Life Partner

Political Cartoon is by Jack Ohman in The Sacramento Bee.

12 Texas Executions Set For Next 4 Months

Texas has long been the most blood-thirsty state in the union, but even though they continued to lead the nation in executions, the number of executions carried out in the last couple of years fell off rather sharply. In 2011 only 13 executions were done, and in 2012 the figure was 15. I had hoped that my home state was gradually coming to its senses, and that soon that number might be down to single digits (or even none at all).

But it looks like Texas officials are putting an end to any speculation like that. They now have at least 12 executions scheduled over the next four months -- 6 in April, 3 in May, and 3 more in July. That should significantly jack up the number of state-sanctioned murders for 2013.

Don't get me wrong. I am not for releasing violent criminals to once again prey on the law-abiding public. Assuming their guilt (something not assured with our broken justice system), these death row inmates have considered some horrible crimes -- and I don't think they should ever walk Texas streets again. But isn't spending the rest of their lives behind bars enough?

It might be different if we could be assured that our justice system worked as it is supposed to (and as too many believe it does). But the fact is that in recent years at least 18 people have been released from death row because DNA proved they were innocent. How many more innocent people are sitting on death row -- some of them unable to be exonerated by DNA (because no DNA was left at the crime scene)? If there is even one, that is far too many -- and no state can ever justify the execution of a single innocent person.

When was the last time a rich person was executed? I don't remember it happening at all. While we like to think that justice is blind, and all criminal defendants are treated equally in our courts -- it is simply not true. Money and race are big factors in the outcomes of many trials, and our system will not be fair until that is no longer true. How can we justify condemning people to death, when we know that our system of justice is not fair? What kind of society does that make us?

------------------------------

Let me also take this opportunity to give a pat on the back to my own alma mater -- Texas Wesleyan University. As a part of their Willson Lecture series, they have scheduled Sister Helen Prejean (pictured above), author of Dead Man Walking: An Eyewitness Account of the Death Penalty in the U.S. and a noted opponent of the death penalty, to speak at the university on April 11th at 7:00pm. The event will be held at the University Methodist Church sanctuary (on the southeast corner of the TWU campus). It is free, and it is open to the general public. If you live in or near the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex, I urge you to consider going to hear this lady speak.

Rebranding

Political Cartoon is by Nick Anderson in the Houston Chronicle.

To Big To Fail/Jail = Too Big To Exist

I bring you another article written by the best senator in America -- Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont). This article was written for The Huffington Post, and posted on March 28th. As usual, Bernie goes right to the heart of the matter, and lays open the truth for all to see:

We are supposed to be a country of laws. The laws should apply to Wall Street as well as everybody else. So I was stunned when our country's top law enforcement official recently suggested it might be difficult to prosecute financial institutions that commit crimes because it may destabilize the financial system of our country and the world.

"I am concerned," Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee, "that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute -- if we do bring a criminal charge -- it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy."

The attorney general was talking about some of the same financial institutions that received billions, and in some cases trillions, of dollars in taxpayer bailouts after their greed, recklessness and illegal behavior plunged the country into a terrible recession. Over my opposition, Congress approved a $700 billion taxpayer bailout of financial institutions that were on the brink of collapse which some in Congress considered "too big to fail."

In addition, the Federal Reserve provided over $16 trillion in total financial assistance to these same institutions during the financial crisis (which only became public after an amendment I inserted into the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act requiring the Fed to disclose this information).

The attorney general's view seems to be that if you are just a regular person and you commit a crime, you go to jail. But if you are the head of a Wall Street company, your power is so great that a prosecution could have destabilizing consequences with national or even worldwide implications.

In other words, we have a situation now where Wall Street banks are not only too big to fail, they are too big to jail. That view is unacceptable.

The attorney general's troubling acknowledgement has revived interest in an idea that is drawing more and more support. It is time to break up too big to fail financial institutions.

The 10 largest banks in the United States are bigger today than they were before a taxpayer bailout following the 2008 financial crisis.

U.S. banks have become so big that the six largest financial institutions in this country (J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley) today have assets of nearly $9.6 trillion, a figure equal to about two-thirds of the nation's gross domestic product. These six financial institutions issue more than two-thirds of all credit cards, over half of all mortgages, control 95 percent of all derivatives held in financial institutions and hold more than 40 percent of all bank deposits in the United States.

I will soon introduce legislation that would give the Treasury secretary 90 days to compile a list of commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds and insurance companies that the Treasury Department determines are too big to fail. The affected financial institutions would include "any entity that has grown so large that its failure would have a catastrophic effect on the stability of either the financial system or the United States economy without substantial government assistance." Within one year after the legislation becomes law, the Treasury Department would be required to break up those banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions identified by the secretary.

Breaking up the too big to fail financial institutions is a notion that has drawn support from some leading figures in the financial community. Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, wrote this: "The safer the individual banks, the safer the financial system. The ultimate destination -- an economy relatively free from financial crises -- won't be reached until we have the fortitude to break up the giant banks." James Bullard, the head of the St. Louis Fed, also weighed in. "I do kind of agree that 'too big to fail' is 'too big to exist.'" Thomas Hoenig, the former Kansas City Fed president, was an early supporter of the idea of breaking up big U.S. banks. "I think [too big to fail banks] should be broken up. And in doing so, I think you'll make the financial system itself more stable. I think you will make it more competitive, and I think you will have long-run benefits over our current system, which leads to bailouts when crises occur."

In my view, no single financial institution should be so large that its failure would cause catastrophic risk to millions of American jobs or to our nation's economic wellbeing. No single financial institution should have holdings so extensive that its failure could send the world economy into crisis. And, perhaps most importantly, no institution in America should be above the law. We need to break up these institutions because of the tremendous damage they have done to our economy.

If an institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist.

Just For Variety. . .

Political Cartoon is by David Horsey in the Los Angeles Times.

Great Is Our Sin

The United States is still the richest nation on Earth. There is more than enough money to wipe out poverty. But our capitalist system is by design set up to have winners and losers -- and the more money that goes to the rich, the less there is for everyone else. Poverty only exists in America because our leaders (and too many of our citizens) lack the will to eliminate it. We still endorse greed as a greater value than sharing. Great is our sin!

Warhol

GOP Not Serious About Hispanic Outreach

(The above cartoon was found at guanabee.com.)

After their disastrous showing in the 2012 elections (where they lost the White House by several million votes, lost seats in the Senate, and even though they retained a majority in the House, their representatives got over a million votes less than the Democratic reps), the national Republican Party took a serious look at itself. They determined that with the demographic changes happening in this country, they must reach out to the minority community. The alternative would be to see their vote total dwindle further with each passing election.

They are right. The portion of the vote made up by white voters is dropping by a couple of percentage points with each presidential election (and the Democrats get a healthy, although minority portion of that vote). But the Republicans have, in the last couple of elections, been unable to get a significant portion of the minority vote. In 2012, the Democrats got more than 70% of the votes of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians (the three largest minority groups).

Of those three, the fastest growing group is the Hispanic group. In another generation, the growth of the Hispanic population will cause the minority population to outnumber the white population in some states very important to Republicans -- like Texas (where the minority students already outnumber whites in the state's schools). That makes it imperative for the Republicans to reach out and try to convince Hispanics that they can have a place in the Republican Party.

They started this outreach by saying the party must support immigration reform -- an issue very important to many in the Hispanic community. And the early signs are that enough Republicans in Congress may go along with immigration reform (even to the point of providing a path to citizenship -- although a rather harsh and restrictive path). But while some in the party recognize this outreach to Hispanics is necessary for the party to remain viable, there are still many in the party who do not (especially among base voters and those in Congress who play only to those racially-insensitive voters).

But even though enough Republicans may support immigration reform to get it passed (maybe), that is not enough. Hispanics must be made to feel they are welcomed, both in the party and the country as a whole. Unfortunately, there are still far too many Republicans who are unwilling to take this path. Just in the short time that Republicans have said they will reach out to Hispanics, there have been several incidents showing that will be very difficult to achieve.

The ink hadn't even dried on the Republican proposal for a Hispanic outreach, when the first blow came showing that. President Obama nominated a Hispanic, Tom Perez (head of the Justice Department Civil Rights Division), to be Labor Secretary. Mr Perez is imminently qualified for the job, but several Republicans (like Senator Grassley, Senator Sessions, and Senator Vitter) instantly came out opposing his nomination, and may well try to block his confirmation.

Then we have Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who seems comfortable using the racially-insensitive term "wetbacks" to describe Hispanics, and so far has been unwilling to make an adequate apology for his gross insensitivity.

And finally, we have Republican right-wingers introducing "English only" bills in Congress. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) introduced this ridiculous bill in the House, and Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) introduced it in the Senate. This is a totally unnecessary bill, since first generation immigrants are learning English faster today than immigrants did in the past -- and almost all of the second generation are English-speakers. The unnecessary bill just seems designed to punish Hispanic immigrants.

While the national Republican leadership sees the necessity of reaching out to Hispanics, they seem to be alone in that view. Far too many in the Republican base, and the elected officials they send to Congress, are not ready for a multi-colored and multi-ethnic party. They are not ready to open their minds and adjust their policies to include issues important to Hispanics (and other minorities). Until they do, Hispanic (and minority) outreach will just be talk -- and it's going to take more than talk to woo minority voters.  

Two Towns

Political Cartoon is by Steve Sack in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

Arkansas Spill Highlights Pipeline Danger

The right-wing Republicans in Congress have once again sold out to corporate interests -- this time to the Big Oil corporations. They are pressuring the president to approve construction of the XL Pipeline, which would cut right through the heart of America (running from the tar sands oil pits of Canada to the Gulf Coast refineries of Texas). They say that pipeline would be a real boon for this country -- creating jobs and lessening the country's dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, neither is true.

The numer of jobs the pipeline would create are mostly only temporary. Less than 200 permanent jobs would be created. That's an insignificant amount, considering the amount of jobs this country needs (and the Republicans have blocked in Congress).

And the idea that the pipeline would reduce the dependence on foreign oil is ludicrous. The oil being pumped through the pipeline IS foreign oil (since it is being built solely for the transporting of Canadian oil). In addition, the finished product after it is refined is destined to be shipped to foreign countries (mostly Asia). It will not stay in this country.

And then their is the way land is being procured for that pipeline. The government is backing an obvious misuse of eminent domain laws. Those laws were designed to let the government get property for the public good. But there is no public good in the building of this pipeline. The only entities being helped are giant oil companies -- the Canadian companies who will put their oil in it, and the American companies who will receive that oil to refine it. In other words, private property is being seized through eminent domain for the financial benefit of private corporations -- a clear violation of private property rights (which the Republicans claim to support).

But perhaps the best reason for stopping the pipeline from being built is to protect the environment. The pipeline will cut through the middle of this country -- crossing many thousands of acres of valuable farmland. Every acre of that land is in danger of being polluted with the very dirty Canadian oil. Proponents of the pipeline has shrugged off any danger to the environment, but a pipeline break just this last week in Arkansas (carrying the same kind of Canadian oil) shows this is a real danger.

That pipeline broke (see pictures above) and, before anyone realized it had happened, thousands of gallons of oil polluted the area near Mayflower, Arkansas. The authorities are not letting the general public near the spill, but the pictures above were taken by people living near the spill. And this was just a small pipeline, carrying about 90,000 barrels of crude per day. The XL Pipeline will carry about 800,000 barrels per day -- making a break much more serious than the one in Arkansas.

As the Arkansas break shows, we are not talking about whether a break can occur with the XL Pipeline -- only when and where such a break will occur. That monstrosity should not be built!

Child Abuse

Political Cartoon is by David Fitzsimmons in the Arizona Daily Star.

Guns Aren't A Magic Self-Defense Cure

About two months ago, Assistant District Attorney Mark Hasse was shot and killed as he walked from his car to the Courthouse in Kaufman County, Texas (which borders Dallas County to the east). His killers have not yet been caught, but are believed to be white racist members of the Aryan Brotherhood (or a similar organization).

Kaufman County District Attorney Mike McLelland (pictured above) swore he would find and prosecute the killers of his Assistant D.A., but last Saturday he and his wife were discovered dead in their home -- and both had been shot dead. Police said the front door looked as though it had been kicked in and the house was littered with numerous shell casings. So far, the killers are not known, but many in law enforcement consider it to be the same killer(s) of Assistant D.A. Hasse (or members of the same organization).

These are the kind of murders that many gun lovers say could be prevented by arming more people with a gun. But they probably won't tell you this -- both of these men were armed. The Assistant D.A. had a concealed carry permit and was armed at the time he was killed. The D.A. had told the media that he always carried a gun (even when just walking his dogs in his neighborhood). And he was no novice to gun use, having spent 23 years in the military. But carrying a firearm (and knowing how to use that firearm) did neither of these men any good at all.

The idea promoted by gun lovers that a gun is the answer to prevent violence against yourself is an appealing idea, and most gun owners believe they would be able to react in time to save their lives -- but the awful truth is that is very unlikely. Like the two men discussed above (who knew their lives were in danger), the chance of recognizing the danger and reacting in time is pretty slim.

Many have told us that if there had been armed persons at the Arizona shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords (where several people were killed and many wounded), they would have been able to prevent much of the mayhem by taking out the shooter. But we now know that there were those in the crowd that were armed, but the shooting was over and the subject apprehended before they were able to react.

I am not in favor of disarming law-abiding Americans or taking their guns away. But it is time we recognize that laws that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people (convicted felons, dangerous psychotics, domestic abusers, etc.) can do far more toward reducing gun deaths than arming more people. A step in the right direction would be to close the loopholes in the background check law. Every person trying to purchase a gun in this country should have to undergo a background check (even when buying or receiving a gun from a private citizen).

I would also be in favor of making our laws more stringent on those found to be illegally carrying a weapon (without a permit). That should result in serious jail time, even for someone without a police record (and probation should not be an option). While private citizens have the right to own a firearm in this country, they should not have the right to purchase one without a background check, or carry one around without a permit (requiring a background check, training in use of the weapon, and a class on state and federal laws relating to guns).

The truth is that keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have one will do far more to reduce gun deaths in this country than arming more people. The right-wingers in Congress and the NRA leadership don't want to admit that, but it is still the truth. And that is why about 90% of Americans want the loopholes closed in the background checks done for gun purchases.

Wall Street And Jobs

Political Cartoon is by Dave Granlund at davegranlund.com.

Life

We humans like to think we are the most important thing that ever happened. The truth is that we are just another animal, albeit a thinking one, that the Earth could do just fine without (probably better considering the damage we have done to our native planet). It should make us just a bit more humble to know that other life could flourish without us, while the humble insect is required for life to exist.