceuticals. (They rely on the pharmaceutical manufacturers to teach doctors after they begin practice.)

Our doctors and clinics are paid for the number of patients they see and the number of procedures they perform. Because of the cost, many Americans, especially those who lack insurance, delay going to the doctor until they can put it off no longer. They then go to hospital Emergency Rooms…the most expensive providers of healthcare. That causes healthcare costs to rise for those who do have insurance.

Many doctors hate our healthcare system. Many nurses and other medical workers hate our system. Many medical clinics hate our system. And many hospitals hate our system. If that’s true, then why doesn’t the system change? The answer is simple: Health insurers, medical equipment providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers are making billions at our expense.

Their greed is bankrupting Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention the thousands of Americans who have been forced into bankruptcy as the result of medical emergencies. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will have some effect on our staggering healthcare costs. It will also add 30 million uninsured patients into the system, so it will improve the overall health of our nation.  But these new patients will help to further line the pockets of insurers and pharmaceutical companies.

Not satisfied with their spectacular profits, the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries are spending millions on congressional lobbyists to squeeze even more money out of the system.

The only way to stop the corporate profiteering, to cut costs and to improve healthcare is by creating some form of a single payer system similar to those in Canada, England, France, and most of the civilized world.

The Dismal State Of Our Union.

Posted on by

Upon listening to the last day of Neal Conan’s Talk of the Nation on NPR, I was surprised by Ted Koppel’s response when asked about the future. Turns out, Koppel shares many of the same concerns as I do. For what it’s worth, here is a compilation of my own views of the current state of our union and its future.

Civil Rights – How depressing that people are still struggling for civil rights nearly 150 years after the end of slavery! The Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act was a huge setback, unleashing red states to suppress minority votes.

Abortion – Although abortion was made legal in 1973, women are still fighting to wrest control of their own bodies from the old men who control our political system. Amazingly, women are now forced to fight for access to contraception!

Environment – Most Americans say they’re concerned about our environment. They just don’t act like it. Most refuse to sacrifice anything on behalf of our planet’s future.

Hunger – In the richest nation on Earth, 50 million people are unsure of where they’ll get their next meal. That includes 17 million American children!

Energy – Nearly 40 years after President Carter had solar panels installed on the White House, we’re still addicted to fossil fuels. We spill more oil than most other countries use.

Healthcare  – The dirty secret is that we have no healthcare system. We spend more than twice as much as other advanced nations, yet achieve worse outcomes. And we spend more on pharmaceuticals than the rest of the world combined.

Wall Street – Greed has turned large banks into high stakes casinos. Their gambling habit not only cost individuals and pension plans trillions…many families lost their homes. Yet any attempt to regulate these banks has been undermined by millions in lobbying efforts.

Income Disparity – The US ranks among the world’s worst nations for income inequality. 400 Americans control more wealth than half of our population, and the gap is growing. Yet Republicans believe that 47 percent are sponging off the rest!

Jobs – Simply put, we don’t have enough of them. And far too few of them pay enough to support a family. Corporate leaders and politicians, on the other hand, each make enough to support dozens of families.

Privatization – We’ve privatized prisons, prison healthcare, schools, our military, even our intelligence efforts. Although all of these efforts have proven to cost more than publicly run institutions, Republicans are pushing for even more privatization.

Pensions – We lost tens of thousands of employee pensions over the past 40 years, replaced by IRAs and 401Ks which were originally intended to supplement defined benefit pension plans. The money once used for employee benefits now lines the pockets of CEOs, executives and investors.

Politics – Our politics have continued to move to the right, even though our population hasn’t. When Republicans are in control, they unabashedly cram through partisan legislation. When Democrats are in control, they tentatively nibble around the margins instead of doing what they were elected to do. Both parties rely on large corporations to finance their political campaigns.

Tea Party – This is a relatively small group that has had a large impact. Based on lies and meanness, it seems its goal is to take us back to the 16th Century.

Surveillance – Following 9/11, we traded privacy for increased security. The NSA tracks records of our phone calls, search engine terms and emails. Banks and credit card companies track our purchases. And surveillance cameras are everywhere.

Guns – While the NRA works to increase the availability of guns, even for criminals and the mentally ill, manufacturers make guns ever more lethal.

Education – Thanks to conservatives, public education is underfunded and teachers are woefully underpaid. Enough said.

Science – Many now claim that evolution is merely a theory. But so is gravity! Of course, these people also deny man’s affect on climate change. (See education.)

Religious Intolerance – Islam is not the only religion with extremists. The intolerance of all religions seems to be growing.

Anger and Pettiness – Within 20 years of the end of the Fairness Doctrine, 91 percent of talk radio was conservative…mean, angry, venomous Rush Limbaugh-style conservative… and it’s getting worse. (See Tea Party)

War – There’s no denying it. The US absolutely LOVES war. We glorify soldiers and their war machines with military-style ceremonies and flyovers at nearly every large event. And we spend hundreds of billions on “defense” to build bigger, badder war toys.

Iraq – Iraq cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. The result of our sacrifices is that we have turned Iraq into a vassal state of radical Iran.

Afghanistan – Despite setting a deadline for withdrawal, there is no clear outcome for this war. We may leave the country no better off than it was when we arrived.

Syria – Yet another opportunity to dive into a war with no real reason or plan. But it is a war and some of our politicians don’t want to be left out.

War on Drugs – This “war” may have ruined more lives than the drugs themselves. It disproportionately affects minorities, filling our prisons to overflowing. Indeed, we have a larger prison population than any other nation.

Militarization of Police – As our soldiers return from war, they’re increasingly hired by police departments. As a result, police become ever more militarized…with assault weapons and assault vehicles…and further removed from ordinary citizens.

Journalism – In the 1980’s, TV networks began measuring the success of their news organizations by ratings which instantly sensationalized the news and created the “sound bite.”  Worse, most news groups have lost their independence as they were gobbled up by conglomerates.

With all this, it’s difficult to be optimistic about the future, but the pendulum may soon swing the other way. I hope so.

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.

Let’s Sit This War Out.

Posted on by

By my calculations, the US has been at war all but 33 years of our existence. And that doesn’t even include many of the “police” actions and minor intrusions into other nations.

Now many in Congress are beating the war drums again. They want us to do more to help depose Syria’s al-Assad by creating a no-fly zone and providing even more weapons to the rebels. But which rebels? Al Qaeda? Hezbollah? Those who cut out the hearts of their enemies and dined on them?

Fact is, there are some very bad actors involved in the Syrian killing fields, including President al-Assad’s forces. Moreover, Russia has decided to support al-Assad by providing more sophisticated weapons, including ground-to-air missiles.

Do we want to provoke a conflict with Russia? With neighboring Iran? Do we want to embroil the entire region in the conflict? Do we want to sacrifice the lives of even more of our soldiers? Do we want to pour billions more of our taxpayers’ money down a Middle Eastern rat hole? I think not.

It’s not cowardice to refuse to fight a war that lacks a clear objective and a predictable outcome.

The South Will Rise Again!

Posted on by

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to shoot down sections of the Voting Rights Act may be one giant step backward in our nation’s centuries-long fight for equality and civil rights. It also represents an unprecedented power grab by the Court.

The Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson to prevent widespread voter suppression throughout the South. The law required offending states to obtain pre-clearance by the DOJ (Department of Justice) for changes in voting laws, including any attempts at redistricting aimed at marginalizing the minority vote. For years, this mandate has not only helped African-Americans and Latinos vote, it has helped them get the representation they deserve.

Yet, despite the law, states have never stopped trying to block minority votes.

For example, just last year, the DOJ prevented Houston, Texas from reducing voting centers from 84 to just 12. The plan was to eliminate voting centers in predominately African-American areas of the city. And last year, Teapublican-controlled legislatures throughout the country imposed strict new voter ID laws aimed at reducing minority voter turnout for President Obama. They also drastically reduced polling hours in some states, forcing minorities to stand in line up to 6 hours in order to vote.

All of this has been done under the guise of “vote integrity” to prevent felons and undocumented immigrants from voting, despite the fact there is absolutely no evidence of such illegal voting.

In gutting the Voting Rights Act, which was renewed by Congress in 2006 with near unanimous support, the Court has, in essence, overruled Congress. And, by stating that it is now up to Congress to come up with a new and more equitable way to enforce voting rights, it has given Congress a task the Teapublican-controlled House and the filibuster-prone Senate are clearly not capable of handling.

As a result, racists in Congress and in legislatures throughout the nation, particularly in the Old South and in Arizona, will feel free to run amok again. If you doubt this, all you have to do is to look at the way Teapublicans have pushed through Voter ID laws and anti-abortion laws with an array of bullying tactics and parliamentary tricks.

America’s Most Centrist President.

Posted on by

In history, no president has ever nominated more than two members of the opposing party to his cabinet…until President Obama.

While Republicans call Obama an extreme liberal, a socialist, a communist, and worse, the president continues to nominate Republicans to important posts. He nominated Ray LaHood as Secretary of Transportation, Judd Gregg as Commerce Secretary (although Gregg later withdrew his name from consideration), John Huntsman as Ambassador to China and John McHugh as Secretary of the Army. He also nominated Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. (Although Gates is a Republican, he changed his registration to independent in order to give the appearance of impartiality.)

And that was just the first term.

So far in his second term, President Obama has nominated Republicans Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense and James Comey as Director of the FBI. That’s a total of seven Republicans nominated for important positions in his administration. And there may be more to come.

If that’s not the definition of a centrist, I don’t know what is.

By comparison, Franklin D. Roosevelt nominated two members of the opposing party over three terms. Eisenhower nominated one for each of his terms. John F. Kennedy nominated two, Nixon one, Carter two, and Reagan nominated one who later switched affiliations to become a Republican. George H.W. Bush nominated no members of the opposing party. And both Clinton and Dubya nominated one apiece.

So if, according to Teapublicans and their right wing media whores, President Obama is pushing an extreme liberal agenda on Americans, he’s had a whole lot of help from conservatives.