At Fort Hood, Texas, yesterday the unthinkable happened: An Army psychiatrist - a major - opened fire on a room full of soldiers who were getting checkups before going to Iraq. The carnage left a dozen dead and sent 31 others to the hospital, some in critical condition. One of the wounded died during the night. Riddled with bullets from military and civilian police responding to the attack (photo at right), the shooter still survives, and with him a list of questions that may never be fully answered.
As authorities search for a reasonable explanation, they are left with few alternatives, none of them very convincing.
Though American born, the killer has a Middle-Eastern name - Nidal Malik Hasan. His family is from Palestine. He is a devout Muslim. And he was known to oppose the war in Iraq. Based on that evidence, there is surmise about the possibility of a “political” motive. Did Nidal Malik Hasan (photo below) become so infuriated by the massacre of Muslim Iraqis by American forces that he was driven to seek revenge?
He is a psychiatrist who listened to the horror stories of dozens of American soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Could the relentless parade of shared nightmares, spawned by horrendous battlefield experiences, have so affected him that he erupted in blind rage?
He was slated for deployment to Iraq, and did not want to go. After hearing so many blood-soaked stories from others who had served in that theatre, did he react in uncontrollable terror at the prospect of being immersed in that horror himself?
Perhaps one - or all - of the above. But…
My first question would be: Were drugs involved? When I covered killing sprees as a reporter, I found that in most cases the perpetrators were “in an altered state.” They were in the grip of some mind bending chemical that released the savagery buried beneath their veneer of civilization and made the unthinkable doable.
Or, unintellectual as this may seem, was some supernatural force involved? I know, Sandra says I am “surprisingly” superstitious when I say this, but I am tempted to believe in “possession.” During my days as a reporter, I sat in many a somber courtroom, listening to some killer recounting the events that got him (it was never “her”) there. And sometimes I would wonder at the way in which the testimony was delivered. The killer seemed to be describing someone else’s actions, as if he were only a bystander while the crime was being committed. It seemed to me as if the accused killer’s body might have been taken over by some external force.
I know, there probably is a much more prosaic explanation in the psychology text books. I am just relaying the lurid impressions of an unschooled mind. But I still wonder: Could the biblical stories of demonic possession be real? Could evil forces be lurking among us? Is the Devil stalking the earth, looking for prey? Are demons waiting for an opportunity to control our minds and bodies then take our souls?
Intellectually, I find all that hard to accept. And yet…
Should we cross ourselves as we hear or read such horror stories and remind ourselves that “there but for the grace of God go I”?
As far as I can determine there’s nothing gay about being homosexual. It seems to be a sad fate, made even more melancholy by an abiding hostility embedded in most cultures. How can anyone be gay when he or she is constantly held up to hatred, ridicule and contempt? How can anyone enjoy being the target of slurs, verbal assaults and physical violence - sometimes so severe as to be fatal? How can those too timid to acknowledge their homosexuality tolerate having to live a lie, cowering in shame and fear of exposure?
And there can be no cause for gaiety in America’s relentless denial of homosexuals’ civil rights. On Tuesday night, Maine became the 31st U.S. state to vote out same-sex marriage. Yet, compared with most other societies, America is fairly tolerant. At least, gays are reluctantly permitted to have “civil unions” in this country.
I often contrast Jamaica’s racial tolerance with pervasive American bigotry, but when it comes to homosexuals, Jamaica is one of the least tolerant countries in the world. Growing up in Jamaica, I heard many whispered horror stories about “batty men,” and my mother told me approvingly of the cruel punishments handed out to those who were caught practicing this “abomination.” Lesbians were rarely mentioned, and saphism was shrouded in mystery and wide-eyed awe.
Yesterday, in Salon, I came across this item, attributed to the Digital Journal:
Homophobic residents of the McGregor Gully community in East Kingston, Jamaica, are vowing to take action after a two week notice given to all gays and lesbians to flee the town ended over the weekend. Yes, that’s right. The residents declared they were fed up with gay behavior, and ordered all gays to leave by 30 October. Those who did not leave, the residents warned, would “suffer the consequences.”
According to the residents, the main problem is a local hangout that is frequented by lesbians who ‘kiss, hug, and even touch each other.’ And the community’s anger is directed mostly at those lesbians, though any gay men who reside in the area are also expected to leave. The residents say they will not stop until their community is “gay free” and are not afraid of resorting to extreme measures, though they would not explicitly say what those measures might be.
Such extreme bigotry. And, I don’t understand how so many people continue to spend their tourist dollars in the homophobic haven a.k.a. Jamaica and turn a blind eye to flagrant human rights violations.
Trying to verify the report on the web, I found a reference that indicated the item may have been from 2007 and was picked up in error by a careless reporter. But no matter. It still helps to illuminate the Jamaican fear and loathing of homosexuality. Jamaicans are by and large homophobes. Through the years, any attempt to modify laws criminalizing sodomy has been overwhelmed by public resistance. And tourism boycotts organized by gay rights groups have had no impact on the island’s attitude.
I am no psychologist, so I can’t explain the horror that so many feel toward homosexuality. From my own upbringing I still harbor distaste for aspects of homosexuality and feel somewhat uneasy in a room full of homosexuals. Back in the early Sixties, when I worked for the Toronto Star, I wrote a series about middle-class homosexuality (which was then illegal in Canada), and visited the underground haunts frequented by the gay community. I can still recall the shock I felt when I first saw two men in business suits slow-dancing together, the shorter man’s head cradled on the taller man’s shoulder.
But I hope I’m reasonable enough to recognize that people whose tastes differ from mine should have the same rights as I have. Actually, “taste” is not the right word for it because I am sure homosexuality is not a matter of preference but of biology - at least for the vast majority of gay people. Over the years, I have come to accept the fact that sexuality is a very complicated matter, and we humans attempt to categorize sexual behavior at our peril.
I have also come to the conclusion that God would not condemn his creatures for feelings that come to them unbidden, that presumably were instilled in them at their creation. I have no patience with people who quote the admonition in the Biblical book of Leviticus against men “lying with a man as with a woman.” Leviticus also decrees that we don’t let cows interbreed, don’t used mixed seeds, don’t wear two types of fabric at once, don’t have relations with slave women, don’t eat fruit from trees for four years, don’t practice magic or astrology, don’t get tattoos, etc. And the Biblical book of laws calls for stoning to death both partners in adultery, but I don’t hear any public clamor to enforce that decree.
I welcome the progress being made in America toward the acceptance of gay men and women as normal members of society, and I applaud recent federal legislation making violence against gays a “hate crime.” Perhaps, Jamaica, too, will one day realize the injustice of persecuting homosexuals. But I fear that’s still a long way off.
Barack Obama captured the national imagination back in 2004 when he proclaimed:
There is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there is the United States of America.
And since his inauguration, he has consistently followed policies that indicate he believes every word of it. But I wonder if last night’s elections jolted him out of his daydream?
If proof were still needed that there is, indeed, a liberal America and a conservative America, a Black America, a White America, a Latino America and an Asian America, last night’s elections provided it - in spades.
This nation is fragmented, and the divisions are widening, not closing. By tacking to the center, by courting political opponents, by continuing the Bush bailout of rotten financial institutions, and by a steadfast commitment to “bipartisanship” in the face of disdainful rejection from Republicans, President Obama and the governing Democratic Party have alienated their base without attracting support from conservatives.
In Jamaica, the old people used to say, “Between two stools you fall to the ground.” And that’s just what is happening to Democrats in America. By expanding their “tent” to gain seats in Congress, the Democrats let a Trojan horse into their party. Inside were “Blue Dog” saboteurs like Nebraska’s Ben Nelson, Indiana’s Evan Bayh, Arkansas’ Blanche Lincoln, Montana’s Max Baucus and dozens of others, who turned on the party when it needed them most. Encouraged by the President, the Democrats even invited turncoat Joe Lieberman back into their caucus. And now, Lieberman is set to filibuster the pathetic excuse for a health care reform bill that’s wriggling out of the Senate.
Disgusted by these betrayals and disillusioned by the President’s wishy-washy handling of issues he addressed so forcefully in his campaign, the voters who swept him into the White House last November stayed home last night. Young people and African Americans, for example, were conspicuously absent from the polls.
Meanwhile, it’s the conservatives who are “fired up and ready to go.” Old, white folks turned out in droves, voting to take “their America” back. And remember the vast majority of America’s voters (about 80 percent) are white. Also, 40 percent of Americans describe themselves as “conservatives,” while only 20 percent call themselves liberals.
So it should be no surprise that Conservative Republican Bob McDonnell scored a landslide victory in the Virginia governor’s race over lukewarm Democrat R. Creigh Deeds and another Republican, Chris Christie, ousted New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine.
Another sign of growing conservative influence came from - of all places - the state of Maine, where voters threw out a state law allowing same-sex couples to wed. And in upstate New York, conservative Doug Hoffman gained so much support that the moderate Republican candidate dropped out. That race went to Democrat Bill Owens by default, but it was more of a moral victory for conservatives than for Democrats.
In the real America, progress will come only from resolute resistance to the forces of regression and oppression. To pretend that Americans all share common goals and everything will be fine if they could just get along together is to abandon the struggle that generations of oppressed Americans have fought and generations of progressives have supported.
To embark on a hopeless quest for bipartisanship is to desert the supporters who made it possible for America to have its first black President. And the Democrats are going to need those supporters again if they hope to remain in power.
That’s the message last night’s elections sent to Congress and the White House. I just hope they’re listening.
American media like to tell scary stories of Islamic terrorists engaged in a worldwide revolution, and American politicians are eager to shell out billions of dollars in a supposed “war on terror.” But most Americans seem blind to the dangers presented by a homegrown “religious” uprising that could also prove fatal to democracy.
I suppose that American newspaper readers and TV viewers shake their heads in dismay as the media portray the male dominated culture of Islam and point out the injustices that women in that culture must endure. And I am sure that American women are outraged by the oppression of their Muslim “sisters,” who must wear veils and cover their bodies from head to foot, who enjoy few rights and have severely limited access to education or a profession.
But perhaps the American majority should pause to consider what might happen if the “religious right” were to rise to power at home. Are they ready for the loss of freedoms such a political victory would bring? Are they willing to accept the dictates of ideologues who insist that anyone who disagrees with them should be destined not only for Hell but also for criminal prosecution?
From what I read and see on television, Muslim extremism is on the ascendancy globally, with new “terror” groups springing up every day (photo at right). And this is not surprising. With every drone attack in Pakistan, with every military assault in Iraq or Afghanistan, more partisan rage is engendered and the extremists attract more recruits.
Meanwhile, in America, a “conservative” groundswell is building. It is fed by many deep-rooted resentments - opposition to taxes, resistance to ever-expanding federal control, fear of increasing ethnic diversity and political influence, and anger inspired by various conspiracy theories. But, the way I see it, the strongest and most enduring force in the conservative movement is religious intolerance.
To some Biblical scholars it must seem as if the forces of “good and evil” are girding for Armageddon. Out of the rising sun come the armies of evil Muslim terrorists. From the west march the godly legions of Jehovah. The apocalypse is at hand.
But not so fast. The extremists committed to jihad are still a small fragment of the world’s 1.66 billion Muslims. And while the extremists are embracing - and distorting - the most oppressive tenets of their faith, millions of other Muslims are increasingly tolerant, turning away from ancient “laws” that decree the oppression of women.
And, in America, extremists committed to establishment of a “Christian” theocracy are greatly outnumbered by voters who believe in a tolerant and inclusive society. From the polls that pepper the media, I gather that only about 20 percent of the American population falls into the hard-core “conservative” category. The danger is that these are the motivated voters. They go door-to-door, they send out fliers, they make phone calls, and they attend “tea parties” and rallies (photo above),
What disturbs me most is that extremists are becoming politically stronger in America. Activists are seizing control of the Republican Party, forcing it farther and farther to the right. In today’s special election in upstate New York, their support of Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman has pushed Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava out of the race. And this victory has generated even more money and enthusiasm for their cause. Now, conservatives are gearing up to challenge Republican candidates in more than a dozen key House and Senate races in 2010.
This movement could very well take off, and the results could be devastating. Imagine one of America’s two major political parties under the control of zealots intent on imposing their will on the rest of society. And imagine too many voters, turned off by the perceived failure of the Obama administration to deliver on his campaign promises, staying home on election day.
It’s a very real possibility. And Americans who believe in tolerance and inclusiveness, who would find a theocratic government unbearable, should wake up to this looming threat.
It is true that President Obama has not quite lived up to my expectations, but I have to admit that the challenges he has faced are unprecedented, and that my expectations may have been unreasonable. It is also true that the most likely alternative to the present government is frightening. Reasonable Americans cannot afford to yield the field to extremists. They must not forget the often-repeated warning that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”
Growing up in Jamaica during the Colonial era, I came across quite a few bigots, mostly English or of English descent, and even as a child I wondered at their steadfast belief in the superiority of European culture and the obligation of white colonists to “civilize” the descendants of African slaves and Indian indentured workers.
English poet Rudyard Kipling called it the “white man’s burden” but it was really an excuse to dominate and exploit other races. Don’t get me wrong; there is much to admire in European culture, and I personally feel comfortable in that kind of “cultured” environment. But that does not make it better than other cultures, and it certainly does not give anyone the right to belittle those who practice a different lifestyle.
These thoughts come to mind as I witness a worldwide resurgence of “conservative” ideology, and the zeal with which the disciples of this movement pursue political power. In America, for example, right-wing activists are dominating the Republican Party and are purging moderates from its ranks.
Commenting on the news that moderate Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava had dropped out of a special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional district, Jon Vogel, the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, noted that high-profile Republicans Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck had endorsed a “conservative” candidate in the race. Vogel concluded:
It has never been clearer that the Republican Party has been hijacked by extreme right wing ideologues with a radical agenda that would effectively dismantle Social Security and Medicare, and are out of step with a vast majority of Americans.
Eight extreme right wing groups spent more than $1 million on this campaign including the Minute Men, Club for Growth and the Family Research Council.
But there’s more to it than that. There is a genuine grassroots movement in America dedicated to the pursuit of “conservative” moral and financial goals. Financed by a handful of enormously wealthy zealots and backed by powerful religious and commercial special interests, a significant segment of the American population is crusading for the right to impose its beliefs and prejudices on the rest of society.
Ironically, these people claim they are fighting for “freedom.” But the freedom they seek is the right to revoke the freedom of others. They want to criminalize abortion and ban same-sex marriages, for example. They argue that America is a “Christian” nation and they advocate establishment of a government based on their religious ideas.
Here’s a lament chosen at random from the web. It is attributed to the Hatton Church of Christ:
We live in a day in which the cry for individual rights has resulted in a wholesale endorsement of individual wrongs. It seems any and every pervert, malcontent or screwball must have his or her wrongs protected as if they were rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Curiously, the “conservative” movement also denies that humans are contributing to potentially disastrous climate change. I can’t fathom why, but I think it has something to do with commercial interests that would be threatened by environmental restrictions. Somewhere in the logical muddle underlying the conservative cause, the generally accepted teachings of Christ have been turned upside down. Instead of conserving the world God gave us, we are urged to plunder its resources and foul its environment so that the rich may become even richer.
British Viscount Christopher Monckton, for example, recently claimed that climate change activism and the upcoming U.N. talks in Copenhagen are all a part of a gigantic communist plot.
According to Monckton (photo below):
So at last the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement and took over Greenpeace, so that my friends who founded it left within a year because they’d captured it, now the apotheosis is at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You (Americans) have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view….It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your prosperity away forever.
Not surprisingly Glenn Beck invited Monckton on his Fox News show. And they warned that global cooperation on curbing climate change would somehow lead to global socialism. As you probably know, “socialism” is the bogeyman of the conservatives. They have the utmost contempt for programs designed to heal the sick and sustain the poor, and they oppose attempts to improve the public school system, encouraging home schooling and private education instead.
To this movement “conservative” has become the opposite of “progressive.” Why that should be a Good Thing beats me. I always thought that mankind’s manifest destiny was to progress, to become ever more evolved, ever more compassionate - and ever more Christlike.
Do you think Jamaica could use some of those tens of millions of U.S. dollars the U.N. has lost track of in Afghanistan? How about those countries in Africa? And the struggling slum dwellers in India? The Pacific rim? Latin America?
I’m sure you can think of many better ways to spend the U.N.’s money instead of funding an “election” in Afghanistan.
The “election” was such a farce that the U.N. ordered a do-over. And now one of the two candidates, some guy with the unlikely name of Abdullah Abdullah (photo at right), has dropped out because he doesn’t think he’ll get a fair shake from incumbent president Hamid Karzai (photo far right).You would think the U.N. would throw in the towel and recognize that there’s no chance of establishing a democracy in Afghanistan. But no.
Apparently the “election” do-over is to proceed with just one candidate contesting the race. Where are comic opera geniuses Gilbert and Sullivan when we need them? This would make a dandy plot for one of their musicals.
Here’s an excerpt from a news story on the wires today:
The United Nations cannot account for tens of millions of dollars provided to the troubled Afghan election commission, according to two confidential U.N. audits and interviews with current and former senior diplomats.
As Afghanistan prepares for a second round of national voting, the documents and interviews paint the fullest picture to date of the finances of the election commission, which has been accused of facilitating election fraud and operating ghost polling places. The new disclosures also deepen the questions about the U.N.’s oversight of money provided by the United States and other nations to ensure a fair election in Afghanistan.
“Everybody kept sending money” to the elections commission, said Peter Galbraith, the former deputy chief of the U.N. mission in Afghanistan. “Nobody put the brakes on. U.S. taxpayers spent hundreds of millions of dollars on a fraudulent election.” Galbraith, a deputy to the senior U.N. official in Afghanistan, was fired last month after protesting fraud in the elections.
It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. This kind of wanton wastefulness is all too common in a world driven by hypocrisy and “spin.” The U.S. is spending $65 billion on the Afghanistan occupation this year and can’t find the money to provide its own people with health care. But that’s not the worst of it. In addition to the wasted billions, the lives of young men and women from several Western nations are being sacrificed to convey the impression that Americans are dedicated to the cause of worldwide “freedom” and “democracy.”
Meanwhile, back in the USA, elected representatives are selling their votes to corporations for campaign contributions. And the majority of voters are watching “American Idol,” apparently unaware of what’s going on. Many of them don’t even bother to go to the polls.
And a neo-con chorus is urging President Obama to send 40,000 more troops into the Afghan “war.” Critics are baiting him with suggestions that his cojones are suspect. If he were any kind of a man, they say, he wouldn’t be “dithering” about the war, he would be sending more young Americans to give their lives and limbs for the cause - whatever that might be.
Surely, the President must be aware of the real situation in Afghanistan? With all his information sources, he must know about the drug-based culture and pervasive corruption? And, above all, he must know there is no “war” to be won over there?
Afghanistan is a country in name only. The society is fragmented; it is a collection of tribes and gangs, with no glue holding them together. Drawing a line around a space on a map and calling it Afghanistan does not make it a country. It’s as if someone had come to Columbus’s America and decided to lump all the Indian tribes together and call them a nation.
The culture and religion - make that cultures and religions - are so alien to western thought that Americans cannot begin to make any sense of them. Attempting to establish a “democratic” central government based on a western model is absurd on its face. Talk of an “Afghan government” and an “Afghan military” is ludicrous. Even the word Taliban is a misleading label. In reality, the Taliban is a religious and political movement made up mostly of members of the Pashtun race. It no longer has anything to do with al Quaida, which moved across the border into Pakistan years ago and is apparently being sheltered by Pakistani insurgents.
You might argue that the “war on Terror” would be better fought in Pakistan. And America is pouring billions of tax dollars into that country in the hopes of putting down the Taliban insurgency. But that strategy, too, seems doomed to failure.
Consider this description from GlobalSecurity.org:
The Pashtun Taliban insurgency that began in 2001 is neither terrorism nor Islamic Jihad, though it features elements of both. It is simply the latest episode in a contest that has gone on for centuries between the Pashtun mountain tribes and the Punjabis of the Indus plain. With possibly one-fifth of the Pakistan Army Pashtoon, a crackdown … would require the army to hurt their kinsmen in an area where kinship is everything.
In view of the realities that exist in the area known as Afghanistan, do you think it makes any sense to talk about establishing a democracy there? Do you see any point in risking the lives of American, Canadian, British and other western soldiers in a crusade to give the area “freedom”? Do you see any possible end to this “war” or any attainable objective for it?
If I had my way, no legislation would be longer than five typewritten pages - double-spaced. Never would you see a bill like the 2,000-page health care monstrosity the U.S. House is now considering. Or that bulky Wall Street “reform” bill the Obama Administration is pushing. These mammoth bills often include provisions that call for the opposite of the bill’s professed intent, slipped in there by sneaky politicians with axes to grind.
I don’t read these bills and I am not likely to. But from what I have learned from those who have the time and patience to slog through miles of turgid prose, sneaky things are going on.
Take the Wall Street reform bill that’s supposed to correct the abuses leading to the TARP bank heist, for example. You remember how the Bush administration stampeded Congress into handing out hundreds of billions of bailout dollars with no strings attached? And you remember the wails of regret when the elected representatives could not find out where the money went? That was no more than I expected from the Bush gang. But it’s not what I expected from Obama. And it looks as if that’s what we’re getting.
Obama’s treasury secretary, Tim Geithner (with the President at right), is a veteran Wall Street wheeler-dealer, as are all the President’s financial advisers, and I don’t think he is aware of the hanky-panky they’re up to. He’s a constitutional expert, after all, not a numbers cruncher.
How else to explain the contradiction between his fine rhetoric and their skulduggery?
Geithner not only continued the bank robbery operation initiated by Bush treasury secretary Hank Paulson but is also looking to expand its scope.
A recent Salon article by David Sirota warns that:
As evidenced by two little-noticed sections of the Obama administration’s Wall Street “reform” bill, presidents and their bank benefactors are back to thinking they can pilfer whatever they want - only now they have learned to camouflage their demands by burying them in the esoterica of lengthier bills.
What caught Sirota’s eye is a provision in the massive bill that would let the administration give favored financial institutions any amount of tax money without approval by Congress. Here’s Sirota’s interpretation of the provisions:
Whereas the original TARP included some oversight language and power to limit Wall Street bonuses, TARP on steroids includes no specific oversight or executive pay constraints. Whereas TARP permitted the government to underwrite both small and large banks, TARP on steroids allows taxpayer cash to go only to the behemoths (which, not coincidentally, tend to make the biggest campaign contributions). And whereas TARP limited the Treasury secretary’s check-writing authority to two years and $700 billion, TARP on steroids would let him spend as much as he wants for as long as he wants.
Geithner said the Obama administration would oppose amendments limiting the new bailout power - even if the limit was a $1 trillion cap. Does that sound like “reform” to you?
Ironically, the Obama administration has labeled the bill the “Financial Stability Improvement Act,” and - as Sirota points out - it would be an improvement for Wall Street’s stability, though certainly not for the stability of the nation’s finances.
Are you as puzzled by this as I am? Whose side is Obama on, anyway? How did a pack of Wall Street insiders get control of his administration’s financial policies and how much tax money will they plunder before voters say, “Enough”?
You hear it all the time: “Oh, they’re just a bunch of crooks.” That’s the opinion most people seem to have of elected officials. And considering the scandals you read about in “democracies” all over the world, you may be inclined to agree.
From Afghanistan to Zaire, the beat goes on. It seems that people run for office only to feather their nests when they get elected. And the implications are horrific.
In America, the health care kerfuffle has ripped the scab off an especially septic situation. The media have bestirred themselves enough to look into the hidden influences at work in the “debate.” And what they’ve found is deeply disturbing. Health care profiteers have donated millions to the campaign chests of politicians responsible for reining them in. It’s no wonder that real health care “reform” is getting nowhere despite all the chatter. It seems inevitable that the health insurance companies will emerge with even fatter profits, some of which will go back to the politicians who are rigging the “reform” process in their favor.
To me, that’s just plain corruption, but it is completely legal. Also legal is the “you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours” culture in Washington, where wives and daughters of elected representatives are often hired by interests that depend on the politicians to look out for them in Congress. Examples are too numerous to mention, but the case of Indiana Senator Evan Bayh stands out because it could have had such far-reaching effects.
A new book by Barack Obama’s campaign manager discloses that Bayh (photo at right) was a “coin toss” away from becoming the President’s running mate last year. In “The Audacity to Win,” David Plouffe quotes candidate Obama as saying his choice for vice president was a toss-up between Bayh and Joe Biden. That sends chills down my spine.
Consider that one of Obama’s main campaign planks - perhaps the main campaign plank - was health care reform, and consider that Bayh’s wife, Susan, has reportedly earned at least $2 million over the past six years as a member of the board of WellPoint, a major health insurer. According to news reports, Susan Bayh joined WellPoint’s board in 1998, while her husband was governor of Indiana. In addition to her director’s pay, she has profited handsomely from selling WellPoint stock.
What was Obama thinking? Does nobody vet his choices? Did his advisers know about the Bayh family’s involvement in the health care industry? How could they have sanctioned a vice presidential selection so diametrically opposed to Obama’s professed goal of reforming health care?
Could it be that hypocrisy and deception are so endemic to Washington that no one noticed the conflict of interest?
Every day, I read about some new scandal involving government officials. Currently, the House ethics committee is investigating no fewer than 30 members of Congress. The list includes many highly respected and powerful politicians. According to the Washington Post, seven members of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense are “under scrutiny” by the committee. They are Reps. John Murtha (D-PA), Pete Visclosky (D-IN), James Moran (D-VA), Norm Dicks (D-WA), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), C.W. Bill Young (R-FL), and Todd Tiahrt (R-KS).
And the ethics committee has announced it is launching a full investigation of Reps. Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Laura Richardson (D-CA). The Waters matter focuses on her alleged intervention to get bailout funds for a bank in which her husband held stock. Richardson allegedly failed to disclose real estate assets and got special treatment involving a foreclosure on her home.
Meanwhile, a report from Alaska today spotlights the corruption rampant in that state. Two ex-officials of VECO Corporation were sentenced for paying members of the Alaska legislature about $395,000 to get their votes. Former CEO Bill J. Allen got 36 months. He must also pay a $750,000 fine and serve three years of supervised release. Former Vice President Richard L. Smith got 21 months. He must pay a $10,000 fine and serve three years of supervised release.
I could go on and on. You probably recall many similar cases over the years. Legally and illegally, elected representatives are bought and sold like chattel in America while officials shake their heads sanctimoniously and tut-tut over the “corrupt government in Afghanistan.” (Ironically, it’s the American CIA that’s promoting some of the corruption over there.)
Of course, America is not alone. Corruption is rife everywhere. It has been going on forever, and, to tell you the truth, I don’t think anyone will ever be able to stamp it out.
Back in the days when people still prized common sense, there was a saying that went something like this:
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
We don’t ride horses much any more, and we no longer use them in battle, but the old proverb is as relevant today as ever. I was reminded of this when I read a news item today about a $1.26 billion default judgment against PepsiCo. Inc. According to the story, the soft drink giant got hit with the huge judgment because its high-priced lawyers failed to appear in court as scheduled.
Two Wisconsin men, Charles Joyce and James Voigt, had sued Pepsico, alleging the company stole their idea to bottle purified water. When the company was notified of a hearing in the case, no one showed up. So, Circuit Judge Jacqueline Erwin ruled for the plaintiff.
Pepsico is trying to get the judgment vacated, explaining that a busy secretary hadn’t forwarded a document to the right person in time. According to the company, here’s what happened:
The corporation first received a legal document related to the case from the North Carolina agent on Sept. 15 when a copy of a co-defendant’s letter was forwarded to Deputy General Counsel Tom Tamoney in PepsiCo’s law department. Tamoney’s secretary, Kathy Henry, put the letter aside and didn’t tell anyone about it because she was “so busy preparing for a board meeting.”
I don’t know how reliable Kathy Henry normally is, but I imagine she was overwhelmed by an unreasonable workload, the way most corporate employees are these days. Corporate masterminds have found out they can increase profits and boost stock prices by cutting staff, and they always cut from the bottom. Instead of firing an overpaid vice president, companies usually lay off half a dozen clerks. This naturally leads to inefficiency as important documents get misplaced and important tasks remain undone.
The prevailing feeling in corporate America is that some employees are “valuable” and others are not. Companies pay CEOs and other top brass huge salaries and bonuses because these executives are considered essential to success. And the people who actually do the work? Why they’re a dime a dozen and get paid accordingly. Now, I have known my share of CEOs, and I can vouch for the fact that they are about as smart as the next person. A few are a little smarter; others aren’t as smart. But they have all managed to build impressive resumes peppered with the right buzz words, and they are able to convince boards of directors that they know the secrets of success.
Even if some of these fat cats do have bright ideas (Lee Iacocca’s development of the Ford Mustang springs to mind), they wouldn’t do much good if the minions charged with executing the ideas fall down on the job. As the old proverb illustrates, the farrier replacing that horseshoe was as important as the general who devised the battle plan.
Pepsico is fighting the $1.26 billion award and a hearing is scheduled for Nov. 6. I imagine the lawyers will wiggle out of this embarrassing situation somehow. But I hope the soft drink behemoth has learned a valuable lesson. And I also hope the rest of the corporate world is paying attention.
According to an old saying (I read on the web that it originated in ancient China), “fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me.” But what about “fool me over and over and over”? How shameful is that?
And that’s what Joe Lieberman has done to the Democratic Party. I don’t know what he has on party brass but they keep forgiving him for the most egregious treachery and rewarding him for stabbing them in the back not once, not twice, but time and again.
Check out some of his worst betrayals as compiled by The Huffington Post:
This snake-in-the-grass was Al Gore’s vice-presidential candidate in 2000 but supported Republican John McCain in 2008! You could see him all over the place - and all over TV - tagging along beside McCain, two little birds-of-a feather, Heckle and Jeckle, (photos at right) lying their heads off and touting policies that are anathema to Democrats.
After the voters resoundingly rejected McCain, Lieberman came crawling back to the Democrats. I was among thousands who signed a petition begging the party to bar the door, but - with encouragement from newly elected President Obama - the party leaders welcomed him into the Democratic caucus and even gave him back his committee and subcommittee chairmanships.
So what has he done to show his contrition and gratitude? Not a thing. He is still the little creep who called Obama a Socialist (and suggested he might even be a Marxist) during the presidential campaign, and who told Fox News that it would be the end of America if the Democrats won a 60-seat majority in the Senate.
As chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, he has followed the Fox News party line by holding hearings on the number of so-called “czars” in the Obama administration. And now he’s threatening to help Republicans filibuster health care reform if it includes a public option.
This man is no Democrat. He is a Zionist hawk who vigorously supported war with Iraq and wants America to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. His loyalty is clearly to Israel, not to his own country. And he erroneously supposes that by bombing Israel’s neighbors, America will make that country safer.
And as far as domestic policies are concerned, why he’s as open-handed as anyone. His hand is always open to accept contributions from special interests - the health care industry, for instance.
Here’s an excerpt from a New York Times article written back in 2000, when Lieberman was the Democrats’ vice-presidential candidate:
Behind the traditional Democratic oratory of his convention speech is a senator who has described himself as being “pro-business, pro-trade and pro-economic growth.” During his two terms in the Senate, Mr. Lieberman closely aligned himself with three industries — insurance, high technology and health care - that are the main sources of his campaign contributions, and whose lobbyists say they are pleased with how he has promoted their agendas in Washington.
This is the guy that Harry Reid is leaning on to help get a decent health care reform bill passed? Puh-lease!
At Fort Hood, Texas, yesterday the unthinkable happened: An Army psychiatrist - a major - opened fire on a room full of soldiers who were getting checkups before going to Iraq. The carnage left a dozen dead and sent 31 others to the hospital, some in critical condition. One of the wounded died during the night. Riddled with bullets from military and civilian police responding to the attack (photo at right), the shooter still survives, and with him a list of questions that may never be fully answered.
Or, unintellectual as this may seem, was some supernatural force involved? I know, Sandra says I am “surprisingly” superstitious when I say this, but I am tempted to believe in “possession.” During my days as a reporter, I sat in many a somber courtroom, listening to some killer recounting the events that got him (it was never “her”) there. And sometimes I would wonder at the way in which the testimony was delivered. The killer seemed to be describing someone else’s actions, as if he were only a bystander while the crime was being committed. It seemed to me as if the accused killer’s body might have been taken over by some external force.
