Book Review: With Liberty and Justice for Some

With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful, by Glenn Greenwald (2011, Metropolitan Books, New York) reports the news: powerful people have attacked a founding principle of the United States, equality under law. These people, politicians and corporate interests, have reached a point where they dismiss Federal laws and international agreements openly, even boastfully. Greenwald provides in-text sources for the modern-day events and quotes the Founding Fathers or gives Constitutional sources for his background references. However, he does not give footnotes or endnotes should a reader wish to check the references.

Greenwald’s communication strength rests on his passion. He does very well at saying, “This happened, here’s proof it happened, and it’s wrong because it’s against the Constitution and the intentions of the Founding Fathers!” He makes this statement in reference to equality under the law very thoroughly, focusing on events from the President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon to President Obama’s refusal to investigate or prosecute either Bush Administration torturers or Wall Street’s grand-scale fraudsters.

Greenwald spares neither parties nor personalities; liberals, conservatives, and moderates will each find some discomfort here. He also removes the illusions of those who still see the media as eager to expose wrongdoing. Greenwald concludes with a contrasting chapter on the lot of the less powerful, pointing out that the US prison population is huge and tends to be minorities and poor people. He points out that this growing prison population, largely non-violent drug users, does not correlate to either lower crime rates or reductions in drug use. In this chapter, he gives a good background to suggest why this continues despite its inability to achieve the stated results.

The flaws in Greenwald’s communication derive from his failure to go beyond passion. Except in the last chapter, he gives little background for his characters or their times. For example, why would Nixon do something as desperate as the Watergate break-in when he was leading in the polls and very likely to be re-elected without that? Why do people who make millions of dollars annually seek to make more millions by violating the law?

More importantly, he only cries foul; he does not suggest changes to make or even consequences of the current course. This negates his passion. Moving people to strong feelings without asking them to do something brings them depression and frustration, not understanding and satisfaction.

In short, With Liberty and Justice for Some gives a clear and impassioned picture of the decay of equality under law in the United States, but does little to help one understand why this is happening or what to do about it.

Unintentional Communication

This Republican primary season has become a fine example of the difficulties of directing communications to a limited audience. All of these would-be nominees try all-out to woo the likely Republican primary voters, essentially Tea Party activists. None of them seems to notice that the entire country watches newscasts, and only Fox News has any sympathy for them. This leads to fascinating spectacles again and again.

Early on, we saw Sarah Palin spouting whatever came to mind, complete with a reality TV show and a bus tour, only to realize that continuing as a celebrity is safer and pays more than actually trying to run for President. I suspect that she might have caught on that a majority of the voters do not believe she could see Russia from her front porch.  Her successors almost make her look sensible, and that is a difficult task.

Michelle Bachmann (remember her?) knew she would not have to use facts and figures to please the Tea Party. She was doing well without that, but then Newsweek put her picture on their cover looking crazy.  Really crazy. Someone claimed that "crazy" was the only kind of picture available, and she drowned in the waves of laughter. Ron Paul comes and goes in the polls. The problem with him seems to be honesty. Congressman Paul appears to be a libertarian at heart, and that works fine on issues such as smaller government and lower taxes, but he would rather not outlaw sex or attempt to imprison anybody the Tea Party disapproves of.  Governor Perry of Texas tends to talk like a drunk in a bar, which would be less of a problem if his many competitors pointed it out less often. Herman Cain knew the right words (except for that 9-9-9 thing) but quickly got a reputation for sexual harassment and at least one long-term adulterous affair. The Tea Party does not approve of sex for fun under any circumstances. Mitt Romney has somehow maintained a decent position in the polls through all of this. I suspect he depends on the non-Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, because he makes sense when he talks most of the time. Unfortunately, he has a record that would serve a Democrat well, he changes his stated positions often, and he is a Mormon. While I see Mormons as a kind of fundamentalist Christian, many in the Tea Party see them as some bizarre “other” creature, possibly out to destroy them.

So all of these people parade before the devout followers of Rush Limbaugh et al., trying to reach the Republican convention with enough delegates to grab the nomination so they can run against President Obama.  They debate again and again, looking more and more foolish. They attack each other, using old pictures, past statements, and wild accusations.

The great thing for Obama is that they also parade before the rest of the USA. Obama will not need to spend as much money as usual on making new advertising against whichever one of these people outlasts the others. He can just use video of the debates and information the Republicans have already uncovered in this primary season.

The Republicans seeking the nomination are communicating more effectively than they know. Unfortunately for them, they are telling all Americans, not just the party faithful, who they are.

Party pooper re health insurance changes

Yep, they changed the laws about health insurance. I can expect a fine if I don't buy health insurance in 2014, assuming I live that long without health insurance. From an insurer viewpoint, profits from the 30 or so million new customers ought to offset the new rules. Please note that the new laws do nothing for prices and do not require very many specific coverages. Of course, the long lag time before the laws take effect gives insurers time to escape unwelcome new provisions by using the same scare tactics and heavy applications of cash that sabotaged the current bills.

Congress failed at two very important things. First and worst, they did not remove the antitrust exemption that health insurers enjoy. All of these politicians going on and on about the value of competition are either lying or grossly ignorant. Health insurers are exempt by law from competition.

More people are aware of the failure to include a public option in the changes. This also relates to competition. A publicly funded health care plan would (a) probably reduce costs a bit due to government entities not needing to make profits and (b) give the private companies a real incentive to compete that is lacking today. Such a large operation would also (c) provide leverage in negotiating with pharmaceutical companies, hospital chains and other large providers of care.

All in all, as an uninsured American, I don't see this as helpful. It's just a political gesture, "sound and fury signifying nothing."

Bernanke: A new used car

Bernanke: Too big to fail

Posted using ShareThis

This link goes to a CNN Money article pointing out that Wall Street will "punish" the country by dropping market values should Ben Bernanke not be appointed to a second term. It goes on to give a coherent history explaining exactly why he must not be re-appointed.

Bernanke captained the ship that sailed full speed ahead onto the rocks where it remains. He then played a leading part in rewarding the bankers who steered it there. The fact that Wall Street now has the power to punish the US government ought to be a message: these banks are too big not to fail. This country, or any other, cannot afford business interests big enough to overpower the government. Bernanke has ably represented the bankers against the interests of the United States. This must stop.

Specifically, Bernanke's central offense, as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, has been to keep interest rates inappropriately low, leading to the credit bubble that collapsed and brought the entire economy down with it. Bernanke still insists that Federal policy did not cause the crash, thus clearly demonstrating that he has yet to learn from his mistake.

Bernanke's more current offense is the bailout. He did his best to pour over $700 billion into Wall Street, resulting primarily in obscene bonus payments to the bankers who are the agents of the disaster. Meanwhile, lending to small businesses, the best chance of reviving the economy, has dropped dramatically. Those specific decisions have been made by the people who are receiving bonuses for no reason that I can imagine.

Obviously, I disagree with the article's conclusion that Bernanke should be retained because he "has been at the helm for so long." The ship is on the rocks; the captain insists upon keeping it there. Get rid of him. Let's find somebody to patch up the holes and get afloat again.

First posting

I just created another blog. The intent here is to write about politics, society and all those "big" issues that I once discussed over too many drinks. Be advised that my political positions are typically but not always a bit to the left of mainstream and that I tend to be cynical.