The much anticipated open testimony of the impeachment
inquiry of Donald Trump has begun. Those of us who have
nothing better to do, have been glued to the TV or radio, I
myself prefer NPR radio as I like my news without added
opinion. Also it leaves me free to do other things while I'm
listening, like folding laundry.
The opening statement of Rep. Adam Schiff was compelling.
He laid out the case which the previous closed-door hearings
had uncovered. If the Democrats can prove their case, it will
be a damning indictment of the President. It was a step-by-
step accounting of an orchestrated plot to obtain information,
rightly so or not, that Hunter Biden and his father, Joe Biden,
then the vice-president, were complicit in a cover-up of illegal
activities involving Hunter Biden and a Ukrainian gas company
called Burista. That alone, would not be such a problem, but the
president was also asking for proof of Ukrainian involvement
in the 2016 election on behalf of Hillary Clinton. And he wanted
the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to make an
announcement, in public, of his government's investigation of
both of these allegations.
To secure the cooperation of Zelensky, President Trump was
withholding funds that had been allocated by Congress for the
defense of the Ukraine against Russian aggression. President
Trump was also holding back an official visit to the White
House for Zelensky, such a visit would impart greater stature
for Zelensky and the new Ukrainian government. Both of these
would be confirmed , if and when, Zelensky would make the public
announcement. Prior to the phone call from President Trump to
President Zelensky, the two conditions were laid out by a series
of back-door visits from President Trump's private attorney, Rudy
Giuliani, and several other emissaries. But, before that could
occur the administration had to get rid of the U.S. ambassador
to the Ukraine, who would probably object vociferously to such goings
on. These same back-door emissaries began a smear campaign
against an outstanding career diplomat, Marie Yovanovich.
All of this appears to be for the benefit of Donald Trump's re-
election campaign. And all of this
could be construed as to be
asking a foreign country for help in interfering in an election,
as was done in the 2016 election by the Russian government.
That interference was well documented in the Mueller Report
which was released on March 22, 2019. As a result of that report
thirteen Russian operatives were indicted for election tampering,
they will never be brought to justice as they have fled the country
and Russia has no plans to extradite them. Despite the evidence
by both the FBI and the Mueller Report, of Russian involvement,
Trump still believes that it was Ukraine who was involved in the
election tampering.
But interference of this sort was not the first time nor was it
the last time that the Russians mounted a full-scale assault on
a democratic election. The New York Times reported that
Russian political operatives openly interfered in the general
election of the island country of Madagascar in November
2018. Why, you would ask, would Russia be interested in a
tiny African country. It appears that Madagascar has a very
valuable chromium mine, and the major stake holder (70%)
of the mine is an ally of Vladimir Putin. The election would
have returned the mine control back to Madagascar if the
right man was elected. As many as 30 Russians, working
openly, paid bribes, spread misinformation, and ran spoiler
candidates to secure a win the election. And win they did!
These Russian operatives are a part of Putin's private army,
the Wagner Group, which has been working in Africa for a
number of years. The Wagner Group, headed by another
Putin ally, Yevgeny Prigozhin, the successor of the KGB,
may be uniformed, but have no insignia identifying them.
They went into Syria to retake the oil fields, they disarmed
the Ukrainian resistance, and are involved with Assad's elite
forces in Syria. They are also moving into the Central African
Republic, Libya, and Burundi.
But Russia is not alone in interfering in democratically elected
governments. The first and the biggest was the CIA operation
to overthrow the elected Prime Minister of Iran in 1953. The
CIA worked to supplant the Prime Minister to strengthen the
rule of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, all to stop the
Iranian oil from being nationalized. During the unrest 200-
300 people were killed. That led to the Iran Revolution of
1978-1979 and the October 1979 seizing of our embassy
which was captured and held for 444 days.
The United States is notorious for interfering in foreign
governments when we fell they are not in our interests.
Here is but a brief synopsis:
1954 - Guatemala, a covert CIA operation to depose
the democratically elected President Jacob Arbenz.
1956-1957 - Syria, the CIA backed forces in an attempt
to overthrow the government in both 1956 and 1957,
both attempts failed and the CIA was expelled from
the country.
1957-1958 - Indonesia, the CIA attempted to blackmail
President Sukarno to lessen the communist party
influence in the elections.
1959 - Cuba, where there were five attempts by the CIA
to assassinate Fidel Castro during the years 1959-1963.
all the attempts failed.
1961- Cuba, the now famous botched Bay of Pigs invasion
by the CIA.
1964 - Brazil, the CIA supported the overthrow of the
democratically elected President Joao Goulart.
1965-1973 - Viet Nam, 1.4 million Vietnamese civilians
were killed or wounded and over 47,000 American
military killed, before the war ended March 29, 1973
All of these were either sanctioned by the Congress or the president
with the approval of the Congress, which does not excuse them, but
makes them legal in terms of approved covert or overt actions. None
were done for the expressed benefit of the President personally. This
is why we must take up these investigations, so whether it is the CIA,
the Russians, or the President himself, we Americans must say that
election manipulation will be exposed and stopped, no matter where
it occurs or who benefits from it.
I'm just sayin'.
Saturday, November 16, 2019
Saturday, November 9, 2019
Who is Minding the Store?
After the major tax cut of 2017 that favored mainly huge
corporations and a few of the very wealthy, and which
has depleted the US treasury, Trump is talking about another
tax cut before the election of 2020. We have already racked
up a trillion-dollar annual deficit, now The Donald wants to
go for broke.
Yes, we have had a trillion-dollar deficit before, back in
2009 a mere ten years ago in fact. But that occurred as a
result of the 'great recession' when ours, and the entire
world's economies, were in the tank. Thanks to Obama's
stimulus package the economy began mounting a come-
back. The economy that Trump inherited was strong
and getting stronger. That is what is so troubling about
todays huge deficit and national debt,because the economy
is humming along with close to full employment
maximizing tax revenues. Most economist say the idea
of another tax cut is insane. There has never been, in
our history, such a deficit while the economy is booming.
In 2007, the ration of debt-to-GDP was 62%, today the ratio
is 106%. After pressure from the president, and because of
talk of a slowdown, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates again.
So what will happen when the inevitable downturn occurs, and
tax revenues shrink; the low interest rates will begin to rise and
our debt payments will be a further drag on the economy.
As grim as the outlook is, it is amazing that no one seems to
care. Certainly not the White House, or the Congress. In
2011, during the Obama administration, the Republican
Senate was so overwrought with the national debt and deficit
levels they wanted to pass an amendment to the Constitution
calling for a balanced budget. That appears to be dying a slow
death these days. One of the signature promises Trump made
during his campaign, was his vow to eliminate the national debt
in eight years. There's a laugh!
So what happened to all the deficit hawks? With the impeachment
proceeding sucking all the oxygen out of the room, it seems
no one is watching the checkbook.
While Trump is pushing to reduce our forces in the middle-east,
and our military presence every where else in the world, which
should significantly reduce our spending on defense, he is on the
other hand increasing military spending.
The Republicans have always maintained that tax cuts lead to
economic growth and that growth translates to more tax
revenue which pays for the tax cuts. Get it? This voodoo
economics has never worked in the past, but despite those facts
the Republicans still hold to it.
So where are the Democrats? They have closed their eyes to
the whole budget controversy. Those candidates running in
the presidential primary have been promising the moon, with
exorbitant plans such as; Medicare for all, free child care,
free college tuition, forgiving student loans, and the green
new deal. All well and good, but should any of these
candidates actually defeat Trump, they will find the Federal
Piggy Bank empty, except for a few billion in IOUs. So to
fulfill those promises it will mean a massive tax increase, and
not just on the wealthy.
We have been lucky so far, the huge deficits have not brought
on higher inflation rates, and Government borrowing has not
slowed consumer borrowing, though businesses have cut back,
due more to the uncertainty of the tariffs. The good news from
the Stock Market and the unemployment figures have given
Trump impetus to continue his ruinous economic policies of
more spending, more tax cuts and bigger deficits. My God,
who is minding the store?
I'm just askin'.
corporations and a few of the very wealthy, and which
has depleted the US treasury, Trump is talking about another
tax cut before the election of 2020. We have already racked
up a trillion-dollar annual deficit, now The Donald wants to
go for broke.
Yes, we have had a trillion-dollar deficit before, back in
2009 a mere ten years ago in fact. But that occurred as a
result of the 'great recession' when ours, and the entire
world's economies, were in the tank. Thanks to Obama's
stimulus package the economy began mounting a come-
back. The economy that Trump inherited was strong
and getting stronger. That is what is so troubling about
todays huge deficit and national debt,because the economy
is humming along with close to full employment
maximizing tax revenues. Most economist say the idea
of another tax cut is insane. There has never been, in
our history, such a deficit while the economy is booming.
In 2007, the ration of debt-to-GDP was 62%, today the ratio
is 106%. After pressure from the president, and because of
talk of a slowdown, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates again.
So what will happen when the inevitable downturn occurs, and
tax revenues shrink; the low interest rates will begin to rise and
our debt payments will be a further drag on the economy.
As grim as the outlook is, it is amazing that no one seems to
care. Certainly not the White House, or the Congress. In
2011, during the Obama administration, the Republican
Senate was so overwrought with the national debt and deficit
levels they wanted to pass an amendment to the Constitution
calling for a balanced budget. That appears to be dying a slow
death these days. One of the signature promises Trump made
during his campaign, was his vow to eliminate the national debt
in eight years. There's a laugh!
So what happened to all the deficit hawks? With the impeachment
proceeding sucking all the oxygen out of the room, it seems
no one is watching the checkbook.
While Trump is pushing to reduce our forces in the middle-east,
and our military presence every where else in the world, which
should significantly reduce our spending on defense, he is on the
other hand increasing military spending.
The Republicans have always maintained that tax cuts lead to
economic growth and that growth translates to more tax
revenue which pays for the tax cuts. Get it? This voodoo
economics has never worked in the past, but despite those facts
the Republicans still hold to it.
So where are the Democrats? They have closed their eyes to
the whole budget controversy. Those candidates running in
the presidential primary have been promising the moon, with
exorbitant plans such as; Medicare for all, free child care,
free college tuition, forgiving student loans, and the green
new deal. All well and good, but should any of these
candidates actually defeat Trump, they will find the Federal
Piggy Bank empty, except for a few billion in IOUs. So to
fulfill those promises it will mean a massive tax increase, and
not just on the wealthy.
We have been lucky so far, the huge deficits have not brought
on higher inflation rates, and Government borrowing has not
slowed consumer borrowing, though businesses have cut back,
due more to the uncertainty of the tariffs. The good news from
the Stock Market and the unemployment figures have given
Trump impetus to continue his ruinous economic policies of
more spending, more tax cuts and bigger deficits. My God,
who is minding the store?
I'm just askin'.
Friday, November 8, 2019
Welcome to the 21st Century
The Wisconsin State Assembly passed a measure recently, with
bi-partisan support 82-13, that would allow pharmacists to
prescribe hormonal birth control to women over the age of 18,
both in pill and patch form. The Bill still has to go to the Senate
for approval and then on to the Governor for his signature. It
is being opposed by right-to-life activist who say it will lead
to an increase in extra-marital sexual activity and an increase
in unwanted pregnancies and more abortions. DUH! I may be
dense, but how will using effective birth control lead to
unwanted pregnancy and more abortions? We will leave that
objection for the time being.
If the birth control bill passes, and becomes law, Wisconsin will
join ten other states and the District of Columbia that have
already enacted similar legislation.
Five years ago, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology
issued a policy statement saying it is time to make hormonal oral
birth control an over the counter drug. The American Association
of Family Physicians support the measure also, saying it would
greatly reduce unintended pregnancies. However, only the FDA
can change the status of a drug from prescription to over the
counter, and as of yet no manufacturer has petitioned the FDA
to do that. Even if a manufacturer did request a change in status,
it would be years before the FDA could conclude the testing
required to move hormonal contraceptives from prescription to
over the counter status.
One other concern is selling the pill to persons under the age of
18. Right now the pill may be prescribed to those under 18 but
no states allow for purchase of the pill without a doctor's orders.
Researchers say there is no evidence that teens are at risk from
using the pill, in fact the reverse is true, teens do not have the
increased risk of blood clots that some adults do. And studies
have shown there is no increase in sexual activity, in fact, teen
pregnancy rates are down in the United States by 36% from
2007-2013, and the abortion rate has fallen also.
The hormonal birth control method has been around for nearly
sixty years, it was first approved for use in June of 1960, but
didn't begin to be used as a contraceptive until July of 1961.
At that time, it could only be prescribed to married women for
birth control, and it was not until 1972 that doctors were allowed
to prescribe it to unmarried women for use as a contraceptive.
Though many doctors were prescribing it off label use for acne
and to regulate a woman's cycle.
The pill was the first form of birth control that did not interfere
with the spontaneity and sensation of sexual intercourse. It
allowed women to take control of when and how many children
she wished to have. It was a key player in expanding women's
economic role. After the pill was introduced, there was a sharp
rise in college attendance and graduation rates for women. There
was no longer the fear of unplanned pregnancy interrupting a
woman's life, and employers were more inclined to invest in a
woman's future in their corporate structures.
Today the pill is used by 100 million women world-wide and
12 million women in the United States, and if used correctly,
it is 0.3% effective in preventing pregnancy. For most of the
world, the pill does not require a doctor's prescription, and in
many countries it is free or at very low cost. The biggest obstacle
in the United States is the cost. Since the Affordable Care Act,
insurance companies must cover the cost of birth control pills,
and Medicaid also covers their cost. But, and this is a big but,
insurance and Medicaid will not cover over the cost of the pill
if it were over the counter.
It is unclear whether that means the pill has to be prescribed by a
physician or if insurance will still pay for the pill if you can get it
through the pharmacy. Regardless, those states that have opted to
by-pass the doctors prescription for a pharmacist direct filling of
the script, have not seen a big increase in pharmacy participation.
The service is not mandatory in most states and in California
only 11% of retail pharmacies are offering the service. The
requirements for such a service vary from state to state, but all
states require some training of the pharmacist, forms to be filled
out and filed and blood pressure must be monitored. The initial
consultation cost may vary also, but range from $25-$50 and it
is not covered by insurance, however Oregon is the only state that
requires Medicaid to pay for the consultation.
So as usual it is the ones who need the help the most who will be
priced out of receiving it. A family with more children than they
can afford, is priced out of the one thing that could help them
prevent another pregnancy. Fifty dollars would go a long way
to feed the brood around the table. We know that the hormonal
birth control method is safe and effective, now we must make
it affordable and easy to access for all women.
I'm just sayin'.
control
bi-partisan support 82-13, that would allow pharmacists to
prescribe hormonal birth control to women over the age of 18,
both in pill and patch form. The Bill still has to go to the Senate
for approval and then on to the Governor for his signature. It
is being opposed by right-to-life activist who say it will lead
to an increase in extra-marital sexual activity and an increase
in unwanted pregnancies and more abortions. DUH! I may be
dense, but how will using effective birth control lead to
unwanted pregnancy and more abortions? We will leave that
objection for the time being.
If the birth control bill passes, and becomes law, Wisconsin will
join ten other states and the District of Columbia that have
already enacted similar legislation.
Five years ago, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology
issued a policy statement saying it is time to make hormonal oral
birth control an over the counter drug. The American Association
of Family Physicians support the measure also, saying it would
greatly reduce unintended pregnancies. However, only the FDA
can change the status of a drug from prescription to over the
counter, and as of yet no manufacturer has petitioned the FDA
to do that. Even if a manufacturer did request a change in status,
it would be years before the FDA could conclude the testing
required to move hormonal contraceptives from prescription to
over the counter status.
One other concern is selling the pill to persons under the age of
18. Right now the pill may be prescribed to those under 18 but
no states allow for purchase of the pill without a doctor's orders.
Researchers say there is no evidence that teens are at risk from
using the pill, in fact the reverse is true, teens do not have the
increased risk of blood clots that some adults do. And studies
have shown there is no increase in sexual activity, in fact, teen
pregnancy rates are down in the United States by 36% from
2007-2013, and the abortion rate has fallen also.
The hormonal birth control method has been around for nearly
sixty years, it was first approved for use in June of 1960, but
didn't begin to be used as a contraceptive until July of 1961.
At that time, it could only be prescribed to married women for
birth control, and it was not until 1972 that doctors were allowed
to prescribe it to unmarried women for use as a contraceptive.
Though many doctors were prescribing it off label use for acne
and to regulate a woman's cycle.
The pill was the first form of birth control that did not interfere
with the spontaneity and sensation of sexual intercourse. It
allowed women to take control of when and how many children
she wished to have. It was a key player in expanding women's
economic role. After the pill was introduced, there was a sharp
rise in college attendance and graduation rates for women. There
was no longer the fear of unplanned pregnancy interrupting a
woman's life, and employers were more inclined to invest in a
woman's future in their corporate structures.
Today the pill is used by 100 million women world-wide and
12 million women in the United States, and if used correctly,
it is 0.3% effective in preventing pregnancy. For most of the
world, the pill does not require a doctor's prescription, and in
many countries it is free or at very low cost. The biggest obstacle
in the United States is the cost. Since the Affordable Care Act,
insurance companies must cover the cost of birth control pills,
and Medicaid also covers their cost. But, and this is a big but,
insurance and Medicaid will not cover over the cost of the pill
if it were over the counter.
It is unclear whether that means the pill has to be prescribed by a
physician or if insurance will still pay for the pill if you can get it
through the pharmacy. Regardless, those states that have opted to
by-pass the doctors prescription for a pharmacist direct filling of
the script, have not seen a big increase in pharmacy participation.
The service is not mandatory in most states and in California
only 11% of retail pharmacies are offering the service. The
requirements for such a service vary from state to state, but all
states require some training of the pharmacist, forms to be filled
out and filed and blood pressure must be monitored. The initial
consultation cost may vary also, but range from $25-$50 and it
is not covered by insurance, however Oregon is the only state that
requires Medicaid to pay for the consultation.
So as usual it is the ones who need the help the most who will be
priced out of receiving it. A family with more children than they
can afford, is priced out of the one thing that could help them
prevent another pregnancy. Fifty dollars would go a long way
to feed the brood around the table. We know that the hormonal
birth control method is safe and effective, now we must make
it affordable and easy to access for all women.
I'm just sayin'.
control
Sunday, November 3, 2019
Get it Done, Get it Over, and Move On
And so it begins, I was eagerly tuned to the radio last Thursday,
(Halloween, of all days) but I fear I was in the minority, even
amongst my fiends. They are getting tired of me and my obsession
with all things Trump. They have moved on with their lives. In
the beginning they were as appalled as I at Trump's unpresidential
behavior, his speeches elicited laughter, his demeanor resulted in
head shaking disbelief. There were jokes about his limited
vocabulary and his penchant for lying in the face of overwhelming
evidence to the contrary. But the jokes have wore thin and the daily
onslaught is wearyingly banal.
If these women, strident female libbers that they are, can ignore the
ever-worsening news from the White House and not be incensed,
ignore the increasing aberrant antics of a man who seems to be losing
his grip on reality, if they can say they just don't care anymore, what
chance is there for the rest of us? The general consensus seems to be
nothing will ever change, it's all a tempest in a teapot, all done for show.
Both side prancing and preening for their constituents and nothing more.
But there is something more, and everyday more and more of it is revealed,
and with each new testimony something new is discovered. It is becoming
harder and harder to deny the evidence. So, what do the Republicans do,
they attack the proceedings. They say the hearings are done in secret, and
they are not allowed in, both of which are blatantly false, they stormed
the hearing room at the behest of the President, and when the pizza ran out
they quietly went home like sheep being herded out of the pasture, and
like sheep they may be headed to the abattoir.
The Republicans protested the closed-door hearings and when the House
announced that the hearings will be opened to all, including TV, they protested
that also. They don't like the rules, though they are the same rules that they
established for the Clinton impeachment. They want to see the transcripts
from the closed-door hearing, and when Rep. Adam Schiff said the
transcripts will be available in the coming week, the Republicans said,
not soon enough. There seems to be a pattern emerging here.
Trump had said that the call to Zelenskiy, the Ukrainian president-elect, was
beautiful and his denial of wrongdoing just doesn't hold water anymore.
What now? Trump and the Republicans say that, OK the President did
ask Zelenskiy to look into Hunter Biden, but that there was nothing wrong
with that. Holding back money and presidential influence is done all the
time. It is at the discretion of the President. So, the defense changed; Trump
did it but it wasn't wrong, except his own intelligence people saw it differently.
The testimony of Lt. Col. Vindman, a decorated war hero, who was listening
in on the call, said he found it 'troubling'. The President was asking a foreign
government to investigate a potential political rival in exchange for money
and a visit to the White House. And his testimony was just one of several others.
In addition to asking about the Bidens, Trump also asked about the computer
server that was used to hack into the DNC data base in 2016. It appears
that Trump just cannot get over the vote count in 2016.
So let us reiterate, first Trump didn't do it, then he did do it but it wasn't wrong,
and finally it was wrong, but it doesn't rise to the level of high crimes and
misdemeanors necessary for impeachment. Ah, but obstruction of Congress
does, and the more the administration stymies the investigation the closer
it get gets to obstruction. The cover-up is what brought down the Nixon
presidency.
Today, November 3, 2019, is exactly one year to the date of the 2020
presidential election, and only three months to the Iowa Caucasus, and
what is going on in Washington hasn't even rippled the waters, but it
should. A president who believes what he is does is justifiable because he
is the president is dangerous. If Donald Trump is allowed to walk away from
this, he will be emboldened to try something else. After all it was just one
day after the Mueller Report announced no collusion with Russia during the
2016 election, that Trump tried to coerce the Ukraine government to
interfere in the 2020 election. it is frightening to think of what he would attempt
after being found not guilty in the Senate trial. And if the Senate thinks they
could contain him in 2020 they are bigger fools than I believe them to be. It is
time for the Congress to stand up and take back the powers they have been
ceding to this president. Or...There may be another way out; censure!
Censure by the entire Congress, the House and Senate with a super majority vote.
Andrew Jackson was censured by the Senate, and John Tyler was censured by the
House, both were strictly political actions. I firmly believe there are enough
Republicans who think that Donald Trump is unfit for the presidency, and they
would be judged harshly by history if they acquitted him, but they are afraid to
come forward. The Democrats know if they proceed with the impeachment,
they will lose. They will lose the trial and the House and the White House in
2020 and who knows how far beyond. That is a big price to pay.
But Trump cannot get away with his distain of the Constitution, he must be
brought to heel. A record of censure by the entire Congress would be something
Trump has never had to deal with, being told he is wrong, by his peers. And
there is always the threat of prosecution once he has left office.
Time is running out and to quote the bard: "If it were done when 'tis done, then
'twere well it were done quickly... That but this blow, might be the be-all and
end-all here".
I'm just sayin'.
(Halloween, of all days) but I fear I was in the minority, even
amongst my fiends. They are getting tired of me and my obsession
with all things Trump. They have moved on with their lives. In
the beginning they were as appalled as I at Trump's unpresidential
behavior, his speeches elicited laughter, his demeanor resulted in
head shaking disbelief. There were jokes about his limited
vocabulary and his penchant for lying in the face of overwhelming
evidence to the contrary. But the jokes have wore thin and the daily
onslaught is wearyingly banal.
If these women, strident female libbers that they are, can ignore the
ever-worsening news from the White House and not be incensed,
ignore the increasing aberrant antics of a man who seems to be losing
his grip on reality, if they can say they just don't care anymore, what
chance is there for the rest of us? The general consensus seems to be
nothing will ever change, it's all a tempest in a teapot, all done for show.
Both side prancing and preening for their constituents and nothing more.
But there is something more, and everyday more and more of it is revealed,
and with each new testimony something new is discovered. It is becoming
harder and harder to deny the evidence. So, what do the Republicans do,
they attack the proceedings. They say the hearings are done in secret, and
they are not allowed in, both of which are blatantly false, they stormed
the hearing room at the behest of the President, and when the pizza ran out
they quietly went home like sheep being herded out of the pasture, and
like sheep they may be headed to the abattoir.
The Republicans protested the closed-door hearings and when the House
announced that the hearings will be opened to all, including TV, they protested
that also. They don't like the rules, though they are the same rules that they
established for the Clinton impeachment. They want to see the transcripts
from the closed-door hearing, and when Rep. Adam Schiff said the
transcripts will be available in the coming week, the Republicans said,
not soon enough. There seems to be a pattern emerging here.
Trump had said that the call to Zelenskiy, the Ukrainian president-elect, was
beautiful and his denial of wrongdoing just doesn't hold water anymore.
What now? Trump and the Republicans say that, OK the President did
ask Zelenskiy to look into Hunter Biden, but that there was nothing wrong
with that. Holding back money and presidential influence is done all the
time. It is at the discretion of the President. So, the defense changed; Trump
did it but it wasn't wrong, except his own intelligence people saw it differently.
The testimony of Lt. Col. Vindman, a decorated war hero, who was listening
in on the call, said he found it 'troubling'. The President was asking a foreign
government to investigate a potential political rival in exchange for money
and a visit to the White House. And his testimony was just one of several others.
In addition to asking about the Bidens, Trump also asked about the computer
server that was used to hack into the DNC data base in 2016. It appears
that Trump just cannot get over the vote count in 2016.
So let us reiterate, first Trump didn't do it, then he did do it but it wasn't wrong,
and finally it was wrong, but it doesn't rise to the level of high crimes and
misdemeanors necessary for impeachment. Ah, but obstruction of Congress
does, and the more the administration stymies the investigation the closer
it get gets to obstruction. The cover-up is what brought down the Nixon
presidency.
Today, November 3, 2019, is exactly one year to the date of the 2020
presidential election, and only three months to the Iowa Caucasus, and
what is going on in Washington hasn't even rippled the waters, but it
should. A president who believes what he is does is justifiable because he
is the president is dangerous. If Donald Trump is allowed to walk away from
this, he will be emboldened to try something else. After all it was just one
day after the Mueller Report announced no collusion with Russia during the
2016 election, that Trump tried to coerce the Ukraine government to
interfere in the 2020 election. it is frightening to think of what he would attempt
after being found not guilty in the Senate trial. And if the Senate thinks they
could contain him in 2020 they are bigger fools than I believe them to be. It is
time for the Congress to stand up and take back the powers they have been
ceding to this president. Or...There may be another way out; censure!
Censure by the entire Congress, the House and Senate with a super majority vote.
Andrew Jackson was censured by the Senate, and John Tyler was censured by the
House, both were strictly political actions. I firmly believe there are enough
Republicans who think that Donald Trump is unfit for the presidency, and they
would be judged harshly by history if they acquitted him, but they are afraid to
come forward. The Democrats know if they proceed with the impeachment,
they will lose. They will lose the trial and the House and the White House in
2020 and who knows how far beyond. That is a big price to pay.
But Trump cannot get away with his distain of the Constitution, he must be
brought to heel. A record of censure by the entire Congress would be something
Trump has never had to deal with, being told he is wrong, by his peers. And
there is always the threat of prosecution once he has left office.
Time is running out and to quote the bard: "If it were done when 'tis done, then
'twere well it were done quickly... That but this blow, might be the be-all and
end-all here".
I'm just sayin'.
Thursday, October 31, 2019
Where in the World is Billy Barr?
It appears the United States Attorney General is MIA. He
was last seen hiding out in Rome espousing President Trump's
handling of the Ukrainian congratulatory phone call to Ukraine's
president-elect. A phone call, Trump said was "beautiful". He is
also gathering information from countries he feels have the
inside dope on Hunter Biden's activities while he was on the
board of the Ukraine natural gas producing company, Burisma.
And while he is at it there, he is looking at whether the Ukraine
was also involved with the server that processed Hillary Clinton's
missing emails. Both of the these incidents have been debunked
by the United States intelligence agencies. The Democrats have
accused Barr of using the Justice Department as Trump's personal
law firm. This would not be the first time Barr would have
interfered on behalf of a president.
Billy Barr is a lifelong proponent of the 'unitary executive theory'
that allows for unfettered presidential authority. Much of Barr's
thinking has been influenced by his strong religious convictions,
he is a staunch Roman Catholic. He believes that Roe v Wade
was incorrectly decided, and in 1992 he wrote a report in
favor of increased incarceration. However, upon independent
examination, the data Barr used to support his conclusions
did not corroborate his theory that mass incarceration reduced
the crime rate anywhere.
In 1990, Barr was appointed Deputy Attorney General by then
president George H. W. Bush. Bush was so impressed with Barr's
work that he nominated him to be his Attorney General in 1991.
Barr's squeaky-clean record allowed Barr to be confirmed by the
Senate in two days.
In 1992, an Independent counsel was formed to investigate the
Iran-Contra Affair, it was headed by Lawrence Walsh. Walsh had
found documents from Casper Weinberger's office of evidence of
a conspiracy among the highest officials in the
Reagan administration, to lie to both Congress and the American
people. The cover-up was the sale of arms to Iran for their help in
freeing the hostages taken by Hezbollah and being held in Lebanon.
Weinberger was to stand trial and contradict President Bush's
assertion that he had no knowledge of the exchange of arms for
hostages. It was apparent that Bush would be called to testify in
the court case also. Billy Barr went into action, He convinced
Bush to pardon Weinberger and five others from the Reagan
administration who were already found guilty, only day before the
end of Bush's term of office. Thus saving the reputation of the Bush
presidency. Lawrence Walsh complained, insinuating that Bush and
Barr had covered-up the Iran-Contra Affair.
That wasn't the end, Barr also refused to appoint another Independent
Counsel to investigate 'Iraq-gate'. Iraq-gate is not as well-known as the
Iran-Contra Affair but it was much more insidious. For those not as
familiar with what went on, I will try to give you a thumbnail sketch.
During the Reagan/Bush administrations, and while Bill Clinton was
governor of Arkansas, in a small town in Arkansas called Mena, there
was an operation that was working out of the Mena airport that involved
drugs, guns, and billions of dollars under the radar, but with the knowledge
and consent of the CIA. Drugs were smuggled into the United States,
weapons were smuggled out, and money was laundered thru the banks
in Mena and Atlanta Georgia.
The money and drugs went to support Saddam Hussain in Iraq, yup, that
Saddam Hussain. Money from the United States, supposedly for agricultural
support, went instead to buy weapons back from the United States. It
was estimated that more than $5 billion in aid and also weaponry, and
military intelligence, and special ops went to support Hussain's war
against Iran, which by now was in control of the Ayatollah. All of
which was against the will of the Congress. The money came from
the drug operation in Mena. All in all, over a thousand kilos of heroin
was smuggled into our country and over $5 billion of money was laundered
prior to being sent to Iraq. Everyone involved with the operation in Mena
is now dead, in fact, more than 26 deaths were attributed to it, some under
suspicious circumstances, some were outright hits. All covered-up by one
Billy Barr, in defense of presidents Reagan and Bush. His argument;
'a president has complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement
proceeding'.
So why is Billy Barr hiding out in Rome? Has he finally found a president
he cannot support? Or is it that this president has implicated him in his
tawdry business dealings? Squeaky-clean Billy may have finally got
his hands so dirty even he cannot live with himself?
I'm just sayin'.
was last seen hiding out in Rome espousing President Trump's
handling of the Ukrainian congratulatory phone call to Ukraine's
president-elect. A phone call, Trump said was "beautiful". He is
also gathering information from countries he feels have the
inside dope on Hunter Biden's activities while he was on the
board of the Ukraine natural gas producing company, Burisma.
And while he is at it there, he is looking at whether the Ukraine
was also involved with the server that processed Hillary Clinton's
missing emails. Both of the these incidents have been debunked
by the United States intelligence agencies. The Democrats have
accused Barr of using the Justice Department as Trump's personal
law firm. This would not be the first time Barr would have
interfered on behalf of a president.
Billy Barr is a lifelong proponent of the 'unitary executive theory'
that allows for unfettered presidential authority. Much of Barr's
thinking has been influenced by his strong religious convictions,
he is a staunch Roman Catholic. He believes that Roe v Wade
was incorrectly decided, and in 1992 he wrote a report in
favor of increased incarceration. However, upon independent
examination, the data Barr used to support his conclusions
did not corroborate his theory that mass incarceration reduced
the crime rate anywhere.
In 1990, Barr was appointed Deputy Attorney General by then
president George H. W. Bush. Bush was so impressed with Barr's
work that he nominated him to be his Attorney General in 1991.
Barr's squeaky-clean record allowed Barr to be confirmed by the
Senate in two days.
In 1992, an Independent counsel was formed to investigate the
Iran-Contra Affair, it was headed by Lawrence Walsh. Walsh had
found documents from Casper Weinberger's office of evidence of
a conspiracy among the highest officials in the
Reagan administration, to lie to both Congress and the American
people. The cover-up was the sale of arms to Iran for their help in
freeing the hostages taken by Hezbollah and being held in Lebanon.
Weinberger was to stand trial and contradict President Bush's
assertion that he had no knowledge of the exchange of arms for
hostages. It was apparent that Bush would be called to testify in
the court case also. Billy Barr went into action, He convinced
Bush to pardon Weinberger and five others from the Reagan
administration who were already found guilty, only day before the
end of Bush's term of office. Thus saving the reputation of the Bush
presidency. Lawrence Walsh complained, insinuating that Bush and
Barr had covered-up the Iran-Contra Affair.
That wasn't the end, Barr also refused to appoint another Independent
Counsel to investigate 'Iraq-gate'. Iraq-gate is not as well-known as the
Iran-Contra Affair but it was much more insidious. For those not as
familiar with what went on, I will try to give you a thumbnail sketch.
During the Reagan/Bush administrations, and while Bill Clinton was
governor of Arkansas, in a small town in Arkansas called Mena, there
was an operation that was working out of the Mena airport that involved
drugs, guns, and billions of dollars under the radar, but with the knowledge
and consent of the CIA. Drugs were smuggled into the United States,
weapons were smuggled out, and money was laundered thru the banks
in Mena and Atlanta Georgia.
The money and drugs went to support Saddam Hussain in Iraq, yup, that
Saddam Hussain. Money from the United States, supposedly for agricultural
support, went instead to buy weapons back from the United States. It
was estimated that more than $5 billion in aid and also weaponry, and
military intelligence, and special ops went to support Hussain's war
against Iran, which by now was in control of the Ayatollah. All of
which was against the will of the Congress. The money came from
the drug operation in Mena. All in all, over a thousand kilos of heroin
was smuggled into our country and over $5 billion of money was laundered
prior to being sent to Iraq. Everyone involved with the operation in Mena
is now dead, in fact, more than 26 deaths were attributed to it, some under
suspicious circumstances, some were outright hits. All covered-up by one
Billy Barr, in defense of presidents Reagan and Bush. His argument;
'a president has complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement
proceeding'.
So why is Billy Barr hiding out in Rome? Has he finally found a president
he cannot support? Or is it that this president has implicated him in his
tawdry business dealings? Squeaky-clean Billy may have finally got
his hands so dirty even he cannot live with himself?
I'm just sayin'.
Friday, October 25, 2019
What Every Working Woman Needs
Back in the 1970's, when the talk around the executive
dining room table amongst my female colleagues and
myself - the four of us amid a sea of males - turned to
child care, the standing joke was; what every working
woman needs, is a wife at home to cook, clean and
watch the kids. Each of us had paid dearly for the
privilege of becoming executives, sacrificing our home
life and time with our children to advance our careers.
Was it worth it? It appeared that each of us had a different
view. For me the answer was more than monetary,
though that didn't hurt, but the personal fulfillment of
reaching the top of one's profession was exhilarating.
It is the sense of giving your best and getting recognized
for it, that is incredibly satisfying.
Four female executives were about par for the course in
the 70s in most mid-size companies, even if two of those
were executive secretaries, one for the company President
and the other for the CEO. After all it wasn't until 1972 when
Kathrine Graham became the first female CEO of a Fortune
500 company. And women aren't doing that much better
today, women represent less than 20% of the Board members
of the top 1000 major corporations. Why don't women climb
the corporate ranks at the same rate as men? It's not that they
are lacking in talent or drive, no, the major root cause of women
being left behind in their careers is the lack of decent, affordable
child care. This is the motherhood penalty. When women are
forced to stay home with their children they cannot participate
fully in their chosen field, hence they are not going to have
equal career growth opportunities.
In today's economy, child care can cost as much as college
tuition in most states. Infant day care costs range from
$5,000 to $17,000 a year, and pre-school day care ranges
from $4,450 to $12,000 per year. Multiply that by two
or three, and even with a multiple child discount, it is
apparent that child care costs exceed the average net salary
of a mid-level executive. It takes a gross pay of $36,000 to
cover the cost of $20,000 of day care, and that is assuming
the combined income for husband and wife is in the lowest
tax bracket. Seventy percent of families spend 10% of
their gross income on child care and forty percent spend
more than 15% of the gross income.
Lack of decent, affordable child care is having a financial
impact on our economy. New Census Bureau figures out today
show that in fifteen years, in 2034, the over-65 age group will
out number young children . This does not bode well, and it
can be traced back to the child care problem. In a study of more
than 4000 participants with small children, 63% of parents
reported that they made workplace changes to be able to afford
child care; switching from fulltime to part time hours, and 25%
of women quit the their jobs to be stay-at-home caregivers.
The financial impact is more dire; 31% of families said they
went further into debt, 37% said they stopped adding to their
IRA retirement, 37% said they stopped paying off debt, and
44% said that child care costs precipitated major budget cuts.
The effect on the family unit is even harder; 36% said child
care cost was a cause of relationship tensions, 39% said it
impacted their family planning, and 39% said they chose to
have fewer children. This is the future of our economy,
who will fund the retirement of those over-65s? If today's
parents can't afford to have children, we had better change
our immigration policies.
Access to good child care drives local economies as well as
overall economic growth. Women who have decent child
care available are more likely to enter the workforce and
stay employed. They are more likely to stay off welfare
and more likely to pursue a higher education. The long-
term benefit of subsidized child care is not just a 'women's
issue', its effect will be felt in the hear future, fifteen years
from now when Social Security and Medicare become
unsustainable budget items. We will need a viable work-
force to support them. We need the children.
Several of the Democratic candidates running for the
presidency have child care plan options, it behooves
you to check them out, and if your favorite candidate
doesn't have a plan, ask them why.
I'm just sayin'.
dining room table amongst my female colleagues and
myself - the four of us amid a sea of males - turned to
child care, the standing joke was; what every working
woman needs, is a wife at home to cook, clean and
watch the kids. Each of us had paid dearly for the
privilege of becoming executives, sacrificing our home
life and time with our children to advance our careers.
Was it worth it? It appeared that each of us had a different
view. For me the answer was more than monetary,
though that didn't hurt, but the personal fulfillment of
reaching the top of one's profession was exhilarating.
It is the sense of giving your best and getting recognized
for it, that is incredibly satisfying.
Four female executives were about par for the course in
the 70s in most mid-size companies, even if two of those
were executive secretaries, one for the company President
and the other for the CEO. After all it wasn't until 1972 when
Kathrine Graham became the first female CEO of a Fortune
500 company. And women aren't doing that much better
today, women represent less than 20% of the Board members
of the top 1000 major corporations. Why don't women climb
the corporate ranks at the same rate as men? It's not that they
are lacking in talent or drive, no, the major root cause of women
being left behind in their careers is the lack of decent, affordable
child care. This is the motherhood penalty. When women are
forced to stay home with their children they cannot participate
fully in their chosen field, hence they are not going to have
equal career growth opportunities.
In today's economy, child care can cost as much as college
tuition in most states. Infant day care costs range from
$5,000 to $17,000 a year, and pre-school day care ranges
from $4,450 to $12,000 per year. Multiply that by two
or three, and even with a multiple child discount, it is
apparent that child care costs exceed the average net salary
of a mid-level executive. It takes a gross pay of $36,000 to
cover the cost of $20,000 of day care, and that is assuming
the combined income for husband and wife is in the lowest
tax bracket. Seventy percent of families spend 10% of
their gross income on child care and forty percent spend
more than 15% of the gross income.
Lack of decent, affordable child care is having a financial
impact on our economy. New Census Bureau figures out today
show that in fifteen years, in 2034, the over-65 age group will
out number young children . This does not bode well, and it
can be traced back to the child care problem. In a study of more
than 4000 participants with small children, 63% of parents
reported that they made workplace changes to be able to afford
child care; switching from fulltime to part time hours, and 25%
of women quit the their jobs to be stay-at-home caregivers.
The financial impact is more dire; 31% of families said they
went further into debt, 37% said they stopped adding to their
IRA retirement, 37% said they stopped paying off debt, and
44% said that child care costs precipitated major budget cuts.
The effect on the family unit is even harder; 36% said child
care cost was a cause of relationship tensions, 39% said it
impacted their family planning, and 39% said they chose to
have fewer children. This is the future of our economy,
who will fund the retirement of those over-65s? If today's
parents can't afford to have children, we had better change
our immigration policies.
Access to good child care drives local economies as well as
overall economic growth. Women who have decent child
care available are more likely to enter the workforce and
stay employed. They are more likely to stay off welfare
and more likely to pursue a higher education. The long-
term benefit of subsidized child care is not just a 'women's
issue', its effect will be felt in the hear future, fifteen years
from now when Social Security and Medicare become
unsustainable budget items. We will need a viable work-
force to support them. We need the children.
Several of the Democratic candidates running for the
presidency have child care plan options, it behooves
you to check them out, and if your favorite candidate
doesn't have a plan, ask them why.
I'm just sayin'.
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
In the Land of the Pharaohs
I have just returned from a wonderful trip to Egypt, and
I can definitely recommend the trip to anyone, it is a
beautiful country filled with lovely people who will go
out of their way to make your trip memorable. And at no
time did I feel that I was not safe, and I am a woman who
travels alone.
Today's Egypt is a very poor country, 31% of the population
is considered living in poverty. Much of this is due to the
tough economic reforms called for after the $12 billion loan
from the IMF in 2016. Reforms that included devaluing the
Egyptian currency and cutting the fuel subsidies. The latter
raised the fuel costs 78% overnight, and with the Pound being
devalued, there are now more people living below the poverty
line.
On the plus side, however, Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, Egypt's president,
has raised Egypt's credit rating to a 'B' and the economic growth
has exceeded 6.5% for the past three years. Al Sisi enjoys an
overall approval rating of 78%, something that Donald Trump
would kill for. Since taking over from the Muslim Brotherhood
in June of 2013, Al Sisi has had the backing and support of the
Egyptian Army in all things, leading some to say he heads a
military junta. However, the Egyptian people know they have
only two choices for a government, Al Sisi and the Army, or
the Muslim Brotherhood, 97% chose Al Sisi in the last election.
Al Sisi has done some great things for Egypt since taking power;
he ordered and oversaw the construction of a separate Suez canal
along side the present canal, this time using only Egyptian money,
doubling the capacity of ships that pass thru the canal, from 47 to
95, and generating the income for Egypt alone, and he is building
a new capitol city close to Cairo to help with the overcrowding
conditions in the existing capitol. The unofficial population of
Cairo is estimated at 25 million people.
Today, 96% of Egyptians live on the 3% of Egypt's land along-side
the Nile river, the remaining 97% of Egypt is desert. Egypt is trying
to convert 240,000 additional acres of desert into arable land to increase
food production. Right now Egypt relies on the Nile river for 90% of
it's fresh water supply. And that has led to a huge problem. Ethiopia is
in the process of building one of the largest dams on the Blue Nile, in
Africa and the seventh largest dam in the world.
The new dam, GERD (Greater Ethiopian Renaissance Dam), is scheduled
to be completed in 2022, but some turbines will be put into operation
this year. The fear is that filling the reservoir, which will take up to
three years or more to complete, will greatly reduce the water supply
down river. If it is done on the timetable proposed by Ethiopia, it will
dry up Lake Nassar, according to Egypt's calculations. The three
countries involved, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan have been in negotiations
since before the project began. Egypt initially signed the agreement in
2015, to show good faith, but since that time several changes have been
made and now Egypt wants to renegotiate the agreement. Sudan wishes
to remain neutral as they are anticipating buying electricity from Ethiopia.
The latest talks are scheduled for October 23 and 24, 2019 in Moscow,
during the Russian-African Summit. Al Sisi is to meet with the Ethiopian
Prime Minister, Abiy Ahman, to try and work-out a solution to the stalemate.
Al Sisi proclaims that Egypt has plans for the Nile river through 2037,
costing 900 billion Egyptian pounds, or $55 billion. They have already
spent 200 billion pounds to that end last year, and intend to spend another
400 billion pounds this year. The plans include a huge desalination plant
and increased sewage treatment facilities.
In meetings with the United States on the sidelines of the United Nations
General Assembly this past September, Al Sisi stressed that failure in
negotiations with Ethiopia will have dire consequences for the stability
across the region. He appealed to the international community to aid in the
negotiating process. Al Sisi has proposed a seven to ten-year time-table
for filling the reservoir, and measures that will allow for 40 billion cubic
meters of water to flow annually. Both of these proposals were soundly
rejected by Ethiopia.
Initially, Ethiopia presented Cairo with a project for a dam that would be
90 meters high with a reservoir capacity of 14.5 billion cubic meters of
water. Ethiopia than began to implement a totally different design with
a dam height of 145 meters and a reservoir capacity of 74 billion cubic
meters of water. Ethiopia also extended the scope of the dam project
beyond just electricity production and has plans to place 4 million acres
of land under cultivation using water deducted from Egypt's share of the
Nile.
By way of comparison, while Egypt has only the Nile river as a water
source, Ethiopia has twelve rivers. Egypt gets less than 1.3 billion cubic
meters of rainfall annually, while Ethiopia gets more than 800 billion
cubic meters of rainfall annually, which is 50% of the total rainfall received
by all ten Nile Basin countries. When Egypt signed the Nile Waters Agreement
in 1959, it's per capita share of the Nile water was 2,500 cubic meters. Today
Egypt's population has topped 104 million and the water quota remains fixed,
which means the per capita figures are 20% of what they were when the
agreement was signed.
In March, an International Crisis Group report warned of a humanitarian
crisis if there is no agreement reached, millions of Egyptian farmers and
Egypt's food supply could be threatened. Al Sisi has said, "...you cannot
expose a people whose lives depend on the Nile to the danger of cutting
off their water supply without having an impact on the stability of the
region".
In talking with several locals in Cairo, I was surprised at the vehemence
of their replies, to a man they said they will go to war behind Al Sisi if
it came down to it. They all supported covert actions to blow up the
dam. When I countered that it seemed to be extreme to me and that
perhaps the UAR and the rest of the world may not back their actions
they were not phased. "We will die one way or another; without water
or fighting for it," was the consensus. Another tinderbox waiting for
a match? Remember where you read about it.
I'm just sayin'
I can definitely recommend the trip to anyone, it is a
beautiful country filled with lovely people who will go
out of their way to make your trip memorable. And at no
time did I feel that I was not safe, and I am a woman who
travels alone.
Today's Egypt is a very poor country, 31% of the population
is considered living in poverty. Much of this is due to the
tough economic reforms called for after the $12 billion loan
from the IMF in 2016. Reforms that included devaluing the
Egyptian currency and cutting the fuel subsidies. The latter
raised the fuel costs 78% overnight, and with the Pound being
devalued, there are now more people living below the poverty
line.
On the plus side, however, Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, Egypt's president,
has raised Egypt's credit rating to a 'B' and the economic growth
has exceeded 6.5% for the past three years. Al Sisi enjoys an
overall approval rating of 78%, something that Donald Trump
would kill for. Since taking over from the Muslim Brotherhood
in June of 2013, Al Sisi has had the backing and support of the
Egyptian Army in all things, leading some to say he heads a
military junta. However, the Egyptian people know they have
only two choices for a government, Al Sisi and the Army, or
the Muslim Brotherhood, 97% chose Al Sisi in the last election.
Al Sisi has done some great things for Egypt since taking power;
he ordered and oversaw the construction of a separate Suez canal
along side the present canal, this time using only Egyptian money,
doubling the capacity of ships that pass thru the canal, from 47 to
95, and generating the income for Egypt alone, and he is building
a new capitol city close to Cairo to help with the overcrowding
conditions in the existing capitol. The unofficial population of
Cairo is estimated at 25 million people.
Today, 96% of Egyptians live on the 3% of Egypt's land along-side
the Nile river, the remaining 97% of Egypt is desert. Egypt is trying
to convert 240,000 additional acres of desert into arable land to increase
food production. Right now Egypt relies on the Nile river for 90% of
it's fresh water supply. And that has led to a huge problem. Ethiopia is
in the process of building one of the largest dams on the Blue Nile, in
Africa and the seventh largest dam in the world.
The new dam, GERD (Greater Ethiopian Renaissance Dam), is scheduled
to be completed in 2022, but some turbines will be put into operation
this year. The fear is that filling the reservoir, which will take up to
three years or more to complete, will greatly reduce the water supply
down river. If it is done on the timetable proposed by Ethiopia, it will
dry up Lake Nassar, according to Egypt's calculations. The three
countries involved, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan have been in negotiations
since before the project began. Egypt initially signed the agreement in
2015, to show good faith, but since that time several changes have been
made and now Egypt wants to renegotiate the agreement. Sudan wishes
to remain neutral as they are anticipating buying electricity from Ethiopia.
The latest talks are scheduled for October 23 and 24, 2019 in Moscow,
during the Russian-African Summit. Al Sisi is to meet with the Ethiopian
Prime Minister, Abiy Ahman, to try and work-out a solution to the stalemate.
Al Sisi proclaims that Egypt has plans for the Nile river through 2037,
costing 900 billion Egyptian pounds, or $55 billion. They have already
spent 200 billion pounds to that end last year, and intend to spend another
400 billion pounds this year. The plans include a huge desalination plant
and increased sewage treatment facilities.
In meetings with the United States on the sidelines of the United Nations
General Assembly this past September, Al Sisi stressed that failure in
negotiations with Ethiopia will have dire consequences for the stability
across the region. He appealed to the international community to aid in the
negotiating process. Al Sisi has proposed a seven to ten-year time-table
for filling the reservoir, and measures that will allow for 40 billion cubic
meters of water to flow annually. Both of these proposals were soundly
rejected by Ethiopia.
Initially, Ethiopia presented Cairo with a project for a dam that would be
90 meters high with a reservoir capacity of 14.5 billion cubic meters of
water. Ethiopia than began to implement a totally different design with
a dam height of 145 meters and a reservoir capacity of 74 billion cubic
meters of water. Ethiopia also extended the scope of the dam project
beyond just electricity production and has plans to place 4 million acres
of land under cultivation using water deducted from Egypt's share of the
Nile.
By way of comparison, while Egypt has only the Nile river as a water
source, Ethiopia has twelve rivers. Egypt gets less than 1.3 billion cubic
meters of rainfall annually, while Ethiopia gets more than 800 billion
cubic meters of rainfall annually, which is 50% of the total rainfall received
by all ten Nile Basin countries. When Egypt signed the Nile Waters Agreement
in 1959, it's per capita share of the Nile water was 2,500 cubic meters. Today
Egypt's population has topped 104 million and the water quota remains fixed,
which means the per capita figures are 20% of what they were when the
agreement was signed.
In March, an International Crisis Group report warned of a humanitarian
crisis if there is no agreement reached, millions of Egyptian farmers and
Egypt's food supply could be threatened. Al Sisi has said, "...you cannot
expose a people whose lives depend on the Nile to the danger of cutting
off their water supply without having an impact on the stability of the
region".
In talking with several locals in Cairo, I was surprised at the vehemence
of their replies, to a man they said they will go to war behind Al Sisi if
it came down to it. They all supported covert actions to blow up the
dam. When I countered that it seemed to be extreme to me and that
perhaps the UAR and the rest of the world may not back their actions
they were not phased. "We will die one way or another; without water
or fighting for it," was the consensus. Another tinderbox waiting for
a match? Remember where you read about it.
I'm just sayin'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)