Latest Vatican Reprimand Says It All.

Posted on by

On Wednesday, the Vatican stepped into the fray between the Leadership Conference of Women Religious and the American bishops.  Not surprisingly, it came down hard on the side of the bishops.  Saying the group, which claims to represent 80 percent of the 57,000 nuns in the US, had failed to make the “Biblical view of family life and human sexuality” the centerpoint of its teachings, the Holy See and company accused the group of promoting “certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.”

In other words, in the opinion of the Vatican, the nuns were spending too much time worrying about poverty and social justice, and not enough time spewing anti-feminst, anti-gay propaganda.  (Imagine that…women not attacking the rights of other women!)

This latest reprimand comes from an out-of-touch group of unmarried old men who apparently believe the only proper role for women is to be subserviant to their husbands and almost continuously pregnant.  It’s a group of arrogant men who believe there is no acceptable role in society for gays, except maybe as priests. 

This is the same unbroken chain of clueless old farts who called for the slaughter of the “heretics” who left the Church, such as my Huguenot ancestors.  It’s a group whose predecessors virtually invented torture in order to make their victims admit to “crimes against the Church.”  A group of men who, to this day, refuses to acknowledge that the Inquisition was a mistake.  The very same group of men who allowed their subordinates to molest children for hundreds of years and then turned a blind eye to the victims who had the courage to step forward.

At this point, I should say that I have enjoyed the friendship of many devoted Catholic priests, nuns and parishioners over the years. For the most part, I find them to be joyful, caring and compassionate people. I don’t blame the majority of Catholics for the anti-feminist, anti-gay, out-of-touch political action group that the heirarchy of Church has become.  I blame the Vatican.  And I blame those who use their positions and pulpits to push their political views like the nitwit Bishop Daniel Jenky who recently used his homily to compare President Barack Obama to Hitler!

Is it any wonder that the Catholic Church has been losing members faster than any other religion? 

Sen. Phil Gramm. A Legacy Of Failures.

Posted on by

Unquestionably, Gramm’s actions as a US Senator were failures for consumers and our economy. But given the massive profits of the “too big to fail” financial institutions, they were great successes for Wall Street and large corporations.

In 1999, then Republican Senator Phil Gramm co-sponsored the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, aka the Financial Services Modernization Act, aka the Citigroup Relief Act which was enacted by the 106th US Congress and, unfortunately signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which had successfully protected consumer finances by erecting firewalls between banks of deposit, security investment companies and insurance companies. The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act removed those restrictions allowing financial institutions of all kinds to consolidate.

The bill was crafted to provide legal cover for Citigroup which, a year earlier had been formed by the merger of Citicorp and Travelers Group. For the first time since the Great Depression, the merged organization combined banking, securities and insurance services that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica and Travelers.

For Wall Street, it was the best legislation money could buy.

But Sen. Gramm’s meddling on behalf of large financials didn’t stop there. In 2000, he sponsored the Commodity Futures Modernization Act which was also signed into law by President Clinton. It weakened yet another post-Depression law, the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, freeing over-the-counter derivitives transactions between “sophisticated parties” from regulation under federal securities laws. It is the law that permitted credit default swaps.

Combined, the two Gramm-sponsored laws created an environment of massive profits for Wall Street and led to the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis which cost the world economy an estimated $7.7 trillion! And if that doesn’t give you cause for concern, consider this:  Despite being the poster boy for our current economic problems, Gramm was selected as the senior economic adviser for John McCain’s presidential campaign.

Had McCain been elected with Gramm advising him, imagine where our economy might be now!

Taking Back Our Government.

Posted on by

Over the past 30 years, no organization or group of individuals has had a more negative impact on our nation than ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council).  Sponsored by many of the world’s largest corporations, ALEC’s membership consists of the most partisan conservative legislators.  It maintains an ideological staff that writes legislation and peddles it to its members in every state legislature.  In turn, those legislators sponsor the bills, often without even reading them. 

ALEC’s website brags that, each year, nearly 1,000 ALEC-authored bills are introduced in legislatures throughout the US. ALEC has given us some of the nation’s most extreme bills, including the “Stand Your Ground” law that is at the center of the Trayvon Martin murder, Arizona’s infamous SB 1070 anti-Latino bill, anti-union bills and many others designed to promote an extreme ideology and to serve ALEC’s corporate masters.  And its legislation becomes more divisive every year.

How can we stop it?

Last week, several former sponsors showed us the way to defeat this insidious group.  Due to the public attention focused on the “Stand Your Ground” law, Coca-Cola, the Gates Foundation, Intuit, Kraft Foods, McDonald’s, Pepsico and Wendy’s announced they would no longer sponsor ALEC. 

We need to remind the other sponsors that they, too, are vulnerable to public backlash over ALEC’s extreme ideology.  Following is a partial list of the organization’s corporate sponsors according to www.SourceWatch.org.  Contact them and tell them that you will hold them responsible for extreme legislation such as the “Stand Your Ground” law.  If we’re successful, we can starve ALEC of the funds it needs to continue to make a mess of our political system.

Amazon.com, American Express, Amway, Anheuser-Busch, Arby’s, ARCO, AT&T, Bank of America, Bankers Insurance Co., Bayer Corp., Bell Atlantic, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, BP America, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CenturyLink, Chevron, Chrysler Corporation, Coldwell Banker, Comcast, ConocoPhillips, Cox Communications, Deere & Company, Dell Inc., Del Webb Corp., Dow Chemical, DuPont, Eli Lilly, Excel Telecommunications, ExxonMobil, Farmers Group Inc., FedEx, Fidelity Investments, Ford Motor Co., Frito-Lay, Fruit of the Loom, GEICO, General Electric, General Mills Restaurants, General Motors, Georgia-Pacific, Gerber Products, Harris Bank, Henkel, Honeywell, HP, Humana Corp., IBM, International Paper, JC Penney Co., Johnson & Johnson, Koch Industries, LaSalle National Bank, Liberty Mutual Insurance, Long Term Care, Inc., Marathon Oil, Mars Inc., Mary Kay Cosmetics, Microsoft, MillerCoors, Monsanto, Motorola, Nationwide Insurance, Nestlé USA, Northern Telecom, Novartis, Outback Steak House, Pennzoil, Pfizer Inc., Procter & Gamble, Prudential Financial, Reynolds American, Ryder Systems, Salt River Project, Sara Lee Corp., Schwan’s Sales Enterprises, Shell Oil, Sony Corp., Sprint Nextel, State Farm Insurance, Texaco, TicketMaster, Time Warner, The Traveler’s Companies, Unilever, United Airlines, UnitedHealthcare, UPS, VALIC, Verizon, Visa, Walgreens, Wall Street Journal, Wal-Mart, Washington Times, Wausau Insurance, WellPoint, Xcel Energy, and YUM! Brands (owner of Kentucky Fried Chicken, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Long John Silver’s and A&W).

The Politicization Of Everything.

Posted on by

The publicity for the Trayvon Martin killing served to emphasize the depths of our culture.  When the Samford, Florida Police Department announced that the killer, George Zimmerman, would not be charged, Martin’s family was understandably outraged.  They asked MSNBC’s Rev. Al Sharpton to pick up the case and publicize it nationally.  Of course, that meant that Fox News Channel and right-wing radio had to take the side of George Zimmerman.

If a travesty such as the Martin case can be politicized, I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that every other part of our culture is viewed through the same divisive lenses.  We have politicized science, education, health care, contraception, religion, race, women’s rights, the environment, the military, our judiciary, veteran’s affairs, Social Security, Medicare, guns, energy, agriculture, sports and, of course, journalism.

That hasn’t always been the case.  Prior to the early 80s, evolution was considered settled science.  Few questioned our education system.  Religion did not intrude in the classroom, except in parochial schools.  Outside of our military, no one carried guns except police and criminals.  And the media were bound by high standards of objectivity.

What changed?

Following the debacle of Watergate, the moribund Republican Party made an unholy alliance with evangelical leaders. Later, the Fairness Doctrine was repealed unleashing conspiracy talk radio.  Evangelists flooded radio and cable television with conservative politics and the message that Christianity was under attack.  Greedy right-wing mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck filled the airwaves with their theories of a New World Order.  Rupert Murdoch built a media empire on hate and Teapublican talking points.  And worst of all, the National Rifle Association and American Legislative Exchange Council began writing legislation and recruiting state legislators to serve their ideological agendas.

And our conservative-leaning populace sucked it all in.

So here we are…arguing about racism, judicial “activism,” contraception, the origin of “personhood,” immigration, Bible studies and prayer in the classroom, religious messages in government buildings, cutting taxes for the rich, guns on campus, etc., etc., etc.

And all the while we’re arguing, the real problems such as a crumbling infrastructure, economic inequality, the exodus of high-paying jobs, too-big-to-fail corporations, climate change, the extinction of wildlife, an increasingly inaccessible and unaffordable health care system, and massive national debt are only getting worse.

Teapublican Lie #27.

Posted on by

“President Obama’s stimulus failed because it didn’t hold unemployment under the promised 8 percent.”

In fact, President Obama’s transition team based that projection on the GDP numbers from the 3rd Quarter of 2008, which showed an economic decline of 3 percent.  However, in the 4th Quarter of 2008, the US economy fell off a cliff resulting in a decline of 8.9 percent; far worse than anyone expected.  So the original recommended stimulus could not possibly have reached the goal of 8 percent unemployment.  And Teapublicans threatened to filibuster the stimulus if it was made any larger.

As he took office, President Obama faced the worst economic decline in US history…even worse than the Great Depression!  Not only had the GDP declined at the rate of 8.9 percent, the economy was shedding 800,000 private sector jobs each month.

Despite unprecedented opposition by Teapublicans, the Obama administration’s policies have dramatically turned those numbers around.  Since taking office, the GDP has turned from the 8.9 percent decline to a sustained growth rate of 2-3 percent.  And the economy has added an average of roughly 200,000 jobs each month.

That’s a sustained turnaround of 11-12 percent in GDP and a positive swing of approximately a million jobs per month!

Almost any fair-minded observer would label the turnaround as utterly miraculous.  Indeed, a British economist stated that to have done more, “President Obama would have to have been Winston Churchill on steroids.”

Conspiracy Talk Radio.

Posted on by

“Thug, socialist, bully, liar, un-American, racist, most dangerous president in US history, the food stamp president, Kenyan, communist”…these are only a few of the things that are regularly said about President Barack Obama on talk radio.

Conservative hosts raise fears about a “New World Order.”  They talk about President Obama’s “Czars.”  They claim that the auto industry bailout and “Obamacare” are the beginning of a “complete government takeover.”  They claim that Republicans were shut out of the negotiations for “Obamacare.” They insist that liberals are trying to take away religious freedom.

Of course, none of these things are true.

But, for those who rely on the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Michael Savage, Dennis Miller, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan, et al, for their news, these things have been accepted as absolute facts.

When the Fairness Doctrine was abolished in 1987, large media conglomerates began adding conservative talk radio shows.  By 2007, 91 percent of talk radio was conservative.  In cities like Philadelphia, Dallas and Houston, conservatives controlled 100 percent of talk show content.  In no major city did progressive content match or exceed the conservative rants.  Even in so-called liberal San Francisco, conservative content overwhelmed progressive content 69 percent to 31 percent.

Of course, Teapublicans still claim the media is dominated by liberals.  And, when confronted with the facts, they claim the reason for conservative dominance is that these talk shows appeal to the majority of Americans.  Again, that’s not substantiated by the facts.  In 2010 (a big year for conservatives), a Gallup poll found that liberals and moderates outnumbered conservatives 55% to 42%.

So what’s driving the conservative ideology in our nation’s media if it doesn’t reflect the beliefs of the majority of Americans?  It’s propaganda intended to shape beliefs.  Why?  Conservatives tend to support large corporations, and media conglomerates are large corporatons.  Their propaganda appeals to those who are inclined to believe that government is evil…that it’s squandering their money…that lazy “others” are living off their hard-earned money.  Moreover, many of those same people want to believe that their problems are not their own fault.  They’re the fault of “pointy-headed, over-educated liberals.”

Contrary to claims by conservative radio hosts that they’re telling the “truth that the lamestream media are hiding from you,” they’re presenting half-truths and falsehoods in order to increase ratings and profits.  Their manufactured hatred of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have made them tens of millions.  If you doubt that, just look at the lifestyles of Boss Hawg Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

So what can be done about this growing barrage of nonsense?  Ignoring it won’t make it go away.  The best way to fight back is to hold the advertisers accountable.  Write letters and make phone calls to the sponsors of these hate-filled talk shows.  Tell them you will no longer buy their products.  And be sure to tell them why.

I still believe that, when confronted with the choice, most advertisers would rather make money than make political enemies.

Where’s The War On Human Trafficking?

Posted on by

This week, Yuri Fedetov, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, told the UN General Assembly that 2.4 million people around the globe are victims of human trafficking.  Although some are exploited for manual labor, most are sex slaves. 

Let me repeat.  2.4 million women, men and children are being held as slaves at any one time!  And only 1 in 100 is ever rescued!

So what is the world doing to stop this $32 billion/year industry?  Not much.  We sometimes revictimize the women by arresting them as prostitutes.  We sometimes arrest the “Johns” who use the victims and are largely unaware of their circumstances.  But comparitively little effort is expended toward disrupting the flow of traffickers.  And virtually no effort is made to arrest the heads of this international crime industry.

We take the same approach to drugs.  We have imprisoned tens of thousands for drug use and as small time dealers.  But we have had little success in bringing the large dealers and industry leaders to justice.  And when we arrest one leader, another quickly takes his place.

Could the fact that these industries control billions of dollars have something to do with the fact that we seem unable to stop the illegal trafficking?  We’ve seen the Mexican drug cartels use their money to buy politicians, police and the courts, and to intimidate the populace.  And these tactics are not unique to Mexico.  There’s little doubt that traffickers of humans and arms in other countries (including the US) do the same things.

Likely, the people at the very top of these industries do not appear to be criminals.  They are people of great wealth and influence.   They have built a network of powerful friends which makes them seem invincible.

So what can we do to stop them?  For one thing, we can make sure that our family and friends are aware of the problem.  We can tell our state and federal representatives that these industries need to be stopped.  We can demand that our governments change their approach to these crimes and, instead of attacking the victims and the lowest levels of these enterprises, use our resources to track down and attack the very highest levels.

We have the capability to end human trafficking.  The question is:  Do we have the will?

GAO Report Shows Why “Obamacare” Is Necessary.

Posted on by

There were many reasons why health care reform was necessary when President Obama and the Democratic Congress were overwhelmingly elected to office in 2008.  Not only were health care costs climbing at a rate more than 3 times that of inflation.  Medicare and Medicaid were being overwhelmed by increased costs and unregulated fraud.  More than 30 million people were without access to affordable health care.  Insurance companies were denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.  Insurers were also placing lifetime limits on health care for customers.

In addition, corporations were exporting jobs to places like China, Vietnam and Indonesia in order to avoid paying employee benefits.

Faced with these overwhelming problems, along with an economy that had fallen off a cliff and massive unemployment, President Obama and the Democratic majority had little choice but to find ways to bring the health care industry under control.

Of course, Republicans did not want to help.  To enlist their support, Democrats chose to abandon their preference for single-payer universal care.  Instead, they embraced the Republican idea of insurance mandates through private companies.  After all, the idea had worked in Massachussetts under “Romneycare.”  Indeed, the program had proven to be popular.

Not surprisingly, in their anti-Obama fervor, Republicans immediately labeled the plan as “socialist.”  And despite lengthy negotiations in which they offered dozens of amendments and killed the public option, Congressional Republicans voted against their own concept.

Let’s fast forward to 2012:  Several provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) have already been proven to work.  Children up to age 26 may now be covered under their parents’ insurance plans.  Insurance companies may no longer refuse coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.  A number of wellness programs have been implemented.  And Medicare fraud has been curtailed.

However, the majority of the provisions of the PPACA, including those which will have the greatest impact on costs, will not take effect until 2014.  But there’s a chance that we may not be allowed to see those benefits.

If the conservative-laden Supreme Court rules that “Obamacare” is unconstitutional, the ever-increasing number of people (now roughly 60 million) who will be unable to afford health care will grow.  And health care costs will continue to rise, dragging down our economy and jeopardizing Medicare.

And what of the federal deficits and debt that Teapublicans claim to be so worried about?

According to a report by the Government Accountabiity Office, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) would have “a major effect on the structural gap between revenues and spending driven by rising health care costs and demographics gap.” In other words, “Obamacare” would go a long way toward reducing our deficits and debt.

Without the PPACA, we can expect the cost of health care, along with our deficits and debt, to grow dramatically.

What If Teapublicans Get Their Way In 2012?

Posted on by

After watching their debates and reading the conservative legislation being pushed through Congress and our state legislatures, it’s clear that Teapublicans will not be satisfied until they:

– Replace Social Security with retirement accounts based on volatile stock markets.
– Replace Medicare with vouchers leaving seniors at the mercy of private insurers.
– Repeal “Obamacare” making health care unaffordable for 60 million people.
– Eliminate insurance coverage for contraception.
– Eliminate all forms of public assistance for the poor.
– Eliminate unemployment insurance.
– Replace progressive taxes with a flat tax to benefit the wealthy.
– Reduce or eliminate taxes for corporations.
– Eliminate the EPA allowing corporations to foul our air and water.
– Eliminate oil and gas regulations leading to more environmental disasters.
– Open national park lands, such as the Grand Canyon, to mining.
– Eliminate Wall Street regulations designed to prevent economic collapses.
– Eliminate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that regulates credit cards.
– Eliminate the Federal Reserve.
– Eliminate the Department of Labor along with labor unions.
– Eliminate pensions and benefits for public employees.
– Eliminate the Department of Education along with public schools.
– Mandate that schools ban the teaching of evolution.
– Eliminate the US Postal Service.
– Eliminate funding for women’s health care through Planned Parenthood.
– Eliminate all subsidies for the development of alternative energy.
– Eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
– Eliminate funding for National Public Radio and Public Television.
– Privatize prisons, roads, parks and virtually every other public entity.
– Eliminate all restrictions on firearms and ammunition.
– Eliminate all restrictions on hunting.
– Repeal the Constitution’s establishment clause that prevents a state-sponsored religion.

Seriously, is this the kind of country you want?

A Truly Momentous Court Decision.

Posted on by

With the US Supreme Court poised to decide on the insurance mandate of “Obamacare,” there are a few things to keep in mind.

First, the idea of the mandate that Teapublicans now oppose was originated by…you guessed it…Teapublicans!

Second, the federal government already mandates that our citizens and businesses purchase insurance…even health insurance.  You are currently mandated to pay for Social Security insurance and Medicare, and employers are mandated to pay for unemployment insurance.

What’s different about the federal government mandating that we pay for health insurance?

If the Court rules that the insurance mandate is unconstitutional, will we then see lawsuits claiming that the other mandates are unconstitutional as well?  Will we no longer have Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance?  Teapublicans have already tried to dismantle these safety nets.

And what will happen to our health care system?  Since Congress has previously passed legislation mandating hospitals to provide emergency medical treatment to anyone, regardless of their ability to pay, those costs will continue to be passed along to the insured through higher fees.  Given the fact that more than 60 million Americans will be left uninsured, health care costs will continue to rise at a rate more than 10 times that of inflation.

Moreover, the rising cost of health care will continue to push multi-national corporations to send jobs overseas.  The number of uninsured will continue to increase, unemployment will remain high, and quality health care will eventually become affordable only to the wealthy.

It’s no exaggeration to state that this decision is the most important in the Court’s history.  The political implications will be even greater than the conservative majority voting to give the 2000 election to George W. Bush and voting to permit corporations to buy our elections.