Tag Archives: President Obama

Green Island Grrrl

Steve parked in Rose’s space … InCity Book Review

But first:

*******

The Long Game: How Obama Defied Washington and Redefined America’s Role in the World

By Derek Chollet, (2016, Perseus Books, 262 Pages)

Reviewed by Steven R. Maher

Journalism has often been called the first draft of history. With that in mind, former Obama administration official Derek Chollet has evaluated President Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Chollett covers an enormous number of issues, personalities, and events in a short 262 pages, a concisely written book and that will be a valuable resource for future historians.

Unexpected foreign events often arise during a Presidency. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, drawing the U.S. into World War II, and changing the Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Soviet Union installed nuclear missiles in Cuba, leading to the missile crisis and John F. Kennedy’s finest hour. 9/11 pushed George W. Bush into being a different President than the one he campaigned as. While Bush’s unexpected event was in his first year in office, two of Obama’s problems came late in his second term: the catastrophic insurgency of ISIS, and the ominous resurgence of Putin’s Russia.

Disasters inherited

Barack Obama inherited an America facing the abyss. As Wikipedia put it: “The bursting of the US housing bubble, which peaked at the end of 2006, caused the values of securities tied to US real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally. The financial crisis was triggered by a complex interplay of policies that encouraged home ownership, providing easier access to loans for subprime borrowers, overvaluation of bundled subprime mortgages based on the theory that housing prices would continue to escalate, questionable trading practices on behalf of both buyers and sellers, compensation structures that prioritize short-term deal flow over long-term value creation, and a lack of adequate capital holdings from banks and insurance companies to back the financial commitments they were making.”

America hovered on the edge of another Great Depression:

• By January 2009 the economy was shedding 800,000 jobs a month.

• American families were losing 100,000 homes a week as home values plummeted and entire neighborhoods, particularly in the inner cities, were devastated.

• The banking system seemed ready to implode, with major financial institutions like the Lehman brothers going bankrupt. Hard core conservatives urged the U.S. government to stay out.

• The automotive industry ran out of money. Cash burn was so bad that General Motors told the White House it had on hand only two weeks of money left to operate. The potential loss of jobs from this one problem alone could be counted in the millions.

Mitt Romney wrote a tome in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt”, saying the U.S. should not save the auto industry. That the “supply chain” – the subcontractors and factories manufacturing components for the auto industry, located mainly in the “Rust Belt” states that voted in 2016 for Donald Trump – would die and could not be revived, did not worry Romney.

The Long Game

It should be borne in mind that these were just the domestic issues Obama faced. It says nothing about the foreign affairs calamities facing the U.S., including ongoing wars tying up 175,000 American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“It is hard to think of a president who entered office facing more challenges of historic magnitude,” commented Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Obama set out to play the “Long Game.”

“The defining element of Obama’s grand strategy is that it reflects the totality of American interests – foreign and domestic – to project global leadership in an era of seemingly infinite demands and finite resources,” writes Chollet. “This is playing the ‘Long Game.’”

Chollet describes Obama as a political version of Warren Buffett, who became a billionaire by buying up companies with a strong market base but which were financially weak. When the economy got better, the values of these investments skyrocketed. Buffett made his billions by looking not at these companies’ value at the time he bought them, but what he expected these entities to be worth over time.

“Games are won by players who focus on the playing field – not by those whose eyes are glued to the scoreboard,” observed Buffett.

Obama believed the U.S. overextended itself by pouring so much manpower, equipment, and money into Iraq, instead of hunting down Al-Qaeda and its leaders. Obama thought the U.S. should shift America’s focus from the Middle East to the Pacific Basin; rebalance America’s projection of power, putting as much emphasis on diplomacy and economic sanctions/assistance as Bush did on the use of military force; and reset America’s alliances with NATO and Russia.

To go into every topic Obama’s administration dealt with would fill up this entire newspaper. We’re going to look at some of Obama’s foreign policy successes, his failures, and draw some conclusions.

Disarming Iran

Historians are likely to regard the Iran nuclear treaty as a hallmark of Obama’s administration. When Bush left office, Iran was moving full speed ahead on its
nuclear program. Obama convinced the Russians, Chinese, British, and French to impose sanctions that devastated the Iranian economy. Since the July 2015 signing of the treaty, Iran has removed weapons grade uranium, reduced the number of centrifuges by two thirds, and removed the heavy water reactor at Arak and filled it with concrete. For the moment, Iran has been disarmed. That is no small achievement, and may be one a bellicose Trump could build upon.

Disarming Syria

In August 2013 Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad used chemical weapons against opposition held territory, killing 1,400 civilians, including women and children. Obama had warned Assad in 2012 that doing this would be crossing a red line. The only nation willing to back the U.S. in using military force was France (derided as the seller of “freedom fries” during the Bush era). Britain’s parliament voted against participation, and the American people overwhelmingly opposed involvement in a third Middle East conflict. Congress refused to authorize military action by Obama. The Republican Congressional war dogs made macho denunciations of Assad, but wouldn’t vote to authorize U.S. military action against the Syrian tyrant.

Chollet cited other problems related to using military force to destroy Assad’s chemical weapons. There were 50 sites containing 1,300 pounds of chemical weapons, dispersed around Syria. Neutralizing these would require heavy air and naval attacks along with 75,000 ground troops. There was a danger Assad’s military would collapse under such an assault, and hundreds of tons of chemical weapons fall into the hands of ISIS/Al-Qaeda. After U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry remarked that the matter could be resolved by Assad giving up his weapons, the crisis was resolved diplomatically.

Chollet writes: “Without a bomb being dropped, Syria admitted to having a massive chemical weapons program it had never before acknowledged, agreed to give it up, and submitted to a multinational coalition that removed the weapons and destroyed them in a way that had never been tried before.”

Obama lost face because he drew the red line and didn’t take military action against Syria. But he achieved the maximalist objective of disarming Syria. Reagan faced a similar situation when 250 Marines were massacred in Lebanon by terrorists in 1982. Instead of doubling down, Reagan prevented America from getting dragged into a quagmire by “redeploying” the surviving Marines to ships offshore. Both Presidents did what was best for their country, even if it meant a personal loss of face.

Bin Laden and the drones

Obama’s Presidency reached its pinnacle in May 2011 when Seal Team Six descended upon Osama bin Laden’s lair in Abbottabad, Pakistan and killed the Al-Qaeda leader. Few Americans knew that Obama had played a key role in planning the mission. The plan originally call for the Seals to go in without helicopter backups. Obama insisted that backup helicopters be situated in reserve not far from Abbottabad. These proved crucial when one of the Seal helicopters crashed while landing.

Obama used the same strategic approach to get America out of Iraq and Afghanistan that Richard Nixon used to get the U.S. out of Vietnam: advance the air power while withdrawing the troops. Nixon used B-52s and laser guided ordinance to bomb North Vietnam into signing a peace treaty. Obama sent American drones on hundreds of missions to kill Al-Qaeda and associated terrorist leaders. Some criticized this because of the civilians killed in the drone strikes. However, by and large, it did disrupt Al-Qaeda’s ability to launch mass casualty attacks on the U.S. homeland.

The Russian Reset, Part I

With all the noise being generated over Trump and Vladimir Putin, Obama’s “reset” with Russia has been widely viewed as a failure. However, when the policy was first implemented in 2009, it did lead to some successes. This was due to the fact that Putin was not the Russian President; Dimitri Medvedev was, and he wanted to work with the United States. With Medvedev’s help, the U.S. organized the sanctions against Iran; agreed to destroy one third of Russia’s nuclear arsenal; supported setting up supply lines to Afghanistan that avoided a volatile Pakistan; and voted with the U.S. during the U.N. debate authorizing the use of military force against Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

Now, let’s look at some of shortcomings of Obama’s Presidency.

Syria

According to the mainstream media, upwards of 500,000 Syrians have been killed in the civil war and millions have fled to Europe. Obama appears to have done what he could diplomatically to stop the carnage. But faced with the obduracy of Syrian President Assad, the lack of allies who supported intervening in Syria, the U.S. had no good choices. If it supported Assad, the U.S. would be siding with a blood thirsty dictator. If Obama opposed Assad, ISIS and Al Qaeda might take control of the country. His critics charged that he could have supported moderate Syrians earlier, but there was a problem with vetting these groups.

What Obama should have done is establish no fly zones in Syria where Syrians fleeing the conflict could be protected. This would also have stopped large masses of Syrians from fleeing to Europe.

Iraq

When America troops left in 2011, Iraq by and large was peaceful. The emergence of ISIS could not have been foreseen by any American President. It was with a few thousand guerillas that ISIS attacked and conquered huge swaths of Syria and Iraq. In Mosul, with its million residents, stated Wikipedia, “the Iraqi army had 30,000 soldiers stationed in the city, facing a 1,500-member attacking force.” With such favorable odds, the ISIS force should have been smashed. Instead, the 30,000 Iraqi soldiers abandoned their U.S. equipment and fled.

Few were clairvoyant enough to anticipate the total ineffectiveness of Iraq’s armed forces, equipped with billions of dollars in U.S. military equipment. From a few thousand fighters, ISIS grew to an armed force of 30,000 men as wannabe Jihadists from Europe and the Middle East swelled their ranks. They were armed with the American weapons left behind by the fleeing Iraqi army.

Libya

In 2011 there was yet another U.S. intervention on “humanitarian” grounds in Libya that turned into a mission to overthrow Gaddafi. After Gaddafi was killed, Libya descended into anarchy as warring factions fought each other. The U.S. was prodded into action on Libya by its European allies; Obama should have insisted on a post-war NATO occupation force from these allies to assist Libyans in setting up a stable government.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates opposed intervening in Libya, saying: “Can I just finish the two wars we’re already in before you go looking for new ones?”

The Russian Reset, Part II

In 2012 Vladimir Putin took back his old job of Russian President. Putin’s animus against Hillary Clinton stems from this episode; Putin apparently believes that Clinton ordered U.S. intelligence agencies to clandestinely block his return to the Russian Presidency. In any event, Obama’s measures to persuade Putin to stay out of Syria and the Ukraine were unsuccessful, and this must be regarded as another Obama shortcoming.

Closing thoughts

History will give a much fuller judgment on Obama when the facts become available. Since Obama’s foreign policy was set up with the intention of yielding long term benefits, a historical perspective will be necessary to evaluate Obama. The failures he had, particularly in the Middle East, rose from his fervent desire to keep the U.S. out of another war.

Obama may well be remembered by historians for two things that didn’t happen on his watch. First, he kept the economy from imploding. The car industry was saved, the banking system made solvent, and a slow but painful process of economic revival took place. Second, he didn’t get sucked into another quagmire like Iraq. The 175,000 American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have been reduced to 15,000. Yes, it wasn’t a perfect Presidency. But considering the near collapse of the economy in 2008, Obama did well in keeping America from falling into the abyss of a second Great Depression, and from being drawn into another grinding war. History is likely to view Barack Obama very kindly.

Hoffman, InCity Yum Yums

You be the judge

By Jack Hoffman

14039989_1219938534765865_7049250928108638772_n

20160825_154349
pic:R.T.

I was planning on writing my column for Rose on pass codes/words, but something else got my fancy up. Before I continue, I have just one question about pass codes/words: With all this hacking that’s going on … how the hell do they get into all these files, if they don’t know the pass code?

I’ll await a good response from some geek out there.

Now for what’s important:

I confess when this presidential nominating process began I was cheering for Donald Trump, before the oddsmakers didn’t give him a shot. I wanted him to win so he could bury the Republicans for the next 10 years — maybe longer!

And that’s what scares the hell out of the Repugs who refuse to back him.

I saw a bumper sticker on a parked car that read “I just don’t trust the government.” So I pasted a note on his car, saying: “I suggest you give back your Medicare and Social Security.” With an attachment that read: “It’s your government, too.”

Just this week the war of words has really picked up. It seems everyone or just a few are a little pissed off at their government.

Why?

And who is a racist and a bigot and some other choice words?

Let me turn to the Oxford Dictionary to define “bigot”: “A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.”

Sound familiar?…hello, Donald Trump!

After my wee bit of being pissed off, I received the following from a political pal of mine in Florida: It’s titled “Why you should vote Republican.”

Ok, let’s see why:

We’ve blocked every Obama move. We kept another liberal out of the Supreme Court, country be damned;

we cut taxes for the wealthy;

gerrymandered and suppressed the minority vote in every district we could;

repealed “Obamacare” 51 times at a cost of more than $54 million to taxpayers;

we shut down the government, wasting another $21 billion;

we didn’t pass a single jobs bill.

We blocked immigration reform, background checks, minimum wage and equal pay for women;

made women’s choice much harder to exercise;

cut off unemployment benefits, and even filibustered the Veterans Benefits bill.

Most important, we got many states to put in voter IDs so we can keep minorities at a minimum. Of course, there are no real statistics that there is any real voter fraud. Oh! that damn Federal Court is ruling against those IDs!

And we only worked 97 days this year!

Oh, and we want your vote!

Right.

And we are in need of your money!

I’m saving my pass codes column for when I simmer down…

Comments? Email Jack at jack5225@verizon.net

Animal Issues

Gordon’s parked in A.I! … War Crimes, Mr. Trump and Worcester’s Mr. Hoar

By Gordon Davis

Recently Presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would authorize the use of torture (waterboarding) by American forces. Torture is forbidden by international law; it is a war crime and a crime against humanity.

Trump subsequently doubled down on his commitment to torture. He now says he would execute Muslim prisoners by firing squad with bullets dipped in pork. Summary execution also is a war crime. Some Muslims believe that they cannot enter Heaven when their bodies are polluted with pork.

Former President George W. Bush has an arrest warrant against him by the World Court for his authorization of waterboarding torture. This is the reason that he rarely leaves the boundaries of the United States. Like what happened to the fascist Allende, a country recognizing the World Court could arrest Mr. Bush.

The crime of executing Muslims with bullets dipped in pork is not new to Mr. Trump.  The American General Pershing during his tours of duty in the Philippine American War was rumored to have committed this crime several times.

The Philippines American War is little known, although some estimates are that close to 500,000 Filipinos were killed.  The southern Philippines have had a majority Muslim population that resisted the American occupation.

In contrast to Trump and Bush is Worcester’s George Frisbee Hoar. Mr. Hoar moved to Worcester in the early 19th Century. He, similarly to Samuel Clemens, opposed the Spanish American War and the American occupation of the Philippines. He thought it to be Imperialism. Mr. Hoar was a member of a commission that found that Americans had committed war crimes during the Philippine American War.

When George Hoar came to Worcester he became a Free Soiler. He opposed the expansion of slavery into the so called American territories. With the establishment of the anti-slavery Republican Party Mr. Hoar joined it early on.

Hoar fought for the rights of Black people and Native Indians. He also sided with those in favor of equal rights for women.  He defended Italians who were immigrating into New England and he opposed the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Worcester Polytechnic Institute can claim Mr. Hoar as a founding member. Like most Republicans of that time, he was a supporter of industrialization.

A statue of Mr. Hoar graces our City Common, here in Worcester.

Hoar

The anti-war movement went silent during the Presidency of Barack Obama, even though there were American wars through his time in office.

With the election of a Hoar like Senator Sanders the anti war movement will again find it difficult to act.

I suspect that should Mr. Trump be elected to the Presidency of the United States, there will be more wars. Like President Obama, Trump will be constricted by material conditions. I think the anti-war movement will be revitalized, using the Blacklives movement as a model.

During the 1960s there was a confluence of the old civil rights movement and the anti-war movement. Dr. King and Malcolm X were some in the leadership of this confluence. 

It is not clear what the new leadership will look like in the fight against war and for economic and social justice in the 21st Century.

InCity Yum Yums

Gordon is parked in Yum Yums. … Scalia, Thomas and the Redemption of the Individual  

By Gordon Davis
 
The late Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s view of the law is a form of “Originalism.” This legal philosophy is founded on the principle that the Constitution of the United States is a “fixed” and unchanging document, except by amendment. This philosophy is disingenuous and even Justice Scalia could not explain its contradictions. 
 
The principle is based on the premise that the original writers’ of the Constitution views of the world are the only views of the world that the courts should consider, unless the Constitution is changed by the amendment process.
 
For hundreds of years the Supreme Court justices held something different. They held the principle that the Constitution is a “living” document that could be changed or interpreted. A good example of this is the relatively recent ruling that corporations are legal “persons.” It is a certainty that the original writers of the Constitution did not intend corporations to be legal persons. Another example is “money is speech” – no one in the 18th century thought this to be true, let alone the writers of the Constitution.
 
Justice Scalia was a salesman, actually a wizard of sorts, selling falsities and illusion. He sold us the pretext of Originalism, a wholly made up theory that was contradicted by the facts. Justice Scalia used this pretext to push through a very conservative agenda at the Supreme Court.
 
Unfortunately, Justice Scalia’s disciple, Clarence Thomas, is still a sitting Supreme Court Justice. I went to school – the College of the Holy Cross – with Clarence Thomas; I can only say good things about him when he was at Holy Cross.
 
Justice Thomas’ thinking and my thinking on the issues are far apart. Justice Thomas has not been such a good philosophical salesman. I think that with Justice Scalia’s death, Justice Thomas will be less influential. Justice Thomas might not be able to do as much harm as he has done in the past. I hope that Cooz can find his way out of the spell of the wizard. I worry about his redemption and salvation.
 
With the death of Justice Scalia some of the right wing agenda will be delayed indefinitely. The issue of the union busting of Public Service Unions will be put into abeyance. The issue of gerrymandering will be delayed until a replacement for Justice Scalia can be found. Other issues such as Affirmative Action, Abortion Rights and Immigration will be thrown into doubt.
 
These important issues will probably have to await the outcome of the Presidential election. The Republicans certainly are concerned about their right wing agenda. The Republican lawmakers in Washington sent a shot across the bow of the President within hours of the death of Justice Scalia to not nominate anyone for the vacancy.
 
It is likely that President Obama, with nothing to lose, will nominate Judge Sri Srinivasan for the Supreme Court vacancy. He is a liberal Judge on the D.C. Appellate Court. Many of the present justices were appointed from the D. C. Appellate Court, Justice Thomas being one. Judge Sri Srinivasan is of South Asian heritage. I think he could add a new perspective to rule of law, as we move into the uncharted waters of 21st Century modernity. 

InCity Voices

House Members call on Speaker Ryan, once again, to hold War Debate

U.S. Representatives Jim McGovern, Barbara Lee, Walter Jones, Adam Schiff, Peter Welch and 20 other Members of Congress yesterday sent a bipartisan letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan calling for a debate and vote on the year-plus, multi-billion dollar war raging in the Middle East.
 
“In November, a bipartisan group of 35 House lawmakers urged Speaker Ryan to bring an AUMF to the House floor for a debate and vote. We were pleased to hear Speaker Ryan include this as a priority for 2016. Today, I join with my colleagues in calling on him to deliver on that promise,” Congressman Jim McGovern said. “Americans deserve a Congress that will honor its constitutional responsibility when it comes to war and authorizing military force. Our brave men and women in uniform deserve nothing less.”
 
The letter, addressed to Speaker Ryan, cites language included in the omnibus spending bill that finds “Congress has a constitutional duty to debate and determine whether or not to authorize the use of military force against ISIL.”
 
In the State of the Union, President Obama renewed his call for a Congressional debate on the AUMF. He said, “If this Congress is serious about winning this war, and wants to send a message to our troops and the world, authorize the use of military force against ISIL. Take a vote.”
 
“Tomorrow will mark one year since President Obama sent Congress a draft AUMF. Over the last 365 days, it has sat on the Speaker’s desk while our nation has become increasingly more embroiled in yet another costly and endless war in the Middle East,” said Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA). “The Constitution is clear: Congress has a responsibility to debate and vote on matters of war and peace. The American people deserve better than a Congress that abdicates this sacred responsibility.”
 
“For 15 years, the American people have felt the cost and pain of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have spent over $1.5 trillion and lost over 6,800 brave men and women. ISIL is a new and distinct threat, and the American people expect Congress to meet its constitutional responsibility to have a debate and a vote on whether yet another war is worth the grave cost,” said Congressman Jones (R-NC).
 
“Nearly 18 months into the military operation against ISIS, and a year since the President submitted a draft Authorization for Use of Military Force, Congress continues to abdicate its responsibility to consider a new AUMF to authorize the war against ISIS,” said Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA), Ranking Member on the House Intelligence Committee. “There are a variety of different approaches and ideas to authorize the campaign against ISIS, al Qaeda and the Taliban, and Congressional leadership must allow a full and open debate and vote on the matter. The power to declare war is one of Congress most solemn responsibilities and if our troops are willing to do their jobs — and they are — Congress should have the guts to do its job.”
 
“The Constitution is clear. It is the responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force. Yet, since military operations against ISIL began in August 2014, Congress has been absent.” Congressman Peter Welch (D-VT) said. “It’s inexcusable. A service member has died. Taxpayers have spent more than $5.8 billion on airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. Speaker Ryan acknowledged that a declaration of war is the responsibility of Congress. He is right. It’s time for Congress to debate and vote on America’s strategy to defeat of ISIL.”
 
**********
 
Full text of the letter is below:
 
February 10, 2016
 
The Honorable Paul Ryan
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
 
Dear Speaker Ryan:
 
We write to follow up on our request that you bring before the House a formal authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) or Daesh.
 
We commend your statements in December 2015 in support of updating an AUMF to reflect U.S. efforts against ISIL in Iraq and Syria and agree with your statement that “Congress is the one who declares war. This is Congress’ responsibility.” Further, we appreciate your recent efforts to explore support within your Caucus for a debate and a vote on an ISIL-AUMF.
 
While members may have differing views on the scope of a new authorization for the use of military force, we can all agree that Congress has a Constitutional duty to debate and declare war. Indeed, the Fiscal Year 2016 Omnibus Appropriations bill included Sense of Congress language adopted on a bipartisan basis in the House Appropriations Committee stating that:
 
(A)  Congress finds that –

(1)   The United States has been engaged in military operations against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) for more than 8 months;

(2)   President Obama submitted an authorization for the use of military force against ISIL in February 2015; and

(3)   Under article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the authority to “declare war.”

(b) Therefore, Congress has a constitutional duty to debate and determine whether or not to authorize the use of military force against ISIL.
 
Congress cannot continue to abdicate its constitutional authority to authorize military action abroad. We stand ready to work with you to prioritize the consideration of an authorization for the use of military force against ISIL before the House as soon as possible.
 
Sincerely,

Fashion

In fashion: President Obama … and the ALA

Congressman Jim McGovern Applauds $1.1 Billion in President Obama’s Budget to Address the Opioid Epidemic

McGovern Welcomes Proposal to Ensure All Who Seek Treatment Can Get Help They Need
 
Congressman Jim McGovern applauded this week’s announcement that President Obama’s FY 2017 Budget includes $1.1 billion in funding to address the opioid epidemic that is impacting so many families in Massachusetts and across the country.
 
“Today’s announcement that President Obama’s budget will dedicate more than $1 billion to address the opioid epidemic is a critical step in this fight,” Congressman McGovern said. “In the past year, I have worked tirelessly to make sure the voices of Massachusetts families are heard in Washington, co-sponsoring three different bills and joining my House Colleagues to call on Administration officials to ensure all of our communities are receiving the federal funds needed to address this crisis.
 
“With the proposed funding announced today by President Obama, it is clear that our voices are being heard and Massachusetts can count on the White House to be a strong national partner in this fight,” McGovern added. “We must do all we can to ensure that treatment is available to those who seek it and by prioritizing treatment and prevention, this proposal takes the smart and comprehensive approach we need to help all of the families and communities touched by the opioid epidemic. This is a national priority and I look forward to working with both parties in Congress to securing the funding and resources we need to win this fight in Massachusetts.”
 
President Obama’s proposal includes $1 billion in new mandatory funding over two years to expand access to treatment for prescription drug abuse and heroin use.

This funding will boost efforts to help individuals with an opioid use disorder seek treatment, successfully complete treatment, and sustain recovery. 

This funding includes:
 
·         $920 million to support cooperative agreements with States to expand access to medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorders. States will receive funds based on the severity of the epidemic and on the strength of their strategy to respond to it.  States can use these funds to expand treatment capacity and make services more affordable. 

·         $50 million in National Health Service Corps funding to expand access to substance use treatment providers.  This funding will help support approximately 700 providers able to provide substance use disorder treatment services, including medication-assisted treatment, in areas across the country most in need of behavioral health providers.

·         $30 million to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment programs employing medication-assisted treatment under real-world conditions and help identify opportunities to improve treatment for patients with opioid use disorders.

This investment, combined with other efforts underway to reduce barriers to treatment for substance use disorders, will help ensure that every American who wants treatment can access it and get the help they need.   
 
Second, the President’s Budget includes approximately $500 million — an increase of more than $90 million — to continue and build on current efforts across the Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) to expand state-level prescription drug overdose prevention strategies, increase the availability of medication-assisted treatment programs, improve access to the overdose-reversal drug naloxone, and support targeted enforcement activities. A portion of this funding is directed specifically to rural areas, where rates of overdose and opioid use are particularly high. 

To help further expand access to treatment, the Budget includes an HHS pilot project for nurse practitioners and physician assistants to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder treatment, where allowed by state law.

**********
American Lung Association’s ‘State of Tobacco Control 2016’ Gives Massachusetts Mixed Grades for Efforts to Save Lives by Reducing Tobacco Use

The American Lung Association released this week its 14th annual “State of Tobacco Control” report that finds that in 2015 Massachusetts made progress on tobacco control policies that will save lives.

The report also finds that most states and the federal government earned poor grades, and the high level of youth use of tobacco products other than cigarettes threatens to undermine the United States’ overall progress in the fight against tobacco-caused death and disease.
 
“While we celebrate successful tobacco control policies in Massachusetts like its efforts to regulate e-cigarette use by restricting sales to those 18 years and older, we still must face the reality that young people are using tobacco products like e-cigarettes and little cigars at an all-time high,” said Jeff Seyler, President & CEO of the American Lung Association of the Northeast. “Nearly a quarter of high school students nationwide are using tobacco products, and it is essential that Massachusetts continue to  take aggressive action to reduce all tobacco use – the #1 cause of preventable death and disease in our nation.”
 
The “State of Tobacco Control” report documents the progress and failure of the states and the federal government to address tobacco use. The report assigns grades based on whether federal and state laws protect Americans from the enormous toll tobacco use takes on lives and the economy.
 
“State of Tobacco Control 2016” finds Massachusetts mixed grades show that progress is possible, although even more needs to be done by our Governor and State Legislature to pass proven policies that will reduce tobacco use and save lives:

Tobacco Prevention and Control Program Funding Grade – F

Tobacco Taxes – Grade A

Smokefree Air – Grade A

Access to Cessation Services – Grade D

The American Lung Association of the Northeast calls on Massachusetts to act on increasing funding for the state’s tobacco control program to $9 million per year, include e-cigarettes and all other tobacco derived products as part of the state’s definition of tobacco and increase access to tobacco cessation treatments and services.

As of January 31, 2016, the Obama Administration had not yet given the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight authority over all tobacco products including cigars, e-cigarettes, little cigars and hookah (commonly referred to as the deeming rule). The grade of “I” for Incomplete for FDA Regulation of Tobacco Products is assigned because the final rule is expected at any time. Other federal grades include a “C” for Federal Cessation Coverage, an “F” for Tobacco Taxes and a “B” for its Mass Media Campaigns, a new grading area in this year’s “State of Tobacco Control” report.

“It’s not a secret how we can reduce tobacco use in this country. ‘State of Tobacco Control 2016’ looks at proven methods to save lives and prevent our children from becoming the next generation hooked on tobacco,” said Casey Harvell, Director of Public Policy for Massachusetts. “We must demand that our elected officials in Massachusetts urgently act to implement these proven policies to save lives.”

InCity Yum Yums

Gordon is parked in Yum Yums cuz I want to post now!

The War in Afghanistan, President Obama and Worcester PeaceWorks

By Gordon Davis

President Obama has broken his promise to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2016.

This is not a surprise, but it is sad and it is discouraging. It means that the misery of war in Afghanistan will continue for an indefinite time. Only death, misery and refugees will be the product of the President’s decision.

When the United States went to war with Afghanistan in 2002 it was to avenge the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. George Bush was President when the Taliban was defeated and Al Qaeda went into hiding.

Worcester PeaceWorks was formed immediately after 9-11 by many in the Worcester peace community. Claire and Scott Schaeffer Duffy and Kevin Ksen played major roles. We held rallies in Worcester and went to the huge, anti-war rally in New York City – a worldwide event in which millions of people participated.

Worcester PeaceWorks tried to get the Worcester City Council to pass a resolution against the War in Iraq when several soldiers from Worcester were killed. The City Council would not hear the petition, citing Rule 33 of the Worcester City Charter.

Since then President Obama has killed or captured almost all of Al Qaeda who were responsible for the 9-11 attacks and withdrew troops from Iraq.

Worcester PeaceWorks, for the most part, stopped functioning after President Obama’s election in 2008. The Worcester Catholic Worker movement, including Mike True and the Center for Non Violence, continued to have anti-war demonstrations at Lincoln Square. The Progressive Labor Party would every so often call for an end to “imperialism” – as it did during the beginning of the Civil War in Syria.

President Obama ordered a drawdown of forces from Afghanistan with the hope that a government friendly to the USA would be able to rule Afghanistan after the American troops leave.

This has not happened.

After more than 10 years no government set up by the USA has been strong enough to defeat the Taliban.

This effort at nation building in Afghanistan has proven a failure.

There is no clear American policy there except to protect the suspect American friend, President Hammid Karzai, living in Kabul.

The people of Afghanistan are suffering, as can be seen in the thousands of refugees seeking asylum in the European Union.

Killing people with drones has done more harm than good, especially when so many civilians are killed. There is an insight of another of the irony in one Nobel Peace Prize winner, President Obama, killing another Nobel Peace Prize winner, the International Doctors Without Borders.

It looks like we have lost in Afghanistan, like we did in Vietnam.

It is time we get out and take those who want to leave with us as refugees.

It makes no sense to continue with the misery of war when we cannot win. 

The USA has avenged the 9-11 attacks and punished the perpetrators. It is time to declare “mission accomplished” and stop the killing and misery.  

Unfortunately, many in the Peace community, including Worcester activists, do not want to oppose politicians who are considered to be “progressive” candidates. 

Like the BlackLives Matter activists, the peace activists should compel the candidates to declare their intentions with Afghanistan, Israel and Syria.

InCity Voices

Massachusetts Residents Applaud First National Plan to Curb Carbon Pollution

BOSTON – Massachusetts elected officials, clean energy and public health advocates, environmental justice leaders, and many more today applauded President Obama and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for finalizing the Clean Power Plan, the nation’s first protections from dangerous carbon pollution emitted by existing power plants.

These new standards, which are part of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, will clean up the industries that create the lion’s share of carbon pollution in our country, while advancing the growth of clean, renewable energy in Massachusetts and across the country.

The new protections will also help reduce other life-threatening air pollution including mercury, soot, and smog.

“In state, we’ve already seen the enormous economic benefits of reducing carbon pollution and investing in clean, renewable energy like wind and solar,” said Emily Norton, Director of the Sierra Club’s Massachusetts Chapter. “Through state leadership under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Massachusetts is working towards a bright future with cleaner air and more clean energy jobs. We hope Massachusetts leaders will seize this opportunity with the Clean Power Plan to continue to go above and beyond in protecting public health, advancing clean energy solutions, and maintaining our region’s position as a national leader in clean energy.”

The northeast corner of the country is already leading the country in reducing pollution with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Since launching the program in 2008, states participating in RGGI have led the nation with significant reductions of carbon and health-damaging air pollution while lowering electric bills and creating tens of thousands of new jobs, generating billions of dollars in net economic benefits.

Carbon pollution is the main contributor to climate disruption, fueling superstorms, floods, wildfires, and record drought. Power plants spewing dangerous carbon pollution also have a disproportionately negative effect on low-income communities and communities of color already suffering from the worst effects of toxic pollution, including heart attacks, asthma, and premature death. By establishing carbon pollution protections, President Obama and the EPA are beginning the essential work of cleaning up and modernizing the way we power our country.

“From extreme and devastating weather patterns to unsafe air quality, Massachusetts residents know the consequences of dangerous carbon pollution all too well,” concluded Norton. “Today, our nation is taking a bold and historic action to address the growing threat of carbon pollution and climate disruption and to protect the health of families across our country. While there is more work to be done, I applaud President Obama and our Environmental Protection Agency for finalizing these historic safeguards to reduce dangerous carbon pollution from power plants and ensure that our kids, our communities and Massachusetts’ workforce are healthier, while also creating much-needed jobs and fighting climate disruption.”

As RGGI states have proven, complementary investments in energy efficiency, wind, and solar have made reducing carbon pollution from dirty power plants easy: the region includes 6 of the top 10 most energy efficient states in the country and every single state already has their own successful clean energy target. Energy consumers in the RGGI region– households, businesses, government users, and others – have saved $460 million, as their overall energy bills drop over time. States participating in RGGI can seize that opportunity by continuing to set carbon pollution reduction targets for power plants above and beyond minimum federal limits through the forthcoming RGGI Program Review, and expanding successful energy efficiency and clean energy targets to achieve 100% carbon-free electricity.

********

The Sierra Club is America’s largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization, with more than 2.4 million members and supporters nationwide. In addition to creating opportunities for people of all ages, levels and locations to have meaningful outdoor experiences, the Sierra Club works to safeguard the health of our communities, protect wildlife, and preserve our remaining wild places through grassroots activism, public education, lobbying, and litigation.

For more information, visit http://www.sierraclub.org.