245. It’s clear: Obama should appoint SCOTUS justice

I had not yet heard of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing when I turned on the Republican Party debate last weekend.

The first question was whether or not President Barack Obama should name the next Supreme Court justice. Candidates, one after another, said that he should not — that the next president should choose. Granted, what else could they say? However, most genuinely seemed to have convinced themselves that the next president should make that call.

And it wasn’t just the presidential candidates. Mitch McConnell said that it should be the American people who choose who the next justice is, referring of course to the next presidential election.

Certainly Supreme Court appointments are important, as they rule on this country’s most divisive issues. The Supreme Court interprets the law on federal questions, but not without a political perspective. It’s clear which justices are conservative and which are liberal.

They are, unfortunately, lifetime appointments. This causes some problems as presidents often choose young judges so that they can influence the social and political direction of the country long after their terms end. The other problem is that this can put the pressure on justices to serve well past retirement. In the present case, Scalia would not have retired while Obama was in office because of the fear of a liberal appointment.

While brilliant in his understanding of the law, Scalia’s conservativism and original intent was of some angst for liberals. Some of his opinions and perspectives were not only outdated but blatantly offensive. I not will provide detail so soon after his death, but simple research will easily provide numerous examples. One may want to start with Lawrence v. Texas. Comedian Patton Oswald said, “Scalia was born in 1936… and never left.”

In response to Mitch McConnell’s shortsighted statement, Senator Elizabeth Warren stated that the American people did decide who would name the next Supreme Court justice when they elected Obama by more than five million votes.

She’s absolutely correct and it’s ridiculous that the Republicans are going to try to run out the clock with almost a full year left in his presidency. The next president doesn’t get sworn in until next January — are they seriously considering that the Supreme Court wait until at least a year from now before someone else is selected? Obama has just less than 25 percent of his term remaining. While the Constitution details no timetable for lame duck presidents, it surely would not have been a year. I might consider the argument if the amount of time left were a few days, but even then, that suggests a cut-off date and the Constitution does not provide one. Scalia would be appalled at the Republicans’ rationale.

It is often said that fairness could be realized by considering what might happen were the situation the other way around. Does anyone think that Republicans would not have supported a Republican president naming the next justice were the situation reversed? Of course not. How about Democrats? Maybe they would fight it as Republicans intend to, but I would remain consistent. I would just as quickly call them defiant bullies trying to make up their own rules.

Because justices receive lifetime appointments and considering the political implications I mentioned above, there have not been many Supreme Court justices nominated in the final year of their presidency. But consider the last time it happened.

In 1987, Anthony M. Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic Senate 97-0. He was nominated by Ronald Raegan on Nov. 30.

Ouch, so much for precedent.

American did overwhelming elect Obama and he should nominate the next Supreme Court justice. And Republicans need to act responsibly and perform the constitutional duty of approving a qualified individual.

I would say that they are acting like spoiled children, but if you have seen the debates, you already know that

244. Not just how, but why Clinton is losing ground

Bernie Sanders lost the primary caucus by the closest of margins. But if you watched the post-election speeches, there were different atmospheres in the two camps.

Clinton gave her typical cadence-ridden speech and her supporters laughed, clapped, and smiled. She carefully hinted at victory even before the evidence supported that claim, but more notably she looked relieved. Since Sanders is expected to win in New Hampshire, a loss would have been devastating when less than a year ago she had a very comfortable lead.

Conversely, in the Sanders camp… wow!

Bernie Sanders walked to the podium to the loud chant of “Feel the Bern, feel the Bern!” The excitement, even in a narrow loss, was unbelievable. Sanders could barely get a word in. His commitment to lead a revolution threw the crowd into a frenzy.

While I certainly would vote for Clinton in the general election, as she is probably the most experienced candidate in history, and far better than anything the Republicans can nominate, I have longed for socio-economic reform. I was a big supporter of Sanders even before he announced his candidacy. His message has consistently been spread across decades of service. He is a passionate fighter for the middle and lower classes.

The middle class been dwindling for decades. The standard of living has decreased even as people work longer and harder. Most rely on large amounts of credit. Student loans hang over graduates for years. Our health care system often means one critical illness creates years of debt or even bankruptcy. The minimum wage is not only unsustainable for anyone to survive on, it keeps other wages down.

On the other side, partisan decisions like Citizens United and campaign Super PACs have ensured that our democracy will be at the mercy of the wealthy. The inequality of wealth is shameful for any country, let alone any one that claims to be a Christian nation. The game — that of hindering socio-economic mobility — has been purposely rigged. A health care system out of control not only pours profits into corporate hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies, it also keeps wages down as companies keep paying more of the employee share for medical benefits.

Yet nearly every single candidate over the last couple decades, and probably longer, whether Republican or Democrat, claims to be a fighter for the middle class. How can that be? How can they fail so miserably term after term in improving the lives of the middle class?

The answer is not just partisan politics. They fail because their political careers are directly related to the power of wealthy corporations. And the wealthy are not interested in improving the lives of the middle class. As long as we have just enough to get by and enough credit to buy their products, they are winning.

I believe Clinton has good intentions and is moderately progressive, but she is part of the political machine that is destroying our democracy. She is content to move the country forward slowly. She is unwilling to give up her Super PACs. She once commented she was broke after husband Bill’s presidency, which is ridiculous considering their ability to make millions for simply giving a speech to wealthy corporations. And even though Sanders moved on from her emails, it does bring forth a question about, at best, a terrible lapse in judgement or, at worst, arrogance and secrecy. On many of the issues, she has an authenticity problem.

Sanders wants a revolution. He doesn’t care about his ego or popularity. He isn’t bought by corporate interest nor is he willing to accept meaningless compromises that only appear to help the lower and middle classes. He is willing to take on powerful industries and the one percent, which are negatively affecting both our economics and democracy.

When Sanders announced his presidency, I immediately proclaimed support. Many people on Facebook and other social media laughed at my backing. Sanders is a “socialist,” has no chance of winning, and too old, they said. From the beginning, I knew his campaign was a longshot but relished that his message on one of the country’s most important issues, that of wealth inequality, would finally be heard. In that respect, he has already won and his popularity is moving Clinton left. And, more so, his young supporters have heard his message and may offer help move the country forward as they get older.

Trump supporters say they like that he tells it like it is and is using his own money to finance his campaign. The trouble is Trump’s message. Sanders speaks the truth with principle and message. His passion is the American people and the most important issues affecting their lives — such as income equality, national health care, and the democratic policy.

243. Vacationing in the land of the inglorious past

My wife and I recently returned from a wonderful vacation, one that took us from this country’s capital to the days of yesteryear.

We started in Washington, D.C, and National Harbor, visiting the Capitol building, Library of Congress, and Arlington National Cemetery. From there we visited George Washington’s Mount Vernon on our way to Richmond and the old Confederate White House. Next was the city of Charleston, S.C., and two amazing plantations, Boone Hall and Mongolia Gardens. Finally, we ended in Savannah, Ga., briefly touring the historic and popular city.

While the sights were often breathtaking and colossal, we are enamored with the history and the story of it all. Our trip, inclusive of tour guides and museums, took us back in time from the Revolutionary War through the Civil War. Depending on place and perspective, is was a romantic time — and while simpler, perhaps, it was much more difficult.

This country, from its declaration of independence to the civil war (and beyond), has morally battled social etiquette, religious teaching, and economic interests. The most ominous part of our visits were the old slave homes that still stand on some of the plantations. To see and imagine what life was like for millions of slaves, who upon capture had their lives and those of future generations changed forever, is a soul-searching question of the limits of human brutality.

There is enough dread in slavery, and cruelty in the treatment of Indians, to forever dismiss any moral superiority that we have come to proclaim and stand upon. While the Revolutionary War was a fight for freedom and against colonialism, there was never a time — from then until now — that all men (and women) are considered to be created equal. The founding fathers were brilliant, but many of them were also hypocrites. How could they start a revolution about freedom, individual rights, and the injustice of taxation while at the same time enslaving an entire race of people under miserable conditions?

The trip across the Atlantic alone was more than anyone deserves in a lifetime. The boats were loaded to capacity, with space limited to a couple of feet per slave. They were abused, raped, and a large percentage died on the trip. Others committed suicide.

Those who survived were sold like cattle, striped and branded. Families were often separated. Slaves were expensive, many estimates in today’s dollars are more than $40,000. Work days were from sunrise to sunset. At Mount Vernon, it was noted that the slaves rarely ate meat, and when they did, they got the heart or intestine of an animal. The fortunate slaves lived in small rooms, often by the dozen. It became a criminal act to teach them to read, and those who tried to escape became a harsh example.

I often hear that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. It is sort of a technicality, open to interpretation, and varied by region and even individual. The South regarded it as a second revolution, to break away from the overbearing Union as the colonies broke away from England years before.

However, even if the issue was not the moral judgment on slavery, it was the economic impact of slavery. Slavery made a lot of people very, very wealthy. And, for competitors in non-slave states, it was an unfair competitive advantage. Plantations were large, beautiful, nearly self-contained communities — and only possible with slave labor. Southern cash crops such as rice and cotton bought land owners great wealth but also required intensive labor. Indeed, when slavery was abolished, many a plantation fell.

It’s the same economic system we have seen throughout history and practiced today — nothing has changed. Corporations seek the least expensive labor costs available to create large profits for their shareholders. It’s the principle of minimizing labor costs, giving the working class just enough to get by to prevent protest and uprising.

And, of course, many times that cheap labor force is practiced today as outsourcing. Instead of bringing the slaves here, now our corporations go to them.

242. War and terrorism breed war and terrorism

In its simplest definition, terrorism is “the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” In this respect, terrorism can cover a lot of situations and motivations, and only slightly differs from war, which is defined as “a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.”

There seems to be a fragile moral distinction between the collateral damage, that is the American term for the death of innocent civilians in a war between countries, and the innocent killed by terrorist organizations. The latter seems to kill far fewer individuals, but incites panic and instills fear in not only the general citizenry but also prompts well-supported national retaliation. Intentionally, there is something more terrifying about unsuspected violence and knowingly being part of a country that is being attacked.

For example, the Al-Qaeda attacks on the United States led to more than 3,000 deaths. However, the civilians violently killed in Afghanistan in retaliation numbered 26,000 according the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University. The same report lists Iraqi civilian deaths at 165,000 for a war started after the 9/11 attacks but still without reason.

As someone who loves my country, and has nothing but the utmost respect and appreciation for our courageous soldiers, I have difficulty reconciling the amount violence and death this country has engaged in, supported or funded over its relatively short history. An unbiased review of American history is troublesome.

To understand the real story behind the country’s founding and subsequent protection of American interest, I would strongly recommend two books: A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn and The Untold History of The United States by Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick. They are intense and lengthy reads but so powerful in refuting much of the propaganda in traditional text books.

“What struck me as I began to study history was how nationalist fervor--inculcated from childhood on by pledges of allegiance, national anthems, flags waving and rhetoric blowing--permeated the educational systems of all countries, including our own. I wonder now how the foreign policies of the United States would look if we wiped out the national boundaries of the world . . . Then we could never drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, or napalm on Vietnam, or wage war anywhere, because wars, especially in our time, are always wars against children, indeed our children,” wrote Zinn.

American hypocrisy started upon our arrival as colonists to this country were perhaps the original illegal immigrants. The soon-to-be Americans steadfastly took this land from the Indians though brutal wars and broken peace and land agreements.

Zinn noted the atrocities, “Angered when fellow Indians were induced to cede a great tract of land to the United States government, Tecumseh organized in 1811 an Indian gathering of five thousand . . . and told them: “Let the white race perish. They seize your land; they corrupt your women; they trample on the ashes of your dead! Back whence they came, upon a trail of blood, they must be driven.””

Obviously the white Americans were not driven from this land and with them they brought slavery and some of the most despicable forms of human treatment ever endured on this planet.

“African slavery lacked two elements that made American slavery the most cruel form of slavery in history: the frenzy for limitless profit that comes from capitalistic agriculture; the reduction of the slave to less than human status by the use of racial hatred, with that relentless clarity based on color, where white was master, black was slave,” Zinn wrote.

Perhaps the most justified war was World War II, in which the United States was brought late into the war and helped the Russians finish off the Germans and take revenge on Japan. However, the United States, for all the talk of nuclear weapons, is still the only country to drop an atomic bomb—doing so unnecessarily on two Japan cities, killing hundreds of thousands of individuals.

“Most American view World War II nostalgically as the "good war," in which the United States and its allies triumphed over German Nazism, Italian fascism, and Japanese militarism. The rest of the world remembers it as the bloodiest war in human history. By the time it was over, more than 60 million people lay dead, including 27 million Russians . . . ,” wrote Oliver Stone.

Prosperity can be fragile and United State governments, whether run by Republican or Democratic administrations, have been, and continue to be, fully committed to protecting American interests around the world. That protection has included the overthrowing of defiant governments, instilling revolution against those governments or providing arms to those already in rebellion. The amount innocent deaths in the protection of interest are perhaps incalculable.

Zinn likewise comments, “We are not hated because we practice democracy, value freedom, or uphold human rights. We are hated because our government denies these things to people in Third World countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations. That hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the form of terrorism.”

The concerning issue for me is that the United States has been responsible, since its origin, for a terrible number of deaths, including of millions of “collateral damage.” I’ve not even included any consideration of the Vietnam, Korean or many other American conflicts. The war in Iraq has been a global embarrassment, not only by the unnecessary deaths but also the trillions of wasted tax-payer dollars. Yet American patriotism lacks perspective and behaves arrogantly, with some sort of moral superiority, projecting stereotypes and racism on others—as though killing for a distorted view of religion is worse than killing to protect economic interest.

At some point, the world—not just the United States—needs to evolve. War and terrorism just creates anger and inspires more war and terrorism. While war on dedicated terrorist organizations is unavoidable, it should not come at the expense of civilian fatalities. And wars to further economic interests, whether directly or indirectly, to preserve the greed of the wealthy at the expense of the poor in third world countries or otherwise is never acceptable.

Life is precious and should not be discarded so readily. The number of deaths on a report doesn’t tell the story of broken families and shattered hearts.