by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, April 1, 2010
States all across the nation are struggling with budget shortfalls. New York is far from unique in experiencing its own budget gaps as the governor and legislature approach their deadline. Most people are familiar with the problems facing states such as California, and the drastic steps being taken to resolve their own deficits. Therefore, it is little surprise that Governor David Paterson, the State Assembly and State Senate find themselves in similar waters.
While both legislative houses have passed emergency bills to keep the state government operating, as of this writing, differences of opinion and strategy are likely to prevent legislators from presenting a budget by the April 1 deadline.
One would hope that our representatives in the state legislature would put aside politics and focus on doing their best to serve the people of New York. Unfortunately, the work of the people is being impeded by the personal interests of those in Albany.
The obvious requirement of balancing a budget plagued by deficit is to increase revenue while reducing expenditure. The governor’s office and the houses of legislature have presented various plans to address budget issues.
Paterson has infamously proposed increasing revenue by raising taxes on cigarettes and imposing taxes on soft drinks. These measures, which lopsidedly affect lower income New Yorkers, unfairly target a group of people by their lifestyle. They also fall short of closing the gaps in the budget.
Cuts proposed by the governor’s office and the legislature to state programs and aid also threaten New York’s neediest by limiting or denying funding to school districts and other vital programs. Regardless of the outcome of negotiation, billions of dollars will be eliminated from programs and New Yorkers will suffer. Meanwhile, those who can least afford it will be further squeezed to make up the difference between revenue and expenditure.
And while we the people of New York are sacrificing, those in government in Albany are sharing in that sacrifice as well, right? Well, as it turns out, not so much.
Reports in the last couple of weeks have shown that even though the economy is depressed, and even though a pay freeze has been instituted in Albany, staffs in the legislature have been increased and raises have been awarded. Popular convention among fiscal conservatives would insist that the bulk of the increases would be at the hands of the tax-and-spend Democratic party. However, the majority of the $7.4 million these increases will cost New Yorkers, is being claimed by Republicans in the State Senate. Of course Democrats have had their hands out for these payoffs as well.
That this opportunism is a bi-partisan effort is small comfort. That it represents a lack of responsibility among those making decisions that affect us all is troubling.
Balancing the state budget, or at least presenting a realistic budget that meets needs while limiting its negative impact on the public, is a monumental task. This process and the negotiations that are part of it, require difficult choices and compromise. These things are certain.
I am concerned, not by the failure to meet deadlines in a timely manner, but by the things I see in the proposals coming from the governor’s office, the senate and the assembly. I am not fully qualified to offer solutions to state budget shortfalls. However, I believe that any such decisions should be made with the needs of and circumstances of the citizens of the state. Unfortunately, I see a governor acting with little regard to public opinion and of the real-world consequences of his decisions. I see a legislature too self-absorbed to look beyond personal gain to the business of helping those they represent.
As the formation of proposals and the budgeting process go forward I invite New Yorkers to keep an eye on the process and the provisions that are still evolving. There is still time to get involved. Our representatives in Albany are still working on the deals that will impact our lives. We should communicate to them our will. That remains our responsibility as the key component of a democratic system.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Signs of Spring
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, April 1, 2010
When you see the familiar glint of a red-bellied Robin flying low over a green lawn, or the south end of a northbound V of Canada Geese honking high in the sky, or the whitish-yellow blossom of a Daffodil blooming along a sidewalk, you know that Spring has finally arrived in upstate New York. These sights invariably bring a sudden feeling of warmth and joy to the winter-weary heart of New Yorkers. However, there is another annual sight we witness each April that does not bring such feelings of warmth and joy.
I speak, of course, of the annual New York State Budget showdown. It starts brewing in mid-January and it percolates slowly through the chilly days of February before it starts to really boil over in late March; and by April 1 (otherwise known as April Fool’s Day – for good reason) we can be assured that our governor and our legislators will be still be miles apart from a settlement and emergency appropriations will be called for and approved in the nick of time to avoid closing schools and government offices.
Each year we are told that certain services will be jeopardized if taxes are not raised and each year we mutely accept new fees, fines and revenue enhancers imposed upon us and our businesses. Then we wonder why we see the “For Sale” signs appear in the lawns and in the shop windows of homes and businesses as more people pack their belongings and head for other states where a more favorable environment exists for families and corporations.
The current situation in Albany is not that much different from previous years; it seems that the problem persists from administration to administration with only the names changing. This year, however, there is a proposal on the table from our Lieutenant Governor, Richard Ravitch. In his simple five-step plan, modeled after a similar program that was used in the 1970’s to bring New York City back from the brink of bankruptcy, Ravitch proposes several ideas that, on the face, seem practical and efficacious.
Ravitch’s proposal includes a five-year plan in which the state commits to paying down its structural gap and gives the governor the power to make across-the-board reductions should those gaps continue to exist. It also calls for an adoption of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, in which revenues are accounted when they are “earned” rather than when the money actually arrives in Albany. The plan calls for borrowing within limits determined by an independent financial review board.
I sense many problems may result by this “fix”. One of which is the idea that we can borrow our way out of this dilemma. If we try that in our home budgets we soon come to realize that, unless we change our spending and/or increase our income, the problem will just pop up again when the credit card bills come to our mailbox.
I believe the same principles used to restore financial solvency to our personal budgets can be applied to our state. In other words, we need to change our spending habits.
I know that the principle known as NIMBY – or Not In MY Back Yard – is a very real challenge for those who know that certain industrial or governmental facilities are necessary for the public good, yet they are just as sure they do not want the construction in their backyards. The companion principle in regards to the budget could be called NMSI – Not My Special Interest – in which the electorate recognizes that the budget needs to be cut, but the cuts should not come from the area that serves my special interest. These special interests have their lobbyists strolling the halls of Albany making as much noise as they can to prove that their special interests are, indeed, special and more special than the others that are making just as much noise.
I propose that we look more closely at what we expect from our government and what we could expect from private enterprise. For example, the proposed idea to close state parks and recreation centers has been met with outcry from those who take advantage of these facilities. Perhaps we need to evaluate the idea that the state should be involved in the ownership of these parks to begin with. I contend that private enterprise can and does serve the public as well as state-run departments. Accountability from the market place is usually much more efficient than accountability from the election process.
In conclusion, we can expect to see this same sign of Spring next year and the year after, unless and until we are willing to make radical changes in the process.
From Broader View Weekly, April 1, 2010
When you see the familiar glint of a red-bellied Robin flying low over a green lawn, or the south end of a northbound V of Canada Geese honking high in the sky, or the whitish-yellow blossom of a Daffodil blooming along a sidewalk, you know that Spring has finally arrived in upstate New York. These sights invariably bring a sudden feeling of warmth and joy to the winter-weary heart of New Yorkers. However, there is another annual sight we witness each April that does not bring such feelings of warmth and joy.
I speak, of course, of the annual New York State Budget showdown. It starts brewing in mid-January and it percolates slowly through the chilly days of February before it starts to really boil over in late March; and by April 1 (otherwise known as April Fool’s Day – for good reason) we can be assured that our governor and our legislators will be still be miles apart from a settlement and emergency appropriations will be called for and approved in the nick of time to avoid closing schools and government offices.
Each year we are told that certain services will be jeopardized if taxes are not raised and each year we mutely accept new fees, fines and revenue enhancers imposed upon us and our businesses. Then we wonder why we see the “For Sale” signs appear in the lawns and in the shop windows of homes and businesses as more people pack their belongings and head for other states where a more favorable environment exists for families and corporations.
The current situation in Albany is not that much different from previous years; it seems that the problem persists from administration to administration with only the names changing. This year, however, there is a proposal on the table from our Lieutenant Governor, Richard Ravitch. In his simple five-step plan, modeled after a similar program that was used in the 1970’s to bring New York City back from the brink of bankruptcy, Ravitch proposes several ideas that, on the face, seem practical and efficacious.
Ravitch’s proposal includes a five-year plan in which the state commits to paying down its structural gap and gives the governor the power to make across-the-board reductions should those gaps continue to exist. It also calls for an adoption of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, in which revenues are accounted when they are “earned” rather than when the money actually arrives in Albany. The plan calls for borrowing within limits determined by an independent financial review board.
I sense many problems may result by this “fix”. One of which is the idea that we can borrow our way out of this dilemma. If we try that in our home budgets we soon come to realize that, unless we change our spending and/or increase our income, the problem will just pop up again when the credit card bills come to our mailbox.
I believe the same principles used to restore financial solvency to our personal budgets can be applied to our state. In other words, we need to change our spending habits.
I know that the principle known as NIMBY – or Not In MY Back Yard – is a very real challenge for those who know that certain industrial or governmental facilities are necessary for the public good, yet they are just as sure they do not want the construction in their backyards. The companion principle in regards to the budget could be called NMSI – Not My Special Interest – in which the electorate recognizes that the budget needs to be cut, but the cuts should not come from the area that serves my special interest. These special interests have their lobbyists strolling the halls of Albany making as much noise as they can to prove that their special interests are, indeed, special and more special than the others that are making just as much noise.
I propose that we look more closely at what we expect from our government and what we could expect from private enterprise. For example, the proposed idea to close state parks and recreation centers has been met with outcry from those who take advantage of these facilities. Perhaps we need to evaluate the idea that the state should be involved in the ownership of these parks to begin with. I contend that private enterprise can and does serve the public as well as state-run departments. Accountability from the market place is usually much more efficient than accountability from the election process.
In conclusion, we can expect to see this same sign of Spring next year and the year after, unless and until we are willing to make radical changes in the process.
Are You Feeling “Tickled” by Massa?
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, March 18, 2010
As the smoking contrail of Eric Massa’s political career slowly and mercifully fades from the national skyline, the residents of New York’s 29th District can ask themselves some key questions. I will not recount the details of the accusations against him or the rambling of his varied responses to those accusations other than to say that I do not think I have ever witnessed a “tickle fight” between a grown man and a group of subordinates.
The first question that needs to be answered is, of course, a serious inquiry about how we are going to replace our former representative. Obviously, a special election must be held as soon as possible and, as Steuben County officials have already stated, the expenses for this election will be carried by local municipalities. As of this writing, the Democrats, taken by surprise, have yet to name a candidate. As if we needed any further proof of Massa’s self-centered way of thinking, this is another example of someone acting with total disregard for the consequences of his actions upon others.
Another question for the voters, and not just for those in this district, is whether there are any men or women out there who are immune to the pathogens that seem to infect anyone exposed to political power.
I understand that a certain personality type is necessary for anyone who chooses to venture into the political arena. First of all, one must possess an above average opinion of her or his own abilities and capabilities. This confidence may not be a detriment in itself, as a tolerable level of self-confidence is a positive attribute in a healthy self-image. However, as with most wild beasts, self confidence – if overfed by fawning press coverage, generous donors and the ever-present clingers that seem to follow and attach themselves to those in authority – will turn fat and sassy.
What we saw as we watched Massa’s embarrassing performances on Glen Beck and Larry King was the picture of a man who embodied the narcissism and megalomania that is the final stage of poisoned self-confidence. I cringed when I saw him pull the well-traveled and pre-arranged prop of his x-ray film to bolster his claim that he was indeed suffering from a lingering cancer. I cringed again when I heard Beck reference the fact that Massa’s wife was observing this whole debacle from a nearby seat.
I realize there may be some truth to Massa’s claim that Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer had an interest in seeing Massa’s beady-eyed visage removed from the picture of the Democrat side of the House of Representatives. I do not doubt the validity of the story that intimidation and pressure exists within the halls and …um…shower stalls of our Capitol. However, I also believe Massa’s repeated and boisterous tales of the bawdy elements of that part of the story were designed to take our mental vision apparatus from focusing on the image of a randy, hypersexual (and possibly bisexual), older man preying upon the bodies of younger subordinates.
Another question that comes to mind is whether we should have seen something within Massa that could have alerted us to this possibility. We all know of his utterly arrogant statement that he will gladly and quickly vote against the wishes of at least 80% of his constituents if he believed it was better for us. We all heard his obsessive references to his service in the U.S. Navy, as if we needed (or perhaps he needed) assurance that he was all man. Now, I am certainly not qualified to do a long-distance (or even an intimate) psychological evaluation of our former representative, but I am qualified to say that certain personality traits do present themselves as ready hosts for the parasitic elements that eat away at the soul.
So, what do we do now as Massa slinks away to some distant cave? Well, first of all, we should say a solemn and sincere prayer for him and his wife. For him to find the courage to seek her forgiveness and for her to gain the courage to go on in this new and uncomfortable world he has constructed for her and his children.
Obviously, we should also be more diligent in vetting the next candidate before we entrust her or him with our vote. But beyond that, we should also realize the old adage that: “Power always corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” is still holding true, and we can expect to see corruption as long as we have money and politics so tightly entwined.
In conclusion, we can and should feel a little unease when we realize that Massa has “tickled” (in more than one way) all of his constituents with his actions. But, even with that realization, we need to see the person behind the man and allow some much needed privacy for him and his family as they try to deal with the failures of their father and husband.
From Broader View Weekly, March 18, 2010
As the smoking contrail of Eric Massa’s political career slowly and mercifully fades from the national skyline, the residents of New York’s 29th District can ask themselves some key questions. I will not recount the details of the accusations against him or the rambling of his varied responses to those accusations other than to say that I do not think I have ever witnessed a “tickle fight” between a grown man and a group of subordinates.
The first question that needs to be answered is, of course, a serious inquiry about how we are going to replace our former representative. Obviously, a special election must be held as soon as possible and, as Steuben County officials have already stated, the expenses for this election will be carried by local municipalities. As of this writing, the Democrats, taken by surprise, have yet to name a candidate. As if we needed any further proof of Massa’s self-centered way of thinking, this is another example of someone acting with total disregard for the consequences of his actions upon others.
Another question for the voters, and not just for those in this district, is whether there are any men or women out there who are immune to the pathogens that seem to infect anyone exposed to political power.
I understand that a certain personality type is necessary for anyone who chooses to venture into the political arena. First of all, one must possess an above average opinion of her or his own abilities and capabilities. This confidence may not be a detriment in itself, as a tolerable level of self-confidence is a positive attribute in a healthy self-image. However, as with most wild beasts, self confidence – if overfed by fawning press coverage, generous donors and the ever-present clingers that seem to follow and attach themselves to those in authority – will turn fat and sassy.
What we saw as we watched Massa’s embarrassing performances on Glen Beck and Larry King was the picture of a man who embodied the narcissism and megalomania that is the final stage of poisoned self-confidence. I cringed when I saw him pull the well-traveled and pre-arranged prop of his x-ray film to bolster his claim that he was indeed suffering from a lingering cancer. I cringed again when I heard Beck reference the fact that Massa’s wife was observing this whole debacle from a nearby seat.
I realize there may be some truth to Massa’s claim that Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer had an interest in seeing Massa’s beady-eyed visage removed from the picture of the Democrat side of the House of Representatives. I do not doubt the validity of the story that intimidation and pressure exists within the halls and …um…shower stalls of our Capitol. However, I also believe Massa’s repeated and boisterous tales of the bawdy elements of that part of the story were designed to take our mental vision apparatus from focusing on the image of a randy, hypersexual (and possibly bisexual), older man preying upon the bodies of younger subordinates.
Another question that comes to mind is whether we should have seen something within Massa that could have alerted us to this possibility. We all know of his utterly arrogant statement that he will gladly and quickly vote against the wishes of at least 80% of his constituents if he believed it was better for us. We all heard his obsessive references to his service in the U.S. Navy, as if we needed (or perhaps he needed) assurance that he was all man. Now, I am certainly not qualified to do a long-distance (or even an intimate) psychological evaluation of our former representative, but I am qualified to say that certain personality traits do present themselves as ready hosts for the parasitic elements that eat away at the soul.
So, what do we do now as Massa slinks away to some distant cave? Well, first of all, we should say a solemn and sincere prayer for him and his wife. For him to find the courage to seek her forgiveness and for her to gain the courage to go on in this new and uncomfortable world he has constructed for her and his children.
Obviously, we should also be more diligent in vetting the next candidate before we entrust her or him with our vote. But beyond that, we should also realize the old adage that: “Power always corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” is still holding true, and we can expect to see corruption as long as we have money and politics so tightly entwined.
In conclusion, we can and should feel a little unease when we realize that Massa has “tickled” (in more than one way) all of his constituents with his actions. But, even with that realization, we need to see the person behind the man and allow some much needed privacy for him and his family as they try to deal with the failures of their father and husband.
More Questions than Answers
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, March 18, 2010
When the story of former Congressman Eric Massa’s political demise began to evolve I was gripped by dismay. I also felt a great deal of confusion, which I assumed would fade as I had an opportunity to read more than just an article’s headline. It took over 24 hours for my schedule to allow me to look into the matter, and by that time I was finding more questions than answers. On Friday, March 5, when Massa’s announcement changed from “I will not run” to “I hereby resign”, my confusion had grown to a troubling level.
Many readers will know I have been supportive of the former congressman. I interviewed him on the day he headed to Washington for swearing in. I attended fundraisers and two of the Town Meetings he held in the district last summer. I had shaken his hand and had casual conversations at public events. I participated in several of his press conference calls during his short time of service. Perhaps this accessibility – something I have never enjoyed with any other public official – had colored my opinion of Massa, but there was something more that won him my vote and caused me to endorse him to friends and relatives, if not always to Broader View readers.
In conversation and oration, Massa spoke candidly about the political climate in Washington. I believed he saw the all-too-powerful influence corporate lobbies exerted. I believed he understood the obstacles the current campaign financing system presented and how it produced politicians beholden to special interests, regardless of their stated commitments. I believed that he understood the dangers of party politics and how it interferes with meaningful legislation.
So I was saddened to hear that someone determined to address those issues was giving up his fight to make a difference. I was also puzzled that a cancer scare and an ethics investigation would trump Massa’s obligation to serve his constituency.
As I was preparing to write this week’s column I tried to resist the easy assumptions that make great sound bite fodder. It is easy to glom on to allegations (and Massa’s own admissions) of physical contact, and make commentary on his “randy” inappropriate behavior. It is easy to point to this latest ethics investigation as an example of the corruption within one party or compare it to similar infractions within another. It is easy to describe the impact of the resignation on the political football game and the current battle over healthcare reform.
It is harder, but more meaningful to focus on the real questions Massa’s situation brings to the table.
My brother Gordon alluded to one question with his commentary about the former congressman’s potential “bisexuality”. Massa was asked at least twice in recent interviews if he was gay. His refusal to answer in one case was more troubling than his better answer that he wasn’t but it wouldn’t matter if he was. Only Massa knows the true answer to the question, but if it’s a “yes” it points to a social environment that breeds certain forms of misconduct. The military’s don’t ask/don’t tell policies and social pressures that force homosexual men and women into heterosexual unions based on lies, does not excuse the manipulation of power for sexual gratification. However, examples of abuse in political and religious realms do betray a climate of corruption possibly resulting from unrealistic social strictures and accepted norms.
I cannot definitively answer the question of whether Massa was pressured by the White House to resign. Similar claims by New York Governor David Paterson of his own experiences, and a recorded conversation between Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and then-candidate Massa, lead me to believe that a conversation similar to the alleged shower scene probably took place.
The problem of the perpetual election and hardball party politics is very disturbing to me. The exercise of our democracy is continually thwarted by a power struggle that is not only counterproductive but is damaging to the operation of our government. The current two-party system is driven by a need to maintain or win dominance in the political arena that outweighs the real issues with which most Americans are concerned. This atmosphere creates intimidators like Emanuel and entangles party leaders like Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a snare of hypocrisy.
I agree with Gordon that the fate of the 29th District’s representation remains a question. The vacant seat requires a special election and the quest for someone to fill that seat requires a thorough vetting process. However, Gordon’s assertion that the election take place without delay implies that the position should be simply awarded to GOP candidate and former Corning Mayor Tom Reed. Reed is the only formally announced candidate and the only one that has a moderate level of familiarity among voters (not to mention a cache of funds), since he has already been campaigning for months. Democrats need to work quickly to present a viable nominee, but given the current congressional hornet’s nest one shouldn’t put expectations so high on one person.
The amount of media coverage afforded to Massa and the amount spent on the recent special election in Massachusetts begs other questions: Do we focus too closely in our system of democracy on one person’s impact? Did the country expect too much from the promise of change and President Obama’s audacity of hope? Did the Tea Party movement hang too many ambitions on the neck of Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown? Do we put too much faith in the campaign slogans and banners waved in every individual local and national election? Do we fail to see that our job as citizens of the U.S. is not over once we have cast our vote?
We should honestly ask ourselves these and other questions. But we should also strive to send a message to our elected officials that the current political system is broken. Our executive and legislative branches are no longer effectively serving the American citizenry. Unless we institute real reform in the political process it won’t matter who we elect to represent the 29th District of New York.
From Broader View Weekly, March 18, 2010
When the story of former Congressman Eric Massa’s political demise began to evolve I was gripped by dismay. I also felt a great deal of confusion, which I assumed would fade as I had an opportunity to read more than just an article’s headline. It took over 24 hours for my schedule to allow me to look into the matter, and by that time I was finding more questions than answers. On Friday, March 5, when Massa’s announcement changed from “I will not run” to “I hereby resign”, my confusion had grown to a troubling level.
Many readers will know I have been supportive of the former congressman. I interviewed him on the day he headed to Washington for swearing in. I attended fundraisers and two of the Town Meetings he held in the district last summer. I had shaken his hand and had casual conversations at public events. I participated in several of his press conference calls during his short time of service. Perhaps this accessibility – something I have never enjoyed with any other public official – had colored my opinion of Massa, but there was something more that won him my vote and caused me to endorse him to friends and relatives, if not always to Broader View readers.
In conversation and oration, Massa spoke candidly about the political climate in Washington. I believed he saw the all-too-powerful influence corporate lobbies exerted. I believed he understood the obstacles the current campaign financing system presented and how it produced politicians beholden to special interests, regardless of their stated commitments. I believed that he understood the dangers of party politics and how it interferes with meaningful legislation.
So I was saddened to hear that someone determined to address those issues was giving up his fight to make a difference. I was also puzzled that a cancer scare and an ethics investigation would trump Massa’s obligation to serve his constituency.
As I was preparing to write this week’s column I tried to resist the easy assumptions that make great sound bite fodder. It is easy to glom on to allegations (and Massa’s own admissions) of physical contact, and make commentary on his “randy” inappropriate behavior. It is easy to point to this latest ethics investigation as an example of the corruption within one party or compare it to similar infractions within another. It is easy to describe the impact of the resignation on the political football game and the current battle over healthcare reform.
It is harder, but more meaningful to focus on the real questions Massa’s situation brings to the table.
My brother Gordon alluded to one question with his commentary about the former congressman’s potential “bisexuality”. Massa was asked at least twice in recent interviews if he was gay. His refusal to answer in one case was more troubling than his better answer that he wasn’t but it wouldn’t matter if he was. Only Massa knows the true answer to the question, but if it’s a “yes” it points to a social environment that breeds certain forms of misconduct. The military’s don’t ask/don’t tell policies and social pressures that force homosexual men and women into heterosexual unions based on lies, does not excuse the manipulation of power for sexual gratification. However, examples of abuse in political and religious realms do betray a climate of corruption possibly resulting from unrealistic social strictures and accepted norms.
I cannot definitively answer the question of whether Massa was pressured by the White House to resign. Similar claims by New York Governor David Paterson of his own experiences, and a recorded conversation between Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and then-candidate Massa, lead me to believe that a conversation similar to the alleged shower scene probably took place.
The problem of the perpetual election and hardball party politics is very disturbing to me. The exercise of our democracy is continually thwarted by a power struggle that is not only counterproductive but is damaging to the operation of our government. The current two-party system is driven by a need to maintain or win dominance in the political arena that outweighs the real issues with which most Americans are concerned. This atmosphere creates intimidators like Emanuel and entangles party leaders like Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a snare of hypocrisy.
I agree with Gordon that the fate of the 29th District’s representation remains a question. The vacant seat requires a special election and the quest for someone to fill that seat requires a thorough vetting process. However, Gordon’s assertion that the election take place without delay implies that the position should be simply awarded to GOP candidate and former Corning Mayor Tom Reed. Reed is the only formally announced candidate and the only one that has a moderate level of familiarity among voters (not to mention a cache of funds), since he has already been campaigning for months. Democrats need to work quickly to present a viable nominee, but given the current congressional hornet’s nest one shouldn’t put expectations so high on one person.
The amount of media coverage afforded to Massa and the amount spent on the recent special election in Massachusetts begs other questions: Do we focus too closely in our system of democracy on one person’s impact? Did the country expect too much from the promise of change and President Obama’s audacity of hope? Did the Tea Party movement hang too many ambitions on the neck of Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown? Do we put too much faith in the campaign slogans and banners waved in every individual local and national election? Do we fail to see that our job as citizens of the U.S. is not over once we have cast our vote?
We should honestly ask ourselves these and other questions. But we should also strive to send a message to our elected officials that the current political system is broken. Our executive and legislative branches are no longer effectively serving the American citizenry. Unless we institute real reform in the political process it won’t matter who we elect to represent the 29th District of New York.
Forum or Spectacle?
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, March 4, 2010
On Thursday, February 25, President Obama hosted a bi-partisan Health Care Summit at Blair House with Congressional representatives of both parties. To be honest, it was partly a political spectacle, televised as a forum for both sides to showcase their arguments about the current proposal to reform the health care system.
It might have been an opportunity for candid discussion of real issues, with solutions being offered and considered. It might have been a fruitful exchange of ideas and innovative answers to the dilemma everyone agrees the current system presents. However, politics, as usual, got in the way.
I’m not excusing the president from his contribution to the game playing. The public nature of the summit represented an attempt to control the message and not just a gesture of transparency that (contrary to the opinion of many on the right) has been a focus of this administration. Bringing cameras into the arena of discussion, while risky in a bi-partisan setting, provides a megaphone to the administration at a time when the opposition is striving effectively to drown out Obama’s message.
The White House and the Democrats weren’t the only ones playing to the camera. Republicans came prepared with talking points, theatrics and visual aids (like stacks of alligator-clipped paper to represent the lengthy health care legislation). For instance, Senator John McCain found opportunity to continue the jabs he tossed out during the 2008 Presidential campaign and call attention to an unpopular potential use of the reconciliation process by Democrats to pass reform. While McCain may have opposed the use of the Nuclear Option during the Bush administration when the GOP held power, it seems interesting to hear many of his colleagues, who threatened its use to ram through Supreme Court nominees, criticize the same tactics now.
McCain also saw fit to portray the lead-up to the current iteration of House and Senate bills as “unsavory deal-making,” even though both bills were crafted in bi-partisan committees and contain hundreds of GOP-authored amendments.
Democrats may have sounded silly insisting there was common ground and agreement across party lines while Republicans spent much of the time arguing that none existed. This despite the fact that all in attendance seemed to agree that reform was required; that costs needed to be controlled, that larger pools of coverage would reduce premiums (among other commonalities), and that many differences amounted to semantics.
Talking points were in generous supply during the six-hour-plus sessions. House Republican leader John Boehner called the proposed reforms a “dangerous experiment.” Some Republicans spun Congressional Budget Office figures to argue against reforms, while others marginalized the same reports to support their own cases. Both parties stuck to the same lines as before the summit, which left little room for useful compromise.
There were highlights and glimpses of hope. When Senator John Barrasso made the statement that those with catastrophic insurance coverage (in which those covered pay out-of-pocket expense for most services) make better consumers of health care services, Obama asked if he thought Congress should have only catastrophic coverage. When Barrasso replied he did, the president asked if he would feel the same if he made $40,000 instead of $176,000 a year.
There were other times during the day that Democrats refocused the discussion on the health care problems faced by those in greatest need. Senator Tom Harkin told of an Iowa farmer struggling with sky-rocketing insurance premiums. Several other members of Congress described situations where coverage was dropped and where treatment was denied. These are issues that are often buried in the political rhetoric that characterizes the health care debate.
Unfortunately, the proposed legislation – with its concessions to corporate demands and those of insurers and the pharmaceutical industry – falls short of addressing many of the issues of those in greatest need. If the GOP’s requests to start the process over and go back to the drawing board would yield solutions to real health care problems, I would support it. However, I am convinced this ploy would merely be a stall tactic to prevent any real change from happening while the Democrats are in power (although ten years of Republican dominance failed to bring any needed reform).
Perhaps, some day, politics will take a back seat to policy and the American people can truthfully boast about our health care system (instead of making baseless claims about its quality). However, it will require us to stop cheerleading our chosen party members and instead hold our representatives’ feet to the fire.
From Broader View Weekly, March 4, 2010
On Thursday, February 25, President Obama hosted a bi-partisan Health Care Summit at Blair House with Congressional representatives of both parties. To be honest, it was partly a political spectacle, televised as a forum for both sides to showcase their arguments about the current proposal to reform the health care system.
It might have been an opportunity for candid discussion of real issues, with solutions being offered and considered. It might have been a fruitful exchange of ideas and innovative answers to the dilemma everyone agrees the current system presents. However, politics, as usual, got in the way.
I’m not excusing the president from his contribution to the game playing. The public nature of the summit represented an attempt to control the message and not just a gesture of transparency that (contrary to the opinion of many on the right) has been a focus of this administration. Bringing cameras into the arena of discussion, while risky in a bi-partisan setting, provides a megaphone to the administration at a time when the opposition is striving effectively to drown out Obama’s message.
The White House and the Democrats weren’t the only ones playing to the camera. Republicans came prepared with talking points, theatrics and visual aids (like stacks of alligator-clipped paper to represent the lengthy health care legislation). For instance, Senator John McCain found opportunity to continue the jabs he tossed out during the 2008 Presidential campaign and call attention to an unpopular potential use of the reconciliation process by Democrats to pass reform. While McCain may have opposed the use of the Nuclear Option during the Bush administration when the GOP held power, it seems interesting to hear many of his colleagues, who threatened its use to ram through Supreme Court nominees, criticize the same tactics now.
McCain also saw fit to portray the lead-up to the current iteration of House and Senate bills as “unsavory deal-making,” even though both bills were crafted in bi-partisan committees and contain hundreds of GOP-authored amendments.
Democrats may have sounded silly insisting there was common ground and agreement across party lines while Republicans spent much of the time arguing that none existed. This despite the fact that all in attendance seemed to agree that reform was required; that costs needed to be controlled, that larger pools of coverage would reduce premiums (among other commonalities), and that many differences amounted to semantics.
Talking points were in generous supply during the six-hour-plus sessions. House Republican leader John Boehner called the proposed reforms a “dangerous experiment.” Some Republicans spun Congressional Budget Office figures to argue against reforms, while others marginalized the same reports to support their own cases. Both parties stuck to the same lines as before the summit, which left little room for useful compromise.
There were highlights and glimpses of hope. When Senator John Barrasso made the statement that those with catastrophic insurance coverage (in which those covered pay out-of-pocket expense for most services) make better consumers of health care services, Obama asked if he thought Congress should have only catastrophic coverage. When Barrasso replied he did, the president asked if he would feel the same if he made $40,000 instead of $176,000 a year.
There were other times during the day that Democrats refocused the discussion on the health care problems faced by those in greatest need. Senator Tom Harkin told of an Iowa farmer struggling with sky-rocketing insurance premiums. Several other members of Congress described situations where coverage was dropped and where treatment was denied. These are issues that are often buried in the political rhetoric that characterizes the health care debate.
Unfortunately, the proposed legislation – with its concessions to corporate demands and those of insurers and the pharmaceutical industry – falls short of addressing many of the issues of those in greatest need. If the GOP’s requests to start the process over and go back to the drawing board would yield solutions to real health care problems, I would support it. However, I am convinced this ploy would merely be a stall tactic to prevent any real change from happening while the Democrats are in power (although ten years of Republican dominance failed to bring any needed reform).
Perhaps, some day, politics will take a back seat to policy and the American people can truthfully boast about our health care system (instead of making baseless claims about its quality). However, it will require us to stop cheerleading our chosen party members and instead hold our representatives’ feet to the fire.
The Beat Goes On…
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, March 4, 2010
The Health Care Summit was intended to be an opportunity for the sunlight of sincere discussion to break through the partisan fog that has enveloped our nation’s capital for the past year. Sadly, we did not see any rays of sunshine breaking through. One encouraging aspect of the event was that it enabled Obama to finally fulfill one of his campaign promises. He had repeatedly promised us that his administration would be marked by transparency and his actions at the summit finally revealed some of the inner workings of his mindset.
It became crystal clear to anyone who has a small knowledge of the subtle syllables of body language that Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the other Democrat leaders really had no intention of incorporating any of the ideas of the Republicans into their partisan bill, nor did they intend to eliminate any of the objectionable items.
Before I address the utter disdain and elitist condescension exhibited by the Democrats toward the Republicans in attendance, and the American people who overwhelmingly disapprove of this bill and the process being used to push it through, I feel I must address some misstatements by my fellow columnist.
Keith mentions McCain’s indictment of the Democrat’s “unsavory deal-making” as bogus because “both bills were crafted in bipartisan committees and contain hundreds of Republican amendments.” I am sure that even Keith knows that is not true. The final draft contains less than twenty Republican amendments and the last three weeks of the construction were done completely by Democrats behind closed and locked doors. The deals to which McCain referred, and Scott Brown campaigned against, were all thrown together during that Christmas Eve corruption of American politics.
Further on Keith swallows the bait thrown down by the Democrats for the hungry lapdogs in the media when he states that the “many differences amounted to semantics”. I understand that is an attempt to paint the opposition as petty and just… well, oppositional. The truth is that both parties agreed that there is a need for reform and sad stories exist out there; costs are increasing and the burden of covering millions of uninsured should be lifted. The difference of opinion in how this should be done is one of philosophy not of linguistics.
The need for reform was never denied by the Republicans, no matter how often the media and the Democrats try to repeat the mantra that they are “the party of NO!” The sad fact is that the Democrats came to the process with majority rule in both houses and in the executive office, and they assumed the role of oligarchs rather than the role of public servants. This became obvious through the summer as they shut up those at town hall meetings and slithered together in back room deal-making.
The philosophical differences between the parties became very clear when the Republicans offered market-driven solutions and the Democrats responded with a call for increased regulation and legislation. Therein lies the source for all the partisan fog.
It seems to me that not only are the Democrats determined to go forward without a look to the constructive ideas of the minority party, they are also determined to turn a blind eye to the wishes of the majority of the American people. A CNN poll released the morning of the summit paralleled a similar poll by Fox News in which over 65% of the people polled agreed with the Republicans that this 2,700 page bill should be shredded and a new, truly bipartisan legislation should be crafted.
Obama senses the changing wind, and realizing that if the process were to start over, that a bill would not be finalized before the November elections; and if that were the case, he would most likely be dealing with a red majority in both houses. Therefore, he and the Democrats are going forward, despite the will of the people, the rules of congress, and the decent guidelines of political discourse.
From Broader View Weekly, March 4, 2010
The Health Care Summit was intended to be an opportunity for the sunlight of sincere discussion to break through the partisan fog that has enveloped our nation’s capital for the past year. Sadly, we did not see any rays of sunshine breaking through. One encouraging aspect of the event was that it enabled Obama to finally fulfill one of his campaign promises. He had repeatedly promised us that his administration would be marked by transparency and his actions at the summit finally revealed some of the inner workings of his mindset.
It became crystal clear to anyone who has a small knowledge of the subtle syllables of body language that Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the other Democrat leaders really had no intention of incorporating any of the ideas of the Republicans into their partisan bill, nor did they intend to eliminate any of the objectionable items.
Before I address the utter disdain and elitist condescension exhibited by the Democrats toward the Republicans in attendance, and the American people who overwhelmingly disapprove of this bill and the process being used to push it through, I feel I must address some misstatements by my fellow columnist.
Keith mentions McCain’s indictment of the Democrat’s “unsavory deal-making” as bogus because “both bills were crafted in bipartisan committees and contain hundreds of Republican amendments.” I am sure that even Keith knows that is not true. The final draft contains less than twenty Republican amendments and the last three weeks of the construction were done completely by Democrats behind closed and locked doors. The deals to which McCain referred, and Scott Brown campaigned against, were all thrown together during that Christmas Eve corruption of American politics.
Further on Keith swallows the bait thrown down by the Democrats for the hungry lapdogs in the media when he states that the “many differences amounted to semantics”. I understand that is an attempt to paint the opposition as petty and just… well, oppositional. The truth is that both parties agreed that there is a need for reform and sad stories exist out there; costs are increasing and the burden of covering millions of uninsured should be lifted. The difference of opinion in how this should be done is one of philosophy not of linguistics.
The need for reform was never denied by the Republicans, no matter how often the media and the Democrats try to repeat the mantra that they are “the party of NO!” The sad fact is that the Democrats came to the process with majority rule in both houses and in the executive office, and they assumed the role of oligarchs rather than the role of public servants. This became obvious through the summer as they shut up those at town hall meetings and slithered together in back room deal-making.
The philosophical differences between the parties became very clear when the Republicans offered market-driven solutions and the Democrats responded with a call for increased regulation and legislation. Therein lies the source for all the partisan fog.
It seems to me that not only are the Democrats determined to go forward without a look to the constructive ideas of the minority party, they are also determined to turn a blind eye to the wishes of the majority of the American people. A CNN poll released the morning of the summit paralleled a similar poll by Fox News in which over 65% of the people polled agreed with the Republicans that this 2,700 page bill should be shredded and a new, truly bipartisan legislation should be crafted.
Obama senses the changing wind, and realizing that if the process were to start over, that a bill would not be finalized before the November elections; and if that were the case, he would most likely be dealing with a red majority in both houses. Therefore, he and the Democrats are going forward, despite the will of the people, the rules of congress, and the decent guidelines of political discourse.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Intelligence on Trial
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, February 18, 2010
As if we needed another illustration of how inept and not-ready-for-prime-time this administration and Justice Department is, the recent reversal of Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision is a glaring example.
The decision to try in our civilian courts, five surviving conspirators behind the terrorist attack upon our citizens and our Pentagon, on September 11, 2001, has apparently become another victim of the Tea Party movement that carried Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate and Obama to the door of the Republican Party. Eric Holder, as Attorney General of the People of The United States of America, sought to demonstrate his superior intelligence over the combined intelligences of our Constitutional architects, our Supreme Court and most definitely over the previous administration, by stating that these men deserve the same privileges and rights reserved for American citizens.
It seems that the decision was safe and secure until the Massachusetts “miracle” shook the political world. Mayor Bloomberg sniffed the breeze and detected the scent of torch fuel and heard the clattering of pitchfork handles in the neighboring state. He relayed the alarm to Senator Schumer and the administration blinked – or at least it seemed to blink – until the perky CBS anchorette, Katie Couric, asked Obama about the reversal on Super Bowl Sunday.
Obama replied that NYC may still be subjected to the fiasco and the financial burden of a needless civilian trial, which will lead to a security nightmare complete with traffic tie-ups, protesters from both sides needing protection from each other, terrorists spewing venom across our media outlets and perhaps worst of all, the invasion of NYC boroughs by thousands of international news media personalities.
The trial itself is needless for the simple reason that the conspirators have all signed confessions to the act and have requested execution, according to a letter written to and read by military judge Colonel Stephen Henley during a hearing in Guantanamo Bay on December 8, 2008.
In that letter, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, (KSM), admitted that he was responsible for the planning that, when carried out, resulted in the destruction of over 3,000 civilian souls and the devastation of our economy and our sense of security. He further sought to remove the legal counsel appointed to him because he said he made no differentiation between the soldiers fighting in Iraq and the judge who sat on the bench.
“I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z… I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl…there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head…I was responsible for the assassination attempt against President Clinton in the Philippines in 1994 or 1995…I was responsible for the bombing of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia…” KSM said in his rambling testimony during a hearing in Guantanamo in 2007. He affirmed that his confession was made without pressure, threat, intimidation or promise.
So, why does Holder think the civilian trial should go on? He has already claimed that there is no doubt that the men will be convicted and brought to justice, a statement which will, no doubt, be used by even the most junior of attorneys appointed for their defense to call for a mistrial, therefore he does not believe the evidence disclosed in a civilian trial will be greater than that discovered in a military tribunal.
There can be only one reason to bring these vermin to an American city and to give them the type of exposure they could only dream of in their fondest and wildest dreams. The reason is not to determine their guilt or innocence; that has already been determined. The reason is not to demonstrate the fact that the U.S. is a civil nation which bestows mercy upon our enemies; that has been established by countless examples of our eagerness to send aid to those who seek our destruction.
The only reason for this trial would be to keep the Bush administration, the CIA and the whole military intelligence structure on trial. It would serve no other purpose. It would result in a weakening of our CIA’s effectiveness as they see their operations and operators under scrutiny. It would demoralize our military as they watch the rights they have fought to protect for their fellow citizens granted to the enemy they are fighting.
I believe this whole debacle illustrates another failed trial – the corporate intelligence of this administration and its cabinet members has been tried and they have been found wanting.
From Broader View Weekly, February 18, 2010
As if we needed another illustration of how inept and not-ready-for-prime-time this administration and Justice Department is, the recent reversal of Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision is a glaring example.
The decision to try in our civilian courts, five surviving conspirators behind the terrorist attack upon our citizens and our Pentagon, on September 11, 2001, has apparently become another victim of the Tea Party movement that carried Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate and Obama to the door of the Republican Party. Eric Holder, as Attorney General of the People of The United States of America, sought to demonstrate his superior intelligence over the combined intelligences of our Constitutional architects, our Supreme Court and most definitely over the previous administration, by stating that these men deserve the same privileges and rights reserved for American citizens.
It seems that the decision was safe and secure until the Massachusetts “miracle” shook the political world. Mayor Bloomberg sniffed the breeze and detected the scent of torch fuel and heard the clattering of pitchfork handles in the neighboring state. He relayed the alarm to Senator Schumer and the administration blinked – or at least it seemed to blink – until the perky CBS anchorette, Katie Couric, asked Obama about the reversal on Super Bowl Sunday.
Obama replied that NYC may still be subjected to the fiasco and the financial burden of a needless civilian trial, which will lead to a security nightmare complete with traffic tie-ups, protesters from both sides needing protection from each other, terrorists spewing venom across our media outlets and perhaps worst of all, the invasion of NYC boroughs by thousands of international news media personalities.
The trial itself is needless for the simple reason that the conspirators have all signed confessions to the act and have requested execution, according to a letter written to and read by military judge Colonel Stephen Henley during a hearing in Guantanamo Bay on December 8, 2008.
In that letter, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, (KSM), admitted that he was responsible for the planning that, when carried out, resulted in the destruction of over 3,000 civilian souls and the devastation of our economy and our sense of security. He further sought to remove the legal counsel appointed to him because he said he made no differentiation between the soldiers fighting in Iraq and the judge who sat on the bench.
“I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z… I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl…there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head…I was responsible for the assassination attempt against President Clinton in the Philippines in 1994 or 1995…I was responsible for the bombing of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia…” KSM said in his rambling testimony during a hearing in Guantanamo in 2007. He affirmed that his confession was made without pressure, threat, intimidation or promise.
So, why does Holder think the civilian trial should go on? He has already claimed that there is no doubt that the men will be convicted and brought to justice, a statement which will, no doubt, be used by even the most junior of attorneys appointed for their defense to call for a mistrial, therefore he does not believe the evidence disclosed in a civilian trial will be greater than that discovered in a military tribunal.
There can be only one reason to bring these vermin to an American city and to give them the type of exposure they could only dream of in their fondest and wildest dreams. The reason is not to determine their guilt or innocence; that has already been determined. The reason is not to demonstrate the fact that the U.S. is a civil nation which bestows mercy upon our enemies; that has been established by countless examples of our eagerness to send aid to those who seek our destruction.
The only reason for this trial would be to keep the Bush administration, the CIA and the whole military intelligence structure on trial. It would serve no other purpose. It would result in a weakening of our CIA’s effectiveness as they see their operations and operators under scrutiny. It would demoralize our military as they watch the rights they have fought to protect for their fellow citizens granted to the enemy they are fighting.
I believe this whole debacle illustrates another failed trial – the corporate intelligence of this administration and its cabinet members has been tried and they have been found wanting.
Giving Up on Justice
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, February 18, 2010
One of the most tragic victims of the attacks of 9/11 appears to be the sense of justice that has long been a core American value. Through the rage inspired by fear mongering politicians and pundits, U.S. citizens were manipulated into trading ethics in the interest of security.
My brother Gordon’s column illustrates this transition perfectly. While his rambling rant is nearly as incoherent as the coerced confession of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, which he cites, the message is clear: when it comes to national security anything goes.
I find it interesting that Gordon implies that Attorney General Eric Holder has overstepped the bounds of constitutional law. The Bush administration had been so frustrated by the constraints of the constitution that they effectively skirted the law by declaring a war on terror. This declaration against an imaginary foe created the perfect storm of policy. It allowed terror suspects to be categorized not as the criminals they are, but as enemy warriors. It also changed the way suspects could be detained, interrogated and treated. The Bush administration legitimized techniques and strategies that were heretofore unthinkable.
For these offenses, the principles of the Bush administration should be investigated fully. Any constitutional transgressions should be prosecuted and officials should be held accountable. However, neither President Barack Obama, nor the Department of Justice is seeking to formally investigate Bush era policies.
What the Attorney General and the Obama administration do seek is to hold accountable the crafters and perpetrators of terror against the United States. Their intent to show strength and resolve by holding the trials within shouting distance of Ground Zero was meant to display undeniable symbolism. Unfortunately, political fallout and exaggerated security issues combined to make the location impossible to stage.
A couple of weeks ago the administration conceded this fact and officially announced that the trials would go on, but at some as yet unknown alternate site. New York City politicians and business organizations began putting pressure on state and federal administrations to reverse the decision and were able to sway Obama and Holder. Of course, in Glenn Beck’s delusional alternative universe none of this tug-of-war mattered. Nope. It was the miraculous election of a messiah in the form of Scott Brown and his rise to power on the crest of the tidal wave that is the Tea Party movement. Apparently, my brother has been drinking Beck’s Kool-Aid since he seems to believe that every shift and decision is a reaction to the seismic power of the Tea Partiers. It is impossible to deny the national impact of this movement, but it is naïve to insist that the political landscape is completely shaped by Sarah Palin’s adopted minions.
What is clear is that opposition to these trials has been inspired by groups like Keep America Safe – an activist organization run by former Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter Elizabeth Cheney and conservative operative Bill Kristol. Keep America Safe was formed to justify Bush administration policy and to attack Obama’s policy with regard to national security. These groups have been effective in controlling the message and characterizing ethical conduct as weakness and “giving aid and comfort to the enemy” (in the words of former VP Cheney). The result is the undermining of the judicial system that has been an effective pillar of our civilization for centuries.
My brother isn’t alone in his belief that justice should be suspended in the cases of suspected terrorists. Even politicians like Long Island Representative Pete King believe the federal trials should be abandoned altogether. But the thought that Gordon’s assertion that the judicial process is unnecessary is echoed elsewhere in our society is troubling.
Commitment to the constitution, respect for the rule of law and trust in the system of justice are traditional American values. We should not be manipulated into abandoning those values out of fear.
From Broader View Weekly, February 18, 2010
One of the most tragic victims of the attacks of 9/11 appears to be the sense of justice that has long been a core American value. Through the rage inspired by fear mongering politicians and pundits, U.S. citizens were manipulated into trading ethics in the interest of security.
My brother Gordon’s column illustrates this transition perfectly. While his rambling rant is nearly as incoherent as the coerced confession of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, which he cites, the message is clear: when it comes to national security anything goes.
I find it interesting that Gordon implies that Attorney General Eric Holder has overstepped the bounds of constitutional law. The Bush administration had been so frustrated by the constraints of the constitution that they effectively skirted the law by declaring a war on terror. This declaration against an imaginary foe created the perfect storm of policy. It allowed terror suspects to be categorized not as the criminals they are, but as enemy warriors. It also changed the way suspects could be detained, interrogated and treated. The Bush administration legitimized techniques and strategies that were heretofore unthinkable.
For these offenses, the principles of the Bush administration should be investigated fully. Any constitutional transgressions should be prosecuted and officials should be held accountable. However, neither President Barack Obama, nor the Department of Justice is seeking to formally investigate Bush era policies.
What the Attorney General and the Obama administration do seek is to hold accountable the crafters and perpetrators of terror against the United States. Their intent to show strength and resolve by holding the trials within shouting distance of Ground Zero was meant to display undeniable symbolism. Unfortunately, political fallout and exaggerated security issues combined to make the location impossible to stage.
A couple of weeks ago the administration conceded this fact and officially announced that the trials would go on, but at some as yet unknown alternate site. New York City politicians and business organizations began putting pressure on state and federal administrations to reverse the decision and were able to sway Obama and Holder. Of course, in Glenn Beck’s delusional alternative universe none of this tug-of-war mattered. Nope. It was the miraculous election of a messiah in the form of Scott Brown and his rise to power on the crest of the tidal wave that is the Tea Party movement. Apparently, my brother has been drinking Beck’s Kool-Aid since he seems to believe that every shift and decision is a reaction to the seismic power of the Tea Partiers. It is impossible to deny the national impact of this movement, but it is naïve to insist that the political landscape is completely shaped by Sarah Palin’s adopted minions.
What is clear is that opposition to these trials has been inspired by groups like Keep America Safe – an activist organization run by former Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter Elizabeth Cheney and conservative operative Bill Kristol. Keep America Safe was formed to justify Bush administration policy and to attack Obama’s policy with regard to national security. These groups have been effective in controlling the message and characterizing ethical conduct as weakness and “giving aid and comfort to the enemy” (in the words of former VP Cheney). The result is the undermining of the judicial system that has been an effective pillar of our civilization for centuries.
My brother isn’t alone in his belief that justice should be suspended in the cases of suspected terrorists. Even politicians like Long Island Representative Pete King believe the federal trials should be abandoned altogether. But the thought that Gordon’s assertion that the judicial process is unnecessary is echoed elsewhere in our society is troubling.
Commitment to the constitution, respect for the rule of law and trust in the system of justice are traditional American values. We should not be manipulated into abandoning those values out of fear.
Overcoming the Deficit of Trust
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, February 4, 2010
On Wednesday, January 27, President Barack Obama delivered his first State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress and to the American public. It was historic in that it was his first such speech, however, it was neither his most impressive, nor one that will change the course of history.
As expected, there was no shortage of commentary on his performance or the content he presented.
In preparing for my column on the subject, I could have easily drawn from the compliments of the president’s supporters or merely reacted to the criticisms of those who oppose him. I could have filled more than my allotted column inches agreeing with those on the left who felt he said what he needed to say. Or I could have flooded the space with rants about the official Republican response delivered by Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. I could have gone on and on about the trashing Obama predictably received from Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck. I have strong emotions about those commentaries, and having been down that road, the piece would have practically written itself.
Another column preparation approach I could have taken would have been a review of the policy points in Obama’s address. I could have focused solely on the plans he set forward to strengthen the economy. There was certainly enough meat to discuss in his jobs initiative. His approach to the financial sector and Wall Street going forward offers much to debate. I could have picked a topic among Obama’s plans to reenergize small business, or make education less expensive, or invest in clean energy innovation. However, I have already been scooped on the subject; if you want to read a review of the policies outlined in last Wednesday’s speech, or want to hear the president lauded or lambasted, there are plenty of sources out there. Pick up any other paper or news magazine, scan the dials of your TV or radio, or log on to the Internet and you’ll find a plethora of choices.
For me there was a moment during the hour-plus oration that struck a chord. It should have become the thrust of the debate afterward, in my opinion. To be fair, it did get some mention amid the talk about Obama’s open statement on the recent Supreme Court decision, and about the moments he acknowledged the mess he inherited from the previous administration. But the president’s charge to Washington to address the “deficit of trust” among the American people got short shrift in the politics and punditry.
The president is right. No meaningful change will come in a system “where every day is election day” and where the cut-throat perpetual campaign interferes with Washington’s obligation to represent U.S. citizens. The current political climate is destructive not only to those who play the game on the Hill or who occupy offices on Pennsylvania Avenue, but also to those on Main Street who are struggling to simply survive day to day. Those who suffer illness and injury helplessly because they can’t afford proper health care, and those who daily seek employment with few positive results, can expect little relief from such a system.
Watching politics go on as usual in the days since the State of the Union address can make one despondent. Many I have talked to expressed their disappointment and disillusion at the futility of the political process. Once these feelings of distrust and dismay begin to take hold, it’s easy to say “why bother?” and resign oneself to the belief that nothing you can do really makes a difference.
There is a popular theory that the best way to make your voice heard is to exercise your fundamental democratic privilege to vote. In fact, I used to believe this theory and even offered it as advice to those who sought change. At one time it may have been true, but not now. In the current political climate, I think that theory is really part of the problem. I think it leads to the overemphasis of the election cycle and to the perpetual campaign that stands in the way of progress in Washington (and to some extent on the local level).
The recent special election in Massachusetts to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat is an example of this misplaced emphasis. The fact that a Republican claimed victory in this blue state was touted as a referendum on Democrats and on President Obama as his party’s leader. What I saw, as Scott Brown referred to himself as number 41, (a reference to the current 60-40 filibuster-proof majority of the Democrats) was a campaign based on obstructionism. As Brown repeatedly promised to work to kill health care reform I saw a clear picture of how Washington works.
I do think voting is important and is our obligation as citizens, but the best way to make your voice heard is to lift that voice. One can hardly deny the impact of the Tea Party movement on the political landscape. In fact, one of the criticisms of Obama is that he appears (to the right) to be ignoring the voice of the people as expressed within that movement. Unfortunately, the voice of the Tea Partiers is not the voice of America, it’s just the loudest shout in the din. The Tea Party movement doesn’t represent my views; it doesn’t represent the underinsured or underemployed; it doesn’t represent the majority of Massachusetts’ voters, regardless of the lines one wishes to draw.
The problem is that most other views remain unexpressed. Other voices remain silent. We may bend the ear of our neighbor or coworker, but most of us are unlikely to call our representatives or put a pen to paper and mail it to their offices (physical mail that is proven to be more effective than electronic communication). We are more likely to tune out than to write a letter to the editor or submit an article to the Broader View Weekly.
We need to rise above complacency and apathy if we are to hope for change. Change has come too slowly for many of us and we cannot continue to wait for the next election or withdraw from the process altogether. We cannot afford to wait for our elected officials to put away politics and work for the people. We must find our voice and participate in our democracy.
From Broader View Weekly, February 4, 2010
On Wednesday, January 27, President Barack Obama delivered his first State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress and to the American public. It was historic in that it was his first such speech, however, it was neither his most impressive, nor one that will change the course of history.
As expected, there was no shortage of commentary on his performance or the content he presented.
In preparing for my column on the subject, I could have easily drawn from the compliments of the president’s supporters or merely reacted to the criticisms of those who oppose him. I could have filled more than my allotted column inches agreeing with those on the left who felt he said what he needed to say. Or I could have flooded the space with rants about the official Republican response delivered by Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. I could have gone on and on about the trashing Obama predictably received from Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck. I have strong emotions about those commentaries, and having been down that road, the piece would have practically written itself.
Another column preparation approach I could have taken would have been a review of the policy points in Obama’s address. I could have focused solely on the plans he set forward to strengthen the economy. There was certainly enough meat to discuss in his jobs initiative. His approach to the financial sector and Wall Street going forward offers much to debate. I could have picked a topic among Obama’s plans to reenergize small business, or make education less expensive, or invest in clean energy innovation. However, I have already been scooped on the subject; if you want to read a review of the policies outlined in last Wednesday’s speech, or want to hear the president lauded or lambasted, there are plenty of sources out there. Pick up any other paper or news magazine, scan the dials of your TV or radio, or log on to the Internet and you’ll find a plethora of choices.
For me there was a moment during the hour-plus oration that struck a chord. It should have become the thrust of the debate afterward, in my opinion. To be fair, it did get some mention amid the talk about Obama’s open statement on the recent Supreme Court decision, and about the moments he acknowledged the mess he inherited from the previous administration. But the president’s charge to Washington to address the “deficit of trust” among the American people got short shrift in the politics and punditry.
The president is right. No meaningful change will come in a system “where every day is election day” and where the cut-throat perpetual campaign interferes with Washington’s obligation to represent U.S. citizens. The current political climate is destructive not only to those who play the game on the Hill or who occupy offices on Pennsylvania Avenue, but also to those on Main Street who are struggling to simply survive day to day. Those who suffer illness and injury helplessly because they can’t afford proper health care, and those who daily seek employment with few positive results, can expect little relief from such a system.
Watching politics go on as usual in the days since the State of the Union address can make one despondent. Many I have talked to expressed their disappointment and disillusion at the futility of the political process. Once these feelings of distrust and dismay begin to take hold, it’s easy to say “why bother?” and resign oneself to the belief that nothing you can do really makes a difference.
There is a popular theory that the best way to make your voice heard is to exercise your fundamental democratic privilege to vote. In fact, I used to believe this theory and even offered it as advice to those who sought change. At one time it may have been true, but not now. In the current political climate, I think that theory is really part of the problem. I think it leads to the overemphasis of the election cycle and to the perpetual campaign that stands in the way of progress in Washington (and to some extent on the local level).
The recent special election in Massachusetts to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat is an example of this misplaced emphasis. The fact that a Republican claimed victory in this blue state was touted as a referendum on Democrats and on President Obama as his party’s leader. What I saw, as Scott Brown referred to himself as number 41, (a reference to the current 60-40 filibuster-proof majority of the Democrats) was a campaign based on obstructionism. As Brown repeatedly promised to work to kill health care reform I saw a clear picture of how Washington works.
I do think voting is important and is our obligation as citizens, but the best way to make your voice heard is to lift that voice. One can hardly deny the impact of the Tea Party movement on the political landscape. In fact, one of the criticisms of Obama is that he appears (to the right) to be ignoring the voice of the people as expressed within that movement. Unfortunately, the voice of the Tea Partiers is not the voice of America, it’s just the loudest shout in the din. The Tea Party movement doesn’t represent my views; it doesn’t represent the underinsured or underemployed; it doesn’t represent the majority of Massachusetts’ voters, regardless of the lines one wishes to draw.
The problem is that most other views remain unexpressed. Other voices remain silent. We may bend the ear of our neighbor or coworker, but most of us are unlikely to call our representatives or put a pen to paper and mail it to their offices (physical mail that is proven to be more effective than electronic communication). We are more likely to tune out than to write a letter to the editor or submit an article to the Broader View Weekly.
We need to rise above complacency and apathy if we are to hope for change. Change has come too slowly for many of us and we cannot continue to wait for the next election or withdraw from the process altogether. We cannot afford to wait for our elected officials to put away politics and work for the people. We must find our voice and participate in our democracy.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Fasten Your Seatbelts!
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, February 4, 2010
If the first month of 2010 is any indication of what we can expect from the next 11, I’d suggest that we all grab hold of something solid, because I think we are in for a very bumpy ride. We saw the power of nature unleashed in the devastating earthquake in Haiti on that first Tuesday, and then, one week later, we saw the power of an informed citizenry unleashed in Massachusetts. Both of these events have initiated dramatic and long lasting changes. The physical topography of Haiti will never be the same as it was before that quake and the political topography of Washington will never be the same as it was before that special election.
We need only examine the recent State of the Union address by President Obama to realize just how drastically the political landscape has changed. Sources say that the first speech had been written as early as last November when Obama’s reputation was feeling the first tremors following the defeats experienced by his party in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races. But then the people of Massachusetts spoke and the earth beneath his feet shook.
The speech delivered last Wednesday exemplified the reason why there is such a “deficit of trust” in Washington, and why Obama is seen less as the Second Coming of the Messiah and more as the Second Coming of the other J.C. (Jimmy Carter). It was marked by several misstatements, broad generalizations, false accusations, faux confessions, comical ironies and, worst of all, pointless, clichéd rhetoric.
When Obama wasn’t using his famous oratorical skills to: one, offend the Supreme Court Justices on national television while blatantly misstating the details of their decision; two, castigate members of his own party for seeing the earthquake coming and heading for the hills; three, indict the previous president for the “inherited” deficit that he tripled in one-fourth the time; four, offer up a false confession of blame for not explaining the health bill clearly enough for an uneducated, bumbling populace like us to understand that what he was shoving down our throats was for own good, etc. etc. – he was making some very interesting and ironic statements.
He referred to Washington in the third person plural voice, as if he wasn’t a part of it, and then spoke of the “perpetual campaign”, as if he wasn’t involved in it. Oddly enough, this speech was given the day after he re-hired his campaign manager to act as an advisor, and then the day after the speech, he flew to Florida for a campaign-like town hall meeting touting a new, high-speed rail project that will most likely be as non-profitable as the current Amtrak system, which costs the American taxpayers $72/passenger and expects to be more each year.
He spoke of the need to tighten the Federal spending belt by freezing the rates of increase – but not until 2011, when, as we all know, the current election cycle will not be threatened. And even then, his proposed savings would only amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit.
There are other glaring disparities between Obama’s speech and the true state of the union. The space available to me here does not allow me to go into detail on each of them, but if you are interested, you can read some of them in the AP article written by Calvin Woodward dated January 28.
So, as we can see, Obama offers us no hope for a change in either the budgetary deficit or the deficit of trust.
In conclusion, I feel I must answer a charge made by Keith in his column. He stated that the Brown election was an example of what was wrong with the “way Washington works”. Keith goes on to say that voting is no longer an effective mechanism for change. Keith seems to say that we must just speak louder than those “who do not speak for us” – as if the loudest or, should he prefer, the most violent voice was the one that needed to be listened to.
The fact that Keith, and Obama, seem to be missing from the seismic jolt that hit the political world is that Brown’s campaign was not “politics as usual”. Politics as usual would have been the most liberal state in the union sending another liberal senator to replace the deceased liberal senator. Politics as usual would have had Scott Brown toeing the line of the Republican fat cats just to get their financial support. Politics as usual would not have seen a 30-point lead by the Democrat in December shrink within four short weeks to a six-point loss. It was not politics as usual; it was people – with an average donation of $77 – and a heart-felt disgust for political back-room dealing and closed-door obfuscation that surrounded the Health Care debacle. It was a realization that this current administration cares more about our global image than it does our national security.
Just as the rebuilding efforts taking place in Haiti should be done with a realization that earthquakes are possible and should be prepared for, the political rebuilding should carry that realization also. If Obama thinks he can use the same empty promises and soaring rhetoric to build his political legacy, I am afraid his world will shake again in November.
So, strap yourselves in and hold on, we are heading for some turbulence.
From Broader View Weekly, February 4, 2010
If the first month of 2010 is any indication of what we can expect from the next 11, I’d suggest that we all grab hold of something solid, because I think we are in for a very bumpy ride. We saw the power of nature unleashed in the devastating earthquake in Haiti on that first Tuesday, and then, one week later, we saw the power of an informed citizenry unleashed in Massachusetts. Both of these events have initiated dramatic and long lasting changes. The physical topography of Haiti will never be the same as it was before that quake and the political topography of Washington will never be the same as it was before that special election.
We need only examine the recent State of the Union address by President Obama to realize just how drastically the political landscape has changed. Sources say that the first speech had been written as early as last November when Obama’s reputation was feeling the first tremors following the defeats experienced by his party in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races. But then the people of Massachusetts spoke and the earth beneath his feet shook.
The speech delivered last Wednesday exemplified the reason why there is such a “deficit of trust” in Washington, and why Obama is seen less as the Second Coming of the Messiah and more as the Second Coming of the other J.C. (Jimmy Carter). It was marked by several misstatements, broad generalizations, false accusations, faux confessions, comical ironies and, worst of all, pointless, clichéd rhetoric.
When Obama wasn’t using his famous oratorical skills to: one, offend the Supreme Court Justices on national television while blatantly misstating the details of their decision; two, castigate members of his own party for seeing the earthquake coming and heading for the hills; three, indict the previous president for the “inherited” deficit that he tripled in one-fourth the time; four, offer up a false confession of blame for not explaining the health bill clearly enough for an uneducated, bumbling populace like us to understand that what he was shoving down our throats was for own good, etc. etc. – he was making some very interesting and ironic statements.
He referred to Washington in the third person plural voice, as if he wasn’t a part of it, and then spoke of the “perpetual campaign”, as if he wasn’t involved in it. Oddly enough, this speech was given the day after he re-hired his campaign manager to act as an advisor, and then the day after the speech, he flew to Florida for a campaign-like town hall meeting touting a new, high-speed rail project that will most likely be as non-profitable as the current Amtrak system, which costs the American taxpayers $72/passenger and expects to be more each year.
He spoke of the need to tighten the Federal spending belt by freezing the rates of increase – but not until 2011, when, as we all know, the current election cycle will not be threatened. And even then, his proposed savings would only amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit.
There are other glaring disparities between Obama’s speech and the true state of the union. The space available to me here does not allow me to go into detail on each of them, but if you are interested, you can read some of them in the AP article written by Calvin Woodward dated January 28.
So, as we can see, Obama offers us no hope for a change in either the budgetary deficit or the deficit of trust.
In conclusion, I feel I must answer a charge made by Keith in his column. He stated that the Brown election was an example of what was wrong with the “way Washington works”. Keith goes on to say that voting is no longer an effective mechanism for change. Keith seems to say that we must just speak louder than those “who do not speak for us” – as if the loudest or, should he prefer, the most violent voice was the one that needed to be listened to.
The fact that Keith, and Obama, seem to be missing from the seismic jolt that hit the political world is that Brown’s campaign was not “politics as usual”. Politics as usual would have been the most liberal state in the union sending another liberal senator to replace the deceased liberal senator. Politics as usual would have had Scott Brown toeing the line of the Republican fat cats just to get their financial support. Politics as usual would not have seen a 30-point lead by the Democrat in December shrink within four short weeks to a six-point loss. It was not politics as usual; it was people – with an average donation of $77 – and a heart-felt disgust for political back-room dealing and closed-door obfuscation that surrounded the Health Care debacle. It was a realization that this current administration cares more about our global image than it does our national security.
Just as the rebuilding efforts taking place in Haiti should be done with a realization that earthquakes are possible and should be prepared for, the political rebuilding should carry that realization also. If Obama thinks he can use the same empty promises and soaring rhetoric to build his political legacy, I am afraid his world will shake again in November.
So, strap yourselves in and hold on, we are heading for some turbulence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
