“Corporations are people, my friend,” Romney said.
-- Mitt Romney, at the Iowa State Fair, August 11, 2011
11 August 2011
White bread GOP debt panelists
Okay, I realize that the Republican Party isn't very inclusive, and especially not at its top levels, but the best that Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader McConnell could come up with for the joint debt committee were a bunch of white guys in ties?
Nobody expects that members of Congress will be poor or homeless or unemployed, but let's face it: the people who will be most adversely affected by the cuts to be imposed by the panel will be poor or homeless or unemployed, just as they're the ones who have suffered the most from the long-running financial crisis left to America as a key component of George W. Bush's legacy.
But Boehner appointed Jeb Hensarling, Dave Camp and Fred Upton, while McConnell appointed Patrick Toomey, Jon Kyl and Rob Portman. Hensarling is a middle-aged wealthy white business executive from Texas; Camp is a middle-aged white lawyer from Michigan; Upton is a middle-aged white political drone from Michigan; Kyl is a middle-aged white lobbyist from Arizona; Toomey is a white financial wheeler-dealer and business executive from Pennsylvania; and Portman is a white political staffer from Ohio. Not exactly representative of the people suffering from our economic problems.
The Democrats on the panel are obviously not poor, homeless or unemployed either, but two are women, one is Hispanic, one is African American, one was a community organizer, one is a decorated combat veteran, one is the son of working class immigrants, and one is a former high-school teacher. Something tells me that they will bring to the debt discussions a greater intuitive understanding of the plight of ordinary Americans, and a greater awareness of how this unending recession is hurting them far more than it is hurting the moneyed classes so ably represented by the Republican members of the committee.
The Washington Post seems to have noticed the same imbalance: "Debt Supercommittee’s Membership Dominated by White Men."
Nobody expects that members of Congress will be poor or homeless or unemployed, but let's face it: the people who will be most adversely affected by the cuts to be imposed by the panel will be poor or homeless or unemployed, just as they're the ones who have suffered the most from the long-running financial crisis left to America as a key component of George W. Bush's legacy.
But Boehner appointed Jeb Hensarling, Dave Camp and Fred Upton, while McConnell appointed Patrick Toomey, Jon Kyl and Rob Portman. Hensarling is a middle-aged wealthy white business executive from Texas; Camp is a middle-aged white lawyer from Michigan; Upton is a middle-aged white political drone from Michigan; Kyl is a middle-aged white lobbyist from Arizona; Toomey is a white financial wheeler-dealer and business executive from Pennsylvania; and Portman is a white political staffer from Ohio. Not exactly representative of the people suffering from our economic problems.
The Democrats on the panel are obviously not poor, homeless or unemployed either, but two are women, one is Hispanic, one is African American, one was a community organizer, one is a decorated combat veteran, one is the son of working class immigrants, and one is a former high-school teacher. Something tells me that they will bring to the debt discussions a greater intuitive understanding of the plight of ordinary Americans, and a greater awareness of how this unending recession is hurting them far more than it is hurting the moneyed classes so ably represented by the Republican members of the committee.
The Washington Post seems to have noticed the same imbalance: "Debt Supercommittee’s Membership Dominated by White Men."
03 November 2010
Do unto the Republicans as they have done unto us
After yesterday's election in which the electorate rewarded the "Party of No" for thwarting every effort to improve Americans' lives and condition, President Obama said he takes "direct responsibility" for the failure to improve the nation's economy, and pledged to work with the strengthened Republicans. Meanwhile, Senator Reid said the vote shows Americans want jobs and cooperation.
That's like a robbery victim offering to co-sign bank loans for the criminal because the crime merely proved that the perp wanted the victim's cooperation in obtaining better access to funds.
The Republicans top goals were and are getting rid of President Obama, and preserving the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy. They have manifestly proven they have no interest in boosting employment or in seeking bipartisanship. Their electoral success was solely the result of their implacable opposition to everything the Democrats tried to do coupled with their success in blaming the Democrats for the impasse, while the Democrats dithered away their majority by foolishly holding on to a patriotic hope for bipartisanship.
Now that the Republicans have the House, what makes President Obama and Senator Reid think they'll be any more interested in compromise than they were before? Do they think that if they compromise with the Republicans that either they or they nation will benefit? No, all they would accomplish would be to further strengthen the Republicans at great cost to themselves and the American people. The Republicans aren't out to restore bipartisanship or help the nation; they're out to help the fat cats lurking behind them and to gain power for themselves. They clearly care nothing for the welfare of the country.
The Democrats must come to realize that giving in to the Republicans is suicidal for them, and harmful to the nation. President Obama and the Democrats' legislative leaders must oppose the Republican agenda just as unwaveringly as the Republicans opposed theirs.
That's like a robbery victim offering to co-sign bank loans for the criminal because the crime merely proved that the perp wanted the victim's cooperation in obtaining better access to funds.
The Republicans top goals were and are getting rid of President Obama, and preserving the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy. They have manifestly proven they have no interest in boosting employment or in seeking bipartisanship. Their electoral success was solely the result of their implacable opposition to everything the Democrats tried to do coupled with their success in blaming the Democrats for the impasse, while the Democrats dithered away their majority by foolishly holding on to a patriotic hope for bipartisanship.
Now that the Republicans have the House, what makes President Obama and Senator Reid think they'll be any more interested in compromise than they were before? Do they think that if they compromise with the Republicans that either they or they nation will benefit? No, all they would accomplish would be to further strengthen the Republicans at great cost to themselves and the American people. The Republicans aren't out to restore bipartisanship or help the nation; they're out to help the fat cats lurking behind them and to gain power for themselves. They clearly care nothing for the welfare of the country.
The Democrats must come to realize that giving in to the Republicans is suicidal for them, and harmful to the nation. President Obama and the Democrats' legislative leaders must oppose the Republican agenda just as unwaveringly as the Republicans opposed theirs.
01 November 2010
Such good company we keep
Cluster munitions are weapons such as bombs and artillery shells which contain a number of smaller bomblets which designed to be scattered about on impact. These bomblets, or sub-munitions, can remain active and dangerous long after they are distributed, posing active threats to civilians as they re-occupy the vicinity after the fighting has moved on or stopped.
Thus, a large number of civilians have been killed by cluster munitions have killed over the years, and some estimate that a quarter of them have been children who find unexploded sub-munitions and begin to play with them.
An international treaty banning most forms of cluster bombs was adopted on May 30, 2008 and went into effect August 1, 2010 after it had been ratified by 30 countries. The agreement permits signatories to keep certain types of relatively large submunitions which have self-destruction or de-activation mechanisms, thus permitting them to be used on the battlefield as anti-tank weapons and similar purposes. The treaty was opposed by some major users of cluster bombs, by signed by many others.
So far, 108 nations have signed the agreement, and 43 have ratified it. Among the NATO members which have ratified it are Britain, Germany, Denmark, Belgium and Norway. NATO nations which have signed it include Canada, France, Italy and the Netherlands. It has also been signed by such other important American allies as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Mexico, Chile, Iraq and Ireland.
Signatories must destroy their stockpiles of cluster munitions within ten years, but seven countries have already started doing so, and two more are clearing then from areas where they had been used.
Notable in their refusal to sign are the United States, Israel, Russia, China, Cuba and North Korea. The same sorry list has refused to sign the Ottawa treaty on landmines (formerly, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction). Such good company we keep!
It is time for America to join the community of nations working to make the world - and even the battlefield - safer for civilians. It is time for the United States to sign and ratify both the landmine and cluster munitions treaties.
Sources:
Convention on Cluster Munitions
Alastair Leithead, "Cluster Bomb Stockpiles 'Being Destroyed,'" BBC, November 1, 2010
John F. Burns, "Britain Joins a Draft Treaty on Cluster Munitions," New York Times, May 29, 2008
"Convention on Cluster Munitions," Wikipedia
International Campaign to Ban Landmines
Thus, a large number of civilians have been killed by cluster munitions have killed over the years, and some estimate that a quarter of them have been children who find unexploded sub-munitions and begin to play with them.
An international treaty banning most forms of cluster bombs was adopted on May 30, 2008 and went into effect August 1, 2010 after it had been ratified by 30 countries. The agreement permits signatories to keep certain types of relatively large submunitions which have self-destruction or de-activation mechanisms, thus permitting them to be used on the battlefield as anti-tank weapons and similar purposes. The treaty was opposed by some major users of cluster bombs, by signed by many others.
So far, 108 nations have signed the agreement, and 43 have ratified it. Among the NATO members which have ratified it are Britain, Germany, Denmark, Belgium and Norway. NATO nations which have signed it include Canada, France, Italy and the Netherlands. It has also been signed by such other important American allies as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Mexico, Chile, Iraq and Ireland.
Signatories must destroy their stockpiles of cluster munitions within ten years, but seven countries have already started doing so, and two more are clearing then from areas where they had been used.
Notable in their refusal to sign are the United States, Israel, Russia, China, Cuba and North Korea. The same sorry list has refused to sign the Ottawa treaty on landmines (formerly, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction). Such good company we keep!
It is time for America to join the community of nations working to make the world - and even the battlefield - safer for civilians. It is time for the United States to sign and ratify both the landmine and cluster munitions treaties.
Sources:
Convention on Cluster Munitions
Alastair Leithead, "Cluster Bomb Stockpiles 'Being Destroyed,'" BBC, November 1, 2010
John F. Burns, "Britain Joins a Draft Treaty on Cluster Munitions," New York Times, May 29, 2008
"Convention on Cluster Munitions," Wikipedia
International Campaign to Ban Landmines
06 October 2010
Lemonade
Getting laid off is more than dispiriting. Unemployment is a hemorrhaging slash in the psyche. In this economy especially, it verges on being disastrous.
That said, it can have its benefits.
This morning I was filing some e-mails I had sent during the months before and after being laid off, and I was reminded quite forcefully of how awful it was to work for a petty tyrant. Every morning my stomach would knot up, every day was nerve-wracking, every evening found me exhausted, and every night brought nightmares.
These days I feel isolated; I had never realized how much I had come to depend on my interaction with other people, and how empty a day at home can feel. That laceration in my psyche is still pretty raw. And I'm definitely worried about money.
But it is so nice to be free of that tyrant. The nightmares are gone, my stomach is quiet, my life is calm. I've even forgotten the private nickname I had for her. My life is incredibly more peaceful. And that's worth something.
Update: The name was Odious.
That said, it can have its benefits.
This morning I was filing some e-mails I had sent during the months before and after being laid off, and I was reminded quite forcefully of how awful it was to work for a petty tyrant. Every morning my stomach would knot up, every day was nerve-wracking, every evening found me exhausted, and every night brought nightmares.These days I feel isolated; I had never realized how much I had come to depend on my interaction with other people, and how empty a day at home can feel. That laceration in my psyche is still pretty raw. And I'm definitely worried about money.
But it is so nice to be free of that tyrant. The nightmares are gone, my stomach is quiet, my life is calm. I've even forgotten the private nickname I had for her. My life is incredibly more peaceful. And that's worth something.
Update: The name was Odious.
20 September 2010
The rich need jobs
There has been a fair amount in the press of late about the anger of the rich, both articles and columns. The rich, the people whose incomes put them in America's top 1%, seem to be increasingly upset about historically mild attempts to reign in some of the advantages they enjoy, steps like letting the Bush II tax cut for the top echelon expire, or limiting the bonuses paid to the top executives of the companies bailed out by the taxpayer, or closing tax loopholes for hedge fund executives, or levying the same Social Security tax on their wages as are levied on most workers, or even - horror of horrors - taxing some of their unearned income at rates corresponding to those levied on the sweat of the working man's brow.
The irony is that what the very rich need more than anything else is political stability. In the final analysis, their wealth and their way of life depend on the great mass of people less affluent than them being sufficiently satisfied with their lot to support the political, social and economic structures which permit the wealthy to exist, and to enjoy their wealth.
But persistently high unemployment and underemployment, increasing disparities in wealth, increasing poverty and increasing hopelessness imperil that stability. It is in the interests of America's very wealthy to support economic and social reforms and policies which would dampen such threats to stability, and they're not doing it.
Too many Americans need jobs, and they need them now. Allowing the Bush II tax cuts for the wealthy will not stimulate the economy or produce jobs. What will work is getting the unemployed back to work, and to do that, we as a nation need to start creating jobs, and the best way to do that would be to start investing in the infrastructural improvements, new technologies and new markets that can keep us competitive in the 21st Century.
Unless we create those jobs, more and more people will become increasingly desperate, and desperation brings enormous risks to stability. I don't wish to sound alarmist, but America is today approaching a point where all bets will be off, and political chaos could be a distinct possibility. The wealthy, just as much as the rest of us, have a vested interest in getting Americans back to work, and restoring hope and optimism throughout our land.
The irony is that what the very rich need more than anything else is political stability. In the final analysis, their wealth and their way of life depend on the great mass of people less affluent than them being sufficiently satisfied with their lot to support the political, social and economic structures which permit the wealthy to exist, and to enjoy their wealth.
But persistently high unemployment and underemployment, increasing disparities in wealth, increasing poverty and increasing hopelessness imperil that stability. It is in the interests of America's very wealthy to support economic and social reforms and policies which would dampen such threats to stability, and they're not doing it.
Too many Americans need jobs, and they need them now. Allowing the Bush II tax cuts for the wealthy will not stimulate the economy or produce jobs. What will work is getting the unemployed back to work, and to do that, we as a nation need to start creating jobs, and the best way to do that would be to start investing in the infrastructural improvements, new technologies and new markets that can keep us competitive in the 21st Century.
Unless we create those jobs, more and more people will become increasingly desperate, and desperation brings enormous risks to stability. I don't wish to sound alarmist, but America is today approaching a point where all bets will be off, and political chaos could be a distinct possibility. The wealthy, just as much as the rest of us, have a vested interest in getting Americans back to work, and restoring hope and optimism throughout our land.
12 September 2010
Go Skins?
Why do Washingtonians support a football team with a racist name?
Washington D.C. has a long and proud history of confronting racism and celebrating diversity. The city has seen so many demonstrations, rallies, marches, legislative actions and presidential initiatives denouncing racism or celebrating racial and ethnic diversity that one can justly consider it to be the epicenter of American equality.
Washington, D.C. is also at the heart of a large and proudly diverse populaiton. The city itself has a majority black population. The larger metropolitan region is extremely diverse and is on the threshold of having a majority minority population (i.e., no one ethnic group will comprise a majority of the population). Washington's elected mayors have all been African American or had significant African American ancestry.
Why then are its football fans so loyally committed to a team with a racist name? Why do they permit that team's owners to perpetuate their brand of racism? The term is offensive to large numbers, probably most, of the Native American community.
Some defend the term on various and mostly specious grounds, but consider putting "the shoe was on another foot" for a moment. Let's imagine using racial slang for another ethnic group as the team's name. Would Washingtonians support it if the team were named, say, the " Washington Darkies"? Or "Chinamen" or "Wops" or "Honkies" or "Dagos" or "Coolies" or "Crackers" or "Ragheads," or any other name used disparagingly to describe an ethnic group and offensive to a significant population of that group? I seriously doubt it. It the team's owners tried to change the name in such an odious way, fans and the general public would be outraged.
Why then do we accept the name "Redskins"? The name must be changed, and area fans should refuse to support the team - and especially its owners - until it is.
Washington D.C. has a long and proud history of confronting racism and celebrating diversity. The city has seen so many demonstrations, rallies, marches, legislative actions and presidential initiatives denouncing racism or celebrating racial and ethnic diversity that one can justly consider it to be the epicenter of American equality.
Washington, D.C. is also at the heart of a large and proudly diverse populaiton. The city itself has a majority black population. The larger metropolitan region is extremely diverse and is on the threshold of having a majority minority population (i.e., no one ethnic group will comprise a majority of the population). Washington's elected mayors have all been African American or had significant African American ancestry.
Why then are its football fans so loyally committed to a team with a racist name? Why do they permit that team's owners to perpetuate their brand of racism? The term is offensive to large numbers, probably most, of the Native American community.
Some defend the term on various and mostly specious grounds, but consider putting "the shoe was on another foot" for a moment. Let's imagine using racial slang for another ethnic group as the team's name. Would Washingtonians support it if the team were named, say, the " Washington Darkies"? Or "Chinamen" or "Wops" or "Honkies" or "Dagos" or "Coolies" or "Crackers" or "Ragheads," or any other name used disparagingly to describe an ethnic group and offensive to a significant population of that group? I seriously doubt it. It the team's owners tried to change the name in such an odious way, fans and the general public would be outraged.
Why then do we accept the name "Redskins"? The name must be changed, and area fans should refuse to support the team - and especially its owners - until it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
