Whether he was pushed out or resigned, Secretary of the Navy Richard V. Spencer did not leave quietly. When Trump meddled in the disposition of several military justice cases, he stepped over the line, Spencer implied in his resignation letter, saying, “I have strived to ensure our proceedings are fair, transparent and consistent, from the newest recruit to the Flag and General Officer level. Unfortunately, it has become apparent that in this respect, I no longer share the same understanding with the Commander in Chief who appointed me, in regards to the key principle of good order and discipline. I cannot in good conscience obey an order that I believe violates the sacred oath I took in the presence of my family, my flag and my faith to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

As Commander-in-Chief, Trump has the right to meddle in Naval justice, but just because he can do it t doesn’t mean he should. No one is sure why Trump pardoned two convicted war criminals and insisted that the Navy SEALS not demote another who, although acquitted of murdering a civilian, was seen by the Navy as not living up to its standards of conduct. (He posed for photos with the body of a teenage captive and reportedly threatened to kill SEALS who reported his misconduct.)

Apparently, right-wing media love Trump’s unprecedented micro-management of a military justice matter, and may even have pushed Trump toward it. Trump himself has been characterized as saying that the military should be more “savage.”  In the meantime, the Secretary of the Navy, as well as—it’s rumored—top brass in other branches of the military see this development as undermining the military justice system and the rule of law. They also see it as lowering the standards for conduct. One commentator I heard on NPR said that, in the future, when we criticize other countries for killing civilians, we’ll have no moral ground to stand on.

Here is Spencer’s resignation letter:

Dear Mr. President:

It has been the extreme honor of a lifetime to stand alongside the men and women of the Navy and Marine Corps team in the protection of the American people and the values we all hold dear.

Together we have made great strides over the past two years. strengthening the foundation of our readiness, and bolstering our constellation of allies and partners, to respond wherever needed with the honor and professionalism that have marked our force for the past 244 years.

Now more than ever, the United States Navy and Marine Corps stands ready and firm in every part of the globe, fueled at all times by our greatest resource – the men and women who wear the uniform. Many of them will soon miss their Thanksgiving dinners at home so that they can continue the watch beyond the curve of the horizon. They and their families are, and will forever be, my personal heroes.

As Secretary of the Navy, one of the most important responsibilities I have to our people is to maintain good order and discipline throughout the ranks. I regard this as deadly serious business. The lives of our Sailors, Marines and civilian teammates quite literally depend on the professional execution our many missions, and they also depend on the ongoing faith and support of the people we serve and the allies we serve alongside.

The rule of law is what sets us apart from our adversaries. Good order and discipline is what has enabled our victory against foreign tyranny time and again, from Captain Lawrence’s famous order “Don’t Give up the Ship” to the discipline and determination that propelled our flag to the highest point of Iwo Jima.

The Constitution, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, are the shields that set us apart, and the beacons that protect us all. Through my Title Ten Authority, I have strived to ensure our proceedings are fair, transparent and consistent, from the newest recruit to the Flag and General Officer level.

Unfortunately, it has become apparent that in this respect, I no longer share the same understanding with the Commander in Chief who appointed me, in regards to the key principle of good order and discipline. I cannot in good conscience obey an order that I believe violates the sacred oath I took in the presence of my family, my flag and my faith to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The President deserves and should expect a Secretary of the Navy who is aligned with his vision for the future of our force generation and sustainment. Therefore, with pride in the achievements we’ve shared, and everlasting faith in the continued service and fidelity of the finest Sailors, Marines and civilian teammates on earth, I hereby acknowledge my termination as United States Secretary of the Navy, to be effective immediately.

I will forever be grateful for every opportunity to have served, from my days as a Marine, to the extreme honor of serving as the 76th Secretary of the Navy. My wife Polly and I stand in appreciation and admiration of the patriots who today forge the next link in the unbroken chain of our Navy and Marine Corps, and we urge all Americans to keep them, and their families, in their hearts and prayers through this holiday season and beyond.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to serve.

Respectfully yours,

Richard V. Spencer

The post Secretary of Navy resigns after Trump undermines military justice appeared first on Occasional Planet.

You can tell a lot about a society by what its citizens compliment themselves about. You might also learn a great deal about a society’s insecurities by what citizens say to make themselves feel good.

The United States is perhaps the most charitable nation in the world. According to the 2014 World Giving Index, the U.S. actually tied with Myanmar (you can use that factoid to win some points, somewhere, somehow). The U.S. is the only country that ranked in the top ten of each of the three categories: (a) the percentage of people who donate in a typical month to charity, (b) volunteer time and (c) help a stranger.

This is much to gloat about, but is it possible that this positive trait covers up shameful statistics for the United States?

We are proud of the money and sweat equity we give to food panties. According to the non-profit Feeding America, the U.S. has 200 food banks and 60,000 food pantries and meal programs that provides food and services to people each year. But our pride is possible only because according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, one in six people in America faces hunger. If wealth were distributed in the United States so that all people had the financial resources to feed themselves, then there would be no need for charity to be a source of food for our citizens. America would be less charitable.

More than 3.5 million Americans experience homelessness each year. The figure is nearly 580,000 each night. Thirty-five percent of the homeless population are families with children,  the fastest-growing segment of the homeless population. Twenty-three percent are U.S. military veterans. Yet hundreds of churches and other non-profit organizations run shelters for the homeless. Americans are indeed very charitable towards these organizations, but it is no substitute for a nation in which every citizen has sufficient income or wealth to have a roof over his or her head. We make charity possible by failing to insist that government fulfill its obligation to provide a basic standard of living for all Americans.

It is basically Republican politicians who stand in the way of providing a livable safety net for American citizens. They oppose: raising minimum wages, offering a guaranteed income, expanding Social Security and Medicare where necessary, fully funding health care for veterans, and providing even minimal health care for many poor people in states that resist Medicaid expansion. Who benefits from Republican obstinacy? Three sectors of our society:

1. American business, which pays lower taxes because we do not fully fund a safety net. At the same time, business brag about their charitable donations, even though they are far smaller than would be their fair share in providing a livable level of income for all Americans.
2. Churches and other religious organizations, who benefit from the holes in the safety net. Churches can take the lead in charitable enterprises. But if the government was taking care of all Americans, religious institutions would be largely stripped of their charitable functions. That in turn would likely be a disincentive for many Americans to join or remain members in religious organizations.
3. Wealthy people in the United States, who can brag ’til the cows home about how charitable they are, even though the amount that many give is far less than what would be their fair tax in a society that cared for its poor, its infirm, its children, and its senior citizens.

I previously wrote  about how Republicans are more charitable than Democrats and Europeans. They love to brag about it. They and the causes that they support receive ongoing adulation from Americans, particularly from mainstream media outlets. What is not said is that it’s all a good economic deal for Republicans. They are able to pay less and brag more. Regrettably, this may be too difficult a concept for most Americans to understand.

The post Americans are too charitable appeared first on Occasional Planet.

This time of year it’s common for progressives to view Republicans as a bunch of Scrooges. But when it comes to charity, this simply is not true. Republicans are more generous in their charity giving than either Democrats in the United States or Europeans at large. Further evidence was gathered in a January, 2016 Occasional Planet survey of Americans.

As EthicsDaily.com reports, “Red states – Republican-voting states – are more generous than blue states – Democratic-voting states.” Many conservatives are aware of this disparity and like to crow about it – as if they are the truly compassionate ones. The problem with this contention is that it assumes that all compassion is shown through charity. Many Democrats, who well may contribute less to charities than conservatives do, look at compassion as being more than charity. For most democrats, helping those in need is one of several fundamental roles of government. They contend that government should have primary responsibility for redistributing incomes (and isn’t that in essence is what charity is) should best be done by the federal government because it is the most efficient, effectively targeted, and fair way to help others.

Republicans donate to charity at a higher level than Democrats and the strength of that giving by the GOP propels the U.S. to much higher figures that European Nations. As Investor’s Business Daily reports:

In no European economy are the people more generous with their own money than the people of the U.S. According to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data, which have been thoughtfully assembled by Cato scholar Dan Mitchell, the total of Americans’ voluntary social spending reached 10.2% of GDP in 2009, the latest year for which numbers are available.

The only country that is remotely close in its generosity is the Netherlands, where the total was 6% of the nation’s economy. Only two other nations, Canada and the United Kingdom, exceeded 5%. The U.K. totaled 5.3% of GDP, Canada 5.1%.

Republicans have historically promoted more in the way of charitable giving. Their support of large charitable organizations such as traditional religious organizations and welfare organizations like the Red Cross reflect their commitment to trying to help those in need. But truth be told, what they offer to large charitable organization is often less than ten percent of what the federal government provides to address these issues. Most illustrative is an interview by St. Louis Public Radio’s Don Marsh and Congressman Todd Akin when he was running for reelection in 2010.

Akin talks about charity being the solution to providing adequate healthcare for the uninsured. He says, “You can’t cheat mathematics” as the undergirding of his argument. Unfortunately for him it appears that his facts are just not correct; not correct by a factor of 18.

Writing in Forbes Magazine, “Is Charity the Answer To Healthcare?” Carolyn McClanahan points out that in 2010 (the year in which Akin was interviewed), Americans gave a total of $22.83 billion in charity to healthcare. She goes on to state:

To provide coverage for the 50 million uninsured people in our country, based on our latest OECD rate of $7,960 per year, we would need about $398 billion. For charity to fund this, we would have to stop all other charitable pursuits, plus increase our charitable donations by another $108 billion per year.

The $398 billion is over 18 times the $23 billion that Mr. Akin thinks will provide health care for all the uninsured. And Mr. Akin said, “You can’t cheat mathematics.” He is by trade an engineer. I would say if he wanted to succeed in that field, he would have to use real numbers rather than the ones that many Republicans create to make often-invalid political arguments.

Can we say that, in reality, Democrats are eighteen times as charitable as Republicans; or that Europeans are eighteen times as charitable as Americans? That would clearly be a stretch. So while Republicans may give twice as much to charity as Democrats or Europeans, their math is fuzzy. Many of the “welfare states” in Western Europe address problems of poverty, education, and health care by giving the government primary responsibility for providing appropriate remedies. So, while many Americans may think that it is admirable of the country to give a great deal to charity; they might think twice about how much it really addresses fundamental needs. Fortunately there are other approaches, and they are available on a planet near you.

The post Republicans are more charitable than Democrats and Europeans appeared first on Occasional Planet.

What makes a Republican? We have some clues but it’s still largely a mystery.

I recently saw a story on the CBS Evening News that may offer a significant hint as to what makes a progressive. It was a segment of Steve Hartman’s “On the Road” series. For those old enough to remember, this feature on CBS is a follow-up to Charles Kuralt’s series from 1967 to 1992.

This segment features a middle school football team in the town of Olivet, Michigan. The clip is three minutes and 42 seconds long. The moment when we see the early development of a possible progressive occurs at the three minute mark. Please excuse the thirty-second ad in advance of the clip.

The final words from wide receiver Justice Miller are, “He’s [Keith] has never been cool or popular, and he went from being nobody to making everyone’s day.…..I kind of went from being somebody who mostly cares about myself and my friends and went to caring about everyone and trying to make everyone’s day in everyone’s life.”

What happened to Justice Miller was the beginning of what could be a profound new perspective in life. He is now able to look beyond himself and his friends and include in his thinking the wider world. The evolution was enough to bring him to tears.

In the empathetic wing of the Democratic Party, when people are questioned about what are the important characteristics of being a progressive, with few exceptions the answer is: empathy. We are talking about the ability to look beyond one’s needs and to look at the world as if you were in the shoes of someone less fortunate.

It is important to clarify that there are several ways that  empathy is expressed in a global sense by Americans. One is through charity – giving to causes and other people by choice, because one sees them having an important need. The up-side of this is that it’s often personal, and it directs resources to where Americans feel the most need is. The downside is that it provides less than ten percent of what is needed to address our problems of poverty, health care, education, environmental clean-up, etc. Only the federal government can provide the resources that are needed for a large-scale effort to empathetically address key problems. Charity is no match for that.

The second point is that making a commitment to being part of a society that is firmly committed to eradicating as many economic and social maladies as possible is an act of justice. It can be a societal norm rather than an individual act as with charity. Progressives can be charitable, but their primary goal is to expand justice. Who can better inform us of this than a young man named Justice.

The post The making of a progressive appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When a Florida jury acquitted George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin, sending justice back to the drawing board, that’s exactly where political cartoonists went. Here are visual commentaries that reflect my reactions exactly.

[cincopa A0MAVNbf8Bpa]

The post Zimmerman not-guilty verdict: Commentary by political cartoonists appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s possible that the biggest obstacle to justice is the kindness and generosity of charity. No example can better illustrate this than St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay’s stance that Occupy STL will have to leave its “home” in Kiener Plaza because the Salvation Army’s Tree of Lights will be moving in.

The Tree of Lights, in fact the Salvation Army itself, represents the failure of our society to put in place a strong enough government safety net to protect individuals from the abuses of runaway capitalism or just plain misfortune.

The Occupiers are reminding us that the balance between the benefits of capitalism (honoring creativity, autonomy, strategic thinking, and optimal use of resources) and the regulations that are necessary to keep it in check has tilted too far in the direction of runaway capitalism. As is evident now, we have an economic system that in many ways is more like a slot machine in Vegas, which produces nothing but rearranges wealth in a way in which “the house” makes a profit on all transactions. Conservatives mistakenly think that “the house” is the government, but if that was so why would the government be in such debt while many large corporations on sitting on mountains of cash.

Does Mayor Slay really believe that there is no other location in a metropolitan area as large as St. Louis where a signature Christmas tree could be placed? There are dozens in and around the modest downtown St. Louis area.

What could represent that dominant culture in America more than all the pomp and circumstance that goes with a public Christmas tree lighting? The dominant culture will always survive; it’s too big to fail. The needs of the disenfranchised, i.e. those represented by the “Occupiers,” cannot be met without strong societal support. That help can come in small ways such as moving a Christmas tree rather than protestors making a point, or in large ways such as curbing the power of financial institutions, embracing a full-employment economy, and protecting consumer interests.

The Salvation Army and its Christmas tree is a minimal “feel good” for the recipients of the charity. It is a major “feel good” for the donors who can pat themselves on the back. Each community can brag about how generous it is while poverty remains unabated.

The Occupy movement is a healthy step in the evolution of the American economy from business-centric to being responsive to labor and consumers. To place petty and symbolic obstacles in its way shows a crass insensitivity to the actual quality of life for people in pain. The dominant society will remain. The trick is to make it do so while being inclusive.

Mayor Slay, gather your brain trust and figure out another place to put the Christmas tree. Then, when you have some free time, put your main focus on the issues of importance to the Occupiers.

The post You’re kidding: City favors Christmas tree over Occupiers? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Glenn Greenwald, in a recent article on Salon, wrote the following:

In a 1795 letter, George Washington vowed that, “the executive branch of this government never has, nor will suffer, while I preside, any improper conduct of its officers to escape with impunity.” Thomas Jefferson—in an April 16, 1784, letter to Washington—argued that the foundation on which American justice must rest is “the denial of every preeminence.” It’s literally difficult to imagine how we could be further away from those core principles. That the culprits who caused one of the worst financial crises in modern history have been fully shielded from the consequences of their acts — set along side the torturers and illegal eavesdroppers who have been similarly protected — illustrates that quite compellingly.

On April 13, 2011, Senator Carl Levin, (D-Mich), and Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla) released a 635-page final report on their inquiry into key causes of the financial crisis. The report outlines in detail how Wall Street executives cost millions of Americans their jobs and homes, while wiping out investors, and good businesses.

High risk lending, regulatory failures, inflated credit ratings, and Wall Street firms engaging in massive conflicts of interest, contaminated the U.S. financial system with toxic mortgages and undermined public trust in U.S. markets.

The report describes how bank executives knowingly made loans they knew were tainted by fraud or prone to early default. They then securitized hundreds of billions of dollars in these high risk, poor quality or fraudulent mortgages without full disclosure to investors, which weakened U.S. financial markets. For example, Washington Mutual sold some of its high-risk loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and played one off the other to make even more money.

According to the report, the most immediate cause of the financial crisis was the July 2007 mass ratings downgrades by Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s that exposed the risky nature of mortgage-related investments that, just months before, the same firms had deemed to be as safe as Treasury bills. The result was a collapse in the value of mortgage related securities which devastated investors. Credit rating agency personnel knew their ratings were bogus and delayed imposing tougher ratings criteria to enrich themselves and their clients. In the end, over 90% of the AAA ratings given to mortgage-backed securities in 2006 and 2007 were downgraded to junk status.

Investment banks, like Goldman Sachs, sold billions of dollars in mortgage-related investments and flooded financial markets with high-risk assets. When Goldman realized the mortgage market was in decline, it took actions to profit from that decline at the expense of its clients. For example, at the same time it was betting against the mortgage market as a whole, it aggressively marketed poor quality Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) to its clients and then actively bet against them by taking large short positions on those transactions.

The Senate committee may turn over its findings to the DOJ for possible criminal prosecution. But, according to Glenn Greenwald, it is highly unlikely that any Wall Street executive will be prosecuted for their crimes.

Political and financial elites now enjoy virtually full-scale legal immunity for even the most egregious lawbreaking, while ordinary Americans, especially the poor and racial and ethnic minorities, are subjected to exactly the opposite treatment: the world’s largest prison state and most merciless justice system.

So far, no high-level culprits have been indicted or even meaningfully investigated, and few have suffered any financial repercussions from regulators or lawsuits.

According to Greenwald,

the overarching ‘principle’ of our justice system is that criminal prosecutions are only for ordinary rabble, not for those who are most politically and financially empowered. We have thus created precisely the two-tiered justice system against which the Founders most stridently warned and which contemporary legal scholars all agree is the hallmark of a lawless political culture.

He then offers compelling illustrations of facts and events to support his claim:

• When Bush officials were revealed to have established a worldwide torture regime and spied on Americans without the warrants required by law, President-elect Barack Obama, in January 2009, stated that he was unlikely to authorize a broad inquiry into the wrongdoings of the Bush administration.

• When Spanish prosecutors decided that it would criminally investigate the torture by American officials, one of the State Department cables obtained by WikiLeaks reveals how the Obama administration, worked with Republicans to pressure Spain to stop the prosecution.

• When telecoms g0t caught participating in Bush’s illegal eavesdropping program in violation of multiple federal statutes, on February 11^th, 2008, the Senate voted to give retroactive immunity for telecoms. Eighteen Democrats Crossed over to vote for immunity.

• In June of 2009, a federal judge threw out more than three dozen lawsuits against major telecommunications companies hat had illegally assisted in the wiretapping without warrants program approved by President George W. Bush after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

• And when it was discovered that the CIA was destroying videotapes of its rough interrogation and waterboarding sessions with accused Terrorists—in the face of multiple court orders directing that they preserve such evidence, strongly suggesting obstruction of justice—in November of 2010 the Obama Justice Department decided not to bring criminal charges.

• And when it came time to decide what to do with one of the most brazen lawbreakers in the financial world— former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo—in February of 2011, federal prosecutors ended a criminal investigation of Mozilo with no indictments. Mozilo dumped hundreds of millions of dollars of stock when he secretly knew that the loans Countrywide was originating couldn’t support the stock valuation. He then walked away with $170 million for destroying Countrywide through predatory lending.

It’s clear that the Angelo Mozilo and Lloyd Blankfeins of the world—who donate heavily to presidential and congressional campaigns—will never suffer the consequences of their illegal actions. As Greenwald reports, all of that stands in stark contrast to how ordinary Americans are treated by this same justice system “with incomparably harsh and merciless punishment.”

The post U.S. political and financial elites enjoy legal immunity appeared first on Occasional Planet.