Sunday, July 27, 2014
Oh, From Your Mouth To God's Ears!
Bush on trial for war crimes? At least one person from his own Administration thinks that it could happen. If international law means anything, it should.
Back When Republicans Could Be Sensible ...
... there were more men like this. RIP, Senator Goodman.
The Harder You Push The Pendulum Back ...
... the harder it swings in the other direction. The inhibited 1950s gave way to the wide-open 1960s. Now, slowly but surely, the Republican Empire of this century's first decade is crumbling, thanks to its own persistent refusal to bend even a millimeter. Good work, GOP.
Here's An Example Of A State Making An Adult Fiscal Decision
Maryland, the state that is doing what it takes to fix its roads and bridges, and provide public transportation. My home state. Bravo!
Legalized Gambling: A Fiscal Road To Nowhere
It's hard for me to admit this, as a near-lifelong resident of the East Coast, but until a month or so ago, when I was shooting a Web series, I had never visited Atlantic City. I had, of course, read about its decline from its glory days in the early 20th century, and about its supposed revitalization by casino gambling. I've seen advertisements promoting casinos, and bus trips to the casinos, and heard stories from friends and relatives about the casinos. So I fell into the trap of thinking that it must all be true--casinos have been a great thing for Atlantic City, and would obviously be equally great everywhere (including Maryland, where several casinos have already opened, with a new one about to open in downtown Baltimore). After all, apart from the casino stories, most of what I knew about Atlantic City came from the board game "Monopoly," which uses the names of AC streets for its board spaces.
Well, all I can say from having been there is that you could color me unimpressed. The casinos themselves were gaudy and massive without otherwise being exciting, or even modestly inventive. And they appeared to be anything but crowded, if the level of street traffic was any indication. And keep in mind that this was on an early summer weekend, a time where people's thoughts ordinarily turn toward recreation. Not a whole lot of recreating was going on. And, from what I could see of the city apart from the casinos, nobody was going to go there to recreate for any reason whatsoever. After a while, I found myself longing for a chance to pass "Go" and collect $200; that would have been more fun than anything else I saw.
Which is why this did not strike me as a surprise. It probably wouldn't have surprised me in any case because, in an economic slump like the one from which we have been slowly emerging, entertainment spending is the first budget item most households cut. You can't live without food, clothes, shelter and transportation but, when it comes to leisure time, there are always ways to economize. It's probably safe to say that the people who have kept AC's casinos afloat have been the professional gamblers and the addicts--the latter, of course, being the people who shouldn't be there at all.
That vulnerability to economic hard times, combined with the over-expansion of gambling by state and local governments in the wake of AC's initial successes, is why governments need to end their own fiscal addiction to gaming revenues as a cowardly cop-out from what they should be doing--making grown-up decisions about taxes and spending. Even when the current recovery reaches its peak, the gaming money isn't going to be the Mississippi River of income most politicians have up until now thought that it would be. There are simply too many gaming venues, both physical and online. And the severity of the past downtown is going to encourage a lot of folks to be more cautious about non-essential spending.
I loved it when then-Governor Robert Ehrlich of Maryland described casino gambling for the state as a "no-brainer." Leaving aside the fact he's well-qualified to make no-brainer decisions, it takes no brains to see casinos as an alternative to making hard choices--just as it takes no brains to fail to see the fiscal fallacy in that thinking. It is past time for politicians everywhere to level with their citizens and tell them the truth: legalized gambling isn't a pot of public gold. It's a source of public vice that still leaves us begging the question of how to pay our bills.
As for Atlantic City, I wish it the best of luck. Maybe they should bring in Parker Brothers and work with them to create a "Monopolyland" theme park. That way, maybe, just maybe, someone besides the house would have a chance to win.
Well, all I can say from having been there is that you could color me unimpressed. The casinos themselves were gaudy and massive without otherwise being exciting, or even modestly inventive. And they appeared to be anything but crowded, if the level of street traffic was any indication. And keep in mind that this was on an early summer weekend, a time where people's thoughts ordinarily turn toward recreation. Not a whole lot of recreating was going on. And, from what I could see of the city apart from the casinos, nobody was going to go there to recreate for any reason whatsoever. After a while, I found myself longing for a chance to pass "Go" and collect $200; that would have been more fun than anything else I saw.
Which is why this did not strike me as a surprise. It probably wouldn't have surprised me in any case because, in an economic slump like the one from which we have been slowly emerging, entertainment spending is the first budget item most households cut. You can't live without food, clothes, shelter and transportation but, when it comes to leisure time, there are always ways to economize. It's probably safe to say that the people who have kept AC's casinos afloat have been the professional gamblers and the addicts--the latter, of course, being the people who shouldn't be there at all.
That vulnerability to economic hard times, combined with the over-expansion of gambling by state and local governments in the wake of AC's initial successes, is why governments need to end their own fiscal addiction to gaming revenues as a cowardly cop-out from what they should be doing--making grown-up decisions about taxes and spending. Even when the current recovery reaches its peak, the gaming money isn't going to be the Mississippi River of income most politicians have up until now thought that it would be. There are simply too many gaming venues, both physical and online. And the severity of the past downtown is going to encourage a lot of folks to be more cautious about non-essential spending.
I loved it when then-Governor Robert Ehrlich of Maryland described casino gambling for the state as a "no-brainer." Leaving aside the fact he's well-qualified to make no-brainer decisions, it takes no brains to see casinos as an alternative to making hard choices--just as it takes no brains to fail to see the fiscal fallacy in that thinking. It is past time for politicians everywhere to level with their citizens and tell them the truth: legalized gambling isn't a pot of public gold. It's a source of public vice that still leaves us begging the question of how to pay our bills.
As for Atlantic City, I wish it the best of luck. Maybe they should bring in Parker Brothers and work with them to create a "Monopolyland" theme park. That way, maybe, just maybe, someone besides the house would have a chance to win.
An Eye For An Eye In The Holy Land
In the interests of both full disclosure and clarity, I need to preface this post with a few qualifications. Long before I had the good fortune to marry my wife (who is Jewish, as are my stepchildren), I was and still am an unqualified supporter of Israel's right to exist and to defend both its existence and the lives of its people. I recognize the obvious truths about Israel's Arab neighbors, especially the Palestinians within its border: they do not share my view, and have sought for decades to destroy Israel and Israelis by any and all means. I do not believe there is any cure for the hostility that most Arabs feel for their brothers and sisters in Abraham.
But that does not change one simple truth stated years ago by Gandhi: an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. That is the more true when one is fighting a war in which the other side defines martyrdom as victory. And a successful war strategy cannot depend on creating as many martyrs as possible.
The current level of conflict has come about for two reasons: Israel's current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, does not want a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the Palestinian people have elected terrorists to represent their political interests. As long as either of those reasons continues to exist, there will be no end to the current level of violence; as long as both of them exist, the violence will continue to escalate--and, given the centrality of Israeli-Palestinian interests to governments around the world, no one can safely predict where it will stop.
Netanyahu, like most conservative Israeli politicians, believes that he can solve the problem by escalating the violence of Israeli responses to Palestinian attacks to the point at which no Palestinian terrorist is safe. This is worse than madness; this is literally suicide. Even if the Israeli armed forces could systematically kill every member of Hamas, or similar groups, it would only have the effect of expanding the violence beyond Israel's borders. Every Muslim willing to die for his or her faith would have been handed a excuse for doing so--regardless of where they are on the planet. This would not simply endanger Jews all around the planet, although it would certainly do that. It could endanger everyone on the planet, if one or more terrorists gains the use of a nuclear device.
Neither Netanyahu nor the Israelis would have to worry about any of this, however, if the Palestinian people would stop putting their futures, and the futures of their children, in the hands of terrorist organizations. As long as they continue to elect leaders who are content to conduct politics by weaponizing their own people, and cannot see that they are helping to perpetuate a nightmare with no end, they will have no help from outside their borders--perhaps not even from their fellow Arab nations, who could offer much in the way of practical help but systematically refuse to do so.
There seems to be little that outsiders can do to help, except offer to mediate, which the United States has tried to do over and over again. We should, of course, continue to do so. But our commitment to helping in this regard has to be conditioned on two principles: acceptance of a two-state solution, and a commitment to ending terrorism that is enforceable, even if that means that renewed suicide bombing would give the Israeli government--and, perhaps, ours as well--the right to re-occupy and police the Palestinian territories.
Until all of this is in place, however, it will continue to be an eye for an eye. Let's hope and pray that the world is not blinded in the process.
But that does not change one simple truth stated years ago by Gandhi: an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. That is the more true when one is fighting a war in which the other side defines martyrdom as victory. And a successful war strategy cannot depend on creating as many martyrs as possible.
The current level of conflict has come about for two reasons: Israel's current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, does not want a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the Palestinian people have elected terrorists to represent their political interests. As long as either of those reasons continues to exist, there will be no end to the current level of violence; as long as both of them exist, the violence will continue to escalate--and, given the centrality of Israeli-Palestinian interests to governments around the world, no one can safely predict where it will stop.
Netanyahu, like most conservative Israeli politicians, believes that he can solve the problem by escalating the violence of Israeli responses to Palestinian attacks to the point at which no Palestinian terrorist is safe. This is worse than madness; this is literally suicide. Even if the Israeli armed forces could systematically kill every member of Hamas, or similar groups, it would only have the effect of expanding the violence beyond Israel's borders. Every Muslim willing to die for his or her faith would have been handed a excuse for doing so--regardless of where they are on the planet. This would not simply endanger Jews all around the planet, although it would certainly do that. It could endanger everyone on the planet, if one or more terrorists gains the use of a nuclear device.
Neither Netanyahu nor the Israelis would have to worry about any of this, however, if the Palestinian people would stop putting their futures, and the futures of their children, in the hands of terrorist organizations. As long as they continue to elect leaders who are content to conduct politics by weaponizing their own people, and cannot see that they are helping to perpetuate a nightmare with no end, they will have no help from outside their borders--perhaps not even from their fellow Arab nations, who could offer much in the way of practical help but systematically refuse to do so.
There seems to be little that outsiders can do to help, except offer to mediate, which the United States has tried to do over and over again. We should, of course, continue to do so. But our commitment to helping in this regard has to be conditioned on two principles: acceptance of a two-state solution, and a commitment to ending terrorism that is enforceable, even if that means that renewed suicide bombing would give the Israeli government--and, perhaps, ours as well--the right to re-occupy and police the Palestinian territories.
Until all of this is in place, however, it will continue to be an eye for an eye. Let's hope and pray that the world is not blinded in the process.
This Should Be A Part Of The Constitution
But, in the meantime, this will have to do. Congratulations, Alan Grayson, for helping to enact a federal shield law for journalists. And one more reason why we need you, sir.
Why The Border Crisis Is Not A Financial One
Because a public-defender system for deportations would pay for itself. Take a look.
Bigotry Always Needs A Cloak
It can never work on its own. Its cowardly, essentially evil nature always requires it to wear a mask. Sometimes, as in the case of the religious right, the cloak or mask is an obsession with fetuses--an obsession that dies if when they become babies.
Especially black babies.
Especially black babies.
Rebuild By Rebulding
Detroit appears to be ready to do what we always do with our architectural past: tear it down. Far better to rebuild--better for saving history, money and the planet. And one unasked (and therefore unanswered) question: why does the blight exist? And should the people responsible be rewarded for it?
Campaign Finance Reform Versus Redistricting Reform?
To me, it's not a choice. I'm very much in favor of both. But this article from Slate makes a convincing argument for favoring the latter over the former. I encourage you to read it, as I agree (for the most part) with the argument that it makes. I would just add three additional arguments in favor of the thesis it advances, and emphasize one of its major points.
First, because the substantial damage to campaign finance reform has come by way of decisions from the Supreme Court, the damage can only be undone by amending the Constitution to permit the reinstatement and even expansion of the provisions that have been overruled. Amending the Constitution, to put it mildly, is no easy task. In the 224 years since the ratification of the Constitution, it has only been successfully amended 27 times. Amendments must be approved by supermajorities at the national and state level, and in a country as fractious as ours, supermajorities are few and far between. In contemporary America, a country that cannot even come together on the issue of child refugees, they are all but non-existent. For this reason, any forward movement on this issue will have to travel a long road, with much patience being required of those who travel it. As the Slate article shows, redistricting reform can be accomplished far more easily at the state level, as was the case in Florida.
Second, even though most progressives are reluctant to admit this, the truth is that we have our deep pockets as well--and those pockets cancel out much of the influence of the Koch brothers of the world. It's worth noting, even though the mainstream media has largely ignored it, that the IRS flagged as many applications (if not more) from progressive groups as it did from conservative groups seeking tax protection in the aftermath of Citizens United. We shouldn't be ashamed of this: it simply reflects our success in the marketplace of ideas. Liberals have money because liberalism sells. And we shouldn't be ashamed or afraid to show conservatives that we can beat them on any playing field they choose.
Third, and related to my second point, liberalism's popularity in this county is due in no small part to the fact that it takes a more flexible, more local, more practical and less ideological approach to addressing the needs of Americans. This is why, contrary to almost every piece of right-wing rhetoric you've probably ever heard,
the Democratic Party has never been a mirror-image of progressive parties in Europe. And this is probably why, in 2012, Democratic candidates outpolled their Republican counterparts by a million votes. The simple fact of the matter is that the current House Republican majority is not a natural majority--it is a gerrymandered one. Take away the gerrymandering, and allow Democratic House candidates to continue tailoring their messages to their communities, and you may never see a House Republican Majority again.
Finally, as even the article concedes, this effort must be joined at the hip with Congressional action to fix the Voting Rights Act, which has also been damaged by the Supreme Court. And that effort must also be joined by a greater effort by the Democratic Party to recruit minority candidates. These things must be done to address the concerns of African-Americans who seek gerrymandering as the path to political power, through the creation of "majority-minority" districts. They may lead to the election of minority officials, but they also dilute the power of the minority vote to join with other voters and elect officials who can set a progressive agenda for all Americans.
So read the article, and consider my additional thoughts. And then, get out their and work as hard for redistricting reform as you do for progressive candidates. Achieving the one is the key to electing more of the other.
First, because the substantial damage to campaign finance reform has come by way of decisions from the Supreme Court, the damage can only be undone by amending the Constitution to permit the reinstatement and even expansion of the provisions that have been overruled. Amending the Constitution, to put it mildly, is no easy task. In the 224 years since the ratification of the Constitution, it has only been successfully amended 27 times. Amendments must be approved by supermajorities at the national and state level, and in a country as fractious as ours, supermajorities are few and far between. In contemporary America, a country that cannot even come together on the issue of child refugees, they are all but non-existent. For this reason, any forward movement on this issue will have to travel a long road, with much patience being required of those who travel it. As the Slate article shows, redistricting reform can be accomplished far more easily at the state level, as was the case in Florida.
Second, even though most progressives are reluctant to admit this, the truth is that we have our deep pockets as well--and those pockets cancel out much of the influence of the Koch brothers of the world. It's worth noting, even though the mainstream media has largely ignored it, that the IRS flagged as many applications (if not more) from progressive groups as it did from conservative groups seeking tax protection in the aftermath of Citizens United. We shouldn't be ashamed of this: it simply reflects our success in the marketplace of ideas. Liberals have money because liberalism sells. And we shouldn't be ashamed or afraid to show conservatives that we can beat them on any playing field they choose.
Third, and related to my second point, liberalism's popularity in this county is due in no small part to the fact that it takes a more flexible, more local, more practical and less ideological approach to addressing the needs of Americans. This is why, contrary to almost every piece of right-wing rhetoric you've probably ever heard,
the Democratic Party has never been a mirror-image of progressive parties in Europe. And this is probably why, in 2012, Democratic candidates outpolled their Republican counterparts by a million votes. The simple fact of the matter is that the current House Republican majority is not a natural majority--it is a gerrymandered one. Take away the gerrymandering, and allow Democratic House candidates to continue tailoring their messages to their communities, and you may never see a House Republican Majority again.
Finally, as even the article concedes, this effort must be joined at the hip with Congressional action to fix the Voting Rights Act, which has also been damaged by the Supreme Court. And that effort must also be joined by a greater effort by the Democratic Party to recruit minority candidates. These things must be done to address the concerns of African-Americans who seek gerrymandering as the path to political power, through the creation of "majority-minority" districts. They may lead to the election of minority officials, but they also dilute the power of the minority vote to join with other voters and elect officials who can set a progressive agenda for all Americans.
So read the article, and consider my additional thoughts. And then, get out their and work as hard for redistricting reform as you do for progressive candidates. Achieving the one is the key to electing more of the other.
Sunday, July 20, 2014
Is A "Frontier Nation" Afraid Of The Final Frontier?
Today is the 45th anniversary of what ought to be regarded as this nation's greatest and proudest achievement--the landing of men on the Moon. An accomplishment that for centuries had been the object of of dreams and fantasy had become real. As a species, we were no longer irrevocably bound to the Earth. We had, along with Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, taken the first steps toward conquering space and making it truly our home.
Sadly, you won't find much recognition of the anniversary, or its cosmic significance, in today's media. And that shouldn't be surprising, either. As a species, we have all taken many giant steps back from the days of the Apollo missions. This is certainly not because we've lost our technical edge: the digital communications revolution that connects all of us testifies to the contrary. Nor is it because we've lost interest in space, as the International Space Station, the Hubble telescope and the Martian rovers all demonstrate.
What we've lost is the desire, or perhaps the need, to be there. And I think there are two causes for this.
The first is the end of the Cold War, which had originally provided the national drive to reach the moon before the Russians did. They had effectively beaten us in the satellite race with Sputnik, and no one wanted to consider the possibility that they might reach the Moon first--and use that accomplishment as a propaganda tool to expand their sphere of control beyond the Warsaw Pact nations. John F. Kennedy grasped, before anyone else did, the idea that the "space race" could be a way of linking America's frontier past with the need to "get America moving." Thus, he established the national goal of reaching the Moon within a decade--and thus, the words "New Frontier" came to define his all-too-brief Administration.
The second is the Challenger tragedy, and the loss of six brave and accomplished lives--including the life of Christa McAuliffe, a schoolteacher who was to become the nation's first civilian astronaut, and instead became its first civilian tragedy. It was a reminder that frontiers, however romantically we define them, are dangerous places, guaranteeing neither comfort nor safety. In a sense, the reaction to the Challenger tragedy illustrates the difference between Kennedy's America and Reagan's America--and our sad transition from a nation that embraced adventure to a nation desperate to be cocooned at all costs. Space and the effort to reach it, as it turns out, could be terrifying. Who wants any part of it? Better to stay on Earth and follow the ups and downs of the stock market rather than the movements of the heavens.
But it isn't better. And it isn't the way we're wired. Humans need to explore, to ask questions, and to find the answers even at great cost. This is how we've grown and matured as a species. Many of the technical innovations we take for granted, like personal computers, may not have been created without the space program as a spur to research and development. And simple economics has always demanded a search for new resources: the Moon, Mars and the asteroids are resources waiting to be discovered and exploited (hopefully, with more sanity than our treatment of the Earth).
Equally important is the need to recognize that we do not live in a world of perfect safety. We can't prevent all of life's tragedies by running away from all possible sources of danger. We can, however, live our lives in such a way that expands our knowledge and understanding of life and the universe. Even if that means confronting danger, it may be a danger that needs to be confronted in any case--and, by confronting it, the world may become safer in the process.
That is why I'm with this author. Per somnia et ardua ad astra. We need to get out of our cocoons. We need to understand once again that adventure, and even danger, are a necessary part of living, as opposed to just existing. And we need to take aim with all that we have, once again, at what Gene Roddenberry memorably described as "the final frontier." Actually, as one of Roddenberry's writers for "Star Trek," David Gerrold once put it: "The final frontier is not space. The final frontier is the human soul. Space is merely the place where we will meet the challenge.
I hope that, in my lifetime, we will find a way to meet it again. Not half-way. Not for a decade. But, to borrow a phrase, to infinity and beyond.
Sadly, you won't find much recognition of the anniversary, or its cosmic significance, in today's media. And that shouldn't be surprising, either. As a species, we have all taken many giant steps back from the days of the Apollo missions. This is certainly not because we've lost our technical edge: the digital communications revolution that connects all of us testifies to the contrary. Nor is it because we've lost interest in space, as the International Space Station, the Hubble telescope and the Martian rovers all demonstrate.
What we've lost is the desire, or perhaps the need, to be there. And I think there are two causes for this.
The first is the end of the Cold War, which had originally provided the national drive to reach the moon before the Russians did. They had effectively beaten us in the satellite race with Sputnik, and no one wanted to consider the possibility that they might reach the Moon first--and use that accomplishment as a propaganda tool to expand their sphere of control beyond the Warsaw Pact nations. John F. Kennedy grasped, before anyone else did, the idea that the "space race" could be a way of linking America's frontier past with the need to "get America moving." Thus, he established the national goal of reaching the Moon within a decade--and thus, the words "New Frontier" came to define his all-too-brief Administration.
The second is the Challenger tragedy, and the loss of six brave and accomplished lives--including the life of Christa McAuliffe, a schoolteacher who was to become the nation's first civilian astronaut, and instead became its first civilian tragedy. It was a reminder that frontiers, however romantically we define them, are dangerous places, guaranteeing neither comfort nor safety. In a sense, the reaction to the Challenger tragedy illustrates the difference between Kennedy's America and Reagan's America--and our sad transition from a nation that embraced adventure to a nation desperate to be cocooned at all costs. Space and the effort to reach it, as it turns out, could be terrifying. Who wants any part of it? Better to stay on Earth and follow the ups and downs of the stock market rather than the movements of the heavens.
But it isn't better. And it isn't the way we're wired. Humans need to explore, to ask questions, and to find the answers even at great cost. This is how we've grown and matured as a species. Many of the technical innovations we take for granted, like personal computers, may not have been created without the space program as a spur to research and development. And simple economics has always demanded a search for new resources: the Moon, Mars and the asteroids are resources waiting to be discovered and exploited (hopefully, with more sanity than our treatment of the Earth).
Equally important is the need to recognize that we do not live in a world of perfect safety. We can't prevent all of life's tragedies by running away from all possible sources of danger. We can, however, live our lives in such a way that expands our knowledge and understanding of life and the universe. Even if that means confronting danger, it may be a danger that needs to be confronted in any case--and, by confronting it, the world may become safer in the process.
That is why I'm with this author. Per somnia et ardua ad astra. We need to get out of our cocoons. We need to understand once again that adventure, and even danger, are a necessary part of living, as opposed to just existing. And we need to take aim with all that we have, once again, at what Gene Roddenberry memorably described as "the final frontier." Actually, as one of Roddenberry's writers for "Star Trek," David Gerrold once put it: "The final frontier is not space. The final frontier is the human soul. Space is merely the place where we will meet the challenge.
I hope that, in my lifetime, we will find a way to meet it again. Not half-way. Not for a decade. But, to borrow a phrase, to infinity and beyond.
Saturday, July 19, 2014
Equal Rights Must NEVER Go Away
And the same is true of the Equal Rights Amendment. Three more states. One day, and may it be soon, it will happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)