Categories
Opinion The Last Word

The Rant (December 4, 2014) …

In my older, softer age I’ve tried to make a habit of not kicking people in print when they are already down, but I can’t seem to apply that to Congressman Stephen Fincher’s communications director Elizabeth Lauten and her Thanksgiving Day Facebook post in which she wrote some inexplicably (especially for a self-professed communications guru) mean and indefensible remarks about Sasha and Malia Obama and their parents, President and First Lady Obama. Lauten doesn’t deserve that break because she probably doesn’t realize she is down. I don’t think she’s smart or wise enough to get it, if she really even cares.

In her Facebook post, which I’m sure she thought was very clever, she wrote:

“Dear Sasha and Malia, I get that you’re both in those awful teen years, but you’re part of the First Family, try showing a little class. Then again your mother and father don’t respect their positions very much, so I’m guessing you’re coming up a little short in the ‘good role model’ department. Nevertheless, stretch yourself. Rise to the occasion. Act like being in the White House matters to you. Dress like you deserve respect, not a spot at a bar. And certainly don’t make faces during televised, public events.”

REUTERS/Larry Downing

She was referring to the annual, televised White House pardoning of the turkey event, where Sasha and Malia weren’t making faces but just looked a bit bored at one point in the ceremony. At other points, they were laughing. The bored look got photographed and circulated throughout the media, garnering mostly funny comments from people who understand that teenage girls are sometimes just teenage girls. Sasha was wearing a grey sweater and plaid miniskirt, and Malia was wearing a crimson-red dress with a nice cardigan sweater. They looked great.

Only after Lauten’s snotty diatribe was unleashed on Facebook and Twitter and was massively berated, she finally broke down and posted this apology: “After many hours of prayer, talking to my parents, and rereading my words online, I can see more clearly just how hurtful my words were. Please know, these judgmental feelings truly have no place in my heart. I’d like to apologize to all of those who I have hurt and offended with my words, and I pledge to learn and grow (and I assure you I have) from this experience.” Lauten also lamented that she had “judged the two young ladies in a way that I would never have wanted to be judged myself as a teenager.”

There is so much wrong with this it’s hard to know where to begin. Notice that she didn’t address the “apology” to Sasha and Malia personally but just to “all of those who I have hurt.” Sounds more like she was trying to summon up a little disaster control and merely pander to the thousands of people who were calling for Fincher to fire her. I can’t even find where he issued any comment at all. But this isn’t really about him.

And stop it with the “many hours of prayer” and the statement that “these judgmental feelings truly have no place in my heart.” How many hours of prayer does it take to realize that posting about two teenage girls (for millions of people to read) that they have no class and their parents are worthless might just be a bit hurtful? And all the while Lauten just kept tweeting about her Kate Spade purchases and complaining about how her websites were having problems and publicly belittling the tech assistant who was trying to help her. My, what a person of such great depth. Hopefully, her e-magazine website about “all things pink, green, and pearls” will be back up and running soon.

I don’t buy the crocodile tear-stained apology for a minute, and it’s my humble opinion that if those judgmental feelings truly have no place in her heart she wouldn’t have written that post in the first place. It’s not like anyone asked her to comment on the teens. And if she does ever offer up a real apology, I hope she doesn’t keep apologizing for her “words” but instead for her behavior. And it goes without saying that she owed the president and first lady an apology for suggesting that they don’t care about their positions. That was just right-wing drivel from another Tea Party lemming.

And when and if she ever does issue a real apology, she should apologize to the people of Tennessee and the people of Memphis for casting us in this unfathomably wretched light around the globe. We have enough to worry about without her supposedly working for this state and our 8th District and using her position to spread unnecessary venom under the guise of what I still think she thought was a witty and whimsical Facebook post.

I think this probably hasn’t changed her at all, other than forcing her to resign. But then that would mean I am being judgmental about someone for being judgmental.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

The Raging Bull in D.C.

It’s ironic that one day after his reelection to a sixth term as senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, the soon-to-be Senate majority leader, characterized the Congress as an angry, raging bull. In a stern, public admonition, McConnell warned President Obama against invoking executive action to alleviate our chronic immigration crisis, comparing such action to “waving a red flag in front of a bull.”

Ironic and sinister. The Republican leadership, which gained control of the U.S. Senate in the November 4th election and now controls both houses, blocked all attempts at reasonable immigration reform during the most recent session of Congress. Then, they blamed the president for any and all immigration crises, including the arrival of thousands of women and children from Central America this past summer. Then, they accused the president of being weak/soft on immigration and as frustration set in, the president’s numbers with Hispanics fell precipitously. Then, the day after their victory, the Republican leadership warned the president against taking much-needed action to solve our broken immigration system — action favored by the majority of Americans.

This script, written in Washington, seems to have emerged out of a Gabriel García Márquez novel. 

President Obama has the opportunity to lead via executive action, and he should do so immediately. He can end deportation of those in the country under irregular circumstances, excluding, of course, those who have committed serious, violent crimes. Rolling through a stop sign should not be grounds for deportation. He can put in place a program whereby millions of people are offered authorization to remain in the country, if they wish. They could apply for work permits; they could pay taxes with greater ease, and live here — temporarily — in relative peace.  

Obama’s ratings with Hispanics dropped 20 percent during the past two years. People are frustrated by the lack of action on immigration reform, and they blame one man, the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, rather than Congress, with its many faces, multiple agendas, and 50 shades of long-term deception on the immigration issue.

Executive action on immigration is not what any of us had hoped for as the solution to our broken system. But it looks like it will happen, and any executive action can be signed away by the next executive. It’s entirely possible the next executive will be a Republican, assuming Democrats behave as badly and awkwardly as they behaved in the most recent election cycle.

The most cited example involves McConnell’s Kentucky opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes, who wouldn’t say whether she voted for Obama, when asked by reporters. It’s not a trick question, and it’s not an unfair question for a woman running as a Democrat for the United States Senate. Democrats lost (Grimes lost by 16 points) because they refused, in many places, to run as Democrats or to champion the many accomplishments of the past six years. Instead, they ran as lite, low-calorie Republicans, and many moderate Democrats and Independents simply voted for the real thing.  

On immigration, Democrats need to hold together as a party and support a president who has very few options at this point. Democrats need to develop a short-term strategy to support those with irregular immigration status who want to live and work here. Then, the Democratic leadership needs to develop a long-term plan to win the White House in 2016, retake the Congress, and pass comprehensive immigration reform. Americans are demanding this type of activist, bold leadership. The American people are much further ahead of their political leaders on this issue, and when the Democratic Party realizes this, they’ll return to power.

But it might be time for some new ideas within the Democratic leadership. Many pundits assume that Hillary Clinton is a lock for the Democratic nomination, but Clinton’s glide-path to the White House is fraught with turbulence. Elizabeth Warren, the senior senator from Massachusetts, claims she’s not running, but we’d like to see her energy, brilliance, fearlessness, charisma, and leadership in the White House.

Can the nation endure an actual liberal from Massachusetts in the White House? We know what we can’t endure: the raging bull that’s de rigueur in D.C. these days.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

How to Fail in Politics 101

Toward the end of his just-concluded campaign for U.S. Senate, Democratic candidate Gordon Ball, son of a moonshiner (that was one of his never-fail best self-descriptions), a self-made multi-millionaire Knoxville lawyer who made his money and his name suing polluters and greedy corporations, altered his presentation in a perplexing way.

To back up: Ball had always been determined, as he put it, to take a broom against the feckless Washington, D.C., power community that he saw, in the original and negative sense of the term, as so much rascal flats. He would fulminate against the major inhabitants of this gone-wrong Potemkin Village, particularly Republican opponent Senator Lamar Alexander, whom he castigated for what was made to sound like an ill-gotten $22 million net worth, including $620,000 reaped from a $1 investment in the now-defunct Knoxville Journal. “A finder’s fee,” Ball scornfully quoted Alexander.

“If you want to change things in Washington, you’ve got to change the people,” Ball said. And he would name names of those who had to go — Mitch McConnell, the would-be Senate majority leader from Kentucky who was drenched with oil and gas and Koch money and would do nothing but obstruct any modest agenda put forth by Democrats, and Alexander, who opposed minimum wage and women’s rights and veterans’ rights and so much else, and needed to go home and tend to his garden of greenbacks.

So far, so good, I thought, as I heard all this at a morning stop last week at the IBEW headquarters on Madison. He’s coming on as a populist and demonizing the opposition and pitching to his base. But afterward, when we reporters had a chance for some private words with Ball, something he’d said on the road that I’d read in somebody else’s coverage kind of chafed at me, not in an ideological sense but in purely practical terms. So I had to ask.

Had Ball actually included on this list of desirable purgees the name of Harry Reid, the bespectacled ex-pugilist from Searchlight, Nevada, who’d risen to become Senate Democratic Majority Leader and who was constantly at battle with Senate Republicans determined to filibuster every proposal brought by the Obama administration?

Instead of reading my question as a rhetorical one, maybe even an implied rebuke (What’s to gain from attacking your own party leadership?), Ball took what I’d said as a prod. He’d overlooked Reid, whom, in various articles along the trail, he’d said he wouldn’t be able to vote for as leader. He apologized for having omitted Reid’s name at the IBEW rally and added it back in. “Yes, let’s include Harry Reid in there, too. We need to get rid of Mitch McConnell and Lamar Alexander and Harry Reid!”

It scanned wrong with my sensors, mainly because it diluted Ball’s respectably populist message, already nudged a little bit toward that shadowy, ill-defined reform constituency — the Tea Party — that had repudiated Common Core, as had any number of classroom teachers, who disliked the standardized tests and career-binding teacher scores that came with it as heartily as the Tea Party folks hated what they saw as governmental over-reach.

These were the folks who contained so much of the undecided vote that Ball needed in order to make up the gap shown in the final Middle Tennessee State University poll — reputedly showing Alexander (the same Alexander who netted only 49 percent of the Republican primary vote in August) with 42 percent, Ball with 26, and the rest, 32 percent, undecided. “I’ve got to get almost all that undecided,” Ball would tell me on election eve.

We can all do the math and see how much of it would have had to break Ball’s way — and, since this is being read after the election, we can now see for ourselves how much of it did break toward the challenger.

Something tells me that the Knoxville Democrat’s rhetorical throwing of his current party leader, Reid, on the same trash heap as Alexander and McConnell was worth very little to his hopes and, indeed, was likely counter-productive.

I am sure there are extant studies on the efficacy of this kind of acrobatic tactic, in which a candidate separates from his party, or from what he perceives as the unpopular national version of it, in hopes of ultimately gaining both re-entry into his party’s good graces and –more importantly — immunity from its adversaries.

Maybe even their toleration. Heck, maybe even their votes!

If there aren’t such studies, there should be, and, meanwhile, with a conviction based entirely on my intuitive sense, coupled with case after case of actual results. I say this sheep-in-wolf’s-clothing maneuver is a loser, always.

First, there is no reason to believe, literally no reason, that a disparagement of some symbolic party colleague whom one’s political adversary has made an arch villain will gain a single vote for oneself. Those who would agree with the disparagement are already on the other side, for that and any number of other assorted reasons.

It’s just a guess, but I believe a candidate would do equally well with the opposition voter by heaping rhapsodic praise on the party colleague whom the other guys have demonized. A wash, is my guess.

On the other hand, he would certainly get better results with his own party base and ideological constituency with the latter course, which might have the salvific effect of rousing them to solidarity and sincere effort on one’s behalf.

Another case in point — speaking of McConnell — is that of Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky who, for much of the past year, had been running neck-and-neck with the venerable GOP Senate leader.

Here of late, however, McConnell seemed to be pulling away a bit, and either as partial cause or maybe just as an objective correlative to that fact, Grimes has apparently tried to join McConnell on the anti-Obama bandwagon, refusing four times in a brief televised performance to say she had voted for Obama for president.

As Memphis Leftwing Cracker blogger Steve Steffens noted with some dismay, along with fellow Democratic blogger Rick Maynard, Grimes had demonstrably been a convention delegate of Obama’s — something requiring a positive embrace and avowal of a candidate on a relatively public scale. And now she was denying him? Thinking … what?

“This is why we can’t have nice things,” Steffens and Maynard both concluded.

I am one who thinks current Tennessee Democratic Party Chairman Roy Herron is doing good work, and I always thought he was a conscientious, effective state Senator, but, while I recognized the head of steam Republican Stephen Fincher of Frog Jump had going in the 8th District congressional race of 2010, I thought Herron, a longtime fixture in the area,  was competitive until he began pandering to what he perceived as his home folks’ animus against national Democrats, and ended up repudiating the then-Democratic House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, whom he vowed to vote against.

Same arithmetic as with all other such cases: No gain from the opposition camp, while there is a palpable unease in one’s own party ranks, resulting in resentment, resignation, and fatalism that probably cost votes.

And need we mention the 2006 U.S. Senate race, in which the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, Harold Ford Jr., made a concerted effort to dissociate himself not only from national party luminaries but from established party talking points on issues such as gay rights, a Draconian bankruptcy bill, opposition to the war in Iraq, and even from the party label itself.

At his headquarters opening in Memphis in 2006, he declaimed at one point, “I’m not a Democrat running up to Washington yelling ‘Democrat, Democrat, Democrat!”

And sure enough, Ford, who in other ways was running what may have been the last truly competitive statewide Democratic race against a Republican, lost to Republican Bob Corker and never got a chance to go up thataway yelling “Democrat, Democrat, Democrat” or “Blue Dog, Blue Dog, Blue Dog” or whatever other mutated and minimized form of party identity he was willing to own up to. 

Maybe “Wall Street, Wall Street, Wall Street”? That’s where he works today, having thus far failed to rekindle popular excitement for another political candidacy, here, there, or anywhere.

Radical thought: Maybe it actually pays to embrace one’s political party, its principles, and its personnel. Maybe that’s how you get elected.

Categories
Opinion The Last Word

The Rant (October 23, 2014)

I knew it. I knew it as well as I knew there was something fishy about Joan Rivers’ death. I knew that President Obama was responsible for the Ebola “epidemic” in the United States. Don’t believe me? Think I’m stupid (don’t answer that)? Well, maybe you would have more trust in The New York Times, which printed this the other day:

“The virus has also threatened to raise questions about the Obama administration’s competence, fueled in recent days by reports that two health care workers were infected while caring for an Ebola-afflicted patient at a Dallas hospital, and one subsequently flew on an airplane with a fever.”

Now do you get it? Two — make it three — people in the United States have contracted the disease, and now it is a nationwide epidemic, and Obama has not done his part to contain it. I knew this was some kind of Democratic, liberal plot from a man who might or might not have even been born in the United States.

I feel sincerely badly for the people in West Africa, who are really being ravaged by this disease, and I wish the U.S. was supplying them the same kind of resources as we are here at home, but come on. Maybe I am crass, but an Ebola czar already?

Justin Fox Burks

Gus’s Fried Chicken

And the media. The media are without scruples in the U.S. when it comes to this kind of thing. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to turn on Fox News (well, it would actually surprise the hell out of me if I turned on Fox News — the national channel, not our local peeps, who are awesome) — and saw all of the anchors at their desks in hazmat suits reporting the news through tubes coming out of the head gear. It reminds me of the Egyptian spring uprising, when even Anderson Cooper hunkered down in a fake cave pretending to be seconds from an untimely death. No shame.

And speaking of the media and no shame, I read a piece in last week’s Fly on the Wall in this paper. And then reread it, and reread it, and reread it, trying to figure out what it meant. In case you missed it, Chris Davis reported this:

“Four food writers for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette came to town for a conference and were freaked out by scenic South Front: ‘Gus’s World Famous Fried Chicken in downtown Memphis isn’t much to look at … on a street flush with boarded-up windows, it’s the kind of place ‘fraidy-cat tourists would steer clear of for fear of getting mugged. I’ll admit my first thought was, ‘This is it? The place so many people are talking about?'”

That is just wrong. What exactly were they expecting from a fried-chicken restaurant, and where did they get the idea that Front Street is “flush with boarded up windows?” There’s something like $16 trillion of new development there with a lot more on the way. I can tell you this without even looking up who the writers were: They have never set foot in an interesting place in their lives, they have never had an original thought, and they probably live in the suburbs and think they know a lot about wine.

So to prove myself right, I went to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette website and this was the lead headline: “South Hills Village Mall races to get ready for holiday season.” See? I bet the same writer who thought “‘fraidy-cat tourists would steer clear” of our Gus’s World Famous Fried Chicken for “fear of getting mugged” wrote this riveting piece on their mall getting ready for the holidays.

Okay, okay, so I read the entire article (the one about Memphis food, not the one about their mall and the holidays because I would rather have an image of a naked Dick Cheney tattooed on my face than visit a mall during the holidays), and it wasn’t all bad. In fact, one dude wrote about visiting the Stax Museum (where I work by day) so they at least got some culture. They also visited the National Civil Rights Museum and the same guy wrote this:

“I was so impressed and moved by our group tour of the newly renovated National Civil Rights Museum, which is located at the Lorraine Motel where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed, that I went through a second time with my family. Afterwards, I felt like I could use a drink.”

Atta boy! So you did visit interesting places, and you do have original thoughts, and you might not live in the suburbs and think you know a lot about wine. You have my humblest apologies. Anyone who needs a drink after visiting a place as emotionally gripping as the National Civil Rights Museum is A-okay in my book.

So now I am not mad at those writers anymore. I’m going to be a much nicer person from now on. I might even forgive Obama for singlehandedly causing every American in the land to potentially come down with Ebola.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

It’s the Demographics, Stupid

George P. Bush visited Memphis last month to kick off Hispanic Heritage Month and to help raise funds for “Latino Memphis,” the Memphis advocacy group that supports the local Latino community. The Texas-based attorney with the famous last name (his grandfather is George H.W. Bush, his uncle is George W., and his father is Jeb) said nearly nothing in a 14-minute speech designed to be apolitical.

Given the big news out of Washington three days prior to Mr. Bush’s speech concerning Hispanics and President Obama, Bush missed an opportunity to engage in one of the nation’s most complex, controversial, and politically miscalculated social issues: our desperate need for comprehensive immigration reform.

President Obama’s decision on September 6th to delay any decision on unilateral action designed to help Hispanics allowed Republicans to (correctly) claim that the president is “playing politics.” Hispanic groups and others loyal to the Obama agenda reacted as if the president had issued a militant fatwa. “Bitter disappointment,” “sold out,” and “shameful” was some of the calmer language used to characterize the president’s decision. Since a comprehensive overhaul of our outdated immigration laws is not going to happen this year, and is unlikely during Obama’s term, executive action is the only path left for a president who has been outflanked in the immigration imbroglio.

Over the past 10 years or so, we’ve recognized deep flaws in our immigration system, and people are probably willing to wait a couple of months, if executive action is bold and effective. The election of a Republican president in 2016 could immediately undo an Obama executive action. In the meantime, let’s hope the president slows his deportation program to focus on supporting and strengthening families living here, working here, seeking educational opportunities here, and contributing to our economy and society.

The vast majority of the 11 million undocumented persons in our country has aspirations of a better life, either here or back home, and presidential action should focus on supporting struggling families rather than the current deport and divide model.

It’s suprising to still see Republican inaction and hostility toward our immigrant neighbors. Republican maniacal insistence on “border security” has become almost comical, given the vast sums spent already (about 18 billion per year) and the evident inability of technology to solve all our problems. This summer’s northward migration of tens of thousands of undocumented children and women arriving at our border to seek political asylum represents a refugee/humanitarian crisis that no amount of “border security” could have prevented or adjudicated.

In his Memphis speech, Bush cited some well-known statistics from the venerated Pew Research Center but offered neither context nor political perspective to help his party navigate the looming Latino political imperative. For example, Bush noted that Latinos account for 15 percent of the national population but account for 50 percent of the nation’s population growth. Though Bush failed to acknowledge it directly, Hispanics have political power in this nation, and that power will increase with time.

Hispanics in America know this, but national Hispanic leadership cannot come from Marco Rubio or Bush, both of whom have to contend with a political base that sees only repressive solutions to the immigration issue: vast and expanding numbers of security officials, more drones, taller fences, longer detentions, and more division of families.

What would work better is a comprehensive immigration package, such as the bill that’s been sitting for 14 months in the Senate, awaiting some future House action. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, tasked with “scoring” bills to access/predict their overall impact on society, has stated that the Senate immigration bill would cut the budget deficit by $197 billion over the next decade and $700 billion one decade later through more transparent tax-paying. They predict a 5.4 percent growth in the economy and higher wages over the next 20 years, if we pass the Senate bill. But we won’t, thanks to Republican intransigence.

Republicans can only win on this issue when they embrace reality, when they face the stark numbers, when they stop genuflecting to their angry, myopic leadership that refuses to acknowledge a simple certainty: It’s the demographics, stupid!

Categories
Opinion The Last Word

The Rant (October 1, 2014)

Mark Nassal | Dreamstime.com

John Boehner

So now they expect you to reward them. The most unproductive, polarized, ineffective, and despised Congress in American history has abandoned the nation’s business in order to focus on convincing you that they are worthy of your support for reelection. After a five-week summer recess and a grueling eight days back in session, the congressional Republicans just said, “Fuck it,” and lit out for the territories, leaving trivial matters such as war and peace to wait until after the mid-term elections.

Indulge me in a hypothesis: Let’s say that you are the personnel manager of a large hospital, and right in the middle of a measles outbreak, all your employees decided to return home to prepare for their performance reviews. When they came back after the epidemic had worsened, would you rehire them?

And yet, the noise on the right has grown so deafening, they think they’re winning. Republicans are as confident as Mitt Romney on election night. The hammer-locked Congress, led by the fearsome tag-team of “Blubbering John” Boehner and Mitch “The Obamacare Assassin” McConnell, don’t even realize that their strategy of destroying the president at the expense of the country hasn’t worked. Even after Obama’s reelection and Eric Cantor’s loss, they still didn’t get the message and continued with their destructive agenda.

The goose-stepping Congressional Republicans have obstructed, delayed, blocked, and filibustered every single initiative offered by the president, costing countless numbers of desperately needed jobs, and now they want your vote. Republicans have loudly criticized the president for taking executive actions and then they leave town during an international crisis, abdicating their Constitutional responsibilities.

The British Parliament’s debate was fascinating, but Congressman Bubba from Birmingham can’t be called away from his fish fry. There are donors’ hands to shake. Can you imagine if John McCain and Sarah Palin were elected in 2012? We’d be dropping nukes on the Kremlin screaming, “We’re all Ukrainians now,” although recent events have shown we may have used the Palin family fistfight diplomacy first.

While Obama was securing a unanimous vote by the UN Security Council to crack down on foreign fighters joining ISIS, only the second U.S. president in history to chair such a committee, right-wing media exploded in outrage over his salute to a marine while holding a coffee cup. Fox News went wild with indignation, even though this militaristic gesture of saluting while exiting a helicopter was initiated only 30 years ago by the Hollywood warrior, Ronald Reagan.

Then, the usual Fox suspects exulted at the resignation of Eric Holder, like the 7th Cavalry claiming a scalp, while vilifying the attorney general for his presumed “racial favoritism.” Holder once said that when it comes to discussing matters of race, we are “a nation of cowards.” His choice of words may have been combative, but he was right. Or, maybe half-right. We don’t discuss race across color lines, but that never stopped the Caucasian Party from discussing it among themselves.

To believe the GOP, you’d think that roving gangs of displaced Acorn volunteers and welfare cheats were conspiring to vote under false names to steal the next election. Just listen to their rhetoric: A Fox News host said that Holder was, “one of the most dangerous … men in America,” who, “ran the Department of Justice much like the Black Panthers would.” The morally bankrupt Dick Cheney claimed Obama “would much rather spend money on food stamps … than defending our troops.” And Old Faithful, Palin, telling a recent audience how to combat liberals who “scream racism just to end debate,” uttered this gem: “Well, don’t retreat. You reload with truth, which I know is an endangered species at 1400 Pennsylvania Avenue.” Her verbal bomb fell about two blocks short of its target. For the sake of sane government, these right-wing obstructionists are richly deserving of being swept from office. If they can’t win fairly, they cheat. They demand new documentation as a condition for voting, they restrict days and hours to make it difficult for the poor to vote, they gerrymander districts to ensure a Republican majority, and they lie. All the time.

In these dark days, what we are witnessing is the last gasp of white supremacy in this nation. That’s what all this “we want our country back” stuff is about. But the GOP is willing to burn down the country club before they’ll admit any of these mixed-race aliens into their midst. Largely based in the South, the Republican Party is now the last bastion of the old Confederate mentality. Regardless of who controls the Congress in 2014 or even wins the presidency in 2016, this is the last spasm of the philosophy of white entitlement. 

Ultimately, leaders will come along who see the value of diversity and replace the agenda-driven, politicized, corporate-owned justices on the Supreme Court and restore honor to the term “public servant.” No time soon, however. The Fox News demographic may be aging, but not fast enough. Die-hard viewers of the corporate propaganda outlet still think Obama is the anti-Christ.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

The Guantanamo Dilemma

As President Obama works to secure his legacy, the Guantanamo quagmire all but guarantees that greatness and Obama will never be synonymous. As president, Obama has the ability to close down our Caribbean prison camp, — where currently 149 individuals reside — but he has refused to do so. Leaving Guantanamo open demonstrates the limits of President Obama’s political savvy, but more significantly, Guantanamo irreparably damages our democracy and dramatically shrinks our ability to lead internationally.

In 1903, the United States leased the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base as a way to protect U.S. economic interests on the island of Cuba and refuel naval ships. The U.S. essentially “took” Cuba in a brief 1898 war with Spain. We continue to lease this territory from Cuba, and the arrangement can only be terminated if both parties agree. Since the 1959 Cuban revolution, Cuba and the U.S. have agreed on virtually nothing, so Guantanamo remains contested. But like all U.S. military bases on foreign territory, no one disputes that the United States holds “complete jurisdiction” within the perimeters of the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.

According to the logic of the G.W. Bush administration — which opened the camp in early 2002 — “enemy combatants” (the term used by the Bush administration to classify detainees, which was dropped by President Obama in 2009) had no rights under international law. The U.S. Supreme Court challenged that view, and in a 2006 decision, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, declared that Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to all people, everywhere, at all times, including enemy combatants. Article 3

prohibits indefinite detention and torture and calls for access to fair trials.

The previous administration hoped to use on-site “military tribunals” to dispatch “justice” in Guantanamo, but, once again, they were stymied by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 2004 [Rasul v. Bush] that detainees had the right to challenge their detention in U.S. (civilian) courts.

President Obama, in early 2009, promised to shut down Guantanamo in a year, but politics intervened. Congress essentially defunded all efforts to transfer the detainees to the U.S. mainland, and many of the individuals held at the base have been renounced by their own nations. Thus, these detainees float in legal limbo, stuck on a contested U.S. naval base in the Caribbean while tenacious attorneys and frightened politicians determine their fates. Seven detainees have died in captivity, many have gone on hunger strikes, hoping to die as the world watches this national horror show with bitter derision.  

So the United States has found a way to imprison people indefinitely, on U.S. territory, while suspending the most important notions of habeas corpus. This happened because we allowed it to happen. We don’t like to compare our nation to Argentina, but our practices at Guantanamo are very much analogous to the worst behaviors of the military junta in Argentina during the dark days of that nation’s Dirty War (1976-1983). Of course, when the Argentine generals were elected out of office in 1983 and relinquished power, the most egregious abuses ended. With the current “War on Terror” mentality firmly ingrained in American society, we’re dug in for permanent war, and evidently we’re comfortable as a nation with infinite detention of certain individuals.

Since 2002, Guantanamo has cost U.S. taxpayers roughly $4.7 billion. The real cost, though, is to our reputation abroad. We wonder about U.S. power eroding internationally; part of the uncomfortable answer is found in Guantanamo.

Keeping that prison camp open keeps us less free and less safe. It also threatens our democracy. We try to ignore our contradictions and legal sins while living in a dangerous, collective amnesia, but the rest of the world remembers.

Categories
Opinion The Last Word

The Rant (September 18, 2014)

A few months ago, no one outside of the defense establishment had ever heard of ISIS, but now that the president has offered a strategy to combat these barbaric psychopaths, the right-wing geniuses in Congress and every talking blonde-head on Fox News has suddenly become an expert on Middle East foreign policy.

It’s clear that the terrorist organization has become an existential threat to the U.S. Recently, an ISIS leader paraphrased George W. Bush, saying, “You are either with us or we will kill you.” Their savagery has again taken this nation back into a sectarian war, and if that is the case, the reactionary Obama haters need to sit down and shut up. When the criminal Bush invaded Iraq under false pretenses, he was at least given the courtesy of bipartisan support before his lies were exposed. No such support for Obama.

An editorial appeared in the New York Times, composed by John McCain and Lindsey Graham, the Abbott and Costello of war-mongers. It attempted to goad the president into stronger action, including more American troops on the ground. After Obama’s televised address outlining plans for assembling a coalition to join the fight, a speech, by the way, which could easily have been given by G. Dubya, Graham ran to Fox News Sunday and said, “Our strategy will fail yet again. The president needs to rise to the occasion before we all get killed here at home.”

The ‘Bama-bashers first took issue with the president for using the term ISIL, instead if ISIS. I was baffled too and had to Google it for myself. So, ISIS means the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria; ISIL stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Which raises another question: Levant is an antiquated term used mainly by archaeologists, meaning the area currently in conflict, but also including Palestine and Israel. The apocalyptic conspiratorialists went blotto, claiming Obama had a hidden agenda. One end-of-times website said, “When Obama refers to the Islamic State as ISIL, he is sending a message to Muslims all over the Middle East that he personally does not recognize Israel as a sovereign nation, but as territory belonging to the Islamic State… Obama’s ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel.”

Really? Another article credited to the Fox News staff joined the argument over the president’s choice of words. A massive mob of jihadist maniacs are running wild in Iraq and Syria, committing mass killings, public executions, beheadings, and crucifixions, and the conservative crazies over at Fox are arguing over semantics. Meanwhile, Obama has killed more terrorists than sand fleas and crotch rot.

These three gruesome videos of a knife-wielding, British-sounding ISIS terrorist, who will soon be known as “ashes in a keffiyeh,” are meant to goad the West into sending in ground troops as targets. Aside from our Special Forces who, to no one’s surprise, are already there, these savages aren’t worth sacrificing a single soldier for. In this case, Obama’s strategy is correct — use air strikes and drone the hell out of them. Recently, I viewed a video online that was either leaked or classified because it was quickly taken down. It showed the view from a U.S. helicopter warship over a camp of ISIS killers, scurrying like rats in a barn while being targeted and blown to hell by our military. I must admit, it was the most engrossing thing I’ve seen online in a while.

We have the technology to halt the advances of this group of disaffected men without women, but the need for ground troops is the subject of the current Paris Conference. Muslim countries need to combat this threat directly, but the cavalry isn’t coming — not from our dear friends the Saudis, or the Turks, or the United Arab Emirates — the “Coalition of the Threatened.” Our military claims that an army of Shiite Muslims is necessary to fight the Sunni dominated ISIS militia.

Y’all know me. I’m a leftist peace-nic. There hasn’t been a war since Vietnam that I haven’t opposed. But these thrill-killers are a different animal. This is a moral issue. Remember the first Gulf War after Iraq invaded Kuwait and Poppy Bush drew a line in the sand? You could question the motives for the war, but not the conduct of the operation. Under the direction of General “Stormin’ Norman” Schwarzkopf, a force of 675,000 troops from 28 countries was assembled to fight Hussein’s brutally loyal Republican Guard. After getting their asses kicked out of Kuwait, the Iraqi army retreated in a single-file column, making it easy for U.S. fighter jets to transform them into one long smoking strip of bacon in the desert. I’ve noticed the same single-file progression of ISIS through Iraq. Perhaps the Schwarzkopf strategy can be dusted off one more time and air strikes could be used to create even more lines of crispy critters in the sand. Better still, the CIA could start a blood feud between ISIS and Al Qaeda and let them shoot it out among themselves. There is no negotiating with someone missing their soul. It may come as a surprise, but this pacifist says, “Smoke ’em.” Nothing deters a terrorist quite like death.

Categories
Letter From The Editor Opinion

Pictures, or It Didn’t Happen

“Pictures, or it didn’t happen.” It’s become a standard riposte on social media when someone posts a story about something funny or fantastic that happened to them. These days, we want visuals. In a world where everyone’s got an opinion and a forum to post it, words have become devalued. It takes pictures to spur people to action.

A year ago, polls showed that the American people had no appetite for a fight in the Middle East. Speeches were made in support of getting engaged. Atrocities were happening every day, but most Americans wanted no part of the conflict. Then, last month, ISIS posted graphic videos of two American journalists being beheaded, and the tide of public opinion quickly turned. Polls showed a large majority of the public was now willing to go after the Islamists. President Obama proposed a military operation; Congress, which opposes everything this president does, from his economic policy to his breakfast cereal, managed to get behind him, at least in principle.

If ISIS had merely issued a press release stating they’d killed two American journalists, would we have launched yet another military foray into the incredibly complex Pandora’s box that is today’s Middle East? I doubt it. The selling of such a move would have been infinitely more difficult. Video, or this war doesn’t happen.

And consider the now-infamous Memphis Kroger “teen mob” video. Two employees — one white, one black — heroically tried to help an assaulted customer, and both were beaten for their efforts. But, because of proximity, the video captured only the beating of the white employee. Several national right-wing websites showed the video under a headline reading, “Black Mob Beats White Teen” or a variation thereof. If that video had shown the black teens beating the brave black employee who attempted to help, would it have made as much of a splash nationally? Would all those crying “hate crime” and posting vile racist epithets on local websites have been as outraged at that video? I seriously doubt it. Video, or the “hate crime” didn’t happen.

When we see something, we tend to believe it. But even a video — something we see with our own eyes — can be misleading or used for ill purposes, as in the clear and purposeful evil demonstrated in the Islamist videos.

Those videos have now engendered the desired effect. We will engage. We will reenter the confusing morass of Middle East conflicts to try to avenge the heartless murders that have been seen on screens around the globe. The world has gotten a fresh visual of evil and is enraged by it, and the world — much of it, anyway — is responding. Many will die, including some who shouldn’t have to. Such is the horror of combat.

The hope is, in this case, that what we’ve seen will lead to what they’ll get. But as previous ill-fated adventures in the Middle East should have taught us by now, we need to keep our eyes — and our minds — open.

Categories
Letter From The Editor Opinion

Letter From the Editor: Endorsement Gate

“Lamar was proven right.” That’s the tagline at the end of one of Senator Lamar Alexander’s political ads. It follows a clip of Alexander and President Obama arguing over the cost of the Affordable Care Act. Alexander says premiums will go up. The president says it’s “not true.” So who’s right?

The Congressional Budget Office report on the health-care law says that premiums have gone down under Obamacare for comparable health insurance to that available before the law was passed. However, when you factor in people who didn’t have health insurance and therefore were paying nothing prior to the law’s passage, then yes, their rates have gone up — from nothing to something. In states that have opted in to the federal plan, rates have gone down, and the number of people who now have health insurance has dramatically risen. In other states, not so much.

So Lamar wasn’t “proven right.” In fact, a Washington Post “Pinocchio Test” of the ad says, “Alexander mixes up so many apples and oranges here that the ad is a virtual fruit basket,” and gives Lamar “two Pinocchios.” Meaning the ad has a high bull caca quotient.

Meanwhile, Alexander’s primary opponent Joe Carr is running ads condemning Alexander for supporting Obamacare. Oy.

And then there are Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey’s well-funded attack ads on three Tennessee Supreme Court justices, ads that link them to supporting, yup, Obamacare. The Tennesse high court has never issued a ruling of any kind on the subject. It’s a lie so blatant and low-down I’m amazed Ramsey can look at himself in the mirror.

Obama and Obamacare have become the ultimate stinkbombs for GOP candidates. Want to smear your opponent? Accuse him of supporting the president and/or the Affordable Care Act. It’s the new “He wants to take away your guns.”

And let’s not forget the “endorsementgate” brouhaha, as Flyer writer Chris Davis dubbed it. Ninth District Democratic congressional candidates Steve Cohen and Ricky Wilkins have spent the past two weeks sniping at each other over who is endorsed by the ACSFME union. This week, the ante was raised when a rogue fake “ballot” emerged wrongly suggesting Wilkins was endorsed by President Obama. The Democrats, unlike the Republicans, are actually seeking to be connected with the president.

I’m beyond weary of seeing and hearing this stuff. Thursday can’t come soon enough. No more signs, at least until October. No more duplicitous, hateful ads for a blissful couple of months.

I’m so confident that the entire electorate shares these sentiments, that I’m preparing a bumper sticker: “Bruce Was Proven Right.”