Recognition of Cuba!

The big news this week is President Obama's announcement that diplomatic relations will be restored with Cuba.  See his full speech here.  This move was long overdue, and it's a measure of Obama's pragmatism that he was the president to finally end an outmoded strategy that had stopped serving  the interests of both the United States and the Cuban people decades ago.  Further, it's another example of the president making good on his stated resolve to take all the steps he unilaterally can under his constitutional executive powers to make progress on solving any number of festering national problems.

After four years of futilely seeking common ground with the congressional Republican majority, it's ironic that GOP victory in the 2014 midterms has released Obama from political concerns and freed him to do what is right in the humanitarian and national interest.  First came his groundbreaking agreement with China on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, next was his  Executive Order on immigration enforcement, and now comes recognition of Cuba.  That is something congress can do nothing about, though they alone can remove the economic sanctions still in place against the island nation. 

The diplomatic recognition follows the formula laid out over 190 years ago in the Monroe Doctrine, that in dealing with foreign powers the United States will "consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us..."  Thus diplomatic recognition is not a "reward" bestowed on governments we approve of, it is a recognition of the facts of political life.  It is also a bow to the reality that we can have no influence over a nation with which we have no relations.  It is a childish notion indeed that we can hold our breath and stop speaking to a government and that they then will capitulate to all our wishes.  It hasn't worked for 53 years, and dead-enders who want to continue the policy do so reflexively, with no serious way forward in prospect.  Indeed, the history of our relations with the Soviet Union, Vietnam, China and others, give every indication that establishing relations with former adversaries and increasing their contacts with American people and commerce accelerate changes for the good in such closed societies. 

The ability to keep nine exploratory sessions so secret with Cuba is a marvel in today's media climate, involving as they did not only the U.S. and Cuba but also the good offices of Canada and the Vatican.  One wonders what other remarkable and long-needed initiatives the Obama Administration may have in store.  I'm betting there are more, and that most of them will inspire apoplexy among congressional Republicans.  That will make them all the more delightful.   
         

Man Wants to Keep his Sons Alive

Lawrence Otis Graham is an attorney with an investment banker wife and two sons.  They both went to Harvard.  After the Trayvon Martin shooting and the other recent killings of young unarmed black men, Lawrence decided he had better have "the talk" with his two sons to make sure they know the unwritten rules of American society, the rules that young black men need to follow if they want to reduce their chances of getting killed by jittery policemen, security guards or just plain average white citizens.

Graham was interviewed on Nightline recently to share about the precautions an aware black male feels obligated to take to avoid profiling.  He's not over the top; it's just matter of fact advice.  Click on this link to hear his explanation of what he felt he needed to tell his boys about dress and behavior.  It only take two minutes and sixteen seconds.  His goal is simple.  He says, "I just want to keep them alive."     

                                 The Graham Family

Senate Report: Torture was Brutal and Ineffective

 Today the Senate Intelligence Committee chaired by Senator Dianne Feinstein released the unclassified version of its report on "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" used during the Bush Administration.  A detailed synopsis of the more brutal methods can be found here.  Suffice it to say some of the techniques employed killed detainees and many would constitute torture by the definitions of the Geneva Convention, of which the United States is a signatory.  The report also finds that CIA lied to Congress about the methods employed and the effectiveness of the intelligence obtained.  The report's investigation determined that no important actionable intelligence was garnered by the use of these barbaric practices, and that indeed much misinformation was "fabricated" by detainees in their efforts to make the agony stop.  One of President Obama's first acts after his inauguration in 2009 was to ban this barbarism. 

 Senate majority leader Harry Reid weighed in to back the report. “Today, for the first time, the American people are going to learn the full truth about torture that took place under the CIA during the Bush administration,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “The only way our country can put this episode in the past is to confront what happened.”  "Not only is torture wrong but it doesn’t work,” said Reid. He said torture “got us nothing except a bad name.”

Most Republicans, including former President George W. Bush, criticized the report, but Senator John McCain, a victim of torture himself as a prisoner in Vietnam, had this to say: "What might cause a surprise not just to our enemies, but to many Americans is how little these practices did to aid our efforts to bring 9/11 culprits to justice and to find and prevent terrorist attacks today and tomorrow. That could be a real surprise since it contradicts the many assurances provided by intelligence officials on the record and in private that enhanced interrogation techniques were indispensable in the war against terrorism." (Source)

I don't always agree with Sen. McCain on many things, but on this issue he has always had it right.  He well encapsulated the importance of a moral stance with this statement: "But in the end, torture's failure to serve its intended purpose isn't the main reason to oppose its use. I have often said and will always maintain that this question isn't about our enemies, it's about us. It's about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be." (Source)

Voice of Sanity on Ferguson

Benjamin Watson is a tight end for the New Orleans Saints of the National Football League.  He attended high school  in South Carolina and graduated from the University of Georgia with a degree in finance. Benjamin and his wife Kirsten co-founded the Christian charity, One More.  A Facebook  piece he wrote dealing with the killing of the young black man Michael Brown by the white police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri has gone viral, and deservedly so.  Wilson thoughtfully looks at several aspects of the issue, a refreshing change from the heated opinions of people on both "sides" whose preconceptions dictate their verbiage irrespective of actual facts.  In case you hadn't seen it yet, I include Watson's entire message as presented in Reader Supported News.      

Benjamin Watson, photo courtesy of New Orleans Saints

I'm Angry

By Benjamin Watson, Facebook

30 November 14

 
t some point while I was playing or preparing to play Monday Night Football, the news broke about the Ferguson Decision. After trying to figure out how I felt, I decided to write it down. Here are my thoughts:

I'M ANGRY because the stories of injustice that have been passed down for generations seem to be continuing before our very eyes.

I'M FRUSTRATED, because pop culture, music and movies glorify these types of police citizen altercations and promote an invincible attitude that continues to get young men killed in real life, away from safety movie sets and music studios.

I'M FEARFUL because in the back of my mind I know that although I'm a law abiding citizen I could still be looked upon as a "threat" to those who don't know me. So I will continue to have to go the extra mile to earn the benefit of the doubt.

I'M EMBARRASSED because the looting, violent protests, and law breaking only confirm, and in the minds of many, validate, the stereotypes and thus the inferior treatment.

I'M SAD, because another young life was lost from his family, the racial divide has widened, a community is in shambles, accusations, insensitivity hurt and hatred are boiling over, and we may never know the truth about what happened that day.

I'M SYMPATHETIC, because I wasn't there so I don't know exactly what happened. Maybe Darren Wilson acted within his rights and duty as an officer of the law and killed Michael Brown in self defense like any of us would in the circumstance. Now he has to fear the backlash against himself and his loved ones when he was only doing his job. What a horrible thing to endure. OR maybe he provoked Michael and ignited the series of events that led to him eventually murdering the young man to prove a point.

I'M OFFENDED, because of the insulting comments I've seen that are not only insensitive but dismissive to the painful experiences of others.

I'M CONFUSED, because I don't know why it's so hard to obey a policeman. You will not win!!! And I don't know why some policeman abuse their power. Power is a responsibility, not a weapon to brandish and lord over the populace.

I'M INTROSPECTIVE, because sometimes I want to take "our" side without looking at the facts in situations like these. Sometimes I feel like it's us against them. Sometimes I'm just as prejudiced as people I point fingers at. And that's not right. How can I look at white skin and make assumptions but not want assumptions made about me? That's not right.

I'M HOPELESS, because I've lived long enough to expect things like this to continue to happen. I'm not surprised and at some point my little children are going to inherit the weight of being a minority and all that it entails.

I'M HOPEFUL, because I know that while we still have race issues in America, we enjoy a much different normal than those of our parents and grandparents. I see it in my personal relationships with teammates, friends and mentors. And it's a beautiful thing.

I'M ENCOURAGED, because ultimately the problem is not a SKIN problem, it is a SIN problem. SIN is the reason we rebel against authority. SIN is the reason we abuse our authority. SIN is the reason we are racist, prejudiced and lie to cover for our own. SIN is the reason we riot, loot and burn. BUT I'M ENCOURAGED because God has provided a solution for sin through the his son Jesus and with it, a transformed heart and mind. One that's capable of looking past the outward and seeing what's truly important in every human being. The cure for the Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner tragedies is not education or exposure. It's the Gospel. So, finally, I'M ENCOURAGED because the Gospel gives mankind hope.

Obama's Order on Immigration Coming Soon

I hope President Obama goes ahead and makes his executive order on immigration, and does it soon.  The best indications are that it will be based on setting priorities for federal enforcement.  Since there are not nearly enough Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to round up all 11-12 million undocumented residents, there is considerable discretion in how to go about enforcing the rules on the books.

It appears the president's EO will set certain conditions as a very low priority for enforcement.  These would include people who have U.S. citizen children or are living with other U.S. citizen family members, people who were brought here as very young children, those who have other close citizen relatives, and people who are working in occupations in which there is a shortage of U.S. citizen labor.  There may be additional categories as well.  Estimates are that these new directives will apply to about half the current 11-12 million people in the U.S. without papers.  President Obama has previously singled out lawbreakers as the first priority for strict enforcement and deportation.

It is inhumane to tear parents away from children or send children who have known no other home to foreign countries.  It is not helpful to our prosperity to dislocate workers who are employed and contributing to the national economy.  It is destructive to businesses to deprive them of workers they are depending on.

Obama should not worry that conservative Nativists will scream.  They always scream no matter what he does.  The Gallup Poll says that Americans favor a path to citizenship for law-abiding undocumented immigrants by a margin of 88 to 12.  The Senate already passed a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration plan back in June, 2013 by a 68-32 margin with 14 Republican votes.  The Republican-controlled House has had a year and a half  to do something.  They ought to vote right away on the Senate proposal.  Many Democrats are urging them to do that right now.  Here is a letter from Sen. Barbara Boxer about it.  But they are stuck between their business backers, who want the immigrant labor, and their prejudiced base, who hates immigrants.  Consequently they fulminate and criticize, but do nothing. 

The president should therefore act.  He is right on humanitarian grounds.  He is right on economic grounds.  And he is definitely right on political grounds.  If the Republicans do nothing he will have helped the country make its immigration policies more rational and humane.  If the Republicans instead vote against him or find a way to block him, they will devastate their chances among Latino voters and drive them to the polls en masse for the 2016 elections and beyond.  All they need do is ask California Republicans what happened here after Pete Wilson passed the anti-immigrant Proposition 187 in 1994.  They haven't been competitive in the state since. 

               

Why Democrats Lost, and How They Could Have Won

As promised last time, here is my post-election wrap-up.  Republicans won a solid victory in Tuesday's midterm election, adding 9 senators, 12 representatives and 3 governorships to their roster.  But in my view, the bigger story was not that Republicans won, but that Democrats lost, and why they lost.  Democrats lost because they never gave the American public a coherent reason to vote for them.  Consequently, they failed to arouse their own base and to persuade moderates and independents to support them.   

Everyone who follows the political scene knows Democrats have a hard time winning the "midterm" elections, the ones that come two years after the last presidential election and two years before the next one.  The 2014 cycle was particularly difficult because of the 6-year cycle of Senate races.  This year's crop included a lot of Democrats elected in normally Republican states in the 2008 Obama wave election, states that were going to be difficult to defend.  In addition, there is historical precedent: the president's party almost always loses seats in an administration's 6th year in office.  It even happened to liberal icon Franklin Roosevelt and conservative maven Ronald Reagan.

But that is no excuse.  The nation knew exactly where the Republicans stood, and their message was universally communicated by all their candidates across the nation: The nation is in sorry shape,  Democrats, especially President Obama, are to blame, and Republicans have a plan to make things better.  The plan is tax cuts, spending cuts, deregulation, and repeal Obamacare.  No matter who the  "out" party is, the first part of their campaign message practically writes itself.  The "ins" have messed things up and the "outs" have a plan to fix them.

What was the Democrats' message?  Does anybody know?  That's why they lost.  The "in" party's strategy has to be to defend their record.  Otherwise their base doesn't turn out to preserve what they see as the party's accomplishments, and the undecideds see no reason to vote for them.  The opposition defines your record if you don't do it yourself.  The Democrats didn't use President Obama much because his poll numbers have been down of late.  They didn't talk about health care because its numbers are upside down as well, though people like its component parts.  They didn't talk about much that might offend people.  People read that as a party that doesn't have confidence in its own president and its own principles.  If the Kentucky candidate for U.S. Senator herself won't enthusiastically say, "Yes, I voted for the leader of my party and I was proud to do so!" then why should anyone else want to vote for that party?  The figures tell the story: In 2012 20 percent of the electorate was 18 to 29 years old and 25 percent was over 65.  The result was a resounding Democratic win.  In 2014 only 12 percent of the electorate was under 30, and 40 percent was 65 or older.  Wow.  No wonder the Republicans did so well.

If I'd been running the Democratic campaign it would have focused like a laser on the economy.  Every ad, every speech, every surrogate would have delivered a litany like this: The screen begins with the word THE ECONOMY in bold letters.  We see shots of people in unemployment lines, houses with "Foreclosed" signs in the front yard, and scenes of panic on Wall Street.  The spokesperson begins, "When Democrats took office from the last Republican administration America was losing 800,000 jobs a month.  The unemployment rate was 10%.  The Dow Jones Stock Average had fallen to 6,500 and the American auto industry was on the verge of bankruptcy.  In 2012, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney promised that if elected he would get the unemployment rate under 6% by 2016.  Well, under Democratic leadership, the economy has created 10 million jobs, including 52 consecutive months of job growth--that's a record in the entire history of the United States--the Dow Jones Stock Average is at 17,500, the American auto industry is making record profits, and it's only 2014 but the unemployment rate is already under 6%.  We're Democrats, and we're not running from our record, we're running ON it!"  A representative group of about 30 happy Americans of a wide variety of ages and ethnicities comes on and says in unison, "We're proud to be Democrats!  The Democratic National Committee approved this message!"  In this second segment we have been watching scenes of people moving into new homes, workers busy, dynamic bustle on Wall Street, and children playing happily.  The spot ends with bold letters announcing: DEMOCRATS: JOBS, PROSPERITY, FREEDOM (fade to black.)

I would have prepared a similar spot defending the Democratic record on health care, another on women's, gay and minority rights, and a third on defense and security.  I would have used the economic message the most, but they would all have played nationally, and often.       

You can't beat something with nothing.  If you want to win elections as the "in" party you have to control the message and make it about defending your record, a record of accomplishment.  You have to be proud of that record and hammer it home.  If you won't do that, not only will you fail to win, you won't even deserve to.      

Senate Scenarios, 2014

Tomorrow is election day and control of the U.S. Senate is at stake.  I'll explain the lay of the land in this post.  The basic facts are that the Democrats have 53 Senators plus two independents, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine who caucus with them.  So the effective makeup of the Senate is a 55-45 Democratic majority.  That means Republicans need a net gain of 6 seats to become the Senate majority party.  A net gain of 5 isn't enough, since in the event of an  even 50-50 split the Constitution gives the Vice President (Democrat Joe Biden, in this case) the right to cast the tie-breaking vote.  The Democrats have 21 seats to defend compared to 15 for the Republicans, and a lot of the seats up are in red (read Republican) states.


Democrats seem pretty certain to lose three seats they currently hold in strongly Republican states.  Those include West Virginia, where Jay Rockefeller is retiring, Montana, where Max Baucus is retiring, and Arkansas, where Mark Pryor appears to be running too far behind in the polls to catch up to challenger Tom Cotton.  Another seat Democrats had high hopes for was Kentucky, where Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was looking vulnerable.  The momentum has now shifted back in his direction and it looks like he's going to win after all.  If Republicans get the gains they need he will become the Majority Leader in January. 

There are three other states in which Democrats hold narrow leads, and to have any chance of holding the senate they have to win all three.  These include North Carolina, New Hampshire and Kansas.  In North Carolina incumbent Kay Hagan is running barely ahead and in New Hampshire Jean Shaheen is in the same situation.  Kansas is a rather unusual case in which Republican incumbent Pat Roberts has inspired resentment by ignoring his constituents for a long time.  In that race Independent Greg Orman is running slightly ahead.  So if you're tuning in to watch the returns, pay early attention to New Hampshire and North Carolina.  If Republicans win in either or both it's going to be a bad night for Democrats.

So, assuming the Dems win in the three must-have states,  to defend their Senate majority they must also win two of another five races where polling shows  the Republican candidate has a narrow lead.  These five races are in Colorado, Alaska, Iowa, Georgia and Louisiana.  Incumbent Democrats are trying to hang on in Colorado (Mark Udall), Alaska (Mark Begich), and Louisiana (Mary Landrieu).  The other two races are for open seats.  Bruce Braley is trying to win Iowa and Michelle Nunn is the candidate in Georgia.  Again, polling seems to show the Republicans leading in all these races, though the Alaska surveys have been kind of all over the lot.  Colorado and Alaska appear to be the best chances for the Dems to pull the mild upsets given the current numbers.  Keep in mind that in Louisiana and Georgia it looks like the Republicans have the lead but not a majority, once you include the candidates of minor parties, and if these elections turn out that way both of these states would have run-offs between the top two finishers.  It's assumed the Republicans would likely win any such runoffs in these states.

Democratic turnout will be the deciding factor.  Right now a bettor would put the odds of the Republicans taking control of the Senate at about 3-1 in their favor.  I'll do a post mortem after the voting.
   

Oil Prices Plunge at the Intersection of Economics and Politics

There has been a rather amazing decline in the price of oil lately.  Crude was as high as $115 a barrel in June, but is now going for $80.  That's an amazing 30% drop in four months.  This has resulted in big drops in the price of gas at the pump.  The nationwide average was as high as $4.11 a gallon in 2008, stood at $3.94 in April of 2012, was at $3.69 this year in June, and now is down to $3.12.  Source US Energy Information Service.   That reduction amounts to 57 cents a gallon in four months, a 15 percent savings so far, with likely more to come as the full drop in the price of crude works its way through the chain.

The first thing to comment on is that this is having a positive economic effect.  Despite price wars over fares, for instance, airlines turned in strong profits in the past six months.  The nine largest U.S. carriers saw their net earnings increase to $3.8 billion compared to $1.6 billion over the same period last year.  The main reason?  Lower fuel costs.  It could spur increased consumer spending too, perhaps for Christmas.  Research shows that every one cent drop in the price of gasoline puts $1 billion into the pockets of the American people.

There are some domestic factors driving the price drop.  Part of it is increased efficiency in gas mileage in the U.S. auto fleet, and the beginnings of a real expansion in renewables, both jump-started by Obama administration policies initiated in 2009.  America uses 1.8 million barrels a day less than it did in 2007.  American production is up too, growing from 5.00 million barrels a day in 2008 to 7.44 million a day at present.  Combine these factors together and the U.S. is importing 4 million fewer barrels of foreign oil a day than it did seven years ago.  That's a foreign exchange improvement of about $12 billion a month, or $144 billion a year--a significant chunk of change, about .8% of GDP, to add to the U.S. economy. 

Just as intriguing are the global forces at work.  In the past, when a global oil glut threatened to erode prices, Saudi Arabia would cut back on its production, making oil scarce and thereby bolstering the price.  This time, however, the Saudis have maintained production and discounted prices to their Asian customers in order to retain market share.  It's very likely there's a geopolitical motive operating here, perhaps even in coordination with the United States.  Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia is in a real contest for dominance in the Middle East with Shi'ite Muslim Iran.  The major flash point is the Syrian Civil War, in which autocratic President Bashar Assad is being supported by Iran and Russia.  Iran is under international sanctions due to its nuclear program, as Russia is for its recent imperialistic moves in Ukraine.  The Saudis and other Sunni oil states have been supporting the opposition.  But another way to cripple Iran's and Russia's efforts would be to strike a heavy blow against the price of oil.  Russia gets 50% of its budget revenue from oil exports, and Iran gets 60% of its from the same source.

The seriousness of Russia's problem is underscored in a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, which reports, "Russian inflation is at a three year-high, the ruble is trading at new lows, and capital outflows are expected to exceed $100 billion this year. The ruble is under downward pressure both from higher demand for dollars, as companies find it hard to borrow abroad, and from lower oil prices. It has already weakened by more than 20% since the start of the year."  Finance Minister Anton Siluanov publicly warned the Russian Duma (Parliament) that the budget may become untenable.  Expect to see more on this soon.  The economic squeeze on Iran and Russia is not coincidental, and may result in some interesting diplomatic musical chairs in the next few months.  Stay tuned.            

Potpourri of Current Issues

There certainly is a lot going on in the news of late.  I'll touch on a few current items in smorgasbord fashion.  Your observations are more than welcome in response.

The NFL has completely fumbled the domestic violence issue.  They've made it quite clear their first inclination was not to do the right thing, but to do the expedient thing and sweep it under the rug if possible.  That didn't work so now the commissioner is promising a committee that will come up with some policy recommendations at some indeterminate point in the future.  That doesn't sound like a solution but more like a management/public relations strategy to sidetrack things and let the air out of the problem until it's off the front page.  A decisive boss would have said that if anybody does that they are suspended without pay for a year for the first offense.  To be sure, this issue is a lot bigger than pro football.  The visibility of the NFL is just what is focusing the news media's attention, and it shouldn't be up to them to decide what society is going to do about this widespread blight.  Law enforcement should be taking this issue over.  Punks who beat up women and children should go to jail.  District attorneys should be prosecuting people left and right for this type of behavior and judges should be throwing them in the slammer for considerable lengths of time if they are convicted.  We don't leave it up to McDonald's to decide how to "discipline" an employee of theirs if he/she robs a bank.

At the California Republican fall convention this past weekend gubernatorial nominee Neel Kashkari tried to rebrand the party as one that cares for the poor.  He tried the tired mantra that minorities and working folks don't like the Republicans but would if the GOP would just get its message out.  Sorry Neel, but the GOP is dying in California precisely because people DO understand its message all too well.  Hostility to minorities (read the quote from the convention vendor woman in the linked article), tax cuts for business and the rich, and service cuts for the poor and middle class just don't sell all that well to the 99 percent.

The bombing campaign against the Islamic State barbarians in Iraq continues and will likely accelerate in the weeks ahead and be expanded to Syria.  The hard part seems to be to get anyone interested in facing them on the ground.  Everybody seems to think something needs to be done but nobody wants to do it.  It's also unclear whether the bombing campaign will hurt the jihadis by thinning their ranks or help their recruiting efforts by giving them the opportunity to portray themselves as standing up to Western imperialism.  The only thing reasonably clear is that our disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003 was the event that destabilized the country and set this cancer in motion.

It was good to see huge rallies in New York and around the world for action on climate change this weekend.   This follows close on the heels of the announcement that greenhouse gas emissions last year increased another 2.5 percent.   A U.N. environmental conference gets under way Tuesday, with much hand-wringing but little action anticipated.

With the 2014 midterm election six weeks from tomorrow, the latest prognostications seem to indicate a slight edge for the Republicans to wrest the Senate majority from the Democrats, who currently hold a 55-45 advantage if you count the two liberal independents who caucus with the Dems.  2008 was a good year for the Democrats, and that year's seats are the ones up for re-election this time.  Democrats therefore have a lot more seats at risk in usually-Republican states this time around.  Still, the GOP is not doing as well as they anticipated, even in some very red states like Kansas.  I wouldn't be surprised to see Harry Reid hold onto his position as majority leader.  I'll have more detail on the election in upcoming posts.

     

Teachers

I'm re-posting this commentary from Robert Reich's blog.  The former Clinton administration Secretary of Labor says it like it is.   

Robert Reich:

"Every time I hear someone dump on public school teachers I think of my sister, who I’m now visiting in Massachusetts. She’s been teaching high school English for years, and is so dedicated that despite a life-threatening illness she still gives her students everything she has. (She dashed off minutes ago, cutting short our breakfast in order to advise some of them on a extra-curricular project.) My sister isn’t all that unique. With few exceptions, the public school teachers I’ve known over the years are among the most committed people I know, working long hours for relatively little pay on one of the most important tasks of our society – educating our children. Yes, the tenure system has to be reformed, and a few teachers aren't doing a good enough job. But these aren't the real problem. Our public school teachers have become scapegoats for a system that’s underfunded, underequipped, underappreciated, and overwhelmed."

Steve's post script:

Nobody goes into teaching to get rich.  People become teachers because they like kids and want to dedicate their lives to helping them learn and grow.  So, what gives?  Well, the correlation between parental income level and their children's academic achievement is nearly absolute.   The larger the poverty-level population grows the greater the societal and educational dysfunction that mirrors it.  We must tackle income inequality in a serious way if we want this to improve.  It's not teachers unions or the latest fad educational theory that is to blame or is the solution.  Parents who value learning, model responsible life choices and insist on achievement are the solution. 

I'm Done with Football

I like football as much as the next guy.  I played as a senior in high school and have attended five or six pro games, including home games for the LA Rams, Kansas City Chiefs and San Diego Chargers.  I've gone to quite a few major college games, at USC, UCLA, Fresno State, and even one at Syracuse.  I've usually attended one or two community college games a season here in Visalia to see the College of the Sequoias Giants.  I played in fantasy football leagues for about six years.  The last few years I haven't paid much attention to pro games until the playoffs, but I've been a regular for Ohio State games on television and most of the bowl games too.  But I'm taking the plunge this year.  I will be paying no attention to football.   

That's because of the increasing evidence of serious brain injuries associated with football.  The massive class action lawsuit and payout by the NFL is the tip of the iceberg.  It seems recurrent concussions and resulting dementia have been pretty common and are now coming out in the open.  Junior Seau's suicide and donation of his brain to research provided a watershed moment and an undeniable wake up call about what's been going on.

I just can't patronize a sport that is so destructive to people anymore.  It's worse than the ruined knees, for brain injury robs a person of who they essentially are, and it doesn't get worse than that.  I haven't paid any attention to boxing and am repelled by the anything-goes cage fighting and "mixed martial arts" combats too.  That sort of thing is reminiscent to me of the Roman Colosseum, a reversion to primitive bloodletting.  But football has a lot of redeeming qualities: the grace of the receivers, the strategy, the teamwork, the cat and mouse of play selection and defensive anticipation.  But it's all undone when too many young men become the equivalent of drooling octogenarians in their forties and fifties.  I can't countenance my time, attention, support and money going to advance that cause. No game is worth that, and until they find a way to truly protect the brain from that kind of abuse they're just going to have to get along without me.      

California Democrats Pass Open-Campaign Bills

The California Legislature passed two bills this week designed to promote campaign transparency.  The bills have passed both houses and will now go to Governor Brown's desk, where he is expected to sign them into law.  Both are welcome, particularly considering what is happening on the federal level.  As usual when it comes to open campaign legislation, Democrats sponsored and voted for open processes while Republicans voted to keep pertinent information from the electorate.

Assemblyman Paul Fong of Cupertino introduced Assembly Bill 400.  It requires any initiative, referendum and recall petitions being circulated among the voters for signatures "to clearly state the top five donors who contributed more than $10,000 to fund the campaign."  The final version passed Thursday by a vote of 53-24, with 24 Republicans in opposition.  One of voters' best tools for sniffing out whose special interest is being served by prospective initiatives is if they know who is paying for them.  That's the main reason two recent self-serving insurance initiatives sponsored by Mercury Insurance have gone down to defeat.  People are savvy enough to be suspicious when an insurance company wants to directly write legislation, claiming it is only in the general public interest.  It's understandable why such interests and the politicians whose campaigns they fund would not want this information public.  But that's about to become a bit harder for them now, at least in California.  Thanks to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision of 2010, most federal backing from "independent groups" will still be able to be concealed form the public.     

Assemblyman Tom Amiano of San Francisco sponsored AB 510.  It mandates campaign commercials "to disclose when paid actors appear in ads as doctors, teachers or other professionals."  The assembly passed this bill 54-17, again with only Republicans voting to keep the electorate in the dark.  It's certainly an advantage to have authoritative and official looking people to pitch your candidate or issue to the voters on television, implying that a respected and trusted institution favors you.  But if if they are just actors playing that role, from now on that will have to be announced.      

    

Ferguson, Missouri Bottom Line

The bottom line issue in Ferguson, Missouri is the way black people are treated by law enforcement agencies in America.  The killing of black citizen Michael Brown by white officer Darren Wilson is simply the latest installment in a tragic, long-running national serial.  As the video released by the Ferguson Police shows, Michael Brown appears to be an unsympathetic character.  In it he is seen stealing cigars and shoving a store employee out of his way in an intimidating fashion.  Watch the video here.  No doubt that was the reason the Ferguson police released it, to try to get public opinion on their side.  Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, who criticized the local officials for releasing the video, has given his view that that was precisely why it was made public.  See the Newsweek story and video of his remarks here.

But as the black citizens of Ferguson ask, how is that relevant?  They don't mean it is insignificant that Brown may have committed a crime.  What they mean is why did the police officer, who may have been unaware that Brown was wanted in that robbery (that's what Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said, that the officer initially spoke to Brown simply because he was walking in the street and not on the sidewalk) have to resort to lethal force against a person who was unarmed?  See Jackson's remarks here.

We have a police academy where I teach at College of the Sequoias, and training in the non-lethal arrest and physical control of citizens when necessary is part and parcel of every cadet's required curriculum.  It is also considered a "perishable skill" that must be re-certified for active law enforcement personnel on a regular basis.  Even veteran cops have to undergo intensive training and must demonstrate their proficiency in realistic action scenarios to be awarded re-certification.  So it is almost beyond comprehension that a trained and competent policeman would need to pull a gun and fire multiple rounds into an unarmed and untrained civilian in order to subdue him.

Let me qualify my remarks by saying it is possible that evidence may arise that Brown may have presented a life and death threat to Wilson that could excuse the use of lethal force, for example that he was going for the officer's gun.  But that's not what the initial eyewitnesses have said.  They describe Brown with his hands in the air and a good distance from the police officer and refer to the confrontation as an "execution."  The sad and disgusting truth is that these incidents keep happening, and that they almost invariably involve people of color being treated with a callousness and ruthlessness that rarely seems to happen in other circumstances.  The black community is well aware of the phenomenon, and is frankly fed up with it.  It needs to end. 

Business Analysis: Income Inequality Holding Back Recovery

It's nice to see that after 33 years in the making and plenty of research and warnings by Nobel Prize winning economists like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, business analysts are finally beginning to appreciate the pernicious effects of rising economic inequality.  The Standard & Poor's rating agency has released a new report, How Increasing Income Inequality is Dampening U.S. Economic Growth, And Possible Ways to Change the Tide.  It says the "widening gap between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else has made the economy more prone to boom-bust cycles and slowed the 5-year-old recovery from the recession."  They have revised their forecast of U.S. economic growth over the next ten years downward from 2.8% per year to 2.5% as a result.  S& P chief economist Beth Ann Bovino said that economic disparities have reached extremes that "need to be watched because they're damaging to growth."

The breakthrough in analysis is important because it indicates how the economic discussion may be changing.  For years liberals have been calling attention to this very phenomenon, while conservatives and the business community either rejected the reality of growing income inequality or downplayed its negative effect on the economy as a whole.  So the fact that a major business organ is now coming to a similar conclusion as the liberal economists is highly significant.  The first step in solving a problem is admitting it exists.  S & P is a numbers-heavy service, and the analytics are simply getting too obvious to ignore.  People without sufficient disposable income to spend are not spending it, especially after the credit crash.

If a greater share of national income were going to the working and middle classes their spending would be able to drive a more robust recovery.  Since 96% of national income gains since the recovery began have gone to the top 1%, there are not enough of them to translate those gains into major GDP growth.  A low percentage of 1% income gains go into extra spending; most goes into savings or investments, often overseas.

The S & P report recommends increasing educational achievement as a means to boost working and middle class income growth, since additional years of higher or vocational ed are associated with higher income.  That would certainly be a good idea, but more direct means, such as increasing the minimum wage, revamping the tax code and bolstering union organizing rights in the retail, service and fast food sectors would also pay more immediate dividends.  One can hardly expect a business publication to advocate such steps, at least yet, but now that the discussion is open and on the table and we have some states like Washington and California taking such steps, the experiential data will be coming.  And if the numbers confirm the thesis, as the Krugmans and Stiglitzes have been predicting, the S & P's of the world may eventually have to admit the handwriting on the wall on solutions as they now have on income inequality itself.       

Ginsberg Explains Hobby Lobby Dissent

Joan and I have been on vacation in the San Diego area, and that's the reason it's been awhile since I last posted on Brave Gnu Whirled.  I'm now back in Visalia and getting ready for a new semester of History classes at College of the Sequoias.

I have a special item for you today, an interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.  In it she discusses the recent and famous Hobby Lobby decision.  That's the one in which the 5-4 conservative majority ruled that a "closely-held for-profit corporation" can have a religious view and can enforce that view with respect to their employees' access to birth control coverage.

Ginsberg's 35-page dissent against that opinion has been described as "scathing."  It's actually legalistic and circumspect, arguing from constitutional and legal principles rather than simply mouthing religious or political opinion.  Click on this link to read for yourself.

Just as interesting in summation is this interview with Katie Couric.  I know, it can be hard to decide what to make of Couric.  The onetime CBS News anchor later went back to doing celebrity fluff journalism.  Lately hired by Yahoo, this piece certainly shows Couric at her best with respect to substance.  She's serious and prepared.

As for Justice Ginsberg, she touches on her principal objection, that religious freedom does not convey the right to impose one's religious views on others, employees in this case.  She also agrees that the men on the court have a "blind spot" when it comes to the concerns of women.  Ginsberg and the other two women justices, not surprisingly, were all in dissent in this case.  Readers of this blog will not be surprised to note that my views are in complete accord with Justice Ginsberg's.   

And finally, Ginsberg  is ultimately hopeful that her dissent will one day be adopted as the proper constitutional interpretation.  She cites as an example Justice John Harlan's dissent against the Court's infamous 1896 Plessy v Ferguson ruling as a case in point.  In that case the Court ruled in favor of the constitutionality of racial segregation under the doctrine of "separate but equal."  A later Court reversed that decision, something she expects to happen again in the Hobby Lobby case, though the 80-year-old jurist says she may not be around to personally see it.

Click on this link to watch the five-minute interview segment featuring Ginsberg's thought processes.

Moon Landing: T-Plus 45 Years

Forty-five years ago today I sat in my living room with my family and witnessed an incredible event take place on live television.  Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin became the first humans to set foot on another world by climbing down the ladder of the Lunar Excursion Module and placing their boots on the dusty surface of the moon.  Goosebumps rose on my fourteen-year-old arm as I realized I was seeing something that people had dreamed of for thousands of years.

 

The vision and vow of our late beloved President Kennedy, "to send a man to the moon and return him safely to earth before the end of this decade" was being fulfilled.  It was a moment of wonder and also of pride.  America's National Aeronautics and Space Administration had done this.  We beat the Russians to the moon, and in those frightening Cold War days that seemed of the greatest importance.  Our scientists, manufacturers, workers and pilots had proved they were the best.

Today, the meaning is a bit different.  Over 300,000 Americans had a hand in this astounding feat.  It called forth cooperation and teamwork on a monumental scale.  It showed we were still pioneers at heart, and ready to contribute and work together to accomplish great things, seemingly impossible things.  We were a confident and optimistic people, heedless of any limitations.  Oh, to be that people again!       

Data Shows Obamacare a Major Success

Have you noticed we don't seem to be hearing much of that hysterically negative political invective or media coverage about Obamacare anymore?  That's likely because the Obamacare success story continues to gather momentum.  Check out this chart from the Urban Institute:





This parallels the findings of the Commonwealth Fund, Gallup Poll and the Rand Corporation, all of which report their research shows the number of uninsured people has declined by 9.3 to 9.5 million since the enrollments got under way.  And the chart above makes clear, the numbers would even be a lot better except for roughly half the states governed by Republicans who spitefully have blocked federal Medicaid expansion in their jurisdictions.  For states not expanding Medicaid the uninsured percentage has dropped from 21.1% to 18.3%.  For all adults in every state it's gone from 18.5% to 13.9%.  In states accepting the federal help, the uninsured rate is down from 16.5% to barely 10%.  And what about the "sticker shock" and supposedly "ruinous costs" detractors kept predicting?  Well, the average premium for the great majority qualifying for subsidies to help with their purchase is just $82 a month.  

Yes, there's been very little reporting on this of late.  In the case of Republican flacks and the scandal-and-crisis-obsessed media, I guess good news is no news.  For the rest of us?  It's time to spread the word. 

On Capital Punishment

It is immoral in principle, and unfair and discriminatory in practice.                                      American Civil Liberties Union

Liberals are divided on the issue but a majority of liberals are against capital punishment.  In a 2013 Gallup Poll 50 percent of liberals opposed the death penalty and 47 percent supported it.  Clearly, the more liberal position is to be against the death penalty.  Earlier in my life I supported the death penalty, but now am irrevocably against it.  There are several reasons why I and the majority of liberals cannot support this practice.  The nature of these reasons comprises both moral and practical concerns.

Morally, I begin with the principle that two wrongs don’t make a right.  To use lethal force against a perpetrator who is actively endangering the lives of innocents may well be justified, but to kill someone in state custody is simply murder.  Also, execution ends any possibility of   redemption for the criminal.  The Dalai Lama says, “My overriding belief is that it is always possible for criminals to improve and that by its very finality the death penalty contradicts this.”  John Dear, a Jesuit Catholic priest, wrote of capital punishment, “Behind it lies an illogical maxim: we kill those who kill to show that killing is wrong. If we really believed that killing was wrong, the state would set an example; official killing would be banished."  

In addition, the act of imposing the death penalty does not bring back any victims but only creates more.  It is a simple act of vengeance motivated by the emotions of anger and hate.  Most liberals see these motives as unworthy of a civilized judicial system and as little more than the vestigial relics of a primitive age of barbarism.  In 2013 only 22 countries (out of more than 200) carried out any executions.  The top eight were China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, the USA and Somalia.  America is the only advanced constitutional nation among them.  It is disgraceful to put ourselves in such company. 

The practical reasons against the death penalty are important too.  Chief among them are that by its very nature mistakes cannot be fixed, the death penalty is invariably applied unequally, and the record shows it does not deter crime.  When someone is wrongly convicted and sentenced to death, once that sentence is carried out there is no way to rectify the mistake.  We cannot know how many of the 1,200 Americans executed since 1973 may have been innocent, but according to the Death Penalty Information Center, over that time 144 inmates waiting on death row have been exonerated.  That makes it almost certain that some people have been executed erroneously.  Police, prosecutors, crime lab technicians, defense attorneys, judges and juries are only human.  And when they make a mistake in this arena, people can be put to death as a result.  There is nothing that can justify taking a risk like that.  

Plenty of studies have shown that the death penalty is applied terribly unequally in our country.  Maricopa County, Arizona, for example, has four times the death penalty cases of Los Angeles or Houston on a per capita basis. And thanks to the legacy of our race relations, a much higher percentage of minority defendants, especially African-Americans, are sentenced to death.  About 14 percent of murder victims are black, yet over 41 percent of death row inmates are black.  A  2011 study in North Carolina found that the chances of a defendant being sentenced to death were 75 percent higher if the victim was white than if the victim was black.  This is not equal justice.   

   

One of the most commonly cited justifications for capital punishment is its supposed effectiveness as a deterrent to crime.  The actual record, however, does not back up this assertion at all.  In fact, states with the death penalty have a higher murder rate than those without it.  Over the last twenty years the murder rate for states that have the death penalty averages 31% higher than states that do not.  If the deterrent effect were there, one would expect those figures to change, yet there has not been one year in the past 25 in which death penalty states had a lower murder rate.  

Given the immorality of capital punishment, the irrevocable nature of its judgment, the caprice and evident bias with which it is applied, and its ineffectiveness in reducing crime, many liberals can echo the sentiments of former liberal Senator Russ Feingold who said, “I oppose the death penalty because it is inconsistent with basic American principles of justice, liberty, and equality.”

The War on Drugs

Many liberals are coming around to the view that the forty-plus-year “War on Drugs” initiated by the Nixon Administration in the 1970s has been a terrible failure and needs drastic transformation or an outright end.  Not only has it failed to reduce the incidence of drug use, but like the Prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s it has resulted in a permanent underground economy dominated by violent criminal gangs involved in murder and corruption on a vast scale.  There are examples of successful programs in Europe that have legalized and strictly regulated recreational drugs and expanded compassionate rehab treatment for addicts who want to get clean.  The results seem to include the reduction of violence and death, generation of revenue, a reduction in the rates of usage and an increase in rates of rehabilitation and recovery.  Such a liberal program should be carefully studied for potential adoption in America.

For instance, Portugal decriminalized the possession and use of all drugs in 2001.  A person cited for drug intoxication has to go to a hearing in which they are offered treatment, but they are allowed to go home without it if they refuse.   A study found that in the years after personal possession was decriminalized, drug use among teens in Portugal declined 25 percent, heroin use declined 30 percent, rates of HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped 17 percent and the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.  The money saved from enforcement more than paid for the increased treatment costs.  Sweden offers a different model that combines strict enforcement against trafficking with light punishments but extensive counseling and rehabilitation for users.  Sweden has one of the lowest rates of drug use in Europe.    

In the United States, about $51 billion per year is spent trying to enforce the War on Drugs, including aid and combined operations with nations like Colombia.  About one and a half million are arrested for use and over 500,000 of these are sentenced to incarceration.  In 2012, 52 percent of inmates in federal prisons were there on drug convictions.  20 percent of African-American men spend time in jail at some point in their lives due to drug offenses.  In quite a few states people with these histories lose their right to vote.  Meanwhile, incidences of drug use have not improved.  According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the percentage of Americans over the age of 12 who had used an illicit drug in 2002 was 8.3 percent.  In 2012 it was 9.2 percent.  In 2007 the Institute found that 5.8 percent had used marijuana in the previous month.  In 2012 the percentage had grown to 7.3 percent. 

The point here is not to argue in any way that drug use or abuse is a good thing.  Addiction is responsible for enormous social disruption, many ruined lives, deaths, and negative health outcomes.  Even marijuana creates problems for many people.  The point instead  is to raise the question, as liberals do, about whether the way we are attacking the problem is effective and seems to be working.  The data would appear to indicate it is not.  Immense resources continue to be committed without perceptible improvement.  Meanwhile, approaches being tried in other countries show through hard data that they are making headway.  We do not seem to be meeting human needs well in the War on Drugs.  Research points the way toward better solutions.  Humble practicality seems to indicate there are more effective models we might follow.  In the War on Drugs, as with so many other issues, liberals are in tune with the common-sense saying, If you like what you’re getting keep doing what you’re doing. If you don’t like what you’re getting you need to change what you’re doing.