Hillary Clinton on racism in America

From Hillary Clinton's statement about racism following the church massacre in Charleston:

“Race remains a deep fault line in America. Millions of people of color still experience racism in their everyday lives…. More than a half century after Dr. King marched and Rosa Parks sat and John Lewis bled, after the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and so much else, how can any of these things be true? But they are.

 “And our problem is not all kooks and Klansman. It’s also in the cruel joke that goes unchallenged.  It’s in the off-hand comments about not wanting ‘those people’ in the neighborhood.

“Let’s be honest: For a lot of well-meaning, open-minded white people, the sight of a young black man in a hoodie still evokes a twinge of fear. And news reports about poverty and crime and discrimination evoke sympathy, even empathy, but too rarely do they spur us to action or prompt us to question our own assumptions and privilege.

“We can’t hide from any of these hard truths about race and justice in America. We have to name them and own them and then change them.”

   -  Hillary Clinton

Why people still don't like Obamacare

The Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, one of the most respected and least political, reports that Americans are now evenly divided, with 43% having a favorable view and 42% an unfavorable view of the "Obama Health Care Law."

Note that those who express disapproval, however, include both those who want it to be repealed outright and those who want the scope of the program to be expanded. So, if the question were posed differently, say about the general idea of government sponsored health care insurance, we would expect a higher approval rating.   

There are two more indicators of that:   (1)  When people are asked about various aspects of their insurance coverage, they are more positive than when asked if they approve of the "Obama Health Care Law;"  and (2) A good majority opposes repealing the law.
 
Still, there is far more opposition than there should be to a program that is proving to be so helpful to many people and is reducing the rise in health care costs.  Mark Blumenthal and Jonathan Cohn of the Huffington Post discussed the reasons for that.  I'll briefly outline their reasons and then add some of my own.

The largest factor seems to be partisanship, with a wide split between Democrats, who tend to see it as a success, and Republicans, who use words like "disaster" and "train wreck."   And that partisanship goes beyond just repeating the talking points of their party.   People actually perceive the questions differently.

For example, health care costs are continually going up every year, partly because of general rising costs but also because each year more, newer, and more expensive treatments are becoming available -- and driving up overall costs.    But, if you are already opposed to Obamacare, you tend to blame it for those rising costs.   The truth is that the rate of increase has been slowed since the ACA was implemented.   Slowed by more than anyone expected or predicted.   Rather than wrecking the economy as its opponents predicted, it is actually reining in costs and reducing the deficit.

It's not just rising costs;   Republicans also tend to take any dissatisfaction they have with the health care system and assign the blame to "Obamacare," even if it has nothing to do with the new program.

Another factor is that only about 10% of the population has been affected by the ACA.   Those who were already getting insurance through their jobs, or were already on Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans benefits, or teachers retirement plans didn't experience any change.

The single most predictive factor in how one feels about the ACA is which political party they identify with.  And this factor is magnified for those in the "non-group" market -- that is the 90% whose insurance was not affected but who nevertheless may have concerns about costs to the government or philosophy about what governments should do for its people.

In this "non-market" group, 64% of Democrats approve but only 19% of Republicans.

That's rather astonishing.   But I have a little less faith than do these authors in the people freely making up their own minds based on principles of government.    I think the single largest factor has to be the fact that Republicans have deliberately set out to make the Affordable Care Act fail.   Through bombardment with negative advertising and endless airing of negative talking points on right wing radio and Fox News, they have simply conditioned those susceptible to their views into associating "Obamacare" with "disaster."

It certainly didn't help that the initial rollouts of the internet exchanges were in fact a disaster for the first month.    Despite the near miracle that got it working efficiently, the political damage was done.    And Republican politicians and their enablers have continued their brain-washing barage.

The little demonstration that Jimmy Kimmel did on his late night show was the most telling.   Of course it was not scientific but it illustrated the point.   He went out on the street with a tv camera.    He would stop people and ask them what they thought of "Obamacare."    To those who had a negative view, he would then ask a few more questions of what they thought about some individual aspect of the program.    They would say they like that;  but then he would ask again if they liked Obamacare, and they would say it's terrible.

In something as complex as the introduction of such a major program with so many different parts, it is inevitable the people will have trouble understanding it.    On top of that, Republicans have been masterful in distorting and outright lying to further confuse them.

The Supreme Court let another Monday slip by without revealing their decision on the future of the ACA.    The suspense continues.   There is only one more week to go in the court's term -- and two of the largest decisions of the decade are yet to be announced.

Ralph

Love vs. hate in South Carolina

Murder suspect in the Charleston, SC church massacre, Dylann Roof, was accepted with warmth and love when he walked into the bible study meeting taking place in Emanuel AME Church.   And he sat with them for nearly an hour -- some say arguing with them -- but we don't yet know how that hour really transpired.

Did they know he had come to kill them?    Did they see him as a troubled young man that they might help?    One source says that in his confession to police he said that he almost changed his mind about killing them "because they were nice to me."   But then he remembered his plan and felt he needed to carry it through.

The public doesn't really know yet the answer to many questions about that hour.    What we do know is that Dylann Roof was obsessed with symbols and slogans of white supremacy and that he was filled with hatred of black people as a group.    This was not a random killing.   He specifically went to this church with the intent to kill them because of who they were.

What he encountered was a group of people who had been taught and inspired to meet hate with love.  And they tried.   In fact, some of their surviving relatives addressed the killer in court at his bail hearing.   They expressed their loss and their grief -- and then said directly to Roof, "But I forgive you."     

The daughter of one victim told him, "You hurt me, you hurt a lot of people;  but I forgive you."   The granddaughter of another victim said to him, "Hate won't win.  My grandfather and the other victims died at the hands of hate.   Everyone's plea for your soul is proof that they lived in love and their legacies live in love."

It didn't take long for a gun rights advocate to say this proves we need to allow people to carry guns in churches.   If someone in that congregation had been armed, they could have taken out the killer before he shot nine people.

That is not the answer.    This country already has more guns, by multiple times over, than any other nation on earth -- and yet we still have the highest murder rate of any developed nation.   "Love those that hate you" may not be sufficient for the short term solution, but I suggest it is the long-term answer.

And by love, here I don't just mean saying that you love the person who hates you.   I mean putting love into action to change social conditions that breed this kind of hatred:   the ignorance, the economic disadvantages, the lack of mental health initiatives, the shaming that builds resentment.

Idealistic?   Yes, of course it is.    So was Jesus of Nazareth whose message was based on:  "Treat other people as you would want to be treated."   And "Love those that hate you."

Ralph

"The Donald" makes it official. His Excellence has decided we need him to solve all our problems.

Just when we thought the 2016 presidential race might be missing the wacko clown factor that Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman provided in 2008 and 2012, The Donald has graciously agreed to step in and save us from policy wonks and boredom.


Making his announcement -- where else? -- at Trump Tower in New York City, with tv cameras rolling, Donald Trump arrived by riding down the escalator to the glitzy lobby of his own building behind wife #3 (another young, slender, glamorous blond like #1 and #2).

The symbolism of descending was unmistakable;  take your pick:    God descending from the Heavens to save the people or The Billionaire entrepreneurial genius descending from his penthouse to save the people.

The Donald looked over the crowd and exclaimed at the number of people gathered to cheer him.   Never mind the fact that the Extra Mile Casting agency leaked the fact that it had been hired to provide background actors to show up for the event wearing Trump T-shirts and carrying "hand-made" signs supplied by the Trump people to cheer on the candidate.

The latest entry to the crowded Republican field was his usual grandiose bundle of narcissism and bad hair.   His hour-long acceptance speech was a rambling mess of boasting about how rich he is, how powerful he is, and what a great president he will be.   Did you know that he has already mastered the art of standing up to China?    He beats them all the time in business deals.   Need someone to create jobs?   "I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created." 

The Republican primary just got a little more colorful and a lot nuttier.

Ralph

Confederat flag = "A racist symbol of a failed rebellion."

Here is one person's take on the meaning of displaying the Confederate flag, by Ben Hallman, Senior Editor, Huffington Post.

"The Confederate flag is a racist symbol of a failed rebellion.   It's not a debate.

"The Confederacy was the most vile and harmful political invention in United States history. It was founded on the explicit principle that slavery is the 'natural and normal condition' of black people, and that they should be ruthlessly exploited to the benefit of their white masters. More Americans died in the bloodletting that followed than in World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam combined. 

"Where in that story arc is anything worth celebrating? Yet 150 years after the Civil War ended in utter defeat for the Confederacy, a flag of that failed pseudo-nation still flies on public property. And once again, following the killing of nine black parishioners by an apparent white supremacist inside a church in Charleston, South Carolina, we are talking about whether it should.

"This isn't at all a difficult question. There is no place for the flag of a rebellious breakaway region on public property anywhere in the United States. 

"It certainly does not belong above a memorial [that is] steps from the South Carolina statehouse, where apparently it cannot ever be lowered -- under force of law.

"White Southerners who support the display of the flag claim it is a symbol of their "heritage," when what they really mean is it reminds them of an imagined past where white people held all the power and minorities were kept properly in their place. . . . "

*  *  *

I agree with those who say it is time for Confederate flags to be relegated to history museums, not to be flown on government property.

Ralph

White Supremacy and murder in South Carolina

In the latest of what seems to be an ever-increasing wave of violence against unarmed African-American people, a white man with a gun walked into the historic Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina where a prayer meeting was in progress.   The pastor and eight people in the congregation are dead.

The suspect is a 21 year old white man whose reported confession has not yet been confirmed by the police.  But he has been arrested and charged with nine counts of murder in what is being treated as a hate crime.   

The suspect had posted a picture of himself on social media wearing a jacket with flag patches that have become emblems of support for white supremacist groups, although there is no evidence he is actually a member of any such group.   Acquaintances say that he harbored hatred for black people, spewed racist rhetoric, and recently talked about doing something violent -- resulting in a concerned roommate hiding the suspect's gun for a few days before later returning it.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley condemned the shooting and called for the death penalty.   But there is a bitter irony here.    Gov. Haley also presides over state government in Columbia, SC, where the Confederate flag flies on the state capital grounds, at the Confederate Memorial.   Prior to 2000, it used to fly over the capitol dome itself, beneath the U.S. flag and the South Carolina flag.   A prior controversy resulted in its being moved to the memorial site, still on the grounds and within sight of the capitol building.

Someone on the internet has raised the question:   "Will South Carolina honor the victims of this church shooting by lowering the Confederate flag to half-staff?"  Gov. Haley has already ordered flags to be flown at half-staff for nine days -- one day for each of the victims.

But the Confederate flag is not on a pulley, so it cannot simply be lowered to half-staff but, rather, would have to be removed.  State law, however, prohibits its removal except by a vote of the legislature. 

The S.C. Division of General Services has not yet clarified whether the Confederate flag will be lowered, along with the U. S. and South Carolina flags.

This is not the most important question, which I will give deeper thought to before posting later:   the conflict of love vs hate in South Carolina -- and throughout our land.

Ralph

The pope is right on climate change. Republicans' response so far: "leave science to the scientists"

Several GOP contenders have responded to the pope's forthcoming papal encyclical on the climate by saying "he is not a scientist" (Santorum) or varying expressions that "we just don't know the cause" or that "we should leave it to the scientists."

But, when 97% of scientists say that human activities contribute a major proportion of greenhouse gases, why not just say that the scientists have spoken?    And that it's up to our political process to do something about it -- urgently.   There's almost nothing that you'll get better than 97% agreement on.   So don't keep dodging responsibility by quoting the tiny minority.

Here is what scientists do say, according to an article on Daily Kos, "Global Temperatures Soaring:  2015 starts off the top of the chart," by FishOutofWater, 6/17/15.

"2014 was the warmest year in global climate records but 2015 is on track to be significantly warmer than 2014. The first 5 months were the warmest on record and global models are predicting a super El Niño that could be the strongest ever measured on record or by paleoclimate proxies. . . .  Extraordinarily warm global sea surface temperatures forecast for this summer and fall will bring on even hotter temperatures in the second half of 2015 than the first half. If the models are correct 2015 temperatures will spike far above 2014.

"Climate scientists have known for years what's causing the climate to warm - huge human emissions of greenhouse gases."

Despite obvious confirmation of predictions already being seen in the drought in California, the melting of glaciers, and increased sea levels, Republicans are still dodging and denying.  

Among those for whom the pope's message on climate proves the most politically awkward is Jeb Bush, who converted to Roman Catholicism 20 years ago.   Besides taking huge sums of campaign money from businesses interest (the Kochs, for one) that resist the necessary regulatory adjustments, he was governor of Florida where the largest city, Miami, is destined to be submerged by ocean if we do not act.

And yet, here's the best Jeb has come up with:  (1)  "The climate is changing, whether men are doing it or not."   (2)  A call for vague, toothless "policies of adaptation."   (3) Saying he is "a little skeptical" about the pope's message on climate, because "religion ought to be about making us better as people and less about things that end up getting into the political realm."

The sad and scary thing about Jeb Bush's response is that his is among the best of all the Republican presidential hopefuls.

Look at these charts for yourself, showing the long-range changes in temperature and in greehouse gas emissions.   On the first graph, despite the sharp rise in temperatures since 1980, the first half of 2015 is even off this chart.
             Graph from the National Weather Service.




           Graph from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007

This is serious stuff.    We should be wary of politicians who try to tell us otherwise.

Ralph