I had anticipated the recent GOP debate on CNN with some apprehension. Was Donald Trump's rhetoric becoming so toxic that the rest of the Republican field might appear as rational human beings?
Not to worry! As The Hate-and-Fear-a-thon progressed, my concerns were soon relieved. Even Ohio Governor John Kasich, who's often cited by pundits as being the most moderate candidate, seemed a tad unhinged at times. About halfway through the debate, he harrumphed that the President and other world leaders attending the climate change conference in Paris should be focused on ISIS instead. Later on he growled, "It's time we punched the Russians in the nose."
Let's not forget New Jersey's Chris Christie. He seems to have anointed himself heir apparent to onetime New York mayor Rudy Giuliani's 9-11 mantle. Remember him from 2012? Elect me because .... 9-11! During a discussion focused on the use of air power against ISIS, including the establishment of a no-fly zone, Christie roared that we should shoot down any Russian plane that would dare invade "our" no-fly zone, no questions asked.
Without missing a beat, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, addressing the audience and gesturing toward Christie declared, "If you want World War III, there's your candidate." Yep, there he stood! Rand Paul, a voice of reason in the GOP wilderness, at least in the realm of foreign affairs. He later offered a spot-on rebuttal to a Donald Trump rant focused on "taking out terrorists' families" if necessary. Paul sagely stated, "There's a such thing as the Geneva Convention, which we'd have to pull out of." However, his closing statement propelled me back to the somber reality of Republican domestic policy. The Good Senator insisted that the national debt is our greatest threat, not the day-to-day struggle to survive and thrive faced by much of our nation. Among the GOP contenders, none of those concerns rated even a squeak. (As far as I know, no particular issue priorities were specified in the debate format).
I'm not suggesting for a moment that national security isn't an issue of vital concern. The Democratic candidates did address it during their most recent debate along with domestic priorities.
In the meantime, at the United Nations, diplomatic efforts continue with the intent of settling Syria's 5-year-long civil war. At the same time, all concerned parties including the United States --- represented by Secretary of State John Kerry --- are focused on weakening and eventually eliminating ISIS.
It's a slow, but productive process. The Democratic contenders support this effort, although there's some disagreement over tactics.
With the exception of Rand Paul, the GOP rivals insist that the only way to vanquish ISIS is by charging forward with guns a-blazin', 21st Century style --- with the good ol' USofA at the head of the wagon train. We all know how well that worked in Iraq.
Come November, we'll be facing a stark choice at the ballot box. Will we send a grownup to the White House, or a juvenile bully whose volatile hatreds could poison us all?
The whole world will be watching, folks.
Monday, December 21, 2015
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
A Suggestion for the Republicans' Theme Song
Back in 1951, a youthful crooner named Eddie Fisher topped the charts with a number known as Turn Back the Hands of Time. It was a lament for a time long gone. Here's the refrain:
Turn back the hands of time
Roll back the sands of time
Bring back the dream divine
Let's live it over again
Sixty-four years later, it's just as timely, unhip vibes notwithstanding. I can't imagine a more appropriate theme song for any and all events held on behalf of the Republican Party: fund-raisers, primary debates, even next year's convention in Cleveland. What could be more fitting in light of the Grand Old Party's retrograde priorities and values?
It's worth a listen. Without further ado, here's Eddie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kp-yN7KeFQ
Turn back the hands of time
Roll back the sands of time
Bring back the dream divine
Let's live it over again
Sixty-four years later, it's just as timely, unhip vibes notwithstanding. I can't imagine a more appropriate theme song for any and all events held on behalf of the Republican Party: fund-raisers, primary debates, even next year's convention in Cleveland. What could be more fitting in light of the Grand Old Party's retrograde priorities and values?
It's worth a listen. Without further ado, here's Eddie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kp-yN7KeFQ
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Not All Clowns are Harmless & Fun: Consider The Donald
Although never as popular as surreal cartoonist Gary Larson, creator of The Far Side, a gentleman who went by the name "J. Kliban" was almost as prolific. One of Kliban's single-panel works showed a circus clown heaving a pie at an unsuspecting guy in a suit, smashing his face into smithereens. The caption underneath read, "Using the Cement Pie".
A more contemporary clown has the potential to be just as dangerous as the one pitching the cement pie, only on an exponentially greater scale. His roof thatch resembles a deceased monkey and he likes to plaster his name on stuff. If he was to have his way, such stuff might include The White House, maybe even the grand edifice known as The Capitol.
Like many of my friends and kindred spirits, my initial impulse is to dismiss him as a buffoon. Yet according to every reliable poll, this self-anointed icon known as "The Donald" is ranking well ahead of his fellow Republicans. Many pundits will shrug off his numbers as a protest vote, a flash in the pan. They'll assert that he's peaking too early, that as the pool of candidates shrinks, someone else will emerge. Maybe so, maybe not. I'm not so sure that we should be relying on precedent.
Me? I'm concerned. Trump's toxic rhetoric is being taken seriously by many among this nation's most belligerent citizens. During one of his recent tirades, he accused Mexico of sending us their criminals and rapists. Not long afterward, a Latino male was brutally beaten by two white guys in South Boston. Then they urinated on him. Upon their arrest, one of the thugs hissed, "Trump was right. 'They' gotta go." An isolated incident? An aberration? I'm not so sure.
As far as I'm concerned, The Donald's unbridled racism in tandem with his fame/notoriety isn't the only thing that makes him dangerous. His juvenile tantrums and playground-style bullying make his Republican opponents appear to be the grownups in the room --- just by dint of the fact that they don't call female reporters bimbos. Sure, a Jeb or a John Kasich might have more respect for the process of governing, but their policy priorities could turn out to be nearly as deadly as Trump's. (For example, every single Republican candidate promises to cancel the agreement with Iran. They also insist that they'd "repeal Obamacare").
A guy who seriously believes that, as the leader of the planet's most muscular nation, he can rule by proclamation, with total disdain for the Constitution and the legislative process may sound like a buffoon. But consider the message that we'd be sending to the international community if we were actually to elect such a toxic clown.
Clowns are supposed to be funny. But I ain't laughin'!
A more contemporary clown has the potential to be just as dangerous as the one pitching the cement pie, only on an exponentially greater scale. His roof thatch resembles a deceased monkey and he likes to plaster his name on stuff. If he was to have his way, such stuff might include The White House, maybe even the grand edifice known as The Capitol.
Like many of my friends and kindred spirits, my initial impulse is to dismiss him as a buffoon. Yet according to every reliable poll, this self-anointed icon known as "The Donald" is ranking well ahead of his fellow Republicans. Many pundits will shrug off his numbers as a protest vote, a flash in the pan. They'll assert that he's peaking too early, that as the pool of candidates shrinks, someone else will emerge. Maybe so, maybe not. I'm not so sure that we should be relying on precedent.
Me? I'm concerned. Trump's toxic rhetoric is being taken seriously by many among this nation's most belligerent citizens. During one of his recent tirades, he accused Mexico of sending us their criminals and rapists. Not long afterward, a Latino male was brutally beaten by two white guys in South Boston. Then they urinated on him. Upon their arrest, one of the thugs hissed, "Trump was right. 'They' gotta go." An isolated incident? An aberration? I'm not so sure.
As far as I'm concerned, The Donald's unbridled racism in tandem with his fame/notoriety isn't the only thing that makes him dangerous. His juvenile tantrums and playground-style bullying make his Republican opponents appear to be the grownups in the room --- just by dint of the fact that they don't call female reporters bimbos. Sure, a Jeb or a John Kasich might have more respect for the process of governing, but their policy priorities could turn out to be nearly as deadly as Trump's. (For example, every single Republican candidate promises to cancel the agreement with Iran. They also insist that they'd "repeal Obamacare").
A guy who seriously believes that, as the leader of the planet's most muscular nation, he can rule by proclamation, with total disdain for the Constitution and the legislative process may sound like a buffoon. But consider the message that we'd be sending to the international community if we were actually to elect such a toxic clown.
Clowns are supposed to be funny. But I ain't laughin'!
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Li'l Brother Jeb: The Tail That Wagged Big Brother Dog
As he aspires to be the GOP's standard-bearer next year, Jeb Bush has been asked about his position on Iraq; would he have supported the United States' military intervention back in 2003, knowing all we know now?
During the first few days of being queried, it seemed as if Jeb was skittering all over the planet in his quest to find a comfortable response: yes, maybe, it depends, and ultimately settling on a less-than-sincere-sounding "no".
Having to endure living under Big Brother Dubya's shadow, Jeb has been heard to declare, "I am my own man". You know something? I believe him. Here's why.
Consider The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), a conservative think-tank funded largely by military contractors. The most prominent among these arms merchants were the Bechtel Corporation --- once headed by Donald Rumsfeld --- and Dick Cheney's Halliburton Corporation, which also held significant oil interests. PNAC was established in 1997 --- a year with no significant unrest requiring military action. Those military-industrial heavy-hitters and their Pentagon pals were hot to trot to rediscover meaning to their existence. Enter PNAC, stage right. Extreme right!
Established as a non-profit educational organization, their reason for existence was "to promote American global leadership" with an emphasis on "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity": In other words, American Exceptionalism. Their policy priorities were so intensely centered on the above tenets, they were totally tone-deaf to the needs and values of every other nation on earth.
When PNAC was launched, 25 of its strongest supporters cosigned the organization's "Statement of Principle". Ten among those 25 became prominent foreign policy advisors during the presidency of George W. Bush. Among those ten were the principal architects of our nation's tragic misadventure in Iraq: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. I think it's safe to assume that everyone in PNAC was totally on board with this. Other signatories of note included J. Danforth Quayle (otherwise known as "Dan"), and yep, a fella named John Ellis "Jeb" Bush). No, not Big Brother Dubya! Jeb!
So, returning to the original question: What would Presidential Candidate Jeb have done vis-a-vis Iraq? Because he was such a gung-ho acolyte of PNAC, there shouldn't be any doubt. I believe it would be fair to assume that Jeb read that "Statement of Principle" before he signed it. After all, he's widely considered to be "The Smart Bush".
So there's precious little doubt in my mind that Jeb is his "own man" as he insists. But I'm not sure that the same could be said for Big Brother Dubya.
Former President Cheney would probably concur.
During the first few days of being queried, it seemed as if Jeb was skittering all over the planet in his quest to find a comfortable response: yes, maybe, it depends, and ultimately settling on a less-than-sincere-sounding "no".
Having to endure living under Big Brother Dubya's shadow, Jeb has been heard to declare, "I am my own man". You know something? I believe him. Here's why.
Consider The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), a conservative think-tank funded largely by military contractors. The most prominent among these arms merchants were the Bechtel Corporation --- once headed by Donald Rumsfeld --- and Dick Cheney's Halliburton Corporation, which also held significant oil interests. PNAC was established in 1997 --- a year with no significant unrest requiring military action. Those military-industrial heavy-hitters and their Pentagon pals were hot to trot to rediscover meaning to their existence. Enter PNAC, stage right. Extreme right!
Established as a non-profit educational organization, their reason for existence was "to promote American global leadership" with an emphasis on "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity": In other words, American Exceptionalism. Their policy priorities were so intensely centered on the above tenets, they were totally tone-deaf to the needs and values of every other nation on earth.
When PNAC was launched, 25 of its strongest supporters cosigned the organization's "Statement of Principle". Ten among those 25 became prominent foreign policy advisors during the presidency of George W. Bush. Among those ten were the principal architects of our nation's tragic misadventure in Iraq: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. I think it's safe to assume that everyone in PNAC was totally on board with this. Other signatories of note included J. Danforth Quayle (otherwise known as "Dan"), and yep, a fella named John Ellis "Jeb" Bush). No, not Big Brother Dubya! Jeb!
So, returning to the original question: What would Presidential Candidate Jeb have done vis-a-vis Iraq? Because he was such a gung-ho acolyte of PNAC, there shouldn't be any doubt. I believe it would be fair to assume that Jeb read that "Statement of Principle" before he signed it. After all, he's widely considered to be "The Smart Bush".
So there's precious little doubt in my mind that Jeb is his "own man" as he insists. But I'm not sure that the same could be said for Big Brother Dubya.
Former President Cheney would probably concur.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
Removal of the Confederate Flags: A Feel-Good Gesture, But Also a Distraction.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad those rebel flags are gone. They represented a painful reminder of the old southern way of life, that made ownership of human beings not only legal, but desirable: symbolic of wealth and status. (Anybody remember when Dubya, during his second term, tried to promote an alternative to The Great Society? He touted it as "The Ownership Society". Different intent, but still an indication of his tone-deafness toward this nation's history).
The recent murder of nine African-American men and women --- pillars of their communities --- at the hands of an emotionally toxified, hatred-laden white kid inside an historic church in Charleston, South Carolina stunned the nation. In the wake of this tragedy, that state's governor, Nikki Haley ordered the removal of the Confederate flag from statehouse grounds. Public officials in other states including Mississippi followed suit.
Such actions were long overdue. Several states began flying the rebel flag in the 1960s --- not the 1860s --- in defiance of the budding civil rights movement: the ultimate neener-neener toward everyone intent on asserting their basic human rights.
So the act of scuttling this oppressive symbol made a lot of folks feel good. Rightfully so. But it also provided a distraction. Voting rights and gun control have been conveniently sidelined as vital issues.
Both urgently need to be addressed, yesterday if not sooner.
The recent murder of nine African-American men and women --- pillars of their communities --- at the hands of an emotionally toxified, hatred-laden white kid inside an historic church in Charleston, South Carolina stunned the nation. In the wake of this tragedy, that state's governor, Nikki Haley ordered the removal of the Confederate flag from statehouse grounds. Public officials in other states including Mississippi followed suit.
Such actions were long overdue. Several states began flying the rebel flag in the 1960s --- not the 1860s --- in defiance of the budding civil rights movement: the ultimate neener-neener toward everyone intent on asserting their basic human rights.
So the act of scuttling this oppressive symbol made a lot of folks feel good. Rightfully so. But it also provided a distraction. Voting rights and gun control have been conveniently sidelined as vital issues.
Both urgently need to be addressed, yesterday if not sooner.
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership Redux: Obama's Support of the Fast-Track Option a Head-Scratcher.
President Obama recently voiced his seemingly heartfelt concern over climate change during a visit to the endangered Florida Everglades. Yet despite heavy criticism from many fellow Democrats, he's been spearheading the effort to ramrod the Hatch-Ryan-Wyden Act, promoting the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership (TPP) through Congress without any opportunity to either debate or amend it. (In more genteel circles, the term fast-tracking is preferred). Among other things, it would stifle many of the efforts to combat climate change. So why is he contradicting himself?
The TPP bill has been a work in progress for at least the past two years. It's been conceived in quiet rooms with ample input from corporate poo-bahs and their lobbyists. No advocates for the environment / human rights / labor rights / economic fairness, or dogs allowed!
Everything associated with this measure is designed to be a deep, dark secret unfit for compassionate eyes. However, it appears as if parts of this proposal have been exposed to daylight on WikiLeaks.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, one of the TPP's most persistent critics was recently interviewed by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. The Good Senator said that members of Congress are able to read the bill, but are forbidden to copy or discuss any part of it. Assuming that the information in WikiLeaks is accurate, the effort to scuttle the TPP --- at least its most toxic provisions --- appears to be justified by well-founded concerns. Senator Warren knows what she's doing and has plenty of company, including fellow progressives such as Senators Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders as well as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
Possibly the most lethal provision in this act falls under the heading, Investor-State Arbitration: a.k.a. The Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). It apparently allows an investor, most commonly a massive multinational corporation, to sue a sovereign government for profits lost, by dint of the enforcement of laws designed to enforce fair labor standards, protect the environment, prevent price gouging, and maintain net neutrality, among other things.
In light of this revelation, and considering the devastating consequences of recent trade agreements, particularly NAFTA, it boggles my mind that any executive or legislator with a heart, especially Obama, would endorse the TPP as it stands. We all know what transpired in the wake of NAFTA; onetime presidential candidate Ross Perot referred to "a giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving the US. A few weeks ago, the President insisted that, in so many words, no more jobs would be outsourced as a result of the TPP because employers interested in shipping jobs elsewhere had already done so under NAFTA. Huh? That was 22 years ago!
An alternative to the fast-tracked TPP has been offered by Congressman Sander Levin, the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. He calls it The Right Track for TPP Act of 2015. (The full text is available on Representative Levin's website: levin.house.gov/press-release/levin-offer-tpa-substitute-put-tpp-right-track ).
Among other things, it would allow Congress some input, in effect scuttling the fast-track option. Labor, environmental, and human rights activists would also be included in the negotiating process. Above all, the most toxic component of the TTP as presently constituted would be disabled: The ISDS (described in Paragraph 5). In addition to an expanded role for other --- presumably more humane --- stakeholders, corporations would be restricted from overriding widely-accepted international standards.
The majority of Democrats have indicated that they'll give the original TPP bill thumbs down. They could well be joined by many Republicans, especially those who have expressed concern about executive overreach as well as issues compromising US sovereignty.
Maybe the Levin alternative bill could gather traction, if it's ever brought to a vote. If so, will the President wake up and smell the coffee?
(An earlier TPP-related post can be eyeballed on this blog:
See TPP: Another Deal Under the Radar, dated 4/8/13).
The TPP bill has been a work in progress for at least the past two years. It's been conceived in quiet rooms with ample input from corporate poo-bahs and their lobbyists. No advocates for the environment / human rights / labor rights / economic fairness, or dogs allowed!
Everything associated with this measure is designed to be a deep, dark secret unfit for compassionate eyes. However, it appears as if parts of this proposal have been exposed to daylight on WikiLeaks.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, one of the TPP's most persistent critics was recently interviewed by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. The Good Senator said that members of Congress are able to read the bill, but are forbidden to copy or discuss any part of it. Assuming that the information in WikiLeaks is accurate, the effort to scuttle the TPP --- at least its most toxic provisions --- appears to be justified by well-founded concerns. Senator Warren knows what she's doing and has plenty of company, including fellow progressives such as Senators Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders as well as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
Possibly the most lethal provision in this act falls under the heading, Investor-State Arbitration: a.k.a. The Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). It apparently allows an investor, most commonly a massive multinational corporation, to sue a sovereign government for profits lost, by dint of the enforcement of laws designed to enforce fair labor standards, protect the environment, prevent price gouging, and maintain net neutrality, among other things.
In light of this revelation, and considering the devastating consequences of recent trade agreements, particularly NAFTA, it boggles my mind that any executive or legislator with a heart, especially Obama, would endorse the TPP as it stands. We all know what transpired in the wake of NAFTA; onetime presidential candidate Ross Perot referred to "a giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving the US. A few weeks ago, the President insisted that, in so many words, no more jobs would be outsourced as a result of the TPP because employers interested in shipping jobs elsewhere had already done so under NAFTA. Huh? That was 22 years ago!
An alternative to the fast-tracked TPP has been offered by Congressman Sander Levin, the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. He calls it The Right Track for TPP Act of 2015. (The full text is available on Representative Levin's website: levin.house.gov/press-release/levin-offer-tpa-substitute-put-tpp-right-track ).
Among other things, it would allow Congress some input, in effect scuttling the fast-track option. Labor, environmental, and human rights activists would also be included in the negotiating process. Above all, the most toxic component of the TTP as presently constituted would be disabled: The ISDS (described in Paragraph 5). In addition to an expanded role for other --- presumably more humane --- stakeholders, corporations would be restricted from overriding widely-accepted international standards.
The majority of Democrats have indicated that they'll give the original TPP bill thumbs down. They could well be joined by many Republicans, especially those who have expressed concern about executive overreach as well as issues compromising US sovereignty.
Maybe the Levin alternative bill could gather traction, if it's ever brought to a vote. If so, will the President wake up and smell the coffee?
(An earlier TPP-related post can be eyeballed on this blog:
See TPP: Another Deal Under the Radar, dated 4/8/13).
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
A Robo-Call Can Kill You! Seriously!
Earlier today, April Fool's Day, I received an automated message on my land line from a company that peddles medical alert systems. Among the options they offer is a pendant equipped with an alarm that can alert emergency personnel with the touch of a button. A potential life-saving device, right?
But get this! The message, which lasted about two minutes tied up my phone for the duration of its playing time. I could not make an outgoing call. There was no way for me to disconnect or delete the message. Suppose someone receiving a lengthy robo-call was having a real medical emergency and was wholly dependent on that land line.
Precious seconds could make a difference between life and death. Imagine someone having a heart attack while being held captive by a robo-call hawking medical emergency devices. Imagine that hapless person being dispatched to a permanent slumber because that robo-spiel kept him from reaching 911.
In the wake of this morning's incident, I signed up with the National Do Not Call Registry, operated by the Federal Trade Commission. I urge my friends to do likewise.
P.S.: This is not an April Fool's joke.
But get this! The message, which lasted about two minutes tied up my phone for the duration of its playing time. I could not make an outgoing call. There was no way for me to disconnect or delete the message. Suppose someone receiving a lengthy robo-call was having a real medical emergency and was wholly dependent on that land line.
Precious seconds could make a difference between life and death. Imagine someone having a heart attack while being held captive by a robo-call hawking medical emergency devices. Imagine that hapless person being dispatched to a permanent slumber because that robo-spiel kept him from reaching 911.
In the wake of this morning's incident, I signed up with the National Do Not Call Registry, operated by the Federal Trade Commission. I urge my friends to do likewise.
P.S.: This is not an April Fool's joke.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Can Bibi Make Nice With the Centrists?
Much to the surprise and shock of many political prognosticators, Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu and his Likudniks emerged from Israel's recent elections victorious. However, the political composition of the newly constituted Knesset does not consist of a solid majority of Likud's ideological soul-mates, as the previous one did.
In fact, the Knesset actually shifted slightly leftward: the coalition of left-wing parties gained four seats formerly in the thrall of Likud and its rightist compatriots. The number of seats held by the two center parties remained constant.
One of the centrist groups, the Kulanu (Hebrew for "all-of-us") has endorsed the Likud-dominated coalition, giving it a solid majority of 67 seats in the Knesset; the threshold for a majority is 61. But this alliance could prove to be a shaky one. Sharp disagreements over domestic policy between the two parties could have an impact. The Likudniks have a long, bearded history of corruption and graft, as well as
preaching the gospel of selfishness. The income disparity within Israel is as significant as ours here in the US and is apparently becoming more acute.
Bibi's electoral support was dependent on his ability to frighten a significant number of Israeli Jews with his racist dog-whistles. He appears to have succeeded. But how long can it hold together? For starters, Kulanu Party leader Moshe Kahlon was expecting to be appointed as the Minister of Finance, despite his fractious history with Bibi. (Kahlon had been a Likudnik, but apparently broke away to form a new organization, most likely over colliding perspectives on domestic policy. He had previously been the finance minister until Netanyahu dismissed him). There are reports that one of the religious parties, United Torah Judaism, might be given control of finance instead.
Would that decision be enough to scuttle the coalition? Who knows. If domestic issues ever become as great a concern as Israel's 24-7 state of siege (partially self-induced), Bibi could be in trouble. Maybe if he convinces large numbers of Israeli Jews to continue hating on the Palestinians and the Iranians, he could survive.
Then again, suppose Netanyahu responds to international pressure, eases up on the Palestinians and speaks of statehood --- even if it's just lip service. A few of his extreme right-wing partners might well drop him like a hot potato: maybe enough to deep-six the coalition from his right flank.
One way or another, I believe that Bibi's --- and Likud's --- political future may be dicey. There are others who are far more familiar with the complexities of Israeli politics than I. Still, it's a gut feeling.
In fact, the Knesset actually shifted slightly leftward: the coalition of left-wing parties gained four seats formerly in the thrall of Likud and its rightist compatriots. The number of seats held by the two center parties remained constant.
One of the centrist groups, the Kulanu (Hebrew for "all-of-us") has endorsed the Likud-dominated coalition, giving it a solid majority of 67 seats in the Knesset; the threshold for a majority is 61. But this alliance could prove to be a shaky one. Sharp disagreements over domestic policy between the two parties could have an impact. The Likudniks have a long, bearded history of corruption and graft, as well as
preaching the gospel of selfishness. The income disparity within Israel is as significant as ours here in the US and is apparently becoming more acute.
Bibi's electoral support was dependent on his ability to frighten a significant number of Israeli Jews with his racist dog-whistles. He appears to have succeeded. But how long can it hold together? For starters, Kulanu Party leader Moshe Kahlon was expecting to be appointed as the Minister of Finance, despite his fractious history with Bibi. (Kahlon had been a Likudnik, but apparently broke away to form a new organization, most likely over colliding perspectives on domestic policy. He had previously been the finance minister until Netanyahu dismissed him). There are reports that one of the religious parties, United Torah Judaism, might be given control of finance instead.
Would that decision be enough to scuttle the coalition? Who knows. If domestic issues ever become as great a concern as Israel's 24-7 state of siege (partially self-induced), Bibi could be in trouble. Maybe if he convinces large numbers of Israeli Jews to continue hating on the Palestinians and the Iranians, he could survive.
Then again, suppose Netanyahu responds to international pressure, eases up on the Palestinians and speaks of statehood --- even if it's just lip service. A few of his extreme right-wing partners might well drop him like a hot potato: maybe enough to deep-six the coalition from his right flank.
One way or another, I believe that Bibi's --- and Likud's --- political future may be dicey. There are others who are far more familiar with the complexities of Israeli politics than I. Still, it's a gut feeling.
Friday, March 13, 2015
Bibi the Historian & Foreign Policy Maven
I listened intently to Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu's recent speech before the US Congress. Nothing he said really surprised me. Just vintage Bibi: Israel survives in a hostile neighborhood where all their neighbors hate them and want to see them wiped off the face of the map.
There are, however, two bothersome details that Bibi chooses to routinely ignore:
1) Israel's possession of a nuclear arsenal, the best-kept
secret that everybody knows.
2) The plight of the Palestinians. He didn't mention them
even once!
The Obama administration, under the stewardship of Secretary of State John Kerry, have been negotiating with their Iranian counterparts with the intent of achieving an agreement that both parties can live with. Yet Mr. Netanyahu has soundly condemned the entire process without even giving it a chance, let alone knowing anything about the provisions.
Bibi insists that the Iranians can't be trusted, because he believes, among other things, that they have secret sites for developing nuclear weaponry --- this, despite the fact that Israel's own intelligence agency, the Mossad, has assured him that Iran is a long way away from becoming a nuclear threat and that there's no evidence of any sort of hidden stash.
That stated, here's a hypothetical: Suppose the Iranians were on the verge of creating a nuclear weapon, despite their routine denials. Isn't it possible that they might believe themselves to be in mortal danger from Israel, and want one in self-defense? Realistically, why would Iran be more likely than Israel to initiate a nuclear catastrophe? The concept of mutually assured destruction worked flawlessly
during our Cold War with the Soviet Union.
Now, on to the subject of the region's history. Renowned Historian Benjamin Netanyahu stated that aggression against its Jewish minorities had occurred throughout the history of Iran and Persia. To a great extent that was true in varying degrees, up until the 20th Century. The Pahlavi dynasties were secular and didn't persecute Jews nor other non-Muslims for practicing their faiths. However, the senior Pahlavi, the first Shah of Iran, did ultimately declare allegiance to the Nazis. The younger Shah, Reza Pahlavi, a vicious autocrat --- loved by the US because he was an avowed anti-Communist --- brooked no opposition, executing his critics regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
There were, however, two short ages of enlightenment in 20th Century Iran, in 1905 and again in 1951. During the latter year, a freely elected secular democracy emerged, with Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh as its head-of-state. Progressive social policies, including social security and land reform were implemented.
An additional measure, which proved to be the Mossadegh administration's undoing, was the takeover of the privately owned Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which had been exploiting Iran's massive oil reserves for 38 years with preciously meager compensation for the Iranians. So the new government believed that the seizure was justified.
Unfortunately, the oil industry poobahs had issues with the Mossadegh administration's nationalization of Iran's oil; they prevailed upon the Central Intelligence Agency and their British counterpart, MI5, to engineer the overthrow of Mossadegh. (President Eisenhower approved the action --- not one of his more stellar decisions). Reza Pahlavi, the young Shah, was installed in his place. The fact that he was every bit as monstrous a tyrant as Saddam Hussein didn't seem to matter. He was our friend, as was Saddam prior to his incursion into Kuwait. Both regimes, as horrid as they were, were secular. Neither singled out Jews nor any other non-Muslims for religious persecution. (One of Saddam's heavy-hitters, Tariq Aziz was Roman Catholic).
The Shah prevailed for 26 years; the Iranians overthrew him with no outside help. Unfortunately, following a period of uncertainty, the Mullahs emerged as the supreme leaders. But once again, Jews have not been singled out for persecution. Most of Iran's Jewish community has since emigrated; only 8,600 remain. I'm not going to suggest that their life in Iran is idyllic, but they are apparently free to worship as they please.
If history is a reliable guide, the people of Iran have demonstrated that they're capable of determining their own destiny. With an increasingly younger demographic, it's probably just a matter of time.
Netanyahu's trigger-happy rhetoric serves no purpose other than to burnish his credentials as a champion of Israel's extreme right, without whose support he could well be defeated when Israel goes to the polls on March 17th. Oh yeah, he's also proven to be an obliging handmaiden of the congressional Republicans, as a vital cog in their relentless crusade to hobble President Obama.
Netanyahu and congressional Republicans' attempt to sabotage ongoing US negotiations with Iran amounts to a dangerous game of chicken. Willfully or not, our own home-grown right-wingers have established common cause with Iran's worst saber-rattlers. Fortunately, that country's foreign minister, Javad Zarif, who studied in the US, is savvy enough to know what's going on here on this side of the pond. But still, I find it mind-boggling that Mr. Boehner & Company are so hot to trot to have a roll in the sack with Iran's hardliners.
It's too bad that Bibi was born in Israel; he actually came of age in suburban Philadelphia. (Ever notice how he sometimes swallows part of a syllable with certain words such as water/wuddah?) Otherwise he could move back to the US and throw his hat in the ring as a Republican presidential candidate.
Y'know what? I'd bet he'd get nominated!
There are, however, two bothersome details that Bibi chooses to routinely ignore:
1) Israel's possession of a nuclear arsenal, the best-kept
secret that everybody knows.
2) The plight of the Palestinians. He didn't mention them
even once!
The Obama administration, under the stewardship of Secretary of State John Kerry, have been negotiating with their Iranian counterparts with the intent of achieving an agreement that both parties can live with. Yet Mr. Netanyahu has soundly condemned the entire process without even giving it a chance, let alone knowing anything about the provisions.
Bibi insists that the Iranians can't be trusted, because he believes, among other things, that they have secret sites for developing nuclear weaponry --- this, despite the fact that Israel's own intelligence agency, the Mossad, has assured him that Iran is a long way away from becoming a nuclear threat and that there's no evidence of any sort of hidden stash.
That stated, here's a hypothetical: Suppose the Iranians were on the verge of creating a nuclear weapon, despite their routine denials. Isn't it possible that they might believe themselves to be in mortal danger from Israel, and want one in self-defense? Realistically, why would Iran be more likely than Israel to initiate a nuclear catastrophe? The concept of mutually assured destruction worked flawlessly
during our Cold War with the Soviet Union.
Now, on to the subject of the region's history. Renowned Historian Benjamin Netanyahu stated that aggression against its Jewish minorities had occurred throughout the history of Iran and Persia. To a great extent that was true in varying degrees, up until the 20th Century. The Pahlavi dynasties were secular and didn't persecute Jews nor other non-Muslims for practicing their faiths. However, the senior Pahlavi, the first Shah of Iran, did ultimately declare allegiance to the Nazis. The younger Shah, Reza Pahlavi, a vicious autocrat --- loved by the US because he was an avowed anti-Communist --- brooked no opposition, executing his critics regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
There were, however, two short ages of enlightenment in 20th Century Iran, in 1905 and again in 1951. During the latter year, a freely elected secular democracy emerged, with Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh as its head-of-state. Progressive social policies, including social security and land reform were implemented.
An additional measure, which proved to be the Mossadegh administration's undoing, was the takeover of the privately owned Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which had been exploiting Iran's massive oil reserves for 38 years with preciously meager compensation for the Iranians. So the new government believed that the seizure was justified.
Unfortunately, the oil industry poobahs had issues with the Mossadegh administration's nationalization of Iran's oil; they prevailed upon the Central Intelligence Agency and their British counterpart, MI5, to engineer the overthrow of Mossadegh. (President Eisenhower approved the action --- not one of his more stellar decisions). Reza Pahlavi, the young Shah, was installed in his place. The fact that he was every bit as monstrous a tyrant as Saddam Hussein didn't seem to matter. He was our friend, as was Saddam prior to his incursion into Kuwait. Both regimes, as horrid as they were, were secular. Neither singled out Jews nor any other non-Muslims for religious persecution. (One of Saddam's heavy-hitters, Tariq Aziz was Roman Catholic).
The Shah prevailed for 26 years; the Iranians overthrew him with no outside help. Unfortunately, following a period of uncertainty, the Mullahs emerged as the supreme leaders. But once again, Jews have not been singled out for persecution. Most of Iran's Jewish community has since emigrated; only 8,600 remain. I'm not going to suggest that their life in Iran is idyllic, but they are apparently free to worship as they please.
If history is a reliable guide, the people of Iran have demonstrated that they're capable of determining their own destiny. With an increasingly younger demographic, it's probably just a matter of time.
Netanyahu's trigger-happy rhetoric serves no purpose other than to burnish his credentials as a champion of Israel's extreme right, without whose support he could well be defeated when Israel goes to the polls on March 17th. Oh yeah, he's also proven to be an obliging handmaiden of the congressional Republicans, as a vital cog in their relentless crusade to hobble President Obama.
Netanyahu and congressional Republicans' attempt to sabotage ongoing US negotiations with Iran amounts to a dangerous game of chicken. Willfully or not, our own home-grown right-wingers have established common cause with Iran's worst saber-rattlers. Fortunately, that country's foreign minister, Javad Zarif, who studied in the US, is savvy enough to know what's going on here on this side of the pond. But still, I find it mind-boggling that Mr. Boehner & Company are so hot to trot to have a roll in the sack with Iran's hardliners.
It's too bad that Bibi was born in Israel; he actually came of age in suburban Philadelphia. (Ever notice how he sometimes swallows part of a syllable with certain words such as water/wuddah?) Otherwise he could move back to the US and throw his hat in the ring as a Republican presidential candidate.
Y'know what? I'd bet he'd get nominated!
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Little Boys Play Dangerous Games: Speaker Boehner's Latest Neener-Neener
Relations between Congress and the White House have been exceptionally prickly in recent times. In particular, the negative vibes between House Speaker John Boehner and President Obama seems palpable. His Orangeness's dislike of the chief executive seemed evident at the State of the Union Address. His unrelentingly sour expression betrayed unhappiness over having to face Obama's backside. The populist tone of the president's message didn't help either.
Speaker Boehner has since taken the liberty of inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu to address the Congress on March 3rd. In the meantime, the Obama administration, under the able stewardship of Secretary of State John Kerry, is conducting delicate negotiations with Iran regarding that nation's nuclear capabilities.
Netanyahu has been the international community's most strident voice, shrieking for military action against Iran. He was also an unabashed supporter of Mitt Romney, who shared the prime minister's perspectives. And yes, Bibi has often displayed contempt for Obama.
Negotiations with Iran have been progressing, albeit slowly. However, within the past few days there's been significant progress. A Netanyahu tirade before the US Congress would not be an invitation to dance with the Iranian mullahs. It could do much to endanger the negotiations, perhaps even kill them.
Some members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have expressed their opposition to hosting Bibi. Good for them, but will there be enough of them to put the kibosh on this
ill-advised event?
It's hard to believe that Boehner's visceral dislike for the president could be so intense that he'd be willing to help launch another war of choice --- with Netanyahu as an especially willing accomplice.
Oh well, boys will be boys!
Speaker Boehner has since taken the liberty of inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu to address the Congress on March 3rd. In the meantime, the Obama administration, under the able stewardship of Secretary of State John Kerry, is conducting delicate negotiations with Iran regarding that nation's nuclear capabilities.
Netanyahu has been the international community's most strident voice, shrieking for military action against Iran. He was also an unabashed supporter of Mitt Romney, who shared the prime minister's perspectives. And yes, Bibi has often displayed contempt for Obama.
Negotiations with Iran have been progressing, albeit slowly. However, within the past few days there's been significant progress. A Netanyahu tirade before the US Congress would not be an invitation to dance with the Iranian mullahs. It could do much to endanger the negotiations, perhaps even kill them.
Some members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have expressed their opposition to hosting Bibi. Good for them, but will there be enough of them to put the kibosh on this
ill-advised event?
It's hard to believe that Boehner's visceral dislike for the president could be so intense that he'd be willing to help launch another war of choice --- with Netanyahu as an especially willing accomplice.
Oh well, boys will be boys!
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
He's Running for President, for Pete's Sake! Why? Because He Wants To!
It looks as if Mitt Romney has thrown his hat in the ring once again. Rand Paul, quoting Albert Einstein, implied that The Mittster is insane, to wit: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result."
Has Mitt really gone insane? Nah, I doubt it. He's running just because "I want to be president." Really! He's just a clueless rich guy, that's all. Does he honestly believe that his snide commentary regarding hard-working wage-earners being "takers" will have been forgotten? That remark was videoed for posterity by a resourceful guy working with a catering service at a lavish fund-raising event hosted by some of his fellow plutocrats. And, oh yeah, "corporations are people." Right?
Consider the roster of other Republicans who are making presidential noises. I mean who are we looking at? Jeb Bush (a so-called "moderate")? It shouldn't be forgotten that he was Florida's governor in 2000, when that state's electoral process was severely, and intentionally compromised. Brother Dubya was installed as our president in its aftermath. Rand Paul? (He'll never be nominated: too dovish. The military-industrial complex would never approve). Rick Santorum? Mike Huckabee? (Misogynists both). Scott Walker? (He alienated his state's public employees, especially teachers). Ted Cruz (The Joe McCarthy wannabe)? Marco Rubio? Bobby Jindal? Rick "Oops" Perry?
2016 should be a cakewalk for the Democratic nominee, right? Not so fast! Many Democrats have demonstrated an uncanny knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The 2014 midterm elections seem to bear that out. Instead of focusing on issues that most voters actually care about such as:
1) Declining wages and widening income inequality
2) Job and retirement insecurity
3) Corporate abuse, especially by Wall Street and the
mega-banks,
many Democratic candidates squandered precious energy and resources by running away from President Obama. (Allison Lundergan Grimes is a good example). Others ran lackluster campaigns: (Mary Burke, Scott Walker's opponent in Wisconsin, the gist of whose campaign was that she was running a successful business; and Martha Coakley in Massachusetts --- just a lousy campaigner and it was her second time 'round).
It's no wonder that so many potential Democratic voters didn't even bother to exercise their franchise. And of course, Harrumphing Old White Dudes always vote.
I dunno. Many political pundits have already anointed Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee. Sure, I'd support her however reluctantly, considering the alternatives. But I'm not convinced that she would ever say or do anything that would antagonize her potential corporate donors. (She once sat on the board at Walmart, one of the nation's most abusive employers). One more reason why the Citizens United Supreme Court decision has been such a stain on our democracy.
I'd love to see a woman elected president. But ideally, I'd rather that that woman be Elizabeth Warren.
Has Mitt really gone insane? Nah, I doubt it. He's running just because "I want to be president." Really! He's just a clueless rich guy, that's all. Does he honestly believe that his snide commentary regarding hard-working wage-earners being "takers" will have been forgotten? That remark was videoed for posterity by a resourceful guy working with a catering service at a lavish fund-raising event hosted by some of his fellow plutocrats. And, oh yeah, "corporations are people." Right?
Consider the roster of other Republicans who are making presidential noises. I mean who are we looking at? Jeb Bush (a so-called "moderate")? It shouldn't be forgotten that he was Florida's governor in 2000, when that state's electoral process was severely, and intentionally compromised. Brother Dubya was installed as our president in its aftermath. Rand Paul? (He'll never be nominated: too dovish. The military-industrial complex would never approve). Rick Santorum? Mike Huckabee? (Misogynists both). Scott Walker? (He alienated his state's public employees, especially teachers). Ted Cruz (The Joe McCarthy wannabe)? Marco Rubio? Bobby Jindal? Rick "Oops" Perry?
2016 should be a cakewalk for the Democratic nominee, right? Not so fast! Many Democrats have demonstrated an uncanny knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The 2014 midterm elections seem to bear that out. Instead of focusing on issues that most voters actually care about such as:
1) Declining wages and widening income inequality
2) Job and retirement insecurity
3) Corporate abuse, especially by Wall Street and the
mega-banks,
many Democratic candidates squandered precious energy and resources by running away from President Obama. (Allison Lundergan Grimes is a good example). Others ran lackluster campaigns: (Mary Burke, Scott Walker's opponent in Wisconsin, the gist of whose campaign was that she was running a successful business; and Martha Coakley in Massachusetts --- just a lousy campaigner and it was her second time 'round).
It's no wonder that so many potential Democratic voters didn't even bother to exercise their franchise. And of course, Harrumphing Old White Dudes always vote.
I dunno. Many political pundits have already anointed Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee. Sure, I'd support her however reluctantly, considering the alternatives. But I'm not convinced that she would ever say or do anything that would antagonize her potential corporate donors. (She once sat on the board at Walmart, one of the nation's most abusive employers). One more reason why the Citizens United Supreme Court decision has been such a stain on our democracy.
I'd love to see a woman elected president. But ideally, I'd rather that that woman be Elizabeth Warren.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)