Guns for all!

Bill Moyers writes:  “We talk about violence committed in the name of bigotry or religion. But what about the DEADLY firepower available to the killers?…an ELDERLY white supremacist and anti-Semite named James W. von Brunn allegedly walked into the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum with a .22-caliber rifle and killed security guard Stephen T. Johns.. the recent killing, while USHERING at his local church, of Dr. George Tiller, one of the few doctors in the country still performing late term abortions. Sadly, this case was proof that fatal violence works…the June 1st SHOOTINGS in an army recruiting office in Little Rock that killed one soldier and wounded another…the three policemen KILLED by an assault weapon in Pittsburgh; the four policemen killed in Oakland, California; the 13 people gunned down in Binghamton, New York; the 10 in an Alabama shooting spree; five in Santa Clara, California; the eight dead in a North Carolina, nursing home. All during this year alone.

There is much talk about HATE talk; hate crimes against blacks, whites, immigrants, Muslims, Jews; about violence committed in the name of bigotry or religion. But why don’t we TALK about guns?  We’re arming ourselves to death. Even as gunshots ricocheted around the country, an amendment ALLOWING  concealed weapons in national parks snuck into the popular credit card reform bill. Another victory for the gun lobby, to sounds of silence from the White House.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, wrote — just days before the Holocaust Museum incident — that “rather than propose CONCRETE action that makes it harder for dangerous people to get firearms — while still respecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners — all Washington can seem to muster after high-profile shootings are ‘thoughts and prayers’ for the victims and their families….So let the faithful of every persuasion keep their guns for hunting and skeet, for trap and target practice, for collecting. They can even have a permit for a gun to protect their business or home, even though it’s 22 TIMES MORE LIKELY to shoot a member of the family (including suicides) than an intruder.

But please, there are already some 200 million, privately owned firearms in America. Every year THERE ARE 30,000 gun deaths and in some years more than 400,000 non-fatal, gun-related assaults. The next time someone wades through a pool of blood to sidle up and champion the preservation of firearms, can’t we just say, no thanks?

Enough’s enough.”

(EMPHASIS MINE)

http://www.alternet.org/rights/140630/after_these_deadly_hate_attacks%2C_why_aren%27t_we_talking_about_guns/

The GOP and its base

William Rivers Pitt writes (in TRUTHOUT): ”  George W. Bush left office with a public approval rating under 30 percent. Less than 30 percent of Americans currently describe themselves as Republicans. The AMALGAM of evangelical Christians, hardcore gun-rights fanatics, anti-tax, anti-immigrant and anti-choice voters who make up the base of the Republican Party amount to less than 30 percent of the overall electorate.  These numbers reflect the PRESENT state of affairs for the GOP: they are a party CONTROLLED by their base, the same group of Americans whose SUPPORT for Bush never wavered, and who still call themselves Republican despite the SERIAL DEBACLES  of the last decade. These are the voters who LISTEN to Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity and Beck, who watch Fox News to the exclusion of every other network, who think evolution is a FRAUD because dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible, and who believe President Obama is a SECRET Islamic terrorist communist Jew with a bum birth certificate.

These voters have spent the last 30 years being the single most reliable voting bloc in the entire electorate, and this has come to present a potentially lethal PROBLEM for the Republican Party in general, and for their future electoral prospects specifically. For a long time, the loyalty of their voter base propelled the GOP into a position of complete dominance – if live, man-eating jaguars rained from the sky on election day, the GOP base would still turn out en masse to pull the handle for every candidate on the ballot with an “R” after their name, a fact that made the difference in a half-dozen midterms and at least two presidential elections.

    That loyalty made the GOP base the most muscular part of the party, but it is that very strength which is now TEARING the party to pieces. Consider the lesson that was provided during the 2008 Republican Party primary season. Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee became the darling of the GOP base, earning roughly 50 percent of the GOP base vote in virtually every Red-state primary. The other, more broadly popular GOP candidates like Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, needed those votes to prevail, but were forced to fight for the base-voter scraps left by Huckabee. This lack of base-voter support was what ultimately doomed their campaigns…

Huckabee stayed in the race just long enough to CRIPPLE Giuliani and Romney before fading away himself, and in the end, John McCain wound up winning the nomination pretty much by DEFAULT.

    The PROBLEM for McCain in the 2008 general election is the SAME one currently affecting the Republican Party at large: he could not win without the support of the GOP base, but the core beliefs of that base were so OUT OF TOUCH with mainstream America that McCain likewise could NOT win if he catered to them. He was forced to flee his previous positions on immigration, climate change, taxes and campaign finance reform to satisfy base voters who already roundly despised him because of his positions on immigration, climate change, taxes and campaign finance reform, and this ultimately deranged his whole campaign. Picking Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate was yet another sop to base voters, and is now widely believed to have been the last NAIL in his electoral coffin…a whole lot of Faustian chickens are coming home toROOST in the GOP’s crumbling coop. The party courted those base voters, championed them, pandered to them and ultimately empowered them. Now, that power is SUBSUMING the party, and for the time being, there is no end in sight. ” 

(EMPHASIS MINE)

SEE: http://www.truthout.org/060809R

Elections Matter!

Alternet:

Change: “…he also spoke of a knowledge deficit about Islam in the U.S. and the West, and said that “we have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam.”
Obama intends to DISTANCE himself from the policies of his predecessor, the wildly UNPOPULAR George W. Bush, and present a new image to the Muslim and Arab worlds. 

SEE: http://www.alternet.org/world/140444/bush_left_america’s_standing_in_the_mideast_at_rock_bottom_–_can_obama_turn_it_around_in_cairo/

From McClatchy:

CAIRO — President Barack Obama, courting Muslims internationally, said Thursday that the United States does not accept the legitimacy of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory and that “just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s.”

In a speech he conceived well before his election last November, aimed at repositioning U.S. standing in the Middle East in the wake of the Iraq war, and drafted with the help of prominent Muslim-Americans, Obama told an audience at Cairo University that “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world.”

The relationship, he said, should be founded on mutual interests and respect and “the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.”

see: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/

Regan pulled the trigger.

Writes Mr. Krugman: “This bill is the most important legislation for financial institutions in the last 50 years. It provides a long-term solution for troubled thrift institutions. … All in all, I think we hit the jackpot.”

So declared Ronald Reagan in 1982, as he signed the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act.

He was, as it happened, WRONG about solving the problems of the thrifts. On the contrary, the bill turned the modest-sized troubles of savings-and-loan institutions into an utter catastrophe. But he was right about the legislation’s significance. And as for that jackpot — well, it finally came more than 25 years later, in the form of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

For the more one looks into the ORIGINS of the current disaster, the clearer it becomes that the key WRONG turn — the turn that made crisis inevitable — took place in the early 1980s, during the Reagan years.

Attacks on Reaganomics usually focus on rising inequality and fiscal irresponsibility. Indeed, Reagan ushered in an era in which a small minority grew vastly RICH, while working families saw only meager gains. He also broke with long-standing rules of fiscal prudence. Traditionally, the U.S. government ran significant budget deficits ONLY in times of war or economic emergency. Federal debt as a percentage of GDP fell steadily from the end of World War II until 1980. But indebtedness began rising under Reagan; it fell again in the Clinton years, but resumed its rise under the Bush administration, leaving us ill prepared for the emergency now upon us.

 

The increase in public debt was, however, DWARFED  by the rise in private debt, made POSSIBLE by financial deregulation. The change in America’s financial rules was Reagan’s biggest LEGACY. And it’s the gift that KEEPS on taking.

The immediate effect of Garn-St. Germain, as I said, was to TURN the thrifts from a problem into a catastrophe. The S&L crisis has been written out of the Reagan hagiography, but the fact is that DEREGULATION in effect gave the industry — whose deposits were federally insured — a license to gamble with taxpayers’ money, at best, or simply to loot it, at worst. By the time the government closed the books on the affair, taxpayers had lost $130 billion, back when that was a lot of money.

But there was also a longer-term effect. Reagan-era legislative changes essentially ENDED New Deal restrictions on mortgage lending — restrictions that, in particular, limited the ability of families to buy homes without putting a significant amount of money down.

These restrictions were put in place in the 1930s by political leaders who had just experienced a terrible financial crisis, and were trying to prevent another. But by 1980 the memory of the Depression had faded. Government, declared Reagan, is the problem, not the solution; the magic of the marketplace must be set free. And so the precautionary rules were scrapped.

Together with looser lending standards for other kinds of consumer credit, this led to a radical change in American behavior.

We weren’t always a nation of big debts and low savings: in the 1970s Americans SAVED almost 10 percent of their income, slightly more than in the 1960s. It was only after the Reagan deregulation that thrift gradually disappeared from the American way of life, culminating in the near-zero savings rate that prevailed on the eve of the great crisis. Household debt was only 60 percent of income when Reagan took office, about the same as it was during the Kennedy administration. By 2007 it was UP to 119 percent.

All this, we were assured, was a good thing: sure, Americans were piling up debt, and they weren’t putting aside any of their income, but their finances looked fine once you took into account the rising values of their houses and their stock portfolios. Oops.

Now, the proximate causes of today’s economic crisis lie in events that took place long after Reagan left office — in the global savings glut created by surpluses in China and elsewhere, and in the giant housing bubble that savings glut helped inflate.

But it was the explosion of debt over the previous quarter-century that made the U.S. economy so vulnerable. Overstretched borrowers were bound to start defaulting in large numbers once the housing bubble burst and unemployment began to rise.

These defaults in turn wreaked havoc with a financial system that — also mainly thanks to Reagan-era deregulation — took on too much RISK with too little capital.

There’s plenty of blame to go around these days. But the prime villains behind the mess we’re in were Reagan and his circle of advisers — men who forgot the lessons of America’s last great financial crisis, and condemned the rest of us to repeat it.”

see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/opinion/01krugman.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=KRUGMAN&st=cse

EMPHASIS MINE

Factually Challenged Fat Boy deja vu all over again

From Media Matters: “Rush Limbaugh’s recent attacks against Sonia Sotomayor are NOT the first time he has gone after the judge or spoken for other conservatives in denouncing her…  According to The New York Times, Limbaugh criticized Sotomayor’s nomination to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals more than a DECADE ago. The Times reported on June 13, 1998: “On Sept. 30, the day of her confirmation hearing, Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio talk show host, warned the Senate that Judge Sotomayor was an ultraliberal who was on a ‘rocket ship’ to the Supreme Court. That day, Judge Sotomayor was questioned closely by Republicans.”

The Times further reported:

Senate Republican staff aides said Trent Lott of Mississippi, the majority leader, has agreed to hold up a vote on the nomination as part of an elaborate political calculus; if she were easily confirmed to the appeals court, they said, that would put her in a position to be named to the Supreme Court. And Senate Republicans think that they would then have a difficult time opposing a Hispanic woman who had just been confirmed by the full Senate.

”Basically, we think that putting her on the appeals court puts her in the batter’s box to be nominated to the Supreme Court,” said one senior Republican staff aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity. ”If Clinton nominated her it would put several of our senators in a real difficult position.”

In its July 6, 1998, issue (accessed via nationalreview.com), the National Review asserted that “Judge Sonia Sotomayor, although liberal, would be particularly DIFFUCULT to oppose since George Bush appointed her. All the more reason to block her elevation, now pending, to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.”

On the May 27 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Limbaugh read from a Hill articlethat cited the Times, stating, “I had FORGOTTEN  this. The Hill, Capitol Hill newspaper, recalled that in 1997 I predicted that Sonia Sotomayor was on a ‘rocket ship’ for the US Supreme Court.” He went on to read: “The conservative radio host said, on the day of Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing, September 30, 1997, that she was extremely liberal and was on a ‘rocket ship’ to the high court, according to a 1998 New York Times story on GOP efforts to stop her confirmation.”

N.B.: He said he had forgotten about this. 

EMPHASIS MINE

see; http://mediamatters.org/research/200906010019?lid=1040208&rid=28832467

Empathy vs the GOP

George Lakoff: “EMAPTHY is at the heart of progressive thought. It is the CAPACITY to put oneself in the shoes of others – not just individuals, but whole categories of people: one’s countrymen, those in other countries, other living beings, especially THOSE who are in some way oppressed, threatened, or harmed. Empathy is the capacity to care, to feel what others feel, to understand what others are facing and what their lives are like. Empathy EXTENDSwell beyond feeling to understanding, and it extends beyond individuals to groups, communities, peoples, even species. Empathy is at the heart of REAL rationality, because it goes to the heart of our values, which are the basis of our sense of justice.

    Progressives CARE about others as well as themselves. They have a moral obligation to act on their empathy – a social responsibility in addition to personal responsibility, a responsibility to make the world better by making themselves better. This leads to a view of a government that cares about its citizens and has a moral obligation to protect and empower them. Protection includes worker, consumer, and environmental protection as well as safety nets and health care. Empowerment includes what is in the president’s stimulus plan: infrastructure, education, communication, energy, the availability of credit from banks, a stock market that works. No one can earn anything at all in this country without protection and empowerment by the government. All progressive legislation is made on this basis….In describing his ideal Supreme Court justice, President Obama cited empathy as a MAJOR desideratum. Why? Because that is what our democracy is about. A justice has to take empathy into account because his or her decisions will affect the lives of others. Before making a decision you have toPUT yourself in the shoes of those who your decision will affect. Similarly, in judging causation, fairness requires that SOCIAL causes as well as individual causes be taken into account. Empathy forces you to notice what is crucial in so many Supreme Court cases: systemic and social causes and whom a decision can harm. As such, empathy correctly understood is crucial to judgment. A judge WITHOUT empathy is a judge UNFIT for a democracy.

    President Obama has described Justice Sotomayor in empathetic terms – a life story that would lead her to UNDERSTAND people who live through oppression and deprivation and what it does to them. In other words, a life story that would allow her to APPRECIAYE the consequences of judicial decisions and the causal effects of living in an unequal society.

    Empathy in this sense is a THREAT to conservatism, which features individual, not social, responsibility and a strict, punitive form of “justice.” It is no surprise that empathy would be a MAJOR conservative target in the Sotomayor evaluation.” 

EMPHASIS Mine

SEE: http://www.truthout.org/053109A

We also remember

On Memorial Day we may remember not only those who have served in the armed forces, but also the many others who have worked for – and in some cases given their lives for – progress,   social and economic justice, and democracy:

Rosa Parks

Martin King

Abraham Lincoln

James Chaney

AndrewGoodman

Michael Schwerner

Eugene Debs

Francis Perkins

Margaret Sanger

Haymarket Martyrs

Cesar Chavez

Harvey Milk

Susan B. Anthony

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Victims of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire,

and many others…

(N.B.: Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner were killed while registering voters in Philidelphia Miss., which is where Regan launched his 1980 campaign.)

Union, Yes! – Global Warming, No!

At the Ohio Conference on Labor in the New Energy Economy, held at the Crown Center Plaza in Cleveland on May 18, 2009, a gathering of laborers, unionists, activists, enviromentalists, and academics considered:

  o Can we create good, family- sustaining,  union jobs,

  o that thrive in a green, efficent, ecologically correct and economically sustainable environment,

  o and produce green products and services?

The conclusion?  Yes We Can!  We all breathe the same air, and when we all pull together, we will succeed!

Unions are not part of the problem, but an integral part of the solution; what has worked in the past is not part of the solution, but part of the problem.

Thanks to Sherrod Brown, Policy Matters Ohio, North Shore Federation of Labor, COWS, and the Apollo Alliance.

Financial Fallacy: divided governments

Chris Bowers writes in Open Left:”In the closing days of the 2008 campaign, John McCain repeatedly warned against the supposed dangers of one-party rule. His argument was not particularly convincing at the time, but it did echo a longstanding political LEGEND about the benefits of one-party rule. Supposedly, a DIVIDED government limits government spending and corruption. This argument was popular in the 1990’s, and some conservatives were echoing it back in 2007 even before the presidential election seemed a foregone conclusion. In 2009, it has become a common mantra for Republican elected officials and operatives.

The main problem with this argument is that recent events have proven it false. Government spending does not increase at a slower rate when one party controls the White House and another party controls Congress. This argument was turned into a LAUGHINGSTOCK only five weeks before the presidential election, when both McCain and Obama supported the Wall Street bailout, a majority of Senators of both partiessupported the bailout, and when 73% of House Democrats and 46% of House Republicans supported the bailout. No matter which party controlled the House, the Senate, or the White House, with numbers like that the bailout would have passed anyway.

During the final year of divided government–FY 2008 to FY 2009–federal spending increased by 6.67% of GDP, mainly because of the bailout. Outside of the two world wars, that was more than double the spending increase of any other year in the history of the country. It was larger than the increase in federal spending during the previous fifty years (1949 to 2008) combined, during which time federal spending grew by 5.87% of GDP. By virtue of the bi-partisan Wall Street bailout, that one year of divided government INCREASED government spending–and facilitated the corruption behind the financial meltdown–more than the twenty years of one-party government had done combined.

Republicans may DECRY one-party rule, but the argument simply won’t work after the bi-partisan Wall Street bailout increased government spending and complicity in corruption at an all-time record level. In 2012, rather than decrying one-party rule, they will probably need toFIND a nominee who opposed the bailout all along in order to have a shot at ending one-party rule (continuing economic difficulty for the country will also be required, of course).  That could be the real Howard Dean moment for the right-wing grassroots to throw off the shackles of their party leadership. Unfortunately for Republicans, the list of their Senators who opposed the bailout is not exactly loaded with presidential material:

 

Allard (R-CO), Barrasso (R-WY), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Cochran (R-MS), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Dole (R-NC), Enzi (R-WY), Inhofe (R-OK), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Vitter (R-LA), Wicker (R-MS)

GOOD luck digging a President out of that pile.

EMPHASIS MINE

see:http://www.openleft.com/

Golly Gee, GOP: Guns, Gods, and Gays

From:Roberto Dr. Cintli RodriguezNew America Media.” Republicans, who continue to be rejected by the U.S. electorate at the polls, have decided that the party of Lincoln needs an extreme makeover. Yet Republicans seem to think that the GOP simply needs to change its image, as opposed to fundamentally changing the party itself.

Some Republicans believe that the GOP must broaden its tent, and change its mantra of “Guns, Gays and God.” Others seem to think the party should strengthen its conservative base, and that the new message should include: “Go home!” …enter the National Council for a New America (NCNA), a series of town hall meetings ..

This council appears to be cognizant that a SHIFT in that ultra-nationalistic direction has the potential to change not simply the GOP’s narrative, but the national narrative itself.

They are up AGAINST the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, Dick Cheney and other extreme right-wing forces who FEAR that the nation — NOT simply the GOP — is in danger of losing its national narrative, the MYTHS and legends that have been part of the national psyche and character since its founding..Arguably, the more conservative wing of the American political spectrum is CORRECT: the OLD America they cling to no longer exists. And yet, the narrative that the more moderate council longs for — one that VIEWS America as the beacon of the world, as the land of truth, freedom and liberty and justice for all — is also a MYTH…That narrative has always DOWNPLAYED genocide, land theft and removal, slavery, segregation and legalized discrimination. Nowadays, it DOWNPLAYS border walls, racial profiling and an ever-expanding racialized prison system. The narrative has also downplayed the notion of empire and militarism, instead converting these imperial projects with the NOTION of a God-given right to “civilize” or dominate the world. This is the idea of Manifest Destiny. It is what drove our recent president, George W. Bush in his war against the Arab and Islamic world; he was on a MISSION from God. This is why U.S. and international laws were easily ignored or discarded; he was ANSWERING to a higher authority…In this sense, both wings of the Republican Party are SIMILAR; both want to promote great American mythologiessome within the GOP rightly fear that a Dobbs-immigration obsessed nation — which clamors for 2,000 miles of militarized walls along the U.S.-Mexico border — will DRIVE moderates away from the Republican Party. This is where the STRUGGLE over image takes place, though it is difficult to discern a difference. The Dobbs wing is BRAZENLY anti-immigrant, though it is always insistent that they are ONLY anti-illegal immigrant — not anti-immigrant..

Whether they are conservative or moderate, Republicans seem to agree that the United States has the inherent right to WAGE war on the world. The ONLY difference is that some believe that this right comes directly from God, whereas the others believe it is simply a cultural or even genetic right — due to American exceptionalism.

The real question is whether Democrats present different views on this topic. Some observers are quick to note that on the issue of the national narrative, there is little or no difference between the parties. These same observers are quick to note that President Barack Obama is but the latest steward for the military-imperial interests that control the nation. While it is TRUE that change does not occur overnight, there is little doubt that whoever is at the helm DOES make a difference. Yet, we know that positive change generally COMES from the bottom. Whether one president can change the national narrative is another matter.”  (EMPHASIS mine).

The only open issues is how does reproductive choice fit into the GOP agenda?

 

see:http://www.alternet.org/story/139929/the_gop_clings_to_guns,_gays,_god,_and_”go-home”/