Thursday, July 28, 2016
U.S. Weapons Transfers Help Fuel Saudi-led War in Yemen
In May 2015, President Obama met with the Gulf Cooperation Council and promised more arms sales. Since that meeting, the United States has offered over $33 billion in weaponry to its Persian Gulf allies, with most of it going to Saudi Arabia. In the first six years of the Obama administration, the U.S. entered into agreements to transfer nearly $50 billion in weaponry to Saudi Arabia, with tens of billions of dollars in the pipeline. [1]
The Pentagon claims that these arms transfers to Saudi Arabia "improve the security of an important partner which has been and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East."
The Saudi-led war in Yemen is a prime example of what's wrong with the Pentagon's position. The United Nations has found that more than 3,200 civilians have been killed since Saudi bombing began this past March. A majority of these deaths have been a result of airstrikes, many of which have been carried out with aircraft, bombs and missiles supplied by the United States and Britain including U.S.-supplied cluster bombs. The use of cluster bombs is of particular concern, as these munitions are banned by an international treaty -- a treaty that neither the United States nor Saudi Arabia has signed.
"But American arms transfers to Saudi Arabia are questionable not only on human rights rounds. They have negative strategic consequences. The Saudi-led incursion against Houthi rebels in Yemen has opened the way for jihadist groups to gain territory and influence. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is now firmly entrenched in the Yemeni city of Mukalla and has reportedly used its position there to raise over $100 million by looting banks and charging fees for the use of the local port." [2]
President Obama seems to understand that uncritical support for the Saudis will only make the security situation in the Middle East worse. In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, the president acknowledged that competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran "has helped to feed proxy wars and chaos in Syria and Iraq and Yemen;" also, he said that Riyadh and Tehran should "share the neighborhood and institute some sort of cold peace."
The deal reached over Iran's nuclear program has been cited as one justification for the shipment of arms to the Saudis, because it provides reassurance that the U.S. won't tilt toward Iran. But if demonstrating a commitment to the Saudi government means supporting reckless actions like the war on Yemen, than the policy is not worth the price.
On May 13, 2016, senators Chris Murphy (D-CT and Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a joint resolution (S.J.Res.32) that aims to block transfers of air-to-ground munitions to Saudi Arabia until President Obama certifies that the Saudis aren't funding terrorism,is taking significant steps to reduce civilian casualties, is facilitating the flow of humanitarian aid, and is going after ISIS and Al Qaeda in Yemen.
ADDENDUMS:
*According to the Census Bureau, home builders began work on just 822,000 new single-family homes in February 2016. That's only a few thousand more than in the through of the housing recession way back in 1991 and roughly half of the pre-bubble levels of 2004. [3]
*No county in the United States has enough affordable rental units to meet its need. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines affordability as housing costs that consume less than a third of a family's total income. "Nationwide, only 28 affordable units are available for every 100 'extremely low-income renters', which the report identifies as households with incomes at or below 30 percent of the area median income, or AMI." [4] Stagnant wages add to the affordable hosing problem.
Footnotes
[1] William D. Hartung, "Obama Shouldn't Trade Cluster Bombs for Saudi Arabia's Friendship," The New York Times, April 19, 2016.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Chris Mathews, "We're Still in a Housing Crisis," Fortune, May 1, 2016.
[4] D.W. Gibson, "America the Unaffordable," The New Yorker, April 4, 2016.
The Pentagon claims that these arms transfers to Saudi Arabia "improve the security of an important partner which has been and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East."
The Saudi-led war in Yemen is a prime example of what's wrong with the Pentagon's position. The United Nations has found that more than 3,200 civilians have been killed since Saudi bombing began this past March. A majority of these deaths have been a result of airstrikes, many of which have been carried out with aircraft, bombs and missiles supplied by the United States and Britain including U.S.-supplied cluster bombs. The use of cluster bombs is of particular concern, as these munitions are banned by an international treaty -- a treaty that neither the United States nor Saudi Arabia has signed.
"But American arms transfers to Saudi Arabia are questionable not only on human rights rounds. They have negative strategic consequences. The Saudi-led incursion against Houthi rebels in Yemen has opened the way for jihadist groups to gain territory and influence. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is now firmly entrenched in the Yemeni city of Mukalla and has reportedly used its position there to raise over $100 million by looting banks and charging fees for the use of the local port." [2]
President Obama seems to understand that uncritical support for the Saudis will only make the security situation in the Middle East worse. In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, the president acknowledged that competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran "has helped to feed proxy wars and chaos in Syria and Iraq and Yemen;" also, he said that Riyadh and Tehran should "share the neighborhood and institute some sort of cold peace."
The deal reached over Iran's nuclear program has been cited as one justification for the shipment of arms to the Saudis, because it provides reassurance that the U.S. won't tilt toward Iran. But if demonstrating a commitment to the Saudi government means supporting reckless actions like the war on Yemen, than the policy is not worth the price.
On May 13, 2016, senators Chris Murphy (D-CT and Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a joint resolution (S.J.Res.32) that aims to block transfers of air-to-ground munitions to Saudi Arabia until President Obama certifies that the Saudis aren't funding terrorism,is taking significant steps to reduce civilian casualties, is facilitating the flow of humanitarian aid, and is going after ISIS and Al Qaeda in Yemen.
ADDENDUMS:
*According to the Census Bureau, home builders began work on just 822,000 new single-family homes in February 2016. That's only a few thousand more than in the through of the housing recession way back in 1991 and roughly half of the pre-bubble levels of 2004. [3]
*No county in the United States has enough affordable rental units to meet its need. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines affordability as housing costs that consume less than a third of a family's total income. "Nationwide, only 28 affordable units are available for every 100 'extremely low-income renters', which the report identifies as households with incomes at or below 30 percent of the area median income, or AMI." [4] Stagnant wages add to the affordable hosing problem.
Footnotes
[1] William D. Hartung, "Obama Shouldn't Trade Cluster Bombs for Saudi Arabia's Friendship," The New York Times, April 19, 2016.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Chris Mathews, "We're Still in a Housing Crisis," Fortune, May 1, 2016.
[4] D.W. Gibson, "America the Unaffordable," The New Yorker, April 4, 2016.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
President Obama's Embrace of "Perpetual" Bombing
The following is article I posted to Peace Action affiliates on September 23, 2014. I believe that this article is still relevant today, as the bombing of ISIS continues.
During an address to the United Nations General Assembly, President Obama said that one of his goals was to shift the United States from "a perpetual war footing." Also last year, Obama said he wanted to "refine" and eventually do away with the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). Yet, Obama's press secretary cited the AUMF as the legal basis for the bombing in Iraq and maybe later in Syria.
President Obama's overall strategic goal is to ultimately destroy ISIS; however, there is no way of knowing how long that may take. The strong consensus among military experts is that ISIS cannot be destroyed without the deployment of a large armed force on the ground. Obama has insisted time-and-time again that there will l;not be U.S. boots on the ground, beyond he 1,500 troops already committed there. Australia has promised 600 troops but as yet there are no promised troop commitments. Saudi Arabia has reportedly has agreed train some 5,000 "moderate" opposition armed forces in Syria.
One of President Obama's stated objectives is to train Iraqi forces; however, after about eight years of U.S. training, substantial Iraqi forces broke and ran when confronted with a much smaller ISIS force. In addition to Iraq, the U.S. record of training foreign troops is one of failure: President Reagan had to hastily pull U.S. Marines out of Lebanon after the tragic bombing of a Marine barracks -- one mission of the Marines was to train militia forces supportive of U.S.interests; many of the Central American military forces trained at the School of the Americas -- since renamed -- returned home to torture and kill their own citizens; and our long-term training of Afghan forces has yet to pay any identifiable dividends.
Another of the objectives of Obama's ISIS policy is to have a more inclusive government in Baghdad. That objective may seem to have been met by he ouster of Nouri al-Maliki, whose tenure was marked by putting Shiites into positions of policy implementation and imprisoning thousands of military-age Sunni males. It was either CNN of MSNBC that six U.S. individuals occupying what are considered to be the top six national security positions. The Iraqi comparison picture showed that al-Maliki had, at one time or another, occupied every one of the six positions. Yet, al-Maliki had an inclusive regime at the top, as he had a Kurdish president, a Sunni as one of the three vice presidents, and Sunnis and Kurds heading some of the cabinet positions.
Thus, the conclusion to be reached is that having diversity at he top levels of the government doesn't necessarily translate to inclusiveness at the policy implementation level, where the rubber meets the road. The most important step is to share oil revenue with the Sunni population, as otherwise the Sunnis will be relatively impoverished in the provinces where they are mostly concentrated.
Unless the Sunni population becomes convinced that the government is acting to meet their needs and share the oil wealth, Sunni tribal leaders will likely throw in with any force that is trying to overthrow the current Iraqi government. U.S. bombing would hen be seen as the air force of a government they abhor.
A poll published after President Obama's speech on his ISIS policy found that 62 percent of the respondents agreed with Obama's stated policies to defeat ISIS. An Albuquerque Journal newspaper poll published on September 13, 2014, found that 59 percent felt Obama had not done enough to confront ISIS before his September 10 speech. After the speech, however, 46 percent felt he had not done enough. Those who felt he was doing the right amount rose from 29 to 41 percent. This same effect occurs after State of the Union speeches, where the president's stated policies show major jumps in approval in after-speech polling.
I have yet to see a poll in which the beheading of two Americans is assessed as to its effect on polling results.
Israel's horrific bombing of Lebanon was triggered by the capture of two Israeli soldiers. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu used the abduction and killing of three Israeli teenagers to build the animosity of the Israelis towards Hamas and to conduct house-to-house searches. Hamas was ultimately found not to have played an identifiable role in the teenagers' deaths. The point being made here is that nations cannot use harm done to their nationals overseas, no matter how severe the harm done to individuals, to retaliate with strong military force. Could it be that ISIS had calculatedly determined that beheading would surely cause the U.S. to respond with increased military force, thus positioning ISIS in world opinion as the David who had goaded a military Goliath to respond?
If here is a new "axis of evil" regarding the security interests of he United States, Iran and Syria would top hat list. Ironically, the U.S. is in an undeclared league with Iran to save the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad. As Eugene Robinson, Washington Post columnist, has pointed out in an article republished in the September 13, 2014 Albuquerque Journal, Obama's stated policy is that Assad must go, but U.S. military action now promises to make it easier for him to stay. Robinson also writes that airstrikes in Syria will make it easier for Assad to take much of his country back.
Eugene Robinson adds that to "expect a force that recently proved itself incompetent to be changed overnight into a fighting machine is not realistic, I fear." As for Saudi Arabia, it has "done more than any other country to finance the spread of jihadist philosophy throughout the Muslim world."
When Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel testified before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, he asserted that President Obama had both the constitutional and statutory authority to bomb in Iraq and Syria without any additional authorization from Congress. When asked if a new AUMF was necessary, Hagel said he had never considered it.
Hagel is clearly wrong about constitutional authority, as the Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war. Not only that, but Article I states that Congress has the power: "to make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval fores" now including, of course, air forces. Congress could regulate all U.S. forces out of a combat zone.
Hagel's defense of he AUMF as legal cover for executive branch war-making is legally shaky, as many lawmakers who voted for it didn't think it was intended to give all future presidents the power to start any war of their choosing.
General Martin Dempsey, chairman of he Joint Chiefs of Staff, appearing before the same committee as Chuck Hagel, threw up some troubling portents of the future. He used years and even "a generation" as the possible time it would take to destroy ISIS. When pushed by Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) as to whether it might be better to embed U.S. Special Forces with Iraqi forward combat units, Dempsey said it is not currently necessary due to technological advances; however, if he ever felt it was necessary, President Obama had assured him that he, Dempsey, could come back on a case-by-case basis. Unless Obama was deceiving General Dempsey by saying, in effect, "You can come back to me but I'm never going to approve your recommendation," Obama would, at some point, find it necessary to approve such a request. It would be very difficult for Obama to argue that he didn't break his promise of new boots on the ground if U.S. troops are embedded with Iraqi combat units fighting ISIS.
In conclusion, if the combination of U.S. bombing and whatever ground troops have been introduced have not been enough to destroy ISIS, as Obama nears the end of his tenure in office, he may be forced to send in thousands of U.S. ground troops or somehow try to get out of his pledge to destroy ISIS.
During an address to the United Nations General Assembly, President Obama said that one of his goals was to shift the United States from "a perpetual war footing." Also last year, Obama said he wanted to "refine" and eventually do away with the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). Yet, Obama's press secretary cited the AUMF as the legal basis for the bombing in Iraq and maybe later in Syria.
President Obama's overall strategic goal is to ultimately destroy ISIS; however, there is no way of knowing how long that may take. The strong consensus among military experts is that ISIS cannot be destroyed without the deployment of a large armed force on the ground. Obama has insisted time-and-time again that there will l;not be U.S. boots on the ground, beyond he 1,500 troops already committed there. Australia has promised 600 troops but as yet there are no promised troop commitments. Saudi Arabia has reportedly has agreed train some 5,000 "moderate" opposition armed forces in Syria.
One of President Obama's stated objectives is to train Iraqi forces; however, after about eight years of U.S. training, substantial Iraqi forces broke and ran when confronted with a much smaller ISIS force. In addition to Iraq, the U.S. record of training foreign troops is one of failure: President Reagan had to hastily pull U.S. Marines out of Lebanon after the tragic bombing of a Marine barracks -- one mission of the Marines was to train militia forces supportive of U.S.interests; many of the Central American military forces trained at the School of the Americas -- since renamed -- returned home to torture and kill their own citizens; and our long-term training of Afghan forces has yet to pay any identifiable dividends.
Another of the objectives of Obama's ISIS policy is to have a more inclusive government in Baghdad. That objective may seem to have been met by he ouster of Nouri al-Maliki, whose tenure was marked by putting Shiites into positions of policy implementation and imprisoning thousands of military-age Sunni males. It was either CNN of MSNBC that six U.S. individuals occupying what are considered to be the top six national security positions. The Iraqi comparison picture showed that al-Maliki had, at one time or another, occupied every one of the six positions. Yet, al-Maliki had an inclusive regime at the top, as he had a Kurdish president, a Sunni as one of the three vice presidents, and Sunnis and Kurds heading some of the cabinet positions.
Thus, the conclusion to be reached is that having diversity at he top levels of the government doesn't necessarily translate to inclusiveness at the policy implementation level, where the rubber meets the road. The most important step is to share oil revenue with the Sunni population, as otherwise the Sunnis will be relatively impoverished in the provinces where they are mostly concentrated.
Unless the Sunni population becomes convinced that the government is acting to meet their needs and share the oil wealth, Sunni tribal leaders will likely throw in with any force that is trying to overthrow the current Iraqi government. U.S. bombing would hen be seen as the air force of a government they abhor.
A poll published after President Obama's speech on his ISIS policy found that 62 percent of the respondents agreed with Obama's stated policies to defeat ISIS. An Albuquerque Journal newspaper poll published on September 13, 2014, found that 59 percent felt Obama had not done enough to confront ISIS before his September 10 speech. After the speech, however, 46 percent felt he had not done enough. Those who felt he was doing the right amount rose from 29 to 41 percent. This same effect occurs after State of the Union speeches, where the president's stated policies show major jumps in approval in after-speech polling.
I have yet to see a poll in which the beheading of two Americans is assessed as to its effect on polling results.
Israel's horrific bombing of Lebanon was triggered by the capture of two Israeli soldiers. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu used the abduction and killing of three Israeli teenagers to build the animosity of the Israelis towards Hamas and to conduct house-to-house searches. Hamas was ultimately found not to have played an identifiable role in the teenagers' deaths. The point being made here is that nations cannot use harm done to their nationals overseas, no matter how severe the harm done to individuals, to retaliate with strong military force. Could it be that ISIS had calculatedly determined that beheading would surely cause the U.S. to respond with increased military force, thus positioning ISIS in world opinion as the David who had goaded a military Goliath to respond?
If here is a new "axis of evil" regarding the security interests of he United States, Iran and Syria would top hat list. Ironically, the U.S. is in an undeclared league with Iran to save the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad. As Eugene Robinson, Washington Post columnist, has pointed out in an article republished in the September 13, 2014 Albuquerque Journal, Obama's stated policy is that Assad must go, but U.S. military action now promises to make it easier for him to stay. Robinson also writes that airstrikes in Syria will make it easier for Assad to take much of his country back.
Eugene Robinson adds that to "expect a force that recently proved itself incompetent to be changed overnight into a fighting machine is not realistic, I fear." As for Saudi Arabia, it has "done more than any other country to finance the spread of jihadist philosophy throughout the Muslim world."
When Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel testified before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, he asserted that President Obama had both the constitutional and statutory authority to bomb in Iraq and Syria without any additional authorization from Congress. When asked if a new AUMF was necessary, Hagel said he had never considered it.
Hagel is clearly wrong about constitutional authority, as the Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war. Not only that, but Article I states that Congress has the power: "to make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval fores" now including, of course, air forces. Congress could regulate all U.S. forces out of a combat zone.
Hagel's defense of he AUMF as legal cover for executive branch war-making is legally shaky, as many lawmakers who voted for it didn't think it was intended to give all future presidents the power to start any war of their choosing.
General Martin Dempsey, chairman of he Joint Chiefs of Staff, appearing before the same committee as Chuck Hagel, threw up some troubling portents of the future. He used years and even "a generation" as the possible time it would take to destroy ISIS. When pushed by Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) as to whether it might be better to embed U.S. Special Forces with Iraqi forward combat units, Dempsey said it is not currently necessary due to technological advances; however, if he ever felt it was necessary, President Obama had assured him that he, Dempsey, could come back on a case-by-case basis. Unless Obama was deceiving General Dempsey by saying, in effect, "You can come back to me but I'm never going to approve your recommendation," Obama would, at some point, find it necessary to approve such a request. It would be very difficult for Obama to argue that he didn't break his promise of new boots on the ground if U.S. troops are embedded with Iraqi combat units fighting ISIS.
In conclusion, if the combination of U.S. bombing and whatever ground troops have been introduced have not been enough to destroy ISIS, as Obama nears the end of his tenure in office, he may be forced to send in thousands of U.S. ground troops or somehow try to get out of his pledge to destroy ISIS.
Charter Schools: Not a School Reform Panacea
A study by the Stanford University Center for Research on Education Outcomes found that of the 2,403 charter schools tracked from 2006 to 2008, only 17% had better math test results than the public schools in their area, while 37% had results that were "significantly below" those of the traditional public schools and 46% had results that were "statistically indistinguishable" from their public school counterparts.
A study of high-performing public schools by the National Center for Educational Achievement shows that ongoing teacher collaboration and mentoring for diagnostic, rather than evaluative purposes, produces better outcomes than the high stakes testing way of teacher and student performance.
A University of Chicago study found that charter schools have not brought the improvements they were created to bring; also, they performed poorly in meeting the non-academic needs of the children. A September 2010 report described charter schools as floundering in Ohio, Arizona and California.
Segregation of students has also been to be a reality in charter schools. A January 2010 report by the Civil Rights Project found that 70% of black students were enrolled in charter schools that were 90 to 100 per cent black.
In an op-ed in the Albuquerque Journal, Tom Sullivan, superintendent of the Moriarty-Edgewood School District, wrote that: "Both the non-partisan Legislative Finance Committee and the State Auditor's Office have essentially concluded that New Mexico charter Schools are, in the aggregate, neither more effective nor more efficient than their traditional public school counterparts -- charter schools cost taxpayers dramatically more per student --... a Silver City [NM] charter with an environmental focus receives more than $11,500 per student, while the rest of Silver City's traditional students are funded at less than $8,000 per student."
Since teaching, at least in major cities, is a profession in which minorities are heavily represented, when reformers say we need to take down teachers' unions to give more opportunity to minority youth, they come close to saying that we need to destroy the black middle class in order to save it. The Chicago teachers' strike opposition was led by parents with children in private schools and whites; Latinos and blacks strongly supported the strike.
ADDENDUMS:
*A California appeals court ruled on April 14, 2016 that the state's protections for teachers do not deprive poor and minority students of a quality education nor violate their civil rights.
*In 2015, there were fewer executions (28) than in the past 25 years, carried out in only six states. Fewer death sentences (49) were handed out, representing a large drop from the 315 executions carried out in 1996. Executions are largely confined to the "Bible States." (Source: Ron Steiner, "Repeal of the Death Penalty is a Step Toward Peace," peaceworker.org, April 11, 2016).
*"Across the nation, exonrees are being released without the benefits that the parole system affords to convicted felons: no addiction counseling, job placement, housing placement, or "gate money" -- about $200 in most places. States vary widely in their compensation schemes for the wrongfully convicted. Currently, only 30 states offer any kind of compensation at all. (Source" Jessica Pishko, "Exonerated But Still Judged," The Nation, March 28/April 4, 2016).
A study of high-performing public schools by the National Center for Educational Achievement shows that ongoing teacher collaboration and mentoring for diagnostic, rather than evaluative purposes, produces better outcomes than the high stakes testing way of teacher and student performance.
A University of Chicago study found that charter schools have not brought the improvements they were created to bring; also, they performed poorly in meeting the non-academic needs of the children. A September 2010 report described charter schools as floundering in Ohio, Arizona and California.
Segregation of students has also been to be a reality in charter schools. A January 2010 report by the Civil Rights Project found that 70% of black students were enrolled in charter schools that were 90 to 100 per cent black.
In an op-ed in the Albuquerque Journal, Tom Sullivan, superintendent of the Moriarty-Edgewood School District, wrote that: "Both the non-partisan Legislative Finance Committee and the State Auditor's Office have essentially concluded that New Mexico charter Schools are, in the aggregate, neither more effective nor more efficient than their traditional public school counterparts -- charter schools cost taxpayers dramatically more per student --... a Silver City [NM] charter with an environmental focus receives more than $11,500 per student, while the rest of Silver City's traditional students are funded at less than $8,000 per student."
Since teaching, at least in major cities, is a profession in which minorities are heavily represented, when reformers say we need to take down teachers' unions to give more opportunity to minority youth, they come close to saying that we need to destroy the black middle class in order to save it. The Chicago teachers' strike opposition was led by parents with children in private schools and whites; Latinos and blacks strongly supported the strike.
ADDENDUMS:
*A California appeals court ruled on April 14, 2016 that the state's protections for teachers do not deprive poor and minority students of a quality education nor violate their civil rights.
*In 2015, there were fewer executions (28) than in the past 25 years, carried out in only six states. Fewer death sentences (49) were handed out, representing a large drop from the 315 executions carried out in 1996. Executions are largely confined to the "Bible States." (Source: Ron Steiner, "Repeal of the Death Penalty is a Step Toward Peace," peaceworker.org, April 11, 2016).
*"Across the nation, exonrees are being released without the benefits that the parole system affords to convicted felons: no addiction counseling, job placement, housing placement, or "gate money" -- about $200 in most places. States vary widely in their compensation schemes for the wrongfully convicted. Currently, only 30 states offer any kind of compensation at all. (Source" Jessica Pishko, "Exonerated But Still Judged," The Nation, March 28/April 4, 2016).
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
The Failed War on Drugs
Today, the U.S. accounts for about 4.5% of he world's population but 25% of the world's prisoners. The War on Drugs has been a major contributor to this high incarceration rate.
$51,000,000,000 - Conservative estimate of annual government spending on the U.S. War on Drugs.
1.5 million - Number of people arrested in 2013 in the U.S. on nonviolent drug charges.
693,482 - Number of people arrested for a marijuana law violation in 2013.
609,423 (88%) - Number of those charged with marijuana law violations who were arrested for possession only.
2,220,300 - Number of Americans behind bars in 2013 in federal, state and local prisons and jails: 1 in every 110 adults, the highest incarceration rate in the world.
57% - proportion of people incarcerated for a drug law violation in state prison that are black or Hispanic, although these groups use and sell drugs at similar rates as whites.
23 - Number of states that allow the medical use of marijuana, plus the District of Columbia.
$46.7 billion- Tax revenue that drug legalization would yield annually, if currently-illegal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.
100,000+ - Number of people killed in Mexico's drug war since 2006.
200,000+ - Number of students who have lost federal financial aid eligibility because of a drug conviction.
43,982 - Number of people in the U.S. that died from an accidental drug overdose in 2013. (See www.drugpolicy.org)
ADDENDUMS: Militarily-Related Bits and Pieces
*David Krieger and Daniel Ellsberg have called for the elimination of 450 ICBMs deployed and ready to fire at moment's notice. Presidents have only 12 minutes to decide to launch. (David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation).
*Excluding maintenance costs, building an air wing of over 2,400 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters is estimated to cost at least $1.5 trillion. If one laid out $1.5 trillion end-to-end in $100 bills, it would circle the earth at the equator 59 times.
*The Pentagon spends about $100 million annually to maintain nuclear weapons in Europe, not counting the cost of the estimated 3,000 people directly involved in security, maintenance, command and control.
*Although the Pentagon doesn't publish the total number of nations in which it has military bases due to secrecy considerations, Tom Tomorrow says that: "Since the end of World War II, Washington has extended its security umbrella to cover not only Europe, but also virtually all of Latin America and large parts of East Asia. Tomorrow says that the U.S. has an active military presence in 147 countries.
*The Pentagon's FY 2017 budget is $582.7 -- excluding the Overseas Contingency Operations fund. This expenditure compares to $171.4 billion for China and $84.9 for Russia.
*Seventy House members joined in a bipartisan letter to President Obama, urging him to maintain his policy of refusing to transfer shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles ("MANPADS") to Syrian combatants, including those who have been vetted and trained by the Department of Defense and the CIA. The big fear is that the weapon could be used to bring down commercial airlines.
Monday, July 25, 2016
More Troubling Instances of Serious Police Misconduct
I. The Surrender Position Is Not a Panacea for African Americans
Charles Kinsey, a 47-year-old behavioral therapist helping an autistic patient, was on his back, with his hands in the air, yelling "Don't shoot!," yet North Miami Officer Jonathan Aledda, shot him in the leg anyway. Kinsey was heard describing his job and telling the officer(s) that his patient had a toy truck in his hands, yet the officer fired.
The local police union has claimed that Aledda meant the bullet for Kinsey's patient because he feared that he, himself, might be shot; however, why did he then turn over a bleeding Kinsey and handcuff both him and the patient? Officer Aledda would have then known that the patient and the therapist represented no threat to him, so why should he handcuff both men? Also, why didn't Aledda apologize once he had recognized his tragic mistake?
Commander Emile Hollant has been suspended without pay for radioing in misinformation that the patient was reloading a gun and later lied about it.
One hopeful sign in this matter is that the local SEIU union recognized the need for police unions to stop defending dangerous cops.
II. Teacher Manhandled and Subjected to Racist Haranguing
Breaion King, a 2nd grade teacher, was violently thrown to the ground twice by Officer Bryan Richter. The incident happened thirteen months ago but Austin, Texas Police Chief Art Acevedo said he only saw the video a week ago. Chief Acevedo said he was sorry for what happened to King.
Breaion King was stopped for going 50 in a 35 mph zone. Officer Richter said he reached for King's left arm and she began reaching for the front passenger side of the vehicle. He said he did not know if a weapon was there. King was pulled out of her vehicle and thrown to the ground.
After King is seated in the back of the police vehicle, she asks Officer Patrick Spredlin if he believes that there is racism. Spradlin says he does but that it goes both ways. He then asks King:"Why are so many people afraid of black people?" King replies that she is still trying to figure that out, drawing a reply from Spradlin that it might be due to "violent tendencies." He goes on to say that white people are afraid of black people because 99% of the time you hear about that it is the black community being violent.
Chief Art Acevedo says that Spradlin's comments are not reflective of other Austin police officers, but the public has been exposed to many instances of racist behavior in law enforcement agencies.
The only punishment meted out to Officer Richter was that he was ordered to receive more training and counseling. That situation may be changed, as Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg has asked police to conduct a criminal investigation.
III. Some Observations on the Above
In a poll, 71% of respondents said that videos should be released immediately after a police incident. The King case represents at least the third time videos have been withheld for a year or more. One of those cases was when the Chicago Police Department withheld from public view the shooting of Lequan McDonald. Another withholding concerned the shooting of an African American in his own driveway. That video was reportedly withheld because it was too gruesome to show to the family. On balance, it would seem to be the case that releasing videos as soon as possible would reduce the perception that the police are covering up.
In a recent poll, 85% of whites said that the police made them feel "mostly safe." A little over 50% of African Americans made the same response. A poll taken in 2010 found 30% of respondents agreeing that the U.S. had a racial problem. A PBS/Marist poll taken in December 2015, asking the same question, found 60% agreeing there is a racial divide. Despite the attempts to counter criticism of law enforcement officers by arguing that policing is a dangerous job and any abuse of power involves only a few bad apples, the two instances cited above help reinforce my belief that abuse of power and plain old racism by and among law enforcement officers is the primary cause of a widening racism divide.
Charles Kinsey, a 47-year-old behavioral therapist helping an autistic patient, was on his back, with his hands in the air, yelling "Don't shoot!," yet North Miami Officer Jonathan Aledda, shot him in the leg anyway. Kinsey was heard describing his job and telling the officer(s) that his patient had a toy truck in his hands, yet the officer fired.
The local police union has claimed that Aledda meant the bullet for Kinsey's patient because he feared that he, himself, might be shot; however, why did he then turn over a bleeding Kinsey and handcuff both him and the patient? Officer Aledda would have then known that the patient and the therapist represented no threat to him, so why should he handcuff both men? Also, why didn't Aledda apologize once he had recognized his tragic mistake?
Commander Emile Hollant has been suspended without pay for radioing in misinformation that the patient was reloading a gun and later lied about it.
One hopeful sign in this matter is that the local SEIU union recognized the need for police unions to stop defending dangerous cops.
II. Teacher Manhandled and Subjected to Racist Haranguing
Breaion King, a 2nd grade teacher, was violently thrown to the ground twice by Officer Bryan Richter. The incident happened thirteen months ago but Austin, Texas Police Chief Art Acevedo said he only saw the video a week ago. Chief Acevedo said he was sorry for what happened to King.
Breaion King was stopped for going 50 in a 35 mph zone. Officer Richter said he reached for King's left arm and she began reaching for the front passenger side of the vehicle. He said he did not know if a weapon was there. King was pulled out of her vehicle and thrown to the ground.
After King is seated in the back of the police vehicle, she asks Officer Patrick Spredlin if he believes that there is racism. Spradlin says he does but that it goes both ways. He then asks King:"Why are so many people afraid of black people?" King replies that she is still trying to figure that out, drawing a reply from Spradlin that it might be due to "violent tendencies." He goes on to say that white people are afraid of black people because 99% of the time you hear about that it is the black community being violent.
Chief Art Acevedo says that Spradlin's comments are not reflective of other Austin police officers, but the public has been exposed to many instances of racist behavior in law enforcement agencies.
The only punishment meted out to Officer Richter was that he was ordered to receive more training and counseling. That situation may be changed, as Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg has asked police to conduct a criminal investigation.
III. Some Observations on the Above
In a poll, 71% of respondents said that videos should be released immediately after a police incident. The King case represents at least the third time videos have been withheld for a year or more. One of those cases was when the Chicago Police Department withheld from public view the shooting of Lequan McDonald. Another withholding concerned the shooting of an African American in his own driveway. That video was reportedly withheld because it was too gruesome to show to the family. On balance, it would seem to be the case that releasing videos as soon as possible would reduce the perception that the police are covering up.
In a recent poll, 85% of whites said that the police made them feel "mostly safe." A little over 50% of African Americans made the same response. A poll taken in 2010 found 30% of respondents agreeing that the U.S. had a racial problem. A PBS/Marist poll taken in December 2015, asking the same question, found 60% agreeing there is a racial divide. Despite the attempts to counter criticism of law enforcement officers by arguing that policing is a dangerous job and any abuse of power involves only a few bad apples, the two instances cited above help reinforce my belief that abuse of power and plain old racism by and among law enforcement officers is the primary cause of a widening racism divide.
Thursday, July 21, 2016
Voter Suppression; Brexit; Trump Supporters Weird Beliefs; and Journalism's Decline
I. Voter Suppression
-Voting Restriction Bills - Since 2011, state legislators have introduced 545 voting restriction bills, 40 of which have become law. Seventeen states have tougher voting laws in place for 2016 than they did in 2012.
-1.2M - Voter ID laws in three states -- Texas, Wisconsin and North Carolina -- could block up to 1.2 million voters from casting ballots.
-10% - Latinos instates with strict voter ID laws are 10 percent less likely to vote than those in states without such laws.
-6M - As a result of their criminal records, 6 million Americans cannot vote in this year's elections.
-38% - Of those 6 million, 38 percent are black.
-390K - On the positive side, over the past year, four states restored voting rights to 390,000 people who've served time for criminal convictions.
-27 - In 2016, 27 bills have been introduced in 15 states to give ex-inmates the right to vote.
-Voter Fraud Allegations - Of the more than 1 billion ballots cast from 2000 to 2014, there were only 31 documented incidents of voter fraud. A person is at least 15 times more likely to die of constipation than commit voter fraud. (Source for above: Edwin Rios, "Block the Vote," Mother Jones, July/August, 2016).
II. Brexit
-53.4% - Voters in England who chose "Leave".
- 52.5% - Voters in Wales who chose "Leave".
-62% - Voters in Scotland who chose "Remain". A day after the Brexit vote, Donald Trump arrived in Scotland and congratulated the Scottish people for voting to leave the EU and taking their country back.
-55.8% - Voters in Northern Ireland who chose "Remain". (Source for above: "Brexit by the Numbers," The Nation, July 18/25, 2016).
III. Weird Beliefs of Trump Supporters
-According to a recent survey by Public Policy Polling, of those with a favorable view of Donald Trump:
65% believe President Obama is a Muslim.
59% believe he was not born in the United States.
24% believe Justice Antonin Scalia was murdered.
IV. Changes in News Consumption
According to the Pew Research Center's "State of the News Media 2016" report, the following are some changes in how Americans consume news:
-7% - Drop in daily newspaper circulation in 2015.
-2% - Drop in magazine subscriptions in 2015.
21% - Americans who have listened to a podcast in the past month.
44% - Americans who get their information about the election from social-networking sites, compared to just 17% in 2012.
65% - Americans who get their information about the election from digital sources, compared to 36% in 2012.
25% - Amount of newspaper ad revenue that come from digital sources in 2015.
-Voting Restriction Bills - Since 2011, state legislators have introduced 545 voting restriction bills, 40 of which have become law. Seventeen states have tougher voting laws in place for 2016 than they did in 2012.
-1.2M - Voter ID laws in three states -- Texas, Wisconsin and North Carolina -- could block up to 1.2 million voters from casting ballots.
-10% - Latinos instates with strict voter ID laws are 10 percent less likely to vote than those in states without such laws.
-6M - As a result of their criminal records, 6 million Americans cannot vote in this year's elections.
-38% - Of those 6 million, 38 percent are black.
-390K - On the positive side, over the past year, four states restored voting rights to 390,000 people who've served time for criminal convictions.
-27 - In 2016, 27 bills have been introduced in 15 states to give ex-inmates the right to vote.
-Voter Fraud Allegations - Of the more than 1 billion ballots cast from 2000 to 2014, there were only 31 documented incidents of voter fraud. A person is at least 15 times more likely to die of constipation than commit voter fraud. (Source for above: Edwin Rios, "Block the Vote," Mother Jones, July/August, 2016).
II. Brexit
-53.4% - Voters in England who chose "Leave".
- 52.5% - Voters in Wales who chose "Leave".
-62% - Voters in Scotland who chose "Remain". A day after the Brexit vote, Donald Trump arrived in Scotland and congratulated the Scottish people for voting to leave the EU and taking their country back.
-55.8% - Voters in Northern Ireland who chose "Remain". (Source for above: "Brexit by the Numbers," The Nation, July 18/25, 2016).
III. Weird Beliefs of Trump Supporters
-According to a recent survey by Public Policy Polling, of those with a favorable view of Donald Trump:
65% believe President Obama is a Muslim.
59% believe he was not born in the United States.
24% believe Justice Antonin Scalia was murdered.
IV. Changes in News Consumption
According to the Pew Research Center's "State of the News Media 2016" report, the following are some changes in how Americans consume news:
-7% - Drop in daily newspaper circulation in 2015.
-2% - Drop in magazine subscriptions in 2015.
21% - Americans who have listened to a podcast in the past month.
44% - Americans who get their information about the election from social-networking sites, compared to just 17% in 2012.
65% - Americans who get their information about the election from digital sources, compared to 36% in 2012.
25% - Amount of newspaper ad revenue that come from digital sources in 2015.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Alleviating, or Even Ending Poverty, Won't End Women's Need for Abortions
In 2014, 49 percent of the women who had abortions were poor and 26 percent were low-income -- far more than their proportion in the population. In a 2005 survey by Guttmacher Institute researchers, 73 percent of women seeking abortions said they couldn't afford to raise a child. A 2013 study by M. Antonia Biggs, Heather Gould and Diana Greene Foster found that 40 percent of women cited "financial reasons" as a reason to have an abortion.
It would seem in looking at the data above that reducing poverty would also reduce the abortion rate. This is not necessarily true, as in both the 2005 and 2013 surveys women gave multiple answers. In the Guttmacher study, 74 percent said that "having a baby would dramatically change my life"; 48 percent said they didn't want to be a single mother or were having relationship problem; nearly 40 percent said they had finished their childbearing; and almost one-third said they weren't ready to have a child. In the 2013 study, 36 percent said it was "not the right time for a baby"; 29 percent needed to focus on the children they already had; 14 percent said having a baby now would interfere with their education; 7 percent said they were not independent or nature enough; and 3 percent said they never wanted kids. In both studies, around 12 percent cited health problems, either with themselves or the fetus. [1]
Do countries with strong social safety nets have abortion rates that are lower than in the United States? It turns out that social spending does not correlate directly with a country's abortion rate.
Sweden spends 28% of its GDP on social services and has a rate of 17.5 abortions per 1,000 women.
The United States spends 19% of its GDP on social services and has a rate of 13.2 abortions per 1,000 women.
Germany spends 26% of its GDP on social services and has a rate of 7.4 abortions per 1,000 women.
Denmark spends 30% of its GDP on social services and has a rate of 12.1 abortions per 1,000 women.
France spends 32% of its GDP on social services and has a rate of 15.3 abortions per 1,000 women. [2]
ADDENDUMS:
The Texas Policy Evaluation Project conducted a study that found an estimated 100,000 women in Texas between the ages of 18 and 49 -- and possibly as many as 240,000 -- have attempted to terminate a pregnancy on their own, without medical assistance. Had the U.S. Supreme Court not struck down the Texas law, HB2, that would have closed many abortion clinics, there would have been many more dangerous self-abortions in that state.
Of the 26 states requiring waiting periods for abortions, only Utah makes an exception for rape or incest. When women impregnated by rape carry their pregnancies to term, 31 states allow the rapist to sue for rights to the child.
Footnotes
[1] Katha Pollitt, "Poverty and Choices," The Nation, June 20/27, 2016.
[2] Alex Lubben, "Abortion vs. Social Spending," The Nation, June 20/27, 2016.
It would seem in looking at the data above that reducing poverty would also reduce the abortion rate. This is not necessarily true, as in both the 2005 and 2013 surveys women gave multiple answers. In the Guttmacher study, 74 percent said that "having a baby would dramatically change my life"; 48 percent said they didn't want to be a single mother or were having relationship problem; nearly 40 percent said they had finished their childbearing; and almost one-third said they weren't ready to have a child. In the 2013 study, 36 percent said it was "not the right time for a baby"; 29 percent needed to focus on the children they already had; 14 percent said having a baby now would interfere with their education; 7 percent said they were not independent or nature enough; and 3 percent said they never wanted kids. In both studies, around 12 percent cited health problems, either with themselves or the fetus. [1]
Do countries with strong social safety nets have abortion rates that are lower than in the United States? It turns out that social spending does not correlate directly with a country's abortion rate.
Sweden spends 28% of its GDP on social services and has a rate of 17.5 abortions per 1,000 women.
The United States spends 19% of its GDP on social services and has a rate of 13.2 abortions per 1,000 women.
Germany spends 26% of its GDP on social services and has a rate of 7.4 abortions per 1,000 women.
Denmark spends 30% of its GDP on social services and has a rate of 12.1 abortions per 1,000 women.
France spends 32% of its GDP on social services and has a rate of 15.3 abortions per 1,000 women. [2]
ADDENDUMS:
The Texas Policy Evaluation Project conducted a study that found an estimated 100,000 women in Texas between the ages of 18 and 49 -- and possibly as many as 240,000 -- have attempted to terminate a pregnancy on their own, without medical assistance. Had the U.S. Supreme Court not struck down the Texas law, HB2, that would have closed many abortion clinics, there would have been many more dangerous self-abortions in that state.
Of the 26 states requiring waiting periods for abortions, only Utah makes an exception for rape or incest. When women impregnated by rape carry their pregnancies to term, 31 states allow the rapist to sue for rights to the child.
Footnotes
[1] Katha Pollitt, "Poverty and Choices," The Nation, June 20/27, 2016.
[2] Alex Lubben, "Abortion vs. Social Spending," The Nation, June 20/27, 2016.
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
Donald Trump and Mike Pence: Two Peas From Different Pods
Donald Trump's roll-out of his vice presidential selection was, to be generous, inept. The Trump camp announced that the selection would be made on Friday, July 15 but by the morning of Thursday, July 14, the word had leaked out that the choice would be Indiana Governor Mike Pence. Whether the leak came from the camps of Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich or Mike Pence is uncertain at this point. Subsequently, Trump began to hedge on the pick, whether he felt that the leak came from the Pence camp or not. The evening of the 14th, Trump announced that the selection would be delayed due to he horrific incident in France, in which a large truck was driven through people gathered to celebrate Bastille Day, killing over eighty and injuring many others. He even put Pence out to dry, by saying that he still had not made the "final, final" decision. Pence was in a bind, because he had a Friday noon deadline to declare himself to be a candidate for reelection. An hour before the deadline, Trump tweeted that Pence was his choice.
Governor Mike Pence was formally introduced on Saturday, July 14. Trump made a rambling 28-minute speech before he turned the mike over to Pence.
The roll-out continued the following day, in which the two were interviewed on Sixty Minutes by Lesley Stahl. If the initial announcement of Pence's selection was ineptly handled, the interview on Sixty Minutes was, by all odds, a disaster. Stahl repeatedly asked if Trump's plan to have war declared on ISIS if he was elected president, would include the dispatch of ground troops to the Middle East. Trump repeatedly refused to answer yes of no, referring to engaging Arab nations more deeply in the fight and getting better intelligence on the situation. Pence tried to help Trump out by interjecting that Trump would provide the leadership that is now lacking but wouldn't declare his position on boots on the ground.
A particularly sticky moment for Donald Trump came when Stahl pointed out that while in Congress, Pence had voted for the resolution on use of force, which helped grease the skids for President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Trump has been using Hillary Clinton's vote for the same resolution as a major reason why she is unqualified to be president. In reference to Pence's vote, Trump replied that everyone is entitled to a mistake now and then.
In the presidential campaign, Trump has been saying that he was a strong opponent of the Iraq War; however, his position while the war was going on was ambiguous, as he made comments that were both opposed to and supportive of the war. What Trump did not do was be an active participant in any group or movement trying to end the war.
When Pence said that Trump leads with his heart, Trump immediately interjected that he leads with his heart and his brain. Trump and Pence interrupting one another without saying anything like "Excuse me,"was a salient feature of the interview.
The interview and information about the positions and actions that Pence has taken in the past reveal that the two men did not have a serious discussion about where they stand on the issues. When Trump proposed a ban on Muslims, Pence called he ban "objectionable and unconstitutional." Pence has also called Trump out on his assaults on Judge Curiel, who is the presiding judge in the class action suit against Trump University. Whereas Donald Trump opposed the North Carolina law requiring transgender persons to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender appearing on their birth certificates, Gov. Pence initially signed a bill allowing those in businesses to deny service to LGBT persons if to do so would violate their religious beliefs. After a firestorm of opposition developed, Pence induced the state legislature to water down the new law.
Another important issue on which Trump and Pence disagree is defunding of Planned Parenthood, which Trump initially opposed because it provides vital health services to both men and women..
Where Donald Trump and Mike Pence differ most fundamentally and crucially is that Trump has built much of his support on strong opposition to free trade agreements, Pence voted for virtually every free trade agreement that came before the U.S. House of Representatives while he was representing an Indiana congressional district.
In conclusion, Donald Trump picked a nominee for vice president who disagrees with him on several of Trump's key issues.
Governor Mike Pence was formally introduced on Saturday, July 14. Trump made a rambling 28-minute speech before he turned the mike over to Pence.
The roll-out continued the following day, in which the two were interviewed on Sixty Minutes by Lesley Stahl. If the initial announcement of Pence's selection was ineptly handled, the interview on Sixty Minutes was, by all odds, a disaster. Stahl repeatedly asked if Trump's plan to have war declared on ISIS if he was elected president, would include the dispatch of ground troops to the Middle East. Trump repeatedly refused to answer yes of no, referring to engaging Arab nations more deeply in the fight and getting better intelligence on the situation. Pence tried to help Trump out by interjecting that Trump would provide the leadership that is now lacking but wouldn't declare his position on boots on the ground.
A particularly sticky moment for Donald Trump came when Stahl pointed out that while in Congress, Pence had voted for the resolution on use of force, which helped grease the skids for President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Trump has been using Hillary Clinton's vote for the same resolution as a major reason why she is unqualified to be president. In reference to Pence's vote, Trump replied that everyone is entitled to a mistake now and then.
In the presidential campaign, Trump has been saying that he was a strong opponent of the Iraq War; however, his position while the war was going on was ambiguous, as he made comments that were both opposed to and supportive of the war. What Trump did not do was be an active participant in any group or movement trying to end the war.
When Pence said that Trump leads with his heart, Trump immediately interjected that he leads with his heart and his brain. Trump and Pence interrupting one another without saying anything like "Excuse me,"was a salient feature of the interview.
The interview and information about the positions and actions that Pence has taken in the past reveal that the two men did not have a serious discussion about where they stand on the issues. When Trump proposed a ban on Muslims, Pence called he ban "objectionable and unconstitutional." Pence has also called Trump out on his assaults on Judge Curiel, who is the presiding judge in the class action suit against Trump University. Whereas Donald Trump opposed the North Carolina law requiring transgender persons to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender appearing on their birth certificates, Gov. Pence initially signed a bill allowing those in businesses to deny service to LGBT persons if to do so would violate their religious beliefs. After a firestorm of opposition developed, Pence induced the state legislature to water down the new law.
Another important issue on which Trump and Pence disagree is defunding of Planned Parenthood, which Trump initially opposed because it provides vital health services to both men and women..
Where Donald Trump and Mike Pence differ most fundamentally and crucially is that Trump has built much of his support on strong opposition to free trade agreements, Pence voted for virtually every free trade agreement that came before the U.S. House of Representatives while he was representing an Indiana congressional district.
In conclusion, Donald Trump picked a nominee for vice president who disagrees with him on several of Trump's key issues.
The New Yorker Dissection of the GOP
A New Yorker article of June 20, 2016, entitled "Occupied Territory"and written by Ryan Lizza, is a compendium of unexamined precepts, fairy tale yearnings of prominent GOPers, misleading statements on GOP policy and practice, and a forlorn hope that the real Donald Trump is totally different from the imperial Trump.
Lizza says that there is wide agreement about the meaning of conservatism. "The Party stands for lower taxes, less government, deregulation, free trade, and austere budgets." After "lower taxes," Lizza should have added "for the wealthy," as beginning with Ronald Reagan, and put on steroids by George W.Bush, the income tax burden has been shifted down lower on the economic totem pole, with the great bulk of the tax cuts accruing to the wealthiest tax filers.
In regard to less government, the Republican Party stands for a bloated Pentagon, the maintenance of an intelligence empire created most centrally after 9/11, and a foreign policy dominated by the use of military force. Since much of the federal budget goes to fund the program needs described above, with the addition of trust fund spending for the major entitlement programs, and interest on the budgetary debt, there is relatively little left to fund domestic programs. Thus, the Republican Party does not and cannot stand for "austere budgets."
Ryan Lizza calls Maine's Senator Susan Collins,one of the last Republican moderates remaining in Congress, yet she hopes for a fairy tale transformation of Donald Trump. Collins says: "But I think, because I know Ted Cruz, and I don't know and have never met Donald Trump, that with Donald Trump I hope he can minimize his weaknesses, change his approach, and draw on his strengths." Even after clinching the GOP nomination for president, Trump has doubled down on the weaknesses that Collins has perceived. Trump's focus on immigration may be his greatest public strength; however, the solution he proposes is totally unworkable.
Ryan Lizza writes that Sen. Tom Cotton (R-ARK) has moved closer to Trump because of his, Trump's, positions on immigration and taxes. Trump's federal income tax plan, written in December 2015, is heavily slanted toward the wealthy, particularly due to his lowering the top marginal tax rate from 39.6% to 25% and his elimination of the capital gains tax. Trump's proposal to eliminate income taxes for individuals earning $25,000 or less and family units earning $50,000 or less is less significant than it seems to be on the surface. These taxpayers presently pay little or nothing in federal income taxes; also, the IRS has indicated that only about 47% pay any income tax at all. Moreover, the IRS has also stated that the average taxpayer pays 5% of his/her total income to the national government.
Sen. Cotton says that the people who are truly hurting are working-class Americans.He then goes on to tell a story about a woman he met at a factory in Texarkana. She proceeds to list the taxes she pays, many of which are levied by state or local governments. Lizza makes no mention that Cotton is not a proponent of lower taxes for the working class. Thus, when Cotton alluded to the fact that the working class hasn't had a raise in a very long time, Ryan Lizza should have mentioned that both he and Trump are supporters of the right-to-work, which takes away the bargaining power of the working class.
Lizza writes that House Speaker Paul Ryan is "widely regarded in the GOP as a policy intellectual." Ryan has written several long-term budgets, all of which have been designed to give massive tax cuts to wealthy taxpayers; partially, at least, privatize Social Security, turn Medicare into a voucher program; and provide a block grant to states to fund Medicaid, even if the need exceeds the grant. A feature of all of the Ryan budgets is that none of them balance the budget in less than ten years. One of them would not have balanced the budget until the 2040s. These policy proposals are hardly he work of a "policy intellectual."
Overall, then, Ryan Lizza has hit some pertinent points but he should have been more critical of some of the pronouncements of those he interviewed.
Lizza says that there is wide agreement about the meaning of conservatism. "The Party stands for lower taxes, less government, deregulation, free trade, and austere budgets." After "lower taxes," Lizza should have added "for the wealthy," as beginning with Ronald Reagan, and put on steroids by George W.Bush, the income tax burden has been shifted down lower on the economic totem pole, with the great bulk of the tax cuts accruing to the wealthiest tax filers.
In regard to less government, the Republican Party stands for a bloated Pentagon, the maintenance of an intelligence empire created most centrally after 9/11, and a foreign policy dominated by the use of military force. Since much of the federal budget goes to fund the program needs described above, with the addition of trust fund spending for the major entitlement programs, and interest on the budgetary debt, there is relatively little left to fund domestic programs. Thus, the Republican Party does not and cannot stand for "austere budgets."
Ryan Lizza calls Maine's Senator Susan Collins,one of the last Republican moderates remaining in Congress, yet she hopes for a fairy tale transformation of Donald Trump. Collins says: "But I think, because I know Ted Cruz, and I don't know and have never met Donald Trump, that with Donald Trump I hope he can minimize his weaknesses, change his approach, and draw on his strengths." Even after clinching the GOP nomination for president, Trump has doubled down on the weaknesses that Collins has perceived. Trump's focus on immigration may be his greatest public strength; however, the solution he proposes is totally unworkable.
Ryan Lizza writes that Sen. Tom Cotton (R-ARK) has moved closer to Trump because of his, Trump's, positions on immigration and taxes. Trump's federal income tax plan, written in December 2015, is heavily slanted toward the wealthy, particularly due to his lowering the top marginal tax rate from 39.6% to 25% and his elimination of the capital gains tax. Trump's proposal to eliminate income taxes for individuals earning $25,000 or less and family units earning $50,000 or less is less significant than it seems to be on the surface. These taxpayers presently pay little or nothing in federal income taxes; also, the IRS has indicated that only about 47% pay any income tax at all. Moreover, the IRS has also stated that the average taxpayer pays 5% of his/her total income to the national government.
Sen. Cotton says that the people who are truly hurting are working-class Americans.He then goes on to tell a story about a woman he met at a factory in Texarkana. She proceeds to list the taxes she pays, many of which are levied by state or local governments. Lizza makes no mention that Cotton is not a proponent of lower taxes for the working class. Thus, when Cotton alluded to the fact that the working class hasn't had a raise in a very long time, Ryan Lizza should have mentioned that both he and Trump are supporters of the right-to-work, which takes away the bargaining power of the working class.
Lizza writes that House Speaker Paul Ryan is "widely regarded in the GOP as a policy intellectual." Ryan has written several long-term budgets, all of which have been designed to give massive tax cuts to wealthy taxpayers; partially, at least, privatize Social Security, turn Medicare into a voucher program; and provide a block grant to states to fund Medicaid, even if the need exceeds the grant. A feature of all of the Ryan budgets is that none of them balance the budget in less than ten years. One of them would not have balanced the budget until the 2040s. These policy proposals are hardly he work of a "policy intellectual."
Overall, then, Ryan Lizza has hit some pertinent points but he should have been more critical of some of the pronouncements of those he interviewed.
Friday, July 15, 2016
The Over-Blown Influence of the NRA and Environmental Racism
I. How the NRA Shapes the GOP
"The National Rifle Association has evolved from a sporting club promoting marksmanship to one of the most ferocious lobbying organizations in American politics. Last year, the NRA spent over $3.6 million on lobbying, and far more than that funding pro-gun politicians and publicity campaigns. That kind of money buys a lot of influence, most noticeable in the GOP's increasingly rightward shift on guns over the past 20 years." [1]
29% of Republicans believe that stricter gun laws could reduce deaths from mass shootings. Among Democrats, 79 % support that view.
32% of Republicans believe that stricter gun laws would reduce accidental gun deaths; in 1993, 61% of Republicans shared that view. The percentage of Democrats who feel likewise has held steady over the past two decades at roughly 75 %.
76% of Republicans believe that it is more important to uphold gun rights than to control gun ownership.In 1993, only 45% of Republicans agreed with that statement.
58% of Republicans believe that states should have the ability to ignore federal gun laws.
48% of gun owners cite protection as their main reason for having a gun in 2013, versus 26% in 1999.
II. NRA By the Numbers
$277M - Money spent by the NRA and its affiliates in 2010.
99 to 1 - How much that 2010 spending by the NRA and its affiliates exceeded that of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the most active gun-control nonprofit in the country.
143 - Number of bills for which the NRA lobbied in 2015. [2]
III. Buyers, Guns, and Money
"After mass shootings like the one in Orlando, Florida, the share price of major gun companies like Sturm Ruger and Smith & Wesson tends to soar. The companies fan the fears of increased regulation, and buyers rush to stock up on weapons before sweeping gun-control laws are passed in the wake of new tragedy. (Typically, of course, their fears are unwarranted.) These purchases bolster the cycle of violence by feeding the gun industry, which has a powerful anti-regulation lobbying arm, and by putting more weapons in the homes of Americans." [3]
320% - Gains enjoyed by investors in Sturm Ruger and Smith & Wesson since 2010.
$551.1 million - Sturm Ruger's net sales in 2015 -- twice as much as the company saw in 2010.
8.5% - Increase in the share price of Sturm Ruger the Monday after the Orlando shooting.
23 million - The record-breaking number of background checks for firearm purchases initiated by NICS (the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System) in 2015.
IV. Environmental Racism
"A 1987 report found that race was the most significant predictor of a person living near hazardous waste. Communities that were located near multiple commercial hazardous-waste facilities or a landfill had three times the amount of minority residents as communities that were far away from such dump sites. The Government Accountability Office found in 1983 that black people made up the majority of communities near landfills. Decades later, a 2007 report found that things were actually worse: Communities near commercial hazardous-waste facilities consisted mainly of people of color. Finally, people of color are exposed to a level of nitrogen dioxide -- which emanates from cars and industrial sources and can cause respiratory problems -- an average rate 38 percent higher than white people." [4]
95% - Percentage of claims against polluters denied by the EPA.
2X - The number of times people of color are likely to live without potable water and modern sanitation.
Footnotes
[1] "How the NRA Shapes the GOP," The Nation, July 4/11, 2016.
[2] "NRA By the Numbers," The Nation, July 4/11, 2016.
[3] Joyce Chu, "Buyers, Guns, and Money," The Nation, July 4/11, 2016.
[4] Bryce Covert & Mike Konczal, "Environmental Racism," The Nation, March 7, 2016.
"The National Rifle Association has evolved from a sporting club promoting marksmanship to one of the most ferocious lobbying organizations in American politics. Last year, the NRA spent over $3.6 million on lobbying, and far more than that funding pro-gun politicians and publicity campaigns. That kind of money buys a lot of influence, most noticeable in the GOP's increasingly rightward shift on guns over the past 20 years." [1]
29% of Republicans believe that stricter gun laws could reduce deaths from mass shootings. Among Democrats, 79 % support that view.
32% of Republicans believe that stricter gun laws would reduce accidental gun deaths; in 1993, 61% of Republicans shared that view. The percentage of Democrats who feel likewise has held steady over the past two decades at roughly 75 %.
76% of Republicans believe that it is more important to uphold gun rights than to control gun ownership.In 1993, only 45% of Republicans agreed with that statement.
58% of Republicans believe that states should have the ability to ignore federal gun laws.
48% of gun owners cite protection as their main reason for having a gun in 2013, versus 26% in 1999.
II. NRA By the Numbers
$277M - Money spent by the NRA and its affiliates in 2010.
99 to 1 - How much that 2010 spending by the NRA and its affiliates exceeded that of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the most active gun-control nonprofit in the country.
143 - Number of bills for which the NRA lobbied in 2015. [2]
III. Buyers, Guns, and Money
"After mass shootings like the one in Orlando, Florida, the share price of major gun companies like Sturm Ruger and Smith & Wesson tends to soar. The companies fan the fears of increased regulation, and buyers rush to stock up on weapons before sweeping gun-control laws are passed in the wake of new tragedy. (Typically, of course, their fears are unwarranted.) These purchases bolster the cycle of violence by feeding the gun industry, which has a powerful anti-regulation lobbying arm, and by putting more weapons in the homes of Americans." [3]
320% - Gains enjoyed by investors in Sturm Ruger and Smith & Wesson since 2010.
$551.1 million - Sturm Ruger's net sales in 2015 -- twice as much as the company saw in 2010.
8.5% - Increase in the share price of Sturm Ruger the Monday after the Orlando shooting.
23 million - The record-breaking number of background checks for firearm purchases initiated by NICS (the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System) in 2015.
IV. Environmental Racism
"A 1987 report found that race was the most significant predictor of a person living near hazardous waste. Communities that were located near multiple commercial hazardous-waste facilities or a landfill had three times the amount of minority residents as communities that were far away from such dump sites. The Government Accountability Office found in 1983 that black people made up the majority of communities near landfills. Decades later, a 2007 report found that things were actually worse: Communities near commercial hazardous-waste facilities consisted mainly of people of color. Finally, people of color are exposed to a level of nitrogen dioxide -- which emanates from cars and industrial sources and can cause respiratory problems -- an average rate 38 percent higher than white people." [4]
95% - Percentage of claims against polluters denied by the EPA.
2X - The number of times people of color are likely to live without potable water and modern sanitation.
Footnotes
[1] "How the NRA Shapes the GOP," The Nation, July 4/11, 2016.
[2] "NRA By the Numbers," The Nation, July 4/11, 2016.
[3] Joyce Chu, "Buyers, Guns, and Money," The Nation, July 4/11, 2016.
[4] Bryce Covert & Mike Konczal, "Environmental Racism," The Nation, March 7, 2016.
Thursday, July 14, 2016
A Perspective on Police Use of Excessive Force
I. A Brief Look at the Albuquerque Police Department's Deadly Use of Force
"In the five years before Christopher Torres, a 27-year-old with schizophrenia, was shot to death, the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) shot thirty-eight people, killing nineteen of them. More than half were mentally ill. In Albuquerque, a city of five hundred and fifty thousand, the rate of fatal shootings by police is eight times that of New York City." Although the crime rate has been declining for nearly a decade, the city still ranks in the top fifteen percent of the country's cities for the use of excessive force. [1]
The APD has accepted officers from other police forces, even if they had been disciplined or fired, and it has sometimes waived the psychological exam. There have been cadets who had admitted to crimes and had been repeatedly disciplined in previous jobs. Of the sixty-three officers who joined the APD in 2007, ten eventually shot people. Since 1987, APD officers have shot at least a hundred and forty-six people. [2]
David Correia, a professor of American studies at the University of New Mexico, told the reporter, Rachel Aviv: "There's this myth here of tri-cultural harmony -- indigenous people, Mexican-Americans, and Anglos -- but this precarious arrangement is built on a long history of violence against Spanish-speaking and indigenous people that still plays out." "When these people don't follow the officers' orders, they are sometimes beaten or shot." A former police officer told Aviv that there was a running joke within the department: "Don't threaten suicide with officers, because they'll accelerate it." Samson Costales, a retired officer with APD, told Aviv: "They tell us to cover for each other, because we are a brotherhood and brothers in blue don't like rats," a mentality that he had learned from his training officers. Until recently, officers were also permitted to come to work with guns that they had bought themselves.
In thirty years, no officer in Albuquerque had been indicted for shooting someone, until the three years it took District Attorney Kari Brandenburg to charge the officers who killed Christopher Torres. She based her decision on the police department's internal report, which was finally released to the Torreses' lawyers, Randi McGin and Kathy Love, in 2013. Christopher was shot to death on April 12, 2011.
Shortly after the civil trial originated by the deceased Christopher's lawyers had ended, the Department of Justice published a report detailing how the APD fostered a "culture that emphasizes force and complete submission over safety."
II. APD Tasering Ruled Unconstitutional
In April 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that two Albuquerque police officers can be sued for using a stun gun, called a Taser, on a suspect who suffered from mental illness and later died. Jerry Perea was tasered ten times in less than two minutes. The court ruled that the Tasering constituted excessive use of force and was unconstitutional. [3]
ADDENDUM: ABQ Taxpayers Pay Big for APD Officer's Misconduct - Four lawsuits have cost Albuquerque taxpayers a total of $7.225 million, with the largest settlement being for $6.5 million. [4]
Footnotes
[1] Rachel Aviv, "Your Son Is Deceased," The New Yorker, February 2, 2016.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Dennis Domrzalski, ABQ Free Press, April 6-19, 2016.
[4] "ABQ Free Press Local Briefs," April 6-19, 2016.
"In the five years before Christopher Torres, a 27-year-old with schizophrenia, was shot to death, the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) shot thirty-eight people, killing nineteen of them. More than half were mentally ill. In Albuquerque, a city of five hundred and fifty thousand, the rate of fatal shootings by police is eight times that of New York City." Although the crime rate has been declining for nearly a decade, the city still ranks in the top fifteen percent of the country's cities for the use of excessive force. [1]
The APD has accepted officers from other police forces, even if they had been disciplined or fired, and it has sometimes waived the psychological exam. There have been cadets who had admitted to crimes and had been repeatedly disciplined in previous jobs. Of the sixty-three officers who joined the APD in 2007, ten eventually shot people. Since 1987, APD officers have shot at least a hundred and forty-six people. [2]
David Correia, a professor of American studies at the University of New Mexico, told the reporter, Rachel Aviv: "There's this myth here of tri-cultural harmony -- indigenous people, Mexican-Americans, and Anglos -- but this precarious arrangement is built on a long history of violence against Spanish-speaking and indigenous people that still plays out." "When these people don't follow the officers' orders, they are sometimes beaten or shot." A former police officer told Aviv that there was a running joke within the department: "Don't threaten suicide with officers, because they'll accelerate it." Samson Costales, a retired officer with APD, told Aviv: "They tell us to cover for each other, because we are a brotherhood and brothers in blue don't like rats," a mentality that he had learned from his training officers. Until recently, officers were also permitted to come to work with guns that they had bought themselves.
In thirty years, no officer in Albuquerque had been indicted for shooting someone, until the three years it took District Attorney Kari Brandenburg to charge the officers who killed Christopher Torres. She based her decision on the police department's internal report, which was finally released to the Torreses' lawyers, Randi McGin and Kathy Love, in 2013. Christopher was shot to death on April 12, 2011.
Shortly after the civil trial originated by the deceased Christopher's lawyers had ended, the Department of Justice published a report detailing how the APD fostered a "culture that emphasizes force and complete submission over safety."
II. APD Tasering Ruled Unconstitutional
In April 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that two Albuquerque police officers can be sued for using a stun gun, called a Taser, on a suspect who suffered from mental illness and later died. Jerry Perea was tasered ten times in less than two minutes. The court ruled that the Tasering constituted excessive use of force and was unconstitutional. [3]
ADDENDUM: ABQ Taxpayers Pay Big for APD Officer's Misconduct - Four lawsuits have cost Albuquerque taxpayers a total of $7.225 million, with the largest settlement being for $6.5 million. [4]
Footnotes
[1] Rachel Aviv, "Your Son Is Deceased," The New Yorker, February 2, 2016.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Dennis Domrzalski, ABQ Free Press, April 6-19, 2016.
[4] "ABQ Free Press Local Briefs," April 6-19, 2016.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)