The 1.5 million

1.5 million people … that’s how many packed the National Mall for the inauguration of Barack Obama. What a marvelous and unifying event, even for those of us who are concerned about some of our new President’s positions. And to watch him in action over the past few days, what a breath of fresh air to see someone who wants to inform the public, who cares about the Constitution and the rule of law, who wants to engage constructively with the world.

Perhaps this bodes well for that other 1.5 million people, jammed into 139 square miles of the Gaza Strip. After weeks of Israeli bombardment and ground assault, the grim toll in Gaza continues to rise as more bodies are found under the rubble of obliterated buildings. President Obama, in his comments on the Middle East, struck a new chord by recognizing the suffering and despair of the Palestinian people. And of course, he reiterated Israel’s right to defend itself, as so many presidents before him have done. Does anyone doubt the U.S. government’s support for the state of Israel. But support for Israel does not mean turning a blind eye to atrocities committed in the name of security. Yes Israel has a right to protect its citizens from rocket fire coming from the Gaza Strip, but not to imprison via occupation a population of 1.5 million in a 25 mile by 5 mile pressure cooker with no outlet but the Mediterranean.

Is Israel defending itself when its soldiers warn people to evacuate their homes, and then bomb the UN or Red Cross shelters where the civilians have sought refuge? Does defense include shooting Palestinians waving white flags as they exited their home after they were told to leave the area (audio report here); or refusing access to emergency vehicles to reach a man who was shot in the leg thus causing an easily treated gunshot wound to become fatal; or bombing the home of a Palestinian doctor and killing three of his daughters? In the doctor’s case (he actually worked in Israel and strived to bring the two peoples together), the Israeli authorities evacuated the rest of his injured family members to a Tel Aviv hospital, perhaps under pressure from his horrified and grief-stricken Israeli colleagues.

The Jewish voice in official Washington has sadly been dominated by the right-wing American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Yet many American Jews disagree with Israel’s actions and America’s unflinching support. If AIPAC does not represent your point of view, check out the Tikkun website, where like-minded individuals have donated enough money to run an ad in the New York Times proposing a different solution to the Middle East conflict. They would like to run more ads to counteract the AIPAC voice, so you can still donate and add your name to the growing list. As our new President has so often stated, we must be the force behind his actions. It’s time to let him know that in the case of the conflict in the Middle East the status quo is no longer acceptable.

Race in the race

What do you say to a frightened senior citizen who won’t vote for Barack Obama because he is an “arab”? Well, if you’re John McCain, confronted with supporters whose anger has been unleashed by his campaign rhetoric, you reassure the frightened woman that no, Mr. Obama is not an Arab, or a Muslim, or a terrorist. According to McCain, Obama is a good man, not the bad Muslim of his supporter’s nightmares. That’s what seven years of the “War on Terror” has brought us – American citizens who equate Arab with Muslim with terrorist.

It’s all well and good to refute the ridiculous blather about Barack Obama’s background, as a report in the New York Times has done, and as Obama himself has done by stressing his Christian faith. What’s missing from this conversation is a rejection of the notion that the Arab and/or Muslim citizen is somehow dangerous, unamerican, a threat. How about this: the next time some irrationally fearful individual insists that Mr. Obama is an Arab, respond by saying: the senator is not an Arab or a Muslim, but if he were, he would be just as acceptable a candidate.

Meanwhile, there is an Arab American running for president, and while he has been vilified for many things, nobody has accused Ralph Nader of being a dangerous terrorist. At this point, the Muslim/Arab label is a foil because in this toxic electoral atmosphere, it is easier to attack someone for perceived membership in a hated group, than to admit discomfort with an African American candidate. In order to move past this, our political leaders need to model acceptance of difference, rather than defensively denying it.

The bailout hypocrisy

Now that the Bush administration is requesting a $700 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street investment moguls and their companies, a little perspective is in order. It was almost one year ago that Mr. Bush vetoed an expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, much to the dismay of members of his own party. The Congressional attempt to cover an additional 3.5 million low- to middle-income children was viewed by the Bush administration as a “federalization” of health insurance. The grand total of funds requested for this endeavor – $60 billion over five years.

Most experts now agree that some form of federal bailout is necessary to keep the American economy afloat – and that the Wall Sreet firms now in trouble are “too big to fail”. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, himself a former CEO of Goldman-Sachs, will oversee the federal bailout, and has already suggested that a “clean bill” (one without the encumbrances of the democratic process) clear the House and Senate without delay. Ordinary Americans may be chastised for the decisions that lead to their bad debt, but Secretary Paulson insists that the Wall Street bailout remain free of punitive actions.  And while taxpayers are being asked to foot the enormous bill brought about by questionable if not criminal lending practices in support of Mr Bush’s “ownership society”, the administration is balking at such sensible terms as limiting the amount of participating CEO remuneration and giving bankruptcy judges the ability to change the terms of primary mortgages and help homeowners avoid foreclosure. In a display of unmitigated gall, those same industries that are now dependent on government help are lobbying against any aid for struggling homeowners.

To be fair, both parties are responsible for the meltdown we are currently witnessing, as Democrats as well as Republicans are beholden to the financiers now in so much trouble. It was Bill Clinton who signed the Financial Service Modernization Act (also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) in 1999 effectively repealing the Depression era Glass-Steagall Act and removing the wall between commercial and investment banking. That would be the “nation of whiners” Gramm, who until recently was a John McCain economic advisor. Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, yet another former CEO of Goldman-Sachs and now an Obama economic advisor championed the repeal. And when Congress passed the bankruptcy reform bill of 2005, handing a huge victory to the credit card industry, 18 Democrats (including the current vice-presidential nominee) voted for passage of the egregious legislation.

The Republican nominee has rid himself, at least publicly, of his troublesome economic advisor. Senator Obama should do the same, and seek economic advice from individuals who are not tainted by their actions in support of the current crisis.