Dutch Queen Beatrix Stands Firm Against Right-wing Hate

The Netherlands is known around the globe as one of the most tolerant societies on earth. When British rule came to New York City in the 17th Century, they found free blacks, an established doctrine of religious tolerance, and 28 different languages being spoken in the formerly Dutch colony. Today, The Netherland’s Queen Beatrix continues to be a voice for tolerance, peace, mutual respect and diversity in a world rife with ethnic clashes.

Unfortunately, there will always be those who hate – even in Holland.
The Queen has come under fire – and has fired back – by some on the far right for respectfully wearing a veil over her trademark hat as she entered mosques on a good-will tour of Arab nations this week. It is not the first time the far-rightists have criticized the Queen, who, in the Netherlands, is a traditional symbol of unity in this physically small but populous nation called home by almost 17 million people.

On Christmas Day 2011, Queen Beatrix delivered her annual Christmas address, in which she called for responsible stewardship of the world’s resources and encouraged the nation’s youth:

"selfishness and extravagance blind people to the damage that is done to our natural surroundings and undermine community spirit... we have lost sight of the fact that the Earth's resources are finite and of behavior that is acceptable in a civilized society…[we must] “weigh the quality of the future when making decisions about today. …Everywhere, people are coming up with new ideas and ways to live in more sustainable, aware life. This is a source of hope in the future and for the future as it is young people who are behind these new ideas."

As Christmas messages often (and appropriately) look to the hope of the future, her address was applauded by most of the political spectrum: statements issued by spokesmen from the Christian Democrats, the Labor Party, and the GreenLeft all spoke positively of the message.

But not Geert Wilders, the leader of the far-rightist “Freedom” Party, who tweeted, “Good heavens, is her majesty a secret member of the GreenLeft party?” Wilders has criticized the Dutch Monarchy before, calling the Queen’s calls for tolerance “multi-culti nonsense.”

The rise of Wilders’ Freedom Party is a troubling development in this historically liberal nation, although the party appears to have much in common with extremist elements in the Republican Party in the United States. Wilder is known for his obsessively anti-Muslim political crusades, and his party has drawn enough support to now be the third-largest political party in the Dutch Parliament. In the 2010 elections, the party won over 15% of the vote, nearly tripling its 2006 showing, and winning 24 out of 150 seats in the House of Representatives.

Embracing an Ethnic Nationalism, the Party’s Platform calls for:

Recording the ethnicity of all Dutch citizens;
Restricting immigrant labor from Slavic European nations and Islamic countries;
Gutting anti-climate change programs (An amazing position, given that 27% of the Netherlands is reclaimed from the sea, and below sea-level, protected by a system of dikes and pumps that would be endangered by global warming and a rise in sea-level).
Abolishing the Senate;
Closing all Islamic schools;
Banning all Dual Citizenship;
Forbidding the exercise of Islamic practices that differentiate between men and women (ironically, many Christian groups engage in such practices);
Forbidding Governmental communication in any language other than Dutch or Frisian (virtually all Dutch are multilingual);
Constitutional protection of the dominance of the Judeo-Christian culture of the Netherlands; and
A prohibition of the opening of any new mosques.

The Party’s Islamophobia is particularly ironic, considering that a large number of the nation’s Muslim population comes from Indonesia, a nation that the Netherlands dominated through trade and colonization from the 1600s through World War II. Others came from Morocco: On December 24, 1610, the Netherlands and Morocco signed a free-trade treaty which was the first-ever official treaty between a European country and a non-Christian nation. Still, only 5% of the Netherland's population is Muslim.

This past week, Queen Beatrix lead a delegation of business and trade unions leaders on official state visits to the United Arab Emirates and Oman. They visited numerous sites, including the Sohar Industrial Port and Maritime College in Oman, and in both nations, the Queen visited mosques. On Thursday's visit to the Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque in Muscat, Oman, the queen wore a veil over her hat as she was lead into the Mosque by Princess Maxima, who was also veiled.

Personally, I am an Episcopalian … but I have readily placed a yarmulke on my head when entering a Jewish Synagogue. It is an act of simple respect. But the Queen’s act of respect drew immediate criticism from none other than Geert Wilder, who termed it a “sad spectacle that legitimises the oppression of women".

In a highly unusual step for a European monarch, the Queen curtly responded, terming Wilders’ comments “utter nonsense.”

According to the Dutch News,

“…The queen’s uncharacteristic outburst could be taken as …an impatient swat at a mosquito that has been hovering around her head for some time. Wilders…has been critical of several of the queens’ new years’ speeches…”

But while many are quietly applauding the Queen for swatting at the mosquito, the public comments are a bit more reserved, as the few remaining modern European Monarchs rarely wade too deeply into political affairs. One paper, the Volkskraant, applauded the Queen on one hand, but added, “However, it is to be hoped that she does not develop a taste for speaking her mind publicly. Her position depends on her not getting involved with politics.”

Geert Wilders is a dangerous figure who is a clever and hateful master of political manipulation. At the same time he was criticizing the Queen, he called upon the nation to apologize for its ‘inactivity’ on behalf of Jews during World War II. By seeking to combine his criticism of Queen Beatrix with an oddly-timed defense of Jews, Wilders is not showing a new-found liberality; rather, he is employing a divide-and-conquer strategy to divide the normally liberal Dutch.

Hopefully for the Dutch - and for a world who looks to the Dutch as a model of civility and tolerance - Wilders will not succeed. Queen Beatrix, not Wilders, is the symbol of Dutch civility.

Dank u, Koningin Beatrix!


.

Monsanto: Indian Suicides, the American FDA, and Global Food Control

In my text, “Principles of Macroeconomics,” I include a chapter entitled “Government Failure,” which examines some of the systemic reasons why government policy often results in economic injustice. One of those reasons is called “Capture Theory.” Quoting myself,

“a regulated interest will always capture the agency designed to regulate it, and will use it as a tool for its own ends.”

Said theory explains why Michael Taylor, the former Vice-President and Chief Lobbyist for Monsanto, is the Deputy Commissioner for food at the US Food & Drug Administration – in effect, America’s “food safety” czar.

Taylor’s career has moved back and forth between representing Monsanto and formulating policy at the FDA for the last several decades..and in all of these roles, Taylor has been instrumental in defending and orchestrating the introduction of Genetically Modified Crops (GMOs) into the world’s food system, in spite of significant scientific warnings to the contrary.

Monsanto’s GMOs and the Suicide Crisis in India

India, like China, has emerged as one of the world’s fastest growing economies. With a population of over a billion, India represents an enormous market for global companies. It should be no surprise, then, that Monsanto has sought to take advantage of that market. But the untold story of India is an epidemic of indebtedness and suicide that has been left in the wake of Monsanto’s GMO explosion.

Maharashtra State is the epicenter of what has been called India’s ‘suicide belt,’ where more than 1,000 farmers commit suicide each month. So far, 125,000 farmers have taken their lives – most by drinking insecticide and dying an excruciating death, and leaving behind a generation of homeless children.

The seeds of the current crisis were planted when India, seeking to reduce its high rate of poverty, applied in the 1990s for loans from the International Monetary Fund for economic development. The IMF offered India funds – as long as they would open their markets to western companies.
Enter Monsanto. Monsanto sent teams of salespeople and lobbyists to India, promoting GMO crops. The company promised that GMO seeds would provide record crops, increase overall income, and be resistant to parasites and insects which had often reduced Indian crops in the past. They were so persuasive that many government seed banks banned traditional varieties of seeds and stocked up on the Monsanto seeds.

Because these seeds were supposedly of such higher quality, Monsanto was able to charge a far higher price for them. Traditional cotton seeds in India cost the US equivalent of fifteen cents for one kilogram of seeds; Monsanto’s modified seeds cost one hundred and fifty dollars for the same amount of seed. In order to afford these seeds – now often the only ones available – farmers borrowed money and went heavily into debt. Local moneylenders in India – often the only source of funds for low-income farmers - often charge interest rates in excess of 20%. Throughout India, families tell the same story as to how they were persuaded to borrow to purchase GMO seeds on the promise that the financial returns from the seeds would be worth it.

GM Seed Performance

Monsanto justified the higher prices by saying that pesticides would not be needed for these ‘super seeds.’ But instead, many of their ‘pest-proof’ cotton crops were devastated by Indian Bollworms. In addition, it was discovered by the farmers that these GM seeds required twice the amount of water that traditional varieties required, and for many farmers, this was impossible due to water infrastructure or climate; entire crops of GM crops simply died.

When crops had failed in the past, farmers could still prepare for the following year by saving the seeds produced by surviving plants for replanting the following year, thus eliminating the need to purchase additional seeds. But not so with Monsanto’s GM seeds: GM seeds contain so-called 'terminator technology', which means the plants have been genetically modified so that viable seeds are not produced.

Season after season, farmers are forced to buy Monsanto seeds, at higher prices, with borrowed funds, to produce crops that fail. Faced with humiliating, mounting debt and imminent homelessness as their farms are repossessed, the suicide crisis grows.

Monsanto brushes this all aside as being the result of 'untimely rain' or drought, or by cavalierly suggesting that the victims are alcoholics or that suicide is just a part of traditional rural Indian life.

Because of the close historical relationship between Britain and India, Britain’s Prince Charles travelled to India to examine the situation first-hand. He was indignant at what he saw, calling the issue of Monsanto’s modified seeds a "global moral question" and setting up a charity – the Bhumi Vardaan Foundation - to help farmers establish organic farms using traditional seed varieties.

Monsanto and the FDA

From the Institute for Responsible Technology:

“When the FDA was constructing their GMO policy in 1991-2, their scientists were clear that gene-sliced foods were significantly different and could lead to “different risks” than conventional foods. But official policy declared the opposite, claiming that the FDA knew nothing of significant differences, and declared GMOs substantially equivalent.

This fiction became the rationale for allowing GM foods on the market without any required safety studies whatsoever! The determination of whether GM foods were safe to eat was placed entirely in the hands of the companies that made them — companies like Monsanto, which told us that the PCBs, DDT, and Agent Orange were safe.

GMOs were rushed onto our plates in 1996. Over the next nine years, multiple chronic illnesses in the US nearly doubled—from 7% to 13%. Allergy-related emergency room visits doubled between 1997 and 2002 while food allergies, especially among children, skyrocketed. We also witnessed a dramatic rise in asthma, autism, obesity, diabetes, digestive disorders, and certain cancers.

In January 2009, Dr. P. M. Bhargava, one of the world’s top biologists… concluded that the GM foods in the US are largely responsible for the increase in many serious diseases.

In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine concluded that animal studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between GM foods and infertility, accelerated aging, dysfunctional insulin regulation, changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system, and immune problems such as asthma, allergies, and inflammation.

In July, a report by eight international experts determined that the flimsy and superficial evaluations of GMOs by both regulators and GM companies “systematically overlook the side effects” and significantly underestimate “the initial signs of diseases like cancer and diseases of the hormonal, immune, nervous and reproductive systems, among others.”

Who oversaw this FDA policy to fast-track the introduction of Monsanto’s GM seeds?

Michael Taylor.

He is now making policy about the American food system. And the FDA is wasting no time going after non-corporate food systems.

FDA Moves to Ban Organic Milk Sales

Unsurprisingly, the FDA is now moving against organic, non-corporate farmers here in the United States. Witness news reports from the lastfew months:

“On the morning of August 3, 2011, armed agents of the U.S. government and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office conducted a raid on a small private club in southern California, seizing the substances being sold therein and arresting three individuals on felony charges. It was the second raid on the club in two years and the culmination of a yearlong investigation by 10 local, state, and federal agencies that, according to the Los Angeles Times, ‘used high-tech video equipment hidden on a utility pole for round-the-clock surveillance and undercover agents to make covert buys.’

In what nefarious substances was the club trafficking? Marijuana? Cocaine? Heroin? No, the members of Rawesome Foods of Venice, California, were accused of the heinous crime of consuming milk and other dairy products that had not been pasteurized — products that the Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies insist are so dangerous that individuals must not be permitted to ingest them.

Advocates of unpasteurized (“raw”) milk consumption beg to differ. They argue that raw milk is nearly as safe as pasteurized milk and that its benefits outweigh its slightly increased risks. Many go to great lengths to obtain raw milk, joining private food clubs like Rawesome, entering into agreements whereby they purchase shares in cows and in turn receive the cows’ milk (called “herd sharing”), and, in some cases, openly defying the FDA’s ban on interstate raw milk sales”

But Americans are fighting back.

In Maine, three towns – Penobscot, Blue Hill and Sedgwick - adopted a “Local Food and Self-Governance Ordinance,” asserting that Maine towns can determine their own food and farming policies locally, and exempting direct food sales from state and federal license and inspection requirements. In addition, the Farm To Consumer Legal Defense Fund is filing suit against the FDA to stop the raid on farm-to-consumer sales.

The FDA's Response?

"...plaintiffs' assertion of a new 'fundamental right' under substantive due process to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law."

In non-legalese, the FDA is claiming in court documents that Americans have no right to farm, produce, or eat the food they desire; rather, the FDA can decide what foods we can eat.

Not unlike Indian governments banning traditional seeds and forcing farmers to purchase products from Monsanto.

In related news, according to Bloomberg, Monsanto is now the world’s largest seed company. For the three months ending November 30, Monsanto exceeded financier's estimates on rising sales of corn and soybean seeds in Latin America and cotton seeds in Australia. Sales rose 7.8 percent to $1.83 billion, and net income was $6 million.

But India is also fighting back:

In an unprecedented decision, India's National Biodiversity Authority(NBA), a government agency, declared legal action against Monsanto (and their collaborators) for accessing and using local eggplant varieties (known as brinjal) to develop their Bt genetically engineered version1 without prior approval of the competent authorities, which is considered an act of "biopiracy."

The Journal of Nature Biotechnology reported:

"An Indian government agency has agreed to sue the developers of genetically modified (GM) eggplant for violating India's Biological Diversity Act of 2002. India's National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) is alleging that the developers of India's first GM food crop--Jalna-based Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (Mahyco) partnered with St. Louis--based seed giant Monsanto and several local universities--used local varieties to develop the transgenic crop, but failed to gain the appropriate licenses for field trials. At the same time, activists in Europe are claiming that patents on conventionally bred plants, including a melon found in India, filed by biotech companies violate farmers' rights to use naturally occurring breeds. Both these pending legal cases could set important precedents for biopiracy in India and Europe."

.

Did Obama Campaign Forfeit New Hampshire Convention Delegates?

While the Media focus on the New Hampshire Primary has been on the actual number of votes each candidates will receive, the purpose of a primary is actually to permit the parties to choose Delegates to their respective national conventions. These delegates are the people who will spend several days in Charlotte, NC (starting September 3, 2012 for the Democrats) or Tampa, FL (starting August 27, 2012 for the Republicans) choosing their party’s standard-bearers, cheering and applauding televised speeches, politicking and partying in one of the grandest of political traditions. When voters cast their votes in the Primary, they are actually choosing Delegates who are supportive or ‘pledged’ to the candidate for whom they vote.

And while the attention has been on the Republican Party, the Democrats also will have a convention, presumably to nominate President Barack Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden for a second term. And that means that in each state, Democratic partisans must also cast votes, caucus, or otherwise choose their Convention delegates.

Except in New Hampshire, it appears that the Democratic Party may have forfeited their right to send delegates pledged to President Obama.

New Hampshire State law reads as follows:

RSA 655:50 Selection of Delegates: Each presidential candidate who has filed pursuant to RSA 655:47 shall file with the secretary of state no later than the third Friday following the last day of the filing period before the presidential primary the names and addresses in alphabetical order of the delegates and their alternates, one alternate per delegate, who shall represent him as his delegation to the national convention.

That would have been November 18, 2011 for this election cycle. Former Republican candidate Gary Johnson flew to New Hampshire in a panic on that day because his campaign had forgotten to file their delegate slate. But apparently the Gary Johnson campaign was not the only campaign to forget to file.

A check of the NH Secretary of State shows that Barack Obama’s campaign also forgot to file.

I expect this will not make much of a difference at Convention time. After the primary, NH Secretary of State Bill Gardner will announce that Barack Obama won the Democratic Primary (he only has token, frivolous opposition). The Credentials Committee of the National Democratic Party will find some way to seat delegates from New Hampshire anyway.

And the Republicans will make some political hay about the Democrats cavalier approach and sloppy attention paid towards New Hampshire – the only “swing state” in the American northeast.

Not really a bright move for the Democrats….


.

Dixville Notch, Hart's Location Results are in....

Dixville Notch and Hart's Location, two tiny hamlets nestled high in the White Mountains, have started - and completed - their Primary Votes.

The Dixville Notch GOP Results are:

Jon Huntsman - 2 votes
Mitt Romney - 2 votes
Ron Paul - 1 vote
Newt Gingrich - 1 vote
Rick Perry - 0
Rick Santorum - 0

The Hart's Location GOP Results are:

Mitt Romney - 5 votes
Ron Paul - 4 votes
Jon Huntsman - 2 votes
Rick Perry - 1 vote
Newt Gingrich - 1 vote.
Rick Santorum - 0

So, taken together, that's Romney - 7; Paul - 5; Huntsman - 4; Gingrich and Perry, 1 each; and Santorum a big Zero.

Shades of things to come?


.

Perry & Romney Evade Issues, Reveal Constitutional Ignorance

Before giving the my first test each semester, I have a humorous – but very serious – discussion with my students about how to think critically and attack essay questions.

“If I ask you, 'which is more expensive, per ounce – the lemon or the orange?', the following are not appropriate answers:

“I think oranges are too expensive”
“I really, really like oranges!”
“I actually prefer limes in my drinks.”
“Do oranges grow anywhere except Florida?”

Students often laugh at this, but it is a very common college freshman approach on an essay test to write ‘something’ about the subject, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with answering the specific question that was asked. Sometimes it is because the student is evading the question, because they don't know the answer; other times, it is a serious inability to engage in critical thinking.

It is, apparently, not an error limited to college freshman: it appears to be standard operating procedure among Republican Presidential candidates…an error (or tactic) that is exacerbated by their frightening ignorance of basic constitutional law.

At a campaign stop last week, in Iowa, Rick Perry was asked to reconcile his support for limited government with a state anti-sodomy law that was on the books while he was Governor. The questioner mentioned Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 to strike down the law, in effect legalizing private consensual sexual activity of any flavor. Perry was governor at the time of the court decision.

Perry rambled the following answer:

“I don’t dislike government, I just want government to work” [not an answer]. “We have a federal government that is out of control from the standpoint of spending [not an answer]. And, you know, I wish I could tell you I know every Supreme Court case. I don’t. I’m not even going to try to go through every Supreme Court case. I’m not a lawyer.[ignorance of basic constitutional law decided while he was Governor of the state which was the subject of the decision]. But here’s what I do know. I know they’re spending too much money in Washington, D.C., and $15 trillion worth of debt is on that young man right there [not an answer]. We can sit here and play I-gotcha questions on ‘What about this Supreme Court case?’ [you should know this, Rick] or whatever, but you know and I know that the problem in this country is spending in Washington, D.C. It’s not some Supreme Court case.[Fail]

Later, when asked by reporters if he knew what the Lawrence v. Texas case was, Perry answered, “I don’t. I think I explained … that pretty good there, that I didn’t understand it. I’m not taking the bar exam.”

That was at least a direct, honest answer to the question. It also revealed startling ignorance.

Last night at St. Anselm’s College in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney pulled the same “I prefer limes in my drinks” non-answer.

The exchange began when ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos asked whether Romney believed that the US Constitution contains a Right to Privacy. The question was clearly seeking his opinion on the 1965 case, Griswold vs. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court invalidated a Connecticut statute that prohibited birth control, even between married adults. This decision established a right to privacy (especially in family matters) in the Bill of Rights, and has been cited for almost 50 years by the Court in subsequent decisions ranging from reproductive rights to home education rights. Here is the exchange:

Romney: “George, this is an unusual topic that you’re raising [non-answer; buying time]. States have the right to ban contraception? [No, they don’t, due to Griswold vs. Connecticut]. I can’t imagine that states would want to ban contraception. If I were a governor or a legislator in a state, I would totally oppose any effort to ban contraception [non-answer]. So you’re asking -- given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so -- you are asking could it constitutionally be done? We could ask our constitutionalist here” [pointing at Ron Paul, and buying more time].

Stephanopoulos: “I am asking you, do you believe states have that right or not?”

Romney : “George, I don’t know whether the state has the right to ban contraception. [Ignorance]. No state wants to. The idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no state wants to do is kind of a silly thing, I think [continued Non-answer. Attack the questioner rather than answer the question].

Stephanopoulos : “You went to Harvard Law School, you know very well …”

Romney: “Has the Supreme Court decided that the states do not have the right to ban contraception? [startling ignorance]”

Stephanopoulos: “Yes, they have. 1965. Griswold vs Connecticut.”

Romney then went on to a rambling non-answer about how Americans have the right to amend the Constitution, and that he favors amending it to ban same-sex marriage [an obvious, “ I-prefer-limes-in-my-drink response]. “But I know of no reason to talk about contraceptions…Contraception, it’s working just fine, just leave it alone" [non-answer].

Stephanopoulos: “Do you believe the Supreme Court should overturn it or not?”

Romney: “Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v Wade?” “Yes, I do.” [Not even limes any more...he jumps to Kumquats now…]

Kudos to Ron Paul at this point: Stephanopoulos posed the question to Paul, who succinctly answered that the 4th Amendment of Constitution's Bill of Rights includes a right to privacy in the home, and the Commerce Clause, regulating commerce among the states, overrides a states effort to prohibit goods, including contraception.

It really doesn’t matter to me how Perry reconciles his small-government philosophy with his state’s former anti-sodomy statute. Nor does Romney’s stance on Griswold vs. Connecticut matter to me. There is no conceivable way I would vote for either of them. But their failure to grasp basic constitutional law, and their inability – or refusal – to offer direct answers to the questions asked calls into question their fitness to be the Chief Executive branch official of the United States Government.


.

Santorum’s Hypocrisy – and Ignorance – on Health Insurance

Being the week before the New Hampshire Primary, it is hard to go grab a loaf of bread in this state without running into some campaign entourage. Rick Santorum, after being booed off the stage for his anti-Marriage Equality screed yesterday, and having missed a traditional “must stop” at Lindy’s Diner this morning, finally showed at the Community Room of the Keene Public Library to press the flesh. In the most interesting exchange of the morning, Santorum tried to defend the practice of charging higher health insurance premiums to people with pre-existing conditions, and criticized the clause in the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) that prohibits insurers from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.

In explaining this position to one member of the audience, he stated that "Americans need to be educated” about health care costs. This condescension was met with expertise greater than his: he was speaking with a woman who had been a nurse for over 30 years, and whose son was a childhood cancer survivor. She asked Santorum why her son should have to pay higher health premiums, or even go without insurance for the rest of his life.

Santorum’s answer: “Insurance works when people who are higher risk end up having to pay more, as they should.”

Not only does Santorum lack basic compassion, his answer shows that he fundamentally misunderstands the nature of most illnesses, and, worse, is a hypocrite to boot.

If we take him at his word, then those who statistically have a higher risk of incurring health care costs should pay higher premiums. If he really believes that, then he should look at his own family size.

Rick Santorum and his wife had seven children (one died soon after birth.) As any doctor’s office or hospital can verify, the more children one has, statistically, the higher the health costs associated with those children. This blogger has 6 children, and we used to joke that the local hospital ought to have a room reserved just for our family.

But most major Health Insurance Plans do not charge “per child.” Insurers generally provide plans for singles, married couples, single parent/child plans, and family plans. The Family Plans are without regard to the size of the family or number of children. Rick Santorum's Congressional Family Plan does not charge for additional chidlren.

So does Rick Santorum support increasing health premiums for families with large numbers of children? Doubtful: in Iowa, he proposed tripling the income tax deduction for each dependent child (from $3,500 to $10,500), which would virtually make the largest families exempt from income tax at the expense of single people and smaller families. This massive distortion of the tax code would accomplish the very thing he opposes when it comes to health care: subsidizing those who receive the most services with dollars paid by those who receive the least services. The hypocrisy is palpable.

It also shows that Santorum’s understanding of Insurance Pools is crude at best, and simply parroting Corporate Insurance Lobbyists at worst.

Insurance pools are based on the notion that everyone’s risk is shared. The first known successful Insurance pools existed as far back as 1235 with the birth of the "Hanseatic League," an alliance of shipowner-merchants along the Baltic Sea. Because this was the height of the era when Vikings ruled and pillaged the seas, there was always a good chance that a merchant's ship – and along with it, the merchant's life investment – would be captured by marauding Danes. Members of League chose to each take an ownership stake in all the other members’ ships to prevent against the possibility of a total loss. Shipowners forced to sail closer to Denmark were not thrown out of the pool in favor of those who plied waters further away; each shared equally in the losses – and surpluses – recorded by the entire group of merchants. It was a system that lasted for 300 years.

An insurance pool that favors the low-risk members, and penalizes the higher-risk members (as Santorum defends), is not an insurance pool at all, but a profit-making engine that distorts and misrepresents its purpose.

Fortunately for those with large families, most Americans really do understand this concept, and Mr. Santorum has benefitted from it.

Perhaps it is Mr. Santorum, not the American people, who need to be educated about health care costs.

Why This Progressive will vote for Ron Paul in the NH Primary

Here in New Hampshire, independents (or, more precisely, the “Undeclared”) are allowed to vote in any party’s primary. And in spite of having been a candidate for the statehouse as a Democrat just two years ago, I will be casting my vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary this Tuesday.

Let me say from the outset that I disagree with Ron Paul on many issues – significant policy issues. I favor universal access to health care for all; I want to see Glass-Steagall reenacted at the federal level, and increased regulation and oversight of the financial industry; I would like to see profit made from stock gambling - "capital gains" – taxed at the same rate that honest labor is. I believe the climatologists who are pleading with us to change our environmental habits. I believe unions need to be stronger, not weaker; and, as a gay man with an interracial family, I am a strong supporter of federal civil rights laws and the recognition, nationally, of marriage equality. I have no doubt that I would be frustrated on all of these issues by a Ron Paul Presidency.

Nonetheless, as a liberal, I see him as the clear choice for my vote in the Primary.

First, on all the issues I mentioned above, I believe Dr. Paul is wrong – but so is every other Republican running, not just Dr. Paul. Rick Santorum would invalidate same-sex marriages and supports state prohibition of birth control; Mitt Romney’s most significant financial support comes from the financial industry, and openly supported the disgusting level of retained corporate profits at a stop in Manchester yesterday; Newt Gingrich would break the back of labor on the altar of corporatism. The Republican field, to me, is a horrifying mix of the brutal and the uncaring.

But where Ron Paul differs from the other candidates, he differs in critical and important ways. Those differences make me shout, “Yes!,” and deserve my support.

Alone among the Republican candidates, Dr. Paul opposed the Patriot Act – the single largest erosion of American’s civil liberties in history - and its extensions. Alone among the GOP, he also opposed the recently passed NDAA, permitting the indefinite detention of Americans without charge or trial who are ‘suspected’ of aiding terrorists. Alone among the Republicans, he sees that the so-called “War on Drugs” has resulted in creating a permanent black underclass, as one in six adult black males now has a felony criminal record for non-violent offenses (Compare that to the Fed-backed banksters who wiped out a global economy and walk free). And alone among the Republicans, he has consistently voted and argued against the building of a global American Empire. Trillions of dollars and millions of lives have been affected by American militarism abroad, in endless wars and exercises that enrich military hardware industries and maim and kill our young soldiers and civilians worldwide. As I write, we are preparing for military exercise with Israel, based largely on politician’s efforts to pander to the “Second Coming” theocrats in the GOP.

And where Dr. Paul contrasts with the Republicans, he also provides a sharp contrast to President Obama and the Democratic establishment.

Obama has been no friend of progressives, but has governed as “GOP Light.” In each of my criticisms above, the Democrats have been complicit with the GOP. Obama signed the NDAA and has suppported SOPA; Obama’s Justice Department has argued for Executive immunity from lawsuits; Obama’s Department of Homeland Security has aided and abetted brutal attacks by police forces on OWS protesters; Obama’s FDA has raided raw milk producers, and Obama’s DEA has raided Medical Marijuana facilities in California. Obama signed sanctions meant to cripple Iran and draw us closer into military conflict.

It is no surprise to me that in the Iowa Caucuses, exit polls proved that Ron Paul won the vote of moderates, of liberals, and of independents. The American people are tired of corporate favoritism, fraudulent home foreclosures, endless wars, and the whole-scale destruction of civil liberties – all at the hands of both the Republican and Democratic establishments who, in spite of their differences, have pursued a common agenda.

Ron Paul is the one candidate – symbolic though his candidacy may be – who represents a whole scale “NO” to business as usual. And for this progressive, that is a message worth sending to both parties.


.

Iowa Caucus Analysis: Romney Loses, Even as he Wins

The Republican Iowa caucuses are over, and 122,255 votes were recorded as follows:

Mitt Romney 30,015 (25%)
Rick Santorum 30,007 (25%)
Ron Paul 26,219 (21%)

Trailing behind these three were Newt Gingrich with 16,251 votes, Rick Perry with 12,604 votes, and Iowa native Michelle Bachmann with 6,073 votes.

In dividing their votes largely between Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul, caucus goers starkly represented the three philosophical ‘factions’ comprising the GOP, as well as age and income differences. Our conclusions from the votes and the exit polls:

Ron Paul won 50% of those in the 17-24 year old category, 45% of those in the 25-29 year old bracket, and 34% of 30-39 year olds. The younger the voter, the stronger the support for the messages of libertarianism and/or non-interventionism. Paul did well in all college towns.

He also won a majority of voters making under $30,000 annually by more than a 2:1 margin over all the other candidates, and won voters making less than $50,000 by a slim (2%) margin over Rick Santorum. He increased his win from only one county in 2008, to 18 in 2012, with his largest margin in Jefferson County (49%) – home of the Maharishi School of Management and center of Iowa’s peace-oriented Transcendental Meditation community.

Perhaps most importantly, Ron Paul won caucus-goers who were self-described independents, moderates, liberals, and first-time caucus-goers. Every national campaign knows that the battle for the Presidency is won by attracting the great ‘moderate middle,’ something neither Romney nor Santorum were able to do in Iowa.

Rick Santorum’s popularity exploded in the two weeks leading up to the caucus, and appeared to galvanize Iowa’s strong Evangelical Christian vote, winning many of the counties won by Mike Huckabee in 2008. He took the majority of those in the 40-64 year old age bracket, who often represent a more socially conservative, ‘family values’ voting bloc that has been ascendant in the GOP since the 1980s.

Santorum won over 61% of the vote in Lyon County, and won neighboring Sioux & O’Brien counties with more than 40%. These counties, in Iowa’s northwest corner, are some of the most conservative counties in Iowa, and are home to large, ‘Dominionist’ Reformed Churches that teach that government and laws should be structured on Biblical principles.

The biggest disappontment of the night was reserved for supporters of Mitt Romney – even though he won, statewide, by 8 votes.

Representing the old establishment blue-blood wing of the party, Romney won only one age group – seniors over age 65.

Four years ago, in the 2008 caucuses, Romney won 29,949 votes (25.2%) and took 24 counties. Last night, he won with 30,015 votes – also representing 25% of the vote cast. In other words, with four years and a supposed $10 million dollars of advertising under his belt, Romney was unable to expand his base even a tiny bit, increasing his vote by a mere 66 voters.

On the Iowan map (see bottom of post), it appears that the fact that he matched his performance four years ago was due largely to increased organization in a few key locations:

In the eastern part of the state, (which Romney won solidly in 2008 ) Romney lost 7 counties he won in 2008 to Ron Paul, and 1 to Rick Santorum, without picking up any new ones.

On the western border (the Missouri River counties), where Romney also did well in 2008, he lost 4 of the 7 he had won in 2008 to Rick Santorum, picking up only one new county.

It was in the middle of the state – particularly the growing Des Moines – West Des Moines area, where the GOP establishment organized for Romney - that Romney was to pick up 5 counties over 2008, while still losing one to Rick Santorum.

Make no mistake: Romney’s base is aging and shrinking. In spite of 4 years of campaigning, organizing, and spending, he was unable to expand his showing beyond his 2008 performance.

Perhaps Democratic operative James Carville said it best when describing voters attitudes towards Romney:

“It’s like trying to give a dog a pill. They keep spitting it out.”

.

Why Iowa IS Relevant

Are the Iowa caucuses “relevant?”

Yes. Perhaps now more than ever.

In the interminable weeks and marathon of debates leading up to tomorrow’s Iowa caucuses, pundits and media gurus have been raising the question as to whether the Iowa caucuses will be relevant “if they turn out wrong.” There is no doubt that Iowa Republicans are more likely to reflect agricultural interests and Evangelical Christian fervor than the rest of the nation; but over the last 30 years, the Republican Iowa caucuses have been an accurate snapshot of political temperament in America.

First, it has accurately reflected the mood of the national Republican Party.

In 1980, George H. W. Bush (32%) and Ronald Reagan (30%) virtually tied; libertarian-oriented Congressman Phil Crane took an additional 7% of the vote. The caucuses almost pre-ordained a Reagan-Bush ticket, and foreshadowed a growing conservative-libertarian bloc within the GOP.

In 1988 (Reagan was unopposed for his second term in 1984), the winner was Bob Dole(37%); televangelist Pat Robertson took second with 24%, and George H. W. Bush limped in at third place with 19%. Once again, Iowa taught an important lesson: while George H.W. Bush went on to win the nomination and the election against Democrat Mike Dukakis (in a record-low turnout year), Iowa signaled that Bush was headed for trouble, and would be limited to a one-term Presidency. At the same time, Robertson’s second place finish indicated the growing power of the religious right within the GOP.

In 1996, the winner was Bob Dole with 26%. He went on to win the Republican nomination that year.

In 2000, George W. Bush won with 41%. He went on to win the Republican nomination that year.

In 2008, Mike Huckabee won with 34% of the vote. This win reflected the continuing strength of social conservatives and the religious right in the GOP. The eventual winner of the nomination that year – John McCain – drew only 13% of the vote. His lackluster performance in Iowa found its fullest expression in the general election, when he was defeated by Barack Obama, losing formerly “safe” GOP states like North Carolina, Indiana, and Virginia. Interestingly, Mitt Romney took second place in Iowa that year (25%), foreshadowing his own strength this year.

Second, as a “swing state,’ it has been a bellwether in the national election.

Iowa has voted for the winning candidate in the general election in four out of five of the last Presidential elections, and 7 out of the last 10 Presidential elections. In other words, in recent years, it has become even more predictive of the national outcome. One can point to its racial makeup or economic base as 'unrepresentative,' but the objective facts are that Iowans laregly have their finger on the pulse of elections, rather than simply being a "red state" or a "blue state."

But lastly, the current ‘winnowing process’ that has resulted in a virtual three-way race between Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and a late-surging Rick Santorum, is an accurate reflection of the current makeup – and divisions – within the Republican Party.

On Jan 23, 2011 – just about a year ago – we published an analysis
of the tripartheid nature of the Republican Party as reflected in elections for leadership with the state of New Hampshire Republican Party. We wrote,

In the wake of yesterday's election of Jack Kimball over Juliana Bergeron as New Hampshire State Republican Chair, many news articles have attempted to present this as a battle between "two sides." And in America, we tend to simply battles into just two sides: Republicans vs. Democrats, Packers vs. Bears, Yankees vs. Red Sox, Toby Keith vs. The Dixie Chicks. But the reality behind the scenes is that the state GOP can be divided into at least three different factions, and the direction the party - and the State - will take is a function of how those coalitions come together - or fall apart - on individual issues.

In brief, the three main factions are The Establishment Yankees, The Theocrats, and the Libertarians.

Nowhere have three factions become as starkly clear as in Iowa in the last week.

Mitt Romney is the clear establishment favorite: The son of former Michigan Governor George W. Romney, he holds a joint Juris Doctor/Master of Business Administration degree from Harvard. He was the co-founder and head of Bain Capital, a highly profitable private equity investment firm. With the possible exception of Jon Huntsman, Romney represents the Republican Establishment Blue-Blood tradition.

Ron Paul, a twelve-term Congressman from Texas, is perhaps the single most recognizable voice in the libertarian wing of the GOP. Consistently voicing libertarian positions, Paul often votes against his Republican colleagues on issues involving civil liberties, militarism, and spending. In 1988, he ran for President on the Libertarian Party ticket; He was one of only 66 Congressmen (out of 435) to oppose the original Patriot Act, and one of 26 Republicans to oppose its extension this past year. A veteran, he alone among the Republicans has opposed sanctions on Iran and has called for significant slashing of America’s international military budget.

Rick Santorum represents the clearest and most extreme personification of theocracy in the United States. A strident evangelical Christian, Santorum is actively seeking to galvanize Iowa’s Pat Roberston voters as he openly campaigns on behalf of a “Christian America,” vowing this past week to invalidate all same-sex marriage that have already taken place, and winning endorsements from Bob Vander Plaats, Chief Executive of the Family Leader, and Chuck Hurley, President of the Iowa Family Policy Centre. In an overture to the Second-Coming crowd, he vowed a direct military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

In the last week, the media have used the words “irrelevant,” “overhyped,” and “unrepresentative” in describing Iowa and it’s voters. They have used all sorts of facts and figures about race and religion to try and prove their point. They also question what an unexpected (or “undesirable”) outcome could mean.

But in spite of their nay-saying, the three front-runners - Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum – are an entirely accurate representation of the elements of the current schizoid Republican Party, and the results of the Iowa caucuses for the last thirty years have been highly predictive of the American political mood.

Iowa *is* relevant.


.

Obama, GOP set stage for 2012 war in Iran

(Map of US Bases surrounding Iran)

[NEW: See Short Video reviewing the last 60 years of History between Iran and the USA at the end of this post]

From his home in Hawaii, President Barack Obama signed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act into law today, imposing the strongest economic sanctions to date on Iran, and increasing the probabilities of oil disruptions, rising gasoline prices, and military conflict.

The current sanctions are in response to Iran’s efforts to develop a nuclear program, which Iran claims is for energy production, but which is suspected of developing weapons. Sanctions on Iran by the United States, however, go back long before the nuclear program. Sanctions started in 1980, when US Embassy workers were taken hostage for 444 days in Tehran during the Islamic Revolution that toppled the US-backed Shah. These sanctions prohibited almost all trade with Iran, except for activity "intended to benefit the Iranian people", including the export of medical and agricultural equipment to Iran, humanitarian assistance, and "informational" materials such as films and publications. Under the bill signed today, entities doing business with Iran’s central bank (Bank Markazi) will be prohibited from access to the US banking system, thus potentially crippling Iran’s ability to receive revenue from its oil exports.

According to BBC, “The bill specifically targets anyone doing business with Iran's central bank [and is] an attempt to force other countries to choose between buying oil from Iran or being blocked from any dealings with the U.S. economy.” The sanctions apply to foreign governments as well as to private companies.

Speaking anonymously, some U.S. officials believe that Tehran will view the bill signing itself as an act of war. The move could push Iran to take drastic measures, including an attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz, the world's busiest shipping lane for crude oil, with its ample supply of marine mines. 20% of the worlds crude oil passes through the Straight of Hormuz; a blockade of the Straight would send oil prices skyrocketing. Even if Iran chooses not to take this action, fear on world markets of the mere possibility of oil disruptions will likely lead to speculation at the New York Mercantile Exchange, where traders will be placing purchase and sale orders for millions of gallons of future deliveries of crude oil, creating lucrative profits for commodity traders and oil companies.

Iranian officials view the sanctions as an intolerable assault on the country's economy and have vowed to retaliate. Israel’s Ha’aretz News Service quoted Iran's Revolutionary Guard Deputy Chief Hossein Salami as saying, "If they impose sanctions on Iran's oil exports, then even one drop of oil cannot flow from the Strait of Hormuz." Pentagon officials said they would meet the closing of the Hormuz straight with force.

Meanwhile, in a game of one-upsmanship, Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, speaking in a campaign appearance in Iowa today, renewed his call for a proactive overthrow of the Iranian regime by the US through covert operations. All of the GOP candidates (with the stark and notable exception of Ron Paul) have called for tougher provisions against Iran.

For Iran’s part, it notes that the United States currently occupies 43 different military bases in the immediate vicinity of Iran; Pakistan, Russia, the US, and, it is widely suspected, Israel, all have nuclear weapon capability in the area.

It would appear that US soldiers are leaving Iraq just in time to return to Iran.

The bill also includes a highly controversial (and Unconstitutional) provision permitting terrorism suspects – including American citizens - to be held in detention indefinitely without a trial. While President Obama downplayed this clause by promising that his administration "will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," he was contradicted by a senior administration official who explained that the President "is not saying that a U.S. citizen can never be held in military custody."




.

Progressive-Libertarian Coalition: Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich & Noam Chomsky

Will the American People throw off the false Left-Right Paradigm and the Republican-Democratic Duopoly?

(Let's hope so...)

Year in Review: The Top 10 News Stories of 2011

From this Blogger's perspective, here are the top 10 news stories of 2011. Each was chosen based on their potential on-going long-term effects on humanity. In no particular order, they are:

1) The Arab Spring: Erupting in Tunisia and spreading across the Arab world, the entire year was characterized by protests and political changes in Northern Africa and the Middle East. Regime changes in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, as well as on-going protests in a dozen nations (currently (most serious in Syria and Yemen) represent serious winds of change throughout the geo-political sphere. A timeline of protests throughout the Arab world can be found at The Guardian

2) Weather Extremes and Global Warming: Once a matter of debate, the vast majority of the world’s climatologists agree that global warming is happening at an even faster rate than expected, with significant changes in the ocean temperatures and subsequent weather patterns. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, there were an all-time record of twelve weather disasters costing more than $1 billion each in 2011 (for a total of 45 billion dollars in damage). The previous record was nine such disasters in 2008. Weather events included a blizzard across much of North America on February 2, record wilfires in the US west, a tornado outbreak that levelled Joplin, Missouri, Hurricane Irene (which uncharacteristically inundated and devastated inland communities in Vermont and Upstate New York), and a foot-and-half snowfall at Halloween in the northeast US. Elsewhere, record high temperatures were recorded in Iraq and Kuwait, an all-time record low volume of Arctic sea was recorded, record floods inundated Australia and Asia, and the worst droughts in three decades affected Africa.

3) Osama bin Laden Killed: A decade after he masterminded the 9/11 attacks on New York City’s World Trade Center, Osama bin Laden was killed in a surgical strike on his hideout in Pakistan. This represented the most visible and significant victory in the global fight against terrorism and the al Qaeda organization.

4) New York State Enacts Marriage Equality: Four days after its scheduled adjournment for the season, the New York State Senate gave its approval to Marriage Equality by a larger-than expected margin of 33-29 when four Republicans broke rank and joined the majority of Democrats, making New York the seventh and largest jurisdiction in the US to permit same-sex marriage. Full story at Tully's Page

5) Occupy Wall Street and Police Brutality: Beginning on September 17 in New York City, the “Occupy Wall Street” movement in many ways inaugurated an American version of the Arab Spring. Spreading to other cities across the nation, thousands of Americans from all walks of life took to the streets to protest persistent unemployment, indebtedness, foreclosures and economic injustice in raw juxtaposition to the trillions of bailouts received by Wall Street financial houses and executives. The movement elicited a brutal response by police forces, and the use of pepper spray against peaceful protesters, young women, and veterans became a national outrage. The movement propelled Time magazine to name “The Protester” as it’s Person of the Year.

6) Federal Reserve Bailouts Revealed: For almost 100 years, the Federal Reserve System, which serves as the nations Central Bank, operated without an audit or significant political oversight. In the aftermath of the bank bailouts commencing in 2008, Congress began looking into the Fed’s activities using taxpayer dollars. In all, it was revealed that over 16 trillion in secret unpaid loans were made to both American and foreign banks. Sen. Bernie Sanders

7) Earthquake, Tsunami, and Nuclear Meltdown in Japan: On March 11, an 8.9 Magnitude earthquake rocked Japan, the worst earthquake in modern history. Over 16,000 people died from the quake and the tsunami that followed. When the Fukushima Daiichi power plant site in Fukushima was inundated by a 49-foot high tsunami wave, the nuclear reactors could not be cooled, began to overheat, and meltdowns began at three of the reactors. What followed was a release of radioactive cesium, evacuation of the surrounding area, and subsequent government and industry cover-ups of the extent of radiation. Fukushima Radiation

8) John Wheeler Murdered: On New Year’s Eve, after the death of 100,000 fish and 5,000 blackbirds in Arkansas, John P. Wheeler, a decades-long government expert in toxic chemicals, was found murdered in a dump as he was en route to Washington DC. The kills and murder came in the wake of the US Government’s Pine Bluffs Arsenal "disposal” of mustard and nerve gas in the area, as well as active “fracking” by energy companies. The incidences awakened a national concern for the environmental effects of these activities, and was the single most visited and cited webpage on this site: John Wheeler

9) Milton Hershey Rejects HIV Positive Student: In an almost incomprehensible burst of ignorance, prejudice, and chutzpah, the highly-vaunted Milton Hershey School (a private, tuition-free boarding school), issued a statement coinciding with World AIDs Day explaining their refusal to admit a student due to his HIV positive status, in direct violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Outrage was swift, and brought additional publicity to continuing ignorance about HIV transmission. Milton Hershey

10) European Debt Crisis: Beginning in Greece, the ability of some Eurozone member nations to repay their government debts created continental – and global – concern. Ireland, once seen as the “Celtic Tiger” for its explosive, high-tech-driven growth found itself enacting austerity measures and slashing government spending; Italy, Portugal, and Spain found themselves in a similar condition. The downgrading of these nations bonds began a record weakening of the Euro against the US Dollar that continued throughout the year. A weakened Euro makes it more difficult for the Eurozone members to purchase American goods, endangering the US recovery.

Christmas Thoughts....

Uzzah was a really good guy, but God blasted him. At least that’s how the story goes in the sixth chapter of 2 Samuel.

According to the story, the Israelites were transporting the Ark of the Covenant, the divinely-ordained chest that contained the tablets of the 10 Commandments (a replica of which was the central feature in the original Indiana Jones movie). By command, no mere human was allowed to touch the Ark. But in the sectarian wars that characterized (and continue to characterize) the Middle East, the Ark was captured by The Philistines, and then recaptured by David and the Israelites. Uzzah and his brother had the Ark placed on a cart driven by oxen to transport it back home.

This past summer I took the kids apple-picking at a large local orchard. We rode in the back of a cart pulled by horses out to the fruit trees. It was not smooth. Each hole and bump and uneven patch of ground was magnified by the cart as we bounced around up top. I have no doubt that an oxen-drawn cart through the Palestinian wilderness saw its share of bumps. And in fact, one such bump so jolted the cart that Uzzah, walking and watching behind, reached out his hand to steady the Ark from falling or being damaged.

And instantly, we are told, God struck him dead.

The books of the Torah give us ample examples of the mind of ancient peoples concerning the chasm-like division between God and Humankind, between Clean and Unclean, between Holy and Profane. The Levitical purity laws carefully divide much of life: Sheep, Deer, Locusts, and Fish are clean; rabbits, dogs, oysters and ostriches are not. All dead animals and all diseased people, and everything they touch, are unclean. Women are unclean during their period and after childbirth; men and everything they touch is unclean for any day in which they emit semen.

The extension of the these purity laws is two-fold:

First, anytime something “unclean” touched someone or something “clean,” that which was clean became defiled and unclean.

Second, God was so pure that when the impure came into contact with His purity – they were destroyed (as in Uzzah’s case).

It is for these reasons that, unlike many Christians, I see Christmas – not Easter – as the theological touchstone of faith.

At the Incarnation, as the Nicene Creed states, “He [Jesus] was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and Virgin Mary…”

Uzzah touched the Holiness of God and was killed for it; Mary came into direct contact with the Spirit of God, and henceforth, “all generations will call me Blessed!”

The Gospels tell the story of Jesus’ earthly ministry, in which he touched leprous body parts, prostitutes, half-breed Samaritans, women with “issues of blood,” dead children, the epileptic, the deranged, and unclean men and women of all varieties.

At no point does the touch of God strike any of these people down.

At no point does Jesus send anyone away as “unclean,” nor does he fear becoming unclean by their presence or touch.

If anything, the unclean are made clean. The fear that those who are “different” will infect and affect the “pure” is reversed: now, the different and the ‘unclean’ are brought into wholeness and community with the rest of society.

For me, the message of Christmas is not found in the familiar, heart-warming oohs and aahhs of a poor little newborn baby… but in the world-shaking change in attitude towards divisions in society, especially attitudes towards those who are ‘different.’

Many who claim to follow Christ – both politicians and harsh religious leaders – continue to operate in a world of clean vs. unclean, and under the fear that what is ‘different’ will infect everyone else. From telling the poor to “take a bath and get a job,” to dismissing immigrants as illegal law-breakers, to denying the poor who are seeking society’s crumbs to have food on the table and oil in their heater, to the irrational fear that some people’s love will ‘destroy traditional marriage and the foundations of society,’ to the fear-based refusal to permit an HIV-positive student to attend school, to blaming those who have lost their homes for their own foolishness, to refusing an interracial couple the right to marry….there is a blindness to the true Christmas message.

The Old Testament prophets that ‘set the stage’ for this theological change were strident in their condemnation of a divided society:

Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.' – Zechariah 7:10

“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
7 Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe them,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?"
- Isaiah 58:6-7

Woe to those who plan iniquity, to those who plot evil on their beds! At morning's light they carry it out because it is in their power to do it. They covet fields and seize them, and houses, and take them. They defraud a man of his home, a fellowman of his inheritance. – Micah 2:1-2

Christmas and the Gospels show us that the artificial division between ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ is to come to an end: that holiness and godliness extends to all of humanity. And so, on this Christmas, my hope and prayer is that our tendency to see ‘an enemy, ‘ or ‘a danger,’ or ‘an evil’ in others based on any of the innumerable differences we have, will be swallowed by an intentional effort to recognize our common humanity instead.

Merry Christmas! I'm now going to enjoy some good, unclean shrimp...


.

Newt Gingrich: wrong on Palestine, Pandering for Fundamentalist votes

Growing up in a political family on the south shore of Long Island, I became aware of New York’s ethnic voting patterns at a very early age. Like all of the New York City metro area, Long Island was carved into small “election districts,” (the equivalent of a city “ward”) in order to be able to handle the large number of voters on election day. And like many New York neighborhoods, these districts had distinct ethnic ‘flavors.’

Our district was “the Fifteenth,” a neighborhood of working class, blue-collar Germans, Irish, and more recent Italians. I could stand on our street corner and see six houses where the fathers volunteered in the local fire department. Most of the houses were small, many of them one-story “bungalows.” And the “Fifteenth” was famous for bringing in the largest Republican margin of any district in town – often over 80%.

We were balanced by the “Seventeenth,” a district of relatively new split ranches and colonials, where Jewish professional families dominated. As a rule, the 17th could be counted on to turn out a Democratic margin as large as the Fifteenth’s Republican margin. In fact, one could easily determine the predominant ethnic makeup of Long Island neighborhoods simply by looking at election returns. Jewish and black districts consistently returned lopsided Democratic margins; older blue-collar, german-irish 'clamdigger' neighborhoods were staunch Republican.

But in the last few decades, an interesting phenomenon has occurred: as the Republican Party has been captured by the fringe Religious-Right, it has seen an opportunity to mobilize and capture parts of the “Jewish” vote, especially among the more conservative Orthodox Jewish communities.

One of the theological hallmarks of fundamentalist, “Literal-Bible” Protestantism is the belief that the Second Coming of Christ will be heralded by the re-establishment of the State of Israel, the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem, and Christ’s last-ditch effort to convince Jews to accept him. This belief is precisely what launched the series of end-time Prophecy books and campaigns launched by Hal Lindsay, who profited nicely from his book (and subsequent movie), “The Late Great Planet Earth” in 1970. Initially popular in Pentecostal circles, the idea that “true” Bible-believing Christians had to provide unwavering support of Israel became a common premise throughout conservative Christianity. As this demographic votes heavily in Republican primary elections and caucuses, the opportunity for an alliance between Fundamentalist Protestantism and Orthodox Jews - based on support for Israel and social conservatism - became more evident.

In spite of the fact that New York City is 5:1 Democratic, Borough Park Brooklyn – a largely Hassidic Jewish community – votes Republican. Kiryas Joel, NY - the only community in America where Yiddish is the primary language – has often supported Republicans because of an alliance with the GOP over local school control. This pattern has emerged all over New York’s Hassidic communities, prompting national GOP conservative operatives like Eric Cantor to make personal visits to these communities encouraging their support for GOP candidates.

The Christian Right's embrace of unquestioned support for Israel (on theological grounds) and hatred of Muslim peoples (on racist grounds) is now complete. And in Iowa, the first caucus of the Presidential marathon, the Christian right is powerful: In 1988, goofy Televangelist Pat Robertson came in second place, defeating George H W Bush, and in 2008, Evangelical darling Mike Huckabee took first place.

So it is no accident, and should come as no surprise, that GOP Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich recently dismissed Palestinians as “an invented people.”

Let me say before going any further, that I am a supporter of Israel. Having been raised in a heavily Jewish community, and hearing my friends and classmates relate the stories of the holocaust they learned from their own grandparents and parents – I find it hard not to share in the human necessity that is the land of Israel. Having said that, that does not imply blind support of its government. One can be a patriotic American without blindly supporting everything America does; similarly, one can be a supporter of Israel without blindly supporting everything her government does.

Unless, of course, you’re a Theocrat who believes that God is directing the Israeli Government's actions. Or a Pandering Politician seeking to establish as extreme a position as possible in order to win the fundamentalist voting block.

And so, in an interview with The Jewish Channel, Gingrich said:

"Remember there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places."

For someone claiming to be the highest-paid “Historian” in history while working for Freddie Mac, Newt has a very poor grasp of history. His statements above are simply nonsense, for the following reasons:

1) One doesn’t need to have a legal ‘country’ with boundaries in order to be a ‘nation’ or a ‘people.’ The Kurds are scattered throughout Iraq, Iran, and Turkey, and never had a country of their own; they are still a recognized ‘people.’ The Lakota have not had a land of their own since they were contained on reservations in the Great Plains in the 1880s, but they are still a recognizable people. And the Romani (“Gypsies”) never had a land of their own, but they are certainly a recognized people group.

2) Calling Palestinians “Arabs” is like calling all white caucasians “Europeans.” Yes, in a very broad human-family sense, we may say that Italians, Swedes, and Bosnians are “Europeans,” but their sense of nationhood are vastly different. Palestinians may share Arab genetics, but if Gingrich wishes to be a world leader, he better understand that Egyptians, Syrians, Saudis, Lebanese, and yes, Palestinians, all see themselves primarily as members of their specific ethnic, national group...not of some pan-continental “Arab” nation. The use of the term "Palestinians" to refer to the areas people is mentioned in Egyptian texts in 5 BC, in 250 Biblical references, among ancient Greeks, and in writings from the Byzantine empire. It is not 'an invention.'

3) Suggesting that Palestinians should “go elsewhere” is a cruel and brutal comment that borders on ethnic cleansing (and reminiscent of comments uttered in the 1800s about Native American nations). With unemployment exceeding 30%, 50% of Palestinians living in the West Bank live below the poverty level. The hardships resulting from living under refugee-lifestyles, military checkpoints, blockades on Gaza and “The Wall” on the West Point have exacerbated tensions between Israelis and Palestinians and increased the wealth disparity between the peoples.

At the 2007 Annapolis Conference, the Fatah government of the Palestinian West Bank, the Israelis and the Americans agreed on a two-state solution (Israel and Palestine) to the conflict. More than two-thirds of the nations in the world – including most in the western hemisphere – have already acknowledged Palestine as an existing independent state with uncertain borders (not a unique situation, since the borders between India and China, and between Saudi Arabia and Oman, remain undefined).

It is hard to believe that Gingrich’s comments are based on ignorance. If the Israelis have accepted the eventual reality of a Palestinian State, why can't Newt?

Because his disdainful and dismissive comments about Palestine have everything to do with pandering for knee-jerk Theocratic votes in the Iowa caucus, at the expense of a true Stateman's role: that of peace-making and supporting the yearnings of humanity.


.

The Problem with an "Anti-Corporate Personhood" Amendment

Across the country, one of the rallying cries of the “Occupy” Movement has been the demand to eliminate “Corporate Personhood,” a concept that was cemented into law by a US Supreme Court decision commonly called the “Citizens United” decision [Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), 558 U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010)) The decision in essence, permitted corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in political campaigns as an expression of First Amendment Speech rights. Since that decision, various groups and initiatives have arisen in an effort to overturn it and remove this Constitutional right from applying to Corporations. Unfortunately, in their passion to end corporate domination of US politics, it appears that some of these proposals may end up causing even greater potential harm to our society. A sober reflection on the issue suggests that a blanket “anti-Corporate-Personhood” amendment may not be the wisest route...and that better alternatives exist.

The effort to limit corporate control of the electoral process began in earnest with the McCain-Feingold Act, otherwise known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which was adopted on March 27 of that year. The Act limited corporate contributions to campaigns, and prohibited the airing of corporate-sponsored political advertising in the weeks immediately preceding an election.

In an early test of that Act, Citizens United – a conservative advocacy group – challenged the right of the media to show the documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which was highly critical of the Bush Administration, during the 2004 campaign. When the Federal Elections Commission held that showing this film was not prohibited by the Act, Citizens United then geared up for its own documentary. In the 2008 campaign, it promoted it's film titled, "Hillary: The Movie," which was critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, to DirecTV Satellite subscribers. With some troublesome reasoning, the Federal Election Commission and subsequent courts ruled against this movie, and the case reached the U S Supreme Court.

In 2010, a highly fractured U S Supreme Court ruled in a landmark decision in favor of Citizens United, striking several sections of the McCain-Feingold Act as Unconstitutional. It was a decision that was (and remains) highly controversial.

The Court held that the First Amendment Freedom of Speech prohibits government from censoring political broadcasts in elections when those broadcasts are funded by corporations or unions.

The Court decided by a slim 5-4 majority, but even the five Justices in the majority wrote three separate opinions. Justices largely seen as conservative (Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas) were joined by moderate/swing vote Justice Kennedy in the decision. The Courts liberal block (Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Stevens) opposed the decision.

The dissenting opinion was stinging in its criticism of the majority. In it, Justice Stevens argued that the Court's ruling

"…threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution…”

and argued that by addressing issues not raised not even raised in the court pleadings by Citizens United, the majority

"changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law…The Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.”

The case raised eyebrows in many circles: The American Civil Liberties Union, normally identified with “liberals,” actually filed a brief with the Court in support of Citizens United because of the over-riding free speech issue. After the decision, it was discovered that Justice Thomas’ wife was the founder and president of Liberty Central, a conservative political advocacy group whose operations were directly affected by the decision, bringing into question both his ethical and legal right to participate in the decision.

In the wake of the decision, a number of proposals have been suggested to overturn it, or to find alternative mechanisms to limit corporate contributions in elections. Some groups have arisen - with growing public support – promoting a Constitutional Amendment that would declare that Corporations are not “persons,” and therefore not entitled to Constitutional Protections. One such group, “Move to Amend,” has proposed an Amendment, that reads in part:

“The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.”

While well-intentioned, I think this is a classic case of attempting to kill a gnat with a sledgehammer."

There are many rights guaranteed in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights in addition to Speech. The above amendment – which is growing in popularity and being promoted in towns and cities across the country – strips corporate entities of all Constitutional protections. Consider the following Constitutional Rights that could be affected:

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of …the press.

Amendment III: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

These are all Constitutional rights currently enjoyed by all residents of our nation, including non-citizens and corporations. Amendments similar to the one proposed would eliminate these Constitutional rights for corporations.

Do we really want to live in a country where the corporate media – our magazines, television stations, radio reports, and internet providers – are NOT protected from Government censorship?

Do we really want a country where the military – which has already vastly expanded its domestic jurisdiction through the Patriot Act – can be stationed in your workplace against the will of that company?

Do we really want warrantless searches of our office desks, file cabinets, computer servers and systems, and office spaces by the local police, the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms?

What about rights to Due Process? Equal Protection of the Laws? How about the Constitutional clause that prohibits Eminent Domain without proper compensation? Do wwe really want to say that businesses dont have these protections?

For over 200 years, a broad array of Constitutional Rights have protected the American people from intrusive government actions at home and at work. It is understandable that citizens want to reverse Citizens United; but the complete removal of all rights enjoyed by companies is a ‘cure” worse than the disease itself.

Reasonable limits (or prohibitions) on corporate contributions can be achieved through amendments that are far more ‘precise’ and less draconian than this. Professors Lucian Bebchuk at Harvard Law School and Richard Squire at Columbia Law School have proposed that legislation could be adopted, consistent with the Citizens United decision, giving shareholders (rather than Corporate Executives) the right to determine if or how corporate money could be spent in political activities. Since this could be done through simple legislation, it would be far easier than a Constitutional Amendment. Others have called for an simple Amendment that would declare that money is not speech, thereby empowering states and the federal government to re-implement McCain-Feingold or similar statutes.

These would both be easier and more effective restraints on the Citizens United decision, and avoid the danger of an greater erosion of American citizen’s Constitutional Rights.


.

Mitt Romney: Bind US Spending to Foreign Corporate Investment

Mitt Romney, who prides himself on being the candidate with ‘business’ experience, has proposed some fiscal measures which evidence a decided lack of serious economic analysis.

In advertisements that have been running non-stop here in New Hampshire, Romney presents his three-point plan to reign in federal spending. In the ads, he proposes,

“…capping federal spending as a percentage of GDP at 20% or less…”

There are any number of issues Mitt is going to have to explain with this “plan.” He can start with any of these:

1) GDP, or Gross Domestic Product, is the value of all the goods and services produced within a society. In the United States, current annual GDP is approximately $14 Trillion dollars annually. With federal spending capped at 20% of this number, that would result in an annual federal budget of 2.8 Trillion dollars. The Fiscal Year 2010 budget is 3.45 Trillion, so Romney’s plan would require cutting spending by 650 Billion dollars.

To provide a sense of this proposal, the entire amount of Social Security payments made to retirees annually is 701 Billion. The total amount of “Discretionary Spending” (spending that excludes social security, medicare, interest, defense, and other ‘mandatory’ payments) is 660 Billion. If Mitt is not proposing cutting off social security or eliminating the military, it would appear that he is proposing an elimination of all discretionary spending whatsoever: Bridge Rehabilitation on Interstates, Superfund Cleanups of Toxic Waste sites, Food & Drug Administration approvals of cutting-edge pharmaceuticals, Coast Guard operations, Community Block Grants for Economic Development, Jobs Trainings Initiatives, and hundreds of other federally-designated programs. EVERYTHING.

2) By basing spending on GDP, his proposal means that the budget will always be out-of-synch with reality. The Budget for the future fiscal year is voted on during the current year, and it will be based on figures from the past year's GDP (which would still be in revision), resulting a two year ‘mis-match’ of GDP and spending authorizations.

3) By capping spending to a percent of GDP, Romney opens up the country to sudden, unexpected budget shocks since GDP is calculated after each quarter, but then revised in subsequent quarters.

For instance, on November 22 of this year, economists in Washington revised the third-quarter (July-August-September) GDP downward to a growth of 2% from their previous report of 2.5%. While a change in .5% may not sound like much, a .5% change in a 14 Trillion dollar GDP is a difference of 70 Billion Dollars in GDP. Under Romney’s plan, such a revision would result in the sudden elimination of 14 Billion in spending from the Federal Budget. For comparison purposes, that is greater than the entire annual budgets of the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, Interior, and Environmental Protection.

4) Lastly, and perhaps most important, is the fact that Romney’s plan would make American Government expenditures dependent on the activities of foreign companies operating in the United States.

The GDP figure is obtained by adding up the value of all goods and services created in the US. It does not matter whether the goods produced are made by American or foreign companies, as long as they create the products on US soil. Currently, 3.2 Trillion dollars of our 14 Trillion GDP is derived from foreign companies doing business on US soil.

In other words, 22% of our total GDP comes from these firms. It also means, that under Romney’s plan, 22% of the American Government’s spending would depend on continuing product development by companies from foreign nations located in the US. That amounts to 760 Billion dollars of American spending being dependent on the level of foreign investment.

Again, for comparison purposes, that amount is the equivalent of our entire Defense Budget.

A curious proposal, coming from the candidate who has so willingly rattled sabers with Iran.


.

Milton Hershey rejects HIV-positive Student: Official Statement & Reaction

In an almost incomprehensible burst of ignorance, prejudice, and chutzpah, the highly-vaunted Milton Hershey School (a private, tuition-free boarding school), issued a statement coinciding with World AIDs Day explaining their refusal to admit a student due to his HIV positive status.

What follows is the official statement by the school (in italics), with my commentary following in boldface type.

HERSHEY, Pa., Dec. 1, 2011 -- /PRNewswire/ -- The following statement was issued today by Connie McNamara, Vice President, Communications at Milton Hershey School:

Milton Hershey School had planned to file a request in federal court asking the court to review our decision to deny enrollment to a child who is HIV positive because of concerns for the health and safety of our current students.

Nonsense. There ARE NO significant health or safety concerns. HIV is not transmitted by saliva, sneezing, sweat or tears; it is not transmitted by sharing toilets or bathrooms, drinking glasses, laundry facilities, towels, beds, dorm rooms, or eating utensils. In addition, the student in question is on antiretroviral medications, reducing the ability to transmit the virus, even in the most conducive of circumstances through specific kinds of sexual acts or blood interaction, to a fraction of 1%. It is not surprising that a Hershey spokeswoman, appearing on Anderson Cooper 360 tonight, was unable to name the doctor or medical personnel that advised the school of any such “concern.”

We had been in discussions with the AIDS Law Project of Pennsylvania, which is representing this 13-year-old boy. Recognizing the complex legal issues, the School was preparing to ask the court to weigh in on this matter…

There are no “complex legal issues.” Persons with HIV are covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act. Under the ADA, all people, including those with disabilities, are given equal opportunity to use or enjoy a public accommodation’s goods, services, and facilities. Public accommodations include restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors’ offices, dentists’ offices, hospitals, retail stores, health clubs, museums, libraries, private schools, and day care centers.

… Unfortunately, attorneys for the young man took the adversarial action of filing a lawsuit against the School.

The first resort of bullies when victims push back is to call the victims names; they attempt to characterize those who insist on their rights as crybabies, divisive or ‘adversarial.’ The young man’s legal suit is not out of place or adversarial; the fact is, Milton Hershey has no basis in medicine or law for denying the student admission, and the students suit against the School is an entirely appropriate avenue for redress. Hershey’s statement is the standard “blame-the victim” defense.

The decision to deny enrollment was a challenging one for us to make. Like all our enrollment decisions, we need to balance our desire to serve the needs of an individual child seeking admission with our obligation to protect the health and safety of all 1,850 children already in our care…

Again, the school takes the odd position that their school is somehow ‘unique,’ a phrase used later in this press release and used multiple times in media interviews. The ADA covers private schools; there is nothing about Hershey that would exempt them. There are hundreds of boarding schools in the United States, a number of which house over 1,000 students. There are schools designated as Military Academies, Therapeutic Schools, schools for Students in Recovery, Experiential, Learning Disabled, Religious, Fine-Arts based, Math & Science-based, and Performing Arts based. In spite of Hershey’s assertions, their duty to care for their residential students is no different than any other of these schools…and all are covered by the ADA.

Attorneys for this young man and his mother have suggested that this case is comparable to the Ryan White case. But this case is actually nothing like the Ryan White case.

Actually, it is precisely like the Ryan White case, which, ironically, we referenced in a blogpost yesterday [see below]. This is a decision to exclude a student based on ignorance of medicine and in violation of federal statute. It is based on the unreasonable fear & loathing of HIV, and nothing more.

Milton Hershey School is not a day school, where students go home to their family at the end of the day. Instead, this is a unique home-like environment, a pre-K -12 residential school where children live in homes with 10-12 other students on our campus 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Again, Hershey is by no means unique in this, as hundreds of boarding schools do likewise. Hershey is making the entirely illogical arguement that students with HIV should not live at their school because it is "home-like," "residential," and where "children live," (their words)...but should instead live at home - which is the ultimate 'residential setting.'

In order to protect our children in this unique environment, we cannot accommodate the needs of students …

Yes, Milton Hershey, you can, and you must. You must accommodate the daily medical needs of students with insulin-dependent Diabetes. Epilepsy. Asthmatics. It is part of running a boarding school. If you can not ensure that a resident takes a pill, you need to reconsider your ability to operate a boarding school.

…with chronic communicable diseases that pose a direct threat to the health and safety of others.

This is not an argument against admitting a student; this is evidence of your own medical ignorance. No health or safety threat is present.

The reason is simple. We are serving children, and no child can be assumed to always make responsible decisions that protect the well being of others.

This is a well-crafted innuendo concerning the prospective students sexual activities, implying that the student might attempt sexual activity with another student. Well guess what, Milton Hershey…if that is your concern, you have a much bigger problem than this one student: EVERY one of your hormone-exploding students might be tempted to engage in sexual relations with other students, and pass along not only HIV, but syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, genital warts, scabies, hepatitis, and HPV. Your reasoning suggests that you should reject ALL students who might be tempted to engage in sexual activity; In that case, you might want to consider closing down entirely, because all teenage students present that risk.

That is why, after careful review and analysis, we determined we could not put our children at risk.

No, this was not after “careful review and analysis.” There is no analysis of the medical or legal issues; there is only an unwise, illegal, and cruel response based on hysteria that tarnishes the reputation of a once-respected institution.



.