"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the state of Israel on trial" - Ariel Sharon - (b.1928), the 11th prime minister of Israel (2001-2006) and often referred to as "The Butcher of Beirut"
On a number of occasions over the past seven plus years of this column I have addressed and issue that has been with us now for a couple of generations and that is the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. More specifically I have discussed the plight of the Palestinians and their struggle for not only international recognition as a people but also the birth of their own nation. I don't think that is unreasonable to say that Irish people, to a large degree, feel a natural affinity to the cause of our Palestinian brothers and sisters, having ourselves fought for hundreds of years to establish our own independence. In the modern era one cannot talk about the Arab-Israeli situation without also discussing the role of America as Israel's benefactor in the Middle East and the power of the pro Israel lobby in the United States.
Since the country came into existence in 1948, the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has revolved around its relationship with Israel. For sixty years American support for Israel has been unwavering, whether that support be measured in financial, diplomatic or material terms. It is hard to comprehend why the most powerful nation in the world would choose to sometimes jeopardize its own security (by inflaming the Arab world) and put serious strain on long time international relationships by obstinately sticking by Israel through thick and thin, human rights violation after human rights violation. Since World War II, successive U.S. presidents (with the possible exception of Richard Nixon, who was a notorious anti-Semite), have pandered to the will of the pro Israel lobby. Time and again the international community has witnessed the brutality of Israel's continued aggression towards its regional neighbours, with little or no reprimand from Washington. Personally speaking, it is a state of affairs that has frustrated me greatly for a long time.
U.S. timidity towards Israeli belligerence may well be at an end however, at least for the duration of Barack Obama's presidency. In March, on the day Vice President Joe Biden arrived in the country, the Israeli interior ministry announced a housing expansion in a Jewish community in North Jerusalem, a very touchy subject with Washington, not to mention the Palestinians, who regard Jerusalem as their historical and spiritual capital. Biden, while in the country, condemned the action. A couple of days later, after discussing with President Obama specific language she would use, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton read Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu the riot act during a well publicized 45 minute telephone conversation, calling the earlier action on housing an "insulting" to America and its efforts to broker an Arab-Israeli peace agreement. Clinton says that she expects Israel to take real and concrete steps towards advancing the peace process.
Finally. Its about time the United States stopped pampering Israel. Kudos to Hillary Clinton for calling them out over another blatant act of intimidation and belligerence. Maybe the U.S. is waking up to what the rest of the world has known for decades, but I doubt it.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Tea baggers (aka racists) of the world unite
"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity towards those who are not regarded as members of the herd" - Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) - British philosopher, mathematician and winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature (1950)
In late 2009 the word "teabagger" officially entered the lexicon when it was short listed by the Oxford American Dictionary for their "Word of the Year" competition. The rise of the so called Tea Party movement in the last couple of years has created a fascinating, and yes, frightening, new dynamic in the American body politic, one which may well cause serious difficulties for both Republican and Democratic candidate's in November's mid term elections. While the movement publicizes that its charter is to protest government tax and spending policies and reduce what its members see as the rise of federal influence in their daily lives, the truth is that the Tea Party has evolved into a right wing, ultra conservative, overtly racist organization. More of that anon.
The genesis of the current Tea Party movement was born out of the Liberterian Party, a political party formed in 1971 and headquartered in Washington D.C. Its political platform advocates strong civil liberties, less government regulation and involvement in the daily lives of citizens, fiscal responsibility and a non interventionist foreign policy. Current Republican congressman Ron Paul ran as a Liberterian Party candidate for President in 1988, and while he remains in the GOP tent, he is seen by many as one of the more moderate, saner voices in the Republican Party.
The problem for Republicans is that the Tea Party movement has unashamedly morphed into an organization of racists. Their common enemy is President Obama. They are apoplectic that their comfortable white supremacist existence has been turned upside down by the election of an intelligent, charismatic black man. Some of their racism is subtle, more of it is blatant and in your face. The subtle racism is reflected in a strong anti immigration stance and their opposition to health care reform and affirmative action. Their public displays of racism have been at their rallies where the most vicious signs, banners and pictures of President Obama have been visible to the entire world. What's worse is that many prominent Republican politicians, including the Minority Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Minority Whip, have made speeches at these rallies, openly identifying themselves with these right wing nut jobs. They continue to call Obama a socialist. This of course is just a euphemism for you know what. But guess what?
The Tea Party movement is causing a big problem for the Republican Party. Republican National Committe chairman Michael Steele is openly courting the Tea Party leadership in an effort to merge the parties because he knows that they have the potential to take seats away from the GOP in this year's congressional elections. The Tea Party has moved so far to the right on the political spectrum that even semi conservative Republicans like John McCain are no longer considered conservative enough and are in the fight of their lives to hold their seats this November. To cite one example, in Arizona, former Republican congressman and current darling of the Tea Party movement, J.D. Hayworth, has announced that he will run against McCain in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate this summer, handing McCain arguably his toughest re-election battle yet.
A week after half term governor and blogger Sarah Palin made a speech at the inaugural Tea Party convention in Nashville, the founder of www.teaparty.org lashed out publicly at Palin's suggestion that the Tea Party movement be absorbed into the GOP - "She represents a growing insider's attack to the heart of the Tea Party. Very much like a wolf in sheep's clothing entering in at the gate as an ally, but for all intents and purposes there to seize and capture, not only one or two stray sheep, but the whole flock". Wow! Perhaps these people are now seeing Palin for exactly what she is; an intellectual midget, a slick opportunist and a fraud with no vision and even less humility.
According to the Teas Party manifesto, here are their "non-negotiable" core beliefs:
In late 2009 the word "teabagger" officially entered the lexicon when it was short listed by the Oxford American Dictionary for their "Word of the Year" competition. The rise of the so called Tea Party movement in the last couple of years has created a fascinating, and yes, frightening, new dynamic in the American body politic, one which may well cause serious difficulties for both Republican and Democratic candidate's in November's mid term elections. While the movement publicizes that its charter is to protest government tax and spending policies and reduce what its members see as the rise of federal influence in their daily lives, the truth is that the Tea Party has evolved into a right wing, ultra conservative, overtly racist organization. More of that anon.
The genesis of the current Tea Party movement was born out of the Liberterian Party, a political party formed in 1971 and headquartered in Washington D.C. Its political platform advocates strong civil liberties, less government regulation and involvement in the daily lives of citizens, fiscal responsibility and a non interventionist foreign policy. Current Republican congressman Ron Paul ran as a Liberterian Party candidate for President in 1988, and while he remains in the GOP tent, he is seen by many as one of the more moderate, saner voices in the Republican Party.
The problem for Republicans is that the Tea Party movement has unashamedly morphed into an organization of racists. Their common enemy is President Obama. They are apoplectic that their comfortable white supremacist existence has been turned upside down by the election of an intelligent, charismatic black man. Some of their racism is subtle, more of it is blatant and in your face. The subtle racism is reflected in a strong anti immigration stance and their opposition to health care reform and affirmative action. Their public displays of racism have been at their rallies where the most vicious signs, banners and pictures of President Obama have been visible to the entire world. What's worse is that many prominent Republican politicians, including the Minority Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Minority Whip, have made speeches at these rallies, openly identifying themselves with these right wing nut jobs. They continue to call Obama a socialist. This of course is just a euphemism for you know what. But guess what?
The Tea Party movement is causing a big problem for the Republican Party. Republican National Committe chairman Michael Steele is openly courting the Tea Party leadership in an effort to merge the parties because he knows that they have the potential to take seats away from the GOP in this year's congressional elections. The Tea Party has moved so far to the right on the political spectrum that even semi conservative Republicans like John McCain are no longer considered conservative enough and are in the fight of their lives to hold their seats this November. To cite one example, in Arizona, former Republican congressman and current darling of the Tea Party movement, J.D. Hayworth, has announced that he will run against McCain in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate this summer, handing McCain arguably his toughest re-election battle yet.
A week after half term governor and blogger Sarah Palin made a speech at the inaugural Tea Party convention in Nashville, the founder of www.teaparty.org lashed out publicly at Palin's suggestion that the Tea Party movement be absorbed into the GOP - "She represents a growing insider's attack to the heart of the Tea Party. Very much like a wolf in sheep's clothing entering in at the gate as an ally, but for all intents and purposes there to seize and capture, not only one or two stray sheep, but the whole flock". Wow! Perhaps these people are now seeing Palin for exactly what she is; an intellectual midget, a slick opportunist and a fraud with no vision and even less humility.
According to the Teas Party manifesto, here are their "non-negotiable" core beliefs:
- Illegal aliens are illegal
- Pro-domestic employment is indespensible
- Stronger military is essential
- Special interests eliminated
- Gun ownership is sacred
- Goverment must be downsized
- National budget must be balanced
- Deficit spending will end
- Bail out and stimulus plans are illegal
- Reduce personal income taxes a must
- Reduce business income taxes is mandatory
- Political offices available to average citizens
- Intrusive government stopped
- English only is required
- Traditional family values are encouraged
- Common sense constitutional conservative self-governance is our mode of operation
.....and yes, we are a Christian nation.
Christian nation? This is just another way of saying that they believe in white power. It's not very subtle. A journalist recently commented that the Tea Party is "just a rebranding of the John Birch Society, its KKK Light". I couldn't agree more. Stay tuned. These people are dangerous, they incite hatred and they are crazy. They mean to do damage and it isn't going to be pretty.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
GUBU, Massachusetts and the end of an era
"All politics is local" - Thomas P. 'Tip' O'Neill (1912-1994), Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts (1953-1987) and former Speaker of the House of Representatives (1977-1987)
As I write I am very, very frustrated. The final results are just in from the special election being held today (January 19th) to fill the United States Senate seat left vacant after the death of Edward M. Kennedy last August. In a result nobody would have predicted in the immediate aftermath of Teddy's death, or even as recently as New Year's Day, a relatively unknown Republican state senator named Scott Brown has defeated the Massachusetts Attorney General, Democrat Martha Coakley for the open seat. To put this in some kind of historical context, the last Republican to be elected to the United States Senate from Massachusetts was Edward W. Brooke in 1972, and he was a black man, in the fact the first black man to be elected to the Senate, nationwide, since Reconstruction in the 1860's. In fact, technically, he was the first Republican to be elected to the Senate for Massachusetts since 1966, because he holds the same record, 1966 and 1972, if you catch my meaning.
It is hard to find words words to adequately describe the enormity of this result and the potential political impact it may have. Mirroring a similarly far fetched political snafu from Ireland in the early 1980's, I am reminded of those timeless words, "grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre, unprecedented", uttered by then Taoiseach, Charles J. Haughey (and later eased into the lexicon by journalist Conor Cruise O'Brien as "GUBU", as CJ tried to explain how it could happen that a double murderer was apprehended in the house of the former Attorney General, Patrick Connolly. These examples are on opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of criminality but in terms of shock factor and utter bizarreness, to my mind, not so much.
We will get to the reasons how and why Coakley managed to lose this seemingly unloseable seat a little later, but the most obvious immediate impact of this result is that Brown now becomes the 41st Republican in the United States Senate, which means Democracts no longer have a (required) 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the 100 seat chamber. Legitimate questions are being asked about what this means for the future of the health care reform bill, a piece of legislation that the Democrats, not to mention the President, have invested so much political capital in during the first year of Obama's first term.
All I know is that Ted Kennedy must be rolling over in his grave, and his brother Jack, and his other brother Bobby. Modern day Kennedy politicans Patrick J. Kennedy (Ted's son) and Joseph P. Kennedy II (Bobby's son), veterans of political campaigns themselves, must be wondering what went wrong, so quickly, that a seat that was quite probably the safest Democratic seat in the country could have been lost so badly. Counting their various careers, these men include 3 congressmen, 3 senators, a president and an attorney general. They understood that in an election cycle you campaign constantly, shake every possible hand, work all hours, pound the pavements and never, ever take votes for granted. These are the reasons Martha Coakley lost an election she never should have lost.
The cards were not only stacked in her favor, she started out the race last fall with the political equivalent of three kings, whereas her opponent had a lowly, insignificant pair of seven's. Coakley was running to replace the legendary Ted Kennedy in the Senate - the nostalgia associated with this fact alone should have given her a shoo-in. Secondly, she was a reasonably popular Democrat in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, in terms of both voter turnout and the make-up of the state and congressional delegations. Thirdly, she has already won statewide office when she became the Attorney General of Massachusetts in January 2007, so she was a known quantity. Yet she blew it. Two weeks before Christmas Coakley led Brown by 20 points in the polls. Then she decided to literally go on vacation to the Caribbean for a week, apparently of the mind that he election to the Senate was merely a formality. It will probably be the costliest political blunder of her career. Even if you are far ahead in the polls, you don't go on vacation, even if for nothing else but appearances sake.
While Martha was lounging, Scott Brown was campaigning like a maniac across the state, capitalizing on the public's anger and frustration with official Washington, to remarkably draw even in the polls a week before the election. The problem for Coakley was that the momentum was now in Brown's favor and before she realized it, it was too late. Even a last minute day of campaigning by the President on January 17th couldn't save her. Coakley eventually lost by 5 percentage points, 52% to 47%. In the aftermath of the result, one long time cable news commentator surmised that notwithstanding the fact that the voters of Massachusetts were angry about a whole series of issues, if Martha Coakley had ran even a mediocre campaign and stayed focused on her message and record, she would have handliy beaten Brown. I agree.
For the first time since 1946 a Kennedy will not represent the state of Massachusetts in the United States Congress. The Democrats (and that includes the President) badly need to sharpen up their act, and quickly. The midterm elections loom on the horizon in November and the President has a broad body of legislation he wants to move through Congress this year. It remains to be seen what the impact of the loss of this safe Senate seat will have on Obama's agenda in 2010.
As I write I am very, very frustrated. The final results are just in from the special election being held today (January 19th) to fill the United States Senate seat left vacant after the death of Edward M. Kennedy last August. In a result nobody would have predicted in the immediate aftermath of Teddy's death, or even as recently as New Year's Day, a relatively unknown Republican state senator named Scott Brown has defeated the Massachusetts Attorney General, Democrat Martha Coakley for the open seat. To put this in some kind of historical context, the last Republican to be elected to the United States Senate from Massachusetts was Edward W. Brooke in 1972, and he was a black man, in the fact the first black man to be elected to the Senate, nationwide, since Reconstruction in the 1860's. In fact, technically, he was the first Republican to be elected to the Senate for Massachusetts since 1966, because he holds the same record, 1966 and 1972, if you catch my meaning.
It is hard to find words words to adequately describe the enormity of this result and the potential political impact it may have. Mirroring a similarly far fetched political snafu from Ireland in the early 1980's, I am reminded of those timeless words, "grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre, unprecedented", uttered by then Taoiseach, Charles J. Haughey (and later eased into the lexicon by journalist Conor Cruise O'Brien as "GUBU", as CJ tried to explain how it could happen that a double murderer was apprehended in the house of the former Attorney General, Patrick Connolly. These examples are on opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of criminality but in terms of shock factor and utter bizarreness, to my mind, not so much.
We will get to the reasons how and why Coakley managed to lose this seemingly unloseable seat a little later, but the most obvious immediate impact of this result is that Brown now becomes the 41st Republican in the United States Senate, which means Democracts no longer have a (required) 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the 100 seat chamber. Legitimate questions are being asked about what this means for the future of the health care reform bill, a piece of legislation that the Democrats, not to mention the President, have invested so much political capital in during the first year of Obama's first term.
All I know is that Ted Kennedy must be rolling over in his grave, and his brother Jack, and his other brother Bobby. Modern day Kennedy politicans Patrick J. Kennedy (Ted's son) and Joseph P. Kennedy II (Bobby's son), veterans of political campaigns themselves, must be wondering what went wrong, so quickly, that a seat that was quite probably the safest Democratic seat in the country could have been lost so badly. Counting their various careers, these men include 3 congressmen, 3 senators, a president and an attorney general. They understood that in an election cycle you campaign constantly, shake every possible hand, work all hours, pound the pavements and never, ever take votes for granted. These are the reasons Martha Coakley lost an election she never should have lost.
The cards were not only stacked in her favor, she started out the race last fall with the political equivalent of three kings, whereas her opponent had a lowly, insignificant pair of seven's. Coakley was running to replace the legendary Ted Kennedy in the Senate - the nostalgia associated with this fact alone should have given her a shoo-in. Secondly, she was a reasonably popular Democrat in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, in terms of both voter turnout and the make-up of the state and congressional delegations. Thirdly, she has already won statewide office when she became the Attorney General of Massachusetts in January 2007, so she was a known quantity. Yet she blew it. Two weeks before Christmas Coakley led Brown by 20 points in the polls. Then she decided to literally go on vacation to the Caribbean for a week, apparently of the mind that he election to the Senate was merely a formality. It will probably be the costliest political blunder of her career. Even if you are far ahead in the polls, you don't go on vacation, even if for nothing else but appearances sake.
While Martha was lounging, Scott Brown was campaigning like a maniac across the state, capitalizing on the public's anger and frustration with official Washington, to remarkably draw even in the polls a week before the election. The problem for Coakley was that the momentum was now in Brown's favor and before she realized it, it was too late. Even a last minute day of campaigning by the President on January 17th couldn't save her. Coakley eventually lost by 5 percentage points, 52% to 47%. In the aftermath of the result, one long time cable news commentator surmised that notwithstanding the fact that the voters of Massachusetts were angry about a whole series of issues, if Martha Coakley had ran even a mediocre campaign and stayed focused on her message and record, she would have handliy beaten Brown. I agree.
For the first time since 1946 a Kennedy will not represent the state of Massachusetts in the United States Congress. The Democrats (and that includes the President) badly need to sharpen up their act, and quickly. The midterm elections loom on the horizon in November and the President has a broad body of legislation he wants to move through Congress this year. It remains to be seen what the impact of the loss of this safe Senate seat will have on Obama's agenda in 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
