Mediaboss Marketing

With Republicans dominating the White House, Congress and state governments, its no surprise that dominating the judiciary is the next goal. Efforts to control that independent branch of government have prompted debate on an obscure Senate rule called the blue-slip process.

Billionaire industrialist brothers David and Charles Koch, among leaders of the effort, urged supporters at a recent private retreat to work against the rule. The 100-year-old rule keeps judicial nominees from moving forward in Senate confirmation if a home-state senator objects.

The slim Republican margin in the U.S. Senate 52-48 has party bigwigs concerned that if the practice isnt eliminated, Democrats will retain too much power to delay or derail President Donald Trumps federal court nominees.

The Kochs one-page document on the rule urged attendees, who included many important Republicans, to press the issue with the Senates GOP leadership and other Republican senators they know. Tell them not to allow needless delay tactics and obstruction of the process, the document read.

The stakes are high. Trump arrived in office with more than 100 vacancies to fill on the federal bench, partly because Senate Republicans blocked many of President Barack Obamas nominees.

Nine of the countrys 13 federal appeals courts currently have a majority of Democratic presidents nominees. Among the 179 appeals court seats there are 21 vacancies. Trump has announced nine nominees for those courts and 22 for 107 lower court openings.

Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is pushing back. She says ending the practice would allow nominees to be hand-picked by right-wing groups, and accused the White House, the Koch brothers, and the conservative Judicial Crisis Network of falsely suggesting Democrats are trying to obstruct presidential nominees.

Democratic senators are considering nominees fairly, and many have long judicial records home-state senators must review carefully, Feinstein says. Scrutiny is most important when home-state senators were not consulted before nominees were chosen, she says, adding, and that goes for Democrats and Republicans.

Congressional rules that aim to keep the branches of government operating within the two-party system must be carefully preserved. If they work for both Democrats and Republicans, the party in the majority shouldnt opt to exercise their authority because it will come back to bite them.

Witness Democratic senators response to the Republican blockade of Obamas nominees in 2013. They changed the rules to allow simple-majority approval of judicial or executive branch nominations, enabling them to win swift victories for the presidents picks. That backfired when Democrats lost the majority and Republicans could approve Trumps Cabinet nominees with the lower, 51-vote threshold.

Americas federal court system is not perfect, but its not rigged, as Trump asserted. Efforts by billionaires to undermine judicial independence threaten our democracy.

See original here:
Editorial: Maintaining an independent judiciary is critical for democracy - STLtoday.com

President Pranab Mukherjee hailed on Sunday Indias democracy and Parliament in particular, delivering an emotional farewell speech at the Central Hall where he urged lawmakers to debate, discuss and dissent but not disrupt. (Presidents speech: Full text)

Mukherjee, the 13th President of India, will leave the Rashtrapati Bhawan on Tuesday when his successor Ram Nath Kovind is sworn in.

I strived to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, not just in word but also in spirit, Mukherjee said, reflecting upon his time as Indias titular head of state that began in 2012.

The President has raised eyebrows last year when he ordered the dismissal of the Uttarakhand government.

Mukherjee spent 37 years as a Congress member in Parliament, where, he said on Sunday, realised how disruption hurts the opposition more than the government as it denies them the opportunity to raise the concerns of the people, the President said.

The monsoon session of Parliament currently underway has seen repeated adjournments, costing of time and money for the House. Both Houses of Parliament have often been marred by protests that have delayed the rollout of key legislation.

When Parliament fails to discharge its lawmaking role or enacts laws without discussion, I feel it breaches the trust reposed in it by the people of this great country, he said.

In addition to disruptions, the President spoke out about Ordinances in particular, calling it a tool that should be used only in compelling circumstances.

Mukherjee shared a story about his mentor, late PM Indira Gandhi, on the importance of self-correction. After the Congresss poll defeat following the Emergency, Gandhi and Mukherjee were in London in 1978 and faced journalists, he said. The first question that was flung at her was, What have been your gains from the Emergency? Looking at the journalist squarely in the eye, Indira Gandhi replied, In those 21 months, we comprehensively managed to alienate all sections of Indian people. I learnt an early lesson of acknowledging my mistakes and rectifying them. Self-correction in such situations is always a better option than self-justification, Mukherjee said.

Earlier, vice president Hamid Ansari recalled how Mukherjee spoke about nurturing pluralism and diversity. He quoted Mukherjee to add that there is room for Argumentative Indian but not intolerant Indian. Ansari said these messages are important in our troubled times. The President too, spoke about the diversity of the country of 130 crore people who, he said, belonged to three major ethnic groups, practicing seven major religions and speaking 122 languages in daily lives.

Not a single part of this vast territory of 3.3 million square kilometers of landmass and islands is unrepresented in the Parliament. Each of the 788 voices of MPs is important, said Mukherjee. His comment assumes significance in the wake of the rise of smaller parties in Parliament.

Mukherjee spoke about his association with PV Narsimha Rao, remember former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee for his oration, Manmohan Singh for his calming presence, and recalled how LK Advani gave him mature advice and Sonia Gandhi was a passionate supporter of social legislations.

In the closing parts of his speech, he praised Prime Minister Modi and said: Ill carry with me fond memories of association with PM Narendra Modi and remember his warm behaviour towards me. He praised the PM for advice and co-operation at every step and added that the BJP leader is working with passion and energy, he is driving transformational changes.

It will be with a tinge of sadness and a rainbow of memories that I will be leaving this building today... I leave with a sense of fulfilment and happiness of having served the country, he said, before finishing his speech with Jai Hind.

Mukherjee will address the nation tomorrow before he demits office.

Link:
In farewell speech, President Pranab Mukherjee hails democracy, urges leaders to discuss and dissent - Hindustan Times

Rwandan president Paul Kagame greets supporters at the kickoff of his reelection campaign on July 14.

KIGALI, Rwanda

Next month one of the worlds most remarkable leaders, President Paul Kagame of Rwanda, will be overwhelmingly re-elected to a third seven-year term. Kagame runs an authoritarian state and does not tolerate serious opposition. That is not, however, the main reason he can count on such an overwhelming victory. He is being rewarded for turning his devastated country into a most unexpected success story.

Rwandans will re-elect Kagame because they want this progress to continue. They can also be sure that while he holds power, his strong hand will assure ethnic peace. That is no small matter in a country that still lives with the unfathomable trauma of fratricide that killed nearly a million people in 1994.

Advertisement

Ten years ago I wrote a book about this trauma and Kagames role in ending it. This is my first visit back since then. It comes as Kagame faces what may be his greatest challenge, one that few strongmen have mastered: transition to a more open society. His success or failure will resonate far beyond the verdant hills of this poor and landlocked country.

Rwanda is following the path blazed by countries like South Korea and Taiwan: development first, then democracy. Under Kagames leadership, it will probably continue to grow and become more prosperous. A stable political system, though, would be something entirely new here. Kagames place in history will depend not only on what he achieves, but what happens after he is gone.

Get This Week in Opinion in your inbox:

Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday.

From outside, the formula for political evolution seems obvious. Over the next seven years, Kagame could ease restrictions on free speech and allow political parties of every persuasion to grow and campaign openly. Then, in 2024, he would remain above the fray and accept whatever voters decide.

Decades after a genocide, the country is remarketing itself as the regions economic miracle.

This simple formula ignores Rwandas painful realities. Kagames restrictions on free speech mean that the countrys two traditional ethnic groups, Hutu and Tutsi, cannot preach hatred of each other. If democracy means an end to these restrictions, the result could be another explosion of murderous violence. This presents Kagame with an immensely complex set of choices. How can he arrange a peaceful transition to some new form of government without risking a disaster that would destroy everything he has built?

One certainty is that Kagame will not turn to advanced democracies for advice. He scorns the models that Western countries have sought to impose on African countries. Now he must find an alternative for Rwanda that allows debate, but also maintains social peace.

Advertisement

It is a daunting conundrum. Kagames success in raising his people from ruin has impressed all of Africa, as reflected in the recent election of Rwanda to head the 55-nation African Union in 2018. Shaping a transition to the next phase in Rwandan history may prove even more difficult.

The ethnic conflict that led to genocide in 1994 has faded from view. Whether it still festers in peoples hearts is less clear. The governments mantra, which all must adopt, is that every citizen is only Rwandan, not Hutu or Tutsi. Even using those words is taboo. Government leaders insist that repressing discussion of ethnic differences is the best way to reduce tension over time. Western human rights groups disagree.

Traveling through Rwanda is a revelation. Kigali, the capital, is the cleanest and most orderly city in Africa though Human Rights Watch says this is largely the result of a deliberate practice by the Rwanda National Police of rounding up undesirable people and arbitrarily detaining them. Good roads cover the country. Most people are poor, but the state assures that none truly suffer. More than 90 percent have health insurance and when there is an emergency in a remote area, supplies of blood or medicine can be delivered by drone within an hour. Nearly all children attend school, though the quality of education is often low. Electricity and running water reach more people every year. Tourism, which barely existed before Kagame took office, is now the countrys leading money-earner. Caring for the environment is a national imperative, reflected not only in the protection of majestic mountain gorillas but in less obvious ways, like Kagames ban on the plastic bags that plague much of Africa.

Direct criticism of Kagame or his development project is strongly discouraged sometimes violently, according to outside critics. Nonetheless it seems clear that many Rwandans are genuinely grateful to Kagame. The most obvious reason is that he has kept them from killing each other. He has also given them a sense of hope and pride.

When I traveled to other countries, people used to ask to see the blood on my hands, one man told me. Now when you say Rwanda, they think of security, hygiene and development,

Headlines over articles about Kagame often fit an established narrative: Savior or Dictator? Visionary or Tyrant? This formula misses the point. Kagames success in raising Rwanda from devastation is beyond question. Next months election may herald the beginning of the end of his era. If he can find a formula for political transition that is as successful as his anti-poverty formula has been, Rwanda will be a permanent model for the world.

Read more here:
Rwanda and the dangers of democracy - The Boston Globe - The Boston Globe

PITESTI, Romania (AP) An art exhibition went on display Friday at a former Romanian prison where communists tortured and killed political prisoners in a gruesome re-education program.

The collection of 11 sculptures at the Pitesti Prison, southern Romania, aims to remind visitors about the horrors that took place there from 1949 to 1951.

The 3.5 meter-tall (11.5-feet) grey, polystyrene figures depict detainees who were tortured and humiliated to force them to become communists.

Several thousand prisoners who had fallen foul of the communist regime underwent what was known as The Pitesti Experiment. Prisoners were forced to stare at lightbulbs, eat feces, given electric shocks and head butt each other. They were also encouraged to inform on each other and torture fellow inmates. About 100 died from mistreatment.

Alexandru Bogdanovici, who was imprisoned because hed been a member of the fascist Iron Guard, was co-opted to re-educate fellow prisoners. But the prison commander later considered him disloyal and he was beaten, denied water and eventually died.

For the exhibit, artist Catalin Badarau sculpted contorted, anonymous figures which lie in hallways or in former prison cells. One figure stands awkwardly on his head, others have their hands tied behind their backs or are covering their faces.

Badarau says the oversized figures, of a mottled grey color which is similar to the prison walls and floors show the fragility of human beings.

They were strong people when they went into prison but they came out physical wrecks, he told The Associated Press. But conversely, they became spiritual giants.

Among the detainees that survived Pitesti are Romanian Orthodox priest Gheorghe Calciu-Dumitreasa who spent 21 years as a political prisoner and Corneliu Coposu, an anti-communist politician and well-known dissident who died in 1995.

An estimated 500,000 people, members of the pre-communist intellectual and political elite, were locked up in political prisons until a general amnesty was declared in 1964.

Similar art exhibitions will be held this year in other cities that housed political prisons or had anti-communist revolts, sponsored by the Nasui Collection & Gallery and a government institute tasked with investigating crimes of the communist era.

Badarau said his sculptures challenge people to ask themselves: What would I have done? Would I have become a victim or a torturer, or both?

Continued here:
Romania: Art exhibit at ex-prison show horrors of communism - WIAT 42

By Dan Bowser

Recent Gazette articles have expressed different opinions on entitlements such as welfare, but what dothey call Social Security and Medicare.

One article supporting our current system claims Social Security is revenue neutral, but admits it willbecome depleted in 2034 after which it will be able to pay out 79 percent of benefits. The same articlecriticized George W. Bush for attempting to privatize Social Security. Lying politicians from both partiesused scare tactics on uninformed seniors to promote the idea President Bush is taking away their SocialSecurity.

An article titled Social Security is not an entitlement gave factual information on the benefits ofprivatized Social Security. It compared actual benefits of $18,000 to $19,000 a year to a potential of$45,000 to $50,000 per year. Many retirees living on Social Security without other sources of income liveat a poverty level. Privatized benefits could more than double their potential income.

Another writer claimed there are just as many cons as there are pros to privatizing Social Security. Thepros are obvious. I have ask some seniors what are the cons. Most said in a volatile market I would notknow how to invest my money and I may end up with nothing. I am not a financial expert, but in thissituation only the most secure options should be available such as US Treasury Bonds, low risk annuitiesor mutual funds. A continuous audit should be in place to ensure the company handling these funds dovnot create another Ponzi scheme like we now have with government handling 15 percent of our gross income.

I have heard many people make the foolish statement that you will get more out than you put in. Wouldthese same people put their lifes savings under a mattress expecting no return?

Government run health care is an issue politicians on both sides of the aisle use to snowball voters. AllDemocrats want to salvage this failed Obamacare program and would probably favor a single payersocialist system. Several Republicans oppose the new replacement plan as it will reduce Medicaid benefits. According to the Heritage Foundation the plan does not cut Medicaid it just reduces the futuregrowth.

Lets look at the history of welfare. The war on poverty began in 1964. In the 50-year period from 1964until 2014 $22 trillion has been spent to reduce poverty. Adjusted for inflation this is threetimes the cost of all U.S. military wars. Those in poverty in 1964 were 14 percent of our population and itremained 14 percent in 2014. Today government spends 16 times more, adjusting for inflation, on anti-povertyprograms than it did when the war on poverty began.

Why is the war on poverty not working? The poor have a much better life than they did 50 years ago.

They have many more amenities and financial benefits today to help entice them to stay dependent.

Many politicians want to keep them in that state so they can count on their vote. Any scare that apolitician may cut Medicaid sends Democrats on the attack. I think of an old saying (do you give a persona fish every day or do you teach them to fish). In a recent article a Democrat appears to think it is moreChrist like to give the fish every day.

One article mentioned the word Socialism. If you research the life cycle of a Democracy you will learnthat Democracies turn into socialist societies when politicians give the people financial benefits from thegovernment treasury in order to get elected. If this continues, bankruptcy is inevitable. Some say we arethe richest country in the world and we should supply health care and freebees. No other country hasbeen $20 trillion in debt indicating we are the poorest country. Our citizens are wealthy, so are theysaying the government can take our money. In a socialist society your money does belong to thegovernment.

Dan Bowser

Gastonia

Follow this link:
My Turn: The growth of socialism - Gaston Gazette