It might be a lack of self-awareness, or confidence that no one would notice. The Washington Post reports
President Obama paid homage Tuesday to those who had fought for women's equality, designating a historic house on Capitol Hill a national monument, and hinting that his successor could represent yet another victory for women's rights. Speaking at the Sewall-Belmont House and Museum, which has housed the National Woman's Party since 1929 and will now be called the Belmont-Paul Women's Equality National Monument, the president called the site "a hotbed of activism, a centerpiece for the struggle for equality, a monument to a fight not just for women's equality but, ultimately, for equality for everybody." "I have faith because what this house shows us is that the story of America is a story of progress," Obama said before a crowd of women's activists that included tennis legend Billie Jean King and Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.). "I want young girls and boys to come here, 10, 20, 100 years from now, to know that women fought for equality, it was not just given to them," he said. "I want them to be astonished that there was ever a time when women earned less than men for doing the same work. I want them to be astonished that there was ever a time when women were vastly outnumbered in the boardroom or in Congress, that there was ever a time when a woman had never sat in the Oval Office."
He wants them to be "astonished" there was "ever a time when a woman had never sat in the Oval Office." In fairness, it was a long time before there was even a serious bid for the White House by a woman (Carly Fiorina, Hillary Clinton) in either major political party. It was not until this year that a woman had a legitimate shot at either the Democratic or the Republican nomination. Oh, wait- there was that moment in 2008 when Hillary Clinton ran against.... Barack Obama!
At the Apollo Theatre in New York, NY Saturday night, Bernie Sanders was confronted at the close of the event by an obvious anti-Semite, and he started off exactly right. Slate's Daniel Politi notes
“As you know, the Zionist Jews—and I don’t mean to offend anybody—they run the Federal Reserve, they run Wall Street, they run every campaign,” John Prince, 32, shouted. Sanders starts to frown, shakes his hand and holds up his hand: “Brother, brother, brother.” Prince continued: “What is your affiliation to your Jewish community? That’s all I’m asking.”
When someone starts by claiming "I don't mean to offend anybody," it's a sure bet he knows that he is offending someone, usually many people. Sanders recognized "That's not what you're asking."
Sanders apparently knows an anti-Semitic question when he sees one and quickly fired back: “That’s not what you’re asking" and, after the crowd settled down, "I am proud to be Jewish." Yair Rosenberg of Tablet Magazine (which evidently markets to American Jews) explains
But then Sanders did something odd. Rather than using the question as a teaching moment to address and rebuke its anti-Semitic underpinnings, Sanders instead immediately pivoted to his stump speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “Talking about Zionism and Israel,” he said, “I am a strong defender of Israel, but I also believe that we have got to pay attention to the needs of the Palestinian people.” He never challenged the actual contents of the question, let alone labeled it anti-Semitic.
Do pay attention to the Palestinian people, Senator, but not in response to someone obviously anti-Semitic. "The Jews run" everything is a hackneyes stereotype, as old as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and it's a wonder Prince didn't add a reference to Jews controlling the world economy. Sanders understood- notice him wagging his finger- but transitioning into a reflection on the problems of the Middle East avoids the thrust of the question and even conveys a small measure of legitimacy on the character who asked it. Rosenberg, who clearly should be hired as a candidate's speechwriter, realizes Sanders should have responded
What you just heard was outlandish and unacceptable, but I am glad that you did, because it gives me an opportunity to utterly repudiate it. The lie that a secret Jewish conspiracy controls this country or others has been used to justify the persecution and murder of Jewish people for centuries, including my own family in the Holocaust. It is an ancient anti-Semitic canard whose bigotry is not lessened by prefacing it with the word “Zionist.” I completely reject that question and the prejudice behind it, just as I have stood on stages like this one and rejected the systemic racism in our society and the rising tide of Islamophobia in this election. There are those who traffic in hateful stereotypes and seek to pit us against each other–black and white, gay and straight, Jew and non-Jew–and I will always stand against them, and for all of us.
If Sanders isn't very quick on his feet (and evidently he's not), he might instead have noted that most prominent Jews are secular and do not control anything on the behalf of Jews or Judaism. Were that a little wonky, he could have emphasized the historical alliance of Jews and blacks and its continuing need as part of the base of the Democratic Party to advocate policies of equality for blacks, women, gay people, and everyone still denied full rights as American citizens.
At worst, he should have lapsed into his familiar argument against Wall Stret, dedicated to accumulating as much as it can and largely oblivious to whether its victims are Jewish or Christian, male or female, white or black. But Israel?
The primary in Michigan is over. Dearborn and Hamtramck are in the rear-view window. It's New York city and New York state now, and any mention of the beloved Palestinians without a mention of the hated Hamas is to be avoided, especially when one is offered a free shot at anti-Semitism. When you get a hanging curve over the heart of the plate, take a whack at it. You don't know when you'll see it again.
Former President Bill Clinton said Friday that he regretted drowning out the chants of black protesters at a rally in Philadelphia the day before, when he issued an aggressive defense of his administration’s impact on black families. His reaction thrust a debate about the 1990s into the center of his wife’s presidential campaign, one that has focused heavily on issues of race and criminal justice. “I know those young people yesterday were just trying to get good television,” Mr. Clinton said Friday of the Black Lives Matter protesters who had accused him and Hillary Clinton of supporting policies that devastated black communities. “But that doesn’t mean that I was most effective in answering it.”
"It was a remarkable reversal for Mr. Clinton," wrote Ms. Chozick, who evidently believes "I know those young people yesterday were just trying to get good television" is a sentence of endearment. Still, while Bill Clinton's reference to "hopped on crack" are roughly as contemporary as "feeling groovy" (and even in the early 90's were intended to instill panic), he might hold off on apologizing for the sentiment.
Although the 1994 crime act had little to do directly with mandatory minimums, it helped inspire enactment of state laws mandating a minimum period of incarceration for specific crimes or under specific circumstances. Unsurprisingly, it is one of the targets of reform advocates, who decry the "mass incarceration" which followed the crime epidemic of the 80's-90's.
Though at one time overemphasized, mandatory minimums can play an effective role in deterring crime. Presumably, there are at least three children in New Orleans who would agree now that
Will Smith, a former defensive end for the New Orleans Saints, was shot and killed late Saturday night in that city, after his car was rear-ended. Police are calling the shooting a road-rage incident.... New Orleans Police Superintendent Michael Harrison told NPR last year that his city’s murders are not due to gangs, but rather “domestic violence related homicides, arguments that have turned fatal, and robberies that have turned fatal.” Indeed, that’s what appears to have happened Saturday night. According to a police statement, Smith’s Mercedes was hit from behind by a Hummer, causing him to crash into the car ahead of him, which was being driven by a friend. “At some point, the 30-year-old male driver of the Hummer and Smith exchanged words. The 30-year-old male driver produced a handgun and shot Smith multiple times, the female victim was also shot to the leg,” police said. The female victim was Smith’s wife. She was taken to a local hospital and is reportedly in stable condition. The pair have three children.
Mass incarceration sounds horrid. However
On Sunday, police announced they have booked 28-year-old New Orleans resident Cardell Hayes on second-degree murder. In 2014, Hayes pleaded to illegally carrying a weapon and possession of drug paraphernalia and was sentenced to six months probation, The Advocate reported.
God, it is said, is in the details. The devil, it is also said, is in the details, and we don't know the facts about the circumstances pertaining to Hayes' arrest in 2014 on weapons and drug charges. But a sane and responsible society would incarcerate an individual found guilty of simultaneously possessing a weapon and drug paraphernalia, and do it each and every time.
It should not be optional, not should it matter if it contributes to "mass incarceration."
Bruce Springsteen has canceled his show scheduled for April 10 in Greensboro, North Carolina. In a statement released Friday, the performer cited the recently-passed HB2, the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act, which "dictates which bathrooms transgender people are permitted to use." Additionally, the legislation
also attacks the rights of LGBT citizens to sue when their human rights are violated in the workplace. No other group of North Carolinians faces such a burden. To my mind, it’s an attempt by people who cannot stand the progress our country has made in recognizing the human rights of all of our citizens to overturn that progress.
Springsteen and his band want "to show solidarity for those freedom fighters," the "groups, businesses, and individuals in North Carolina working to oppose and overcome these negative developments." The band recognizes "some things are more important than a rock show and this fight against prejudice and bigotry — which is happening as I write — is one of them."
The performer is convinced "it is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards."
In a stroke of good luck, Springsteen is scheduled to perform only two days later, on April 12, in another state determined to push the nation backward. In another stroke of luck, the concert is due to take place in the capital of that state. And in a third piece of good luck, all of them together comprising a trifecta, the governor of that state is a presidential candidate. On February 21, the Huffington Post reported
Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) on Sunday signed a bill that effectively defunds Planned Parenthood in his state. The bill strips state and some federal funding from health clinics that perform and promote “nontherapeutic abortions,” including Planned Parenthood facilities.
You recognize the GOP line. Nonetheless, Staff Editor Marina Fang adds
While the bill grants an exemption to abortions performed in cases of rape, incest and preserving the life of the mother, it jeopardizes the fate of other vital women’s health programs. For example, the $1.3 million in state grants that Planned Parenthood is slated to lose was allocated toward HIV testing, cancer screenings and programs that help prevent domestic violence and infant mortality.
There will be a steep price to pay for a lot of people in the seventh largest state in the country. Consequently
In a statement, the organization’s president, Cecile Richards, denounced the bill, arguing that it would have “devastating consequences for women across Ohio.” “John Kasich is proudly eliminating care for expectant mothers and newborns; he is leaving thousands without vital STD and HIV testing, slashing a program to fight domestic violence, and cutting access to essential, basic health care,” she said. “It’s clear Kasich has no regard for women’s health or lives, and will stop at nothing to block health care for the tens of thousands of Ohioans who rely on Planned Parenthood,” Richards added.
The man falsely labeled "The Boss" will not play North Carolina, safely joining the multitude of actors, businesses, and governments ensuring that the state will pay a considerable penalty for a bad bill. However, it's a safe bet he won't be issuing a satement about how women of modest means in Ohio will be deprived of health care because of the state's legislature and governor. He won't be talking about how poor women are especially vulnerable to sexually transmitted diseases, as well as about the impact of breast cancer on women. Nor will he equate the struggle to end domestic violence with the fight against prejudice and bigotry. Evidently, some things are not more important than a rock show.
None of the above makes Bruce Springsteen a hypocrite. We all have our causes and priorities. Selective outrage is not a crime, nor should it be, though in this case no sacrifice is made because Springsteen is not alone in his criticism, some of which should be employed in confronting the popular rationale of "religious freedom" behind the attack on Planned Parenthood in Ohio and elsewhere. That, along with a declaration of support for women in Ohio, would be a greater act of courage from a guy who is likely to keep his date in Columbus on April 12, 2016, and keep his mouth shut.
Bernie Sanders has now acknowledged that Hillary Clinton is qualified to be President, and good for him.
If nothing else, however, Sanders' claim Wednesday that his opponent is not qualified should draw our attention to the specifics of the statement
I don’t believe that she is qualified if she is through her super PAC taking tens of millions of dollars in special-interest funds. I don’t think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC. I don’t think you are qualified if you voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don’t think you’re qualified if you supported almost every disastrous trade agreement. I don’t think you are qualified if you supported the Panama free trade agreement, something I very strongly opposed, which has gave the green light to wealthy people and corporations all over the world to avoid paying taxes owed to their countries.
At a campaign event on January 7, 2008 on behalf of his wife, Bill Clinton stated in part
Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years and never got asked one time, not once, "Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since." Give me a break.
After applause, he continued
This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen. So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing, calling Hillary the "Senator from Punjab?" Did you like that? Or what about the Obama handout that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook, scouring me, scathing criticism over my financial reports. The whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've seen. On one level, the former President's allegation was unfair. On October 22, 2008 Illinois state senator Barack H. Obama gave a stirring, eloquent speech challenging President Bush:
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaida, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the U.N. inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?
Then Obama almost made the point which in retrospect most needed to be made, arguing
Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight.
"Let's fight to make sure," Obama maintained, so "our so-called allies in the Middle East" don't encourage their youth to become "the ready recruits of terrorist cells."
Call it nitpicking, if you will, but it's not. State Senator Obama foresaw the likelihood that increased terrorism would become the product of repressive, pro-Western, Arab states.
Recognition in 2002 of the importance of terrorism as a greater threat than the Iraqi regime is impressive. However, relatively few Islamic terrorists were created by the regime in Cairo, one Obama understandably failed to recognize would better serve the interests of the West than the two which have succeeded it. And the 9/11/01 terrorists, most of them Saudi nationals, were not individuals rebelling from the oppression and corruption from Riyadh but led by Wahhabist bin Laden. Moreover, President Obama seems to have become quite cozy with that "so-called ally," run by the fundamentalist, Wahhabist sect.
There are, further, indications that Obama's opposition to the war was, largely, "fairy tale." However, there is an aspect which more directly links his 2002 speech to Senator Sanders' criticism of Hillary Clinton for voting in favor of authorizing military action against Baghdad.
Very few people foresaw that the primary result of the USA invasion of Iraq, as well as the major reason it has become a disaster, is the profound impact it has had on the growth of Islamic terrorism. This goes well beyond the President's current, steadfast refusal to acknowledge that the global terrorist threat is primarily of an Islamic nature. Obama in 2002 railed againt the coming "dumb war," also a "rash war," and advocated "battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."
That is wonderful. However, he did not foresee what was to become of Iraq, and of the region. Neither did Hillary Clinton- and several other Democratic and many more Republican Senators. Yet, Senator Sanders cited her vote as part of the reason she is unqualified to be President and, though he now has conceded that she is qualified, likely will continue battering Mrs. Clinton's foreign policy in large measure on the basis of that vote.
Clinton has publicly expressed regret for that vote. Sanders, to his credit, voted against the resolution, very likely out of the conviction so many others lacked. One of those, it now seems, was Barack Obama who, like most of the other opponents, had little or no clue what would become of the region, the tinderbox it would become, and the threat to Europe, the USA, and elsewhere that it would ignite.
Hillary Clinton is the very essence of a neo-conservative, representing a foreign policy perspective clearly inadequate to respond to international affairs at this time. (The somewhat paleo-conservative approach of Cruz and thoroughly paleo-conservative approach of Trump probably are even worse.) However, criticism of her Iraq vote of 2002 should be tempered by the realization that very few individuals, including Obama and probably Sanders, understood what was coming.
Let us not be distracted by ex-Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter, who is not a nine-year-old, but plays one on Twitter. He tweeted "tonight@Bernie Sanders said @Hillary Clinton wasn't qualified to be President. THIS is LOW and crosses the line. Take it back, Senator."
"Take it back, Senator," said the juvenile, forgetting to add "or else I'll stomp my FEET and CRY." At about the same time, Clinton spokesperson Brian Fallon tweeted "Bernie Sanders, take back your words about Hillary Clinton." A coincidence of wording, no doubt.
"I think that the Sanders campaign needs to take a timeout," Fallon whimpered on Thursday morning, demonstrating he could be as immature when speaking as on Twitter.
Notwithstanding some of her immature supporters, Mrs. Clinton has herself taken the high road since the Senator Wednesday night argued Well let me, let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton: I don't believe that she is qualified if she is, if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don't think you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC. I don't think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don't think you are qualified if you've supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement, which has cost us millions of decent paying jobs. I don't think you are qualified if you supported the Panama free trade agreement, something I very strongly opposed and which, as all of you know, has allowed corporations and wealthy people all over the world to avoid paying their taxes to their countries.
The argument over qualifications began Wednesday morning when the former Senator and Secretary of State three times denied the 20-year veteran of the Senate (or less biblically, implied he is not qualified). Both candidates wish to succeed Barack Obama, who had been a state senator, then a U.S. Senator since last Tuesday. Neither now would question his qualifications, not Sanders and not the candidate running on the slogan "Thou must not question Saint Obama."
The dispute is ironic given the obvious qualifications of Clinton and that, as Branko Marcetic wrote in In These Times early this year, unlike Obama in 2008 "Sanders actually has an impressive record of accomplishments in Congress and is well-versed in the kind of grimy, incremental work involved in passing legislation." It's also destructive because, as Charlie Peters recognizes
Neither one seems to grasp the appetite of the elite political media for a Democratic hooley to correspond to the ongoing one in the Republican Party, because that will allow for the Both Sides In Turmoil narrative that will allow the elite political media to ignore the fact that the top two contenders for the Republican nomination are an ego-driven vulgar talking yam, and an extremist theocrat who believes himself to be blessed by the Almighty to redeem this sinful land.
President Obama is still disregarding the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, and 9/11 widow and activist Kristen Breitweiser is not amused. She writes in the Huffington Post
Recently, it has become increasingly clear to me why my government has fought against such transparency, accountability, and revelation of the truth regarding the 9/11 attacks.
There are 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry of Congress (an investigation into the U.S. government intelligence failures prior to 9/11) that have remained classified and hidden away from the American public by both the Bush and Obama Administrations. These 28 pages allegedly prove that the Saudis had a controlling hand in funding the 9/11 attacks that killed 3,000 innocent people.... Unfortunately, the 28 pages aren’t the only example of the U.S. government protecting the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to the detriment of the 9/11 families. For the past 15 years, the 9/11 families have also tried to hold the KSA accountable in a court of law. Most recently, the KSA was dismissed from the 9/11 case on grounds of foreign sovereign immunities protection under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The FSIA was clearly not created with the intent that nations that sponsor mass terrorism should get away with it scot-free. Nevertheless, the U.S. government has wholeheartedly supported this perverted and warped use of the FSIA by the Saudis. In short, it seems that as long as you are an ally of the U.S. and not a named state-sponsor of terrorism, apparently you can underwrite all the mass murder you want and get away with it. Obviously, the 9/11 families have fought very hard against the Saudis misuse of the FSIA and their dismissal from our case. In fact, several times we have petitioned for a writ of certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of our case. Each time, the U.S. Department of Justice (at the direction of President Obama) has written “Letters of Interest” recommending that the Supreme Court deny hearing our case thereby allowing the Saudis to remain excused from our case via their FSIA shield... Finding ourselves blocked by the president with regard to the release of the 28 pages, and with regard to the Supreme Court reviewing the dismissal of the KSA as a key defendant in our case, we turned to the U.S. Congress for help. And Congress answered our call with a vital piece of anti-terror legislation called JASTA(Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act). JASTA ensures that no nation (including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) that funds terrorism will be able to use the FSIA as a shield to their culpability. JASTA is the legislative response to the Saudi’s misuse of the FSIA in our 9/11 court case. JASTA removes FSIA protections from the KSA and, as a result, the 9/11 families will finally be able to have our day in court against the Saudis.... Unsurprisingly, as soon as JASTA was set to pass with Senate approval, the shadowy Saudi-protectionist hand of the U.S. government, once again, reached out to block our progress. A whisper campaign with no fingerprints was dispensed to kill JASTA. And, those whispers sounded something like this: if JASTA passes, the Saudis will bankrupt our economy by withdrawing $800 billion worth of T-bonds, and even worse, if JASTA passes, the Saudis will stop protecting and sharing intelligence information with the U.S. and leave us vulnerable to an ISIS attack. So, it would seem that the same group of people who fought against the release of the 28 pages, and our case being heard by the Supreme Court, are at it once again, this time opposing JASTA and labeling it a diplomatic disaster.
Breitweiser's group is lauded by the "information & activism hub" 9/11.org, which is especially energized by the need to force release of the 28 page part 4, titled "Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters." Therefore, with an interest in both earned benefits and the federal government's apathy toward families directly affected by the 9/11/01 attacks, yesterday I attended a "town hall" meeting featuring my U.S. representative in an age-restricted development in Southampton Township, NJ.
Later, I sent to his office an e-mail explaining that at the close of the meeting, I spoke very briefly to the congressman, who was unaware of the "28 pages" and pointing out that
After he read the 28 pages, Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) in July of 2014 stated that until the American people have the "full picture of what actually happened, the intelligence picture, "it will be difficult to "prevent another 9/11 from happening." He went on to say "I want to challenge all the Congressmen who have not read the 28 pages and have the ability to read these 28 pages to do it for your constituents.... every Congressman needs to see these 28 pages."
Noting that Representative MacArthur, a Republican, has "introduced legislation to protect and preserve the National September 11 Memorial in NYC," I urged him to obtain permission to read the 28-page section. However, as Breitwer detailed, there are several (insufficient) reasons that the Obama Administration, now complicit in the cover-up begun by President Bush, won't do the honorable thing.
Breitweiser charges President Obama, who has claimed "the most transparent Administration in history," believes "it is more important to support and protect the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia rather than Americans who were victims of a terrorist attack." If that is true- as it appears to be- the 9/11/ widows, Representative Massie and the others dedicated to transparency have a Cavanal-caliber hill to climb.
