When Lying Isn’t Lying

While I will admit that most if not all candidates sometimes have trouble with the truth. They have a tendency to overstate positive and understate negative facts concerning their records. We, as the voting public are aware of these liberties with the truth and have accepted them as part of the political process. Most voters are not that concerned with exact figures or facts so long as the candidates overall message or point rings true. Here is where a certain Republican presidential candidate is having a problem, Mr. Rudy Giuliani seems to be overstepping the occasional missed fact and figure tolerance that we allow candidates. In what appears to be a deliberate campaign of false facts and figures, Mr. Giuliani is churning out incorrect data at an alarming rate.

In almost every appearance as he campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination, Rudolph W. Giuliani cites a fusillade of statistics and facts to make his arguments about his successes in running New York City and the merits of his views...All of these statements are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong. And while, to be sure, all candidates use misleading statistics from time to time, Mr. Giuliani has made statistics a central part of his candidacy as he campaigns on his record.[1]

It is one thing to mistakenly recite a figure that is incorrect, no one can be expected to remember every fact or figure concerning an issue. Even if that issue does concern the candidate’s own record, we all make mistakes. The problem with Mr. Giuliani is, even after the figures have been proven to be false, he continues to stubbornly use them in spite of the fact they are wrong. This indicates to me a certain lack of character on the part of the candidate, if he continues to use false information to prove a point then it calls into question the truth of the point. It also calls into question the basic truthfulness of the candidate. I’m sorry Mr. Giuliani if you’ll lie about some stupid fact on the campaign trail, would you not also lie about Iran’s WMD capabilities? It makes me wonder.

An example of Mr. Giuliani’s departure from the truth is his oft repeated prostate cancer figure. According to Mr. Giuliani, if he were in England and had been diagnosed with prostate cancer his chances for survival would only be 44% as opposed to the US where his survival chances would be 82%. This is quite a disparity and one that would be worthy of noting to contrast the state of health care in America versus Britain, the only problem is the figures are not true and Mr. Giuliani knows they are not true. The actual figure is 74.4% in the UK, a difference still but not the great disparity being touted by Mr. Giuliani as fact. Even after the figure had been debunked, Mr. Giuliani continued to quote the figure and use it in advertising. Isn’t this the same type of behavior that was exhibited by the current administration when confronted by facts that did not support their positions?

Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist who once worked for Mr. Giuliani, said he doubted that the issue would hurt him politically.

“When he talks about New York, people see it,” Mr. Luntz said of Mr. Giuliani, “and they feel it, and if a number isn’t quite right, or is off by a small amount, nobody will care, because it rings true to them.”[2]

Here’s the deal Mr. Luntz, no one would begrudge a candidate a little fudging, but these are not small discrepancies on an occasional basis, this is a regular conscious misrepresentation of the facts. So, because he is talking about New York facts suddenly become irrelevant, he can spew out any information he chooses no matter its basis in fact? I don’t think so, I believe that the general public will care even if the Republican base does not. It seems that Mr. Giuliani believes that since no one has called Mr. Bush and his cronies on their lies, no one will call him on his. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Giuliani must believe in the adage if you throw enough crap on the wall some of it is going to stick.

Dear Mr. Giuliani, if you don’t know your facts please stop quoting them, obviously math was not your strong suit. The American public is not being served by your misrepresentations and you are not projecting a presidential image, in fact it appears to be more fake know-it-all. When a person continues to spout information he knows to be false it is no longer a mistake, it is lying. No matter what the spin, it is lying. If you are willing to spread lies to advance your campaign, what else are you capable of? Mr. Giuliani seems to be running the same campaign Georg W. ran in 2000, remember the passionate conservative that lied his way to the White House, lied his way into war, and now wants to lie his way into history. When is a lie not a lie, when it comes from a politician, then it is just business as usual.

For more information on prostate health and the work being done I have included a link to a website for more information. Thank you Dr. Krongrad...

Krongrad Institute

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/politics/30truth.html?hp
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/politics/30truth.html?pagewanted=2&hp

Read more!

If You Run On Religious Issues

If you run on religious issues, then your religion is fair game. I am a secularist Orthodox Christian and I believe that a candidate for public office religious background is private, unless that candidate interjects it into the campaign. The problem I have with the Republican presidential candidates who are running on moral issues is that on the one hand they parade their religious convictions when it is convenient and when it causes uneasiness it is all of a sudden out of bounds. It reminds me of the Dick Cheney lesbian daughter deal, it is ok for Mr. Cheney to discuss the evils of homosexuality as long as it is someone else’s homosexuality, it is an invasion of privacy for someone to discuss his daughter’s sexual orientation.

Today, in the closing weeks before the Iowa caucus, Mr. Huckabee is energetically selling his religious credentials, saying voters should pick a candidate who speaks “the language of Zion” as a “mother tongue,” and running television commercials flashing the words “Christian Leader.” He talks eagerly about theology issues in political debates (displaying his TV-trained ability to speak in exact 45-second segments) and cites Scripture on the trail.

In Iowa, where he and Mr. Romney are locked in a tight race, Mr. Huckabee has capitalized on conservative Christian animosity toward Mormons, pointedly refusing to dispute the common evangelical characterization of Mormonism as a cult.[1]

I placed this quote in the diary because to me it highlights this principle in two ways. First it shows how when it is convenient these candidates will seek to be the “great shepherd” of the flock as in Mr. Huckabee’s case, but then when that religion is questioned as in Mr. Romney’s case then it is off-limits. The other interesting part of this quote is how it depicts the heart of the modern evangelical movement in America, Mr. Huckabee is willing to cannibalize another “so-called” Christian for his own political gain. The old my God is bigger than your God mentality. Instead of using his soapbox to promote tolerance and unity of the Church, he is accepting of intolerance and bigotry within the body. If Mr. Huckabee is so willing to sacrifice a fellow Christian in the primaries what will he do in the Oval Office?

For better or for worse, we live in a secular society. The founders of this nation insured that it would be, so technically what an individual candidate’s religious affiliation is should be private. I believe that it is important to know what a candidate does or does not believe, but that belief should not qualify nor disqualify anyone for office. The problem is when you make religion and moral values campaign issues you do more to divide the country than to unite it. We do not have a state Church, nor do we have a monolithic religious body. Instead we have more different denominations and religious orders than any country in the world, so when one group comes along and claims supreme truth it tends to alienate the other groups. This may be fine for the individual group, but when you are running to lead all the groups it can be problematic.

If we have learned anything from the “compassionate conservatism” of George Bush, it should be that what a person says in public is irrelevant in comparison to what he does in private. Too often those who espouse their religious convictions publically are having a difficult time adhering to them privately. We all want to be judged on what we say and not on what we do. It is easy for candidates to espouse certain values publically (Larry Craig) and yet live a completely different way. I don’t really care what you say, I do care what you do. There seems to be this disconnect between speech and actions and it is not just confined to Republicans, they just seem to be better at it.

In his “Kennedy moment” Mr. Romney made the following quote, which I find terribly misleading and self-serving.

“I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith,” Mr. Romney told the invited audience at the at the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum in College Station, Tex.[2]

The truth of the matter is Mr. Romney, yes you do define your campaign in religious terms and so to come out now that your religion is being questioned and say otherwise is a lie. When you campaign as a religious conservative and court that voting block then you are casting your campaign in a religious light. It’s funny how when he was leading in the polls he did not find it necessary to divorce his religion from his candidacy, but as soon as he begins to fade now he wants to be treated as a secular politician. I’m sorry sir, you can’t have it both ways.

It seems that once again Mr. Romney wants to reinvent and recast himself to gain political traction. Mr. Romney has no trouble creating himself into whatever he thinks will get him elected. I would have more respect for him if he remained true to his core beliefs, but with these guys they have no core beliefs to remain true to. It is all about getting elected at whatever cost.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/us/politics/06huckabee.html?pagewanted=3&hp&adxnnlx=1196957159-AFoWMyxhWPk2m6xuRuNh7A
[2] http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/romneys-speech-on-faith/index.html?hp

Read more!

Intelligence Report Bodes Bad For Iran

There are many who have interpreted the latest intelligence estimate as a slow-down for the march to war with Iran and an opportunity for this administration to engage in diplomacy. These voices would be wrong, they obviously have forgotten who they are dealing with. The tough rhetoric and war posturing by this administration towards Iran has nothing to do with nuclear weapon ambitions, WMD’s, or the price of oil in China. This administration has had a strategy from the beginning to alter the appearance of the Middle-East and that plan has not changed. This administration does not rely on reports or estimates, it relies on an ideology. The ideology that you are either with us or with the terrorists and any information that does not support these views is discounted.

The findings, though, remain open for interpretation, as they always do, even in documents meant to reflect the consensus of the intelligence community. When it comes to Iran, at odds with the United States on many fronts beyond the nuclear question, hawks remain.

“Those who are suspicious of diplomacy are well dug in in this administration,” said Kurt M. Campbell, chief executive officer of the Center for a New American Security.

John R. Bolton, the former ambassador to the United Nations, who recently left the administration and began to criticize it, sounded very much like Mr. Hadley on Monday, saying the assessment underscored the need for American toughness. He said Iran’s intentions would always remain a concern as long as it continued to enrich uranium.

“The decision to weaponize and at what point is a judgment in the hands of the Iranians,” he said. He added that the finding that Iran halted a weapons program could just mean that it was better hidden now.[1]

The principles of empire and domination are not swayed by insignificant details like the truth. This administration and its Neo-Con cronies create their own truth and will use other people’s truth to justify their own. Remember, these were the people who would leak a story and then use the leaked story as independent corroboration. This report changes nothing in the minds of Bush and his chicken hawks and as the story unfolds they will actually use it to press the case for action against Iran all the more. It will be argued that Iran can restart the program at their leisure or that those portable weather monitoring stations are mobile nuclear facilities. Then there will be the top-secret nuclear program that Iran is harboring undetectable by the untrained eye.

Despite popular belief, this will create more pressure on Iran from the Neo-Con and Israeli hawks. Many of whom have already doubted the conclusions of the reports and are planting the seeds of skepticism. The following is a quote taken from a blog entitled, “The Great Intelligence Scam” from the Neo-Con website of Michael Breeden:

At this point, one really has to wonder why anyone takes these documents seriously. How can anyone in his (there was no female name on the document, nor was any woman from the IC present at the press briefing yesterday) right mind believe that the mullahs are rational? Has no one told the IC about the cult of the 12th Imam, on which this regime bases its domestic and foreign policies? Does not the constant chant of “Death to America” mean anything? I suppose not, at least not to the deep thinkers who wrote this policy document.[2]

Also, the Israeli hawks have chimed in with their own claims of secret Iranian nuclear plans that they have evidence of. This evidence they obviously didn’t feel obliged to share with their staunch ally and defender the US and its intelligence community. What amazes me is these are the same people who trumpeted the estimates and defector stories that stated unequivocally that Iraq had WMD’s and now all of a sudden the information is unreliable, no sh*t. The climate in this country continues to descend into this polarization of ideas and competing philosophies and I fear it will only get worse as the political parties gear up for the election cycle.

We have not heard the end of the Iranian debate nor has George Bush’s plan been sidetracked. The difference is this time there will be no phony excuses to justify the action and there will be no lies for the American politicians and people to hide behind. There will be clear choices ahead of us as a nation. Will we continue the “stay the course” philosophy that has produced two wars and no victories into a third one or will we choose to bring the “war on terror” to its long overdue conclusion? Either way Iran will continue to be the ace in the hole in someone’s sights and isn’t going away anytime soon.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washington/04assess.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
[2] http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/2007/12/03/the_great_intelligence_scam.php

Read more!

Black Wealth; Non-Transferable

In what can surely be called unusual and frightening, it appears that black wealth cannot be transferred between generations. In a recent study done by the Economic Mobility Project, which was funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, a non-partisan think-tank; a staggering 45% of children whose parents were solidly middle-class have fallen completely to the bottom rung of the economic ladder. These were children who were raised middle-class; they went to the better schools and enjoyed the trappings of middle-America. So what happened?

A startling 45 percent of black children whose parents were solidly middle income end up falling to the bottom income quintile, while only 16 percent of white children born to parents in the middle make this descent. Similar trends are found in other income groups as well. In another disturbing example, 48 percent of black children and 20 percent of white children descend from the second-to-bottom income group to the bottom income group. In addition, black children who start at the bottom are more likely to remain there than white children (54 percent compared to 31 percent).[1]

Here is what is disturbing about this study, whatever gains blacks are making they are unable to sustain them from generation to generation. Why is this disturbing? It is disturbing because wealth is built over generations with each generation building on the previous one. The parents acting as building blocks for their children to build increasing wealth, for some reason this does not seem to be happening for blacks. In fact not only is it not happening, but blacks are actually losing wealth between generations. Children who should be moving from middle-class to upper middle-class are instead falling to the bottom rung and being forced to start all over.

Here in America, we pride ourselves on certain myths; that hard work equals success, that we live in a mobile society, and that anyone can achieve the American Dream. The unfortunate truth is that these are not true and that they are just myths. Where one ends up in this society is based a great deal on where one starts. The myth of the poor child that grows up to be wealthy, a self-made millionaire is next to impossible. Only 6% of children who start at the bottom ever makes it to the top, those are not very good odds. I use to frown on poor people who played the lottery, but with these odds they may have a better chance at the lottery. What the study suggests is that no matter what decisions a poor child makes its impact will only be marginal at best. The most he can hope for is middle-class and that appears to be fleeting.

The question then becomes why are blacks not able to maintain or build on their middle-class status? Is that the glass ceiling for most black families in America? While the study provides the data it provides little in the way of conclusions, I guess leaving those for the pundits on both sides of the issues. You know the true experts.

I have a few theories that I would like to submit for discussion and deliberation. The first involves the nature of labor in America, there was a time when a person could get a manufacturing or labor intensive job with little or no education that would pay the person a wage that would allow them to live a middle-class lifestyle. A man could with or without a high school diploma with a strong back and a good work ethic earn enough to escape the bottom rungs of the economic ladder and place his family in middle-class status. Before our high-tech and service oriented economy, many men black and white were able to provide their families a decent life with little more than basic skills. Those days are gone along with our manufacturing industries to off-shore sites where their people will be able to provide their families a step up the economic ladder.

Somewhere there was a disconnect in the black family, instead of using their middle-class status to pursue higher education and career goals than their parents, something else happened to the children. Many black children are now doing worse than their middle-class parents, their incomes have dropped as all male income has flattened out and without the technical skills they are unable to gain access to the new middle-class jobs. This can only be due to two reasons, either the children of middle-class blacks did not adequately prepare themselves for the future or even with preparation they were not able to secure the jobs that provided the income to eclipse their parents. In either case, the question is why?

Another theory is that because the blacks in the 60’s were already at the bottom of the economic ladder due to Jim Crow and segregation which had just been outlawed, their rise would have been meteoric and not necessarily indicative of true progress. Their children could not be expected to replicate their success. I disagree with this, if the purpose of gaining economic status is to improve the opportunities of one’s children then these children should have been exposed to greater opportunities for advancement. Here is the problem, because many of the black middle-class of that time were uneducated and often unskilled many did not promote higher education. Their livelihoods had not been created by education, but by labor so many did not understand the value of education. Many black parents instead promoted hard work over educational achievement. While intelligence is not hereditary, the pursuit of it is. If a parent does not teach the child or express to the child the value of education, the child will not view it as important. Hoping that they too would follow the path of their parents many children have been hard hit by the lost of these labor intensive jobs.

The other issue is that while the parents were middle-class by incomes, they were not middle-class in wealth. Income is what you make, wealth is what you keep. Many of the parents were either unwilling or unable to save money and create wealth which could have been transferred to their children through paying for college, providing startup costs for a business, or a down-payment for a home. These are the three most common ways that wealth is generated in the middle-class. Without these fail-safes it is inevitable that the children would lose any gains made by the parents. Due to a lack of savings and wealth, the black family is not insulated against the costs of living that can plunge a family back down the economic ladder. This fact is true throughout all strata of the economic ladder, there is a large discrepancy between the wealth of whites and the wealth of blacks. Even whites in the lower fifth of the economic ladder still have more wealth than their black counterparts. Where did they accumulate this wealth?

Finally, the biggest gain for white families versus black families has not occurred due to white men earning more, the truth is that wages for all men have been flat-lining for decades, it is due to white women joining the work force. Their entry into the workforce has provided the white family with another income source and as women’s wages have continued to rise and so has the family’s income. White women and black women in the middle income brackets make comparably the same wages, the difference is that the black woman is often times the sole wage earner in her home whereas the white woman is just half of the income producer. In other words the recent increase or separation in white family incomes versus black family incomes is in the makeup of the families. Because whites tend to marry more than blacks they have two incomes versus the single income for blacks. In the past, both groups married at comparable rates, today that is no longer the case and it is showing up in the disparity of income and wealth.

So, there are many causes that have prevented blacks from benefitting from the middle-class boom of the 60’s and 70’s. Some have been the result of racism, some have been the result of a changing economy, and some have been the result of a lack of planning. The truth is we really don’t know exactly what has prevented the transfer or growth of the black middle-class. I would be interested in any ideas or results from studies that I am not familiar with. There is a growing chasm in America, it is not only between rich and poor, but it is also between rich and middle-class blacks and poor blacks. The results of this study demonstrate that we have a long way to go and maybe we weren’t as far along as we thought we were. Until blacks are able to transfer and build their wealth across generations each generation will have to start from the bottom and work their way up and we all know what the chances of that is.

[1] http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP_Key_Findings_11-13-07.pdf

Read more!

Who Says We Don’t Have Socialized Medicine

Who says we don’t have socialized medicine in America. We have it, just not the way the rest of the world does it. You see in other countries the citizenry are covered by national healthcare, in America it is the corporations that are being covered by Medicaid and Medicare. I have never been able to understand how with the massive buying power of the federal government I can get better prices than they can. If anyone still believes that Washington is not teeming with thieves, stories like these should dispel any doubts. Everyone wants to cut government spending so long as it doesn’t affect them, so what if the country is going broke. Everyone agrees that the costs of Medicaid and Medicare are skyrocketing and that the system is on the brink of disaster and rather than businesses joining with the rest of America in trying to reduce the costs and solve the problem, we get this instead.

Despite enormous buying power, Medicare pays far more. Rather than buy oxygen equipment outright, Medicare rents it for 36 months before patients take ownership, and pays for a variety of services that critics say are often unnecessary.

The total cost to taxpayers and patients is as much as $8,280, or more than double what somebody might spend at a drugstore.

The high expense of oxygen equipment — which cost Medicare over $1.8 billion last year — is hardly an anomaly.[1]

The politician’s answer to our spiraling health care costs is to reduce the rolls and the services for the patients, instead of reducing the prices of the suppliers. The sad thing about all of this is that it is not new or secret, everyone on Capitol Hill knows that this price gouging is going on. In the prescription drug bill it was actually legislated into it that the American public would have to pay the highest prices available and could not use the tremendous buying power to negotiate lower prices. There is something seriously wrong with our government and our programs and the solution is not to shut them down or privatize them it is for the government to exert the control they were elected to do.

The wingnuts will point to this story and say this is why we need to get government out of healthcare, instead of dealing with the real issue which is the profiteering of their corporate benefactors. Why is government healthcare good enough for the government, but not good enough for the rest of America? If government healthcare is so awful why aren’t the Congress passing legislation for them to opt out? The truth is that it is hypocritical for them to denounce the same system that they use for themselves. It is hypocritical for them to want to cut people and services, instead of cutting the gouging that is taking place.

Welfare only seems to be good for the corporations, it is okay for companies to bill the government for millions of dollars of overcharges, but it is a national outrage for a single mother to get a few hundred dollars a month for her children. The people of this country have allowed the wingnuts to define the agenda and to demonize the long history of charity that is fundamentally a part of America.

Other companies that sell medical equipment have also flourished. More than 114,000 home medical equipment suppliers billed Medicare last year, according to HME News, an industry newsletter. Over 1,500 of them collected more than $1 million. One of the largest oxygen equipment suppliers, the publicly traded Lincare, collected over $789 million from Medicare last year, according to corporate filings.

Large private investment firms have also jumped in. Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, a $16 billion private equity group, has invested in numerous companies that profit from Medicare. One of its executives is Thomas A. Scully, who ran Medicare for almost three years, until 2003.

The government’s overall bill for Medicare soared last year to an average of $8,568 per beneficiary, up from $5,522 in 1999, an increase that outpaces inflation by 34 percent.[2]

The problem is not as the wingnuts have framed it that too many people are being helped and they are undeserving, the problem is that there are too many companies lining their pockets with government money. The rise in cost for these programs is not primarily due to increased participation, but due to increased cost per patient. These costs are a direct result of a lack of oversight by the government. The reason wingnuts want to keep the government small and remove government oversight agencies is so they can pilfer the public without fear or conscious. The fewer inspectors and overseers the less chance of getting caught. The sad part is that they have managed to convince enough of the public to buy into their false logic.

Today you have poor and middle-class people spouting wingnut talking points, seemingly unaware that it is them who will be hurt by the cuts they are screaming for. I don’t know how they did it, but the 30 years of concentrated effort has been paying dividends for the conservatives. Before long you will have the middle-class calling for an end to Social Security to save a few tax dollars. There is socialism in America, though it’s only reserved for the wealthy.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/business/30golden.html?hp
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/business/30golden.html?hp

Read more!

The Myth Of Hard Work

There is a common myth that runs through America, propagated by the wealthy for mass consumption. This myth has been one of the most dangerous and divisive instruments used against the American working class of all races. This myth has been a part of Americana from the beginning and continues today unabated for the most part and constantly being reinforced by the media, corporate America, and the talking heads. The myth is simply this: that if an individual will work hard, follow the rules, and be patient that they can be successful. The biggest determinate to a person’s rise in this society is hard work and personal responsibility.

On the surface this myth seems plausible and almost logical. The harder one works the more successful one will become. It is simple cause and effect, right? It is precisely this logic that allows the constant criticism of our poorest citizens as being lazy, irresponsible, and foolish to go unchallenged. If asked, the majority of Americans of all races will state unequivocally that most people are poor because of a lack of personal responsibility and hard work. The truth is that in accumulating wealth hard work plays a very small role. The wealth and income gaps between Americans is not based on the fact that one group worked harder than another. If that were in fact the case in American history no group has worked harder than the slaves that built this country, the Chinese that built the railroad, or the Mexicans that continue to do the menial labor that drives our information society.

Today, as Tim Wise writes in “The Mother of All Racial Preferences" white baby boomers are benefiting from the largest transfer of wealth in American history as they inherit their parents’ estates. Some of that wealth dates back to the years of slavery, when Blacks were forced to work for free while their white owners and the American economy accumulated the benefits of their toil. Another large category of the transferred wealth is land, much of it stolen by the American government from Native Americans and Mexicans and sold for a pittance to white settlers. For the average white family, however, some of the largest sources of wealth are the result of racial preferences in government policies that were started in the 20th century.[1]

As I was researching this essay, I began to look back on my own work experiences and it was a fact that I worked the hardest on the jobs that paid me the least. There is something wrong with a system that pays a person more who is actually doing less and not only are they paid more but there is a great disparity in those earnings. How can we in good conscious claim that the person working for minimum wage or working two menial jobs is not working hard enough and are therefore responsible for their lack of wealth? Unfortunately for them and most other poor minorities, wealth is the accumulation of advantages or disadvantages. If we are honest with ourselves we will acknowledge the discrepancy of labor to income, except for labor intensive trades. These low end wage earners work very hard and yet despite their efforts they continue to be poor.

The problem I have is simply this, I want the opportunity to be successful based on the premise that all are equal and therefore have equal access to the tools of success. The issue is not whether everyone will take the opportunity provided, the issue is that the opportunity be provided to all equally. Not every white person takes advantage of all of their advantages, but I don’t hear any talk that they as a group are not worthy to have opportunities. For some reason, if some blacks choose not to take advantage of their opportunities it is an indictment against all blacks and therefore we do not deserve any opportunities. The point is this, if not one black takes advantage of an equal education or employment opportunities, so what. Equality is the key, not what one does with it. These opportunities should still exist and be equal for all, because that is what is right.

Critics of affirmative action lean heavily on the myth that people make it on their own in the United States based on hard work and individual effort. They also maintain that government intervention in the wealth creation process is not just unprecedented, but un-American. Simply put, they ask: Why should the beneficiaries of affirmative action be the recipients of preferential governmental policies when whites acquired their wealth through hard work? The answer is simple: in reality governmental policy has played an absolutely crucial role in determining the racial character of the haves and the have nots in America.[2]

Since the beginning of America the government has provided the tools for one group to have advantages at the exclusion of other groups. The majority of wealth in America is based on the government policies that favored one group over another, for anyone to say that the government should not now show any favoritism is either being blatantly dishonest or ignorant of the history of America. The majority of personal wealth in America is based on home ownership, if governmental policies provided funds for one group and not all groups equally then that is favoritism. With the government condoning and encouraging “red-lining” in mortgage loans by the FHA, it allowed whites to receive low interest loans on their mortgages thus providing them with the needed equity to begin the process of wealth accumulation. This is just one of many government policies that helped to decide who was going to be well-off in America and who wasn’t.

I want to state that I believe that personal responsibility is important. It is important however not for accumulating wealth, its importance lies in the health of the society. The health of a society is based on the principle that everyone in that society is personally responsible for their actions, not because it leads to wealth but because it leads to a better society. Whether you are a low wage worker or the CEO of a Fortune 500, it is incumbent upon all of us to do what is right and to do our best. Again, the point is not that we base opportunity on a given person’s response to it, but on equal access. When we reach the stage where everyone has equal opportunity for success, then we can talk about who is taking advantage and who isn’t. Until that time it is a moot point, because the myth will still just be a myth.

[1] http://www.aapf.org/focus/episodes/nov3.php
[2] http://www.aapf.org/focus/episodes/nov3.php

Read more!

Oh My Goodness, Hamas Won?

In case anyone needs to know why the Annapolis talks are DOA, the previous statement uttered by Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice should clear up any doubt. This statement was uttered by Ms. Rice in response to the news that after the Palestinian elections she helped to usher in the Hamas faction had won the majority of seats. I remember from my pre-law days the admonition of one of my professors, “Never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to”. You would never schedule a democratic election, if you can’t guarantee the democratic results. Neither should you setup a final peace conference, if you don’t have any final peace agreement.

Nearly seven tumultuous years later, Ms. Rice, as secretary of state, has led the Bush administration to a startling turnaround and is now thrusting the United States as forcefully as Mr. Clinton once did into the role of mediator between the Israelis and Palestinians. The culmination of her efforts occurs this week in Annapolis, Md., as Mr. Bush, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, meet to set the outlines of a final peace agreement before the end of Mr. Bush’s term.[1]

These talks have a snowballs chance in hell of creating any long-term peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Prior to a conference on this scale there has been behind the scenes negotiations that have ironed out the language and details of the agreement, to my knowledge there have been no such meetings. Without the proper groundwork what could she possibly hope to accomplish? The answer of course is nothing this is just another one of this administrations dog and pony shows where there is all sizzle and no substance.

There has been no movement on either side on the major issues that divide both sides, namely the borders and the refugee questions. There has been no movement on the roadmap. You have the majority of Palestinians supporting Hamas who was not invited to the conference, so what can you hope to accomplish without one of the major parties being present? If this weren’t so important and tragic, it would be almost hilarious. Ms. Rice has never been willing to push Israel enough to get a comprehensive agreement with enough concessions to make it palatable to the Palestinians. Just the fact that they are negotiating with a wounded Prime Minister from Palestine shows the desperation of Ms. Rice and this administration to be known for more than the Iraq war debacle.

Many other Middle East experts remain unconvinced as well, particularly since the failure so far of the Israelis and Palestinians to agree on a joint statement to come out of the 40-nation conference has forced Ms. Rice to recast Annapolis as the start rather than the end of negotiations. Critics say she is organizing little more than an elaborate photo opportunity.[2]

So it seems rather than produce any meaningful agreement, this administration in the person of Ms. Rice is content to present a charade for the cameras and the US media. It will give everyone cover for continuing the status quo. We will have plenty of pictures of serious looking diplomats discussing the seriousness of peace in the Middle East, followed by a joint statement of nothingness by all parties, vowing to continue seeking peace. Once the cameras have been turned off, there will be a continuation of business as usual. There is too much invested for all concerned in maintaining the status quo, Abbas has no mandate outside of what Israel and the US gives him, Olmert does not have the political muscle to secure major concessions especially with the Palestinians being fractured, and the US has its hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran on the horizon, the other Arab states just need to look like they are seeking peace and justice for the Palestinians to keep their populations stable. The only ones seeking peace have no power to bring it about.

For Ms. Rice, Annapolis reflects her evolution from passive participant to activist diplomat who has been willing to break with Mr. Cheney and other conservatives skeptical of an American diplomatic role in the Middle East. Mr. Cheney argued with Ms. Rice against a pivotal Middle East speech that Mr. Bush gave in 2002 in the Rose Garden, fought her on a host of other issues, including Iran and North Korea, and today surrounds himself with senior advisers dubious about the Annapolis meeting.[3]

Condoleezza Rice has no serious backing in the administration for this effort. The President is vague and not invested and the Vice-President is totally not onboard. It appears that this is just Mr. Bush offering a token concession to Ms. Rice for her loyalty and their friendship. His position does not appear to have changed from early in his first term, where he did not feel obliged to become entangled in the whole Middle East peace process. Peace and negotiations are messy and tiresome, it’s not the cowboy way. Cowboys kick butt, cowboys do regime change and invasion. Negotiations are for weaklings and sissies, not tough guys like Bush and Cheney.

So let’s give a toast to Condi Rice and all the other dignitaries who will be getting face time on television and the cable news talking heads, but in the end, “oh my goodness, Hamas still won…”

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/washington/26rice.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1196111064-1JAQdjqOZo2fhh95B2WPLA
[2] Ibid.
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/washington/26rice.html?hp

Read more!