Friday, August 31, 2012

THE GUYS AROUND ROMNEY---FRIGHTENING

Romney has remained an enigma, even after the Republican Convention. As if his "Etch-A-Sketch" has been stuck in constant "shake up" clear-off mode and there is nothing on his slate to examine. He will not reveal his tax reports, he keeps his Mormonism, and his past as governor of Massachusetts under wraps, and focuses only on the fact that he is a very rich,white guy---and not Obama. So no one knows how he will govern. But what he can not hide from us is the identify of are his close advisors. They stand there visible to all. That information is all we have to give us insight into how Romney will govern as a president. The view is frightening.

It appears that Mitt Romney, perhaps like many in the capitalist class, is understandably concerned only with the bottom line, and not often dismayed or distracted by the source of donations or the nature of the people with whom one has to rub shoulders, as long as in the end, the entrepreneur in Mitt finds his tally sheet in "the black" and/or his actions lead to profit. For example the Los Angeles Times has reported (August 8, 2012) that 40% of Bain Capital’s start up money (about $9 million dollars) came from wealthy Salvadoran investors, members of the politically-connected families who supported the death squads in El Salvador (or with direct ties to the same), and whose agents, among other terrible acts, assassinated Catholic Archbishop Romero and tortured and brutally murdered the four American Maryknoll nuns during that nation's brutal civil war. This story is all the more important because Romney has placed Bain in the forefront as his most important achievement -- the “pearl in his crown” of credentials he offers as credibility for the highest job in the land. Romney who characterizes himself as a deeply committed and faithful Mormon, seems to have put his faith and moral misgivings aside and taken the money from these men with only a cursory examination of their backgrounds and the source of their funds.

We learn too (August 31, 2012) in a Rolling Stone piece by Matt Taibibi, that Romney, who famously advised the President deny bail-out money to GM and let it go under, himself made good use of bail out money for and Federal help when his parent-organisation Bain and Company (under his direction at the time) had to seek help to avoid default on its loans. This penchant for turning a blind eye to any disturbing or unpleasant facts and focusing like a laser on his “goal”, may have been part of Romney's success in building Bain Capital's portfolio and profit margin, but it becomes more troubling for a man who hopes to become the chief executive of our diverse nation and one of the most powerful men of the free world--the President of the USA. This same predeliction for ignoring the backgrounds of financial supporters for Bain Capital (and ignoring the embarrassing fact that he used government largess to stave off bankruptcy) can be also seen in the choice of people with whom Romney surrounds himself on his Presidential campaign. Below, I give brief sketches (except where I was so flabbergasted by my research, that I just could not help expanding the text perhaps a bit longer than necessary) of three men Romney has chosen as advisors and financial supporters.

Romney who professes to be morally opposed to gambling, and who drinks no alcohol, coffee, or tea, has had no trouble accepting millions of dollars from Sheldon Adelson, whose funds are derived from his international gambling casinos and one of the top eight richest men in the USA. He has no compunction about taking foreign policy advice and cozying up to Dan Senor, one of the most tarnished men in the Bush ensemble who helped to lead us into the disaster of Iraq and the chaos of civil war in that nation. And finally, he has chosen Paul Ryan, one of the most conservative, nay reactionary, Congressmen in the House as his closest advisor and Vice President.


SHELDON ADELSON
Mr Adelson was born in Boston Mass, (August 4, 1933), and briefly attended CityCollege in NY. He was a salesman and investor and is presently the CEO of the Las Vegas, Sands Hotel and Casino, The Venetian Macao Ltd,Macao, and Sands Expo and Convention Center, Las Vegas, and is the owner of the Israeli daily, “Israel Ya Yom”. He is listed as the eighth wealthiest American, with a net worth of over $25 billion dollars. His Las Vegas complex is the largest in the world, with over 4thousand suites, and a similar number of hotel rooms and a 120,000square foot casino. Adelson is a unabashed and vocal supporter of Israel and the far right wing policies of the present Netanyahu government. Romney’s carelessness in choice of advisors (or was it a purposeful intention of finding the most right wing, reactionary, fringe elements to associate with, so as to curry favor with the base of the “new”Republican Party) led him into a foreign policy morass on his recent trip to the UK, Israel, and Poland. While in the UK, Romney, in a play designed to score points at home, and underscore his “experience” as an Olympic organizer, 'dissed' the preparations being made by the City of London for the 2012 Olympics He was immediately and rightly attacked by the UK press, as well as the Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, of the present Tory government, as a “jerk” and a “bounder” for mouthing the self-serving comments.

He stumbled again when he arrived in Israel, with Sheldon Adelson in tow (or visa-versa). Again, focusing “like a laser” on his goals, sometimes leads Romney far off the trail and into dangerous territory. In a “A Glimmer of Daylight” Hannah Gross, Aug 6, 2012 comments that Romney added Israel to his itinerary to please “mega-donors like Sheldon Adelson” who came along on the trip, perhaps to make sure Romney would deliver on his pro-Israel stance and other promises. Gross concludes that Romney “held out” by refusing to publicly support the release of the infamous American-citizen and Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard, who is currently serving a life sentence in US Federal prison. According to The Daily Beast, Adelson has been urging Romney to come out in favor of Pollard’s release, but according to Gross, so far, Romney has held out (so far). Eli Lake and Dan Ephron report:But Romney did deliver, for Adelson (and Dan Senor) in a frightening display of ineptness, and blatant and dangerous pandering to Jewish voters at home.

While in Israel Romney gave a speech in front of Adelson and a group of like-minded Israeli donors during which he made a sophomoric comparison between the “culture” of the Jews and those of the Palestinians. A group Adelson has denigrated and termed “an invented people”.

Romney, practically reading from the pages of Dan Senor’s best-seller book (more on this below) claimed that it was the “cultural differences” which separated the two people and resulted in a great entrepreneurial and business surge in Israel but left the West Bank in a economic slump. This example shows how uniformed, weak, and subject to pressure by agggressive advisors Romney actually is. I find these dangerous traits in a leader.

Romney blamed the poverty of the occupied West Bank on the “culture” of the people, and slipped
in a bit or quasi-religious, moral innuendo by stating that the “hand of God” was also apparent. That hand helped the Israelis, a people, who according to Romney’s faith were chosen by God, as were the Mormons.

Roger Cohen, NYT, Aug 6, 2012. responded to Romney" in a column “Dream Baby Dream,” stating: “But the heart of the matter, lies elsewhere: Obama actually believes in a Palestinian state. Romney is loved by Netanyahu’s Likud party because he gives signals he does not. In Jerusalem, he attended a breakfast fundraiser with Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire American casino mogul and largest donor to the Romney super Pac. Adelson is the man who famously stated "Newt Gingrich was right to call the Palestinians an 'invented people'.” Romney then suggested Palestinians are culturally inferior, incapable of showing the “economic vitality” of Israel — as if a people under occupation, without a port or an airport, controlling neither their territorial (sic) nor their air space, facing roadblocks, walls, barriers, fences, labyrinthine bureaucracy and capricious humiliation are somehow deficient in not turning themselves into Singapore.” I ask is this the kind of person we would like to see in the Oval Office advising President Romney of what course to take in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world?


DAN SENOR
Dan Senor was born in Utica, NY, raised in Canada,and educated in Israel (Jerusalem's Hebrew University). Senor returned to the US to attend Harvard Business School. After graduation, he worked briefly for a business firm with ties to the Bush family. He left there to start his "political career" as an intern with the AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee),the infamous and powerful pro-Israeli lobby in Washington where (he claims) his ideas on politics were formulated. He has stated that his experience at AIPAC "prepared me for my work in politics.”

His Bush family contacts gave him entrĂ©e into the George W Bush Administration where he first served as assistant to the Press Secretary, but later, was GW's choice to be spokesperson for the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq during the early years of the war. Michael Breen, VP of the Truman National Security Project who served in Iraq as an Army Captain while Senor was at the CPA as a civilian spokesperson, stated that “There is no greater aberration in American policy than that of the 2003-4 period in Iraq (when) Dan (Senor) was the spokesman for the CPA...The CPA was the most dysfunctional organization of any in the last 100 years of American history and now he’s a foreign policy adviser for Mitt Romney. That was literally the time and the place (when) that country descended into chaos, and he was the guy telling the American people that it was 'going well'.”

Senor’s right-wing extreme "pro-Israel” credentials were cemented in 2009,when he co-founded the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI)—a pressure group that promotes U.S. military intervention in the Midle East. His co-founders were leading neo-conservative figures William Kristol and Robert Kagan.In the lead up to the disastrous Iraq invasion and war Senor (with his biased background?) was a Pentagon and White House advisor(?)based in Qatar at US Central command. He soon went to work for General Jay Garner during the final days of fighting in southern Iraq. Senor was located in Baghdad on April 20, 2003, where he served as chief spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority(CPA) in Iraq, and as a Senior Advisor to Ambassador L. Paul Bremer,and an adviser to the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. Senor's tenor as Bremer's front-man and spokes person where his half-truths, obfuscations and purposeful misleading statements earned him the distasteful epithet "Bush's spinmeister" by the frustrated journalist corps in Baghdad.

Senor's close ties with Israel and Saul Singer a journalist and American emigre living and working in Israel resulted in the publication of a best seller "Start Up Nation" (ranked fifth on the NYT business best seller list). The book is a glowing "tub-thumping" story of Israel's economic miracle, in which the authors probe the question of how a small nation (6-7 million population) only sixty years old, and surrounded by enemies, has become an astounding entrepreneurial success. The book notes that there are more than "63 companies listed on NY's NADAQ, more than any other foreign nation". Singer, Senor's co-author, is the American-born Israeli and former editor of the Jerusalem Post and brother-in-law of Senor. He apparently brought the writing and editing skills to the team, while Senor had the US contacts and name recognition for a modern successful publication. The book is written from an Israeli perspective that according to Jon Rosen (USA Today) "may irk those with reservations about Israeli foreign policy".

Maureen Farrell(Forbes) states that the book is "worth reading as a history of Israel"and of capitalism, "but ignores the effects of US foreign aid". In Israel, Ruth Schuster (Haaretz) states the book "is tarnished by a jarring, patriotism (for Israel)". While the CSM reviewer notes that the story of Israel's success is more complex than the simple idea of immigration and required military service that the authors attribute for its success. The cause of Israeli success "is more complex than (the authors) paint it to be". Economist Yusuf Mansour, writing in the Jordan Times, argues that two of the factors to which Senor and Singer attribute Israel's success,the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) and Soviet-Jewish immigration, have only been sustainable because of the foreign aid that Israel receives from the United States and private sources, mostly from America. Mansour also faults the authors for suggesting that the disparity between entrepreneurship in Israeli-Arab and Jewish sectors is rooted in the exemption of Arabs from military service, rather than what Mansour perceives to be "the discriminatory policies of Israel against its Arab citizens," particular in educationand the labor market. Gal Beckerman, writing in 'The Forward' magazine, observes that the book "presents Israel in an extremely positive light as a bastion of entrepreneurial spirit and technological achievement. It skirts a discrussion of the conflict with the Palestinians, or even the wealth-inequality within Israel, thereby dovetailing nicely with recent public relations efforts by Israel to shift attention away from its problems and toward its achievements."

Watch out for this guy. He would be a just as big a disaster as he was in Iraq, next to a President Romney in the Oval Office..

PAUL RYAN
Born in Janesville Wisconsin (Januay 29, 1970) to a prominent business family. Ryan's father, also Paul, was a lawyer, who worked for the Ryan family construction concern--Ryan Central Construction Corporation. The senior Paul Ryan died at an early age. Ryan lived a middle-class, privileged life in small-town Janesville and upon graduation attended Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, where he majored in economics. He claims to have avidly read the fictional works of far-right Russian emigre', Ayn Rand and right-wing economists Von Mises, Hayek, and Friedman.

Though steeped in Ayn Rand policies and the fantasy fiction of super Randian entrepreneurs, soon after graduation in 1992, he made a bee-line, not to New York and a business career, but to Washington, where he accepted a Congressional position in government as staff economist in Rep. Robert Kasten (R-Wi) office in Washington D.C. From there he moved on to Empower America (in Washington) a conservative lobby group founded by iconic right wing Republicans Jack Kemp, Jeane Kirkpatrick and William Bennett. Six years later, Ryan was elected to his own seat in Congress from the First Congressional District in Wisconsin, to becoming the second-youngest member of the House. He has been in the Congress since 1998.

His relatively isolated First District, is not served by major news outlets. As a result, he is infamous for saying one thing to his news-outlet isolated constituency at town meetings, while speaking in much different terms to his right-wing colleagues in Washington, assured that little of Washington conversations will reach his voters on the evening news broadcast. These circumstances, and his perfidy, have given him great freedom to follow a course designed to advance his own personal political career, and a fuzzy concept of what is the "truth".

With his freedom in Congress from voter-oversight, his actual political-output has been scanty. In his fourteen years in office, he has authored only two bills: one renaming a district post office, and another on reducing the excise tax on arrow shafts! Ryan presents himself as a young, moderate reasonable conservative...but his votes, his co-sponsored bills and his rhetoric condemn him as a hard-nosed reactionary.

Some facts about Ryan which will able one to see the man beneath the moderate, reasonable veneer.

Ryan, credits the late Ayn Rand, author of dated, barely passable fiction, inspired as a reaction to the Russian Revolution of 1917, as the inspiration for him to follow a career in public service. He stated as a Congressman in 2005 that "The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand." In fact, Ryan demanded that all of the congressional interns in his office read Rand's writings. He also gave copies of her novel "Atlas Shrugged" to his staff as Christmas presents. In typical self-serving fashion, Ryan, when he was recently under consideration as VP material for Mitt Romney, only in April 2012, quickly and abruptly abandoned quoting and pushing the anti-religious, anti-Catholic, pro-abortion stances of Ayn Rand.

When the Catholic Bishops criticized his budget and Medicare proposals, as anti-Catholic, and unfair to the poor and needy, Ryan came out with a statment rejecting Rand's philosophy "as an atheistic one, as it reduces human interactions down to mere contracts.” Rand no longer served his purposes, though all those Christmas gifts and demands for reading Randian fiction by his staff will be difficult to sweep under the rug.

Ryans reputation as a "hawk economist" focused in fiscal responsibility, deficit reduction, and specialist in fiscal matters and a "wonk" with mastery of facts and figures relating to fiscal policy is weak too. Though he tries to present himself, now during the Obama Administrationa as a fiscal hawk, he was a "big spending" conservative in the second Bush (GWB jr.) Administration.

In those years, rather than a deficit hawk, he toed the Bush line, by voting for the two deficit-exploding Bush tax cuts (in 2001 and 2003), the giant spending bill-- Medicare Part D--that gave a windfall to the pharmaceutical giants, and which added greatly to the deficit. He also voted for Bush's 'Troubled Asset Relief Program', and for Bush he voted for the 2008 $700 billion bank bailout. He voted for Bush's unpaid for wars and tax cuts for the wealthy, all of which drastically increased the deficit.

But when Obama took office Ryan became a deficit hawk and voted against the only "reasonable" deficit reduction proposal to come out of Congress--the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction plan.

In 1999, Ryan voted in favor of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, which repealed certain provisions of the Depression-era, Glass–Steagall Act that had sucessfully regulated banking for forty years. The repeal of that bill, which had wisely forced the separation of normal savings-and-loan banking functions from investor funded financial institutions which dealt with risky bonds and derivative funds, ultimately led to the banking and financial collapse and the Great Recession of 2007-2008.
That is one vote that Ryan should have scrawled across his forehead, so that when he castigates President Obama for the present financial circumstances, we all can be reminded of his perfidy. In addition, Ryan co-sponsored a 2008 bill that would repeal the requirement that the Federal Reserve System reduce unemployment by quantitative easing.

Ryan's other "against" votes. He voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 for equal pay for women. He voted against the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009 which prevented banks from taking unfair advantage of credit card users. He called out "Nay" when the Dodd–Frank, Wall-Street-Reform and Consumer Protection Act was up for a vote. This is the bill which Ryan characterized as "class warfare."

On education, Ryan stands with the knuckle draggers and troglodytes of the far right. He voted to cut outlays for education, stating that improved education could come only through more effective utilization of resources, rather than more resources spent. Ryan's stated plans for education would spend 1/3 less on training, employment and social services than the Obama proposals over the next decade. For students applying for Pell Grants, Ryan would lower the income level qualifications from $33,000 dollars to $23,000 dollars and it has been calculated that this alone would deny more than one million students access to higher education over the next decade. In addition students would be responsible for the interest accruing on these loans while they were still in training, rather than having these rates begin after they graduated and had an opportunity to earn a living.

On medicare, Ryan proposed legislation, called the Ryan Plan, which outlined changes to entitlement spending, including a controversial proposal to replace Medicare with a voucher program for seniors.

On April 1, 2009, Ryan introduced an alternative to the 2010 United States federal budget. It would have also phased out Medicare's traditional fee-for-service model, instead offering fixed sums, in the form of vouchers, for Medicare beneficiaries with which to buy private insurance, starting in 2021. The federal government would no longer pay for Medicare benefits for persons born after 1958. The plan attracted criticism since the voucher payments would not be set to increase as medical costs increase, leaving beneficiaries partially uninsured.

In 2010, citing data from the Tax Policy Center, economist and columnist Paul Krugman criticized Ryan's contention that his plan would reduce the deficit, opining that this contention is due to the"effects of his proposed spending cuts — period. It didn't address the revenue losses from his tax cuts."Krugman further called the proposed spending cuts a "sham" because they depended on making a severe cut in domestic discretionary spending without specifying the programs to be cut, and on "dismantling Medicare as we know it," which is politically unrealistic.


Ryan describes himself as "as pro-life as a person gets" and has been described as an "ardent, unwavering foe of abortion rights. During Ryan's 1998 campaign for Congress, he "expressed his willingness to let states criminally prosecute women who have abortions," telling the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel at the time that he "would let states decide what criminal penalties would beattached to abortions," and while not stating that he supports jailing women who have an abortion, stated: "if it's illegal, it's illegal." He believes that a woman should not be allowed to end a pregnancy even if it resulted from rape or incest. Ryan voted to cut off federal funding for Planned Parenthood and Title X family planning program (preventive health grants to poor and uninsured families). He co-sponsored the Sanctity of Life Act, which would provide that fertilized eggs "shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood" and would have given "the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions." This could lead to laws that would "criminalize all abortion, as well as invitro fertilization and some forms of birth control."

Ryan supports a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, was against repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, would prevent same-sex couples to adopt, and voted against the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes PreventionAct (an act that would protect gays from violence).

Ryan has been described as "very very pro-gun". He voted against a bill for stronger background checks at gun shows, and supports federal legislation which would permit a person who can carry a concealed weapon in one state to be able to carry a firearm in every other state.

He voted against the DREAM Act, which would have permitted conditional permanent residency to illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as childrenif they attend college or serve in the military, are of good moralcharacter, and meet other criteria.

In foreign affairs has been called "truly a man of the George Bush era," (Daniel Larison, The Conservative). Ryan voted for George Bush's Iraq War and Bush's disastrous troop surge in Iraq. In 2007, he voted to increase defense spending, including increases for various expensive, unneeded and deficit-expanding weapons systems-- and for the war in Afghanistan.

Ryan's First Congressional District in Wisconsin stretches west from Racine on the shores of Lake Michigan to Janesport on the western boundary. It has a population of nearly 670,000, with a median income of about $50,000, or just about even with the national average. The population is predominantly urban (84%), and white (90%). Nearly sixty percent (57.7%) of the workers are employed in 'white collar' jobs, while 27% are employed in blue collar ones. The Cook PVI rating (a measure of the intensity of support for one or the other of our two political parties) of R+1, indicates it trends Republican.

In Ryan's first campaign in the First District he used misleading statements and catch phrases such as Ryan's "Paycheck Protection Plan" to garner votes. Though a government employee since graduation, he often posed with a yellow hard hat in front of a construction sithacker a place where he actually worked, to give the impression that he was a "businessman". Or appearing with his sister and her young baby at a time when he was not married, to suggest to voters he had a family. Ryan, who was in favor of reducing and gutting Social Security, got his constituents to believe (by means of misleading catch phrases) that he was in favor of actual protection of their social security benefits while his political objectives were really very different. Ryan has moved upward in Congress and now to the VP slot on the Romney ticket...but he continues to use his phony representations and mistruths to obfuscate and misinform. Watch out for him.

We must keep this guy under wraps in Wisconsin's First District. Perhaps his constituents will get the picture now that he is exposed on the nation's stage.

Get the picture?


rjk




Tuesday, August 28, 2012

THOMAS JEFFERSON AND JULIAN ASSANGE: COMMON GOALS

WHY THE US IS PERSUING ASSANGE

The US is hounding Julian Assange around the world, using diplomatic efforts, the investigative power of the FBI, and covert actions of the CIA by applying pressure to governments and civilians as far away as Australia, South America, Northern Europe and the UK. Uncle Sam staying behind the scenes, but pulling the strings has precipitated a row between some of its closest allies, and other not so friendly nations. Its machinations have caused disturbing and destabilizing diplomatic ripples to surge around the world. All because they want to get their hands on one man---Julian Assange. Why?

The case against this man is of course is all related to the release two years ago (2010) of a treasure trove of revealing and embarrassing (250,000 of them) top-secret US military and diplomatic cables by Assange's Wikileaks internet site. According to Seumas Milne (the Guardian, 8-21-2012) the secret cables "disgorged devastating evidence of US war crimes and collusion with death squads in Iraq on an industrial scale, machinations and lies of America's wars and allies, it's illegal US spying on UN officials--as well as a compendium of official corruption and deceit across the world."

Milne's piece in the Guardian theorizes that the leaks may have provided the fuel for the "Arab Spring" uprisings, and opened to world scrutiny the depth, reach and mis-use of the exercise of US global power. In Washington, it made the establishment tremble in fear at being exposed, and of course opens up a possible source of litigation against individuals for war crimes, and for other legal actions against agencies of the US government.

In Washington, they called Assange's huge, quarter million page document-dump a ”criminal" act. VP Joe Biden called Assage a ”high tech terrorist". Hillary Clinton shrilly and predictably referred to the expose' as an "attack on the whole international community". Some Republican neocons have called for Assange to be hunted down and killed.

The US government likes to project the image of an exemplary, "exceptional", and transparent democracy, but in the wake of recent revelations its image as exemplary has been tarnished and its attack on Assange (to silence him) makes questionable how transparent our government actually is. The Administration seems determined to protect its secret misdeeds and errant behavior by first getting the messenger and silencing him. The second objective is to make an example of this whistleblower so that others and their supporters will be dissuaded by fear and intimidation from emulating his behavior. But as citizens we have other goals. Our right to know is paramount. Did not Thomas Jefferson state that our survival as a "free people" is based on an informed and "educated citizenry". We are bound by those reasons to oppose the objectives of this government in its attempts to silence the messenger. We must face the uncomfortable facts and make restitution where appropriate and change our ways where necessary.

To follow President Jefferson's dictate, here below is what we should know.

Julian Assange (age 41) is an Australian journalist, editor, and publisher and the co-founder and editor-in-chief of Wikileaks the now infamous internet site for whistleblowers and advocate of transparency in government. In 2006 when Assange and several others founded Wikileaks he wrote of his purpose: "To shift behavior (of secretive government regimes) ...."we must discover technological (means) to oppose them. ..."the more secretive or unjust an organization is the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership ....Since unjust (government) systems ...in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of government." (From "Julian Assange", Wikipedia.) Assange's Wikileaks has released to the world more more suppressed information ..than the rest of the entire world press combined. Assange stated that "world journalism is in a disgraceful state" when it publishes stories with little or no "supporting data". Assange advocates "new standards in journalism which would bring it more in line with scientific journals which rely on full and transparent data”.

Since 2006, Wikileaks has released such diverse materials as: evidence of extrajudicial killings in Kenya, toxic waste dumping in the Ivory Coast, the secret procedure-manuals of the Church of Scientology, inhumane treatment of US prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, internal documents on procedures and irregularities in the global banking world, and a now infamous 39 minute video of the July 12, 2007 attack by US Apache helicopters in Baghdad on two Iraqi Reuters journalists, and the civilians (including two children) who attempted to help them. The video has been circulated around the world on the internet entitled "Collateral Murder" by the USA, and ranks right down there in gut-churning disgust and disbelief with the torture pictures of Iraqi detainees in American custody.

According to Australia's ABC "Four Corners" aired on Monday, July 23, 2010, Assange arrived in Sweden in August 2010 as the famous former Australian ex-hacker, editor, journalist and speaker who advocated press freedom and government transparency. According to this investigative report, Assange, "was treated as a conquering hero," in Sweden, but within a very short time, "he was being investigated for rape and sexual molestation." In short order, Assange fled Sweden, and sought refuge in London. Today (August 26, 2012) Assange is holed up in a small office in the London Embassy of Ecuador where the Ecuadorian government has given him asylum, refuge from arrest and protection from deportation to Sweden by Mr. Cameron's Tory government.

Suffice it to say here, that Mr. Assange has not been indicted or charged in Sweden and is wanted only for "questioning" related to allegations by two adult women. The Swedish government has issued a warrant for his arrest on the basis of a "molestation" claim made by one woman who then retracted her charge. The muddled events appear to boil down to this: Upon arrival in Sweden, Assange, at that point an international celebrity, was invited to the home of a female supporter and admirer with whom he briefly cohabited. While a guest (and bed partner) at the first woman's home he met and apparently had consensual sexual relations with a second woman. Recalling the old English proverb, ”Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned.” a dispassionate observer would see the potential pitfalls of such personal actions immediately--but Assange did not. Whether his behavior rises to the level of "criminal” remains to be seen. But charges of "molestation", which appear questionable at best, given the circumstances, were brought by the first woman. She later recanted and attempted to withdraw her statement but by that time the press had run with a very exciting story and her efforts were to no avail.

Assange, an expert in information gathering must have been well aware of the anger of the US related to his release of US diplomatic cables in 2010. Rightly fearing the the hand of the US CIA on the behavior of the compliant Swedish government (which has a fast-track "temporary surrender" extradition agreement with the US) fled that nation for the UK. In London, Assange pursued his case for asylum for several months. But in the end the UK Supreme Court rejected his claims. Realizing that once he was returned to Sweden he would be quickly extradited to US where he could face serious charges such as "global terrorism", ”conspiracy to commit espionage”, ”aiding and abetting the enemy", etc. , etc. he sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. The Australian ABC Four Corners program also unearthed evidence that the US was working hard to compile personal data which would support their charges, and would be ready to be used to extradite him from Sweden, were he to land there. The ABC Four Corners program also documented the harassment of Assange's family and supporters, and his attorney in Australia, and others across the globe by the FBI and CIA. They document blatant attempts by US agents to get others to give evidence against him.

The fervor and zeal with which both Sweden and the UK have been pursuing Assange is a troubling example of the misuse of US power. It appears that the US machinations were the cause of the diplomatic brouhaha in world centers. When Assange's legal options ran out in London, he sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. He was granted asylum by the Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa. Mr. Cameron's Tory government, over reacted at this juncture, underscoring the evidences of US use of power in the released diplomatic cables by the fervor (embarrassing for its proud citizenry) of that government's obeisance and response to US directives. Though having no dog in this hunt the UK blundered by threatening Ecuador with an official letter stating that the Cameron government could use an obscure 1987 Parliamentary law to lift its diplomatic status, and enter the embassy building to arrest Assange. They also made an undiplomatic show of force by ringing the building with a cordon of police.

Mr.Correa held fast, and publicly destroyed the threatening letter, calling it ”intolerable” and an ”explicit threat”. At a meeting of the Union of South American Nations, which coincided with these events, Ecuador's actions were universally supported by all member nations and the UK behavior termed ”colonialist" and "threatening". The UK it's hair trimmed by the events, backed down and has now made renewed attempts to seek a "diplomatic solution”.

The solutions proposed earlier by Ecuador and rejected by both Sweden and the UK were sensible and appropriate. Swedish authorities were offered by Ecuador the option of receiving Mr.Assange for questioning with the proviso that he would not be extradited to a third country (the US), but they refused. They were also offered to question Mr Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy, they refused that too. It is obvious that the hand of Uncle Sam is behind much of this. No doubt the US has put pressure on Sweden, a regular patsy for the US, while the British are known to be the wagging tail of the US government and do what they are told to do.

For the rest of the world, and for free citizens everywhere we should be grateful to Assange and others like him who I hope will continue to keep the feet of those in power everywhere to the hot coals, to expose their lies, and misdeeds. It is only through transparency in government and the truth that we can fully achieve those high ideals we incorporate in our Constitution and in the dreams of our founders.

Get the picture?


rjk

Thursday, August 23, 2012

REPUBLICAN PROBLEM: TODD AIKEN HE TELLS THE TRUTH

The problem the Republicans have is that they ARE the party of the elite, the corporatists, the oligarchs, ---the one percenters. Their natural constituency represents only a very small component of the American electorate. To persuade the vast multitude that has no legitimate reason to vote for them is very difficult for a Republican. To be elected on a regular basis these folks have had to become polished liars, obfuscators, fine fabulists, determined dissemblers, and excellent equivocators. Many, like Mitt Romney, have a well developed ability to mold themselves into prevailing public opinions and perceptions, adhering to those which garner the most votes. And as well an ability, amoeba like, to assume varying shapes and forms as needs arise. Others, like Paul Ryan have developed extraordinary facial muscular controls which permit them to speak from one side of their mouth to their constituents, and out of the other side to their financial backers, lobbyists and colleagues in Washington--with none of their home constituents aware of this ability.

Todd Aiken's problem is that he is simply too naive and honest. He actually believes what he stated about rape, which he termed "legitimate" rape. In Aiken's "legitimate rape", as opposed to non-legitimate rape, a woman's body somehow rejects the rapist's sperm and is protected from pregnancy. Thus, it follows, such victimized women, in Aiken's world should NOT be allowed to pass through the big "rape loophole" in the Federal ACA law. (Perhaps Aiken meant to use a term coined by felllow Congressman Paul Ryan. Ryan's term for this situation is "forcible rape". Though for the life of me I do not know what that term signifies. Is it analogous to "lethal murder"?) Let's be clear, Aiken simply spoke frankly, restating what the modern-day Republican Party actually believes, and has incorporated into their Party Platform, and what they say to each other in their closed door meetings. Aiken's mistake was that he missed that essential "other" meeting where Republican communication experts went over details on how to lie convincingly and obfuscate.

The people who actually benefit from the Todd Aiken fiasco are the rest of us--the voters--who have been granted a little window into the actual thinking of the present day Republicans.

Get the picture?

rjk


Wednesday, August 22, 2012

RESPONSE TO DAVID BROOKS' VOTER'S GUIDE


In David Brooks's "Guide for the Perplexed", New York Times(August 21, 2012) Brooks lays out a guide for ”moderate” voters and tries to nudge them toward the Romney-Ryan camp. He poses the question: What is really important in this election? His answer: the election will decide how we slow and reverse our national decline. The cause of the supposed decline according to Brooks is Medicare!

No! Not the massive cuts in taxes of the Bush years or the unfunded wars of that administration, or the Bush-Ryan supported banking deregulation which initiated our present financial problems...but Medicare? Brooks and his far right readership love to denigrate Medicare. But they turn a blind eye to the big policy items I cite above, and as well, the other "government social welfare programs", for example, no where does he mention the bloated Pentagon budget.

The author would be more honest and perhaps get more of a fair hearing from the nation as a whole, were he to include these entitlement programs: corporate welfare, military expenditures and a massively bloated Pentagon budget in the equation. But Brooks, as does Mssrs. Ryan and Romney, prefer to ignore these goverment outlays and balance the budget on the backs of the poor, elderly, working classes and needy. He would redirect our priorities away from the health and welfare of our sick, elderly and our children, ignore other bloated government expenditures, and redirect investment toward industries of the future and infrastructure.


We may need a reevaluation of how and what we spend forMedicare and on other expenditures too. But we must recognize the natural tension between the right and left, the "populares" and "optimates". Brooks ignores this natural power struggle or is simply part of the push of the right to upend the legitimate needs of the rest of us.

I do agree with Mr Brooks on the need for investment in future industries and in infrastructure. And on one other thing. I agree that we were great in the mid 20th century. I also recall that at that time we had a smaller standing army, modest military budget, limited entanglements abroad, and at home we spent a fair share of our tax revenues (much more of it derived from high rates on the super wealthy) on human welfare, education, and sound infrastructure. It ushered in a great period of expansion in our nation's history, but as we did then, now we must all must share in the sacrifice and the profits from this enterprise for it to succeed. Ignoring the big gray war-elephant in the room gobbling up tons of "hay", turning a blind eye to the corporate cheats, hiding fromour militarism, and ignoring wasteful wars only weakens Mr. Brooks' argument. A policy which ignores the great and growing disparity between rich and poor and the massive bloat in our military spending is one which is doomed to failure. Brooks' "Guide" thus is a misleading and erroneous one, to be ignored by the voters.

Get the picture?

rjk

Thursday, August 16, 2012

ROMNEY CHARGES ON MEDICARE - FALSE AND UNTRUE

ROMNEY CHARGES THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS CUT $716 B FROM MEDICARE

The Christian Science Monitor's Peter Grier, (August, 16, 2012) takes up a question which has dominated the airways recently and deals with it clearly and concisely: Mitt Romney's claim that Obama 'robbed' Medicare of $716 billion. This is reminiscent of the typical propaganda ploy used by the USSR (and the USA) during the Cold War. It's called the "Big Lie". It works if you are poorly informed or simply do not have the time to sort out the facts. In the CSM piece Grier states: "Mitt Romney is hammering President Obama with the allegation that he's robbed Medicare to pay for Obamacare . That's not an accurate appraisal of Obama's plan."

It is true that Obama reduced spending on Medicare and that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – cuts $716 billion from the Medicare program over the next decade, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis. However, the ACA does not "rob" Medicare as Romney and Ryan claim. It cuts billions from the plan by reducing spending over the long term. It does not cut benefits. It achieves this by lowering pay-outs to hospitals, nurses, and others health-care providers (except physicians).

Grier states, "According to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office), over a 10-year period it measured, Medicare payments for hospital services would go down by $260 billion, for instance. Payments for skilled nursing services would go down by $39 billion, and for home health services by $33 billion." There are other reductions in payments which the CBO estimates will generate savings.

Pay-out reductions are not the total picture however. The ACA (Obamacare) also sharply cuts back on an expensive experiment called Medicare Advantage plans. These "Advantage" plans are run by private insurers which competed with the traditional fee-for-service (Medicare) program. The George Bush Administration, initiated these plans, hoping that this form of "privatization" would increase "competition" (two ideas the Republicans are fond of and like to push) among the plans to serve beneficiaries and save money. It turned out that the Advantage plans, which included " sweeteners and incentives" for the companies (agreed to by the George Bush Administration) in the long run actually cost the government more than the regular fee-for-service program. The Obama Administration found them ineffective and cut them back sharply generating large savings.


Grier concludes, " In essence, the Medicare cuts contained in Obama's health care reforms reduce the pay of providers within the system." It does not reduce services to recipients while incorporating substantial savings in the program. In effect, it saves Medicare as a effective program for seniors. Thus it deals with the charges often raised by Republicans that it is too costly. They should have welcomed the plan and given credit to the President. But
they are determined to undermine Medicare and eliminate it.
But what about the Romney plan?

Romney and Ryan have a plan too. Their plan involves cutting back on services, and offering a voucher plan in which seniors would be given a set fee to find comparable insurance plan in the open market. This would be a great boon to the insurance companies, the supporters of Romney and Ryan, but would mean lower levels of medical coverage for the recipients. The government would control the amount of the voucher they offer and the insurance companies would set the terms of the amount of service. Imagine how that would work out. In the end the CBO estimates that the typical senior would have to pay-out as much as $6,500 for the same plan he or she has now. The voucher system is another way to kill Medicare.

The result of Romney-Ryan's plan is lower health care benefits and services for seniors and higher out-of-pocket costs to make up the difference in quality of care. (Note however that there will be no changes to the elaborate Government-sponsored health care services that the Senators and Congressmen and their families receive--for life! They want to economise on others, but keep their health care benefits unchanged...They are not suggesting a voucher system to replace their health care system in Congress.) Under the Romney-Ryan plan seniors will have less benefits, will have to pay more out of pocket, and some will have to go back to eating cat food so they can afford their vital services and medicines.

The story above is analogous to that of two worried fathers with teenagers who have just passed their driver's test. The nervous fathers both face higher risks and costs, and each determines to institute plans to reduce their risk exposures and lower their expenses. The first father's plan is to protect his automobile (and child) by placing a block under the auto's accelerator pedal. The new driver can develop his/her new skill, operate the vehicle at a slower but safe speed, and is able to get from school to work on time. This father's car is safe, his insurance does not rise, and the child survives to prosper and eventually buy his/her own auto.

The second father's plan is to lock up the family auto and restrict its access for his use alone. He reasons what does a teenager need with a good car? He offers this teenager instead an ancient dray horse and shabby wagon, used by his grandfather in days gone by. This teenager is faced with getting to school and work by navigating his old dray-horse along the shoulder of a dangerous high speed freeway. The result is tragedy when the rickety wagon is hit from behind by a speeding eight-wheel interstate carrier swerving into the shoulder on a dangerous turn.

Get the picture?



rjk

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

PRIMITIVE POLICING IN NEW YORK CITY

Another Unnecessary Killing by NY City's Police.




The front page of the New York Post today, August 13, 2012, was emblazoned with the smiling face of a black man with a bandanna, which made him look (perhaps intentionally on his part) like Geronimo, the Apache, native American, the insurgent fighter of Mexicans and Americans in the violent southwest of the late 19th century.

The black man was 51 year-old Darius Kennedy, a homeless man from Hempstead , L.I. New York. Kennedy was brutally killed in firing-squad style reminiscent of Dodge City, Kansas in the 19th century, in front of a crowd tourists not far from Times Square. Police Commissioner Kelly has predictably reacted mechanically with a blanket defence of the actions of his men (and women?). But their behavior does not make me proud of them.

This was another example of an unnecessary killing and further misuse of deadly force by the NY City police. Reports and videos taken by tourists and observers indicate that the apparently deranged man was stopped by police for smoking marijuana near Times Square. The two arresting officers ineffectively attempted to subdue and cuff him, but he escaped and walked away. As he retreated, he drew a knife and taunted the police to shoot him. These first two cops followed him with drawn guns, but others converged on the scene. Some say as many as twenty officers joined in the slow, walking pursuit which continued for seven blocks-from Times Square to 37th Street. On a video I saw, there were at least eight officers, in a wide line following one small, retreating black man down the street. As a native New Yorker, I can't believe that twenty of "New York's Finest" couldn't have effectively disarmed and stabilized this man without killing him in a dangerous hail of bullets on a crowded NY City street.

One must ask, where we're the senior officers? Why didn't one of these patrolmen use their Taser to subdue this man? The police action demonstrated on the streets of NY in this embarrassing, tragic and disgraceful incident was more typical of the 19th century southwest where the real Geronimo roamed, and was decidedly not what one expects from a modern police force in the world’s most affluent, cosmopolitan, advanced capital. In this case, the police by using deadly force on crowded streets could have been considered more of threat to our citizenry than was Darius Kennedy.

But perhaps we can not blame our police force which only reflects the norms of our society. When one of our major political parties, and it's two top representatives, espouse policies of disdain for the weak, poor and vulnerable in our society, perhaps this is all that we can expect. In modern day New York, instead of incarceration and professional help, a deranged, homeless man, obviously in need of medical and psychological assistance can only expect to be surrounded, hounded into a corner and then brutally shot dead on the street. Surely we can do much, much better than this.

Get the picture?

rjk

Thursday, August 2, 2012

ROMNEY: LIMITED WORLD VIEW, LOPSIDED CHOICE IN ADVISORS: DANGEROUS

ROMNEY: HIS LIMITED VIEW OF THE WORLD IS ONLY EXACERBATED BY HIS LOPSIDED CHOICE OF ADVISORS

By all accounts, on his recent disastrous world tour, the Republicans apparent choice for President has inadvertently and surgically exposed his unfortunate and debilitating ”Palin-like" understanding of the world. But if that wasn't enough to make him unelectable, it must be his correspondingly poor choices in radical-fringe advisers, "experts" and shady financial supporters.

All this was exposed on a supposed "world tour" which was to pump up the candidate's standing at home. However, Romney's comments, behavior and deportment on his "world tour" went bad from the start. In the UK, he blundered into questioning his host-nation's abilities at running the Olympics. At his next stop, in Jerusalem he made erroneous and racist remarks concerning the economic attainments of the Palestinian Authority. (While in Jerusalem, he made an unfavorable comparison of the Palestinian's "culture" to that of Israel, the nation which continues to occupy most of the Palestinian West Bank. If that wasn't enough, he burnished that stupidity with the remark that the differences in wealth (GDP) were the result of "Providence" or God's will. His "culture" statement underscored his shaky understanding of the region, the dynamics and history in that tense area. It was tantamount to blaming the poor economy in the pre-1994 South African "bantustans", black homelands, on the "culture" of the blacks whom the Afrikaners had forced into those areas and concluding that their "culture" was ineffective while that of their oppressors was superior.) Finally, in Poland, Romney's over-protective staff and advisor bad-mouthed the American press as they attempted to get a response from the American candidate for President, who kept himself buttoned-up during the long tour, unwilling to speak with the press, which in desperation, called-out question to the candidate-- generated from his gaffs during his previous stops.

Romney on this expose' trip, fully reveals his weaknesses as a person, who it is clear has lived a cloistered and privileged life and has little practical understanding and knowledge of the world outside of his small elite circle, his close-knit Mormon church, intimate business partners and family. After observing this man's behavior abroad, one must conclude, it is Romney who is the "foreigner" on American soil, not the oft accused Barack Obama, the President with the exotic sounding name and birth certificate from Hawaii.

What could be more "foreign" than Romney as a ventriloquist dummy doing an act in Jerusalem? Romney mouthing statements excised from recent writings of infamous neo-con Dan Senor ( and his co-author) revealed a man with little understanding of his own, and much more study and preparation needed to become a prime time player. His weaknesses are dangerous to our nation, because he apparently has no strong abiding opinions of his own (witness his many changing positions pro and con on issues from birth control to health care) and thus must rely on advisers. However, his utter lack of sophistication is such that he has pulled his advisor cadre, rather than from the many Republicans of stature and experience available to him, but right from the worst losers and radicals of the "toxic" last Republican administration. While in terms of financial support, he seems to have no qualms at all about who supports him as long as it comes in big denominations.

As a consequence, based on what we saw in Jerusalem, we can imagine what a nation under a Romney presidency might look like--I see a weak executive, led around on a nose ring by a determined, affluent minority with strong ties to a foreign nation, and a distorted one-sided view of world affairs. Such a situation in the White House can only raise the old specter of ”divided loyalties" with disastrous results for the presidency, the nation, the world, and eventually the resentment which results for the minority in question.

Our nation experienced a similar problem (inexperienced junior President and powerful advisers) only three and a half years ago with the disaster of the "Bush jr." Administration. Bush II, under the sway of powerful, neo-con advisers led junior and the Nation astray. How can we forget the unmitigated financial, moral and military disaster of Iraq so quickly? The nation, the world and our economy are still struggling to extricate ourselves from the excesses of those years. In this present case, the circumstances could be worse.

To my view, there was nothing more frightening, or depressing, than observing blank-faced, Mitt Romney in Jerusalem, his face frozen in a Parkinson disease smile, attempting to mouth the accepted "Israeli" line under the tutelage of so-called "Middle East specialist" Daniel Senor (trained at University of Western Ontario and Hebrew University in Jerusalem) and under the watchful eye of Mr. Sheldon Adelson, a man with dual Israeli and American citizenship who came along to make sure that Mitt Willard is worthy of the millions he is shelling out---to buy a US President.

God help America, the Middle East, and World Peace with this team in charge.

Get the picture?


rjk