OBAMA AND HOW THE MEDIA HELPED MAKE 2013 SO MISERABLE

Whatever Obama’s ultimate legacy will be, the year 2013 will either go down as his worst ever or the year that marked the beginning of his slide to impotence. Just when the Republicans had all but committed suicide by their irreconcilable internecine battle and by unashamedly doing nothing other than saying that their job definition was to do nothing, the much vaunted Obamacare stuttered and spluttered to a false start. This was coupled with insurance companies dropping patients as a result of which the media made Obama look at best incompetent and at worst a liar.  

The Republican leader of the House had said they should not be judged by the legislation they passed but rather by the amount they repealed. What he really meant is whether they could repeal Obamacare or not. The result of that objective is history and after playing chicken with the American economy the Republicans caved. That in itself should be the story of the year but rather the administrative blunders of the Obamacare website were chosen.

The upshot of all of this was Congress passed less legislation than ever before and it’s approval ratings fell to the lowest ever.  All that still didn’t take the focus off Obama. The reason for the latter was that the media rather than focussing on the moribund, intellectually destitute and destructive Republican brand focussed on the supposed fall of the "Golden", or should Jay H. Ell say, "Brown", idol and his centerpiece legislation, Obamacare. Apparently that was much bigger news than the disintegration of one of the two political parties who control the destiny of America's future. There appears to a morbid fascination of the media in knocking the icons at the expense of real news, and like it or not Obama falls into the category of an icon. Or alternatively knocking icons sells more soap than informed inciteful commentary.

OBAMA

Obama’s poll numbers are at their lowest ever - close on 40%. The only good news, for Obama that is, is that the Republicans in Congress are about half of that. As a result of the Obamacare “disaster" the poll numbers for the midterm Congress elections reversed themselves and the Democrats are battling to maintain the stays quo. 

Besides Obamacare there are several setbacks that the media and/or the Republicans have harped on. These include Obama's inability to close the Guantanamo Bay prison. - a promise from the first campaign.  Then there was Snowden's NSA revelations that revealed the security lapses that exist in the system and the snooping on everyone and everybody. Again, at best, Obama was made to look totally out of the loop as to what was going on and, at worst, sanctioning a total breech of everyone privacy. This coupled with the Benghazi episode gave the impression of a President out of touch with his own administration, opined the pundits. 

While not really his fault, nothing was happening on gun control, immigration and redistribution of wealth but this the pundits said added to the impression of him being a lame duck.

Then there were the foreign affairs "debacles". He drew a red line in the sand on chemical weapons for Syria and the critique was he let Syria off the hook and the carnage continues- this even though there are now no chemical weapons in Syria and that was what he drew a line in the sand about.  Afghanistan is ending with more than a fizzle then a pop. Putin snubbed him on Snowden letting him know that America was not the power it was. If the Iranian nuclear talks should go wrong he is in for more criticism. The progress on an Israeli peace is slow and American opinion is so anti Iranian and pro Israeli he has little room to maneuver. 

WHAT IT REALLY BOILS DOWN TO

It really boils to three issues that have put Obama in this "mess". One he has control over two he has not. As Lincoln said he realized that he was more controlled by events than he controlled them.

It is totally inexcusable that Obamacare was not greased and oiled to perfection. Not only was that his key issue, his Democratic Congress members had sacrificed their careers on the project. While Jay H Ell has blogged that the problems have been hyped up to nonsensical heights, (Blogs: For example; Obama a Lying Disgraced President - Why?, 11/21/13 and Obamacare: Politics, Hypocrisy  Lies and Facts, 10/24/130), the administrative bungle in the framing of the law and the working of the program is and was ultimately Obama's responsibility. The attack on Obamacare is the only plank of the dismembered Republican Party and the only policy that they, the Republicans, are united on. The fact that Jay H. Ell still believes that Obamacare attacks will do the Republicans more harm than good is irrelevant, the Republicans should have been made to fight on their own policies and not on Obamacare “failures”.

Jay H. Ell doesn’t rate the other so called Obama blunders as being responsible for his poll numbers. Obama's international disengagement mood suits the electorate's mood. The latter are sick and tired of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and the like. They perceive that these military adventures cost much in blood and treasure and do not help American interests. On the contrary all "those" they “help” just kick them in the teeth. The Russian Putin cannot embarrass any American, even Obama. Any rate Obama put him in his place with the Winter Olympics.

Rightly or wrongly, the NSA Security issue is not such a big deal as, again, the electorate generally backs the government in doing what it has to do to prevent another 9/11. The same is felt about Guatanomo Bay - let them all rot there. So on issues that he has some control over it is Obamacare that is the nidus of the perception that he is incompetent.

There is, secondly, a general dissolutionment with politics and politicians as reflected by Congress having the lowest approval ratings ever. Two thirds of people interviewed in a CNN poll maintained that this was the worst Congress in living history. The politicians are generally regarded as self serving and not responsive to the electorate's needs but rather to those of special moneyed interests. Thus by voting you are not really influencing anything. To a large extent there is truth in their perceptions. Thus the percentage of those voting has generally showed a downward trend over the years. This general attitude towards politics naturally includes the Commander in Chief as well.

This climate creates a feeling of being "used" which perception has been aggravated by the fact that political advertising is now a non stop, 24/7 activity. Aided by the Supreme Court’s, 5-4 decision to literally allow no limits to the money being spent by Political Action Committees there isn’t enough television time to accommodate the endless flood. The fact that front and center, within 6 months of Obama’s re election, there is a debate as to who is to be the next President, with the formation of Political Action Committees, adverts, “campaigning” and endless media comment, reflects the intense battle for the future direction of America. 

In addition, at the best of times, America is in a constant state of “electiontitis” with Congressional elections every two years. With all this money there is far greater focus on State legislature elections as well. So on a clear day you can vote for ever. Yet the system remains unchanged and fewer and fewer participate because nothing changes. As the late George Carlin said - they tell me to vote or I will get the government I deserve. But its the people that vote that give us the government "we deserve" and its really their fault not mine because I don't vote.

Thirdly, it was Obama who said he would change it all. He was a breath of fresh air. He was articulate, a visionary, he was charismatic, he was not one of the Washington insiders and had no baggage. He has subsequently learned that it is not so easy. As much as he wants to change the system, the system that he hoped to change won’t let him. And the media won't stop reminding him of his "failures" or "broken promises" as they call them while writing inane op - ed pieces about whether he will be able to "survive". Also Obama has spent endless time trying to be "bipartisan" to no avail. His compromises infuriated many of his base, who had eagerly voted for the first time, who now felt he was "selling out" and it was politics as usual.

WHAT NOW?

There are tremendous forces arraigned against Obama and what he stands for. If the military industrial complex was the power of the twentieth century the medical industrial complex is the power of the twenty first. The money is no longer in making wars it is in healthcare. If there is a rational efficient healthcare system it can compromise the forces that control one sixth of America’s spending. So massive sums of money will be spent to prove that because Obamacare is dead so is Obama and also so is health care reform and liberalism. 

The media by constantly reporting and commenting to make the fight a “horse race” instead of spelling out as to what really is at stake is not doing the country a service. What happens now will dictate the direction the country will go. Can all that Republican money, voter suppression, district gerrymandering coupled with genuine voter disillusionment allow the Republicans to thwart progress and the need for distributive justice? 

 To date the Republicans have launched a successful propaganda war that Obamacare will take your health care away and or make it more expensive. As the numbers to Obamacare recruited increase and, in effect there are still 3 months to go, their story will get more and more ineffectual. Most importantly Obama is in with a chance because he has split the medical industrial forces by getting the doctors and insurance companies to back his unwieldy legislation. 

As Jay H. Ell has blogged, Obamacare as a concept is not going to fail as it has already gone too far. Obama may yet find a place in history. The battle is on for the type of America that there will be in the twenty first century and Obamacare and Obama, for now, are the battlegrounds. And no-one more than the Republicans - both wings - realize that - they and their highly moneyed non elected leaders and their institutions.

OBAMACARE IS DEAD SO THEREFORE SO ARE OBAMA AND LIBERALISM

 In retrospect the Republican behavior during Obama’s two terms will be considered at best bizarre and at worst outrageous. For practical purposes their only policy in his first term was to prevent Obama getting a second term and, so far, in his second term all they  have done is to keep up their efforts to prevent the introduction of Obamacare. They have filibustered a record number of times in the Senate, shut the government and about the only legislation they passed in the House of Representatives was to attempt to repeal Obamacare - over 40 times. ( Blog: Obama and the “New” Nullifying” politics, 8/3/13”). 

They have spent fortunes, (Koch Brothers 4.1 million alone) to run campaigns to persuade citizens not to obtain insurance and in those States where they have control have actively sabotaged efforts to recruit to Obamacare. By so doing they were depriving at least a million poor citizens from obtaining free Medicaid. They are going to run in the midterm elections against Obamacare and therefore Obama who is responsible for it.

In short they are obsessed with the fact that Obama is President. They would like to believe that the period from 2008 to 2016 was an aberration in the Republic’s history and they believe that the record will reflect that. Their official reason for this behavior is that Obamacare equals Obama and Obama equals radical liberalism. The psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists as well as the historians will have a field day reflecting on the crude behavior of all the Republicans both officially and personally towards Obama. As the Reverend Al Sharpton opined, he never supported George Bush but he would not dream of refusing an invitation to go to the White House out of respect for the Presidency.

OBAMACARE DEAD? ( The Affordable Health Care Act).

In order to develop the Republican narrative one has first to declare Obamacare dead. (Blog: "Obama a Lying, Disgraced President - Why?", 11/21/13).  This has been done ad nauseam. It has been called a “train wreck” in  a feature on the editorial page of the Chicago Tribune.  Patrick Buchanan declared that Obama and Obamacare was the “Biggest Loser” of  2013” on the McClaughlan show. Charles Krauthammer calls it the “The Story of the Year” with fraud and calamity after calamity. Krauthammer believes it shows how “radical” Obama is - all in tune with the narrative of Obamacare = Obama = radical liberalism. Of course the legislators and the unelected megalomaniacs and their unelected institutions have had a field day and it is not going to stop.  

So Obamacare has been thrashed to death metaphorically but is far from dead in reality. The fact that, among the advantages, no-one can lose their insurance because of pre- existing conditions and are receiving free preventive care, and more than 15,000 patients are being recruited every day to add to those already recruited - 800,000 Medicaid and 1,000,000 on insurance plans,  means that it will not go away as citizens need insurance. 

Now Obama has admitted that his biggest “mistake” of 2013 was the roll out of the plan and the continuing issues that have plagued it. He has accepted responsibility. So how much more mileage can the Republicans get out of it?

Jay H. Ell will remain one of the lone voices that believes that the positives of this initiative will far outweigh its disastrous start and the Republicans, notwithstanding all the money they have spent smearing it in day to day adverts, will lose far more on this issue than they might gain. 

OBAMA  DEAD?

As the overall objective is to declare Obama dead, so that he will be barely a footnote in the history books, the assumption is that all he has done is “Obamacare”.  But Obama was elected in the midst of The Great Recession and at very least has put this country back onto the pathway to financial stability. His move to bail out the auto industry proved a tremendous success. In the past 45 months 8 million new jobs have been created, the current unemployment is round 7% the lowest since the Great Recession, the Stock Market has grown nearly 200%, there is a fairer tax code and health care costs have increased by their slowest amount for the past 50 years. Obama states that this is as a result of certain provisions in the Affordable Care Act and the Republicans haven’t argued about that fact.

In addition Obama has taken the lead on hot button issues that will be on the right side of history. These include immigration reform, LBGT rights, women’s rights and increasing their number in highly placed appointments, judicial reform and raising the minimum wage. Whether or not all these become legislatively enshrined in his term he will be credited for getting the discussion going. Where possible he has used his executive powers to effect some change, specifically in the areas of gun control and inequitable judicial sentencing.

Most significantly Obama broke the ghetto ceiling by becoming the first African American President elected and reelected by American citizenry. He did this on his own merit by inspiring a nation and utilizing innovative organizational skills. The fact that he has had his problems, some of his own making and others by the determined Republicans, will not detract from this achievement. 

His election inspired the world from the word go where he was given the Nobel Peace Prize as a symbolic gesture to what he had achieved. His very presence still inspires the world as witnessed at the Mandela funeral where he received the loudest ovation. As the Gershwins wrote and Sinatra sung, “No, No, They Can’t Take That Away From Me”.

So Obama and his heritage is alive with or without Obamacare. The richness of his ultimate legacy is still to be determined. 

LIBERALISM DEAD?

Of all the ironies - to hold up the Capitalist Affordable Health Care Act, emanating from Joe De Mint’s Heritage Foundation and first put into effect by Romney in Massachusetts, Romneycare, and then to argue that if this market based initiative fails that is the end of Obama’s radical liberalism, is the height of cynicism! Although Obama may have had liberal motives for universal health care the method used here is pure capitalism. However this is a very serious argument of many commentators in addition to being the belief of all the wings of the Republican Party.

Firstly, Jay H. Ell better define what the terms “liberalism" means as well as free market capitalism in America. In practical terms liberalism means that the Government would be a fairer, better and more efficient in the management of an activity than free market capitalism. Free market capitalism would mean that the market is the ultimate arbiter of priorities and what services or goods are needed and what they should cost. The market will decide in terms of competition, supply and demand. Now remember the subject under debate is health care not fridges or electrical services.  

CURRENT HEALTH CARE FREE MARKET MODEL

America spends more of it’s gross domestic product on health care than any other first world country in the world, 16% or one in very six dollars. American medicine, although is utilizes a mixed economic formula for health care funding, is dominated by the free market model. The free market model has produced inequities including the fact that 40 million are uninsured and this is what Obamacare addresses. The free market also decided that those who had certain illness could not be insured.This certainly makes sense on a capitalist model. There was much competition in this lucrative market and several insurance companies were involved. They built massive infrastructures to manage this lucrative activity and soon 30 cents in every dollar was spent in administrative costs. This was far higher, mostly double, than all the other comparative countries who adapted the “liberal” single payor model. One would expect that the free market system would at least produce better outcomes. However, the result is just the opposite. In health care indicators the USA is about 15th to 20th in the world in areas such as longevity and neonatal mortality.

So it is fair to say that Obamacare, while it is an attempt to at least enforce care for all American citizens, it is not “liberalism”. Obama would have done far better to go for a single payor system that has proven for more efficient than relying on the free market system. Medicare the Government run system is far more efficient than the free market in the United States.

Jay H. Ell in another blog will more fully outline the chaos that the free market system has produced in health care in America in addition to the 40 million uninsured. This includes the imbalance of the types of doctors available, the emphasis on services provided that are more lucrative and  the ludicrously high cost of health care in USA. 

The US has only 30% of its doctors as primary care doctors as these are the lowest paid. This compares to the 55% of Canada and the 70% of the UK. CEO’s of even not for profit hospitals earn 7 figure salaries. Local hospitals abandon non lucrative services. In an area known to Jay H. Ell there are no obstetric services for a radius of 35 miles serving a large population. If anyone believes that malpractice does not drive up the costs drastically they have not practiced anywhere else in the world, including Canada.

CONCLUSION:

So the Freemarket System for Healthcare has failed. If allowed to continue it will break down healthcare completely as it is understood. Obamacare is not a liberal alternative but it will at least have the humane benefit of ultimately allowing all people Health Care. There are features in the Affordable Health Care Act that address some of these issues.

Pertinent to this topic Obamacare is alive and kicking, albeit a bit haphazardly for the moment, Obama and the symbolism of his election alone will ensure his legacy and in the unlikely event of the failure of Obamacare it will not be the death of liberalism in health care. It might in fact spur it on.

, 
  

THE BUDGET DEAL, THE REPUBLICANS AND THE MEDIA

THE TEA PARTY'S PARTY IS OVER

Finally the inevitable happened. The split between the Republican Establishment and the Tea Party went public -not just some sniping between Cruz and McCain but the real thing. The uneasy truce in the Republican Party in Congress burst open like an over ripe abscess with pus pouring all over the place. As Jay H. Ell has been blogging ad infinitum it has been the Tea Party megalomaniac institutions and their leaders that were dictating Republican policy and strategy. Now no lesser person than the Republican Speaker of the House has said just that. He has told the wealthy and influential Tea Party Foundations - Heritage Action, Club for Growth and Freedom Works to mind their own business. The issue precipitating World War 111 was the recent House Budget Deal between the Republicans and Democrats that would avoid shutting down the Government again, for the next two years.

Boehner stated unambiguously and defiantly, " You know they, (The Tea Party Institutions), pushed into this fight to defund Obamacare and shut down the government", he said. " It wasn't exactly the strategy I had in mind. But if you recall, the day before the government re-opened one of the people of these groups said, "well we never really thought it would really work".  

 Are you kidding me?”, he exclaimed. He continued, "Frankly I think they are misleading their followers. I think they're pushing our, (Congressiional), members in places where they don't want to be. And frankly I just think they've lost all credibility."

There is no going back on this and the battle has publicly begun. 

The subsequent vote that accepted the budget deal confimed the balance of power in the Congressional Republican Caucus and the fact that policy for a long while has been driven to date by a minority of Congressmen under the orders from the Tea Party think tanks. A 167 Republicans voted in favor and 67 against. The budget really solved none of the philiosphical differences between the parties but it did acknowledge publicly the division within the Republican Party. Within no time the two sides lined up. Ted Cruz was first out of the block to attack Boehner. Remember it was Cruz who was the Tea Party's agent that persuaded Boehner to listen to the House of Representative's minority and shut the Government over the budget and Obamacare last time. When the Repubublicans in the Senate called it quits Cruz maintained that they had sold out on the House Republicans.

What does all this mean in political terms and how is this being reported in the media.  

THE MEDIA’S BIASED SPIN ON THE BUDGET DEAL

*  The Bill is a compromise for both parties but the Democrats are getting no credit for their compromise. The media - and they are the “deciders” - have deemed this, as a Republican success. It is as if they are rewarding the spoilt brat for behaving, for once, and ignoring the child who always has behaved.

* The deal was hammered out by Democrat Paddy Murray and Republican Paul Ryan. Again the “decider” media have hardly mentioned Murray. It is all about Ryan. Insiders say it was Murray who unconditionally accepted Ryan that gave him the confidence to settle.

* Both Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader and John Boehner, her Republican counterpart had to persuade their caucuses to vote for this Bill that addressed neither Party’s fiscal priorities. Moans and groans emanated from the Republican dissidents. Hardly a peep from Nancy’s Democrats who accepted her "plea" just to "suck it". Again the “ decider” media are all a buzz about Boehner. Not a word about Nancy.

The above commentary is indicative of  how most of the media has lost it’s way from reporting the news in balanced way. They rather look for the sensational angle to get viewership or readership. It is not news that the Democrats have consistently been responsible about trying to govern but it is, that for once, and because of political reasons the Republicans, are behaving in a non destructive manner.  Also they need a horse race otherwise who is going to listen or read their drivel and listen or read their adverts for soap. The Democrats prior to all of this were about to increase their representation slightly in the Senate and win back the house. All that is apparently no longer. 

THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE BUDGET DEAL.

The Republicans

* The Republican brand, generally, will benefit as they will not suffer once again the negative consequences of shutting down the government. This in the environment that the Democrats, apparently have already lost ground over the problems with Obama and his handling with Obamacare. 

* Paul Ryan, Romney’s running mate has raised his status no end in this hullabaloo. A fiscal conservative that would “restructure”  Medicare and Social Security as Government institutions, now appears a moderate and a front runner for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2016. Ryan is still a product of the unelected Tea Party Insitutions and in immediate fence mending stated that the Institutions were very important. He distanced himself from Boehner saying the latter, "Just got his Irish up".

* However the big battle will be in the Republican Primaries for the 2014 midterm elections where the vast resources of the megalomaniac institutions, of  both sides, will back their candidates. In making his move Boehner must have taken into account that among the Republicans, the Tea Party approval rating has dropped to 30%.  Boehner has called the ultra Conservative bluff. Do your worst. The vote in the House has strengthened Boehner, who is no bushing liberal either, and the Establishment. 

* The Republican disarray is illustrated by the reaction of Tea Party Senators, lead by Cruz, Rubrio and Paul. There are up to 19 Republican Senators, including their leader Mitch McConnell that are leaning towards voting against the budget deal. The establishment may be confidant about their chances but not one Republican Senator up for reelection is risking the Tea Party ire by voting in favor of this budget. They do not want to lose their Primaries to a Tea Party candidate.

* Notwithstanding the Republican disaray the Establishment certainly believe that they will win the battle to retain the party.  Lots of resources will be spent to settle it. What is more crucial to the Establishment Republicans is whether those fortunes backing the Tea Party will be available to take on the Democrats. The Koch brothers for example would not have used up all their 68 billion in the Primaries and the Party would like some of it to take on the Democrats.  

* Jay H. Ell believes that what the unelected Tea Party megalomaniac institutions and their backers will do is not a mystery. He does not see them either leaving the Republican Party nor backing the Party as a whole. After all their Godfather Joe De Mint of Heritage Action has said he would rather have 30 Republican Senators, that believe in Conservatism, than 50 Republican Senators who believe in nothing. They are still a force even if they don’t take over the Party. They still can create chaos as they have done over the past 4 years. They have faith in the final outcome and Moses did after all spend 40 years in the desert. 

* At the end of the day whatever happens the Tea Party have shifted the Republicans way to the right. If a Tea Party favorite Ryan is the moderate the good Lord help us. He agreed with Romney that the country is divided between the “makers” and the 47% “takers” and fiscally would finish off the "Great Society" .

* The Republicans, all of  them, have one issue and one issue only and that is Obamacare - that is Obamacare itself, the application of it and that Obama lied about it.  This is fraught with risk particularly that the growing income inequity in the population is what matters to everyone, and Obamacare's success or failure is a still an open question. 

* The Republicans thus want the 2014 election to be a referendum on Obama and Obamacare.

The Democrats

* The Democrats would have a lot easier time if the Republicans had continued with their suicidal no co operation attitude. The fact that Ryan and Boehner saw the light means that they have to work harder at their agenda.

* The Democrats, apparently, have lost a lot of ground of late. The latest polls show that they could lose the Senate and are even in danger of loosing seats in the House. This is apparently as a result of the Republicans now being seen in a more positive light and the problems with Obama and his Obamacare.

* Bearing in mind that the verdict on Obamacare is far from in and that that many are spinning their November recruitment as an amazing success and that there are 4 more more months to recruit, Obamacare may well be a positive rather than a negative for the Dems. In addition the States that have shunned helping Obamacare are having the beginnings of a backlash. Obama and his celebrity supporters will be punting the program to the limit. Jay H. Ell  believes that when March comes along Obamacare will be a benefit to the Democrats.

*In addition Obama is on a roll. He has a big advantage in that he has the "bully pulpit" in that everything he says and does is news.  So he is out there daily promoting Obamacare and several other programs. 

* The key political issue at the moment is the financial inequity between the citizens of America. Obama has an ally here in the Pope. The fact that 40% of Americans are Catholics cannot do the Obama campaign any harm. 

* The minimum wage is up front and center. Obama has been on this since way back. The Republican counter to this, that jobs will be lost, is lame. This especially in the light of the fact that the key sectors of retail and fast food, where the bulk are paid minimum wages, the companies are making massive profits. A recent study found that one third of bank tellers required public assistance. The banks have been showing massive profits with their CEOs and management earning astronomical sums yet the tellers cannot make out. The Republican response that all these people are moochers and “takers” is going to loose them a lot of votes from the moochers and “takers”.

* Immigration reform is still being thwarted by the Republicans and with the Latinos increasing in number the Republican indifference does not help their cause. Even if the Republicans get their act together on this one it would be too little too late.

* Women’s rights are still a top priority with the Democrats. The Republicans are not being helped by the fact, that a number of Republican controlled States are passing blatant anti feminist legislation. For example, Texas with a recent voter suppression law have ended up targeting women, and Michigan are joining other Republican States in insisting that women take out, what is in effect, insurance against being raped. 

* To add to their demographic woes it is not lost on the African Americans that the voter suppression acts being enacted are reminders of the pre Civil Rights days. The LBGT group’s growing power and the official Party line on them makes it very difficult for a member of their group to come out of the closet and vote for them.

* Unemployment benefits for those out of work for a year are due to stop unless Congress does something about it. The Republican attitude to date is that they just don’t want to work!

* and and on…….

AT THE END OF THE DAY.

The fact that the Republican agreement not to shut the Government down has put them back in the game, even while they are ignoring all the other issues, is hard to fathom. It is the media that are once again calling this as a close horse race. The fact too that the Republican’s sole issue election Obamacare, is enough to trump all the other issues strains credibility to the limits. The issues of financial and social inequity are front and central to the Democratic plank. Obamacare must be defended vigorously by all Democrats not only Obama. 

The economic situation is what the media should be focussing on  in the midterm election - not lauding and acclaiming the Republicans for not continuing with doing absolutely nothing.

OBAMA, NETANYAHU, PERES and THE AYATOLLAHS - AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY?

THE IRANIAN REGIME CAN ONLY LOSE

The theocracy of Iran is at the crossroads. The Ayatollah Khomeini agreed to a deal that ostensibly backs off from all Iran's previous "lines in the sand".  If Iran tries to renege or to deceive on the most recent nuclear agreement between it and the Security Council 5 members and Germany it's status as polecat of the world will be solidified forever and the country's economy will further unravel. If the theocracy ultimately removes all ability to build a nuclear capability it is the beginning of the end of the present regime's dreams to lead the Muslim world and then become a world power. In fact it will have lost face.

Notwithstanding this reality, the deal, to put it mildly, has a received a mixed reaction from those that oppose Iran. Israel's Netanyahu, who is against any deal with the Iranian regime has a valid fear. However he keeps forgetting that Iran did not come into these negotiations to fool the world, - that they were trying to do anyway - rather they were forced into it by the financial and political realities of their situation. (Blog: Obama, Rouhani, Netanyahu And The Nuclear Negotiations, 11/13/13).

Also what must be reassuring to those negotiating with Iran is  a report on Iran's inability to strike back if the six and or Israel are forced to take out their nuclear sites. The former head of Israeli intelligence, General Amos Yadin, has stated that the Iranian capability to attack is very limited. Yadin who now heads,The Institute for National Security Studies, states that nightmare scenarios of an Iranian attack are exaggerated as their capabilities are limited. 

DIVERGENT RESPONSES TO IRAN'S AGREEMENT.

It is not as Billy Joel might sing - "It is all a matter of trust" -  as neither the supporters or detractors of the deal really trust the Iranians, especially the self confessed conman Rouhani. Rather the divergencies are based, on the one hand, on hope and the belief that the penny has finally dropped in Iran versus disbelief that the Iranians will ever give up their desire to become a Mulsim and world force, on the other. No where are these differing viewpoints more starkly illustrated in the positions of Israel's President Simon Peres and Israel's Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.

Benjamin Netanyahu regards the deal in Geneva as an "historic mistake". The burden of his argument is that as the infrastructure for making nuclear weaponry has not been dismantled, in return for the softening of about 6 billion dollars in sanctions. Also Netanyahu claims that it will be difficult to put the sanctions back in place. He likens the agreement to that made by the US with North Korea in 2005. Netanyahu says that the proceedings in Geneva for the first time give offical permission to Iran to continue with their uranium production.This first step could be the last step. His Minister of Trade went one step further saying that if a nuclear suitcase blows up in New York in five years time this was the beginning of the process, There was no way Bibi would accept Obama's reassurances - at least not in public. 

It is, however, interesting to note that at the Brookings Institute Symposium in early December that Netanyahu's tough line on Iran remained but he thanked Obama for what he called an "indespensible alliance that has experienced unprecedented defense, security and intelligence cooperation between the two governments under their leadership".

Simon Peres sounded a more conciliatory note. He maintained that this was an interim deal the success or failure depended on deeds not words. He reassured the Iranian people that they were not Israel's enemies and the issue can be solved diplomatically. He publically stated the he was reassured by Obama's commitment not to allow Iran to have a nuclear capability. He even offered to meet Rouhani.

Saudi Arabia, Israel's newest best friend, have long made it clear, along diplomatic channels, that their line on Iran is as tough as the Jewish Homeland's, but for the moment they are saying nothing. If Israel takes the "nuclear option" to defend itself, Jay H. Ell believes that they will have two main Muslim supporters - Saudi Arabia and the Arab Emirites. 

The Iranian populace have welcomed the deal. While most of the world and its leaders have given a sigh of relief at the accord, in one of its rare bipartisan initiatives the US Congress was all set to stiffen sanctions on Iran let alone lessen them. Obama has appealed to them to keep their powder dry. Iran's Khomeini, Jay H. Ell is sure, would believe that this is just posturing but in all probability it would be difficult for him to understand Congress's irreverent attitude to the President of the Country.  (Some of the Republican faithful have maintained that Obama has initiated the deal to divert attention from Obamacare!).

One issue everyone seems clear on  - there is no way that Iran will be allowed to have a nuclear capability. Kerry and Obama have repeatedly said so and politically in America it just cannot fly.

THE DEAL  

There are two phases to the deal - an initial 6 month interim deal and then a permanent one with a view to eliminating Iran's nuclear program forever thereby allowing the lifting of sanctions permanently. The rationale for the two stage approach has to be to get some momentum started and hopefully build up trust before a final deal can be hammered out. 

Basically the first phase of the deal calls for the Iranians to halt any activity that could be perceived as furthering its nuclear ambitions in return for a lessening of its sanctions. Iran cannot create any more nuclear centrifuges and they have to dilute their uranium concentration to 5% from 20%. They also cannot increase their stockpile of uranium.  Iran also cannot complete its nuclear heavy water reactor which could be a source of plutonium. In short Iran would call a halt to any process that would enhance its ability to create nuclear weapons and cut back on some of what it already has.

In return Iran gains about 6 billion dollars that have currently been unavailable due to sanctions. This includes about $4.5 billion owed to Iran from oil sales and 1.2 billion from gold and other valuables, according to Pieter Greer of CNN. 

However there is still nearly a $100 billion that is frozen by sanctions. This is mainly as a result of the USA's controlling of banking and other regulations and virtually blowing Iran's export oil trade off the map.

The Iranian nuclear commitment is to be closely monitored and their further activities are to be closely monitored forever.

Secretary of State Kerry has maintained that the hardest part of the negotiations are still to come and he should know.

OUTCOMES:

Let us assume that Iran is caught violating these initial or later provisions and proceeds to develop nuclear weaponry. All hell will then break loose and Israel, possibly aided by the USA, could bomb the sites to kingdom come and as the Yadin report would indicate Iran could not do much in retaliation. There cannot be too much in it for Iran to continue with their nuclear capability as how will it help them at the end of the day even if their sites could not be bombed? Anyway Jay H. Ell never believed that they ever wanted a nuclear capability to use it. Rather the Ayatollohs want it for status and "face". 

Also if Iran plays games they will not have a friend in the world outside of Syria and their two terrorist surrogates, Hezbollah and Hamas. Don't forget they would have also "fooled" two key "neutral" partners Russia and China. And even more importantly they will have worsened the situation that lead them to go into these negtiations in the first place, namely their parlous financial and domestic situation. The general population in Iran, that are hailing the deal, are not demonstrating for Iran's right to make a bomb. 

At the same time there is little doubt that the Iranian Ayotollahs are not just going to roll over. They will try to hang onto as much as they have got to keep them as a force in the Middle East. But as Kerry has said, "We are not fools" and he is sitting with all the cards. 

According to the Washington Post Obama has asked Netanyahu to cool it for the moment. Jay H. Ell would like to bet that is what Nobel Prize Winner Simon Peres is telling him too. Jay H. Ell is also going to a venture a prediction that Netanyahu may well, as many right wingers have, make historic deals in the Middle East. However, one of them will not be leaving Iran with the slightest possibility of creating a nuclear weapon.

AT THE END OF THE DAY

 The chances of a deal, at best, according to Obama, must be 50 - 50. Also Jay H. Ell really wonders what Iran's game is. They are still spewing venom at Israel, vowing never to recognize Israel and telling Peres to jump into the Red Sea. This is not the way to win friends and influence people - especially people in the American Legislative Congress. 

Also those that matter will not let the Ayatollahs off the hook by allowing them, ostensibly, " to keep their pride" and have any capabilities in position, however compromised, that could   allow them to build nuclear weaponry.

The Ayatollahs will have to prepare for the reaction of failed talks. How will their populace react? Have they created false expectations? Jay H. Ell wonders how well Khomeini has thought this through. If the deal fails the best they can hope for is that they unite the nation against the world in general and Israel in particular. But that will not bring down inflation or create jobs for example. 

Jay H. Ell is obiously missing something.

            

MANDELA AND DAY TO DAY MEMORIES OF APARTHEID.

Jay H. Ell believes that he, had come to terms with Mandela’s mortality. (Blogs: Mandela, The British Golf Open and Immortality, 8/4/12; Exit Mandela: Cry the Beloved Country Part 2, 12/20/12; Mandela - A Letter From Prison and Postscript, 11/1/13). His passing has thus not evoked in him the spontaneous outpouring of admiration of almost messianic proportions that we are now witnessing. That he believes he has already done. Rather his death reminds him of the evils of apartheid and what it was to live through those times. Evils that we all need reminding of. It is almost as if Mandela’s death has awakened a Post Traumatic Stress Reaction in Jay H. Ell.

THE INSTITUTIONALISATION OF APARTHEID 

Jay H. Ell, like so many like him, was a child of apartheid - a white child. An obviously different life from a black child - the former of the privileged class and the latter the victims. His life in South Africa spanned the whole sordid period of apartheid and his decision to finally leave South Africa was made when De Klerk was elected as Prime Minister by the right wing of the Nationalist Party. It all seemed so hopeless and he did not want his sons to be conscripted into the army whose role was not so much to defend South Africa but rather to shoot at African youth throwing stones. He was wrong about De Klerk, who like so many right wing politicians, was able to do what no-one imagined, persuade the whites that compromise and giving up power was the right decision. The rest is history. However, none of this takes away the memory of living under apartheid. This story may have a fairy tale ending but it was no fairy tale.

Jay H. Ell was born into a family that was profoundly socially conscious. His Grandmother and Mother were founder members of the Black Sash that was the Women’s organization that opposed apartheid. He remembers vividly, as a preschooler, the election in 1948 that heralded in the apartheid regime. He remembers his mother and father mourning what had happened and being taken to the fish and chips shop to be consoled by a packet of hot chips. (French Fries). From then on it was down hill.

Growing up he was not spared the progression of apartheid and its discrimination and the inhumane consequences of the policies of racial bigotry translated into law. He saw laws remove any meaningful representation in parliament of anyone who was not white. Laws that then were associated with indelible daily experiences.  He remembers the pass laws that turned black South Africans into criminal aliens in their own land - hiding the gardener as the police car roamed by; the Group Areas Act that defined where one could live with the dislocation of communities into faraway windy plains - the displacement of the pulsating District Six community where he spent stints delivering babies; the population registration act that decided what race you belonged to - the reclassification of one University Professor to be white while the rest of his family remained colored and the Immorality Act that defined who you could love - the agony of a friend who was charged and had his life ruined. Then there was the Jobs Reservation Act that defined what jobs you were able to perform, the educational ministries for different races - as Prime Minister Verwoerd, who articulated the philosophical basis for apartheid, had stated, “Why teach the Bantu mathematics if he has no use for it”. The Separate Amenities Act that continued racial separation to reductio ad absurdium - separate entrances, separate toilets, separate every things…….

There was thus set into motion a systematic legislative program to undo what integration and rights that had evolved and existed and replace them with the standards of the deep American South. Once this was in place the Alice in Wonderland vision of Prime Minister Verwoerd to unscramble the South African egg followed. He would  create 10 separate “independent” Bantustan homelands for the individual black ethnic groups. All blacks would be “guest workers” and could not settle with their families in South Africa.This regardless of the reality that large numbers had not “lived” in their homelands for years or even ever and that they were totally integrated into “white” South Africa’s economy. 

Then there was the whole elaborate totalitarian apparatus that kept all this monstrous legislation in place. That started early on in the apartheid regime from the Suppression of Communism Act - so broad that it could make Joe McCarthy blush, to ever increasing abrogations of the rule of law into the eighties. Emergencies could be declared with the total suspension of habeas corpus and then their were also provisions of detentions without trial for 90 days then 180 days. Hundreds were periodically arbitrarily arrested across the board, including family members and friends. There was Press Censorship and no-one banned under the Suppression of Communism Act could be quoted. So anything smuggled out or said by Mandela was heard and read illegally - even his statement from the dock in the Rivonia trial .

The police and security police who were responsible for the enforcement of this legislation were regularly accused of brutality, torture and murder. (A sorry record of all of this is chronicled in the proceedings of the post apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission).

MANDELA AND THE ANC

In those early days you had a non violent ANC  who tried to negotiate and then when that failed utilized civil disobedience such as burning their "pass books”, that were their permits to be in “white” South Africa. Mandela early on established himself as the leader in these civil disobedience protests. These Defiance Campaigns were met with brutality by the police. Finally, after the infamous Sharpeville massacre, in 1960, where 169 Africans, who were peacefully protesting, were shot dead by the police, Mandela decided to form a militant wing of the ANC called Umkhuntu we Sizwe. He did this without the ANC's blessing. Mandela saw himself not as a terrorist but as someone who was acting in defense to the violence and murder of his people. The main ANC however never abandoned their non violent platform and a former saint and ANC President Albert Luthuli, who was humiliated and hounded by the Government stuck, to this non violent stance right to the end. He quite rightly received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1960 for his non violent fight against apartheid. 

Mandela’s military wing had as its initial objective sabotage and was responsible for a number of bombings of facilities. In reality his role as a Freedom Fighter was short lived and he was on the run for only two years. He was sent to the Robben Island Prison in 1962, initially for inciting workers’ strikes and leaving the country without permission and then for life for sabotage. In truth he was not a serious revolutionary as even on the run he was meeting journalists, addressing meetings - all activities of someone attempting to persuade rather than brutalize. His trial where he was sentenced to life improsonment, ironically, set the stage for his life’s vision. His dignified, respectful, humble yet unapologetic statement of his motives, actions and aspirations captured the admiration of the world. His peroration after a nearly four hour speech was, “… I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal for which I hope to live for and see realized. But, My Lord, if need be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die". (The majority of South Africans expected the death sentence the prosecutor had called for as did he for his co -defendants).

OPPOSITION TO APARTHEID ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS

Jay H. Ell was more formally involved in opposition but here he would like to reflect on the impact opposition to apartheid had on him as an ordinary citizen.

It was in an apartheid milieu that one functioned on a day to day basis. Many of Jay H Ell’s generation and beliefs upped and left South Africa - not all of them because they abhored apartheid but felt there was no future for the country. However, there were several who maintained they could not live in and be part of such an unjust society. Those that stayed and felt that way had to make accommodations as all had their bottom line as to what they could do and live with. The rationale of those that stayed on was one could do what one could to change society. 

But, even for a white person, on a day to day basis there have had to be Political Parties, groups, people, situations, opportunities, institutions that gave one hope. There was the formal opposition to the Government in the white parliament. Although the main opposition, The United Party, was for a large part of the time shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic, it still represented opposition to the naked racism of apartheid. Then there was Helen Suzman, the lone fearless member of the Progressive Party whose opposition to the racist totalitarian regime cannot be underestimated. It was she, for example, who demanded to see Mandela on a regular basis. 

The opposition outside of parliament such as the Liberal Party, the Institute of Race Relations, the Churches, the Black Sash, to name a few, all were a constant source of hope. The English Press day after day week after week in spite of harassment and censorship proved to be a thorn in the regime’s side and a vehicle for those who opposed them. They never let up and are assuming the same role in a far from perfect South Africa today. The English speaking Universities also provided a springboard and a venue for opposition. The University Students and their representative body NUSAS were on the interface of racial cooperation and opposition. Professional bodies, to a lessor or greater extent, with non racial membership pursued objectives in a manner that had to promote a milieu that was an anathema to the philosophy of racial supremacy. 

There were plenty of opportunities to pursue objectives across the racial divide whether this be in the political, social, sport and entertainment arenas.

In the Black world the Trade Unions more than any other body were busily making inroads in smashing the insanity of apartheid. COSATU was the organization that all the Trade Unions ultimately morphed into and was lead by the current Deputy Leader of the ANC Cyril Rhamophosa . From early on there were separate Indian and Colored groups agitating for their ethnic groups individual rights. There was the United Democratic Front that created waves till it too was banned. The student groups such as the Black Consciousness movement gained much support and burst into national and international prominence when its leader Steve Biko was tortured to death by the Security police. There were also those who were predominantly underground.

Meanwhile the banned ANC was gaining more and more oversea and local grass roots support among activists, labor and students. There were sports boycotts and sanctions. 

(Jay H. Ell will leave for another time the negotiations, the groups both within and without South Africa that finally lead to a settlement because this was in motion when there was already a recognition that apartheid was morally and economically unsustainable).

What Jay H Ell was always conscious of was that he was in a morally challenging situation. One that he would like to be able to say to a Nuremberg tribunal or at least to his grandchildren that, bearing in mind that one can never do enough, he did what he could and was not part of this disgrace to humanity. It was never a comfortable position to be in opposition as your phones were tapped and you were subject to periodic harassment. On one particular occasion he was visited by the Special Branch in relation to a report he had written that maintained that a patient was suicidal. The psychiatrist agreed and this was grounds for a therapeutic abortion. The police arrived in the operating room and he and others were under investigation for facilitating an illegal abortion.

HISTORY 

There are those, like Thomas Carlyle, that say that history is determined by individuals and others that say individuals just articulate and personify the mood and the will of a people at a particular time. For those that support the latter theory they will have a tough time explaining the pivotal role Nelson Mandela played in South Africa. When he finally was released from prison he had the responsibility to weld together right wing Afrikaners and angry left wing black radicals into the “Rainbow Nation”. While many feared that his death would result in social disruption the Chicago Tribune ran a story that his "Mandela's death unifies South Africa". 

In Jay H. Ell's opinion his most incredible skill was his ability to be a revolutionary, activist, consummate politician, a skillful negotiator, an empathetic human being and a statesman all in one breath. There is injustice and inequity everywhere, just look around!, and what we need is more Mandelas. They are indeed Plato’s philosopher kings.

POPE FRANCIS, WALMART,THE WALTONS, FOOD STAMPS AND FINANCIAL INEQUITY

As Jay H. Ell has blogged the financial system that made America the richest and most powerful nation in the world no longer exists. For practical purposes you had a society that encouraged entropenerial investment. That self same society previously regulated itself by a formula whereby the middle-class would benefit by this success and the unfortunate poor would receive support through private charity and government regulated welfare. This would result in the rich being rewarded, the middle class being prosperous by getting a fair wage and the poor being supported. The outcome was the USA having the highest standard of living in the world- for it’s rich, it’s collosal middle class and even it’s poor.  

This formula has now been challenged resulting in a life or death struggle as to the future of the middle class while the safety net for the poor is being constantly lessened. All this is happening at a time when focus on financial inequity has been heightened by Pope Francis who shattered the financial and religious worlds by his statements on the subject. These came in an 84 page document entitled, “Evangelii Gaudium", (The Joy of the Gospel). The central message was on the evils of unfettered capitalism and the Church’s responsibility to the poor. So Pope Francis has shown he can walk the walk as well as talk the talk. (Blog: Well Hello Pope Francis, 3/17/13).

This document was released in the same week as groups of Walmart workers protested against their “poverty" level wages and Sixty Minutes featured The Billionaires Club where a number of Billionaires pledged to give at least half of their fortune to the less privileged. (Warren Buffett was quick to point out that large numbers of billionaires had refused). Contemporaneously, the Republicans proposed a cut in the Food Stamp program of 4 billion dollars over 10 years as part of their austerity program. Obama also proposed a substantial increase in the minimum wage that is going nowhere.

THE WALTONS AND WALMART

In this controversy of redistribution of wealth or rather the lack of it, Walmart and their owner heirs, the Waltons, fairly or unfairly, have become the poster child for this discussion. The Waltons’ according to a blog, written by Hamilton Nolan, are the richest and greediest people in the world. Bloomberg news reported in September that they have utilized every possible tax stratagem to keep their fortune intact for them and their heirs. In the 1990’s they hired lobbyists in Washington to lobby on “tax matters”. Their combined wealth from Walmart exceeds a 100 billion dollars.

Sam Walton founded his success on low costs, high turnover and big profits. He stated that, "I pay low wages. My success is on the basis of a very low wage and low benefits". (PBS Internet news, “Frontline”, September 2004). In fairness to Sam he was one of the shrewdest most talented businessmen ever. He built his company up to be the biggest employer in the world with 2 million on his pay rolls.

Walmart pays its employees, on average $18,720 before taxes. Dean Baker of the Huffington Post states on that income it is extremely difficult for one person to survive without food stamps. For a family of two the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy believes another $10,000 is needed.

A survey conducted in the nineties by the Wisconsin Democratic party showed that a Walmart store employing 300 was subsidized by taxpayers to the of tune of millions in that they needed Public Aid medical care and other Welfare benefits including food stamps. Goetz and Swanimathon of Penn State University showed, in 2004, that Counties with a Walmart suffered more poverty than those without. Common gripes against Walmart include killing small business, pressuring manufacturers to bare bone prices and by buying almost exclusively in China being responsible for massive job loss.

It has to be said that Walmart provides society with low cost goods on a scale hitherto unheard of. The real question is, is it worth the cost?

POLICIES SUPPORTING WALMART AND THE WALTONS

Now none of this can happen a vacuum. The government is entrusted with regulating the economy and the rules. To rely on the largesse of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett is no way to run a country. Involved in all of this is the tax policy and the redistribution of wealth in a fair fashion. Also you need regulations that do not allow certain unfair employment practices. Leaving aside the morality of the issue for the moment why should society subsidize the wealth of the Waltons? The way the consumer based economy was supposed to have worked in the USA was to pay people decent wages who would then purchase and stimulate the economy and its growth. Nothing is geared to that at the moment - the tax policies bolster all of this wealth accumulation thereby keeping money out of circulation, the lack of a decent minimum wage stunts growth and unregulated behavior of the industries, especially the finance industry are but a few examples that are counter productive to stimulating the economy. Taking away food stamps that 47,000,000 receive will not help Walmart as hungry employees are not very productive.

While all the ills of the current financial mess cannot be exemplified by Walmart and the Waltons, the culture of greed, and unfairness of unbridled unregulated capitalism can be, so let us see what the Pope said.

POPE FRANCIS

Pope Francis left very little doubt as to where he stood on these issues. He equated economies that prey on the poor with murder. His exact words were, “Just as the commandment, 'Thou shall not kill’ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say, ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points. This is a case of exclusion.”

As for trickle down economics he gave it a full go: “Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably bring about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding power and in the socialized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting".

The Pope also stated that he conducted his own life in terms of these edicts and that the Church should focus on the poor not on divisive issues such as abortion and same sex marriage. The Church must restore hope to young people, help the old, be open to the future, spread love. “We need to include the excluded and preach peace."

In a stinging open letter to the British Prime Minister on the eve of the G-8 Summit he called capitalism a new form of idolatry. Money should serve humanity not lead it. He went on, “Every economic and political theory or action must set about providing each inhabitant with the minimum wherewithal to live in dignity and freedom”. He ended by saying,”We have created new idols. The worship of the golden calf of old has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly humane goal”.

WOW.

Talk about telling as it is. This is the most influential voice in the Christian world. He is the elected leader of 1.2 billion Catholics - 20% of the World’s population. Maybe some - one out there will listen. Politicians need to take his words to heart as individuals like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett already have.

But the faithful need not worry that all this has been allowed to pass without answer. Sarah Palin called the Pope a liberal and Rush Limbaugh went one better and labelled him a Marxist.
To reinforce the Pope’s point this major policy statement of his hardly captured the center stage of the media arena - instead politics focussed, with uncontrolled glee, on the mishaps of the instrument that had been designed to offer equity in health care, to all Americans.