RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | Yes, Kerry Can Help End the Gaza War Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6853"><span class="small">Frank Rich, New York Magazine</span></a>   
Friday, 25 July 2014 11:34

Rich writes: "Whatever the U.S. or U.N. does, the reality is that Israel will determine when this Gaza war ends."

John Kerry in Israel trying to broker an end to the fighting in Gaza. (photo: Reuters)
John Kerry in Israel trying to broker an end to the fighting in Gaza. (photo: Reuters)


Yes, Kerry Can Help End the Gaza War

By Frank Rich, New York Magazine

25 July 14

 

Every week, New York Magazine writer-at-large Frank Rich talks with contributor Eric Benson about the biggest stories in politics and culture. This week: Why John Kerry can still help end the Gaza war; President Obama's Malaysia Flight 17 response and its critics; and Rick Perry deploys the National Guard to the border.

e learned this morning that Secretary of State John Kerry has undertaken a surprise mission to the Middle East to try to broker a Gaza Strip cease-fire. As detailed in a piece in The New Republic, Kerry had been very active in trying to broker a peace deal between Israel and Palestine, but the accord fell apart and now looks even more unlikely. Is there a role for the U.S. in this current conflict?

There is always a role for the U.S., and Kerry will be far more helpful than, say, former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who, in a showboating gesture, announced yesterday he would take an en El Al flight to Tel Aviv’s Ben-Gurion airport “to show solidarity with the Israeli people.” (Flying commercial is the ultimate sacrifice, surely.) But whatever the U.S. or U.N. does, the reality is that Israel will determine when this Gaza war ends.

Hamas is a terrorist organization without a conscience. Israel is a democracy with a conscience but a hemorrhaging public-relations catastrophe in America. And so we can argue all day about whether Israel’s response to Hamas’s provocation is disproportionate, but on American television, from the evening news to The Daily Show, the disproportionate casualties among Palestinians in Gaza, especially but not exclusively children, is taking a huge toll. Vacationing Americans can’t escape the images, and Israel has not effectively explained itself to the citizens of its most important ally. There was a lot of huffing over the weekend about Kerry being caught on a hot-mike at Fox News Sunday implicitly bemoaning the carnage of Israel’s ostensible “pinpoint” military operation in Gaza. But the more telling on-camera remark — that same day, on CNN — was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s to Wolf Blitzer that Hamas uses “telegenically dead Palestinians for their cause.“ Even if you think Netanyahu has a point, he was advertising a callousness that completely undercuts Israel’s moral high ground. When Israeli officials fanned out yesterday to argue against the decision of airlines like Delta and United to temporarily suspend flights to Ben-Gurion after a Hamas missile landed roughly a mile from it, they came across as valuing tourist commerce over safety. One can understand Israel wanting to keep fighting until every Hamas tunnel is destroyed — and certainly it can win that war — but the price is huge in every way, from civilian casualties to undermining support among the American public.

There is in any case no military solution to this conflagration. Kerry pulled off something of a diplomatic miracle in negotiating a way out (for now, anyway) of the Afghanistan election impasse. While his effort to broker an Israel-Palestinian peace accord came to naught, we have to hope he is effective in helping to stanch the current bloodshed. But he can do nothing without Netanyahu as a serious partner.

President Obama’s measured response to the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight 17 over the Ukraine has been faulted as "cowardly" by his leading non-Cheney foreign policy critic, Senator John McCain, because the United States failed to thoroughly arm the current Ukrainian government. (McCain has made similar remarks about the Free Syrian Army.) Is there anything Obama can do here? And what do you make of McCain's increasing role as America's ultrahawk?

The answer to the McCain question is easy: From his “joking” wish that America “bomb bomb bomb Iran” in 2007 through today, he has proposed that America go to war at almost every turn in international events. He was also, of course, a major proponent of the Iraq invasion, which he predicted would be a fast and successful exercise. So why should anyone take him seriously? Only television bookers do: He is permanently suited up to peddle his nonsense on Sunday mornings. Back in the real world beyond televised bloviation, he is now being challenged even within his own party, as Rand Paul increases his standing among Republicans who have turned on the neocon reign of McCain, Cheney, et al.

For his part, Obama has done the right thing by strengthening sanctions against Russia and speaking out in no uncertain terms about Russia’s culpability for this slaughter in the skies. But the action here is — or must be — in Europe, whose support of tough sanctions would inflict true economic pain on Putin, Russia’s oligarchs, and the Russian economy. But European governments, enslaved to their own trade and energy dependence on Russia, are dragging their feet — even the Netherlands, despite the fact that the majority of those killed on the Malaysian Airlines flight were Dutch. To get allies like France and Germany to enlist will take Obama’s every last wile and stick. Meanwhile, two Ukrainian fighter jets were reported downed this morning; this crisis isn’t going to recede on its own.

Texas Governor Rick Perry announced on Monday that he will be sending 1,000 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to help deter the surge of immigration from Central American families and children. The National Guard isn't legally permitted to arrest anyone for immigration violations, so will serve only as a "visual deterrent.” Perry's presidential run in 2012 was derailed by his not-entirely-draconian stance on immigrant rights and, of course, "Oops!" How much of his reaction to the border crisis do you think has to do with his hopes for 2016?

How about all of it? I would guess that sending 1,000 National Guard troops to the border will be about as effective at ameliorating this crisis as Perry’s decision to start wearing eyeglasses has been successful in convincing the public that he is a closet intellectual. Perry calls these unarmed superfluous troops a “force multiplier.” Given that the children flocking to the border from Central America are largely turning themselves in to any uniformed American they see, it’s possible that the additional troops will instead be a refugee multiplier — a magnet for an even greater surge of potential young immigrants seeking a safe haven at the border. Perry’s move is pure politics, and what’s more he has the gall to suggest that Washington should pony up for the $12 million his publicity stunt will cost.

As a public service message, let me add that those who want to know what is happening on the ground at the border should read my interlocutor Eric Benson’s series of first-hand reports now up on the Texas Monthly site.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Not Ready for Hillary: The Rationale for Elizabeth Warren Print
Friday, 25 July 2014 09:30

Conroy writes: "From the moment that Elizabeth Warren stepped on the stage to deliver her Friday morning speech at the Netroots Nation conference in Detroit, the chants echoed around the room."

Despite denials, Progressives are ready for an Elizabeth Warren run for president. (photo: AP)
Despite denials, Progressives are ready for an Elizabeth Warren run for president. (photo: AP)


Not Ready for Hillary: The Rationale for Elizabeth Warren

By Scott Conroy, Real Clear Politics

25 July 14

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q75c51uaFbU

un, Liz, run! Run, Liz, run!”

From the moment that Elizabeth Warren stepped on the stage to deliver her Friday morning speech at the Netroots Nation conference in Detroit, the chants echoed around the room.

It was of no concern to the progressive activists on hand that Warren has insisted she is “not running for president” (though the denial is always phrased -- perhaps notably -- in the present tense).

And it took more than a little urging from Warren, who repeatedly implored everyone to “sit down,” before the chant eventually subsided.

For many in this crowd, it could not be clearer that this is Warren’s time to run for the Oval Office.

And for anyone who might wonder what unique traits the Massachusetts senator would bring to a presidential run, her stemwinder of a speech served to answer that question.

Waving her finger in the air like a sword, Warren delivered her populist harangue in a characteristically mad-as-hell tone that largely has been missing from national Democratic politics during the 6½ years of President Obama’s relatively staid and cerebral approach to speechifying.

“The game is rigged,” Warren shouted into the microphone. “And the rich and the powerful have lobbyists, lawyers and plenty of friends in Congress. Everybody else, not so much. So the way I see this is we can whine about it, we can whimper about it, or we can fight back. I’m fighting back!”

The crowd ate it up.

For them, it was precisely the kind of take-no-prisoners approach to pocketbook issues such as income inequality, student loan debt, and equal pay that fueled Warren’s rapid rise from the world of academia to consumer protection champion to the U.S. Senate.

Just a year-in-a-half into her term, Warren has already become one of the most highly sought campaign surrogates for Democrats running in the 2014 midterms.

Though conservatives have tagged her with the “Massachusetts liberal” label that has sunk previous White House aspirants from the Bay State, Warren’s particular brand of fiery populism has made her a hot commodity in some of the deep-red states where Democratic candidates are loath to be seen with President Obama.

Warren recently traveled to Kentucky and West Virginia to appear on behalf of Senate candidates Alison Lundergan Grimes and Natalie Tennant and was greeted warmly by supporters who live hundreds of miles from the nearest Ivy League faculty lounge.

Indeed, not since Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign has the grassroots left been so enamored of a national politician.

While Vice President Biden -- another potential 2016 contender -- also spoke at Netroots, there was no doubt as to who was the event’s real star.

“It’s kind of shocking just how much buzz is around Elizabeth Warren,” said Adam Green, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee -- a group that bills itself as being centered in “the Elizabeth Warren wing” of the Democratic Party. “There’s a rising economic populist tide in America, and due to her lifetime of work fighting for the little guy against Wall Street and big corporations, Elizabeth Warren is the personification of that.”

Just last week, a group of progressive activists launched Ready for Warren -- a presidential draft movement designed to stand against the already well-established pro-Clinton group Ready for Hillary.

If she were to run, Warren would enter the race with an even lighter resume as an elected official than Obama had when he battled accusations of inexperience during his 2008 bid for the White House.

But Erin O’Brien, a political science professor at UMass-Boston, said that Warren’s background as a consumer advocate is a core element of her attractiveness to many progressives.

“Those quick YouTube hits of her taking it to the banking industry have a feel-good appeal,” O’Brien said. “It’s important to remember that progressives abandoned Hillary for Obama, so I think there’s a certain distrust -- that [Clinton] is just a mainline Democrat, no more, no less. So finally they have a mouthpiece who’s articulate and who’s been able to have real policy influence in Washington. And she hasn’t gone center; she’s gone left and stuck with it.”

Despite her currently unmatched connection with the activist left, Warren’s appeal among the Democratic electorate at large remains miniscule compared with Clinton’s. In the latest RealClearPolitics average of national polls for the 2016 Democratic nomination, Warren sits at 7 percent -- almost 60 points behind Clinton (65 percent), and the Massachusetts senator doesn’t fare much better in Iowa or New Hampshire.

By just about every measure, Clinton is in an even stronger position to become the nominee than she was at this time eight years ago. A Des Moines Register poll in June of 2006, for instance, not only showed Clinton to be vulnerable -- it had her trailing John Edwards in a hypothetical 2008 Iowa caucuses matchup.

But Warren has little reason at the moment to concern herself with poll numbers.

As Boston-based Democratic strategist Scott Ferson put it, the former Harvard professor is in the “perfect situation,” in that there appears to be little downside in spreading her message on the national stage.

“She’s in a seat where we expect our senators to run for president, so it’s not as if back here she’ll have a problem with people in Massachusetts saying she’s going too fast,” Ferson said. “I think usually for people looking at [running for president], they’re in until they’re out, but I think she’s out until she might wake up one day and say, ‘Wait a minute. I need to do this.’”

The institutional and financial advantages that Clinton would enjoy in a primary battle against Warren are difficult to overestimate. But while Democratic voters seem almost uniformly positive about the idea of a Clinton presidential bid, Warren could bring some sizzle to a race in which the frontrunner’s message might otherwise stagnate on the way to a coronation.

In fact, a viable primary challenge on her left might be just what Clinton needs to hone her rusty political skills before the general election, as John Dickerson argues in Slate.

Until it comes time to make that decision, however, expect Warren to continue to take advantage of the way the stars have aligned for her politically.

“Sometimes folks are just at the right place at the right time,” said Massachusetts political analyst Peter Ubertaccio. “She’s got to have folks around her who are considering it because lightning doesn’t often strike in the same place.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Rick Perry Orders Dallas Cowboys to Mexican Border Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Thursday, 24 July 2014 15:40

Borowitz writes: "In his boldest move yet to address the immigration crisis, on Thursday Texas Governor Rick Perry dispatched the Dallas Cowboys to the United States' border with Mexico."

(photo: James D Smith/AP)
(photo: James D Smith/AP)


ALSO SEE: Border Sheriffs Perplexed by Rick Perry's Plan to Send 1,000 Troops to Stare at Mexico

Rick Perry Orders Dallas Cowboys to Mexican Border

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

24 July 14

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."

n his boldest move yet to address the immigration crisis, on Thursday Texas Governor Rick Perry dispatched the Dallas Cowboys to the United States’ border with Mexico.

In a photo opportunity with the Cowboys and several of the team’s cheerleaders, Perry explained the rationale behind his latest decision. “Those who would cross our borders illegally will have to contend with the power and fury of America’s Team,” he said.

Critics of the move dismissed it as political theatre, noting that once the Cowboys arrived at the border it was unclear what they would do there.

Additionally, there were questions about how effective the Cowboys would be in stopping illegal immigrants, since the team has the worst-ranked defense in the N.F.L.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
It's Time to End Our State-Sponsored Barbarism Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Thursday, 24 July 2014 15:26

Pierce writes: "We had another exercise in state-sponsored barbarism this week, this time in where-the-fck-else, Arizona."

The lethal injection room at a prison in Atmore, Alabama. (photo: Dave Martin/AP)
The lethal injection room at a prison in Atmore, Alabama. (photo: Dave Martin/AP)


ALSO SEE: Outrage After US Execution Lasts Two Hours

It's Time to End Our State-Sponsored Barbarism

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

24 July 14

 

If we're going to be the only purportedly advanced Western nation that allows our government to kill people, we really ought to stop the pretense that we're doing it because we are just, and because our methods are more civilized.

ou may have missed it -- but not if you check in with Kindly Doc Maddow, who was on it from jump -- but we had another exercise in state-sponsored barbarism this week, this time in where-the-fck-else, Arizona. A condemned convict named Joseph Rudolph Wood III -- and why always with the middle names in these cases? -- was given the drug cocktail that was supposed to kill him, the ingredients of which we cannot know about because Arizona needs to keep the elements of the concoction secret so we don't know that it's rat poison or polonium or something. One of the last things Wood did on this earth was to sue to learn the precise poisons with which Arizona intended to kill him. This had some interesting results. Wood got himself an injunction, which the Supreme Court lifted because that's what the Supreme Court does in these cases. A very famous appeals court judge named Alex Kozinski opined that lethal injection had become such an inhumane crapshoot that we'd all be better off if we returned to firing squads. By such small steps, etc., etc.

Anyway, Wood's appeals and requests were all 86'd, so he was given the drug cocktail that was supposed to make him die.

And it did.

Two hours later.

It took Wood so long to die that his lawyers were still filing appeals while he was "gasping and snorting' on the gurney. One of them was on the phone when Wood finally died. In case you were wondering, that's the pie-in-the-face of this ghoulish burlesque.

Gov. Jan Brewer ordered the state Department of Corrections to conduct a full review, saying she was "concerned" about the length of time it took Wood to die. "One thing is certain, however, inmate Wood died in a lawful manner, and by eyewitness and medical accounts he did not suffer," Brewer said in a statement. "This is in stark comparison to the gruesome, vicious suffering that he inflicted on his two victims - and the lifetime of suffering he has caused their family."

That's the soundbite, if you're an idiot.

It's also something of a barefaced non-fact, especially the non-suffering part.

"At 1:57 p.m [officials] reported that Mr. Wood was sedated, but at 2:02 he began to breathe," said the legal filing in federal court from public defender Jon M. Sands. "At 2:03 his mouth moved. Mr. Wood has continued to breathe since that time. He has been gasping and snorting for more than an hour. At 3:02 p.m. ... staff rechecked for sedation. He is still alive."

Opinions vary.

A spokeswoman for the Arizona attorney general's office who was also a witness disputed that. "There was no gasping of air. There was snoring," Stephanie Grisham said. "He just laid there. It was quite peaceful." Baich responded: "My observation was that he was gasping and struggling to breathe. I couldn't tell if he was snoring. Even if he was snoring, it took two hours for him to die?"

And thus, again, does this country's ridiculous adherence to the death penalty make public officials -- and, by extension, the rest of us -- look like moral buffoons. A guy takes two hours to die from an injection of who-knows-what-we-can't-tell-you and the ensuing debate is over whether he was gasping or snoring? This makes the law a freak show, and our collective morality a clown show of epic proportions. If we're going to be the only purportedly advanced Western nation that allows our government to kill people, and we are, now that Belarus has bailed on the whole thing, we really ought to stop the pretense that we're doing it because we are just, and because our methods are more civilized. We look like fools.

Once again, the reason states with the death penalty keep their drugs of choice secret is because pharmaceutical companies have declined to be accessories before the fact of judicial killing. No company in America even makes sodium thiopental, one of the key potions in the original execution protocols, any more. So ambitious governors, abetted by their bloodthirsty legislatures and cheered on by an aroused public, go shopping for whatever they can find elsewhere. They may be buying stuff in back alleys, for all we know.

Officials in Oklahoma, for instance, have even taken to using petty cash when they purchase individual drugs for the cocktail in order to cover their tracks. The idea is to make it harder for lawyers to challenge the legality of their lethal injections by simply hiding the details.

The secrecy surrounding what goes into the IV lines is purely political ass-covering, and political ass-covering in this particular context is utterly obscene, and any judge that upholds a law that keeps the ingredients of death secret is doing so because that judge wants to see executions proceed, period. That includes the Nine Wise Souls, who can't be bothered because nobody shot a corporation full of poison and killed it yet. Kindly Doc Maddow has taken to calling this human experimentation, which is precisely what it is. This is the Nuremberg Code, developed after World War II, and after the trials in which we hung a bunch of Nazi doctors. This is the last part of the first principle of the Code.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

One thing I object to is that this has been called a "botched" execution. It actually was not. This wasn't Clayton Lockett, who died in agony in Oklahoma after the death squad blew out the vein through which he was supposed to be poisoned. This time, the procedure worked the way it was supposed to work. Only the mystery drugs didn't, C'est la guerre, to paraphrase Jan Brewer, who intends to continue her secret medical experimentation on death-row inmates, because this is America, where we are nothing if not just.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | What I Saw on Rikers Island Print
Thursday, 24 July 2014 13:30

McMillan writes: "Violence is easy to grasp and to condemn. What's harder to understand for people who haven't done time is the day-in, day-out degradation and neglect."

Cecily McMillan reads a list of grievances after being released from Rikers Island. (photo: Daniel Cole/NY Observer)
Cecily McMillan reads a list of grievances after being released from Rikers Island. (photo: Daniel Cole/NY Observer)


What I Saw on Rikers Island

By Cecily McMillan, The New York Times

24 July 14

 

RECENTLY served 58 days of a three-month sentence on Rikers Island. I was convicted in May of assaulting a New York City police officer as the police cleared Zuccotti Park of Occupy Wall Street protesters in 2012. (I am appealing my conviction.) I got a firsthand experience that I did not seek of what it is like to live behind bars.

Rikers is a city jail; it holds some 11,000 inmates who are awaiting trial or sentencing, or who have been convicted and sentenced to a year or less of time.

During my incarceration, two correction officers were arrested on charges of smuggling contraband, including drugs, to inmates. The week after I was released, two more correction officers and a captain were arrested on charges of having beaten a handcuffed prisoner into unconsciousness in 2012. Last week, The New York Times reported on the “culture of brutality” on Rikers. The city is now investigating more than 100 reported violent assaults on inmates.

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2771 2772 2773 2774 2775 2776 2777 2778 2779 2780 Next > End >>

Page 2775 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