Key: C- Hillary Clinton ---- T - Donald Trump
The following are notes I took while watching and listening to the first debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, with some commentary to follow.
C - Build an economy that works for everyone - Fairer economy -- Raise minimum wage - Equal pay for equal work - Paid family leave.
T - Jobs are fleeing the country - No one in government to fight them - Mexico is building some of the biggest plants - Stop stolen jobs - Reduced taxes to 15% from 35%. - Renegotiate trade deals.
C - Coined "Trumped-up trickle-down." --- T - When Mexico sells to us there is no tax. - Thousands of companies are leaving.
C - Trump [essentially cheered] for the housing crisis by saying it was good for business, because he could pick up housing cheap and sell at a higher price. - Said climate change is a hoax by the Chinese. --- T - Said he didn't say that about China.
T - Obama has doubled the debt. --- C - [Under Obama] increased exports by 30% and by 50% to China. T - Tax cuts would add 5 million jobs. - His tax cut is the biggest since Ronald Reagan. - Wealthy will create major jobs. - Taxes are so onerous. - Bureaucratic red tape prevents jobs from coming back. --- C - Trump's tax cuts will benefit the wealthy and Trump himself. --- T - Fed is not doing its job.
T - Will release tax returns as soon as Clinton releases her 33,000 e-mails. - Clinton's use of private e-mails was not a "mistake."
C - Trump didn't pay any income tax for some years. --- T - Not paying income tax makes him "smart." --- C - Trump has about $650 million of debt. --- T - Debt is well below $650 million.
T - We've become a third-world nation. - We're a debtor nation.
C - Trump stiffed an architect. --- T - Didn't pay the architect because maybe he didn't do a good job. - There are tens of thousands of [my workers] who are very satisfied. - Trump International is way under budget.
C - Need to face injustices in the criminal justice system. --- T - Clinton doesn't want to use the words "law and order." - In Chicago they have thousands of shootings. - "Stop-and-frisk" worked very well in New York. - Contradicted Lester Holt's statement that stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional. - Relationship in Dallas [between police and community] was "very beautiful." --- C - Wants to end private prisons in the states. - Police must deal with a lot of mental problems.
T - Supports those on the no-fly list from buying guns. - African American community has been let down. - Clinton campaign started birther campaign, with Sidney Blumenthal as a leading player. - [He] did a great job of getting Obama to produce his birth certificate.
C - Russia is hacking into a lot of organizations. --- T - Don't know if Russia is hacking.
T - Obama and Clinton created an oasis in Iraq. - "Had we taken the oil," ISIS would not have the support they have today. --- C - Brought up Trump's assaults on Muslims here and abroad. --- T - NATO is opening up new terrorism division.
T - "I have a much better temperament than [Clinton.]."
T - Says nuclear weapons is the greatest threat -- not climate change, as both Obama and Clinton believe. - Russia is expanding its nuclear weapons capability. - Iran is one of North Korea's biggest trading partners. - Deal with Iran is one of the worst deals in history.
T - Hillary Clinton doesn't have the "looks" to be president. - "Stamina" was substituted for "looks." - Hillary has experience but it is bad experience. - Was going to tell an unpleasant story about the Clintons but wouldn't because Chelsea was there.
Comments on the above: Fact checkers were provided far more material to find false from Donald Trump than from Hillary Clinton; also, although both interrupted, Trump interrupted far more and with more aggressive body action. Post-debate, Trump initially heaped praise on the moderator, but within twenty-four he was accusing Lester Holt of being biased toward Clinton. And, oh yes, he was given a defective mike that was maybe a deliberate act of sabotage.
I could do a laundry list of policies and proposals presented by Hillary Clinton that are both superior to, and better argued than those put forward by Donald Trump, but I will confine my comments to a selective few.
1.) Trump claimed that he never labeled climate change as a Chinese hoax; however, in the GOP presidential primaries, Trump said climate change was a Chinese hoax designed to cause U.S. companies to spend money on pollution control devices, thus making them less competitive in the world market.
2.) The claim that Trump's federal income tax plan will create five million jobs comes from a Tax Foundation assessment that the plan will increase the GDP and job growth. Both the Congressional Budget Office and the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation have concluded that these estimates of growth are much too rosy. It is also the case that the trickle-down concept on which the Trump plan is based, by which the tax cuts are heavily weighted to the benefit of wealthy tax filers, has never worked in the past. The period from the end of World War II to the late 1970s was one of unprecedented economic prosperity, and yet, the top marginal income tax rate was never under seventy percent.
3.) The architect that Hillary Clinton identified as being stiffed by Donald Trump is only one of many who have either not been paid or have been underpaid for their work . Newsweek magazine did a feature article on Polish workers who were underpaid by at least $100,000 for their work on Trump Tower. Trump never paid a cent toward redressing the underpayment, as the court judgment in a lawsuit fell on the middleman that Trump had hired to manage the workers.
3.) Regarding stop-and-frisk, when Donald Trump was asked how to remedy the toxic relationship between minority communities and law enforcement, he called for stop-and-frisk to be instituted nationwide. When a furor arose over this proposal, Trump said he only wanted it to be imposed in Chicago.
Donald Trump's claim that stop-and-frisk worked "incredibly well" in New York City, is belied by the fact that only in .02 of about five million stops was a firearm found. Minorities constituted a very high percentage of the stops and the police devoted a very high number of hours for a very little result.
4.) When Donald Trump accused President Obama and Hillary Clinton of creating ISIS by creating an "oasis" in Iraq, he overlooked the desire of most Iraqis to get U.S. troops out of their country and the troops actually left on a timetable worked out between the Iraqi government and President George W. Bush. The Iraqi government could never agree to giving immunity to U.S. troops from Iraqi law.
5.) Donald Trump initially said that Hillary Clinton didn't have the"looks" to be president; however, he changed it to "stamina," because he likely did not want to rekindle what he said and did in regard to Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz's wife.
6.) I think that the most reprehensible thing Trump did in the debate was to say that he was prepared to say something very unpleasant about Bill and Hillary Clinton but wouldn't so as not to upset their daughter. Trump's surrogate Rudy Guliani then compounded this outrageous gambit by labeling it as a display of magnanimity on the part of Trump.
7.) Donald Trump took credit for NATO creating a terrorism division. A NATO spokesperson has said that NATO had begun developing a terrorism unit before Trump suggested it.
8.) Trump's claim that his strongest quality was his temperament probably created the strongest negative reaction of anything he said. Those in a focus group in New Hampshire were reported to be aghast at hearing his claim.
Friday, September 30, 2016
Thursday, September 29, 2016
How CBS and ABC Distorted Their First Presidential Debate Coverage
Both CBS and ABC evening news have resorted to distortion in their coverage of the first debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I am referring to CBS Evening News on Tuesday, September 27th. and ABC World News on the evening of Wednesday, September 28th.
I. CBS Evening News
Scott Pelley opened the newscast by referring to the race as a dead heat. This was a rather curious opening because most of the pre-debate media coverage had described the first debate as likely to be a decisive event in the presidential campaign, and all of the post-debate published polls had found Hillary Clinton to be the clear winner. The CBS coverage made no mention of the polls, the disparaging remarks Trump had made about women, his constant interruptions of Clinton, his talking over the moderator, his insistence that he was against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, and his general demeanor during the debate.
Scott Pelley made no mention that Trump initially lavished praise on the moderator and then blamed him for being biased in favor of Clinton; also, Pelley had no criticism of Trump contending that he was given a defective mike -- Trump even suggested that the defective mike was a deliberate act to make him look bad. After first going to a Trump rally clip, Pelley went to a Clinton rally, but that was introduced by a reference to Clinton's high unfavorable rating. Aha! but Michelle Obama had ridden to the rescue, because she had a high standing among millennials. Then, to sink the point home, if it had not already been done, a reporter had gathered three or four young men together, who were wearing Clinton buttons, and recorded one of them telling how unenthusiastic he was about supporting Clinton.
The CBS coverage concluded with interviews with a few people, whose views did not in any way reflect the overwhelming conclusion of all of the focus groups that Clinton was the clear winner in the debate. One of these forums was conducted by the GOP forum guru, Frank Luntz. The final image was of an unidentified man, with no known expert credentials on debate outcomes, declaring that the debate to have changed no minds.
These are the focus group results: Pennsylvania - 16 Clinton; 5 Trump; Florida - 18 Clinton; 2 Trump; Ohio - 11 Clinton; Trump 0; and 18 neither. A CNN/ORC flash pool found that 61% declared Clinton the winner, versus 27% for Trump.
CBS frequently mentions the unfavorable ratings of Hillary Clinton but I have yet to hear any reference to her favorable ratings. With the notable exceptions of President Obama and Bernie Sanders, Clinton has the highest favorable ratings, based on aggregate polling, when compared to several other major politicians: Clinton - 42%; Trump - 34%; Paul Ryan - 33%; Nancy Polisi 24%; Harry Reid - 22%; and Mitch McConnell - 16%. For the record: the latest poll gives the media a 32% favorable rating.
Finally, Scott Pelley and team made no mention of what may have been the most reprehensible action of Donald Trump: he said he could have told a very damaging story about Bill and Hillary Clinton but he was not going to tell it , because Chelsea was in the audience. Trump surrogate, Rudy Guliani, even had the gall to contend that Trump was being magnanimous.
II. ABC World News
Some of what has been said about Scott Pelley and team above can also be said about the David Muir and team evening broadcast of Wednesday, September 28th: the reference to Clinton's unfavorable ratings on trust and honesty; the depiction of Michelle Obama coming to counteract Clinton's low standing among young people; his reference to a damaging story he could tell and then allowing his surrogates to describe that action as praiseworthy, because he was protecting the sensibilities of a young woman; his many interruptions of Clinton and his talking over the moderator. The Muir team made no reference to the ludicrous urging by Trump to make calls to Shawn Hannity to verify that Trump privately opposed the invasion of Iraq. When Trump said that he was "smart" to not pay income taxes, couldn't David Muir have observed that this supposed savior of the working class was implicitly saying that working people who pay taxes are ignorant suckers?
But the most serious failing of Muir and team, with the possible exception of the damaging story not told, is that one would not have known that there was flaming rage in the country about Donald Trump's denigration of the former Miss Universe, coupled with the resurrection of many other derogatory remarks Trump has made about women.
Harvard's Shorenstein Center on Medias, Politics and Public Policy found that in 2015, Hillary Clinton received a far higher proportion of negative coverage than any other candidate. Do the managements of both CBS and ABC believe that they are exempt from that finding of biased coverage?
A news gathering thought: in the wake of the first debate, a poll has found that Hillary Clinton's favorable ratings are now nearly on a par with her unfavorable ratings. Will you verify that and if found to be the case, will you publish the result?
This blog is being treated as an open letter to the managements of both CBS and ABC.
I. CBS Evening News
Scott Pelley opened the newscast by referring to the race as a dead heat. This was a rather curious opening because most of the pre-debate media coverage had described the first debate as likely to be a decisive event in the presidential campaign, and all of the post-debate published polls had found Hillary Clinton to be the clear winner. The CBS coverage made no mention of the polls, the disparaging remarks Trump had made about women, his constant interruptions of Clinton, his talking over the moderator, his insistence that he was against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, and his general demeanor during the debate.
Scott Pelley made no mention that Trump initially lavished praise on the moderator and then blamed him for being biased in favor of Clinton; also, Pelley had no criticism of Trump contending that he was given a defective mike -- Trump even suggested that the defective mike was a deliberate act to make him look bad. After first going to a Trump rally clip, Pelley went to a Clinton rally, but that was introduced by a reference to Clinton's high unfavorable rating. Aha! but Michelle Obama had ridden to the rescue, because she had a high standing among millennials. Then, to sink the point home, if it had not already been done, a reporter had gathered three or four young men together, who were wearing Clinton buttons, and recorded one of them telling how unenthusiastic he was about supporting Clinton.
The CBS coverage concluded with interviews with a few people, whose views did not in any way reflect the overwhelming conclusion of all of the focus groups that Clinton was the clear winner in the debate. One of these forums was conducted by the GOP forum guru, Frank Luntz. The final image was of an unidentified man, with no known expert credentials on debate outcomes, declaring that the debate to have changed no minds.
These are the focus group results: Pennsylvania - 16 Clinton; 5 Trump; Florida - 18 Clinton; 2 Trump; Ohio - 11 Clinton; Trump 0; and 18 neither. A CNN/ORC flash pool found that 61% declared Clinton the winner, versus 27% for Trump.
CBS frequently mentions the unfavorable ratings of Hillary Clinton but I have yet to hear any reference to her favorable ratings. With the notable exceptions of President Obama and Bernie Sanders, Clinton has the highest favorable ratings, based on aggregate polling, when compared to several other major politicians: Clinton - 42%; Trump - 34%; Paul Ryan - 33%; Nancy Polisi 24%; Harry Reid - 22%; and Mitch McConnell - 16%. For the record: the latest poll gives the media a 32% favorable rating.
Finally, Scott Pelley and team made no mention of what may have been the most reprehensible action of Donald Trump: he said he could have told a very damaging story about Bill and Hillary Clinton but he was not going to tell it , because Chelsea was in the audience. Trump surrogate, Rudy Guliani, even had the gall to contend that Trump was being magnanimous.
II. ABC World News
Some of what has been said about Scott Pelley and team above can also be said about the David Muir and team evening broadcast of Wednesday, September 28th: the reference to Clinton's unfavorable ratings on trust and honesty; the depiction of Michelle Obama coming to counteract Clinton's low standing among young people; his reference to a damaging story he could tell and then allowing his surrogates to describe that action as praiseworthy, because he was protecting the sensibilities of a young woman; his many interruptions of Clinton and his talking over the moderator. The Muir team made no reference to the ludicrous urging by Trump to make calls to Shawn Hannity to verify that Trump privately opposed the invasion of Iraq. When Trump said that he was "smart" to not pay income taxes, couldn't David Muir have observed that this supposed savior of the working class was implicitly saying that working people who pay taxes are ignorant suckers?
But the most serious failing of Muir and team, with the possible exception of the damaging story not told, is that one would not have known that there was flaming rage in the country about Donald Trump's denigration of the former Miss Universe, coupled with the resurrection of many other derogatory remarks Trump has made about women.
Harvard's Shorenstein Center on Medias, Politics and Public Policy found that in 2015, Hillary Clinton received a far higher proportion of negative coverage than any other candidate. Do the managements of both CBS and ABC believe that they are exempt from that finding of biased coverage?
A news gathering thought: in the wake of the first debate, a poll has found that Hillary Clinton's favorable ratings are now nearly on a par with her unfavorable ratings. Will you verify that and if found to be the case, will you publish the result?
This blog is being treated as an open letter to the managements of both CBS and ABC.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
The U.S. Does Not Need Compulsory Patriotism
San Francisco 49er quarterback Colin Kaepernick has stirred up a major controversy by sitting, not standing, for the national anthem. There are two aspects of this controversy that should cause serious concern: 1.) the efforts by law enforcement to restrict the freedom of speech of U.S. citizens; and 2,) the attempt to label Kaepernick as disrespecting those military service members who were killed in armed conflicts.
In the wake of the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, four or five St. Louis Rams football players ran to the playing field, stopped, and assumed the surrender position: "Hands up! Don't shoot!" The president of the St. Louis police union, representing both county and city officers, demanded an apology from the St. Louis Ram's management; furthermore, he wanted a series of meetings to set norms on how the players should interact with law enforcement.
The president of the New York City benevolent police association blamed protesters of excessive use of force by police for the assassination of two NYC police officers sitting in a police vehicle.
When David Clarke, the sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, spoke at the Republican Convention, he said the major point he wanted to make was that "Blue Lives Matter." Clarke, and those who unconditionally support him, don't seem to understand that for a long stretch of U.S. history, black lives didn't matter, or mattered very little. In recent history, the nation has seen and heard numerous instances in which law enforcement officers mistreated minorities, especially African Americans. There have been too many cases in which officers have fatally shot unarmed people. Sheriff Clarke certainly disrespects Black Lives Matter, as he has called members "sub-human creeps," "garbage," and "black slime." Clarke has also infamously said that there is no police violence in America.
Most recently, the San Francisco Police Officer's Association demanded an apology from the San Francisco 49er's management, because Kaepernick had worn socks depicting pigs wearing police officer hats to practice. Some Santa Clara police officers threatened not to do security for the 49er football team, until deterred by a police chief who had a greater understanding of protected civil liberties than they did.
The bottom line here is that law enforcement should not be the arbitrator of what U.S. citizens can say and do in exercising their freedom of speech.
Another aspect of the attacks on Colin Kaepernick is the charge that he has disrespected those who died defending the U.S. in armed conflicts. He did this by sitting, not standing, an act not violent, histrionic, nor damaging to person or property. Are we to assume that that those in the armed forces wanted the outcome of their sacrifices to be a conformist society, in which there was compelled patriotism and specific rules on how that patriotism must be expressed?
Even if we disagree with Colin Kaepernick's contention that law enforcement officers mistreat minorities and criticize him for having no remedy for the problem -- although he did contribute $1 million to social agencies working on the problem -- we should respect his right to express his concern, even if it was done through a change in his bodily position.
In the wake of the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, four or five St. Louis Rams football players ran to the playing field, stopped, and assumed the surrender position: "Hands up! Don't shoot!" The president of the St. Louis police union, representing both county and city officers, demanded an apology from the St. Louis Ram's management; furthermore, he wanted a series of meetings to set norms on how the players should interact with law enforcement.
The president of the New York City benevolent police association blamed protesters of excessive use of force by police for the assassination of two NYC police officers sitting in a police vehicle.
When David Clarke, the sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, spoke at the Republican Convention, he said the major point he wanted to make was that "Blue Lives Matter." Clarke, and those who unconditionally support him, don't seem to understand that for a long stretch of U.S. history, black lives didn't matter, or mattered very little. In recent history, the nation has seen and heard numerous instances in which law enforcement officers mistreated minorities, especially African Americans. There have been too many cases in which officers have fatally shot unarmed people. Sheriff Clarke certainly disrespects Black Lives Matter, as he has called members "sub-human creeps," "garbage," and "black slime." Clarke has also infamously said that there is no police violence in America.
Most recently, the San Francisco Police Officer's Association demanded an apology from the San Francisco 49er's management, because Kaepernick had worn socks depicting pigs wearing police officer hats to practice. Some Santa Clara police officers threatened not to do security for the 49er football team, until deterred by a police chief who had a greater understanding of protected civil liberties than they did.
The bottom line here is that law enforcement should not be the arbitrator of what U.S. citizens can say and do in exercising their freedom of speech.
Another aspect of the attacks on Colin Kaepernick is the charge that he has disrespected those who died defending the U.S. in armed conflicts. He did this by sitting, not standing, an act not violent, histrionic, nor damaging to person or property. Are we to assume that that those in the armed forces wanted the outcome of their sacrifices to be a conformist society, in which there was compelled patriotism and specific rules on how that patriotism must be expressed?
Even if we disagree with Colin Kaepernick's contention that law enforcement officers mistreat minorities and criticize him for having no remedy for the problem -- although he did contribute $1 million to social agencies working on the problem -- we should respect his right to express his concern, even if it was done through a change in his bodily position.
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
Whites Wealth Advantage Over Minorities and Political Correctness as GOP Ploy
I. Whites' Great Wealth Advantage Over Minorities
If current economic trends continue, the average black household will need 228 years to accumulate as much wealth as their white counterparts hold today. Latinos will take 84 years. The study reaching this startling conclusion was a joint effort by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and the Corporation for Economic Development (CFED). They looked at trends in household wealth from 1983 to 2013. Average wealth of white households increased by 84 percent, three times the gains of blacks and 1.2 times the rate of growth for Latinos in those thirty years. For the next thirty years, if the same trends continue, the average white family's net worth will grow by $18,000 a year, compared to $750 for blacks and $2,250 for Latinos. [1]
Members of the Fortune 400 saw their net worth increase by 736 percent in that 30-year period.
Economist Thomas Picketty says we would move toward a "hereditary aristocracy of wealth." He didn't say that in the United States it would be a white aristocracy of wealth. A big reason that the wealth gap will grow is because "accumulated wealth is a mechanism for transmitting economic success from generation to generation." Princeton University sociologist Dalton Conley has found that the wealth of a child's family is the "greatest predictor of that child's future economic prospects."
What are some other factors contributing to this great racial gulf in wealth? A 2013 study by he National Priorities Project found that 77 percent of the home mortgage deduction benefits in the federal income tax goes to households with annual incomes between $75,000 and $500,000. Also, an estimated two-thirds of all public subsidies for retirement savings go to those with incomes in the top 20 percent of the distribution.
II. The GOP Ploy on Being Politically Correct
The Republican Party has been making major use of politically correctness as a major cause of problems in the United States. In a Time magazine piece, Kareem Abdul-Jabber makes a case that use of political correctness is a way of avoiding solutions to serious problems in the nation. He begins by citing a poll in which nearly 60 percent of respondents identify political correctness as a problem in the U.S. Those worried that we've gone too far in our pursuit of political correctness falls pretty solidly along political party lines: twice as many Republicans as Democrats think it's a problem. Only 18 percent think we're not politically correct enough. [2]
"Deriding political correctness gives people permission not to fix a problem, because we can claim instead that it doesn't exist." "Arrogantly clutching onto wrong-headed traditions is damaging to the country." Abdul-Jabber writes that "Every time a male coach berates his players by referring to them as 'ladies,' or tells them to "hike up their skirts' while playing, we're perpetuating an atmosphere where women are not men's equals."
"The Anti-PC Rhetoric is a clever tool by politicians who wish to distract voters from the real issues by tapping into their darkest fears about people who are different from them and, at the same time allowing the politicians not to have to fix the problem."
Kareem Abdul-Jabber concludes by writing that: "So while we're told to focus on building a massive wall to keep out immigrants, the real causes of job-loss and economic instability continue unabated."
Footnotes
[1] Joshua Holland, "The Average Black Family Would Need 228 Years to Build the Wealth of a White Family Today," The Nation, August 8, 2016.
[2] Kareem Abdul-Jabber, "Politically incorrect? Or master strategists? Try both," Time, September 12-19, 2016.
If current economic trends continue, the average black household will need 228 years to accumulate as much wealth as their white counterparts hold today. Latinos will take 84 years. The study reaching this startling conclusion was a joint effort by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and the Corporation for Economic Development (CFED). They looked at trends in household wealth from 1983 to 2013. Average wealth of white households increased by 84 percent, three times the gains of blacks and 1.2 times the rate of growth for Latinos in those thirty years. For the next thirty years, if the same trends continue, the average white family's net worth will grow by $18,000 a year, compared to $750 for blacks and $2,250 for Latinos. [1]
Members of the Fortune 400 saw their net worth increase by 736 percent in that 30-year period.
Economist Thomas Picketty says we would move toward a "hereditary aristocracy of wealth." He didn't say that in the United States it would be a white aristocracy of wealth. A big reason that the wealth gap will grow is because "accumulated wealth is a mechanism for transmitting economic success from generation to generation." Princeton University sociologist Dalton Conley has found that the wealth of a child's family is the "greatest predictor of that child's future economic prospects."
What are some other factors contributing to this great racial gulf in wealth? A 2013 study by he National Priorities Project found that 77 percent of the home mortgage deduction benefits in the federal income tax goes to households with annual incomes between $75,000 and $500,000. Also, an estimated two-thirds of all public subsidies for retirement savings go to those with incomes in the top 20 percent of the distribution.
II. The GOP Ploy on Being Politically Correct
The Republican Party has been making major use of politically correctness as a major cause of problems in the United States. In a Time magazine piece, Kareem Abdul-Jabber makes a case that use of political correctness is a way of avoiding solutions to serious problems in the nation. He begins by citing a poll in which nearly 60 percent of respondents identify political correctness as a problem in the U.S. Those worried that we've gone too far in our pursuit of political correctness falls pretty solidly along political party lines: twice as many Republicans as Democrats think it's a problem. Only 18 percent think we're not politically correct enough. [2]
"Deriding political correctness gives people permission not to fix a problem, because we can claim instead that it doesn't exist." "Arrogantly clutching onto wrong-headed traditions is damaging to the country." Abdul-Jabber writes that "Every time a male coach berates his players by referring to them as 'ladies,' or tells them to "hike up their skirts' while playing, we're perpetuating an atmosphere where women are not men's equals."
"The Anti-PC Rhetoric is a clever tool by politicians who wish to distract voters from the real issues by tapping into their darkest fears about people who are different from them and, at the same time allowing the politicians not to have to fix the problem."
Kareem Abdul-Jabber concludes by writing that: "So while we're told to focus on building a massive wall to keep out immigrants, the real causes of job-loss and economic instability continue unabated."
Footnotes
[1] Joshua Holland, "The Average Black Family Would Need 228 Years to Build the Wealth of a White Family Today," The Nation, August 8, 2016.
[2] Kareem Abdul-Jabber, "Politically incorrect? Or master strategists? Try both," Time, September 12-19, 2016.
Thursday, September 8, 2016
Saudi Bombing of Yemen
Excerpts from a William D. Hartung oped in the New York Times, April 22, 2016.
As of April 2016, more than 3,200 civilians had been killed in Yemen since Saudi Arabia began its bombing campaign. A majority of the deaths were the result of airstrikes, many of which were 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 banned by an international treaty -- a treaty that neither the United States nor Saudi Arabia has signed. The United States also provides logistical support to the Royal Saudi Air Force for its airstrikes in Yemen.
Saudi strikes have hit marketplaces, hospitals and other civilian targets, attacks that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have said may constitute war crimes.
Besides U.S. arms transfers to Saudi Arabia being questionable on human rights grounds, they also 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.
President Obama has acknowledged that competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran "has helped feed proxy wars and chaos in Syria and Iraq and Yemen," and he has said that Riyadh and Tehran should "share the neighborhood and institute some sort of cold peace." This is less likely to happen if billions of dollars worth of U.S. arms continue to flow to the Saudis, with no effective conditions on how they are used.
"One justification that has been put forward for the continued flow of weaponry from the United States to Saudi Arabia is that it provides reassurance to the kingdom's leadership that Washington won't tilt toward the Iranians in the wake of the deal reached last year over Iran's nuclear program. But if demonstrating a commitment to the Saudi government entails supporting deadly and reckless initiatives, like the war in Yemen, the policy is not worth the price. "
"Another reason the arms deals with Saudi Arabia keep coming is that they are a bonanza for American arms makers that need foreign markets to make up for a leveling off of Pentagon procurement. But domestic economic concerns should not be allowed to override American security interests in the Middle East."
Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn) and Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) have introduced legislation that would stop transfers of air-to-ground munitions to Saudi Arabia until the kingdom focuses its efforts in Yemen on attacking terrorist organizations and takes "all feasible precautions to reduce the risk of harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure."
Mr. Hartung advises President Obama to press King Salman to adhere to a newly [April 2016] imposed cease-fire in Yemen and agree to permanently end his country's indiscriminate bombing there as part of United Nations peace talks. Also, the president should make clear that transfers of bombs and missiles to the kingdom will stop until King Salman does stop the bombing. This should be the first step in a re-evaluation of the security implications of open-ended arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy and a senior adviser to the Security Assistance Monitor.
As of April 2016, more than 3,200 civilians had been killed in Yemen since Saudi Arabia began its bombing campaign. A majority of the deaths were the result of airstrikes, many of which were 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 banned by an international treaty -- a treaty that neither the United States nor Saudi Arabia has signed. The United States also provides logistical support to the Royal Saudi Air Force for its airstrikes in Yemen.
Saudi strikes have hit marketplaces, hospitals and other civilian targets, attacks that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have said may constitute war crimes.
Besides U.S. arms transfers to Saudi Arabia being questionable on human rights grounds, they also 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.
President Obama has acknowledged that competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran "has helped feed proxy wars and chaos in Syria and Iraq and Yemen," and he has said that Riyadh and Tehran should "share the neighborhood and institute some sort of cold peace." This is less likely to happen if billions of dollars worth of U.S. arms continue to flow to the Saudis, with no effective conditions on how they are used.
"One justification that has been put forward for the continued flow of weaponry from the United States to Saudi Arabia is that it provides reassurance to the kingdom's leadership that Washington won't tilt toward the Iranians in the wake of the deal reached last year over Iran's nuclear program. But if demonstrating a commitment to the Saudi government entails supporting deadly and reckless initiatives, like the war in Yemen, the policy is not worth the price. "
"Another reason the arms deals with Saudi Arabia keep coming is that they are a bonanza for American arms makers that need foreign markets to make up for a leveling off of Pentagon procurement. But domestic economic concerns should not be allowed to override American security interests in the Middle East."
Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn) and Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) have introduced legislation that would stop transfers of air-to-ground munitions to Saudi Arabia until the kingdom focuses its efforts in Yemen on attacking terrorist organizations and takes "all feasible precautions to reduce the risk of harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure."
Mr. Hartung advises President Obama to press King Salman to adhere to a newly [April 2016] imposed cease-fire in Yemen and agree to permanently end his country's indiscriminate bombing there as part of United Nations peace talks. Also, the president should make clear that transfers of bombs and missiles to the kingdom will stop until King Salman does stop the bombing. This should be the first step in a re-evaluation of the security implications of open-ended arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy and a senior adviser to the Security Assistance Monitor.
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
The Tax-Phobia of Ronald Reagan and Paul Ryan
Taxation selections from: Colin Woodard, American Character (New York: Viking, 2016.)
p. 201 - President Ronald Reagan moved forward with a four-year, $749 billion tax cut, conceived by his budget director, David Stockman. After being literally consigned to the workhouse for his faulty budget numbers, Stockman admitted that the tax plan was designed to help the rich. The top marginal tax rate was slashed from seventy to fifty percent, estate and capital gains taxes were cut and unprecedented tax breaks were provided to business. The administration and a compliant Congress cut funds for food stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and employment, education and housing measures for the poor by over $100 billion over four years.
P. 202 - To cut the rising national debt, Reagan agreed to a three-year $98.3 billion tax hike, the largest in history, coupled with another $30 billion cut to entitlement programs. "Meanwhile, Congress and the president worked to loosen regulations, opening public lands in the West to development, weakening the oversight powers of the Federal Trade Commission, stopping new automotive safety regulations, delaying environmental rule making, and freeing the loosely regulated savings and loan industry to engage in commercial banking, while lowering each S and L's capital reserve requirements and raising their federal deposit insurance levels." The federal bailout of the S and L's cost taxpayers $125 billion over the next thirty years.
p. 203 - "In 1986, Reagan championed another round of tax cuts that lowered the top marginal tax rate from fifty to twenty-eight percent, while raising the rate of the lowest bracket from eleven to fifteen percent." This represented an enormous tax break for wealthy tax filers, who, between World War II and pre-Reagan, had never had a top marginal tax rate of less than seventy percent.
p. 204 - President Reagan's budget cuts included a sixty percent cut in federal assistance to municipalities, forcing public schools, libraries, health clinics, hospitals and housing programs to take draconian measures.
Reagan increased the nation's debt from $914 billion to $2.6 trillion, diverting more money to interest payments. Although one of Ronald Reagan's major promises before taking office was to balance the federal budget, he created more budgetary debt than all the presidents who came before him combined.
p. 239 - "In 2012, Republican representative Paul Ryan, chair of the House Budget Committee and self-described Ayn Rand devotee, proposed a budget featuring big tax cuts for the wealthy and draconian cuts in benefits and programs for middle- and lower-income people, excluding (in a nod to the Tea Party) retirees." The Urban Institute determined Ryan's budget would cause fourteen to twenty-seven million poor people to be dropped from Medicaid, while cutting reimbursement to hospitals and doctors by thirty-one percent. Paul Ryan has proposed several budgets, all cut from the same cloth; however, one of them wouldn't have balanced the budget until the 2040s. Any budget that proposes to balance the budget a quarter-century of more in the future should not be taken seriously.
ADDENDUM:
*"A Pew Research Center survey published two years ago found that 70% percent of 18-to-24-year-olds who use the Internet had experienced harassment, and 26% of women that age said they'd been stalked online." (Source: Joel Stein, "Tyranny of the mob," Time, August 29, 2016.)
p. 201 - President Ronald Reagan moved forward with a four-year, $749 billion tax cut, conceived by his budget director, David Stockman. After being literally consigned to the workhouse for his faulty budget numbers, Stockman admitted that the tax plan was designed to help the rich. The top marginal tax rate was slashed from seventy to fifty percent, estate and capital gains taxes were cut and unprecedented tax breaks were provided to business. The administration and a compliant Congress cut funds for food stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and employment, education and housing measures for the poor by over $100 billion over four years.
P. 202 - To cut the rising national debt, Reagan agreed to a three-year $98.3 billion tax hike, the largest in history, coupled with another $30 billion cut to entitlement programs. "Meanwhile, Congress and the president worked to loosen regulations, opening public lands in the West to development, weakening the oversight powers of the Federal Trade Commission, stopping new automotive safety regulations, delaying environmental rule making, and freeing the loosely regulated savings and loan industry to engage in commercial banking, while lowering each S and L's capital reserve requirements and raising their federal deposit insurance levels." The federal bailout of the S and L's cost taxpayers $125 billion over the next thirty years.
p. 203 - "In 1986, Reagan championed another round of tax cuts that lowered the top marginal tax rate from fifty to twenty-eight percent, while raising the rate of the lowest bracket from eleven to fifteen percent." This represented an enormous tax break for wealthy tax filers, who, between World War II and pre-Reagan, had never had a top marginal tax rate of less than seventy percent.
p. 204 - President Reagan's budget cuts included a sixty percent cut in federal assistance to municipalities, forcing public schools, libraries, health clinics, hospitals and housing programs to take draconian measures.
Reagan increased the nation's debt from $914 billion to $2.6 trillion, diverting more money to interest payments. Although one of Ronald Reagan's major promises before taking office was to balance the federal budget, he created more budgetary debt than all the presidents who came before him combined.
p. 239 - "In 2012, Republican representative Paul Ryan, chair of the House Budget Committee and self-described Ayn Rand devotee, proposed a budget featuring big tax cuts for the wealthy and draconian cuts in benefits and programs for middle- and lower-income people, excluding (in a nod to the Tea Party) retirees." The Urban Institute determined Ryan's budget would cause fourteen to twenty-seven million poor people to be dropped from Medicaid, while cutting reimbursement to hospitals and doctors by thirty-one percent. Paul Ryan has proposed several budgets, all cut from the same cloth; however, one of them wouldn't have balanced the budget until the 2040s. Any budget that proposes to balance the budget a quarter-century of more in the future should not be taken seriously.
ADDENDUM:
*"A Pew Research Center survey published two years ago found that 70% percent of 18-to-24-year-olds who use the Internet had experienced harassment, and 26% of women that age said they'd been stalked online." (Source: Joel Stein, "Tyranny of the mob," Time, August 29, 2016.)
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
Losing Black Teachers and Female Juvenile Detainees
I. Losing Black Teachers
"In Philadelphia and across the country, scores of schools have been closed, radically restructured, or replaced by charter schools. And in the process, the face of the teaching workforce has changed. In one of the most far-reaching consequences of the past decade's wave of education reform, the nation has lost tens of thousands of experienced black teachers and principals. In Philadelphia, the number of black teachers declined by 18.5 percent between 2001 and 2012. In Chicago, the black teacher population dropped by nearly 40 percent. And in New Orleans, there was a 62 percent drop in the number of black teachers." "Nationwide, according to the federal Department of Education, African Americans made up 6.8 percent of the teaching workforce in the 2011-12 school year, down from 8.3 percent in 1990." [1]
"White teachers are much more likely than black teachers to find behavior problems with black students." Adam Wright, an education researcher, estimated that if schools "doubled the number of black teachers, the black-white suspension disparity would be cut in half. Yet, though sixteen percent of America's students are black, only seven percent of teachers are." [2]
"In the South, in particular, the consolidation of black and white schools typically meant that white school boards and superintendents had more control than black principals over individual school's staffing." In the 1950s, about half of all college-educated African Americans went into teaching -- one of the few fields open to black professionals.
Philadelphia closed twenty-four schools in 2013. By the 2013-14 school year, the Philadelphia district had 3,885 fewer staff members -- teachers, nurses, counselors, secretaries and aides -- than it had at the end of 2011, a decrease of sixteen percent. Thirty percent of all charter school students now come from outside the Philadelphia district and white per-student public money follows them. Moreover, Philadelphia has extra costs (such as transportation) that aren't offset. Traditional schools in Philadelphia and elsewhere educate ten percent more students living in poverty, four percent more English learners and two percent more students with special needs. [3]
II. Female Juvenile Detainees
Nearly 50,000 adolescent girls enter the courts every year because of a system of criminalizing low-level offenses that has long been biased against girls. "Once a kid is roped into the system, she can be drawn in again and again for minor violations of her probation. As a result, the portion of juvenile detainees who are locked up for status offenses and technical violations has hovered around twenty-five percent. [4]
Between 1995 and 2009, cases of breaking curfew rose by twenty-three percent for girls -- and just one percent for boys. By 2113, girls were almost twice as likely as boys to be in detention for simple assault and certain other nonviolent offenses. "Parental bias morphs into police bias, which morphs into court bias." [5]
There is a 2013 study finding that the likelihood of black girls being found guilty for a status offense is almost three times greater than the likelihood for white girls, and a 2015 study showed that forty-one percent of LGBTQ girls in detention were there for status offenses, compared with about thirty-five percent of straight girls.
Footnotes
[1] Kristina Rigga, "Black Teachers Matter," Mother Jones, September/October 2016.
[2] Ibid.; [3] Ibid.
[4] Hannah Levintova, "Minor Threats," Mother Jones, September/October 2016.
[5] Ibid.
"In Philadelphia and across the country, scores of schools have been closed, radically restructured, or replaced by charter schools. And in the process, the face of the teaching workforce has changed. In one of the most far-reaching consequences of the past decade's wave of education reform, the nation has lost tens of thousands of experienced black teachers and principals. In Philadelphia, the number of black teachers declined by 18.5 percent between 2001 and 2012. In Chicago, the black teacher population dropped by nearly 40 percent. And in New Orleans, there was a 62 percent drop in the number of black teachers." "Nationwide, according to the federal Department of Education, African Americans made up 6.8 percent of the teaching workforce in the 2011-12 school year, down from 8.3 percent in 1990." [1]
"White teachers are much more likely than black teachers to find behavior problems with black students." Adam Wright, an education researcher, estimated that if schools "doubled the number of black teachers, the black-white suspension disparity would be cut in half. Yet, though sixteen percent of America's students are black, only seven percent of teachers are." [2]
"In the South, in particular, the consolidation of black and white schools typically meant that white school boards and superintendents had more control than black principals over individual school's staffing." In the 1950s, about half of all college-educated African Americans went into teaching -- one of the few fields open to black professionals.
Philadelphia closed twenty-four schools in 2013. By the 2013-14 school year, the Philadelphia district had 3,885 fewer staff members -- teachers, nurses, counselors, secretaries and aides -- than it had at the end of 2011, a decrease of sixteen percent. Thirty percent of all charter school students now come from outside the Philadelphia district and white per-student public money follows them. Moreover, Philadelphia has extra costs (such as transportation) that aren't offset. Traditional schools in Philadelphia and elsewhere educate ten percent more students living in poverty, four percent more English learners and two percent more students with special needs. [3]
II. Female Juvenile Detainees
Nearly 50,000 adolescent girls enter the courts every year because of a system of criminalizing low-level offenses that has long been biased against girls. "Once a kid is roped into the system, she can be drawn in again and again for minor violations of her probation. As a result, the portion of juvenile detainees who are locked up for status offenses and technical violations has hovered around twenty-five percent. [4]
Between 1995 and 2009, cases of breaking curfew rose by twenty-three percent for girls -- and just one percent for boys. By 2113, girls were almost twice as likely as boys to be in detention for simple assault and certain other nonviolent offenses. "Parental bias morphs into police bias, which morphs into court bias." [5]
There is a 2013 study finding that the likelihood of black girls being found guilty for a status offense is almost three times greater than the likelihood for white girls, and a 2015 study showed that forty-one percent of LGBTQ girls in detention were there for status offenses, compared with about thirty-five percent of straight girls.
Footnotes
[1] Kristina Rigga, "Black Teachers Matter," Mother Jones, September/October 2016.
[2] Ibid.; [3] Ibid.
[4] Hannah Levintova, "Minor Threats," Mother Jones, September/October 2016.
[5] Ibid.
Monday, September 5, 2016
Fact-Checking Donald Trump
1. Trump said there's a ISIS attack launched every 84 hours. Response: The Intel Center says there have been about three attacks every month over the 26 months covered by their data.
2. The rise of ISIS is the direct result of policy decisions of Obama and Clinton. Response: Washington Post reporter Joby Warrick, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his book on the rise of the Islamic State, links the rise to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
3. Iran is flush with $150 billion in cash from the U.S. Treasury Department and after Iran meets other obligations, it will have about $55 billion left. Response: This is frozen Iranian assets, which a court has ordered the U.S. to return to Iran.
4. Trump claims everything bad internationally started with President Obama's "Apology Tour." Response: The "Apology Tour" is a discredited GOP talking point.
5. Hillary Clinton is responsible for the disaster in Libya. Response: Buzzfeed has found a 2011 video in which Trump says: "Gaddafi in Libya is killing thousands of people. Nobody knows how bad it is, and we're sitting around. We have soldiers all over the Middle East, and we're not bringing them in to stop this horrible carnage, and that's what it is: It's a carnage.... Now we should go in, we should stop this guy, which would be very easy, and very quick."
6. Trump says: "I was an opponent of the Iraq war from the beginning." Response: There is no clear record that Donald Trump was against the war from the beginning. He has claimed he stated he was against the war in a January 2003 on Fox News with Neil Cavuto. Trump was ambiguous on that show. He said we've got to do something or not do something. "Perhaps [we] shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know." Also to be noted: Trump said he supported the invasion of Iraq on the Howard Stern Show.
Trump said: "In August of 2004, very early, right after the conflict, I made a detailed statement to Esquire magazine [opposing the war.)" This is nearly eighteen months after the invasion, a time when opposition had begun to build against the war.
7. Trump said that Obama "got us out the wrong way," referring to Iraq. But in March 2007, Trump said we should just "declare victory and leave."
8. Trump has said that Hillary Clinton will admit 620,000 refugees in her first term. Clinton has proposed admitting 55,000 in her first term.
9. Trump has said: "Keep the oil! Keep the oil!" referring to Iraq. Response: All of the oil used and sold by ISIS is from Syria. Keeping the oil would be a violation of international law.
10. Trump has hailed the autocratic Egyptian president Abdel Fatah al-Sissi. Response: President al-Sissi came to power in a military coup in 2003 and has since instituted a crackdown on dissidents.
11. Trump has proposed "extreme, extreme vetting." He wants a new screening test for the threats we face today. Response: Current U.S. naturalization law requires adherence to "the principles of the Constitution of the United States" and rejects advocacy of ideological positions; also, those with proclivities, in the judgment of immigration officials, to commit crimes can be denied admission.
12. Trump would use military commissions to try U.S. citizens charged with terrorist activity. Response: The use of military commissions is currently prohibited by law.
2. The rise of ISIS is the direct result of policy decisions of Obama and Clinton. Response: Washington Post reporter Joby Warrick, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his book on the rise of the Islamic State, links the rise to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
3. Iran is flush with $150 billion in cash from the U.S. Treasury Department and after Iran meets other obligations, it will have about $55 billion left. Response: This is frozen Iranian assets, which a court has ordered the U.S. to return to Iran.
4. Trump claims everything bad internationally started with President Obama's "Apology Tour." Response: The "Apology Tour" is a discredited GOP talking point.
5. Hillary Clinton is responsible for the disaster in Libya. Response: Buzzfeed has found a 2011 video in which Trump says: "Gaddafi in Libya is killing thousands of people. Nobody knows how bad it is, and we're sitting around. We have soldiers all over the Middle East, and we're not bringing them in to stop this horrible carnage, and that's what it is: It's a carnage.... Now we should go in, we should stop this guy, which would be very easy, and very quick."
6. Trump says: "I was an opponent of the Iraq war from the beginning." Response: There is no clear record that Donald Trump was against the war from the beginning. He has claimed he stated he was against the war in a January 2003 on Fox News with Neil Cavuto. Trump was ambiguous on that show. He said we've got to do something or not do something. "Perhaps [we] shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know." Also to be noted: Trump said he supported the invasion of Iraq on the Howard Stern Show.
Trump said: "In August of 2004, very early, right after the conflict, I made a detailed statement to Esquire magazine [opposing the war.)" This is nearly eighteen months after the invasion, a time when opposition had begun to build against the war.
7. Trump said that Obama "got us out the wrong way," referring to Iraq. But in March 2007, Trump said we should just "declare victory and leave."
8. Trump has said that Hillary Clinton will admit 620,000 refugees in her first term. Clinton has proposed admitting 55,000 in her first term.
9. Trump has said: "Keep the oil! Keep the oil!" referring to Iraq. Response: All of the oil used and sold by ISIS is from Syria. Keeping the oil would be a violation of international law.
10. Trump has hailed the autocratic Egyptian president Abdel Fatah al-Sissi. Response: President al-Sissi came to power in a military coup in 2003 and has since instituted a crackdown on dissidents.
11. Trump has proposed "extreme, extreme vetting." He wants a new screening test for the threats we face today. Response: Current U.S. naturalization law requires adherence to "the principles of the Constitution of the United States" and rejects advocacy of ideological positions; also, those with proclivities, in the judgment of immigration officials, to commit crimes can be denied admission.
12. Trump would use military commissions to try U.S. citizens charged with terrorist activity. Response: The use of military commissions is currently prohibited by law.
Sunday, September 4, 2016
Nuke-Arms Race; Leahy Law; Eviction/Poverty Nexus; and Med Pot Cost
*Accelerating the Nuke-Arms Race - Although Barack Obama made a speech in the Middle East early in his presidency in which he proclaimed a goal of eliminating nuclear weapons from the world, as Amy Goodman puts it: "You cannot preach abstinence, in terms of nuclear weapons, from the biggest bar stool in the room." The modernization program for nuclear weapons is projected to cost $1 trillion over the course of thirty years-plus, after deployment in about 2035, of a new nuclear weapons-equipped submarine fleet and a long-range bomber capable of carrying nuclear warheads. "As with his pledge to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, his pledge to move the U.S. toward nuclear disarmament seems to have been abandoned." [1]
*90% Cut in Nuclear Arsenal - Three high-ranking U.S. military officers, including Air Force Colonel B. Chance Saltzman, Chief of the U.S. Air Force's Strategic Plans and Policy Division, recommended keeping only 311 nuclear weapons. Their recommendation was based on the explosive power which former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamera calculated would destroy the Soviet Union as a functioning entity.
In 2012, a Russian proposal to cut 1,950 active warheads was killed by two U.S. senators from Montana, who wanted to save Malstrom AFB. The "ICBM Coalition," composed of ten U.S. senators wants to keep all ICBM sites in their states immune from elimination. [2]
*Leahy Law - In a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and ten House representatives wrote: "There have been a disturbing number of reports of possible gross violations of human rights by security forces in Israel and Egypt -- incidents that may have involved recipients, or potential recipients, of US military assistance. We urge you to determine if these reports are credible and to inform us of your findings."
The Leahy Law restricts foreign forces from receiving U.S. military assistance if there is credible evidence that they have committed a gross human rights violation and their government has failed to make them accountable. The Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP) explains: The congressional letter expresses concern that Israel and Egypt are not being subjected to the same level of rigorous monitoring applied to other aid recipients. Congressional oversight and a uniform system of monitoring are crucial to ensure that all recipients of U.S. aid are treated fairly and that U.S. foreign aid does not make the United States complicit in human rights violations."
*Eviction a Cause, Not a Condition of Poverty - In a review of a book by Matthew Desmond, the Nation magazine raises the question of whether eviction from one's home is a cause, not a condition of poverty. Desmond writes that eviction of renters in Milwaukee, Wisconsin wasn't a daily event, it was an hourly one. In a city with less than 105,000 renter households, 16,000 adults and children were being evicted every year, amounting to one in eight renters between 2009 and 2011. The movers were noticeably ubiguitous in black neighborhoods, where female renters were nine times as likely to be forced out of their homes as women in poor white neighborhoods. "In fact, just 15 percent of poor renters live in public housing; the rest must navigate the private market, where the demand for affordable housing is so great that the average rent in desolate slums is only marginally less than in middle-class neighborhoods, even for decrepit units with moldering walls and broken appliances." [3]
Matthew Desmond notes that tax benefits for middle-class and affluent homeowners exceeded $171 billion in 2008. He says that figure dwarfs the estimated $22.5 billion needed to give every poor renter in the country a housing voucher.
*Med Pot in New Mexico
"The big secret about medical marijuana is that those with a serious illness who don't have the means to get their cannabis card are still subject to arrest if they seek relief on the black market." "To get on the medical cannabis program, you have to get documentation from your doctor proving that you have an approved diagnosis. Then you have to pay around $150 to a medical marijuana doctor, who will fill out your paper work and hand you an envelope to mail to Santa Fe. Then you wait to see if your card arrives." [4]
The current New Mexico state limit of 450 plants per producer limits availability, which drives up prices. Colorado is less stringent and its medical prices are as much as $5 less per gram.
Footnotes
[1] Amy Goodman, "Obama accelerates nuke-arms race," The Albuquerque Journal, April 16, 2016.
[2] John LaForge, "Voices of Reason vs. the Doomsday Lobby," peaceworker. org, April 29, 2016.
[3] Eyal Press, "Will a New Book Change How We Think About Poverty?" The Nation, April 25/May 2, 2016.
[4] Tom O'Connell, "With Med Pot Legal, why Buy in the Street?" ABQ Free Press, April 6-19, 2016.
*90% Cut in Nuclear Arsenal - Three high-ranking U.S. military officers, including Air Force Colonel B. Chance Saltzman, Chief of the U.S. Air Force's Strategic Plans and Policy Division, recommended keeping only 311 nuclear weapons. Their recommendation was based on the explosive power which former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamera calculated would destroy the Soviet Union as a functioning entity.
In 2012, a Russian proposal to cut 1,950 active warheads was killed by two U.S. senators from Montana, who wanted to save Malstrom AFB. The "ICBM Coalition," composed of ten U.S. senators wants to keep all ICBM sites in their states immune from elimination. [2]
*Leahy Law - In a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and ten House representatives wrote: "There have been a disturbing number of reports of possible gross violations of human rights by security forces in Israel and Egypt -- incidents that may have involved recipients, or potential recipients, of US military assistance. We urge you to determine if these reports are credible and to inform us of your findings."
The Leahy Law restricts foreign forces from receiving U.S. military assistance if there is credible evidence that they have committed a gross human rights violation and their government has failed to make them accountable. The Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP) explains: The congressional letter expresses concern that Israel and Egypt are not being subjected to the same level of rigorous monitoring applied to other aid recipients. Congressional oversight and a uniform system of monitoring are crucial to ensure that all recipients of U.S. aid are treated fairly and that U.S. foreign aid does not make the United States complicit in human rights violations."
*Eviction a Cause, Not a Condition of Poverty - In a review of a book by Matthew Desmond, the Nation magazine raises the question of whether eviction from one's home is a cause, not a condition of poverty. Desmond writes that eviction of renters in Milwaukee, Wisconsin wasn't a daily event, it was an hourly one. In a city with less than 105,000 renter households, 16,000 adults and children were being evicted every year, amounting to one in eight renters between 2009 and 2011. The movers were noticeably ubiguitous in black neighborhoods, where female renters were nine times as likely to be forced out of their homes as women in poor white neighborhoods. "In fact, just 15 percent of poor renters live in public housing; the rest must navigate the private market, where the demand for affordable housing is so great that the average rent in desolate slums is only marginally less than in middle-class neighborhoods, even for decrepit units with moldering walls and broken appliances." [3]
Matthew Desmond notes that tax benefits for middle-class and affluent homeowners exceeded $171 billion in 2008. He says that figure dwarfs the estimated $22.5 billion needed to give every poor renter in the country a housing voucher.
*Med Pot in New Mexico
"The big secret about medical marijuana is that those with a serious illness who don't have the means to get their cannabis card are still subject to arrest if they seek relief on the black market." "To get on the medical cannabis program, you have to get documentation from your doctor proving that you have an approved diagnosis. Then you have to pay around $150 to a medical marijuana doctor, who will fill out your paper work and hand you an envelope to mail to Santa Fe. Then you wait to see if your card arrives." [4]
The current New Mexico state limit of 450 plants per producer limits availability, which drives up prices. Colorado is less stringent and its medical prices are as much as $5 less per gram.
Footnotes
[1] Amy Goodman, "Obama accelerates nuke-arms race," The Albuquerque Journal, April 16, 2016.
[2] John LaForge, "Voices of Reason vs. the Doomsday Lobby," peaceworker. org, April 29, 2016.
[3] Eyal Press, "Will a New Book Change How We Think About Poverty?" The Nation, April 25/May 2, 2016.
[4] Tom O'Connell, "With Med Pot Legal, why Buy in the Street?" ABQ Free Press, April 6-19, 2016.
Friday, September 2, 2016
Donald Trump's Head-Spinning Reversals on Immigration Policy
In 2011, Donald Trump favored a case-by-case review of illegal immigrants -- some "great" and "productive" people; others "total disasters" -- to determine who should stay and who should go.
In 2012, Trump derided Mitt Romney's tone on immigration as "mean-spirited" -- the former Massachusetts governor had hoped that illegal immigrants would "self-deport."
In 2013, Trump seemed to embrace the Gang of Eight bill then on its way to being passed in the U.S. Senate, tweeting that "amnesty" was fine but "only if the border is secure and illegal immigration has stopped."
In 2015, Trump called Mexicans criminals and rapists and promised to build a wall, establish a deportation force, round up all the undocumented immigrants.
When Donald Trump met with what was called his Hispanic council on August 20, he seemed genuinely interested in softening his immigration policy and even accepting a legal status for undocumented immigrants. That night in a speech in Virginia, he barely mentioned immigration policy. On August 21, his press agent responded "To be determined," concerning his pledge to deport all undocumented immigrants. On August 22, on the "Kelly File," the press agent, Conway, said "[Trump will] deport those who have absolutely committed a crime." On August 23, Trump slammed Hillary Clinton for promising "massive amnesty." On May 24, Trump promised "no amnesty." On the same day in Jackson, Mississippi, he blasted the media for downplaying the "plight of Americans." On August 25, another spokesperson, Katrina Pierson, said Trump has not changed his position on immigration. Conway said there would be "no amnesty, no sanctuary cities, and no open borders."
Any mention of softening immigration policy went away when Trump made his long-anticipated but delayed speech on immigration in Arizona. He said he would build a "Great Wall" and Mexico would pay for it. He referenced Dwight Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback" without providing any specifics. He, maybe jokingly, expressed a wish to deport Hillary Clinton. After seemingly having abandoned his earlier pledge to create a "deportation task force, he resurrected the idea in his Arizona speech. Two million "criminal aliens" would be deported, starting on "day one." There would be no amnesty and all illegals would have to leave and then try to come back. He also made an unsupported claim that there were 30 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.
Donald Trump's surrogates made much of how presidential Trump appeared standing at a podium next to Mexican President Nieto; however, almost anyone with even a modest presence of mind could have pulled that simple feat off. More important was that Trump said that he and Nieto hadn't discussed Trump's proposal to have Mexico pay for the "Great Wall." Reuters had reported that Nieto had rejected Trump's proposal and Nieto later tweeted that he had told Trump in the very beginning of their conversation that Mexico would not pay.
A day after the Arizona speech, Donald Trump said that there could be "quite a bit" of softening in how his administration would carry out the deportation. That is, after the criminals are sent out, there could be a lull before the others were sent out. One of the council Hispanics has resigned and another one has said he is unlikely to support or vote for Trump. It is a virtual certainty that there will be Hispanics who may have considered coming over to Trump because of a softening position will now back away due to his hard-line stand. I see it likely that some who originally were brought over to Trump due to his tough position on undocumented immigrants, will back away due to Trump's constantly shifting positions on what he might do on immigration if elected president.
In conclusion, the issue that made it possible for Trump to win the Republican nomination for president, may be the extremely clumsy handling of the issue that will kill any chance of him being elected president.
In 2012, Trump derided Mitt Romney's tone on immigration as "mean-spirited" -- the former Massachusetts governor had hoped that illegal immigrants would "self-deport."
In 2013, Trump seemed to embrace the Gang of Eight bill then on its way to being passed in the U.S. Senate, tweeting that "amnesty" was fine but "only if the border is secure and illegal immigration has stopped."
In 2015, Trump called Mexicans criminals and rapists and promised to build a wall, establish a deportation force, round up all the undocumented immigrants.
When Donald Trump met with what was called his Hispanic council on August 20, he seemed genuinely interested in softening his immigration policy and even accepting a legal status for undocumented immigrants. That night in a speech in Virginia, he barely mentioned immigration policy. On August 21, his press agent responded "To be determined," concerning his pledge to deport all undocumented immigrants. On August 22, on the "Kelly File," the press agent, Conway, said "[Trump will] deport those who have absolutely committed a crime." On August 23, Trump slammed Hillary Clinton for promising "massive amnesty." On May 24, Trump promised "no amnesty." On the same day in Jackson, Mississippi, he blasted the media for downplaying the "plight of Americans." On August 25, another spokesperson, Katrina Pierson, said Trump has not changed his position on immigration. Conway said there would be "no amnesty, no sanctuary cities, and no open borders."
Any mention of softening immigration policy went away when Trump made his long-anticipated but delayed speech on immigration in Arizona. He said he would build a "Great Wall" and Mexico would pay for it. He referenced Dwight Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback" without providing any specifics. He, maybe jokingly, expressed a wish to deport Hillary Clinton. After seemingly having abandoned his earlier pledge to create a "deportation task force, he resurrected the idea in his Arizona speech. Two million "criminal aliens" would be deported, starting on "day one." There would be no amnesty and all illegals would have to leave and then try to come back. He also made an unsupported claim that there were 30 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.
Donald Trump's surrogates made much of how presidential Trump appeared standing at a podium next to Mexican President Nieto; however, almost anyone with even a modest presence of mind could have pulled that simple feat off. More important was that Trump said that he and Nieto hadn't discussed Trump's proposal to have Mexico pay for the "Great Wall." Reuters had reported that Nieto had rejected Trump's proposal and Nieto later tweeted that he had told Trump in the very beginning of their conversation that Mexico would not pay.
A day after the Arizona speech, Donald Trump said that there could be "quite a bit" of softening in how his administration would carry out the deportation. That is, after the criminals are sent out, there could be a lull before the others were sent out. One of the council Hispanics has resigned and another one has said he is unlikely to support or vote for Trump. It is a virtual certainty that there will be Hispanics who may have considered coming over to Trump because of a softening position will now back away due to his hard-line stand. I see it likely that some who originally were brought over to Trump due to his tough position on undocumented immigrants, will back away due to Trump's constantly shifting positions on what he might do on immigration if elected president.
In conclusion, the issue that made it possible for Trump to win the Republican nomination for president, may be the extremely clumsy handling of the issue that will kill any chance of him being elected president.
Thursday, September 1, 2016
Rising Vehicle Delinquencies and Repossessions
I. Vehicle Delinquencies and Repossessions
Vehicle delinquencies and repossessions are on the rise industry-wide and there have been reports of falsified loan applications. At least eight banks have come under scrutiny for allegedly jacking up interest rates on African American and Latino car buyers. [1] Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MASS) says: "The market is now thick with loose underwriting standards, predators and discriminatory lending practices and increasing repossessions."
When a Wall Street reporter arrived in Michigan to profile Dan Foss and his business, Credit Acceptance, it wasn't uncommon to find customers saddled with interest rates as high as thirty percent. "Borrowers typically paid twice what the car had cost the dealer," the paper reported, "and often these vehicles didn't outlast the loans that financed them." [2]
Credit Acceptance "operates on the assumption that it will collect only 70 percent of the money it lends out --which means it will end up repossessing an awful lot of cars and using those customers for the balance." "In the meantime, subprime lenders have boosted their average interest rate on used cars from 16 percent to nearly 20 percent annually, guaranteeing that more customers will default and end up with punitive court judgments and garnished wages."
"The company Foss built now boasts a profit margin nearly double that of Google, and the kind of growth curve -- a $10,000 investment at the end of 2008 would today be worth more than $150,000 -- that leaves Wall Street drooling."
"Perhaps the biggest scandal of all, though, is that we've come to accept as normal the crippling rates auto financiers can legally impose on people. Subprime lenders routinely bilk their customers for close to the maximum amount a given state allows."
II. Emissions Chemistry
"Between 2002 and 2014, the data showed that US methane emissions increased by more than 30 percent, accounting for 30 to 60 percent of an enormous spike in methane in the entire planet's atmosphere." "[This] new Harvard data, which comes on the heels of other aerial surveys showing big methane leakage, suggests that our new natural-gas infrastructure has been bleeding methane into the atmosphere in record quantities. And molecule for molecule, this unburned methane is much more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide." "In fact, it's even possible that America's contribution to global warming increased during the Obama years." "Though it produces only half as much carbon as coal when you burn it, if you don't -- if it escapes into the air before it can be captured in a pipeline, or anywhere else along its route to a power plant or your stove -- then it traps heat in the atmosphere much more efficiently than CO2." [3]
The March 2016 Harvard study -- previously referred to -- used satellite data from across the country over a span of more than a decade to demonstrate that US methane emissions had spiked 30 percent since 2002. "The EPA's old chemistry and 100-year time frame assigned methane a heating value of 28 to 36 times that of carbon dioxide; a more accurate figure may be between 86 and 105 times the potency of CO2 over the next decade or two." "Instead of peaking in 2007 and then trending downward, as the EPA has maintained, our combined emissions of methane and carbon dioxide have gone steadily and sharply up during the Obama years." "If the Harvard data hold up and we keep on fracking, it will be nearly impossible for the United States to meet its promised goal of a 26 to 28 percent reduction in greenhouse gases from 2005 levels by 2025." "We need to stop the fracking industry in its tracks, here and abroad." "Over the same ten years, the price of a solar panel has dropped at least 80 percent. New inventions have come online, such as air-source heat pumps, which use the latent heat in the air to warm and cool houses and electric storage batteries." "In other words, the relatively small percentage of the planet's surface known as the United States accounts for much (if not most) of the spike in atmospheric methane around the world." [4]
ADDENDUMS:
The Universal Periodic Review takes place every four years to scrutinize the human and civil rights practices of each of the UN's 193 member nations. Delegates from 117 countries took the opportunity to lambaste the U.S. record of civil rights violations exacted by its "brutal and racist police forces." Over 400 people were killed by police in 2015 alone. The U.S.has "largely failed"to implement any of the 171 changes suggested in the prior UPR report.
With 88.8 guns per 100 people, the U.S. greatly surpasses India, with 4.2 guns per 100 people, and Australia, with 15 guns per 100 people. [5]
*"On campuses, 'party culture' no longer excuses rape -- it wasn't even considered to be rape until the mid-1980s, after a landmark study found that 1 in 4 college women said they'd been sexually assaulted." "In 2014, the Department of Education launched a Title IX investigation into 58 universities, after students alleged they were mishandling sexual-assaults complaints; today the tally is 192." [6]
Footnotes
[1] Gary Rivlin, "Car Trouble," Mother Jones, March/April 2016.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Bill McKibben, "Global Warming's Terrifying New Chemistry," The New Yorker, April 4, 2016.
[4] Ibid.
[5] "How Guns Stack Up," Time, Vol. 187, No. 24.
[6] Eliane Dockterman, "On campuses, 'party culture' no longer excuses rape," Time, Vol. 187, No. 24.
Vehicle delinquencies and repossessions are on the rise industry-wide and there have been reports of falsified loan applications. At least eight banks have come under scrutiny for allegedly jacking up interest rates on African American and Latino car buyers. [1] Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MASS) says: "The market is now thick with loose underwriting standards, predators and discriminatory lending practices and increasing repossessions."
When a Wall Street reporter arrived in Michigan to profile Dan Foss and his business, Credit Acceptance, it wasn't uncommon to find customers saddled with interest rates as high as thirty percent. "Borrowers typically paid twice what the car had cost the dealer," the paper reported, "and often these vehicles didn't outlast the loans that financed them." [2]
Credit Acceptance "operates on the assumption that it will collect only 70 percent of the money it lends out --which means it will end up repossessing an awful lot of cars and using those customers for the balance." "In the meantime, subprime lenders have boosted their average interest rate on used cars from 16 percent to nearly 20 percent annually, guaranteeing that more customers will default and end up with punitive court judgments and garnished wages."
"The company Foss built now boasts a profit margin nearly double that of Google, and the kind of growth curve -- a $10,000 investment at the end of 2008 would today be worth more than $150,000 -- that leaves Wall Street drooling."
"Perhaps the biggest scandal of all, though, is that we've come to accept as normal the crippling rates auto financiers can legally impose on people. Subprime lenders routinely bilk their customers for close to the maximum amount a given state allows."
II. Emissions Chemistry
"Between 2002 and 2014, the data showed that US methane emissions increased by more than 30 percent, accounting for 30 to 60 percent of an enormous spike in methane in the entire planet's atmosphere." "[This] new Harvard data, which comes on the heels of other aerial surveys showing big methane leakage, suggests that our new natural-gas infrastructure has been bleeding methane into the atmosphere in record quantities. And molecule for molecule, this unburned methane is much more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide." "In fact, it's even possible that America's contribution to global warming increased during the Obama years." "Though it produces only half as much carbon as coal when you burn it, if you don't -- if it escapes into the air before it can be captured in a pipeline, or anywhere else along its route to a power plant or your stove -- then it traps heat in the atmosphere much more efficiently than CO2." [3]
The March 2016 Harvard study -- previously referred to -- used satellite data from across the country over a span of more than a decade to demonstrate that US methane emissions had spiked 30 percent since 2002. "The EPA's old chemistry and 100-year time frame assigned methane a heating value of 28 to 36 times that of carbon dioxide; a more accurate figure may be between 86 and 105 times the potency of CO2 over the next decade or two." "Instead of peaking in 2007 and then trending downward, as the EPA has maintained, our combined emissions of methane and carbon dioxide have gone steadily and sharply up during the Obama years." "If the Harvard data hold up and we keep on fracking, it will be nearly impossible for the United States to meet its promised goal of a 26 to 28 percent reduction in greenhouse gases from 2005 levels by 2025." "We need to stop the fracking industry in its tracks, here and abroad." "Over the same ten years, the price of a solar panel has dropped at least 80 percent. New inventions have come online, such as air-source heat pumps, which use the latent heat in the air to warm and cool houses and electric storage batteries." "In other words, the relatively small percentage of the planet's surface known as the United States accounts for much (if not most) of the spike in atmospheric methane around the world." [4]
ADDENDUMS:
The Universal Periodic Review takes place every four years to scrutinize the human and civil rights practices of each of the UN's 193 member nations. Delegates from 117 countries took the opportunity to lambaste the U.S. record of civil rights violations exacted by its "brutal and racist police forces." Over 400 people were killed by police in 2015 alone. The U.S.has "largely failed"to implement any of the 171 changes suggested in the prior UPR report.
With 88.8 guns per 100 people, the U.S. greatly surpasses India, with 4.2 guns per 100 people, and Australia, with 15 guns per 100 people. [5]
*"On campuses, 'party culture' no longer excuses rape -- it wasn't even considered to be rape until the mid-1980s, after a landmark study found that 1 in 4 college women said they'd been sexually assaulted." "In 2014, the Department of Education launched a Title IX investigation into 58 universities, after students alleged they were mishandling sexual-assaults complaints; today the tally is 192." [6]
Footnotes
[1] Gary Rivlin, "Car Trouble," Mother Jones, March/April 2016.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Bill McKibben, "Global Warming's Terrifying New Chemistry," The New Yorker, April 4, 2016.
[4] Ibid.
[5] "How Guns Stack Up," Time, Vol. 187, No. 24.
[6] Eliane Dockterman, "On campuses, 'party culture' no longer excuses rape," Time, Vol. 187, No. 24.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)