AskCherLock.com

The Senate Republicans, with plenty of help from bumbling Democrats, have finally done it. They have succeeded in paralyzing the government, and ensuring that absolutely none of “the peoples” business will be accomplished in the near future. They did not accomplish this objective through normal “parliamentary” give and take, but rather by stone-walling every initiative with procedural roadblocks. The strategy has not been to oppose legislation with “No” votes. It has been to use procedural maneuvers to ensure that legislation never has a chance to be voted on at all. At the very heart of the problem are the archaic, Senate rules that allow a disgruntled minority to throw the entire government into “vapor-lock”. A perfect example of the ability of a single Senator to stand in the way of the government moving forward with the peoples’ business is Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama. By abusing procedural tactics, Senator Shelby has put on hold all outstanding nominations of the Obama Administration, including seventy high-level government positions. The Senator from Alabama has pledged to block these nominations until his state gets a tanker contract and a counter-terrorism center. Believe it or not, Senate rules allow him the power to resort to “legal black-mail”. So much for the Senate traditions of courtesy, reciprocity and accommodation.

Not only have the Senate Republicans paralyzed the workings of government, they have steadfastly refused to offer any specific proposals of their own. There have no proposals on comprehensive health care reform, no proposals on reducing the deficit, no proposals on long term solutions to the looming Medicare crisis, and no proposals on much-needed banking reforms. In fact, the Republicans have abdicated any responsibility at all for making things work better. Their mantra is plain and simple: hold the government hostage until they get their pet projects funded, and deny the Democrats any legislative victories regardless of what’s in the best interests of the people of the United States. Sadly, the politics of paralyzing the government to ensure nothing will be accomplished is working according to plan.

The November Congressional elections are still a long way off, but the Republican strategy is clear; filibuster every bill, block every government appointment, offer no alternative solutions, then point fingers at the Democrats and say “they can’t get anything accomplished”. As a result of this, it is time for the Obama Administration to take off the “kid gloves”, give up on the spirit of bi-partisanship, and expose the Republicans as obstructionists. It is time to use the bully-pulpit of the Presidency to call out Senators, such as Shelby, for public censure. After only one single year in office, President Obama has done his best to work along side the Republican minority to craft legislation that will move America forward. Out of pure spite over sweeping losses last November, and for blatantly political reasons the Republican party has given up on governing, and decided to do whatever they can to bring down the Obama Administration. The people of the United States should not reward obstructionist behavior with their votes in November. The Republicans need another whopping defeat at the polls, before they finally get the message.

—Rich

The year was 1986, and I had a management position in the International Banking Division at a major regional bank. The Division had grown rapidly over the previous ten years, and had become a major source of revenue for the bank. International banking, which was previously dominated by the big East Coast and West Coast banks, was available at that time to all the smaller, regional banks who were willing to participate in the risk. The essence of the business was the lending of huge amounts (often in the billions) of U.S. dollars to large commercial enterprises operating in “developing” countries (i.e. the third world). Although the loans allowed the foreign enterprises to expand rapidly, it was also good business for many of the large U.S. companies that were looking to the third world as a lucrative market for expanding their own sales. The governments of the third world countries were, of course, over-joyed at the prospect of billions of U.S. dollars flowing across the border, and were more than willing to guarantee the payment of principal and interest on loans made to indigenous companies. It seemed like a “win-win” situation; the profits were huge, the loans were guaranteed by the foreign governments, and the U.S. domestic market had a whole new customer base. Over the course of a decade, hundreds of billions of U.S. dollar loans ended up on the balance sheets of small and large banks across the U.S.

By the end of 1986, the major international lenders in the U.S. began to suspect they were becoming victims of what amounted to a Ponzi scheme. New money being lent to foreign companies was being used to pay interest on the previous debt, and the total amount of money owed to the banks had become far greater than the borrowers could ever repay. Over the course of the next two years, the foreign governments who had guaranteed the debt were called upon to assume the debt and make good on the payments. Although the outstanding debts were almost all assumed by the foreign governments, there was a lack of political willingness to actually repay. The countries defaulted and the U.S. banks were left holding the bag. The implications for the “third world” was a lack of adequate capital necessary for
long term development.

Twenty-five years have passed since the third world, “international banking” crisis of the ’80s; however, a new crisis is beginning to appear on the horizon: a crisis that could make the one of the ‘80 seem like small potatoes. The United States of America, along with many European countries have now become the biggest debtors in the world, and have amassed many trillions in debt owed primarily to China and the Middle Eastern countries. The interest payments alone on this debt have brought five European countries to the brink of default. Further, it is estimated that interest payments by the U.S. to foreign countries could equal close to a trillion dollars a year by 2020. This is a frightening scenario, and there is little doubt that a default on debt payments by the U.S. would bring about disastrous repercussions. It is critically important that Congress and the Obama Administration immediately develop a long term plan to reduce the country’s reliance on debt funding before the United States of America is considered uncreditworthy. The results of inaction may be America receiving the dubious distinction of becoming a member of the Third World.

—Rich

Background: I met Mugisho when I joined The Safe World Support Centre. Mugisho is the Team Leader of the DR Congo Project, and I became one of his volunteers. As I had more correspondence with Mugisho, I learned that he is also starting a new project called Congolese Females Action For Promoting Their Rights (COFAPRI). Part of the text of Mugisho’s plan reads as follows:

“The DRC is a big country located at the heart of Africa. It has recently been drug into a bloody war that lasted more than a decade. Like any war, aftermaths are unavoidable. The latter makes suffer more the females especially in the country because they fear to speak out what happened to them as abuses. This makes them suffer physically and morally as it is due to some practices and traditions that forbid females to report on everything. Being secretive therefore seems to cause them another kind of internal injure. Women and girls who have been raped for instance cannot say it publicly for fear to break the customs and even be repudiated by their husbands, thus be ridiculed in their respective communities.
In some households, there are also variety of abuses done on females like being beaten by their husbands, rape by husbands, not accepting them to work outside, not giving them a floor to speak in public, girls are not given chances like boys, etc. Violating women’s rights is also another form of devilish violation of human rights; the background of an individual does affect them in the future.
All the above mentioned elements attracted our attention and thus we thought females, educated or not, need our voice to empower them and so break the stigma and tell the world the abuses they undergo in the name of the culture safeguard. Thus the creation of COFAPRI is to break the cycle of violence, the stigma and the silence and denounce these destructive practices.”

In requesting permission of Mugisho to do an article about him and his proposal for this project, I asked whether in so doing it would place him in any danger. Mugisho stated in his response to this question, “As for danger, I do not think there may be one although we never know the behaviour of our people. But I am ready for it.” The following is my interview with Mugisho Ndabuli Theophile:

Cher: Please tell us a little about your background.

Mugisho: I am Mugisho Ndabuli Theophile. Married and father of one daughter aged 2 years and eight months today. I hold a degree in Education, English language teaching and I am reading for Master’s in conflict resolution at UKZN, South Africa. Today I am a university teacher, am volunteering with SWFW DR Congo team leader. I and Bahati are the founders of COFAPRI.

Cher: You have founded COFAPRI, Congolese Females Action for Promoting Their Rights. What lead you to do this?

Mugisho: I felt pity with discrimination, violence and injustice done on women around me in war, at work or at home. Also I got motivated by the campaign we are leading in Safe World For Women.

Cher: What are the primary goals you want to address in this organization?

Mugisho: To empower females to say NO to all kinds of evil actions done on them and then help them to organize and produce something for survival. Never fear to claim for their rights non-violently.

Cher: Can you cite specific examples of violations of women’s rights in DR Congo?

Mugisho: They are refused to work outside the home, girls are not given chances to go to school as boys are, women are beaten by their husbands, they are not allowed to speak in public; cultures is to blame here.

Cher: I have read that part of the violations of women come from those in your military. Is that still the case?

Mugisho: Today things are changing smoothly though slowly. Nothing is sure for grant.

Cher: Our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, visited your country last year. One woman was quoted as telling her, “Children are killed, women are raped and the world closes its eyes.” Can you respond to that?

Mugisho: This is true but the world will not respond to what they are not told. So women must report such devilish attitudes and actions to appropriate instances.

Cher: What part does the fight over minerals in the DR Congo play in the violation of women’s rights?

Mugisho: The Eastern part as there are the militia who often rape women and girls.

Cher: Are women shunned by their families when they have been raped?

Mugisho: Sure, they are shunned because their husbands abandon them and the latter believe such women are not fitting the community or they maybe are now HIV positive, they bring shame to the family.

Cher: Are arrests made in cases of rape?

Mugisho: Sometimes, yes but the rapers are released soon.

Cher: Is there an organization to which people can donate to aid your efforts?

Mugisho: There are but I am contacting them and take an agreement.

I am very grateful to Mugisho for this interview. While it was done across the miles, the courage he speaks is the courage he lives. Once his plan for COFAPRI is approved, I will have a widget on this blog. He is at this time searching for trustworthy venues through which donations can be made. Please keep Mugisho, his family and the women of the DR Congo in your thoughts.

—cher

Turnabout is fair play, so today we are turning over this article to RE, our pundit extraordinaire from The Suss for her thoughts and comments to your responses.

In an article done in USA TODAY, a report suggested that airline maintenance on planes may be shoddy. The article states, “During the past six years, millions of passengers have been on at least 65,000 U.S. airline flights that shouldn’t have taken off because planes weren’t properly maintained, a six-month USA TODAY investigation has found.” The article further stated that “shoddy work or failure to do repairs can often go undetected because of inconsistent or ineffective FAA and airline oversight.”

In citing some examples USA TODAY described an emergency landing of an American Airlines plane that took off without catching mistakes of maintenance workers before an engine caught on fire during takeoff from St. Louis Sept. 28, 2007. They made an emergency landing and the passengers were safely evacuated, but the plane had “substantial damage.” Not scared enough yet?

Here is another example they cited, this one about United Airlines: “After takeoff from Denver on April 28, pilots noticed low oil pressure and returned to the airport. United mechanics inspecting the engine found that two towels, instead of required protective caps, had been used to cover openings in the oil sump area when maintenance was done four months earlier.”

I don’t know about you, but I won’t be buying tickets any time soon. What say you, RE?

—cher

Okay Cher,

heres’ the real deal - airline deregulation in the 1980’s led to the stupid structure of most airlines today.

the maintenance schedules include only the required work that is checked by the faa pop inspections. pop inspections are held when an airlines seems to have a less than satisfactory rating from their chief mechanic. yes the chief mechanic is required to submit the maintenance records yearly to the faa for the fleet he is in charge of. who goes through all that data ? welll now that’s the problem.

the faa is in charge of collecting it, but the ntsb only utilizes it in the case of need. yes I said need. like if a plane crashes, has an engine failure or some other catastrophic incident like was described in the article. then they “need” that data to find out what happened. wow..

when I found this out, I was not only flabbergasted but I now make it a habit of checking as much as I can about each flite before I take it. I want to know what kind of aircraft is used; where it came from or is it fresh ? is this the chief workhorse of this carrier, or one of their short haul birds ? all of this is important to know but usually takes a little of work to find out. you can do alot of the work on the carriers sites; where they give you their statistics and capabilities. that’s what they call their equipment manifest and route breakdowns. yeah jargon.

then you need to look at the schedule for your flight and see what kind of aircraft is used, as well as where it originates. you may be able to get that info by calling. I make as many of my flights in the early morning as possible to get a fresh plane; which has probably had maintenance overnight in the slot before boarding. that’s the optimum situation for a long haul flight. anytime I take a over the pond it’s a nite flite. hopefully out of the Midwest, so that I know they’ve had hours to get their maintenance done; while loading and getting ready for customs and the ins clearances.

the safety concerns are more of a question for me these days, and I’ve followed some basic rules as I’ve ventured around the world in various types of planes, trains, boats and cars.

in the Caribbean I’ve flown LIAT alot. they sell tickets on the tarmac with a scale. yes a scale. notice that lil box at the bottom of the steps, that’s a scale folks. and yes you are getting weighed before you get on that plane, yes you are.

they know how much weight is on the plane before it takes off. so that means you don’t know if you’re going to be seated next to a space; a passenger or a bundle. as long as the weight is right, they put it on. and guess what Cher, they’ve never had a crash, engine failure or any problems with their aging fleet. most of the smaller carriers take care of their bread and butter.

this btw is not the carrier who was carrying Aaliyah when she crashed, because the airplane was overloaded with equipment. that was an american carrier. yep.

safety in Europe on airplanes is much different than in the us and it makes you feel more comfortable. I flew klm habitually or ba instead of ua or nw. they were on the same routes, at the same time and for me it was just a peace of mind issue.in Europe, you see people working on the airplanes. in the us you may or may not. usually you don’t. that’s the problem.

Honestly Cher, until that trust between the airlines and the passengers is restored, no one will enjoy flying; and the service will continue to erode. sadly I believe we are witnessing the death of the American airlines industry; and joyfully we are witnessing the rebirth of the American auto industry. somehow the airlines carriers have to come to grips with their safety and customer service issues if they want to retain their slice of the American leisure travel dollar.

flying in general these days for me is an only if I must do it issue. I only fly if I must; because if I can I Drive. yes I drive between Fla and MI. it’s easy. I stop in GA and rest up and then head for home. it’s no real biggie since I get there with all my undies intact, and no feeling up my personal parts by strange women (who look like escapees from the wwf). I also know that the engine in that bird I’m flying is grounded; and the parts holding it together are serviced regularly and maintained properly. I check my fluids and make my own peace of mind. that’s what the airlines, the FAA and the NTSB in America have failed to do for their passengers.

So Cher that Makes Two Of Us, and I’m Traveling Real Soon

On Wednesday, Afghanistan’s President, Hamid Karzai, will be meeting with Saudi Arabian government officials to request that the Saudis become involved in the peacemaking process in Afghanistan. The Saudis, who have a long history of involvement with the Taliban, have refused to meet with Taliban leaders, namely Mullah Mohammed Omar, until the Taliban ends all contact with al Qaeda. In particular, the Saudis have made it clear that Taliban involvement with al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden would make any prospect of achieving peaceful settlements impossible. In essence, Osama Bin laden would have to be expelled from Taliban controlled lands, and the Taliban would have to clearly declare a break with al Qaeda. Much to their credit, the Saudi Arabians have said that they will not get involved in peace and reconcilement negotiatons until both the Afghan government and the Taliban ask for their involvement.

President Karsai knows full well that the only path to peace in Afghanistan will entail making broad concessions to the Taliban. He is willing to make these concessions as long as former Taliban members are willing to recognize the Afghan constitution and cease protecting and supporting al Qaeda terrorists. Unfortunately, the Taliban response to both the Saudis and the Karsai Administration has been that peace negotiatons would not be possible until international troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan’s territories. And so, the war and the killing goes on. At this point, President Karsai has made it quite clear to Taliban operatives that NATO forces will not leave Afghanistan until they have achieved their goal of removing al Qaeda and terrorist threats.

The power and influence of the Saudian Arabian government to help resolve the hostilities in Afghanistan should not be under-estimated. Respected by Muslims as the center of the Islamic World, the Saudis have sent out a clear signal that they do not support al-Qaeda, and will not work with any groups that have ties to Osama Bin Laden. There seems to be little doubt that the key to ending hostilities in Afghanistan will be for other Islamic countries to join Saudi Arabia in insisting the Taliban break off connections to al-Qaeda. Once the Taliban have seen peace is in their best interests, it would be possible to establish a cease-fire timetable, and begin the process of foreign troop withdrawals.

—Rich

In an incredibly foolish and short-sighted move, President Obama informed Congress that the U.S. would be selling $6.4 billion of military hardware to Taiwan. The State Department defended the sale by saying the United States is “obligated” to sell defensive weapons to Taiwan under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. As further justification, the State department said that weapons sales to Taiwan were consistent with its “Two Chinas Policy”, and would contribute to maintaining stability and security across the Taiwan Straights. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. The Chinese government has long looked upon Taiwan as a “renegade” Province, and views U.S. military involvement with the Island as provocative meddling in China’s internal affairs. In fact, the arming of Taiwan with both offensive and defensive weapons does absolutely nothing to contribute to the stability and security of that part of the world.

The immediate reactions by the Chinese government to the weapons sale have been a threat of sanctions against U.S. exporters, a dropping of Chinese sanctions against Iran, and a suspension of military-to-military contacts with the Pentagon. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei went on to say that “The U.S. plan will definitely further undermine China-U.S. relations and bring about serious negative impact on exchanges and cooperation in major areas between the two countries”. Given the fact that China now holds nearly $800 billion of U.S. debt, and given that fact that the U.S. is becoming increasingly dependent on Chinese imports, it is highly questionable whether weapons sales to Taiwan is a smart move.

At the present time, the relations between the U.S. and China have matured to the point where each side has sound, economic and political reasons not to let relations spin out of control. However, this may not always be the case. As China continues to grow rapidly in economic power and influence throughout the world, there may come a time in a near future where the Chinese military makes aggressive moves to reunite the Island of Taiwan with the mainland. If and when that happens, there will be little that the U.S. can do (short of nuclear war) to stop the inevitable from happening. Time has come for the United States to reassess it’s strategic interests in Taiwan, to cease selling it weapons, and to cooperate with the Chinese government in bringing about reunification with the mainland. To the surprise of many critics, the re-unification of Hong Kong with the Peoples Republic in 1998 went relatively smoothly, and, in fact, benefited both parties.

—Rich

Another one of Glenn Beck’s ‘dirty little secrets’ was aired on FOX last Friday. It was promoted as a documentary entitled “Revolutionary Holocaust: Live Free or Die.” I will state out front that I did not watch this, though I have seen excerpts and have read about it. All I can comment on is my opinion based on that. I will admit that at times I have watched Beck just to get a handle on where the other side, that being the Conservatives, were coming from. But I had been somewhat of a follower when he was on CNN. Of course, that was before he changed his stripes and went to FOX, the Conservative blabathon network.

What caught my eye this morning was an editorial published by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which was actually an excerpt from an article by Eric Burns at AlterNet.org.The title of the Post-Gazette’s article was “Stepping Over the Line, Glenn Beck calls liberals Hitlers in-waiting.” Well, that got my attention so I began searching for clips from the film and other information about it. From what I have gleaned about this film, Beck drew a subtle link between Hitler, who was in favor of universal health care, to the ‘evil progressives’ of today, many of whom are also in favor of health care reform. The following is a quote from the article:
“Mr. Beck linked the progressive political movement to such nightmares as China’s Cultural Revolution and Hitler’s gas chambers. Mr. Beck alternated images of the emaciated, tortured bodies of the victims he blamed on progressivism with archival footage of Goebbels, Stalin and Mao. Behold, America, the future of conservative media.”

The documentary showed some of the atrocities of fascist and communist governments, leading viewers to believe that there is a correlation between those people and the liberals and progressives of today. He threw words around like “socialism” and “communism” as if they are one in the same. Since I am a Liberal and support health care, does that somehow make me a fascist or a supporter of genocide? Do Conservatives believe that our government is fascist and is actually attempting to suppress their ideas about health care?

Glenn Beck has gone over the edge of reason and FOX is enabling him in the name of Ratings. I find him offensive. His innuendos are unacceptable. His temperament is that of a spoiled and perhaps, emotionally challenged child. He cries; he rants; he plays upon our fears. Beware of Glenn Beck as he seeks more prey from the pulpit of FOX.

—cher

Much like America’s on-going debate on health care reform, the debate on how do deal with the nation’s burgeoning national debt has highlighted the deep political divisions within the Congress and within the American people. The bi-partisan proposal by Democratic Senator Kent Conrad and Republican Senator Judd Gregg to establish a commission of legislators to create a proposal on how to deal with the nation’s $12 trillion debt went down in flames on Tuesday, after it failed to get the needed sixty votes in the Senate. Although President Obama strongly supported the creation of the commission, many Democratic and Republican Senators were not about to approve any governmental group that would require them to compromise their highly partisan positions. On the one side the Democrats were concerned that the commission would recommend deep cuts in entitlement programs, and on the other side the Republicans were concerned that the commission would recommend increases in taxes. When it came time to vote, neither side was willing to take the chance that the Commission would recommend actions that would force them to compromise.

In a very real sense, the inability of America’s elected representatives to take even the small step of creating a bi-partisan commission to study the national debt problem is an ominous sign of the political gridlock in Washington. Other than the issue of national security, there should be no higher priority than coming up with a long term plan to pay down America’s crushing debt burden (mainly payable to foreigners). An equally high priority should be establishing some sort of controls on deficit spending in the future. Unfortunately, politicians are unable, or unwilling to work together to avert the “financial holocaust” that is headed America’s way. As the national debt continues to grow at alarming rates, the interest payments alone will soon consume a huge chunk of the Treasury’s revenue, leaving a constantly shrinking amount of money available for investment in the American people and American businesses.

Without bi-partisan agreement on how to tackle the “national debt problem” it is unlikely that any administration, Democratic or Republican, will be able to make progress on this critical issue. The only solutions available to the Obama Administration are to discontinue economic stimulus initiatives, drop health care reform, cut back on foreign aid and freeze all discretionary government spending at current levels. These short term solutions will undoubtedly create havoc within the left wing of the Democratic Party; however, this critical time in American history calls for a President with the courage to make tough decisions, and to shelve campaign promises until the immediate fiscal problems America faces can be effectively resolved.

—Rich