Make more of a fuss over Puerto Rico
By Carlos T Mock
June 22, 2012
I was five years old when President Kennedy visited Puerto Rico. I remembered it like it was yesterday. The Island declared it a holiday so that everyone could come and see the Presidential entourage parading through the streets of San Juan. They even named a room after him at the Governor’s Mansion (La Fortaleza).
It takes a pretty distracted country to forget about a colony. But I think it’s fair to say that the people of the US have managed to pull off just such a feat of collective amnesia when it comes to Puerto Rico.
I was reminded of this when Barack Obama toured our Homeland for a few hours on Tuesday. It marked the first official visit by a US president to Puerto Rico in half a century and that is a remarkable statistic.
After all, the US owns Puerto Rico – and has - since 1898. The island was conquered during the Spanish-American War and is today a self-governing “commonwealth” of the US. Its people are US citizens: they share common citizenship, currency , and defense (just ask how many young Puerto Ricans have given their lives for American causes). Puerto Rican elect their local officials, but they are unable to vote for the president and members of Congress who oversee matters including defense policy and agriculture because they don't pay federal income taxes—although local taxes are as high as in the US.
Nor does the international community show much interest in the plight of Puerto Ricans, either. Conditions on the island are tough unemployment exceeds 16 per cent and drug violence has produced a higher murder rate than that of Mexico. But Puerto Rico just hasn’t made the list of disputed territories that tug on the heartstrings of the global chattering classes – even of the anti-US variety.
Not everyone in Puerto Rico has been happy with these arrangements. In 1950, two Puerto Rican nationalists attempted to assassinate President Harry Truman, setting off a gun battle on the streets of Washington that left a police officer and one would-be assassin dead. In 1954, other Puerto Rican nationalists opened fire from the gallery of the House of Representatives, wounding five members of Congress.
Two years ago, Governor Luis Fortuño was propelled to a landslide victory on the island with a mandate to take the “commonwealth” through a series of referendums to try to resolve the association between Puerto Rico and the US—perhaps creating the 51st state.
The charismatic 51-year-old Republican, who is thought to have national political ambitions, has since pushed an ambitious reform program. He has cut spending, increased university fees and sold off assets, including an airport and a toll road concession.
Puerto Ricans mourn when they talk about being fired from their job in the Puerto Rican government. Like many of the 12,000 state employees who lost their jobs during a tough austerity program on the island, they thought they had a position for life. So, many Puerto Ricans are angry, and the governor’s approval rating is slipping in advance of next year’s election. “What is the cost of balancing the budget?” asked Eduardo Bhatia, a Democrat in Puerto Rico’s senate.
Now plagued by a steadily worsening murder rate, more Puerto Ricans are second-guessing their evening plans, contemplating moving to the mainland (the latest “brain drain”) and sending away for gun permits in larger numbers to protect themselves. And the police are rolling out new strategies they hope will bring things under control.
So far this year, there have been 525 murders in Puerto Rico, a number that is outpacing last year’s 983 homicides, the second-highest ever, and the 995 in 1994. New York City, with a population a bit over twice that of Puerto Rico, reported 199 murders through the middle of this month, with a total of 536 in 2010.
High murder rates are not unusual in Puerto Rico. Between 1980 to 2005 the average annual homicide rate was 19 per 100,000 in Puerto Rico and 8 per 100,000 on the mainland.
The silence about Puerto Rico at home and abroad is particularly peculiar because Puerto Ricans have played such a prominent role in the media capital that is New York. Hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans came to the city during the last century. Some came in search of works; others were given a one way ticket and no support, to make the local government of the then Luis Muñoz Marín, look good at reducing poverty statistics in the Island. But it created havoc in NYC, stories which were captured in 1956 By Pedro Juan Soto in his short story collection: “Spiks.” There has been further immigration to the mainland, the so call “brain drains” of the 80’s, 90’s, and just recently: making it impossible to imagine the New York area or its sprawling Spanish-speaking barrios without them.
But for all the familiarity New Yorkers have developed with the local Puerto Rican community there has been a profound lack of connection with the history of Puerto Rico or the conditions on the island that drove its residents so far away. Even New Yorkers with immigrant backgrounds are not above viewing the Puerto Rican influx as some sort of historical accident – like the Puerto Rican Day parade that blocked Jerry Seinfeld and his friends in one of the episodes of his television situation comedy.
After all these years, Puerto Rico remains a mystery to the people who own it. Let’s hope it doesn’t take another 50 years for someone to notice us....
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Friday, April 8, 2011
The American Solution for Puerto Rico
The American Solution for Puerto Rico
By Carlos T Mock
April 8, 2011
“There are only two ways to be Puerto Rican: either you were born there, or its soul runs through your veins.” Carlos T Mock
It’s been a long time since most Independentistas in Puerto Rico have theorized that the way for Puerto Rico to achieve its independence would come from Washington, D. C. They believe that independence would be most convenient to both The USA and The Republic of Puerto Rico.
However, The White House Interagency Committee reported on March 16, 2011, its plans for the colony. The White House wishes are a two-part referendum: in the first referendum they would ask Puerto Ricans if they want a continuous association with the USA, either through Statehood or the Commonwealth (ELA). The second referendum would ask Puerto Ricans if they desire to brake their relationship with the USA: either via Independence or a loosely association with the federal government.
In the present Island conditions: dependent, federalized, and traumatized by an economic crisis never seen before in our generation, the results would lean toward the first option: decide between Commonwealth and Statehood. This in part would lead to a virtual tie, giving the powers that be in Washington D. C. an excuse to do nothing and keep the colony as is.
The American Solution for Puerto Rico is to maintain the colony just the way it has been for 113 years—not desiring to relinquish the political advantages nor the commerce the Island provides for the American Republic.
The White House Interagency Committee Report would federalize the island even further. A new model of annexation would ensue. Education, health, security, communications, energy, and even the judicial branch of the colony would be controlled directly from Washington D. C. as delineated by the Report taking over the Colony’s internal forms of government.
I’ve always believed that Puerto Rican Independence will only be achieved when Puerto Ricans come as a nation and decide to personally fight for that end. It is imperative that the country achieves a Patriotic and National Unity. Once we accept that independence will not come from Washington, perhaps we will not only achieve our Unity, but also we’ll start working on the necessity and viability of a Puerto Rican Republic.
The next step would be to demand that Puerto Rico be recognized as a Caribbean and Latin American independent entity. We would demand the government of the United States to accept its responsibility for subjecting our country to 113 years of colonialist abuse, to release all of our political prisoners, and we would ask for indemnification for damages caused to Puerto Rico:
Damages such as: destroying our agriculture, using our land for military bases without paying for them, sacrificing our youth as lab rats in their imperialistic wars, the poisonous damage to the Vieques and Culebra residents caused by the US Navy target practice in those islands, forcing us to use their merchant marine at higher prices as they impede our commerce with the rest of the world, and finally taking the productive and working soul of our people and turning them into unproductive and useless individuals.
We propose to use the millions of dollars from this indemnification to establish the nascent Republic of Puerto Rico and to repair the damage of 113 years of colonial abuse.
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
By Carlos T Mock
April 8, 2011
“There are only two ways to be Puerto Rican: either you were born there, or its soul runs through your veins.” Carlos T Mock
It’s been a long time since most Independentistas in Puerto Rico have theorized that the way for Puerto Rico to achieve its independence would come from Washington, D. C. They believe that independence would be most convenient to both The USA and The Republic of Puerto Rico.
However, The White House Interagency Committee reported on March 16, 2011, its plans for the colony. The White House wishes are a two-part referendum: in the first referendum they would ask Puerto Ricans if they want a continuous association with the USA, either through Statehood or the Commonwealth (ELA). The second referendum would ask Puerto Ricans if they desire to brake their relationship with the USA: either via Independence or a loosely association with the federal government.
In the present Island conditions: dependent, federalized, and traumatized by an economic crisis never seen before in our generation, the results would lean toward the first option: decide between Commonwealth and Statehood. This in part would lead to a virtual tie, giving the powers that be in Washington D. C. an excuse to do nothing and keep the colony as is.
The American Solution for Puerto Rico is to maintain the colony just the way it has been for 113 years—not desiring to relinquish the political advantages nor the commerce the Island provides for the American Republic.
The White House Interagency Committee Report would federalize the island even further. A new model of annexation would ensue. Education, health, security, communications, energy, and even the judicial branch of the colony would be controlled directly from Washington D. C. as delineated by the Report taking over the Colony’s internal forms of government.
I’ve always believed that Puerto Rican Independence will only be achieved when Puerto Ricans come as a nation and decide to personally fight for that end. It is imperative that the country achieves a Patriotic and National Unity. Once we accept that independence will not come from Washington, perhaps we will not only achieve our Unity, but also we’ll start working on the necessity and viability of a Puerto Rican Republic.
The next step would be to demand that Puerto Rico be recognized as a Caribbean and Latin American independent entity. We would demand the government of the United States to accept its responsibility for subjecting our country to 113 years of colonialist abuse, to release all of our political prisoners, and we would ask for indemnification for damages caused to Puerto Rico:
Damages such as: destroying our agriculture, using our land for military bases without paying for them, sacrificing our youth as lab rats in their imperialistic wars, the poisonous damage to the Vieques and Culebra residents caused by the US Navy target practice in those islands, forcing us to use their merchant marine at higher prices as they impede our commerce with the rest of the world, and finally taking the productive and working soul of our people and turning them into unproductive and useless individuals.
We propose to use the millions of dollars from this indemnification to establish the nascent Republic of Puerto Rico and to repair the damage of 113 years of colonial abuse.
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
Friday, March 25, 2011
An Obsolete coinage system and how to reduce the deficit without loosing one single job
An Obsolete coinage system and how to reduce the deficit without
loosing one single job
By Carlos T Mock, MD
March 23, 2011
From Barcelona, Spain
The first proof that our coinage is obsolete is that use of the
Kennedy half-dollar, Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea dollars is not as
widespread as that of other coins in general circulation; most
Americans use quarters, dimes, nickels, and pennies only. In 1982 the
US mint had to change the composition of the copper penny. Due to an
increase in copper prices, the penny was costing 1.7 cents to mint so
the mint changed its composition from copper 95% and tin 5% to a core:
made of zinc 97.5% and a plating made of copper 2.5%.
The lack of use of the dollar and fifty cents coins costs an average
of 500 million dollars/year to the US mint. Coins last in circulation
for an average of thirty years, but bills only last an average of six
months. The fact that Americans refuse to use these coins, means that
the US must print more one dollar bills than necessary.
Any person that has a wish to reduce our deficit should take a look at
this obsolete coinage system and might come up with the following
solutions:
The reason the Kennedy half dollar is not used is because it is too
big. Reduce its volume by one half, and not only will it be cheaper
to print, but it will easier to carry in our pockets. The second
solution to our problem is that we need to eliminate the one, two, and
five dollar bills from circulation. For God’s sake, a pack of
cigarettes costs more that five dollars these days—isn’t it time we
printed a five dollar coin?
To encourage the use of these new coins and to make them easy to
identify and use, we would keep them between the size of a current
nickel and a current quarter but so as we don’t confuse their value
and to be clearly identified by the public I propose the use of
alloys. Just like the Euro and Mexican coins, the one 1 and 2 and 5
dollar coins would be two-toned. The "gold" would be an alloy made of
75% copper , 20% zinc and 5% nickel. The "silver" alloy would be
75% cupronickel and 25% nickel. The 25, and 50-cent coins would be
made from a proprietary alloy known as "Nordic gold, made of 89%
copper, 5% aluminum, 5% zinc and 1% tin.
We could either have a competition by the public to create the new
coins, or we could have the mint use its artists.
I believe that it is long overdue to return President Eisenhower to
the one dollar coin. I think Reagan could be a candidate for the five
dollar coin, and perhaps Truman for the two dollar coin.
If we force this changes on the American public, the treasury would
save 3 to 5 billion/year EVERY year, depending on how quickly the
change is made. The changeover period during which the former
currencies' notes and coins were exchanged for those of the new
currency lasted about two months in the case of the Euro. In our
case the official date on which the national currencies ceased to be
legal tender would vary from State to State.
Not only we would not lose one job from this proposal, but we would
create jobs, because we would have to adapt all of our machines to the
new coinage. After firing teachers, policemen, firemen, and public
employees to balance our budgets, I think this simple solution should
be considered before we implant more pain on our American citizens.
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
loosing one single job
By Carlos T Mock, MD
March 23, 2011
From Barcelona, Spain
The first proof that our coinage is obsolete is that use of the
Kennedy half-dollar, Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea dollars is not as
widespread as that of other coins in general circulation; most
Americans use quarters, dimes, nickels, and pennies only. In 1982 the
US mint had to change the composition of the copper penny. Due to an
increase in copper prices, the penny was costing 1.7 cents to mint so
the mint changed its composition from copper 95% and tin 5% to a core:
made of zinc 97.5% and a plating made of copper 2.5%.
The lack of use of the dollar and fifty cents coins costs an average
of 500 million dollars/year to the US mint. Coins last in circulation
for an average of thirty years, but bills only last an average of six
months. The fact that Americans refuse to use these coins, means that
the US must print more one dollar bills than necessary.
Any person that has a wish to reduce our deficit should take a look at
this obsolete coinage system and might come up with the following
solutions:
The reason the Kennedy half dollar is not used is because it is too
big. Reduce its volume by one half, and not only will it be cheaper
to print, but it will easier to carry in our pockets. The second
solution to our problem is that we need to eliminate the one, two, and
five dollar bills from circulation. For God’s sake, a pack of
cigarettes costs more that five dollars these days—isn’t it time we
printed a five dollar coin?
To encourage the use of these new coins and to make them easy to
identify and use, we would keep them between the size of a current
nickel and a current quarter but so as we don’t confuse their value
and to be clearly identified by the public I propose the use of
alloys. Just like the Euro and Mexican coins, the one 1 and 2 and 5
dollar coins would be two-toned. The "gold" would be an alloy made of
75% copper , 20% zinc and 5% nickel. The "silver" alloy would be
75% cupronickel and 25% nickel. The 25, and 50-cent coins would be
made from a proprietary alloy known as "Nordic gold, made of 89%
copper, 5% aluminum, 5% zinc and 1% tin.
We could either have a competition by the public to create the new
coins, or we could have the mint use its artists.
I believe that it is long overdue to return President Eisenhower to
the one dollar coin. I think Reagan could be a candidate for the five
dollar coin, and perhaps Truman for the two dollar coin.
If we force this changes on the American public, the treasury would
save 3 to 5 billion/year EVERY year, depending on how quickly the
change is made. The changeover period during which the former
currencies' notes and coins were exchanged for those of the new
currency lasted about two months in the case of the Euro. In our
case the official date on which the national currencies ceased to be
legal tender would vary from State to State.
Not only we would not lose one job from this proposal, but we would
create jobs, because we would have to adapt all of our machines to the
new coinage. After firing teachers, policemen, firemen, and public
employees to balance our budgets, I think this simple solution should
be considered before we implant more pain on our American citizens.
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
Friday, March 11, 2011
Puerto Rican Students protest rise in tuition fee
End of February, 2011
Puerto Rican Students protest rise in tuition fee
By Carlos T Mock, MD
Months of unrest at the University of Puerto Rico seemed to be reaching a finale. Scores of students were arrested or injured by riot police officers. Faculty and staff members held a two-day walkout. The president of the university resigned, the police who had occupied campus were withdrawn and an interim president arrived.
But there were only three days of peace.
On the morning of February 17, students blocked the stairs to classrooms in the social science department with trash cans and chairs, and also closed down the humanities department. At the social sciences building, students said only one professor had tried to get through the blockade.
The spark for the university’s problems was a budget cut that required students to pay a new $800 fee, increasing their costs by more than 50 percent.
“It is the same situation that many universities in the United States are facing,” said Miguel A. Muñoz, the interim president. “Our budget is about $1 billion, and we have been cut about $200 million. We need the $800 fee to cover the deficit, and our tuition is so low, $51 a credit, that it’s almost a gift.”
The tuition is indeed far lower than most other flagship public universities. But Puerto Rico is poorer than the mainland United States, and two-thirds of the students have incomes low enough to qualify for Pell grants.
As at many public universities elsewhere in the United States, students here worry that the new fiscal realities will restrict who can attend.
Student leaders estimate that at least 5,000 of the university’s students were not able to pay the fee this semester. And the administration acknowledges that there are now fewer than 54,000 students this semester, compared with about 60,000 last semester.
But the students have flexed their muscles. A two-month strike last spring shut down the university’s 11 campuses. And since the current strike began in December — this time, largely at the main Rio Piedras campus in San Juan — people across the island have been riveted by television and YouTube videos of violent confrontations between students and the police.
Many students were outraged that the police had been called to the campus.
“Calling in the police, for the first time in 30 years, was one of the most rash decisions they could have made,” said René Vargas, a law student who represents the student body on the university board of trustees. “The university’s intransigence and refusal to talk to students has worsened the whole situation. The students presented a 200-page document suggesting alternatives and ways to increase revenues, and the trustees have not even been willing to look at it.”
Whether or not they approved of the police presence, many students said they found it frightening.
“I didn’t go to class when I saw the police because I was scared of getting hurt,” said Carmen Gonzalez, a senior majoring in English literature who supported the protesters. “On television I saw people getting hurt, and if you’re in class and you hear those police helicopters, you can’t concentrate.”
Some students are rethinking their protest approach. “Maybe stopping classes is working against the movement,” one said.
Many students complained about the university’s decision to put several academic programs, including Hispanic studies, “on pause,” meaning they are not accepting new undergraduates.
Some faculty members and students say that local politics have played a large role in the university’s problems.
Puerto Rico has its first Republican governor in decades, Luis G. Fortuño, a pro-statehood conservative who has cut the number of public employees by about 17,000. Last weekend, while the protesters were marching in the streets, Mr. Fortuño was in Washington as a featured speaker at the Conservative Political Action conference.
Even in the lull from protests early this week, students and faculty members alike said they had no illusion that the situation had been resolved.
“We still have a very volatile situation,” said Maritza Stanchich, an English professor who has supported the students. “This all started out over anger about the new fees that were being imposed, but the issues have expanded to the style of governance and the lack of negotiation.”
While it is hard to predict what will happen next, some students may be changing their approach.
“What a lot of people are saying, and I believe too, is that we should be thinking about a movement of protest now, not really a strike,” said Omar Oduardo, a Student Council representative who spent Thursday at the social sciences department lobby, discussing the situation.
“Maybe stopping classes is working against the movement,” he added, “and it’s time to go outside the university, to the legislature and the community, to work for change
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
Puerto Rican Students protest rise in tuition fee
By Carlos T Mock, MD
Months of unrest at the University of Puerto Rico seemed to be reaching a finale. Scores of students were arrested or injured by riot police officers. Faculty and staff members held a two-day walkout. The president of the university resigned, the police who had occupied campus were withdrawn and an interim president arrived.
But there were only three days of peace.
On the morning of February 17, students blocked the stairs to classrooms in the social science department with trash cans and chairs, and also closed down the humanities department. At the social sciences building, students said only one professor had tried to get through the blockade.
The spark for the university’s problems was a budget cut that required students to pay a new $800 fee, increasing their costs by more than 50 percent.
“It is the same situation that many universities in the United States are facing,” said Miguel A. Muñoz, the interim president. “Our budget is about $1 billion, and we have been cut about $200 million. We need the $800 fee to cover the deficit, and our tuition is so low, $51 a credit, that it’s almost a gift.”
The tuition is indeed far lower than most other flagship public universities. But Puerto Rico is poorer than the mainland United States, and two-thirds of the students have incomes low enough to qualify for Pell grants.
As at many public universities elsewhere in the United States, students here worry that the new fiscal realities will restrict who can attend.
Student leaders estimate that at least 5,000 of the university’s students were not able to pay the fee this semester. And the administration acknowledges that there are now fewer than 54,000 students this semester, compared with about 60,000 last semester.
But the students have flexed their muscles. A two-month strike last spring shut down the university’s 11 campuses. And since the current strike began in December — this time, largely at the main Rio Piedras campus in San Juan — people across the island have been riveted by television and YouTube videos of violent confrontations between students and the police.
Many students were outraged that the police had been called to the campus.
“Calling in the police, for the first time in 30 years, was one of the most rash decisions they could have made,” said René Vargas, a law student who represents the student body on the university board of trustees. “The university’s intransigence and refusal to talk to students has worsened the whole situation. The students presented a 200-page document suggesting alternatives and ways to increase revenues, and the trustees have not even been willing to look at it.”
Whether or not they approved of the police presence, many students said they found it frightening.
“I didn’t go to class when I saw the police because I was scared of getting hurt,” said Carmen Gonzalez, a senior majoring in English literature who supported the protesters. “On television I saw people getting hurt, and if you’re in class and you hear those police helicopters, you can’t concentrate.”
Some students are rethinking their protest approach. “Maybe stopping classes is working against the movement,” one said.
Many students complained about the university’s decision to put several academic programs, including Hispanic studies, “on pause,” meaning they are not accepting new undergraduates.
Some faculty members and students say that local politics have played a large role in the university’s problems.
Puerto Rico has its first Republican governor in decades, Luis G. Fortuño, a pro-statehood conservative who has cut the number of public employees by about 17,000. Last weekend, while the protesters were marching in the streets, Mr. Fortuño was in Washington as a featured speaker at the Conservative Political Action conference.
Even in the lull from protests early this week, students and faculty members alike said they had no illusion that the situation had been resolved.
“We still have a very volatile situation,” said Maritza Stanchich, an English professor who has supported the students. “This all started out over anger about the new fees that were being imposed, but the issues have expanded to the style of governance and the lack of negotiation.”
While it is hard to predict what will happen next, some students may be changing their approach.
“What a lot of people are saying, and I believe too, is that we should be thinking about a movement of protest now, not really a strike,” said Omar Oduardo, a Student Council representative who spent Thursday at the social sciences department lobby, discussing the situation.
“Maybe stopping classes is working against the movement,” he added, “and it’s time to go outside the university, to the legislature and the community, to work for change
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Comments by a struggling author
Comments by a struggling author
By Carlos T Mock, MD
Chicago, IL
March 2, 2011
With the announcement of Border's Bankruptcy Chapter 11 filing on February 16, 2011, the death of the American publishing industry has been sealed.
The Big chain stores like Borders and Barnes and Noble were the demise of the small independent bookstores--the “Walmarts of the book industry.” Now they are becoming dinosaurs. Book store chains have been under severe pressure from discount sellers such as Amazon and Walmart in the mass market, along with the rapid growth in popularity of electronic book readers. Borders and rival Barnes & Noble have both been investing in new technology to better compete in the digital marketplace.
So where does that leave small publishing companies and the struggling new writers?
The big publishing companies ONLY want to publish celebrities. Donald Rumsfeld, Sara Palin, and George W. Bush are but a few examples of the trash that the big publishing companies are investing in and marketing. These books are a waste of the trees that died for the books to be sold. They are trash and lies for a specific readership that is either moronic or fanatics to certain ideals and need to be reassured so as not to crumble when the truth be known.
The second kind of books that are being published deal with religion. The best example of this is The Shack: which was written by the protagonist's best friend, William (Willie) P. Young. The book is boring, repetitive and overly complex. Nothing makes sense and I thought it was going to be a parody, since God is portrayed by a Black woman. But to hear the same things over and over again from page 88 to page 238 was hard to follow. To me it is irrelevant whether “the miracle” that happened to the protagonist is true or not. The author told the story in such a bad way that unless your religious beliefs coincide with those of the author, you will be terribly disappointed. Again the publisher is looking for morons or fanatics to reassure.
The third kind of books that are being promoted deal with vampires, werewolves, and other supernatural mumbo jumbo. The best example of this is the Twilight Series. Having read most of Ann Rice's books, I experienced how the vampire books got from good and erotic to verbose and boring. Ms. Meyer is unfortunately the later version of Ms. Rice. I believe that the audience Ms. Meyer is witting for is high school girls, which might explain her poor performance. Bella and Edward's story can be summarized in two paragraphs. A very insecure girl moves to Forks in Washington State; escaping her mother who recently remarried, to live with her father, the town sheriff. She meets a very awkward boy, Edward and slowly falls for him. She finally guesses that he is a vampire, and their relationship grows until Edward places Bella in great danger. After some chasing around, Bella is saved by her boyfriend. How Ms. Meyer got almost 500 pages to tell us this baffles me. She is extremely boring, I believe this book is an insult to our youth. They deserve better.
It is not a coincidence that no American novelist has won the Nobel prize in literature since 1993, when Toni Morrison from Ohio did. Instead the artistic and literary talent has shifted to Latin America, Europe, and Asia—Peruvian Mario Vargas Llosa won the 2010 Nobel price in Literature—Mexican Octavio Paz in 1990, The Spanish Camilo José Cela in 1989, Colombian Gabriel García Márquez in 1982, and Chilean Pablo Neruda in 1972. No American has won this coveted price since 1962, other than Toni Morrison in 1993. The best books I’ve read in a long time are by:
Spanish Matilde Asensi: El Último Cato (The Last Cato), Todo Bajo el Cielo (Everything under the sky), El Origen Perdido, (The Lost Origin), and el Salon de Ámbar (The Amber Room).
Dominican Junot Díaz: The Brief Wondrous life of Oscar Wao (La maravillosa Vida Breve de Oscar Wao) Winner of the 2008 Pulitzer Price
Spanish Julia Navarro: La Biblia de Barro (The Mud Bible), Hermandad de La Sábana Santa (The brotherhood of the holy Grail), and La Sangre de los Inocentes (The Innocents’ Blood).
Spanish Arturo Pérez Reverete’s El Club Dumas which was used to create the script for the movie “The Ninth Gate.”
Spanish Javier Sierra: La Cena Secreta (The secret supper), Las Puertas Templarias (The Templar Doors), La dama Azul (The Blue Lady), and The Seville Communion.
Spanish Carlos Ruiz Zafón: El Juego del Angel (The Angel’s Game) and La Sombra del Viento (The Shadow of the Wind)--my favorites!!!
Peruvian Mario Vargas Llosa’s best: La Fiesta del Chivo (The Goat’s Party)--close second
Not to mention the talent from Afghanistan: Khaled Hosseini’s Kite Runner and A Thousand Splendid Suns
From Sri Lanka: Shyam Selvadurai’s Funny Boy and Cinnamon Gardens
And, finally, from Sweden: The Millennium Trilogy by Stieg Larsson
I think that unless the American publishers start looking for and promoting talent, instead of promoting bad literature and cultist themes by celebrities, the death of the struggling author will come along with the death of our literature. We are not just behind in math and science—our youth are being poisoned by the terrible choices made by our publishing companies.
Countries like Afghanistan, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Peru, Spain, Sri Lanka, and Sweden are producing better literature than we are.
Dr. Carlos T Mock is a native Puerto Rican who resides in Chicago, IL and Three Oaks, MI. He has published four books and is the GLBT Editor for Floricanto Press in Berkley, CA. He contributes columns regularly to Windy City Times in Chicago, Ambiente Magazine in Miami, Camp Newspaper in Kansas City. He's had several OP-Ed published at the Chicago Tribune. Inducted in the Chicago Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame October 18th, 2007. He can be reached at: http://www.carlostmock.com/
By Carlos T Mock, MD
Chicago, IL
March 2, 2011
With the announcement of Border's Bankruptcy Chapter 11 filing on February 16, 2011, the death of the American publishing industry has been sealed.
The Big chain stores like Borders and Barnes and Noble were the demise of the small independent bookstores--the “Walmarts of the book industry.” Now they are becoming dinosaurs. Book store chains have been under severe pressure from discount sellers such as Amazon and Walmart in the mass market, along with the rapid growth in popularity of electronic book readers. Borders and rival Barnes & Noble have both been investing in new technology to better compete in the digital marketplace.
So where does that leave small publishing companies and the struggling new writers?
The big publishing companies ONLY want to publish celebrities. Donald Rumsfeld, Sara Palin, and George W. Bush are but a few examples of the trash that the big publishing companies are investing in and marketing. These books are a waste of the trees that died for the books to be sold. They are trash and lies for a specific readership that is either moronic or fanatics to certain ideals and need to be reassured so as not to crumble when the truth be known.
The second kind of books that are being published deal with religion. The best example of this is The Shack: which was written by the protagonist's best friend, William (Willie) P. Young. The book is boring, repetitive and overly complex. Nothing makes sense and I thought it was going to be a parody, since God is portrayed by a Black woman. But to hear the same things over and over again from page 88 to page 238 was hard to follow. To me it is irrelevant whether “the miracle” that happened to the protagonist is true or not. The author told the story in such a bad way that unless your religious beliefs coincide with those of the author, you will be terribly disappointed. Again the publisher is looking for morons or fanatics to reassure.
The third kind of books that are being promoted deal with vampires, werewolves, and other supernatural mumbo jumbo. The best example of this is the Twilight Series. Having read most of Ann Rice's books, I experienced how the vampire books got from good and erotic to verbose and boring. Ms. Meyer is unfortunately the later version of Ms. Rice. I believe that the audience Ms. Meyer is witting for is high school girls, which might explain her poor performance. Bella and Edward's story can be summarized in two paragraphs. A very insecure girl moves to Forks in Washington State; escaping her mother who recently remarried, to live with her father, the town sheriff. She meets a very awkward boy, Edward and slowly falls for him. She finally guesses that he is a vampire, and their relationship grows until Edward places Bella in great danger. After some chasing around, Bella is saved by her boyfriend. How Ms. Meyer got almost 500 pages to tell us this baffles me. She is extremely boring, I believe this book is an insult to our youth. They deserve better.
It is not a coincidence that no American novelist has won the Nobel prize in literature since 1993, when Toni Morrison from Ohio did. Instead the artistic and literary talent has shifted to Latin America, Europe, and Asia—Peruvian Mario Vargas Llosa won the 2010 Nobel price in Literature—Mexican Octavio Paz in 1990, The Spanish Camilo José Cela in 1989, Colombian Gabriel García Márquez in 1982, and Chilean Pablo Neruda in 1972. No American has won this coveted price since 1962, other than Toni Morrison in 1993. The best books I’ve read in a long time are by:
Spanish Matilde Asensi: El Último Cato (The Last Cato), Todo Bajo el Cielo (Everything under the sky), El Origen Perdido, (The Lost Origin), and el Salon de Ámbar (The Amber Room).
Dominican Junot Díaz: The Brief Wondrous life of Oscar Wao (La maravillosa Vida Breve de Oscar Wao) Winner of the 2008 Pulitzer Price
Spanish Julia Navarro: La Biblia de Barro (The Mud Bible), Hermandad de La Sábana Santa (The brotherhood of the holy Grail), and La Sangre de los Inocentes (The Innocents’ Blood).
Spanish Arturo Pérez Reverete’s El Club Dumas which was used to create the script for the movie “The Ninth Gate.”
Spanish Javier Sierra: La Cena Secreta (The secret supper), Las Puertas Templarias (The Templar Doors), La dama Azul (The Blue Lady), and The Seville Communion.
Spanish Carlos Ruiz Zafón: El Juego del Angel (The Angel’s Game) and La Sombra del Viento (The Shadow of the Wind)--my favorites!!!
Peruvian Mario Vargas Llosa’s best: La Fiesta del Chivo (The Goat’s Party)--close second
Not to mention the talent from Afghanistan: Khaled Hosseini’s Kite Runner and A Thousand Splendid Suns
From Sri Lanka: Shyam Selvadurai’s Funny Boy and Cinnamon Gardens
And, finally, from Sweden: The Millennium Trilogy by Stieg Larsson
I think that unless the American publishers start looking for and promoting talent, instead of promoting bad literature and cultist themes by celebrities, the death of the struggling author will come along with the death of our literature. We are not just behind in math and science—our youth are being poisoned by the terrible choices made by our publishing companies.
Countries like Afghanistan, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Peru, Spain, Sri Lanka, and Sweden are producing better literature than we are.
Dr. Carlos T Mock is a native Puerto Rican who resides in Chicago, IL and Three Oaks, MI. He has published four books and is the GLBT Editor for Floricanto Press in Berkley, CA. He contributes columns regularly to Windy City Times in Chicago, Ambiente Magazine in Miami, Camp Newspaper in Kansas City. He's had several OP-Ed published at the Chicago Tribune. Inducted in the Chicago Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame October 18th, 2007. He can be reached at: http://www.carlostmock.com/
Thursday, January 27, 2011
The greatest threat to America’s economic well-being: its deteriorating and unsustainable fiscal condition.
The greatest threat to America’s economic well-being: its deteriorating and unsustainable fiscal condition.
By Carlos T Mock, MD
Chicago
January 24, 2011
America’s debt is piling up at a rate not seen, outside of the Second World War, since record keeping began in 1792. Federal debt has nearly tripled in the past 10 years, from $3,500bn to more than $9,000bn. The ratio of debt to gross domestic product has doubled. Federal debt, of course, is the dollar-for-dollar product of deficits. Each of the past three years has seen trillion-dollar deficits, each larger in both absolute and proportionate terms than ever recorded before 2008.
Unfortunately, this picture gets worse. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the debt to GDP ratio will hit 90 per cent by 2020; the International Monetary Fund projects that it will reach 115 per cent. These are levels usually associated with Italy or Greece. The US will reach them within nine years.
The Solution: a negotiated agreement between the president and congressional leadership. The scale of deficit reduction needed to stabilize the US debt to GDP ratio, however, is large – between $200bn and $300bn annually. That means reducing entitlements and discretionary spending (anathema to congressional Democrats) as well as defense cuts and higher taxes (seen as toxic by Republicans). Bridging those differences promises to be a Himalayan task and is unlikely today. Only Mr. Obama can begin to change this dynamic.
This is the right moment because, for all the commentary on deficits and debt, the danger is greater than most Americans understand. Not even the US can indefinitely run up debt at the current, astronomical rate. If our leaders do not rein it in, global financial markets will ultimately force a solution. In other words, adjustment will either be done by the US or to it. The latter scenario would mean The American economy will be changed; by larger than necessary changes, indiscriminate, and imposed virtually overnight. No one can predict when markets might move on America, but it is a question of when, not if.
The result would be an age of American austerity. No category of federal spending, from defense to Medicare, would be spared. Taxes on most or all individuals and businesses would rise. Economic growth would slow. The consequences for America’s international role, and for world stability, would be profoundly negative.
Those who claim the debt crises that have struck Greece and Ireland recently and so many others cannot hit America should study the events of 1979. That was the period of stagflation, the Iranian oil embargo and President Jimmy Carter. The US dollar had been weakening for months but, when Mr. Carter proposed a larger than expected budget deficit, markets revolted. The dollar plunged, global markets fell and an international rescue of the dollar was required. Within days, the US was forced to halve its budget deficit and the Federal Reserve had to raise rates sharply. America was not immune from global financial rejection then, and it is not now.
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
By Carlos T Mock, MD
Chicago
January 24, 2011
America’s debt is piling up at a rate not seen, outside of the Second World War, since record keeping began in 1792. Federal debt has nearly tripled in the past 10 years, from $3,500bn to more than $9,000bn. The ratio of debt to gross domestic product has doubled. Federal debt, of course, is the dollar-for-dollar product of deficits. Each of the past three years has seen trillion-dollar deficits, each larger in both absolute and proportionate terms than ever recorded before 2008.
Unfortunately, this picture gets worse. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the debt to GDP ratio will hit 90 per cent by 2020; the International Monetary Fund projects that it will reach 115 per cent. These are levels usually associated with Italy or Greece. The US will reach them within nine years.
The Solution: a negotiated agreement between the president and congressional leadership. The scale of deficit reduction needed to stabilize the US debt to GDP ratio, however, is large – between $200bn and $300bn annually. That means reducing entitlements and discretionary spending (anathema to congressional Democrats) as well as defense cuts and higher taxes (seen as toxic by Republicans). Bridging those differences promises to be a Himalayan task and is unlikely today. Only Mr. Obama can begin to change this dynamic.
This is the right moment because, for all the commentary on deficits and debt, the danger is greater than most Americans understand. Not even the US can indefinitely run up debt at the current, astronomical rate. If our leaders do not rein it in, global financial markets will ultimately force a solution. In other words, adjustment will either be done by the US or to it. The latter scenario would mean The American economy will be changed; by larger than necessary changes, indiscriminate, and imposed virtually overnight. No one can predict when markets might move on America, but it is a question of when, not if.
The result would be an age of American austerity. No category of federal spending, from defense to Medicare, would be spared. Taxes on most or all individuals and businesses would rise. Economic growth would slow. The consequences for America’s international role, and for world stability, would be profoundly negative.
Those who claim the debt crises that have struck Greece and Ireland recently and so many others cannot hit America should study the events of 1979. That was the period of stagflation, the Iranian oil embargo and President Jimmy Carter. The US dollar had been weakening for months but, when Mr. Carter proposed a larger than expected budget deficit, markets revolted. The dollar plunged, global markets fell and an international rescue of the dollar was required. Within days, the US was forced to halve its budget deficit and the Federal Reserve had to raise rates sharply. America was not immune from global financial rejection then, and it is not now.
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Is there the will to save the euro?
Is there the will to save the euro?
By Carlos T MOCK
Chicago, IL
As Estonia became the 17th member to join the Euro on January first, 2011, we ask ourselves; is it worth it?
To outsiders, it may look a strange moment for the eurozone to be admitting new members when the single currency is embroiled in what some observers consider to be a battle for survival. Yet, Estonia’s eagerness to join despite the crisis provides a reminder of the euro’s appeal to some countries on the eastern fringe of Europe eager to cement their place in the west. While the debt crisis has sparked renewed debate over the merits of monetary union, Andrus Ansip, Estonia’s prime minister, says Europe must not lose sight of the bigger picture. “Every one in Estonia understands that the European Union started as a peacekeeping project and that the common market and the euro is a continuation of that,” he says.
Will the eurozone survive in its current form?
There are several reasons why markets have reacted poorly to Europe’s recent crisis management efforts. First, questions about the ability of the EU to make decisions. This is a matter of governance. Second, questions about the lack of a fiscal union. This is a matter of design. And third, political sustainability in times of harsh adjustment. This is a matter of remedial action. To address these questions, we need to consider three more precise issues. First, how likely is a wave of sovereign defaults? Second, will the eurozone make the changes needed to prevent these? Third, could the eurozone survive them?
Sovereign defaults:
Ireland: Ireland’s government has avoided immediate disaster by mustering just enough votes to pass its emergency budget. But now it must decide what to do next. Here, €6bn ($9.4bn) in new austerity measures are unlikely to be enough to put it back on the right path. Instead a more radical option should be seriously considered: leaving the euro. Sovereign default, massive bank recapitalizations, and sharply falling real wages are all given as reasons why peripheral euro area countries should hang on to monetary union. Yet, in Ireland’s case, all three are going to happen anyway. If Ireland’s government continues to guarantee bank debt, a restructuring of sovereign debt seems inevitable in 2013, when the present bail-out expires. Ireland simply has too much overall debt. A high-interest loan from the European Union and International Monetary Fund will only serve to buy a little more time. Further bank recapitalization is also so certain in Ireland that the EU, IMF, European Central Bank and Irish government have already set aside €35bn of the new €85bn bail-out package expressly for this purpose. On wages, given it is unable to devalue its currency Ireland must undergo an internal devaluation to regain competitiveness by cutting wages and bringing down prices. Real wages are therefore expected to fall over the next few years. All of this is pessimistic, but there is an optimistic case too: if Ireland withdrew from the euro it would actually have reasonably good prospects for growth. It has a highly skilled labor force, open labor and product markets and a fairly robust export sector. The export sector would be bolstered by an immediately devalued new Irish currency.
Spain: On December 15, Moody’s, said it may downgrade Spanish government bonds because of the country’s likely difficulty in raising large sums of money next year, the problems of its savings banks and the debts incurred by its autonomous regions. Spain was downgraded by Moody’s from the agency’s top rating of triple A by one notch less than three months ago because of weak economic growth, the difficulty of cutting the budget deficit and higher borrowing needs. In a statement on Wednesday, Moody’s said it was putting Spain’s current Aa1 ratings for local and foreign currency government bonds on review for possible downgrade, and was also reviewing the rating of the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring, known as the Frob from its Spanish initials. The markets reacted swiftly to the news. The euro fell 0.5 per cent against the dollar to $1.3319 and yields on Spanish 10-year bonds challenged euro-era highs with an 8 basis point jump to 5.6 per cent. Madrid’s Ibex 35 stock index fell 1.4 per cent and the broader FTSE Eurofirst 300 lost 0.3 per cent as the region’s banks came under pressure because of their exposure to eurozone sovereign debt. The announcement by Moody’s comes at a bad time for Spain, one day ahead of its last scheduled bond auction of the year and just as it is struggling to restore international confidence in its economy and its banking system. On Tuesday, Spain sold €2.5bn in treasury bills but had to pay more than one percentage point more in interest than it did only a month ago.
Portugal had to pay extremely high premiums to sell short-term debt in a further sign of the problems in the eurozone debt markets. Lisbon borrowed €500m of three-month bills, paying an average yield of 3.40 per cent compared with a yield of 1.82 per cent at the previous auction on November 3. The auction attracted bids of 1.9 times the amount offered compared with a bid to cover ratio of 2.2 in November.
Thus the question is whether these countries can avoid sovereign debt restructuring. The salient characteristic of lending to sovereigns is the absence of collateral. Thus, the safety of the creditors depends on their ability to sell debt to others at reasonable prices. If this confidence disappears, liquidity dries up and sovereigns are driven into default. What, then, determines confidence? The short answer is: sustainability. That itself depends on the relationship between prospective economic growth and the real rate of interest. The lower the growth and the higher the interest rate, the bigger the primary fiscal surplus (before interest payments) needs to be – and so the greater the political costs of achieving it. The bigger these costs, the less confident will investors be and the higher the interest rates will become. This, then, creates a vicious spiral. Vulnerable peripheral eurozone member countries now suffer from troubled financial systems, high fiscal deficits, rapidly rising ratios of debt to gross domestic product, elevated interest rates, poor prospective growth and the absence of a central bank that is sure to make the debt market liquid. Poor growth prospects, in turn, are partly due to loss of competitiveness. If these indicators were applied to normal emerging countries, a default would seem inevitable.
Will changes be made?
The answer is: probably not. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has ruled out two of the most widely backed ideas for combating the eurozone debt crisis. She saw no need to increase the size of the European Union’s €440bn rescue fund and said that the bloc’s treaties did not allow for the creation of a Europe-wide bond. Ms Merkel’s comments on Monday came as finance ministers from the six-country eurozone were gathering in Brussels for a regularly scheduled meeting where the need for more measures was debated behind closed doors.
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has called for calm in the European Union after an angry attack by Jean-Claude Juncker, prime minister of Luxembourg, who accused Berlin of being “un-European” and “a bit simple” in making some areas “taboo” in EU negotiations. At the same time she repeated her rejection of Mr. Juncker’s proposal for jointly guaranteed eurobonds to help finance the most debt-laden members of the currency union. “The discussion does not help us,” she said after meeting Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Swedish prime minister. Although Berlin remains adamant that Mr Juncker’s eurobond proposal cannot work without significant treaty change, there are signs that the German government may be prepared to seek some compromise on another plan: to raise the funds available in the eurozone rescue mechanism – the €440bn ($580bn) European financial stability facility – to enable the full amount to be payable for countries in difficulty. Under the present arrangement the fund can borrow €440bn on the bond market but can only pay out about two-thirds of the amount to troubled governments, mainly because it has to maintain a cash buffer to guarantee its triple-A status. An amendment to use the full €440bn is one proposal under consideration in Brussels and other eurozone capitals, although Germany has rejected as unnecessary any increase in its overall size. Mr. Juncker’s outburst, in an interview with Die Zeit, the German weekly newspaper, was the most dramatic demonstration to date of the worsening tempers within the EU. He accused the German government of rejecting his eurobond proposal “before it had been properly studied” and was baffled by Germany’s way of “erecting taboo areas in Europe and not even considering the ideas proposed by other people”.
The German rejection leaves the European Central Bank’s aggressive purchase of eurozone sovereign debt as the main weapon for the EU in fighting to keep the two most vulnerable countries, Portugal and Spain, from being forced into a bail-out. One reason is that the creditors want them. True, Germany has suggested this should apply only to future debt. But, in capital markets, the future is always now. Moreover, the funds now on offer are not enough to finance all weak countries for long enough to avoid defaults, particularly since the latter will need to deflate and restructure their way back to growth. As Desmond Lachman of the American Enterprise Institute argued in a recent paper for the London-based Legatum Institute, prospective growth is of the essence. But, in the absence of exchange rate flexibility and in the presence of high interest rates, cutting fiscal deficits on its own may well exacerbate slumps.
Could the eurozone survive a wave of debt restructurings?
The more a break-up looks possible, the higher the risk of a self-fulfilling dynamic. For this reason the European Union cannot afford doubts about the viability of the euro to spread and strengthen. What justifies these doubts? First, questions about the ability of the EU to make decisions. This is a matter of governance. Second, questions about the lack of a fiscal union. This is a matter of design. And third, political sustainability in times of harsh adjustment. This is a matter of remedial action. Many countries across Europe are making sacrifices in the name of the single currency. The early lessons from Greece are that harsh reforms do not necessarily weaken governments if the population regards them as necessary. But a backlash is likely when conditions set for assistance are inadequate or unfair – as was the case with the strings attached to the cost of the emergency loans offered to Ireland. This is why European leaders must urgently devise a strategy to help foster growth in crisis-affected countries, before the euro is blamed for their difficulties.
Still worse, once a country has been forced to restructure its public debt and seen a substantial part of its financial system disappear as well, the additional costs of re-establishing its currency must seem rather smaller. This, too, must be clear to investors. Again, such fears increase the chances of runs from liabilities of weaker countries. For skeptics the question has always been how robust a currency union among diverse economies with less than unlimited mutual solidarity can be. Only a crisis could answer that question. Unfortunately, the crisis we have is the biggest for 80 years.
“Tell me how this ends,” was the question posed by General David Petraeus about the Iraq war. European leaders are asking the same question as they contemplate the crisis in the eurozone. Having failed to construct a firebreak in Greece, the Europeans are hoping that they can stop the euro crisis in Ireland. But, even as an Irish rescue package is put together, the bond markets are already looking with unhealthy interest at Portugal. After Portugal, Spain is assumed to be next. And, if a really big economy such as Spain needed to call the financial fire brigade, the whole future of the euro would be in serious peril. The question of “how this ends” is therefore obvious and urgent – but also fiendishly difficult to answer. It is like watching a three-dimensional game of chess – in which the financial, economic and political levels all interact with each other. My current best guess is that the single currency will indeed eventually break up – and that the euro’s executioner will be Germany, the most powerful country and economy inside the European Union.
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
By Carlos T MOCK
Chicago, IL
As Estonia became the 17th member to join the Euro on January first, 2011, we ask ourselves; is it worth it?
To outsiders, it may look a strange moment for the eurozone to be admitting new members when the single currency is embroiled in what some observers consider to be a battle for survival. Yet, Estonia’s eagerness to join despite the crisis provides a reminder of the euro’s appeal to some countries on the eastern fringe of Europe eager to cement their place in the west. While the debt crisis has sparked renewed debate over the merits of monetary union, Andrus Ansip, Estonia’s prime minister, says Europe must not lose sight of the bigger picture. “Every one in Estonia understands that the European Union started as a peacekeeping project and that the common market and the euro is a continuation of that,” he says.
Will the eurozone survive in its current form?
There are several reasons why markets have reacted poorly to Europe’s recent crisis management efforts. First, questions about the ability of the EU to make decisions. This is a matter of governance. Second, questions about the lack of a fiscal union. This is a matter of design. And third, political sustainability in times of harsh adjustment. This is a matter of remedial action. To address these questions, we need to consider three more precise issues. First, how likely is a wave of sovereign defaults? Second, will the eurozone make the changes needed to prevent these? Third, could the eurozone survive them?
Sovereign defaults:
Ireland: Ireland’s government has avoided immediate disaster by mustering just enough votes to pass its emergency budget. But now it must decide what to do next. Here, €6bn ($9.4bn) in new austerity measures are unlikely to be enough to put it back on the right path. Instead a more radical option should be seriously considered: leaving the euro. Sovereign default, massive bank recapitalizations, and sharply falling real wages are all given as reasons why peripheral euro area countries should hang on to monetary union. Yet, in Ireland’s case, all three are going to happen anyway. If Ireland’s government continues to guarantee bank debt, a restructuring of sovereign debt seems inevitable in 2013, when the present bail-out expires. Ireland simply has too much overall debt. A high-interest loan from the European Union and International Monetary Fund will only serve to buy a little more time. Further bank recapitalization is also so certain in Ireland that the EU, IMF, European Central Bank and Irish government have already set aside €35bn of the new €85bn bail-out package expressly for this purpose. On wages, given it is unable to devalue its currency Ireland must undergo an internal devaluation to regain competitiveness by cutting wages and bringing down prices. Real wages are therefore expected to fall over the next few years. All of this is pessimistic, but there is an optimistic case too: if Ireland withdrew from the euro it would actually have reasonably good prospects for growth. It has a highly skilled labor force, open labor and product markets and a fairly robust export sector. The export sector would be bolstered by an immediately devalued new Irish currency.
Spain: On December 15, Moody’s, said it may downgrade Spanish government bonds because of the country’s likely difficulty in raising large sums of money next year, the problems of its savings banks and the debts incurred by its autonomous regions. Spain was downgraded by Moody’s from the agency’s top rating of triple A by one notch less than three months ago because of weak economic growth, the difficulty of cutting the budget deficit and higher borrowing needs. In a statement on Wednesday, Moody’s said it was putting Spain’s current Aa1 ratings for local and foreign currency government bonds on review for possible downgrade, and was also reviewing the rating of the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring, known as the Frob from its Spanish initials. The markets reacted swiftly to the news. The euro fell 0.5 per cent against the dollar to $1.3319 and yields on Spanish 10-year bonds challenged euro-era highs with an 8 basis point jump to 5.6 per cent. Madrid’s Ibex 35 stock index fell 1.4 per cent and the broader FTSE Eurofirst 300 lost 0.3 per cent as the region’s banks came under pressure because of their exposure to eurozone sovereign debt. The announcement by Moody’s comes at a bad time for Spain, one day ahead of its last scheduled bond auction of the year and just as it is struggling to restore international confidence in its economy and its banking system. On Tuesday, Spain sold €2.5bn in treasury bills but had to pay more than one percentage point more in interest than it did only a month ago.
Portugal had to pay extremely high premiums to sell short-term debt in a further sign of the problems in the eurozone debt markets. Lisbon borrowed €500m of three-month bills, paying an average yield of 3.40 per cent compared with a yield of 1.82 per cent at the previous auction on November 3. The auction attracted bids of 1.9 times the amount offered compared with a bid to cover ratio of 2.2 in November.
Thus the question is whether these countries can avoid sovereign debt restructuring. The salient characteristic of lending to sovereigns is the absence of collateral. Thus, the safety of the creditors depends on their ability to sell debt to others at reasonable prices. If this confidence disappears, liquidity dries up and sovereigns are driven into default. What, then, determines confidence? The short answer is: sustainability. That itself depends on the relationship between prospective economic growth and the real rate of interest. The lower the growth and the higher the interest rate, the bigger the primary fiscal surplus (before interest payments) needs to be – and so the greater the political costs of achieving it. The bigger these costs, the less confident will investors be and the higher the interest rates will become. This, then, creates a vicious spiral. Vulnerable peripheral eurozone member countries now suffer from troubled financial systems, high fiscal deficits, rapidly rising ratios of debt to gross domestic product, elevated interest rates, poor prospective growth and the absence of a central bank that is sure to make the debt market liquid. Poor growth prospects, in turn, are partly due to loss of competitiveness. If these indicators were applied to normal emerging countries, a default would seem inevitable.
Will changes be made?
The answer is: probably not. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has ruled out two of the most widely backed ideas for combating the eurozone debt crisis. She saw no need to increase the size of the European Union’s €440bn rescue fund and said that the bloc’s treaties did not allow for the creation of a Europe-wide bond. Ms Merkel’s comments on Monday came as finance ministers from the six-country eurozone were gathering in Brussels for a regularly scheduled meeting where the need for more measures was debated behind closed doors.
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has called for calm in the European Union after an angry attack by Jean-Claude Juncker, prime minister of Luxembourg, who accused Berlin of being “un-European” and “a bit simple” in making some areas “taboo” in EU negotiations. At the same time she repeated her rejection of Mr. Juncker’s proposal for jointly guaranteed eurobonds to help finance the most debt-laden members of the currency union. “The discussion does not help us,” she said after meeting Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Swedish prime minister. Although Berlin remains adamant that Mr Juncker’s eurobond proposal cannot work without significant treaty change, there are signs that the German government may be prepared to seek some compromise on another plan: to raise the funds available in the eurozone rescue mechanism – the €440bn ($580bn) European financial stability facility – to enable the full amount to be payable for countries in difficulty. Under the present arrangement the fund can borrow €440bn on the bond market but can only pay out about two-thirds of the amount to troubled governments, mainly because it has to maintain a cash buffer to guarantee its triple-A status. An amendment to use the full €440bn is one proposal under consideration in Brussels and other eurozone capitals, although Germany has rejected as unnecessary any increase in its overall size. Mr. Juncker’s outburst, in an interview with Die Zeit, the German weekly newspaper, was the most dramatic demonstration to date of the worsening tempers within the EU. He accused the German government of rejecting his eurobond proposal “before it had been properly studied” and was baffled by Germany’s way of “erecting taboo areas in Europe and not even considering the ideas proposed by other people”.
The German rejection leaves the European Central Bank’s aggressive purchase of eurozone sovereign debt as the main weapon for the EU in fighting to keep the two most vulnerable countries, Portugal and Spain, from being forced into a bail-out. One reason is that the creditors want them. True, Germany has suggested this should apply only to future debt. But, in capital markets, the future is always now. Moreover, the funds now on offer are not enough to finance all weak countries for long enough to avoid defaults, particularly since the latter will need to deflate and restructure their way back to growth. As Desmond Lachman of the American Enterprise Institute argued in a recent paper for the London-based Legatum Institute, prospective growth is of the essence. But, in the absence of exchange rate flexibility and in the presence of high interest rates, cutting fiscal deficits on its own may well exacerbate slumps.
Could the eurozone survive a wave of debt restructurings?
The more a break-up looks possible, the higher the risk of a self-fulfilling dynamic. For this reason the European Union cannot afford doubts about the viability of the euro to spread and strengthen. What justifies these doubts? First, questions about the ability of the EU to make decisions. This is a matter of governance. Second, questions about the lack of a fiscal union. This is a matter of design. And third, political sustainability in times of harsh adjustment. This is a matter of remedial action. Many countries across Europe are making sacrifices in the name of the single currency. The early lessons from Greece are that harsh reforms do not necessarily weaken governments if the population regards them as necessary. But a backlash is likely when conditions set for assistance are inadequate or unfair – as was the case with the strings attached to the cost of the emergency loans offered to Ireland. This is why European leaders must urgently devise a strategy to help foster growth in crisis-affected countries, before the euro is blamed for their difficulties.
Still worse, once a country has been forced to restructure its public debt and seen a substantial part of its financial system disappear as well, the additional costs of re-establishing its currency must seem rather smaller. This, too, must be clear to investors. Again, such fears increase the chances of runs from liabilities of weaker countries. For skeptics the question has always been how robust a currency union among diverse economies with less than unlimited mutual solidarity can be. Only a crisis could answer that question. Unfortunately, the crisis we have is the biggest for 80 years.
“Tell me how this ends,” was the question posed by General David Petraeus about the Iraq war. European leaders are asking the same question as they contemplate the crisis in the eurozone. Having failed to construct a firebreak in Greece, the Europeans are hoping that they can stop the euro crisis in Ireland. But, even as an Irish rescue package is put together, the bond markets are already looking with unhealthy interest at Portugal. After Portugal, Spain is assumed to be next. And, if a really big economy such as Spain needed to call the financial fire brigade, the whole future of the euro would be in serious peril. The question of “how this ends” is therefore obvious and urgent – but also fiendishly difficult to answer. It is like watching a three-dimensional game of chess – in which the financial, economic and political levels all interact with each other. My current best guess is that the single currency will indeed eventually break up – and that the euro’s executioner will be Germany, the most powerful country and economy inside the European Union.
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
Friday, December 10, 2010
Could the US be on a path to bankruptcy?
Could the US be on a path to bankruptcy?
By Carlos T Mock
December 10, 2010.
The recent deal extending Bush-era tax cuts is flawed because it fails to send a “signal of austerity” from the US about its ability to reduce its mounting debt burden. Market reaction was swift and devastating. US Treasuries suffered their biggest two-day sell-off since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, following a torrid month that has seen borrowing costs for western governments soar. Germany, Japan and the US have all seen their benchmark market interest rates rise by more than a quarter in the past month while the UK’s has risen by nearly a fifth.
The yield on 10-year US Treasuries hit a six-month high of 3.33 per cent on Wednesday, up 0.39 percentage points from Monday and 1 percentage point higher than its October low. The first toxic consequence of this is increase mortgage rates (which are based on the 10 year Treasury interest rates) thus hurting the housing recovery.
Japanese five-year yields also rose the most in two years, while Germany’s benchmark borrowing costs hit 3 per cent. “People are getting out of the market and moving to the sidelines, feeling shell-shocked at the speed of the rise in yields,” said David Ader, strategist at CRT Capital. US 10-year yields have risen by about 0.76 percentage points since November 8, those of Germany by 0.62 percentage points, the UK by 0.53 percentage points and Japan by 0.29 percentage points as the prices of the bonds has fallen.
Yields are still relatively low compared with long-term trends but investors are starting to fret that they could continue to move sharply higher. “Yields at this level are clearly unsustainable,” said Paul Marson, chief investment officer at Lombard Odier, the Swiss private bank. At what point will the US get stuck in a Japanese styled economy with a very prolonged recovery?
The market moves came after President Barack Obama agreed with Congressional Republicans to extend Bush-era tax cuts and combine them with a $120bn payroll tax holiday. The primary explanation is that growth expectations have increased because of better economic data and the “second stimulus” provided by the US government. But others argue it could be due to fears that the US Federal Reserve will not follow through on asset purchases or because of higher government deficits. “It is probably all three,” said said Steven Major, global head of fixed income research at HSBC.
Bucking the leadership of his own party, Tom Coburn, the Oklahoma senator who last week voted in favor of a sweeping plan to cut US budget deficits by $3,900bn during the next decade, said in an interview with the Financial Times the tax cuts deal did not “address our real problems and the real problem is we are in a hole financially”. The focus of Mr. Coburn’s criticism of the deal was not the overall cost of the tax cut extensions, which he supports, but that no spending cuts were included in order to offset some of the cost.
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
By Carlos T Mock
December 10, 2010.
The recent deal extending Bush-era tax cuts is flawed because it fails to send a “signal of austerity” from the US about its ability to reduce its mounting debt burden. Market reaction was swift and devastating. US Treasuries suffered their biggest two-day sell-off since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, following a torrid month that has seen borrowing costs for western governments soar. Germany, Japan and the US have all seen their benchmark market interest rates rise by more than a quarter in the past month while the UK’s has risen by nearly a fifth.
The yield on 10-year US Treasuries hit a six-month high of 3.33 per cent on Wednesday, up 0.39 percentage points from Monday and 1 percentage point higher than its October low. The first toxic consequence of this is increase mortgage rates (which are based on the 10 year Treasury interest rates) thus hurting the housing recovery.
Japanese five-year yields also rose the most in two years, while Germany’s benchmark borrowing costs hit 3 per cent. “People are getting out of the market and moving to the sidelines, feeling shell-shocked at the speed of the rise in yields,” said David Ader, strategist at CRT Capital. US 10-year yields have risen by about 0.76 percentage points since November 8, those of Germany by 0.62 percentage points, the UK by 0.53 percentage points and Japan by 0.29 percentage points as the prices of the bonds has fallen.
Yields are still relatively low compared with long-term trends but investors are starting to fret that they could continue to move sharply higher. “Yields at this level are clearly unsustainable,” said Paul Marson, chief investment officer at Lombard Odier, the Swiss private bank. At what point will the US get stuck in a Japanese styled economy with a very prolonged recovery?
The market moves came after President Barack Obama agreed with Congressional Republicans to extend Bush-era tax cuts and combine them with a $120bn payroll tax holiday. The primary explanation is that growth expectations have increased because of better economic data and the “second stimulus” provided by the US government. But others argue it could be due to fears that the US Federal Reserve will not follow through on asset purchases or because of higher government deficits. “It is probably all three,” said said Steven Major, global head of fixed income research at HSBC.
Bucking the leadership of his own party, Tom Coburn, the Oklahoma senator who last week voted in favor of a sweeping plan to cut US budget deficits by $3,900bn during the next decade, said in an interview with the Financial Times the tax cuts deal did not “address our real problems and the real problem is we are in a hole financially”. The focus of Mr. Coburn’s criticism of the deal was not the overall cost of the tax cut extensions, which he supports, but that no spending cuts were included in order to offset some of the cost.
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
Monday, November 8, 2010
The Fed's Quantitative Easing 2 (QE 2) By Carlos T Mock
The Fed's Quantitative Easing 2 (QE 2)
By Carlos T Mock
November 5, 2010
Remember when we all were idolizing Fed chairman Alan Greenspan? When we thought he was the champion of our economy and the provider of prosperity?
In retrospect, we now know he is responsible for the housing bubble that brought the economy to its worst disaster since the Great Depression.
Now comes Ben Bernanke and his act of desperation called Quantitative Easing 2 (QE 2), in which the Fed will buy up to $600 billion dollars in treasuries to pump cash into the economy. To do this, the Fed MUST print the money to pay for it, an act that carries the consequence of devaluating the dollar.
By signaling its intention to purchase another $600bn of longer-term Treasury securities by the end of June 2011, the Fed hopes its injections of cash will lower interest rates, bolster asset prices, increase wealth and encourage households and companies to spend and hire. Moreover, by noting the possibility of doing more if the data disappoint, it is also hoping that markets could price in the institution’s future asset purchases, turbo-charging the direct policy impact before those purchases have even been specified.
While willing to act, the Fed should be aware that the potential benefits come with the certainty of collateral damage, and the probability of unintended catastrophe, just like Alan Greenspan brought forth to our economy before.
The Fed faces three problems, with its solo role being the first. Having warned in late August in Jackson Hole that “central bankers alone cannot solve the world’s economic problems”, Ben Bernanke, the Fed’s chairman, is now leading an institution that is virtually on its own among US policymakers in meaningfully trying to counter the sluggishness of the US economy and the stubbornly high unemployment.
Other government agencies are paralyzed by real and perceived constraints, seemingly happy to retreat to the sidelines and let the Fed do all the heavy lifting. But liquidity injections and financial engineering are insufficient to deal with the challenges that the US faces. Without meaningful structural reforms, part of the Fed’s liquidity injection will leak right out of the US and result in yet another surge of capital flows to other countries—thus worsening our trade imbalance.
Neither the rest of the world, nor our banks need this extra liquidity, and this is where the second problem emerges. Several emerging economies, such as Brazil and China, are already close to overheating; and the Eurozone and Japan can ill afford further appreciation in their currencies. Our banks are overloaded with cash that they simply refuse to lend—and further easing will not be an incentive to do so.
But the biggest risk to our economy is that as soon as the economy recovers and inflation kicks in, those bonds will be worth less—the value of the bond is inversely related to the yield it pays—thus leaving the Fed with bonds that are worth a lot less than what they paid and in turn increasing our deficit.
Despite polite rhetoric to the contrary in the lead up to the Group of 20 leading economies summit in Korea this month, other countries are likely to counter what they view as an unnecessarily disruptive surge in capital flows caused by inappropriate and short-sighted American policy. The result will be renewed currency tensions and a higher risk of capital controls and trade protectionism.
China has responded by stating they will not work with the US and impose current account targets. They have also criticized US monetary policy (QE 2), undermining hopes that the governments of the world’s two largest economies will find common ground at the G20 summit in Seoul next week.
Brazil, the country that fired the gun in the so-called “currency wars”, is girding itself for further battle. Brazilian officials from the president down have slammed the Federal Reserve’s decision to depress US interest rates by buying billions of dollars of government bonds, warning that it could lead to retaliatory measures.
The third issue relates to the gradual erosion of America’s central role in the global economy – including as the provider of both the world’s reserve currency and its deepest and most predictable financial markets. No other country or multilateral institution can displace the US, but a combination of alternatives can serve to erode its influence over time. No wonder commodity prices surged higher and the dollar weakened markedly in anticipation of QE2, pointing to increased input costs for American companies and unwelcome pressures on their earnings.
The unfortunate conclusion is that QE2 will be of limited success in sustaining high growth and job creation in the US, and will complicate life for many other countries. With domestic outcomes again falling short of policy expectations, it is just a matter of time until the Fed will be expected to do even more. And this means Wednesday’s QE2 announcement is unlikely to be the end of unusual Fed policy activism.
The Fed would be well advised to prepare for this possibility now. In doing so, it should insist that any further use of its balance sheet be subject to two overriding conditions.
First, rather than constitute yet another solo effort, the use of the Fed’s balance sheet should be one component of a more holistic US policy approach that addresses both demand and structural reform issues; and second, that such a policy response be accompanied by correlated, if not coordinated, actions in other countries. Without that, the Fed risks finding itself crossing the delicate line that separates a courageous policy approach from a counterproductive one. Other wise, Ben Bernanke will be our next Alan Greenspan.
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
By Carlos T Mock
November 5, 2010
Remember when we all were idolizing Fed chairman Alan Greenspan? When we thought he was the champion of our economy and the provider of prosperity?
In retrospect, we now know he is responsible for the housing bubble that brought the economy to its worst disaster since the Great Depression.
Now comes Ben Bernanke and his act of desperation called Quantitative Easing 2 (QE 2), in which the Fed will buy up to $600 billion dollars in treasuries to pump cash into the economy. To do this, the Fed MUST print the money to pay for it, an act that carries the consequence of devaluating the dollar.
By signaling its intention to purchase another $600bn of longer-term Treasury securities by the end of June 2011, the Fed hopes its injections of cash will lower interest rates, bolster asset prices, increase wealth and encourage households and companies to spend and hire. Moreover, by noting the possibility of doing more if the data disappoint, it is also hoping that markets could price in the institution’s future asset purchases, turbo-charging the direct policy impact before those purchases have even been specified.
While willing to act, the Fed should be aware that the potential benefits come with the certainty of collateral damage, and the probability of unintended catastrophe, just like Alan Greenspan brought forth to our economy before.
The Fed faces three problems, with its solo role being the first. Having warned in late August in Jackson Hole that “central bankers alone cannot solve the world’s economic problems”, Ben Bernanke, the Fed’s chairman, is now leading an institution that is virtually on its own among US policymakers in meaningfully trying to counter the sluggishness of the US economy and the stubbornly high unemployment.
Other government agencies are paralyzed by real and perceived constraints, seemingly happy to retreat to the sidelines and let the Fed do all the heavy lifting. But liquidity injections and financial engineering are insufficient to deal with the challenges that the US faces. Without meaningful structural reforms, part of the Fed’s liquidity injection will leak right out of the US and result in yet another surge of capital flows to other countries—thus worsening our trade imbalance.
Neither the rest of the world, nor our banks need this extra liquidity, and this is where the second problem emerges. Several emerging economies, such as Brazil and China, are already close to overheating; and the Eurozone and Japan can ill afford further appreciation in their currencies. Our banks are overloaded with cash that they simply refuse to lend—and further easing will not be an incentive to do so.
But the biggest risk to our economy is that as soon as the economy recovers and inflation kicks in, those bonds will be worth less—the value of the bond is inversely related to the yield it pays—thus leaving the Fed with bonds that are worth a lot less than what they paid and in turn increasing our deficit.
Despite polite rhetoric to the contrary in the lead up to the Group of 20 leading economies summit in Korea this month, other countries are likely to counter what they view as an unnecessarily disruptive surge in capital flows caused by inappropriate and short-sighted American policy. The result will be renewed currency tensions and a higher risk of capital controls and trade protectionism.
China has responded by stating they will not work with the US and impose current account targets. They have also criticized US monetary policy (QE 2), undermining hopes that the governments of the world’s two largest economies will find common ground at the G20 summit in Seoul next week.
Brazil, the country that fired the gun in the so-called “currency wars”, is girding itself for further battle. Brazilian officials from the president down have slammed the Federal Reserve’s decision to depress US interest rates by buying billions of dollars of government bonds, warning that it could lead to retaliatory measures.
The third issue relates to the gradual erosion of America’s central role in the global economy – including as the provider of both the world’s reserve currency and its deepest and most predictable financial markets. No other country or multilateral institution can displace the US, but a combination of alternatives can serve to erode its influence over time. No wonder commodity prices surged higher and the dollar weakened markedly in anticipation of QE2, pointing to increased input costs for American companies and unwelcome pressures on their earnings.
The unfortunate conclusion is that QE2 will be of limited success in sustaining high growth and job creation in the US, and will complicate life for many other countries. With domestic outcomes again falling short of policy expectations, it is just a matter of time until the Fed will be expected to do even more. And this means Wednesday’s QE2 announcement is unlikely to be the end of unusual Fed policy activism.
The Fed would be well advised to prepare for this possibility now. In doing so, it should insist that any further use of its balance sheet be subject to two overriding conditions.
First, rather than constitute yet another solo effort, the use of the Fed’s balance sheet should be one component of a more holistic US policy approach that addresses both demand and structural reform issues; and second, that such a policy response be accompanied by correlated, if not coordinated, actions in other countries. Without that, the Fed risks finding itself crossing the delicate line that separates a courageous policy approach from a counterproductive one. Other wise, Ben Bernanke will be our next Alan Greenspan.
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
In Defense of Same Sex Marriage
In Defense of Same Sex Marriage
Filed by: Guest Blogger
July 23, 2010 9:30 AM
http://www.bilerico.com/2010/07/in_defense_of_same_sex_marriage.php
Editors' Note: Guest blogger Dr. Carlos T Mock is a native Puerto Rican who resides in Chicago, IL and Three Oaks, MI. He has published four books and is the GLBT Editor for Floricanto Press in Berkley, CA.
carlos mock.jpgSince Same-sex marriage in the U.S. began on May 17, 2004 in the State of Massachusetts; for 14 years courts and many Americans began to change their minds on the subject. However, the Federal government has clung to its official definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman. On Thursday, one of the most conservative federal judges, Judge Joseph L. Tauro--named by Reagan--in the same state where it all began, finally stood up and said there was never a rational basis for that definition. The outcome he reached is long overdue.
The unsustainable Federal definition of marriage is contained in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. At the time, there was no legal same-sex marriage in the United States. But now five states and the District of Columbia issue licenses to all couples. Because of the federal law, thousands of couples in those states cannot receive the same federal benefits as opposite-sex couples, including Social Security survivor payments and spousal burials in national military cemeteries.
Even though there were two cases brought to the judge, Judge Tauro arrived at his conclusions from a case brought by a gay rights group, that the marriage definition violates the equal-protection provisions of the Constitution. There is no rational basis for discriminating against same-sex couples, he ruled, discrediting the reasons stated by lawmakers in 1996, including the encouragement of "responsible procreation" and traditional notions of marriage and morality. In this argument, he was helped by the Obama administration's obligatory but half-hearted defense of the law, which since last year no longer supports Congress's stated reasons.
In their wisdom, our Founding Fathers established a government ruled by separation of powers, with one branch specifically dedicated to protect the rights of minorities, like homosexuals--from the whims of the majority: The Judicial Branch of our government. Courts should generally give Congress wide deference in writing laws, but should not be afraid to examine them when challenged, to make sure they do not discriminate unfairly against an unprotected minority. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed and signed as an election-year wedge issue, and the brief debate leading up to it was full of bigoted attacks against homosexuality as "depraved" and "immoral." One congressman said gay marriage would "devalue the love between a man and a woman." Laws passed on this kind of basis deserve to be upended, and I hope Judge Tauro's equal-protection opinion, which, for now, applies only to Massachusetts, is upheld on appeal.
In his 2003 dissention of the famous Lawrence v. Texas case, Justice Antonin Scalia actually predicted this moment would arrive. That decision left laws prohibiting same-sex marriage "on pretty shaky grounds," he warned, since it undercut the traditional moral basis for opposing homosexuality. The Justice Department cited those words when it abandoned its defense of the law as related to procreation, which, in turn, helped lead to Thursday's decision. The process of justice can take years, but in this case it seems to be moving in the right direction.
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
Filed by: Guest Blogger
July 23, 2010 9:30 AM
http://www.bilerico.com/2010/07/in_defense_of_same_sex_marriage.php
Editors' Note: Guest blogger Dr. Carlos T Mock is a native Puerto Rican who resides in Chicago, IL and Three Oaks, MI. He has published four books and is the GLBT Editor for Floricanto Press in Berkley, CA.
carlos mock.jpgSince Same-sex marriage in the U.S. began on May 17, 2004 in the State of Massachusetts; for 14 years courts and many Americans began to change their minds on the subject. However, the Federal government has clung to its official definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman. On Thursday, one of the most conservative federal judges, Judge Joseph L. Tauro--named by Reagan--in the same state where it all began, finally stood up and said there was never a rational basis for that definition. The outcome he reached is long overdue.
The unsustainable Federal definition of marriage is contained in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. At the time, there was no legal same-sex marriage in the United States. But now five states and the District of Columbia issue licenses to all couples. Because of the federal law, thousands of couples in those states cannot receive the same federal benefits as opposite-sex couples, including Social Security survivor payments and spousal burials in national military cemeteries.
Even though there were two cases brought to the judge, Judge Tauro arrived at his conclusions from a case brought by a gay rights group, that the marriage definition violates the equal-protection provisions of the Constitution. There is no rational basis for discriminating against same-sex couples, he ruled, discrediting the reasons stated by lawmakers in 1996, including the encouragement of "responsible procreation" and traditional notions of marriage and morality. In this argument, he was helped by the Obama administration's obligatory but half-hearted defense of the law, which since last year no longer supports Congress's stated reasons.
In their wisdom, our Founding Fathers established a government ruled by separation of powers, with one branch specifically dedicated to protect the rights of minorities, like homosexuals--from the whims of the majority: The Judicial Branch of our government. Courts should generally give Congress wide deference in writing laws, but should not be afraid to examine them when challenged, to make sure they do not discriminate unfairly against an unprotected minority. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed and signed as an election-year wedge issue, and the brief debate leading up to it was full of bigoted attacks against homosexuality as "depraved" and "immoral." One congressman said gay marriage would "devalue the love between a man and a woman." Laws passed on this kind of basis deserve to be upended, and I hope Judge Tauro's equal-protection opinion, which, for now, applies only to Massachusetts, is upheld on appeal.
In his 2003 dissention of the famous Lawrence v. Texas case, Justice Antonin Scalia actually predicted this moment would arrive. That decision left laws prohibiting same-sex marriage "on pretty shaky grounds," he warned, since it undercut the traditional moral basis for opposing homosexuality. The Justice Department cited those words when it abandoned its defense of the law as related to procreation, which, in turn, helped lead to Thursday's decision. The process of justice can take years, but in this case it seems to be moving in the right direction.
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
Friday, July 23, 2010
What The Tribune won't tell you about the war on drugs
What The Tribune won't tell you about the war on drugs
By Carlos T Mock, MD, F. A. C. O. G.
Chicago, IL
July 25, 2009
The unfortunate truth Americans can't deal with is despite tough anti-drug laws, a 2009 survey by The World Health Organization (WHO) shows the U.S. has the highest level of illegal drug use in the world.
The survey of legal and illegal drug use in 17 countries, including the Netherlands and other countries with less stringent drug laws, shows Americans report the highest level of cocaine and marijuana use.
For example, Americans were four times more likely to report using cocaine in their lifetime than the next closest country, New Zealand (16% vs. 4%),
Marijuana use was more widely reported worldwide, and the U.S. also had the highest rate of use at 42.4% compared with 41.9% of New Zealanders.
In contrast, in the Netherlands, which has more liberal drug policies than the U.S., only 1.9% of people reported cocaine use and 19.8% reported marijuana use.
"The use of drugs seems to be a feature of more affluent countries. The U.S., which has been driving much of the world's drug research and drug policy agenda, stands out with higher levels of use of alcohol, cocaine, and cannabis, despite punitive illegal drug policies, as well as (in many U.S. states), a higher minimum legal alcohol drinking age than many comparable developed countries," write the researchers.
Drug users in this country show a stubborn indifference to whether their preferred vice comes from Colombia, Mexico, Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay or Pluto, as long as it comes from somewhere. It always does.
Unfortunately, the drug cartels control much of Congress and public opinion. Hiding behind “ulterior motives,” protecting our youth from drug exposure, they have bought most politicians and conservative newspapers—like The Tribune. I personally think that because so much money is at stake, the cartels would “eliminate” any opposition to strict drug rules. It’s the only way they can stay in business. The minute the government legalizes drug use, they are out of business.
We are also forgetting that the majority of drug addiction in this country is to legal substances—tobacco, alcohol, and prescription drugs —the two most common examples of this later category are Hollywood stars like Michael Jackson, and public figures like Rush Limbaugh
It is time that the American public accept the truth: drug addiction is a disease, not a crime. Legalizing and treating addicts is the only way to stop the flow of drugs. Not to mention the savings achieved from the war on drugs plus the revenue on the taxation of such substances.
With our national debt at 10% of GDP—and growing—it may be time for the US government to rethink its drug policies. There is enough revenue and savings to balance our debt, if we eliminated the costs of the war on drugs—by legalizing it—and then add the revenue of taxation to the sale of all abuse substances.
Carlos Mock, MD has published three books and is the Floricanto Press editor for its GLBT series. He was inducted in the Chicago Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame in October of 2007. He grew up middle-class in the suburbs of San Juan, Puerto Rico. His website is: www.carlostmock.com
By Carlos T Mock, MD, F. A. C. O. G.
Chicago, IL
July 25, 2009
The unfortunate truth Americans can't deal with is despite tough anti-drug laws, a 2009 survey by The World Health Organization (WHO) shows the U.S. has the highest level of illegal drug use in the world.
The survey of legal and illegal drug use in 17 countries, including the Netherlands and other countries with less stringent drug laws, shows Americans report the highest level of cocaine and marijuana use.
For example, Americans were four times more likely to report using cocaine in their lifetime than the next closest country, New Zealand (16% vs. 4%),
Marijuana use was more widely reported worldwide, and the U.S. also had the highest rate of use at 42.4% compared with 41.9% of New Zealanders.
In contrast, in the Netherlands, which has more liberal drug policies than the U.S., only 1.9% of people reported cocaine use and 19.8% reported marijuana use.
"The use of drugs seems to be a feature of more affluent countries. The U.S., which has been driving much of the world's drug research and drug policy agenda, stands out with higher levels of use of alcohol, cocaine, and cannabis, despite punitive illegal drug policies, as well as (in many U.S. states), a higher minimum legal alcohol drinking age than many comparable developed countries," write the researchers.
Drug users in this country show a stubborn indifference to whether their preferred vice comes from Colombia, Mexico, Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay or Pluto, as long as it comes from somewhere. It always does.
Unfortunately, the drug cartels control much of Congress and public opinion. Hiding behind “ulterior motives,” protecting our youth from drug exposure, they have bought most politicians and conservative newspapers—like The Tribune. I personally think that because so much money is at stake, the cartels would “eliminate” any opposition to strict drug rules. It’s the only way they can stay in business. The minute the government legalizes drug use, they are out of business.
We are also forgetting that the majority of drug addiction in this country is to legal substances—tobacco, alcohol, and prescription drugs —the two most common examples of this later category are Hollywood stars like Michael Jackson, and public figures like Rush Limbaugh
It is time that the American public accept the truth: drug addiction is a disease, not a crime. Legalizing and treating addicts is the only way to stop the flow of drugs. Not to mention the savings achieved from the war on drugs plus the revenue on the taxation of such substances.
With our national debt at 10% of GDP—and growing—it may be time for the US government to rethink its drug policies. There is enough revenue and savings to balance our debt, if we eliminated the costs of the war on drugs—by legalizing it—and then add the revenue of taxation to the sale of all abuse substances.
Carlos Mock, MD has published three books and is the Floricanto Press editor for its GLBT series. He was inducted in the Chicago Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame in October of 2007. He grew up middle-class in the suburbs of San Juan, Puerto Rico. His website is: www.carlostmock.com
Friday, July 16, 2010
In defense of Same Sex Marriage
In defense of Same Sex Marriage
By Carlos T Mock, MD
July 10, 2010
Since Same-sex marriage in the U.S. began on May 17, 2004 in the State of Massachusetts; for 14 years courts and many Americans began to change their minds on the subject. However, the Federal government has clung to its official definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman. On Thursday, one of the most conservative federal judges, Judge Joseph L. Tauro—named by Reagan—in the same state where it all began, finally stood up and said there was never a rational basis for that definition. The outcome he reached is long overdue.
The unsustainable Federal definition of marriage is contained in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. At the time, there was no legal same-sex marriage in the United States. But now five states and the District of Columbia issue licenses to all couples. Because of the federal law, thousands of couples in those states cannot receive the same federal benefits as opposite-sex couples, including Social Security survivor payments and spousal burials in national military cemeteries.
Even though there were two cases brought to the judge, Judge Tauro arrived at his conclusions from a case brought by a gay rights group, that the marriage definition violates the equal-protection provisions of the Constitution. There is no rational basis for discriminating against same-sex couples, he ruled, discrediting the reasons stated by lawmakers in 1996, including the encouragement of “responsible procreation” and traditional notions of marriage and morality. In this argument, he was helped by the Obama administration’s obligatory but half-hearted defense of the law, which since last year no longer supports Congress’s stated reasons.
In their wisdom, our Founding Fathers established a government ruled by separation of powers, with one branch specifically dedicated to protect the rights of minorities, like homosexuals—from the whims of the majority: The Judicial Branch of our government. Courts should generally give Congress wide deference in writing laws, but should not be afraid to examine them when challenged, to make sure they do not discriminate unfairly against an unprotected minority. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed and signed as an election-year wedge issue, and the brief debate leading up to it was full of bigoted attacks against homosexuality as “depraved” and “immoral.” One congressman said gay marriage would “devalue the love between a man and a woman.” Laws passed on this kind of basis deserve to be upended, and I hope Judge Tauro’s equal-protection opinion, which, for now, applies only to Massachusetts, is upheld on appeal.
In his 2003 dissention of the famous Lawrence v. Texas case, Justice Antonin Scalia actually predicted this moment would arrive. That decision left laws prohibiting same-sex marriage “on pretty shaky grounds,” he warned, since it undercut the traditional moral basis for opposing homosexuality. The Justice Department cited those words when it abandoned its defense of the law as related to procreation, which, in turn, helped lead to Thursday’s decision. The process of justice can take years, but in this case it seems to be moving in the right direction.
Dr. Carlos T Mock is a native Puerto Rican who resides in Chicago, IL and Three Oaks, MI. He has published four books and is the GLBT Editor for Floricanto Press in Berkley, CA. He contributes columns regularly to Windy City Times in Chicago, Ambiente Magazine in Miami, Camp Newspaper in Kansas City. He's had several OP-Ed published at the Chicago Tribune. Inducted in the Chicago Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame October 18th, 2007. He can be reached at: http://www.carlostmock.com/
By Carlos T Mock, MD
July 10, 2010
Since Same-sex marriage in the U.S. began on May 17, 2004 in the State of Massachusetts; for 14 years courts and many Americans began to change their minds on the subject. However, the Federal government has clung to its official definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman. On Thursday, one of the most conservative federal judges, Judge Joseph L. Tauro—named by Reagan—in the same state where it all began, finally stood up and said there was never a rational basis for that definition. The outcome he reached is long overdue.
The unsustainable Federal definition of marriage is contained in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. At the time, there was no legal same-sex marriage in the United States. But now five states and the District of Columbia issue licenses to all couples. Because of the federal law, thousands of couples in those states cannot receive the same federal benefits as opposite-sex couples, including Social Security survivor payments and spousal burials in national military cemeteries.
Even though there were two cases brought to the judge, Judge Tauro arrived at his conclusions from a case brought by a gay rights group, that the marriage definition violates the equal-protection provisions of the Constitution. There is no rational basis for discriminating against same-sex couples, he ruled, discrediting the reasons stated by lawmakers in 1996, including the encouragement of “responsible procreation” and traditional notions of marriage and morality. In this argument, he was helped by the Obama administration’s obligatory but half-hearted defense of the law, which since last year no longer supports Congress’s stated reasons.
In their wisdom, our Founding Fathers established a government ruled by separation of powers, with one branch specifically dedicated to protect the rights of minorities, like homosexuals—from the whims of the majority: The Judicial Branch of our government. Courts should generally give Congress wide deference in writing laws, but should not be afraid to examine them when challenged, to make sure they do not discriminate unfairly against an unprotected minority. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed and signed as an election-year wedge issue, and the brief debate leading up to it was full of bigoted attacks against homosexuality as “depraved” and “immoral.” One congressman said gay marriage would “devalue the love between a man and a woman.” Laws passed on this kind of basis deserve to be upended, and I hope Judge Tauro’s equal-protection opinion, which, for now, applies only to Massachusetts, is upheld on appeal.
In his 2003 dissention of the famous Lawrence v. Texas case, Justice Antonin Scalia actually predicted this moment would arrive. That decision left laws prohibiting same-sex marriage “on pretty shaky grounds,” he warned, since it undercut the traditional moral basis for opposing homosexuality. The Justice Department cited those words when it abandoned its defense of the law as related to procreation, which, in turn, helped lead to Thursday’s decision. The process of justice can take years, but in this case it seems to be moving in the right direction.
Dr. Carlos T Mock is a native Puerto Rican who resides in Chicago, IL and Three Oaks, MI. He has published four books and is the GLBT Editor for Floricanto Press in Berkley, CA. He contributes columns regularly to Windy City Times in Chicago, Ambiente Magazine in Miami, Camp Newspaper in Kansas City. He's had several OP-Ed published at the Chicago Tribune. Inducted in the Chicago Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame October 18th, 2007. He can be reached at: http://www.carlostmock.com/
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Independence Day and the separation of powers: The Legal Branch
Independence Day and the separation of powers: The Legal Branch
By Carlos T Mock, MD
July 4th, 2010
As we celebrate the birth of our country, I especially celebrate the wisdom of our Founding Fathers in establishing a government ruled by separation of powers, with one branch specifically dedicated to protect the rights of minorities, like me—a homosexual—from the whims of the majority: The Judicial Branch of our government.
In Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings, conservative senators have made two things clear: their disdain for "liberal activist" judges and their fear she will be one. When conservatives talk about judicial activism, they have in mind a variety of Supreme Court decisions — legalizing abortion, hindering the death penalty, allowing flag-burning and preventing officially sponsored prayer in public schools. All these, they believe, ignored the plain words or the original meaning of the text.
But there is another decision that fits any definition of a liberal, activist approach. It came in a 2003 case, Lawrence v. Texas involving two men who were prosecuted after being caught by police having sex in a bedroom in a private home. Lawrence v. Texas, is a landmark United States Supreme Court case. In the 6-3 ruling, the justices struck down the sodomy law in Texas. The court had previously addressed the same issue in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick, where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute, not finding a constitutional protection of sexual privacy. Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers, holding that it had viewed the liberty interest too narrowly. The majority held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that purport to criminalize sodomy between consenting same-sex adults acting in private. It also invalidated the application of sodomy laws to heterosexuals. This is a clear example of a minority being protected from the majority through judicial acts. Even though not decided upon equal protection grounds, sexual liberty supporters still hope that the majority decision will call into question other legal limitations on same-sex sexuality, including the right to state recognition of same-sex marriage, and the right to serve openly in the military.
Helped by the landmark civil rights case, Loving v. Virginia, in which the United States Supreme Court, by a 9-0 vote, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ended all race based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States by ruling that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” Loving v. Virginia
That’s why the lawyers from both sides of Bush v. Gore—Theodore Olson a Washington, D.C. lawyer and Republican Solicitor General, and David Boies a liberal lawyer who argued for Mr. Gore, joined forces in fighting for same sex marriage in California. The lawsuit was filed by four same-sex couples after California voters approved Proposition 8 in November 2008. The measure, which affirms that marriage is between one man and one woman, was placed on the ballot after the California Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage to be a right in May 2008.
Again, The judicial branch is defending the rights of minorities (gay and lesbian tax paying citizens) to be denied a constitutional right by a suffrage referendum from the heterosexual majority. Attorney Ted Olson, making the closing argument against Proposition 8, contended that proponents had failed to show that same-sex marriage would harm the institution of marriage or impede society's interest in procreation. He compared the situation of gay couples to that of slaves. Under slavery at the time of the nation's founding, slaves could not be married legally, and that being prohibited from marrying was "the very essence of slavery," he said. Mr. Olson said there was no logical reason for voters to support Proposition 8, and therefore they must have acted out of "animus."
Dr. Carlos T Mock is a native Puerto Rican who resides in Chicago, IL and Three Oaks, MI. He has published four books and is the GLBT Editor for Floricanto Press in Berkley, CA. He contributes columns regularly to Windy City Times in Chicago, Ambiente Magazine in Miami, Camp Newspaper in Kansas City. He's had several OP-Ed published at the Chicago Tribune. Inducted in the Chicago Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame October 18th, 2007. He can be reached at: http://www.carlostmock.com/
By Carlos T Mock, MD
July 4th, 2010
As we celebrate the birth of our country, I especially celebrate the wisdom of our Founding Fathers in establishing a government ruled by separation of powers, with one branch specifically dedicated to protect the rights of minorities, like me—a homosexual—from the whims of the majority: The Judicial Branch of our government.
In Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings, conservative senators have made two things clear: their disdain for "liberal activist" judges and their fear she will be one. When conservatives talk about judicial activism, they have in mind a variety of Supreme Court decisions — legalizing abortion, hindering the death penalty, allowing flag-burning and preventing officially sponsored prayer in public schools. All these, they believe, ignored the plain words or the original meaning of the text.
But there is another decision that fits any definition of a liberal, activist approach. It came in a 2003 case, Lawrence v. Texas involving two men who were prosecuted after being caught by police having sex in a bedroom in a private home. Lawrence v. Texas, is a landmark United States Supreme Court case. In the 6-3 ruling, the justices struck down the sodomy law in Texas. The court had previously addressed the same issue in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick, where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute, not finding a constitutional protection of sexual privacy. Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers, holding that it had viewed the liberty interest too narrowly. The majority held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that purport to criminalize sodomy between consenting same-sex adults acting in private. It also invalidated the application of sodomy laws to heterosexuals. This is a clear example of a minority being protected from the majority through judicial acts. Even though not decided upon equal protection grounds, sexual liberty supporters still hope that the majority decision will call into question other legal limitations on same-sex sexuality, including the right to state recognition of same-sex marriage, and the right to serve openly in the military.
Helped by the landmark civil rights case, Loving v. Virginia, in which the United States Supreme Court, by a 9-0 vote, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ended all race based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States by ruling that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” Loving v. Virginia
That’s why the lawyers from both sides of Bush v. Gore—Theodore Olson a Washington, D.C. lawyer and Republican Solicitor General, and David Boies a liberal lawyer who argued for Mr. Gore, joined forces in fighting for same sex marriage in California. The lawsuit was filed by four same-sex couples after California voters approved Proposition 8 in November 2008. The measure, which affirms that marriage is between one man and one woman, was placed on the ballot after the California Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage to be a right in May 2008.
Again, The judicial branch is defending the rights of minorities (gay and lesbian tax paying citizens) to be denied a constitutional right by a suffrage referendum from the heterosexual majority. Attorney Ted Olson, making the closing argument against Proposition 8, contended that proponents had failed to show that same-sex marriage would harm the institution of marriage or impede society's interest in procreation. He compared the situation of gay couples to that of slaves. Under slavery at the time of the nation's founding, slaves could not be married legally, and that being prohibited from marrying was "the very essence of slavery," he said. Mr. Olson said there was no logical reason for voters to support Proposition 8, and therefore they must have acted out of "animus."
Dr. Carlos T Mock is a native Puerto Rican who resides in Chicago, IL and Three Oaks, MI. He has published four books and is the GLBT Editor for Floricanto Press in Berkley, CA. He contributes columns regularly to Windy City Times in Chicago, Ambiente Magazine in Miami, Camp Newspaper in Kansas City. He's had several OP-Ed published at the Chicago Tribune. Inducted in the Chicago Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame October 18th, 2007. He can be reached at: http://www.carlostmock.com/
Monday, July 5, 2010
Health care crisis: Lack of Therapy for HIV/AIDS patients
Health care crisis: Lack of Therapy for HIV/AIDS patients
By Carlos T Mock, MD
July 1st. 2010
The weak economy is crippling the government program that provides life-sustaining antiretroviral drugs to people with H.I.V. or AIDS who cannot afford them.
As with other safety-net programs, ballooning demand caused by persistent unemployment and loss of health insurance is being met with reductions in government resources. Without reliable access to the medications, which cost patients in the AIDS Drug Assistance Program an average of $12,000 a year, people with H.I.V. are more likely to develop full-blown AIDS, transmit the virus and require expensive hospitalizations.
In many states, there is a sense of reverting to the 1980s and early 1990s, before the development of protease inhibitors reversed the rise in AIDS deaths.
Is this an example of “The best health care system in the world?” We are been reduced to a third world status where a lack of antiretroviral drugs is the "biggest" problem facing HIV/AIDS treatment programs in Africa, according to Robert Colebunders, a Belgian researcher at Uganda's Infectious Disease Institute at Mulago Hospital in Kampala.
Dr. Carlos T Mock is a native Puerto Rican who resides in Chicago, IL and Three Oaks, MI. He has published four books and is the GLBT Editor for Floricanto Press in Berkley, CA. He contributes columns regularly to Windy City Times in Chicago, Ambiente Magazine in Miami, Camp Newspaper in Kansas City. He's had several OP-Ed published at the Chicago Tribune. Inducted in the Chicago Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame October 18th, 2007. He can be reached at: http://www.carlostmock.com/
By Carlos T Mock, MD
July 1st. 2010
The weak economy is crippling the government program that provides life-sustaining antiretroviral drugs to people with H.I.V. or AIDS who cannot afford them.
As with other safety-net programs, ballooning demand caused by persistent unemployment and loss of health insurance is being met with reductions in government resources. Without reliable access to the medications, which cost patients in the AIDS Drug Assistance Program an average of $12,000 a year, people with H.I.V. are more likely to develop full-blown AIDS, transmit the virus and require expensive hospitalizations.
In many states, there is a sense of reverting to the 1980s and early 1990s, before the development of protease inhibitors reversed the rise in AIDS deaths.
Is this an example of “The best health care system in the world?” We are been reduced to a third world status where a lack of antiretroviral drugs is the "biggest" problem facing HIV/AIDS treatment programs in Africa, according to Robert Colebunders, a Belgian researcher at Uganda's Infectious Disease Institute at Mulago Hospital in Kampala.
Dr. Carlos T Mock is a native Puerto Rican who resides in Chicago, IL and Three Oaks, MI. He has published four books and is the GLBT Editor for Floricanto Press in Berkley, CA. He contributes columns regularly to Windy City Times in Chicago, Ambiente Magazine in Miami, Camp Newspaper in Kansas City. He's had several OP-Ed published at the Chicago Tribune. Inducted in the Chicago Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame October 18th, 2007. He can be reached at: http://www.carlostmock.com/
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Taxation without rights
Taxation without rights
June 15, 2010
Dear DNC,
Today, as I mail my quarterly tax checks to the IRA I am reminded that I am not an “Equal Citizen Under the Law.” I can’t get married, I can’t defend my country at war, and I don’t have equal protections in the workplace under the law.
When WE elected you in 2008, you were supposed to make us Equal Citizens. You’ve failed miserably and until you correct this injustice our ATM is closed to the DNC.
Please stop asking for money until you repeal DADT, you passed ENDA, repeal DOMA, and have our President state that he believes in marriage equality.
Sincerely,
Carlos T Mock, MD and William R, Rattan
501 N. Elm Street
Three Oaks, MI 49128
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
Who Can The LGBT Community Support in 2010!
May 10 2010
LGBT people are great citizens - responsible, diligent and knowledgeable. We know and value the ability to be able to participate fully in the election process. None of us would even consider sitting out an election knowing ramifications on not only our issues but those facing our planet. So the option of boycotting any election should not be one that we embrace in protest. However, as we progress through this political year, several factors are clear to us.
1. There is simply no longer any benefit in giving to the national Democratic entities such as the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Fund. Because of their apparent love affair with Blue Dog Democrats, most who oppose LGBT rights, we would only be freeing up money for candidates who will hurt us instead of help us. Even 'special funds' set up inside those committees only help create money for those who oppose us.
2. Second, we don't have to support those committees to be good citizens and to help our community. There are now enough candidates who support full equality, including marriage equality, that we no longer have to accept second best. We can raise money, awareness and support for candidates who believe in us. We don't need to go through Committees to support them, we can write checks directly.
In this year's United States Senate races, there at least five candidates (maybe more later), who support full equality including marriage. They deserve our direct money, support and praise. I will do my best over the next weeks to point out other candidates who are supporting us fully. This is a beginning list:
Senator Barbara Boxer (California):
Senator Russ Feingold (Wisconsin):
Candidate Lee Fisher (Ohio): Fresh off a primary victory, this Democrat nominee for senate is totally on board with full equality. Don't believe me? Just go to his website and see his positions! Lee Fisher is a strong advocate for marriage equality.
Candidate Alexi Giannoulias (Illinois): The youngest candidate for US Senate this year is a huge champion for full equality for LGBT citizens. Campaigning before straight audiences he has advocated strongly for marriage equality, repeal of DOMA and repeal of DADT just for openers!
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (New York):
This is just the first in a series presenting to you candidates who you can feel comfortable in supporting. If you have choices and they support full equality (including marriage equality and not civil unions), please send them to me with documentation.
Illinois Senate Candidate on GLBT Issues http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5932/t/6348/thankYou.jsp?key=1271
June 15, 2010
Dear DNC,
Today, as I mail my quarterly tax checks to the IRA I am reminded that I am not an “Equal Citizen Under the Law.” I can’t get married, I can’t defend my country at war, and I don’t have equal protections in the workplace under the law.
When WE elected you in 2008, you were supposed to make us Equal Citizens. You’ve failed miserably and until you correct this injustice our ATM is closed to the DNC.
Please stop asking for money until you repeal DADT, you passed ENDA, repeal DOMA, and have our President state that he believes in marriage equality.
Sincerely,
Carlos T Mock, MD and William R, Rattan
501 N. Elm Street
Three Oaks, MI 49128
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
Who Can The LGBT Community Support in 2010!
May 10 2010
LGBT people are great citizens - responsible, diligent and knowledgeable. We know and value the ability to be able to participate fully in the election process. None of us would even consider sitting out an election knowing ramifications on not only our issues but those facing our planet. So the option of boycotting any election should not be one that we embrace in protest. However, as we progress through this political year, several factors are clear to us.
1. There is simply no longer any benefit in giving to the national Democratic entities such as the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Fund. Because of their apparent love affair with Blue Dog Democrats, most who oppose LGBT rights, we would only be freeing up money for candidates who will hurt us instead of help us. Even 'special funds' set up inside those committees only help create money for those who oppose us.
2. Second, we don't have to support those committees to be good citizens and to help our community. There are now enough candidates who support full equality, including marriage equality, that we no longer have to accept second best. We can raise money, awareness and support for candidates who believe in us. We don't need to go through Committees to support them, we can write checks directly.
In this year's United States Senate races, there at least five candidates (maybe more later), who support full equality including marriage. They deserve our direct money, support and praise. I will do my best over the next weeks to point out other candidates who are supporting us fully. This is a beginning list:
Senator Barbara Boxer (California):
Senator Russ Feingold (Wisconsin):
Candidate Lee Fisher (Ohio):
Candidate Alexi Giannoulias (Illinois):
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (New York):
This is just the first in a series presenting to you candidates who you can feel comfortable in supporting. If you have choices and they support full equality (including marriage equality and not civil unions), please send them to me with documentation.
Illinois Senate Candidate on GLBT Issues http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5932/t/6348/thankYou.jsp?key=1271
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
