Democracy includes everybody, right? So why the attempts to limit voting?

It is difficult to believe that such people believe in democracy.  How will they behave if the candidate they support doesn't win?  That is, if it turns out that the "democracy" they claim to want actually doesn't happen?  In the last four years some people in congress had no higher priority than to make sure the duly elected President would not be re-elected -- an ignoble agenda for those commissioned by the people to govern a great country.  See what some have been doing to make sure that democracy doesn't turn out to be what it is supposed to be:   

Democracy denied: Millions of Americans blocked from voting: Voter suppression efforts today echo 19th century efforts to block urban immigrant working class from casting vote.

Obama Apologized ?

I am dumbfounded that the story seems to be gaining salience among many Americans that President Obama went to the Middle East to apologize.  No, he went to the Middle East to call for democracy -- undermining the power of the many dictators in the region.

President Obama went to the oldest university in the world, Al Azhar, a center of learning for Muslims of all nations, in a country ruled by a dictator and explained what democracy meant, and called for the rule of law and responsible government in the countries of the Middle East.  

The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores -- and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average. …
 And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations -- to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God.  These things we share.  This is the hope of all humanity.  …
 But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things:  the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose.  These are not just American ideas; they are human rights.  And that is why we will support them everywhere….
 Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure.  Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away.  America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them.  And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others.  So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power:  You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party.  Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.  [for more see http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-cairo-university-6-04-09

That was on June 4, 2009.  What happened next should not be considered direct responses to Obama’s speech but as expressions of the broadly shared hopes for responsible leadership of the sort that Obama spoke of.  It reflected a longing throughout the Middle East for fair and just governments that are accountable to the people they govern, the kind of government Obama described.  

Here are some signs that Obama’s speech touched a chord.

*  On June 12, 8 days after Obama’s speech, Iran exploded.  The government held a presidential election on that day and most Iranians believed their candidate, Mir-Hussein Mousavi, had won by a land-slide.  In fact, they were astounded to hear, even before the polls had closed, that the current President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, declared the winner.  That night people came out on the streets, not [yet] to formally demonstrate but to discuss how this could have happened.  But the government reaction was so severe that within days many people were clashing with government-paid goons.  Eventually, they would begin to chant “Death to the Dictator” in the streets of Tehran.  The Iranians were demanding the just and authentic democracy that Obama had called for.

        

*  A year and a half after the speech, almost to the day, the “Arab Spring” began.  It began on December 18 in Tunisia when Mohamed Bouazizi, in a fit of frustration at the way he had been treated by a local official, set himself on fire in a street of Sidi Bouzid.  The shock of the event instigated a riot that spread throughout the country, and by January 14 President  Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, a dictator that was broadly presumed to be secure, fled the country.  

*  Demonstrations of a similar sort were already in motion in Egypt and by February 11, 2011 President Hosni Mubarak was out of power.  

*  That same week demonstrations began in Libya against Muammar Ghaddafi.  It turned into a long, drawn out civil war that eventually took Ghaddafi’s life in October. 

*  In the mean time Yemen was similarly wrought, and after much conflict President Ali Abdullah Saleh was obliged to relinquish much of his power. 

*  Demonstrations elsewhere were less successful: The struggle to dethrone President Bashar Al-Assad is still going on; the struggle against King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa has been ruthlessly crushed.

My point is that Obama’s speech seemed well to express the desires of the frustrated peoples of the Middle East, especially of the young people.  

Apology?  No.  Rather, Obama's call for democracy marked a dramatic shift in the aspirations of the peoples of the region, who had long suffered under cruel dictatorships.

McGovern's death reminds us of a tragic moment

The passing of Senator George McGovern reminds us that it is possible for the wrong person to win an election.  McGovern, a Democrat, ran in 1972 the most unsuccessful presidential campaign in American history:  he was beaten by the slate of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew in a landslide:  every state but Massachusetts and the District of Columbia supported the Republican ticket.   But in less than a year Agnew was forced to resign because of charges that he  had been involved in extortion, tax fraud, bribery and conspiracy.   The next year, on August 9, 1974, Richard Nixon himself resigned, having been implicated in the Watergate break-in.  Both Nixon and Agnew were guilty of major criminal behavior before the election took place but they took office with the largest mandate in history.  Can we believe that McGovern would have been a better president?  He would at least have been a very different president, and it is tempting to assert that he would have been better than Richard Nixon. 

But elections turn on the stories that the candidates tell, and in the end the candidate that tells the most convincing story wins. 

Is there anything to learn from this incident in the past? 

Mitt Romney, the Mystery Candidate

Most of us look around the world and we wonder how a society could become flawed to such an extreme that it accepts, even fosters, policies that lead to destruction.  We wonder how the people of Germany could have allowed Hitler’s National Socialist Party to have total power within the country and lead the country into a devastating war.  We wonder how so many Hutus of Rwanda could have been persuaded that they should take up machetes against their Tutsi neighbors.  How could the Serbs of Bosnia become convinced that they should “cleanse” their society of Muslims, not only to kill members of their own communities but also to destroy buildings, museums, every notable structure built by their Muslim neighbors?  We wonder:  How did these societies seem to have lose all reason.

Is not this country about to do something comparably irrational?

There is a chance that we will elect as our president someone about whom we scarcely know anything, a person who steadfastly refuses to tell us much about himself or even of his future program.  He has, as Professor Garry Wills puts it, a “mystery box” of solutions to our country’s problems [NYRB 11/8/12], along with a body of opinions that we know he has changed over time and even now he carefully veils.    

• On abortion, his wife Ann Romney refused to reveal his opinion [she said it was merely a distraction.   
• On the loopholes he will plug in order to get to a balanced budget even though he plans to reduce taxes even further [they are already close to an all-time low]:  he says that that matter will be the surprise he will give Congress once he is in office.
• On voter-ID drives that would reduce the electorate [those most likely not to vote for him], he said the issue was a distraction.
• On requiring ultrasound exams for pregnant women seeking abortions as many of his party support, he said the question was a distraction.
• Most surprisingly, on his actual record he carefully provides few details: 
• On what he did at Bain capital he reveals little;
• On his major accomplishment as governor of Massachusetts, the health-care law, he carefully evades mention of it since it was the model for the “Obamacare” law that he now denounces.
• He reveals to the public only the last two years of his tax returns.  This is most curious because his father published his tax returns for the previous ten years when he ran for President.  Does Mitt Romney think that more than the last two years of tax returns should be revealed?  Decide for yourself:  He demanded to see the tax returns of the last ten years of those individuals he was  considering for his running mate.  Romney has seen the tax returns of Paul Ryan for the past ten years [NYRB 11/8/12] but he steadfastly refuses to reveal more than two years of his own tax returns. 

The American public knows almost nothing substantial about Mitt Romney, and he could be our next President.  What would he really do for our economy?  We don’t know.  What plans does he have to fix the deficit?  We don’t know.  How will he deal with the incessant conflict in the Middle East? We don’t know.  What is his policy toward minorities?  Well, this we can guess and he knows better than to put that into words.

Romney was scarcely liked or supported by his own Republican Party – he just turned out to be the last one standing.  So why is he a viable candidate for President of the Unites States of America, the most powerful leader in the world?  

What they are not saying ... How this country got into its mess

When it comes to elections we all seem to have short memories.  That may be the reason that politicians say the same things over and over again, and why some of them don't mind contradicting themselves.  But what I don’t understand is why some history has been completely ignored in the recent political debates.  
Here is what I remember about how my country got into the mess it’s in:

• When George W. Bush became President he was given a prize that scarcely any president has ever received in American history:  A budget surplus.                 So what did his administration do with it?  Improve the highway infrastructure?  Update the aging bridges across the country?  Install a national optical fiber system?  Provide the country with comprehensive wi-fi?  No, they gave the money “back” as a "tax cut."  For most people it was a couple hundred dollars; for those with high incomes the return was several thousand dollars; for instance, if your taxable income was between $200,000 and $499,000, your return was $7400 [NYT 10/19/10, from Tax Policy Institute].  So who were the new administration catering to?
• When the 9/11/01 attack took place the Bush administration was given world-wide support and sympathy -- another gift not given to many presidents before him; even in Iran the young people held a minute of silence in honor of the American dead before a soccer game.  And indeed the American attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan was widely supported; no one had much sympathy for the Taliban, and no one cared when thousands of them died and the rest were forced to flee into Pakistan.  But within a year the Bush administrated turned their attention away from that conflict, leaving the job unfinished.  They turned away in order to attack Saddam Hussein in Iraq; they even claimed he had been behind the 9/11/01 attack [remember this?] in order to justify their refocus on Iraq.  So doing, they awakened the many confused and frustrated unemployed young men all over the Middle East, to give them the sense that America was attacking the whole Muslim world -- and a cause to fight for.  The attack on Iraq squandered the good-will of the world, and revived a nearly crushed AlQaeda.  
• The Bush administration made no provision for the costs of the two wars they were involved in.  Those costs were taken off-line when the budget was being discussed; the skyrocketing costs of the wars were hardly discussed in Congress.  In those days Paul Ryan and others who now present themselves as budget hawks signed off on the Bush budgets every time.
• The result was that by the time the Bush administration left office the economy was in the tank -- for many reasons, but one of them was the unfunded wars.  When the Bush administration left office the budget was in deficit.  Their successor was dealt one of the worst hands of any administration since 1930.  

The people who participated in policies that left this country in a mess now present themselves as eager to correct the errors of George W. Bush's successor.  Ryan voted for the profligate policies that caused the deficit that he now deplores.    

Why would the American people want Ryan and those who supported the Bush administration to come back?  How could anyone want them back?

The profligacy of the Bush administration now seems like it was ages in the past -- which is where the Romney/Ryan ticket wants it to be.  Hardly anyone remembers just how our country got to this point.  This story remains unmentioned, and is almost forgotten.  

Universal longing in "The search for "Sugar Man"'

A few words can sometimes capture the feelings of a whole nation.  “Blood, sweat, and tears…” – words that enshrined the thoughts of many people in Britain at terrifying moment.  But when those words were thrown out into the public arena they enabled a whole people to join in a unity of feeling, a collective sense of who they were and what they faced together.  A few words transformed the disparate feelings of many individuals into the conviction of a nation:  as a people they must, and they would, stand together despite the obvious cost.  

The process by which private sensibilities are brought together into a common conviction is a kind of imaginative miracle.  It is worth asking how it works.  Inner depths of feeling are evoked by a particular poignant phrase – this a wonder worth examining closely.   

But the phrase that works powerfully in one setting may not work in another.   To understand the difference requires explication:  the history of all the fears and resentments and outrages that have piled up through the years becomes a reservoir of buried sentiments that can be awakened by a single event, a single utterance, a song.     

Tonight Rita and I went to see a film about a simple musician, a gifted balladeer, whose brilliance was missed in his own country but discovered by a whole nation elsewhere.  The simple ballads of loneliness, grief, despair produced by an unknown individual galvanized the strong feelings of  thousands of young people elsewhere.  His aching outrage at a broken world gave expression to feelings that they shared and enabled them to experience together their common  frustration, for their world also was grievous.  Carefully chosen chords and phrases objectified the feelings of thousands -- but in a different world.  

Anyone who wants to see how an objective form – music – can be made to stand for the feelings of a whole nation must see “The search for ‘Sugar Man’”.  

The Arab Counter-Spring distracts from the authentic desires of the Middle East

We are seeing the other side of the Arab Spring movement of last year.  This is the “counter Spring”.  I note, however, that these actors in the Middle East are all, I think, men.  Compare the picture attached to the New York Times article on demonstrations in Yeman with the statement by a young woman in Yemen a year ago.  

This woman was appealing for American help in protecting the movement for democracy there.  

In that case, the crowd behind her included a number of women, and she spoke in impeccable English.  

I am prepared to believe that this young woman, whose name will surely never be known, represents the genuine longings of young people in the Middle East.  What I fear is that such individuals will give up and leave – escape to the States or Europe. That would mean that as usual the nations of the Middle East will be run by the most conservative and defensive elements of the society.  And mostly men [as in the NYTimes picture].  Something needs to happen to force the leadership of these countries to listen to the heartfelt appeals of these young people.  

The Middle East has not changed:  the hope for democracy has not died.  But this society is now, as it was a year ago, sharply divided.  What we see now is the attempts of a few, again, to co-opt September 11 as a vehicle of refusal.  It is reactive and defensive.  Lets hope Egypt and Yemen will join the Libyans in punishing such lawless behavior. 

Muslims who were murdered eleven years ago today

The attack on September 11, 2001, caused the death of nearly 3,000 individuals from many nations, not only the United States.  It is right that their names were read today in the various locations where the planes crashed.  But as I indicated already, some of those who died that day were Muslims (besides those who deliberately committed suicide).  To draw attention to how Muslim families suffered as well as others, I list here the names that I could recover from another site.  This is not to favor the Muslims who died, for all who perished died unjustly.  But I list them here to stress that the actions of a few radical individuals, who in most cases  were criminals in their own countries, cannot be regarded as typical of Muslims generally.  Only a few days ago someone I met, who in fact is well educated, stated that he didn't understand why Muslims hate us -- evidence that he has essentially no comprehension of what lay behind the attack on that terrible day or of the real nature of Middle Eastern society -- no sense even of how different that region has become in the last decade.  Let us join in grief over all those who suffered unjustly on that notorious morning, even those who were Muslims.

Shabbir Ahmed - 47 years old - Windows on the World Restaurant
Tariq Amanullah - 40 years old - Fiduciary Trust Co.
Michael Baksh - 36 years old - Marsh & McLennan
Touri Hamzavi Bolourchi - 69 years old - retired nurse on United #175
Abul K. Chowdhury - 30 years old - Cantor Fitzgerald
Mohammad Salahuddin Chowdhury - 38 years old - Windows on the World
Jemal Legesse De Santis - 28 years old - World Trade Center
Simon Suleman Ali Kassamali Dhanani - 63 years old - Aon Corp.
Syed Abdul Fatha - 54 years old - Pitney Bowes
Mon Gjonbalaj - 65 years old - Janitor, World Trade Center
Nezam A. Hafiz - 32 years old - Marsh & McLennan
Mohammed Salman Hamdani - 23 years old - NYPD Cadet
Zuhtu Ibis - 25 years old - Cantor Fitzgerald
Muhammadou Jawara - 30 years old - MAS Security
Sarah Khan - 32 years old - Forte Food Service
Taimour Firaz Khan - 29 years old - Carr Futures
Abdoulaye Kone - 37 years old - Windows on the World
Abdu Ali Malahi - 37 years old - WTC Marriott
Nurul Hoque Miah - 35 years old - Marsh & McLennan
Boyie Mohammed - 50 years old - Carr Futures
Ehtesham U. Raja - 28 years old - TCG Software
Ameenia Rasool - 33 years old - Marsh & McLennan
Mohammad Ali Sadeque - 62 years old - newspaper vendor at WTC, reported missing
Rahma Salie & child - 28 years old (7 months pregnant) - American #11
Khalid M. Shahid - 25 years old - Cantor Fitzgerald
Mohammed Shajahan - 41 years old - Marsh & McLennan
Nasima Hameed Simjee - 38 years old - Fiduciary Trust Co.
Michael Theodoridis - 32 years old - American #11
Abdoul Karim Traore - 41 years old - Windows on the World
Karamo Trerra - 40 years old - ASAP NetSource
Shakila Yasmin - 26 years old - Marsh & McLennan    

Oligarchic America: America In the Hands of a Few Rich Families. Bernie Sanders

I'm grateful to Bill Moyers for introducing those of us from the mid-west to Bernie Sanders.  This is a guy who calls a spade a spade.  What a refreshing amount of clarity and honesty he brings to the political discourse.  

His post on July 31 [with my highlights]:  Oligarchy or Democracy?

[W]e are now witnessing the most severe attack on our democratic foundations, both economically and politically, that has been seen in the modern history of our country. In terms of the distribution of wealth and income, in terms of concentration of economic ownership and in terms of political power, fewer and fewer Americans are determining the future of our country. ...  

Economically, the United States today has, by far, the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth,  ....  Today, 

• the wealthiest 400 individuals own more wealth than the bottom half of America -- 150 million people. 

• Today, one family, the Walton family of Wal-Mart fame, with $89 billion, owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America. 

• Today, the top one percent owns 40 percent of all wealth, while the bottom 60 percent owns less than two percent. 

• Incredibly, the bottom 40 percent of all Americans own just three-tenths of one percent of the wealth of the country.   

• In terms of income distribution, the top one percent earns more income than the bottom 50 percent. 

• Between 1980 and 2005, 80 percent of all new income created in this country went to the top one percent. 

• In 2010 alone, 93 percent of all new income went to the top one percent.  

• In terms of economic power and concentration of ownership, the six largest financial institutions in the country (JP MorganChase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Metlife) own assets equivalent to two-thirds of the GDP of this country -- more than nine trillion dollars. ...

Most of us have a hard time internalizing what has actually happened to our country.  None of us has been even remotely considering the possibility that the country may actually be, already, in the hands of an oligarchy -- a country controlled by a cadre of rich elite.  Isn't that what they have in Burkina Faso?  Central African Republic?  Niger? No wonder our congress, even when they seem to be doing something in the public interest, end up doing something that enables the rich to get richer.

The Question:  what to do about it?

How do we know our political process has not already been cooped by criminal money?

The only thing I can surmise from the way things are going is that the Republican Party has been taken over by a few -- probably not even very many -- super rich individuals and corporations.  It looks like they already have a powerful grip on our political process.  

The scary part is that so many super PACs that now try to shape the public imagination are funded by unknown sources.  I can appreciate why certain rich individuals would like to remain anonymous when making donations.  But when huge amounts of money are being paid for scandalous, scurrilous, and slanderous advertisements against public figures it looks like money from secret, perhaps even criminal, sources is threatening the whole political process.  

How much democracy has been lost because of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision?  It looks like we are about to find out.  I fear this is the most dangerous election in the history of democracy.  

How do we know that the real sources of these scandalous declarations on TV are not funded by criminal wealth?  Most of us suppose that criminality is weak and marginal in our country.  I doubt it:  Al Capone is still around, in other guises.  A few years ago illicit drugs were believed to be the third largest industry in this country -- industry, not corporation; it was believed only exceeded by the oil industry and the automobile industry.   Moise Naim who has studied criminal behavior for more than ten years, has written a book, Illicit, in which he claims that “networks of stateless traders are changing the world as much as terrorists are, probably more.”  How do we know that these moneys being used for public calumny don't come from foreign sources?  Even non-American criminal sources?  Citizens United stripped the democratic process in this country from the ordinary people and opened it up to whoever has the hard cash to control our electoral process:  from any source, from any country, from any industry.  And the more money the better.  Today the American people have no means of knowing who  controls the political discourse of our country.

Virtually every day we hear about exorbitant amounts from unknown and unknowable sources of funds being spent on negative advertising.  Here is the one I read today:  Thank you ProPublica (in particular Justin Elliott).  If this article doesn't make your hair stand on end you are already inured to scandalous claims on TV.

Revealed: The Dark Money Group Attacking Sen. Sherrod Brownby Justin Elliott  ProPublica, Sept. 7, 2012, 11:12 a.m. 

In May, a previously unknown group started pouring money into Ohio’s U.S. Senate race, considered one of the most important in the country and currently the nation’s most expensive.  The group, the Government Integrity Fund, has spent over $1 million so far on TV ads bashing Democratic incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown and praising his Republican opponent, Josh Mandel.
..., the Government Integrity Fund is shrouded in mystery. It isn’t required to reveal donors, nor has it answered questions about who runs the group. The Fund’s barebones website lists no contact information beyond a P.O. Box.
The only name listed on incorporation papers for the group is a Columbus lawyer, William Todd, who told ProPublica, “I really have no role in their affairs.” (In June, Todd also declined to respond to questions from a Huffington Post reporter, citing attorney-client privilege.)
But previously unreported documents filed with an Ohio television station pull back the curtain a bit: the Government Integrity Fund is run by a state lobbyist who in turn employs a former top Mandel staffer.
The lobbyist, Tom Norris, is listed as the Government Integrity Fund’s chairman and treasurer. Norris owns an Ohio lobbying firm, Cap Square Solutions, and last year hired a top Mandel aide, Joel Riter, to work at the firm.
.... The former Mandel aide declined to say whether he is involved with the group that is chaired by his current boss and running ads in support of his former boss... [Read the rest on the original site, linked above.]

I began this note with a swipe at the Republican Party because that party seems to have become shamelessly committed to protecting the rich against the poor, against even the middle class.  This is not the Republican Part I knew as a child.  I grew up in a Republican environment.  I always thought I was Republican or Republican-leaning (at least until Reagan).  I can scarcely believe any of my family today would want to be associated with what the party now stands for:  Protecting the super rich from paying even the slightest premium for the benefits they have enjoyed in a country that provides unexcelled protection from theft and arson, and an infrastructure that enables reasonable and responsible business activity to prosper.  This is not the party of Eisenhour, Taft, Reagan, Ford, or GHW Bush.  To me the marvel is that they are unashamed for what they have been defending:  No shame for the economic wreckage they left the country in in 2008 -- and now no shame for blaming their successor for it.  

How do we know that in fact the super-rich interests of the world -- who have no national loyalty -- have not already seized the Republican Party to make use of it in their interest?  There are legitimate interests for the Republicans to represent responsibly, but the positions they now hold are an embarrassment.  

Ralph Reed: Another view of the religious Far Right

Anyone who watched the Bill Moyers report on the career and activities of Ralph Reed would have been deeply troubled.  What Reed stands for is not the gospel of a homeless man who was unjustly tortured and executed for the sins of the world, which is what he claims, but what seems like a different gospel, one that supports the interests of the well-to-do against those of the weak and underprivileged.  

Few trends are more worrisome than the uses now being made of biblical terms and images in politics. Politicians deliberately and calculatedly proclaim their devotion to God. Would that it were true! — at least I wish that an authentic appreciation of the biblical texts as they are would be reflected in the behavior of our leaders; there is a great absence of discernment and wisdom fitting to the challenges of leadership in the modern world. The Psalmist (139:20, NIV) says, “They speak of you with evil intent; your adversaries misuse your name.” Even people who know nothing about the Bible or have no use for it consider the new prominence of religious claims in politics to be cynical, like the psalmist here. We are all disgusted by the pious use of grand moralistic rhetoric by public figures whose life bears no particular evidence of an authentic fear of heaven. The recent past provides examples without number of the callous use of moral claims to justify policies that are animated by the usual incentives: pride, envy, greed, lust.  
Here let us insist what we all intuitively feel, no matter what side we are on: that claims to high minded moral ideals in order to masque the agendas of the rich and powerful, to the detriment of the poor and the weak, debase all that is authentic and good in the world.

Here is some of what Moyers had turned up on the activities of this guy.

Ralph Reed: From Purgatory to Power
BILL MOYERS: Welcome. If you watched the Republican Convention in Tampa only on Primetime television you would have missed the story we're about to report. And it's the one that could make the biggest difference on Election Day in November. On the seventh day, we're told, God rested. But not Ralph Reed. There he was, the Sunday before the convention opened, speaking at a rally of his Faith and Freedom Coalition.
RALPH REED: We're here today not just to celebrate faith and freedom but to pray for its survival. And unlike the other side, we haven't gathered in this city this week to anoint a messiah, because you see we already have a messiah. And we're not looking for one here on earth.
BILL MOYERS: Reed's message was directed to conservative Christians Mitt Romney must convert to his cause if he's to be elected president. Romney is a Mormon, a faith many on the religious right consider a cult, even a heresy. There's no love for Romney among these people, but they are united in their loathing of Barack Obama. And that's where Ralph Reed comes in.
RALPH REED: Four years ago, we heard a lot of talk about hope and change. People were fainting at campaign rallies. There were Che Guevera posters hanging in dorm rooms. There was one candidate who stood in front of Greek columns and vowed to heal the planet and cause the oceans to recede. But you see our hope is in something this world doesn't fully understand. We hope for a kingdom yet to come. The hope of a new heaven and a new earth, in which dwelleth righteousness. A place where every tear will be wiped away. And every broken heart will be healed. And all the pain and brokenness and poverty and injustice of this world will be gone.
BILL MOYERS: But first there's the devil to chase.
NEWT GINGRICH: I believe that Barack Obama is a direct threat to the survival of the country I grew up in.
PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY: Dear friends, our religious liberty is at stake in this election, because Obama is at war with all religion in any public place, any public square, any public school.
TED CRUZ: For the first time in centuries the president of the United States has officially declared himself an enemy of traditional marriage between one man and one woman.
BILL MOYERS: You are witness to a modern tale of resurrection. A second-coming. The Bible speaks of Lazarus, raised by Jesus from the grave to walk again among the living. Ralph Reed, too, has been returned to life, political life. But he goes Lazarus one further. Lazarus was a poor man. Reed is rich, and he just keeps getting richer from mixing religion and politics. And that's a story you don't want to miss. ...

[For the rest click on the site above, or watch Bill Moyers and Company, PBS]

Treasonous conniving by Republican leaders?

I came upon an article about a Republican conspiracy to by all means -- whatever means -- to make sure Obama was not elected again.  John Reed asked the question whether the intent and actions of this group were treasonous.  He decides that it was probably legal but in its spirit it was quite beyond the pale:  treasonous.

We are learning more and more about how money is being deployed to win elections -- the few using their inflated wealth to persuade ordinary people to vote the way the wealthy figures want -- and for me it is terrifying.  

Here is what John Reed has to say about that early conspiratorial meeting to make sure Obama is a failure:

Republican Dance of Treason?  By John Reed

When America elected her first African American President in 2008, millions across the world wept over the promise made by his election about the possibility for individual achievement in a democratic republic founded upon the ideal that all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights.   America, that most backward and racial of nations, had just elected a black man as President of the United States. The preacher had finally lived up to the promise.
Despite the past misdeeds of our nation, deeds worthy of a pox upon our house, whether we consider our treatment of the Native American, the African American, or our more recent forays into empire building, the world looked with awe at the American character, built over two centuries of idealistic struggle within our unique form of government.   France, where racism toward African descendants is traditionally far less than in America, never elected an African French President, nor has England formed a government with an English African Prime Minister. No major industrial country had ever accomplished what the American people achieved in electing Barak Obama president.   Hope that a new age had dawned not only swept across America, but across the face of the earth, as if the planet momentarily stopped and took the time to smile.
We know now, though, that the very same day the world welcomed the new President into office, a small group of powerful men, bent on his destruction, secretly met to design a plan to create economic and political chaos in America for the coming four years, solely for the purpose of regaining the House of Representatives in 2010, and the Presidency in 2012. According to the Huffington Post, reviewing Robert Draper's book, Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside The House Of Representatives, this meeting at "The Caucus Room," an expensive, Washington watering hole, lasted four hours, and fourteen of the GOP's most important and cutthroat politicos attended.   The conspirators concluded not only would they attempt to win back power by any means necessary, but also they would oppose every policy initiative and every bill of any significance advanced by President Obama, and, by implication, whether the policy or bill forwarded the interests of the American public or not. As we now know, this plan included voting against legislation written and introduced by the Republicans themselves, or formerly supported by Republicans and opposed by the Democrats. As we know now, this agreement included refusing to raise the federal debt ceiling, or, in other words, refusing to authorize payment for expenses the very same Congress had previously voted to incur, which nearly led to a worldwide depression far worse than the "Great Depression" of the 1930's and caused the partial downgrade of America's triple "A" bond status.   This all occurred while troops were in the field and the Commander-In-Chief conducted two separate wars, and played a leading role in a third.    
Who were these miscreants that washed their hands in the blood of the American people?  ...  
[W]hen the clear purpose of the meeting is determined to be to act against the best interests of the American public in its entirety, no matter the merit of the bill or policy initiative, and to violate en masse their Oaths of Office, one must ask if the end result of such a meeting might be considered a conspiracy to commit treason, ...  [For more ... click on the link above.]

A Thugs-eye view of how it works (or used to work) in Egypt

We have heard of “thugs” that do things on behalf of dictators in various countries, but how often do we hear from who those people are or have been thugs, to know how they are recruited, or how they ensure that the dictator gets what he wants?  Sherif Tarek, in Ahram Online published an interview with someone who served the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt.  

In a way this “thug” reveals that what we supposed is true – that dictators, who seem universally to believe their citizens love them, use strong arm means to ensure that elections demonstrate it  – but for me it was interesting to put a face on the kind of individuals that make it happen, to hear how one of them justifies what he was doing.  

We don’t have to believe all he says about himself to think it is useful to bring his story into the light of day, exposing it to general scrutiny.   That the story can be told reveals how much has changed in Egypt in the last year and a half.

Propaganda wars versus truth in the public interest

In the Business section of the New York Times on August 28, 2012, EDUARDO PORTER opens an article, "Unleashing the Campaign Contributions of Corporations" with this statement:

Way back in February of this year, more than two-thirds of Californians believed raising more money from tobacco companies to finance cancer research was a good idea. That was before industry money kicked in.  In just over three months, opponents spent $41 million to defeat the initiative — a proposition to levy an extra $1 on the sale of a pack of cigarettes — five times what its supporters spent. On June 5, it was defeated by 50.2 percent to 49.8 percent.Similar forces in the next couple of months could shape the November elections. All the funds raised for the presidential and Congressional races so far pale in comparison to the money expected to rush in after the party conventions this week and next.

This is what we all fear:  that the few who have money will control the media and other outlets of public information so they can persuade the public to think about issues their way -- enabling them to benefit even if it is not in the public interest.  Some people in our society seem to have so much money they can spend profligately.

A genuine public discourse about vital issues doesn't exist in this society.  What does exist is propaganda -- lies and half-truths that are spouted by various groups and industries in their own interest.  Is a meaningful discussion about vital issues possible in this society?  I wonder.  So far, it isn't happening.  And as long as those who have the where-with-all to dominate the propaganda wars the public is likely to be led into commitments that are quite unreasonable, unrealistic.  Train wreck is inevitable. 

Has it always been this way -- that our societies are formed around fantasies invented by certain economic and political interest groups, with little relevance to the actual world they claim to deal with?   If so, take it as evidence that a kind God exists who for reasons unknown has favored this country, despite the follies of ignorant leaders.  

But if such ways of life continue, we are done for.  Already an abyss looms ahead, real and imminent.  

Muslim Clerics Seek to Protect Christian Girl Accused of Blasphemy

The news that Muslim clerics have stood up on behalf of a Christian girl is a major turn from previous practice.  We have seen so much bitterness and brutality in that part of the world.  Now we have voices rising among the Muslim leadership calling for a more civil way of relating to each other in Pakistan.  Great news.  This group of Islamic leaders should be congratulated for their willingness to stand up for a non-Muslim girl accused of blasphemy.  In fact the accusers included a Muslim cleric.

The article appears in the Guardian, by Saeed Shah appeared on 8-27-12.  Some statements in the article:

Islamic leaders in Pakistan on Monday came out in support of a Christian girl with learning difficulties who is being held in prison, in an unprecedented public denunciation of the blasphemy law by hard-line mullahs. 

The All Pakistan Ulema Council, an umbrella group of Muslim clerics and scholars, which includes representatives from fundamentalist groups, joined hands with the Pakistan Interfaith League, which includes Christians, Sikhs and other religions, to call for justice for the girl, Rimsha, who is accused of blasphemy. They also demanded that those making false allegations be punished. 

Tahir Ashrafi, the chairman of the council, warned that the "law of the jungle" was gripping Pakistan ... 

She is being held in a maximum security jail, where her lawyer says she is deeply traumatised and begging to be released. Her parents have also been taken into protective custody. "We see the Rimsha as a test case for Pakistan's Muslims, Pakistan's minorities and for the government," Ashrafi said. "We don't want to see injustice done with anyone. We will work to end this climate of fear." 

Ashrafi is also part of the leadership of the radical Defence of Pakistan Council, a coalition of Islamic organisations which includes some thinly disguised banned militant groups. The outfit campaigns against western influence and to stop Nato supplies passing through the country to Afghanistan.

A site showing the different positions of various political groups

For those of us who are put off by the tsunami of claims and attacks about the different sides in the national election it is hard just to feel sure we have a grip on the facts -- not the claims or the lies being circulated on the web or TV -- I found a site that is very helpful.  Check out the Bill Moyers and Company charts of various plans that have been proposed by different political organizations on topics of major concern:  jobs, healthcare, etc.  

Have a look.

A displaced, abused people, with nowhere to go

Tucked away in various corners of the world there are still peoples who are little recognized in the world, with scarcely a right to live anywhere.  Many of them are distrusted because they have to survive by working in the margins of society.  Often they are abused.  

AlJazeera [thank you AlJazeera!] has been running a series of articles about a group that few of us ever heard of, the Rohingya.  It seems that they are unwelcome everywhere.  And of course they have a history of conflict with various other peoples, so they are regarded as troublemakers and on such grounds are abused.     Subir Bhaumik, in his latest report calls them "the world's most forgotten people."   Here are some of the things he says about them.  

Bangladesh's Awami League-led coalition government wants to send back all the Rohingya refugees to Myanmar. "They are Myanmar citizens and we have sheltered them long enough. Now they must go back and settle down in Myanmar,"

The Awami League ... see the Rohingya as religious bigots who support their rivals in Bangladesh's Islamic party, the Jamait-e-Islami.  

Unwanted now in an over-populated Bangladesh, the Rohingya are also not wanted in their own country, Myanmar. Even President Thein Sein has said on record that the Rohingyas are migrants from the Chittagong region of neighbouring Bangladesh and not indigenous to Myanmar, so they should be taken away to some other place. 

The president is supported by many of his countrymen in his perceptions that the Rohingya are "dangerous trouble-makers" and "Islamic Jihadis". In late July, dozens of Burmese in Yangon chanted slogans in front of a UN office in Yangon: "Go back Rohingya, get out of Myanmar, we support our president". They blamed the Rohingya for the recent riots in  Rakhine (formerly Arakan) state, though UNHCR officials say the Rohingya have suffered much more than the native Rakhines.More than 60 of the nearly 80 killed in the riots in Rakhine state this summer are Rohingya. The riots started after Rohingya men were accused of raping a Rakhine woman, and spread when angry Rakhines went on a killing spree. 

And nearly 100,000 of them have been displaced from their homes and herded into makeshift camps. 

The Buddhist Rakhines and the Muslim Rohingya have a long tradition of intense hostility that goes back to the steady flow of Muslim immigrants from Bengal's Chittagong region into Arakan province, migration that was encouraged by the British. Thousands of Rakhines and Rohingya died in riots in Arakan in 1942 during the Second World War. The Japanese also massacred large number of Rohingya because they supported the British. 

... the Rakhines and the Burmese military junta ... unleashed "Operation King Dragon" in the Rohingya-dominated areas of Arakan in 1978. The mass torture and extra-judicial killings, gang rapes and demolition of mosques forced nearly one-third of the Rohingya population to flee to Bangladesh.  From there, many of them moved into India enroute to Pakistan and elsewhere in the Middle east. 

...thousands of them have been migrating to Pakistan through India from the refugee camps in Bangladesh. During the course of her research, she found a lot of Rohingya women in the red light districts of Karachi and many Rohingya men in the port city's thriving fishing industry. 

After the prospects of migrating to Pakistan and the Middle East began to dry up, Rohingya turned towards Malaysia, travelling there through Thailand.

A billion lost here, a billion lost there ... Can we trust the bankers?

When I read the recent notice that very likely no one will be prosecuted for losing a billion dollars at MF Global I began to wonder if we actually have a meaningful banking industry.  

The last I heard, the amount that J P Morgan has lost in trading has reached “at least $5.8 billion.”  

If no one can be made accountable for losses of a billion dollars in a bank what hope is there that we peons can count on our funds being there when we need them?

What kind of world economy do we actually have?  The one thing that seems obvious is that the bankers who manage to lose a mere billion here or there – a matter that Jamie Dimon of J P Morgan called a “ tempest in a teapot” – are not going to lose out.  It’s the rest of us that are likely to come up short.  

Dozens of Muslims died in the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11

We were at the World Trade Center memorial the other day.  Being there made me wonder how many Muslims were killed there on 9/11/01.  I found a number of probable Muslim names listed on the memorial to the twin towers.

There has been so much talk about the danger that Muslims constitute in our society -- Joe Walsh seems to think it will get him votes -- that I thought I would check on how many Muslims were killed on that fateful day when the Americans decided Muslims were dangerous.

What I found when I looked it up was an uncertain number (many people already know this because it has been out there for years).  At least 30 died and the website says it could have been as many of 70, not counting the 19 Al Qaeda members who commandeered the planes.  I would not be surprised if there were even more, because many internationals were working in those buildings at the time.

The number of Muslim dead on that day proves nothing, but it seems one way to remind ourselves that the anxiety about dangerous Muslims in this country is contrived for local and contemporary reasons:  There are some Americans foolish enough to believe that by inventing terror they can be elected to Congress.  I believe not.  Anyone so foolish should not be in Congress.

See:  http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Muslims_died_in_the_September_11th_attacks#ixzz23YcSI6bo

Joe Walsh's radical anti-Islamism in the name of "godliness"

Salon has a report by Eric Lutz on what US. Representative Joe Walsh said in a town meeting in Elk Grove Village, IL on Wednesday Aug 8, 2012.

THURSDAY, AUG 9, 2012 11:40 AM CDT
Walsh: Muslims “trying to kill Americans”:  Exclusive: U.S. Rep Joe Walsh tells a town hall meeting that radical Islam has infiltrated the Chicago suburbs BY ERIC LUTZ

“It’s a real threat,” Walsh said at a town hall meeting in Elk Grove Village, Ill.  “And it’s a threat that is much more at home now than it was right after 9/11.” 

“It’s here,” he continued, referring to “radical Islam” in the suburbs of Chicago. “It’s in Elk Grove, it’s in Addison, it’s in Elgin. It’s here.” 

...  “I’m looking for some godly men and women in the Senate, in the Congress, who will stand in the face of the danger of Islam in America without political correctness,” the man said. ...  

[R]adical Muslims are “trying to kill Americans every week,” ...

Radical Islam in the suburbs of Chicago:  And his evidence?
Godly men and women?  Stand in the face of the danger of Islam in America?  

What does this say about out country that a man like Walsh could be elected to our congress?  Is there no one in his neighborhood to suggest that this is nonsense?