USA Today has a cover story that attempts to rationalize the state of the economy. Part of the blame, rather incomprehensibly, is due to consumers’ own “greed.” This is not precisely explained, although it could either mean either over-use of credit cards or meanly saving money instead of spending it. Both of these explanations are easily debunked when one considers the reason for slow decline of the middle class and the growing gap between the rich and the poor: Instead of investing their profits in new manufacturing or raising worker wages, corporations prefer to bag their unearned income in their own pockets, while access to easy credit (via credit cards) in “exchange” for lower wages was a phony prop for the economy—while enriching banks who charged exorbitant finance charges.
But in an aside the story noted that U.S. corporations are sitting on a stockpile of $1 trillion in unused profits. The question is why this money isn’t being used to invest in new industries or hiring—or rather, rehiring—people. The answer, according to USA Today, is that businesses are “worried” about the federal deficit and waiting for a “favorable” political climate. Of course, this newspaper also continues to puff-up the Tea Party movement is something other than what it is: mostly fringe-right whites who always appears when their “privileges” are “threatened,” this time by a black president.
In 1982 and 1983, the average unemployment rate under the Reagan administration was 9.7 percent; it didn’t dip below 7 percent until 1987. The Reagan recession was in part fueled a tight rein on the money supply, but also because of a spate of deregulation allowed banks to engage in the kind of irresponsible speculating that that helped to create the current financial situation. Nearly a hundred banks failed, and the Reagan administration’s refusal to consider re-regulation of the Savings and Loan industry merely worsened that sector’s troubles. Things became so bad in the S & L sector that in 1989 a re-regulation act was finally seen as necessary. Meanwhile, the 1980s saw the largest budget deficits since World War II, not in any way helped by Reagan’s 1981 tax cut, which played almost no role in getting the economy out of its worst recession since the Great Depression (since eclipsed by the current recession). Reagan would quickly be forced to face reality and sign the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, which along with the 1986 tax “simplification” bill, raised taxes on corporations. Taxes increases on corporations occurred under Bush I in 1990, and (using budget reconciliation) in 1993. GDP and job creation, strangely enough, increased dramatically during the Clinton administration, in spite of these tax increases.
What does this all mean? That the current economic experience is nothing new, we’ve been there before; even Reagan, the patron saint of the right-wing, was forced to bow to common sense. Corporate American cried Doomsday, but eventually the desire to make money over-road that of not making money. In business, you can’t make money unless you create products and hire people to make them. Although job growth generally lags behind economic growth, as long as two years after the start of recovery, it is plainly slower now than it should be because Corporate America has largely stood still. The question is why are corporations, with history as a guide, playing scared? The current budget deficit is ballooning, but the blame may more justly placed at the doorstep of financial institutions that gambled away investors’ money instead of investing it in the economy, and businesses that sought to maximize profit and personal wealth by lowering disposable income and far busier shedding jobs than creating them during the Bush years. Even more ominously, so-called “99ers”—those people who have been unemployed so long that they no longer qualify for unemployment benefits—are already bankrupting state social services.
Again, why does it appear that Corporate America seemingly deliberately stalling the economy? 70 percent of the economy is driven by consumer spending, yet businesses don’t seem to understand that. Low wages and cutting rather than hiring will do nothing to improve the level of consumer spending. It is as if they flunked Economics 101 in college. I read a comment by one economist who said that the economy will not get better unless we produce more and consume less. How you can have one without the other doesn’t make much sense to me. Mort Zuckerman, who made most of his billions in the real estate business, had this excuse to make:
“He (Obama) has lost the confidence of much of the business community, whose worries over taxes, the dramatically increased costs of new regulation, and a general perception that the administration is hostile toward them and may take yet harsher steps, are holding back investment and growth.”
The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, opined:
“One negative revelation has been the way he (Obama) has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.”
The question a thinking person should ask is “What are they talking about?” These are typical right-wing talking points with little or no evidence to back it up. What, exactly, has Obama done differently than his predecessors (other than the health care reform bill)? What “new taxes?” Where are these“dramatic” increases in cost from new regulation--especially in relation to the cost to the economy from rampant deregualtion? What has Obama done that can be characterized as “hostile,” given that his economic advisers are all Wall Street toadies? I agree that the tax cut was too small to be noticeable, and could have used for more useful purposes. But why do the rich and powerful consider education and health care funding “social programs” that only they are privileged to possess? And what of the $51 billion in tax cuts for businesses, and the $150 billion for infrastructure and green energy?
The suggestion here is that business is “punishing” Obama for not actively doing their bidding, deliberately keeping growth stagnant in the hopes that the Republicans will make large gains in the 2010 and grovel before them. All of their claims are nothing but foul air, almost certainly intent on taking advantage of many whites' discomfort with a black man as president, and the unjustified belief in his alleged thirst for "revenge" against whites and their "privileges." They talk about a “hostile environment” without providing any proof of it. Business leader are trying to blackmail the Obama administration and con the public with fear propaganda that has no basis in reality. They say the Democrats don’t understand what it takes to create jobs. Is that right? During the Clinton years, 22 million jobs were created; subsequently, with the Republicans controlling the White House and Congress, a net of 2 million jobs were created, along with ballooning budget deficits. If anyone doesn’t know how to create jobs, it would seem to be the Republicans.
But there may be a far more contemptible reason why Corporate America, the rich and their Republican flunkies are attacking the Obama administration with lies and deception. The middle class and the poor received the bulk of the stimulus tax cuts, unlike Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Forbes magazine bizarrely called this the “populist revolt against affluence” through “wealth care.” Like a petulant child, in response to this “threat” Forbes does not advice the rich to invest in America to aid economic growth, rather it advices on how to hoard its wealth:
Don’t flaunt your wealth. Put less “impressive” food on the table at your high society blow-out parties—try carrots instead of caviar.
Disguise your shopping. Buy designer clothes at charity events—and save money, too.
Since the idea of being rich to be rich, there are many ways of protecting your wealth—and they don’t necessarily have to be entirely illegal, especially if you have a good lawyer. Trust funds for 40-year-old “children” is one idea; another method is to ship all your money overseas. If the IRS discovers this and decides that you really are trying to hide your money to evade taxes, then it might be a good idea to move to another country to avoid prosecution; however, it is not a good idea to renounce U.S. citizenship, because the IRS will charge a 40 percent “exit tax” on anything over $2 million taken out of the country. A better plan might be to convert paper into diamonds and gold, and put them in a Swiss bank. But just don’t report it to the IRS; it amazes how Forbes “suggests” the many ways that the rich can break at the very least the spirit of the law.
Forbes, surprisingly, is less blinded by other far-right rhetoric in regard to taxes; it is not Obama and congressional Democrats who the rich should worry about in regard to raising their taxes. They should be more concerned with cash-starved state governments looking for ways to cover mandated balanced budget requirements. The idea then is to have an alternate domicile in a state that doesn’t have an income tax. Elaborate and antiquated strategies to avoid taxes should be taken out of mothballs, since the rich don’t have “friends” in high enough places to conduct their extra-legal activities in the open, for the time being anyways. Or invest in “charitable remainder trusts” which I don’t what are, but if Forbes suggests it, then they must be shady.
Adam Smith is quoted saying that being rich is never so complete as being seen as being rich; that is with “opulence which nobody can possess but themselves.” So how to keep ahead of the joneses? Just because the economy’s bad doesn’t mean you have to take out your garbage like the other “riff-raff” only worth $100 million. Yachts and Lear Jets can be had at bargain basement prices; get them while their hot. If you don’t want the neighbors to know that you are not doing as badly as they are (because you are a borderline crook), you can always order your diamonds and crocodile handbags shipped in paper bags.
Life is tough for the ultra rich, “And yet beyond the gaze of tax collectors and congressional aides, life as few of us will ever know it goes on.” “If the revolution is coming, all the more reason to seize the day.”
And USA Today blames the “greed” of the poor and middle class consumer for the current economic stagnation.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Beck, Mormonism and Race
It is most fascinating to note that Glenn Beck’s religion of choice is Mormonism, and considering much of that sect’s somewhat bizarre teachings, it is but a short step from extrapolating its effect on his mind. The Book of Mormon itself is almost certainly a fiction of Joseph Smith’s imagination—and a rather wild one at that. Allegedly, a group of Hebrews somehow found their way from Israel to North America sometime around 600 BC; the method Smith used to arrive at this number is probably similar to the one used by Sen. Joe McCarthy to determine the number of Communists in the State Department (although probably not as arbitrary as in the film “The Manchurian Candidate”— a Heinz 59 catsup bottle). This particularly group of Hebrews grew so big it split into factions, one—the “Lamanites”—“lost” their way, evolving into present day American Indians, while the second faction—the ‘Nephites”—created a highly advance civilization, building cities paved with gold, before being killed-off by the Lamanites around 400 AD. Given the fact that the more advanced Europeans managed to kill 90 percent of the Native American population in the U.S. by 1900, this seems hardly plausible, but so is much of Mormon theology; in any case, there is zero archeological evidence to support this version of American history.
According to Smith, a prophet and his son—Mormon and Moroni—compiled a text of the sect’s teachings on gold plates and buried them in some secret place. Then one day, for no apparent reason, Moroni chose Smith as the person who he would appear to with the gold plates in hand, which Smith was allowed to transcribe from before Moroni disappeared, taking the plates with him.
Enough of that hokum (at least Muhammad’s interpretations of strange noises as “revelations” from God at least have the advantage of requiring creative thought). The fact that Mormons have often been portrayed as a “persecuted” group masks the fact that it holds some rather uncomfortably stone-age ideas, one of which may best explain Beck’s version of civil rights. In his “updated”—or rather, the racist white—version of “I Have a Dream,” he called for the “completion” of Martin Luther King Jr’s dream that all men will be treated with equal respect, except with the Beck-inserted proviso that this be accomplished without resort to government interference; however, Beck’s treatment of Barack Obama as the first black president is something that King would find disturbingly contrary to his own “dream,” not to mention racist. Alveda King, meanwhile, sullied the memory of her uncle by appearing with Beck at the Lincoln Memorial event—and worse, agreed with Beck that King did not believe in social justice, social programs and redistribution of wealth. She plainly allowed herself to be a shill and a pawn in Beck’s self-promoting gig: in fact, King fully supported LBJ’s civil rights and anti-poverty initiatives, and in 1968 stated that:
“We will place the problems of the poor at the seat of government of the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind. If that power refuses to acknowledge its debt to the poor, it would have failed to live up to its promise to insure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to its citizens.”
What part of that Beck doesn’t understand is a moot point, since Beck is clearly completely ignorant of King, his beliefs, and the civil rights struggle in general, as is helpmate Sarah Palin and most of the people who showed up at the rally. King and his compatriots knew full well that state authorities and the white racists they served could not be trusted to act in good faith in advancing the cause of equality before the law; only the federal government and its courts had the power to overthrow racial discrimination at its core.
Returning to Mormonism, which Beck converted to in 1999, it isn’t hard to discover what he finds so attractive about it. Until recently, it was decreed that African-Americans could not be full members of the sect. African-Americans represent about 0.5 percent of the student population at Brigham Young University, making them easy targets for prejudicial commentary. In 1954, BYU elder Mark E. Peterson made the following illuminating remarks on African-Americans:
“(Quoting Brigham Young) ‘No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood.’ It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a ‘Nation of Priesthood holders’....
“I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, "First we pity, then endure, then embrace"....
“When he told Enoch not preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation.... Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them....The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse—as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there.... Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race? If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”
And since Cain killed his brother, God gave his descendents the “mark” of Cain: “You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed.”
Have things changed since then? I read an article back in 2008 about the African-American student experience at BYU. Many of these students are offended by continuing “folklore” among church leaders and white students that holds that African-Americans are still being “punished” with black skin. African-American students are also more likely to be expelled for violating the so-called “honor code,” such as when a black football player offends religious and social dogma by dating a white female student (one might recall that Beck compared Tiger Woods to O.J. Simpson, what can now be seen as an obvious reference to the Mormon injunction against intermarriage). Most white Mormons have had no previous contact with African-Africans at all, and even those who try to be “friendly” cannot refrain from making ignorant remarks. Worse, church leaders have made no effort to debunk the “mark of Cain” shibboleth.
So, if you want to understand Glenn Beck’s racial “philosophy,” all you need to know is that he found Mormonism closest to his heart.
According to Smith, a prophet and his son—Mormon and Moroni—compiled a text of the sect’s teachings on gold plates and buried them in some secret place. Then one day, for no apparent reason, Moroni chose Smith as the person who he would appear to with the gold plates in hand, which Smith was allowed to transcribe from before Moroni disappeared, taking the plates with him.
Enough of that hokum (at least Muhammad’s interpretations of strange noises as “revelations” from God at least have the advantage of requiring creative thought). The fact that Mormons have often been portrayed as a “persecuted” group masks the fact that it holds some rather uncomfortably stone-age ideas, one of which may best explain Beck’s version of civil rights. In his “updated”—or rather, the racist white—version of “I Have a Dream,” he called for the “completion” of Martin Luther King Jr’s dream that all men will be treated with equal respect, except with the Beck-inserted proviso that this be accomplished without resort to government interference; however, Beck’s treatment of Barack Obama as the first black president is something that King would find disturbingly contrary to his own “dream,” not to mention racist. Alveda King, meanwhile, sullied the memory of her uncle by appearing with Beck at the Lincoln Memorial event—and worse, agreed with Beck that King did not believe in social justice, social programs and redistribution of wealth. She plainly allowed herself to be a shill and a pawn in Beck’s self-promoting gig: in fact, King fully supported LBJ’s civil rights and anti-poverty initiatives, and in 1968 stated that:
“We will place the problems of the poor at the seat of government of the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind. If that power refuses to acknowledge its debt to the poor, it would have failed to live up to its promise to insure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to its citizens.”
What part of that Beck doesn’t understand is a moot point, since Beck is clearly completely ignorant of King, his beliefs, and the civil rights struggle in general, as is helpmate Sarah Palin and most of the people who showed up at the rally. King and his compatriots knew full well that state authorities and the white racists they served could not be trusted to act in good faith in advancing the cause of equality before the law; only the federal government and its courts had the power to overthrow racial discrimination at its core.
Returning to Mormonism, which Beck converted to in 1999, it isn’t hard to discover what he finds so attractive about it. Until recently, it was decreed that African-Americans could not be full members of the sect. African-Americans represent about 0.5 percent of the student population at Brigham Young University, making them easy targets for prejudicial commentary. In 1954, BYU elder Mark E. Peterson made the following illuminating remarks on African-Americans:
“(Quoting Brigham Young) ‘No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood.’ It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a ‘Nation of Priesthood holders’....
“I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, "First we pity, then endure, then embrace"....
“When he told Enoch not preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation.... Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them....The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse—as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there.... Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race? If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”
And since Cain killed his brother, God gave his descendents the “mark” of Cain: “You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed.”
Have things changed since then? I read an article back in 2008 about the African-American student experience at BYU. Many of these students are offended by continuing “folklore” among church leaders and white students that holds that African-Americans are still being “punished” with black skin. African-American students are also more likely to be expelled for violating the so-called “honor code,” such as when a black football player offends religious and social dogma by dating a white female student (one might recall that Beck compared Tiger Woods to O.J. Simpson, what can now be seen as an obvious reference to the Mormon injunction against intermarriage). Most white Mormons have had no previous contact with African-Africans at all, and even those who try to be “friendly” cannot refrain from making ignorant remarks. Worse, church leaders have made no effort to debunk the “mark of Cain” shibboleth.
So, if you want to understand Glenn Beck’s racial “philosophy,” all you need to know is that he found Mormonism closest to his heart.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Winning a "war" by ending it
It has been reported that since 2006, when Mexican president Felipe Calderon—pressed by the Bush administration—launched his own “war on drugs.” The military-style “war” was aided with guns, helicopters, airplanes and other hardware supplied by the US. The result has been 28,000 killings and no end in sight. The Obama administration now wants to change the strategy by funding “reform” of the country’s corrupt law enforcement and judiciary. Whether or not this will reduce the killings is matter of conjecture; one thing that is clear is that whatever is being done now is not only not working, but it is based on fantasy and hypocrisy.
Illicit drugs are illegal because they have been declared so. Because they are illegal, they defy regulation. Alcohol generally has the same effect of illicit drugs when used in immoderation, but it is not illegal, and its use can be regulated (in a fashion) by legal age limits and laws like DUI and “public intoxication.” Alcohol (and cigarettes) are also heavily taxed, allegedly to “discourage” their use, but also helping to fill government coffers. Many over the counter drugs can cause behavioral malfunctions or death if deliberately over-consumed. While alcoholism is a problem for some people, most people know how to moderate their use of it. After all, they can obtain it whenever they want, they don’t have to break the bank or sneak around back alleys. They don’t have to carry wads of cash or a gun. Because alcohol is freely available, there is no need to engage in violence to obtain it.
That was not, of course, the case during Prohibition, when mobsters fought for control over the booze trade, often violently. Corrupt local law enforcement was rampant, and in general the “war” against alcohol was a complete failure, given the fact that alcohol consumption actually increased during that period. It was a matter of consuming as much as you could until you got caught. Because it wasn’t readily available thousands of do-it-yourself distilleries and breweries were hidden inside an otherwise respectable home. However, some of these home-grown spirits, because their production was not regulated, had a tendency have certain side-effects—like blindness, paralysis and death. There was, however, a loophole for wine; it could be used for “religious” purposes, and small amounts could be produced in one’s home legally—like medicinal marijuana. Of course, like “medicinal” marijuana, it was one small step to other uses. In the end, criminalization of alcohol had the opposite effect intended: its use not only simply went underground, but increased—as did the amount of violence and killings from the creation of “alcohol lords.”
It is interesting to speculate if marijuana was legalized and regulated, as it is in many parts of the world, that it would lead to a decrease in the usage of harder drugs. There is little evidence that marijuana is a “gateway” drug to harder stuff; studies generally show that marijuana users do not “supplement” their drug use with cocaine, heroin or the like. Such has been the case in the Netherlands, where so-called coffee shops are allowed to sell five grams of marijuana per customer, which is enough for a couple of joints. Coffee houses are not allowed to advertise, sell harder drugs, create public nuisances or allow people under 18 inside the shop. Although there was a brief period when the number of new users increased, there has been a leveling off of usage and no apparent anti-social effects. If a regulated, cheap and readily available “high” without all the collateral damage that illegal trafficking inspires, and possible even with medicinal qualities, can lead to a decrease in cocaine, crack and heroin use, that is the kind of “victory” that the current failed “war on drugs” cannot claim to have achieved.
In his latest drug war policy initiative, Calderon has once again brought-up the issue of legalizing marijuana. But Calderon is said to be not in the least serious about legalization. Polls indicate that like in the U.S., a majority of Mexicans oppose legalization. But this may simply be the effect of government and law enforcement propaganda. People tend to lump marijuana in the same category as harder drugs. There has to be a serious discussion of alternatives to the “military” option, and why it has failed, and will continue to fail. One reason for its failure—besides the massive U.S. market, the flow of illegal weapons south, and the lucrative money-laundering business that banks turn a blind eye to—is the refusal to address societal issues. An American police trainer in Mexico noted the breakdown of economic opportunity in the country, observing that "ninety-nine per cent of the wealth is owned by five per cent of the people in Mexico; it just doesn't trickle down anywhere else." This can probably be extrapolated in other parts of Latin America, such as in Colombia where drug violence continues unabated years after Pablo Escobar and the Medellin Cartel was “eliminated.” Because of NAFTA loopholes that favor U.S. produce, many impoverished Mexican farmers—particularly indigenous people—have lost their livelihoods, and it can be speculated that like in Colombia, they have found other means to be exploited, this time by drug lords. Instead of tackling economic inequality in the country, Calderon spends money fighting this “war.” U.S. aid could be used to help impoverished people out of the drug business, but that is politically inexpedient in the current domestic climate.
And violence breeds violence. When drug lords and their minions feel threatened, they resort to violence. Even the police cannot be trusted; recently, six Mexican police officers in the pay of drug lords were arrested for the kidnapping and murder of a mayor of a northern Mexico town near Monterrey. But the voices of alternative solutions to the failed “fight” remain largely lost in the overheated rhetoric. Former Mexican president Vicente Fox, once one of George Bush’s conservative buddies, recently gave the following speech:
“I have proposed the legalization of drugs, because I think it is not the responsibility of the government, what we are asking, to withdraw the drugs from the market, and so that, as a result, our children could be free from the temptation of going and consuming drugs. That is not possible. That will never happen. All prohibition seems to evoke the contrary effect. All prohibition, what it does is to bring more interest in going for the apple, in the case of Adam and Eve, or to go for the cigarette, or the alcohol in Chicago. What you see in Holland and in other European countries that have let it go, they released the drug, and consumption has not significantly increased.”
No American politicians or law enforcement official would dare make such a statement, because the political dialogue is in the hands of fear-mongerers and paranoids—and those who wish to make use of anti-Mexico and Mexican sentiment for cynical political purposes. And people will continue to die in this never-ending “war.”
Illicit drugs are illegal because they have been declared so. Because they are illegal, they defy regulation. Alcohol generally has the same effect of illicit drugs when used in immoderation, but it is not illegal, and its use can be regulated (in a fashion) by legal age limits and laws like DUI and “public intoxication.” Alcohol (and cigarettes) are also heavily taxed, allegedly to “discourage” their use, but also helping to fill government coffers. Many over the counter drugs can cause behavioral malfunctions or death if deliberately over-consumed. While alcoholism is a problem for some people, most people know how to moderate their use of it. After all, they can obtain it whenever they want, they don’t have to break the bank or sneak around back alleys. They don’t have to carry wads of cash or a gun. Because alcohol is freely available, there is no need to engage in violence to obtain it.
That was not, of course, the case during Prohibition, when mobsters fought for control over the booze trade, often violently. Corrupt local law enforcement was rampant, and in general the “war” against alcohol was a complete failure, given the fact that alcohol consumption actually increased during that period. It was a matter of consuming as much as you could until you got caught. Because it wasn’t readily available thousands of do-it-yourself distilleries and breweries were hidden inside an otherwise respectable home. However, some of these home-grown spirits, because their production was not regulated, had a tendency have certain side-effects—like blindness, paralysis and death. There was, however, a loophole for wine; it could be used for “religious” purposes, and small amounts could be produced in one’s home legally—like medicinal marijuana. Of course, like “medicinal” marijuana, it was one small step to other uses. In the end, criminalization of alcohol had the opposite effect intended: its use not only simply went underground, but increased—as did the amount of violence and killings from the creation of “alcohol lords.”
It is interesting to speculate if marijuana was legalized and regulated, as it is in many parts of the world, that it would lead to a decrease in the usage of harder drugs. There is little evidence that marijuana is a “gateway” drug to harder stuff; studies generally show that marijuana users do not “supplement” their drug use with cocaine, heroin or the like. Such has been the case in the Netherlands, where so-called coffee shops are allowed to sell five grams of marijuana per customer, which is enough for a couple of joints. Coffee houses are not allowed to advertise, sell harder drugs, create public nuisances or allow people under 18 inside the shop. Although there was a brief period when the number of new users increased, there has been a leveling off of usage and no apparent anti-social effects. If a regulated, cheap and readily available “high” without all the collateral damage that illegal trafficking inspires, and possible even with medicinal qualities, can lead to a decrease in cocaine, crack and heroin use, that is the kind of “victory” that the current failed “war on drugs” cannot claim to have achieved.
In his latest drug war policy initiative, Calderon has once again brought-up the issue of legalizing marijuana. But Calderon is said to be not in the least serious about legalization. Polls indicate that like in the U.S., a majority of Mexicans oppose legalization. But this may simply be the effect of government and law enforcement propaganda. People tend to lump marijuana in the same category as harder drugs. There has to be a serious discussion of alternatives to the “military” option, and why it has failed, and will continue to fail. One reason for its failure—besides the massive U.S. market, the flow of illegal weapons south, and the lucrative money-laundering business that banks turn a blind eye to—is the refusal to address societal issues. An American police trainer in Mexico noted the breakdown of economic opportunity in the country, observing that "ninety-nine per cent of the wealth is owned by five per cent of the people in Mexico; it just doesn't trickle down anywhere else." This can probably be extrapolated in other parts of Latin America, such as in Colombia where drug violence continues unabated years after Pablo Escobar and the Medellin Cartel was “eliminated.” Because of NAFTA loopholes that favor U.S. produce, many impoverished Mexican farmers—particularly indigenous people—have lost their livelihoods, and it can be speculated that like in Colombia, they have found other means to be exploited, this time by drug lords. Instead of tackling economic inequality in the country, Calderon spends money fighting this “war.” U.S. aid could be used to help impoverished people out of the drug business, but that is politically inexpedient in the current domestic climate.
And violence breeds violence. When drug lords and their minions feel threatened, they resort to violence. Even the police cannot be trusted; recently, six Mexican police officers in the pay of drug lords were arrested for the kidnapping and murder of a mayor of a northern Mexico town near Monterrey. But the voices of alternative solutions to the failed “fight” remain largely lost in the overheated rhetoric. Former Mexican president Vicente Fox, once one of George Bush’s conservative buddies, recently gave the following speech:
“I have proposed the legalization of drugs, because I think it is not the responsibility of the government, what we are asking, to withdraw the drugs from the market, and so that, as a result, our children could be free from the temptation of going and consuming drugs. That is not possible. That will never happen. All prohibition seems to evoke the contrary effect. All prohibition, what it does is to bring more interest in going for the apple, in the case of Adam and Eve, or to go for the cigarette, or the alcohol in Chicago. What you see in Holland and in other European countries that have let it go, they released the drug, and consumption has not significantly increased.”
No American politicians or law enforcement official would dare make such a statement, because the political dialogue is in the hands of fear-mongerers and paranoids—and those who wish to make use of anti-Mexico and Mexican sentiment for cynical political purposes. And people will continue to die in this never-ending “war.”
On his side
When I was growing up in Wisconsin, there seemed to be a disconnect with fantasy and reality. The fantasy was that the Green Bay Packers were a really good football team. The reality was that they were a really bad football. I heard all the stories about the Lombardi Era, but they seemed more fable than fabulous. All I knew was that my reality was a team that was mediocre-to-bad year after year, for 25 years. There was the occasional hic-cup, like the 1972 team that won its division despite having a quarterback, Scott Hunter, who couldn’t hit the side of a barn if he tried. The 1983 team behind Lynn Dickey put on wild aerial show (Dickey still holds the team single season passing yardage record), and the team played maddeningly wildly too. Five overtime games and total points scored in a Monday Night thriller against the Redskins also remain the standard. In 1989 Packer fans thought they had finally found their “Majik” man. But these were just mirages; like the Seattle Mariners baseball team since 2003, a winning season merely masked just how bad the team really was, to be quickly uncovered the following year.
Following Vince Lombardi’s final year as coach, the Packers had 21 different quarterbacks start at least one game through 1991. Some these guys were grizzled veterans who for some odd reason you thought were still good (John Hadl, Jim Zorn), guys who could have been good if they had stayed upright (Dickey), and the flash in the pan (Don Majkowski). The Packers drafted Jerry Tagge in first round in 1972, thinking that he would replicate the success he had at Nebraska, when he led the Cornhuskers to back-to-back national championships; in 12 starts, he threw 3 TD passes and 17 INTs. And what die-hard Packer fan could forget Jim Del Gaizo, Jack Concannon, Don Milan, Carlos Brown, and Alan Risher? Well, I could, and did. It was easy.
Packer general manager Ron Wolf hired Mike Holmgren to coach the team in 1992. He also wanted a party boy named Brett Favre, who was destined for a career on the bench with the Atlanta Falcons. Holmgren had scouted Favre when he was still offensive coordinator with the 49ers, and had deemed him unfit, for reasons of character, to play in the 49er “system.” Holmgren initially demurred when Wolf expressed a desire to acquire Favre. But in the end Holmgren was finally persuaded to give Favre a shot. Majkowski proved unable to grasp the West Coast offense, and his injury in the third game of the 1992 season, against the Bengals, had an air of inevitability about it. Favre entered the game, fumbled a few snaps, ran into a pulling offensive lineman, and generally looked bumbling for most the game. Fans lustily booed Favre, calling for third-stringer Ty Detmer. But despite his bumbling, Favre was clearly able to move the team down the field more effectively than Majkowski. Favre’s cannon arm proved to be the difference in the final period; the Packers scored three TDs in the 4th quarter, including a stunning 35 yard pass to Kitrick Taylor in the final seconds to win the game. The rest was “history.”
The more recent past has caused many Packer fans to view Favre as a traitor or worse; perhaps not surprisingly, on his official website Favre pointedly welcomes his "supporters" rather than his "fans." I chose to take to Favre’s view of the situation, that GM Ted Thompson and company were giving him the impression that they really didn’t want him back. As much as I am a Packer fan, I am also a Favre fan. One day back during that contentious summer of 2008, the last two letters to-the-editor posted on the Green Bay Post-Gazette website were lengthy final summations on the guilt or innocence of the accused. I wrote for Favre defense, in which I pointed out that for 25 years the “frozen tundra” was a place where few good players wanted to be, and Green Bay had been at the time little more than a wasteland of past memories and present mediocrity. Until, that is, until Favre made his entry onto the scene. Save for one season when two top receivers and the starting RB were out with injuries, the Packers never lost more than they won in 16 years, and Favre was the one constant. But times change. It was common knowledge that Favre had personal and philosophical differences with Thompson and coach Mike McCarthy, but that wasn’t the real issue. Favre wasn’t Thompson “guy,” and he was hot to put his man, Aaron Rodgers, out as the starting quarterback. Thompson and McCarthy knew that Favre would not take kindly to being pressed, and it did seem as if they were trying to shove him out the door on their terms, not his. They didn’t want him back, and yet they didn’t want to be blamed for running him out of town.
In my view, after all he had done for the franchise, if he wanted to play and they didn’t want him, they should do the right thing and release him so he could play for a team that did want him; after all he had just come off one of his best years, and an overtime interception away from the Super Bowl (sounds familiar, doesn’t it?). If they really thought he was washed-up, why would they be afraid if he played for Minnesota? Backed-up against the wall, Thompson traded Favre to the Jets with less than a month before the start of the regular season, expecting, rightly, that Favre would find success there problematic, having no knowledge of their offense. After having seven 300-yard passing games in 2007, he had none in 2008.
Now that Favre is playing for the Vikings, I am of two minds on this, I never liked the Vikings, but I am a Favre fan. The fact is I want to see Favre play well, and unfortunately that means that the Vikings have to win a couple of games, if for no other reason than all those Favre-haters in the media can be made to look foolish. On the other hand I have to admit that I don’t want them to win the Super Bowl, because I am a fan of the Packers, and I want Favre to remember what team he played for when he won his only championship ring.
Following Vince Lombardi’s final year as coach, the Packers had 21 different quarterbacks start at least one game through 1991. Some these guys were grizzled veterans who for some odd reason you thought were still good (John Hadl, Jim Zorn), guys who could have been good if they had stayed upright (Dickey), and the flash in the pan (Don Majkowski). The Packers drafted Jerry Tagge in first round in 1972, thinking that he would replicate the success he had at Nebraska, when he led the Cornhuskers to back-to-back national championships; in 12 starts, he threw 3 TD passes and 17 INTs. And what die-hard Packer fan could forget Jim Del Gaizo, Jack Concannon, Don Milan, Carlos Brown, and Alan Risher? Well, I could, and did. It was easy.
Packer general manager Ron Wolf hired Mike Holmgren to coach the team in 1992. He also wanted a party boy named Brett Favre, who was destined for a career on the bench with the Atlanta Falcons. Holmgren had scouted Favre when he was still offensive coordinator with the 49ers, and had deemed him unfit, for reasons of character, to play in the 49er “system.” Holmgren initially demurred when Wolf expressed a desire to acquire Favre. But in the end Holmgren was finally persuaded to give Favre a shot. Majkowski proved unable to grasp the West Coast offense, and his injury in the third game of the 1992 season, against the Bengals, had an air of inevitability about it. Favre entered the game, fumbled a few snaps, ran into a pulling offensive lineman, and generally looked bumbling for most the game. Fans lustily booed Favre, calling for third-stringer Ty Detmer. But despite his bumbling, Favre was clearly able to move the team down the field more effectively than Majkowski. Favre’s cannon arm proved to be the difference in the final period; the Packers scored three TDs in the 4th quarter, including a stunning 35 yard pass to Kitrick Taylor in the final seconds to win the game. The rest was “history.”
The more recent past has caused many Packer fans to view Favre as a traitor or worse; perhaps not surprisingly, on his official website Favre pointedly welcomes his "supporters" rather than his "fans." I chose to take to Favre’s view of the situation, that GM Ted Thompson and company were giving him the impression that they really didn’t want him back. As much as I am a Packer fan, I am also a Favre fan. One day back during that contentious summer of 2008, the last two letters to-the-editor posted on the Green Bay Post-Gazette website were lengthy final summations on the guilt or innocence of the accused. I wrote for Favre defense, in which I pointed out that for 25 years the “frozen tundra” was a place where few good players wanted to be, and Green Bay had been at the time little more than a wasteland of past memories and present mediocrity. Until, that is, until Favre made his entry onto the scene. Save for one season when two top receivers and the starting RB were out with injuries, the Packers never lost more than they won in 16 years, and Favre was the one constant. But times change. It was common knowledge that Favre had personal and philosophical differences with Thompson and coach Mike McCarthy, but that wasn’t the real issue. Favre wasn’t Thompson “guy,” and he was hot to put his man, Aaron Rodgers, out as the starting quarterback. Thompson and McCarthy knew that Favre would not take kindly to being pressed, and it did seem as if they were trying to shove him out the door on their terms, not his. They didn’t want him back, and yet they didn’t want to be blamed for running him out of town.
In my view, after all he had done for the franchise, if he wanted to play and they didn’t want him, they should do the right thing and release him so he could play for a team that did want him; after all he had just come off one of his best years, and an overtime interception away from the Super Bowl (sounds familiar, doesn’t it?). If they really thought he was washed-up, why would they be afraid if he played for Minnesota? Backed-up against the wall, Thompson traded Favre to the Jets with less than a month before the start of the regular season, expecting, rightly, that Favre would find success there problematic, having no knowledge of their offense. After having seven 300-yard passing games in 2007, he had none in 2008.
Now that Favre is playing for the Vikings, I am of two minds on this, I never liked the Vikings, but I am a Favre fan. The fact is I want to see Favre play well, and unfortunately that means that the Vikings have to win a couple of games, if for no other reason than all those Favre-haters in the media can be made to look foolish. On the other hand I have to admit that I don’t want them to win the Super Bowl, because I am a fan of the Packers, and I want Favre to remember what team he played for when he won his only championship ring.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Time for the Justice Department to take down Sheriff Joe
Maricopa County (Arizona) sheriff Joe Arpaio is at it again, having passed the deadline for complying in good faith with the Justice Department requests for documentation in its on-going investigation of his office for violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. He continues to refuse to turnover arrest records or allow investigators to enter prison facilities or question inmates. The Justice Department threatened to sue Arpaio, but has for the time being delayed taking this action. This isn’t the first time that Arpaio has thumbed his nose at federal officials, of course; when he and his deputies were stripped of federal immigration authority for various abuses, the next day he sent out his deputies on another immigration sweep. Arpaio’s lawyers claim that he is not “obligated” to comply with requests related to "alleged patterns or practices of discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures conducted by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office"—even insofar as they are related to racial profiling and discrimination. Frustratingly, the federal government, while it has problems with abusing its authority to politicians who may or may not be involved in graft, it literally trembles before the likes of Arpaio.
It is rather shocking that Arpaio has received overly fawning consideration by the national media, and has been allowed to get away with clichés and “small” talk in response to accusations of racial profiling, discrimination and running a prison system that on several occasions lost its accreditation for failing to maintain national standards, and lying about compliance to those standards. Insight into Arpaios warped mind may be deduced by the titillation he gets from forcing inmates to wear pink underwear, or instituting juvenile and women chain gangs. Arpaio and his pal, County Attorney Andrew Thomas, have undertaken spurious vendettas against judges and local politicians who have opposed Arpaio’s operations. An Arizona Republic editorial recently noted the increase in “criminal” investigations for upsetting the tender sensitivities of Arpaio and Thomas, which Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon called a “reign of terror.” It is noted, however, that the only person “successfully” convicted from one of these vigilante prosecutions was school superintendent Sandra Dowling, for providing her daughter a summer job. The local media has been less sanguine than the national media in regard to Arpaio. The Phoenix New-Times has been battling the sheriff and the extremist right-wing in the state for years; back in 2004, a “special prosecutor” was appointed after the paper published Arpaio’s home address, and subsequently received a spurious subpoena that demanded a list of the IP addresses of anyone who might have seen the publication on-line. In response, the New-Times published the subpoena, which led to the arrest of two editors. The naked abuse of prosecutorial power led to the firing of the special prosecutor, but nothing was done to Arpaio.
Arpaio’s jails, meanwhile, have been the scene of many “untimely” and unexplained deaths and major injuries, particularly among the mentally or physically disabled that happen to be ensnared by Arpaio’s deputies. In 2003, the death of a blind and mentally-disabled man in jail for shoplifting was determined to have occurred not because he had fallen from his bunk, but because he had been severely beaten by deputies. In 1996, a paraplegic man arrested for marijuana possession became a quadriplegic when laughing guards placed his neck in a restraint, breaking his neck. Another mentally-disabled man died after being first losing consciousness after a spit-hood was placed over his head, and then apparently filled with a lethal dose methamphetamines in a failed effort to force him back into “life”; Maricopa County prison “health care” has, not surprisingly, been the subject of many complaints of being “substandard.”
More infamously was the case in 1996 when a BYU football player named Scott Norberg, who was arrested after being found walking in a “delirious” manner and allegedly assaulting a deputy, and died soon after arriving at a Mesa jail of what a coroner called "positional asphyxia." There is a well-done YouTube mini-documentary entitled “The Murder of Scott Norberg – An Arpaio Reality TV Exclusive." It begins with a jail dispatcher calling 9-1-1 about an inmate in their holding area who is not breathing. “Really?” “Uh-yeah.” “Are they doing CPR?” “Um…you know what, I don’t really know.” Norberg’s father admits that his son, a scholar-athlete in high school, found his way into drugs and alcohol, but none of this explained what happened to him in one of Arpaio’s jails. A witness testifies that he saw a disoriented Norberg wandering around a hall, then sitting on the ground crying. He was handcuffed and dragged by one foot to a cell, “because he didn’t respond fast enough” to commands. While sitting in a cell waiting for a court appearance to be charged, Norberg was inexplicably dragged out of the cell, and surrounded by a half-dozen guards with tasers, was repeatedly stunned about the chest and fisted in the head, all the while crying out for it to stop. A video captured the event, which shows indeed what Norberg’s father called it—a “feeding frenzy of the darkest side of people.” Another witnessed observed how Norberg was placed in a restraining chair, with a towel literally tied around his head; one guard was pulling his head forward, while another was simultaneously pulling it back. A guard noted that Norberg was turning purple, and received the response “Who gives a f-ck?” A jail clerk at the time noted that guards were afterwards laughing about their handiwork. Autopsy photos show Norberg’s head and body literally covered with bruises and ugly bluish patches. His larynx had been removed and “lost” in an effort to conceal the evidence of what had happened. Arpaio has not been allowed to forget this incident; years later, he is seen angrily denying that his people had done anything “wrong,” still trying to explain away the senseless killing by saying Norberg was high on drugs, although the autopsy noted that the drugs in his system were not sufficient to have played a part in his death.
A jury in a subsequent civil case would award Norberg's family $8.25 million for wrongful death. But this is just one more of many cases of inhuman brutality in Arpaio's jails; 60 inmates are claimed by one source to have been “murdered” in Maricopa County jails since Arpaio’s tenure, most of them similarly “inexplicable”—although this is only a “guesstimation” since Arpaio has also been accused of destroying relevant documents on abuses and deaths in his jails. The county has also been forced to pay nearly $50 million for abuses in Arpaio’s jails.
And then, of course, is the matter of Arpaio’s attitude toward “Mexicans," and not just illegal aliens. The Arizona law SB1070 has been called the “Joe Arpaio Racial Profiling Protection Act,” and for good reason. The Maricopa County deputies are so busy trying to ensnare illegal aliens that anyone who fits the “profile”—that is brown skin—is under threat. So tunnel-visioned is Arpaio and his deputies that a few of his jurisdictions have threaten to sue the department for failure to provide adequate police protection. Arpaio and his deputies have been accused of failing to follow-up on arrest warrants of anyone who isn’t Latino, thus allowing a great many felons with warrants to literally roam free, unless they are caught committing another crime. Arpaio has been careful not to enunciate his racism in too understandable terms, but his association with various anti-immigrant extremist groups and neo-Nazi figures have not gone unnoticed; Arpaio himself is unashamed, telling Lou Dobbs that he was “honored” to be compared to the KKK. Back in April, J.T. Ready and a bunch of his friends dressed in Nazi storm trooper garb showed up in Phoenix to express their support for Arpaio and his latest appointee as county attorney. A similar variety of friends joined Arpaio for a recent tour of the border.
There is no doubt that the Arizona law was designed by people who wanted to codify Arpaio’s racial attitudes, and to allow him to conduct his affairs without hindrance. The fact of Arpaio’s refusal to cooperate with the Justice Department should be taken as more evidence that his department’s racist record is so indefensible that it can’t bear the light of exposure. It is time for the DOJ to stand up to this arrogant bigot and show who is the real sheriff in town.
It is rather shocking that Arpaio has received overly fawning consideration by the national media, and has been allowed to get away with clichés and “small” talk in response to accusations of racial profiling, discrimination and running a prison system that on several occasions lost its accreditation for failing to maintain national standards, and lying about compliance to those standards. Insight into Arpaios warped mind may be deduced by the titillation he gets from forcing inmates to wear pink underwear, or instituting juvenile and women chain gangs. Arpaio and his pal, County Attorney Andrew Thomas, have undertaken spurious vendettas against judges and local politicians who have opposed Arpaio’s operations. An Arizona Republic editorial recently noted the increase in “criminal” investigations for upsetting the tender sensitivities of Arpaio and Thomas, which Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon called a “reign of terror.” It is noted, however, that the only person “successfully” convicted from one of these vigilante prosecutions was school superintendent Sandra Dowling, for providing her daughter a summer job. The local media has been less sanguine than the national media in regard to Arpaio. The Phoenix New-Times has been battling the sheriff and the extremist right-wing in the state for years; back in 2004, a “special prosecutor” was appointed after the paper published Arpaio’s home address, and subsequently received a spurious subpoena that demanded a list of the IP addresses of anyone who might have seen the publication on-line. In response, the New-Times published the subpoena, which led to the arrest of two editors. The naked abuse of prosecutorial power led to the firing of the special prosecutor, but nothing was done to Arpaio.
Arpaio’s jails, meanwhile, have been the scene of many “untimely” and unexplained deaths and major injuries, particularly among the mentally or physically disabled that happen to be ensnared by Arpaio’s deputies. In 2003, the death of a blind and mentally-disabled man in jail for shoplifting was determined to have occurred not because he had fallen from his bunk, but because he had been severely beaten by deputies. In 1996, a paraplegic man arrested for marijuana possession became a quadriplegic when laughing guards placed his neck in a restraint, breaking his neck. Another mentally-disabled man died after being first losing consciousness after a spit-hood was placed over his head, and then apparently filled with a lethal dose methamphetamines in a failed effort to force him back into “life”; Maricopa County prison “health care” has, not surprisingly, been the subject of many complaints of being “substandard.”
More infamously was the case in 1996 when a BYU football player named Scott Norberg, who was arrested after being found walking in a “delirious” manner and allegedly assaulting a deputy, and died soon after arriving at a Mesa jail of what a coroner called "positional asphyxia." There is a well-done YouTube mini-documentary entitled “The Murder of Scott Norberg – An Arpaio Reality TV Exclusive." It begins with a jail dispatcher calling 9-1-1 about an inmate in their holding area who is not breathing. “Really?” “Uh-yeah.” “Are they doing CPR?” “Um…you know what, I don’t really know.” Norberg’s father admits that his son, a scholar-athlete in high school, found his way into drugs and alcohol, but none of this explained what happened to him in one of Arpaio’s jails. A witness testifies that he saw a disoriented Norberg wandering around a hall, then sitting on the ground crying. He was handcuffed and dragged by one foot to a cell, “because he didn’t respond fast enough” to commands. While sitting in a cell waiting for a court appearance to be charged, Norberg was inexplicably dragged out of the cell, and surrounded by a half-dozen guards with tasers, was repeatedly stunned about the chest and fisted in the head, all the while crying out for it to stop. A video captured the event, which shows indeed what Norberg’s father called it—a “feeding frenzy of the darkest side of people.” Another witnessed observed how Norberg was placed in a restraining chair, with a towel literally tied around his head; one guard was pulling his head forward, while another was simultaneously pulling it back. A guard noted that Norberg was turning purple, and received the response “Who gives a f-ck?” A jail clerk at the time noted that guards were afterwards laughing about their handiwork. Autopsy photos show Norberg’s head and body literally covered with bruises and ugly bluish patches. His larynx had been removed and “lost” in an effort to conceal the evidence of what had happened. Arpaio has not been allowed to forget this incident; years later, he is seen angrily denying that his people had done anything “wrong,” still trying to explain away the senseless killing by saying Norberg was high on drugs, although the autopsy noted that the drugs in his system were not sufficient to have played a part in his death.
A jury in a subsequent civil case would award Norberg's family $8.25 million for wrongful death. But this is just one more of many cases of inhuman brutality in Arpaio's jails; 60 inmates are claimed by one source to have been “murdered” in Maricopa County jails since Arpaio’s tenure, most of them similarly “inexplicable”—although this is only a “guesstimation” since Arpaio has also been accused of destroying relevant documents on abuses and deaths in his jails. The county has also been forced to pay nearly $50 million for abuses in Arpaio’s jails.
And then, of course, is the matter of Arpaio’s attitude toward “Mexicans," and not just illegal aliens. The Arizona law SB1070 has been called the “Joe Arpaio Racial Profiling Protection Act,” and for good reason. The Maricopa County deputies are so busy trying to ensnare illegal aliens that anyone who fits the “profile”—that is brown skin—is under threat. So tunnel-visioned is Arpaio and his deputies that a few of his jurisdictions have threaten to sue the department for failure to provide adequate police protection. Arpaio and his deputies have been accused of failing to follow-up on arrest warrants of anyone who isn’t Latino, thus allowing a great many felons with warrants to literally roam free, unless they are caught committing another crime. Arpaio has been careful not to enunciate his racism in too understandable terms, but his association with various anti-immigrant extremist groups and neo-Nazi figures have not gone unnoticed; Arpaio himself is unashamed, telling Lou Dobbs that he was “honored” to be compared to the KKK. Back in April, J.T. Ready and a bunch of his friends dressed in Nazi storm trooper garb showed up in Phoenix to express their support for Arpaio and his latest appointee as county attorney. A similar variety of friends joined Arpaio for a recent tour of the border.
There is no doubt that the Arizona law was designed by people who wanted to codify Arpaio’s racial attitudes, and to allow him to conduct his affairs without hindrance. The fact of Arpaio’s refusal to cooperate with the Justice Department should be taken as more evidence that his department’s racist record is so indefensible that it can’t bear the light of exposure. It is time for the DOJ to stand up to this arrogant bigot and show who is the real sheriff in town.
The whims of justice
The evidence presented in the Rod Blagojevich trial could be interpreted by some as A. a lot of something or B. a lot of nothing. Thus the outcome of the first trial stunned some (particularly in the media), surprised others (who thought that all that media attention surely signified irrefutable guilt), disappointed still more (those who thought all those embarrassing f-bombs constituted “proof”), inspired cynicism (by those who saw the case as nothing but “business as usual” to begin with), and relief in a minority (that the guilty on all counts media circus and the prosecution’s braggadocio wasn’t “rewarded”). Blagojevich will likely have a tougher time in the retrial, since only one juror refused to convict on the principle charge of trying to “sell” Barack Obama’s senate seat, although juror comments will likely aid the defense and the prosecution in recognizing the weaknesses in their cases. But as the jury foreman noted, there was no “smoking gun” presented by the prosecution that constituted direct evidence that Blagojevich was something more than overly blunt, and not particularly competent, horse trader. Unlike former Republican governor George Ryan who actually had time to receive pay-outs and bribes for favors while his daughters received illegal payments from Ryan’s campaign funds, the Blagojevich prosecutors apparently thought that heading-off the actual “sale” of the senate seat was worth the risk of not presenting to a jury definitive proof that the “sale” actually occurred. The “assumption” that Blagojevich would have received something in return, however, was not sufficient in the minds of at least one juror in lieu of the fact that no “transaction” had actually occurred.
Although Blagojevich was the focus of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s “Operation Board Games" that was begun in 2003, by 2006 the investigation had only allegedly uncovered hiring irregularities in government agencies, but had as yet not uncovered illegal activity by the governor—or what was judged to be illegal—until the FBI was allowed to wiretap him. What fascinates is that Blagojevich "dared" the FBI to wiretap him, seemingly certain that his activities could not be construed as illegal, insofar as business-as-usual was concerned (and not surprisingly, a 95-page recommendation on political reforms laid out by a commission subsequent to Blagojevich’s ouster would be opposed by key Illinois legislators). Meanwhile, a dozen political and fund-raising figures were eventually caught in the probe’s web and have since pleaded guilty. The Chicago Tribune, long an enemy of Blagojevich and had called for his impeachment years before the actual event, was clearly disturbed by the outcome of a trial where Blagojevich continued to insist on his innocence on all charges rather than plead guilty like the rest; but the paper still allowed itself lascivious pleasure in noting that the conviction on one “minor” count—lying to the FBI—still sufficient to tag Blagojevich a “felon.” Furthermore, a subsequent editorial sneered that:
“The two defendants (Blagojevich and his brother and co-defendant Robert) already have seen one full-throated version of what the feds can throw at them. But long lists of witnesses in this trial, and potential witnesses in the next, don't know what awaits. Every Illinois and Washington politician or insider who didn't have to testify — and who breathed easy when this case went to the jury — now has to wonder: How will the prosecution and defense refine their approaches? Will I be called this time? Will I have to answer questions about this case — under oath?”
“…full-throated version of what the feds can throw at them.” Those are key words. The “feds” have almost unlimited resources in which target anyone they choose. While federal attorneys cringe in fright before the likes of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, and shrivel before Joe Arpaio's bluster, on other occasions they will do whatever is "necessary" when some unlucky person is their gun sights, as evident in the prosecutorial misconduct that led to the conviction of Ted Stevens. The zeal to "clean house" by Democrats, meanwhile, led to the creation of the Office of Congressional Ethics, which has also been accused of wielding its power in an arbitrary manner, reacting to hypersensitivity to what is deemed the public mood. Democrats in Congress, who seem more "sensitive" to being seen as corrupt than Republicans, seem to be much more willing to sacrifice their own as well. Take for example the case of Sam Graves—a Republican representative from Missouri, has been called a “rubber stamp imbecile and bright red reactionary,” is “famous” in the state for his thuggish campaign tactics and for deploying “goons” to intimidate and threaten opponents even in his own party—is a case in point of this arbitrariness. The House Ethics Committee recently declined to investigate this man for “an apparent conflict of interest” in inviting Brooks Hurst, a business partner of Graves’ wife, to testify before the Small Business Committee, in an apparent effort to sway legislation that would benefit the ethanol plant that Hurst and Mrs. Graves had an investment. Graves apparently did not inform the committee that he himself had a personal financial interest in the testimony. Interestingly, Graves is the only member of the so-called “Dirty Thirty” congresspersons who is white who had been forwarded to the Ethics Committee for further investigation. The other seven have all been African-American, but unlike Graves, all are currently under "further review."
The OCE has been accused—especially by the Congressional Black Caucus—of overreach and behaving in an oversensitive fashion; the caucus has called for scaling back the powers of the OCE. It is now claimed that the OCE is targeting black lawmakers. That may explain why the Ethics Committee decided not to investigate Graves, but did decide to investigate Rep. Maxine Waters on a similar allegation, allegedly intervening with Treasury Department on behalf of a bank for which her husband was once a board member, even though the bank in fact did qualify for TARP funds. Rep. Laura Richardson is also under investigation, apparently because a few neighbors mowed her lawn. Along with Charles Rangel and four other congresspersons, the OCE and House ethics panel seem to have decided that the only people worth investigating are African-American. These are the only members of the so-called “Dirty Thirty” that Nancy Pelosi, who apparently has great influence on the Ethics Committee’s “deliberations,” has decided that there are cases against at the present time.
What hangs over all of this, and I have talked about this before, is that there is no such thing as “clean” politics. It is impossible to be elected to office without horse-trading and under-the-table deals. The recent U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission case has opened the floodgates even wider for campaign fundraising abuse, since it allows multi-billion dollar corporations to make virtually unlimited contributions to candidates who can be bought and sold and do their bidding. The right-wing organization Citizens United, which brought the case, claims that it wishes to restore “citizens control,” but this it is probably the last thing that the ruling will do. Every regulatory change or government programs that effects businesses are subject to “pressure” from said businesses, and those who “succumb” to the pressure are amply “rewarded” come time for the spoils, whether in campaign cash or later positions as lobbyists or sitting on corporation boards. All elected officials are in the pay of someone or something more powerful than they. The question then is who is to be judged more guilty than another; too many prosecutors in the pursuit of personal notoriety use entirely arbitrary variables to make that determination.
Although Blagojevich was the focus of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s “Operation Board Games" that was begun in 2003, by 2006 the investigation had only allegedly uncovered hiring irregularities in government agencies, but had as yet not uncovered illegal activity by the governor—or what was judged to be illegal—until the FBI was allowed to wiretap him. What fascinates is that Blagojevich "dared" the FBI to wiretap him, seemingly certain that his activities could not be construed as illegal, insofar as business-as-usual was concerned (and not surprisingly, a 95-page recommendation on political reforms laid out by a commission subsequent to Blagojevich’s ouster would be opposed by key Illinois legislators). Meanwhile, a dozen political and fund-raising figures were eventually caught in the probe’s web and have since pleaded guilty. The Chicago Tribune, long an enemy of Blagojevich and had called for his impeachment years before the actual event, was clearly disturbed by the outcome of a trial where Blagojevich continued to insist on his innocence on all charges rather than plead guilty like the rest; but the paper still allowed itself lascivious pleasure in noting that the conviction on one “minor” count—lying to the FBI—still sufficient to tag Blagojevich a “felon.” Furthermore, a subsequent editorial sneered that:
“The two defendants (Blagojevich and his brother and co-defendant Robert) already have seen one full-throated version of what the feds can throw at them. But long lists of witnesses in this trial, and potential witnesses in the next, don't know what awaits. Every Illinois and Washington politician or insider who didn't have to testify — and who breathed easy when this case went to the jury — now has to wonder: How will the prosecution and defense refine their approaches? Will I be called this time? Will I have to answer questions about this case — under oath?”
“…full-throated version of what the feds can throw at them.” Those are key words. The “feds” have almost unlimited resources in which target anyone they choose. While federal attorneys cringe in fright before the likes of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, and shrivel before Joe Arpaio's bluster, on other occasions they will do whatever is "necessary" when some unlucky person is their gun sights, as evident in the prosecutorial misconduct that led to the conviction of Ted Stevens. The zeal to "clean house" by Democrats, meanwhile, led to the creation of the Office of Congressional Ethics, which has also been accused of wielding its power in an arbitrary manner, reacting to hypersensitivity to what is deemed the public mood. Democrats in Congress, who seem more "sensitive" to being seen as corrupt than Republicans, seem to be much more willing to sacrifice their own as well. Take for example the case of Sam Graves—a Republican representative from Missouri, has been called a “rubber stamp imbecile and bright red reactionary,” is “famous” in the state for his thuggish campaign tactics and for deploying “goons” to intimidate and threaten opponents even in his own party—is a case in point of this arbitrariness. The House Ethics Committee recently declined to investigate this man for “an apparent conflict of interest” in inviting Brooks Hurst, a business partner of Graves’ wife, to testify before the Small Business Committee, in an apparent effort to sway legislation that would benefit the ethanol plant that Hurst and Mrs. Graves had an investment. Graves apparently did not inform the committee that he himself had a personal financial interest in the testimony. Interestingly, Graves is the only member of the so-called “Dirty Thirty” congresspersons who is white who had been forwarded to the Ethics Committee for further investigation. The other seven have all been African-American, but unlike Graves, all are currently under "further review."
The OCE has been accused—especially by the Congressional Black Caucus—of overreach and behaving in an oversensitive fashion; the caucus has called for scaling back the powers of the OCE. It is now claimed that the OCE is targeting black lawmakers. That may explain why the Ethics Committee decided not to investigate Graves, but did decide to investigate Rep. Maxine Waters on a similar allegation, allegedly intervening with Treasury Department on behalf of a bank for which her husband was once a board member, even though the bank in fact did qualify for TARP funds. Rep. Laura Richardson is also under investigation, apparently because a few neighbors mowed her lawn. Along with Charles Rangel and four other congresspersons, the OCE and House ethics panel seem to have decided that the only people worth investigating are African-American. These are the only members of the so-called “Dirty Thirty” that Nancy Pelosi, who apparently has great influence on the Ethics Committee’s “deliberations,” has decided that there are cases against at the present time.
What hangs over all of this, and I have talked about this before, is that there is no such thing as “clean” politics. It is impossible to be elected to office without horse-trading and under-the-table deals. The recent U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission case has opened the floodgates even wider for campaign fundraising abuse, since it allows multi-billion dollar corporations to make virtually unlimited contributions to candidates who can be bought and sold and do their bidding. The right-wing organization Citizens United, which brought the case, claims that it wishes to restore “citizens control,” but this it is probably the last thing that the ruling will do. Every regulatory change or government programs that effects businesses are subject to “pressure” from said businesses, and those who “succumb” to the pressure are amply “rewarded” come time for the spoils, whether in campaign cash or later positions as lobbyists or sitting on corporation boards. All elected officials are in the pay of someone or something more powerful than they. The question then is who is to be judged more guilty than another; too many prosecutors in the pursuit of personal notoriety use entirely arbitrary variables to make that determination.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The "first lady" of hate
The other day I heard a left-wing commentator on the radio admit that she despised Michelle Malkin even more that she did Ann Coulter. While Coulter is little more than a right-wing shock-jock, Malkin is a serial hater—she really did believe all the hateful things she said. Malkin also suffers from rampant hypocrisy: she constantly rails against immigrants, yet she herself is an “anchor baby” born of parents who were Philippine citizens, in the U.S. on a work visa program. Malkin also claimed that after being called racist names at school, her mother told her that everyone is racist, and that she was “eternally grateful” for that “wise” counsel. Apparently Malkin uses this “counsel” to justify her own ugly racism. Malkin demeans other people's intelligence, referring to Barack Obama’s “ignorance” on nuclear issues; yet it was her own ignorance that was on display: like all right-wing commentators, she herself was completely unaware of Sen. Obama’s teaming with Richard Lugar on nuclear arms control issues. If anything, the nuclear issue was Obama’s principle area of expertise as senator, and certainly far beyond Malkin's superficial notions. Nor would Malkin back-away from a bald-face lie, such as repeating the claim by the Swift-Boaters that John Kerry had deliberately wounded himself while serving in Vietnam.
Malkin, married to a white man of the same right-wing stripe, first worked for the Los Angeles Daily News in the early 1990s, which until recently had a lousy minority hiring record, but apparently had room for a ragingly conservative Filipino. My introduction to Malkin was in 1996, when at the age of 26 she was hired on as an op-ed columnist by the Seattle Times without ever having had to pay her dues as a reporter. I figured that the Times’ editorial page editor at the time, Mindy Cameron, had no clue about Malkin’s fanaticism, but she was a gender politician and wanted to add more “diversity” to the editorial board. Malkin’s lack of qualifications and contempt of facts apparently played no part in her hiring, but she did add more “diversity” than was bargained for: a racial minority, a woman—and borderline insane to boot. Any claim that the Times had to intelligent editorial discussion went out the window whenever a Malkin column appeared. Bill Clinton was a favorite target, as were “liberals” in general, but her columns were generally the ramblings of a hate-filled schizophrenic. You were constantly asking yourself “What the (bleep) is she talking about?” One day she was blathering on about racism and when it did or didn’t apply, when I finally figured her out. I wrote a letter to the Times in which I observed that Malkin was one of those people, like Clarence Thomas, who was filled with self-loathing because she wasn’t white, and because of the racial attitudes inherent in American society, felt anger toward other people who were not white for “dragging her down”--into their “gutter” when she herself was just as good as any white person. Couldn't white people see that, and not her (very) brown skin?
In other words, she hated being linked to those “other” people. She was not one of “them,” and she hated “them” for “shaming” her--by applying to "them" as a "group" the very stereotypes and prejudices that a white person might use. In order to "fit-in," she out bigots the bigots. It never occurred to her that we live in a superficial society where skin color is the first order in a de facto caste system. Most minorities take another tack to this dilemma—fighting (or at least butting heads with) the racism rather than joining in it, as Malkin has. Malkin, like other right-wing minorities, is so wrapped-up in self-loathing and hate that even the fact that it is these very characteristics that are used by the otherwise wholly-white right to undermine equal opportunity for the vast majority of minorities is a complete mystery to her.
Malkin left the paper to become, at the age of 29, a nationally-syndicated columnist. Right-wing egomania and fanaticism clearly is the fastest way to a media job for a racial minority. She has since often made extreme right “commentators” like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Williams sound positively reasonable. The titles of her books are pretty much self-explanatory as to her state-of-mind:
“Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies”
“Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, And Other Foreign Menaces To Our Shores”
“In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror”
“Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild”
“Unhinged” is, of course, a word that many people would use in regard to Malkin. Her hate seemingly knows no bounds; besides constantly railing against “Mexicans” as one mass of violent subhumans, in the book approving the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, she suggested that there was “justification” in similarly interning all Muslim-Americans now.
Many people snicker at Geraldo Rivera, who managed to make people forget his Willowbrook State School exposé with “exploits” like the “Al Capone’s Vault” fiasco and infamous chair-throwing incident (which put his broken nose ignominiously on the cover of one of one of the weekly news magazines), but I credit him for taking on the racism of Fox News, unafraid of shouting down Bill O’Reilly when necessary. In an article in the Boston Globe from 2007, Rivera also had some interesting thoughts in regard to Malkin. "Michelle Malkin is the most vile, hateful commentator I've ever met in my life. She actually believes that neighbors should start snitching out neighbors, and we should be deporting people. It's good she's in D.C. and I'm in New York, I'd spit on her if I saw her."
The insensitive Malkin, who can dish it out without regard to another’s feelings, apparently is too sensitive to take the heat back. She subsequently refused to reappear on the “O’Reilly Factor” because she felt that she wasn’t adequately defended by Fox News; she showed the immature nature of her mind by referring to Rivera as “Mr. Moustache” in a rambling “rebuttable” on her website. Immaturity and hate—that is what so people in this country allow themselves to be influenced by. How can one expect an information-challenged populace to “grow-up?”
Malkin, married to a white man of the same right-wing stripe, first worked for the Los Angeles Daily News in the early 1990s, which until recently had a lousy minority hiring record, but apparently had room for a ragingly conservative Filipino. My introduction to Malkin was in 1996, when at the age of 26 she was hired on as an op-ed columnist by the Seattle Times without ever having had to pay her dues as a reporter. I figured that the Times’ editorial page editor at the time, Mindy Cameron, had no clue about Malkin’s fanaticism, but she was a gender politician and wanted to add more “diversity” to the editorial board. Malkin’s lack of qualifications and contempt of facts apparently played no part in her hiring, but she did add more “diversity” than was bargained for: a racial minority, a woman—and borderline insane to boot. Any claim that the Times had to intelligent editorial discussion went out the window whenever a Malkin column appeared. Bill Clinton was a favorite target, as were “liberals” in general, but her columns were generally the ramblings of a hate-filled schizophrenic. You were constantly asking yourself “What the (bleep) is she talking about?” One day she was blathering on about racism and when it did or didn’t apply, when I finally figured her out. I wrote a letter to the Times in which I observed that Malkin was one of those people, like Clarence Thomas, who was filled with self-loathing because she wasn’t white, and because of the racial attitudes inherent in American society, felt anger toward other people who were not white for “dragging her down”--into their “gutter” when she herself was just as good as any white person. Couldn't white people see that, and not her (very) brown skin?
In other words, she hated being linked to those “other” people. She was not one of “them,” and she hated “them” for “shaming” her--by applying to "them" as a "group" the very stereotypes and prejudices that a white person might use. In order to "fit-in," she out bigots the bigots. It never occurred to her that we live in a superficial society where skin color is the first order in a de facto caste system. Most minorities take another tack to this dilemma—fighting (or at least butting heads with) the racism rather than joining in it, as Malkin has. Malkin, like other right-wing minorities, is so wrapped-up in self-loathing and hate that even the fact that it is these very characteristics that are used by the otherwise wholly-white right to undermine equal opportunity for the vast majority of minorities is a complete mystery to her.
Malkin left the paper to become, at the age of 29, a nationally-syndicated columnist. Right-wing egomania and fanaticism clearly is the fastest way to a media job for a racial minority. She has since often made extreme right “commentators” like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Williams sound positively reasonable. The titles of her books are pretty much self-explanatory as to her state-of-mind:
“Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies”
“Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, And Other Foreign Menaces To Our Shores”
“In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror”
“Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild”
“Unhinged” is, of course, a word that many people would use in regard to Malkin. Her hate seemingly knows no bounds; besides constantly railing against “Mexicans” as one mass of violent subhumans, in the book approving the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, she suggested that there was “justification” in similarly interning all Muslim-Americans now.
Many people snicker at Geraldo Rivera, who managed to make people forget his Willowbrook State School exposé with “exploits” like the “Al Capone’s Vault” fiasco and infamous chair-throwing incident (which put his broken nose ignominiously on the cover of one of one of the weekly news magazines), but I credit him for taking on the racism of Fox News, unafraid of shouting down Bill O’Reilly when necessary. In an article in the Boston Globe from 2007, Rivera also had some interesting thoughts in regard to Malkin. "Michelle Malkin is the most vile, hateful commentator I've ever met in my life. She actually believes that neighbors should start snitching out neighbors, and we should be deporting people. It's good she's in D.C. and I'm in New York, I'd spit on her if I saw her."
The insensitive Malkin, who can dish it out without regard to another’s feelings, apparently is too sensitive to take the heat back. She subsequently refused to reappear on the “O’Reilly Factor” because she felt that she wasn’t adequately defended by Fox News; she showed the immature nature of her mind by referring to Rivera as “Mr. Moustache” in a rambling “rebuttable” on her website. Immaturity and hate—that is what so people in this country allow themselves to be influenced by. How can one expect an information-challenged populace to “grow-up?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)