Immigration: A Pathway to Citizenship!

It’s time to Break It Down!

Yesterday in Las Vegas, Nevada, President Obama said “Now is the time for common sense, comprehensive, immigration reform.”The topic of immigration has been in the Top 10 of most political lists since Mr. Obama entered the White House.In part, this is true because he promised to address Immigration Reform during his first term, but did not do so in a comprehensive way.

After winning a second term, propelled in large part by attracting 70% of the Latino vote, both the President’s promise and Latinos’ insistence that he honor it have surged to a place near the top of the charts in importance.  In fact, it is not just the President and Democrats who feel now is the time to move on this issue.  Republicans, given their surprisingly poor showing in the Presidential and Senatorial elections, are motivated to rehabilitate their relationship with the Latino community.

  • What’s changed, honestly, is that there is a new, I think, appreciation on both sides of the aisle — including maybe more importantly on the Republican side of the aisle — that we have to enact a comprehensive immigration reform bill.”     (This past Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.)

All of this newfound attention to “dealing with” the issue of immigration strikes me as more than a little ironic.  For decades, I have detected a certain disdain for immigrants.And further back than I have observed, historical evidence, from a variety of citations, indicates immigrants have been subjected to some serious rites of passage as they inured themselves to the “exceptional” existence men and women experience here in America; Land of the free; home of the brave.

The Irish, Polish, and various groups of Latinos, among others, have faced great resistance in their efforts to settle here in America.  But hold up!Let’s go back and examine the sheer hypocrisy of the notion that somehow, immigrants are a bad for America.

Depending upon what or how you remember your American History, Christopher Columbus discovered America.  He didn’t of course, but that is probably how a lot of folks recall it.

In 1492, Columbus landed in the Bahamas.  He made four separate voyages to the Americas, including to the Greater Antilles, to the Lesser Antilles, and to VenezuelaColumbus, an Italian, claimed all four of these locales for the Spanish EmpireChristopher was many things; among them, an explorer, a colonizer, a directionally challenged navigator, and perhaps most significantly…a bald-faced liar.

The “Gentleman from Genoa,” after having his proposal rejected by John II, King of Portugal, persuaded King Ferdinand II of Aragon, and Queen Isabella I of Castile (who had united a number of Kingdoms of the Spanish Empire) that he could search for and find a western route to the Orient.  In his quest to reach Japan, he landed in the Bahamas archipelago.  In this and his subsequent voyages, he reported to the Spanish rulers that he’s landed in and was occupying the East Indies.  In support of this falsehood, he “named the inhabitants of the area Indios,” Spanish for Indians.  That was his story and he stuck to it.

Amerigo Vespucci, also an Italian, was a financier, cartographer, navigator, and explorer.  Between 1499 and 1502, Vespucci made two voyages to what would later be named America, in his honor.  He disproved the notion that Brazil and the West Indies were Asia’s eastern outskirts, as conjectured by Columbus; instead, they were a separate landmass, hitherto unknown to Afro-Eurasians.  They were part of what was at the time known colloquially as the New World.

But this geo-historic puzzle is not complete.  While not part of the typical American’s lore, Leif Ericson, a Norse explorer arrived in North America, and established a settlement at Vinland, on the northern tip of Newfoundlandin modern day Canada, in 999Columbus arrival would not occur until 1492, nearly 500 years later.

Columbus, Vespucci, and Ericson had at least two pursuits in common.  They were all explorers, of course, but perhaps more important each of the men was a colonizer.  As such, they claimed the lands they “discovered” for the governments they represented.  Moreover, they were granted considerable authority over the land areas they claimed.

The territory that we now know as the United States of Americawas not successfully settled until much later.  Jamestown Settlement in Virginia was established in 1607.  To clarify; it was not the first colony in the United States.  However, it was the first successful English Colony.

On July 4, 1584, an expedition dispatched by Sir Walter Raleigh landed at Roanoke Island, in Dare County, North Carolina.  On August 18, 1587, Virginia Dare became the first child born in Americato English parents in the short-lived Roanoke Colony.  As such, Ananias Dare and his wife Eleanor  became the first American immigrants to have a child born in the New WorldMs. Dare became the first child potentially eligible for coverage by the modern-day DREAM Act.  In short, that’s when it all began.  For the next 425 years, life in America has been shaped, molded, and quite frankly dominated by immigrants…and of course slaves.

You see, this is part and parcel to a plethora of dirty little secrets that regularly go untold from day-to-day in America.  Fortunately, we live in an era when unmentioned does not necessarily equate to undocumented.  So it is, when the air is filled with all the bluster and banality about how the well-being of our great Republic is threatened by the scourge of a profusion of immigrants, I remember those expeditions to Roanoke, and to Jamestown; I recall the slavers’ treks to the Port of Charleston, and in quiet reflection, I think about the words of “The New Colossus,” a sonnet, written in 1883 by Emma Lazarus, the words of which were engraved on a bronze plaque mounted on the lower level of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty in 1903:

With conquering limb astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightening, and her name

Mother of Exiles.  From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!”  cries she

With silent lips.  “Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

The more the claptrap continues, the more I think about the words in the opening stanza of Woody Guthrie’s “This Land:”

This land is your land, this land is my land

From the California to the Staten New York Island,

From the Redwood Forest, to the Gulf stream waters,

God blessed Americafor me.

And when I envision the dimensions and demographics of “This Land” when the settlers, or immigrants, or whatever you prefer to call them, arrived, I see that “This Land” was already inhabited.  But that’s not all; I am reminded that large portions of America’s indigenous people were wiped out by virulent strains of a variety of diseases that the Europeans brought to the “New World.”  Moreover, many of those who survived were dispossessed, uprooted; driven away from the only place they had ever called home…or killed, if they resisted.

In clear-eyed retrospect, I can see why many people are so concerned about the inherent dangers of immigration.  If one ascribes the motives and actions of the original settlers and their benefactors to contemporary immigrants, potential consequences could, in their view, indeed be dire.  In fact, if the horizon were to incorporate those dynamics, the gun-lobby’s fixation could also be explained.

Of course, the fact is, we live in a different world.  The challenges, and there are challenges, are different.  Now our charge is to figure out how to integrate immigrants into our nation’s economic machinery; not how to keep them from ripping our country out of our grasp.Through it all, we should remember that as this country was being founded, a simple truth resonated…”Immigration: A Pathway to Citizenship!”  Thus, it is as it has ever been.  Moreover, whether the folks we call founders were Pilgrims, Patriots, or merely pilferers, no one complained about them being extended amnesty.
I’m done; holla back!
Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.comor http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday.
To subscribe, click on Followin the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com;enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”  Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.
For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

President Obama 2.0: In Our Time!

It’s time to Break It Down!

Two days ago, our nation’s 44th President addressed the Country in its 57th Inauguration.  It took a while, but on Monday, at long last, President Obama proclaimed in no uncertain terms, and in full-throat, his personal belief that Americais indeed, an exceptional nation.  So often, spokesmen of rival political and ideological factions have derided the President because they contend the President rejects the exceptionalism of America.

Of course, it should be noted, he did so in his own inimitable style; using phraseology that his most robustly ardent critics decried…as they always do, no matter what he says.In this particular instance, what he said was:

  • “What makes us exceptional, what makes us America is our allegiance to an idea articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

As the President expounded on the relevance of the historic phrase in contemporary terms, he said:

  • Today we continue a never-ending journey to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they’ve never been self-executing. That while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by his people here on earth.

The “Rushites,” the Fox Newsteam, the Tea Party Movement, and Republican elected officials and many of the voters who made them (elected officials) likely winced and released a collective audible sigh, if in fact they bothered to watch/listen to the President’s remarks. 

At Fox News, they get paid to follow and critique the President, so I took a moment to observe the reaction by the Fox Newscrew.  I can say truly, I do not recall a single commentator saying he or she found anything positive in the President’s speech.  If only that were news, original, or even unusual!

As most of you know, Monday was a double bonus for Americans who believe in social justice, value diversity, and hope to see the emergence a progressive American agenda.  I suppose that made it a dual bane for the Right Wing zealotry.  It was the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday and President Obama’s second InaugurationPOTUS acknowledged and validated the significance of these twin occasions by brilliantly weaving the spirit and themes of various civil rights movements with words and propositions put forth by America’s Founding Fathers in our country’s primordial documents; the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

At several pauses, pregnant with the weight of the moment, the President infused his remarks with a simple and eloquent phrase, taken directly from the Constitution:“We, the people!”

The opening of the Constitution in its original form is written thusly:

  • We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

President Obama used the golden phrase five times; each time to distill and drive home a salient point central to his address.  They include:

  • For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a     shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.”
  • We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of     security and dignity.  We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit.”
  • We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity.  We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”
  • We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not     require perpetual war.”
  • We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truth that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.”  

In choosing his remarks, thePresident elevated the ideals of the Founders, but emphasized need for what comedian, television host, and political commentator Bill Maher refers to as New Rules.  In other words, the principles may be eternal, but the mechanisms for implementation must be altered to fit the times.  President Obama put it this way:

  • “For we have always understood that when times change, so must we, that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges, that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.”

In articulating his second Inaugural message, the President spoke confidently; resolutely.  He seemed to know the moment was his, and he embraced that knowledge.That simple truth serves to ensure that a country often described as split down the middle will not likely soon settle into a nationwide chorus of “We Are The World.”  Add to that a vengeful Right Wing, still bitter from November’sloss, juxtaposed against, Democrats aching to see “their guy” grow a spine and fight more vigorously for issues they believe in.

With that in mind, POTUS used part of his nineteen-minute speech to call for Americans to work collaboratively in an effort to conquer our country’s challenges.  Specifically, he said:

  • “My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment and we will seize it, so long as we seize it together.”

Still, in broaching the subject of seeking cooperation, he resisted the idea that “saving the children…and their future, means deep-sixing Boomers and the elderly.  In fact, he adamantly opposed such a position.  He put it thusly:

  • “But we flatly reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.”

One sequence, to which conservatives on the news and talk circuits seemed to take utmost umbrage, was the President’s robust defense of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.  He maintained that America’s commitment to these programs does not sap our initiative; rather it strengthens it.He submitted that these commitments do not make the United  States a country of takers; rather they free us to take the risks that make us great.

In distilling the discussion to its essence, POTUS framed the matter sublimely, saying:

  • “Progress does not compel us to settle century’s long debates about the role of government for all time, but it does require us to act in our time.”

To provide you with a more personal sense of the moment, I have provided links to both video of the President’s speech, as well as the text.  With that I give you a composite of the 2013 Inaugural; “President Obama 2.0: In Our Time!”

I’m done; holla back.

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.comor http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Followin the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com;enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”  Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/21/16625065-obama-takes-ceremonial-oath-tells-nation-our-journey-is-not-complete?lite

Conspiracy Theory: Prof Says Newtown Staged…Really?

It’s time to Break It Down!

It’s difficult to think of a way to upstage the tragedy of the recent shooting of 20 first graders at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut…and ultimately make it worse.  Alas, it has been done.

In a previous post (http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com/2012/12/this-time-will-be-different.html), I addressed the Newtown shootings.  The events of December 14, 2012 in Newtown are still firmly etched in American current events; I will not deign to reprise them in this space.

Today, President Obama will reveal his proposal to stem gun violence in America.  That endeavor will undoubtedly garner a great deal of attention, and may be the topic of a future post; not today, however.

Instead because I was unable to shake the degree to which I was flabbergasted by the assertions of Florida Atlantic University (FAU/Boca Raton, FL) Professor James Tracy, I will spend a few minutes sharing his views and claims.  Given the degree to which his comments fly in the face of convention, it is surprising, though perhaps fortunate, that his positions have gained so little exposure and traction among the masses.

Mr. Tracy, a tenured associate communications professor, apparently has a history of involvement with conspiracy theories.  Two overarching themes held by the professor, in relation to Sandy Hook, are:

1.     He questions whether the Sandy Hook massacre occurred?

2.     He suggests the entire Sandy Hook scenario was contrived by the Obama administration to promote a gun control agenda.

For the parents of the 20 deceased students, the families of the 6 school administrators who were fatally shot, and even the relatives of the suicidal shooter and his murdered mother, these dual premises must seem at once, crude, offensive, and appalling.  The extent to which Professor Tracy has pushed to redefine the tragedy is truly mind-numbing.  A few examples of his thinking on the Connecticutshootings include:

·        “Regardless of where one stands on the Second Amendment and gun control, it is not unreasonable to suggest the Obama administration complicity or direct oversight of an incident that has in very short order sparked a national debate on the very topic—and not coincidentally remains a key piece of Obama’spolitical platform,” the 47-year-old tenured professor of communication wrote on his blog, memoryholeblog.com.

·        “While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place — at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation’s news media have described.”

·        Tracy also called a gut-wrenching public appearance by Robert Parker, the father of a first-grader who was shot to death, “contrived,” and asked Florida’s Sun-Sentinel newspaper, “Was this to a certain degree constructed? Was this a drill?”

·        “Something most likely took place,” he told the newspaper. “One is left with the impression that a real tragedy took place.”

·        At one point Tracyeven suggested that no one died in Newtown; rather the characters involved were all actors.

As the toxic fumes of Professor Tracy’s narrative reached wider circles, starting in his own blog, then, coursing through Florida media circles, and eventually reaching national outlets, such as CNN, push back did emerge eventually.  His anti-Obama/anti-mainstream media spin naturally attracted instant currency among those who hate the current POTUS, and from within the segment of the populace that always questions and/or doubts the pronouncements of mainstream media.

However, even some FAUstudents expressed embarrassment at the odd, if not absurd renderings of such a highly placed denizen of the educational institution to which they are inextricably connected.  A number of media and members of the Blogosphere labeled the FAU educator, “The Nutty Professor;” a take-off on the 1963 Jerry Lewis film and/or its 1996/2000 reprise Franchise (Eddie Murphy).  The highest elected official in Newtown, First Selectman Patricia Llodra, called upon FAU to rescind his tenure, and to terminate the professor.

Apparently, Professor Tracy was unprepared for the high volume and sharp tenor of the reaction to his position and resulting commentary.He is now beginning to modulate and walk back some of his most outlandish comments.  The tagline on his blog, Memory Hole is:

  • We are     not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign     ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values.  For a nation that is afraid to let its     people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation afraid     of its people.” – President John F. Kennedy

As it turns out, James Tracy is discovering not only the truth of that trenchant quote by President Kennedy, but also the power of the truism.  To paraphrase President Obama, “Actions have consequences.”  As a consequence of the professor’s actions, a wide range of factions has risen up to challenge, and moreover, smack down the mendacious lunacy of a ridiculous alternative narrative.So on this day, relax, and don’t believe the hype; “Conspiracy Theory: Prof Says Newtown Was Staged…Really?”

I will leave you with one final thought on the matter of gun violence in our beloved America.  As of yesterday, in the 32 days that have ensued since the Newtownmassacre, 917 Americans have been killed by fire arms.  On average, that’s 28.656 per day…or put another way, the numerical equivalent of Sandy Hook (20 students, 6 teachers and administrators, the shooter’s mother and the shooter), plus .656.  Regardless of ones position on the Second Amendment, the problem is huge.  Action is not just appropriate; it’s required.

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com or http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Followin the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”  Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nutty_Professor_(1996_film)

Split Personality: The AIG Story Revised!

It’s time to Break It Down!

In the fall of 2008, I penned a blog entitled, “A Crisis of Confidence: Economic Homeland Insecurity!” That tome focused on a variety of issues related to the then emerging Great American Financial Armageddon. The central theme of the post, however, revolved around the calamitous and irresponsible actions taken by American International Group, Inc., more familiarly, AIG, and the bailout that followed those actions.

Back on September 17, 2008, when I posted the blog referenced above, America and its economy teetered on the precipice of a catastrophic financial collapse, and no institution was more integral to what might have been, than AIG. To provide a condensed CliffNotes-like summary, the following 5 bullet points frame the lay of the land and AIG’s pivotal role at the apex of the financial threat, as I described it at the time:

· I would posit, aside from the truly financially savvy, most people never heard of, or at least never paid any attention to, AIG. If that is true, indeed, ignorance was bliss. Yes, the company has had a series of TV commercials, but in the age of TiVo and DVR, who watches commercials?

· For the record, AIG is a major insurance company, with offices around the world. Founded in 1919 in Shanghai by Cornelius Vander Starr, AIG is headquartered in New York City. The company’s UK Offices are located in London, the Continental Europe operations are based in Paris, and its Asian Headquarters is in Hong Kong. Beginning to get the picture? AIG, a global conglomerate, became a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average in 2004, and was cited by Forbes in 2008 as being the 18th largest company in the world.

· Just 3 days ago, the feds opted not to bail out Lehman Brothers after a weekend- long effort by the bank to persuade the Government to do just that. So why save AIG?

· For starters AIG is in a league of its own. Government officials decided they had to act, lest the nation’s largest insurer file bankruptcy. Such a move would roil world markets since AIG has 1.1 T, as in trillion, dollars in assets, and 74 million clients in 130 countries. Plus, AIG’s insurance businesses make so much money they could conceivably pay off the cost of the bailout within a few years.

· AIG is far and away the largest insurer in the world. A quick search of any sampling of mutual funds or any S&P 500 index fund is likely to show the inclusion of the Company’s stock. AIG is a staple in 401k, and has been singly responsible for deflating the Dow more than 400 points this year.

Fast forward four years, 3 months and change; what has become of the great bailout? Well first and foremost, at that time we had yet to plumb the depths of the crisis. There were additional bailouts, a series of embarrassing “additional expenditures,” including, over identifying $1.2 billion in employee bonuses, plus millions more dedicated to expensive retreats at posh venues, and a number of instances in which AIG had to pay out billions to financial institutions, including, Goldman Sachs and Société Générale, to retire obligations related to credit default swaps (CDS). All of this occurred in 2008.

A lot has changed in the ensuing years. Indeed, AIG, as I noted many people projected back in 2008, has repaid the money the U.S. used to bail them out; all of it. Moreover, they have kicked in an additional $22 billion to cover Uncle Sam’s tab for interest payments. It would seem all is good; right?

Well its not! AIG has announced that it is considering suing the Federal Government. The Board of AIG, including current Chairman Robert Benmosche is currently contemplating joining a suit filed by former Chairman Maurice (Hank) Greenberg alleging the Federal Government went too far by demanding exacting terms when it rescued the company in 2008. While no decision had been made, current Chairman Benmosche insists that in order to fulfill its fiduciary responsibilities, the AIG Board must consider joining the suit.

Let’s be clear, AIG had not yet said it will join the suit. It is possible that it may still opt not to take this “beyond the pale” next step. Alternately, the mere fact that the Board is considering joining the suit, which I might add, has already been thrown out by one court, means that the prospect exists that AIG will bite the proverbial “hand that fed it” during its moment of extreme duress.

It’s been a moment since the bailout went down. As a general rule, Americans are accused of having short memories. That is perceived to be one of the reasons why elected officials often flout the law, and a few years later, get re-elected. If, in fact, Mr. Benmosche and the AIG Board opt to join Mr. Greenberg’s suit, he and they would appear to be betting that Americans will have forgotten the enmity and utter disgust they held due to the United States having opted to extend AIG a bail out.

Even now, I am convinced AIG was “Too big to fail.” Moreover, I am comfortable with the notion that the AIG Board, whose responsibility is to look out for and make decisions in the best interest of shareholders, does have an obligation to review its options in this instance. Alas, if AIG actually decides to join Mr. Greenberg’s suit, I will default to the position that AIG is totally devoid of reasoning, since it was the Board’s irresponsible bets that led them to edge of their own corporate FiscalCliff. I will surmise they are too greedy to merit America’s collective empathy; just too damn arrogant for words…period!

From thank-you to sue you; if it plays out that way, we will see a classic case of, “SplitPersonality: The AIG Story Revised!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com or http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_Group

http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com/2008/09/crisis-of-confidence-homeland-economic.html

http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/08/news/companies/aig-lawsuit/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

http://www.aig.com/home_3171_411330.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01/08/aig-bailout-lawsuit-maurice-greenberg/1566158/

http://www.examiner.com/article/aig-runs-ad-thanking-america-for-tarp-money-bailout-but-may-file-25b-lawsuit

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2013/01/08/benmosche-aig-paid-back-taxpayers-but-we-still-have-to-consider-suing-them/

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-aig-suit-bailout-greenberg-20130108,0,4871507.story

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100361095

Deal or No Deal?

It’s time to Break It Down!

I was tempted to stick with convention and simply make this a traditional New Year’s Day (Holiday) blog.  However, even casual observers are likely engaged on some level with the discussion around efforts to avert the Fiscal Cliff.  With this in mind, here’s what’s up with that!

Shortly after midnight onTuesday, January 1st, the Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill to avert the Fiscal Cliff.  Since the Senate is currently occupied by a majority of Democrats, it is not surprising the bill passed.  That it passed easily, 89-8, including with the votes of 40 of the 45 Republicans who voted, was somewhat unexpected.

The Democratic leadership was concerned enough to assign Vice President Biden the dual role of co-lead negotiator, along with Republican Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, as well as marshaling the troops to make sure Democrats supported the bill.That the GOP supported the effort in such sizable numbers was certainly significant.

On the other side of the aisle, in the House of Representatives, there is still a lingering lack of consensus about placing Country before politics.  The House spent most of yesterday dallying instead of voting.  There are at least two reasons for the reluctance to act by the House.

First, there is the matter of politicsGrover Norquist, whom I have previously referenced, has challenged all Republicansto pledge not to raise taxes.  In an effort to comply with this pledge, the GOP brain trust designed a hype rmicro-managing maneuver that resulted in a commitment by House Republicans to not vote on Monday on any Fiscal Cliff bill approved by Senate.  Rather, they would wait until Tuesday to take action.  This way, even if they were to approve a measure passed by the Senate, it would be after the Countryofficially” went over the Fiscal Cliff, which meant technically, the House would be rolling back tax increases brought on by having gone over the Cliff, instead of increasing taxes, in concert with the Senate bill.

There’s an old saying that goes something like this: “When you’re about to get run out of town on a rail, get out in front and call it a parade.”  In line with that thought, Mr. Norquist went on record yesterday, saying he supports the Senatebill.  And by the way, of course he declared it was not a tax increase.  Oh what a tangled web we weave!

Second, there is the matter of politics (repetition intended).  Several of the most vocal leaders of the movement to push back on the Senate bill are doing so with a clear eye on their next election, or their next position of leadership.  Senators Marco Rubio (FL), and Rand Paul (KY) have already made clear, or intimated their interest in running for President in 2016Representative Eric Cantor (VA) appears to be positioning himself to make a potential challenge to Representative John Boehner (OH), for Speaker of the House.  Staking themselves out in positions opposed to President Obama…and to tax increases, looms large with Tea Party members and other fiscal conservatives whose support they crave…and whom they need desperately, if they are to recognize their ambitions.

This dynamic clash of ideas and ideals will end, at least temporarily, by Thursday, one way or another.January 3rd will mark the installation of the 113th Congress, and the close of service of the current Congress.  That means, If the measure, approved by both Houses, Is not on the President’s desk by noon Thursday, the bill dies, and Congress would have to start anew.  Just to be clear, the GOP has less leverage over this process today than they did on December 31st, and they will have somewhat less leverage Thursday, as the 113th Congress has a few more Democrats in both Houses of Congress, and of course, Mr. Obama will still be President; advantage Democrats.

As yesterday evening wound down, the House seemed to come to the realization that there is a need to at least vote on the Senate approved measure, versus trying to deleverage it by adding an amendment, or a series of amendments to amp up the number of spending cuts.  It was projected that the House would schedule a vote around after debate.  A move to exempt the vote from standing rules, which require a 72-hour review period before a vote, began around 9:00 p.m. EST.

The House approved the exemption, and subsequently voted 257-167 to approve the bill, culminating the action around 11:00 p.m.  Speaker Boehner and House Budget Committee Chairman Ryan voted for the measure; House Majority Leader Cantor did not.  In the other Chamber, Senator Rubio also did not vote for the Senate version of the bill.  Overall, Democrats voted 172-16 in favor of the bill while Republicans voted 151-85 against it.  President Obama made brief comments after the vote, and was reportedly quickly off to join his family in Honolulu, Hawaii, where he will resume his vacation.     

Lest anyone suffer from the illusion that the resolution of this issue means the matter is over, and we may now move on with our lives; woe be unto your vision of the way things work.  Two months from now this discordant debate will be revisited upon us with gusto, as the new battle lines will be drawn around the dual issues of the debt ceiling, and the delayed sequestration.

Clearly, there will be time and multiple opportunities in the future to address these twin challenges.  The news cycles will likely begin elevating them before the ink is dry on the Fiscal Cliff legislation.  For now, the answer to question, “Deal, or no Deal?” is Deal!

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.comor http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Following the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com;enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”  Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/113th_United_States_Congress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

“12 Days of Christmas: The Concert – Redux”

It’s time to Break It Down!

(Reprinted from Break It Down – 12/21/11)

Merry Christmas to you! I know some of you are caught up in the whole “We Are The (Secular) World” trip; thus the substitute Holiday for Christmas in seasonal greetings. Of course those innately curious enough to conduct the requisite etymological research know that the root derivation of holiday is “Holy Day;” but I digress; that is fodder for another day’s fight.

By now many of you have already begun your well-planned and no doubt, richly deserved hiatus from work. You may even have finished your shopping and taken care of all the major errands that accompany preparing for the Big Day. Perhaps all that remains is packing and/or traveling; maybe that throw-down cooking marathon that precedes the arrival of the family, friends, and guests whom you will host over the coming week.

As is my custom, I will not use this Christmas Season Post, if you will allow me to call it that, to challenge you to sort the facts, be they esoteric or mundane. No, this is your time to take advantage of the opportunity to hang out with your guests, or to be a guest, and enjoy the hospitality of friends and famiy.

In the true spirit of keeping it simple for both you and me, I am, as the Title suggests, reprising a previous post.  In fact,  not just any previous post; not even just any prior Christmas Post.  I am, for all intents and purposes re-posting the entry from last Christmas.

The English playwright and poet, William Congreve, in the opening line of his 1697 Play entitled The Mourning Bride,” asserted, “Musick has Charms to soothe a savage Breast, To soften rocks, or bend a knotted Oak.”  I think Congreve was on to something.  If indeed music is capable of enabling us to overcome our basest instincts, and in so doing, ennoble us to pursue our finer impulses, then indeed, we should take more opprotunities to render ourselves captivated by it’s magical spell. (By the way, it really is breast…not beast; caught you thinking, didn’t I?)  😉

So, last year, I identified and pulled together an assortment of my favorite Christmas Standards.  This year, I am offering the same artistic olio for your reading, viewing, and listening pleasiure. Below, you will find bios for the 14 artists, the 13 youtube video interpretations, and the 12 songs listed and included in the form of a Yuletide e-concert. The information and links below tell the essence of the story; but there are a few points I wish to amplify for your consideration.

The number in parenthesis after each artist’s name is his or her current age, or the age at which the artist died, in the cases of James Brown, Eartha Kitt, John Coltrane, Nat King Cole, and Donny Hathaway. Each artist, song and interpretation is special in its own right.

The legendary Godfather of Soul, as James Brown became known, died on Christmas Day (2006, aged 73), as did Eartha Kitt (2008, aged 81), whom shall ever remain, to many of us, the incomparably personified Catwoman. There was both a surreal sadness and a resolute completeness associated with them ending their respective earthly journeys on Christmas Day, two years apart. Both artists were born in South Carolina; Brown in Barnwell, and Kitt, in North. Brown was renowned for his energetic performances, which earned him another of his many titles, “Hardest working man in show business.” His rendition of “Merry Christmas Baby” was a reminder that he had earned his chops the hard way, and that he was much more than flash and dash. Kitt’sSanta Baby” is on my list, not only because it is a classic; it is, but also because like me, it was born in 1953. I’d like to think we both (the song and I) have held up well.

Donny Hathaway’sThis Christmas” quite simply personifies Christmas for many of us. Hathaway, an initiate of Howard University’s Beta Chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, was a brilliant musician, but a troubled man. He endured bouts of depression and suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, which ultimately led him to commit suicide (1979, aged 33). “This Christmas,” however, lives on, and along with it and many of his other classics, so does his melodious voice.

Chris Brown (age 22), has had his moments. He is known in most circles as either the Pied Piper to Generation Y (Millennials), or That Guy…you know, the one who beat down Robyn Fenty (age 23); Rihanna to you! This post will not attempt to moralize, or capitalize in any other way on the beef between these two. Rather, for the purposes of this commentary, I wanted to touch upon Chris’ cover of Hathaway’s classic tune. I think he did a fine job, and is an example that, many voices to the contrary, Gen X’ers are not only capable, but do in fact, continue to perpetuate the tradition of making great music.

Nat King Cole (1965, aged 45) and Natalie Cole (age 61), father and daughter, both stellar musicians, in their own right, also represent two successive generations of the “family business.” Though the elder Cole is probably better known for his interpretation of The Christmas Song,” I intentionally chose his rendition of another standard, “O Holy Night,” to highlight another of his great performances. I included Natalie’s rendering of “The First Noel,” solely because of my partiality to the reverse spelling of “Noel!”

Having eschewed Cole’s version of “The Christmas Song,” I could not omit it altogether. Kem (age 42), delivers a virtuoso performance of this classic tune. He is one of my favorite contemporary artists, singing one of the Christmas songs I enjoy most. Ledisi (age 41, until her New Years’ Eve birthday) and Lauryn Hill (age 36) are two of contemporary R&B’s most accomplished female voices. Their versions of “Give Love On Christmas Day,” and “Little Drummer Boy,” respectively, are special treats, and integral components of this e-concert.

John Coltrane and Dianne Reeves (age 55) add an instrumental (“My Favorite Things”) and vocal (“Christmas Time Is Here”) jazz flavor to the mix, respectively. “Trane,” born in Hamlet, North Carolina, died of liver cancer (1967, aged 40), another life cut short, far too young. He and the combo render a cool version of the tune, so much so that it could make it one of “your favorite things.” Ms. Reeves uses her powerful and well-trained instrument to craft a compelling version of “Christmas Time Is Here.”

Christina Aguilera (age 31) and Brian McKnight (age 42) unite in a superb collaboration on “Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas.” They revel in demonstrating multiple octave range and elasticity in framing their unique arrangement of this classic that makes it a song I enjoy listening to again and again. Last, but certainly not least, Will Downing (age 48), perhaps my favorite musical artist, delivers a silky smooth rendition of “White Christmas.”  What can I say?  Will…is Will!

That’s it; 14 artists, 13 videos (a Baker’s Dozen), and 12 songs. Add it all up and you get “12 Days Of Christmas: The Concert – Redux!” Enjoy it agaian, and by all means, remember the Reason for the Season!

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com/. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

James Brown (73) – Merry Christmas Baby

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xg6FcaYHf4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Brown

Eartha Kitt (81) – Santa Baby

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFMyF9fDKzE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eartha_Kitt

Donny Hathaway (33) – This Christmas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj1mVUEHeUE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donny_Hathaway

Chris Brown (21) – This Christmas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty2eya8zWyE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Brown_(American_singer)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rihanna

Nat King Cole (45) – O Holy Night

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4uP32mnAjY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_King_Cole

Natalie Cole (60) – The First Noel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf6fTRTQrG4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Cole

Kem (41) – The Christmas Song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jk34lUQoyQ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kem_(singer)

Ledisi (32) – Give Love On Christmas Day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f64UB0904As

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledisi

Lauryn Hill (35) – Little Drummer Boy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxv88-euQtE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauryn_Hill

John Coltrane (40) – My Favorite Things

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I6xkVRWzCY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coltrane

Dianne Reeves (54) – Christmas Time Is Here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hInJstw1cGE&feature=related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Reeves

Christina Aguilera (30) & Brian McKnight (41) – Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftva4G2vmDw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Aguilera

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_McKnight

Will Downing (47) – White Christmas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Downing

“This Time Will Be Different!”

It’s time to Break It Down!

Imagine if you will a moment…encased in silence.

 

 

Those 7 lines of white space symbolize a respectful pause in memoriam for the 12 little girls, the 8little boys, and the 6 teachers and administrators whose lives were snuffed out prematurely, last Friday morning, in Newtown, Connecticut, by an Assault Rifle wielding gunman; only 20 years-old himself.

Just a week ago in this space, I referenced the Jovan Belcher and Clackamas County, Oregon incidents to fashion areintroduction to the conversation about guns and the violence too often wrought by irresponsible and often unstable gun owners.  I emphasized then, that the incidents, horrific though they may have been, were not the point, but rather a convenient vehicle to remind readers of the results of gun violence in America.

It is with deepest regret that I acknowledge the attention of a mourning nation is once again riveted upon the continually emerging details of what can only be accurately characterized as a massacre. Of the 26 victims referenced above, all endured multiple wounds; some were shot nearly a dozen times.  In several instances, those shot were mutilated beyond recognition.  In some cases, parents and loved ones were advised by authorities not to view the remains.

In brief summation, the Newtown carnage was executed in three stages:

  1. Before he set out on his deadly rampage against 6 and 7 year-olds at their school, Adam Lanza murdered his mother, who was still in bed, at the home     they shared.  Mrs. Lanza, as the other victims, was shot multiple times (with     a Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle).  Her wounds were head shots.  Mrs. Lanza was divorced from Adam’s father, Peter.
  2. The younger Lanza     then took four weapons to Sandy Hook.      He brought three of them into the school; the assault rifle, and     two handguns – a Glock 10 mm and     a Sig Sauer 9 mmHe left the fourth, a shotgun, in his car.  According to authorities, he shot all 26 victims with the rifle. 
  3. As first responders closed in, Adam took his own life with a single shot to the head.  By committing suicide, he was the only one of the 28 who died to be killed by a single gunshot.     

It should be noted that Adam Lanza’s older brother, Ryan, reportedly told authorities that Adam had Asperger Syndrome, a form of Autism Spectrum Disorder.  However, mental health experts have cautioned against imputing any link between Asperger’s and violence.Aside his from living with the disease, a number of former associates have described Adam as very smart (enrolled in college at age 16), socially inept, shy quiet, withdrawn; a nerd. He was also an avid video-gamer.  Some of the games he played most were designed around leadership, war, violence, and survival (Starcraft III & Warcraft).  Never-the-less, most people whom reporters spoke to seemed surprised that Adamcould have carried out the acts of last Fridayin Newtown.

That’s really more than enough of the grisly, gory aspects of this particular case.  After all, just as was the case last week, this post is not designed to reiterate the minutiae of the shootings.  The intent, instead, is to share a simple opinion; “This Time Will Be Different!”  At least, that is my thesis.  If you want more of the nitty-gritty, just tune in to the news; they will have it for you.

When I penned last week’s post, the senseless acts of violence that would unfold just two days later at the Sandy Hook Elementary School were simply unimaginable.  In the days that have ensued since Friday, the TV networks, the airways, the blogosphere, and the various social networking communities have all been electrified by the effusive outpouring of discourse, much of it civil, on the subject of the shootings.  More important, how to prevent this kind of thing from continuing to occupy the orbit of a recurring pattern has been a trending discussion item.

I believe, as the Title suggests, within the micro-dynamics of this shooting lie the structural bases for navigating a different outcome.  Unfortunately, events such as this have a tendency to play out through a political lens.As such, while the politics of disaster are always volatile, there has been no case, that so abruptly shoved into the collective face of America, the gritty details of the cold-bloodedmurder of so many children, en masse.That they happened to be mostly white will also likely (forgive the pun), color the dimensions of the ultimate response.

That racial caveat, while objectionable to some, is just a reflection of what moves the needle, not only in American discourse, but especially in framing a discussion so that it is viewed as a call to action.  For example, annual crime statistics in Chicago are abysmal.  Through December 11, 2012, 2,597 people had been shot; as of yesterday, 517 had been murdered, and of those, 62 were school aged (6-18).Needless to say, the vast majority of the shooting victims, the homicides and the school-aged victimsin Chicagoare black.  Odds are you have not heard any vociferous national outcry to intervene.  And yes, I will say it, President Obama, the Consoler-in-Chief, has not made a visit to the City, expressly to speak out on the need to curtail the violence that has become endemic in his adopted hometown.

And don’t get it twisted!  I’m not knocking the POTUS (though on this issue, calling him to task is appropriate).  I am making the point, as I did in developing the Title,Newtownis different!  Because I am more concerned with outcomes than with finger-pointing, or with assaying recriminations, I embrace the notion that this is a good thing.In deed, I submit we are on the verge of moving FORWARD!

A number of Pols, both Democrats and Republicans, have expressed a willingness to debate gun laws, and to consider new legislation to control firearms in the aftermath of the Newtowndisaster.  Walmart and Dick’s, two of the nation’s largest gun dealers, have limited advertising and the availability of brands of the AR-15assault weapon used in Newtown (and in Aurora, and in ClackamasCounty).

President Obama has declared he will use the power of his office to see that the events of Newtown are not repeated.  Joe Manchin, Democratic Senator from West  Virginia, an NRA Member who has made commercials with his gun in hand, said Monday that it is time to discuss gun policy and move toward regulating guns. Dianne Feinstein, Democratic Senator from California, has indicated that she with proffer gun control legislation on the first day of the new CongressSenator Charles Grassley, of Iowa, has suggested it’s time to put gun control on the table.  Finally, the National Rifle Association (NRA) broke its silence yesterday, and said it will work to ensure the events of Newtownare never repeated.

But all is certainly not of one accord.  Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, positsthat the teachers at Sandy Hook should have been armed.Mr. Pratt is a proponent of the premise that, gun-free zones, not guns, are the problem.  It should be noted that he is definitely not alone in his view.  At a Tea Party rally on Monday, Texas Governor Rick Perry espoused the notion that anyone with a concealed handgun license should be able to take guns on public property in Texas, including schools.  He urged state legislators to look at ways to improve safety at schools; ostensibly, he believes arming teachers is the preferred way to do that.

With that, there are still two sides to this argument.  However, as the debate continues, there appears to be some erosion of the hard and fast line in the sand that has been so expertly manipulated by the gun lobby historically.  It is this diminution of the power curve that gives me hope and fosters my belief that “This Time Will Be Different!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.comor http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Followin the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com;enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”  Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/16/167412995/transcript-president-obama-at-sandy-hook-prayer-vigil

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/18/newtown-gunman-adam-lanza-what-we-know

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/connecticut-school-shooting-gunman-adam-1493265

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/18/15994353-aspergers-not-an-explanation-for-lanzas-connecticut-killing-spree-experts-say

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/18/167527771/nancy-lanza-gunmans-mother-from-charmed-upbringing-to-first-victim

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/18/167527771/nancy-lanza-gunmans-mother-from-charmed-upbringing-to-first-victim

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/12/15/fbi-source-ryan-lanza-said-his-brother-adam-had-a-personality-disorder-the-two-hadnt-spoken-since-2010/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

http://manchin.senate.gov/public/

Clackamas County, Oregon: Ground Zero for Yesterday’s Episode of American Gun Violence!

It’s time to Break It Down!

Today’s date is special; 12/12/12.  It is in the midst of the Season of Good Tidings of Great Joy.  I really wish I were commemorating both the date, and the coming events with a not so dire and gruesome message.  Sadly, I am not!

Less than two weeks removed from the murder-suicide of NFL Kansas City Chiefs’ player, Jovan Belcherand his girlfriend, Kasandra Perkins, which incidentally, left their two month-old infant daughter, Zoey, parentless.  Yet again, a senseless act of gun violence has claimed center stage…at least on the domestic front.   The details of the Belcher case have been well-chronicled, so I will not deign to repeat the particulars in this space.  Suffice it to say, before Americans could collectively execute a proper grieving period for those ghastly events, the Kansas City shootings were displaced from the headlines; not by anyinordinate time and distance, but sadly, by another grisly murderous sequence.

At about 3:30 p.m. PST yesterday, a gunman used a high-powered rifle to kill two people in Oregon’sClackamas Town Center Mall.  According to authorities, he then turned the gun on himself.  He was among the three people killed during the incident.  The mall is located in Clackamas County, near Portland.  Other shoppers were apparently wounded.  Those same reports say no shots were fired by police.

In the event you have relatives whom you think may have been at this mall at that time, a special number has been set up to call and check on them: (503) 655-8211.

This post is not about the Belcher incident; it’s not even about yesterday’s tragedy at the Clackamas Town Center, per se.  It is about the national debate, sporadic in frequency, but dynamic in intensity.  The gun lobby, represented most notably by the National Rifle Association (NRA), argues fiercely, among other things, that:

  • The Second     Amendment protects the right of Americans to own guns
  • Occurrences such at this are random anomalies
  • People who exact violence against others have     options besides fire arms
  • The threat of such violence would be lessened if     the victims were armed
  • Immediately after such events is too soon to     discuss remedies
  • Curtailing access to fire arms is un-American
  • Guns don’t kill people; people do
  • Guns are a necessary implement for hunting
  • Americans need to protect themselves from a rogue government
  • Gun Protectionism proves America     is the world’s last bastion for freedom

I’ve examined this brand of violence before.  In doing so, I have previously cited statistics about the paucity of gun violence in countries such as Australia, Canada, United Kingdom (Great Britain), and Japan, compared to the United States.  Relative annualized averages for these countries are:

  • Australia 65
  • Canada 165
  • Japan 39
  • United Kingdom (Great Britain) 68
  • United States     11,000+

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in the United States, in 2007, there were:

  • 12,129 homicides with a firearm
  • 17,348 suicides with a firearm
  • 721 deaths by accidental discharge of a firearm
  • +/-     5,000 deaths from legal     interventions (i.e., police shooting     criminals)

A problem does not reach this depth and breadth by osmosis, or accident.  There is of course a culture of American gun ownership that stretches back to the country’s founding and its fundamentally preeminent document of record; the United States Constitution.  It is the Second Amendment of the Constitutionthat purists use as the prime validation of their right to own a gun, tote a piece, or arm themselves to the teeth, depending upon one’s level of uber commitment to the cause.  The language of this hypercritical polemic is captured in a single sentence (ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State):

·        A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Who could imagine a mere 27 words, adopted 221 years ago this Saturday (December 15, 1791), could be the source of such disparate opinion, and perhaps more notably, or at least arguably, such horrific carnage?  For those who argue the sanctity of this venerablestatute, I caution with the subtle reminder; remember it is after all an Amendment.  Moreover, if Constitutional content were altered when the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments) was added, for the betterment of the document and the country, perhaps it is time to make another alteration!In fact, I would assert, “It is definitely time to do just that.”

Naturally, my suggesting it won’t make it so.  There is an unbelievable infrastructure supported by gun making and selling in America.  There are more than 129,817 federally licensed firearms dealers in the United  States, according to the latest Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).  That includes 51,438 retail gun stores, 7,356 pawn shops, 61,562 collectors, with the rest held by manufacturers and importers of firearms and destructive devices.

To bring some element of context to this matter, consider that by comparison, a few of the numbers for other American institutions are:

·        Grocery Stores (2011) 36,569 – (Food Marketing Institute)

·        McDonald’s Restaurants (2011) – 14,098 (McDonald’s Corporation Annual Report 2011)

On their face alone, these numbers are staggering, and if you don’t find the relative comparison between the proliferation of guns and the number of source points for these other goods alarming, I certainly think you should.  Regardless, there is a key differentiator between guns and these other items.  Gasoline, burgers, and other food stuffs are perishablesand/or consumables; guns by contrast do not go away.  As a case in point, a rifle used in the 2009 Holocaust Museum shooting was nearly 100 years old, but no less effective as an instrument of murder and mayhem.

The ATF reported that in 2010, there were 5,459,240 new firearms manufactured in the United States, nearly all (95%) for the U.S. market.  An additional 3,252,404 firearms were imported to the United  States.

Under current laws and statutes, if you do not have a criminal record and you have not been adjudicated as mentally incompetent, you can buy guns.  In 2010the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) ran 16,454,951 background checksfor firearms purchases.  Only a miniscule number of these purchases (78,211 or 0.48 percent)were denied.  Houston,we have a problem!”

I think the foregoing barrage of facts and figures more than adequately outlines the current environment in this country vis-à-visgun ownership, and the prevalence of the death and destruction of families that this culture is at least somewhat responsible for creating and sustaining.  We characterize ourselves as a nation with many glowing virtues.  Freedom is often listed first; family values usually follow, not far behind.  I submit that that if we are serious about our national association with these traits of honor, we are obligated to take some kind of action to ameliorate the ridiculous level of violence that stems from firearms…and/or their owners.  To do nothing hardly leaves us worthy of owning the term “civilized society.”

Today, we cope with the reality, Clackamas County, Oregon: Ground Zero for Yesterday’s Episode of American Gun Violence!”  We mourn the loss of life, pray for the survivors and the families of the deceased, and challenge Americans of all stripes to stand up to the culture of widespread gun violence, and demand change.  I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.comor http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Followin the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com;enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”  Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Cultivating a Culture of Capitulation: Will President Obama Cave (Again)?

It’s time to Break It Down!

Almost since 11:18 p.m. onNovember 6th, when the 2012 Presidential Election was called for President Obama, a chief trending issue on social, electronic, and in print media has been the inimitable Fiscal Cliff.  It is the be-all-end-all topic in virtually all things news related.

No surprisingly, given the great partisan divide that splits the country nearly in half, there are many different spins on this crisis, and its relative gravity.  It has been called manufactured.  Various members of both the political and the pundit class have insisted the cliff is not a cliff at all, but rather a hill, or even a gentle slope.  In fact, several noted observers have actually suggested the parties should not rush to make a bad deal, but should instead; choose to go over the cliff…or slope, or hill, or whatever one opts to call it.

One school of thought maintains the President is trying to back Republicans in a corner, and that he is loathe to negotiate, because he thinks he has some kind of tactical advantage.  In response, many proponents of this theory argue that Republicans should eschew any deal proposed by the President, and as a result, force the country over the cliff.  This would effectively “kick the can down the road,” and put the debate in the hands of the next Congress.  See Newt Gingrich.

An alternative school of thought counters that for any sense of mandate the President has, just because he won the election, is countered by the fact that Republicans retained theHouse, by a wide majority.  Those who make this argument content the voters who supported them endowed their Representatives with just as much of a mandate to act on their convictions, and presumably, more importantly, the convictions of those who voted for them, as does the President.

Another school of thought asserts that President Obama is intentionally working to force the country over the Fiscal CliffGrover Norquist, he of the “No Tax Pledge” (Remember that?) notoriety is a chief advocate of this notion.

Yet another school of thought (There are more, but I will end with this one), holds that the President ran on the precept of increasing taxes for the wealthy; he won the Popular vote, as well as the Electoral College vote, and therefore, he won that argument.  In addition, to buttress this position, data from numerous separate polls show that a majority of Americans favor increasing taxes for the wealthy, and that most Americans also will blame intransigent Republicans rather than the President, if we go over the Fiscal Cliff.  A sampling of these results includes the following:

·        In a June 9 ABC News poll, 61% of Americans believe higher taxes will be necessary to reduce the deficit, and 57% of those polled said that deficit reduction should include both tax increases and spending cuts.

·        A Pew poll found that more people blame the nation’s involvement in wars than tax cuts or spending for the deficit.  The poll also found wide support for increasing taxes, as 67% said that more high earners income should be subject to being taxed for Social Security and 66% support raising taxes on incomes over $250,000 and 62% support closing corporate tax loopholes.

·        A Bloomberg poll taken in May found that only 33% of those surveyed thought that it would be possible to lower the deficit without raising taxes, 64% expressed the belief that it isn’t possible to lower the deficit without raising taxes.

·        An April CBS News/NY Times poll showed that 72% of people favored raising taxes on the wealthy in order to reduce the deficit.A March NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 81% of those surveyed would support a tax on millionaires that would be used for deficit reduction, and 68% supported eliminating the Bush tax cuts on those who make over $250,000.

·        A Washington Post/Pew Research Center survey by a 53%-27% margin, said Congressional Republicans will be more to blame than President Obama if there is no deal to avert the Fiscal Cliff; 12% said both sides should be blamed equally.  Among Independents, 52% would blame Republicans and 21% would point to the President.

·        A CNN/ORC International survey released last week indicated more Americans would blame the GOP in Congress (45%) than President Obama (34%) if the Fiscal Cliff avoidance provisions do not go into effect until next year.

So, President Obama won the election.  The American people have expressed their preferences, before and after the election for what the President refers to as a balanced approach; one that employs spending cuts and revenue to avert the Fiscal Cliff.  The question of the hour is WWOD, or for you non-religious types, What Will Obama Do?

Most observers, friends and foes alike are apt to opine that in past instances, when faced withrubber-meets-the-road negotiation episodes, including, his initiative to close the prison facility at Guantanamo, pushing for a larger Stimulus Bill, framing comprehensive Healthcare Reform, opposing the extension of the Bush tax cuts in 2010, reaching a Grand Bargain to prevent the country’s default, and pursuing Immigration Reform legislation, President Obama blinked.

Don’t get it twisted.  As Vice President Biden enunciated the meme so successfully during the campaign, Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive.  This President has had his moments.  Still, I choose to not to view the President through the lens of a sycophant; rather by using the same standard Mr. Obama himself uses for seeking and developing an appropriate schematic for averting the Fiscal Cliff, a balanced approach.  There is no doubt President Obama has built an impressive list of accomplishments, including the 10 below:

1. Passed Health Care Reform: After five presidents over a century failed to create universal health insurance, signed the Affordable Care Act (2010). It will cover 32 million uninsured Americans beginning in 2014 and mandates a suite of experimental measures to cut health care cost growth, the number one cause of America’s long-term fiscal problems.

2. Passed the Stimulus: Signed $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 to spur economic growth amid greatest recession since the Great Depression. Weeks after stimulus went into effect, unemployment claims began to subside. Twelve months later, the private sector began producing more jobs than it was losing, and it has continued to do so fortwenty-three straight months, creating a total of nearly 3.7 million new private-sector jobs.

3. Passed  Wall Street Reform: Signed theDodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010) to re-regulate the financial sector after its practices caused the Great Recession. The new law tightens capital requirements on large banks and other financial institutions, requires derivatives to be sold on clearinghouses and exchanges, mandates that large banks provide “living wills” to avoid chaotic bankruptcies, limits their ability to trade with customers’ money for their own profit, and creates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (now headed by Richard Cordray) to crack down on abusive lending products and companies.

4. Ended the War in Iraq: Ordered all U.S. military forces out of the country. Last troops left on December 18, 2011.

5. Began Drawdown of War in Afghanistan: From a peak of 101,000 troops in June 2011, U.S. forces are now down to 91,000, with 23,000 slated to leave by the end of summer 2012. According to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the combat mission there will be over by next year.

6. Eliminated Osama bin Laden: In 2011, ordered special forces raid of secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in which the terrorist leader was killed and a trove of al-Qaeda documents was discovered.

7. Turned Around U.S. Auto Industry: In 2009, injected $62 billion in federal money (on top of $13.4 billion in loans from the Bush administration) into ailing GM andChrysler in return for equity stakes and agreements for massive restructuring. Since bottoming out in 2009, the auto industry has added more than  j100,000obs. In 2011, the Big Three automakers all gained market share for the first time in two decades. The government expects to lose $16 billion of its investment, less if the price of the GM stock it still owns increases.

8. Recapitalized Banks: In the midst of financial crisis, approved controversial Treasury Department plan to lure private capital into the country’s largest banks via “stress tests” of their balance sheets and a public-private fund to buy their “toxic assets.” Got banks back on their feet at essentially zero cost to the government.

9. Repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Ended 1990s-era restriction and formalized new policy allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military for the first time.

10. Toppled Moammar Gaddafi: In March 2011, joined a coalition of European andArab governments in military action, including air power and naval blockade, against Gaddafi regime to defend Libyan civilians and support rebel troops.Gaddafi’s forty-two-year rule ended when the dictator was overthrown and killed by rebels on October 20, 2011. No American lives were lost.

It is a strong list, and including it is certainly fair.  Moreover, that is a short list; he has many more accomplishments.  However, the balance part of the equation requires the inclusion and consideration of the instances, referenced earlier, in which as a negotiator, the President acquitted himself, and his core constituency, less than effectively.  One might argue, he has “Cultivated a Culture of Capitulation.”  It’s totally fair to ask, Will President Obama Cave (Again)?

With a just under four weeks until the deadline, and more important, only 10 days until Congress is scheduled to go on holiday break, the proverbial hourglass is winding down.In the midst of the constant spin, counter spin, evaluation, and assessment, it is still too early to predict with precision exactly what the POTUS will do.  However, I have a hunch! 

I have long believed that President Obama, an avid sports enthusiast, navigated his first term with a second term in mind.  Similar to a football or basketball coach who may employ first half strategies and tactics to set up the second half, I think the President accepted some compromises with the mindset that to achieve his broader objectives, he needed to serve two terms, and to get to term two, it would be necessary to first survive term one, then advance.  That mission was accomplished November 6th.

Now, in term two, with no future elections on the horizon, he has the opportunity to reach higher.To that end, I suspect that while he realizes, in a divided government, negotiation will be a requisite reality, his resolve will be more firm, and he will pursue more persistently those designs and ends that he believes represent the best interest of the people of the United  States of America.

This brings us full circle, back to the opening premise and question: “Cultivating a Culture of Capitulation: Will President Obama Cave(Again)?”  To be sure, one instance of holding firm to one’s principles is insufficient evidence of a culture shift.  But, as is often said, a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.  If President Obama is to turn this reputational conundrum around, he must first start somewhere.  I believe that somewhere is here…and now!

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com or http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com.  A new post is published each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Followin the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”  Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

“That Other Pledge!”

It’s time to Break It Down!

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Those thirty-one words constitute what we commonly refer to as The Pledge of Allegiance.  It has been around in some version since 1892. Twice since its origination, The Pledge of Allegiance has been amended.  In 1923, eight words were added:

·        The Flag of the United States of America

In 1954, two more words were added:

·        under God

Francis Bellamy, a minister, wrote the original Pledge of Allegiance.  At its inception, the Rev. Bellamyenvisioned the Pledge as a tool that could be used by the citizens of any country, hence the generic, non-inclusion of our Country’s name.  While that makes for an interesting talking point, an even more notable factoidfor many Americans, especially Right Wing conservatives, is that the good Reverend was a Socialist, Heaven forbid.  In fact, when the 1954 change, adding the words, “under God,” Bellamy’s daughter opposed it.

It’s fair to suggest, given the lengths that The Right went to in labeling President Obama a Socialist, they obviously think being a Socialist is some stupendously abhorrent character defect.  Armed with this intelligence, by all means, let’s not tell them about the Rev. Bellamy’s awful flaw.

But I digress!  While it was important to establish the priority and preeminence of the Pledge of Allegiance, the Pledge to which I will devote the next few paragraphs is the ubiquitous “No Tax Pledge,” or as it’s officially known, the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.  This Pledge was conceived and popularized by Grover Norquist in 1986Mr. Norquist is the head of Americans forTax Reform (ATR).  The primary policy goal of ATR is “Reduce the percentage of the GDPconsumed by the government.”    The objectives designed to accomplish that goal, as articulated by ATR, are simply framed tenets.  They include:

·        Oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes

·        Oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses

·        Oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing taxes

Mr. Norquist was particularly effective at rallying a surging Right to defend, support, and execute the pledge; especially during the 2010midterm elections, as well as during the recent 2012 contests.  The orthodoxy appeared perfect and in order.  Then a funny thing happened.  It was a year when the numbers suggested an embattled President would surely lose, taken down by the millstone of a sluggish economy tied to his neck.  Republicans asserted the magic that propelled President Obama in 2008 was a once in a lifetime phenomenon, and now safely locked in a time capsule, buried four years ago.

Alas, the President and his team resurrected the ’08 coalition and won comfortably.  But it was not just the President’s victory that shocked the Republican hegemony.  The Party had hoped, if not expected, to take over the Senate, and expand its already comfortable majority in the House of Representatives.  Instead, Republicans, many of whom not only predicted a win by Governor Romney, but a rout, had to adapt to the reality of having lost the Presidency by 126 Electoral votes,and more than two million popular votes.  Moreover, the GOP also absorbed net losses in the Senate and in the House.

The unexpected losses in all three branches of government apparently motivated the GOP to do some searching.  The Party has initiated numerous discussions about moderating its position on social issues such as immigration, women’s reproductive rights, and even marriage equality.  Such an about face certainly warrants attention, but no change of positions would be more noteworthy than if a sizeable number of GOPstandard bearers were to abandon the more than a quarter century old Tax Pledge.

An internal Battle Royalemay be developing.  Several key members of the Republican Leadership have expressed, at least the possibility that, they may forgo their commitment to the Pledge.  There are 258members of the current Congress, mostly Republicans, who have signed the Pledge.  A few have either signaled their openness to walk away from the oath, or have already flatly renounced it, including:

That certainly does not constitute a groundswell.  And it definitely does not signal the ceding of any ground by Mr. Norquist.  In fact, he labeled the defecting Republicans pawns of the Democrats’ media campaign to raise taxes.  Furthermore, he vowed to work to defeat any Republican who drops the Pledge.

It’s early, and there will need to be many more Republican dissenters before there is anything resembling a palpable division of the ranks.  However, it is already clear that character, courage, and cojones will be on full display in the coming days as the Presidentand Congress look for ways to avoid the Fiscal Cliff, while Republicans duel Grover Norquist over the contemporaryviability of “That Other Pledge!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.comor http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Followin the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com;enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”  Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below: