GORDONSBLOG
The entries in this section are offered as a means of eliciting conversation and feedback on the critical social and political issues of the day. If you would like to offer you views, please do so by sending an email to rorpf@att.net. We will post as many of these as we can to the web site.
MR. CHENEY’S REVISIONIST VIEW OF HISTORY (Posted September 4, 2011)
I’ve listened with interest this past week to our ex-vice president’s take on his administration’s conduct of the so-called “war on terror”.
The first and most palpable absurdity he proffers is that, because of the actions they took, we did not have another attack on US soil during the rest of the time they were in office. By inference, all the things that were done – torture, rendition, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping, etc. – were justified.
First, Mr. Cheney is correct on one level, i.e., there were no attacks for the balance of time he was in office. But the fact is, the terrorists didn’t need to hit us again. They accomplished everything they wanted with the first attack. They succeeded in instilling FEAR at all levels of American society with devastating consequences. We started two wars, sending 2-3 million troops into battle, spending trillions of dollars and incurring the loss of thousands of lives and countless others maimed forever. We have spent ourselves into debt from which we may never recover; we have incurred the wrath and hatred of many around the world who see us as a bully, an occupier and a nation that does not respect the rule of law.
ALL OF THIS BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS OF 19 TERRORISTS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001!
Was it worth it? Has it made us any safer? Could we have accomplished the same thing without resorting to the kind of extremes we have taken over the last ten years?
On the first two points: a case can be made that we are in fact LESS safe as a result of the course of action we took; we’ve killed perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings with our war machine, thus incurring the wrath of millions around the world. Yes they haven’t attacked us again; they don’t need to – as stated, we are in a much weakened state as a result of the first attack. Moreover, we certainly cannot claim to have stemmed the tide of international terrorism as a result of actions we took. The equally horrible attacks in London, Madrid, Bali, Mumbai, Sinai, etc. all occurred after 9/11. Thus, if anything, our actions seem to have encouraged more people around the world to become terrorists.
On the third point, could we have accomplished the same thing with less extreme reaction? The killing of Osama Bin laden is instructive; we used a combination of creative intelligence work and a daring commando raid to put an end to the guy who precipitated that 9/11 attack in a matter of just a few hours. Why couldn’t we have done so ten years ago?
I’m sure Mr. Cheney won’t have an answer for that.
THE END OF THE AMERICAN SOCIAL SAFETY NET (Posted September 3, 2011)
The Republican Party has been trying to roll back the essence of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, which spawned the American Social Safety Net in 1935 with the creation of the Social Security System. The year 2012 may be the beginning of the end for the systems (Social Security and Medicare) which have supported our seniors and kept them out of poverty for sixty six years (they are also taking aim at Medicaid for the poor as well). But everything depends on the outcome of next year’s election, which could well be the most important in this nation’s history.
We’ve heard proposals to end Medicare as we know it by eliminating the system’s guarantee and instead offering Seniors a voucher to purchase health care. Can you imagine what it will be like for a 65-year old to have to deal with the open insurance market and find health coverage with 65 years of pre-existing conditions??
Then we have the attempts at killing Social Security—“W” proposed privatizing it by allowing us to buy stock which seemed to gain some traction until the market crashed in the 2007-88 time frame.
Then we hear Rick Perry calling it a “ponzi scheme”, all the while promising to make government as “inconsequential” in our lives as possible. That’s just another way of positioning another run at creating Mr. Bush’s “ownership” society, AKA the “you’re on your own” society. If that’s the kind of “inconsequential” government he is proposing, we probably all should head for Europe.
What is especially unsettling are the latest examples of the Democrat’s apparent willingness to go along with some of the latest Republican proposals to “protect” the two systems. They have allowed the Social Security system to be “on the table” in the deficit reduction talks; the President has even OFFERED to increase the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67 and to include it in the same talks about the nation’s finances. This pattern of “incremental change” is dangerous; it allows a gradual weakening of the system which may eventually make its continued retention hard to justify.
Furthermore, the rationale for changing either system at this time is utterly nonsensical. There is no question that Social Security’s finances need to be improved; but the system does NOT contribute a cent to the deficit and so the system should not be part of the deficit debate. The financing issues need to be addressed as part of an effort to STRENGTHEN and not WEAKEN the system — which, by the way, could be accomplished easily by simply eliminating the cap so that everyone pays the same percentage of their income into the system.
As to Medicare, costs are an issue; but the cost issue for Medicare is nothing more than a reflection of the cost problems associated with the entire American health care system. The Affordable Health Care Act (AHCA) of 2010 is supposed to address cost for the system as a whole. Therefore I cannot understand why the Pols in DC are discussing Medicare as part of the deficit talks – and why the Democrats can’t (or WON’T) take a position on this and defend the work that was done on the AHCA by pointing to the savings that were and are projected to occur with those changes.
Finally, the tendency to offer these “payroll tax holidays” as part of a recovery plan is especially worrisome. As said earlier, the system’s finances are in need of “shoring up” as it is; further depriving it of current contributions only makes things worse and lends credence to the case being made by the Republicans that the system is unsustainable and thus needs to be done away with.
This is a dangerous period. We are entering a phase where we need to do some introspection. Are we a nation committed to taking care of each other --- OR NOT? The answer to that question will undoubtedly settle the 2012 election.
I’ve got just enough frequent flyer credits to get Elaine and me to France. I hope I don’t need them.
MONEY WINS AGAIN (Posted August 3, 2011)
Our ‘Congress’, having finally reached a deal on the debt crisis, has proven that it cannot solve any of our problems – but it has taken care of the money-managers.
The plan apparently will try to balance the Federal budget by cutting government spending alone; we will not ask anything of the nation’s multi-billionaire set. Hedge Funders will going on earning billions while using the carried-interest gambit to pay their “fair share” at 15 percent; the rest of us, including presumably their secretaries, will pay higher rates. They make nothing, just push paper around and collect billions.
So where does that leave us? All we hear about is CUTS; not one word about INVESTMENT. Progress is expensive, & must be paid for. What are the plans to move this nation forward in a very competitive global economy?
We are backing away from the need to address this country's problems; two examples: we have very nearly the highest rate of infant mortality in the industrialized world (according to the Annie Casey Foundation, we are tied with Latvia for 30th place—Turkey enjoys the last place at number 31), yet we have decided to defund Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest and most effective purveyor of pre-natal assistance for poor people. Our educational system is in shambles and other countries are outpacing us dramatically in terms of the rate at which they are producing mathematicians and scientists; our response is to lay off teachers and disembowel their unions. Our ability and more importantly our WILLINGNESS to solve this nation's problems will require a new kind of leadership that changes the kind of thinking that we seen in these two examples.
Throughout this discussion, this nation has been moving toward the precipice.
We still are.
GUNZO GONZO (Posted July 25, 2011)
Not to be outdone by the Norwegians, the good ol’ USDA scrambled to protect its grand reputation as the greatest ‘shoot-em & kill-em’ nation on earth over the weekend.
It was literally an “I’ve got a bombing and a shooting spree” as against “I’ll raise you 4 shootings” as the USA countered the slaughter in Norway on Friday with a set of massacres of its own almost in response.
What more to say? Another set of innocents taken from us, grieving families all over the country and, if the past is any guide, we can be sure that nothing – ABSOLUTELY NOTHING – will be done about the epidemic of gun violence that threatens us all.
Any smart, caring human being can see the problem and make a judgment as to what needs to be done. The only problem is that he powerful, moneyed interests are aligned against any effort to reduce the easy access – by the wrong kind of people (criminals, kids and mental defectives) -- to high-powered weaponry that takes so many of our citizens from us each and every year: 15-20 thousand each an every year, two-thirds of which are caused by guns.
People the world over look at us and wonder why it is that we – the ‘supposed’ most powerful nation on earth -- are so incapable of making the obvious choices needed to fix problems like gun violence.
And I must admit -- I do not have an answer for them.
OUR FISCAL MESS (Posted July 18, 2011)
Sen. Jim Demint (R-SC) called it right on the money when he suggested the Republican party’s strategy would be to “create gridlock”.
The folks in DC are doing their best to make Mr. Demint’s dream come true. If there ever was a glaring example of Washington’ ineptitude, it is on display as the DC pols debate the debt-ceiling issue.
The problem is two-fold: first, the parties are completely polarized. They actually seem to hate each other. We’ve heard the President of the United States called a “liar” and last week Rep Alan West (R-FL) called a colleague, Rep Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL), “a vile, unprofessional and despicable member of the US House of Representatives” in response to a simple challenge she made to him on the floor of the House.
Aside from the horrible message these actions convey to our children, they certainly demonstrate that the two parties will likely never be able to agree on anything. So, gridlock here we come. In other words, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED (to quote another member of the loony right-wing)!
But the other reason has to do with a deeper, more insidious strategy that may be part of the Republican game plan: that is, to take advantage of the collapse of the financial markets that undoubtedly will occur if/when the debt ceiling isn’t raised.
Over the course of the last 40 years the ‘wealth gap’ – the gap between the wealthiest Americans and the rest of us – has been growing dramatically. Median income during that period has been absolutely FLAT, while income growth for the upper one percent of Americans has sky-rocketed. There are lots of reasons for this; for one, the shameful influence of money in our political system has rotted the decision-making process in Washington. For another, the well-to-do have benefitted immensely from the economic crises that have occurred, particularly in the past thirty years. Every time the stock market crashes, the wealthy, having all kinds of disposable income regardless of the economy, are able to buy stock at heavily depressed prices and thus acquire more control over the rest of society.
It’s almost sadistic; it doesn’t take much analysis to understand why the Republican party of today – also known as the party of the ‘one-percents' – are quite likely to allow this country to go into default in order to encourage another crash. They did it under Reagan and under Bush II. It is to their advantage and to the advantage of the people they represent to allow that to happen. They are shielded from the problem while the rest of us will be devastated.
The ‘other’ party – the Democrats – seem utterly incapable or unwilling to provide an effective antidote to this callous power-grab, likely because they too are becoming more and more beholden to the ‘vested interests’.
We need a wholesale change to governance and a constitutional convention is about the only way we can make the necessary changes. We should open up the political process to enable other parties to form and become involved. Term limits must be mandatory; there should be a complete prohibition against contributing anything of value to our legislators and, finally, public funding of elections is a must.
It’s a big change, but it’ll be worth the effort.
POVERTY IN AMERICA(Posted July 10, 2011)
Last week I listened to Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah offer a tortured rationale for adjusting the US tax code.
He was clearly suggesting that the top income earners pay too much in taxes while the “bottom 51% don’t pay enough”. The poor, he said, “need to share some responsibility”.
It is hard for me to believe that the climate of political discourse in this country has so deteriorated that a politician can actually utter those words on the floor of the US Senate.
I believe that Sen. Hatch is a practicing Mormon. I don’t know if he considers himself a Christian, but if so his view of Christianity is much different than the one I was born into.
The nuns under whom I studied in grade school taught us that “it was our responsibility as Christians to help the poor among us”. That thought should inform
everything we do as Christians on a day-to-day basis.
When I hear millionaire politicians decrying the notion of helping the poor while pleading for ever more favors for the millionaire set, I have to wonder what has
happened to our values.
Have we lost our way? I think so.
BIN LADEN IS GONE--NOW WHAT? (Posted May 11, 2011)
Bin Laden is gone, there are at best 100 Al Quaeda operatives in Afghanistan--can somebody explain to me why it is STILL necessary to have a standing army of 150 thousand soldiers in that country? The reality is that we are fighting an insurgency -- Afghan people who had nothing to do with 9/11.
Al Quaeda has been dispersed--splintered into pieces and have been taken up residence in many other parts of the world. And we are left to expend blood and treasure in an action that has no effect whatsoever as regards improving our national security.
Further, we took out the bad guy with a combination of intelligence gathering and special operations forces. It seems to me that this experience illustrates the secret to fighting international terrorism, namely, that we first need the kind of intelligence that will enable us to find out where they are, what they are planning & how they are funded; then we freeze their assets and use a combination of drones and special OPS to capture/kill the leadership.
No army required. Gets the job done & saves billions (trillions?).
Is it possible that I'm the only one who is thinking this way???
IS AMERICA A “JUST” NATION? (Posted May 1, 2011)
The current budget debate in Congress is proving to be invaluable, both in terms of defining our priorities as a nation and for drawing a distinction between the two political parties. The extent of our humanity will be on display for all to see with the choices that will be made in the weeks and months ahead.
Everyone has a right to be concerned about this nation’s financial situation, and neither party has demonstrated a commitment to deal with the issue in an effective way. Democrats seem to be inclined to spend limitlessly while paying scant attention to the implications for America’s long-term fiscal health; Republicans point endlessly to “out-of-control spending” as the source of all our problems and propose the fiction of achieving a balanced budget by cuts in spending alone, most of which are focused on programs designed to help the poor and/or those who are in need.
The solution to our debt crisis is clearly a mix of both spending cuts and tax increases. And, as every clear-headed human being has suggested, “everything must be on the table”.
After putting everything on the table, herewith is a formula that just might achieve a balanced budget in a reasonably short period of time. First, repeal the effects of George W. Bush’s 8 years in office by
-allowing the obscene Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire immediately
-allow the remainder of the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of 2012, as agreed to by the Congress and White House in December, 2010.
-ending our military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan—immediately
-completely revising the unpaid-for giveaway to the Pharmaceutical industry with the prescription drug benefit under Medicare by allowing the government to negotiate prices with the companies involved
-requiring the CBO to score these four steps.
This exercise may by itself show that the budget deficit has been eliminated. But just in case¸ there are a few other ideas that could garner huge financial paybacks for our nation:
This is the America that is worth fighting for. A nation that is committed to the following principles:
3. Allowing the rest of our citizens, those who work and upon whom the USA depends for its well-being, to pursue their passions and their dreams unaffected by the scourge of employer-provided health insurance. In this way, America’s best and brightest can go to work for the organization that best suits their talents; and those mired in the proverbial dead-end jobs can make the transition to new careers without having to put their well-being and that of their young families at risk of life-altering illnesses.
There are enormous obstacles to making this happen¸ because the social¸ economic and political processes are tightly controlled by the moneyed interests in America. The ability of the wealthy to control our lives must be restrained and to do this radical changes will be needed. Comprehensive campaign finance reform, elimination of the profoundly absurd electoral college system that threatens to warp the entire voting process are just afew of the changes that must be undertaken. To get this done, nothing short of a constitutional convention may be necessary. But it’s worth doing— the only question is whether or not there is a willingness to make the effort.
Is America a “just” nation? Stay tuned
THE DEATH PENALTY: THE END IS NEAR (Posted March 10, 2011)
We just received a note from Gov. Pat Quinn of Illinois advising us that he had just signed a bill eliminating the death penalty in Illinois. HOORAY!
Knowing that the issue was being considered in Illinois, Elaine and I had sent a letter recently to the Governor stating our views on the matter.
For anyone who doesn't know, we are adamantly opposed to the death penalty. We were very much against imposing it on the two who took Renée's life and were greatly relieved when the prosecutor (s) decided not to seek it (he/they were unable to convince the judge that it was an option to be considered in our case).
Our opposition is two-fold: first, is it a JUST system? The test must be 1) is it visible (and thus a deterrent)? and 2) is it equitable (i.e., is applied universally)? In the case of visibility, the average time a condemned individual spends on death row is over 10 years, making it very difficult if not impossible to connect the crime with the punishment; on the matter of equity, consider who gets the death penalty: since the reinstatement of the DP in 1976, has a rich white person (or for that matter a rich person period) ever been executed? Nope. The only people we execute are poor people, indeed poor black people, those unable to adequately defend themselves. So the DP fails on both counts: visibility and equity.
On a very personal basis, we have dedicated out lives to doing what we can to help this great country reduce if not eliminate the scourge of homicide. We find it very difficult to accomplish this BECAUSE of the death penalty. Why? Because it is difficult to teach our children that it is wrong to kill when our justice system itself kills!
The Governor of Illinois has taken a step which will help our cause. If only the rest of the states will follow suit.
THE REASON WE HAVE SO MUCH CRIME IN AMERICA (Posted March 9, 2011)
The Atlanta Journal and Constitution (AJC) recently published an article about an author, Karen Slaughter, extolling her success as a writer of murder mysteries.
We have a problem with both the author's writing style and the paper's celebratory review of her work. Ms. Slaughter is no ordinary crime author; she provides the reader with graphic, gory details about the acts of murder she portrays. It is an utterly gratuitous , violence-for-violence's-sake approach to writing, appealing to the most prurient, worst instincts of human nature.
Making matters worse, the article points out that the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) is assisting her efforts by taking her on criminal investigations to enhance her understanding of the process.
So what do we have here? We have an author who has a preoccupation with extolling the virtues of the extraordinary acts of killing human beings and is being aided and abetted by two of our most prominent institutions, the AJC and the GBI. Is there something wrong with this picture?
There sure is. First, we have several industries, most notably media and entertainment, that are dulling America's senses to the harsh reality of murder. There are any number of examples of how this is done. For instance, in the Atlanta area we have a couple of religious institutions, a church and a synagogue, that have recently been putting on --of all things -- MURDER MYSTERY COMEDIES! Can you believe this? We are actually able to find something FUNNY about MURDER! What's next? RAPE MYSTERY COMEDIES?? How about CHILD MOLESTATION COMEDIES???
Second, the consequences of this "trivialization" of murder is potentially devastating. It can have the effect of de-sensitizing the American public to crime in general. The fiction of murder has thus displaced the reality of it; the result is, quite naturally, that we are less likely to be horrified by that reality. The very component of the human spirit that is the most powerful weapon we have in the fight against crime, our ability to be morally outraged, is being lulled into acquiescence. There is no longer any indignation at the slaughter that goes on year after year on the streets of this country's cities and towns. Thus crime continues to increase and these industries may in fact be aiding and abetting that phenomenon.
In the Atlanta case, the work of writer Karen Slaughter is GLAMORIZED by the AJC and given a boost by the GBI. In other words, we as taxpayers are subsidizing the increasing crime rate that may be caused by writers such as Karen Slaughter.
Sometimes you can't win for losing.
MORE ON PRIORITIES (Posted March 8, 2011)
Observing the great budget debates of 2011 teaches us a great deal about our national priorities.
Every state has a budget problem and is looking for ways to close the gap between income and expenses. Watch the actions of the Republican governors and you can get a good idea not only of what their priorities are but the direction that the Republican party is taking nationwide.
The governor of Wisconsin, facing a billion-dollar shortfall, immediately passed a corporate tax-cut depriving the state of badly needed revenue and making the state's financial position much worse. So what did he propose to fix the problem? Cut the pay of teachers and kill unions, naturally. Tax cuts for corporations, pay cuts for teachers. In Florida, a similar scenario: the gov there passed another tax cut (1.5billion) for corporations while cutting a similar amount from the state education budget. Tax cuts for corporations, pay cuts for teachers. Sound familiar? Similar stuff going on in Ohio and Indiana, all under REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS. Then you have the guy in Michigan (another Republican) who asked the legislature to pass a bill giving him the ability to take over a town/city's government if he (the gov) see's fit and offer management and control of the city/town to the lowest commercial bidder. Can you believe this? Do we know what's happening to this country?
Consider the rebuttal to this concern: we hear much from the right wing about redistribution of income. They cite examples of tax money from the upper classes going to lower classes in the form of transfer payments--welfare, earned income tax credits, etc. They are really worried about the effect on the high earners (top 10 percent), but they make it seem as though the middle class is being abused as well.
But what about the redistribution that is going on in the other direction? A bunch of Wall-street deadbeats almost ruined the national (and the world) economy and what happened? The taxpayers in the USA had to bail them out. These bastards were betting other peoples money -- illegally -- and we ordinary people paid twice, once in the loss of our stock and retirement portfolios because of their fraudulent actions and again when we bailed them out. They didn't lose a penny of their own money---in fact, they made more money than ever (note the just announced gains on Wall Street for 2009, 2010) since the breakdown occurred. And by the way, have we had prosecuted any of these robber barons for their misdeeds?
But the Republicans don't seem to want to discuss that aspect of the redistribution that is going on. It should be quite obvious whose side they are on. I'm not a Democrat, but it would be nice if they -- or someone -- would take the side of ordinary people in this argument. There is a case to be made. We have experienced an enormous transfer of wealth in this country over the last 30 years. Median income has been essentially flat, meaning we've lost ground to inflation (i.e., we are all poorer). But the upper groups --the top 10% or more emphatically, the top 1% has seen enormous gains )300-400-500%) during that same period.
What does all this mean? I get very conservative on this matter, believing that it is very dangerous to a society when money (and thus power) flows unevenly in one direction -- to the top in our case. If allowed to go to the extreme we might begin to look like a feudal society where the great mass of us would be totally beholden to a very few at the top.
I just simply want more for America. Surely we can do better.
MASS TRANSIT: CAN WE AFFORD IT? (Posted March 3, 2011)
Lots of speculation about this issue. The Obama administration is recommending a sizable investment in high-speed rail while the nay-sayers (usually on the right-wing) insist that we can't afford it or that "it's a complete waste of money", citing our experience with Amtrak (ignoring the fact that they have tried continuously to defund it over the years).
Can't afford it? How many times have we heard that in the past as we contemplated major investments aimed at improving our way of life? I have a feeling that much the same was said in the late 1940s or early 1950s as we contemplated building the Interstate Highway system.
But let's address the substance of the issue as it relates to affordability. As a businessman, I know that any decision to invest in a new product or service necessarily must be made by balancing the costs against the expected return. So let's try this with high-speed rail:
First the cost: yes it'll likely cost a few hundred billion dollars of initial investment to upgrade tracks and acquire new equipment. Then there will be the ongoing investment of perhaps upward of another hundred billion or so in annual maintenance costs. What then can we expect in return? Or, in other words, what are the offset costs. i.e., the savings that would accrue as a consequence of the investment? Well, let's start with the 780 billion to 1 trillion dollars we send each and every year to places like Saudi Arabia as a result of our seemingly unquenchable thirst for oil. Is that OK for starters? Then of course we need to consider the fact that a good bit of that money goes to pay for Al Quaeda's jihad that they are waging against us. How much does defending ourselves against that threat cost? How much exactly did 9/11 cost us?
How about the cost of polluting our air and water each and every year?
I think you can begin to see that there are some real dollar issues associated with NOT doing anything about high-speed rail. Indeed, it would seem that this investment alone can save this country huge amounts of money over and above both the up-front investment and the annual costs (anyone want to solve the deficit?) while improving the quality of life for us all.
Invest in high-speed rail? Sounds like a no-brainer to me.
MISPLACED PRIORITIES (Posted February 28, 2011)
As with most states, Georgia is grappling with the escalating cost of corrections and various alternatives are being examined to deal with the problem.
Unquestionably, alternatives to incarceration are badly needed. Unfortunately, the only ones that are being considered are those dealing with offenders who are currently in the system. Rarely mentioned is the need to examine options for keeping Georgia citizens out of the system in the first place.
What actually works to keep kids from becoming criminals? For starters, there is a wealth of credible evidence that shows that up-front investments in children, such as child-care, after-school, parenting assistance, mentoring and child-abuse prevention programs are effective at reducing delinquency rates and they are cost-effective.
Despite this, the legislature is planning drastic cuts for HOPE, Georgia’s first-in-the-nation Pre-K program and, most abysmally, to health-care services for the poor.
There is a direct relationship between health-care, education and crime, and making these investments early pays off in the long run.
As the saying goes, you can pay now or later.
THE DEATH OF UNIONS (Posted February 22, 2011)
The battle of Wisconsin in on-going.
As in Libya, we have an autocratic despot who is leading the charge to fundamentally dismantle worker protections in that state.
Under the guise of 'balancing the budget', the governor there is insisting that destroying unions is necessary to achieve financial nirvana in his state. He fails to mention that, had he not done the typical Republican charade of passing a massive tax cut, the budget might well be in the black. The unions have even agreed to pay and benefit cuts to help resolve the state's financial situation. Not good enough for the 'gov'.
So let's see what's happening here: the Supreme Court recently decided, in the Citizens United case, that corporations were free to spend unlimited sums to influence elections in the USA. Their largesse is directed primarily to the Republican party. What happened? In 2010, tons of money poured into election campaign and, as expected, the Republican party gained majorities all across the country -- in Congress, governorships and state legislatures. Then, newly-elected governors and legislatures began to take away bargaining rights and/or to outlaw unions all together. Sound fishy?
What's wrong with this picture? Is there a coordinated effort to deal with "the union problem? Are unions being made the scapegoats for political purposes? Let's consider the reality of the situation.
First, the notion that unions are responsible for all the state budget shortfalls is pure nonsense -- and it doesn't take much analysis to see that this is being done for purely political purposes. Unions after all are a critically important base of support for the Democratic Party and dis-emboweling them puts us on a road to a one-party state. This is clearly the goal of the Republican party. Under their direction, the rich will get richer and the gap between rich and poor -- indeed between the 'upper class' and the rest of us -- as great as it is now, can only get worse. This is an ominous development in our nation's history.
Feudal America here we come!
THE END OF THE DEATH PENALTY (Posted February 8, 2011)
The state of Illinois is in the process of abolishing the death penalty -- we hope! The legislature has passed a bill to do this and it currently awaits the signature of Governor Pat Quinn.
Our daughter was murdered in Chicago in 1994. As death
penalty opponents, we were very gratified that the two who were convicted of her
murder were spared the death penalty and instead given long-term sentences.
Our view is that the death penalty is simply wrong, for both practical and moral
reasons. Practically speaking, it in no way deters crime, is fraught with error
and is utterly inequitable in its application. From a moral perspective, we
wonder how we can possibly convince our children that it is wrong to kill by
supporting an institution that itself kills?
We hope the governor will do the responsible thing and abolish this absurdly
inhumane policy as soon as possible. Then, and only then, can the USA claim its
rightful place among the decent, caring nations of our planet.
TONE-DEAF POLITICIANS (Posted January 15,2011)
In the face of another great national tragedy, American politicians have once again shown us where their priorities lie.
Most Americans were devastated by the slaughter that occurred in Tucson on January 8, 2011. While we were grieving with everyone in Tucson and trying to figure out what we might do to help those poor souls, Sarah Palin gave a speech on the day of the memorial suggesting that Sarah Palin’s thoughts were on ….. Sarah Palin.
Yep, the half-term governor barely acknowledged the tragedy in Arizona while venting her spleen on the “main-stream media” for the criticism of her incendiary comments that are laced with firearm imagery. As usual, the talk was loaded with contradictions, misunderstanding and misstatements. For example, she insisted at the beginning of the speech that her comments had no effect on the AZ assassin by saying “that violent act stands alone”. Subsequently – in the same speech – she accused the media of “fomenting the same violence they were concerned about” by criticizing her. In other words, incendiary words can have an impact – but it’s also true that they do not. Is that clear?
Not to be outdone by Ms. Palin, the erstwhile Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, had his own priorities. Offered a seat on Air Force One in order to attend the memorial service, Mr. Boehner decided instead to attend a fund-raiser in Washington, DC on the same day as the memorial.
This is the same guy who just a few years ago was passing out checks from the tobacco companies to House members on the House floor. In this case he was playing the same game as Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, who spent most of his time last summer in meetings with the titans of Wall Street getting their input as to precisely how they wanted the financial reform legislation to be worded – in their favor, of course.
The net of all this is: we can be sure that politicians of the Boehner/Palin ilk are surely not going to do anything by way of helping ordinary Americans. As these two examples show, our elected representatives are too self-focused and beholden to the moneyed interests in this country.
Crime, Poverty, deficits, immigration, energy – they’ll simply have to wait. It seems that Washington has reverted to “business as usual”.
DOMESTIC TERRORISM (Posted January 9, 2011)
The USA faces threats from two kinds of terrorism: international and domestic.
Nearly three thousand 3000 people were lost to international terrorism on 9/11/01. Fifteen to twenty thousand souls are lost by homicide in domestic terrorism incidents each an every year. Clearly we have much more to fear from the domestic kind of terrorism. While we have made a great national commitment to deal with international terrorism, we have failed or otherwise been reluctant to deal with our own home-grown brand of terrorism.
The reality is that two-thirds to three quarters of all homicides are gun-related. Additionally, most suicides are inflicted with guns and there are an ever-increasing number of gun-related accidents. Despite this enormous toll, there is great reluctance to deal with the epidemic of gun violence in America. Gun rights advocates insist that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.
The problem goes much deeper – here’s why: It is one thing to have a bunch of crazy people running around the streets of our cities and towns – and every country on earth has them. But it is yet another thing to have a bunch of crazy people running around the streets of our cities and towns WITH ACCESS TO WHATEVER HIGH-POWERED FIREARM THEIR HEARTS COULD EVER DESIRE. And in that respect THE USA STANDS ALONE.
Dramatic changes are needed to our gun laws in order to prevent certain individuals – criminals, mental defectives, children, etc. – from owning or even having access to guns. Likewise, legitimate gun owners must act responsibly in their use of guns and should be held fully accountable if they fail to do so. The public has every right to expect government to ensure that this happens.
For any number of reasons there is enormous resistance to taking even the most reasonable steps in this regard. First and foremost, we have a gun lobby whose mission is to preserve and protect the profit interest of its clients, the gun industry. It uses a variety of measures to do so, including the kinds of fear tactics that suggest that the government is out to take all our guns away or that the second amendment precludes any kind of restriction on the use of guns.
Additionally, we have recently experienced the onset of the kind of toxic political discourse that characterized the last election period: Palin‘s constant exhortations to “re-load” or her ‘Take back the 20 campaign’ targeting the intended candidates with crosshairs imagery; Representative Alan West’s original choice for his chief of staff suggesting that “if ballots don’t work, bullet will”; Sharron Angle suggesting the need for “second-amendment” remedies. To fully understand the likely consequences of this kind of rhetoric, we need look no further than the slaughter that occurred in Tucson, Arizona on January 8, 2011 where six more of our citizens were lost and thirteen were wounded.
In order to reduce the carnage in our streets, laws must be enacted that will require all gun owners to be licensed and guns to be registered. Further, states must strictly control the purchase and transfer of guns, including those occurring at licensed dealers, gun shows and by individuals. Finally, individuals using the kind of reckless speech that so obviously leads to violence of the kind witnessed in Tucson must be held fully accountable for that behavior.
Nothing less should be acceptable. Lives are at stake and far too many have already paid the ultimate price for our negligence. By failing to act we are condemning ourselves and our children to lives in a society where the violence – as bad as it is now – can only get worse.
THE RETURN OF DEATH PANELS (Posted January 8, 2011)
The first (and most urgent) priority of the new Republican majority in the House is to repeal the Health Care changes signed into law by President Obama last year.
In doing so, they should be mindful of potential consequences, such as 1) REPEALING the ban on pre-existing conditions; 2) REPEALING the provision allowing children to remain on parent’s insurance until age 26; 3) REPEALING the provision that removes lifetime maximums for payouts and 4) REPEALING the provision that forbids an insurance company from cancelling policies indiscriminately, particularly if you are sick and incurring too many charges.
There was much discussion about ‘death panels’ as we debated the health care changes. The sudden concern about ‘death panels’ at this time seemed a bit unusual, especially since we’ve had them all along—for years, in fact. THEY ARE CALLED INSURANCE COMPANIES.
A decision to repeal the new health care law will have the potentially devastating consequence of creating a new, deadlier form of the death panels. The insurance industry lobbied vigorously against the reform effort and, by giving in to them now, they are likely to be even more callous in the way they deal with sick, vulnerable Americans.
Our health care system badly needs the changes in the President’s plan. While a single-payer system would have been more effective, it is important to support this initial effort to put us on a path to make health care a fundamental right for all Americans. To do this a system must be put in place whose purpose is not simply to make a profit, but to provide quality health care at affordable prices for everyone.
The Obama plan provides a base for us to do this. It isn’t perfect and changes will need to be made as we proceed to implement its provisions. As states begin to make adjustments to meet their individual needs, the system will evolve and improve and the beauty of our Federalist system will be seen. This is just the way it should work.
It can work. The system puts us on a path to coverage for all. Now we simply need a Congress willing to reaffirm that commitment.
THE RETURN OF “VOODOO ECONOMICS” (Posted January. 7, 2011)
When George H.W. Bush nailed Ronald Reagan’s enfeebled attempt to play economist during the 1980 presidential primary campaign by excoriating the Gipper’s obviously pained attempt to be serious about America’s then-budget crisis, he was actually reflecting a bit of reality as to how Republicans think about economics, specifically the Federal government’s budgetary situation.
The Republican majority in the House of Representatives is about to reaffirm this kind of inept thinking about financial matters. Witness the Republican approach to reducing the deficit:
1) Tax cuts: the loss of revenue from permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts cannot be counted in deficit calculations;
2) Health care: losing the financial gains by the repeal of health care also cannot be counted;
3) Offsets: increases in spending can be offset by spending cuts alone, not tax increases. 4) Social Security: the system will have to be privatized in order to prevent further negative impact on the deficit.
Realistically, the Republican majority in he House will have to provide some specifics as to how they are going to accomplish all this. They must identify the specific areas they want to cut, how they will make up for the tax revenue that is lost and, most importantly, how their plan fares when independently (CBO) scored.
Senator Johnny Isakson has been asked some feedback on this but as yet he has not responded. Mr. Isakson’s problem – indeed the Republican problem – may be that the numbers aren’t working out very well for them.
The reason for this may be that the numbers cannot work out at all. First, as any credible economist will admit, we can’t cut our way out of this problem. Yes, spending will have to be restrained, but taxes will have to go up and everyone will have to bear some pain. Of course the politicians won’t say so—they are averse to offering any bad news to the voting public.
Further, the idea that Social Security relates in any way to the deficit is beyond absurdity. It is a separately financed system and, while its financing needs to be strengthened, it does not impact the Federal deficit, plus or minus.
There is another critical consideration that should be made as we contemplate cutting the Federal budget: this is the worst possible time to trim spending for education, infrastructure and new technology research (climate, energy, medicine, etc.) . The USA already lags behind the rest of the industrial world in these areas, and, if anything, our nation must dramatically increase our investment in these areas just to remain competitive and to deal with other critical issues like poverty and crime.
The real question is whether Washington can/will respond appropriately to this challenge.
GUN VIOLENCE REDUX (posted November 20, 2010)
With the onset of our economic problems, crime and violence are once again on the upswing.
As a parent whose daughter was murdered in an armed robbery/home invasion, I am perhaps more sensitive than most to the American crime problem and our apathy towards a solution.
We have made a great national commitment to deal with the problem of international terrorism yet we ignore the domestic version (of terrorism) which puts us all at much greater risk.
America lost almost 3 thousand souls on 9/11; we experience 15-20 thousand homicides a year, two-thirds of which are caused with guns. This is 4 to 8 times what occurs in any other industrialized society. Yet we refuse to make the obvious connection between the high crime rate and the easy access to guns
I cannot for the life of me understand why we don’t take the obvious steps necessary to reduce the epidemic of gun violence that threatens us all. I have travelled and lived in many other parts of the world and I know that there are effective measures that can be taken to deal with the problem. Consider:
It is one thing to have a bunch of crazy people walking the streets of our cities and towns and every nation has them. It is yet another thing to have a bunch of crazy people walking the streets of our cities and towns with access to whatever murder weapon their hearts would ever desire. And in that respect, the United States of America stands alone.
Does it make sense to allow the likes of criminals, mental defectives and children to be able to buy (or otherwise acquire) guns? While I fully support the second amendment it seems to me that we have a right to expect that guns be used responsibly and that there should be consequences for gun owners who fail to do so.
But we are not even close to doing that; every attempt to enact reasonable laws aimed at ensuring responsible care and use of guns is resisted by the gun lobby and its minions. We have gone to the extent of crippling the one agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) whose mission it is to try to deal with the problem and make us safer. The agency has been without a director for several years now and the man nominated by President Obama, Andrew Traver, is being resisted by – you guessed it – the gun lobby for the most inane reasons imaginable.
Once again, money is at the heart of Congressional intransigence. We are unable to solve this nation’s problems because the folks in Washington cater to the “moneyed interests” rather than to the needs of the American people.
It’s a disgrace.
BARRACUDA MISSING (Posted May 3, 2010)
Where is the 'Cuda lady when you need her???? The silence is deafening!
The Gulf of Mexico is awash with oil; sea life is being destroyed all over the region and vegetation is literally rotting in front of our eyes in what may well be the greatest environmental disaster in history. Yet, we haven't heard a word from the "Drill, Baby, Drill" queen. Interesting, isn't it?
Has she been to the gulf to assure herself and her sycophants of the soundness of her view on the matter of energy? Nope. Wonder why?
Now is the time -- while the queen and company are taking refuge in the wilds of Alaska and elsewhere -- to make the point as to the importance of promoting clean energy and weaning ourselves off the addiction to oil and carbon in general. We continue to pour almost a trillion dollars a year into the middle east, enabling the most US-hostile regimes on earth to, among other things, finance terrorist attacks on our cities (anyone remember 9/11???).
If this doesn't motivate the deadbeats in Congress to do something about energy, we will ALL need to go to Washington and take over the place -- anything would be better than the status quo.
HEALTH CARE FOR ALL – AT LAST! (Posted March 27, 2010)
With the enactment of health car reform this week, the United States of America has at last lived up to one of its most cherished ideals and removed a stain on our national reputation that has existed since the beginning of this Republic.
For almost 250 years we have allowed people to die for lack of access to medical care while other industrialized nations ensure that all their citizens are covered by their national health care systems.
We continue to hear concerns about affordability. In my view that is secondary; what we needed to do – and have finally done – is make a national commitment to ensure that no American will ever again be denied medical care. No longer will we turn our backs on the sick and most vulnerable among us.
It was along time coming, but we have finally done what is right by our citizens. I am once again proud to be an American.
CAN THE AMERICAN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM BE FIXED? (Posted February 24, 2010)
President Obama plans to convene a health-care summit this week. I am not optimistic about the outcome.
The health-care system in America is an unmitigated disaster. We spend roughly 16 percent of our GDP on healthcare, an expense that is increasing annually at a rate much greater than inflation. Yet we have approximately 50 million people who are uninsured and thus have no access to medical care other than emergency rooms. Shamefully, almost 10 million of these are children; millions more have insurance that provides almost nothing in the way of useable benefits.
Despite the enormous amount of money and effort expended, we do not deliver healthcare to those who need it most, as exemplified by the fact that we have an infant mortality rate that is nearly the highest in the industrialized world. We continue to hear lurid tales of insurance plans eliminating coverage for the most vulnerable among us: children and seniors. Finally, we burden our industries with the responsibility for providing health insurance, making them increasingly LESS competitive in an increasingly competitive global economy.
Can we repair the current system? The answer is an emphatic NO. Why? It is a system whose purpose, first and foremost, is to make money for the practitioners, i.e., doctors, hospitals and insurance companies. Providing quality healthcare for all Americans is clearly secondary.
The current approach cannot accomplish the twin goals of increasing quality while reducing the financial burden to our nation. The fee-based system is antithetical to our ability to control cost and the success of the insurance based approach, perversely, is dependent on the extent to which care can be denied. Likewise, the current market-based system is such that every time we try to make a change, we are necessarily affecting the financial interest of a myriad of parties, all of whom will present obstacles to the desired change.
We hear endless tirades from politicians about the problem of healthcare in America, but few solutions. The ideas offered tend to focus on incremental pieces of the problem, such as Medicaid for the poor, Medicare for the elderly and the needs of children, all the while failing to grasp the increasingly desperate need we have in this country for a comprehensive, national solution to our health-care crisis. In so doing, we ignore the only solution that makes any sense, a single-payer national health-care system. Most industrialized nations around the world have single-payer systems; they do this while spending half as much as we do, figured as a percentage of GDP. They accomplish this amazing level of cost control and are able to cover everyone!
To effect this change, a national commitment is needed, namely, to provide high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans. That must be the goal, and the only goal.
How can we do this? Essentially, we must offer a different kind of health care, one that emphasizes prevention.
The sad reality is that in the USA we have a remedial medical system. The system is procedure oriented, i.e., waiting for the onset of sickness then reacting by conducting tests and administering medication. Little is done by way of preventing sickness and disease.
Comprehensive prevention strategies must be part and parcel of any change that we make to our system of health care. The focus at a minimum must be on encouraging “healthy living”, e.g., nutrition/weight management/fitness guidance, smoker cessation classes, drug and alcohol abuse counseling at the very least.
High quality, affordable health care should be available to every American. A single-payer, national health system is the best way to achieve this. In expressing opposition to such a change, the extent that people are making their judgments based on their own circumstances and not on what is best for the nation should be a concern for all of us. If health reform fails, we are likely to see a continuation of the great American saga: people dying for lack of health care and families forced into bankruptcy because of medical costs beyond their ability to pay.
Continuing this travesty offends my sense of what it means to be an American. It is time to do what all other industrialized nations have done: make health care a right for every American.
We should accept nothing less.
A FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP (Posted February 21, 2010)
The leadership of the current Republican party has proven itself completely inept when it comes to becoming engaged in solving some of the problems our nation now faces.
For example, when Ronald Reagan first took office in 1981, the national debt stood at just under $100 billion. Today it stands at $12 trillion. Since we had a budget SURPLUS during the Clinton years we pretty much know exactly who created the debt burden our children now face.
These same guys are the ones who led the charge over the last eight years wherein we doubled the debt, fostering as they did a culture that said we can have anything we want without having to pay for it. Two wars costing trillions? No problem, we’ll just borrow the money from places like China. Trillion dollar prescription drug benefit for Medicare? No problem, just borrow the money from places like China (sound familiar?).
So now we are broke – yet the problems they faced and were too utterly incompetent to deal with are still with us. And thanks to them, the government is without the financial resources needed to help pull us out of the predicament.
Just to complete the picture, we now have a president who has shown a willingness to deal with some of these matters. The Republican response? They offer no solutions, only criticisms at the efforts being made to deal with these issues. Most telling of all, they now complain that the President is spending money we don’t have all the while failing to mention that he is trying to get us out of the hole they put us in.
Hypocrisy is too good a word to describe this bunch.
THE PRESIDENT AND THE LOYAL OPPOSITION (Posted Feb. 2, 2010)
Last Friday, President Obama engaged 140 Republicans in a battle of wits that seemed at times as though he was doing battle with the unarmed.
The Q&A session served to illuminate the utterly bankrupt nature of the contemporary Republican philosophy.
Rep. Tom Price(R-GA)'s interaction with the President illustrated the point dramatically. In complaining about his inability to get the attention of the administration on his health care proposal, Mr. Price had the gall to state that his plan “would provide health coverage to all Americans…without raising taxes by a penny”.
Tom Price is promoting the same kind of nonsense that Republicans have been promoting for the last 10 years, namely, that ‘we can have something for nothing’. They passed a bunch of tax cuts, a prescription drug benefit for Medicare and started two wars without paying for any of it.
The President was polite but firm in reminding Mr. Price of his delusional state. The rest of the Republican questioners didn’t fare much better.
I guess the 140 to one ratio is STILL a little light on the Republican side.
SUPREME COURT MADNESS (Posted January 22, 2010)
So the Supremes have finally done it. As if we didn't have enough private sector influence in the affairs of government -- lobbying and all that -- we can now look forward to an unlimited amount of corporate cash and influence in this country's politics as a result of this week's decision in the Citizens United vs. the FEC case. The court even overturned decades of its own precedents in doing so. So much for judicial restraint.
I am moved to wonder when/if we'll hear any complaints now from the elephant party about the evils of "judicial activism" and "making law from the bench".
As if the sellout to the finance and health care sectors last year wasn't enough, we should now expect to see this country be renamed "The Corporate USA". I fully expect to see unions disbanded, child labor laws repealed and a return to sweat shops. I guess that's one way to prevent companies from moving their operations overseas.
I hope we can get Congress to do something about this travesty. It was a bad decision and something must be done to right this terrible wrong.
THE MASSACHUSETTS SENATE ELECTION OF JANUARY 21, 2010(Posted January 21, 2010)
The election of Scott brown to fill the seat of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy reflects the state of disarray in American politics.
In November, 2008, American voters made a clear, unambiguous statement of their desire for change in Washington, DC by electing a Democratic President and substantial Democratic majorities in Congress. Now, being unhappy with their choices just a little more than a year later, they appear to still want change but have apparently decided that the Republican party is better equipped to deliver the goods.
This can only make sense if we consider the anomaly that is built into our political system such that voters have no choice other than to reelect the very party that got us into this mess in the first place.
We do indeed need the kind of change that will alter drastically the political system in several ways by 1) forcing term limits, a single term, on all members of Congress and 2) ending totally the influence of lobbyists in Congress.
Term limits would ensure that each member of Congress could focus on doing the people’s business and not on getting reelected. Ending lobbying can be accomplished by making members of Congress subject to the same rules as Federal employees such that providing donations, contributions, gifts, trips, etc. to members of Congress would be forbidden. Term limits would also deny the ability of lobbyists to influence members of Congress.
We could accomplish this by conducting a national referendum on these two issues in the next Federal election. I have no doubt that the American people would vote overwhelmingly to endorse both these propositions.
THE AFGHANISTAN DEBACLE –WILL WE EVER LEARN? (Posted December 5, 2009)
The so-called “war on terror” took another unfortunate turn this week with President Obama’s decision to increase our troop presence in Afghanistan.
For some unknown reason, politicians can’t seem to face up to a lost cause, despite such painful reminders as Vietnam, Iraq, etc. Moreover, since 2001, our efforts to deal with the “enemy” have taken on an almost comical aspect.
In the beginning, we were attacked by some folks from Afghanistan; we went to Afghanistan, the bad guy went to Pakistan. What did we do? RIGHT -- we went to Iraq! Now we are going back in ever-increasing numbers to Afghanistan. But the bad guy is still in Pakistan!! Say what???
So who the hell are we fighting in Afghanistan? A bunch of locals called the Taliban, who do not represent a threat to us and who, by the way, seem more and more to be favored by the Afghan people, largely because ordinary people there don’t trust the government in Kabul—and we keep on killing innocent civilians.
But the big issue from my perspective is the way we are choosing to deal with the terrorist threat – for any number of reasons. First of all I think the big, modern conventional army is utterly incapable of dealing with guerrilla warfare—and Vietnam certainly proved this. So fighting the way we are in Afghanistan only does one thing—it “takes our eye off the ball” and, instead of making us more secure, it makes us much less so.
Why? Because the little, tiny insurgencies like the ones we are dealing with in Afghanistan are not the issue—the bad guys plotting in places like Pakistan (Waziristan) are the ones we really need to be concerned about. Furthermore, if we succeed in making Afghanistan inhospitable to them Al Qaida can always go elsewhere---places like Somalia and/or Yemen would be quite accommodating. And they could also decide to stay in Pakistan inasmuch as they are not being bothered there too much and—this is the BIGGIE – they are much nearer to the source of what they really want—NUKES!
So how do we deal with them? I think enhancing our intelligence capabilities is key; we need to know where the bad guys are and what they are doing. Improved human intelligence-gathering is critical to our ability to do this; when we find out where they are we need a quick, surgical strike force to go after them, killing them and/or bringing them to trial. Beyond that we need to be able to prevent their ability to move around easily and to interrupt their supply lines—meaning their logistical (weapons) gathering activities and their funding sources. In this way, we don’t care where they live, as long as we know what they are up to.
I think that the President understands this, and the decision this week has been made to buy time. At least I hope this is the case. Otherwise he looks like just another bankrupt POL who typically cannot “think outside the box” in order to solve this nation’s very complex problems.
And I had hoped for more.
THE CASE FOR PREVENTION (Posted September 1, 2009)
The issue of Preventive Health Care has been given little attention in the current debate about reforming the American medical/insurance system. Moreover, as many recent columns on this subject show, the discussion we have heard to-date tends to mislead and discount the importance of prevention. Examples:
An article appeared on September 1, 2009 in the Washington Post by Lori Montgomery, entitled “Study Raises Questions About Cost Savings From Preventive Care” that questioned the cost effectiveness of preventive care. In an August 14, 2009 article, Charles Krauthammer also argued that preventive efforts do not save money. As with the Montgomery article, he fails to consider the full savings potential amid the range of preventive activities that are possible. Further, on August 24, 2009, columnist Thomas Sowell cited obesity as a health-care problem “that doctors cannot do much about”, reflecting once again an egregious lack of understanding of the importance of prevention and the role that a comprehensive national health care policy must play in dealing with that condition.
Lori Montgomery’s article speaks to the key point – at the very end: that the biggest savings potential can be realized through early intervention initiatives, i.e., by administering the preventive care in the youngest group, those aged 24-30. The fundamental lesson here is: the earlier we offer preventive care the greater the savings. Regrettably, our current medical system has yet to recognize this.
The reality is that in America we have a remedial medical system. The system is procedure oriented, i.e., waiting for the onset of sickness then reacting by conducting tests and administering medication. Mr. Krauthammer bases his entire argument on the testing that is done in the current system. The sources in Ms. Montgomery’s article reflect the same bias.
Comprehensive prevention strategies do much more. Some examples:
-nutrition/weight management/fitness guidance
-smoker cessation classes
-drug and alcohol abuse counseling
-parenting assistance programs
None of these require testing, thus refuting the notion that testing is the only option for prevention. In addition, many preventive strategies are accomplished in group settings, which establishes a significant multiplier effect for the derived benefits.
Kaiser Permanente, my HMO, has implemented a comprehensive program of prevention as part of its health-care delivery system. Under their plan members pay a monthly premium which is key to Kaiser’s ability to promote wellness while maintaining profitability. The organization is highly motivated to keep people healthy, thus reducing the number of visits to doctors and hospitals. A visit to any of the Kaiser locations will reflect their commitment to prevention. The main entrances are adorned with fliers and announcements about many of the prevention-oriented activities described above that the organization provides for its members, all of which provide dramatic opportunities to save precious health care dollars.
As regards the obesity issue, nutrition classes and counseling enable families to avoid obesity and related diseases such as diabetes; parenting assistance classes offer pre-natal care and teach new/young parents about nutrition and medical care for infants. Smoker cessation/drug abuse counseling programs help folks “kick the habit” and focus on leading more healthy life styles.
Crime is considered a public health crisis, and preventive care can have an appreciable impact on crime. My own experience of losing a daughter to homicide affirms this. Renée Rondeau was murdered by two people who were allowed to “fall through the cracks”. They became ill early in life and this hindered their ability to learn. They subsequently dropped out of school and turned to lives of crime and violence. This began with a lack of health care early in life and represents a pattern that is all too familiar here in America.
Further, crime has a direct effect of the cost of health care. Consider the effect of 30+ million crimes a year on emergency room use – or on the medical expenses incurred by the victims of those crimes –every year!
Comprehensive preventive services must be a part of any change that we make to our system of health care. If we do this we can assuredly expect both lower costs and better overall outcomes.
Health care should be available to every American. A single-payer, national health system is the best way to achieve this. The current approach cannot accomplish the twin goals of increasing quality while reducing the financial burden to our nation. The reason: the fee-based system is antithetical to our ability to control cost and the success of the insurance based approach, perversely, is dependent on the extent to which care can be denied.
In expressing opposition to change, the extent that people are making their judgments based on their own circumstances and not on what is best for the nation should be a concern for all of us. If health reform fails, we are likely to see a continuation of the great American saga: people dying for lack of health care and families forced into bankruptcy because of medical costs beyond their ability to pay.
Continuing this travesty offends my sense of what it means to be an American. It is time to do what all other industrialized nations have done: make health care a right for every American.
We should accept nothing less.
THE DEMISE OF THE GOP REDUX (Posted July 5, 2009)
I just can't help myself--I have to keep on harping about this.
Sarah Palin’s “big” announcement this week reminded me of the moment of clarity I experienced last fall as I listened to her acceptance speech at the Republican national convention.
About 30 seconds into the speech I realized that her effort was essentially “content-free” and began to consider how else I might spend my time. I became somewhat engrossed in the camera panning the audience as Sarah Barracuda was feeding her red meat to the rabid partisans in the audience and suddenly realized exactly what the Republican Party had become – a collection of people who are mostly old, white, male and southern.
Thus we have experienced the consequence of the “southern strategy”, initiated by Richard Nixon and pushed to its illogical conclusion by Ronald Reagan. The party was looking for a home for its “limited” government philosophy and what better place to plant the seed than in the south, an area that has been under the Federal thumb since the civil war and where the passions about “too much government” run high.
So what do we have now? A party whose appeal is restricted mostly to the south and a few pockets elsewhere in the country. Put that together with its undeniable inclination to promote a states-rights philosophy while continuing to talk about secession and what do you have – the CONFEDERACY!
These boys need all the help they can get!
HOW FAR CAN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FALL??? (Posted July 4, 2009)
First Ensign, then Sanford, now Palin. The three top GOP candidates for 2012—GONE!
How to explain the sudden demise of the party’s supposed “brightest and best”?
Some suggest it’s a matter of hubris, others say it’s for the lack of a consistent message. I say “consistency” may have a bearing but in a somewhat different context. Let’s look at the record:
The party of “NO” has made a big issue of GOD-inspired family values, yet their party front-runners more often than not have had multiple marriages -- and, of course, of late they seem to be far more likely to commit adultery.
Republicans also claim to be the “PRO-LIFE” party, yet their record here is as abysmal as their claims of marital fidelity. Consider that, more often than not, the pro-lifers 1) support the death penalty and applaud the murder of abortionists, 2) supported Bush’s utterly immoral war-of-choice in Iraq wherein we caused the wanton slaughter of perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and 3) support the NRA’s position on guns, despite the fact that the USA leads the industrialized world in rates of homicide, almost three quarters of which are caused by guns in the wrong hands.
So consistency is certainly an issue. But hypocrisy is a much better, more relevant description of today’s Republican Party. This may well explain its predicament.
HURTING MARRIAGE (Posted June 26, 2009)
The institution of marriage was blasphemed again this past week when two political stalwarts, Senator John Ensign(R-NV) and Governor Mark Sanford(R-SC), revealed that they had been unfaithful to their wives.
Both men, born-again Christians, revealed their consummate hypocrisy in the sort of rambling, disjointed press conferences where they offered little in the way of comfort to their families.
So what are we to make of this continuing denigration of one of our most cherished and important institutions? Equally important, what messages are we conveying to our children -- and what can we do to remedy the situation?
The first step is to insist that both men resign immediately and if they fail to do so they should be impeached. In that way we can convey a very emphatic message to everyone: that we do not want this brand of degeneracy to be the standard for our children--- not from politicians or from anyone else.
There is nothing more critical to crime prevention than stable, happy marriages. Every delinquency situation can be traced to problems at home. IT ALL STARTS IN THE HOME!
GAY MARRIAGE--MYTHS AND REALITIES (Posted 6/25/09)
The far right-wing evangelical community is engaged in a massive, well-financed effort to prevent gay people from marrying. There are two things that are especially troubling about this. First, we are engaged once again in an effort to DENY rights to a minority of citizens (didn't we try this once before?). Second, we are doing so under the guise of "protecting the institution of marriage". What a joke.
In the first place, the reality is that the heterosexual community is doing far more to hurt the institution, as suggested by the recent episodes involving Governor Mark Sanford(R-SC and Senator John Ensign(R-NV), both of whom are "born-again" Christians. Thus the next time we hear one of those hyper-religious blowhards fulminate about the evils of gay marriage, let’s reflect on the Ensign/Sanford experiences. In light of these, we should establish whether there might be credible research showing that gay marriages are more stable than the heterosexual version -- and are thereby helping to STRENGTHEN THE INSTITUTION.
It seems reasonable that a progressive society would want to encourage stable families wherein any two people, willing to commit to a relationship that is based on love and respect, are allowed to pursue their dreams and be happy and fulfilled in doing so. This would logically be accomplished BY CONFERRING THE BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE to them unconditionally.
Furthermore, the 14th amendment requires “equal treatment under the law”. Thus the religious extremists notwithstanding, I don’t think there is any legal way we can prevent it. We need to find a way to bring the measure before the US Supreme Court, because I don’t think that even the morons the Bushes put there will be able to deny this one.
SOLVING AMERICA’S HEALTH-CARE PROBLEMS (Posted June 24, 2008)
A great many people are offering ideas about health care these days. Most of it involves just tinkering around the edges – as usual. No one wants to look at the real issue here – indeed, everyone is ignoring the proverbial “elephant in the room”.
In reality, the insurance-based system of health delivery in the USA is a non-starter. It has never worked and can't be made to work--primarily because 1) the fee-for-service philosophy that guides the system is antithetical to our ability to control costs and 2) the success (read: PROFITABILITY) of the system depends, perversely, on the extent to which coverage can be DENIED.
The only answer is a national health or single-payer system--a hard pill to swallow but we'll get there. We'll be healthier and, interestingly, safer because a healthier childhood means less likelihood of becoming a school dropout which in turn leads to delinquency.
CONTRADICTIONS IN AMERICA (Posted May 16, 2009)
Looking at the headlines these past few weeks makes one wonder about our values. Two examples:
First, the recent flap about House Speaker Pelosi’s differing versions of what she was told by the CIA obscure the fact of the torture policies implemented by the Bush administration. The reality is that we broke both US and international law in doing so and smeared our nation’s reputation in the eyes of many around the world.
Yet the current hubbub about Pelosi’s memory lapses seems to take precedence, and we have seen little focus on the larger, more important issue. Could this be by design? I wonder.
Then we have the flap at Notre Dame over President Obama’s address at the school’s upcoming graduation. As usual, the matter of abortion is behind the ruckus.
I just wish that we could get the “pro-life” forces to focus on some of the real “life” issues we face today. This country initiated an unnecessary war which has caused the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and another 4 million of them to be displaced from their homes. Not a word from the “pro-life” community. Further, this country has perhaps the worst record of infant mortality in the industrialized world; yet, again, not a peep from the “pro-life” folks.
All the ruckus in South Bend this week about abortion obscures totally these other more important, real-life matters.
This and the Pelosi issue it is all being done in the name of political convenience and is a record about which we should be ashamed.
THE END OF THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM (Posted April 30, 2009)
As a registered Republican, I have become quite concerned about the state of my party’s wellbeing and the impact of its demise on our political system.
We need two dynamic, highly energized parties to give meaning to the American system of government. Alas, the Republican party seems to have fallen on hard times, controlled as it is by a cadre of vitriolic (Ann Coulter wing), religious extremists (Falwell wing).
At this critical time, the nation needs our elected representatives to work together to overcome the problems the nation is facing. Instead we have the current Republican leadership, bereft of ideas, saying NO to everything while offering nothing in the way of solutions.
Further, we hear the same, tired rhetoric – government is not the answer, let the market work, etc. We hear most inane, contradictory musings imaginable in support of this nonsense, such as when the Texas governor talked of secession one day and then asked (the next day!) the Federal government for more doses of Tamiflu to combat the flu epidemic in his state.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to look at the results of the last election and conclude that the American public just isn’t buying into the current Republican philosophy. To be sure, the party is still strong in certain areas—Sarah Palin and her ilk are still revered in the South and a few isolated pockets around the country. But if the party ever gets up the nerve to look at itself in the mirror, it will see what many of us disaffected, long-time party stalwarts can see: a party that is mostly OLD, MALE, WHITE AND SOUTHERN.
Put that together with its undeniable inclination to promote a states-rights philosophy while continuing to talk about secession and what do you have – the CONFEDERACY!
Not exactly a ticket to success.
DITTO HEADS IN THE ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION (Posted March 21, 2009)
I understand that my newspaper, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC), is searching for a new “conservative” columnist to replace Jim Wooten. I’m not sure why and I do not believe that it would be in the interest of either the AJC or its readers to do so.
Two recent columns by the paper's conservative writers, Jim Wooten and Charles Krauthammer present a classic display of the kind of mindless, repetitive demagoguery inherent in neo-conservative philosophy. Each writer tries to make a point about the Obama administration’s decision to terminate a Bush-era project allowing a small group of trucks into the USA. Messrs. Wooten and Krauthammer take great umbrage at the decision, citing the inevitable trade wars that will ensue and inferring, incorrectly, that the Mexican government retaliated by increasing tariffs on selected goods from the U.S.
First of all, the ban has to be viewed in the context of what is happening on the US-Mexican border; violence is raging, arms flow into Mexico/drugs and illegals come this way, the Mexican government is on the verge of collapse and our border is under siege from a lawless, dangerous frontier. Implementing the ban at this time only makes sense until we can get our border under control.
Second, both the timing and the rationale seem not at all original to the writers. In fact, one wonders if they are simply spouting a set of prepared talking points provided by the Republican leadership (RUSH?). Not much in evidence of a spirit of creative penmanship by either man.
Good luck finding a Wooten replacement.
THE IRRELEVANCE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (Posted March 9, 2009)
Pope Benedict has recently punctuated the Catholic Church’s utter irrelevance to our time.
He recently made a trip to Africa and, as one might expect, he spoke insistently about the importance of abstinence. He even insists that Catholics should not use contraceptives, which most in the medical profession believe helps to prevent disease. He seems to not understand that African society is a bit different than the German society from which he comes.
One has to evaluate his posturing on this subject in the context of the AIDS epidemic. Let’s consider an example: traditional African societies allow – and indeed encourage – polygamy. Imagine the likelihood of a man taking a wife – his fourth, just to use an example – and she, unbeknownst to him, is infected with the AIDS virus (HIV). If he wants to remain true to his Catholic faith, the man will not want to disobey the church’s teaching and will have unprotected sex with his other wives. It will not take long before the entire family is infected. One can easily see how and why the disease is rampant in Africa.
What amazes me is that we have a disease, AIDS, that threatens the entire human race, yet the Church continues to espouse the “old ways” of thinking. You cannot abort a child you don’t want and cannot support, yet you cannot take any precautions against both an unwanted pregnancy and/or a disease that threatens the very existence of humankind.
Add to all this the fact that most Catholics are quite likely making their own rules about abortion and contraception.
Who needs a (Catholic) church?
CAPITALISM AT ITS WORST (Posted February 28, 2009)
The AIG situation is enough to make event the most ardent free marketer sickened.
Here we have an organization that has utterly failed—its employees, stockholders, the nation and the world. It has begged for help from the government and accepted 180 billion or so of our tax dollars.
Despite all of this, it has displayed a consummately TIN EAR when it comes to what it can and should be doing in light of its predicament.
Examples: It has absolutely refused to provide details on how it has used the money LOANED to it; it spent tons of (our) money sending employees on boondoggles to Europe and around the country; and now it insists that it has to pay huge bonuses to the very morons who created the derivatives mess it now finds itself in and which, by the way, has infected the whole world.
So how do we get out of this mess? Where to begin?
First of all, it seems to me that bonuses should be paid as an incentive to succeed, not to reward failure. Second, you also might want to pay bonuses to GOOD people to cause them to stay with the company; but to insist that, in order to save the company, AIG needs to keep the same boneheads around who screwed up in the first place does not give me any confidence that the company will survive.
I think the better answer is to start over -- get rid of the idiots whose greed was the only motivation and start over. AIG has to go – I know there will be pain, but we’ll be far ahead by allowing ourselves the luxury of a fresh start.
Ditto with GM, Ford and Chrysler. We are better of without them as well.
SHOULD WE APOLOGIZE TO THE MUSLIM WORLD? (Posted January 31, 2009)
Charles Krauthammer, in a January 30 Editorial, waxes indignant over what he feels were President Obama's "needlessly defensive and apologetic" remarks to the Muslim world in his inaugural address. So it is appropriate to examine the record:
We chose to invade a sovereign Muslim nation without any prior provocation whatsoever, causing the wanton slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and, as a direct consequence of the invasion and subsequent upheaval, upwards of 4 million additional Iraqis have been forced from their homes. Add to that, if one considers the matter of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not once have we agreed with or even acknowledged the rights and interests of the Palestinian people; still further, we have occupied -- militarily -- sacred Muslim lands (Saudi Arabia), thus displaying an enormous lack of sensitivity toward people of the Muslim faith.
So, Mr. Krauthammer, need we apologize, given the above record? Of course not -- as everybody knows, we've become much too arrogant for that.
RECLAIMING AMERICA'S GOOD NAME (Posted January 21, 2009)
Should we prosecute George W. Bush for some of his administration's missteps? Let's examine the record:
He has invaded a sovereign nation without any basis for doing so, caused the deaths of several hundred thousand innocent Iraqi citizens, forced nearly 4 million Iraqis from their homes and to become refugees and engaged in torture in a blatant violation of the Geneva conventions. Clearly, he has abrogated the rule of law and, in order to safeguard and preserve this nation's system of laws, we should hold him fully accountable for his actions. That's our system, the way it is supposed to work. We cannot be selective either about which laws to enforce or which individuals to prosecute. To do so would risk America's becoming not a nation of laws, but a nation of outlaws, ala Somalia.
We can, as some are suggesting, ignore the crimes that may have been committed. Doing so, however, risks the possibility that someone else may take the initiative -- through the International Criminal Court -- and go after Mr. Bush. This would have the much less desired effect of further eroding our prestige in the world as a beacon of hope and adherence to the rule of law.
So we have a choice, ignore the obvious or live up to our ideals.
EVALUATING THE PRESIDENCY OF GEORGE W. BUSH (Posted January 11, 2009)
It’s been a long eight years and George W. Bush is, at last, GONE. Nonetheless it is entirely appropriate to evaluate as objectively as possible the impact that the Bush administration has had on life here in America.
A lot of people (perhaps MOST people) consider George W. Bush to be a (colossal) failure as president. I suggest it might well be exactly the opposite. Here's why.
It has everything to do with RADICAL right-wing ideology. According to the current crop of neo-cons, government is no good and should be gotten out of our lives and off our backs. The way to do that is simple: STARVE THE BEAST – i.e., render the government broke & thus unable to do anything and this allows the "vested interests" to roam and play at will. You have to say that, in that respect, George Bush has done "a heckuva job"; not only has he rung up about 5 TRILLION dollars of debt to this point, he's forcing the Obama administration to add trillions more just to dig us out of the hole he (Bush) himself has dug for us.
To make matters worse, his gross incompetence has further eroded the public's trust in government. Starting with Ronald Reagan's enunciation ("government is not the solution to problems, government is the problem") of the inherent "badness" of government, we have seen a 28-year campaign to erode both the effectiveness of government and the demeaning of what should be government's very critical role in our lives. George Bush has implemented that philosophy to a "T". From Katrina to Iraq to his looking the other way as we foisted a giant pyramid scheme on the world's financial markets, he has succeeded beyond Dutch Reagan's wildest dreams at proving that government can do no good.
The President -- or for that matter any politician-- is but a reflection of the people who put him/her in office. You get what you vote for--and by voting this man in twice, we deserve everything we are now getting. And just think -- the RADICAL right wing wanted to follow up the Bush legacy with that of another candidate of highly questionable competence --Sarah Palin, whose qualifications included a stint as a part-time mayor of a town of a few thousand people in Alaska. It just reflects on the RADICAL right wing's absolute contempt for the American public.
The consequence of all this is that the influence of the RADICAL right wing in American politics has begun to wane and, sadly, the Republican party may well become little more than a regional party, its influence being mostly in small southern towns and a few pockets in other parts of the country.
The cause of all this is two-fold: extremism and vitriol. The party has, since the days of Nixon’s “southern strategy”, been taken over by “religionists” who have little tolerance for anyone who thinks – or even LOOKS – differently than they do. Atheists, minorities, people who hold religious beliefs other than Christian simply have no place in the Republican Party of today.
Then you have the self-styled spokespeople for conservatism as exemplified by the likes of Ann Coulter, the vicious, mean-spirited charlatan masquerading as a journalist/author. Unfortunately she has established a following in the ranks of the RADICAL right-wing, diminishing though it is. Is it any wonder that the last two elections have shown the door to more Republicans than at any time in recent memory? We should not be surprised that good, decent Republicans the likes of George Voinovich (OH), Sam Brownback (AR), Kay Bailey Hutchinson (TX) and Mel Martinez (FL) are abandoning the party in its moment of need.
The solution is to open the party up to people from differing backgrounds and circumstances. The reality is that, for far too long, Republicans have insisted on its members adhering to a very rigid ideology, based in large part on the influence of religious extremists. It has been quite intolerant of new ideas that might conflict with that ideology and has actually discouraged an exchange of new, fresh ideas from all sectors of American society -- to the everlasting detriment of both the party AND our cherished two-party system. This has to change – and there isn’t much time left to do so.
The chickens, as they say, may "have come home to roost".
SHAME ON GEORGIA (Posted November 18, 2008)
We have a real tragedy that is about to occur here in Georgia. A man named Troy Davis, convicted of a murder about 20 years ago, is about to be executed for that crime. The only problem is that the evidence, based solely on the testimony of nine witnesses, has just about fallen apart. Seven of the nine witnesses have recanted their testimony and one of the two remaining witnesses is now considered a suspect.
The only other problem is that the good ol' state of Georgia and its bumbling bureaucracy can't seem to find a basis for granting a hearing to reconsider the case, so it appears that we are just going to have to kill the guy.
I was thrilled to recently read (former FBI Director) William Session’s scathing OP/ED piece in the Atlanta Journal/Constitution on the situation. It gives me hope that, if enough national/international attention can be brought to bear on this travesty, reason will prevail. (Also weighing in on this gross miscarriage of justice: Pope Benedict, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, etc.)
Georgia’s conduct of this entire affair is disgraceful. It seems to me that, if any doubt whatsoever exists about Troy Davis’ guilt, every effort would be made to learn the truth, given that the man’s life is at stake. Apparently this is not the case in Georgia.
What is very troubling to me is that the basis for denying Mr. Davis a hearing is essentially procedural. One would think that, in this supposedly “pro-life” state, everything possible would be done to avoid the possibility of taking an innocent life. Instead, the bureaucrats have apparently decided that policy trumps the right to life.
Surely we can do better. If you want to help, send a letter to the Governor, Sonny Perdue (only in Georgia would a governor be named "Sonny").
THE BUSH LEGACY (Posted November 17,2008)
Ronald Reagan once said that “Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem”. George W. Bush has set out to make Mr. Reagan’s notion come true – big time.
After eight years of Mr. Bush’s stewardship, we find ourselves mired in two wars; beset by a housing/financial crisis; dealing with a health care system that is totally dysfunctional; having caused a great city -- New Orleans -- to rot in the aftermath of a hurricane and having allowed this nation’s infrastructure to deteriorate to the point where bridges are beginning to collapse for lack of routine maintenance.
Oh, and did I mention that we’ve run up an enormous amount of debt – doubled thus far under Mr. Bush and threatening to grow even more with annual deficits projected to hit a trillion dollars!
So George Bush not only bequeaths the nation an enormous number of seemingly intractable problems, but, given that the Federal government is broke, we have almost no means by which to solve them.
Now there’s a legacy to be proud of.
THE BAILOUT PROBLEM (Posted October 23, 2008)
John McCain calls it SOCIALISM when we redistribute wealth from the well-to-do to average Americans as Barack Obama wants to do with his tax plan; but when we reverse the process and funnel wealth from ordinary Americans to the big shots—as he wants to do with his mortgage buyout plan– it’s a-OK.
Beside the obvious contradiction, I have a real problem with the details of the bailout as currently envisioned First, there doesn’t seem be any controls of the kind that are necessary to ensure that our tax dollars are being used in the most effective way. For example, banks are apparently being allowed to continue to pay dividends to shareholders. WHY!!!!??? If there is a severe shortage of funds to permit banks to offer mortgages, why are they allowed to use what capital WE AS TAXPAYERS LOAN THEM to pay dividends????? Would it not be better to use this precious resource for loans to get the real estate part of the economy going again?
We also need to demand more control over the uses of our tax dollars; for instance, AIG should not be allowed to send a bunch of its executives on a 400 thousand dollar junket to the UK— and we should demand that they pay that money back. The same with golden parachutes for the dimwits who got us into this mess—we ought to explicitly define (and constrain) all executive compensation while these companies are receiving taxpayer support.
There needs to be some PAIN felt in the boardrooms of the companies who have created the problems we are now facing; otherwise there is no incentive to learn from the experience. Capitalism implies a winner and a loser; what makes the system work is when the losers benefit from their losing experience by understanding what they did wrong and doing things better the next time around. PAIN is what forces this to happen. We would have been far better off if we had just let these bastards sink—there would have been a lot of screaming but the system would have responded—and recovered. And we would all have been better off for the experience.
The big shots in the corporate world don’t seem to understand this so it’s time to give them a lesson in Capitalism 101. If only we had the will to teach them!
DECIDING WHO GETS TO VOTE (Posted October 22, 2008)
It seems to me that one measure of our success as a democracy ought to be a function of how many of us actually participate in that process, specifically by taking the time and opportunity to vote.
In this year’s election we are beginning to see the kinds of activities that have become all to frequent in recent elections – blatant efforts to prevent or otherwise impede people from either voting or even registering.
Following are just some of the more obvious efforts to trample on the democratic process in this country—I’ll let you, the reader, guess which party has been mostly involved in this gross abuse of the our nation’s democratic system:
In Colorado, the state attorney general moved to disqualify a large number of registration applications for the simple but utterly inane reason that they had omitted checking a box on the application, despite the fact that the answer the box was intended to elicit was made obvious by the individual’s answer to the previous question. In Ohio, the same party demanded a list of all newly-registered voters from the state, intending to compare then challenge any voter who did not show up correctly on a suspect data base—the state denied the request and was challenged in court. The case went all the way to the US Supreme Court and was finally decided in the state’s favor. In Florida, the League of Woman Voters suspended its registration efforts when the state legislature passed a law that severely complicated the League’s efforts to perform that function. Finally, the FBI undertook an investigation of the community organizing group ACORN’s efforts to register voters; this was made known to the press by an FBI employee who asked to remain anonymous despite the fact that it was against the law to comment on an on-going investigation. As with the other cases, the obvious purpose of the disclosure was to reflect poorly on ACORN and intimidate potential new voters from turning to the organization for assistance with registration.
On each of the above cases, it was the REPUBLICAN party challenging or otherwise working to deny efforts to register new voters. In all my lifetime, I have only heard of Republican efforts to PREVENT voters from registering—almost NEVER to aid and abet the process that I think we might all agree is so central to the functioning of democracy. It’s a sad record, probably indicating that the party feels it has the most to lose when LOTS of people participate in our democracy.
WHAT WOULD REAGAN DO? (Posted September 21, 2008)
Let’s see. Eight years of Republican rule in the 1980s, then a calamitous failure of our financial system followed by a massive government bailout. Fast forward to the 2000s—once again after eight years of Republican rule a calamitous failure of our financial system followed by an even more massive government bailout. Sound familiar? I hate to say it, but there seems to be a bit of a pattern here.
I hear much these days – and in these parts – about Reagan being the “greatest president in our history” – so I suppose it’s worth contemplating about what exactly the “greatest” might do in this situation.
Ronald Reagan once said, “Government is not the solution to our problems, government IS the problem”.
Would he have a solution to the current economic malaise? Nope. It should be obvious to all that the Gipper wouldn’t have a clue!
WHO SHOULD BE PRESIDENT (Posted September 17, 2008)
I have assessed the qualifications of the two candidates for president in three areas: foreign policy, the economy and domestic priorities.
Foreign Policy: After 8 years of a shoot-first-ask-questions-later foreign policy under Bush II, the last thing we need is to appoint a military guy as President. The rest of the world is waiting for us to work ourselves back into the community of nations. We cannot solve problems like terrorism and global warming alone; we need our allies, now more than ever. Bush and company have “stiffed” the rest of world for eight years – NO to the International Criminal Court, NO to the ABM, NPT and BIO-WEAPONS treaties, NO to the Geneva conventions (did you know that the German Intelligence service has refused to cooperate with the CIA because they don’t want to be associated with the policy of torture?)
When Barack Obama went to Germany recently, I saw two hundred thousand Germans EAGER to reconnect with an America that they have long loved and respected but which they no longer understand. Barack Obama can have that effect on people in nations around the world—nations we need to deal with in an increasingly globalized world.
John McCain thinks we could leave troops in Iraq for a “hundred years, as long as they are out of harm’s way”. This belies the fact that he doesn’t understand that OUR VERY PRESENCE IS WHAT IS ALIENATING MUSLIM POPULATIONS TOWARD US ALL AROUND THE WORLD. Hard to imagine why we’d put this guy in to the presidency at this time.
Economy: Bush I has promoted the notion that we can undertake all these expensive initiatives without having to pay for them. He is the FIRST president in history to go to war without raising taxes to pay for it. He has waged a multi-trillion dollar war by borrowing money from places like China; passed a trillion-dollar (having LIED about the original cost, putting it at $400 billion initially) prescription drug benefit for Medicare without knowing how he would pay for it –other than borrowing money from places like China (sound familiar???).
Barack Obama is not entirely convincing about the economy, but does seem to be moving in the right direction. He will raise taxes on upper income level earners and will end the war—and the expense—of Mr. Bush’s folly in Iraq; that should help increase revenue and reduce the deficit. McCain promises more Bushonomics—continue the Bush tax cuts and has not suggested how to pay for our continued presence in Iraq. I don’t see how he would ever be able to balance the budget as he has suggested.
No choice here—Obama all the way
Domestic priorities—see my previous blog on “OUT OF TOUCH”, where I extol Obama’s work as a community organizer and Sen. McCain’s utter lack of understanding of people’s problems at the “grass-roots” levels of our society
OUT-OF-TOUCH (Posted September 14, 2008)
There has been much discussion concerning the qualifications of each of the presidential candidates for the job of president, particularly Barack Obama.
While I would be the first to admit that his resume is a bit short on executive experience, I wonder if conventional thinking about qualifications for the nation’s highest office are entirely appropriate. So here’s how I look at the two men:
George H. W. Bush had trouble understanding the concept of a supermarket scanner; his son, “W”, seemed amazed to learn at a recent press briefing that the price of oil had gone up to $4. a gallon. “What’s that you say, the price of gas is nearing $4. a gallon? That’s very interesting – I hadn’t realized that”.
Now we have John McCain, a guy who doesn’t even know how many homes he owns. I wonder if a man like this can relate to (and solve) some of this country’s biggest problems—poverty, crime and HOMELESSNESS.
Barack Obama on the other hand has worked as a community organizer in some of Chicago's most distressed areas. Aside from the McCain campaign’s derisive characterizations of this job, I believe this work may qualify Sen. Obama UNIQUELY for the job of President, especially if we are ever to solve any of this country’s massive social problems.
A community organizer works in impoverished communities to empower people to take control of their lives and to solve their problems THEMSELVES. As examples, organizers will encourage residents to 1) work with the police to reduce crime in their community, 2) lobby legislators to update the tax code to encourage businesses to locate in their areas, 3) encourage parents to become more involved in their children’s education and 4) work with health organizations to find ways to make health services available to poor communities.
These experiences have enabled Sen. Obama to gain a full understanding of the problems people face on a day-to-day basis in impoverished communities and he has undoubtedly learned what is needed to solve these problems – far more than McCain, Bush, Palin, etc..
Score one for the senator from Illinois!
WILL WE EVER LEARN? (Posted September 13, 2008)
So John McCain has decided to give the women of America what they have always wanted—a vice president, someone who could even become president one day. The only problem is that Sarah Palin may not be quite what American women had in mind.
It reminds me of that other great Republican intellectual, Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan had taken much flack in his first term for not having any blacks in his cabinet. Ol’ Dutch must have said to himself something like “OK, if they want a black, I’m going to give them a black!”
And give us a black he did. Enter one Samuel Pierce, as incompetent an individual as ever existed on planet earth, who was appointed as HUD secretary. What Sammy-boy did was promptly go to sleep while a band of idiots in the department rewrote regulations for the financial services sector of the economy, effectively de-regulating the housing market.
The result? A total collapse of the Savings-and-Loan institutions and a taxpayer-funded bailout of a bunch of criminals who should have been prosecuted instead.
Fast forward to the 21st century. The financial guru who advises the McCain campaign (of “we are a nation of whiners” fame) gets to rewrite the regulations – i.e., de-regulate-- for the financial services sector (sound familiar?) and, guess what? The whole shooting match begins to collapse and we taxpayers are again being asked to bailout out the bad guys (sound familiar???).
What is mind-boggling to me is that the Republicans are all for “getting the government out of our lives” – except when they need help and it suits their financial interests.
We ought to let them crumble. Capitalism is a contest and there are winners and losers. Losers have to get smart, understand why they failed and improve to survive. That’s why capitalism works. But if we keep bailing out the losers, there is no incentive to improve.
Will we ever learn?
LABELS VERSUS SUBSTANCE (Posted September 12, 2008)
We visited some dear friends in Augusta, Georgia last week and, as usual, had some fairly intense discussions on the politics of the day.
Their views are what might be conventionally called “conservative”, and as they suggest, they are “proud” of their conservatism. We are more liberal in our views, although we do not get too terribly caught up in the application of these labels.
The problem is that the definition of these labels has undergone considerable change over the years. And here in the south particularly, the word “liberal” has been twisted to imply some very negative connotations. As an example, in a discussion one evening, Barack Obama was characterized as a LIBERAL; it was then suggested that Barack Obama “hates America”. Might it then be assumed that ALL LIBERALS HATE AMERICA???
All this tends to point out the absurdity of using labels to promote public discourse; it stifles a substantive discussion of issues by attempting to resolve complex matters into simplistic, one-word descriptions. Likewise, human beings, being the complex mechanisms they are, simply defy that kind of labeling.
We have some terrible problems to solve in this country over the next few years. Our political discourse would be enhanced dramatically and would allow us to focus on substantive solutions to these issues if we can find a way to dispense with the tendency to resort to the kind of name-calling that distorts purpose and prevents the kind of analysis that is necessary to deal with these issues.
SARAH WHERE ART THOU? (Posted September 11, 2008)
We have listened to the right-wing bloviators (initials are RL) attempting to make the case that Sarah Palin’s nomination for vice-president should be very appealing to the feminist movement because it “advances a woman to the second-highest office in the land” and thus is in keeping with the movement’s goals of expanding opportunities for women.
Right. The only problem with this logic is that it doesn’t tell the whole story. Yes, Feminism advocates for opportunities for women to move into the workplace, politics, etc. What the wackos on the right don’t say is that, in order to allow women to take advantage of these opportunities, women need to have REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM – in other words, control over their own bodies. And so the feminist movement emphasizes the critical importance of women 1)having access to information/education about contraception and 2) being allowed to make their own decisions about whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.
Sarah Palin with her extreme views on both abortion and sex education (abstinence-only!) certainly seems to be against everything the feminist movement stands for.
The tendency of the right-wing to distort issues knows no bounds.
JOHN MCCAIN’S CHOICE FOR VICE-PRESIDENT - PART 2 (Posted September 5, 2008)
The Republican party is at it again.
For the last 28 years, they have offered us a succession of lightweights as candidates for the highest office in the land. From Reagan to Bushes I & II, we have been treated to individuals who were little more than front-men, mere stand-ins, while groups of evil, sinister little men worked in the back rooms of government formulating public policies that bore little or no relationship to the needs of the American people.
Now we face the prospect of an unelected, backwoods bimbo being a heartbeat away from the presidency itself.
The cynicism of the Republicans toward the American people is mind-boggling.
JOHN MCCAIN’S CHOICE FOR VICE-PRESIDENT (Posted September 4, 2008)
I was surprised by the arrogant, condescending tone of Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech last night in Minneapolis. Of particular concern was her sneering, insulting denigration of what it means to be a community organizer, which is part of Barack Obama’s resume.
I served for 10 years on the board of directors – and as vice-president -- of a non-profit organization here in Atlanta whose mission was: COMMUNITY ORGANIZING. I can think of no job that is more critical to the well-being of America’s poor than that of community organizer. I have met some of the most dedicated human beings in my lifetime while I was associated with the organization. They focus on helping America’s poor by empowering them to take control of their lives – to get an education, a good job, health care, etc. And to address a point made in a not-too-subtle way by Ms. Palin, they must make decisions—life-saving decisions – each and every day about the people they serve. They are more effective at what they do – at the grass-roots level – than any politician or group of politicians anywhere in the USA.
Aside from her very strident tone, she seems an essentially flawed candidate—another right-wing hypocrite pontificating about religion and family values yet she apparently doesn’t have enough of a relationship with her own daughter to keep her from engaging in a pre-marital sexual escapade. I have to wonder what kind of a grade she would get if we were to evaluate the effectiveness of her self-styled obsession with abstinence-only sex education as a public policy matter, given the problems of her own family. I also have the feeling that, if the offer to run as vice –president hadn’t been made, the decision of Ms. Palin’s daughter to keep the baby and marry the father might have been very different.
She also seems a tad short on policy details. With respect to oil and natural gas, she talks as if Alaska has “enough of both”, suggesting that she’s already been suckered into the conservative, big-business oriented shibboleth about growing our way out of our dependence on carbon fuels. And when she talks about “the Washington elite”, who does she mean? John McCain? Does she forget that the Republican party has been in charge for most of the last eight years? Did she intend to demean her own party?
But the most damning indictment of all comes from none other than the REPUBLICAN president of the Alaska state senate, Lyda Green, who made the following comment about Ms. Palin: “She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president? Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?” Hardly a ringing endorsement—and from a source who, after all, is probably in the best position to know.
But I believe that, fundamentally, it is a question of the degree of cynicism she seems to bring to the campaign—and to the Federal government if the republican ticket is victorious. With all of the rancor and bad feelings that already exist in Washington, I cannot see how a person of Sarah Palin’s temperament will help to alleviate that core condition and bring the sides together long enough to solve any of America’s terrible problems.
PROBLEMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION (Posted August 7, 2008)
We hear a lot these days about the fact that American universities are not turning out enough scientists and engineers to enable us to compete with other countries in the development of technological solutions for the world’s great social ills.
Ever wonder why that is? Could it be a question of priorities? Let’s take the case of the University of Georgia.
According to recent polls, notably the current issue of Sports Illustrated, the UGA football team is expected to be the number one team in the nation -- although I wonder if perhaps the polls were taken before the recent revelations that a good many of the players have either been arrested or are facing disciplinary sanctions.
In any case, media coverage is somewhat telling. I have lived in Georgia for 30 years; about the only thing I have ever heard about the university is its athletic prowess, particularly football. Not once in 30 years have I heard any discussion whatsoever about academics at Georgia.
Is this purely coincidental? I think not. People here (and the rest of the country--Georgia is NOT alone in this regard) are clearly far more interested in having a number one football team than a number one academic institution.
This just may give us a pretty good idea why we are not turning out enough scientists and engineers.
TRAGEDY IN KNOXVILLE (Posted July 28, 2008)
After reading about the tragedy in Knoxville, Tennessee, yesterday, we are left once again to ponder the usual questions: How did it happen? How can we prevent more of the same?
Just once, I’d like to see these questions debated with the NRA and its minions. It puppy-dog agent here in Georgia, the Georgia Right To-Carry group, would undoubtedly say that if more people in that church had guns, the problem would have been solved; the NRA would offer another one of its vapid, utterly irrelevant solutions, to wit, “we don’t need any more laws, just enforce the ones currently on the books”.
On the first point, it should be obvious to anyone that even if everyone in that church had a gun, the perpetrator would have shot first and two innocent human beings would STILL be dead. On the second, laws currently on the books have to do with what to do AFTER-THE-FACT, i.e., punish the offender. That would do little to either bring back the two lives lost or to comfort the families of the victims.
We need to find a way to keep guns out of the hands of certain people—criminals, kids, mental defectives. The only way to do this is to enact a comprehensive program of licensing and registration. We have a right as citizens to expect responsible use of firearms; we can’t ever prevent every tragedy like the one in Knoxville, but we can certainly make it less likely.
If only we had the will.
THE OBAMA TRIP (Posted July 27, 2008)
Having just witnessed the extensive coverage of the recent trip to Europe and the Middle East by Senator Barack Obama, we are left to ponder its significance--what did it accomplish?
I suppose he is due some credit for pulling it all off—it was a complex undertaking and both he and his team should get credit for having accomplished the feat without any major mistakes of any kind.
I was particularly struck by his appearance in Berlin, in particular his speech before the large crowd of Germans. It was not so much what he said as it was the outpouring of sentiment by so many people – thousands of them who obviously were hungry to re-connect with America after 8 long years of isolation, neglect and disrespect (Old Europe???, etc.) by Bush and company.
The sight from Berlin was stunning—I kept trying to remember when I had last seen a crowd of people in another country waving American flags and cheering an American politician—as opposed to shouts of “Yankee go home” and/or burning American flags or politicians in effigy. It was a seminal moment, although I doubt very much that it had any impact on the Bush folks.
This after all is an administration that for whatever reason has never been able to understand that we live in an increasingly interdependent world and that we need each other more than ever to deal with such problems as terrorism, global warming, energy prices, etc.
The best thing we can do for this country –and indeed the rest of the world – is to build on the sentiment and energy that was on display in Berlin last week. I don’t know if John McCain is up to the task but Mr. Obama has certainly made a critical first step in that direction.
FILLING THE LEADERSHIP VOID (Posted July 20, 2008)
President Nicolas Sarkozy hosted a meeting in Paris this past week of national leaders that could have momentous ramifications for world peace. Called the "Union for the Mediterranean", the meeting was attended by the leaders from 43 nations with a combined population of over 800 million people. In attendance were representatives of each of the EU countries and a number of the so-called "bad guys", Syria, Iran and other countries whose leadership we in the USA have long been reluctant to engage.
The meeting presented the attendees opportunities to discuss a great many regional as well as global issues, like Iraq, the energy crisis and global warming. One of the outcomes was a meeting between the Palestinian president, Mr. Abbas, and the Israeli prime minister, Mr. Olmert. After the session, Mr. Olmert remarked that the two sides “have never been as close to the possibility of an accord as we are today.” President Assad of Syria, spoke effusively about the opportunity the meeting presented to bridge the gap between nations, saying “This visit is, for me, a historic visit, an opening toward France and Europe.”
What is equally remarkable about the event was that there was no mention whatsoever of such names as Bush, Rice or Cheney. Nations like France, it seems, have moved on, filling the leadership role abdicated by an administration completely out of touch with the rest of the world.
DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN (Posted July 15,2008)
Looks like we're headed toward another tax-payer funded bailout of the Mortgage/home loan industry -- AGAIN! We did this in the late 80's when Bush41 was left with the S&L mess created by the de-regulation-obsessed crazies in the Reagan administration. When will we learn? We seem to go through this every time we have a Republican administration -- "let the free market flow"!, "get the government out of it!" are just some of the clarion calls of the wackos on the far right. It's interesting -- they want the government out of their way until--you guessed it -- they want help FROM THE GOVERNMENT to bail out their deadbeat friends in the industries that are lying, cheating and stealing all in the name of PROFIT.
I might also observe that, even under their concept of "free-market", it's hardly "free". Ever heard of a lobbyist? A tariff? So it's never "free". And it's well past the time that we should admit to ourselves that a certain amount of government-sponsored control over the free market process is not only a good but a necessary thing, given the tendency of human beings, frail as they are, to do anything necessary to gain an advantage over others.
And just this once, I'd like to see us consider refusing the bailout request. There would be hardship for sure -- but what better way to learn the hows and whys of the failure and to understand the lessons of the experience to ensure that history will not repeat itself.
OUR CRIMINAL RECORD (Posted July 12,2008)
How much longer are we going to wait before we decide to deal with the criminality of the Bush administration?
The Senate this week passed a bill that makes many unwise changes to the FISA law, the only thing standing between us and the utter desecration of the 4th amendment to the US Constitution. Notably, the bill provides RETROACTIVE immunity to the telecom companies that allowed Mr. Bush to eavesdrop – illegally – on US citizens.
The immunity deal represents a cave-in by the Senate to the Bush administration in its efforts to cover up its blatantly illegal activities. Without immunity, the telecoms could be taken to court where all the gory details of the Bush administration’s criminality would be on display for the whole world to see.
The question is: are we going to hold him accountable or shall we just wait for the international community to do so???!!?? The noose is beginning to tighten there as well. Just this week a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross came to light detailing the results of an investigation they conducted recently of interrogation procedures being used at Guantanamo. No surprise—the report concludes that, yep, we are TORTURING in violation of BOTH US and international law. In fact, the report states that the prison staff has indicated that the methods in use were SPECIFICALLY approved by the Bush Justice Department.
So we have a choice. Either we hold Bush accountable for his criminal dealings or the international community will. Our reputation around the world would be improved immeasurably if we take the initiative.
How to deal with this situation? Impeachment should be the first step. Why? Because Bush has broken the law and failed to execute his oath of office, i.e., to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States. We impeached Bill Clinton for lying about a sexual escapade, hardly the stuff of “high crimes and misdemeanors”; violating the 4th amendment seems far more suited for impeachment.
Then we have the torture issue and the wanton slaughter of (hundreds of) thousands of Iraqis, all in violation of international law. We are in the same category as the many Serbians who are being prosecuted in the Hague for precisely the same kind of “war crimes” we ourselves are guilty of. This puts Mr. Bush – and US – in the company of such luminaries on the world stage as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc., a collection of degenerates whose imprint on history is based solely on the human toll exacted by each.
We wait at our own peril. Crimes are being committed and to ignore that reality bodes ill for the future of our nation. Ignoring the Bush administration’s evil doings will only encourage future administrations to do more of the same.
For our children’s sake and for the long-term well-being of these United States, we should act NOW!
A TESTIMONIAL TO A LIFE WELL LIVED (Posted July 10, 2008)
My mother passed away on September 1, 2005. I delivered the eulogy at the funeral service we held for her at Notre Dame Church in Adams, Massachusetts that same month. I thought it worth placing here as she was in my mind a genuine hero, a true patriot who did things simply because they were right; she never asked or wanted to be recognized for all that she did, for us as family and for all whom she came in contact with. So, herewith are the words I spoke that day, a simple but heartfelt tribute to a person who meant so much to me and who I miss so very dearly:
"I should like to borrow a theme from Father Jerry’s sermon. For I come not today to mourn but to celebrate the life of Florence Desautels Rondeau – otherwise known as Ma. Not Mom or Mother, just Ma.
I might add a note of perspective at the outset as to why we should celebrate, not mourn: my daughter Renee was taken from us at the age of 29. Hers was a life cut short, hopes and dreams unfulfilled. Renee we should mourn; Ma Rondeau—a different situation altogether. Ninety-six long, wonderful years, filled with accomplishments. It is only right then that we come together today to rejoice not only in who she was but in what she achieved in her lifetime.
As I was thinking about what I might say today, I recalled the book by Tom Brokaw entitled “The Greatest Generation”. He was writing about the generation that Ma Rondeau was part of. In the book Mr. Brokaw implies that there are two groups that makeup that generation: the first group is there solely because of an accident of their birth; the second group, much larger in number, deserves its place because of the contribution they made that made it the greatest generation. Ma Rondeau was part of that second group. Here’s why.
When I think of her life, two words come to mind: she was both a pioneer and a revolutionary. She was a pioneer because, having been born at a time in America when the opportunities for women were very limited, she managed nonetheless to attain for herself and education of some consequence – she held a Massachusetts teaching certificate and ultimately earned a Master’s degree – and she pursued a career in education.
She had to put her career aspirations on hold for time when in 1936 she married a guy that I consider the world’s greatest father – my Dad, Lawrence A. (Boy) Rondeau. They were a great team – Dad Rondeau worked a lot of long, hard hours at the GE to support the family. Ma Rondeau, in today’s lexicon, was a stay-at-home Mom. She was the constant in our lives. Together they infused us with values – values that were based on their shared commitment to marriage, family and community. Values that were also based on the ethic of hard work, responsibility and perseverance. We couldn’t have had a better environment in which to grow up. I will always cherish my childhood here in the Berkshires under their tutelage -- it was a sweet, wonderful period in my life and one that I will never ever forget.
Once we were old enough to be spending most of our days in school, however, Ma Rondeau had some time on her hands and decided to turn her energies and attention to the other passion in her life, teaching young children. Talk about someone who was ahead of her time – just listen: Up until then, education for everyone began at age five. It didn’t make any difference who you were or where you came from, you started school at five years of age. It was as if the feeling was that there was no learning going on in the first four years. Ma Rondeau knew otherwise. She knew that a child could learn at any age. Here’s how I found that out: One day when I was four, she sat me down and said, "next year you will be starting school and we’ve got to get you ready". For the next 12 moths I worked and I sweat and I learned the alphabet, the numbers, a little bit of reading and writing and how to count. I don’t mind admitting that I worked harder in year 4 than I have any year since. But when I got to school that next year, I was able to hit the ground running because I WAS READY TO LEARN.
READY TO LEARN! What a novel concept! What a revolutionary idea! It is an idea that has only recently been embraced by the education community in this country. Ma Rondeau not only embraced it back then, but she decided to put that revolutionary idea into practical application when she opened a nursery school in her home here in Adams. And this was not a baby-sitting service, a holding-pen. She put those kids through a rigorous, educational, developmental experience to ensure that they too would be ready for school. And this town of Adams benefited immeasurably from having two generations of its kids equipped and ready to learn at the time they began their formal education.
And what was equally significant was the fact that her contribution was probably little noticed at the time and has undoubtedly long since been forgotten. But it didn’t make any difference to her. She wasn’t doing it for credit or for the recognition she might receive. She was doing it for only one reason: because it was right! And that was Ma Rondeau!
Now before I close, let me say just a word or two about loss. We must now face a future having lost our family foundation. And I know that most of you are aware that Elaine and I have had experience dealing with the loss of our daughter Renee these last eleven years. So here is a little advice: Elaine and I have come to believe that, although Renee is no longer with us in body, she is nevertheless with us in spirit and we sense her presence everywhere – each time we watch a beautiful sunset on Cape Cod—she’s with us; each time we behold the spectacle of a fall foliage setting in the Berkshires, she’s there; each time we walk a lonely beach in Florida as we have so often in the last eleven years, she’s with us. And so it will be with Ma Rondeau.
So fear not, my friends, for she is not gone, she is very much with us, and always will be. And we are all better off for having been touched by that wonderful person.
Thank you".
LET’S MAKE A DEAL (Posted June 19, 2008)
The Iraqi Foreign Minister met this week with the two presidential candidates, Messrs. Obama and McCain, to convey his views about importance of a continued American presence in that country. At the same time, the Bush administration is pushing hard to finalize a “status of forces” agreement with Iraq that will replace the existing UN manifesto, due to expire this year, under which the US military presence in Iraq is “justified”.
WONDERFUL – on ALL counts!!! I have an idea --how ‘bout let’s make a deal with those boys – make ‘em an offer they can’t (or won’t) be able to refuse. And the time is ripe, i.e., could never be better, than right now to engage in this kind of discussion.
Much as I hate to say it, and as much as I’d like to “bring our boys home—NOW!”, I don’t think it would be very practical to do so. We’ve invested so much already – in lives and expense -- as a consequence of Mr. Bush’s folly, that to just pick up and leave immediately would likely leave Iraq AND the Middle East worse off than before we invaded. So I would like to suggest the following negotiation:
First and foremost, we should ask the Iraqis to PAY FOR OUR CONTINUED EFFORT ON THEIR BEHALF. Yup – I think we should insist that they use some of that oil money and pick up the tab for our continued support. This is not only good for all parties but necessary for two reasons – 1) we cannot afford this war and never have been willing to pay for it. Bush has fought the entire war by borrowing money and expecting our kids to pay for it. THAT MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY. 2)Forcing the Iraqis to pay for our presence would have the very beneficial effect of limiting the duration of our involvement. It would force the Iraqis to step up and do the kinds of things they should have been doing for years now to beef up their security and ensure their viability – things they could have been doing all along but have been able to avoid the tough choices needed simply because we were there – and for no other reason.
We should just sit down with the Iraqi administration and come up with a plan to get everything done that needs to be done – by a DATE CERTAIN – in order for the Iraqis to assume full responsibility for their well-being and thus permit us to bring our soldiers home. That’s the most PATRIOTIC way to “SUPPORT OUR TROOPS” and enable us to focus our precious resources in far more effective ways in the struggle against terrorism.
THE CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT THIS YEAR (Posted June 6, 2008)
With all the political developments of the past couple of weeks weighing heavily on my mind, I awoke today still in a dilemma about making a choice for President of the USA. The events of this day helped me immeasurably in making a decision, to wit: The price of a barrel of oil rose more than $10. (to more than $139. a barrel), the LARGEST one-day gain in history; the unemployment rate increased by 10 percent to 5.5 percent), the LARGEST gain in 22 years. As a result of all this “good” news (somebody out there is bound to spin it as such), the stock market dropped almost 400 points, LARGEST one-day drop in many a year.
Add to this the fact that we are mired in a war in Iraq that is costing untold billions (trillions?), thousands of lives (both ours and Iraqis), that does absolutely NOTHING to ensure our national security and which we have no chance whatsoever of winning; that we have almost doubled the national debt in the last 8 years; that the poverty and uninsured (health) rates have risen dramatically during this same period; and on and on…………..
Who to vote for? Tough choice, really----NOT!
IS IT TIME TO RE-THINK MASS TRANSIT? (posted 5/25/08)
As a resident of Cobb County Georgia for 22 years, I have seen the county wrestle with traffic congestion and the resulting aggravation, pollution and expense that has resulted from our inability and/or unwillingness to develop an effective plan for the county’s transportation needs. I am certain that many other cities, towns and locales around the country are in much the same position as the availability of cheap, plentiful supplies of gasoline have warped our thinking in regard to how we plan for and develop our communities.
Twice during my time here in Cobb we have rejected referendums on approving mass transit, specifically the idea of becoming part of MARTA, the Atlanta area's fledgling mass transit system. Interestingly, both of those initiatives were taken when the price of gasoline was less than a dollar a gallon. The result was that the two big, mostly white, suburban communities most in need of a comprehensive solution to their traffic problems, Cobb and Gwinnett Counties, have had to smother in traffic jams for years, all the while polluting the air we breathe (the Atlanta area is under a Federal court order to reduce ozone levels) and wasting incredible amounts of what has suddenly become a very precious and expensive resource, OIL.
I wonder if it might be time to ask the question again. Does 4 dollars a gallon make a difference? How about $5.?-- $10.???
Mass Transit—Cobb County's becoming part of MARTA in Atlanta's case –may not be the whole solution but it would certainly put us on a course to deal with the inevitable: cheap gasoline is a relic of the past and communities everywhere must do a much better job of planning our development in such a way that minimizes the amount of travel involved in getting to work, play, shopping, etc.
Mass transit has to be an integral part of the solution for communities in the 21st century. Without it, we are relegating ourselves and our children to lives in a society that will be unable to grow and prosper with the rest of the world.
HOW WE ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSION OF CRIME IN AMERICA (posted 5/2/08)
As a survivor of a homicide victim and being very focused on the crime issue, I find the current publicity about the recently announced video game "Grand Theft Auto IV" to be offensive and wholly inappropriate.
The work my wife and I have done for crime prevention during the last 14 years has brought us in touch with many victims and survivors of the recent school shootings. In most of these cases it appears that the perpetrators were influenced to a considerable degree by the violent video games they played and the equally violent movies they watched. We have thus become quite concerned about the connection between the entertainment industry’s offerings and America’s burgeoning crime rate.
As reprehensible as these games and videos have been in the past, we now have Grand Theft Auto IV coming onto the scene; it takes the incitement to violence to a whole new level. The effort to publish and spread the word about it only makes the problem worse. We shouldn’t be surprised to see kids doing “copy-cat crimes” because the coverage of this product, in a perverse way, only serves to make murder seem like fun.
WHY CAN'T WE SOLVE THE PROBLEM? (POSTED 3/29/08)
At the end of the previous blog, I suggested that all we need was the WILLINGNESS to make the commitment to solve our crime problem. Are we in fact willing--or not??!!??
Let's examine the trend, starting with the beginning of the current decade: we have an administration that has pursued a policy of what it calls "the ownership society". A fancy term indeed, but what does it all mean? The ownership society--otherwise known to some of us as the "you're on your own" society--theoretically aims to have people take control of their lives by, among other things, becoming property owners & thereby taking ownership of not only personal property but of one's personal affairs. "Personal Responsibility" is one of among a great number of vapid, utterly idiotic euphemisms (among others--No Child Left Behind, Mission Accomplished, etc.) the current administration uses to play to its base by making believe it's doing something while still "getting the government out of our lives".
So let's examine the effects of the "ownership society" mantra: I personally think it means that Mr. American citizen, you need to take care of yourself, because we are not particularly interested in you and do not intend to get involved in any of your problems; "Personal Responsibility" is a bit non-sensical when we consider applying the term to a child--i.e., can a two-year old ever be expected to be "personally responsible"?
It all started when that great right-wing sage, Ronald (the Gipper) Reagan, came on the scene with his strategy of "appealing to the base". He regaled against the "welfare queens" of that period and thus began a period of "adjustments" in our welfare philosophy. And, as one might expect, there were consequences to this hideous, mean-spirited change in a fundamental American policy for social justice. As we were administering our vendetta of hate against the adults who were deemed to be abusing the system, we forgot all about the children who were involved. The result of course was that the condition of America's children deteriorated dramatically. More & more kids turned to lives of crime out of sheer hopelessness; TWO OF THEM MURDERED MY DAUGHTER, so I guess I'm just a little bit OVER-SENSITIVE on this point.
You don't have to take my word for the condition of America's children. Look at the issue of INFANT-MORTALITY. Around the time "Dubya" took office we ranked 22nd among industrialized nations in rates of infant mortality. A shameful blot on the good ol' "American Way" in & of itself, but it gets worse: by 2004 we were in 25th place and I just read this week that the number for 2007 was 28th! It's a disgrace! We are a nation that can rightly boast of having the best & most advanced medical technology in the world and yet we decline to make it available or to use it on behalf of the most vulnerable among us.
What drives me crazy is these right-wing wackos--the ones that call themselves "pro-life"--who get all up in arms about such really BIG issues as abortion and homosexuality, yet they are purposely oblivious to the absolutely brazen, wanton loss of life that occurs each and every year with American citizens --human beings--before they reach the age of ONE-YEAR!
So my message is simple; if we ever get serious about wanting to solve the crime problem, FIX THE OBVIOUS. Take better care of America's kids. After all, they are our future!
And by the way. it would be nice to hear the current crop of presidential wannabes say a word or two about their plans to deal with crime in these United States. It's amazing, crime is on the increase, threatens each and every one of us, yet they have said almost nothing about it. And yet they want to lead--WOW!
CRISIS IN THE AMERICAN FAMILY (posted 3/28/08)
Had a wonderful couple of days this week with some of our dearest friends, the Rich & Nancy Parris family, up in Augusta, Georgia. We had gone up to Augusta to deliver a lecture to a criminology class in the Sociology Department at Augusta State University (ASU) where we have a scholarship support program and we customarily stay with them.
We have known the Parris' for 30 years and treasure their friendship. Interestingly, they are people of great faith and have very conservative views on matters political. It is interesting that we, as liberals, have a great many friends who are conservative and this family is emblematic of this phenomenon. We have grown to love and respect them in spite of our differences; it just seems to us that this is how things ought to be. As to the "big picture" of things, we both want the same thing for America; we may differ on the details of how we can get there, but that's good--no one person has a monopoly on ideas for how to solve America's problems. Our relationship has thrived on our collective ability to "hash things out", to learn from one another and to become better human beings from the experience.
Because we were presenting a discussion on crime prevention at ASU, our conversation with the Parris' focused on the family. Rich & Nancy have some very strong feelings about the deterioration/decline of the American family; they decried the prevalence of single-parent families and attribute much of the crime problem (as well as many other issues) here in America to this condition. As usual. this has caused us to reflect extensively on what we discussed; while we agree wholeheartedly with the notions that "problems usually begin at home" and "parents are responsible for their children", there are more fundamental issues at work here which need to be addressed.
In order to shed more light on this, we need to ask some key questions and then apply a bit of 21st century reality to the situation. The questions to be asked are: While we accept the notion that parents must become more responsible, WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY DON'T? What is society's role/responsibility to make up for the deficiencies at home? And here is the reality: first, 2-parent family situations do not guarantee that children will not be abused or neglected; second, with a better than 50% divorce rate in this country, it is likely that any child born from this day forward will likely spend some part of their developmental years in a one-parent circumstance. So what should we do about that? Ignore it?? And are there things that we can do both to accommodate this new family paradigm and accomplish what we all want--to lower the crime rate and to ensure that every child in America has a shot at the American dream?
You bet we can--if only we have the will. The first thing we must do is recognize that the paradigm shift is happening whether we want it to or not. We need to redefine the whole concept of family. Yes, folks, there will continue to be one-parent families (full disclosure: our single daughter is thinking of adopting--there could be no more loving, caring parent on earth and we are thrilled at the prospect and we will support her in every way possible) just as there will be gay/lesbian families and they all deserve every last bit of love and support that this great land called America can give them. Remember, it's the KIDS in these relationships that matter the most; so while we may be uncomfortable with their parents (a feeling that is sure to diminish over time), it seems to me that care and concern for the well-being of the kids should influence our choices to support them. After all, the kids didn't ask to be born, so it seems to me that we have an obligation to ensure that they have a decent chance to succeed in life. And there is so much more that we can and must do to make this happen:
1. Parenting assistance programs-every person needs some help becoming a parent; 2. Early childhood education--make sure that every child is "ready to learn" at the time they begin their formal education; 3. Child abuse/neglect prevention-parenting assistance efforts have shown remarkable success in reducing abuse/neglect rates in ALL families; 4. After-school programs - to provide meaningful, alternative programming for kids during the time when they are most likely to get into trouble. 5. Interventions for troubled kids-even the worst offenders can be brought back onto the straight and narrow path.. Comprehensive community-based interventions can and do make a difference for young offenders.
So, folks, facts are facts. Much as we would like, we are undergoing a fundamental change in this country with respect to family life. We are never--NEVER--again going back to the days of OZZIE & HARRIET. Families are different today and their needs are different. True, this is creating some problems. But this is America--we solve problems--we've been to the Moon and back. There is no problem we can't solve if we put our minds to it.
All we need is a WILLINGNESS to make a COMMITMENT to fix the problem.
JUST POLITICS (posted 3/24/08)
I have not as yet decided whom I will support for president in November. But I have been doing a great deal of thinking about the candidates and have the following observations:
-as usual, we are being offered a fairly sorry lot of choices and I offer herewith my assessment of each of the current crop (McCain, Obama, Clinton) of aspirants to the throne;
John McCain: I voted for him enthusiastically in the Georgia Republican primary of 2000. I respect him as a human being, as an independent thinker and for his service to our country. But in the past year he has done some things that have given me pause, to wit, his "overture" to Mr. Falwell, the very person he had previously (in 2000) branded as an "agent of intolerance". Mr. McCain had it right in 2000. He also seems committed to sustaining our presence in Iraq, which for me is a non-starter. But the big thing is the idea of putting a military man in the presidency at a time when we badly need to repair our relations with our allies and, in fact, with the rest of the world. We have pursued a policy of "shoot first/ask questions later" for the past seven years; putting a military guy in there at this time would send the wrong message to the rest of the world, i.e., that we are not about to change our policy from one of unilateralism to a more collegial approach to solving international problems.
Barack Obama: He's speaks well and has the potential to inspire people and incite collective action. Someday--but not now--he may be ready to lead. He has yet to convince me that he can win in the general election; he doesn't seem to have the support in the BIG states that he would need to carry in November. Then there are issues related to his background; I have always felt that the right-wing 527s would have a field day with him (his admitted cocaine use, his middle name (Hussein), his time in Indonesia, etc)--and that was BEFORE the Pastor Wright incident). Then, too, he hasn't convinced me that he can put together a government with the kind of people who can fix the problems we must deal with. he is just too new to the political process. His time may come, but I just don't think he's ready for the big dance.
Hillary: I have said for some years now that I would vote for almost any woman for president--ALMOST. But I must say that Hillary may be an exception simply because I am afflicted with "Clinton-fatigue". Nonetheless, I must admit that she comes across as a brilliant person whose political and social philosophy I admire and respect, as I did during her husband's tenure as President. On the issue of national security, I believe she would be the strongest candidate, for only ONE reason: Bill Clinton. The republican contention that John McCain, because of his military background, is best suited to deal with national security is BOGUS (the question of whom we would prefer to have his/her hand on the proverbial "red-button" is so antiquated and COLD-WAR-like!). We are at a point in time in our history that our security interests are very much tied to our ability to work cooperatively with our allies . Our relations with those nations have been damaged severely as a result of the "go-it-alone/gun-boat diplomacy" of the past 8 years. I believe that Bill Clinton is probably the only person in America who has the respect abroad that would be required in order to restore confidence in America on the part of other nations around the world. Hillary would do well to make more of an issue of this on the campaign trail.
GUNS, GUNS & MORE GUNS (posted 1/18/08)
Guns are in the news again and, as usual, for all the wrong reasons. My own state of Georgia just passed a law allowing employees to bring guns into employers’ parking lots and keep them in their cars while at work. All this was done over the near-unanimous objections of the business community.
Meanwhile, there’s been a week-long celebration of sorts in the state of Virginia as a consequence of Pres. Bush’ signing into law a bill providing funding to enable more states to begin reporting mental defectives who should not be allowed to buy guns. WOW! That should solve the problem, right?
NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is pure fantasy—for two reasons: First, it continues our national obsession/inclination to deal with the just the superficial level of the problem. The shooter at VA Tech had a severe mental imbalance and was ignored; we desperately need to find ways to intervene with people who have mental problems—early enough to head off the kind of disaster that occurred at Tech. And deluding ourselves into thinking that had Cho’s request to buy a gun been refused would have avoided the calamity is pure nonsense. What likely would have happened is that he may have resorted to some other means---blowing up a building possibly, and with far greater devastation.
Secondly, we should at some point concede that the NRA has won the battle of gun control. They spend more money, intimidate more legislators than we do (Yes, I am 100% in favor of the toughest form of gun control possible) and all the while concede little snippets of success to us—like the upgrade to the NICS system—just to make us feel good and to make the NRA seem reasonable.
The fact is that the real problem is the secondary gun market. All this talk about background checks, closing the gun-show loophole, etc. just demonstrates to what extent we will go in this country to avoid an issue. The fact is that Cho could have gotten a gun—easily and at any time or any place with or without any of the above constraints. Even the Brady bill would show its consummate ineffectiveness—after all, the NRA let us have this one—why? Because it allows us to think we’ve accomplished something. We check backgrounds at federally-licensed dealers only. So why not go to a gun show, have a friend make a straw purchase on your behalf or just buy one from a neighbor—no background checks--EVER). Cho had plenty of options by which to acquire a weapon--thanks again to the efforts of the NRA.
The only real way to get a handle on this terrible problem of gun violence in this country is to treat guns exactly the way we do cars: YOU MUST HAVE A LICENSE TO OWN ONE AND THAT SERIAL-NUMBERED DEVICE MUST BE REGISTERED TO YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER. AND ANY TIME THE GUN CHANGES HANDS, THE TRANSFER MUST BE SUBJECTED TO A BACKGROUND CHECK , THE NEW OWNER MUST BE PROPERLY LICENSED AND THE GUN RE-REGISTERED TO THE NEW OWNER!. Think of what this would do for law enforcement and its efforts to deal with crime—the gun could be traced to the registered owner and that person would become fully liable for the crime-whether he/she did it or not. Gun owners, would certainly be more responsible about their property (guns in such an environment). To use Mr. Bush’s pet phrase, it’s all about accountability.
But whether we can ever get there or not is the fundamental question. I for one am not optimistic.
DYSFUNCTIONAL GOVERNMENT (posted 1/5/08)
Face it, America, we have a government that is broken—TOTALLY unresponsive to our needs. Just look at the current list of BIG issues and the complete lack of ability or willingness to deal with them on the part of the cretins in Washington: Healthcare, Social Security/Medicare, Immigration, Iraq, Climate, Energy, etc. And the reason nothing gets done has to do with the special interest lobby that has taken control of Washington. Just look at Healthcare: The reason nothing will ever get done is because it is not in the interest of the insurance/pharmaceutical/medical industries to make a change in the way we deliver healthcare.
To make government work and be responsive to the interests and needs of the people, we need to do two things: 1) eliminate the lobby cartel from Washington DC altogether and 2) Tighten the rules by which Federal dollars are spent, particularly on the matter of earmarks.
On the first issue, I spent most of my IBM career dealing with federal government agencies. I could not under any circumstance buy lunch for a government employee or even offer him/her a stick of gum without that person reimbursing me. The idea that a lobbyist can offer dinners, trips, vacation jaunts to the very people who control the Federal purse and who authorize the expenditure of taxpayer dollars is a disgrace! Why we don’t recognize this and change the way Washington works is beyond me.
On the second issue, earmarks should not be allowed under any circumstance. The fact is that that these expenditures are routinely put into omnibus spending bills at the last moment without any review. Lawmakers are asked to vote on spending bills without any knowledge of what they contain.
It is a VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC TRUST that allows our tax dollars to be expended without any review or oversight. There is a formal committee review process that is in place to review, PRIORITIZE and approve any and all spending. The earmarks “habit” that we have developed simply circumvents that entire process. This is a travesty and should be OUTLAWED.
AMERICA’S HEALTH CARE MESS (posted 12/23/07)
The elephant in the room—A National Health Care System. We just don’t want to engage in a thoughtful, reasoned debate about how to solve this nation’s health care crisis.
The Perversity of the insurance-based system in the USA
-Success of the system—as measured by the profitability of the Ins. Cos.-is directly related to the number of claims they deny, i.e., to individuals LACK OF HEALTH CARE.
The cost issue-we spend more than any other industrialized country with a national health care system(16% of GDP and rising dramatically), yet we achieve worse outcomes. Example: France spends about 43% of what we do on a per-capita basis and yet they live longer/have LOWER infant mortality rates. In Holland, the average height of people, previously less than the US after WWII, is now greater than in the US and it is assumed that this difference is directly attributable to better health care.
We are witnessing one of the truly great tragedies of the 21st century. Here we have the USA, the self-described “greatest nation on earth”, a nation that has developed the most sophisticated medical technology the world has ever known, routinely denying access to that capability. We hear on a daily basis instances where people are dying as a consequence of being denied a health care claim – by, of all things, AN INSURANCE COMPANY!!! A JUST NATION would simply not TURN ITS BACK in this way on those of its citizens who are in need!
All proposed solutions in the 2008 presidential race continue the practice of burdening American
businesses with the responsibility for healthcare, making us less competitive globally.
It’s interesting that the Congress grants itself a set of WONDERFUL health-care privileges and yet those very same bastards refuse to give us average-Joe-types the same privilege!
THE REAL NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE FOR THE UNITED STATES (posted 12/21/07)
America’s Financial house is OUT-OF-ORDER
-the Federal budget deficit (we’ve nearly doubled our national debt since 2000 and we pay about
$450 billion in interest each year, more than anything else except defense and health care)
-the US Trade imbalance (almost a trillion dollars every year)
-The decline of the dollar (lost nearly 50% of its value against the Euro)
The solution
-to start with, elect politicians who will tell us the truth. Example: we are told that the Fed. Budget deficit for FY2007 was around $168 billion. Yet, the Feds are borrowing (selling T-Bills) OVER
$2 billion a day---each and every day! And this doesn’t account for the fact that they are spending the Social Security surplus! The government is fighting a war in Iraq & Afghanistan by borrowing money from places like China. We passed a prescription drug benefit for Medicare and have no idea of how to pay for it (other than, once again, borrowing from places like China—sound familiar?)
-we need to get back to HONESTY IN BUDGETING. THE BUSINESS OF earmarks should be OUTLAWED; we should end the current practice of funding the Iraq war through he use of “SUPPLEMENTALS", which do NOT hit the budget “bottom line” and are making the Fed budget situation worse by leaps and bounds. Also, we should outlaw lobbyists and make our elected officials subject to the same rules as government employees, i.e., civil servants.
-in 2000 we elected individuals
representing a party whose basic philosophy was that “Government can do no
good”. By putting people like this into national office, we have no right to
expect anything other than the kind of rank incompetence we have seen for the
last seven years-witness such instances as the response to Katrina, the Iraq
war, exploding deficits, etc.
THE DEATH PENALTY: IS IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL? (posted 12/18/07)
It is clearly not, though it is an inherent failure of the criminal justice system itself in that it fails the test of the 14th amendment, i.e., to guarantee “equal treatment under the law”.
-Money is the key to receiving justice in our legal system: if you have money, you get it, if you are poor, you don’t.
-And this deficiency is seen nowhere more dramatically than in the application of the death penalty. Since the re-institution of the DP in 1976, no person of means has ever been executed. How such a system can continue to be used, despite its clear violation of the Constitution, is beyond me. It relates, I believe to the fact that, as with so many other modern-day challenges (Iraq, Social Security, Medicare , immigration , etc.) we are simply reluctant to confront the issue. The current case before the Supremes about “cruel & unusual” is almost laughable, mostly because, once again, we are talking all around the core issue.
-The fact is – and this is irrefutable – if you are poor– and especially poor and BLACK – there is a GOOD chance that you will be executed for certain crimes. If you are wealthy, however, you will never be executed no matter the crime. Equal treatment under the law??? That’s a laugh!
-It will be argued that the DP prevents crime but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this is true. Indeed, it suggests that we may on this issue be prisoners of our own middle-class mentality.
Us middle-class types clearly don’t commit crimes because 1) we know the difference between right and wrong and we choose the RIGHT way most of the time and 2) because of fear of punishment; I DON’T BELIEVE CRIMINALS THINK THAT WAY. (Full disclosure: My daughter was murdered in 1994 by two degenerates; I will never believe that these two think the way the rest of us do about these kinds of things).
-It is also wrong, I believe, to vest in any human being (s) the power to take a life (I am in this sense VERY PRO-LIFE) and this would violate the most fundamental of human rights. Once again, the nay-sayers will argue that there is no evidence that we have executed some erroneously. I say that is because there is no jurisdiction in the country willing to spend the money to prove that they did something do horrible.
WHEN TO FORGIVE (posted 12/16/07)
MOVIE: “Forgiving Dr. Mengele”. Holocaust survivor Eva Kor recounts her journey of forgiveness for the
Nazis who murdered members of her family. A very compelling, thought-provoking movie.
-The word forgiveness is, I think, misused in this context. Ms. Kor has made a very personal decision to get beyond her hatred for the Nazis and get on with her life. It is very important for any crime victim to do this, else they continue to allow their animus toward the perp to dominate them and thus, the perp wins again—and again!
-But forgiveness is but a part of the process of HEALING, something that must occur and which should be encouraged by our Criminal Justice System (CJS) to ensure that society, as well as its victims and perps alike, return to a state of wholeness. It must always begin with the perp feeling (and expressing) REMORSE. Then the victim can, at his/her discretion (the victim should NEVER be coerced into doing this), forgive the perp. Healing can then – and only then –begin. Otherwise, we become a society of walking wounded, nursing wounds that will never heal. Is that possibly why we experience more violence than other industrialized societies?
HOW TO SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY (posted 12/08/07)
There are any number of ways, but Bushie’s “privatization” ain’t one of them
-Benefits should be indexed to life expectancy(& the retirement age adjusted accordingly)
-Deduct Soc. Sec. tax from ALL income
-Invest the proceeds in gov’t-protected securities or some other way (Lockbox) to protect the fund ,
i.e., keep the Fed’s, hands off the surplus
WHAT TO DO ABOUT MEDICARE (posted 12/01/07)
We shouldn’t be considering fixes to this system by itself, as it is all part of the American system of Health care which is so badly in need of repair.
- We insist on compartmentalizing the system—SCHIP for kids. Medicaid for the poor, Medicare for the elderly, etc. When are we gonna wake up? We need to make a sea-change in the way we deliver health care and it won’t ever happen if we continue to take this utterly non-sensical incremental approach to health care (see my entry of 12/23/07 for my prescription for America’s HEALTH CARE crisis).
THE MEANING OF “PRO-LIFE” (posted 11/22/07)
I respect anyone who values human life. I differ with folks who are against abortion and am ardently pro-choice—I look at it as a matter of protecting the life and well-being of the mother. But I respect their view and their right to be heard in the marketplace of ideas.
I am also very much in favor of federally-funded EMBRYONIC stem cell research inasmuch as I see no substantive connection between an embryo and the real life that I value and treasure.
What concerns me are the inconsistencies I see in a great many supposedly pro-life people – here in the south particularly – in their specific views on the subject. A great many of the people I know who claim to be pro-life are 1) in favor of the death penalty, 2) support the war in Iraq, 3) support the NRA’s utterly insane insistence on every American’s totally free and unfettered right to own guns all the while ignoring the reality that guns in the wrong hands account for two-thirds to three quarters of the abysmally high homicide rate in this country.
The great mass of “imagined” pro-lifers also refuse to get involved in– or for that matter refuse to even show concern about – such devastating and disgraceful issues like INFANT MORTALITY here in the USA. We have very nearly the WORST record in the industrialized world on this issue, but to today’s RIGHT-TO-LIFERS, abortion is the only issue that they want to wrap their arms around.
THE GUN ISSUE (posted 11/16/07)
We routinely tolerate the wanton slaughter of 15-20,000 human being each year –EVERY Year – in this country. Why this would not have everyone clamoring for sensible gun-control laws is beyond me. We have declared war on international terrorism but somehow won’t do anything about the MUCH-GREATER threat from DOMESTIC terrorists. This is mystifying to say the least. It seems to me that we ought to regulate guns the way we regulate cars—you have to register it and have a license to use it. And any transfer of the item should necessitate a re-registration and a re-licensing obligation for the new owner. We have a right to expect responsible use of what is basically a dangerous commodity and we should empower the government to enforce reasonable standards of gun ownership.
The crime issue will of course not go away with the enactment of sensible gun control laws. There is a deeper problem that needs to be dealt with. The perp in the VA Tech case would very likely have resorted to other – more destructive—means to achieve his ends were he denied the right acquire a gun. We need to CARE enough about troubled human beings to respond to their needs ahead of the point at which they become so disaffected with society that they see no alternative but to resort to violence.
FAUX PIETY (Posted 11/13/07)
Gov. Sonny Perdue (only in Georgia can a state governor be called “Sonny”) has scheduled a gathering at the Capitol to pray for rain.
Wow! Bet that’ll help!!!
Why is it that the religious right seems to pray only when they want something—for themselves. Wonder if the creator on high might just be savvy enough to see through such self-serving motives?
Wonder also if the Guv might consider petitioning the Almighty for guidance on a higher, more noble purpose—i.e., to help us become better stewards of the environment/earth we have been entrusted with by our Creator. That just might eliminate the kind of crisis we now find ourselves in.
WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE? (Posted August 1, 2006)
We attended a funeral yesterday. It was not an ordinary funeral, nor was it an ordinary person that we were remembering.
Jennifer Ewing was murdered last week, the victim of a random, unprovoked act of unspeakable violence. Based on everything we heard said about her at the service, we can say with assurance that she was an incredible human being.
A woman of great faith, she used her faith to raise a wonderful family and to reach out to those in need in every corner of the world. All of which makes her ending so very tragic and hard to fathom. She was murdered by someone she did not know and someone who did not know her. Had he only paused to know her, we believe she would have reached out to him, helped and loved him – perhaps even saved him -- as she did everyone else.
While there was much caring and compassion among the attendees at yesterday's service, for the rest of us this daily occurrence just seems so routine, so ordinary. The attitude seems to be "Jennifer is gone and it's time to get on with our lives". We rack up one casualty after another and no one seems to care. We seem to be in a hurry – to get back to doing things that are important – buying, shopping, making money.
Does it have to be that way? Should it? Will it happen again? To us? Are the rest of us at risk?
The one thing that should be apparent to everyone who has become aware of this great tragedy is this: if this sort of thing can happen to Jennifer Ewing, it can happen to anyone.
We know a great deal about homicide – our daughter Renée was murdered in 1994 under circumstances similar to those which befell Jennifer Ewing. We have as a consequence learned much about life in America, about the causes of and what it takes to prevent crime.
The reality is that people in this country are in the habit of rationalizing away the potential risk that crime presents to themselves. They view crime as basically “someone else’s problem” They concoct stereotypes – postulating that victims bring it on themselves by living risky lifestyles or engaging in abusive relationships. It becomes easy to “blame the victim” – and if it’s the victim’s fault, that absolves the rest of us from the responsibility of having to do anything about it.
Thus we come to accept the fact of a burgeoning homicide rate in our midst. We tolerate it – 15 to 20 thousand homicides a year in the USA. We live in a city that contributes handsomely to that ever-increasing number, a city that is one of the most violent in the nation. The great contradiction of our time is that we consider ourselves a society that is concerned about the value and sanctity of human life – witness the concern evidenced in the recent stem cell debate over the need to preserve the well-being of a collection of some 8-9 cells in a Petri dish – and yet we are apparently content to allow the wanton slaughter of thousands of innocent human beings each year – every year.
We have a grave concern as to what this says about us as a people. Where is the outrage at this travesty? Have our senses become deadened to the reality? Have we lost our ability to be outraged at what is going on here in the land of the free and home of the brave?
We need to realize that we have a war going on in America. We have been preoccupied with the problem of international terrorism for some time now. But we have a bigger problem with the domestic kind of terrorism – one that consumes 5-7 times the number of victims that were lost on 9/11. And this goes on year after year.
What is needed is a national commitment – just as we have with the war on terrorism – to eliminate the scourge of homicide. And the effort can and should begin right here at the state level. The governors and all responsible officials in the 50 states should put in place a plan -- NOW -- to end the scourge of homicide once and for all. The plan should establish a goal to reduce homicides in this country to zero by a specific target date. We need to make it clear that we will no longer tolerate homicide – not even one!
But this won’t happen unless we – the people – make it happen. We need to accept the idea that crime is everyone’s problem and everyone must be involved in the solution.
And most of all, we need to insist that our politicians make the commitment that is needed to end this scourge that threatens the very fabric of American society.
The consequences of not doing so are immense. We will thereby be condemning ourselves and our children to lives in a society where, as bad as the crime is today, it can only get worse.
THE BUSH RECORD (Posted June 2, 2006)
We should not be surprised at the Bush administration’s approach to governance. George W. Bush came into office by espousing the notion that government can do no good. He has set out to prove that axiom and, to borrow a phrase, “ is doing a heckuva job”. A few examples: He
-passed a number of tax cuts and the federal budget went from a $5T. projected surplus to a nearly $5T. deficit;
-passed an energy bill and gas went up to $3. per gallon;
-reorganized FEMA, put a political crony in charge and we got Katrina;
-is attempting to solve the immigration problem by offering amnesty to a bunch of criminals;
And the list goes on. One wonders how much incompetence the American public is willing to tolerate.
The Bush record is clear – and makes the point that it’s time for a change in Washington.