Wacky whitefolks last waltz

September 13, 2009

Watching the antics of America’s angry, confused conservatives, many of Tea Party 1us wonder, “how long must we endure these people?” Thankfully, as Martin Luther King once said: “How long? Not long.”

Look at the faces of the Tea Party folks who gathered in Washington D.C., on Sept 12 to stage a very muddled protest against what they alternately called President Obama’s socialist, fascist, Marxist or racist health care reform. Tea Party 4What do you see? That’s right. White people. What do Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Joe Wilson, and the Tea Party folks all have in common? The crazed conservatives of this country  are not people of color. They’re not Hispanics or Asian or African American. They’re white.

So what? Well, white people won’t be the dominantTea Party 2 race or culture in America for much longer. By 2042, they will be a minority, and their percentage of the population will continue to decline throughout the century and beyond. The numbers and power of white people are eroding, not only in the United States but around the world.

chart tea party

As the color and culture of our great nation changes, so will the crazed conservatives find themselves steadily marginalized. My biggest fear is that, in the meantime, some individuals of their ilk will do something really crazy. But beyond that, we only need to wait them out.Tea Party 3

2 Comments | Barack Obama, Conservative crazies, Tea Party, health reform | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by jgogek

More consumer loans from TARP? Wouldn’t take it to the bank…

January 25, 2009

bank-crackedThe Obama administration wants banks to use some TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) money to increase consumer and business loans. Or so they say.

“The point is to get credit flowing again to businesses and families across the country — that hasn’t happened with the expenditure of the first $350 billion,” top advisor David Axelrod said in early January.

There’s talk of stricter controls and oversight for TARP II. But exactly how the Obama administration will force banks to start lending more money to consumers and businesses isn’t clear. Does the Obama administration really want to do it? Axelrod’s words may be for public consumption only.

Banks know that with the economy stumbling and more and more businesses going under and people losing their jobs, defaults on mortgages and unpaid auto loans and credit cards increase. Delinquencies rise for all types of consumer credit. With fewer people buying, business lending gets riskier. In such an environment, banks loan less, not more. They hoard cash for an even rainier day.

A better idea is to help consumers pay the debt they already have through mortgage restructuring or mitigation and economic stimulus through job creation. If you lose your job, the best way to keep paying your mortgage, car note and credit card bills is to get another job. At the same time, government can twist lending institutions and investors to renegotiate consumer debt, like threatening them with cram-downs, which already seems to have worked. Use TARP to help banks stay solvent, while economic stimulus creates jobs so people can pay their bills, then debt restructuring makes those bills easier to pay. That will loosen up credit – slowly, but in a sustainable way. Anyway, do we really want to increase consumer and business debt right now?

The public hates all this talk about bank bailouts, of course. But what of it? They should hate it; it’s hateful. I hate the fact that our financial institutions acted so irresponsibly in giving out mortgages and credit cards to anybody with a pulse. But arguing against bank bailouts is foolish. Banks hold all the money. Not just bankers’ money – your money, my money, everybody’s money. And their investors hold everybody’s notes. If they go down, we all get hurt.

In return for bailing out banks, let’s get the biggest equity stake possible. I’m not afraid of the N-word: nationalization. We don’t nationalize like Venezuela does; whatever chunk of the banks that taxpayers buy will be sold back to private investors later on. The key to whether Obama’s bailout of banks is a success is whether the federal government recoups its losses, or turns a profit, a few years from now. If it does, it will all be worth it.

2 Comments | Barack Obama, TARP, bailout, banks, cram-down, default, economic stimulus | Permalink
Posted by jgogek

President Obama and cigarettes: If he quits, he can help reverse the global tobacco epidemic and save millions of lives

January 17, 2009

barack-obamaWith the country is facing an economic disaster and crises throughout the world, it may not seem very important whether President Obama smokes cigarettes. The public response to his struggle to quit seems to be: Give the guy a break.

But, tobacco smoke kills 440,000 a year in the United States and 5.4 million each year worldwide. That number will reach 8 million by 2030, with 80 percent of those deaths in developing countries. Tobacco will kill 1 billion people this century. It’s the most preventable cause of death, in rich and poor countries alike. President Obama can save millions of these lives by joining the fight against this global epidemic. But unless he can quit smoking and stay quit, he might actually hurt the cause.

The international tobacco industry spends tens of billions each year pushing its message that smoking is normal and desirable. A charismatic world leader who is an inspiration to young and old — and who smokes –would be a godsend for the industry. But if the same world leader publicly quits, and supports changes that help others to quit and children never to start, he could turn the tide on this epidemic.

Smoking in the United States has declined in recent decades; leveling off at about 20 percent of the adult population. Meanwhile, the global reality is much worse. Countries with low or moderate per capita incomes are particularly at risk because of low tobacco prices, lack of awareness and aggressive tobacco marketing.

Indonesia is a tragic example. Over 60 percent of adult males smoke. So do a quarter of teenage boys under 16. The rate among young girls is rising fast. Tobacco advertising is rampant and, like most developing countries, Indonesia has few of the controls that can reverse the tobacco epidemic. Treatment for tobacco dependence and anti-smoking messages are rare. Tobacco advertising is everywhere. And, tobacco taxes, and hence prices, is low.little-kid-smoking-cigarette-copy21

It’s also a country where President Obama is very popular, having spent some of his childhood there. By speaking out as an honored world leader who has quit smoking, he could help countries like Indonesia overcome tobacco industry muscle and enact desperately needed anti-tobacco measures. Africa is another region with a growing tobacco epidemic where President Obama can help.

While tobacco prevalence in Africa is still relatively low, it’s a vast new marketplace for the tobacco industry because of lax controls and young populace. President Obama could spur tobacco controls there, too, and help save millions of lives.

Reversing the global tobacco epidemic is not complex. It doesn’t require breakthrough cures or heroic medical treatment, just policy changes that already have been tested, plus enforcement. A recent World Health Organization report laid out the path countries must take by using the acronym MPOWER: Monitor tobacco use and prevention policies; protect people from tobacco smoke; offer help to quit smoking; warn about the dangers of tobacco; enforce bans on advertising, promotion and sponsorship; and raise taxes on tobacco. These are well-researched and proven methods. If adopted by all countries, these policies would save hundreds of millions of lives.

mpower_report_2008_cover1The tobacco industry vigorously opposes the MPOWER measures. And many countries have yet to develop the political prowess to resist the industry’s powerful influence and sophisticated tactics. President Obama can help by supporting global adoption of these policy changes. He could begin by getting the United States to ratify the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This treaty is blueprint for reducing the worldwide supply of and demand for tobacco. While 161 nations are parties to the treaty, the United States isn’t one of them.

President Obama will battle unemployment, the real estate collapse, worldwide recession, climate change, a broken health care system, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and crises still beyond the horizon. But he should not ignore the planet’s greatest preventable health threat. Because he’s admired throughout the world and because he himself struggles with addiction to cigarettes, President Obama could be instrumental in reversing the global tobacco epidemic.

5 Comments | Addiction, Barack Obama, Obama, Tobacco, substance abuse | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by jgogek

Civil rights vs. social issues: What Pastor Rick Warren doesn’t understand and Barack Obama should know

December 27, 2008

obama-and-rick-warren12

“… It is important for America to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues.”

– Barack Obama on why he chose anti-gay marriage activist Pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration

Gay marriage isn’t a social issue. It’s a civil rights issue. And Barack Obama should understand the significance of that difference. In the 1950s and early 1960s, many whites insisted that black civil rights should be treated like social issues, that black civil rights leaders should go slowly and seek common ground and accommodation instead of receiving immediate, full rights. Today, the same is being demanded of gays and lesbians. Barack Obama asks that gays and lesbians try to find common ground with those who oppose their civil rights.

Is gay marriage a civil rights issue? By definition, civil rights issues affect the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution, and in similar provisions in state constitutions. The 13th amendment abolished slavery. The 14th amendment mandates equal protection for all under the law. Civil rights, say gay-marriage opponents, are about race and gender, not sexual orientation.

Laws that deny people the right to marry are certainly civil rights issues. That was shown in the case of Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which involved a married couple from Virginia: Mildred Loving, an African-American, to Richard Perry Loving, a white man. The U.S. Supreme Court, in overturning the Virginia law that banned marriage between blacks and whites, stated as its premise that “marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man…” The ruling also found that the Virginia law violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

The California Supreme Court decision of May 15, 2008, linked the basic civil right of marriage to equal protection under the law for gays and lesbians. It overturned a state law defining marriage as between man and woman, declaring not only that marriage is a constitutional right, but also that equal protection in the state Constitution granted the right of marriage to everybody.

The decision firmly equated discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with discrimination based on race or gender. The court also found that there was no compelling state interest in banning gay marriage and that such a ban can bring harm to gay couples and their children. It’s hard to see how the recently passed Proposition 8 in any way changes that ruling. California voters have amended the state Constitution, but that amendment still violates equal protection. Prop. 8 very probably will be struck down as unconstitutional.

Opponents to gay marriage argue that there is a compelling state and national interest in maintaining marriage as between man and woman only. The compelling interest is a moral one, they say. This argument is nothing new in the annals of American civil rights. White racists of the American past also claimed morality to defend their opposition to interracial marriage, desegregation and other civil rights issues. There are countless examples of this, but one that’s apropos comes from the State of Virginia’s defense in Loving v. Virginia: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

We hear similar moral arguments about God’s intention to oppose gay marriage from the mouths of Pastor Rick Warren and his ilk. It’s not uncommon for people to hide their fears behind the curtain of morality.

Such moral arguments eventually will run out of steam in court. The lack of a compelling interest and the mandate for equal protection eventually will lead to the legalization of gay marriage. One of the best arguments for it came from Mildred Loving, who issued a rare public statement on the recent 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia:mildred1967

“Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the wrong kind of person for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.”

Leave a Comment » | Barack Obama, Civil Rights, gay marriage, homophobia | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by jgogek