THE WAY IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE OR CIVICS 101
Please forgive Jay H. Ell for revisiting the Founding Fathers and their seminal endeavor, the American Constitution. He really has no credentials to do so but he has the need to explain his spin. If any further apology is needed, his blog has a wide oversea readership who are just dying to know how it is all supposed to work. In returning to the historical event he is going to postulate how different things might be if the USA now goes back to the good old British Westminster Parliamentary model of governance.
The legislative branch of Government.
The exquisite constitutional arrangements chiseled out by the Founding Fathers with love, optimism and sweat, are just not working out. Their desire to create a government that would work with checks and balances, compromise and goodwill is just not cutting it.
Their quaint naive belief that members of the House of Representatives, would be ordinary folk, who would be taking off time at great sacrifice to themselves, and therefore should only serve a two year term, has resulted in the country being in permanent “status electionius”. In spite of a Republican promise in 1996, to enact “term limits” which promise resulted in scores of new Republicans being elected on the strength of that, several of those are still there nearly 2 decades later fighting reelection every two years! The dream that the Senate would be made up of “wise old men” who would place a dampener on the House’s inexperience and exuberance just hasn’t materialized. It is packed with firebrands that intend to serve one term, if that, and then run for the Presidency and diehards that stifle progress.
Now the Congress, which is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate, was to be the Legislative branch designated to make the laws that reflected the will of the people. In so doing they would also see to the day to day functions of making the country work. It would in addition make policy and obviously lean in the direction of the citizenry that elected them. Recognizing that there would be differences between how the House and the Senate enacted legislation on the same issue there would be committees that would settle these interpretations and create a compromise. The Senate too, acting in this spirit, created an internal working arrangement whereby 40 of its members could stop even debating legislation. The understanding was that this was a very serious maneuver and that it should be used judiciously.
Finally, in this rather tart summary of the all powerful legislative body, the relevant Party’s candidates for the elections would be elected in what would be termed Primaries in which anyone could vote.
The Administrative Branch of Government.
This branch would enact the laws passed by Congress. It would be spearheaded by the President who, now, for practical purposes is elected by the popular country wide vote. The President would have wide reaching authority on Foreign Affairs and Defense. Moreover, the President’s agenda on the internal direction the Country should carry great weight. At very least consultations should take place between the legislature and the President. In years gone by, to a lesser or greater extent, even when Congress was of another party, the Legislature came to some accommodation with the President. The President is also entrusted with appointing members to man the administration and therefore the day to day running of the country. His office is held in high regard and although many may disagree with the President appropriate decorum is afforded to him as a result of the dignity of his office.
The Judicial Branch of the Government.
In the likelihood of disputes between various parties including interpretation of the Constitution and its amendments the ultimate arbiter would be a nine man Supreme Court each member being appointed for life. It was assumed, and to a large extent has been followed,that the Supreme Court would rely heavily on legal precedents, legislation passed by Congress, an individual’s rights and each State’s authority.
To Sum Up Civics 101 ala Jay H. Ell.
The Founding Fathers believed they had found the right balance between State and Federal Powers. Federal office bearers would come from individual communities, (Congress Representatives), States, (Each State regardless of size would have two Senators) and the President, (representing the whole country). Any meaningful dispute would ultimately be adjudicated by the Supreme Court whose members, the wisest jurists in the country, were appointed for life. With these provisions and the separation of powers, there was no reason that America should not live happily ever after. And it has, more or less, for centuries.
So what has gone wrong?
LEGISLATION SINCE 2010 - ZILCH
The House of Representatives since 2010 has passed the least legislation in history. Everything, but everything, is an issue including the day to day running of the country thus resulting in a legislative hiatus. Their top priority for 4 years has been to revoke Obamacare - legislation that the Republicans have introduced 51 times. Even more destructive has been that everyday mundane issues have become major controversies thereby forcing the daily functioning of Obama’s whole administration just to hobble along. Currently, for example, Obama needs $4 billion to meet the border crisis where nearly 50,000 children from Central South America have pitched up. The Republican House Majority claim, they don’t know how it is going to be spent, they don’t trust Obama, the border situation is a result of Obama’s policies and so on. The country’s infrastructure is in a shambles. Besides ignoring Obama’s attempts to expand it and create jobs they are creating a hullabaloo about passing the basic funds needed for repairs to roads, bridges and the like.
The House’s current top priority, swallowing up swaths of legislative time, is to sue Obama for using his executive powers on Obamacare. Realistically the action has no chance. The grounds for the suit are cynical - Obama delayed the employer mandate in order to allow the employers to get their paperwork together. By so doing Obama was allegedly not following the Constitution! Implicit in the Republican litigation is they wanted Obamacare, to be effected immediately. On its face the Supreme Court should not even hear this case as the House of Representatives, among other factors, has no standing for this legal initiative. In Bush v Gore constitutional experts maintained that the Court wouldn’t even hear the suit as it involved an issue that was fore square one of the Florida State’s concerns. But look what happened there and Scalia the foremost Constitutional Constructionist, when questioned about this bizarre anomaly, merely replied “Forget about it and move on”.
In fairness to Republican Speaker Boehner he is trying to forestall the Republicans making even bigger fools of themselves by attempting to impeach Obama. However all this fruitless activity makes running a country on a day to day basis impossible and that seems to be the objective.
The Republicans in the Senate, lead by Mitch McConnell had as their sole objective, from 2008, to deny Obama a second term. Now that he has a second term they have stepped up their anti to deny everything and anything related to Obama. The GOP is in the minority in the Senate but using the filibuster more than ever before, so that legislation requires 60 votes to be even discussed, they have successfully halted most legislation. The Democratic Senate Leader broke from tradition in that he insisted that Obama’s nominees for administrative posts did not need a 60 - 40 majority to be ratified so at least the bureaucracy can run.
The underlying theme of all of this is to cripple Obama’s administration and risk sinking the ship in order to get at the Captain. In the confusion of nothing happening Obama is the receiver of a fair amount of the blame for the impasse. Put another way they want absolutely nothing done during Obama’s administration that he could conceivably take credit for.
THE PRESIDENCY.
To quote Eric Holder, the Attorney General, never has more disrespect been shown to a sitting President. He believes, as does Jay H. Ell, that Obama’s race has more than something to do with this. The standard GOP response to non cooperation is that he is not trusted. It is argued that he has been ruling by executive fiat when he has issued less Presidential executive orders than anyone previous president. Literally, everything that Obama does is the subject of vicious criticism.The rudeness extends to a personal level where WhiteHouse invitations are ignored or rejected.
The legislature is calling a twice elected President dishonest insulting the electorate that voted for him and suing him because he is trying to run the country as they refuse to do so.
In short the usual “give and take” which the constitution took for granted would happen, hasn’t.
THE JUDICIAL ARM
As Jay H. Ell has blogged the Supreme Court have reversed precedent after precedent. They are not much interested whether it is legislation or not that they are declaring unconstitutional. They have declared corporations individuals and created a situation that America will have the best Government money can buy. The corporations with their newly found status can deprive their thousands of employees of their rights. They have retrogressively whittled away civil rights legislation including voter protection. Their decisions have had the effect of de facto instituting the Republican agenda into reality when the latter have neither the Presidency or the Senate.
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
Much of what is happening is to create some semblance of unity amongst the disparate groups that now make up the Republican Party. The GOP is in an utter shambles. There is naked open warfare between the Tea Party and the Establishment. The boil, that is the Republican Party, burst in Mississippi where The Tea Party Candidate, Chris McDaniel, who is right of Ghengis Khan, lost to the Establishment GOP Candidate, Thad Cochran, who is Ghengis Khan, as to who is to be the GOP Senatorial candidate in the 2014 elections. Ted Cruz, the leading Tea Party light in the Senate and one of the Republican Party front runners for the Presidential nomination, called for a probe of the run off election.
McDaniel has a two pronged attack on Cochran. The first is that a large number of Democratic African Americans voted for him in the run off thereby allowing him to overcome the defeat he had in the initial GOP Primary. (In Mississippi you can elect to vote in any Party Primary that you chose). The second was there was unspecified voter fraud.
So the GOP is directionless and have a paper thin coalition between the Tea Party and the Establishment that is only held together by their hatred of Obama and whatever they perceive he stands for.
TOTAL DYSFUNCTION
So in terms of Governance at the moment it has ground to a halt. The hope of the GOP is that they can keep going as a Party while they run against Obama and blame him for the impasse. The only reason that the GOP are still in the game is that the electorate are so disillusioned that they really don’t care. The citizens that are predominantly involved are the bases of both parties and the Republicans are hoping that their base will prove more reliable than that of the Democrats.
WHAT THE WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENTARY MODEL COULD DO FOR AMERICA.
Firstly, the party model is entirely different there so the Tea Party would not be able to take over a Party by pretending that they are Republicans. You join a Party that has your same broad principles and you stick to them or get chucked out. Also if they have a Primary, in the American sense, only card carrying members can vote. So the Tea Party, with their policies, would have to be a third Party and instead of taking over the Republican Party would be confined to the dust bin of history where they belong.
Then elections are not held on a fixed date. They are announced three months before and then only can electioneering begin. Think of how much more money the Kochs would have to give to the arts if that applied here. Money in electioneering thus plays a far lesser role. The elections take place every four years and as no-one is exactly sure when they are going to take place the public are not fed a daily diet of electioneering.
In addition there is no separate election for the Prime Minister, (President). The latter is the leader of the Party that gets the most elected representatives so his agenda is obviously that of the majority members of parliament.
There is only one legislative chamber. Long long ago the second chamber, the House of Lords, was neutered. Other democracies based on the Westminster model have largely dispensed with the power of the upper chamber i.e. the Senate.
The Judiciary has no say in running the country. The highest court deals with property rights and crime. They have no power to change legislation.
It is winner take all. The party that gets the most representatives sets the agenda. Not too much pretense at compromise. So most important, for better or for worse, the roads get funded, the country finances its debt and so on. One is not subjected to bread and circuses that are being force-fed to the USA citizenry right now.
Not so unattractive is it?
WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS MUST BE THINKING.
While turning in their graves at the distortions of the intent of their hard painstaking work for democracy some of them have to be rethinking whether it was such a good idea to throw all that good tea into the sea. Their heroic attempts to ensure that all men are created equal have been made a mockery of. The Supreme Court have ruled that if you own a corporation you are at least two individuals. The first one like everyone else, well almost, and the other as a shareholder of your corporation you can deprive people, less equal, of their rights. Then a corporation in its own right is an individual that again has enormous powers over less equal individuals. Freedom of speech is now equal to how much money you have and exercising the biggest equalizer of them all, voting rights, has become tougher and tougher for the less equal.
And on and on.
Most of all they have to be rethinking their provision that citizens not born in the USA cannot run for the Presidency thereby nixing the opportunity for Jay H. Ell to run against Ted Cruz, born in Canada, for whom that provision apparently does not count.
BUT ONE CAN HOPE
One can only hope that the electorate will send such a message to the Republicans that the intent of the Founding Fathers will once again reign supreme. In that happy event Jay H. Ell will gladly accept his second class citizen status thereby not allowing him to move from his log cabin in Illinois to the WhiteHouse. It is after all time that the elected representatives pulled together and collaborated so this country with its many diverse backgrounds from Western and Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America and the rest can function again. In a land where Utah has less in common with California, than Spain has with Hungary, where Connecticut and Texas are literally a continent away from each other and New York is like no where else in the USA, the mechanism of compromise, wisely anticipated by the Founding Fathers, has to become a central feature of the political process again.
Jay H. Ell is a peacenik. He is a firm believer in the two State solution between Israel and Palestine. He believes that Netanyahu, has been lacking in the statesmanlike approach to lead peace moves unlike some of his predecessors. Ironically, Netanyahu now is on the left in the current crisis, that has arisen from the kidnapping and subsequent murder first, of three Israeli teenagers, followed by the slaughter of a Palestinian teenager.
Again and again it has been Jay H. Ell’s conviction that the Israeli settlements are provocative and counterproductive and that some of the excesses perpetrated by Israel are contrary to the very tenets that the Israel democracy stands for. However, he has sadly been more and more convinced that the Hamas and Abbas lead Palestinians do not want peace. They want the destruction of Israel and a one state solution that does not include jews. Thus they and the Arab nations have engaged in war and non recognition of Israel repeatedly since 1947 when the UNO mandated a two state solution. It is hard to believe reflecting on the 67 year history that they were ever serious about a two state solution and peace. (Blog: Abbas and Arafat - The Same DNA - So Lets Get Real !).
World opinion, in general, has over the years become more and more antagonistic towards the Jewish State. Jay H.Ell has also reached the irresistible denouement that much of this is based on double standards. (Blog: ISIS, Sharia Law, Hamas Terrorism and the Methodist Church). This antagonism is taking place in a world where anti semitism is dangerously on the rise and is accompanied by attempts to isolate the Jewish nation state. (Blog: The New Anti Semitism in Europe and Boycotts of Israeli Universities). The fate of Israel is bound up to a large extent with the power of Iran and their possibility of gaining a nuclear capability. (Blogs: Obama, Rouhani, Netanyahu and Nuclear Negotiations and Obama, Netanyahu and the Ayatollahs - An Exercise in Futility). Up till the counter productive recent flare up, Jay H. Ell had not totally given up on a peaceful solution. (Blog: Netanyahu, Double Standards and the Middle East Peace Negotiations). However, the most recent escalation of events of rockets raining on Israel and Israel retaliating by bombing Gaza are enough to make anyone despair of peace.
TIMELINE
Kidnapping and murdering of three Israeli teenagers.
On June 12, 2014, three Israeli teenagers, while hitch hiking were kidnapped. There bodies were found on June 30. Tensions had been running high ever since the finding of the three youths. On one Israeli’s Facebook page 35,000 supporters agreed that there should be revenge.
In the interim, after the abduction, the Israeli’s launched an investigation, to find the victims and the perpetrators. It has to be noted that Hamas and the PLO did not make any attempt to apprehend the murderers. On June 15, Prime Minister Netanyahu announced that Hamas had been responsible for the kidnapping. Hamas denied responsibility but praised the kidnapping. On June 26, Netanyahu gave the names of the Hamas operatives responsible. The investigation by the Israelis to learn this had been determined as a result of widespread arrests and in the resistance to these a number of Palestinians were killed.
In the light of Hamas’s response and failure to investigate and or handover the kidnappers, what was Israel supposed to do in pursuit of those kidnapped and their murderers?
Kidnapping and murder of a Palestinian Teenager.
On July 1, one day after the retrieval of the bodies of the Jewish teenagers, a Palestinian teenager from East Jerusalem was kidnapped and murdered by an Israeli. It appeared obvious that this was in retribution for the Hebron Israeli teenager murders. On July 2, Abbas demanded that Netanyahu condemn the murder outright. On the following day, July 3, Netanyahu, “unconditionally condemned” the murder stating that Israel was a country of laws and rights. There was no place for murder, riots, incitements or vigilantism. He vowed that those who perpetrated this crime would be brought to justice. He telephoned the father of the murdered Palestinian youth to apologize on behalf of Israel and express his sympathies to him and the bereaved family at their loss. Busloads of Israelis payed their respects to the family of the slain teenager. On July 6, it was announced that six arrests had been made in connection with the murder of the Palestinian youth.
In the light of Netanyahu’s swift and decisive action what further is Israel supposed to do?
Hamas’s response and Israel’s counter to Hamas.
Hamas and Abbas
Hamas followed the script of its familiar playbook and almost immediately after July 1, using the pretense of the atrocity of the revenge murder, started raining rockets on Israel. These rockets, many made in Iran, were fired randomly and in greater numbers than in previous offenses, carrying further distances than ever before and were of greater sophistication. By definition they were attacks on civilians and red alerts went out as far as Haifa and every major city in Israel. This has been going on for over a week and a half. As the Mayor of Jerusalem said these are indiscriminately aimed at Jews, Muslims and Christians alike. Within a few days 750 targets were hit. Hamas has a new long range missile, also used in Syria, called the Khaibar M302, which has a 100 miles range putting 5 million Israelis in reach. It is estimated by the Israelis that Hamas has 10,000 missiles, most of which are of the shorter range type.
While Abbas, who recently joined Hamas, condemned the kidnapping of the Israeli teenagers, he did not call upon Hamas to quit firing rockets rather he argued that they have a legitimate right to counter the Israeli offensive forgetting that Hamas’s blitzkrieg had preceded it by a week . He also threatened to drag Israel to the World Court for human rights violations. (So much for Abbas being the last hope for a peaceful settlement).
Israel
Netanyahu has waged an internal battle as to whether to use drones and air power to knock out the Hamas arsenal and or to put troops on the ground. Netanyahu is in the unimaginable situation where Lieberman is threatening to pull out of the coalition because he is not hawkish enough. On July 8, a week after the first Hamas rocket landed, Israel struck through air power. They called up 40,000 reservists and there is every possibility that they still may be used. Within the first few days Israel claimed to have hit 200 targets and eliminated a third of the Hamas rockets. They have just hit the long distance rocket launchers.
In the light of Hama’s all out rocket attack with newer more dangerous rockets paralyzing activity in Israel and terrifying the citizenry, what was Israel supposed to do other than to wipe out the weaponry?
COLLATERAL DAMAGE
Israel
As the Hamas attack is not conventional warfare, all damage and casualties in Israel are intentionally collateral. Israel’s relatively early warning system, comprehensive shelter facilities, well worked out and often rehearsed drills as well as their anti missile screen, “The Iron Dome” have thus far limited non combatant devastation. Besides the chaos, fear, disruption and anxiety the continual bombardment causes, there has been only one death - a woman having a heart attack while rushing for cover and some injuries of innocents.
The way this is playing out in the media is that Israel is suffering minor inconvenience as daily life, in fact, grinds to a halt. The implicit and explicit media commentary on this is that Israel is overreacting in whatever their response is. In a way if Israel wanted to enter Hamas’s paradigm they should put women and children in the street every time their warning system picks up a missile and then smear Hamas for targeting women and children.
Palestine
There is plenty of collateral damage in Palestine in this instance Gaza. There are already a 130 dead and 600 injured. This is the whole objective of their modus operandi. Hamas’s anticipates Israel has to counter their unprovoked attack and take out the missile sites which just happen to be have been secreted in homes, schools, hospitals, mosques and even restaurants. Women and children are even put on the roofs of these sites to make sure they become martyrs. Israel tries to mitigate this outcome by dropping flyers exhorting the non terrorists to evacuate the areas.
The media, on cue, then interview the surviving victims who are merely pawns for Hamas’s and the PLO’s objectives. Their homes and pathetic belongings have been eradicated by the Israeli racists and Nazis. Most of the media imply or state directly that Israel has overreacted thereby vindicating the Hamas “preemptive” launching of rockets which fact is lost as being the reason for the Israeli “aggression”.
The medical services are overrun and they cannot cope and the doctors maintain that they have run out of iv fluids. Egypt’s Sissi, who detests Hamas, has opened the border to the injured for medical care. (You might think that Hamas, who know when they are going to shoot off missiles, would get in bigger stocks but if they were able to resuscitate the victims it might lessen Israel’s culpability). To quote Abbas they are victims of war crimes. Put another way Hamas and Abbas’s failure to get enough medical supplies in for the anticipated Israeli response and their failure to evacuate non combatants from their military installations is ostensibly responsible for further Israeli war crimes.
And it is going to get “better” for Iran’s Hamas as Israel are unlikely to stop this time before all or most of the missiles are obliterated. Ground troop involvement has to be a distinct possibility leaving more desolation and bodies. All the latter will then become further proof of Israel’s warmongering and fascism.
It is all part of a blatantly transparent plan that has been thought out by Hamas and Abbas and played and replayed over and over again. They don’t want a two party solution they want one state and that is Palestine. Abbas, with the UNO General assembly’s connivance has given the PLO statehood and the ability to take Israel to the International Court at the Hague charging them with war crimes. They have to rate their chances highly there. It all has the feel of inevitability of outcome similar to individuals taking corporations to the Supreme Court in the USA.
AT THE END OF THE DAY.
To quote Alan Dershowitz it is Hamas and Abbas that should be charged with war crimes for deliberately targeting civilians. It has directed it’s deadly arsenal at high population cities such as Tel Aviv, Haifa, Beersheba and Jerusalem. It also employs the “dead baby strategy” placing their munitions in private homes, schools, hospitals and mosques. The latter too constitutes a crime against humanity.
Hamas is part of the sociopathic Jihadi group that is tearing the Middle East apart. There are differing factions who are at each others throats. Central to all of this is Iran who have several prongs to their initiative to first dominate the Islam world and then become a nuclear super power. As far as the fundamentalist Jihadis are concerned it is not possible to reason with them. They have a different paradigm. Whereas life and its preservation are the fundamental value of the Judeo - Christian belief system it is not for fundamentalist Islam, where the hereafter will reward the martyr warriors with 40 virgins. Mothers exhibit pride for their “martyred” children.
At present it these fundamentalists that are the ones calling the shots in the Islamic world. While human rights and dignity for all is the conventional morality, it is not for the proponents of Sharia Law. Rather they cynically use the paradigm of humanity and life that the Israelis function by to attack them. This is similar to the tactics utilized by the fascist Hitler who used democracy to attain power and the way the totalitarian Stalin abused the concepts of total equality, murdering and suppressing his own, while charging the rest of the world, in terms of their own paradigm, that they were depriving their own citizens of human rights.
So at the moment in the Arab world and the Middle East we are witnessing a clash between two Islamic factions, the Sunnis and the Shia, that embrace the same paradigm of life or rather death, but are vying for control. In the middle is tiny Israel, with its faults, that represents every value and tradition that they despise. Also in the middle are the Palestinians who are fed and brainwashed with a diet of hate. They have been used as pawns since 1947 and robbed of the formation of a State that the UNO resolution mandated.
Jay H. Ell has not given up hope, totally, but is forced to ask again: In the words of his late mother, “I Ask with Tears in my eyes”, what is Israel supposed to do?
SPORT HAS OUSTED SHOW BUSINESS AS THE ENTERTAINMENT
In a world where sport has become the major source of entertainment and escapism, the persona that dominate the arena are celebrities that are worshipped and become the role models for literally hundreds of millions of youth, of all ages. In this blog Jay H. Ell would like to feature Roger Federer.
Sportsmen and women have taken over from film stars as the fantasies for all. They are the focus of media attention because they play such a central role in the media’s programming and the media is all about selling soap. So the sports people have become the highest paid entertainers as it were.
In 1965 the winner of the US Golf Open received $25,000. Today in Golf Tournaments, that are played every week, if you come 40th that is your prize. If you are fortunate enough to win the US Open today you will collect close to $1.5 million, more than making up for inflation. And that is just the beginning - because the real money is in sponsorship. The same corporations that are paying for the advertisements that make sports events prime media events are vying for the sports personalities’ endorsements on everything and anything especially the sports equipment and apparel.
More Americans, over a hundred million, watch the final of the SuperBowl than any other event in the USA including Presidential debates. A thirty second advertisement costs $4.5 million. This does not include the extravagant expense for the production of the commercial. The World Soccer Cup event generates, and all that surrounds it with construction and the whole razz a mattaz, a budget that could run a small country. The franchising of sports paraphernalia for these and for any major team or event runs into the billions.The betting on these events, legal and illegal, chalks up similar numbers. So the stars and personalities are big big business and are in fact brands in their own right.
WITH BIG MONEY COMES CORRUPTION, DRUGS AND GAMBLING
With such large amounts of money at stake and the role that sports now assumes as the circus in chief in the bread and circuses that keep the masses happy, there is obviously a host of unsavory byproducts. These include fixing of games, illegal drugs and disproportionate media attention to the personalities involved. The head of FIFA, Sepp Blatter, is an unashamed crook. Books have been written about his corrupt behavior and the allocation of World Soccer Cup venues, for example, and what he extracts from host countries. Yet he sits next to heads of States at matches. Coupled with these continued corruption scandals surrounding sport is focus by the media on the stars.
Michael Jordan, who has not played basketball for well over 15 years, net worth is over a billion dollars as he still collects close on a $80 million a year in sponsorships. He has a greater net worth than Paul McCartney the most prolific and long living Beatle. The latter group having revolutionized society as well as music in the sixties and the most iconic of the icons.
In today’s world in team sports the soccer stars are up there. However, they are still traded like commodities and their owners on selling them seem to reap larger sums of money than they do. Garreth Bale was transferred to Real Madrid the Spanish Soccer Team for close on $200 million. Don't cry for him or Cristiano Ronaldo, whose club Manchester United received a similar amount from Real Madrid, as they have become brands. Ronaldo, an unashamed megalomaniac who claims how beautiful he is, has his own everything from underwear to scent. His net worth is said to be a quarter of a billion dollars.
INDIVIDUAL SPORTS LIKE GOLF AND TENNIS IS WHERE THE REAL MONEY IS AT
But the real earnings are in golf and to a lesser extent tennis. These are individual sports. About 4 years ago Tiger Woods and Roger Federer were number one and two in earnings in the world, both well over $60 million annually. When interviewed by a journalist as to whether the fact that he was number 2 bugged Federer, the latter replied, “You don’t have to cry for me I am doing more than alright”.
Those two were reported to be very good friends till scandal hit Woods with a vengeance. According to news reports Federer attempted to contact his friend and received no response. At the best of times Wood’s image with the world was not that positive. His attitude to the fans, fellow players and the media was at best testy. Their relationship received much publicity and it was at a time when they were both poised to become the greatest in history in their respective sports. Federer went on to achieve this and Woods still has a way to go as his career ground to a halt with reports of his unbelievable womanizing and unsavory divorce.
Woods was not only the poster child of golf but also emblematic of sports stars who run amuck and are unable to cope with the disproportionate attention and rewards they receive for their psychomotor skills. The list is endless and is the focus of daily news reports not to mention the media tabloids.
ROGER FEDERER
All this is by way of background as Jay H. Ell really wants to eulogize Roger Federer, who in all of this, has maintained a way of life, dignity and unashamed frankness that makes him a role model for all those impressionable youth, of all ages, that worship the God, sport. He is very topical as he has just narrowly lost the Wimbledon Mens Tennis Final, (total purse $12 million), one of the world’s most prestigious sporting events, in what has been rated one of the greatest finals ever. But more about that later.
Greatest tennis player ever
Federer has broken every record there is in tennis. He has won more Grand Slams than anyone in history, 17. He is one of a select club, there are only 7 players, that have won a major on all surfaces in all four Grand Slam venues. He has reached the final at least five times in each of these vemues. In addition Roger has been in more Grand Slam semi, (35) and quarter, (42), finals than anyone ever. He was the World’s number one for a total of over 300 weeks over the years and has earned close to a $100 million in prize money alone.
Long long ago when he was nowhere near these majestic Everestlike heights, John McEnroe, a 7 time Grand Slam winner himself, the most insightful and intelligent of all the tennis commentators, stated he was on his way to become the greatest tennis player. McEnroe, who is truly religious about tennis, speaks in ever glowing terms about what Federer has done for “our sport”.
When it appeared inevitable that he and Tiger Woods were going to break their sport's respective Grand Slam records in short order, he did, and Tiger hasn’t and looks less and less likely to do so. The “Fedexpress” has maintained consistency for 12 years never being rated lower than in the top 4 players. Tiger, the golf phenom, has not been able to retain this consistency for whatever reasons. One myth both of them have broken is the fear that if one player is so dominant as both he and Federer were, the standard of their respective sports would be lowered as the competition withers away. History has shown, rather that it elevates the game of a whole host of other players.
Federer the tennis maestro and the thorough gentleman off and on court
His game, demeanor and dress are a joy to behold. He moves with effortless grace, quickness and the flexibility and suppleness of a ballet dancer. As the late John Arlott, the iconic cricket commentator, would have said of him, “Sheer poetry in motion”. His dress is distinctive and appropriate to the Gentleman’s game. It is elegant and stylish without a hint of flamboyance or showmanship. He displays limited controlled emotion during a set and if wins the set there is a smile and a jerk of his left forearm with a clenched fist upwards. Winning, results in falling on the ground in ecstasy, in grand slam events that is. Loosing, he does lose, results in a generous tribute to the conqueror and a quiet sadness and even a tear. He does not hide the fact that he dislikes loosing intensely. Never, but never, a temper tantrum or the slightest moan at any stage.
When interviewed there is always a recognition and respect for his opponent who he never underrates. There is no false modesty either and he is as likely to say, “I really felt I played well today” as he is “My service let me down”.
All in all he is the real deal and as you may have picked up Jay H. Ell is a fan. He is in good company. He has been the winner of the ATP World tour fan award for 11 years running 2003 - 2013 and the holder of the Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship award, chosen by the ATP tennis players, 9 years out of 10. In addition he was won the Arthur Ashe Humanitarian Award in 2006 and 2013. He has a huge charitable trust and high up on his agenda is the African underprivileged and education is his focus. His objective is to reach a million children by 2018. In fact he is a dual citizen of South Africa, where his mother hails from, as well as Switzerland.
His life long partner Mirka Vavrinec has been a constant companion and they have two sets of twins. The girls are now 5 years old and often join Mirka and Federer’s parents in the players box in really big matches. Roger when he was confronted by an interviewer that he was fortunate in that he was able to afford help, smiled and said, “I am a modern father. I help. I get up. I change diapers”.
2014 WIMBLEDON FINAL VERSUS NOVAK DJOKOVIC FROM SERBIA
Federer long considered over the hill at 33 years came back to Wimbledon with a vengeance in 2014. Even Djokovic at 27 years is considered a bit long in the tooth on the current tour. Each year past 28 on the world tennis scene is considered equivalent to a“dog year”. So the Swiss born maestro should have called it quits long ago.
Djokovic is the current world number one and if not for his temperament he might have won a few more slams. He has been a Grand Slam champion 6 times prior to this game and had won Wimbledon once before. In a grueling five set match he bested the legend by 3 sets to 2. The consensus was that no-one could stand up to the Serbian in rallies and to beat him Federer had to change his game to come to the net more often. As it turned out Federer matched him stroke for stroke in some stunning rallies. Djokovic passed Roger more than might be expected at the net while the latter surprised all by out serving his Serbian opponent.
As in all of these epic contests the result turned on a few points in the several hundred played. Djokovic being fortunate enough to be on the right side of those.
In case you think Federer is thinking of hanging up his Nikes, think again, as prior to the final he made it quite clear he was continuing win or lose. Tennis fans, perhaps more in hope than in sincerity, have polled by 67% to 33% that he will win another Grand Slam.
Finally, why is Federer not in every magazine featuring his positivity. No-one has dominated a sport as totally since Nicklaus in golf, Jordan in basketball, Pele in soccer, Bradman and Tendulkar in cricket, Gretzky in ice hockey, Vince Lombardi in American Football, Danie Craven in rugby football and Babe Ruth in baseball, for example. Why doesn’t “People” feature him and his family especially the unique situation of two sets of twins together with his tennis genius.? Why is his home, I am sure it is incredible with unique Federer features, never featured in the homes of the rich and famous? Simply, because he is too private and normal. He doesn’t publicly humiliate his wife and seeks a private life when not pounding a tennis ball. Outside of the Cosby tv. family, is there any family less dysfunctional? Jay H. Ell is sure like everyone else there are problems. But these are not for sale at any price.
Sadly, “The Real Deal”, as a human being is not big news.
The Republican agenda has been taken over by the Supreme Court. This bizarre circumstance has come about as a result of the fact that this present Republican Congress has done less than any other in history. Each time the Supreme Court issues a judgement it is welcomed by the Republican establishment. As expected, (Blog: The Supreme Court, The Constitution and Sanity), the Supreme Court ruled, in the Hobby Lobby case, that a corporation, whom they had already ruled was an “individual”, could as a result of their religious belief, be exempted from obeying a law of Congress, which, in this instance, just happened to be a part of Obamacare. (More about this decision later).This was greeted by John Boehner, Republican leader of Congress and Tom Cruz , one of the Republican leading lights in the Senate, with wild affirmation that Obamacare was unconstitutional. Republican Senator Mike Lee chipped in to the effect that, what were women complaining about as they use contraception for “recreational purposes”.
Boehner’s only contribution to legislation has been to try and rescind Obamacare so it was understandable that that he was so elated. This decision has hobbled the Affordable Health Care Act.
Contemporaneously with the Republican Congress doing nothing and the Supreme Court doing everything, Obama has been issuing Executive orders where he is able to address the urgent needs of healthcare, minimum wage, equality in pay for women, protecting LBGT’s from work discrimination, climate change, infrastructure improvement, job creation, immigration reform and the like. This has angered the Republicans who, presumably, are very happy for all policy to emanate from the Supreme Court. They have threatened to sue Obama for unconstitutional behavior for his efforts. If litigation materializes as to whether Obama is behaving constitutionally or not it will be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court. The latter have already registered irritation at his use of executive orders. (Blog: The Climate Changes for Climate Change).
America is now faced with the situation that the Executive and Judicial branches of government are legislating and the legislature, whose job it is to legislate, is merely cheering and jeering them on.
ROBERTS COURT’S PHILOSOPHY
The Robert’s Supreme Court in addition to enshrining the rights of corporations, has ruled again and again in favor corporations against ordinary individuals. It has equated money with freedom of speech and in fact stated that the more money you have the more freedom of speech you were entitled to. In addition they have allowed individuals as well as their corporations to give as much money as they liked to political causes, decreased the influence and power of trade unions, stripped the provisions of affirmative action, denuded the power of the protection of voter rights thereby allowing States to undo what they were mandated under civil rights legislation, restricted abortion rights and on and and on.
The Supreme Court have now consecrated into law that some individuals, (corporation individuals), have more rights than others.
As a result of giving the corporation a persona, a few “giver individuals”, using their corporations as a cloak, can override the rights of millions of the “taker individuals”. Thus the alleged religious beliefs of the few corporation individuals count and not the beliefs of tens of millions of others that are their employees. To quote Dana Millbank this cornerstone of their rulings and philosophy is a fiction. As was observed by Justice Marshall nearly two centuries ago, “A corporation is an artificial being, invisible and intangible,and existing only as a contemplation of the law.
Now the majority of this court claim to be strictly constructionist, that is they are true to the literal interpretation of the Constitution, (1787), out of which flowed the 1789 Declaration of Independence. Jay H. Ell believes that this is the most activist court he has encountered in history . How else could you interpret their judgements in the light of the preamble paragraph to the 1789 Declaration?
“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator, with inalienable Rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
REPUBLICAN BOEHNER’S AGENDA COINCIDES WITH SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Now if Boehner had effected all the Supreme Court had legislated on he would be very happy. The Court's agenda is so so the Republican agenda. Corporations are people, the rich “givers” are being championed over the poor “takers”. Voter suppression laws are being given the go ahead. The latter is a key plank in the Republican strategy to win back the Senate and keep the turnout low.
Most importantly Obamacare has now taken a massive knock at the hands of the Court. Notwithstanding the alleged narrowness of the decision it is believed that at least 50% of women work for companies that are “closely held”. There are, according to The Daily Beast, 80 companies, lined up to take advantage of the Hobby Lobby decision. Also this feeds into the anti female agenda the Republicans are associated with, whatever their reasons are for perpetuating it. Several of their leading lights are openly against all contraception period and those that know better just shut up. So happiness has been registered by the Republicans at the decision because they believe it is priority to knock Obama and his Care as this meets their base’s needs. They elect to do this again once again at the expense of women. One wonders if there are any women in their base and if there are why do they take all this demeaning behavior?
THAT BIZZARE HOBBY LOBBY DECISION.
While Jay H. Ell is no legal scholar the Hobby Lobby decision giving the individuals, that hide under the cloak of their corporation, more rights than anyone else, seems to be more a reflection of the majority of the Court’s beliefs than it is of any legal sense. The argument that this is a “narrow decision” was refuted by the majority themselves. They have interpreted their judgment to apply to all the scores of cases that are languishing in the lower courts with regard to the denial of contraceptive rights for women under Obamacare. Some of those litigations are far broader than the Hobby Lobby case. The latter only applied to those contraceptive methods that the corporation individuals believed were abortifacients.
The judgement, written by Justice Alito, who is right of Ghengis Khan, is a tautologous collection of distortions of legal precedents and misrepresentation of the intent of legislators in the Religious Restoration Act.
Medical opinion disagreed with Hobby Lobby’s beliefs.
This brings Jay H. Ell to one of his arguments that this decision did not make legal sense. The American Medical Association and The College of American Obstetricians and Gynecologists, to name two of the authors of briefs, maintained that the contraception methods quoted by the Plaintiffs were not abortifacients. Also the health effects of contraceptive medications on women’s health were touted at length. Justice Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, argued that that was irrelevant! What mattered was not whether the contraceptives were abortifacients or not, what was relevant was what these corporate individuals believed that they were. So it is inconsequential that the corporate individuals are talking rubbish when depriving millions of American women of their rights as long as they believe that they are not wrong.
While belief often plays a role in legal decisions the Courts often define what the basis or circumstances of accepting these beliefs must be. This is lacking in this instance. The Court just believed that the plaintiffs believed this drivel. They set no parameters as to what criteria to use as belief for subsequent cases. Where there is a subjective basis to a right or opinion it is expected that the standard should be very high before accepting it. For example, businessman Michael Potter’s “religious” objection is,coupled with his statement, “I don’t care if the Federal Government is telling me to buy Jack Daniels or birth control. What gives them the right to do that?” The litigation thus will become a bottomless pit as Justice Ginsberg, in her dissent, correctly prophesied, that it would become.
As a matter of a fact there is some doubt as to what Hobby Lobby, who claim to be guided in business by their faith, does really believe. According to CNN Money, the firm has millions of dollars invested in their 401(k) pension plans in contraception for women. The drugs and devices that they named in their litigation are manufactured by companies that they invest in
Court extrapolated it’s judgement to all cases involving refusal to pay for women’s contraception.
The Court then, in a series of orders issued within forty - eight hours of their judgement, maintained that their law now applied to the court cases in the Federal Appeal Courts and thus the lower courts where objections were in some instances to providing any contraception. The court did not indicate that they had reviewed these litigations and what was the basis of religious beliefs of the privileged corporate individuals. So how can the Hobby Lobby decision be a precedent for them? At the very least the majority court opinion should have given the lower court guidelines as to what constituted religious belief other than plaintiffs say so. There are over a 100 cases pending and as Justice Ginsberg warned in her dissenting opinion just two days prior to the orders issued by the Court, this ruling was of startling breadth.
Court maintained that religious beliefs not related to contraception were irrelevant.
The next problem with the Court’s opinion was that it was only religious beliefs relating to contraception that the court would accept. Religious beliefs relating to other treatments would not be accepted as grounds for not providing them. The Seven Day Adventists firmly held belief that no blood products be administered was specifically excluded as being valid for payment exclusion on the basis of religious belief. Also the Church of Scientology corporate individuals were specifically instructed that their religious beliefs on vaccinations just would not cut it. If a group of corporate individuals sincerely believed that Aids is G-D’s punishment for deviant behavior they still have to cough up and pay for the antivirals. Or if Muslim or Jewish corporate individuals don’t want to pay for pig valves for valvular disease they still will be responsible.
This is religious discrimination of the highest order. If the basis of the Court’s decision was The Religious Freedom Restoration Act this cannot apply to only one religion’s belief system. The religious belief system that contraception, in general, is taboo, is a doctrine of the fundamentalist churches and Catholicism and are not followed by over 90% of Catholic women in America.
POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS
Both sides claimed advantage. How this can help the Republicans is difficult to understand even though it is ostensibly a knock to Obamacare. At the end of the day it is so easy to categorize it as an attack on women by five old white men. If Jay H. Ell was a Republican he would maintain that this is a Supreme Court Decision and as such it must be respected. The Republicans by identifying with it, lead by cheerleader Rush Limbaugh, have to defend it to the women of America. Hillary Clinton has chimed in that this may lead to a single payer medical system and all the Republican candidates for Presidency supported it except Chis Christie, who has enough troubles of his own.
The judgment came at the same time that Obama took on Boehner’s threat to sue him and he issued more executive orders on immigration. This decision adds fuel to the fire that Obama is a President acting contrary to the Constitution. As far as Obama is concerned - “Sue Me!”. He has openly lost patience. According to Dan Balz of the Washington Post his disrespect for the Republican tactics has hardened to contempt.
The Republicans and the Supreme Court for that matter have no sense of history. They cannot behold how they will be viewed in history. There is no hope for the directionless Republicans who are mired in their own internecine struggle and united only against the Democrats. At one stage Jay H. Ell believed Chief Justice Roberts had a sense of history, (Blog: The Robert’s Supreme Court and Obamacare Part 2), but he too has merely became the orchestrator of making America an uneven playing field.
WHY?
Why on earth would the Supreme Court act in such a seemingly capricious manner? Basically, they are have put into law that a few individuals, that form a corporation, on the basis of their beliefs, right or wrong, can outweigh the rights of millions of people on the issue of contraception.They have given corporation individuals this advantage in several other instances but why this bias on contraception? Now we know they are all elderly massively conservative white men appointed by Republican administrations. But there has to be more than all this for this, at kindest, it is the most quaint legal judgment since Bush v Gore.
It just so happens that the beliefs of all five just might coincide with those stated by the Hobby Lobby corporate individuals. All five Judges are fundamentalist purist Catholics whose doctrine on contraception happens to coincide with their own. It is very difficult to explain their ruling on any other basis than that they were following Catholic doctrine. If this is so, one wishes they would follow through on the Pope’s exhortation to support disadvantaged individuals. If they did the latter it would also be in sync with the philosophy and intent of the American Constitution that is their responsibility to interpret.
Just on final point the Courts of Justices Warren and Burger that were said to be “activist”, merely interpreted law in the context that “All men are created equal”. The context of the Roberts Court’s legislation is that some men are created more equal than others.
