Why Republicans' Behavior Borders on Treason

The Republicans have stonewalled the president and the Democrats at every attempt to improve the present unacceptable condition of the United States of America.   The country is nowhere near full employment, poverty is rising, the rich are growing richer, the middle class is experiencing a loss of wealth, retirement is becoming an impossible dream, and a watered-down but still necessary version of a universal healthcare law is being challenged by Republicans who don't need one themselves, and don't care for those who do.

The Republicans' motive for tearing down initiatives that can only improve their country is greed, as Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman writes in his book, End This Depression Now (the book).   It's not enough that most of them are in the privileged top 1% of Americans or that their friends are.   They want to put more distance between themselves and the other 99% by cutting aid to the poor and unemployed, and by cutting taxes to the rich.   Growing income inequality in the United States is a fundamental problem and the Republicans are working like the devil to increase it!

As the Republicans have eroded public education they have preyed on the ill-educated with their professed faith in God and Jesus Christ yet, I ask, is this how Christians treat one another?   And they have obfuscated the masses with their messages about protection of American jobs in the coal industry rather than supporting policies to counteract climate change which is already intensifying storm damage, droughts and wildfires across the United States.  Is this leadership?

Republicans took the nation to the edge of a cliff last summer when they refused to allow expansion of the debt ceiling.   Why?   To supposedly make a point that "fiscal responsibility" is the right way to make America better again.   First, fiscal responsibility during a depression, as Krugman states in his book, means increasing federal spending to aid unemployed Americans, to aid underwater homeowners, to aid ailing states, counties and municipalities, to support health, education and welfare programs (rather than cut them when they are most needed).   That's what it means to be fiscally responsible when times are tough.   Second, if Republicans truly want to rein in federal debt then why object to ending the Bush tax cuts to the rich, the ones who don't need tax cuts?  Why?  Because of their greed.

Republicans support less regulation and oversight of banks and tax cheaters, as this New York Times editorial explains today (Gut the regulators).

And if you want to really stack the deck in your favour, you appoint Republicans to the Supreme Court to vote in favour of your political ideology, even if it dismembers the pillars of a fair and more equal society.  That's what George W. Bush did for America, among other things.

If you feign your support of Christianity, if you make it harder for the masses to get an education, if you baffle them with bullshit and pretend to support job creation, you can regain control of all three branches of government and do pretty much what you want.   And just in case someone challenges what you want in court, you make sure the highest court in the land is a Republican one.   That is the Republican agenda of 2012, my friends.

Republicans used to get that what was good for America was also good for them.   The only catch was that it would take time, generations perhaps, for the full manifestation of that approach.  Today's Republicans only care about what's good for them now.   They couldn't give a crap about the future.   So, the rest of the country can be damned.

And therein lies the treason.

Toronto Politics

Toronto elected a new mayor last year, Rob Ford, a man who ran on a pledge to radically change politics in Toronto for the better (sound familiar?) by cutting wasteful spending, and by being a champion of the common man.   His rival, George Smitherman, an intellectual though pragmatic politician, an allegedly gay man (it didn't help that his alleged homosexuality was advertised as something akin to blasphemy by some homophobic Taliban-like ethnic group, three days before the election), was an early favourite, presumably because his message to carry Toronto into the 21st century was very sensible.

Anyway, Mayor Ford, who campaigned to reduce waste, wasted no time, ironically, in introducing a more expensive plan to build a subway instead of an already-approved light rail line through Toronto.   In his first order of business, the new mayor decreed that the meticulously planned light rail project would be scrapped in favour of his own subway plan, which would deliver one quarter of the benefit for four times the cost.

Here we are a year later and, after wasting a year arguing about it, Toronto's councillors have sensibly voted against the mayor's plan.   Now, finally, wisdom has prevailed.

Or has it?   This is Toronto, after all.  This is 2012.   Anything can still happen.  

For over a quarter century, the fate of Toronto's local city centre airport, located in Toronto Harbour has swayed to and fro, from expansion to outright closure and conversion into a park.   For years proponents of the airport have argued for permission for jets to land there, and for a bridge to be built to the island (one must board a ferry to travel across a small channel to use the airport in what can only be described as deliberate pain).   Local residents have thus successfully managed to block such expansion, against the wishes of the majority living in metropolitan Toronto.   The result has been a vastly underutilized piece of Greater Toronto Area infrastructure.

In the end, as I've often said, democracy can be messy.   Toronto got a mayor who is clearly ineffective.   Why?   Perhaps because not enough people cared to vote.   Perhaps because candidate Ford's message resonated with the working men and women of Toronto.

Personally, I believe a big reason democratic elections return anomalous results is because too many voters are just plain ignorant.

In Toronto, I predict it will be at least three years before a shovel goes into the ground on any new transit line.  How will that have served anyone?

Why Iran Isn't Ready For The Nuclear Club

Iran is in the news a lot, especially this week as Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, meets with U.S. president Obama tomorrow, in an attempt to convince Obama that Israel is right to strike Iran's nuclear weapons program before Iran succeeds at getting a nuclear bomb.  And who can blame him?  After all, Iran's president, Ahmadinejad, on October 26, 2005, stated that Israel should be wiped off the map.  In a flurry of reactions to his statements, consensus seemed to be that, despite what, exactly, he meant or didn't mean by his statement, Ahmadinejad really didn't like Israel in his backyard, on Palestinian land, as he put it.  If anyone ever doubted what his true beliefs were, two years later, in 2008, on the celebration of Israel's 60th birthday, Ahmadinejad said, "Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation."

Meanwhile, along the way, Iran has steadfastly denied, since at least 2005, that it is trying to make a bomb; rather, that it's developing uranium enrichment facilities of its own so that it doesn't need to depend on other nations for the fuel to power its nuclear power plant, which went into service in September, 2011, and so that it can make the radio isotopes necessary for cancer treatment.   While the current sanctions against Iran suggest that there could be a modicum of truth to Iran's concern about uranium supply, it's hard not to imagine that Iran is really forging ahead with aspirations of one day having a nuclear bomb.

Sadly, as is often the case in dictatorial regimes like Iran's, the people do not necessarily share the same values as their leaders.   Following a June 2009 general election, in which the vote was rigged in favour of the incumbent dictatorship, there was six months of protests and rebellion in the country, aided by young Iranians using facebook and twitter and other social media, opposing the outcome of the election.   It was suddenly muted when activists were jailed or put to death, fully two years before the "Arab Spring".   Maybe this time will be different.   Just yesterday, Iranians cast their ballots yet again in a general election.   Here's hoping that the brush fire that smolders in the Arab world will ignite lasting change inside Iran.

Meanwhile, the international trade sanctions that president Obama's administration has led against Iran are intended to weaken Iran's governing regime.   Unfortunately, however, they may backfire by further alienating Iran's people and by galvanizing them with their leaders against the "evil American empire".

So how will this all play out?

The answer to Israel's very understandable mistrust of Iran is to trust the United States because, to pre-emptively attack Iran would invite chaos, finger-pointing, crisis escalation and, very possibly, an attack on Israel by nations not entirely friendly to it.  Economically, it would raise the cost of oil, thus strengthening Iran and OPEC and weakening the West.  All of this would undermine U.S. and western allies' strategy to disarm Iran and to broker peace.

Longer term, the real answer is for Iran's people to overthrow their regime and elect a comparatively moderate government that wishes to play by western rules.   Until they install leaders who are not lunatics or until the present Iranian regime agrees to mothball uranium enrichment facilities within Iran, their country will never be completely trusted with nuclear power, it will be under extreme surveillance, and it will face economic hardship, or worse.   The only other way out of this is for the Iranians to openly embrace the Russians or Chinese as their military guardian, suitably consummated with free trade and other economic ties with one of those countries, in exchange for dismantling any nuclear weapons program Iran may have or may ever wish to have.

The Other Rick: (Santorum)

The Iowa caucuses demonstrated that Rick Santorum is capable of winning Americans' nomination for the Republican candidate for president of the United States this November 6.   And why not?   He's a man who's adopted the moral high ground all his life and, especially now, when the office of the president is up for grabs.

Rick Santorum trained as a lawyer and a politician.   He's been very successful at both vocations.   Privately, he's been described as a social conservative and a devout Catholic.   He is a staunch pro-life advocate and an opponent of gay marriage and any kind of sex that's different from heterosexual sex between a man and a woman in a loving marriage.   Those are old fashioned American values, wholesome ones to many, and, yes, they appeal to a lot of honest folks.   And they are no doubt a big reason why this man garnered so much support among his party members in Iowa.

But along with those 'wholesome' values there are some troubling indicators in Rick Santorum's DNA.

For starters, Rick Santorum likes money.   According to Bloomberg Businessweek, he took over $200,000 from a Washington DC conservative advocacy group, $150,000 from Consol Energy, the nation's second biggest coal company, and nearly $400,000 in director fees and stock options from Universal Health Services, one of the largest private healthcare companies in the U.S., in 2010 and 2011.   Perhaps more telling, Santorum's drive for higher earnings extended to his sponsorship of legislation, while he was in office, that would profit companies in his district and state, companies like weather forecaster, Accuweather, even as he was attacking the U.S. National Weather Service and its government funding.

Talking about the weather, Santorum's views on science are also pretty cut-and-dried.  Global warming (or, at least, rapid climate change caused by man-made emissions of CO2, etc.) is false; evolution is an imperfect theory, and intelligent design is what really happened.

On global threats, Santorum believes religious fundamentalism (i.e. radical Islam) is the single biggest threat which needs to be extinguished with brute force.  For him that means occupying Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely.  And it means bombing Iran if it doesn't stop its development of nukes.   Perhaps someone ought to tell Santorum that, ironically, those same fundamentalists share his views on sex.

Most disturbing of all, though, is the way he and his wife handled the tragic death of one of their children, born twenty weeks premature, when Santorum's wife contracted a severe infection during pregnancy.   The necessary delivery of the child culminated in the baby's death, unfortunately, two hours after delivery.  But then, after sleeping with the dead fetus in their hospital room overnight, the Santorums somehow were allowed to take the child's body home so that they could show it to their children.   Now, perhaps we, who are fortunate enough to have never suffered the death of a newborn cannot comprehend how the Santorums felt but, I ask, doesn't it seem a bit strange to bring a dead fetus home to let young siblings coddle it in their arms?  Wouldn't bringing the children to the hospital to grieve the death of the newborn child have been a more normal way to go about it?

And I guess that's what's most disturbing about Rick Santorum.  Not only are his opinions a bit too far out in right field, he's ready to live some of them and take the heat if they go against the grain.   While that may be okay in his private life, it's not okay in the office of the president of the United States -- as in bombing Iran, for instance.   I'm afraid Rick Santorum is capable of actually starting another war.

Radical Islam?   That's nothing compared to a radical president (abetted by other radicals in government) armed to the teeth, as America is.

GOP Debates (CNN - November 22, 2011)

Are these guys (and Michele Bachmann) real? 

Who needs Saturday Night Live or reality TV when CNN's GOP debate on national security is the most entertainment I've had in a long time?

As I watched the debate, the first one I saw from start to finish, it occurred to me that none of these people is fit to be president of the United States.

Ron Simple Paul is just too straightforward, the Ross Perot of the bunch.  He wants to "eliminate the welfare state", cancel all wars, including the war on drugs, and basically stop spending taxpayers' money.  I have to admit, I agree with a lot of what he's saying.  But I'm mature enough to know that in this day and age it's not that simple.

The ASPCA's Most Wanted, Mitt Romney, is so political, it's hard to pin him down on a lot of important issues, even for CNN's Wolf Blitzer.  In the end, though, that doesn't matter.  In this race, no one else comes close to matching his impeccable hair and his speaking voice.   Mitt just looks presidential and at this point he's the one that would get my nod as the GOP candidate for president.

Then there's Newt You're-Scaring-Me Gingrich.  How did Newt ever become a politician (or get his name)?   Newt wants us to use Lean Six Sigma methods to right-size the government and lose the fat.  He wants the United States to restore the lustre it had at the end of WWII "when we were really serious".   He wants us to open up American oil fields to "drive down the price of oil on the world markets".   That's what "we would do if we were really serious!"  His most disturbing comments were reserved for the top three national security threats facing the United States today, the most ominous one being something called "an electromagnetic pulse attack".   Just the sound of it sent shivers up my spine.   For that reason, I decided then and there that I would never vote for Newt.  He scares me.

Then there's former governor of Utah and former ambassador to China, Jon Get-Your-Facts-Straight Huntsman.  Excuse me, Jon, but most of us are watching this online and it's no sweat to fact-check in real time.   I looked up his assertion that the US debt-to-GDP was 70%, because that sounded low.  Sure enough, US debt-to-GDP is about to pass 100% in the next few months (it's 99% today).  If you can't get your US macroeconomic facts straight, should we really trust you as our expert on China and foreign policy, Jon?

Next is my favourite, Rick Son-of-"Dubbya" Perry, governor of Texas.   This guy sounds and acts like Bush Jr.   He even holds his hands the same way when he's speaking.   Poor Ricky suffered a serious brain fart in the second-to-last debate, where he forgot the third of three federal departments he would scrap, "when I get there".   Last night he pontificated about how he would "secure the border" with Mexico to protect the United States from those pesky illegals.   Maybe he's planning to steal Herman Cain's idea to electrify the giant fence along the border.

I have to admit I found Rick Shining-City-on-the-Hill Santorum, former Pennsylvania state senator, a real nice guy.  His message seemed to be the most wholesome.   Yet, on second thought, this bird won't fly.   Santorum just sounds too wide-eyed and dreamy.  Still, I felt somehow reassured that the United States -- that "shining city on the hill" --was going to pull out of its tailspin and lead the free world to eternal happiness if Rick were elected president.

Then there was Herman One-Two-Three Cain, last night.  Forget about his womanizing misadventures.  This guy thinks he's running for CEO of the United States.  He doesn't get that businesses are dictatorships and countries are democracies.   You can't run cost-benefit analyses on every program in the federal budget, Hermie.  Why?  Because we're not making pizzas here, we're trying to protect and advance our society.  And sometimes you have to make decisions based on your gut.  But I just love that "One ..., Two ... Three" stuff!   He's soooo confident.

And last but not least, there's Michele My-Dad-My Grand-Dad-My-Brother-All-Served-In-The-Military Bachmann.   Uncharacteristically for Michele, she made no mistakes last night, other than to wear "too much makeup", but look who's talking (Arianna Huffington).  In fact, much to her credit, when pressed on whether she would pull US funding from Pakistan, owing to her privileged position on the US House Intelligence Committee, she basically answered "yes" and "no" because, well, it's complicated.   No sh*t, Sherlock!   It's complicated because Pakistan is armed with nukes and we pay Pakistan to aim them away from us.  Anyway, I don't think Ms. Bachmann would make a good GOP presidential candidate but I believe she would be offered a senior cabinet post in a GOP administration, should one get elected.

And should such a GOP administration be headed by that pet lover, Mitt Romney, at least his dog won't have to ride shotgun on the car roof ever again!