2015 Gratitude List

Gratitude list for 2015:

Daughter Marie is expecting and due at the end of June with our first grandchild!
Joan and I celebrated our 38th anniversary this August. What a blessing to have her in my life.
Joan and I and daughter Jeanette had a wonderful vacation to Canada, including Montreal, Niagara Falls and Quebec this summer.
We are blessed with dear siblings, including my sisters Sue, Gina and Toni and Joan's sisters Carol and Paula.
We have terrific in-laws too: Marie's husband Robert, Robert's parents Marcia and John, Carol's husband Paul and Paul's dad Hal.
I completed my sixteenth year at College of the Sequoias, a good place to work, with colleagues and students I enjoy. This was my 33rd year as a full-time educator, counting my 17 years at Cucamonga Middle School.
I published my first book this year, Liberally Speaking. I've had a lot of fun having book appearances, signings and discussions.
Though we both have been presented with some new dietary limitations, Joan and I continue to enjoy good health.
I am really enjoying my new car, a Subaru Forester.
It was great to see the LGBT community win marriage equality this year.
It's been very gratifying to see the economic recovery gather momentum this year, with real progress on jobs, the unemployment rate and the lowest gas prices in years.
I am grateful a climate accord was reached in Paris this month. It wasn't as much as is needed but it's the first serious, truly global step in the right direction.
I'm grateful to have been able to play more golf this year and make more friends on the course.
The invention of Facebook has made it easier to keep up better with friends and relatives.
I'm grateful to have made it through another year!

Obama Adminstration Achievements in 2015

Despite opposition from and dysfunction in the Republican-controlled congress, 2015 has been another year of remarkable achievements for the Obama administration. On the economic front, the past 12 months have seen the creation of 2,637,00 jobs, and the all-time record of consecutive positive job creation months is now up to 69. A moderate growth rate of 2.1% combined with a low 0.5% inflation rate has yielded a healthy net growth rate of 1.6% over inflation. The United States is now the largest oil producer in the world, while at the same time renewable energy production continues to break records with each passing day and fuel economy continues to grow. The result is a 27% reduction in oil imports and a huge price savings for the American consumer at the pump. Here's a list of the highlights of accomplishments in 2015.

April 16: New Medicare reimbursement formula rewards doctors for health outcomes instead of just for performing services.
April 16: Medicare Access and CHIP (Children's Health) Reauthorization Act signed.
June 30: Overtime pay threshold for hourly workers improved from $23,660 through $50,440.
July 14: US and Cuba reopen embassies after 54 years.
July 16: US and six major powers reach agreement with Iran to curb its nuclear program and accept inspections in exchange for sanctions relief.
August 4: Each state required to reduce its carbon emissions to set targets by 2030.
August 18: First openly transgender employee hired by the White House.
September 3: Discrimination against transgender people in health or medical insurance is banned.
September 7: Employees of federal contractors must be offered at least 7 days of paid sick leave per year.
September 18: First openly gay American nominated for Secretary of the Army.
October 6: Sentences reduced and adapted for 6,000 people serving excessive punishment for nonviolent crimes.
October 22: 70 ISIS hostages rescued in Iraq by US Special Forces.
November 6: Keystone Oil Pipeline rejected for not serving the interests of the United States.
December 3: All military positions become open to females.
December 10: Every Student Succeeds Act signed.

The Real Donald Trump

There's been a lot going on the past few days. The terrorist attack in San Bernardino and the international climate change agreement reached in Paris are big news, and legitimately so. But I think it's time to directly address the phenomenon that is the candidacy of Donald Trump. I have commented on him before in these pages, but not with the directness and bluntness I feel is now necessarily called for.

Trump is a classic demagogue. His popularity is the encapsulation of every angry, mean-spirited, bigoted, xenophobic, violent, ill-informed, racist element in the Republican Party. The principal driving force of his support is fear, and he plays on it as adroitly as Segovia ever strummed the classical guitar. Trump's slogan may be "Make America Great Again" but his message is never about building up America or encouraging the greatness of its people. His stump speech instead begins with about half an hour of bombastic blather about how great Trump is, followed by another half hour of naming scapegoats and tearing them down. This began on day one of his campaign, when he announced that immigrants from Mexico were "rapists, murderers and thieves." He has spoken approvingly of the Japanese internment of World War II and "Operation Wetback," which rounded up Mexican-Americans, many of them natural born citizens, and expelled them. He has also demeaned women, Vietnam veterans, blacks and Muslims.  His misogynistic insults against Megyn Kelly and Carly Fiorina were followed by assertions that a black protester manhandled at one of his rallies "should have been roughed up." John McCain, who was tortured for his country for years as a POW in North Vietnam was a "loser" for letting himself be captured.

Trump has concocted a story that American Muslims celebrated the fall of the Twin Towers on 9/11. He says people who are entering the U.S. should be asked their religion and barred entrance if they are Muslim, and that Muslim citizens should be "registered" and have to wear identifying labels like the Jews of Nazi Europe. For months he kept the "birther" controversy boiling about President Obama's citizenship. Whether Mexican, woman, black or Muslim, the recurring theme is that people who are different are scary and must be delegitimized and eliminated. Trump's references to his opponents in the race are similarly pitched to the basest level of personal invective. They are "stupid," "losers," "psychos," "weak," "ugly," and "dumb," to name a few of the dizzying succession of schoolyard taunts he hurls at those with the temerity to run against him.

Based on the large number of contradictory statements he has made over the past many years in the public eye, it is impossible to tell whether he actually believes any of these things. I tend to think he probably does not. Rather, I think he knows exactly what he's doing: appealing to the fear, bigotry and desire for an authoritarian leader he knows is rampant in the Republican base with the design of riding that to the nomination and perhaps the White House. The Republican establishment is in a panic about Trump's popularity and his chances of garnering the nomination, but they have only themselves to blame. For years they have fed these fears in the base through their statements and their media outlets. They have succeeded in whipping their adherents into a frenzy of fear and hate. They have finally run up against a sharp and unscrupulous publicity hound who understands what has been created and knows how to take advantage of it. Instead of appealing to these dark intimations obliquely like 'respectable' Republicans do, Trump goes ahead and directly plays to them right out loud, and the haters love him for his 'honesty.' Not only the GOP establishment, but the whole nation now reaps the whirlwind.        

Obama Address on Terrorism

I watched President Obama's Oval Office "Address on Terrorism" Sunday night. His remarks were occasioned by recent events. ISIS or ISIS-inspired terrorists have put themselves squarely in the public's consciousness as a result of the highly organized internationally directed attack in Paris and then the seemingly independently undertaken attack in San Bernardino, California. The President showed the gravity of the matter by speaking to the public from the Oval Office for only the third time in his presidency.

He tried to strike a balance between respecting the seriousness of the threat, reassuring the American people that all reasonable steps are being taken, and making an appeal to remember our values. Mr. Obama stated that "ISIS and any other  organization that threatens Americans must and will be destroyed." He pledged that the ongoing campaign would be "strong and smart, resilient and ruthless." But he also made a plea that anger over terrorism not turn into intolerance against the Muslim religion and Muslim Americans as a whole.

The actions highlighted were a continuation of what is already being done, including stepped-up air attacks and special forces raids in Iraq and Syria, training of more Iraqi, Kurdish and Syrian forces, cutting off terrorist funding sources, enlisting more Muslim authorities to counter ISIS propaganda about the true nature of Muslim teachings, and pursuing diplomatic efforts to expand the growing coalition and a cease-fire in Syria that would allow all parties to focus on eliminating ISIS. These are all the same strategies every Republican and Democratic presidential candidate except two are already advocating. The two exceptions are Lindsay Graham, who wants to invade with American ground troops and Donald Trump, who is advocating fascist tactics like "registering all American Muslims," "going after the families" of terrorists and preventing any Muslim from entering the United States.

President Obama asked for congressional help on four items. He wants an official authorization of the use of military force, legislation mandating tighter screening for those entering the US without a Visa, a law making it illegal to sell a gun to anyone on a terrorist watch list, and a law making it harder for people to buy "high-powered assault rifles." The second and third of these requests might conceivably be passed, but the first and fourth have no chance in a majority Republican congress. Republicans overwhelmingly support the kinds of military action the President is taking, but they have heretofore avoided taking such a vote, likely afraid that if things go sideways they might be held partially to blame. It's easier and politically safer to criticize and shout louder for "stronger measures" without being specific about what those ought to be.

As always, Obama is focused on practicality. If it's not particularly glamorous to caution that this is going to take resolve and patience, the fact is that it will. There is a great deal of difference between running for president and being President. That's certainly been on display in the past week.

Muslim Scholars Condemn Terrorism

Many in right-wing circles like to ask where are the Muslims who condemn terrorist atrocities committed by extremists in the name of Islam or the outrages of groups like the so-called Islamic State. Well, here they are. A group of 120 eminent Islamic scholars has conducted an extensive study of the Qur'an and the Hadith, and assails the actions of these extremists in the strongest terms. The group includes the Grand Mufti of Egypt and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and All Palestine. The item was first published in English by Lauren Markoe of the Religion News Service and appeared today in the Huffington Post. The scholars make clear that such practices as torture, forced conversions and the killing of innocents are incompatible with the true teachings of Islam. I've reproduced the list below.

1. It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an—or part of a verse—to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas, and one cannot ‘cherry-pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith.
2. It is forbidden in Islam to issue legal rulings about anything without mastery of the Arabic language.
3. It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic sciences.
4. It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.
5. It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.
6. It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.
7. It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.
8. Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.
9. It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.
10. It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.
11. It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.
12. The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.
13. It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.
14. It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.
15. It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights.
16. It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud) without following the correct
procedures that ensure justice and mercy.
17. It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.
18. It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.
19. It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God.
20. It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.
21. Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray.
22. It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.
23. Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.
24. After the death of the Prophet, Islam does not require anyone to emigrate anywhere.

Nations Now Uniting Against ISIS

ISIS is certainly not afraid to make enemies. Their latest round of terrorist strikes may have succeeded in uniting international action to finally begin bringing an end to their barbaric outrages. The horrific terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday, November 13 that have claimed 129 lives thus far came close on the heels of the October 31 murder of 224 in the downing of a Russian airliner over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, apparently by an explosive stowed in baggage, and the killing of 43 by twin suicide bombers on November 12 in Beirut, Lebanon. 

French President Francois Hollande and Russian President Vladimir Putin vowed retribution and have sent warplanes to deliver heavy attacks against ISIS targets in Syria. American planes are already conducting their own campaign in Syria and Iraq at the head of a coalition that includes 16 nations. Their strikes paved the way for Kurdish Peshmerga forces to seize the important crossroads town of Sinjar from ISIS militants.

France has invoked article 42.7 of the European Union Lisbon Charter, which calls for aid to any member state under attack. All 27 nations of the EU President have responded positively. Hollande is about to go to Washington to confer with President Obama and then will cross the Atlantic again to meet with President Putin in Moscow. Putin was shown on Russian TV today ordering his military forces to treat France, which is sending an aircraft carrier to the Easter Mediterranean, "as an ally."  

The Foreign Ministers meeting on Syria, held in Vienna on October 30 has now led to a semi-permanent group, styling itself  the International Syria Support Group. Participants include the Arab League, China, Egypt, the EU, France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE, the UK, the United Nations, and the U.S. The group has declared that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Da'esh, in its Arabic initials) as well as the Jabhat al-Nusra Front, and ″other terrorist groups, as designated by the UN Security Council, and further, as agreed by the participants and endorsed by the UN Security Council, must be defeated.″

The tricky part is that the U.S. and its Western allies want Bashar Assad out as Syrian leader while Russia and Iran are trying to prop him up. This has so far prevented joint action among the international community on the Syrian problem. Meanwhile the war has dragged on, creating the refugee crisis and giving ISIS the chaos it has used to establish its territorial sway over much of Eastern Syria and Northern Iraq. It may well have angered enough powers now that they will put aside their differences, at least long enough to focus all their firepower on crushing ISIS first. Talks are underway to arrange a cease-fire of the various factions in Syria by January 1 that would permit effective coordination against ISIS. Don't be surprised if these talks bear fruit. ISIS's latest terror ventures have been way too successful for their own good.   

The Real Dr. Ben Carson

Now that retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson has surged to the upper echelon of Republican presidential primary contenders, many of his positions and statements are beginning to receive a much more serious level of scrutiny. The picture that is emerging is that of a man with extreme and often bizarre views and a marked tendency to exaggerate or invent fantastical stories about himself. These traits, along with Carson's strategy for dealing with these revelations, prefigure, at some point in the not-to-distant future, the likely collapse of his candidacy.

To listen to Dr. Carson for more than a few minutes is to be treated to a set of views that can only be described as bizarre. He has proposed ending Medicare. He wants to phase out Social Security. He has said the Holocaust would not have happened had the Jews been armed. (The Warsaw Jews did arm themselves and rose up against their Nazi tormentors in 1943. Their ghetto was razed in a campaign of savagery that annihilated them all to the last man, woman and child.) He says "Obamacare is the worst thing to happen to America since slavery." He's opined that the ancient pyramids of Egypt were used primarily for grain storage. These strange and loopy views are part and parcel of a fellow who regularly offers opinions completely out of the mainstream politically or completely out of the reality-based factual universe. To be blunt about it, they are the babblings of a crackpot.

 
Painting in Carson's Home: Carson at the right hand of Jesus

Dr. Carson's writings and statements about his own formative past have proven similarly elusive. He's said he hit his mother over the head with a hammer and tried to stab a friend who was only saved by his belt buckle. Friends have told CNN they have no memory or knowledge of these incidents. Carson, a doctor, has described his childhood "rage" as a "pathological disease," of which no record of diagnosis or treatment exists. He's claimed to have been invited to dinner as a young man with Gen. William Westmoreland, U.S. commander in Vietnam. Reporters have determined that Carson and Westmoreland were never in the same place at the same time. He also claimed on the Charlie Rose program he was offered a full scholarship to West Point, a school that is free, where there are no scholarships, because there is no tuition if you are admitted. He had prostate cancer surgery in August, 2002 and in November of that year said he had been cured. Two years later, in 2004, he said his prostate cancer had been cured by dietary supplements provided by Mannatech, a company that was paying him $42,000 a speech to represent them and which has been fined $4 million by the state of Texas for making medically spurious claims. When asked about his involvement with this company during the CNN Republican debate on October 28, 2015, he denied having any relationship with Mannatech. Dr. Ben Carson appears to be a serial prevaricator.

When confronted with evidence of his obvious dishonesty Carson has played the victim. Instead of saying 'Ask my classmates, teachers, relatives, or witnesses,' as you or I would do if we were telling the truth, he has fallen back on the Republican politician's dodge of blaming the "liberal media." He maintains "There's no question I'm getting special consideration. The liberal media is out to tear me down. They're after things that happened fifty years ago, that happened when I was 13." No, they are checking into preposterous-sounding things he claims have happened at various times throughout his life, that he has maintained as an adult and as recently as yesterday. Dr. Carson is running for President of the United States and leader of the free world, a position for which he seems to feel he need not have to undergo any scrutiny about the truthfulness of his statements or the content of his character. He is about to be sorely disabused of that notion.

 

Hillary Turns Benghazi Tables on GOP

Hillary Clinton's testimony before the House Benghazi Committee last Friday was a remarkable display in many respects. She has rarely been more impressive, and a political show trial has not been more obviously exposed as a partisan witch hunt since the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s. You can watch C-Span footage of it here.

Secretary Clinton, in short, mopped the floor with her Republican interrogators. She kept her cool through a grueling 11-hour marathon of grilling, accusation and unfounded innuendo, answering each question forthrightly. Some tried to make the case she didn't care about the men who died. Several tried to raise questions about her email server, or the fact that she is friends with Sidney Blumenthal and got a lot of emails from him. A couple insinuated she ordered a CIA security team to stand down, or prevented military forces from flying in from Italy. (The CIA team got to the Benghazi compound in 24 minutes. Forces from Italy would have taken hours to get there.) Most questioners adopted an unprofessional tone of badgering rudeness rather than that of an objective panel trying to find new facts about what happened and good ideas about preventing the next such incident.

This was the eighth investigation into the Benghazi attack, but this is the only one that hasn't bothered to interview the military or intelligence officials involved. They have only wanted to talk to Hillary Clinton and her aide Huma Abedin. Their "investigation" has lasted longer than the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 commissions. It's even surpassed the Watergate hearings. Yet they have released no report and no recommendations. To give you an idea of how a responsible, bipartisan committee operates, here is a link to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report and recommendations on the same topic. 

Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy was the first to officially admit what everyone suspected all along, letting the cat out of the bag by admitting the committee was an exercise designed to damage Clinton's poll numbers. Watch him here. Republican Representative Richard Hanna of New York admitted the same thing. As a result, and combined with Mrs. Clinton's well-prepared and unflappable testimony, their plans have backfired. Following the committee hearing, her poll numbers have actually soared, as you can see here.

As usual, transparently mean-spirited Republicans have overplayed their hand. Instead of hurting the Clinton campaign, they have succeeded in providing her a forum in which she looked to the whole nation as just what they didn't want--presidential.

New California Laws for 2016

Near the end of each year I like to do a feature on new California laws that will take effect the following January. Here are some noteworthy ones that have passed the legislature, been signed by Governor Brown and will come into force in 2016.

1. Right to Die. Patients who have less than six months to live as determined by two physicians will be able to ask for life-ending drugs. Open and private meetings are required, the patient must be capable of making an informed medical decision and of self-administering the drugs.

2. Vaccinations. All school-age children must have vaccinations in order to attend public school. Additionally, day care centers and homes must maintain records to show their staff members have been vaccinated for flu, pertussis and measles. Tuberculosis screening had already been required.

3. Antibiotics in Livestock. SB 27 will curb the use of low doses of antibiotics in livestock to promote faster growth. The practice is a major contributor to the evolution of drug resistant germs
4. Voter Registration. AB 1461 will direct the Department of Motor Vehicles to automatically register everyone who is an eligible citizen to vote when they come into contact with them. The person will be able to opt out if they wish.
5. Wage Theft: The State Labor Commissioner will have expanded authority to collect unpaid wages on behalf of workers who have been cheated by their employer, thanks to the passage of SB 588.
6. Ride-Sharing: State employees will be able to use ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft and rental services like Airbnb on state business.
7. Smokeless Tobacco: AB 768 bans possession or use of smokeless tobacco on professional baseball fields. AB 216 forbids the sale of vapor products to anyone under 18, even if they contain no nicotine.
8. Franchisee  Rights: AB 525 will give franchise owners greater scope to resist mandates from their corporate franchisers   
9. Concealed Weapons: SB 707 prohibits concealed weapons permit holders from bringing their weapons onto school property. Retired law enforcement is exempt, and police chiefs and school districts could set their own policies on this.
10. Disclosure: Under SB 21 nonprofit organizations have to disclose the names of donors who pay for travel gifts for elected officials. 

Obama, Tired of Games, Demands Budget

President Obama held a remarkable press conference yesterday. He served notice that he's not finished addressing gun violence, but of potentially even greater importance, the President gave congress what amounts to an ultimatum to work with him on getting a permanent budget in place with a deadline of December 11.

First, on the latest gun massacre he made a couple of good points in a new way. He compared the ongoing carnage to reducing auto accident deaths. He admitted that yes, the types of common-sense laws that have been proposed won't end all gun deaths, just as things like seat belts, air bags and better car and road engineering haven't ended all auto crash deaths. But they have reduced the rate by 75%. To say that because we can't save every life means that we should not try to save any lives or as many as we can is fatalistic and not in the normal American character. His other point on this topic was that to make headway the majority who favor these common sense improvements will need to make them a voting priority in order to get congress to change. That's because the minority of intransigent pro-gun voters are single-minded in that way and their intensity must be matched by the other side if they want to win. The President vowed to keep speaking out on the issue.

In what may have been his most important statement, President Obama laid down a marker regarding the budget. Referring to the stopgap continuing resolution to keep the government funded for 10 weeks through December 11, the President said he would not sign another such bill. He is going to insist that congress produce an actual budget. The national budget is frozen at sequester levels "temporarily" agreed to four years ago. They are pegged to the 2006 budget. Since then our population has grown 8% and the national economy has grown 12%. Many things need more money to provide the same service, some things need increases to meet new needs, and some things should be scaled down or cancelled, since they either don't work or have achieved their objectives. The resulting straight jacket produces a spending pattern that is increasingly out of sync with national needs. He was right to call it irresponsible. He is ready to negotiate on taxes and spending priorities and calls upon the Republican leadership in congress to do likewise.

Also relating to the budget, Obama put some things off limits. First, the debt ceiling needs to be raised even before December 11. There will be no negotiation on this; congress just needs to do it. Second, he will not give in to blackmail over Planned Parenthood. Some in the GOP are threatening a new shutdown over it. Obama said he understands their intensity of feeling on the matter, but it is inadmissible to jeopardize the entire economy and the full faith and credit of the USA over it. He said he feels the same way about the importance of gun legislation, but would never use that as a lever to threaten to wreck the American economy and hurt millions over an unrelated issue. Imagine, he said, if I threatened to crash the American economy if I didn't get my way over gun laws. It would be crazy. For them to threaten to do so over the debt limit for money they've already spent, or on the budget itself, is nothing less.

In our constitutional system, the President concluded, neither he nor congress can work their will without the other. They need to confer and negotiate. Because they have differing views, there will need to be compromises. He is tired of the posturing, resolute about rejecting blackmail, and ready to talk and get something done. He's right. Enough extremism is enough, it's time to govern.

GOP Outs Itself on Benghazi

Good, we can stop with the pretenses now. The never ending investigations of Hillary Clinton over Benghazi have been an exercise in craven political theater, meant to damage the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. We have this on the word of Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the number two House Republican. The likely new Speaker of the House to succeed retiring John Boehner was attempting to curry favor with conservative Republican voters on the Sean Hannity Fox "News" program when he said this:

What you’re going to see is a conservative speaker, that takes a conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win. And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen.

If you want to see McCarthy say it in his own words, go here.


So the soon-to-be most powerful figure in the GOP congress admits these interminable hearings are a "strategy to fight and win." Commentator Michael Kinsley once observed that a gaffe is "when a politician tells the truth — some obvious truth he isn't supposed to say." McCarthy's "gaffe" has exposed this charade for what it is. There have been 8 investigations of Benghazi up to now, 7 congressional and one independent. All have exonerated Secretary Clinton of any malfeasance or negligence. None has found dereliction of duty or State Department conspiracy in play in the tragic killing of four American personnel there. Yet Secretary Clinton is about to be hauled before yet another one of these hearings Wednesday, October 22. At least now the public will know for sure what this is all about.

Pope Francis's Address to Congress

Pope Francis's address to Congress yesterday was unprecedented for a couple of reasons. To start with, he is the first pope to do so. But perhaps more importantly, he spoke to the legislators on terms they seldom hear anymore, the plane of moral necessity. And while liberals had quite a bit more to cheer than conservatives in Francis's speech, there were several cases that struck a positive chord with both, and a couple of instances where conservatives liked what they were hearing more than liberals did. The upshot is that the Pope, though polite and pastoral rather than scolding, did not pull his punches. His approach is not liberal or conservative in U.S. political terms; it is humanitarian in Catholic terms.

The Pope paid his respects to politics as a profession that can accomplish much good, in the proper light. He encouraged a politics whose purpose is "to build the common good, a community that sacrifices particular interests for the common good."

Francis grounded his speech in the examples of the lives of four great Americans: Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton. From Lincoln he invoked the principle of liberty, "a new birth of freedom that requires a love of the common good." The Pontiff counseled "suspicion against any kind of fundamentalism" that draws simplistic good versus evil or righteous versus sinners pictures and that promotes polarization. Stop with the intransigence and get things done for the people, seemed to be his message here.

The Pope brought up Martin Luther King to highlight equal rights and dignity for all. He here devoted most of his message to inveighing against fear and rejection of immigrants, "I say this to you as the son of immigrants, as I know many of you are the descendants of immigrants." He grounded his point in the Golden Rule. He said, "When the stranger appears to us we must not repeat the errors of the past." Francis's frequent references to Dr. King's "dream" made it clear he supported the concept of the American Dream Act. There was not a lot for conservative immigrant-bashers to like in this segment.   

The next passage was based on the example of Dorothy Day, founder of the "Catholic Worker" publication and a lifelong fighter for the poor and oppressed. Francis no  doubt dismayed conservatives when he explicitly brought up the inequitable "distribution of wealth." He called for an economy that is "modern and sustainable," and specified "The common good includes the Earth." He referred to his recent encyclical on environmentalism, saying, "The environment concerns us all, and environmental deterioration is caused by human activities. We can make a difference, I am sure. Now is the time for courageous action. America can make a vital contribution in the years ahead." At this the Democrats enthusiastically rose while the Republicans sat on their hands. 

Finally, Pope Francis turned to the example of Thomas Merton, a 20th century monk famous for his spirituality. Here the Pope advocated sincere dialogue in the spirit of peace and brotherhood to address all human problems. He specifically brought up the arms trade, indirectly chastising America's role in perpetuating wars that shed "innocent blood." He got applause from conservatives by mentioning his commitment to the value of human life "at all stages of development," but they then sat down in confusion when he immediately pivoted to calling for the worldwide end to the death penalty. He spoke of "threats to the family," including the "redefinition of relations," a likely dig at the recent U.S. acceptance of same-sex marriage. But he then broadened the appeal by speaking for "the richness of family life" and calling for the legislators to do all they could for the "vulnerable young" who have "possibilities, but may be trapped in violence, abuse and despair." This call was rousingly supported by all.

The partisan divide was much more muted than in a normal congressional session, or a State of the Union message, but was present nonetheless. Francis skillfully negotiated the shoals while still getting his message out. And while I would say the lion's share of his message supported the liberal approach to solving human problems, he gave everyone a great deal to think about, regardless of their ideological persuasion. 

 

Second Republican Debate

The Republican debate on CNN this week was a revelation. Everyone there seemed to have a clear idea of what they're against, but no one appeared to have any kind of coherent picture of what they are for or how they would meet the needs of the American people.

They all hated Obamacare and said would repeal it right away. No one offered an idea of how to improve the health care system or meet the needs of those without insurance.

They all said they would defund Planned Parenthood. None said anything about how they would meet the health needs of women in America without it.

They all said they were against ISIS and would destroy it. No one mentioned that for the US to do that would require an American invasion of Syria, or if that was what they were proposing. (To his credit, at least in terms of honesty, Lindsay Graham actually did admit to having exactly that in mind in the preliminary debate among the four candidates with the weakest support.)

They all said they were against the nuclear inspection deal with Iran. All but two said they would simply tear it up, leaving no inspection protocol in effect at all, and in effect leaving no other option but war. Rand Paul and John Kasich were the only ones to suggest working within the treaty with our allies.

All said they were for harsh crackdowns on "illegal aliens," with Marco Rubio tacitly repudiating his own Senate legislation on comprehensive immigration. No one offered much in the way of solutions other than building more and bigger walls.

Most of all, they all fell all over themselves attacking Hillary Clinton, and each other. There was a cringeworthy back and forth between Jeb Bush and Donald Trump over Bush's allegations that Trump showed up at Bush's Florida office when he was governor with an offer of campaign cash, asking for Bush's help in approving a casino project. Trump's vehement 'no I didn'ts' and Bush's insistent 'yes you dids' reached a new bottom. Apparently lost on everyone was the certainty that at least one of them was lying with pants-on-fire intensity.

All in all, there was little to inspire confidence in the vision of these candidates. Several of them painfully appeared to lack even the basic personal maturity to be considered for such a position of responsibility. Entertainment value can only take you so far.









 

Positive New Jobs Numbers

The latest jobs numbers came out last Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They show a preliminary job creation number of 173,000 new private-sector non-farm American jobs were created in August. When final statistics come in that number may be adjusted up or down somewhat, but it's a good snapshot.The most important thing it shows is that positive news keeps coming in. We are currently on the longest roll of consecutive months of net positive job creation since statistics have been kept for the nation.

The other thing the stats do is underscore an important but little-known fact about American employment statistics: the strong superiority of these numbers when a Democrat occupies the White House. I went back to the inauguration of John F. Kennedy in 1961, ran the numbers, and here is what I found: There have been 5 Republicans in office for a total of 28 years. During that time there was a net gain of 857,000 jobs a year during Republican administrations. There have also been 5 Democrats as president from JFK to now, for a total of a little less than 27 years. During that time a net average of 1,844,000 jobs have been added every year during Democratic administrations.

The numbers are stark and remarkable. More than twice as many jobs per year have been created under Democrats as under Republicans, almost a million a year more! Why Democrats don't trumpet this to the skies every election cycle is beyond my understanding. Maybe they ought to start doing that.

30,000 Milestone Passed!

Dear Readers:

I started this blog in December, 2007.  This week, 655 posts and eight years and nine months later, Brave Gnu Whirled passed its thirty thousandth page view!  Readership is growing.  It took
495 posts and four years and seven months to get to the first ten thousand, 90 posts and one year and five months to record the second ten thousand, and 70 posts and 1 year and seven months to surpass the third ten thousand!  I sincerely thank everyone who subscribes or just checks in and looks around, either regularly or just every once in awhile.

Whether it's a comment on politics, society, the news, or a personal item, this blog is an outlet for me.  I hope it's also a diversion for you.  Whether it informs, amuses or exasperates, my object is that it always at least interests.

After the United States, the next most popular areas of readership lately have been Germany, France, Russia, Ukraine and Japan. So,  thank you, merci, spasiba, gracias, danke, Дякую and arigato to everyone!

Kentucky County Clerk's Refusal to Obey the Law of the Land

Thought for the day, from Lambda Legal Director Jon Davidson:

"I have to wonder: just how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis's refusal to issue marriage licenses based on her religious objection to same-sex couples marrying would support a Quaker government official who refused to issue them gun permits based on a religious commitment to pacifism?"

Cal Voters for Obamacare; Back Increasing Tobacco Tax and Wages

A new Field Poll released this week sheds some interesting light on California's progressive attitudes regarding health care. It finds strong and growing support for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), and for expanding Medi-Cal health services to the state's undocumented residents. An expanded Field Poll release also shows registered voters in the Golden State overwhelmingly in favor of an initiative proposal to raise the cigarette tax by $2 a pack to provide more money for health care. The same survey finds even higher support for a hefty increase in the state's minimum wage. The independent, non-partisan Field Poll, established by Mervin Field in 1947 as the California Poll, has long been the most accurate ongoing assessment of political opinion in California.  

The Affordable Care Act is growing in popularity in California. 62% say they favor the law, and only 33% oppose it. The survey found that "Opinions about this cross party lines, and include not only large majorities of Democrats and no party preference voters, but a plurality of Republicans as well." This is likely based on an even stronger favorable perception of the ACA's implementation here, as Covered California. "More than two in three voters (68%) believe that the state's implementation of the ACA in California been successful, while just 20% believe it has not."

The Medi-Cal question found that 58% of registered voters agreed with covering undocumented immigrants not eligible for ACA, against 39% opposed. Last year's numbers were 51% to 45%, evidencing that the humanitarian progressive bent in California opinion is gathering strength.

In May health and labor groups introduced an initiative to hike cigarette taxes by $2 a pack and use the expected $1.5 billion in new revenue to increase reimbursement rates and expand coverage to more people for Medi-Cal. The SEIU union, California Medical Association, California Dental Association and American Cancer Society have thus far raised $2 million to advance the measure.  Field Poll found California voters backing the idea 67% to 30%, with 50% of all voters saying they "strongly favor" the increase. Another 17% say the "somewhat favor" the higher tax. California presently taxes cigarettes 87 cents a pack, a lower rate than 30 other states.

The California minimum wage was raised legislatively from $8 to $9 on July 1, 2014 and will go up to $10 on January 1, 2016. The new proposal would hike it by an additional $1 an hour every year for the next five years, to $15 an hour by 2021. State voters strongly approve, 68% to 30%.

If California goes ahead and implements these ideas it will provide an interesting large-scale test case for the nation as a whole. Here's hoping they all pass.    

Why Iran Nuclear Agreement Makes Sense

The Iran nuclear deal will be voted on in the House and Senate in about a month. Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico is a member of the Intelligence Committee, an engineer, and well-informed on nuclear issues. After examining the prospective deal agreed upon between Iran, the US and five other major powers, he has come to the conclusion that it merits his strong support. It is the best way to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon while avoiding a new war in the Middle East. Heinrich wrote an  op-ed for the Albuquerque Journal. He has waived any copyright issues in the hope of spreading his message and trying to counter the $40 million advertising blitz currently underway by neoconservative war hawks and their wealthy backers. Their campaign urging congressional rejection of the agreement  would likely leave no other option than war. I have posted Senator Heinrich's article below.

Iran deal is a historic opportunity
By Sen. Martin Heinrich / Democrat, New Mexico
Thursday, July 30, 2015 In the first decade of this century when we were entangled in the War in Iraq, Iran’s nuclear program surged ahead rapidly, adding thousands of centrifuges, building complex nuclear facilities and stockpiling highly enriched uranium.
In the absence of real negotiations and before the most recent sanctions, Iran built a nuclear infrastructure that went from 164 centrifuges in 2003 to 19,000 centrifuges today and included large quantities of 20 percent enriched uranium that could quickly be enriched to weapons grade material.
When evaluating the deal we achieved with our allies and partners to prevent Iran from being able to build a nuclear weapon, context, data and details like these matter. Perhaps the most critical data point: Without a deal, Iran could acquire enough highly enriched material for a bomb in 60-90 days.
With a deal, Iran must reduce its stockpile by 98 percent. It must cut its number of centrifuges by two-thirds. And it must allow 24/7 inspections and continuous monitoring of its nuclear infrastructure.
Further, a mechanism is in place that will allow inspections of sites should we suspect covert action being taken to build a bomb anywhere else in Iran.
This accord breaks each path to a weaponized nuclear device, including any potential covert effort. We should welcome each of those developments as major steps toward regional and international security.
I have studied both the science and the politics of the nuclear-age world we live in from an early age. I grew up listening to my father, who served in the Navy in the ’50s, tell what it was like to watch a nuclear blast firsthand and to see the formation of a mushroom cloud over Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands. While studying engineering at the University of Missouri, I worked at one of the largest research reactors in the United States. More recently, I have seen the centrifuges dedicated to the peaceful production of nuclear energy, which are housed in New Mexico.
In the House and now on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have served on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which sets policy on non-proliferation and our nuclear deterrent. I also serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where I have received numerous briefings on Iran’s nuclear program and capabilities. So I am well acquainted with the steps necessary to successfully construct a nuclear weapon and to detect such activity.
The comprehensive, long-term deal achieved last week includes all the necessary tools to break each potential Iranian pathway to a nuclear bomb. Further, it incorporates enough lead time so that, should Iran change its course, the United States and the world can react well before a device could be built; a scenario I hope never occurs, but one that leaves all options on the table, including the military option.
Many of my colleagues in the Senate will object to this historical accomplishment, saying that we could have done better. However, they fail to offer any realistic alternatives.
The only concrete alternative, should Congress reject this deal, comes from my colleague, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who has suggested a military strike.
While the military option will always remain on the table, it should remain our absolute last resort. Our military and intelligence leaders have looked at the potential repercussions should a military conflict with Iran occur. That path would provoke retaliation and very likely lead to a nuclear armed Iran in a matter of just a few years.
For too long, our country has been engaged in military conflicts that have cost our nation dearly in blood and treasure. We must always be ready at a moment’s notice to defend our country, our allies and our interests, but we must also be willing to avoid conflict whenever a diplomatic option is present and possible.
I am optimistic this accord is in the best interest of our nation and our allies. I am still deeply distrustful of Iran’s leadership. But, to make peace, you must negotiate with your enemies.
Any deal with Iran will not be without risk, but the risks associated with inaction are far more dire. This deal sets the stage for a safer and more stable Middle East, and a more secure United States. We must seize this historic opportunity.

Trump Phenomenon Tip of Iceberg

What's going on with the Donald Trump phenomenon? I got a note from friend Tim Garner who sent me a link to an opinion piece by Glenn Reynolds in USA Today expounding on the popularity of not only Donald Trump but also Bernie Sanders. You can go to it here. Reynolds's basic point is that the political class is out of touch with everyday Americans and their concerns, and people are looking for solutions outside of the bromides they typically hear from the same old insiders. Reynolds writes, "Trump’s rise is, like that of his Democratic counterpart Bernie Sanders, a sign that a large number of voters don’t feel represented by more mainstream politicians." He is unquestionably right in that assessment.

Where he isn't right is in his contention that the "ruling class" and the political class are the same thing, and in his statement that the big problem is that this ruling class presents an unbroken wall where "On many issues...the Republican and Democratic establishments agree." Anyone who has been paying even minimal attention the past several years is aware of the across-the-board gridlock resulting from irreconcilable Republican and Democratic views on things like health care, taxes, war, immigration, LGBT rights, climate change, the minimum wage, international relations, Medicare and Social Security. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have made reversing income inequality the cornerstones of their respective campaigns, for instance. In neither of the recent top-tier nor the second string Republican debates was one word spoken of it. The ruling class are the billionaires with the money. They work hard to game the system so that the political class are their puppets. The GOP almost completely is. The Democrats are not yet fully so.     

There is no question these candidates are indeed, as the author states, tapping into an angst among the rank and file that feels increasingly alienated from the political and/or ruling class. The root of the angst is that the standard of living and opportunity ladder for average Americans has stagnated for over three decades now. The problem of focusing this discontent is that the disaffected are not of one mind. The Tea Party types who like Trump (Cruz, Paul, Carson, et. al.) think government is the problem and want to devolve it. The Leftish types who like Sanders think corporatism and plutocracy are the problem and want strong government under the people's control to rein in this ruling class and force it to share the profits with the workers and provide more opportunity (free college, medical care and so on) to the average folks. It will be fascinating (maybe frightening) to see how this eventually explodes.

Getting the billionaire and corporate money out of the political campaign process is, in my view, the prerequisite for heading off the explosion and restoring better responsiveness. I am, as you likely know, in sympathy with what I referred to as the Leftish analysis.

Book Appearance in Fresno

I've been invited to introduce my book Liberally Speaking: Why Liberalism is Right for America to the Fresno County Democratic Party Central Committee's monthly meeting tonight.  This will be a 5-10 minute thumbnail near the beginning of the meeting's agenda. The meeting begins at 6:30 P.M. I will be able to offer signed books for sale, which are $21.60 including tax.

The Fresno Democratic Party meets at its office, 1035 U Street, Fresno, California, 93721-1419. I would like to thank Fresno Central Committee members Doug and Estella Kessler for extending this invitation and getting me on the agenda. They have also been good friends of the College of the Sequoias Young Democrats.

Is the USA Still a Democracy?

Former President Jimmy Carter made an important statement on the Thom Hartmann radio program July 27. Asked about the effects of the Citizens United and McCutcheon Supreme Court decisions that have opened the political process up to unlimited secret campaign contributions, Carter said the United States is becoming an oligarchy. Hear his comments here.
 
 Here is the text of the exigent part of the interview.

HARTMANN: Our Supreme Court has now said, “unlimited money in politics.” It seems like a violation of principles of democracy. … Your thoughts on that?

CARTER: It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over. … The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody’s who’s already in Congress has a lot more to sell to an avid contributor than somebody who’s just a challenger.

This follows a recent New York Times story that found more than half the $388 million raised by the Republican candidates for president in June came from just 130 families and their businesses.

Book Appearance Today

I'd like to invite you to my book appearance today at 6:30 P.M. in Visalia at Congregation B'nai David, 1039 S. Chinowth, in the Education Room. It's being hosted by St. Paul's Episcopal Church. I'll discuss my book "Liberally Speaking," including a power point and some excerpts, have some question and answer and do signings. Light refreshments will be served. Books will be available for purchase for $21.60, including tax.

GOP Racism Revealed in Fox Poll

The most recent Fox News poll shows Donald Trump the current front runner among the Republican candidate field and an alarmingly high level of racism among the Republican electorate. Trump, who has gained notoriety among the general public for his characterizations of Mexican immigrants as "rapists and murderers" is the choice of 18% of Republican voters in the survey. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker comes in second with 15% and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush stands in third place with 14%. None of the other galaxy of GOP candidates registers in double figures. The poll was jointly conducted by Anderson Robbins, which usually surveys for Democrats, and Shaw & Company, which usually surveys for Republicans.

To show where the minds of voters are, 59% of all those polled felt Trump is "just a loud mouth," but among Republican primary voters, 59% said they admire the Donald. The main reason? Because "he's got guts." While 64% of all those polled support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, 68% of Republican primary voters say that Trump is "basically right" in his views about Mexican immigrants. The picture of GOP voters that emerges is that of a bloc sorely out of touch with the general public and infected with admiration for those who spew racist invective, so long as it is done emphatically.  

The first Republican debate is in three weeks and will feature the ten candidates who score highest in an average of popularity polls. Recent results practically guarantee Trump will be on the stage.

   

Make a Difference: Call the White House

One of the greatest threats to our democratic system is the presence of unlimited and untraceable special interest campaign cash. It's a theme I've returned to often in these pages. I also address the subject in detail in chapter 14 of my book, Liberally Thinking. The goals of the plutocrats are twofold. First, they wish to make candidates dependent upon their "contributions" to gain and hold their elected seats. This also serves to render the politicians pliable to supporting legislation or executive actions that cater to the special interests' priorities rather than those that would serve the general public interest. Issues like wages and environmental concerns come readily to mind.

Second, by removing  any spending restraints and keeping their political spending secret, they assiduously work to propagandize the electorate to support their corporate or personal agenda against the public's own interest. They turn an election, which is supposed to be a contest of votes, where they are weak, into a contest of money, where they are strong. By flooding the media with one message, they drown out countervailing views. This is the essence of the effect of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

Now there is something you can do that can make a difference on this. Daily Kos sent out an email today appealing for people to call the White House to register their opinion on the matter, and to ask President Obama to issue an executive order requiring federal contractors to disclose an all their political spending. He can do this without congressional approval. To get the message out, click on this link. It will take you to the Daily Kos page instructing you how to call the White House and what to say to urge the president's action.

Disclosure can make a difference. In 2010, California Proposition 23, sponsored by Valero Oil, Tesoro Oil and Koch Industries, would have gutted the state's climate change efforts. Oil companies outspent their political opponents 20-1 in the campaign, but because of the Golden State's strict disclosure requirements, the people knew whose money was behind the advertising and weren't fooled. Prop 23 lost by 2.2 million votes.   

So give it a try. It's a way you can help to have an impact on a matter that is vital to preserving fairness and balance in the democratic process.

Two Great Days for America: Obamacare and Marriage Equality are Affirmed

Over the past two days the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Obamacare will continue and that same-sex marriage must be recognized in all fifty states. The effects of these momentous judgments will go down in history as major turning points in the story of the security and rights of the American people. They represent a complete vindication of the liberal/progressive position on both issues, by a majority-conservative court, no less. They also cement the prominent place of President Barack Obama among those presidents who have effected truly transformational change.

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) ruling in King v. Burwell is as potentially important as the 1937 Helvering v. Davis decision that upheld Social Security. As NPR correspondent Nina Tottenberg described, conservative activists "flyspecked" the ACA looking for any errors they could attack. They found a drafting error, "exchanges established by the state," that called into question whether the Act's subsidies to help Americans of modest means to afford health insurance could be granted to residents of the 34 states who have been relying on the federal exchange to purchase their health insurance. The 6-3 vote to sustain the tax credit subsidies was the right conclusion. The ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, properly found that the entire intent of the law was to provide help to all eligible Americans, and that it should not be judicially invalidated by one drafting error in a 2,000-page law. The principle that all Americans should have access to health care and that the federal government will help make that a reality is now enshrined in our country. Even if they win the next presidential election Republicans will find it extremely difficult to take away benefits that 16 million people already enjoy. Just as they have found with Social Security and Medicare, Republicans will face nearly insurmountable political obstacles in getting rid of it. People are going to get to go to the doctor whether Republicans like it or not.

The marriage equality ruling was perhaps even more decisive from a human rights perspective. The 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges orders all states to recognize same-sex marriage, based on the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, which says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This is as decisive and permanent as the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case that outlawed bans on interracial marriage. The four conservatives on the court who voted against the majority felt so strongly against this that they all wrote individual dissents, even resorting to personal attacks against their normally fellow-conservative colleague Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, who wrote the majority opinion.  He sided with the liberals as he has before on LGBT equality issues. Their objections will all be relegated in time to the historical ash heap along with others who down through the years have tried to hold back the march of equality across the pages of American history. Gays and lesbians are going to be able to marry the people they love whether conservatives like it or not.

It's been a great two days for America.


        

How Will Court Rule on Marriage Equality and Obamacare?

Business Insider ran a story on the two pressing Supreme Court cases still to be announced this session. The first case will rule whether states can refuse to marry same-sex couples. The second, King v. Burwell, will decide whether the U.S. government can continue to pay subsidies to people for Obamacare if they live in a state that has not set up its own health care exchange. If they so rule, it will largely wreck Obamacare in 36 states. You can see the article here.

In it, Carter Phillips, an attorney who has argued 80 cases before the high court, predicts the court will rule in favor of same-sex marriage. He says, "I think it could be more than 5-4 because I think the justices will figure out the way the winds of history are blowing and will not be keen on seeing their individual legacies tarnished by having hopelessly attempted to block the protection of rights." 

He rates the Obamacare case a tossup, based on the questioning of the justices at the hearing. All four liberal justices seemed to strongly affirm an interpretation of the wording that permits the subsidies to continue, even if the exchange has not been "established by the state." In Phillips's view, the questions and comments from the bench of only three conservative justices indicate implacable opposition to the subsidies. Two others, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, appeared undecided and could go either way. "The four liberals were very aggressive at the oral argument and only three of the conservatives were," Phillips said. "So if Obama could pick off either the Chief or Kennedy, he would win." 

We should find out within a week.

 

Pope Speaks Out on Climate Change

Today Pope Francis released his encyclical on human-generated climate change and the need for the people and governments of the world to band together to reverse the damage being done to creation and to our ecological home. As he put it, "Once we start to think about the kind of world we are leaving to future generations, we look at things differently; we realize that the world is a gift which we have freely received and must share with others," he said.  The Archdiocese of Los Angeles is teaming up with the Sierra Club to ask people to sign a petition calling on world leaders to act to fight this threat.

Conservative figures such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and candidates Jeb Bush and Rick Santorum have already weighed in against the pontiff for "politicizing" the climate issue. What they don't seem to realize is that the scientist pope (master's degree in Chemistry) is merely reporting the science and combining that with his moral focus as a religious leader to call for mitigation of the effects of this preventable tragedy on the "least among us." As Francis pointed out, it is the poor and powerless who pay the highest price for drought and sea level rise. See the entire text of the encyclical (184 pages) here. See the informative article on the encyclical, Laudate Si, (Praise be to you) in the New York Times here.

It is well past time for the narrative to change. Scientists who report the findings of science and moral leaders who report the human dimension of issues are not the ones "politicizing" this issue. People who know better but play to the fear and ignorance of their political base by denying fact and reason are the ones doing so. It is well past time for them to be called on this dissimulation, and it is good to see the Pope doing so.

Book Review Information

Here's Information I've sent to Jim Ward, Editor for the Visalia Times-Delta's "Choices" section. It's scheduled to accompany a review of my book by Newell Bringhurst to appear in the paper on Friday, June 12.

Book Title: Liberally Speaking: Why Liberalism is Right for America

What's it about: It starts with my own story, from being brought up as a conservative Republican to my political transformation to a liberal Democrat based on liberalism's ethical and moral foundations and its record of effectiveness in successfully furthering the rights and prosperity of the American people. It's a thoroughly-researched work that shows the values that underpin liberalism, explains where liberals stand on the issues and why, and highlights the superior historical record of civil rights, personal liberties and economic prosperity the nation has achieved when liberal ideas and policies have been followed. That's why I gave up my old views. The record shows they don't work, and that liberal ones do. Chapter 7, for instance, details the strikingly superior economic record the nation has enjoyed under Democratic presidents compared to Republican ones.

About the author: I am a Professor of History at College of the Sequoias, where I have taught since 1999. I served on the Governance Committee of the recent Accreditation Task Force, part of the effort that successfully restored the college to fully accredited status. I served on the COS Academic Senate for nine years, including four years as President, and on the Executive Committee of the College of the Sequoias Teachers Association for eight years. I have been faculty adviser of the COS Young Democrats Club since its inception in 2008. I hold undergraduate degrees in History and Political Science and Graduate degrees in History and Education. I am a COS teacher of the year awardee and Democratic lifetime achievement award recipient. I taught at the middle school level for 17 years prior to COS. I have been married to my wife Joan for 37 years. We have two grown daughters. I usually go by Steve, but used my full name, Stephen J. Natoli, as author of the book.   

Where can you buy the book:

From the publisher: www.brandenbooks.com

On Amazon.com (Search Liberally Speaking or Stephen Natoli.)

The Book Garden, 189 E. Pine St., Exeter

Linda's Used Books, 1107 E. Houston St., Visalia

I will also be talking to Visalia Costco on Monday to see if they will carry it. COS Visalia Bookstore has told me they will carry it; I'll find out Monday when they will get copies in for sale. I'll likely have Bargain Books on Walnut carry it too. I'll try to get all this info to you by some time Tuesday, or at least as much as has been finalized by then.

COS will hold an author's appearance, sale and book signing in November (date still tbd). I'll be seeing about a Cafe 210 and potential COSTCO author event and book signing too.

Book Update

Just a quick note to report I am so busy finishing my book project I haven't had time to post much lately. I'm working on correcting the index of Liberally Speaking and should be finished this week. The release should come very shortly now. 

Report: 22 States Face Deficits This Year

The Associated Press has recently done a study showing that even in economic recovery, 22 states are looking at budget shortfalls for the upcoming year. That's an ominous sign, causing consternation about how bad things might get the next time the economy goes back into a downturn. There are two main culprits: states that have tried to spur growth with tax cuts, and states that rely heavily on oil revenues. It's more confirmation that the trickle-down "tax cut your way to prosperity" plan doesn't seem to work.

California and Colorado are singled out as two states that are running surpluses and in strong financial shape. California followed a liberal program; voters approved tax increases on high incomes, instituted a statewide sales tax increase, and gave the legislature authority to pass budgets with a simple majority. It's also committing $1 billion to water projects and going ahead with high speed rail construction. Contrary to conservative expectations, the Golden State is on its way to a projected $3 billion surplus this year.

Kansas and Alabama are highlighted as states in which tax cutting fever failed to produce strong growth rates and is leading instead to substantial deficits that will require either restoring the taxes or severe cuts to education and the judicial system in order to restore balance. Kansas school districts are closing early this year because they are running out of money.Alaska is the poster child for excessive reliance on oil revenues. With global prices down by half from their peaks, Juneau faces an expected $3.2 billion deficit over the next two years.


 

Book: Graphic Artist Needed for Cover

Everything is ready for the release of my book, Liberally Speaking, except for the cover. The latest concept involves the Statue of Liberty. We are trying to get a good graphic artist for the project. If you know of anyone, get in touch!

Clinton the Early Leader

The first major poll released since Hillary Clinton announced as a candidate for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination gives her a strong opening lead against any of her announced or potential Republican rivals. The CNN/ORC Poll matched the former Secretary of State, New York Senator and First Lady against eight prominent Republicans. Her leads against them ranged from 14 to 24%.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio did best, trailing Clinton by  14 points, 55 to 41. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush was next closest, though he was 17 points down at 56 to 39. After that came New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Both lagged behind Clinton by 19 points, 58-39. The other four hopefuls sampled were more than 20 points back. Former Arkansas Governor and 2008 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee trailed by 21 at 58-37, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was 22 back at 59-37, Texas Senator Ted Cruz was down by 24 at 60-36, and former neurosurgeon Ben Carson also lagged by 24 with numbers identical to Cruz.

It's very early and should be remarked that Rubio, Paul and Cruz are the only officially announced GOP candidates vying to take on Ms. Clinton, though it is plain the other four are all making the expected moves serious candidates would be expected to make at this stage of the political season. There may be other entries as well, such as former Texas Governor Rick Perry, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, Ohio Governor John Kasich and Indiana Governor Mike Pence.  But even with that said, Clinton begins with a formidable advantage that cannot be completely discounted.  

My Book to Be Published

I haven't posted in 10 days and have been pretty busy. My book, Liberally Speaking, has been picked up by Branden Books of Wellesley, Massachusetts. I've signed a contract and have been engaged in  pre-production chores. Today after work it's been proofing the publisher's master file for errors. I've managed to get through four chapters of the 20 so far. It will be released soon,  perhaps as early as next month. I will keep you posted on the progress. 

Iran Nuclear Deal

Yesterday's interim nuclear agreement between Iran and the six powers is a hopeful step and to be applauded. By it, Iran will dismantle part of its nuclear program, scale back the rest to a level that cannot be used to make fissile uranium, and submit to rigorous inspections. In return, crippling international sanctions will be relaxed contingent on Iranian compliance with the agreement.

The five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council (US, Britain, France, Russia, China) plus Germany had set a deadline for agreement by June, but had established March 31 as a date to determine whether enough progress was being made to continue the talks. They were close enough to continue through April 1, when the overall framework was agreed upon.  

British foreign secretary Philip Hammond said “This is well beyond what many of us thought possible even 18 months ago.” He continued,“There is a very rigorous transparency and inspection regime with access for international inspectors on a daily basis, high-tech surveillance of all the facilities, TV cameras, electronic seals on equipment, so we know remotely if any equipment has been moved,” he said.

Here are the pertinent details as reported by the The Guardian:

• Iran’s infrastructure for uranium enrichment will be reduced by more than two thirds, from 19,000 installed centrifuges, to 6,104, of which only 5,060 will be used for uranium enrichment, for a period of 10 years.
• Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium will be reduced by 98% to 300kg for a period of 15 years.
• Iran’s heavy water reactor will be redesigned so it produces only tiny amounts of plutonium.
• Iran’s underground enrichment plant at Fordow will be turned into a research centre for medical and scientific work.
• Iran will be open to enhanced inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency for 20 years.

This is a reasonable agreement in terms of making sure Iran does not develop a nuclear bomb without going to war. Critics such as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and congressional Republicans are not happy. They seem to feel no deal will be enforceable and that Iran will find a way to cheat  The agreement is stringent and should minimize the possibility. Yet if it happens, we will be back to where we are anyway: President Obama has stated he is on the same page as the war hawks in that case. He has said Iran will not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and that if it appears close to that goal the U.S. will use "any means necessary," an obvious reference to military attack, to prevent it. So Netanyahu, Sens. Tom Cotton, John McCain and Lindsey Graham would scrap negotiations and leave only the certainty of war with Iran. That's not a desirable eventuality, as one would think they might have learned something from the expected easy triumphs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama and the other five powers are right to pursue the path of peace. Iran is submitting to the reversal of all aspects of its program that could lead to a bomb, and to intrusive inspections to keep it that way. Bringing Iran back into normal international relations could have a stabilizing effect on the entire Middle East, and if the effort fails we can always resort to he military option anyway. A few details of logistics still have to be worked out by June. The war hawks have nothing to offer, and it is high time to move and get on with this.

Why Conservative Thinking Doesn’t Work, Part 4: Putting Ideology Ahead of Public Opinion

    One would think that in a vibrant, responsive democracy, when the people have strongly-held views, government leaders would be eager to put them into effect.  But that thinking rarely operates when conservative ideology is concerned. On issue after issue, conservatives in office follow their ideological preferences, not only when they run counter to human needs, not only when they fly in the face of fact, but also when they are heavily unpopular with the American people.       

     Reputable polling organizations find that conservative positions are out of touch with the views of most Americans on a host of issues. Here are some recent examples, as illustrated by the findings of the Gallup Poll. 

     In 2010 the Dream Act was favored by the American people by a margin of 54 to 42 percent.  It would grant legal status to young people who were brought to America as infants or small children, have stayed out of legal trouble and who go to college for two years or serve in the military. It won by 14 votes in the U.S. Senate but conservatives stopped it on a filibuster. 

     A much larger percentage of Americans are in favor of a “path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants if they have been in the U.S. a “long time, pass a criminal background check, pay back taxes and a penalty, and learn English.” A whopping 87 percent agreed in a 2013 Gallup poll. Only 12 percent disagreed. The Senate passed an immigration bill with these provisions by a wide majority with support from both parties, but conservative opposition in the House of Representatives has prevented it from even being brought up for a vote in that chamber.

     In 2013, Gallup found 53 percent of Americans were against overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that gave women the right to an abortion. Only 29 percent wanted the decision reversed. The same year found 78 percent in favor of legal abortion under “all” or “certain circumstances” and only 20 percent wanting to be “illegal in all circumstances.” Yet that is what conservatives, especially social conservatives, want to enforce. In 2013, over 50 new restrictions on abortion were passed in states where conservative legislatures hold the majority.

     Gallup asked Americans in 2013, “Would you vote for or against a law that would require background checks for all gun purchases?” 83 percent said “for” and 17 percent said “against.”  Conservatives in the U.S. Senate blocked the majority from passing just such legislation with a filibuster.  

     Conservatives continue to battle against contraception, even though 89 percent of Americans feel contraception is morally acceptable and only 8 percent do not. Even Catholics think so, by a margin of 82 to 15 percent. Conservatives tried to use opposition to contraception to invalidate Obamacare. Meanwhile, 98 percent of American women report using contraception at some point in their lives.

     58 percent of Americans were in favor of legalizing marijuana against 38 percent opposed.  This is even though just 38 percent said they had ever tried it and only 6 percent said they had used marijuana in the past month. Most, including those who do not use marijuana themselves, seem to think this legal war is an exercise in futility.

     In 2014, Gallup found Americans supported same-sex marriage by 55 to 42 percent. In 2013, 52 percent of Americans said they would, if given the chance, vote to make marriage equality the law in all 50 states, versus 42 percent who said they would vote no. The trend is also noteworthy.  From 1996 to 2008 the percentage for marriage equality grew by an average of 1 percent a year and the percentage against fell by 1 percent a year. But since 2009 the momentum has accelerated. In ’09 opinion as sampled by Gallup was still 57 to 40 against. In the ensuing four years the liberal view gained 3 percent a year and the conservative view lost three percent a year, producing the current 8-percent margin in favor. Conservatives, of course, continue to ignore the rapidly gathering national consensus and remain against marriage equality.

     Conservatives fought for the 2013 “Sequester” budget cuts to public services, even though 56 percent of the American people felt if they were adopted “the economy will get worse.”  Conservatives instead cast their lot with the 30 percent who disagreed.

     Conservative congressmen, led by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, orchestrated a government shutdown in late 2013 to try to stop the implementation of the Obamacare health program. The Quinnipiac University Poll found that Americans opposed the shutdown idea by an overwhelming margin of 72 percent to 22 percent.

     Prominent defense conservatives such as Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham decry the idea of negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, and 47 Republican senators signed a letter sent to the ayatollahs of Iran telling them not to negotiate with America. Meanwhile, the CNN Poll found Americans support direct negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program by 75 percent to 20 percent.    

     A 2013 Kaiser Family Foundation poll on deficit reduction asked people what they thought ought to be cut “if the president and Congress decide to reduce the deficit by reducing spending.”  Lopsided majorities were against any cuts to public education, Medicare and Social Security, and strong pluralities were against cuts to Medicaid and health insurance subsidies. Yet education is one of the places where conservatives made major cuts in the recession, and the others are consistently mentioned in conservative proposals to cut, privatize and voucherize.

     The people support clean campaign finance practices, and liberals are fighting to overturn the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling. In that case, the court’s conservative majority, by a 5-4 vote, threw out forty years of law and held that unlimited corporate political contributions were fine. A 2012 Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll found that 62% of registered voters disagreed with the Citizens United decision. Yet conservative leaders continue to back it.  

     The issue of income inequality continued to gain greater importance as the prosperity of the wealthy surged in the recovery while pay for most workers lagged behind. President Obama pushed for a major hike in the federal minimum wage, from $7.25 an hour to $10.10. A Quinnipiac survey in January 2014 found the American people solidly in support, by the huge majority of 72 percent to 27 percent. Even Republicans agreed, 52 percent to 45 percent.  Nonetheless, conservatives, particularly economic conservatives, and the business community were bitterly opposed. 

     Income inequality could be a ticking time bomb for conservatives. A Pew poll in early 2014 found 65 percent of Americans felt income inequality had gotten worse in the past ten years, and 69 percent said government should take action to reduce the gap. Only 26 percent said government should do little or nothing about it. A 2013 Gallup poll had found that by a count of 59 percent to 33 percent Americans felt the distribution of wealth in the country is unfair and should be “more evenly distributed among a larger percentage of the people.” Another question in the same poll asked, “Do you think our government should or should not redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich?” 52 percent said it should and 45 percent said no, it shouldn’t. Don’t hold your breath waiting to see if conservatives will act to implement the people’s choice on this one.  

     Time and again conservatives have demonstrated they are little concerned with what the people actually want. The cases you have just read provide plenty of examples on issue after issue where the wishes of two-to-one, three-to-one, even up to ten-to-one majorities of the American people are ignored in favor of following conservative ideology and satisfying a small minority of conservative voters at the behest of an even smaller fraction of wealthy backers.  This is a third and foundational weakness that accounts for a good deal of the reason why conservative thinking doesn’t work—it so often ignores the needs, the wishes and the plain common sense of the great majority of the very people it purports to serve.