Obama Scared Off On UN Vote

Not Surprising That He Caved
Updated: Saturday, October 24th
But first...........

       ...............Hillary Clinton, I believe, this week clinched her bid to become America's first female President. I am a lifelong conservative Republican and she will be the first liberal Democrat I have ever supported. It's not that I've become a liberal or a Democrat but in America's two-party political system it is plain that my party has been taken over by right-wing thugs. Thursday from 10 A. M. eastern till 9:00 P. M. eastern -- eleven hours -- Mrs. Clinton was grilled and battered on network television by seven right-wing thuggish Republican members of Congress. It was a ghastly and costly continuation of the politically motivated Benghazi investigations that right-wing Republicans are using to try to upend Clinton's presidential campaign. But yesterday's eleven-hour thuggish farce should have convinced voters, including conservative Republicans, that even the liberal Ms. Clinton is preferable to right-wing thugs.

         Trey Gowdy, the 51-year-old congressman from South Carolina, was Thug #1 in the 11-hour battering of Hillary Clinton this week. He is one of the Tea Party darlings who have usurped the Republican Party, which they then unconscionably use as a tool to expand their right-wing agendas. But Gowdy was joined in the dismal display by other thuggish Republicans -- such as Jim Jordan of Ohio, Peter Roskam of Illinois, Martha Roby of Alabama, Mike Pompeo of Kansas, and Susan Brooks of Indiana. The spectacle Thursday, with all eleven ghastly hours televised live by some networks, revealed a glaring weakness in the U. S. democracy. Small areas of the nation, like the district in South Carolina that Gowdy represents, can keep someone like Gowdy in Congress for decades. He then might pork-barrel goodies to supporters in that district but, while in Congress as an entrenched incumbent, he can forge legislation that harms everyone else -- Americans for sure but also citizens of other countries...such as, just for example -- Cuba!!

       Congresswoman Susan Brooks from Indiana was one of the more thuggish batterers of Hillary Clinton this week. She has been in the U. S. Congress since January of 2013 when she replaced Dan Burton. He had been entrenched in the U. S. Congress from Indiana from 1983 till he was succeeded by Ms. Brooks.

         Dan Burton is the "Burton" in the infamous Helms-Burton Bill that, since 1996, has severely harmed, deprived, and assaulted millions of innocent Cubans on the nearby island...all in the guise of hurting {or worse} the now 89-year-old Fidel Castro. In other words, Dan Burton, and now his successor Susan Brooks, might do the bidding of their small home district and right-wing groups such as the Tea Party, but they also, as members of the U. S. Congress, can harm all other Americans as well as innocents in other nations.

       On a more pleasant topic, Katy Perry, the American and international superstar singer, has had two recent joyful visits to Cuba. She posted photos on Instagram and her favorite was the one above. It shows her entertaining school children. Notice their joy, and the starry-eyed look on the face of the little girl in the lower-left of the photo.

Now back to next week's UN vote on Cuba:

          This week -- October 21st, 2015 -- The Huffington Post did something very, very rare for a media outlet in the United States. It amazingly featured a passionate article by a Havana-based Cuban journalist who is an expert on U. S. Cuban relations and she was allowed to present the Cuban side of a two-sided U.S.-Cuban issue -- namely, next Tuesday's UN vote on the U. S. embargo against Cuba. The Cuban journalist is Margarita Alarcon Perea {above}. She is the daughter of the 78-year-old Ricardo Alarcon who has been a dear friend and associate of the now 89-year-old Fidel Castro since the 1950s. Margarita, since her childhood and University of Havana days, has garnered great knowledge of U.S.-Cuban relations. She also served 14 years at the Cuban mission at the United Nations in New York and understands how that organization functions. Thus, it was fair...and surprising...that the Huffington Post permitted Margarita to express her...and Cuba's views...regarding next week's key vote about Cuba in the United Nations.

        Margarita Alarcon's article in the Huffington Post resonated with typical Cuban passion against the U. S. embargo of Cuba, which has been in effect since 1962. She discussed President Obama's brave efforts to normalize relations with Cuba and she referenced Obama's plea for the U. S. Congress to finally end the embargo. Then she wrote: "His reasoning has less to do with the atrocity that the Embargo has been, subjecting the Cuban people to deprivations and hardships that go beyond reason; the Embargo has been qualified by many as the longest form of warfare against a sovereign nation in the history of the world. Whatever the case, whether you do away with it because it's insane or inhumane, the gist is to do away with it!" Margarita Alarcon wondered why the U. S. democracy, even with a decent two-term President who strongly opposes the embargo, can't do away with it. She discussed the three basic components of the U. S. government -- Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. She then asked: "Will this presidency actually prove to the world that real democracy can actually happen? Will the executive branch {president} instruct its State Department to instruct its Ambassador to abstain during the vote next Tuesday? It would be a first and definitely a vote, if not a political step, in the right direction." Simple words, passionate words, and -- I repeat -- it is amazing that any major media source in the U. S., in this case the Huffington Post, allowed a Cuban journalist to present Cuba's views on next week's UN vote on the embargo.

        The above graphic represents Margarita Alarcon's compilation of some international quotes regarding the U. S. embargo against Cuba. "A pesar de todo" means "notwithstanding" and then this graphic uses quotes from other sources, such as the UN and Amnesty International, regarding the embargo. In addition to the enormous harm it has done to totally innocent Cubans on the island since 1962, it has been just as harmful to the reputation and image of the United States, which is of no concern to pro-embargo zealots, especially the six Cuban-Americans in the U. S. Congress, including two first-term Senators running for President. Propagandized U. S. citizens have been proselytized to accept it, but the rest of the world, including America's best friends, literally cringe in embarrassment and shame. That has been reflected each of the last 23 years by a resounding vote in the United Nations. In recent years the vote has been 188-to-2 with only Israel, in all the world, supporting the U. S. position on the embargo. Americans, even self-proclaimed democracy-lovers, are supposed to ignore the lopsidedness of the 188-to-2 UN vote.

        President Obama is deeply ashamed that the embargo, in place since 1962, has remained through the first seven years of his two-term presidency. He has remarkably and bravely managed to defy visceral Cuban-Americans and their right-wing sycophants in the U. S. Congress to make great strides towards normalizing relations with Cuba, including the re-opening of embassies in Havana and Washington for the first time since 1961. But only Congress can lift the embargo and a mere handful of self-serving zealots will not allow that to happen because the Castro Industry is too lucrative. That's why, in her Huffington Post article, Margarita Alarcon wondered what role, if any, democracy plays in U. S. policy pertaining to Cuba.

        Last month officials in the Obama administration purposely informed the news media, including the Associated Press, that President Obama planned for the U. S. to abstain on next Tuesday's vote in the UN regarding the embargo. That, of course, would have been unheard up...it is the U. S. embargo, for heaven's sake!! But this week The Guardian in London reported that, not surprisingly, Mr. Obama has been, uh, persuaded to not tell his UN ambassador to abstain. The pressure was obviously serious...and cruel...just as it was way back in 1963 when President Kennedy told his staff of his plans to normalize relations with Cuba. In addition to Kennedy and Obama, the two other Democratic presidents -- Jimmy Carter in the 1970s and Bill Clinton in the 1990s -- also encountered serious and cruel pressure when they indicated their plans to normalize relations with Cuba. Of course, since the 1950s all Republican presidents have been in the pockets of the anti-Castro zealots who have dictated America's Cuban policy since Castro's Cuban Revolution overthrew the U.S.-backed/run-for-cover Batista-Mafia dictatorship on January 1, 1959...at least chasing its leaders to safe havens in South Florida, New Jersey and, eventually, in Washington itself.

           This is a photo of Ricardo Alarcon and Fidel Castro taken in 1959, the first year of revolutionary rule in Cuba. Ricardo is the father of Margarita Alarcon, the Havana-based journalist that the Huffington Post, remarkably, allowed to present Cuba's views leading up to Tuesday's UN annual vote on the embargo.

Ricardo Alarcon and Fidel Castro have remained close friends since the 1950s.

         Next Tuesday -- October 26th -- President Obama will again be embarrassed by the UN vote regarding the cruel U. S. embargo against Cuba. It is also assumed that he is ashamed he has backed off his plan to have the U. S. abstain during the voting process. Once again it will prove to the world that the U. S. democracy, in the grips of a handful of Cuban-Americans and their right-wing Republican sycophants, is not strong enough to remove a cancerous affront that most Americans, most Cuban-Americans, and the entire world opposes. Mr. Obama is the fourth of the four Democratic presidents since 1962 that have tried, and he has tried the hardest. But his failure regarding the embargo is mostly a reflection that this generation of Americans is not courageous enough to do what Margarita Alarcon called "the right thing."

 **********************

Journalism At Its Finest

Can Make You Cry

         I admire great journalists -- Americans like Kate O'Brien, Cubans like Elaine Diaz, etc. The lady above is a great journalist. Her name is Jabeen Bhatti. Now based in Berlin, she penned a long article in USA Today yesterday -- Tuesday, October 20th. I am not a particularly emotional person but her writing made me cry. She began the article with these words: "Earlier this month, militant thugs from the Islamic State..." I honestly couldn't remember the last time I cried, but it might have been in 1954 when my beloved Cleveland Indians lost all four World Series games to the New York Giants. Yet, by the time I finished the third paragraph of Jabeen Bhatti's article yesterday I was crying. She began that paragraph with these two sentences: "I wish I could look away. I wish I didn't know what I know." That in my opinion is great journalism. Yes, Jabeen Bhatti is a great journalist, and I forgive her latest gem for making me cry.

     **********************   

Bankrolling The Bush/Clinton Dynasties

How Opaqueness Buys Democracy
Updated: Wednesday, October 21st, 2015

           Thomas Jefferson in 1816 correctly predicted the end of the Democracy and the Revolution that Founding Fathers like him forged. To their everlasting credit, the revolutionary U. S. democracy lasted for over two centuries as the greatest form of government ever devised. Two post-World War Two generations of Americans -- beset by cowardice, criminality and a lack of patriotism -- have squandered what was bequeathed to them, for the reasons presciently envisioned by Mr. Jefferson.

     This, unfortunately, is now the essence of the U. S. democracy, one already bought-and-paid-for by a handful of billionaires and one that has produced the moneyed dynasties of the Bush and Clinton political machines. Thus it is not surprising that in a stupefyingly flawed two-party system the two prime candidates in the ongoing {and seemingly endless} presidential campaign are the latest iterations of those two dynasties -- Jeb Bush the Republican and Hillary Clinton the Democrat. The above very pertinent image is courtesy of Vocatio/The Daily Beast. They teamed for an investigative report that revealed that the two bitter rivals -- Bush and Clinton -- are both being showered by bushels of money from the very same billionaires. That's because the unraveling of the U. S. democracy began when a few greedy and rich usurpers realized they had to purchase both parties if they were to be dictators of the entire U. S. government. Therefore, more than a year before voters go to the polls, the election has already been purchased by a handful of thuggishly rich billionaire individuals and corporations, who don't just buy up one party but both parties. Aided and abetted by an incompetent and greedy media that benefits from the incessantly long political campaigns and the tsunami of political ads, and by a Supreme Court ruling that legalized unlimited political donations, a few billionaires dictate a U. S. democracy that no longer embraces the vision and wisdom of the Founding Fathers.

       The montage depicted above was not supposed to happen to the American democracy, the greatest form of government ever devised. But, despite all the parameters set forth by the Founding Fathers, the Bush political dynasty did evolve, starting with Prescott Bush in the 1930s. The dynastic successions of George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Jeb Bush sparked what could be the usurpation and destruction of democracy as envisioned by the epic Americans who created it. The opaqueness of that unfortunate evolution is not supposed to be discussed in polite, money-crazed, capitalistic society. But let's discuss it anyway. While democracy in the United States is not totally extinct, it is an endangered species.

       Starting with Prescott Bush's controversial financial and political ties, which Americans are verboten to Google, the Bush political dynasty overwhelmed the U. S. democracy. The necessary ingredient, on the heels of Prescott Bush's political and economic chicanery, has been the untold millions of dollars, much of it unsavory and foreign, that has fueled in one family a one-term presidency, a two-term vice-presidency, a bloody one-year CIA directorship, a two-term governorship of Texas, a two-term presidency, a two-term governorship of Florida, and a leading candidate to be the next President of the United States in 2017.  

        Americans know, or at least should know, the biographies of the Bush family. But they do not know, nor are they supposed to know, the origin and the continuation of the vast sums of money that have enabled the Bush dynasty to exist generation after generation after generation with more generations yet to come.

           Craig Unger in the book "House of Bush/House of Saud" documented the synergy between the Bush dynasty and the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia and even Iran. Some of his documentations are chilling.

Is that why the Bush dynasty kisses up to the Saudis?

Should American voters care?

       This Eric Draper/Getty Images photo shows Saudi prince Bandar bin Sultan at President George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, in 2002. It appears President Bush is explaining something to the prince. Should American voters be privy to such clandestine encounters? With a Bush in the White House, it was well known that Prince Bandar was a frequent overnight guest. Should Americans have cared then...or now? 

        The 2016 election that will determine the 2017 U. S. President features yet another Bush, this time Jeb, as a prime Republican contender in a two-party political system in which most prospective voters understand is a bought-and-paid-for process. The money, much of it foreign-tinged, that put George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush in the White House is now trying to put Jeb Bush in the White House. On October 17th USA Today, America's largest newspaper, reported that 64 of the top donors to Jeb Bush's campaign also donated to his father's and his brother's campaigns. Should American voters care? Britain's top newspaper, The Guardian, had a major article this month expressing concern that by far the two biggest donors to Jeb Bush's current presidential campaign are {#1} a Cuban-American multi-billionaire and {#2} a Iranian-American multi-billionaire. If The Guardian in London is concerned about that, should Americans in America also be concerned? Since 2010 when the U. S. Supreme Court approved unlimited political donations from individual and corporate billionaires, the U. S. democracy has had a "For Sale" sign openly attached to it. Saudi money, Cuban money, Iranian money, Israeli money, American money...whatever! Even if the opaqueness of the American political system was imbued with transparency about where all there money is coming from, would this generation of Americans give a damn? Probably not.

       The above photo is courtesy of Joe Burbank/Zuma. A quick Google check will reveal a plethora of updated and unbiased accounts of Jeb Bush's campaign financing, revealing the grip corporate and individual billionaires have on the Bush dynasty. An informative article in The Guardian, for example, is entitled "Jeb Bush Grabs Cash From Iran and Cuba Emigres While Opposing Obama Policy (On Iran and Cuba)." Miguel Hernandez, a Cuban-born billionaire in Miami/Coral Gables, and Hushong Ansary, an Iranian-born billionaire in Houston, Texas -- between them -- quickly donated $5 million to kick-start Jeb's current presidential bid ($3 million from Hernandez and $2 million from Ansary)...and perhaps to continue influencing or dictating Jeb's policies regarding Cuba and Iran. Mother Jones.com has a well-researched article you can Google that is entitled "Meet The Megadonors Bankrolling Jeb Bush's Campaign." U. S. voters should Google the names and bios of the mega-donors behind all the major presidential candidates because there is a good chance that, by the time voters go to the polls over a year from now, a handful of billionaires will already have purchased the election, especially if the two dynastic contenders -- Bush and Clinton -- are the two finalists in the only nation that permits interminable billion-dollar campaigns.  

        As noted, the Bush political dynasty started with the highly controversial political and economic affairs of Prescott Bush back in the 1930s and 1940s. The Bush dynasty not only plans for Jeb Bush to be President starting in 2017 but it already contemplates George P. Bush being President, perhaps starting in 2025. Uh, yes...George P. Bush is Jeb's son. And...uh, yes...the P. stands for Prescott. As indicated above, the Bush machine has already easily made George P. Bush the powerful Land Commissioner in the powerful state of Texas where an array of well-known billionaires support the Bush political machine.

        Money tied to overthrown U.S.-backed dictatorships have, many believe, greatly influenced major decisions by the Bush political dynasty. The photo above shows President George H. W. Bush signing crucial legislation designed to appease the most radical anti-Castro Cuban-exiles from Miami. Should Americans care about the Bush dynasty's longstanding and harsh antipathy towards Cuba? For example, in this year of 2015, who is by far the biggest contributor to Jeb Bush's presidential campaign? Answer: A Cuban-American billionaire from Miami/Coral Gables, Florida. And, who is by far the second biggest contributor to Jeb Bush's presidential campaign in 2015? Answer: An Iranian-American billionaire from Texas who was a top official in the U.S.-backed/installed Shaw Pahlavi dictatorship that was overthrown by U.S.-unfriendly Islamic extremists in 1979. Should Americans care about that and its aftermath in Iran or about the overthrown U.S.-backed Batista dictatorship in Cuba and its aftermath since 1959? Now this is not to suggest that the Bush dynasty can be influenced by Cuban money in its positions on Cuba or by Iranian money in its decisions regarding Iran or by Saudi money in its decisions regarding Saudi Arabia or by Israeli money in its decisions regarding Israel or by American money in its decisions regarding America, but...at least I believe American voters owe it to their democracy to consider such possibilities. For heaven's sake, and America's sake, at least care enough about your democracy to Google these names and events.

        This Brian Snyder/Reuters photo shows Republican presidential contender Donald Trump making a point to rival contender Jeb Bush. They exchanged vitriol all weekend, especially on the Sunday talk shows. Bush fired off an expensive anti-Trump commercial. Amazingly, for the past four months of this endless, billion-dollar campaign, the non-politician Trump has strongly led all the polls. This at least reveals that Americans are fed up with bought-and-paid-for dynasties. But is Donald Trump qualified to be President of the United States, Commander-in-Chief, and leader of the Free World? Absolutely not! Is he more qualified than all the bought-and-paid-for contenders? Absolutely yes! The U. S. has a two-party commercialized political system and both parties -- Republican and Democrat -- are bought-and-paid-for.

         This photo is courtesy of Alex Wong/Getty Images. It shows leading Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton with Saudi Arabia's King Salman. The photo was used to highlight an article on October 16th by the highly respected journalist Michael Isikoff, the top Investigative Correspondent for Yahoo News. The article is entitled "Hillary Moneyman Highlights New Saudi Connection." If you do not go Online to read it, I assume you don't care very much about the U. S. democracy and about who can buy it or who sells it. Isikoff writes: "The Saudi government has just hired a powerhouse Washington lobbying firm headed by a top Hillary Clinton fundraiser. The Saudi contract with the Podesta Group, owned by veteran Washington lobbyist and Clinton campaign bundler Tony Podesta, calls for the firm to provide public relations and other services on behalf of the royal court of King Salman. Newly filed documents show that the Saudis paid a 'project fee' of $200,000 last month." That apparently is the ongoing monthly stipend. Isikoff added: "The retention comes at a time when the Saudis are being condemned by United Nations officials over reports that their bombings of Houthi strongholds in Yemen's civil war have resulted in the deaths and injuries of hundreds of innocent civilians, including children. The Podesta Group is now on a roster of a half-dozen D. C. lobbying firms representing the Saudis. Tony Podesta is the brother and former business partner of Clinton campaign manager John Podesta." The Michael Isikoff article goes on to name former U. S. members of Congress that are typically doing the same lobbying as the Podesta Group.

President Bill Clinton and Tony Podesta.

Hillary Clinton and John Podesta.

       The point of this essay is to point out that the U. S. has a two-party political system that worked beautifully for about 230 years, till both parties began to be bought and paid for by greedy Americans AND greedy foreigners, often the remnants of old U.S.-backed dictators still aligned with old U. S. politicians. That fact, I believe, accounts for the Republican Bush dynasty and the Democratic Clinton dynasty. If you disagree with that hypothesis, I suggest you at least Google any or all of the foregoing information and then point out where or if you think I am mistaken or biased. For the record, my passion is the U. S. democracy that we inherited from the Founding Fathers. I believe it is our fault as citizens that we have allowed their hallowed two-party political system to be bought-and-paid for, often with questionable foreign money. 

**********************

The Logic of Adam Wainwright

And the Dung of Capitalism
Sunday, October 18th, 2015

       In this month of October many Americans and many Cubans are absorbed with America's Major League baseball playoffs. They know Adam Wainwright, the right-handed pitcher for the St. Louis Cardinals. He was born 34 years ago in Brunswick, Georgia. He's pretty good. Twice he has had 20-win seasons for the Cardinals and twice he has been a 19-game winner. His 2015 salary is exactly $19.5 million. The Cardinals had the best regular season record in the Majors this year and if Adam had not been injured the Cards would also have been favored to win another World Series title. Because of an injury, he was only a reliever, not a starter, for the Cards in the playoffs. But Adam Wainwright, in my opinion, dominated these post-season games. And he did so with his pure guts and decency if not his enormous baseball skills.

            Adam Wainwright, you see, is a family man. He and his wife Jenny have three children -- Mary, Baylie, and Morgan. Adam is proud his annual salary with the Cardinals is $19.5 million and he understands the money-crazed aspect of American sports, including baseball where a 25-year-old oft-injured outfielder for the Miami Marlins recently got a guaranteed $300 million added to his already multi-million-dollar contract. But Adam Wainwright believes, as his above quotation indicates, that even in money-crazed America there are two things more important than money, namely decency and family. He spoke about that this week.

           In his home, Adam Wainwright -- when he is not pitching for the Cardinals -- likes to watch baseball on television with his family. He, like many Americans, finds that increasingly hard to do. The money-crazed and indecent commercialism of American sports resulted in Adam Wainwright, I believe, being the superstar of the ongoing post-season playoffs, not on the pitching mound but in the sanctity of his home. He had the guts and integrity to do what the rest of us should be doing. He railed about the indecency of commercial ads saturating the television coverage of the current baseball playoffs, sharply criticizing Major League Baseball for allowing a proliferation of puerile commercials featuring sultry women advising wimpy men to take expensive sex-enhancement pills so they can "get and keep an erection." Adam Wainwright believes it is disgusting and an affront to his wife and three children. He is, of course, correct.

        Anyone who watches American television without a clicker to delete or at least silence the wall-to-wall commercials is, in my opinion, either a sadist, a narcissist or an idiot. Approximately 40% of all TV ads are from billionaire pharmaceutical companies taking advantage of their ability to lobby Congress so they can essentially do whatever they want, which is to make billions of dollars off gullible and suffering Americans. For many, many centuries, humans had no trouble reproducing themselves. Then American capitalism, which Pope Francis calls "the dung of the devil," found a way to make billions of easy dollars from the reproduction process -- not just with pornography but also with sex-enhancement pills. Highly paid ad agencies saturate the airways with commercials designed to convince the populace that wimpy men who can't "get and keep erections" are actually the real men IF they take these expensive little blue pills. The epidemic of sex crimes on college campuses, ongoing headlines about a sports legend over-dosing on such things at a legal brothel in Las Vegas, and decent heads of families trying to shelter their children from sex-enhancement ads BE-DAMMED. Billionaire pharmaceutical companies making more billions is all that matters. Did, uh...someone say, "dung of the devil?" Yes, not Adam Wainwright but Pope Francis.

        And now the Food and Drug Administration has approved "Addyei." That is the female version of Viagra. It is designed to increase the libido of women who, according to the pharmaceutical giants and the ad agencies, need stronger sex drives or else there is no pleasure in life and making babies might become a lost art. Some nerd is probably writing a Saturday Night Live spoof: A man gobbles down his blue pills and a woman hastily swallows her pink pills and then the confluence of pills and bodies produces bliss -- especially for the pharmaceutical companies, lobbyists, ad agencies, and the denizens of Wall Street.

        All of which brings me back around to my #1 sports hero -- St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Adam Wainwright. I hope the Cards win another World Series and then raise Adam's $19.5 million annual salary. But most of all, I hope he is able to protect his young family from the ravages and indecency of all those sex enhancement ads that he profoundly denounced this week. For centuries, real men and real women didn't need Viagra/Addyi. That, of course, was before greedy capitalists discovered how much money they could rake in from what Pope Francis calls "the dung of the devil."

       I agree with Adam Wainwright that Americans and Cubans should not be punished or embarrassed just because they want to watch their favorite players -- such as Yoenis Cespedes of the New York Mets -- on television. By the way, today -- October 18th, 2015 -- is the 30th birthday for Yoenis Cespedes. He was born on October 18th, 1985, in Campechuela, Cuba. Like scores of other Cuban defectors, he is now a multi-millionaire. Yoenis is making exactly $3.73 million this year with the Mets. But as soon as the World Series ends, he is a free agent. That means starting next year the Mets or some other team might have to start paying him upwards of $25 million a year. In the huge New York City market and nationally, Yoenis is in line to make far more from endorsement deals than he'll make from his baseball salary. It's not that way in Cuba, at least not yet. But Yoenis Cespedes and dozens of other Cuban stars have no reason to agree with the Pope...you know, about U. S. capitalism being the dung of the devil.  

**********************

"We Are Not Denmark"

Uh, No...But We Should Be

           David Horsey is a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist, first with the Seattle Times and since December of 2011 with the Los Angeles Times. He is distributed nationally by Tribune Media Services. The above photo is courtesy of www.freerepublic.com. In today's money-crazed, talking-head pundits, wall-to-wall puerile commercials, and mostly incompetent cable "news" media world, editorial cartoons penned by truly great journalists like David Horsey are your best bet to get the pulse of what's really happening.

         A case in point is David Horsey's editorial cartoon he entitled "The Debate Summed Up..." Cable news outfits have spent untold hours hashing and rehashing this week's first Democratic presidential debate but it took Horsey to analyze it succinctly and correctly. The most important comment during the debate was uttered by Hillary Clinton: "We are NOT Denmark!" It was her retort to her top challenger, Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders, expressing admiration for Denmark's Democratic Socialism as opposed to America's capitalist system in which "one-tenth of one percent of Americans control 90% of America's wealth." Mrs. Clinton, who has ridden her politics to extreme personal wealth, strongly objects to Mr. Sanders, as do the rest of the one-tenth of one percent of Americans who dictate America's two-party political system. As Mr. Sanders pointed out in the debate, the decision of the Supreme Court in 2010 that allows unlimited political donations by billionaire individuals and corporations was the last hope of democracy-lovers who desire a decent and fair political system, not one legally bought-and-paid-for. Mr. Sanders harps on the fact that the U. S. has far more people in prisons than any other nation, per capita or otherwise, with poor people often unfairly targeted and sentenced in stark contrast to the one-percenters. Mr. Sanders, for example, takes exception to a single mother in West Virginia being sentenced to prison for shop-lifting two cans of Pork 'n Beans and one can of Vegetable Soup to feed her three hungry children while a Wall Street billionaire readily pays, say, a $10 billion fine after illegally acquiring, say, a $200 billion profit, leaving him and his cohorts a profit of $190 billion with no prospects of ever facing jail time. "Well, at least I don't want to turn America into Denmark." Of course not. The Wall Street billionaires have helped Mrs. Clinton become extremely wealthy and might put her, or someone like her, in the White House. After all, they have plenty of money to buy up a political system that even the U. S. Supreme Court says is up for sale to the highest bidder. That leaves out the shop-lifting mother who worries about her hungry children and, as Mrs. Clinton and the other politicos well know, doesn't have a dime to her name to contribute to greedy politicians. "We are not Denmark." Mrs. Clinton is right about that. And that is why she is wrong.

        The Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Capitalist Hillary Clinton mostly had a lovefest during the debate, as this Lucy Nicholson/Reuters photo illustrates. But Hillary loves bought-and-paid-for politics while Bernie thinks the U. S. democracy should be modeled after the five Nordic nations -- Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland -- because they govern at the behest of ALL their citizens.

           Denmark, with Copenhagen as its capital, has 5.6 healthy, happy, and well educated souls. It punches way above its weight in caring for its people. Scotland, for example, is contemplating leaving the UK so it can model itself after Denmark. Bernie Sanders, if he were in the White House, would try to do the same. Denmark, for example, tries to prevent alcohol abuse and imposes an extravagant tax that makes even beer almost prohibitive, and then uses such taxes to fund child care, college tuition, and health care. 

          Norway is a gorgeous Scandinavian country of 5.1 million hearty, healthy, and well educated souls. Oslo is its capital. There are international polls and surveys, many funded by the U. S. or the UN, to determine the world's Happiest, Healthiest, Best Educated, Most Equal, Safest, etc., people. Norway and Denmark often lead those rankings with other Nordic or Scandinavian nations rounding out the Top Five. 

       Time Magazine had a major article about Norway in which it was pointed out that young Norwegians, such as these two young women, can fluently speak about five foreign languages. And after graduating from universities, they don't owe a penny in student loans while young Americans are currently saddled with trying to repay about a trillion dollars in student loans. Norway spends less per student than the U. S. but Norway directs its money to actually educating its students while the U. S. capitalist system is more concerned with how much rich bankers and others can make off a politicized educational process. The Time article pointed out that Norway's oil wealth is equally distributed at the direct behest of the democratic voters and the nation has saved enough money that, if the oil spigots were closed today, it would have enough to care for its people in a like manner for the next 500 years. The Time article showed a farm family in Norway that was about to typically go on a 30-day worldwide vacation totally paid for by the state. Prior to their trip, they were told to advise the government what needed to be done to take care of their farm and home while they were away. That same day, the family had received a letter from the government asking when it would be convenient for a government worker to bring them a new-model flat-screen television...free of charge. All Norwegians, not just an elitist few, are treated in this manner.

         In Norway there is no need for a single mom to shoplift cans of Pork 'n Beans and Vegetable Soup to feed her hungry kids. And in Norway all children and citizens receive equal treatment in a political system that would not jail the harassed single mom while merely fining the corporations, not the individuals, of Wall Street billionaires who illegally make additional billions of dollars but are never subjected to prison time. That's all Bernie Sanders was pointing out during the Democratic debate when he contrasted Norway's democracy, which equally treats its citizens, with America's democracy, which so powerfully favors what Sanders calls the one-tenth of one percent richest Americans. Of course, with money being the prime determinant of American politics, someone like a Hillary Clinton or a Jeb Bush will surely end up in the White House. In Norway, a Clinton or a Bush wouldn't be elected dog-catcher or street-sweeper.

        This week -- on October 15th, 2015 -- the UN's Sustainable Development Solutions Network released its third World Happiness Report. Norway, of course, was in the Top Five as it is on all major Top Five positive surveys. The rest of the Top Five on the new Happiness Report are Switzerland, Iceland, Denmark, and Canada. America's northern neighbor Canada is to be congratulated for joining the four Scandinavian stalwarts on a coveted Top Five list. There was a time long ago when America would have dominated such surveys. That was before America's two-party system was purchased by just one-tenth of one percent.

       Switzerland is a Central European nation of 8 million happy, healthy, and well-educated souls. In fact, this week the UN listed the citizens of Switzerland "the happiest people in the world." Also this week -- on October 15th -- America's largest newspaper, USA Today, had a major full-page article entitled: "Across Switzerland, People Power Rules: No Bill Can Become Law Until Approved In A Referendum." In Switzerland, all laws that affect people's lives are approved or disapproved by ubiquitous referendums voted on by the citizens. The article said: "The active role the Swiss play in enacting laws may seem strange in the United States...but not in Switzerland where a centuries-old tradition of direct democracy gives people -- rather than lawmakers -- the power to shape local and national policies." So, why does that "seem strange" to Americans? It's because Americans have come to accept the fact that bought-and-paid-for lawmakers, especially in the 535-member U. S. Congress, make the laws to mostly suit their primary big-money donors who put them in office and keep them in office. If you read the biggest article in the October 15th USA Today you will understand that the Swiss people who control their democracy via direct-vote referendums find it "strange" that Americans have allowed bought-and-paid-for lawmakers to make laws that most Americans do not agree with. If you love democracy but don't have time to read the long USA Today article about Switzerland's democracy, at least take time to read the 5th short paragraph: "No measure can become a law in Switzerland until citizens approve it. Any constitutional change proposed by the parliament, for instance, must be approved in a referendum." By contrast, in the U. S. Congress, or parliament, an anti-Castro zealot from Miami can easily mandate a Helms-Burton Act or a Torricelli Bill that benefits and enriches a few but harms the vast majority who end up paying for it, unwittingly and unwillingly. 

Hillary Clinton: "We are NOT Denmark."

Bernie Sanders: Maybe we SHOULD be Denmark."

Elizabeth Warren: "Or maybe we should be Norway or Switzerland." 

 

**********************