Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts

January 28, 2020

South Korea is Our Ally, Defacto Part of NATO Yet The Homophobia There Is Equal to Ours in 1960

Image result for south korea is very anti gay
 Being LGBT in South Korea can make for a difficult life. CNN's Kathy Novak tells the story of one gay couple living in Seoul and the challenges they face.
Images may be subject to copyright. Learn More
On a brightly lit stage, two male K-pop stars with glowing skin and perfectly coiffed hair are nibbling either end of the same long, chocolate stick. 
As the stick gets smaller and smaller, they get closer and closer -- and eventually, a fellow K-pop idol pulls them into a kiss
In South Korea's glitzy, highly manufactured music industry, these kinds of scenes are not uncommon. As long as it's only for show, that is.
Homophobia is still rife in South Korea, where very few mainstream music stars have come out as gay. The country has no comprehensive anti-discrimination laws to protect LGBTQ South Koreans and compared to nearby democracies like Japan and Taiwan, the country is less accepting of same-sex couples. (CNN)

In Seoul, many people enjoy the annual Queer Culture Festival, regardless of their sexual orientation. Started with only 50 people in 2000, nearly 150,000 people enjoyed the festival last year, which marked its 20th anniversary. During the festival, participants urge the government to improve LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) rights.
While many people hold rainbow flags during the festival, some Christian groups stage anti-LGBT demonstrations. They hang banners declaring that homosexuality is sin, same-sex unions would spread AIDS across the country, and gay unions would create chaos in Korean society. Christians, however, are not the only people who oppose the LGBT community in South Korea. A recent controversy over a transgender soldier suggests that many Koreans are still hostile to gender minorities.
Last week, Byun Hui-su, a transgender tank driver, drew public attention after she was discharged from the Republic of Korea Army after undergoing sex-reassignment surgery. While South Korea bans transgenders from joining the army, it doesn’t have any rule about soldiers who had a sex-reassignment operation while already serving. And until the Byun case, no one in the military had ever changed his or her sex while serving, so this case was unprecedented, and it became headline news. 
Byun said she wanted to serve as a female soldier, but army officials ignored her plea. The army explained that it decided to discharge Byun because of her “mental and physical disabilities.” An army official claimed that the sex-reassignment operation itself didn’t affect the decision. 
At a press conference, Byun said she wanted to prove that anyone can be a great soldier regardless of gender identity. She also charged that the South Korean army still lacks respect for sexual minorities. And she sued the army for discharging her.
Lim Tae-hoon, leader of the Center for Military Human Rights, announced that he supported Byun, opining that the army’s decision to discharge the tank driver was a violation of human rights. “The National Human Rights Commission of the Republic of Korea has to warn against the human-rights abuses, including Byun’s case. And all transgenders should be allowed to serve in the army without discrimination,” Lim said.
But on the Internet, netizens have denounced Byun: The army is right to discharge Byun; the tank driver is selfish and stupid to make a plea to the army, one of the most conservative organizations in Korea, to accept her as a female soldier; other female soldiers won’t want to serve in the army alongside transgenders.
Before Byun’s case was reported, some political powerhouses, right-wingers in particular, provoked controversy by making crass comments against the LGBT community. Last May, Hwang Kyo-ahn, leader of the conservative Liberty Korea Party, said he hated homosexuality. “I was shocked by queer festivals in Korea. I hate the LGBT community. I think Korean society has to oppose homosexuality,” Hwang said. Keum Tae-sup, a politician with the ruling Democratic Party, criticized Hwang’s provocative remarks, saying his homophobic remarks sounded ridiculous.
In November, lawmakers in the Liberty Korea Party, including Ahn Sang-soo, proposed an amendment that would remove sexual minorities from those who are protected from discrimination under the National Human Rights Act. Ahn underscored his view with  controversial remarks: While the world witnesses a surge of AIDS infections, few people can criticize homosexuality because of the National Human Rights Act; it’s unfair to regard criticism against homosexuality as discrimination. Many condemned the proposed amendment and Ahn’s comments as justifying discrimination against LGBT people. 
Last year, for the first time in Asia, Taiwan legalized gay marriage. When the legislature started to debate the motion, politician Jason Hsu said Taiwan was 10 years behind in respect to the LGBT rights. But Byun’s case and some Korean politicians’ comments against homosexuality indicate that South Korea is not just behind but is going backward.

December 18, 2019

The Cards Speaker Pelosi Still Carries to Dissolve The GOP Bluff on Impeachment

Image result for impeachment
 Trump will be married to the man he loves Pres. Bill Clinton for all eternity while there is the US

In the weeks since the House impeachment hearings started, Republicans have flitted from one argument to the next to try to convince Americans that the process lacks validity. One point they have made repeatedly is that the evidence is largely hearsay, and therefore invalid.

I teach federal evidence law, and that argument doesn’t hold water. Much of the testimony in the record wouldn’t be hearsay at all under federal court rules, and other statements would be admissible under one or another hearsay exception. Moreover, as Senate Republicans have made obvious with their recent proclamations about how the Senate should proceed, an impeachment trial isn’t a federal court proceeding.

It’s an absurd situation. Republicans say the evidence isn’t up to snuff. Yet the very man under investigation, President Trump, is the one who has blocked the testimony of witnesses who might strengthen the case.

The time has come for congressional Democrats to call the Republicans’ bluff: They should go to court to compel testimony from key members of Trump’s inner circle who have firsthand knowledge of the president’s dealings with Ukraine, including former national security advisor John Bolton and White House acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. These witnesses should tell the House what they know, under oath, even if that means delaying a vote on the articles of impeachment.

Don’t get me wrong: It’s plain from the evidence already in the record that Trump should be impeached and removed for abusing his powers in badgering Ukraine’s newly minted president to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden.

But on Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made it clear that he plans to serve as the president’s advocate in any Senate trial. And, as McConnell told Fox News’ Sean Hannity, he already believes there is “no chance” the president will be removed based on the current articles of impeachment and evidence. Other Republican senators made clear over the weekend that they will join McConnell, and not a single member of the majority leader’s party has spoken publicly against his plan.

It’s true that testimony from witnesses like Mulvaney, Bolton and former White House Counsel Donald McGahn isn’t necessary to the already strong case for removal. But it is important not to set a precedent that rewards the president for ordering administration officials to defy the House as it exercises its impeachment powers, and McConnell will try to do just that by ending the trial without testimony from these and other witnesses.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer of New York has now proposed that Democrats be allowed to call the president’s recalcitrant witnesses to the stand at the impeachment trial. If that’s permitted, then the House should move forward promptly with an impeachment vote. 

But if McConnell and his band of Trump defenders in the Senate make clear they will suppress the very testimony that would answer their claims of weak evidence, then it’s time for Plan B.

What can House members do instead of walking into a rubber-stamp acquittal in the Senate?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could announce that the articles of impeachment voted by the House Judiciary Committee last week will be brought to the floor at a future appropriate, but unspecified, time.

The speaker could then hold a news conference announcing that — to address House Republicans’ evidentiary demands — the House will seek testimony from additional firsthand witnesses. It will do so by using every subpoena-defying witness in federal court, seeking court orders that these officials appear and testify under oath. Then the House should subpoena any others whose testimony could supplement the record.

True, it will take months to adjudicate these cases, which is why Democrats have decided up to now not to sue. But that decision was made back when some thought GOP senators might actually consider with an open mind the available evidence, including the president’s obstruction of lawful subpoenas. If the Senate GOP will allow only a whitewash, then Democrats’ calculus should be different.

At worst, a months-long pause will delay the inevitable. But in the meantime, the president’s abuses will stay in the news, and that might constrain Trump from further abusing his power, since adding additional articles of impeachment would be easier for the House before a Senate acquittal than after.

House Democrats should resist McConnell’s plan to produce only the barest mockery of a trial. They are standard-bearers of a coequal branch of government, and now the last line of defense for the rule of law.

Speaker Pelosi still has cards to play. She should use them to call the Republicans’ bluff.

Jonah B. Gelbach is a professor of law at UC Berkeley. He teaches evidence law and civil procedure.

October 10, 2019

Supreme Court To Decide If Puerto Rico Can Still Govern Itself


Mr. Bowie is an assistant professor at Harvard Law School.

In 1947, Congress passed and President Harry Truman signed a law giving the people of Puerto Rico the right to elect their own governor. Until then, all territories of the United States, including Puerto Rico, had been governed by men appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Most governors had been known more for their relationships to the president than, say, for their ability to speak Spanish. But after that 1947 law, Puerto Rican voters elected Luis Muñoz Marín to begin what would become a transformative governorship.

Even as more recent governors have resigned in disgrace, democratic self-government in Puerto Rico has remained. But that could change. Next week, the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider a case that could radically undermine the ability of over four million American citizens — in Puerto Rico, other territories and even the District of Columbia — to elect their own chief executives.

The court is being asked to decide whether a constitutional provision that ordinarily limits Congress applies when Congress legislates for a territory. That provision, the appointments clause, requires all “officers of the United States” to be appointed by a specified procedure, typically by the president with Senate confirmation. Because of this clause, it would be unconstitutional for Congress to allow voters to elect the attorney general or secretary of state; those officers must be appointed and confirmed. But on the assumption that the appointments clause doesn’t apply to territories or the District of Columbia, Congress allowed for the election of Puerto Rico’s governor in 1947 and the district’s mayor in 1973.

Congress’s grant of self-determination was, paradoxically, justified by a series of Supreme Court decisions that were grounded in imperialism and white supremacy. Those decisions held that constitutional provisions that normally limit Congress’s powers don’t apply in the capital district or territories. But over the years, those rulings also led to laws that have allowed for the dignity of self-rule in those places. 

In 1820, for example, the court held that the needs of “the American empire” allowed Congress to tax district and territorial residents without also giving them voting representatives in Congress. “Representation is not made the foundation of taxation,” Chief Justice John Marshall explained without irony, despite having fought in a revolution premised on that issue.

And in the infamous Insular Cases of the early 20th century, the court allowed Congress to disregard the Bill of Rights when legislating for the territories of Puerto Rico and the Philippines. The court maintained that “the uncivilized parts” of those territories “were wholly unfitted to exercise” these rights, and Congress needed the discretion to decide when the islanders were ready.

But the one silver lining of Congress’s relatively unrestricted discretion to act in the District of Columbia and territories has been that Congress has had the same unrestricted discretion to establish democratic governments there.

For example, the Constitution normally prohibits Congress from delegating its lawmaking powers to a local government. Congress couldn’t allow the Cleveland City Council to enact new federal laws. But the Supreme Court has held that this “nondelegation doctrine” doesn’t apply in the territories or the District of Columbia. Accordingly, Congress approved a constitution for Puerto Rico in 1952 and home rule for the capital district in 1973, delegating to both local governments the power to pass laws for which Congress otherwise would be responsible.

Nevertheless, Congress hasn’t always been consistent about respecting this home rule — as next week’s Supreme Court case illustrates. 

The case will review a 2016 law known as PROMESA, in which Congress created an unelected oversight board to restructure Puerto Rico’s multibillion-dollar debt. Describing the board as an agency of the Puerto Rican government, Congress even gave it the power to revise the territory’s laws. This return to colonial supervision angered not only many Puerto Ricans, but also some creditors. The creditors went to court, asserting that the board’s members were appointed in violation of the appointments clause.

A Federal District Court judge rejected the creditors’ argument on the ground that the appointments clause doesn’t apply in the territories. But in February, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed that ruling, holding that Congress is bound by the appointments clause everywhere.

The First Circuit considered the unwelcome possibility that if the appointments clause applies to Puerto Rico, it might also require the appointment, not election, of Puerto Rico’s governor or the District of Columbia’s mayor. But it distinguished these officers on the ground that the appointments clause applies only to “officers of the United States.” The court maintained that the governor of Puerto Rico, by contrast, is an officer “of the territory,” suggesting that her authority comes from the Puerto Rican constitution and not federal law.

But only three years ago, in another case involving Puerto Rico, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Puerto Rican Constitution is United States law: Congress approved that Constitution and can amend it, which Congress effectively did with PROMESA. Territorial officers thus are officers of the United States in the same way that William Barr, as attorney general, is both an officer of the Department of Justice and of the United States.

Moreover, the First Circuit’s distinction between territorial law and the United States law wouldn’t save the Washington mayor, whose authority undoubtedly comes from federal law. So if the Supreme Court upholds the First Circuit’s application of the appointments clause to Puerto Rico without offering a new explanation of why the clause shouldn’t also apply to its governor, it could doom territorial — and district — home rule.

The court could, of course, overturn its noxious territorial precedent, giving district and territorial residents the same constitutional rights as other Americans to representation in Congress and everything else. Failing this wholesale revision, the court should explicitly preserve Congress’s power to create the conditions for local self-government in the territories and the District of Columbia. Otherwise, in the name of freeing Puerto Rico from unconstitutional oversight by an unelected board, the court might make Washington and the territories even more constitutionally anomalous and less democratic than they are now.

The promise of 1947 would, decades later, be broken.

Nikolas Bowie is an assistant professor at Harvard Law School, where he teaches constitutional and local government law.

October 6, 2019

White Evangelicals Love Trump and They Know Why, Race and Political Power


By Anthea Butler

Liberals have a tendency to wring their hands at the strong support President Donald Trump — he of the three wives and multiple affairs, and a tendency to engage in exceedingly un-Christian-like behavior at the slightest provocation — continues to receive from the white evangelical community. White evangelical support for Donald Trump is still at 73 percent, and more than 80 percent of white evangelicals voted for him in 2016.
But focusing on the disconnect between Trump's personal actions and the moral aspects of their faith misses the issue that keeps their support firm: racism. Modern evangelicals' support for this president cannot be separated from the history of evangelicals' participation in and support for racist structures in America.
Evangelicals, in religious terminology, believe that Jesus Christ is the savior of humanity. They have a long history in America and include a number of different groups, including Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodists and nondenominational churches. After the schism among the Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians in the 1850s over slavery, conservative denominations like the Southern Baptists — who defended slavery through their readings of scripture — came into being. And because the primary schisms between northern and southern denominations was over the issues of slavery, in the pre- and post-Civil War years, African American Protestants formed their own denominations. 
Evangelical denominations formed from these splits in the South were usually comprised of people who had made money from slavery or supported it. After the Civil War, many were more likely to have supported the Ku Klux Klan and approved of (or participated in) lynching. The burning cross of the KKK, for instance, was a symbol of white Christian supremacy, designed both to put fear into the hearts of African Americans and to highlight the supposed Christian righteousness of the terrorist act.
During the civil rights movement, many white evangelicals either outright opposed Martin Luther King Jr. or, like Billy Graham, believed that racial harmony would only come about when the nation turned to God. in the 1970s, evangelicalism became synonymous with being "born again" and also against abortion and, with the rise of the Moral Majority in the late 1970s, they began to seek not only moral, but political power.
Ronald Reagan, who also counted evangelicals among his most vociferous supporters, started his presidential campaign on the platform of states’ rights from Philadelphia, Mississippi, where Michael Schwerner, James Chaney, and Andrew Goodman were murdered by several Klansmen with the participation of local law enforcement in 1964, while attempting to register African Americans to vote. Decades later, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, the evangelical leader, opposed sanctions on South Africa's apartheid regime and insultedBishop Desmond Tutu, a Nobel Prize Peace winner, as a "phony." 
After 9/11, many evangelicals vilified Islam and created cottage industries and ministries promoting Islamophobia. And when Barack Obama was elected president, they regrouped, bought guns and became Tea Partiers who promoted fiscal responsibility and indulged in birtherism, promoted by no less than the son of Billy Graham, Franklin.
Still, evangelicals have worked to make a good show of repenting for racism. From the racial reconciliation meetings of the 1990s to today, they have dutifully declared racism a sin, and Southern Baptists have apologized again for their role in American slavery — most recently in 2018 via a document outlining their role
But statements are not enough. Proving how disconnected they are from their statements about atoning for the sin of racism, the 2019 Annual Convention of the Southern Baptists was opened with a gavel owned by John A. Broadus, a slaveholder, white supremacist and the founder of their seminary. In the meantime, the most visible Southern Baptist pastor, Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Dallas, recently said of Trump that “he does not judge people by the color of their skin, but whether or not they support him,” calling that "the definition of colorblind." (Jeffress is such a supporter of Trump that he regularly extols him on Fox News, and even wrote a special song for Trump’s Campaign, "Make America Great Again.")
So it's not surprising that white evangelicals supported the Muslim ban, are the least likely to accept refugees into the country (according to the Pew Foundation) and, though a slim majority oppose it, are the denomination most likely to support Trump's child separation policy. White evangelicals certainly are not concerned with white supremacy, because they are often white supremacists.
And Trump appeals to these evangelicals because of his focus on declension, decline, and destruction, which fits into evangelical beliefs about the end times. When Trump used the term “American carnage” in his inaugural address, evangelicals listened; they too, believed America is in decline. Their imagined powerlessness and the need for a strong authoritarian leader to protect them is at the root of their racial and social animus. Their persecution complex is a heady mix of their fear of “socialists,” Muslims, independent women, LGBT people, and immigration. Their feelings of fragility, despite positions of power, make them vote for people like Donald Trump — and morally suspect candidates like Roy Moore. Rhetoric, not morality, drives their voting habits. 
All of this has made a mockery of white evangelical protestations about morality and the family. Moral issues once drove white evangelical votes but, first when Obama was elected and then when the Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on same-sex marriage in June of 2015, what remained was their fear. Trump promised justices and a return to a time when they felt less fear, and he delivered, at least on the former. White evangelical fealty to him is firm. Evangelicals in America are not simply a religious group; they are a political group inexorably linked to the Republican Party.
Trump delivered evangelicals from the shame of losing, and they will back him again in 2020 to avoid losing again. So perhaps we should take evangelicals at their word that they will support Trump come hell or high water, rather than twisting ourselves into knots trying to figure out why.

August 4, 2019

Trump Obamare Changes Goes After The Health of Gay, Transgender in The US

LGBTQ rights have come a long way in the U.S. But the community still faces threats in the form of legalization, discrimination and even violence. Just the FAQs, USA TODAY

Trump's proposal would put LGBTQ lives at risk. The right to health cannot be obfuscated by the political or social beliefs of others. 

Katherine Archuleta , Opinion contributor

As a former director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under President Barack Obama, I oversaw the federal government’s 2-million-strong civilian workforce on everything from human resource policy to retirement benefits to health care. This included implementation of all regulations outlined in the Affordable Care Act, including Section 1557 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability in certain health programs or activities.
This section covers discrimination on the basis of gender identity, but the Trump-Pence White House has needlessly proposed a new regulation that would cruelly strip the ACA of specific protections for LGBTQ patients, specifically transgender people. This proposed regulation callously puts lives at risk, and it’s imperative the American people make their voices heard on why this it is dangerous and unacceptable.
On June 14, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a proposed regulation based on a court's outrageous claim that the ACA's protection against discrimination on the basis of gender identity is “likely unlawful.”  This initiated a 60-day public comment period that runs through Aug. 12. In a press release sent out by HHS, Roger Severino, the Director of the department's Office of Civil Rights, offered this ratonale: “When Congress prohibited sex discrimination, it did so according to the plain meaning of the term, and we are making our regulations conform.”

Denying care over personal beliefs 

This is a bad faith and incorrect view of “sex discrimination,” but it’s unsurprising coming from Mr. Severino. His long history of attacking the civil rights of LGBTQ people and women includes calling same-sex marriage part of a “radical” agenda, defending the abusive practice of so-called “conversion therapy, and espousing anti-choice opinions, even at the expense of an individual’s health care. He has said that being LGBTQ is “against your biology” and stated that sexual orientation, when compared to race, is an issue of “character.” 
This is not a person who prioritizes the health and safety of all Americans but, rather, consistently seeks to push his personal beliefs on the citizens who look to him for quality and safety in our their health care system.
Over the past two decades, federal courts have made it clear that sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers LGBTQ people due to discrimination based on sex stereotyping. Numerous federal agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, have reaffirmed this interpretation and incorporated it into their policies.
Simply put, there is longstanding precedent for ensuring LGBTQ people, particularly transgender people, are free from discrimination in health care spaces, which makes this administration’s attacks on the medical access of LGBTQ people all the more heinous.

Don't inflict harm on LGBTQ people

All medical access for all LGBTQ people and their loved ones is affected by this proposed regulation and the blanket "religious freedom" exemptions it would offer: a gay man who goes into the emergency room with a broken arm, a lesbian with cancer, a bisexual person with diabetes, a trans child getting immunizations prior to the start of the school year. This regulation goes against everything medical science has fought to make clear: that the right to health cannot be obfuscated by the political or social beliefs of others.
In a 2009 survey echoed in later studies, Lambda Legal found that 56% of lesbian, gay and bisexual people and 70% of transgender and gender non-conforming people reported experiencing discrimination by health care providers — including refusal of care, harsh language and physical roughness because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. In a free society that places human rights and life above personal beliefs and petty differences, that is unacceptable.
It is imperative the public submit comments urging the Trump-Pence White House and HHS to abandon this reckless proposed regulation that would inflict cruel and unnecessary harm on marginalized communities.
Katherine Archuleta is a founding partner at Dimension Strategies and was the director of the Office of Personnel Management under President Barack Obama. Follow her on Twitter: @Archuleta2012
You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to

July 3, 2019

ATT Against LGBT Rights

Related image

Related image


Virginia Foxx, a member of Congress from North Carolina, has a long record of opposing gay rights. She has gone so far as to claim that Matthew Shepard — a college student murdered in a hate crime — was not killed because he was gay. At one point, she used the word “hoax.”

Nonetheless, the executives of Comcast, the media company, have decided that Foxx deserves the company’s support: It recently donated money to Foxx’s political action committee.

Doug Collins, a House member from Georgia, is also an opponent of gay rights. He has argued, bizarrely, that a ban on workplace discrimination would somehow hurt “women, lesbians, and families.” Still, Home Depot has decided to support Collins financially.
Sign Up for Jamelle Bouie's Newsletter
Join Jamelle Bouie as he shines a light on overlooked writing, culture and ideas from around the internet. 

Senator Marsha Blackburn, from Tennessee, opposes marriage equality and supports President Trump’s efforts to keep transgender Americans out of the military. AT&T recently gave her thousands of dollars.

This list could go on. FedEx, General Electric, Pfizer, UBS, UPS and Verizon have all given significant financial backing to members of Congress who oppose L.G.B.T. rights.

Yet every one of these companies also claims to support L.G.B.T. equality. Their social media accounts post photographs of rainbow flags during Pride Month, and their corporate websites brag about their policies toward L.G.B.T. employees.

This hypocrisy was the subject of a recent newsletter by the journalist Judd Legum, who’s been doing excellent reporting on corporate political activity. The specifics here come from his work. Legum focused on companies that have inclusive benefits for their L.G.B.T. employees but then support politicians who undermine those same employees. 

This issue fits a larger pattern. Many big corporations promote an image of decency. They claim to value all of their employees and customers. They claim to care about the state of American democracy and the quality of our schools. But when these same corporations are faced with hard political choices — like whether to bankroll politicians who oppose equality, or whether to damage city budgets by using shady tax loopholes — their principles suddenly take a back seat.

I understand why big companies might prefer to avoid tough issues and simply spread around their campaign donations to maximize their influence. I don’t see any problem with these corporations giving money to politicians on both sides of the abortion debate, for example, because the companies don’t claim to be “pro-life” or “pro-choice.” But they do claim to have a position on L.G.B.T. equality. They say that it’s part of their corporate values, yet they support politicians who treat L.G.B.T. Americans as second-class citizens.

Imagine if AT&T, Pfizer, UBS and the other companies mentioned here took a different stance. Imagine if they said they were willing to back politicians of either party who took diverging positions on any number of issues, so long as those politicians didn’t violate any of the companies’ core values. That approach could actually make a difference, because members of Congress rely on financial support from corporate America.

Instead, the companies are putting profit and influence over their own employees — which suggests that their stated corporate values aren’t very meaningful.

“We stand in support of the L.G.B.T.Q. community members every day,” Corey Anthony, AT&T’s chief diversity officer, recently said. “As an ally, our support is long standing and unwavering.”

Unwavering, eh?

Corporate responses

My colleague Ian Prasad Philbrick and I reached out to all the companies mentioned here for responses, but I didn’t find any of their explanations persuasive. Several pointed out that the Human Rights Campaign has recognized them as having inclusive policies for L.G.B.T. employees. I’ve excerpted the responses below.

Peter Stack, a UBS spokesman: “Our commitment to creating a diverse and inclusive workplace is unwavering. The UBS political action committee, which gives equally to Republicans and Democrats, is designed to support members of Congress who we believe promote responsible economic and investment policies at the federal level.” 

Sharon Castillo, Pfizer: “The decision to contribute to these elected officials was made based on their support of the biopharmaceutical industry and policies that protect innovation incentives and patients’ access to medicines and vaccines. In no way does our support translate into an endorsement of their position on any social issue.”

Kara Ross, UPS: “UPS has a longstanding record of supporting diversity and inclusion and it is a core value of UPS culture … We have been transparent, clear and unwavering in our positions on diversity and inclusion, including bringing the leaders of our L.G.B.T.Q. Business Resource Groups to Washington to meet with members of Congress on the importance of diversity and inclusion … ”

Michael Balmoris, AT&T: “We support candidates on both sides of the aisle who are addressing the issues that impact our business, our employees and our customers. That doesn’t mean we support their views on every issue.”

John Scruggs, FedEx: “FedEx has a long history of participating in the political process, and we support candidates on both sides of the aisle.” 

On Saturday’s episode of “The Daily,” Ann Northrop, an L.G.B.T. activist, criticized some corporations’ role in Pride celebrations: “They’re there to market to what they perceive as an affluent gay community. And then they turn around the next day and spend all their money buying Republican right-wing politicians, who they need to pass whatever regulations they care about. And those Republican politicians are taking away all our rights, putting really virulently anti-L.G.B.T. judges on the federal benches. … So why are we handing over the Pride parade to these people?” 

 The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
David Leonhardt is a former Washington bureau chief for the Times, and was the founding editor of The Upshot and head of The 2020 Project, on the future of the Times newsroom. He won the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, for columns on the financial crisis. @DLeonhardt 

January 3, 2019

Predictions from Some in GOP: Presidency Will Not Survive 2019 Deal to Resign in Exchange For Family Not Going to Jail


Alan J. Steinberg—who served as an adviser to former President George W. Bush—wrote in an opinion piece published this week that he didn't believe President Donald Trump would be removed from office through impeachment.

Steinberg, a former Environmental Protection Agency regional administrator, said that he believed Trump would resign in 2019 in exchange for immunity. 

"Trump will not be removed from office by the constitutional impeachment and removal process," Steinberg wrote in The Star-Ledger. "Instead, the self-professed supreme dealmaker will use his presidency as a bargaining chip with federal and state authorities in 2019, agreeing to leave office in exchange for the relevant authorities not pursuing criminal charges against him, his children or the Trump Organization."

Steinberg noted in the piece that should the House of Representatives impeach Trump, 20 Republican senators would have to break with the president to remove him from office—and that seems very unlikely. Steinberg wrote that the many legal challenges facing Trump—the investigation from special counsel Robert Mueller, the probe from the Southern District of New York as well as inquiries from the attorney general of New York and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office—could lead him to leave the White House, especially as authorities close in on his family. 

Steinberg wrote for The Star-Ledger:

"Aside from all the legal nightmares facing Trump and his presidency, it appears virtually impossible for Trump to be reelected in 2020. The economy appears headed for a severe recession, as evidenced by the recent plunge in the stock market, which appears on pace for its worst December since the Great Depression.

There are only two years left in Trump’s presidential term. With his approval ratings in an abysmal state, and the forthcoming recession making it near impossible for Trump to stage a political recovery, it appears most likely that he will use the continuation of his presidency as a bargaining chip."

Steinberg is far from the only person who believes Trump will be out of office before his first term is up. 

                                            Image result for trump kicked out of white house

Former Republican Representative John LeBoutillier wrote that it seemed increasingly clear that Trump's presidency was going fully off the rails. Making predictions for The Hill, he wrote: 

"1. Donald J. Trump’s presidency will not survive 2019;

2. The downward trajectory of every aspect of his tenure indicates we are headed for a spectacular political crash-and-burn—and fairly soon; 3. His increasingly erratic and angry behavior, his self-imposed isolation, his inability, and refusal to listen to smart advisers that he hired, all are leading him to a precipice." 
The new year has begun with Trump fighting over his long-promised wall along the southern border of the United States. The president sparked a partial government shutdown when he refused to sign a spending bill that didn't include funding for the wall, and it's unclear when that shutdown might end. 

"The Democrats, much as I suspected, have allocated no money for a new Wall," Trump tweeted this week. "So imaginative! The problem is, without a Wall, there can be no real Border Security - and our Country must finally have a Strong and Secure Southern Border!" 

Trump, meanwhile, aside from his dedicated based, remains largely unpopular, with his average approval rating at 41.4 percent on Wednesday morning, according to the tracker from data-focused website FiveThirtyEight. 

July 11, 2017

"Why Should I Pay For Health Insurance for The poor?" What does Money means to the Wealthy?

 The United States Has More weathy people on the very top than any other nation ,plus the most amount of  people making a low salaried compared to the western nations, some of which have spread out distribution of wealth with less billionaires but more people living well without debt. Health services are povided by the government from everyone's taxes. Everyone's covered and everyone has pleanty of money left over for  house, cars, college, overseas vacations. The Nordic countries do particularly well. They have wealthy people but they dont swallow the wealth from everyone else. The ones that would like to become super rich they come to the US.the land of the very rich and the poor.

"If we taxpapyers are required to pay for the health care of some of our fellow citizens, what are they required to do for us?"

 I wondered if she was religious but I could not make this a religion answer to her question which was not a serious question becasue she thought she knew the answer. {Actually JC in the Bible asked something smilar to what she asked but in a serious way and meaning you could not use it as an excuse of giving while expecting something}. Instead I gave figures on my remarks to her (below) from the government of who is got the most money, who are the people she is paying for their health Insurance and by the way every year the amount of people in that chunk gets smaller. Good right? No, because the amount of people with all the money gets smaller the chunk of money they get, thanks to the government gets bigger! Wealthy gets more wealthy but the money has not trickled down but poured up. Those are the people we all pay for their well being and best doctors. No body bitches but just think about it.

This inequality of who accumulates the money is easily fixable in theory if people were educated and less selfish. People are into this American Dream way of mind;  If you work hard then you can get promoted and make a lot more money. Some believe if you work hard and then get into a mortgage of 60 yrs and have two cars financed then that is your right to feel like a real american that is made it.   Most people believe that if they work hard and get lucky, this is the country where they can get rich and join those rich cats up in what ever mountain they reside in. They have this faith that it could happen to them. They don't stop to think what is being wealthy? How much does it take? What does it cost to get there? As Trump and his children how much it cost them? We know that the founder of Facebook went from middle class to wealthy. Why? He came up with an invention. If you are an inventor you do have a shot. But is a very intestimal small shot. The patent office will tell you about the millions of patents they have isssued to people they never see again.

So How does one gets Wealthy? There are so many books written about it by poor people trying to make it rich on your money!

The problem is that happens less often than lightning hitting people on the right shoulder. Wether inventor,  blue , white collar workers. Still people have faith and like to belive they have a chance.
Wwalth when it happens it tends to stay in the family for ages. Like the children of any succesful inventor, they will be wealthy for ever with no need to hold a regular job but to work for the family to protect the wealth. Don't confuse rich with wealthy. Rich is a few Million dollars while wealthy is billions to trillions. So much money is hard for someone to wrap their head around it. If you have ever set foot on a yact belonging to a wealthy person and the following month on a yact from a rich person you will see the difference. The wealthy man brings stuff from the ends of the world to fill a corner in one of their houses. A rich person never pays full price, people want to be in good graces and be called again. It cost less to be wealthy than to be poor. When you have to stand 8-12 hrs a day in your job to affor to pay for your house, that is very costly.

Even if I ended up in becoming the President of my company when I was working full time I still would have to work 6-7 days a week to afford the trappings of success. Real wealthy people don't work, don't tip and do not pick up the morning paper in front of the house. They don't drive and they don't fly first class. They have someone to fly for them and when they do fly a long distance the plane is empy with the exception of his employees that fly his plane. They get pay more for the honor of working for such a man (seldom a woman) than for the actual money and they will never become wealthy. 

Wealthy people can not stopped making money because is not about money but power. The same way a rapist is, not a testostatrome filled man that can't control his sexual urges but someone in need of power over his victims. "Not about sex but power." Not about money but power. and...there is no mercy for those that don't have the power.
Adam Gonzalez

This I saw While I was reding up for information on health care. Adam.

Mary K. Sykes · 
RxoseX Hill, Kansas
If we taxpapyers are required to pay for the health care of some of our fellow citizens, what are they required to do for us?--lose weight? exercise more? eat healthier? not impregnate casually? spend less of their available cash on entertainment and "things"? New, federal health care law must have a quid pro quo aspect to be acceptable to me. Until there's a new amendment to the US Constitution, health care is NOT a RIGHT.
LikeReply32 hrs
Catherine Siebert · 
SDSU (San Diego State University)
I told my various representatives when they passed the ACA they needed to give healthy people rebates ie:all insurance companies should be required to give the same percentage of rebates to people who are healthy enough that all they need is preventive care (and list exactly what that preventive care is) and insurance just in case they have an accident not ocvered by other insurances. Needless to say they didn't listen to me.
LikeReply33 mins
Adam Gonzalez · 
Mary I guess you don't know you already pay for the health care of the 01% in this country which owns the wealth in this country. No other country have so many poor, opposite the very rich which no matter how much we work we wont be part of even the bottom part of that group.What do they do for us, you? They collect your money and make sure the laws that make them so rich wont change.They work 24 hrs at that and hire many people to go and make their points to the other people in power.. To be fair if you dont want to pay for the poor's health insurance (you will stil pay more when they need hospitalization because they never could afford check ups or visits for things that have not turn into infection yet, etc.)
that cant pay for health insurance, you should stop paying for the very rich. I bet you you never bitched about that. It sounds you are not religious otherwise I would say is that what you would tell your god? What do the poor do for me besides do my lawn, clean my toilet and do my laundry, clean my house? Sometimes being too concern with "me" makes you loose the big or "higher' picture.
LikeReply13 mins

Featured Posts

10 People Die On Trump's Visit to India, No Empathy from Him But To Say is India's Problem

This page published on BBC Ten people have been killed in Delhi amid clashes over a controversial new Indian citizenship ...