A Real War on Christmas

There are a lot of ways to spend Christmas Day. You can spend it with family opening gifts. You can use it as excuse to have a nice peaceful meal at a Chinese restaurant. If the weather is nice, maybe you can go for a hike. The one thing that would never occur to me is to shoot somebody. But 63 people got shot and 27 people were killed on Christmas Day. There were even mass shootings, one in Jacksonville, Florida, and another in Mobile, Alabama.

You’d think that maybe we could have a day off from this mayhem, but we can’t.

The number of Americans killed in gun homicides on Christmas Day is comparable to the number of people killed in gun homicides in an entire year in places like Australia or Britain. The 27 people killed by guns in America on Christmas this year is equal to the total number of people killed in gun homicides in an entire year in Austria, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, Estonia, Bermuda, Hong Kong and Iceland, combined.

Maybe we can relax more gun laws in response. This seems like the only response we’re capable of making.

Donate Now

Marco Rubio’s Miami Vice Problem

When you see a headline like this [How Rubio helped his ex-con brother-in-law acquire a real estate license] in the Washington Post, you figure that you’re about to read a very long and sordid exposé. That’s not really what Post reporters Manuel Roig-Franzia and Scott Higham delivered in this case, though. Their piece has enough substantiation to justify the headline, but it doesn’t delve too deeply into the greater meaning and it leaves the most important question unanswered.

Let’s start with the fact that “ex-con” doesn’t really do justice to Marco Rubio’s brother-in-law. Orlando Cicilia was a major drug trafficker at a time and in a place that has gone down in history in movies like Scarface and television programs like Miami Vice for being notoriously violent and destructive.

According to public records, Cicilia was arrested after federal law enforcement seized the Miami home where he lived with Barbara Rubio, Senator Rubio’s sister. Barbara Rubio was not arrested or indicted. Cicilia was sentenced to 25 years in prison for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana.

The arrest was part of “Operation Cobra,” a federal crackdown on a Florida drug smuggling ring that killed a federal informer and chopped up his body, according to a NYT story published at the time. The story reports that the ring, led by Cuban American Mario Tabraue, paid $150,000 in bribes to the Key West police chief and Miami-Dade county officials, and used Miami police officers to collect, count, and disburse drug profits.

About that part where they killed a federal informer and chopped up his body, the New York Times reported on December 17th, 1987:

The authorities said that in July 1980, members of [Cicilia’s drug ring] apparently became aware that Larry Nash was an informer for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

“Mr. Nash was murdered and mutilated,” Mr. Dean said. “His body was cut up with a chain saw and then burned.”

This drug ring reportedly did $75 million of business trading in marijuana and cocaine, of which Cicilia was personally responsible for $15 million. That’s a lot of cocaine and a lot of ruined lives, and the way they operated, it was a lot of violence, intimidation, and the cause of a shameful amount of public corruption.

To call this man merely an “ex-con” doesn’t capture the scope of his crimes.

When Cicilia was arrested, Marco Rubio was sixteen years old, and he can’t be held accountable for what his sister’s boyfriend and eventual husband did for a living. That his sister and the family stayed loyal to this man throughout his incarceration and welcomed him back into their lives and homes when he was released is admirable in its own way. When you look at the totality of the circumstances with this case, the Rubio family deserves a degree of credit for loyalty and a willingness to forgive. Orlando Cicilia served his time and he ought to be afforded the opportunity to demonstrate that he’s been rehabilitated.

Still, this was a choice. It was a choice to essentially overlook the immense damage done by Cicilia and his gang to countless individuals and to the integrity of the local government and law enforcement institutions.

We have to balance the good and the bad here, and that’s the context with which we should judge the following:

When Marco Rubio was majority whip of the Florida House of Representatives, he used his official position to urge state regulators to grant a real estate license to his brother-in-law, a convicted cocaine trafficker who had been released from prison 20 months earlier, according to records obtained by The Washington Post.

In July 2002, Rubio sent a letter on his official statehouse stationery to the Florida Division of Real Estate, recommending Orlando Cicilia “for licensure without reservation.” The letter, obtained by The Washington Post under the Florida Public Records Act, offers a glimpse of Rubio using his growing political power to assist his troubled brother-in-law and provides new insight into how the young lawmaker intertwined his personal and political lives.

Rubio did not disclose in the letter that Cicilia was married to his sister, Barbara, or that the former cocaine dealer was living at the time in the same West Miami home as Rubio’s parents. He wrote that he had known Cicilia “for over 25 years,” without elaborating.

The Rubio campaign responds that it would have been worse if he had revealed his conflict of interest because revealing that Cicilia was his brother-in-law and was living with his parents would have put undue pressure on the members of the Florida Division of Real Estate. This is because, as majority whip of the Florida House of Representatives, he had “significant influence” over the Division’s budget.

That’s a defense, certainly, but a poor one. Rubio had two truly defensible options. He could have refused to write the letter because of the obvious conflict or he could have fully disclosed it and let the chips fall where they may. He chose to hide the conflict, and that was the wrong decision.

The Post reveals some additional information about how Rubio has helped his brother-in-law, including using him as a realtor and funneling “more than $130,000 in the past decade” to Cecilia’s two sons through various PACs and campaign coffers.

But that’s not the most troubling question here. This is:

Rubio also declined to say whether he or his family received financial assistance from Cicilia, who was convicted in a high-profile 1989 trial of distributing $15 million worth of cocaine. The federal government seized Cicilia’s home; the money has never been found.

I don’t know how much money was left over after the lawyers got paid, but it’s safe to assume that “the money [that] has never been found” was significant and became part of the Rubio family’s assets.

I have mixed feelings about how this story should be treated. In almost all cases, I favor forgiveness and a helping hand to felons who do their time and pay their debt to society. I don’t look unkindly on families that stick together and remain loyal to members who fall into addiction or crime.

But major drug kingpins are a little different than your garden-variety felon. People who trade in lethal addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin have such a depraved indifference to the death they cause that I have a hard time being forgiving, and this is especially true for major traffickers who are involved at least tangentially in murder, bribery and the corruption of public officials.

That Marco Rubio is not only a public official but is seeking the highest office in the land just puts this in a category of its own. I can’t strongly condemn anything Rubio is proven to have done, but neither can I really trust him, either.

This is definitely a legitimate story and something all voters should know about so that they can weigh the facts in a full and fair context. And, to be fair, Orlando Cicilia did his time. I don’t see anything wrong with him having a real estate license. I don’t care that Rubio used him as a realtor. It doesn’t really bother me that Rubio has employed his sons in his campaigns, although I hope they did some actual work.

On the other hand, I would like to be able to believe that Rubio’s whole political career wasn’t made possible by bloody cocaine money that was never recovered when Cicilia was arrested back in 1987.

Unfortunately, that possibility is an open question.

 

The West Lamenting Death of a Terrorist

Just because this genocidal terrorist was in the pocket of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and some Gulf States? What an hypocrisy and utter political bs!

Analysis: Human Rights Watch and Western media lament death of self-proclaimed genocidal terrorist

This was soon quickly followed by Al-Nusra’s major ally, Ahrar ash-Sham, giving their condolences.

“Alloush’s martyrdom should be a turning point in the history of the revolution and rebel groups should realize they are facing a war of extermination and uprooting by Putin’s regime,” said Labib al Nahhas, a senior figure in the main Ahrar al-Sham group. However, this is understandable that fellow terrorist groups would give their condolences to a known sectarian terrorist with the same ideology, goals and extremism.

However, this is where things start to become strange and peculiar. The designated champions of the `revolution’ against the Syrian government, the Free Syrian Army, are always heralded as moderate, secular and pro-democracy. However, as Al-Masdar News has continued to expose at large, this ethos is nothing but a mythological hope to the West. Why did the Free Syrian Army offer condolences to the death of a terrorist leader who was friendly with internationally designated terrorist groups like Al-Nusra and Ahrar ash-Sham?

We know Ahrar ash-Sham, Al-Nusra and the Free Syrian Army are allied and compose the northern Syrian axis known as the Army of Conquest. Despite this, the mythology of a secular and pro-democratic Free Syrian Army permeates.

However, in the West, the silence of the media exposing this has been deafening. In fact, the West have taken a more disturbing reaction to the death of the terrorist leader Alloush.

The Guardian took the headline: “Leader of powerful Syrian rebel group killed in airstrike“.

The New York Times took the headline: “Powerful Syrian Rebel Leader Reported Killed in Airstrike“.

Reuters took the headline: “Top Syrian rebel leader killed in air strike in Damascus suburb“.

And all the other usual suspects took on the narrative that a `rebel’ leader had died. However, the language evoked from these headlines give the unsuspecting reader the illusion that this was another (non-existent) pro-democracy and secular rebel leader.

This could not be further from the truth. From his own mouth, Alloush called for the extermination and torture of Shi’ites and Alawites.

    On September 29, 2013, the largest rebel army was formed in Syria by combining around 50 Islamist groups under the umbrella of the "Army of Islam", led by Zahran Alloush, who was leading the Islam Battalion prior to his new position. This supposedly "moderate rebel" by US standards wants to re-establish an Omayyad-like Caliphate in Syria and to "crush the heads of the Magi", a term that Wahhabi extremists use in reference to Iranians/Persians and to Shiites. He also called for like-minded jihadists to flock from all over the world into Syria to help him achieve his objective.

Which brings me to my next point; Kenneth Roth. It cannot be understood why Roth is alluding to and indirectly stating that Alloush was exterminated by Syrian forces to reduce other leadership potentials, to just the current Syrian government and ISIS. For those who do not know who Kenneth Roth is, he has been the executive director of Human Rights Watch since 1993.

 « click for more info
Tweet by Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch (Credit: MoA)

[h/t MoA – Kenneth Roth’s Schizophrenic Positions On Zahran Alloush]  

Irish General Election 2016

The Irish General Election is expected to be called shortly for the end of February with the Government Parties of Fine Gael (Christian Democrat) and Labour (Socialist) fighting for re-election against Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein and a plethora of Independents and smaller parties who currently make up c. 20% of the seats in the Dail.

The election takes place against a backdrop of significant economic revival with growth for 2015 expected to come in at around 7% of GDP (by far the highest in Europe), unemployment declining from 15 to 9%, and the Debt/GDP ratio declining from a peak of over 120% to less than 100%.

Ordinarily, such a rapid turnaround in Ireland’s economic fortunes could be expected to result in a Government being returned to office, but there are also significant residues of resentment against the Government due to their policies of cutting public expenditure and introducing new taxes such as water charges, property taxes and universal social charges.
In addition, the recovery is still very Dublin centric with many of the more rural parts of the country feeling little benefit.  Many families have suffered from unemployment, emigration, depressed wages, higher taxes, homelessness, negative equity and the threat of mortgage foreclosure. Many have also been effected by cuts in social and health services for the sick and disabled.

The Government will, of course, seek to blame much of this on the preceding Fianna Fail led Government which introduced the infamous Bank Guarantee and presided over the economic meltdown from 2008 to 2011. But electoral memories can be short and Fianna Fail is expected to make some recovery from their decimation in the wake of that debacle.

Labour’s incorporation into a predominantly conservative led Government has also created a political space to their left which has been filled by Sinn Fein and a number of left-wing Independents and smaller parties. Sinn Fein is vying with Fianna Fail to become the leading opposition party and both are polling at around 20%.  Neither seem to be that interested in actually forming the next Government however, refusing to contemplate any kind of coalition arrangement with each other or with Fine Gael.

Insofar as General Elections (as opposed to bye-elections) tend to focus attention on the composition of the next Government, therefore, there seems to be only one game in town. That is not to say, however, that there won’t be a huge protest vote, and that an unexpected change of Government may not result. Enda Kenny is not exactly perceived as an outstanding Taoiseach, and Labour has borne much of the brunt of public dissatisfaction at cuts in public sector pay and social services and will undoubtedly suffer electorally as a result.

Labour will also probably gain little political credit for leading the charge on the successful Marriage Equality Referendum Campaign or for maintaining basic rates of social welfare payments at levels far in excess of those available in the UK. Junior partners in Irish Coalitions tend to suffer electorally even when the majority partner does well.

However while there may be little electoral benefit for pursuing progressive policies, at least no political party is running on an anti-immigrant or anti-EU platform. Whatever else we may say about the Ireland of 2015, at least no racist or homophobic forces have gained any traction on the political landscape. We can argue about growing economic inequality, but social tolerance and solidarity remains the norm.

Irish Political Opinion Polls 2015

Irish Political Opinion Polls 2015 photo polls_zpsdah77qjn.png

Fine Gael have been rising to above 30% in the polls recently whereas Labour continues to flat-line below 10%. Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein have been tracking each other quite closely around the 20% mark whereas Independents and smaller parties have been losing ground as the focus increasingly shifts towards choosing the next government, as opposed to protesting against the current one.

How to Get Your Daddy’s GOP Back

Ed Kilgore does a great job of summarizing why George Pataki got nowhere in his effort to run for the Republican nomination and decided to drop out before a single vote was cast. He was running for the nomination of a party that no longer exists. But there’s a follow-up question to that. Is there any way to recreate the old Republican Party?

There’s an article in the upcoming issue of the Washington Monthly that suggests that we might get less gridlock in DC and more bipartisan legislation if lawmakers had more access to information and more control over the legislative process. I don’t want to suggest that this solution wouldn’t work. I think it would be quite helpful.

But I also think that it will take more to recreate a space for politicians like George Pataki or Jim Webb or Lincoln Chafee.

If I were a billionaire and I wanted my grandfather’s Republican Party back, I’d start by focusing on the House of Representatives. My first target would be California’s 53 congressional seats. Candidates in the Golden State run in open primaries and without formal party affiliation. I’d try to find as many candidates to run in the primaries as I could who would be willing to make me two promises. The first promise is that they take climate change seriously and that they support reproductive rights. The second promise is that they would not vote on the first ballot for anyone for Speaker of the House who wasn’t on my slate of candidates.

Just as the Freedom Caucus was able to force Speaker Boehner out, a more liberal rump could veto a Republican speaker and insist on a leader of their liking. This rump would also be available to vote sensibly on climate and reproductive choice, but their real mission would be to force the leadership of the House to break with the conservatives.

Once this was accomplished, these sitting lawmakers could make other demands, including on how the RNC and the RNCC allocate funds and other resources. In particular, they might be able to compel the official Republican organs to spend money on their reelections and on the election of like-minded candidates in other parts of the country.

New England doesn’t have the ballot access laws that make it possible to supplant conservative candidates in the primaries, but they have electorates that might support more moderate, independent candidates if enough people could be convinced to take a second look at the Republican Party and participate in their primaries. Short of that, independents like Angus King and Bernie Sanders still exist up there, and politicians like Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe would be more comfortable caucusing with my California slate than with the Tom DeLay-types that dominate the party today. Those are senators or former senators, of course, but I might be able to break through with a small handful of congresspersons who would agree to my conditions.

The basic idea is get enough people in Congress to blackmail the conservatives who run the Republican Party into making concessions about who will run the leadership. Then the new leadership would rely on my group for the votes they need to keep the government running without constant threats of default or shutdown. At first, the governing majority in the House would be made up mostly of Democrats, but that’s already the case. The difference would be that the leadership could do this unapologetically and without fear of being removed in a rightwing coup.

With this little trick, bipartisan consensus would restored, at least to the degree necessary to operate the government. Bipartisan legislation would follow, and conservative chairmen who were unwilling to compromise would be steamrolled or simply find themselves completely ineffectual.

I can foresee a lot of obstacles in this plan and even more potential for unintended consequences, but it’s the best I can come up with for now.

The Republican Party can’t really represent California or New England anymore, and the people there should have a real choice. If they’re unhappy with their Democratic representatives, they shouldn’t have to overlook the alternative’s climate science denialism or anti-women’s rights stances. And, as it stands now, you can elect a moderate Republican if one happens to show up, but if they go to DC and vote for Paul Ryan as Speaker, you’re not getting moderate representation. The people need a softer right alternative to the modern Republican Party. And the country needs to find a way to break their ability to cause gridlock on the federal level.

As the Freedom Caucus demonstrated, it doesn’t take all that many members to force a change in leadership, and that’s how I think people should proceed if they want to restore the GOP to sanity and get our government working on a reality-based basis again.

Diamonds, Fur, and a Queen

Some months ago my Aunt Bea urged me to take my elderly and ailing Aunt Em’s mink coat.  Bea said that it’s gorgeous, in perfect condition, and insured for thousands of dollars.  When I said that I don’t wear fur, Bea pressed on with, “It will fit you perfectly.”  I continued to decline the offer.  Her last plea with me was,  “But if you don’t take it, what I’m I going to do with it?”  I suggested donating it to a church rummage sale.  That’s when she accepted that I really wanted nothing to do with it.

Bea didn’t offer me any diamonds or jewelry but it wouldn’t have mattered because I don’t like or wear either.

Yet, there’s one person in the world that I truly enjoy seeing decked out in diamonds and fur.  The Queen of Soul.

To Shave or Not to Shave

I’m not sure why beards have fallen out of favor among male politicians. I know that I initially grew a beard because I have sensitive skin, especially on my neck, and shaving was simply painful. It was also lower maintenance, since I opted not to go for a goatee or anything stylized. For me, half the idea is to not have to spend time grooming myself. I can probably go a whole week without once examining myself in a mirror.

I discovered later in life when a trimming mishap caused me to shave my beard off completely that I had developed a bit of a double chin. How bad it is depends on my weight, and I’ve lost a lot of weight over the last few years. Still, it isn’t a feature I like and I’m happy to cover it up. That’s about as far as vanity goes in explaining my facial hair decisions.

I certainly don’t keep a beard to look masculine or project any particular kind of image. But I wonder if politicians have been warned off beards and mustaches by political consultants. If I were to run for office, would I have a bunch of “professionals” advising me to go clean-shaven? Would my opponents suggest that I was a secret Muslim?

Maybe Paul Ryan’s beard makes people think he’s less sympathetic to women’s issues. I’d call that accuracy in advertising, actually, but I still think long hair tells you more about a person than facial hair.

What do you think?

Donate Now

Making Worse People to Get Their Votes

The Washington Post has a piece today on the tensions in Grand Forks, North Dakota between white natives and the growing immigrant population, particularly refugees from Somalia who are Muslim.

On December 8th, someone filled a 40 ounce bottle of Bud Light with gasoline, lit it, and threw it through the window of a Somali establishment called Juba Coffee and Restaurant. This occurred only hours after Donald Trump called for a temporary ban on allowing Muslim refugees to enter the country.

“I blame it on Donald Trump, to be honest,” said Saida Aden, 24, a first-year engineering student. “And the media. Anyone just thinks they can say anything or do anything they want. It’s like the country needs a bogeyman, and it has become us.”

Whether Saida Aden is right or not, it certainly doesn’t help to have national politicians raising the fears and anxieties of people rather than doing their best to soothe them.

Some degree of apprehension is understandable in light of what happened in San Bernardino, where a seemingly assimilated Muslim man apparently plotted for years to carry out a mass casualty terrorist attack. But apprehension and caution are different from hatred and panic.

Some of the locals can sound silly when they complain about the Somalis.

[Grand Forks City Council member, Terry] Bjerke said he was upset that there were no statistics to show whether refugees had been responsible for an increase in robberies and burglaries. With so many refu­gee students learning English in school, he wondered whether native speakers were losing valuable time from their teachers. Most upsetting, he said, was that the Somalis were not adopting “American customs,” such as playing hockey or eating hot dogs.

Mr. Bjerke is running to unseat the Grand Forks mayor, so perhaps he has some cynical reasons to complain about Sub-Saharan immigrants’ not flocking to play a game on ice. He definitely sees some political gold in attacking his Somali neighbors.

The week after the public hearing on diversity, Bjerke invited a speaker named Usama Dakdok, an Egyptian Christian, to lecture about the city’s need to contain Islam’s influence. More than 450 attended, watching as Bjerke raised copies of the Constitution and the New Testament in the air and declared, “From my cold, dead hands!”

This behavior is not consistent with responsible leadership. It makes it more likely that another gasoline-filled forty will be thrown at a Somali business rather than less. And it’s human nature that when bad things happen to a community, that community will have the desire to strike back. If you want to drive a nice Somali kid into the hands of al-Shabab, a good way to do it is to throw a Molotov Cocktail through the window of his parents’ store.

It should be obvious that making people afraid, driving wedges between local communities, and encouraging people to take actions against an immigrant population are not ways to make Grand Forks safer.

But, when there is political power to be had, it’s like catnip to some people.

This is what Trumpism basically is, although it is not limited to him. He’s just leading the way. His competitors appear eager to follow.

It’s Bash Bill Clinton Day

It must be Bash Bill Clinton Day, because everyone seems to want to dredge up the past and go after Hillary for the infidelities of her husband. Donald Trump got it started.

Trump was also asked to account for a tweet on Monday in which he cited the former president’s “terrible record of women abuse,” remarking that “we could name many of them.”

“I can get you a list, and I’ll have it sent to your office in two seconds, but there was certainly a lot of abuse of women,” he volunteered. “You look at whether it’s Monica Lewinsky or Paula Jones or many of them, and that certainly will be fair game. Certainly if they play the woman’s card with respect to me, that will be fair game.”

Ben Carson piled on.

“I see them becoming coarser and wanting to know what certain things are that they’re hearing about on television — things that they would’ve never known about as kids before. And a certain innocence disappears from our society; I’m sorry to see that happen, and I’m sorry that it was because one of our presidents.”

— Ben Carson, asked about Bill Clinton’s treatment of women, on how children were affected by news reports of Mr. Clinton’s behavior as president.

Carly Fiorina said that it was a poor strategy for beating Hillary but was nonetheless justifiable:

GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina said Monday that Donald Trump is justified in publicly targeting former President Bill Clinton in connection with his wife’s campaign for the White House.

“Of course Bill Clinton is fair game,” she said on Fox News’s “Fox and Friends.” “He’s a former president.”

It’s pretty clear that the Republicans aren’t going to be taking the high road in this campaign. Trump didn’t limit himself to talking about the former president’s sex life. He used the old “when did you stop beating your wife” routine to call Bill Clinton a racist.

“The [Obama campaign] said it; I didn’t say it,” Trump continued. “All I said was what they said, Savannah. That’s what they said. They called [Bill Clinton] a racist. I don’t believe he is a racist, if you want to know the truth, but they called him a racist. It was a miserable campaign. He did very poorly and you know, they’re bringing him out again. He’s being wheeled out, and we’re going to see what happens. Frankly, he did very poorly, he was not good for her and obviously, she lost to Obama and that was the end of that. But they brought him out before.”

One thing almost all Republicans enjoy is a little Clinton-bashing, so it makes sense for the candidates to try to outdo each other. Will it be a good strategy in the general election?

I kind of doubt it. A lot of voters don’t even remember the battles of the 1990’s, and those who do are not going to reward people who make us relive them.

Donate Now