RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
The Real State of the Union Print
Wednesday, 13 January 2016 09:40

Swanson writes: "The President claimed that U.S.-created Middle Eastern disasters he helped to exacerbate are 'conflicts that date back millennia.' He also proposed - no joke - 'winning' in 'destroying' ISIS this year. Hmm. About closing that prison in Guantanamo and ending those wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ... ?"

President Obama's final State of the Union address. (photo: Stephen Crowley/NYT)
President Obama's final State of the Union address. (photo: Stephen Crowley/NYT)


The Real State of the Union

By David Swanson, teleSUR

13 January 16

 

Obama said the U.S. is number one in the fight against climate change, when in reality the United States is by far the worst offender.

resident Barack Obama used his final State of the Union speech to claim that, "America is leading the fight against climate change," while in reality the United States is far and away the worst offender, per capita, in the ongoing mad race to render the earth's climate uninhabitable. We "cut our imports of foreign oil," Obama brags, as if earth cares what flag its pollution belches into the air under. "Gas under two bucks a gallon ain't bad," said the President, wildly missing the mark. Yes, it is bad, if you're trying to preserve a livable planet, not just win cheap applause.

"I'm going to push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources," said the president. He made no mention of changing the way the U.S. government hands out subsidies to those industries.

The state of U.S. militarism also took a leap into an alternate reality. The President openly (if understatedly) bragged: "We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined." He was open about the global chessboard he's playing on: "Russia is pouring resources to prop up Ukraine and Syria?—?states they see slipping away from their orbit." And, somehow, "surveys show our standing around the world is higher than when I was elected to this office, and when it comes to every important international issue, people of the world do not look to Beijing or Moscow to lead?—?they call us." They do? All people of the world? It's just two years since a Gallup poll found the United States widely viewed around the world as the greatest threat to peace. When Russia and China vetoed war on Syria, much of the world wondered why they couldn't have tried to save Libya.

The President claimed that U.S.-created Middle Eastern disasters he helped to exacerbate are "conflicts that date back millennia." He also proposed -- no joke -- "winning" in "destroying" ISIS this year. Hmm. About closing that prison in Guantanamo and ending those wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ... ? After years of taking credit for "ending" the war on Afghanistan, Obama has switched to not mentioning it.

Also gone missing: the U.S. Constitution. "With or without Congressional action, ISIL will learn the same lessons," said this former "Constitutional law professor," promising presidential war regardless of Congressional action. On Syria, Obama euphemized, "we’re partnering with local forces." Is that what you call them now? He also opposed "calls to carpet bomb civilians" after he led the dropping of over 20,000 bombs on mostly Muslim countries just in the past year.

The supreme value in this speech, as in the presidential debates it mocked, was revenge: "When you come after Americans, we go after you. ... [W]e have long memories, and our reach has no limit."

Remember Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Four Freedoms? Speech, worship, want, and fear? Obama has now proposed Four Questions. I'm paraphrasing:

  1. How do you make a fair economy? (well not by bailing out the bankers and then coming out against them in a speech 7 years too late).

  2. How do you make technology work, including on climate change? (what if the solution to climate change involves less technology? what if blaming technology and globalism for a bad economy overlooks the long-forgotten promises of the Employee Free Choice Act and the prize-winning marketing campaign of Obama 2008?)

  3. How do you keep America safe and lead the world but not be the world's policeman? (Has the world asked for a leader? Why isn't cooperation an option?)

  4. Can our politics reflect what's best in us? (Whatever.)

After seven years of worsening climate, ocean, plutocracy, wars, blowback, surveillance, retribution for whistleblowers, secrecy, presidential power abuses, and drone murders, this is what you've got for us, Mr. President?

The lesson I take away is this: Pay little attention to 2016 campaign promises. Pay great attention to mobilizing the public pressure that has been missing for seven years.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Welcome to Israel's Version of Apartheid Print
Wednesday, 13 January 2016 09:35

Cook writes: "The truth is that most Israelis have long supported two Israels: one for them and another for the Palestinian minority, with further, even more deprived ghettos for Palestinians under occupation."

Man waving an Israeli flag. (photo: Shutterstock)
Man waving an Israeli flag. (photo: Shutterstock)


ALSO SEE: Israel Strikes Gaza, Killing 1 Palestinian


Welcome to Israel's Version of Apartheid

By Jonathan Cook, CounterPunch

13 January 16

 

small scene from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict unfolded last week on a Greek airport runway.

Moments before an Aegean Airlines flight was due to take off, three Israeli passengers took security into their own hands and demanded that two fellow passengers, from Israel’s Palestinian minority, be removed from the plane. By the end of a 90-minute stand-off, dozens more Israeli Jews had joined the protest, refusing to take their seats.

Like a parable illustrating Europe’s bottomless indulgence of Israel, Aegean staff caved in to the pressure and persuaded the two Palestinian men to disembark.

The lack of outcry from Israeli officials should be no surprise. Shortly before the Athens incident, Israel banned a Hebrew novel, Borderlife, from the schools curriculum because it features a romance between an Israeli Jew and a Palestinian.

The education ministry said it feared the book would undermine Jewish pupils’ “national-ethnic identity” and encourage “miscegenation”.

As an Israeli columnist observed: “Discouraging ‘assimilation’ is an inseparable part of the Jewish state”. Strict separation operates in the key areas of life, from residence to schooling. As a result, marriages between Israeli Jews and Palestinian citizens, a fifth of the population, are rare indeed.

It was therefore difficult not to see the paradox in Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s comments following a shooting by Nashat Melhem that killed three Israelis in Tel Aviv on New Year’s Day.

Attacks of this kind by a Palestinian citizen on Israeli Jews are uncommon and it elicited instant condemnation from the Palestinian leadership. Nonetheless, Netanyahu seized the chance to label as “criminals” the country’s 1.6 million Palestinians.

In a sequel to his notorious election eve statement last year, when he warned that Palestinian voters threatened the result by “coming to the polls in droves”, Netanyahu pledged extra police funds to crack down on the “lawless” minority.

“I will not accept two states within Israel. Whoever wants to be Israeli must be Israeli all the way,” he said.

But in reality there have always been two classes of Israeli, by design.

The search for Melhem ended on Friday with police shooting him dead. In the meantime, his immediate family had been either arrested as accomplices or interrogated at length.

Presumably in an effort to pressure Melhem, the police told his mother they would demolish the family home unless he turned himself in – only Palestinians, not Jews, face house demolitions.

Earlier, when police suspected Melhem was hiding in Tel Aviv, the lodgings of dozens of Palestinian students were raided by officers with weapons drawn, though no search warrants.

At the weekend, Netanyahu conditioned a promised rise in the paltry budgets received by the Palestinian minority on an end to the “lawlessness” in their communities, as though the lack of effective policing of those communities was the responsibility of Palestinian citizens, not the government.

The week-long hysteria contrasted with the handling of another terrible crime, this one committed by Israeli Jews.

In late July, a gang of extremist settlers torched a Palestinian home in the West Bank village of Duma. Three members of the Dawabsheh family, including an 18-month-old baby, burnt to death.

For weeks, in a familiar pattern following settler violence, the investigation made no progress. Then in September, defence minister Moshe Yaalon conceded that the culprits had been identified but the police would make no arrests to avoid exposing their informers.

Only after an international outcry, and Arab legislators threatened to petition the supreme court, did the wheels of law enforcement start to grind.

The attorney general approved the first-ever use of torture – a staple interrogation technique for Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories – on the Jewish suspects.

Prominent Israeli commentators and government ministers have agonised ever since about the abuses faced by these Jewish detainees.

Bezalel Smotrich, an MP, publicly rejected treating the Dawabshehs’ killers as terrorists. Asked in parliament to repudiate Smotrich’s remarks, Netanyahu stepped down from the podium in silence.

No one, of course, has suggested arresting the Jewish suspects’ parents – in one case a settlement rabbi – or demolishing their homes. Settlement seminaries have not been raided, or their students questioned at gun point.

Budgets for the settlements have been rising, with settlers receiving far more government money than Israelis inside Israel’s recognised borders. Their long record of violence and “lawlessness” has made no difference to their funding.

Legal experts now warn that the courts will likely free the main suspects in the Duma killings because their confessions were forced.

Meanwhile, the settler communities from which the men came are unrepentant. A recent wedding video showed guests celebrating the Dawabshehs’ deaths, including a reveller who repeatedly stabbed a photo of the toddler.

Although both settlers and Palestinian citizens face inadequate policing, they do so for very different reasons.

Depriving Palestinian citizens of law enforcement – except when repressing dissent – has left their communities weak and oppressed by crime and guns. For years Netanyahu has ignored pleas from Palestinian leaders for increased gun control – until now, when one of those weapons targeted Jews.

Settlers have also been policed lightly, so long as their violence was directed at Palestinians, whether in the occupied territories or Israel. More than a decade of settler violence – labelled “price-tag” attacks – has gone largely uninvestigated.

The truth is that most Israeli Jews have long supported two Israels: one for them and another for the Palestinian minority, with further, even more deprived ghettos for Palestinians under occupation.

The inhabitants of one Israel remain hostile towards, and abusive of, those in the other, who refuse to accept Jewish privilege as the natural order – just like the mob that insisted that their fellow citizens had no right to share a plane.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Iowans' Passion for Sanders Worries Clinton Print
Tuesday, 12 January 2016 14:41

Excerpt: "Iowa Democrats are displaying far less passion for Hillary Clinton than for Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont three weeks before the presidential caucuses, creating anxiety inside the Clinton campaign as she scrambles to energize supporters and to court wavering voters."

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont greeting supporters at an event in Ankeny, Iowa, on Sunday. (photo: Max Whittaker/NYT)
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont greeting supporters at an event in Ankeny, Iowa, on Sunday. (photo: Max Whittaker/NYT)


ALSO SEE: Poll: Sanders Leads Clinton by 14 in New Hampshire

Iowans' Passion for Sanders Worries Clinton

By Patrick Healy and Yamiche Alcindor, The New York Times

12 January 16

 

owa Democrats are displaying far less passion for Hillary Clinton than for Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont three weeks before the presidential caucuses, creating anxiety inside the Clinton campaign as she scrambles to energize supporters and to court wavering voters.

The enthusiasm gap spilled abundantly into view in recent days, from the cheering crowds and emotional outpourings that greeted Mr. Sanders, and in interviews with more than 50 Iowans at campaign stops for both candidates.

Voters have mobbed Mr. Sanders at events since Friday, some jumping over chairs to shake his hand, snap a selfie or thank him for speaking about the middle class. “Did you get to touch him?” asked one woman who could not get close enough after an event here on Saturday.

READ MORE


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Powerball's $1.3 Billion Swindle of Americans Print
Tuesday, 12 January 2016 14:36

Excerpt: "If you want to go to the corner store this week to pick up a gallon of milk, be prepared to wait. America has been gripped by lottery fever and lines are snaking out the doors of convenience stores across the county."

Powerball ticket. (photo: Alan Diaz/AP)
Powerball ticket. (photo: Alan Diaz/AP)


ALSO SEE: Powerball Ticket Sales Good for Schools?
Lotteries’ Impact on Education Varies by State

Powerball's $1.3 Billion Swindle of Americans

By Judd Legum and Bryce Covert, ThinkProgress

12 January 16

 

f you want to go to the corner store this week to pick up a gallon of milk, be prepared to wait. America has been gripped by lottery fever and lines are snaking out the doors of convenience stores across the county.

The next Powerball drawing, scheduled for Wednesday, will be worth about $1.3 billion to the winner. This is projected to be the biggest lottery payout in the history of the world.

Why are Powerball jackpots getting so huge? It’s not an accident.

Prize Pools Are Going Up Because Powerball Just Became Much Harder To Win

In October, the consortium of states that runs Powerball approved a series of rule changed that made it much harder to win the jackpot. Under the new rules you select five of 69 numbers, up from five out of 59 numbers. The choices for the Powerball was actually reduced from 35 to 26. Still, this decreased the odds of winning the jackpot from 1 in 175 million to 1 in 292 million.

The purpose of this change was to increase the chances that there would be no grand prize winner for any given drawing. When this happens, the prize pool rolls over creating giant jackpots. At the time the rule changes were first floated in July, FiveThirtyEight estimated that the chances of a $1 billion prize pool increased from 8.5% to 63.4% over a given five year period.

At the same time, the decreased number of choices for the individual Powerball made winning small $4 prizes more likely. “The rules change is intended to increase the odds of winning any prize, while making it more difficult to win the jackpot prize,” the New York State Gaming Commission wrote in a memo supporting the change.

The purpose of creating massive jackpots is because they induce more people to play. The prospect of big payouts spark a flood of free media attention, encouraging people to speculate on how a windfall would impact their life.

Last year, when there was no huge jackpot, Powerball sales declined by 19%.

Americans Already Spend An Obscene Amount On Lottery Tickets

The “slump” in lottery ticket sales, of course, is relative. In 2014, Americans spent $70.15 billion on lottery tickets. That’s about $630 for every household in the United States.

Spending on lottery tickets exceeds the amount of money spent on sports tickets, books, video games, movies and music, combined.

The Lottery Is A Regressive Tax On The Poor

For all the money Americans spend, they get very little in return — particularly the poorest.

The odds of winning any lotto jackpot are extremely low. And that means people spend a lot of money without getting much, if anything, back. Players lose an average of 47 cents on the dollar each time they buy a ticket.

And it’s those who can least afford to lose any money who are most likely to be buying tickets. Low-income people account for the majority of lottery sales, while sales are highest in the poorest areas. One study found that the poorest third of households buy more than half of the tickets sold in any given week.

Profit from those ticket sales go to government coffers. The share of lottery profits that is paid out to players varies greatly by state, from just 15 percent in West Virginia to 76 percent in Massachusetts. But even that smaller share in the latter state is an important source of revenue. In 2009, lotteries in 11 states brought in more revenue than the corporate income tax. And thus the lottery acts like an implicit 38 percent tax on mainly the poorest people.

The Myth Of Lottery-Fueled Education Funding

The promise of many lotteries is that this extra government revenue will go to important things like education funding, so people can rest easier about throwing their money at tickets. But even that promise is often hollow. In New Mexico and Georgia, two states that promised to create scholarship programs with lottery revenue, demand outstripped the money so quickly that both rescinded the promises.

This is pretty typical of what usually happens. States increase per capita spending on education right after they enact a lottery, but they end up decreasing overall spending later on. On the other hand, the six states left without lotteries end up spending 10 percent more of their budgets over time, on average, on education compared to lottery states. Part of the problem is that lottery revenue tends to be unstable and hard to predict over the long term, while it can only rise so much given that residents can only buy so many tickets. It’s also easy for lawmakers to move the money away from priorities like education to anything else, like plugging budget holes.

Lotteries promise the low-income people who make up the biggest portion of ticket buyers that they’ll win either through a payout or increased services. But most of the time, neither is true. As one study put it, “lotteries set off a vicious cycle that not only exploits low-income individuals’ desires to escape poverty but also directly prevents them from improving upon their financial situations.”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Why Hillary Clinton's Call-Out of the Hyde Amendment Is So Important Print
Tuesday, 12 January 2016 14:33

Cauterucci writes: "As she accepted Planned Parenthood's first-ever presidential primary endorsement at a New Hampshire rally on Sunday, Hillary Clinton recited a list of economic and social barriers that prevent women from obtaining abortions."

Hillary Clinton speaks at Planned Parenthood's Hooksett, New Hampshire rally on January 10, 2016. (photo: Darren McCollester/Getty Images)
Hillary Clinton speaks at Planned Parenthood's Hooksett, New Hampshire rally on January 10, 2016. (photo: Darren McCollester/Getty Images)


Why Hillary Clinton's Call-Out of the Hyde Amendment Is So Important

By Christina Cauterucci, Slate

12 January 16

 

s she accepted Planned Parenthood’s first-ever presidential primary endorsement at a New Hampshire rally on Sunday, Hillary Clinton recited a list of economic and social barriers that prevent women from obtaining abortions. She said:

Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all. Not when patients and providers have to endure harassment and intimidation just to walk into a health center. … Not when providers are required by state law to recite misleading information to women to shame and scare them. And not as long as we have laws on the book like the Hyde Amendment making it harder for low-income women to exercise their full rights.

The Hyde Amendment, a rider that’s been tacked on to every annual appropriations bill since 1976, bans the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortion except to save the life of the pregnant woman or in cases of rape or incest. Though it’s not ratified law, it’s been treated by some as a foregone conclusion and thus avoided the kind of organized protests that have accompanied more recent restrictions of abortion rights. Clinton’s call-out of the amendment points to strides made by the reproductive justice movement, which has for years worked to expand a limited pro-choice, abortion-centered framework to include other human rights issues, especially those that disproportionately affect marginalized communities.

"We are thrilled that pro-choice champions are no longer accepting the Hyde Amendment as the status quo,” Kierra Johnson, executive director of Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity, told Slate in an email. “The young people that we work with recognize that abortion may be legal, but the decades of political interfering have made it almost impossible for some to access. We should not be interfering with anyone’s personal decision because of how much they earn, how they are insured, their age, or where they live." URGE and other reproductive justice organizations have rallied behind the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH Woman) Act of 2015, which would include abortion coverage in federal health insurance plans, including Medicaid, and remove barriers to public funding in other plans.

Though it first passed in 1976, the Hyde Amendment found itself at the center of the 2010 health-care reform debates. Back then, Rep. Bart Stupak insisted that the health care bill the Senate passed allowed for taxpayer-funded abortions. It didn’t, mainly because Hyde still applied. But Stupak’s persistent complaints, which could have derailed reform efforts by convincing other pro-lifers to pull their support, got Barack Obama to issue an executive order requiring that insurance policies that cover abortion keep federal funds separate. That kind of segregation of funds is such a resource-intensive hassle, it’s enough to discourage some providers from offering abortion coverage at all.

Congressional Republicans have voted to codify Hyde’s provisions as law but, as Timothy Noah writes, they’ve kept quiet about it.

A common misconception is that the government's ban on abortion funding through the Hyde Amendment…has the force of permanent law. It does not. It is merely a rider routinely attached to annual appropriations bills. Should the appropriations committees in Congress decide one year not to attach it, then [Department of Health and Human Services] will become free to fund abortions. Pro-lifers live in fear that this will happen, but they don't want to draw too much attention to the possibility, lest they discourage the public from thinking the Hyde Amendment is writ in stone. 

Just 17 states provide public funding for low-income women seeking abortions, 13 of which have been ordered by courts to do so in order to stay in line with their respective state constitutions. South Dakota doesn’t even go as far as the Hyde Amendment; it forbids the use of public funds even in cases of rape and incest. The Hyde Amendment itself forbids Medicaid from funding an abortion for a woman whose pregnancy is detrimental to her health, but not explicitly life-threatening. Hyde culture has permeated new programs too: The Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), for one, bans the use of federal funds for abortions sought by teenagers.

If Clinton makes the Hyde Amendment a 2016 campaign issue, it will be a long-overdue step toward addressing the intersection between economic insecurity and reproductive health. Studies show that poor women take up to three weeks longer than other women to secure an abortion, in part because she needs time to come up with the money. But the further along the fetus, the more expensive her abortion will be and the more likely she is to experience health complications. Hyde has influenced new health programs, too. Poor women have long been used as poker chips in political debates over abortion, and lawmakers have used their power to stymie women’s health care access as a way to prove their anti-choice chops. “I certainly would like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion, a rich woman, a middle-class woman, or a poor woman,” amendment namesake Henry Hyde said in a 1977 discussion on Medicaid funding. “Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the…Medicaid bill.”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2181 2182 2183 2184 2185 2186 2187 2188 2189 2190 Next > End >>

Page 2187 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN