The Bankruptor-in-Chief Gambles on Healthcare, N. Korea, and Dumping Mueller

If there is one thing Donald Trump knows how to do it is bankrupting a business. So even though the Republican controlled Congress has not been able to repeal Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act is still in jeopardy because the bankruptor-in-chief is committed to shutting it down without so much as a thought to the tens of millions whose lives would be placed in financial and physical jeopardy from illness that could lead to poverty and/or death. 

The irony in all this is that a healthier America is better for business, which is what Trump claims to be all about. 

For more irony, Trump is touting invigoration of the coal industry—a dying segment of the energy sector with dying companies that provide lethal work for coalminers—at a time when solar, wind and other alternative energy sources have far surpassed coal’s attractiveness as a resource and employment prospect, not to mention its environmental concerns. But then what do you expect from a businessman who could not turn a profit from gambling casinos?

Behaving like a spoiled child holding his breadth because his parents deny him an extra portion of dessert, a ticked off Trump has threatened to curtail subsidies that underpin many insurance providers. Without the subsidies insurers may abandon markets, leaving individuals without insurance options or with drastically higher premiums many couldn’t afford.

Trump is gambling his threat will force Republicans and Democrats to come back to Washington to vote to repeal and replace Obamacare. But keep in mind, four of Trump’s six bankruptcies came from his inability to run a successful gambling casino. Should anyone with such a sad, sorry record be playing with the health and safety of our citizens? 

How Big a Gamble: To get his way Trump has shown a willingness to gamble with the health of millions. He now has an international dilemma with even more certain deaths if he places his money on black and the roulette ball lands on red.

What should he do with North Korea’s relentless march to nuclear warhead and ballistic missile capability? Does North Korea pose an existential threat to America or any of its allies? Should he order a pre-emptive strike on the missile staging area?

Even if we could knock out the missile development region, we probably could not prevent massive conventional retaliation on Seoul with massive loss of life and physical destruction of the South Korean capital. Are we willing to sacrifice the citizens and capital of our ally so easily?

I’m inclined to think we should not. Here’s an analysis from the Centre for Research on Globalization worth reading: https://shar.es/1TwcYz

  

Breaking the Silence: In the war on Islamic terrorism it is often asked, where are the moderate Muslim voices? Sadly, under threat of actual death, they remain all too silent. 

But one can equally ask, where are the voices of reason within the Republican Party? How can they let this misfit of a president stand for the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan? 

To be fair, many conservatives have spoken out and written about their disdain for Trump and his co-opting of the Grand Old Party and conservative values. Even some religious leaders have expressed consternation that their brethren have forsaken Christian teachings by supporting Trump’s extreme positions, including his stances against Obamacare, immigrants, Mexicans, Muslims and voting rights. 

Until recently, the real silence, however, has been heard in the halls of the Capitol. For eight years Republicans decried the power of the executive branch under President Obama. Now that a so-called Republican sits behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, watching their reaction and their determination to express congressional authority is a study of evolving expectations. 

Now that he has removed Reince Priebus in favor of John F. Kelly as his chief of staff, commentators are saying Trump has severed his strongest ties to the Republican Party establishment. Will he try to push through an agenda without care or consideration for traditional GOP values, or will he try to work with an increasingly independent Republican controlled Congress?

Senators Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and John McCain showed profile-in-courage independence by voting down the last ditch GOP effort to repeal Obamacare. But others who privately did not like the “skinny repeal” bill voted for it anyway, a true example of profiles-in-cowardice.

Meanwhile, The House and Senate overwhelmingly voted for more sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea along with a proviso that Trump could not unilaterally lift sanctions on Russia. Trump has indicated he will sign the bill as he doesn’t want to risk the embarrassment of having a veto overturned. 

Republican senators have also been out front warning Trump not to dump Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Sen. Charles Grassley, chair of the Judiciary Committee, has threatened not to hold hearings on any replacement for Sessions nominated by Trump. 

The end game for Trump is to get rid of Robert Mueller III as independent special counsel. Aside from the investigation into possible collusion with Russia during the election last year, Trump fears Mueller’s probe into his finances. Trump well knows that developers are ripe pickings for investigators looking for shady deals. 

Trump might be looking alarmingly at Pakistan where the Supreme Court last week removed from office Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif because of alleged financial corruption. 

On the other hand, he might be gazing longingly at Vladimir Putin’s strong armed rule in Russia where opponents are jailed (“Lock her up”) or mysteriously die, or to the Philippines where President Rodrigo Duterte conducts summary executions of alleged drug dealers and users (Trump last week suggested police treat suspects more roughly), or even to Venezuela where President Nicolas Maduro has rammed through the election of a constituent assembly that will rewrite the country’s constitution more to his liking (Trump wants the Senate to abandon filibuster rules that he views as constraining his legislative agenda). 

He definitely won’t look for inspiration to Poland where President Andrzej Duda vetoed two proposed laws that would limit the independence of the judiciary.

This Isn’t Funny: OMG, how are we supposed to survive the Trump administration if our favorite foils keep getting whacked? First Sean Spicer resigns, no doubt moments before he would have been axed by his new boss, communications director Anthony Scaramucci. Then a short 11 days later Scaramucci is dumped by new chief of staff Kelly. 

Spicer and Scaramucci were made-for-TV-satire-comedy. Melissa McCarthy made Spicer into an Emmy-nominated caricature. And it was impossible not to be amazed and amused by Stephen Colbert’s spot-on mimicry of Scaramucci. 

It will be tough replacing these comic inspirations. Ex-Marine general Kelly just doesn’t have the same je-ne-sais-quoi. I guess we’ll just have to be content with Alec Baldwin’s Saturday Night Live send-up of Trump and Kate McKinnon’s portrayal of Kellyanne Conway. 

Bangladesh and Corporate Social Responsibility

In the three weeks since an eight-story garment factory building in Bangladesh collapsed and entombed more than 1,100 workers, there have been lots of media reports about the responsibility of American and European retailers and brand name companies to be more proactive in monitoring and demanding greater safety in the factories that inexpensively produce goods to be sold throughout the world at prices that would be far beyond the reach of the women and men who make them for an average monthly wage of just $37.  

The scramble is on. The scramble to avoid the appearance of insensitivity. Retailers and their brand name suppliers are scrambling to distance themselves from multiple tragedies in Bangladesh and Pakistan, even as worker-advocates press them to force their foreign manufacturers to be more conscious of safety and living wage measures (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/business/global/clothing-retailers-pressed-on-bangladesh-factory-safety.html?ref=business&_r=0). 

They don’t want their good names sullied by horrific misfortunes half a world away. Yet, like our politicians who often kick the can down the road rather than tackle controversial issues such as social security or tax reform, the retail community rarely takes decisive action. My 30-plus years covering the industry, reinforced by my reporter’s sensibilities, make me a cynic. Sadly, my feelings can be summed up by the last paragraph in The NY Times story linked above: 

“Kellie A. McElhaney, an expert on corporate social responsibility at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, predicted that these pressures would hardly sway the companies. ‘They are feeling a lot of pressure, but it’s not coming from consumers. It’s coming from N.G.O.’s,’ she said, referring to nongovernment organizations. ‘They’re not feeling it in the marketplace. I believe they’re going to do the bare minimum. The N.G.O.’s need to make more consumers aware of this.’”  

Here’s why I’m a cynic: Perhaps 10 to 15 years ago my magazine co-produced a conference called Making It Right. We worked with several corporate social responsibility NGOs to raise awareness about the sordid conditions many foreign workers were forced to toil under as they prepared apparel, sporting goods and other products Americans eagerly consumed because they were less expensive than they would be if U.S. workers produced them, or if higher wages were provided to the populations in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, China or any of the other Third World countries exploited for their cheap labor. Meeting at the Tenement Museum on Manhattan’s Lower East Side to plan the event, our conference advisory board had representatives from Gap, J.C. Penney and other retailers. Held at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in New York City, the conference attracted several hundred industry attendees. It was a thematic success, but little of any progress was made.

My takeaway from that conference was that price was the overwhelming driving force behind corporate decisions where sourcing would originate. For a few scant pennies per item, manufacturing contracts would shift from one country to another. Bangladesh became the second largest apparel producer in the world, behind China. If tragedies persist, and they surely will, the result most likely will not be safer standards or higher wages in that impoverished country. Rather, the people of Bangladesh, who rely on the garment industry for much of their economy, will be hurt by the desertion of apparel contracts as retailers and brand name companies migrate production to countries with low wages and labor conditions not (yet) under the media spotlight.

Though there have been some reports consumers are becoming more conscious of where and how their purchases are produced, I’m not optimistic there will be a tidal wave of change. I don’t profess to be any better than the next person. I’d rather spend less on everything I buy, assuming the quality is comparable. But I do believe retailers, especially large companies like H&M, Wal-Mart, Target, Nike, Gap, and their important suppliers, such as Ralph Lauren and Calvin Klein, can demand more accountability from their overseas factories, even to the point where they underwrite safety improvements. The few pennies more each of us in America and Europe would pay to prevent catastrophes would hardly impact our way of life. But it would go a long way into assuring a better life, maybe even continued life, for those faceless workers who make our lives easier and more fashionable.

   

If Someone Comes to Kill You ...

Most Tuesday mornings from October through early June I participate in a Bible study class at our temple. We’re making our way through Exodus this year. Part of today’s lesson from chapter 22 of Exodus dealt with the concept of self-defense. If a home invasion happens when it is light, it is not permissible to kill the intruder as it is presumed he would flee or surrender if discovered. However, if a thief enters a home at night, a resident may kill the intruder with impunity as it may be presumed the criminal would have had murderous intent if confronted. 

This reasoning led to a long-accepted rabbinic maxim, “He who comes to kill you, kill him first.” 

Today, June 5, was a most appropriate time to consider this precept. It is the 45th anniversary of the Six Day War, Israel’s pre-emptive strike on Egypt and Syria. (Interestingly and coincidentally, today the United States confirmed Al-Qaeda’s second in command had been killed Monday, presumably in a drone attack inside Pakistan.)

The 1967 crisis in the Middle East had been building for months. Egypt expelled United Nations peacekeepers who guarded the Sinai border with Israel. It closed the Straits of Tiran to ships bound for Eilat. A blockade is considered an act of war. Arab countries vowed to drive Israelis into the sea, to dismember the Jewish state. 

Jews the world over feared another Holocaust. Anyone with relatives or friends in Israel were doubly worried. My sister, Lee, was in Israel, studying at Hebrew University. For the last few weeks she had been packing crackers for army rations. 

Monday morning, June 5, 1967, I drove from our parents’ home to Brooklyn College, taking up my usual position at the Knight House “fraternity” table in the Boylan Hall cafeteria. Around 10, word started to trickle in that war had broken out. This was not the era of instant worldwide communications, of CNN or cell phones, of 24-hour news cycles. Israel controlled the dissemination of news from its territory. In those first, terrifying, stomach-churning hours, the only reports we heard were those coming from Egypt, communiqués about Arab troops advancing on Tel Aviv, of Zionists falling in a jihad of epic proportions.

It was not until well into the afternoon or early evening that the true picture of the day’s events became known. The startling revelation of Israel’s air power superiority, coupled with its armored division successes, exceeded even the most optimistic expectations of the 19-year-old country’s supporters. 

Sometimes it is hard for contemporary observers to fully comprehend the fragility of Israel’s existence. From being considered a David facing the Arab Goliath in 1967, the roles have been reversed in the ensuing 45 years. Yet even today a visitor to Israel cannot be anything but wary when hostile borders surround the state, which is but a speck of green in an otherwise sandy expanse. Artillery fire could easily reach Israel’s population centers back in 1967. As it can today. It’s too much to expect friendly neighbors. Secure, peaceful borders, however, are legitimate demands. But if one side is still determined to annihilate you, rising up early to kill them is not just a biblical injunction, it’s a present day imperative. 

Foreign Affairs

Almost everyone agrees the linchpin issue in the upcoming presidential election will be the economy. No argument there. But I do have an opinion as to why foreign affairs commands relatively little attention, or respect, from the American public.

In my view, we can’t relate to people and countries where we cannot easily figure out the gender of those interviewed or profiled.

Humor me. Take this short quiz. Listed below are 12 names of people recently quoted in The NY Times. Your task is to match them to their countries and, more importantly, determine if they are male or female. Some countries are the answer for more than one person. The correct answers are at the bottom of this post.

Score 1 point for each correct answer of country and and 1 point for the right sex:

0-5 points qualify you to work at IHOP (the International House of Pancakes)
6-10 points qualify you to be Herman Cain’s national security advisor
11-15 points qualify you to be a guard along the Texas-Mexico border
16-20 points qualify you to be United Nations ambassador
21-24 points qualify you to be secretary of state

Names
1. Nargis Sethi
2. Ma Ying-jeou
3. Tsai Ing-wen
4. Bi-khim Hsiao
5. Keri Chang
6. Wen Jiabao
7. Chafik Chraibi
8. Shirin Ebadi
9. Wey Kwo-dong
10. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
11. Enver Baig
12. Dilma Rousseff

Countries
A. Brazil
B. Burma
C. China
D. Pakistan
E. Morocco
F. Iran
G. Taiwan


The B-word Is Back, Never Gone: Apparently, Jay-Z didn’t author the poem in which he renounced using the b-word in his songs to describe women, including his wife Beyoncé and his daughter Blue Ivy. Jay-Z told The NY Daily News the whole thing was a sham perpetrated by parties unknown.

Too bad. Jay-Z could have struck a blow for gender respect. Instead, he will continue to be a misogynist.


Now, back to the quiz...


Answers, including sex
1D-female; 2G-male; 3G-female; 4G-female; 5G-female; 6C-male; 7E-male; 8F-female; 9G-male; 10B-female; 11D-male; 12A-female

The Blame Game

So the Republican intelligentsia, if I may be so bold to use that descriptor for the Neanderthal-thinking men and women who gave us pre-9/11-ineptitude followed by nine years of tragic war in Iraq and 10 years of tragic war in Afghanistan, are now stumbling over themselves in their haste to criticize Barack Obama for ending our combat in Iraq as of December 31, 2011, conveniently ignoring the fact Obama will be enforcing an agreement forged by his predecessor, George W. Bush the Magnificent, a pact announced during that same memorable press conference in Baghdad when an Iraqi journalist threw his shoe at the leader of the free world. He missed.

Politics being what it is and always has been, it’s the spin that counts, so it’s not too surprising to find the GOP cranking up the latest stanza in its long-playing song, “Who Lost ?,” as in Who Lost China?, Who Lost Cuba?, Who Lost Vietnam?, Who Lost Iran?.

Safe to say, Republicans have no qualms tagging Democrats for all those losses. Moreover, despite their mismanaging the Iraq and Afghani wars from 2002 through 2008, they are sure to blame Obama and his Democratic cohorts for anything that goes wrong there, while conveniently ignoring any of Obama’s foreign policy successes such as the killings of Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. How disingenuous of the Republicans to give credit to the French and British for the overthrow of Libyan strongman Muammar al-Qaddafi without recognizing the critical support America provided.

But why should we confine ourselves to chastising just our domestic politicians. How is it that under Bush we aligned ourselves with someone as duplicitous, so openly duplicitous, as Hamid Karzai? The president of Afghanistan told a Pakistani television station last weekend his country would side with Pakistan should it ever engage in a military conflict with the United States or India, both countries with strategic ties to Afghanistan.

Though he has now backtracked, claiming to have been “misinterpreted,” Karzai’s open display of ingratitude for the U.S. investment in lives and resources puts our continued support of his regime into question. Sadly, few if any Republican voices were raised in protest, as they were too busy blasting Obama for closing down the war in Iraq.

Listening today to NPR interview John Sununu, the former governor of New Hampshire and former chief of staff of the White House under President George Bush the First, I couldn’t stop wondering what political histories these guys read. In coming out for Mitt Romney, Sununu said the best presidents are former governors because they possess executive decision-making experience, unlike Obama who was just a senator and never had to make tough choices. Sununu cited Ronald Reagan and Franklin Delano Roosevelt as presidents who acted determinedly within their political beliefs.

It’s a nice theory, but doesn’t explain how two former governors—George Bush the Second and Jimmy Carter—screwed up royally, and how such non-governors as Harry S. Truman and three-quarters of those enshrined on Mt. Rushmore (Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln) are considered among our best presidents without having ever sat in a governor’s chair.

Bottom line: It comes down to the man or woman. You don’t have to be an ex-governor, like Bill Clinton, to be a good president. You must be a good politician who has deep beliefs and values that resonate with the American people.

Regardless of who is president, often their most enduring legacy comes from their appointments to the federal judiciary. It doesn’t always turn out the way they intended—Eisenhower thought he was appointing a conservative when he chose Earl Warren to head the Supreme Court. Nixon thought the same of Harry Blackmun, as did Bush the First of David Souter.

Obama’s two Supreme Court appointments, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, are quality selections, but he’s left some 80 vacancies on the lower courts. Unless he nominates some judges soon, and fights for their confirmations, any hope of balancing conservative bench strength on the circuit and appeals courts will be lost. That, to me would be the real tragedy of the Obama presidency.

(Editor’s Note: For those counting, this is the 400th blog entry since No Socks Needed Anymore began September 8, 2009. My thanks to all who have stayed with me for the entire run and to those who jumped on board mid-stream.)

Witch Hunt, Polls and Boring Hawaii

It's been reported that Christine O'Donnell, the defeated Tea Party candidate for U.S. Senator from Delaware, and self-proclaimed witch long before she had a political presence, is under investigation by the Feds for possible election law violations including possible use of campaign funds to pay for everyday living expenses such as rent.

O'Donnell has fired back, calling the probe "thug tactics" to keep her from having meaningful input into her state's and the nation's political futures. Pointedly, she did not call it a "witch hunt," but that won't stop the press, including yours truly, from categorizing it as such.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive."

O'Donnell isn't the only Republican femme fatale having her problems these days. According to a recent poll by Public Policy Polling, only one in three Alaskans have a favorable opinion of Sarah Palin, their former governor and favorite daughter vice presidential candidate who is mulling a presidential run in 2012. Her favorable ratings are down from nearly half, 47%, a year ago. Meanwhile, her negative scores increased to 58% from 45%.

On the plus side, Republicans outside of Alaska have a more favorable opinion of Palin. Which makes me wonder, shouldn't the rest of the country take its lead from those who know the devil best and not rely on some PR-puffed up princess of the north (OK, Mama Grizzly) image that she is projecting?

Borrrring.

That’s how I would describe the weather in Hawaii where President Obama and family currently are vacationing. Every day the temperature is 80 degrees, give or take a degree or two. Check it out on the Weather Channel.

Gilda and I have been to Hawaii twice, one April about 20 years ago to attend a drug store convention on Maui, the other to visit Ellie in January while she spent seven months on Oahu after she graduated from Skidmore College in 2003. Though we listened to the weather report every day, it really was unnecessary as it never varied: “Sunny, high 80 degrees with chance of scattered afternoon showers.”

Oh, sure, compared to a blizzard, 80 degrees sounds appealing. It surely is a respite from bitter cold and snow. But as a steady daily diet, I’m not sure I could tolerate one season basically 12 months a year.

Our trip to Maui was a star-studded affair. Drug stores may be among the most utilitarian outlets, but the people who put on their annual convention really knew how to party. They spent big bucks to inform and entertain.

The year we attended the convention, the association's president brought in speakers like William Safire and Benizar Bhutto, the former prime minister of Pakistan. The women's program featured handbag doyenne Judith Lieber. The final evening's showcase performer was Liza Minnelli. Bob Hope, looking barely alive, did stand-up, barely, at a private party sponsored by a cosmetics company.

Oh, did I forget to mention the drug store association's president was Ron Ziegler, President Nixon's press secretary? I took the opportunity to remind Ziegler we met briefly in the White House back in 1972. He was courteous but not really impressed. I'm sure he met lots of people back in those heady days of pushing power, not pills.

Not sure if my computer will be returned from the Apple store in time for another posting before the celebrations begin tomorrow night, so here's best wishes for an enjoyable and safe New Year's Eve for everyone and a hope that 2011 will be brighter and healthier for all.

Double Standards

The loss of any innocent life is to be regretted, but two concurrent protests against the use of force by U.S. and Israeli military forces raise some troubling double standard questions. Actually, it’s a double-standard squared problem, as I will explain.

I am all for democratic countries waging war under “civilized” principles that include safeguarding civilian populations and never knowingly setting out to harm non combatants. It’s a standard all too often ignored by their foes. But one reason we believe America and Israel engage in “just wars” is the manner in which they are prosecuted. Both countries try to avoid civilian casualties.

The U.S., according to CBS News sources, has killed more than 500 terrorists in Pakistan over the last two years. They include the third-ranking Al Qaeda leader, killed in the last week. All died without the loss of a single U.S. serviceman, thanks to the technological efforts of our increasingly sophisticated unmanned drone air force. But in killing those terrorists, 30 civilians also died, CBS reported. Scores of civilians have died in Afghanistan from drone attacks, as well. A United Nations report claims drone strikes “amount to a license to kill” without being held accountable since neither the U.S. nor the Pakistani governments acknowledge the drones are operating over Pakistani soil. Further, the rise in drone warfare could lead to its adoption by other countries that would not be as discriminating in its use, the U.N. said (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/world/03drones.html?ref=world).

The death of nine activists aboard a ship trying to pierce the blockade of the the Gaza Strip has once again raised voices protesting Israel’s right to defend itself. Hardly a whimper is heard when North Korea sinks a South Korean vessel, or when one Muslim faction blows up innocents praying at a mosque. But when Israel justifiably tries to determine if contraband and explosives are part of cargo bound for an enemy that has vowed its destruction, the world seems to awaken from its lethargy. Even the United States seems ready to castigate a reliable partner in the war on terror.

And yet, and here’s where the double-standard squared part comes in, read through the remarks made by a U.S. official justifying the drone attacks: “The United States has an inherent right to protect itself and will not refrain from doing so based on someone else’s exceptionally narrow—if not faulty—definition of self-defense.” Perhaps someone in the Obama administration needs to put that statement, substituting Israel for the United States, in front of the president and every other world leader and their respective staffs. No government in a state of war, as Israel is with Hamas, should be expected to sit by idly while its enemy arms itself with weapons that could penetrate major population centers. Hamas already has shown it does not wage “civilized” war. It purposely fires missiles into civilian areas.

I regret the loss of life on the Mavi Marmara. I regret Israel’s military precision failed to secure its objective without the loss of life. But I most regret the absence of a single, civilized standard adhered to by all combatants and the failure of the American government’s understanding that Israel has no room for slight miscalculations, that its existence depends on eternal vigilance. As candidate Barack Obama said during a visit to Sderot on the border of the Gaza Strip, "If missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that."