Planned Parenthood

It continues to be my intention to stop blogging and turn my attention to other things, but when I have a sense of outrage I have to speak out. The continued outrageous and unjustified attacks on Planned Parenthood fits into that category.

There is only one way to respond:

Support Planned Parenthood by giving as much as you can.

You can do so by going to their site and giving monthly, which is best, or giving just once, or both.

As for me I have been giving to Planned Parenthood  on an annual basis since 2002 and on a monthly basis since October 2013. In addition to my continuing monthly contribution I just gave an additional amount as  a way of expressing my outrage on the latest attack. You need to do so also.

You need to do more. Circulate this post to all your friends and acquaintances.

Why should men care? If they know a women they care about, be it a daughter, a wife, a sister or a female friend, they should care. Besides, men are effected by unplanned for children as much as women are.

The enemies of Planned Parenthood want us to believe that it is all about abortion services, and yes, it is in part. Yes, it is about the right to chose. But what its enemies don’t want us to know is that abortion services is a very small portion of what Planned Parenthood does. It represents 3% of its total expenditures. See here and here.

70% of its expenditures go for sexually transmitted diseases/infections testing and treatment and contraceptive services. But its enemies are as much against contraception as they are against abortion.

But it does so much more!!! It gives pre-natal care so that we can have healthier babies. It does cancer screening.

If we did not have Planned Parenthood, an organization founded by Margaret Sanger and Ethel Byrne in 1916, we would have to invent it.

What is the latest contretemps about? It is about providing body parts from the remains of dead fetuses that support lifesaving scientific research. I find nothing shocking about that!!!!! I, long ago, made out the necessary forms so that upon my death my body parts should be harvested and used to save other people’s lives. The US Department of Health & Human Services devotes a website to the subject.

Selling body parts is illegal, but recouping expenses, which is what Planned Parenthood asks for, is permissible and necessary.

According to the Department of Health & Human Services, 122,720 people are waiting for an organ, 22 people will die each day waiting for an organ, One organ donor can save up to eight lives.

The scandal to me is that the burden is on people to opt in, and not enough opt in. It ought to be the rule that organs can be used, with the right to opt out. If you haven’t opted in please do so! To find out how go here on the web.

As for Organ and Tissue Donation for Research you can find out more about it here. 

The attacks on Planned Parenthood and the entrapment and distortions and misrepresentations are reprehensible - not what Planned Parenthood does.

Please don’t delay! Give to Planned Parenthood today!!! 

Get your friends and acquaintances to do the same.

Hillary Clinton

On a slightly different, but related note, I want to share a statement made today by Hillary Clinton. I quote:

When Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Frederick Douglass, and 97 other brave women and men signed their names to the Declaration of Sentiments in Seneca Falls 167 years ago today, they sparked a movement that altered the course of history. 

 “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” they wrote, “that all men and women are created equal.” All men and women -- incredible how just two words could change millions of lives. 

 We cannot forget the heroes who went to jail and even died to give women the right to vote, earn and keep wages, own property, serve in the military, and hold elected office. We owe it to our daughters and granddaughters to continue the march of progress in America and around the world. 

 I've been fighting for these ideals for my entire career -- and I want to take that fight all the way to the White House. Will you stand with me?

 We must keep fighting for equal pay, especially for women of color, who often lose out the most. We must fight for equal access to good jobs, good health care, and good child care, for the rights of women to make our own reproductive health decisions, and to make sure that every little girl in America can be anything she wants when she grows up -- even President of the United States. 

 The full participation of women and girls in our society is more than an issue of fairness; it’s also a smart way to grow our economy. When women aren’t paid fairly, families lose out on thousands of dollars every year that could go toward paying for groceries or rent, saving for retirement, or sending a child to college. When we fight for equality, we fight for a better future for all of our children. 

 Sign your name here: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/declaration-of-equality/ to declare your support for equality and pledge to redouble our efforts to finish the work that began in Seneca Falls. 

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office. 

The Right Wing Media

Most people read only the articles and the media that they expect will reflect their own political predilections. I think that is a mistake that I try to avoid making. We can learn as much, if not more, from reading the media that does not reflect our philosophical bent.

I regularly read such Right Wing publications as the National Review and Newsmax which frequently link me to articles in the Rupert Murdoch owned New York Post.

Thus in the article that I posted on my blog on April 30, entitled: “Facts, Facts, Facts! They are pesky things,” I set forth an article that first appeared in the NY Post, and then was reprised by the National Review, which contained, not just distortions, but out and out lies about the Clintons and their foundations. I urge the reader to reread that post.

I refer back to that because I have now come across another article that appeared in Newsmax that distorts and is racist to boot. The article under the heading: “Blacks Attack Carson for Being Conservative” and is reproduced below:

Blacks Attack Carson for Being Conservative

By Clarence V. McKee

 Pulitzer Prize-winning black columnist Cynthia Tucker is one of the first black liberals to attempt to politically lynch Dr. Ben Carson because his political views are out of tune with the black liberal Democratic chorus.

 In a recent column, forced to admit the truth about Carson’s “brilliant” career as a pediatric neurosurgeon and his “awe-inspiring tale of a poor black boy in Detroit who overcame daunting obstacles,” she proceeded to mercilessly plunge the dagger of political correctness into his back. 

 “But the good doctor's foray into Republican presidential politics threatens to become his epitaph, to overshadow — perhaps even to overwhelm — his academic and surgical accomplishments. He will likely be remembered as the GOP's latest black mascot, a court jester, a minstrel show.”

Black “mascot,” “court jester,” “minstrel show”? What a disgusting, despicable, hateful choice of words as she figuratively hoisted Carson up the tree of political correctness with a rope of intolerance. His crime — daring to stray from the Democratic liberal plantation, think for himself and not mimic the liberal Democratic script as blacks are supposed to do. 

 Tucker is like other “overseers” — black and white — of that plantation. They drive the nails and tighten the rope to crucify and lynch any black conservative who dares challenge the orthodoxy of liberal establishment policies. They judge blacks like Carson not by the content of their character, accomplishments, and deeds but rather by their racist perspective of how they think blacks should think.

 As Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., has said, “one of the most threatening places to be in politics is a black conservative.” 

 Overseers like Tucker don't dare denigrate Jewish or Hispanic conservative politicians with such language — that's reserved for blacks like Carson — so he had better get ready for more.

 Talk-show host and author Tavis Smiley told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly that Carson was "a black bull in a Republican china shop," and that “if he's not careful, he is going to do himself irreparable damage."

 He went on to say that if he were close to Carson he would “call for intervention to stop him, what he is doing to himself and his reputation."

 How patronizing.

 Unlike other ethnic groups, blacks like Tucker enjoy the “political blood sport” of tearing down other blacks just because they have different political philosophies and solutions to our country’s social and urban problems. 

Other groups — at least in public — respect their own. For example, Hispanic journalists and Democrats, to the best of my knowledge, haven’t demeaned Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., or Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, just because they seek the GOP nomination and have a conservative message. 

 They understand the wisdom of not putting all of their Hispanic political eggs into one Democratic Party basket.

 Unfortunately, most of the black liberal democratic establishment appear to have kinder words and empathy for blacks who burned down black and minority-owned businesses in Ferguson and Baltimore than they do for blacks who dare express different political viewpoints and solutions to the very problems creating frustration in places like Baltimore and other cities.

 How dare Tucker stoop so low and defame this great man of accomplishment and vision who has given so much back to society including his Carson Scholarship Fund, which has awarded nearly 7,000 scholarships to youth for academic excellence? She should be ashamed.

 If she cares so much about blacks, especially youth, she has a heck of a way of showing it by using her pen to politically deride such a great role model. They will notice how he is being treated by Tucker and most likely her cohorts in the black media and liberal democratic establishments and they'll think, “If they do that to him after all he has done, why should I not finish school and take the easy way out — sell drugs, make quick money, and produce babies?"

 Tucker’s message to them is: “No matter how much you accomplish, just don’t think for yourself and stray from the Democratic plantation or we will get you.” 

 Don’t hold your breath waiting for the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, or the National Urban League, or most black and white liberal journalists and pundits to condemn such racist and vicious attacks. So the question is, Who will?

 After all, it’s easier to attack Carson that admit to the fact that in Baltimore city schools 84 percent of eighth graders score below grade level in reading and 87 percent below grade level in math. That’s not Carson’s fault!

 © 2015 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

But even among those who might read such attacks, how many will actually read the article that is the subject of the venom, which was written by Cynthia Tucker who used to be the “editorial page editor of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper for 17 years, and more recently, …was that newspaper’s Washington-based political columnist. She maintains a syndicated column, which is published in dozens of newspapers around the country.” See here.

So here it is. It appears under the heading "Ben Carson,admirable man with a mistaken philosophy":

Ben Carson, admirable man with a mistaken philosophyBy Cynthia Tucker, Special to CNN

 Updated 8:44 AM ET, Tue March 26, 2013

 Like giddy teenagers, Republican activists have fallen for another charming, personable and accomplished black conservative. Dr. Ben Carson is the newest object of their crush, which was born of a desperate need to attract more black men and women as high-profile standard-bearers.

 You can't blame Republican loyalists for swooning over the doc, a renowned surgeon who rose from poverty to head pediatric neurosurgery at Baltimore's famed Johns Hopkins Hospital. If wooing voters of color were simply a matter of finding an attractive black face with an inspiring personal story and an impressive resume, Carson would be hard to beat.

 But black voters tend to be more discerning than that. They have shown an unerring instinct for rejecting condescension and dismissing tokenism. There are many black Americans who admire Carson for his professional accomplishments (I'm one of them), but that admiration is unlikely to translate into votes.

 One of the reasons is that Carson doesn't seem to know black Americans' political values very well. In his most recent book -- a political tract called "America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made This Nation Great" -- he writes: "Many African-Americans voted for Obama simply because he was a black man and not because they resonated philosophically with his policies." In fact, black voters have been increasingly allied with the Democratic Party since the 1960s when Lyndon Johnson pushed through significant civil rights legislation. Al Gore received about 95% of the black vote in 2000, John Kerry about 93% in 2004.

 Moreover, Carson seems to have adopted the view, popular among so many ultra-conservatives, that the Democratic Party appeals to voters who shun the work ethic.

Talking to The New York Times recently about his conservative views, Carson described himself as a "flaming liberal" in college who later became disaffected with the Democratic Party. "One thing I always believed strongly in was personal responsibility and hard work," he said. "I found the Democrat Party leaving me behind on that particular issue."

 That notion -- fallacious though it is -- is at least as popular among black conservatives as among white ones. I've been hearing it from black Republicans for at least two decades. Several years ago, I interviewed a black conservative running a doomed campaign for a suburban Atlanta congressional district. She had no prior political experience, no policies to advance, no program to sell. Her platform consisted of her belief in hard work, which she contrasted, at least implicitly, with black Democrats' supposed preference for sloth.

 That view is as puzzling as it is infuriating. It may charm those white conservatives who hold stereotypical views of black Americans, but it bears little resemblance to the realities that inform their choices at the ballot box.

 In his memoir, "Gifted Hands," and in his motivational speeches, Carson talks about his impoverished childhood and his remarkable semiliterate mother. Married at 13 only to later divorce her philandering husband, she enforced high academic standards for Carson and his brother while working two or three jobs as a maid or nanny -- and battling debilitating depression.

 Carson eventually got into Yale and became, at 33, the youngest person to head a department at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He is famous for separating conjoined twins.

 That's a compelling and powerful tale. But it differs from those of other hardworking black people I know only in the degree of success that Carson attained as a result, not in the measures of ambition, industriousness, discipline and self-respect his mother instilled in her children.

 Yet black Americans know better than to believe those traits are enough to guarantee success. History taught us better. Just look back over the last decade and a half. In 2000, according to the U.S. census, less than a quarter of black Americans -- 22.5% -- lived in poverty. By 2010, that number had risen to 27.4%. Was there a sudden outbreak of indolence among black folk over that period? Or were there outside forces that conspired to knock them back down the economic ladder?

 As long as the Republican Party refuses to acknowledge that, it will have little to offer workers of color -- and declining appeal to younger whites. They, too, understand the limits of self-reliance.

 To be helpful to the GOP, Carson would have to remind them of the caprice of capitalism and the generational reach of racism's barriers. Instead, he sounds like the standard-issue Ayn Rand acolyte, no different from Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan. He opposes the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and supports a flat tax. For good measure, he's also a religious conservative who disputes evolution.

 It's no wonder that conservatives have started to trumpet him as their Great Black Hope. Psychologists believe that romantic interest increases when people mirror each other's gestures. Carson perfectly reflects the beliefs of his suitors.

 Still, this romance is unlikely to blossom into a long-lasting love affair. There are too many misunderstandings, too many unspoken expectations, too many half-baked assumptions. And some of those half-based assumptions are Carson's.

I share this with my readers without comment and hope that they will supply it. But in any case I will have some comment in my next post.

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

Facts, Facts, Facts! They are pesky things

In my last posting to my blog "People Can’t Seem To Get Their Facts Right! (Comments)," I shared with my readers the reaction to my posting of two Letters to the Editor, the first of which set forth certain erroneous “facts,” and the second was my responding letter setting the record straight.

Not long after another letter appeared in The Record again setting forth facts, which I found to be erroneous. A transcript of the letter follows:

Obama hurting U.S. prestige

 What is apparent to me regarding the progress of the negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which are to be "fully" spelled out by June 30, is that the United States' status and perception as a superpower worldwide has been vastly diminished. Iran's quest for regional hegemony has been greatly enhanced.

 There is little doubt that American military and economic strength was unable to secure significant concessions from a low-grade military power and economically stressed nation.

 On this president's watch we have witnessed political chaos in Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Tunisia. Need I point out how the president has bowed to the will of Vladimir Putin in his aggressive goals toward Ukraine?

 Jerrold Terdiman 

Woodcliff Lake, April 8

It did not take me long to respond, as set forth below:

The Letter to the Editor “Obama hurting U.S. prestige" (Record April 11) is way off the mark.

It ignores history. Did the US do better under past Administrations in dealing with an even lower grade power, North Korea, which continues to be a greater threat then Iran is, or  will ever be.

Also focusing on the President in office as the culprit when things go wrong is naïve.

As Shakespeare said: “What’s past is prologue”.

Iran is the power that it is as a direct result of our ill-advised invasion of Iraq. Before that invasion Iraq was a counterweight to Iran and fought a long and bitter war against that country. Now it is an ally.

Iran used to be a democratic state, until the Eisenhower Administration overthrew the government, and installed the hated Shah, which led to his overthrow by the present regime.

Reagan strengthened the Ayatollah in the infamous Iran/Contra scandal.

Russian aggression was encouraged when the G.W. Bush Administration did nothing in response to the invasion by Russia of Georgia in 2008.

And of even greater importance are the slanders and the lies that are now directed at Hillary Clinton, and particularly the Clinton family’s great achievements in dealing with a variety of problems both Domestic and International through the Clinton Foundation.

Thus the Right Wing publication The National Review published a smear of the foundation under the heading "The Clinton Foundation Is Not a Charity" and then among its many unsupported and false allegations there appears this:

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities.

Wow! That’s pretty damning, if that reputable organization had said that, but here is what they in fact did say:

Why isn't this organization rated?

 …this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity.

 What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

 A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

Charity Navigator then goes on the explain:

Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation is on Charity Navigator's Watchlist. Here's why:

 On February 18, 2015, The Washington Post reported that, "the foundation has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support, with members of the George W. Bush administration often participating in its programs."

The article also states that:

...in posting its donor data, the foundation goes beyond legal requirements, and experts say its transparency level exceeds that of most philanthropies.

(The link attached to the quote from the National Review about Charity Navigator simply takes you to the National Review website, if you want to see the actual Charity Navigator comments I suggest this link.

What an incredible difference between what the National Review claimed and the truth.

Finally, the reader might ask where did the National Review get this story? it was taken verbatim from an article in the Murdoch-owned New York Post (I assume with permission) but none of it is true, as a quick check with the Navigator site reveals.

And what do we find out about the Clinton foundation. Let us look at Wikipedia.

It has some negative things to say in quoting from the Right Wing lawyers association The Federalist, but it then goes on to say:

The Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) is a global health organization committed to strengthening integrated health systems in the developing world and expanding access to care and treatment for HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Organizations such as the Clinton Foundation continue to supply anti-malarial drugs to Africa and other affected areas; according to director Inder Singh, in 2011 more than 12 million individuals will be supplied with subsidized anti-malarial drugs. As of January 1, 2010, the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative, an initiative of the Clinton Foundation, became a separate nonprofit organization called the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI).

 CHAI strives to make treatment for HIV/AIDS more affordable and to implement large-scale integrated care, treatment, and prevention programs. Since its inception, CHAI has helped bring AIDS care and treatment to over 750,000 people living with HIV/Aids around the world. Its activities have included AIDS care and treatment in Africa, including the brokering of drug distribution agreements. During President Clinton's 2006 trip to Africa, CHAI signed agreements with several new countries. Over the course of the past year, CHAI has expanded its partner countries and members of the Procurement Consortium to over 70 including 22 governments, who are now able to purchase AIDS medicines and diagnostic equipment at CHAI's reduced prices.

 CHAI launched the Pediatric and Rural Initiatives in 2005 to focus on bringing AIDS care and treatment to those most often marginalized— children and those living in rural areas. CHAI also negotiated agreements that reduce the prices of second-line drugs and rapid diagnostic tests. In May 2007, CHAI and UNITAID announced agreements that help middle-income and low-income countries save money on second-line drugs. The partnership also reduced the price of a once-daily first-line treatment to less than $1 per day.

 In addition to drug access programs, CHAI also focuses on country operations, with programs that help governments with pediatric care and treatment, improving rural health care and human resources for health and the prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT). In 2008, approximately 185,000 children benefited from increased access to infant diagnosis aided by the training of 8,500 health care workers who offered pediatric antiretroviral treatment (ART). 2008 also saw six PMTCT country programs launched which ensured that every HIV pregnant woman in the program catchment area was provided with prevention, care and treatment services including counseling, testing and feeding recommendations.

 In the Summer of 2008, CHAI's Executive Vice President, Inder Singh, announced the closing of cost-reduction agreements with several suppliers of malaria medication, which will be extended to CHAI partners as part of its care and treatment program.

Does that sound like an organization that should be criticized and condemned ? Its legitimacy questioned? Why is the media, looking for points of criticism?

Would anyone criticize and condemn it, if it were not associated with the Clintons?

But as is often said: “No good deed goes unpunished.”

One of the leading contributors to this foundation, which is one of many foundations the Clintons support, is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

The Mystery of the Blind Chinese Lawyer

While the media frequently loves a mystery it appears to have been blind to this one.

If the facts here do not constitute a mystery worthy of Sherlock Holmes, it is difficult to imagine a better one.

Let us examine the facts: A blind self-taught lawyer named Chen Guangcheng is placed under house arrest by the Chinese authorities. According to reports the house arrest is severe. According to Human Rights Watch:

Since July 2011, increasing numbers of Chinese citizens have attempted to break the unlawful blockade around Chen’s home in order to visit him and express support. These activists encounter obstruction by police and plainclothes thugs who appear to operate at official behest and who unlawfully detain them and prevent them from reaching Chen’s hometown in Dongshigu, Linyi County of Shandong Province. Some activists have been beaten and robbed in their attempts to reach Chen’s village. Chen and Yuan were reportedly brutally beaten for four hours by the local mayor and other officials, in the presence of their daughter.  

Chen said that guards had, during the period of confinement, broken one of his wife’s bones and physically assaulted his elderly mother on her most recent birthday.

The reader should note that the guards prevented activist supporting Chen from reaching him. According to Amnesty International:

Visitors attempting to see Chen while under house arrest told media they were beaten, robbed of their possessions, and driven away from the village with bags over their heads in one famous attempt to visit the blind activist, Batman actor Christian Bale and a CNN television crew accompanying him were roughed up by a local guard.

According to the Sun Sentinel of South Florida:

The yard appeared enclosed with a high wall, a feature of homes typical of the rural areas of northern China. Outside the Chen home is a dusty, quiet village of one-story brick and concrete houses surrounded by farmland.

Other reports mentioned barbed wire.

Yet wonder of wonders, suddenly activists who had not been able to get to Chen before were able to scale the wall, get through the barbed wire, elude the guards and get to him, at the very moment that a high level US State Department delegation was on the way to Beijing.

Not only get to him, but lead this blind man, past the guards without being seen, get him over a wall, and make it to Beijing and the American Embassy. All without his family accompanying him, and without any concern that retribution would be visited upon them.

He then tells the embassy personnel that he wants them to negotiate for his release from house arrest, to be allowed to have medical treatment, to be reunited with his family in Beijing and then to be allowed to study at a Chinese university. American diplomats get the Chinese to agree to all the terms and Chen leaves the Embassy and goes to a hospital where he is reunited with his family.

END OF STORY, or at least one would have thought so. An American diplomatic triumph!!!

Suddenly Chen claims to have discovered that his family and those who helped him were beaten after his escape. Is that not what he should have, and probably did anticipate? The Chinese now, ostensively, bar American diplomats from seeing him in the hospital, but allow him to have a cell phone. ARE THE CHINESE STUPID OR WHAT ARE THEY UP TO?

Chen then announces that upon his discovery that his family has been abused (surprise, surprise), asks to be allowed to go to the US with his family, starts phoning all over the world with his cell phone and the Chinese do not interfere. He calls the Associated Press, he calls American officials at the Embassy and he telephones Chris Smith (R-N.J), the chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, to examine Chen Guangcheng’s quandary. See here. Lo and behold Chris Smith knows that Chen is going to call and has a Chinese interpreter and cameras standing by.

STRANGE, STRANGE, but the American media saw nothing strange. Just another example of the strange behavior of the American media.

Of course there is an immediate attempt to make the incident into an American political football, as Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, says it would be a “dark day for freedom’’ if press reports were borne out that U.S. officials had persuaded Mr. Chen to leave his sanctuary in the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, when all indications were that they had simply been following his wishes. Things, however, don't turn out so well for Romney. According to the Wall Street Journal: “Robert Jeffress, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, a mega-church, said in an interview Friday:"

The way the administration has handled this thus far is encouraging, especially given the positive response of the Chinese people and the Chinese government to date. But ultimately, the proof of their competency will be in the final result. He said it wasn’t the time to criticize administration officials working toward a solution. 

Right now, as Christians, we ought to be praying for Secretary (Hillary) Clinton and the Obama administration instead of taking cheap shots for partisan gain,’’ the pastor said. 

Asked about Mr. Romney’s statements, he added: “I don’t think now is the time to engage in political partisanship.

But Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), said he will formally request a congressional review of all cable traffic, classified or otherwise, that surrounded the negotiations for Chen to leave the embassy. 

Now that it appears to have been agreed that Chen and his family are to come to the US with the consent of all concerned, unless Chen changes his mind again. It is to be hoped that the partisanship will end – BUT THE MYSTERY REMAINS.

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

Continuing Discussion About Barack Obama’s Effectiveness.

In my last post entitled: "Bulletin with Humor" I wrote: “I intend hereafter to discuss where we should cut expenditures, where additional revenue should be sought, and will also distinguish between what I believe is desirable but politically impossible and what might actually be achieved, if not now, at some future time. I will also try to address the economic theories that lie at heart of political philosophy and evaluate their merits and to what extent our political leaders have been adhering to such economic theory as their foundation."

I have now decided to put this off to my next post and to revert to the ongoing debate which we have been having about the merits of the President’s policies and the constant charge that he is ineffective and a poor leader, which comes from both sides if the political spectrum.

In my long debate with Leonard Levenson Esq. of Manhattan, NY, which can be found in my blog posting "The Trojan Horse – Comments II (continued)," I had the very unusual result of having my protagonist actually admit that I am right.

This was so satisfying that I cannot resist quoting it again:

You may have a point when you suggest that my anger at Obama is really disappointment at the lack of progress that I hoped for. Perhaps no Democrat could have made any substantial progress against the know nothing Republicans. I think I would have preferred a battle royale (even a losing one) than accepting a weakened Health care Bill, an inadequate deficit reduction bill and the many other compromises, which Obama probably was forced to make.

I only wish that more people had such an open mind.

At this point I want to conclude this debate by sharing with my readers an exchange, which I had with Robert Malchmna Esq. of Brooklyn, NY. He called to my attention a New York Times Magazine article entitled "What Would Hillary Clinton Have Done?" I assumed that the article was sent to me with approval and wrote back:

Thanks! Yes I do find it interesting. It parallels to a large extent what I have been saying, and say even more emphatically in my next post.

But then Malchman called to my attention a comment that he had posted on the Times web site that clearly indicated that he agreed neither with me nor with the Times article; He wrote:

I think in broad policy areas, the writer is correct that there was little to distinguish Obama and Clinton during the primaries. The reason I voted for Clinton (and I agonized over it) is that I was afraid that Obama's first years in office would be like Bill Clinton's and Jimmy Carter's -- that is, a struggle to understand how to move the levers of power and to get a legislative agenda through Congress. Clinton, both from her time as First Lady and by then eight years as Senator, knew how to work those levers.

I believe my fears have proved correct. Obama certainly has some substantial accomplishments, but where's the strong public option for health care? Where's the closing of the budget gap by taxing families making over $250,000? Indeed, where's the surtax on incomes over $1 million? Obama failed to strike while the iron was hot, with a House majority and 60 votes in the Senate before Ted Kennedy's death. That health care didn't pass until late in his second year is a disgrace. That the Bush tax cuts were left to the lame-duck session and extended for the wealthy is a disgrace. That the debt-ceiling issue wasn't resolved at the same time as the Bush tax cuts is a disgrace. Obama seems woefully naive about Republicans and their single-minded goal to defeat him, regardless of the damage they do to this country. I don't think Clinton is so naive; she appreciates the machinations and goals of the vast, right-wing conspiracy. No one can know for sure, of course, but I think the country would have been better with President Hillary Clinton.

I frankly was taken aback and disappointed and responded with:

-------------------------

Dear Robert,

I was rather surprised and disappointed by your Comment 21 as posted to the Times site.

I keep preaching facts first, then opinions based on those facts. You assume that "Clinton, both from her time as First Lady and by then eight years as Senator, knew how to work those levers. But there is no evidence to support this. There are no facts to support this. It is pure speculation. Her accomplishments as Senator are hardly existent.

If we go by her and her husband’s accomplishments, they are meager indeed. As fist lady she spectacularly failed to get any traction in her own party for her health care bill and as I said in my post "The Trojan Horse - Comments":

Clinton did a terrific job in raising taxes early in his term, which together with an agreement with Fed Chairman Greenspan, to lower interest rates, brought on the eight most prosperous years in a very long time and wiped out the deficit. But he was lucky to get it passed. It passed by a tie vote in the Senate with the VP breaking the tie, which by the way shows that bringing prosperity is not a sure fire way to win a mid-term election.

Nevertheless, Clinton after losing the midterms, swung Right, employed that hired gun, Dick Morris, became famous for triangulation, and presided over, among many other things, the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, which probably was largely responsible for the bank crisis, presided over the abolition of Welfare, signed into law the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and couldn't stop the enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). (And this wasn't just in the first term, it extended into the second.)

Yet the base never savaged him. Somebody tell me why these Presidents are treated so differently?

Well, maybe because Obama unrealistically promised both to be a post-partisan and a transformational President, which are contradictory and impossible to achieve. But it should have been obvious that these are aspirational goals, not achievable ones.

You say: "Obama failed to strike while the iron was hot, with a House majority and 60 votes in the Senate before Ted Kennedy's death." without getting the facts as to how long this window was. If you count when Franken was sworn in and when Kennedy died we have a window of less than two month from July 8, 2009, when Franken was sworn in and August 26th when Kennedy died. Not too much of a window to get anything done in a Senate where the rules, at best, require slow movement. But even that is deceptive because the 60 votes were never really there because Kennedy was hospitalized on January 21, 2009, long before he died, and after that made only rare appearances on the Senate floor. Furthermore there were Democratic defections, most notably Lieberman, who threatened to himself lead a filibuster against the public option, and some other Dems as well.

Compare Obama's achievement against any other Democratic President (set forth in my blog posts "The Trojan Horse - Comments" and "The Trojan Horse – Comments II") since Roosevelt with the exception of Johnson, and he comes out well ahead in accomplishments, despite the fact that he has faced far more partisan and reckless opposition.

The Bush tax cuts extension was a calculated decision that getting the treaty with Russia, unemployment insurance, and some other stimulative measures was a careful balancing act. The economy was first and we could not leave a major security risk, and the tax cut extension was for only two years, not as you imply for an indefinite period.

On the debt ceiling issue, 20/20 vision is wonderful. Did anybody, and I mean anybody, worry about a debt ceiling that had routinely been passed every time it came up, at that point. Oh, but Obama is tasked with seeing things that nobody else saw. And who says he could have gotten it. If he had raised it and not gotten it, he would have been savaged for having been the one who gave the Tea party the idea. Besides a two year extension would have been almost unprecedented.

It is very easy to list things undone. But what counts is what was done. Compare all the Democratic Presidents since Roosevelt with the exception of Johnson, including Kennedy, for their accomplishments.

FACTS FIRST, THEN OPINIONS!!!!!

Regards,

Emil

-------------------------

I was disappointed not to have received a concession from Malchman similar to what I got from Levenson.

But the Pundits keep up their attacks on Obama. I have came across another two lately, both in Newsweek, which under the aegis of Tina Brown tries to recover its audience by becoming ever more sensationalist. They are “The Untransformational President" by Michael Tomasky, where the author says; “He signed a debt deal in which the Republicans took him to the cleaners” but like all the others neglects to tell us what the deal is or why he considers it to be a bad deal. Facts – Where are the facts? I have demonstrated, heretofore that it was in fact an advantageous deal. and "Oval Office Appeaser" by William Broyle, who compares our President to Chamberlain. (Talk about over the top) Apparently these people, like the Tea Party, consider any compromise to be appeasement, no matter how advantageous it is.

Are these friends? Or as Lenny Levenson referred to them “putative friends?”

Now we have had a hurricane that descended on our East coast. Will Obama be tasked for not having stopped it, or at least be charged, no matter what he does, with having a Brownie moment, so that it can be claimed that Obama is the new Bush. Does anybody really believe that?

I am reminded of an incidence when my daughter was about three years old and a thunder and lightening storm descending upon us. She was frightened and she said to me: “ Daddy, Make it Stop!” I explained that I did not have that power, and she exclaimed, “Well, You could at least try!”

We are not children and the President is not our Daddy!!! He is not God, nor a dictator, nor does he have a magic wand!!!

It is time to stop bellyaching and concentrate our fire on those whose vision for our country is anathema to me, and I hope to most of you. It is time to close ranks unless anyone out there truly thinks that the candidates of the Republican party dominated by the Tea Party, will do anything other than make our short range situation worse, and destroy all the things that we have built, in a truly bi-partisan way, from Theodore Roosevelt (R), to Wilson (D), To FDR (D), to Johnson (D) to Nixon (R) and even Clinton who wiped out our deficit and put us on the path to wiping out our National Debt, now Barack Obama (D) and even Eisenhower (R) who so meticulously built our Highway System, now under attack as just another socialist boondoggle that needs to be privatized.

The Price of Oil

I have decided to address this issue because so little is understood about this phenomenon. 

Even before the present spike in the price I was receiving circular e-mails that apparently were getting wide circulation. One of these urged boycotting Venezuelan oil by not buying any oil at Citco gas stations. Another urged boycotting gas stations bearing the Exxon-Mobil banner as a way of forcing their gas prices down. Another propounded by John McCain and seconded by Hillary Clinton suggested a two month suspension for the summer of the federal excise tax on gasoline. Barack Obama opposed it. I am glad to say that neither McCain nor Clinton actually introduced legislation to that effect and no such legislation has been introduced.

Unfortunately, none of these proposals has any merit. They all show an incredible lack of understanding of how markets operate and what effect our actions have on markets.

Basically, prices are set by the law of supply and demand. This is true whether we are talking about prices on the stock market or of commodities. When there is more demand than supply of any given commodity the price of that commodity will rise until supply and demand come into balance. If there is more supply than demand the prices will fall until supply and demand come into balance. 

The only way that prices can be effected artificially other than price controls, which creates other evils, is by changing one side or the other of the equation. Thus OPEC was formed to control the price of oil by controlling supply. During the Carter administration OPEC decided to drastically reduce supply causing long lines at gas pumps and driving the price of gasoline up drastically. This time, however, OPEC is pumping at, or very near to capacity, and so they, even if they wanted to, cannot increase supply. Some may say why would they want to? The answer is simple and is the reason why in the past OPEC has increased supply when prices have gone up. The more that the price of oils escalates the more alternate fuels become competitive and the more incentive there is for the world to take steps to find alternative energy and or find means for conservation. This is something that OPEC, all the oil producing states and the oil companies fear, for if and when that happens their days of wealth inflow drops and eventually stops.

At the moment the world has a capacity to produce eighty-five million barrels of oil a day. Demand is at eighty-seven million barrels. The price will keep rising until supply and demand are in balance. 

Some believe that the US can solve this problem by accessing its own reserves, which have been off limit because of their environmental sensitivity. But this is totally false. If ANWR were opened to drilling it would increase the profits of the oil companies because they would have slightly more to sell, but it would not have a noticeable effect on oil supply. It is estimated that it would take ten years to bring this oil supply to fruition and then “it would result in additional oil production of a peak 780,000 barrels per day in 2027, according to the mean case developed by the Energy Information Administration in a revised assessment of ANWR potential. That would result in trimming $0.75 (in 2006 dollars) off the projected cost of a barrel of oil, according to the EIA”

Thus only a decrease in oil consumption will bring the price down. A reduction in the excise tax as advocated by McCain/Clinton would discourage the reduction in gas consumption thus keeping the market from coming into balance and cause the price of gas to increase by the amount of the tax. Thus the price of gas would remain the same, but instead of the money going into the Highway Trust Fund to keep our roads in repair, it would go into the pockets of the oil companies. Taxing the oil companies as Clinton advocates would keep them from profiting from the windfall, but would have no effect on the price of gasoline. Some benefits from the high prices have already occurred. “General Motors Shifts Focus to Small Cars in Sign of Sport Utility Demise” says the headline at page one of this last Wednesday’s Business section of the New York Times.

As it happens, as painful as the price of gas is to consumers and truckers the world over may be, it is the result of the failure to anticipate this crisis. Had taxes been raised, or had CAFE fuel standards been increased years ago, gas consumption would have gone down and the spike we now have might have been avoided, but even that is questionable because in a globalized market the price is set by world wide demand and unless the whole world demand goes down prices will go up.

It is interesting to note that T. Boone Pickens who made his fortune in Texas oil is now investing in Wind Turbines. Here is a quote from Market Watch, 

“Billionaire T. Boone Pickens said Thursday he's placing an order to buy 667 wind turbines from General Electric as part of an estimated $2 billion in start-up costs for his four-phase Pampa Wind Project. Pickens' Mesa Power LLP will buy the GE turbines, which will be capable of generating 1,000 megawatts of electricity, enough for 300,000 average U.S. homes. When complete, the Pampa Wind Project will cover some 400,000 acres in the Texas Panhandle. 'You find an oilfield, it peaks and starts declining, and you've got to find another one to replace it," said Pickens, who once operated one of the largest independent oil and gas production companies. "It can drive you crazy. With wind, there's no decline curve."

Finally, some have suggested that the weak dollar is at least partly responsible for the high cost of gasoline. Again this is a misconception. Since the price of oil is denominated in Dollars it makes no difference how weak the dollar is for the price of oil in the US. If oil were denominated in Euros it would be a different story. As it is the weak dollar is making oil more expensive in non-dollar countries, but not for the US.

It is time to come to grips with reality!

More about McCain

With the election for President of the US heading into the General Election, an examination of Democratic charges that McCain is in effect running for a Bush third term is in order. To do this we need to find criteria for the judgment. The criteria I will use are McCain’s voting record and his stated position on the issues.

As to his voting record, the Congressional Quarterly, a non-partisan publication tracking developments in the Congress, reports that McCain voted with Bush 89% of the time in 2006, 95% of the time in 2007, and through May 15 of 2008 he voted for the President’s stated position 100% of the time. 

Looking at his website we can find his stated position on a variety of issues, which in most cases are vague. On abortion and the Supreme Court he is crystal clear.

On a Woman’s right to choose the website states “John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. 

“Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states.”

But he does not stop there. He adds, “However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion.”

In other words, while he does not specifically say so, McCain favors criminalizing abortion. 

This should be of particular concern to women who have been supporters of Hillary Clinton. If any of them are considering not voting, or as some may have threatened, to even vote for McCain, they should think long and hard, for McCain would take away from them the right to control their own bodies.

But it is not entirely fair to give the impression that McCain agrees with the President on all issues. On North Korea Bush followed a hard line for most of his Administration resulting in Korea building an increasing a number of atomic bombs. Recently, under prodding from Condoleezza Rice, Bush adopted a more flexible approach which resulted in Korea actually backing away from its insistence on continuing its nuclear bomb program, has begun dismantling its facilities, and turned over 18,000 documents on its reactor at Yongbyon. But McCain has denounced the Administration for abandoning its hard line approach.

In Iraq McCain echoes the Bush bluster about victory but shows little understanding of the dynamics of that conflict. He talks constantly about defeating El Qaeda in Iraq, ignoring the fact that they were a non-factor before the invasion, and appear be a non-factor now. He shows no understanding of the difference between Sunni and Shiite; see here, a misstatement that was dismissed by Fox’s Brit Hume as a senior moment. Here is what Hume had to say: 

“I think it’s probably just a blip, but it was a bigger blip than he wanted or needed at the time. I think the overall impression of the trip was this is a man welcomed by, knowledgeable of and comfortable with foreign leaders across a big part of the globe. But the mistake, nonetheless, raises questions not about his knowledgeability —we all kinda believe he has that—the question, perhaps, about his age, which is an issue. You know, the feeling was not that he’s a dope, didn’t know his way around, that he might have had a senior moment there, and I think that’s unfortunate for him.”

I don’t agree with Hume. I don’t know who the “we” is in that “we all kind of believe that” but in a way it doesn’t matter. We cannot afford a President who either has senior moments or lacks knowledge and understanding of the nature of our enemies. McCain lacks the understanding that no matter how long we stay in Iraq, Iraq’s Shiites will always have a greater affinity for Iran than for the US.”

He fails to understand that the war in Iraq has put strains on our military that has brought it very close to the breaking point; that the policy that has required the men and women of our armed services to bear an unbearable burden, with ever longer tours of duty and ever greater numbers of deployments, can not be sustained. That in order to continue our deployment in Iraq we would have to reinstitute the draft, a step neither Bush nor McCain are willing to embrace because it would be politically unpopular.

He claims to be a friend to our veterans but he actively opposes the bill sponsored by Senator Webb, which would give our veterans the same educational benefits that was given to the veterans of World War II. See here.

At one time McCain occasionally broke with Republican orthodoxy. But now that he is running for President he caters increasingly to the Bush/Republican base.

Anyone who thinks they can allow this man to become President out of peeve or disgruntlement does not appreciate how much the decisions of the next four years will impact our lives and those of our children. McCain, as President, would be a disaster for the US and the whole world.