Media Marginalization

The Republicans held another debate last night in Orlando, Florida.  Sponsored and monitored by Fox News and Google, we here in this office were actually impressed with the format, and with the live polls and questions that were offered online, even while the candidates debated.  Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, the two current "frontrunners", so-called by the Establishment media had a very nice mudslinging match, while the more marginal candidates struggled for air time.

However, the most astonishing thing happened after the debate was over.  Fox News held an online poll, asking viewers who, in their opinion, "won" the debate.  The poll remained online for a few minutes, and as it did so, the numbers racked up for, of all people, Ron Paul.  Yet, before too much longer, Fox News removed the poll from its site, and before the evening was over, issued a separate declaration entitiled, "Experts: Mitt Romney wins debate ... again".

This is not the first time Congressman Paul's presidential campaign has been marginalized.  In fact, if there was a record for a candidate being most marginalized by the media, Ron Paul would be in Guiness, hands down.  In every poll this office has witnessed, asking who won a debate in which Mr. Paul was an option, he has won, sometimes by double digits.  In the Iowa straw poll, he lost out to Michelle Bachmann by a mere percent or two, yet while Bachmann was interviewed on all the networks, nothing was mentioned of Ron Paul.  Nothing.  More attention was given to Rick Santorum for withdrawing from the race. Such neglect of a candidate has been so obvious, Jon Stewart, in a Daily Show spot, asked, "why is everyone still ignoring Ron Paul?"

There is no doubt in this author's mind why Paul receives such disaffection:  as a former Libertarian, and as currently a Republican who still holds to his libertarian principles, he's far removed from being part of the Establishment.  As one who holds unswervingly to the principles of less government, more personal responsibility; who has written a book calling for the end of the Federal Reserve System; who has called and voted repeatedly to end United States militarism abroad, he's not just an outsider, he's an outsider to even the regular "outsiders."

Say and think what you will about Ron Paul, but we write about him today to provide a verbal snapshot of twenty-first century America, where the Establishment, i.e., the ruling political class and the colluding media, squelches the authentic voices of those they claim to protect and defend.  This Establishment is concerned not with voters, and not with the welfare of the populace, but only with their own interests, their own political agenda, their own income.  This Establishment is the very reason why the country is in the shape that it's in.  This Establishment is the reason why everything becomes more expensive, while ever fewer people can afford any of it.  And this Establishment is the reason why those not of the Establishment must resort to instruments such as the increasingly-hated Tea Party just to be heard.

Israeli Nervousness

While the Arab Spring may signal liberation and democraticization for Arabs, for Israel, it would be an understatement to call it a major cause for concern.

Few historical chronologies of the twentieth century are more complex than that of the seemingly unresolvable conflict between the predominantly Muslim Arabs and Jews of Israel.  Suffice it to say that significantly few Arab states recognize Israel as a legitimate state, since it was established in 1947, not through any military conquest of its own, but rather through legislated resolutions issued by the then newly created United Nations.  From a western perspective, the establishment (or re-establishment, some would say) of Israel served to provide a place of refuge for the many Jews throughout the world displaced by anti-semitic conflicts.  From an Arab perspective, the establishment of the State of Israel is effectively an enduring and expanding occupation of Arab Palestine.  Objectively, given the nature of the hostility exhibited by both parties throughout the years, neither the Arabs nor the Israelis are entirely blameless for the ongoing conflict.

But this year's Arab Spring alters the balance of power in the region.  Emboldened by increasingly favorable Arab sentiment globally, as well as by President Barack Obama's implied endorsement of a Palestinian state in a speech back in May, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas is pursuing a vote for full Palestinian statehood by the United Nations Security Council, despite warnings from the U.S. State Department that it would veto such a vote. 

In the Palestinian pursuit of statehood, Abbas explains that "we are not going to annul Israel's legitimacy, [...] we wish to isolate Israel's policy." However, Israel is not swayed from a defensive postition, and has increased its military presence around certain Jewish settlements, fearful of violent demonstrations by emboldened Palestinians.  Although the Palestinians pursue an independent Palestine drawn from the pre-1967 borders, Israelis are concerned that, once a legitimate state, Palestine may then resort to the International Criminal Court in the Hague to prosecute Isreal for the illegitimacy of these Jewish settlements.  The vote for Palestinian statehood is next week, but tensions are already running high.

The Arab Spring

In mid-December, 2010, in the city of Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia, a well-known and reportedly generous 26-year-old street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi was confronted, as he had often been, by local municipal officials, ostensibly for not having a permit to sell fruit in the street.  Lacking the funds to either obtain a permit or bribe the officials, one particular female official publicly humiliated him by slapping him, spitting on him, confiscating his scales, and tossing his fruit cart aside.  Angered by the confrontation, he attempted to lodge a complaint with the governor's office, and to ask for the return of his scales.  When the governor refused to even see him, he promptly acquired a can of gasoline from a nearby gas station, and in the middle of traffic, after reportedly shouting, "how do you expect me to make a living?", doused himself with the gas, and lit a match.  Although the flames were ultimately extinguished, the burns he suffered over 90 percent of his body caused him to slip into a coma, and 18 days later, he died.

Bouazizi's self-immolation would set off a series of mass protests, strikes, marches, rallies, and riots by the endemically unemployed and disaffected youth across the Arab world, first in Tunisia, then in Egypt, then in Algeria, Libya, Yemen, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Morocco.  Some of these uprisings, as in Saudi Arabia, would be subdued by governing authorities; but others, as in Tunisia and Egypt, would lead to outright revolutions; still others, as in Libya, would lead to civil war.  And as of this date, it's not over.  In what is being called the Arab Spring, young Arabs, angered by the economic decline and political corruption in their respective countries, are taking to the streets in what some have called the "fifth wave of democracy," so called, as it brings to mind the "third wave", experienced throughout Latin America in the '70s and '80s.

To be sure, and the reason why we post this text, the United States is not immune to being the object of such protests as the Arab Spring is generating, as the sentiment of it begins to extend beyond Arab borders.  On Sunday last, while we were paying our tributes to those lost in the 9/11 tragedy, about 100 or so Arabs in England were burning an American flag in protest.  Yet, although many of us in the west are oblivious to the import of the Arab Spring, (after all, we have our own economic decline and political corruption to deal with), those of us who know our history can certainly empathize with democratic uprisings.  Hence, we are sympathetic to their cause, if only by necessity, tacitly so.

Sunday Summary

Few people who were alive back then will ever forget where they were ten years ago today, when they heard about the 9/11 tragedy.  This author was just walking into a college political science class, when he noticed the classroom television on, a live report of the burning world trade center, and the words, written on the chalkboard next the television, "Pearl Harbor II".

Most of the historical facts of the event are fairly clear after ten years:  On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 Islamist militants coordinated the hijacking of four passenger jets taking flight from several airports on the east coast, with the intention of flying them into several economically and politically significant buildings.  Two of those planes were each flown into a tower of the World Trade Center; another smashed into the Pentagon in Arlington, VA; and the fourth crashed into a Pennsylvania field, after passengers attempted to take control from the hijackers before they could reach their intended target.  Both towers of the WTC collapsed, significant damage was sustained by the Pentagon, and after all was said and done, nearly 3,000 people perished.

Despite an investigation and report by a congressionally legislated commission, some of the other facts of 9/11 remain murky, at best.  A significant number of individuals and groups, both as witnesses and researchers of the tragedy, assert that the explanations of the events offered by U.S. government, the 9/11 Commission, and the mainstream media, are inconsistent to a significant degree, which suggests either a cover-up of the authentic causes, or complicity by, if not the explicit responsibility of, those in power at the time.  These individuals and groups have, for the past several years, called for a new investigation of the events.

Though all the facts may never be known, or at least publicized, what is most clear is that 9/11 changed daily life, as we knew it in the United States, if not the world, and in some ways that are not insignificant.  Most significant, is western civilization's perception and fear of "terrorism", put in quotes here, as the term itself has become so politically and emotionally charged, as to lose a clear definition.  Ostensibly, 9/11 was an act of "terrorism" as most of us understand the term, today, and because of it's tragic nature, security officials go to extreme lengths, if not, at times, pushing, if not exceeding their constitutional authority, in order to ensure that anything like that never happens again.  Hence, if we're not fearful of another "terrorist" attack, we are fearful of being investigated, interrogated, or searched as a possible "terrorist" ourselves.

To be sure, and from a historical perspective, living in a state of fear is not really new to the American populace.  For that matter, it is nothing new to civilization, itself.  For a time, the Romans lived in fear of the Carthaginians; Europeans lived in fear of the "Black Death" of the Plague; during WWII, British citizens lived in fear of being bombed by the German Luftwaffe, while Americans citizens lived in fear of another attack by the Japanese Navy; after WWII, pretty much the entire western world lived in fear of communism.  In fact, historically, civilizations have most often lived in fear of something.  What changed on 9/11 was the object that fear, namely, "terrorism", and although acts of "terrorism" were certainly nothing new ten years ago, for the first time, it had a direct and lasting impact upon a significant number of American people.

Such impact is the reason why many of us are likely to take time today to reflect upon the horrific events of this date, ten years ago, and to remember the lives we knew back then, that were suddenly and forever lost to us.

President Proposes a Plan for Jobs

President Barack Obama spoke before a joint session of Congress last night, proposing a plan to create jobs. 

Much political ado had been made over the past week, particularly over the scheduling and the anticipated attendance of the speech.  Initially, the White House scheduled it to coincide with the Republican debate on Wednesday evening, causing no small amount of disgruntlement among Republicans, who would have had to quickly reschedule the debate, were it not for an unprecedented letter from House Speaker John Boehner to the White House, claiming that the date and time of the scheduled speech conflicted with pre-scheduled House voting.  Hence, the speech was rescheduled for last night, then rescheduled again, so as not to conflict with the first official game commencing football season.  As if tensions weren't high enough, already, some Republican Congresional representatives voiced their indifference to the media to even attending the speech, opting instead to watch the football game.  Affronted by the Republican speech-skippers indifference, Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid astutely scheduled the procedural vote to disapprove the debt ceiling increase to commence immediatly after the speech.

It was then no wonder that in the preamble of the speech itself, the President referred to the "political circus" that characterizes Washington, these days.

In summary, the President's roughly $450 billion plan proposes--
--a significant reduction in employer payroll taxes, to make it cheaper for businesses to hire
--spending on infrastructure and education, to provide for construction and teaching jobs
--funds to retain teachers in budget-crunched states and retrain the long-term unemloyed, and
--a broad-based tax cut in 2012, to put more money in people's pockets.

Although stipulating that "everything in this bill will be paid for. Everything," the detail of precisely where the money to pay for the plan wasn't so clear.  The President expects to deliver that apparently minor detail to Congress next week.  At this point, it is assumed that it will be paid for with the budget cuts to be laid out by Congresses' special committee before December 31 of this year.

In regards to the delivery of the speech, notable was the President's tone, through which, he was adamant that the bill, called the "American Jobs Act" (though it's not officially an "act" until it is passed and signed), be "passed right away."  In fact, he used the phrase, "right away" eight times.

We'll let you draw your own conclusions from all that.

More Northeast Flooding

The remnants of tropical storm Lee have made its way to an already saturated northeast, has caused and threatens to cause, more flooding.  Roughly 100,000 residents along the Susquehanna River have been ordered to evacuate.

This summer is certainly gearing up to be a "Summer of Storms" for the eastern United States.  Although hurricane Katia is projected to veer northeast, away from the U.S., tropical storm Maria now brews in the Atlantic, and is headed straight towards Florida.

As long as they continue to roll in, we'll be updating.

Sunday Summary

In what is possibly the saddest result of the boom in technology of the last twenty years is the reduction of physical mail we send and receive.  The reason it is sad, is because, well, as a result, the United States Postal Service is broke.  Flat broke.  If they were a private company, they'd be bankrupt.

As it is with any private company, we say this because the costs to operate the USPS far outweigh the revenue it generates, currently by $9.2 billion.  Like the rest of the federal government, they've lately had to borrow the funds necessary to make its payments, and currently, they've reached their credit limit of $15 billion.  At the end of this month, they expect to default on $5.5 billion that covers future retirees' health benefits.  Hence, they're looking to Congress for some kind of action.

Two causes have brought about the USPS's difficulties.  First, thanks to digital technology such as email and online bill-paying as well as competition from private carriers such as UPS, the federal service has simply lost the volume of business, and the revenue that it generates.  In any private company, such loss of revenue would likely mean downsizing through employee layoffs.  However, and the second and more serious cause of the USPS's plight, because of no-layoff clauses in their contracts with the American Postal Workers Union, they cannot legally lay anyone off.  Moreover, a 2006 law requires the postal service to pay an average of $5.5 billion annually for 10 years to finance retiree health costs for the next 75 years.  Thus, the situation is "extremely serious,” according to postmaster general Patrick R. Donahoe.  "If Congress doesn’t act, we will default.”

Donahoe has proposed some measures to resolve the crisis, but most aren't likely to go over well with a number of folks.  They've already suggested ceasing Saturday deliveries, but such an idea has gotten flak from Congressional Representatives, who argue that such is a serious disruption for those who receive medications and newspapers via snail mail.  They have the legal authority to close facilities, and have proposed doing so, but who wants to lose their local post office?  They don't have the legal authority to layoff employees, so they have asked Congress to enact legislation that would overturn the job protections, but the very idea has enraged the postal workers union.  Cliff Guffey, president of the APWU, has already said, "we’re going to fight this and we’re going to fight it hard."

As Donahoe suggests, this is a serious problem that requires immediate attention.  As one member of an oversight committee put it, "Unless there is real structural reform, the Postal Service won’t be here in two years."  As it is, the funds necessary to even cover the current payroll will be depleted by early next year, and so there is talk of shutting down the service entirely this winter.

Ben Franklin, the country's first Postmaster General, must be rolling in his grave.