Lessons Learned? 9/11 and Syria

On September 11^th this year, as in previous years, a flurry of discussion took place about the lessons we should learn. “Never Forget,” some proclaim, carrying a general message some mean as “Always remember those who died and keep them in your hearts,” and some mean as “Never forget that America was attacked by extremist Muslims, and we must be ever vigilant.”  Some people say the primary lesson should be one of seeking to make the world a more peaceful, loving place, a sentiment I wholeheartedly endorse.

However, I believe there are lessons to be learned by reflecting on the tragedy of 9-11 in addition to those that compel us to educate ourselves and others about our mutual humanity; beyond the fear of terrorist attack and the monumental efforts our nation has made to try to prevent attacks ranging from airport security to making war on terrorists. Most of us could understand attacking Afghanistan and supporting the Afghanis who overthrew the Taliban. The Taliban was a fundamentalist Muslim government that offered shelter and support to Al Qaeda, who had attacked us on our own soil: an act of war.

But with Iraq we learned, or relearned--many of us learned this during the Vietnam years--of the danger of our government taking us to war on a lie and keeping us at war to save face.

George W. Bush attacked Iraq claiming we were threatened from nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and intentionally and falsely connecting Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda. There’s a lesson there about holding our government accountable and being skeptical even when we feel the stirrings of patriotic fervor engendered by an attack on Americans wherever they are in the world. Congress gave Bush authorization to attack based on the misinformation provided them.

Once again, on the anniversary of 9/11 we were in the midst of contemplating military action in a Middle Eastern country, Syria.  Once again, the focus was on weapons of mass destruction. Would this be a repeat of George Bush’s rush to war in Iraq? Today’s Congress and the American people are understandably hesitant to support action against Syria based on incomplete and unconfirmed intelligence reports. I am so appreciative that our Commander in Chief in his remarks on September 10 framed his policy objectives and the reasons it is so important to punish the use of chemical weapons by Bashar Assad’s regime. In the absence of a U.N. mandate to enforce the chemical weapons ban because Russia has blocked action against Syria, America can provide leadership in degrading or destroying Assad’s ability to use them again. Near the end of his remarks, he mentioned the possibility that use of force could be avoided if the plan proffered by the Russians results in taking those weapons of mass destruction out of Assad's hands and destroying them.

George W. Bush started with a goal of regime change in Iraq, and in the midst of his march to war, nothing, not UN weapons inspectors saying they could not find evidence of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, not the debunking of false or misleading intelligence on "yellow cake uranium" and "aluminum tubes", was going to stop him. Obama, on the other hand, is using all available tools, from the threat of military force to diplomacy. Who would ever have thought a few weeks ago that Russia would offer to sign on to taking control of and destroying Syria's chemical weapons arsenal or that Assad would even admit to having them?

I hear pundits and read news articles that suggest that Obama has shown weakness by first deciding to ask Congress to endorse the use of force and then agreeing to pursue a peaceful solution after he had drawn a “red line” and made threats. Since when is it weakness for a president to include Congress in decisions about war and peace? And since when is it weakness to seek diplomatic solutions before using force? If this is weakness, then I think we’re better off with a weak President willing to pursue all options than a so-called strong President like George W. Bush who feeds Congress false information to get its endorsement, then sticks with his plan, rejects offers of peaceful solutions, and takes us into war regardless of the facts.

We are watching a Nobel Peace Prize winning world leader at work. Peace is not necessarily attained by spouting beautiful words about peace; it sometimes arrives as an end result of war, but at what cost? Peace can, however, be attained by forcing brutes to behave themselves with a credible threat of force. That is a lesson we can also learn from 9-11 and its aftermath.

Paul Epstein, a retired teacher, is a musician and writer living in Charleston

Report Card Time for Government

In public education, the calendar year historically begins after Labor Day and ends soon after Memorial Day. Having spent over half my life on that schedule, my years end in June. A review of the major stories should help me complete report cards for our government.

On September 11 of last year, protests and an attack on the U.S. Embassy relating to an anti-Muslim video erupted in Cairo, Egypt. There were also reports of an attack on a consulate in Benghazi. In the days following, attacks on U.S. Embassies relating to the video occurred in more than a dozen countries. In this climate, President Obama and his spokespersons attempted to address the tragic loss of life of U.S. Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans in Libya as well as the ongoing threats of violence using language condemning both the attacks and the makers of the inflammatory video.

Mitt Romney and other Republicans accused the President of sympathizing with the attackers, then of incompetence in responding to the attacks, and finally in the months that followed, of falsely attributing the attacks to protesters instead of an organized terrorist group. Worse than Watergate, some pundits and politicians screamed. After the recent release of e-mails detailing how the infamous talking points were collaboratively revised, the satirical fake news website, The Onion, might have written this headline: “White House Releases Bland, Inaccurate Statement: CIA, State Department remove all references that make them look bad”

In October, Hurricane Sandy swept up the East Coast killing almost 300 in seven countries. It was only a category 2 when it reached the Northeast, but storm surges combined with high tides causing massive flooding.  It was second only to Katrina in the cost of the damage it wreaked in 24 states, including massive power outages and damage in West Virginia.

Coming one week before a Presidential election, there were inevitable political effects. The Bush administration’s inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina had been the beginning of the end of his administration. He had reacted forcefully, deploying all the nation’s resources to the threat of terrorism, yet with thousands of vulnerable citizens stranded without food, water, or toilets, he defended his FEMA director, saying, “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job!”  In contrast, the Obama administration’s response to Superstorm Sandy was early, coordinated, and effective, drawing the warm praise of plainspoken Republican Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie. Headline: “Climate Change a Factor in Severity of Storm: Christie bucks Party, thanks President for doing a good job on recovery effort.”

In November, Obama was reelected. Republicans were caught by surprise, confident that no president could win reelection with such high unemployment. In disarray, the party was torn between those who say the problem was the candidate and those who say it is time to stop being obstructionist, start working with the president, and try to win over Latinos, the fastest growing demographic group in the country. Possible headline in The Onion: “Rich White Men Spend Election Season Criticizing Poor, Unemployed, Seniors, Immigrants, Women, and Gays: Ask why didn’t they vote for us?”

A month later, the nation was horrified by the murder of 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary. A bill to reduce gun violence through tightened regulations looked possible for the first time since the Brady handgun bill was passed and signed by Bill Clinton. Headline: “Assault Rifles With Large Capacity Clips Must be Kept Out of Hands of Emotionally Unstable: Every American home needs at least one for self-defense”

As the new year dawned, the “fiscal cliff” threatened increased taxes for nearly everyone and across the board spending cuts known as the Sequester. It was averted when a minority of Republicans voted with Democrats to raise tax rates for those with incomes over $400,000 and delay the Sequester until March 1, hoping for a budget deal. However, Tea Party Republicans got their mojo back and forced their fellow Republicans to hold the line, allowing the cuts to go into effect. The increased taxes on wealthy Americans haven’t destroyed the economy as Republican candidates have for years claimed they would. Headline: “Republicans Force Trillion Dollar Cuts in Government Spending Threatening Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs: Our agenda is to create jobs, Republican leadership proclaims.”

In March, the Civil War in Syria entered its third year. A brutal dictator who would not acquiesce to reforms when citizens protested peacefully is being supported by Russia and Iran. At least 80,000 have died with no end in sight. Having instituted policies to end two wars he inherited, Obama bides his time, waiting for international consensus, despite a few Republicans trying to push him to intervene militarily. Headline: “Arab Nation’s Civil War Becomes Sectarian Conflict: Dictator blames terrorists, Israel, and the United States.”

On April 15, two homemade bombs exploded near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing three and wounding hundreds. An American city entered lockdown as police in military garb went house to house in some neighborhoods in a made-for-TV manhunt. The two Chechen immigrant brothers allegedly responsible, one a naturalized U.S. citizen, gave anti-immigration reform advocates a security argument to bolster their case. Headline: “After Terrorist Bombing, American Citizens Allow Police to Protect Them.”

In May, three huge stories emerged. One featured a master of the theatrical on the world stage, North Korea, threatening to start a nuclear conflagration.  In another, a unit of the IRS was found to have targeted “social welfare” groups with “Tea Party” in their names for extra scrutiny, thinking they just might be engaging in politics. With a House Committee making one more attempt to make something out of Benghazi, and the news that AP reporters phone records had been seized by the Justice Department in a leak investigation, pundits and media declared a trifecta of scandals that might be Obama’s Waterloo. But by the end of the month, it was deadly tornados of historic proportions that grabbed our attention. Headline: “North Korea, Benghazi, IRS Targeting, and Seizing of AP Phone Records No Longer Newsworthy: Could overwhelming majority of scientists possibly be right about climate change?”

We live in a world in which it’s hard to decide what headline grabbing news is truly significant. When a terrorist or other maniacal murderer succeeds, we are justifiably outraged and terrorized. We may want lawmakers or police to better protect us. But every day thirty people are shot and killed in the U.S. with guns, and Congress cannot find the courage to tighten background checks or limit high capacity magazines. By opposing almost everything the President suggests, the Republican Party has become a party of extremists. They get failing grades and Not Satisfactory for Works Well with Others.

Presidents are always attacked by their political enemies when problems occur within government. Do they act quickly and with integrity to investigate, assign appropriate blame, and punish those responsible? Or do they cover up and deny? Obama has proven to be in the former category. He acts decisively, but not until he has the facts. Those responsible are fired or prosecuted after appropriate investigation. He would rather keep government secrets and behind the scenes deliberations private, but when he has to, he releases them, and we see them for what they are: the efforts of earnest government employees to do their jobs, though sometimes making grievous errors in judgment.  Our President is working for us every day: trying to improve the economy, create jobs, improve our infrastructure, and keep us safe in a dangerous world. This is why we reelected him. This is why none of the so-called scandals have damaged him severely. This is why the Republicans, if they want the opportunity to govern again, should work with him instead of against him.

We have to give President Obama low marks for setting unrealistic goals for his first term: he thought if he offered legislation Republicans had supported in the past, they would vote for it. He gets an A for effort, even though we are disappointed that so many important issues remain unsolved: gun violence, immigration, and a “Grand Bargain” to undo the sequester, close tax loopholes, reduce deficits, and insure the health of Medicare and Social Security. 

But what grade do we, the voters, get? Have we done everything we can to put the right people in office? Can we do more to help educate our fellow citizens on the issues? Another election is just around the corner in 2014. If we want the President to solve problems, we need to put lawmakers in office who will support his agenda. If we are to earn an A, this is the headline we need to see: “House Goes to Democrats: Filibuster proof Senate insures President will complete agenda.” It’s too much of a fantasy to wish for this one: “Republicans Vow to Work with President to Solve Nation’s Problems.”

Paul Epstein, a retired teacher, is a musician and writer living in Charleston

Guns Don't Make Us Safer

I’m sure Doug Yanak is a hard-working, well meaning, patriotic American and a responsible gun owner, but in his op-ed in the March 17 Gazette-Mail titled “With Guns We’re Citizens; Without Guns, Subjects,” he has completely missed the target. I won’t blame him for the headline, which may have been penned by the newspaper, but many people in the U.S. and around the world are neither gun owners nor subjects of dictators or repressive regimes.

Yanak starts his piece by letting us know he has carried a gun for thirty years and never had to remove it from his holster (to defend himself or others, I presume). He is an NRA Firearm Instructor who teaches for concealed carry firearm certifications, so his interest in convincing others of the importance of owning and carrying weapons may go beyond his interest in the effects of public policy on reducing gun violence.

In arguing against new gun laws, he first takes aim at universal background checks. He says a grandfather would be a felon if he gives his grandson a firearm.  On the contrary, the proposed legislation makes exceptions for transfers between family members and in other circumstances such as for hunting or if someone is in imminent danger.  

Next, Yanak states, “…all veterans diagnosed with post traumatic stress” would be prevented from purchasing a firearm. He’s not entirely wrong, because even now, any citizen deemed mentally incompetent is denied the right to purchase a weapon legally. But not all veterans who are diagnosed with PTSD are or likely would be deemed mentally incompetent. While the law is making its way through Congress, this is an area that is getting a lot of attention from lawmakers who want to protect veteran’s rights. How to decide who is mentally unstable and should be denied ability to purchase a firearm is a difficult legislative task, but most Americans want the current laws improved for all of our protection.

Evil and lack of spirituality, Yanak blasts, are the problem, not guns; he says that people will murder with or without guns because we live in a “Godless society.” Yet in the U.S., with some of the least restrictive gun laws and where 83% say religion is very important in their lives, we have a homicide rate of 4.2 per 100,000, and in Great Britain, with highly restrictive gun laws and where only 23% say religion is very important, there is a homicide rate of 1.2. Apparently, murder can be reduced by reducing the easily availability of guns, even if people aren’t religious.

After this, Yanak abandons all attempt at logic and turns to fantasy. He picks up the NRA’s ultimate weapon for assaulting proposed gun laws, the claim that the ultimate goal of new laws to reduce gun violence is “to give the federal government that ability to come and confiscate the innocent owners’ firearms with no appeal.” And he goes on to make the argument that governments that “established gun control” end up rounding up and killing their citizens: Turkey the Armenians, Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Guatemala the Mayans, etc. However, Great Britain passed its first restrictions, banning handguns, in 1920. The Queen has yet to start rounding people up.

The “facts” he presents have been circulating in e-mails and on the Internet for a few years, and don’t prove anything except that dictatorial regimes tend to disarm their internal enemies. Sadly, there are probably many good West Virginians who believe as Mr. Yanak does that our government wants to take away their guns and strip their 2^nd Amendment rights, and there are many right wing commentators and websites who want them to believe that, despite the fact that there is no legislation being discussed to take away any guns. Fear of Democrats in control of government has become a sales pitch for many Republican candidates and people who support them. 

But, to repeat, there is no legislation under consideration to ban handguns or rifles or shotguns and President Obama has stated publicly that is not his aim. There is discussion about ending the sale of high capacity magazines and certain weapons known as assault weapons that can shoot as fast as one can pull the trigger. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, claims he needs one in case all law and order breaks down and armed gangs rove the streets.

Just for the sake of argument, I have to wonder what limit, if any, people like Senator Graham and Mr. Yanak think there ought to be on personal arsenals in their neighborhoods. If, as Mr. Yanak fears, the government would start rounding people up for extermination, what weapons would we need to repel the full force of the U.S. Army? Rocket propelled grenades? Tanks? Perhaps a mine field around our homes? Should all these be protected by our Constitutional right to bear arms?

I think not. I prefer to believe in the old adage, the pen is mightier than the sword. The second amendment has held up for over 200 years; even after a Civil War, Confederate soldiers were allowed to keep their guns. Sensible laws can be written that allow Americans to have firearms for hunting and self-defense without allowing them to build up arsenals of military style weapons which might, in a fit of rage or temporary insanity, be used against the rest of us as was done at Columbine, Tucson, Aurora, and Newtown.

Obamacare: An issue of morality

ObamaCare is a word coined by those who oppose the Affordable Care Act, but President Obama has embraced the term. If we re-elect him and preserve it, a new study shows we’ll soon begin to see powerful results of the law on one of the biggest factors leading to poverty.

Imagine for a moment that there is a medicine with no significant side effects, which if given freely to those who want it, prevents a condition that causes 34 out of a thousand young people to miss significant work time, often leading them to leave the workforce or drop out of school. People who live with the condition are usually affected for at least 18 years, and many fall into poverty and require government assistance during some or all of these years, especially those who have recurring bouts of the condition. In order to avoid some of the effects of this condition, on average fifteen of a thousand elect a procedure that is considered shameful by many.

By now, you probably realize I’m talking about pregnancy, and the medicine to avoid it is birth control. A recent two year study of 9,000 young women in St. Louis that got little fanfare  (small notice near the classifieds in the Charleston Gazette, Oct. 5^th ) shows dramatic results in reducing teen pregnancies and abortions.  According to the AP release, “When price wasn’t an issue, women flocked to the most effective contraceptives—the implanted options, which typically cost hundreds of dollars…” The result was 80% fewer teen pregnancies and one-third the abortions of national averages. As Ed Rabel pointed out in his recent entreaty to improve sex education for our teens (Charleston Gazette, Oct. 8), West Virginia, with the 8^th highest rate of teen pregnancies among states, has potential to reduce rates even further.

Even if the only legacy of ObamaCare were a dramatic national reduction in teen pregnancy and abortion, the program would likely be seen in the future as having significantly reduced poverty and largely solved a thorny national problem.  Imagine how many girls might avoid the pitfalls of young motherhood and instead finish school, find gainful employment, and then marry and raise a family when they are better prepared emotionally and economically for parenthood. Imagine how many children will avoid the fate of being raised by an overburdened, underprepared teenager or shuffled around to relatives or foster parents who may only grudgingly care for them. Yet birth control is just one of many provisions of the Affordable Care Act that are likely to improve health and reduce poverty.

I would think the pro-life movement would rally behind ObamaCare once they learned of its dramatic effectiveness in reducing abortion, not to mention the expected impact on poverty. To someone opposed to abortion, someone who believes abortion is tantamount to murder, would it not in these circumstances be immoral to oppose provisions in the Affordable Care Act that provide for birth control without co-pays? Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on many issues before and during his run for president, but he continues to say at every opportunity that he would repeal ObamaCare on day one of his presidency. This is one more reason not to allow him a chance.

Romney Can't Buy Our Votes

A lot has been made of Romney’s 47% remarks, surreptitiously recorded while he spoke to wealthy donors in Florida about the difficulty of getting Obama supporters to vote for him. And rightly so—he said that the 47% of Americans who don’t pay federal income tax “are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it… my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

In fact, many have pointed out, the 47% of Americans who don’t pay income tax are mostly the elderly and working people who don’t earn enough to reach the threshold of paying income taxes, though they pay Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes, commonly known as payroll taxes. It’s the way our tax system is structured, to encourage people to work rather than tax them back into deeper poverty at the lowest income levels. It’s the way Bill Clinton, with cooperation from Republicans, insisted the tax code be restructured in “Welfare to Work” legislation. Many of those who do not pay federal income tax are not Obama supporters, or at least they weren’t before Mitt spoke so disparagingly of them.

What every pundit I’ve heard has overlooked is what Romney was actually trying to communicate to his rich friends: “Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect.” In other words, the main reason Romney believes people will vote for him is to save money on taxes. He reveals another truth: Republicans are for low taxes because that buys votes, not because, as they claim, lowering taxes creates jobs (there are better ways to stimulate job growth). Romney is saying they can’t buy the votes of Obama supporters because, he claims, most Obama supporters don’t pay income taxes, which he says he’d lower.

Really? Does Mitt Romney believe, do Republicans believe that Americans base their votes solely on how much money they think the winner will save them on their tax bill? Well, I pay plenty of income tax, and Mitt, to paraphrase the Beatles song; I don’t care too much for money. Money can’t buy my vote.