Tuesday, June 30, 2009

UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE IS AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY FOR THE COUNTRY   NOT AN OPTION AS SOME DEMOCRATS AND MOST REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS BELIEVE   REGARDLESS OF THE COST   An overwhelming percentage of voters in this country want a universal health insurance program passed by the Congress and signed by the president this year. The cost of health care in the U. S. is driving more families into bankruptcy than any other cause and the explanations are numerous. Pharmaceutical companies are charging the American consumer outlandish prices for drugs that people need in order to survive. The profits of pharmaceutical-oriented corporation are outrageous and they are making these obscene profits at the cost of the sick, the elderly and the poor. Health insurance for all Americans, in my opinion, is not a privilege, it is a right. Simply because one is making good money in no way gives him the right to more effective health care than those who are caught in the massive web of unemployment, downsizing, corporate bankruptcies, loss of “contractually guaranteed benefits,” unanticipated, long term illnesses and more devastatingly, catastrophic illness such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, debilitating strokes, and physically incapacitating heart attacks. Forbes magazine has provided the chart below of the profits of the top twelve pharmaceutical companies in the U. S. and you can see for yourself their profit margins for 2007. Revenues, profits Profits as % of...     Rank Company Global 500 rank Revenues Profits ($ millions)   1 Johnson & Johnson 112 53,324.0 11,053.0   2 Pfizer 115 52,415.0 19,337.0   3 GlaxoSmithKline 147 42,730.6 9,915.0   4 Novartis 168 37,020.0 7,175.0   5 Sanofi-Aventis 169 36,998.4 5,026.1   6 Roche Group 188 34,702.8 6,285.4   7 AstraZeneca 252 26,475.0 6,043.0   8 Merck 308 22,636.0 4,433.8   9 Abbott Laboratories 312 22,476.3 1,716.8   10 Wyeth 346 20,350.7 4,196.7   11 Bristol-Myers Squibb 406 17,914.0 1,585.0   12 Eli Lilly 481 15,691.0 2,662.7 The cost of drugs, doctors fees, insurance premiums, hospital stays, rehabilitation centers, assisted living facilities, and full-care skilled nursing services have skyrocketed in the past decade. To bring an affordable health care program to the country, the pharmaceutical companies must begin to cut costs in areas where the quality of the drugs is not affected and by granting volume discounts to Medicare and Medicaid similar to those they have been giving to the Veterans Administration for decades. In the Bush Administration drug benefit bill, the government was denied the right to negotiate for volume discounts already earned by the VA and the average citizen was denied the right to buy less expensive medications in Mexico and Canada. Why? Why did Bush refuse to allow Americans to buy cheaper drugs; simply, he was in deep debt to the Pharmaceutical corporations because of their campaign contributions. In other words, Bush gave American drug companies carte blanche to charge the consumers what the market would bear; a really sweet package as payback for their substantial support of his campaigns for president. His attitude reflects the callous indifference of one who serves those whose money automatically gives them power and to hell with the citizens who are footing the bill. Unfortunately the vast majority of his Republican cohorts and Blue Dog Democratics in the Congress share his lack of compassion for the unfortunate, underprivileged and Middle America attempting to survive a deep recession these very legislators brought upon us. People are paying outlandish prices for all of the above mentioned services to the point that health care costs has become the major reason why families are forced to declare bankruptcy, lose their homes, and forfeit the personal possessions they have accumulated over a life time. 62% of all bankruptcies in this country are the result of the cost of health care. For some reason people like our Blue Dog Democrats and Conservative Republicans are willing to spend trillions of dollars to fight an pointless war and kill thousands of our soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent people on enemy soil, but cannot find it within their soul to pay the heavy price for the urgently needed health care to which their constituents have a right. In the past two elections, we have seen the public rise up in protest against those unwilling to shoulder their legislative responsibility to give this country a universal health insurance program that will free the people from their persistent fear of financial disaster over their failing health which grows as their age advances. Tom Daschle, former majority leader of the Senate, in a Newsweek article in its May 11-18, 2009 edition entitled OBAMA’S HEALTH-CARE CONUNDRUM wrote, “Opponents oftentimes use as their primary argument against a public plan that it presents unfair competition to private insurance companies. I have little doubt that we can level the competitive playing field. Nevertheless, we must realize that reforming the health-care system is, first and foremost, for the American people—not the companies that profit from it.” On the opponent’s side of the story, Mitt Romney, 2008 candidate for the Republican nomination for president wrote, “Our divide is fundamental: Republicans believe that health care can be best guided by consumers, physicians and markets. Democrats believe government would do better. Some Democrats would have the government buy health care for us; set the rates for doctors, hospitals and medicines; and decide what medical treatment we would be entitled to receive for each illness….” Romney goes on to argue that President Lyndon Johnson signed the Medicaid bill and estimated the cost at $500 million. “Today, it costs $500 billion.” He then compares the Postal Service with UPS and Federal Express, apparently not comprehending that the Postal Service is not a government operated service. However, he failed to point out the effectiveness and efficiency of Medicare and the Veterans Administration. These government-operated programs are among the most cost effective departments in the governments. It should be obvious to all that the above identified health care providers have failed to remain loyal to the Hippocratic Oath to which many dedicated their lives and the remaining simply have devoted their lives to profits and not the welfare of their patients. All health providers and even those in Congress who have the very lives of millions of people in their hands as they consider the health care issue must follow the “golden rule” of the medical profession, “Above all, do no harm.”             However, the oath itself goes much further: I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement: To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art. I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion. But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts. I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art. In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves. All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession  commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal. If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.   The increase in cost can be placed directly on the shoulders of the insurance, medical supply, pharmaceutical, private physicians and hospital market operated branches of the larger health care enterprise. Republicans, Blue Dog Democrats and the Chairmen of the Congressional Committees that are considering this issue for their own survival in the Congress had better get the message that this time the people are more serious than they have been before. Anyone, regardless of party affiliation will be targeted in future elections for their refusal to understand that the health of our people must come before balanced budgets and your consternation over government deficits; and that we not allow you to make health care a victim of free market economics. According to Wikipedia, “Universal health care is implemented in all but one of the wealthy, industrialized countries, with the exception being the United States.” The following is a list of countries with universal health coverage for their citizens: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela all have “public universal health care and Mexico plans to accomplish PHC by 2011. In Asia, Brunei, China, Hong Kong SAR. India, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirtes, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, Seychelles. Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Pakistan, Thailand—all have universal health care. And addendum to the health issue is the following: “Hong Kong is one of the healthiest places in the world.[39] Because of its early health education, professional health services, and well-developed health care and medication system, ‘Hong-kongers’ enjoy a life expectancy of 84 for females and 78 for men,[40] which are the second highest in the world, and 2.94 infant mortality rate, the fourth lowest in the world.” Singapore has a form of universal health care that “ensures affordability, largely through compulsory savings and price controls, while the private sector provides most care.” Spending on health care consumes only 3% of the country’s GDP. European nations with universal health care includes Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. It is embarrassing at the very least as I look at the impressive list of countries throughout the world that have universal health care that the wealthiest nation in the world is conspicuous by its absence. While we willingly throw trillions of dollars at banks, auto manufacturers, insurance companies, and brokerage houses the idiotic Conservative Wing of the Republican Party, and the jackass Blue Dog of the Democratic wing have resisted with every fiber of their political bodies to provide universal health care. According to the Observer of the United Kingdom, Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, the chairman of Great Britain’s National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence, spoke pungently of the ‘perverse incentives’ that cause the disgraceful prices of new drugs. He pointed the finger at the pharmaceutical company executives who earn their obnoxiously high incomes based upon the company’s “share price” which relies on the executive’s ability to keep the profits strong. Drug companies do not produce their products in the most cost effective manner in order to keep the price affordable to the general public, but in an ineffective manner to keep the profits high and healthy for the bonus’ the executives earn. Nobody, Dr. Rawlins insists, is looking at the reasons why drugs are so ridiculously expensive when we know that could be produced at a much more economical fashion that would be more affordable to the parties requiring the drugs for the preservation of their health.   Dr. Rawlins added: “Kidney cancer drugs could be produced for about a tenth of their current cost, Rawlins said. While developing such medicines from scratch added to these costs, as did some 'unnecessary' bureaucracy around clinical trials which should be scrapped, he said that was not the whole story. 'Part of the problem is that the pharmaceutical industry is looking at a very bad period in the future because a lot of their big earners are going off patent [allowing rivals to make cheaper versions], and many companies are looking at a 30 or 40 per cent reduction in the next five years unless they come up with new drugs,' he said. 'And so part of the cost is cushioning against that. The other thing, of course, is that the share price is very important to a pharmaceutical company.” The bottom line is that the United States is paying a dramatically high percentage of our GDP than the other major civilized nations of the world and receiving in return fewer high quality services than the citizens of other nations are receiving. In other words, we are being “taken to the cleaners” by pharmaceutical providers, insurance companies, medical equipment manufactures, physician’s (in many cases), cost of unnecessary sophisticated and unjustifiably expensive medical tests and a host of hidden medical costs hospitals and clinics insert into bills that they hope insurance companies will pay. The Chicago Tribune on May 20, 2009 published an article entitled Triage by columnist Judith Graham. In response to Ms. Graham’s column in which she recommended that people utilize the services of “immediate [or urgent]-care centers” to save money and time, Marie Rutke wrote to argue with Graham’ and her premise. In this case, Ms. Kutke went to a center owned an operated by Sherman Hospital in the Northwest suburbs of Chicago in mid-March on a Saturday after cutting her finger with a knife. Her cut required only three stitches. The bill from the “urgent-care facility” came to $383.40, in which BC/BS of Illinois paid $228.10 leaving $155.30 for Ms. Rutke to pay. However, a second bill arrived from Greater Elgin Emergency Specialists charging her an additional $545. Maria Rutke was livid according to her letter to Triage. She feels that a total charge of $928.40 for three stitches in her hand is “price gauging” [my words not hers]. Ms. Rutke turned the new bill over to BC/BS of Illinois and apparently without challenging the amount of the charge the insurance company paid all but $200 leaving her with a total out-of-pocket bill of $355.30. The columnist called the Greater Elgin Emergency Specialists and spoke with a Josh McColough in the marketing department. McColough asked Graham to have the patient call him, but as a good journalist she pushed the envelop. After the conversation between McColough and the patient, the gentlemen from the marketing department called the columnist back and said that since the bulk of the charges were being covered by insurance “there really wasn’t a problem…The charges are what they are!” And that is the real problem. The cost of medical services are going through the roof because the insurance companies are allowing physicians and medical service units to charge whatever the market will tolerate leaving the patient to endure the cost of an overpriced service that should never be levied in the first place. What ER physician’s service is worth $545 plus the use of the emergency center? The problem is that nobody is questioning these charges. Nobody is forcing medical facilities to cap the costs they charge in relationship to the economy of the geography where they are located. I personally entered the Rush Presbyterian-St Luke’s Memorial Hospital in Chicago for a gastric-bypass surgery. After a six hour surgery, I was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit and the doctors discovered that I had a temperature of 103 degrees. The doctors attempted a number of tests to determine the source of the infection and finally concluded that I had a staph infection acquired from the hospital itself. During the first night in intensive care and still unconscious, for some unknown reason I attempted to swallow my tongue thereby blocking my capacity to breathe. As death approached, the nurses issued a “code blue” and one of the surgeons in my personal doctor’s practice, there to visit his father who had just undergone heart surgery, responded to the code blue, rushed over, rescued my tongue that was blocking my breathing channel, and immediately inserted a ventilator into my throat giving me the artificial capacity to breath. I remained in the intensive care unit for two and a half [2 1/2] weeks and was returned to the general population of the medical facility for another two and a half weeks. According to my primary care physician, the hospital bill was Seven hundred fifty thousand dollars ($750,000) which Blue Cross negotiated down to two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000). Obama is giving his full support to universal health insurance. The Republicans are coming up with the same old clichés. It is not that the Republican Party has no ideas; it is to the detriment of the country that they have no new, good, ideas. I would like to see the following elements in a national health insurance program. ·                    Computerize all medical records of every American citizen with an accompanying pin code that assures the security of their records which could only be shared with those the individual patient approves. The reduction in cost and the added convenience it will provide will reduce medical costs at the very least by 15-25%. ·                    An independent entity, very much like the Federal Reserve System should be established. The country would be divided up into Districts with each district operated by those appointed (on salary) to supervise and oversee the quality of medical services, the cost of medical services, the quality of medical personnel who practice in that district and the fees they charge to the public they serve. ·                    Each district would place a cap on the cost of all medical services including pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, physicians, and every other medically related service under the jurisdiction. ·                    A Federal Medical Board would oversee the entire country’s medical services, its prices, quality of service, and through the various districts control the costs for all services and medically related products in the country. ·                    All elements of the medical profession including doctors, hospital administrators, pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment companies would be a member of the national organization and participate in the selection of those who would oversee the organizations business. ·                    The National Board would report to the President of the United States and to the U. S. Congress. ·                    The sidebar to this plan would require a single payer insurance program to reduce the present expenditure estimated by most experts in the field by 30% for administrative costs alone.                         I have written about this approach to the health care quandary before and at least one set of professors have written a book that echoes this very same matrix. Medical costs are causing the deaths of what some medical experts estimate to be 130,000 people per year because they simply cannot afford to pay the price that good health care demands. Approximately 50 million people have no insurance at all and are rushing to ER’s of our hospitals where according to a recent report the American tax payer is paying $1,000 per visit for every man, woman and child that crosses the threshold of an ER for medical care. We have no recent figures of the number of elderly that die each year because of their inability to afford the $5-6,000 per month its costs to reside in a skilled nursing facility. The neglect that our patients face in those facilities is a tragedy the government is going to have to confront very soon. I personally experienced this tragedy but a few years ago. My own mother for whom I had served as a primary care giver for five years had to be placed in rehab center after my near tragic surgery. To make this long story short; on one occasion we found her with a massive black eye that no one on staff seemed to know about.  A few weeks later, her front teeth were knocked out and again without a reasonable explanation by the staff. Because she bore the suffering of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, congestive heart failure and rheumatoid arthritis she had to be fed and provided water. During the final days of her life, she was rushed to the hospital on four occasions due to dehydration. In other words, the nursing staff failed to provide a sufficient amount of water on a regular basis for her to avoid hospitalization. The nurses at the hospital reported to me that each time she arrived; she consumed liquids faster than a dying camel in the heat of the desert. The ambulance service that took her from the Rehab center to the hospital which was approximately five miles away, charged Medicare $500 each way. When I questioned them about the amount of the charge for such a short distance, they answered that they always charge an outlandish amount knowing that it would be reduced by Medicare. There we go again. There is no oversight and the country is paying more for medical care than any country in the world and not receiving in return the quality of health care at an affordable price that they deserve. To the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress, this is the year when you must put aside your narrow views of medical services and give the American people a program just as generous as the one you so happily enjoy. The undistinguished Senator from Alabama, Republican Richard Shelby, standing before television cameras and sounding like the fool that he has always been insisted that the U. S. had the best health care in the world and that we did not want any form of socialized medicine, with the government standing between the patient and their medical care. Someone should bring Senator Shelby up-to-date. We do not have the best health care, we have the most expensive health care. Every one of the Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats along with many right wing commentators need a course in the definition of socialism. “Socialism refers to any one of various economic theories of economic organization advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation based on the full product of the laborer” Wikipedia It is time for this country and its far right wing followers to learn what Socialism means and control their unwarranted fear of anything that government does. As I have said a thousand times, the founder of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln said, “Government should do for the people what they cannot do for themselves or do so well.” Franklin D. Roosevelt first introduced the idea of national health insurance in the latter part of his four term presidency. The Republicans made the same arguments against universal health care then that they are making today. “Do not let the government come between the patient and the doctor.” As Senator Barbara Boxer noted recently, “It is not the government that is coming between the patient and the doctor it is the insurance companies.” We do not want Socialized medicine. Regardless of what bill passes and it damn well better pass or the American people are going to put Senators head on the block come the next election, it will not be any form of Socialism. Stop the scare tactics and serve the people who are in dire need of universal health insurance. For God’s sake, do not tell me we can’t afford it or that the deficit is too high. Where were you people when Ronald Reagan put this country in debt to the tune of $2.7 trillion and George W. Bush, for no apparent reason, turned a Clinton surplus into a Bush debt of multi-trillions when we finally learn the real cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.                                 1:28:12 PM    comment []

Thursday, June 25, 2009

AMERICAN TROOPS MUST WITHDRAW FROM IRAQI CITIES BY JUNE 30, 2009; OR WILL THEY REDEPLOY TO MORE PERMANENT BASES INSIDE IRAQ?   AT ONE POINT THE U. S. HAD 100 BASES SPREAD THROUGHOUT OIL RICH NATION—WE WILL CONTINUE TO OCCUPY SIX [6] MASSIVE “MEGABASES” HOUSING 50,000 TROOPS IN AMERICAN LUXURY   WE ARE CONSTRUCTING THE LARGEST EMBASSY IN THE WORLD IN BAGHDAD AT A COST OF OVER $500 BILLION—I WONDER WHY?   Have you read about the suicide bombing that took place on June 24, 2009 in the Green Zone in Baghdad killing seventy-nine [79] persons and injuring over one hundred [100].  Last week in Baghdad another suicide bomber killed a large number of people in a large marketplace in Iraq’s capital city. In each case these bombings have taken place in the Shiite sections of the city and in each case it is believed that the bombers were Sunnis. As the deadline for the American combat troops to departure draws ever closer, the anxiety among the Sunni population which was in control under Saddam Hussein although comprising approximately twenty [20] per cent of the country’s population grows ever fearful that once the U. S. has withdrawn from all of the major cities, the Shia will carry out a genocide, or if you will, a slaughter of the Sunnis population. These suicide bombings are an expression of the well grounded Sunni suspicion that their fate will be strictly in the hands of the Shiite controlled government and that the power they once sustained under Saddam will be permanently torn from their grasp. I am sorry, John McCain, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and all of the neo-cons who conceived of this preemptive invasion for reasons yet to be unfurled, for fourteen hundred years the Sunnis and the Shiites have been at each other’s throat, no amount of surge or military power will erase this hatred that each Islamic sect feels against the other. So why are we departing the shores of Iraq? It is really very simple. When Bush’s people began to negotiate the U. S. exodus, the Bush people wanted to maintain 58 of the 100 bases we have constructed at a yet to be determined price. Some experts believe that half of every military allotment the Congress has passed for fighting the war in Iraq has gone for the purpose of building these bases. The number has been whittled down six [6], but not just six military bases, but six mammoth military complexes that have been labeled “megabases” by those who have had a chance to observe their construction. The location of these bases has been strategically situated throughout the country: bases to protect the oil wells and pipelines from saboteurs, and other bases will be designated to protect Baghdad, still others  will be assigned the major responsibility of protecting our assets against invasions from Iraq’s neighbors who have designs on the same oil reserves that attracted Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and all of their colleagues who have been labeled neo-conservatives. These bases have all the conveniences of home—swimming pools, air conditioned living and working quarters, tennis courts, golf courses, satellite and cable television, internet connections, modern kitchens with all of the very latest appliances, a PX that carries all of the electronic gear young soldiers enjoy and security that can not be penetrated the enemies that surround Iraq. These are permanent bases. We intend to be in Iraq for some time. Or as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said recently, “We have had a presence in the region for some time and we have had ‘an enduring presence recently and will have an enduring presence for some time to come.” In other words, from the beginning, the Bush/Cheney combine invaded Iraq to gain control over the world largest reservoir oil reserves. As one leading scholar and writer on Iraq has said, long after Saudi Arabia’s oil wells are dried up, long after the oil supplies of all other Arab countries are consumed, Iraq will have enough oil to fuel the world. It is noted by some that Bush and Cheney associates have already been negotiating with the Kurds. The irony is that shortly after the redeployment of American troops, it has been announced that the new Iraqi government will begin negotiating to sell the rights to its gargantuan oil reserves to the highest bidder. I think we may have hit upon the quandary that has occupied the minds of so many observers of U. S. policy under Bush. Why would the United States preemptively invade a country that did not attack us, that did not pose a threat to our national security, that was no way connected to the 9/11 tragedy, possessed no weapons of mass destruction and was in no way affiliated with al Qaeda. We went for control of the country with the largest stock of oil reserves in the world and we did it on behalf of the military-industrial complex against which Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us in his final address to the nation. When you elect two fast draw cowboys who were intricately involved with major oil companies--one whose father is “on a first name basis” with the King of Saudi Arabia; the other the former Chairman and CEO of Halliburton, a company on the verge of bankruptcy when Cheney became Vice President, but who, contrary to Department of Defense policy, won multi-billion, non-competitive bids to provide various services to our men fighting in the war in Iraq, you never know what the result will be. However, eight years later we now know ! One other point, the United States of America has military bases in 737 locations around the globe [not including bases used by the CIA and the DOD for intelligence purposes]. Many in countries where it makes absolutely no sense to spend our precious dollars on men and facilities, we continue to spend millions of dollars to maintain and man. Perhaps, someone in our government, someday, will have the balls when determining which military bases to close, will elect to close some of bases we have in parts of the world that have little or no affect on our national security. Maybe Obama is that man. Regardless, as June 30, 2009 approaches we will undoubtedly see an upsurge in suicide bombings by Sunnis who are frightened by the exit of American combat troops and fear that the majority party in Iraq, the Shiites, will wipe them out once and for all; no doubt with the help of the militant Shiites in Iran.   6:19:00 PM    comment []

Saturday, June 20, 2009

OBAMA’S APPROACH TO THE IRAN ELECTION CONTROVERSY IS RIGHT ON TARGET     HAVE THE REPUBLICANS LEARNED NOTHING FROM THE DISASTROUS FOREIGN POLICY PRACTICES OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION?   The tired and irrelevant voices of the GOP of old—McCain, Boehner, Cheney, Limbaugh, Gingrich, to name but a few, are calling for President Obama to stick America’s nose into the business of Iran’s election mayhem and to show support for the anti-government protesters who are putting their lives on the line to bring down the theocratic tyranny of Ayatollah Khamenei and his hand picked president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. How dim-witted does one have to be not to be aware of the catastrophic policies of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney? Their self-righteous and self important view that the whole world was begging to become democratic and that our nation’s mission assigned to us by the Christian God Almighty was to bring democracy to every nation in the Middle East and in time, the whole wide world. That policy failed and failed so superbly that it nearly bankrupted our entire economic system. More importantly, it alienated the United States, a once loved and admired nation, from much of the civilized world. By the eighth year of the Bush Administration, he was the most hated man in the world even out-ranking Iran’s Ahmadinejad for that title. The forty-third president was a loner. He went into the unwarranted war in Iraq with a flimsy coalition of the willing each of whom sent a piteous number of troops to aid the Bush army to topple Saddam Hussein from power for reasons yet to be discovered. According to Wikipedia, “The original list prepared in March 2003 included 49 members.[3] Of those 49, only four besides the U.S. contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, and Denmark). 33 provided some number of troops to support the occupation after the invasion was complete. Six members have no military.” However, Bush had to bribe many members of the coaltion to obtain any involvement in a war that was despised the world over from the very beginning of the preemptive invasion. For example, Turkey, in 2003, was offered $8.5 billion in loans in exchange for sending 10,000 troops following the invasion. According to the agreement between the two countries, “the loans are contingent upon ‘cooperation’ in Iraq. The United Kingdom received a commitment from Bush to receive 1.1 billion British pounds in contracts for British companies for reconstruction projects at the completion of the war. “In addition to direct incentives, critics of the war have argued that the involvement of other members of the coalition was in response for indirect benefits, such as support for NATO membership or other military and financial aid. Almost all of the Eastern European nations involved in the Coalition have either recently joined or are in the process of joining the US-led NATO alliance (namely Bulgaria, Georgia, Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania and Slovakia).[145], the exceptions being Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic which joined NATO in 1999. Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet, for example, said on April 21 that Estonian troops had to remain in Iraq due to his country's "important partnership" with the United States.” [Wikipedia] “At least one country, Georgia, is believed to have sent soldiers to Iraq as an act of repayment for the American training of security forces that could potentially be deployed to the break-away regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.[147] Indeed, Georgian troops that were sent to Iraq have all undergone these training programs.” It is obvious that a country that must buy support from forty-nine countries to send a handful of troops is not fighting a necessary war, not fighting a popular war and, perhaps, is not fighting a war whose soldiers will ever feel the thrill of victory. The very same people that dragged the American people into Baghdad is now criticizing President Obama to aggressively support those in Iran who feel that the election was rigged, that the paper ballots of 39 million people were counted faster than humanly possible, that long before the polls were closed police and military forces were beginning to gather on the streets to prepare for potential protests by dissident voters and rumors were flying from every corner of the country alleging vote fraud. Rather than rush to judgment which is the propensity of the far right and Conservatives in America, the new president elected to remain in the background, allow the Iranians to manage their own election to prevent the theocratic dictators from blaming the upheaval on the United States. He wanted, at all costs, to avoid being accused of stoking the fires of discontent. Obama chose the proper course of action. He chose a course exactly opposite of the Bush approach to countries that were less than friendly to the U. S. While he has called for the Iranian government to remember that how they approach the unrest that is rocking the entire country is being viewed by people around the world. He has urged the government to give the people in the streets, the thousands of protestors who march for a new election, humane treatment. He has not interpolated our values, our form of democracy into the fray. The president of our country must take the longer view of his event. What is at stake here is not just an election, but a potentially dramatic change in the Iranian government. It may send a message to the Ayatollah and the Mullah who are the real power behind the presidential seal and force a modification of the tyranny Ayatollah Khamenie and his fellow clerics have imposed upon the people of this ancient society. Our president must remember and so must our people whether on the right or the left or in the center of the political spectrum that Iran’s attempt to conquer the atoms for whatever use they intend, is a far more consequential concern. Perhaps, the fall of this government would aid us, but this government will not fall if we interject ourselves into the fray. There is more to this revolt than an election. Since Ahmadinejad came to power inflation has risen 26% which is a major cause for the dissatisfaction plaguing the Iranian people. There is not evidence that Mir Hossein Mousavi will bring a new form of government to Iran. He shows no outward signs of desiring to rid Iran of the theocratic quagmire confronting it today. If not, if he does not provide more freedom to the people, give women their rightful place in society and in the work place; if he continues his pursuit of nuclear weapons or nuclear power, our relationship with Iran will improve only marginally. Americans will recall that in 1956 when the revolution broke out in Hungary, President Dwight Eisenhower encouraged the people of Hungary in their quest for freedom from Communist totalitarianism; however, they will also recall that he was helpless to do anything to aid them when the Russian army marched into Budapest and squelched the infant revolution. Eisenhower had to take the long term view. A world war potentially would have been the end result of American interference.  We can not longer consider ourselves the Savior of the World, the great high God of Democracy. Our nation has neither the will, nor the financial wherewithal, or the prestige in the world to bring the theocratic despotism in Iran to its knees. America must put its own house in order and stop the neo-conservatives in our midst from putting fuel on the fires of the very sick idea that America has a destiny to democratize the entire world. If we have learned anything from Iraq, we surely learned that preemptively attacking another nation for the purpose of bringing freedom and democracy to their land is a horrible idea whose time has long passed. Mr. Gingrich is a voice that was once turned out of government and has no place in the new America that emerged with the elections of 2008. Mr. Boehner, while still in government as the leader of the Republican side of the House, has a mind cluttered with antiquated ideas irrelevant to the new country we are attempting to build. Mr. Cheney is simply a demagogue who could do nothing finer for his party than to hurry back to Wyoming and tape his mouth shut. McCain has outlived his usefulness and refuses to launch his mind out of the military rut and into the 21st century. Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Ingraham, Crowley, and others on the far right of the political spectrum fought the good fight for their ancient ideas and by the grace of God and a man whose time has come, cleaned their clocks.  It is now the time to take a few decades to re-think their political policies, lick their deeply inflicted wounds and repent of their angry, antagonistic, and perverted approach to their political opponents. Obama with his team of diplomats are doing exactly what needs to be done at this time and to remind themselves that we do not want to do what we have done in the past and alienate countries and their citizens because of  an arrogant insistence that we know what is best for their nation’s future. We must remain humble and helpful, but not supercilious and overconfident in our treatment of other nations of the world regardless of size or power.                       10:14:56 PM    comment []

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

CHICAGO TRIBUNE REPORTER PAUL RICHTER WROTE A PIECE ON MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD’S ALLEGED VICTORY IN JUNE 12TH’S IRANIAN ELECTION DECLARING “SETBACK FOR OBAMA OUTREACH TO IRAN .”   TODAY, INDIANA’S (R-6TH) MIKE PENCE POPPED UP ON CNN LAST EVENING DECLARING THAT OBAMA’S SOFT, DIPLOMATIC APPROACH TO IRAN HAS NOT WORKED AND HE MUST COME DOWN HARD ON THE RE-ELECTED PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD   The Iranian elections held this past week-end gave Mahmoud Ahmadinejad another four years to irritate the U. S., the Middle East, Europe and millions of his own people who believe him to be a dictator representing only the clerics and the powerful rather than the whole of the Iranian people. In Iran you do not ascend to the presidency without the consent, or if you will, the approval of the Supreme Leaders of Iran [Ali Kamene]. Article 113 of the Constitution of Iran gives the ultimate power to the Supreme Leader who in turn must approve the election of the president. Prior to the presidency, Ahmadinejad was the mayor of Tehran and governor general of Iran’s Ardabil Province. He received a PhD in Transportation Engineering and Planning from Iran University of Science and Transportation and his religious orientation is Usuli Twelver Shis Islam, the same branch of Islam espoused by Ayatollah Khomeini.. In other words, Ahmadinejad is a member of Islam’s most conservative wing and at least six American hostages identify Ahmadinejad as one of the students that participated in the capture and detention of 52 members of the U. S. Embassy for 444 days [from November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981. A group of students took over the American embassy to demonstrate their support of the Iranian Revolution initiated by the Grand Ayatollah in Twelver Shi’a Islam who is most widely known for his political writings and preaching which expanded the Shi’a Usuli theory i.e. the “guardianship of the jurisconsult (clerical authority) to include theocratic political rule by Islamic jurists. Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini turned Iran into a full blown theocratic state giving all of the power once held in the hands of the Shah to the Supreme Leader. As history reports, the United States supported Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran on the throne until his health and political unrest in Iran made it necessary for him and the “royal family” to depart. On November 4, 1964 the Ayatollah’s home in Qom was surrounded by the Shah’s troops, he was arrested and this time taken directly to the airport where he was flown to Turkey. However, Turkish law forbade him from wearing the cloak and turban of the Islamic scholar and he elected to go to Iraq where he remained for thirteen years in the heart the Shiite branch of Islam—Najaf. He returned once again to Iran, but shortly after his returned, he continued to write and preach on behalf of expanding the clerical authority to include matters political and once again his house was surrounded, he was arrested and this time he was flown to Paris where he remained until his return home at the time of the revolution. Ahmadinejad and Khomeini are members of the same bough of Islam which in the simplest form is referred to today as the Shiites. From Ahmadinejad’s earliest days in office, he has been a rabble-rouser. Making controversial statements that have aroused the suspicions of his neighbors in the Middle East and all of his critics in the West, the Iranian president is looked upon with great mistrust. For example, early on he declared his desire to drive Israel into the sea which, of course, aroused the ire of his fellow Arabs fully aware of America’s long standing and steadfast commitment to the Jewish state . He believes Israel should be transported to Germany where apparently the great pain that had been thrust upon them took place. He declares openly that there was no such thing as a holocaust and that six million Jews did not die as a result. Most recently, his overtly expressed plans to obtain uranium for the purpose of using atomic energy to supply Iran with power has ignited a flurry of anxiety. When a leader such as Ahmadinejad makes irrational comments such as those he has on numerous occasions hurled at Israel relating to the holocaust, it causes the rest of the world to assume that this aggressive drive to harness atomic energy for power also insinuates that that power could easily be translated into atomic energy for the construction of bombs with which he could readily reach and destroy Israel, Europe and in time some parts of the U. S. I know of no one except the hard line Republicans who even expected that one speech by Obama to the Arab world in Cairo would result in the defeat of Ahmadinejad in last Saturday’s election. The fact that Richter wrote that this was a setback for Obama’s diplomatic efforts to meet and negotiate with Iran for a better understanding under the aegis that a nation wins more conflicts with honey than hammers, with carrots than sticks-- is absurd. Obama’s diplomatic efforts have yet to begin. More importantly, diplomacy has never been attempted with Iran since prior to the Islamic revolution when the Shah was deposed. During the Bush administrations, our moralistic midget in the White House decided to divide the world into two groups, those that were for us and those who were again’ us. Bush’s “axis of evil” did more harm to the potential for peace in the world that any other expression of impotent international relations. He, Cheney, Rice and most hard line Republicans including the entire apparatus established for the purpose of relating to other nations in the world was shackled to this totally misguided and somewhat paranoid philosophy. We all know now, at least those of us who are no longer “blinded by the right” [to borrow the words from David Brock’s book title] have only an inkling of the vast damage this foreign policy has inflicted upon our nation. Mike Pence wants to go back to the “get tough” days of Bush which were so productive we were alienated from nearly every civilized nation on the planet. Pence is not the brightest man in the Hoosier state (I fervently hope) and surely not the brightest star in the Congress. I only wish he would keep his idiocy to himself. The last thing we need is a repeat of the disaster of the past eight years in foreign policy. Putting on a show of “Getting tough” is the mantra of the weak. It is always the bully in the school yard who cries first when the boy he has bullied  smashes him in the nose. This nation has no appetite for another conflict. Our forces are exhausted; our financial circumstances are dangerously weak. To “get tough” at this juncture would be the behavior of a fool. And our friend at the Chicago Tribune, Paul Richter is not so naïve as to believe that Obama after just a few months in office was going to reverse the essence of a relationship of alienation between the U. S. and Iran that has festered for nearly thirty years. Diplomacy takes time, but is so more successful than bombs and tanks in the long haul. I hate it when a newspaper chooses to run a headline designed for no other reason than to draw attention to itself with an exaggeration or an out and out lie. Only the most absurdly wide-eyed optimist believed for more than one shining moment that one speech, by one man, however oratorically skilled his presentation or profound the ideas his voice conveyed, could bring about a change in the voting habits of a nation steeped in the tradition of the ancient Shiite theocracy. Ahmadinejad’s victory was not a setback for Obama, it was a setback for Iran. As the streets filled with angry students and supporters of Ahmadinejad’s opposition candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, it quickly became apparent that if Ahmadinejad won 65% of the vote as early reports indicated, the voting officials would have to count the voters fingers and toes. The Supreme Leader declared the election figures final and so they shall remain unless the students and opposition supporters turn this into a revolution of the bloodiest kind and stand tall and long against the thugs that are being employed to keep the protestors under control with their motorbikes and night sticks. And now back to diplomacy because we cannot afford to pay the cost of another conflict, and because it is our best hope for a long term resolution to our conflict with this ancient nation. 12:16:49 PM    comment []

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

"THE LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE’S" RESPONSE TO CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER’S SYNDICATED COLUMN “COMING TO TERMS WITH THE SETTLEMENTS MYTH”      Charles, Charles, Charles! You are so far off  base on your article today in the Chicago Tribune entitled “Coming to Terms with the Settlement Myths” Your short term memory loss is further along than I originally believed. Israel by international consensus had no right to build settlements in the midst of the very land the Palestinians are to establish their state, in the first place. 120 settlements, each surrounded by a cadre of military forces dot the landscape of the West Bank like measles on a child's face. These are not small, minute clusters, in 2006 485,000 Israelis lived in settlements previously assigned as part of the new Palestinian state.  Numerous international bodies such as the United Nations Security Council, the International Court of Justice, the European Union, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and numerous international law experts have deemed these settlements to be in violation of international law.  In recent years, contrary to your assumption, no impartial observer has "envisioned Israel retaining" control over these settlements and many envision these settlements either under Palestinian law, but more likely removed from the West Bank where they should not have been allowed to be built in the first place.  For you to say that the Palestinians leadership "gave its people corruption, tyranny, religious intolerance and forced militarization; leadership that for three generations rejected every offer of independence and dignity, choosing destitution and despair rather than accept any settlements not accompanied by the extinction of Israel,” Is simply an over-simplification of the facts. No doubt, there was corruption in the PLO and its political arm—Fatah. However, it must be said the people did vote and while Fatah failed to provide the basic services the general populace required, because of lack of resources available for anything other than military preparedness which was severely limited because of the United States and European embargos, it did pave the way for Hamas to come to power. I am in regular communication with a peace organization in Israel that is fighting the Israeli law that requires all of its youth to serve in the Armed Forces. These young men and women have been jailed, under house arrest, re-committed to a penal institution on and on ad infinitum nausea. That Charles is militarization also, and is equally despicable. Charles you are a master of oversimplification and thus deception and lying. The Israeli conflict is vital to peace in the region and while the Arabs have made some unwarranted errors in their attempt to force Israel into the sea, there are millions of Palestinians in ghettos throughout the Middle East who have been homeless for over sixty years. There are millions more in the West Bank and Gaza that live in conditions that are unfit for human habitation. The U. S. policy for the past eight years under Bush has done nothing but intensify the conflict while ignoring the imperative needs of the Palestinian territories. Charles where do you think al Qaeda and other jihadist militia are recruiting their suicide bombers? People who have or nothing would rather die for Allah than spend their lives in poverty, ignorance and houses made of mud and canvas. And finally, for you to even suggest that Obama went to Cairo to tell the truth. "But he uttered not a word of that," is a despicable violation of your journalistic responsibility.  Obama has done what no other president in my memory and unlike you I still have a healthy ability to recall facts without interjecting my political bias, has been able to accomplish. George Bush would not have drawn 300,000 people to one of his speeches Berlin, or the crowds in Turkey, England, France; or even been permitted to address the University of Cairo without appearing behind a bullet proof glass surrounded by Secret Service men on all sides, if he was permitted to speak at all. The hard right is turning what should be a time of rejoicing for the election of a brilliant, eloquent and adept leader who puts a whole new and quite strong face on the American government. By the way, people as ignorant as Jon Voigt who made irresponsible remarks about Obama this week, are collaborators with the hard right that want nothing more than to see Barack Obama fail and with him the entire U. S. economy. At least one of Voigt’s children, Angelina Jolie and her partner, Brad Pitt, are smarter than the old man. Charles, open your eyes, read, travel to the Middle East and then tell me that what you wrote has any validity at all. 11:57:51 PM    comment []

Sunday, June 07, 2009

NETANYAHU’S GOVERNMENT VOWS TO INCREASE NEW SETTLEMENTS IN THE WEST BANK CONTRARY TO MUTUALLY ESTABLISHED AGREEMENTS   THE NEW PRIME MINISTER POSES A SERIOUS DANGER TO WHATEVER REMAINS OF THE MIDDLE EASTERN PEACE PROCESS AFTER BUSH NEGLECTED IT FOR EIGHT YEARS.   OBAMA MUST COME DOWN HARD ON ISRAEL’S INTENTION TO EXPAND SETTLEMENTS IF HE IS EVER TO MAKE THE PEACE PROCESS WORK   I have never been a fan of Benjamin Netanyahu because (like Bush) his religious beliefs always get in the way of making peace with the Palestinians. Frankly, after sixty-one years of being forced to endure in dust covered refugee camps and filthy, fetid and mildew infested ghettos the Palestinian people deserve a state and they deserve the backing of the U. S. in that quest; because without their own state there will never be peace in the region. Suicide bombings will persist. Car and Truck bombs will continue to light the skies over Israeli cities and more people, Arabs, Christian and Jews will be unnecessarily slaughtered. There will be no peace in Bibi’s [his nickname] time because like all Orthodox Jews he believes that “the land of milk and honey” was granted to “the chosen people” by Yahweh with the specific understanding that as long as the chosen ones obeyed the laws of Yahweh, the land was theirs and He would watch over them and protect them. What the Israeli leadership has forgotten far too frequently is that nasty little phrase about obeying “the law of Yahweh” is a requisite to their mandate over “the land of milk and honey.” Israel has failed and continues to fail to understand the requisite of abiding by the law, to perpetually obey the law, to seek peace with their neighbors, and love their fellow men. Therefore, rather than ranting and raving about recapturing the land comprising the ancient Kingdom of David, they should be seeking the forgiveness of Yahweh for their sins of both omission and commission. Netanyahu is no exception; in fact, because he is such an indefatigable hard-liner he may well lead the Israelis further away from the essence of the law of Yahweh than they have been under recent Prime Ministers. Certainly, the territory that the United Nations determined to include both Israel and Palestine in 1948 is not the same land that the two inhabit today. Israel, in every war with the Palestinians has taken an impressive bite out of the land intended for the new Palestinian state. And now, they refuse to give it back which is one of the conditions of “peace,” for the Palestinians. The Orthodox factions of the Netanyahu government insist that they are only taking back what was originally given them my God. If they insist that Yahweh granted the people of Israel what has become known as the Holy Land, they have forfeited their power over what they believe to be sacred soil by failing to obey the laws of Yahweh. But Yahweh is not running the world, international organizations are making decisions and all countries that are members of those organizations are expected to abide by the verdict of those bodies. Israel is no exception. Well over 200 times the U. S., over the loud and angry cries from critics, has vetoed resolutions condemning Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, Israel’s violation of peace treaties, Israel’s calloused resolve to regain all of the land between the Euphrates and the Nile comprising the former domain of King David’s empire. While true believers embrace the myth that antediluvian King is the Son of God, he was one of the most aberrant leaders in Israel’s bitter history, his vast empire is for the Orthodox advocates the quintessence of the Holy Land they seek to recover. Equally important this same faction of Judaism believes that out of the House of David in Bethlehem will come the next Messiah; a scion of David which is why the early Christians identified Bethlehem as the birth place of Jesus when in fact, more recent information tells us that it is more than conjecture that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Because Jesus was commonly called “Jesus of Nazareth” it is now believed that the early followers of the Man from Galilee, in a desperate attempt to prove to the Jews that he was a “scion of David,” that they “edited” the very early manuscripts of the New Testament and identified Bethlehem as Jesus’ hometown. Therefore Jesus, for some, was that new Messiah. But Jesus was not interested in becoming the Messiah in the political sense of the word; he was working to bring the kingdom of god, the law of love, the community of those who practiced the message that he fated to be the only law that mattered—“ God is Love,” to be the law of the land. The Kingdom of God to Jesus was the rule of love (agape). Many believe that some of his disciples were sorely disappointed that He did not bring about the revolution they were apprehensively awaiting. They were frustrated by the fact that He went to the cross voluntarily and died voluntarily rather than fight to overthrow the tyranny of Rome. At first, from Peter’s point of view, one had to be a Jew before he could become a Christian. Peter was trying to keep the Jewish myth together and simply added Jesus as the crucial addendum to their Old Testament writings. Those who opposed the law and those who felt that Jesus was crucified because of the Jewish law, took the greenhorn church members toward Rome and Greece and to a new theology that in many ways detached its ties with the Old Testament and Judaism. I happened to concur with this perspective. I believe that Jesus made a permanent departure from the Judaism of his day. In the long history of Israel’s struggle to establish a new state in the “land of milk and honey” we must not forget that the state of Israel was born out of the blood shed by a host of Jewish terrorists. Nearly every one of the early Prime Ministers of Israel was a terrorist long before a statesperson. David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister and one of the founding members of the state of Israel is reported to have said that the Jews and the Palestinians will never be able to live side by side in separate states. The implication here is that there is too much animosity, too much deeply embedded hatred, too many irreconcilable differences for the two peoples to be amicable, to be neighbors who live in peace with one another. Ben-Gurion may be right. As I have argued before, it may take permanently stationed international armed forces lining the arbitrarily assigned boundaries for there to be any semblance of peace. If that it what it takes, so be it. If Netanyahu and his branch of Judaism cannot see their way fit to recognize a state for Palestine and live side by side in peace with the Palestinian people; and if Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranians and, perhaps the Syrians, cannot resist their deeply felt belief that Israel must be pushed into the sea, then a peace must be forced upon this small piece of the Globe that has caused more trouble especially over the last sixty-one years than its land size and population warrants. The Jews today are divided into three separate and distinct communities of believers—the Orthodox Jews who see themselves as the keeper of the law, the defenders of the land and “the decider” in matters religious; the Conservative Jews who still follow the main precepts of Judaism, but with less intensity and less rigidity; and finally, the Reformed Jews who are the liberal wing of this ancient faith and who are still at “war” with the Orthodox Jews over their antiquated view of the world and Israel’s role in it. Netanyahu comes from the far right. He is the darling of the Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, and right wing Evangelical arm of the contemporary American Christianity. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell (prior to his death), the Southern Baptists, the above mentioned religious sects, all were big money raisers for Netanyahu because he most closely reflects their fundamentalist beliefs in the Old Testament. It would be well for Fundamentalists, Pentecostals, Southern Baptists and other conservative Christians take into account that up to 90,000 Christians live in the Palestinian territories including approximately 2,000 in Gaza the city Israeli forces eviscerated in its unnecessarily prolonged attack recently. Up to 145,000 Arab Christians reside in Israel. In other words, it would be well for right wing Christians to remember that this issue harmfully influences the lives of nearly 250,000 Christians who are located in the heart of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and suffer the same anxiety, fear and sense of abandon that penetrates the souls of both the Palestinian and Israeli peoples. Netanyahu’s policies that he overtly expressed during his visit to Washington are not in the best interest of our Christian brethren. It is reported that upon his return to Tel Aviv, Netanyahu, after being told by both Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama that there must be no expansion of the settlements for any reason whatsoever, angrily shouted “What in the hell do they want from me?” The answer to that hastily articulated comment is simple: accept and work for the establishment of a Palestinian state, and stop expanding or adding new settlements in the West Bank to which your recent predecessors in the Office of Prime Minister already agreed. Netanyahu has promised all of the minuscule Zionist and Orthodoxy’s religiously based political parties comprising his coalition government that he will not surrender one inch of the Holy Land given to them by Yahweh and that he will fight to the death to destroy any chance the Palestinians may have of ever, yes ever, abiding in their own state. All of the Arabs states that are friends to the United States have been poorly served by the Bush Administration. While they have kept their part of the bargain, they still insist that the Palestinian issue is the most critical item on the present Middle Eastern agenda for the new president. Obama must face Netanyahu squarely and not allow this man who tends to be intimidating in negotiations, to dictate the agenda. Obama must come down hard with real muscle such as withholding some of the $20 billion dollars Bush gave to Israel prior to his escape from the nation’s capitol. If Israel, through Netanyahu, continues to insist on building new settlements in the West Bank, if I were Obama I would seriously penalize them for violating the international agreement that Israel must not expand its territory through the expansion of presently existing settlements, building new settlements on the West Bank further stealing land that is to be part of the new Palestinian state. The promise to cease and desist the expansion made by previous Prime Ministers is a promise that Netanyahu would not even agree to during his recent meetings with Obama. I was glad to see that Secretary of State Clinton this week came down hard on Netanyahu’s stated intention to start building new settlements! I hope she continues to hold Bibi’s feet to the fire. And I trust that Obama, too, will realize that he must play hardball with the new Prime Minister because the Prime Minister knows no other way to fight and will persistently push his agenda to the end or die trying. His election has delayed if not destroyed any immediate resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, the U. S. has the tools necessary to bring this long, unnecessarily drawn-out process to a screeching halt. Bush poured salt on the wounds of Israel’s neighbors and after demanding a democratic election that he naively believed would cure all of the aliments of the Palestinians, was shocked to find his naïve, biased and ignorance of the Palestinian frustrations gave Hamas a victory he never anticipated. More important, that Hamas victory was a thoroughly embarrassing outcome to Bush and the entire Western coalition. Bush and Condoleezza Rice nearly paralyzed the Middle Eastern peace process because they allowed it to nearly expire out of abject neglect. The American president felt certain that Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and its political arm—Fatah would automatically be elected. Surely, he was startled by the results. What Bush did not count on was the victory by Hamas the Islamic arm of the jihadist movement in Palestine that is heavily dependent upon terrorism, including suicide bombers as their weapon of choice. What the president’s intelligence did not include was the fact that when people are without employment, without shelter, with inadequate food, water and medical care who have been living in a state of limbo for over sixty years. When your stomach throbs from hunger, you do not have the strength to worry about democracy or to argue over a philosophy of government; these people would support any political party that had been giving them the basic necessities of their lives. In their minds, survival is far more important than freedom.  Fatah that ruled the Palestinian for decades was ripe with corruption. Their politicians were not serving the people’s very basic needs. The voting public, disgusted with widespread dishonesty, “threw out the bastards,” who had corrupted the entire Fatah government for decades at the expense of providing its constituency with the basic necessities to make their miserable lives somewhat more bearable. Only the politically active Palestinians in the Fatah Party flourished in all of the decades the PLO was in power. After Hamas’ election, Bush while forecasting a democratic election as a cure for the Palestinian problems, refused to recognize the new, democratically elected government because using his characterization, the members of Hamas were terrorists. Murder is not in that book. Bombing of one’s enemies is not in that book. Hatred is not in that book. Once Hamas grasps the genuine message of their Holy doctrine, they will give up their foolish ways and practice their true faith to the benefit of all Palestinians. There is no doubt that Hamas has done the Palestinians no favor by selecting suicide bombing as their weapon of choice. Even though we all know that they have been banned from attaining any other form of ammunition by the U. S. and the U. N., they are using suicide bombers as their sole means of retaliation against the treatment they often receive at the hands of the Israeli army personnel as well as its policemen. They are jihadists and are aided by those countries believed by most of the western world to be on the far right of the Islamic gamut. They use the Koran as a weapon to boost their cause while ignoring many of the fundamental edicts of their Holy Scriptures that denounce killing, violence, most importantly, calls upon its followers to love and accept their neighbors. Israel is not without sin in this conflict and it would be wise for the new president to recognize this very cogent fact. Israel must go and do likewise. Orthodox members must rethink their antiquated belief system and realize in the modern world no one is buying their claim to “all the land from the Euphrates to the Nile” as their “land of milk and honey” nor is the modern world succumbing to their claim to be the “Chosen People” of Yahweh when they persistently refuse to take responsibility for upholding the laws of Yahweh in both their personal and national life. They have sinned time and again against the laws of their Scriptures and wonder why they have not found the peace they so eagerly seek. 21st century Judaism must come to terms with the real world and the tribulations contained in the context of that real world experience. It is only when these two ancient enemies re-think their hypocritical claims against each other and remember that prior to 1948 Jews and Arabs lived side by side in peace and sociability. If they can cleanse their souls of all of the hostility, hatred, and greed that has marked their relationship since 1948 and realize that both parties want nothing more than for the killing to stop, the skirmishes to cease, the ridiculous fence to be torn down, the check points to close, the rockets to become forever silent, the unlawful invasions to cease and desist and the irrational demands of each party to be dropped—then and only then will there be peace in the Middle East. 11:30:49 AM    comment []

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

SONIA SOTOMAYOR IS AN EXCELLENT CHOICE FOR THE U. S. SUPREME COURT   HER COMMENTS MADE IN 2002 ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT—HER EXPERIENCE COMING OUT OF POVERTY AND RISING TO THE HEIGHTS OF THE AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM MAKES HER A MORE RESPONSIVE JUDGE   The Republican Party is proving itself to be the Party of the rude, the unwise and the foolish. Comments made in the days since President Obama announced his selection of Sonia Sotomayor to fill the vacancy of George H. W.  Bush’s biggest disappointment as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court—David Souter is an insult to the woman, to the Hispanic Community and to her extraordinary accomplishments both as a scholar and a jurist. A woman who was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, and was in the top one percent of her class at Yale Law School and editor of Yale Law Review.—simply does not deserve the irresponsible and inane comment by Pat Buchanan on Hardball with Chris Matthews when he said, [paraphrase] “not smart enough to sit on the Supreme Court.” “I'm not saying she's a racist, but the statement sure is," columnist Ann Coulter said on ABC's ‘Good Morning America.’” As usual, the mouth, Rush Limbaugh, added his two senseless worth, "And the libs of course say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one. ..." Limbaugh again—“Limbaugh: Now, you want to enshrine racism on the Supreme Court. It's a setback for civil rights. Dr. King, you judge a person by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. it seems that all of his proponents have forgotten his number one goal... Andrea Mitchell on her MSNBC program, Andrea Mitchell Reports, had as her guests, Pat Buchanan a hard right conservative and Bob Schrum, a Democratic political consultant. “Mitchell: Do you disagree with anything Rush Limbaugh said? ‘Buchanan: Yeah, I do agree, I don't agree with some of the terms, but I do agree Sonia Sotomayor [he pronounces her name wrong, probably on purpose] does believe in race-based justice basically at the expense of white males and to advance people of color. The truth is that's what Barack Obama believes as well.’ Buchanan carried his nonsensical argument one step too far only to expose to the public his irrational prejudice against women and Hispanics. “She is not that intelligent.” It is time for old Pat to go to church to pray to his right wing Catholic God that he be forgiven for his sins of commission, his bigotry toward Hispanics that decays the very flesh of his hard heartedness, and his chauvinism that infects his mind and his thinking. Tom Tancredo, another know nothing Republican from Colorado, failed 2008 candidate for the Republican presidential nomination who wears this badge of bigotry on his sleeve; Gordon Baum, head of the Council for Conservative Citizens says of Tancredo "He's got the best track record in Congress, a "pro-white" group that lauds Tancredo for protecting America from a "full-scale invasion" of Latin immigrants.” Tancredo, a former Congressmen and an avid anti-Hispanic dogmatist made these statements on The Ed Show [by the way, that is truly dumb name for a show; surely MSNBC can do better than that] on MSNBC: Tancredo: “Unfortunately for her and fortunately for us there are plenty of things that we've even talked about her already. I'm telling you, she appears to be a racist. She said things that are racist in any other context... Tancredo:”You can still be a racist and have all those things in your background. You can be a racist and have all that stuff in your background.” We can only be thankful that the Republicans while prone to select incompetent kooks to lead their bid for the White House had the foresight to send Tancredo back to Colorado where he can escape into the mountain and never be heard from again. We could not end the report without gleaning some profound insight from the other “big mouth” of the hard right, disgraced former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich who wrote on his blog---“Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman. Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."  And the always two faced right wing idiot, Dick Morris, issued this warning to his believers from his podium on The O’Reilly Factor , “She's gonna get confirmed. Get out of the way of the truck," An anonymous source representing those who have completely lost their minds and are about the business of spreading their insanity to those on the internet wrote this: “Could Mexico retake the southwestern United States? Get the DVD that says the invasion is already happening.” She is also be dragged over the coals by the far, far right which at the moment is the loudest voice in the wounded, leaderless Republican Party, for being a member of National Council of La Raza commonly referred to as the NCLR. It is a not for profit sponsorship assemblage that concentrates on reducing poverty and discrimination and improving opportunities of Hispanics for assimilating into the larger society. NCLR is not to be confused with La Raza Unida which is reality a third political party and the first and only one devoted to the causes of one ethnic group. Its stated goal is to assist Mexican-Americans to find better homes, more education and better job opportunities. Sonia Sotomayor delivered a speech in 2002 before the University of California, Berkeley School of Law that is haunting her as her confirmation hearings are about to begin. She is being called a racist, insufficiently intelligent, sexist, and of course to Republican the most demeaning label of all “liberal.” I have read her 2002 speech in its entirety and as a Social Scientist, I find her position not only to be accurate, I find it to be late in coming to the debate on the effect of gender, race, sexual preference and political leanings to the judicial system and the final judgments by those on the bench. Does one Republican think that my least favorite and the most fixated Justice on the Court believe that his conservative Catholic heritage does not taint his decision-making as an Associate Justice. If there is, may I introduce you to a real fool whose head is buried so deeply in the sands that they would not truth should they trip over it. I am so convinced of the truthfulness of Judge Sotomayor’s premise in her speech at the University of California, I urge President Obama to consider the fact that the Court is filled to capacity with Catholics and his next appointment, and he will have another appointment, should come from another religious perspective. As I said above, I have read every word of her speech and I ask you to read these excerpts for yourself to determine whether you think that the Limbaugh’s, Gingrich’s, Buchanan’s, Tancredo’s and Coulter’s of this world have ever issued a judgment about a Democrat that demonstrated “equal justice for all.”   ·        While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.   ·        I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought.   ·        Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, "to judge is an exercise of power" and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives — no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that — it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.   ·        The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father's visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the   ·        Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.   ·        For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?   ·        Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.     7:19:03 PM    comment []