“My next book tackles the big questions, for example, Why Are We Here? Every time I see Alan Dershowitz or Abraham Foxman, I ask myself this question” -Stephen Hawking
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
On a Collision Course with the Unimaginable
by Dee Newman
For years Pakistan has been a nation in turmoil, lead by an unstable government supported by a corrupt security force, and endangered by a large fundamentalist Islamic population with profound ties to the Taliban of Afghanistan.
For more than half a century Pakistan has been mired in an ongoing territorial dispute with its neighbor, India, that has been the focus of the region’s political energy and assets.
The fact that Pakistan, India, Russia and China all possess nuclear weapons suggests that any current or escalating violence in the region has the potential to explode into a disaster of catastrophic proportions.
Since late 2007, a reign of terror by the Taliban in Pakistan has killed and beheaded hundreds of Pakistanis - including soldiers, political officials and civilians - in the Swat Valley. They have banned female education and destroyed several hundred schools for girls.
Somewhere between a quarter and half million people have fled, leaving the militants in control of the area. On February the 16 of this year Pakistan offered to introduce Islamic law (shariah) in the Swat valley and neighboring areas in an effort to quail the insurgency. After the army declared it was halting operations in the region, the militants announced an indefinite cease-fire. President Ali Zardari signed a regulation that imposed shariah in the area. But, the Taliban refused to give up their weapons and pushed into the surrounding districts, intent on spreading their rule.
With security deteriorating rapidly, the United States and the world are now faced with the real possibility that the Pakistani government could collapse under the increasing threat of the Taliban forces.
Unfortunately, President Obama’s options for dealing with the Taliban insurgency in Pakistan are limited. Anti-American feelings in Pakistan remain high and a U.S. combat presence under international law is prohibited.
It has been reported that Pakistan currently possesses between 60 and 100 nuclear weapons. The fear of what could happen to those nuclear weapons if the Pakistani government collapses is very real.
As the Taliban insurgency spreads in Pakistan, the United States must be increasingly concerned about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and the possibility and potential for militants to seize a weapon in transport or a Taliban partisan gaining access to a laboratory or fuel-production facility.
If the Pakistani government does fall and their nuclear weapons fall into the hands of the terrorist, it could place the entire world on a collision course with the unimaginable.
For years Pakistan has been a nation in turmoil, lead by an unstable government supported by a corrupt security force, and endangered by a large fundamentalist Islamic population with profound ties to the Taliban of Afghanistan.For more than half a century Pakistan has been mired in an ongoing territorial dispute with its neighbor, India, that has been the focus of the region’s political energy and assets.
The fact that Pakistan, India, Russia and China all possess nuclear weapons suggests that any current or escalating violence in the region has the potential to explode into a disaster of catastrophic proportions.
Since late 2007, a reign of terror by the Taliban in Pakistan has killed and beheaded hundreds of Pakistanis - including soldiers, political officials and civilians - in the Swat Valley. They have banned female education and destroyed several hundred schools for girls.
Somewhere between a quarter and half million people have fled, leaving the militants in control of the area. On February the 16 of this year Pakistan offered to introduce Islamic law (shariah) in the Swat valley and neighboring areas in an effort to quail the insurgency. After the army declared it was halting operations in the region, the militants announced an indefinite cease-fire. President Ali Zardari signed a regulation that imposed shariah in the area. But, the Taliban refused to give up their weapons and pushed into the surrounding districts, intent on spreading their rule.
With security deteriorating rapidly, the United States and the world are now faced with the real possibility that the Pakistani government could collapse under the increasing threat of the Taliban forces.
Unfortunately, President Obama’s options for dealing with the Taliban insurgency in Pakistan are limited. Anti-American feelings in Pakistan remain high and a U.S. combat presence under international law is prohibited.
It has been reported that Pakistan currently possesses between 60 and 100 nuclear weapons. The fear of what could happen to those nuclear weapons if the Pakistani government collapses is very real.
As the Taliban insurgency spreads in Pakistan, the United States must be increasingly concerned about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and the possibility and potential for militants to seize a weapon in transport or a Taliban partisan gaining access to a laboratory or fuel-production facility.
If the Pakistani government does fall and their nuclear weapons fall into the hands of the terrorist, it could place the entire world on a collision course with the unimaginable.
Jack Kemp
by Dee Newman
Jack Kemp was a good and decent man. He truly wanted to help the middle class, minorities and the poor. He wanted all Americans to prosper especially those folks living in our nation’s inner cities.
He meant well, but unfortunately, neither the economic theory he advocated nor the political party he chose to execute it, did anything to increase the fortune of anyone except those whose fortunes were already excessive.
Though Jack Kemp genuinely believed that the Grand Old Party should vastly expand its tent – broaden its base and vision by actively seeking the support of blacks and other ethnic minorities – the party of the privileged and the prejudiced would have none of it.
By the time Jack Kemp began his political career in the late 1970’s, the GOP had become the party of the “southern strategy” and there was nothing culturally enlightened about its conservative leadership and base.
By then, the old Dixiecrats of the south were all Republicans, supporting an agenda that continued to openly and blatantly maintain and defend segregation and white superiority.
The economic theory to which Jack Kemp fanatically devoted his life was supply-side economics. Or, as George H.W. Bush so notably and correctly ridicule as “voodoo economics.”
Kemp believed and argued that by dramatically cutting taxes and government regulations the floodgates of the economy would open and lift all boats equally.
What happened, as we all know now, was that most of the tax cuts went to the rich and powerful, as well as, most of the money from the increased economic activity and speculation. And, the radically reduced tax revenue sent government budget deficits skyrocketing, so much so, that even Ronald Reagan had to later increase taxes.
Kemp claimed not to be worried about the deficits. He seemed to have believed that somehow, somewhere down the road everything would eventually work out.
The ultra-far-right conservatives of the party were delighted by the deficits. They wanted to reduce government revenues in order to shrink government, to cut programs and services that benefited the middle class and those less fortunate, the very people Kemp wished to help.
Using “God,” bigotry (intolerance toward those who hold different views, especially on matters of politics, religion, or ethnicity) and the fear of government regulations of such things as guns, the GOP wooed the white working class especially in the south and sought to convince them that Kemp’s supply-side tax madness would ultimately trickle-down to benefit them.
Time and time again, the white southern working-class were convinced to vote against their own self-interests. Ironically, while they were left in the humiliating position of waiting for some crumbs to filter down to them, every scheme imaginable was employed to enhance the fortunes of the rich and powerful, leaving all of us in the devastating economic predicament we now find ourselves.
Sadly, the economic changes and theory Jack Kemp vociferously advocated and helped to guide into law, though they radically transformed our economic system, they proved to only benefit the rich and powerful, eventually leaving our nation’s economy and the very people he said he wanted to help in shambles.
Jack Kemp was a good and decent man. He truly wanted to help the middle class, minorities and the poor. He wanted all Americans to prosper especially those folks living in our nation’s inner cities. He meant well, but unfortunately, neither the economic theory he advocated nor the political party he chose to execute it, did anything to increase the fortune of anyone except those whose fortunes were already excessive.
Though Jack Kemp genuinely believed that the Grand Old Party should vastly expand its tent – broaden its base and vision by actively seeking the support of blacks and other ethnic minorities – the party of the privileged and the prejudiced would have none of it.
By the time Jack Kemp began his political career in the late 1970’s, the GOP had become the party of the “southern strategy” and there was nothing culturally enlightened about its conservative leadership and base.
By then, the old Dixiecrats of the south were all Republicans, supporting an agenda that continued to openly and blatantly maintain and defend segregation and white superiority.
The economic theory to which Jack Kemp fanatically devoted his life was supply-side economics. Or, as George H.W. Bush so notably and correctly ridicule as “voodoo economics.”
Kemp believed and argued that by dramatically cutting taxes and government regulations the floodgates of the economy would open and lift all boats equally.
What happened, as we all know now, was that most of the tax cuts went to the rich and powerful, as well as, most of the money from the increased economic activity and speculation. And, the radically reduced tax revenue sent government budget deficits skyrocketing, so much so, that even Ronald Reagan had to later increase taxes.
Kemp claimed not to be worried about the deficits. He seemed to have believed that somehow, somewhere down the road everything would eventually work out.
The ultra-far-right conservatives of the party were delighted by the deficits. They wanted to reduce government revenues in order to shrink government, to cut programs and services that benefited the middle class and those less fortunate, the very people Kemp wished to help.
Using “God,” bigotry (intolerance toward those who hold different views, especially on matters of politics, religion, or ethnicity) and the fear of government regulations of such things as guns, the GOP wooed the white working class especially in the south and sought to convince them that Kemp’s supply-side tax madness would ultimately trickle-down to benefit them.
Time and time again, the white southern working-class were convinced to vote against their own self-interests. Ironically, while they were left in the humiliating position of waiting for some crumbs to filter down to them, every scheme imaginable was employed to enhance the fortunes of the rich and powerful, leaving all of us in the devastating economic predicament we now find ourselves.
Sadly, the economic changes and theory Jack Kemp vociferously advocated and helped to guide into law, though they radically transformed our economic system, they proved to only benefit the rich and powerful, eventually leaving our nation’s economy and the very people he said he wanted to help in shambles.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Little Dorrit Gives Wall Street a Haircut
by Les LeopoldHuffington Post
Posted May 3, 2009 | 01:56 PM (EST)
While watching Little Dorrit with my PBS-addicted wife, I was struck by Dickens's stinging critique of finance capital. It's obvious that Dickens attacks the cruelty of poverty, the stupidity of debtors' prisons, the idleness and conceit of the upper classes, and the inefficiency of government bureaucracies (which he so wonderfully calls the "Circumlocution Office"). But also, he goes after financial elites with a vengeance. Like Adam Smith, he draws a sharp distinction between those who put money, skill and energy to productive uses and those who simply move money around, or waste it by living lavishly, while doing nothing except collecting dividends and rents.
In the story, Amy Dorrit grows up debtor's prison, the Marshalsea, with her impoverished father. (Dickens's real father also was sent there.) After many Dicksonian twists, it turns out that the Dorrit family actually has an enormous inheritance which gets the father out of prison and allows them to hobnob with the elite. After more twists, the Dorrits loose all of its newfound wealth by investing it Mr. Merdle's bank, which had been all the rage of London until its Ponzi scheme blew up. (Bernie Madoff could have studied at Merdle's feet, except that Dickens's Merdle graciously committed suicide with a pen knife while enjoying a public steam bath.)
Although the Merdle Ponzi scheme destroys the Dorrits' wealth, the real economy allows Amy Dorrit to save and then marry her one true love, Arthur Clennam. When the bank collapsed, Arthur also lost all the capital of the business enterprise he and Daniel Doyce owned and operated. Arthur is sent to debtor's prison and is a broken man. The angelic Amy nurses him back to life, but then, out of male pride, Arthur refuses to let her pay off his debts to get him out of prison. (This is not a feminist story.) Amy then discovers that her inheritance also is lost to Merdle, so now she and Arthur are free to marry.... except that Arthur is still stuck in debtor's prison.
Enter the real-economy-as-savior in the form of Daniel Doyce. While away in St. Petersburg, Doyce perfects one of his inventions. As a result, their bankrupt company is about to boom again. So Arthur, his debts paid, leaves prison and marries Amy. True love and the real economy conquers the deceit of finance capital and the spend-thrift classes. If only.
There's one more scene that could have been written yesterday -- a perfect parody of the Obama-Chrysler debt-holder negotiations. As we know, certain hedge funds and investment groups are whining about getting only 30 cents on each dollar of the Chrysler debt they hold. (In financial-speak, they are getting "haircuts".) Dickens takes this literally. Denks, who is a rent collector for a Mr. Casby, sleuths around the slums while, under Casby's orders, squeezing the poor tenants for every last penny owed. Meanwhile, Casby, who hides the origin of his wealth, is well known as a philanthropist, walking the same slums giving out alms to the poor, while winning the adulation of the very people he is ripping off. At the end of the PBS version, Denks can take no more. After being dressed down again by Casby for not squeezing the poor hard enough, he accosts his boss who is on a jaunt through the slum, waving to his admirers and patting the heads of impoverished children. Denks, before all, blows Casby's cover. Then to the jeers and amazement of the angry crowd, Denks says, among other things, "You are a driver in disguise, a screwer by deputy, a wringer, and squeezer, and shaver by substitute. You're a philanthropic sneak. You're a shabby deciever!'
Then Denks "whipped out a pair of shears, and swoooped upon the Patriarch from behind, and snipped off short the sacred locks that flowed upon his shoulders." I kid you not.
Now there's a bankruptcy court!
Les Leopold is the author of The Looting of America: How Wall Street's Game of Fantasy Finance Destroyed Our Jobs, Pensions, and Prosperity-- and What We Can Do about It, (Chelsea Green Publishing, June 2009)
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Nikki Yanofsky
Fifteen year old Nikki Yanofsky is a young jazz-pop singer from Montreal, Quebec, Canada. In the summer of 2006 when she was only 12 years old she became the youngest performer to headline her own show in the 29 year history of the Montreal International Jazz Festival. Since then, she has performed to sold-out crowds at each of the subsequent Montreal festivals. She has also performed at Montreal's Bell Centre, The Air Jamaica Jazz and Blues Festival in Montego Bay, with Marvin Hamlisch at Carnegie Hall in New York City and the Kennedy Center in Washington D.C. and with The Count Basie Orchestra at the 2008 Luminato Festival in Toronto.The following are highlights from her first release "Ella... of Thee I Swing." This Concert DVD comes with an Audio CD of the concert and has been on sale in Canada since late September, 2008.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
The Exchange Between Condoleezza Rice and Two Stanford Students
by Dee Newman
On April 27 Condolessza Rice met with some young but very bright Stanford students at a dormitory reception. It seems in the exchange that the school’s former provost may have met her match. In fact her last words in the give and take may one day come back to bite her in a court of law.
When asked if waterboarding is torture, she asserted with an air of condescension, "By definition, if it was authorized by the President it did not violate our obligations under the convention against torture." The exact same defense Nixon and his apologist used to justify their high crimes and misdemeanors.
This exchange highlights the reason why we cannot simply let these illegal acts fade into the past. For they are not and never will be in the past as long as the culprits and their crimes continue to be defended and justified as "altogether fitting and proper" acts of national security.
The legal investigations and prosecutions of wrong-doing must not be circumvented. The wrongdoers must be brought to justice. Otherwise, we will one day, once again, be lead by another administration of incompetent, corrupt cowards who believe the end justifies the means.
The legal inquiry should not be partisan nor political. Therefore, it needs to be conducted independent of any suspicion of either. President Obama should let it be known to all that he will neither pursue nor obstruct any legal investigation into this matter. Once justice has been served, then and only then, should he intervene to pardon anyone.
On April 27 Condolessza Rice met with some young but very bright Stanford students at a dormitory reception. It seems in the exchange that the school’s former provost may have met her match. In fact her last words in the give and take may one day come back to bite her in a court of law.
When asked if waterboarding is torture, she asserted with an air of condescension, "By definition, if it was authorized by the President it did not violate our obligations under the convention against torture." The exact same defense Nixon and his apologist used to justify their high crimes and misdemeanors.
This exchange highlights the reason why we cannot simply let these illegal acts fade into the past. For they are not and never will be in the past as long as the culprits and their crimes continue to be defended and justified as "altogether fitting and proper" acts of national security.
The legal investigations and prosecutions of wrong-doing must not be circumvented. The wrongdoers must be brought to justice. Otherwise, we will one day, once again, be lead by another administration of incompetent, corrupt cowards who believe the end justifies the means.
The legal inquiry should not be partisan nor political. Therefore, it needs to be conducted independent of any suspicion of either. President Obama should let it be known to all that he will neither pursue nor obstruct any legal investigation into this matter. Once justice has been served, then and only then, should he intervene to pardon anyone.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Justice David Souter
by Dee Newman
After nineteen years Justice David Souter will soon retire from the United States Supreme Court.
When President George H. W. Bush nominated him, David Souter was a virtual unknown.
Most republicans at the time of his appointment believed he would be a staunch conservative determined to overturn Roe v. Wade and to outlaw affirmative action.
Fortunately, he was not the ideologue they had expected.
Prior to his appointment, Justice Souter lived a quiet, contemplative life, alone in an old New Hampshire farmhouse filled with books.
Then as now, he was known for his knowledge and intellect. A Rhodes Scholar, he has always been considered even by his critics to be not just a prodigious reader and serious thinker, but a meticulous and conscientious legal mind.
Justice Souter took the seat that was previously held by one of the “liberal lions” of the Warren Court, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. Before Brennan died, the two would form a very close friendship.
Though we may never know how that friendship may have influenced Justice Souter, we do know that Souter did not turn out to be the right-wing zealot the conservatives had hoped he would be. To the contrary, he became a thoughtful, moderate and independent thinker, who made for himself a truly distinguished and surprisingly "liberal" record, defending and championing everything from freedom of speech and religion to racial and gender equality, from affirmative action to the rights of gays and lesbians, not to mention such issues as the abuse of executive power and cruel and unusual punishment.
It is well known that David Souter was very disappointed in his conservative colleagues’ decision in Bush v. Gore, which he called a "tragedy."
President Obama could not go wrong if he appointed another incisive and tenacious thinker like David Souter, someone with an open-mind who is decent, thoughtful, brilliant, caring, and modest, someone who will fight to preserved and protected the fundamental principles upon which our nation was based – life, liberty, equality and justice for all.
After nineteen years Justice David Souter will soon retire from the United States Supreme Court.
When President George H. W. Bush nominated him, David Souter was a virtual unknown.
Most republicans at the time of his appointment believed he would be a staunch conservative determined to overturn Roe v. Wade and to outlaw affirmative action. Fortunately, he was not the ideologue they had expected.
Prior to his appointment, Justice Souter lived a quiet, contemplative life, alone in an old New Hampshire farmhouse filled with books.
Then as now, he was known for his knowledge and intellect. A Rhodes Scholar, he has always been considered even by his critics to be not just a prodigious reader and serious thinker, but a meticulous and conscientious legal mind.
Justice Souter took the seat that was previously held by one of the “liberal lions” of the Warren Court, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. Before Brennan died, the two would form a very close friendship.
Though we may never know how that friendship may have influenced Justice Souter, we do know that Souter did not turn out to be the right-wing zealot the conservatives had hoped he would be. To the contrary, he became a thoughtful, moderate and independent thinker, who made for himself a truly distinguished and surprisingly "liberal" record, defending and championing everything from freedom of speech and religion to racial and gender equality, from affirmative action to the rights of gays and lesbians, not to mention such issues as the abuse of executive power and cruel and unusual punishment.
It is well known that David Souter was very disappointed in his conservative colleagues’ decision in Bush v. Gore, which he called a "tragedy."
President Obama could not go wrong if he appointed another incisive and tenacious thinker like David Souter, someone with an open-mind who is decent, thoughtful, brilliant, caring, and modest, someone who will fight to preserved and protected the fundamental principles upon which our nation was based – life, liberty, equality and justice for all.
The President Makes Surprise Visit to the White House Press Room
With no advanced warning, even for Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, President Obama made a surprise visit to the White House press briefing room today. The President had just gotten off the phone with Supreme Court Justice David Souter and wanted to officially announce the Justice's retirement plans and say a few words about what kind of appointment he would make.
The following are the President's full remarks, as released by the White House:
Throughout his two decades on the Supreme Court, Justice Souter has shown what it means to be a fair-minded and independent judge. He came to the bench with no particular ideology. He never sought to promote a political agenda. And he consistently defied labels and rejected absolutes, focusing instead on just one task -- reaching a just result in the case that was before him.
He approached judging as he approaches life, with a feverish work ethic and a good sense of humor, with integrity, equanimity and compassion -- the hallmark of not just being a good judge, but of being a good person.
I am incredibly grateful for his dedicated service. I told him as much when we spoke. I spoke on behalf of the American people thanking him for his service. And I wish him safe travels on his journey home to his beloved New Hampshire and on the road ahead.
Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as President. So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.
I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.
As I make this decision, I intend to consult with members of both parties across the political spectrum. And it is my hope that we can swear in our new Supreme Court Justice in time for him or her to be seated by the first Monday in October when the Court's new term begins.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The following are the President's full remarks, as released by the White House:
Throughout his two decades on the Supreme Court, Justice Souter has shown what it means to be a fair-minded and independent judge. He came to the bench with no particular ideology. He never sought to promote a political agenda. And he consistently defied labels and rejected absolutes, focusing instead on just one task -- reaching a just result in the case that was before him.
He approached judging as he approaches life, with a feverish work ethic and a good sense of humor, with integrity, equanimity and compassion -- the hallmark of not just being a good judge, but of being a good person.
I am incredibly grateful for his dedicated service. I told him as much when we spoke. I spoke on behalf of the American people thanking him for his service. And I wish him safe travels on his journey home to his beloved New Hampshire and on the road ahead.
Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as President. So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.
I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.
As I make this decision, I intend to consult with members of both parties across the political spectrum. And it is my hope that we can swear in our new Supreme Court Justice in time for him or her to be seated by the first Monday in October when the Court's new term begins.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
