California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

Problems With American Constitution/Democracy: It Spells Out Rights But Not Responsibilities

by John Lawrence

Americans like to emphasize their rights, but don't talk much about their responsibilities. As far as the Constitution is concerned, there are none. As far as corporations are concerned, their only responsibility is to maximize profits by any means necessary. So the environment is not even a concern. Global warming is not even a concern. The only concern as far as business is concerned is business. "The business of America is business," so said President Calvin Coolidge in a 1925 speech. Corporations are supposed to maximize profits presumably as their responsibility to their shareholders which excludes about 50% of Americans who don't own any shares. We've already talked about a right and responsibility to work as a balance to Article 25 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family including food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

Rights should be balanced by responsibilities. Unfortunately, in the American Constitution and even in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, they're not. In the very last article of the UN charter we find the only mention of "duties":

"Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

So no responsibilities are spelled out except the obvious one of not infringing on anyone else's rights. There are no explicit duties in return for all the considerable rights and freedoms spelled out in the UN Charter. There is no obligation to work or pay, if possible, to contribute to the " food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services" that one has a right to expect. It just doesn't add up.

So where does this leave the homeless in America. Unlike the UN charter, the American Constitution does not guarantee the right to housing or anything else. Either you pay for it or work to create it or else. The City of San Diego has proposed a "data analytics program" to solve the homeless problem. Now they are going to spend perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars not on anything that would directly help the homeless such as actually giving them the money for rent, but to some firm for some technology. They've been doing the same thing for years. I remember 20 years ago they paid someone $100,000 for a plan to end homelessness. What happened to that? KPBS reported: "In a statement after the vote, Fletcher said the county will continue to tackle the crisis that exists on the streets, "but we must invest in preventative actions like this one that stops people from becoming unhoused. This new technology will do it." New technology indeed.

If the city designated certain areas where the homeless could legally set up their tents, this in and of itself would get them off the public streets. Instead, the city criminalizes the homeless for living on the streets. But where else can they go? Legal campgrounds with basic amenities like toilets and showers would immensely improve the homeless' lot at rock bottom, minimal expense. The City owns lots of land parcels where this would be possible. Buildings are expensive. Vacant land that the City already owns is not. Most homeless people don't want to be "sheltered" except in case of very bad weather. They like the individual freedom of having their own space even if that is a tent. Some have animals which are forbidden in shelters. Some like to consume substances which are forbidden in shelters. Some don't like to be snooped on which is what happens in shelters. Why doesn't the City get this?

What the City is deathly afraid of is that, if they really made the homeless comfortable like in a campground,say, the City of San Diego would become a homeless magnet attracting homeless people and other people, who just wanted to save money and not pay exorbitant rent, from all over the country. Many people, not only the down and out, would prefer minimum amenities at a campground to paying $2000 a month in rent which is about the minimum rent in San Diego. The powers that be don't want to make camping out a permanently acceptable lifestyle. But why not? Not everyone needs a structure to live in to have a reasonably normal and happy life. With a gym or YMCA membership you have access to shower and rest room facilities. Using public transportation supplemented with a bicycle you can get to a job. A cell phone expedites communications and even banking. It's just that the City fathers and mothers find it abhorrent that people could actually prosper in an unhoused environment with minimal amenities at least for a period of time. They don't want San Diego to become the homeless capital of the US.

Off the Top of My Head

Is There an Off Ramp to Peace in Ukraine?

by John Lawrence

In a hypothetical handshake between Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin, the agreement was that the war would be fought entirely within Ukraine's borders, and that the US and the west would provide no boots on the ground in Ukraine. Until recently that unacknowledged agreement has been honored by both sides. The US has sought to contain the war also by not providing Ukraine with any long range missiles with which it could attack Russian territory. The idea was that the two sides would slug it out on the conventional military battlefield although Russia clearly has the means by which it could attack anywhere in Ukraine with missiles. The recent attack on the Kerch bridge followed by missile strikes on Kyiv represents an escalation of the war. In the "conventional" war Russia has evidently been losing. From Russia's perspective they have other modes of attack than just a conventional battlefield war. In the words of one Russian general, Russia should bomb Ukraine back to the 18th century. At this point Ukraine has little or no air defense capabilities, and Russia could do just that. So will Russia violate the unwritten agreement that the war will be won or lost on the battlefield? Probably "yes" if they are losing on the battlefield. Russia has long range missiles; Ukraine doesn't. Russia has an air force; Ukraine doesn't. Ukraine has no air defense system. The US and the west will not use their air force resources within Ukraine. This, as Joe Biden rightly observes, would start World War 3.

So why is the West deluding itself by thinking Ukraine could win this war and things could peacefully continue from there? Why is Russia trying to win a conventional war that it clearly is losing. Why are there no negotiations to try and settle this conflict in order to prevent further human suffering and devastation of Ukraine? Why is there no peace process underway? The US air force is not going to come to the aid of Ukraine. The US is not going to give Ukraine long range missiles so that it could attack inside Russia's borders. As atrocious as the Russian side has been made to seem by western media, Russia has exercised at least some restraint by not wiping Kiev off the map with missile strikes. Now that dynamic seems to have changed. Russia can inflict much damage on Kyiv and western Ukraine that it has recently refrained from doing. But now the gloves may be off. So my prognosis is that the war will get even more destructive because Kyiv and western Ukraine are essentially sitting ducks for Russian missile strikes. So why should Russia continue to fight a war on the ground that it is losing? The US and the west is concerned that Russia could use a battlefield nuclear weapon. Russia does not need to do that in order to devastate Kyiv and western Ukraine.

Unless there is some attempt at a peace process or a negotiated settlement, the destruction of Ukraine and the suffering of its people will only get worse. Modern wars are not constrained to military troops on the battlefield as they were in Napoleanic times. Increasingly in modern warfare, more civilian than military lives have been lost. Demonizing Putin will not win the day for Ukraine. Ukraine has belonged to Russia more often than not for hundreds of years. It was essentially peacefully "given" to Ukraine by Nikita Krushchev in 1954. Nina Khrushcheva, the political scientist and great-granddaughter of Nikita Khrushchev, the then First Secretary of the Communist Party, said of Khrushchev's motivation "it was somewhat symbolic, somewhat trying to reshuffle the centralized system and also, full disclosure, Nikita Khrushchev was very fond of Ukraine, so I think to some degree it was also a personal gesture toward his favorite republic. He was ethnically Russian, but he really felt great affinity with Ukraine." Russia clearly has a historical interest in Ukraine, not to mention the fact that the Russian Black Sea fleet is based in Sevastopol which is in Crimea.

The US and the west continues to ignore Russian history at it's and Ukraine's peril. Russia will obviously not let the country that harbors its Russian military fleet become a part of NATO. That would almost be a contradiction in terms. The negotiated solution to this war, an off ramp to peace, seems unthinkable at this point, but decent human beings on both sides better start thinking about it. Unless they do, there will be even more destruction of Ukrainian civilians and of the Ukrainian civilization.

Off the Top of My Head

The Government Should Buy Out Parts of Florida Rather Than providing Money to Rebuild

by John Lawrence

Owners of real estate on Florida's barrier islands should be bought out. Climate change will continue to provide hurricanes that will wipe out homes and businesses in these vulnerable areas. It doesn't make sense to rebuild there. Rebuilding there represents throwing good money after bad. If owners' investments in real estate can be made whole, then they can rebuild or buy in some other area which isn't prone to climate change induced disasters. 7 News reported:

"SANIBEL ISLAND, Fla. (AP) — When Hurricane Ian struck Florida’s Gulf Coast, it washed out the bottom level of David Muench’s home on the barrier island of Sanibel along with several cars, a Harley-Davidson and a boat.

His parents’ house was among those destroyed by the storm that killed at least two people there, and the lone bridge to the crescent-shaped island collapsed, cutting off access by car to the mainland for its 6,300 residents.

Hurricane Ian underscores the vulnerability of the nation’s barrier islands and the increasing costs of people living on the thin strips of land that parallel the coast. As hurricanes become more destructive, experts question whether such exposed communities can keep rebuilding in the face of climate change.

“This is a Hurricane Katrina-scale event, where you’re having to rebuild everything, including the infrastructure,” said Jesse M. Keenan, a real estate professor at Tulane University’s School of Architecture. “We can’t build back everything to what it was — we can’t afford that.”"

Actually, it would be cheaper to buy out this real estate rather than to rebuild it along with all the associated infrastructure. Buying or rebuilding in safer areas where the infrastructure is already present eliminates the costs of debris removal and infrastructure rebuilding. Insurance companies will either go bankrupt or be devastated along with the other natural devastation. FEMA's budget will be used up trying to compensate for all the billion dollar weather disasters that are surely coming. These are no "500 year storms." That is pure fiction. These are once or more a year storms.Much of Florida will be underwater eventually as oceans continue to rise. The only thing that makes sense is to move away from the coasts in the most expeditious and least costly manner. Government can expedite this process so that home and business owners aren't forced back onto vulnerable properties and will have somewhere else to go to without losing their real estate investments.

Off the Top of My Head

Republicans Hate Socialism ... Except When They Need Help Themselves

by John Lawrence

When Superstorm Sandy hit, then Congressman DeSantis voted against giving help to New York state. Now after the Hurricane Ian disaster, Governor DeSantis is asking the Federal government for every dollar he can possibly get. This is typical Republican behavior. After all socialism is about helping people. Republicans want every ounce of help they can get for themselves while denying it to others. All of a sudden DeSantis is Joe Biden's best friend. Joe wants to help people, but he should think twice about helping DeSantis. First of all a hard look should be given to rebuilding on hurricane prone barrier islands. DeSantis, of course, wants the increased economic activity that rebuilding will entail for construction companies especially if the Federal government pays for it. Building Back Better in hurricane prone areas is not good economic sense. And it will cost a fortune in an inflationary era while only adding to inflation as the Federal government injects more money into the economy.

Robert Reich wrote in a recent email:

"No Republican governor has been more vocal in his opposition to what he describes as “socialism” than Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis. “I stand against socialism,” DeSantis thundered in Florida’s 2018 gubernatorial election. “Socialist policies have failed time and time again.” In June, DeSantis signed an education bill directing Florida’s Department of Education to develop a curriculum educating students on the evils of socialism (as well as communism)."

But now, when his state needs the money, DeSantis is either a full on socialist or a full on opportunist who, once he gets his, will be against anyone else getting theirs. In 2013 DeSantis said: "I sympathize with the victims of Hurricane Sandy and believe that those who purchased flood insurance should have their claims paid. At the same time, allowing the program to increase its debt by another $9.7 billion with no plan to offset the spending with cuts elsewhere is not fiscally responsible." So now after Hurricane Ian, which will run into the tens of billions, is giving the state of Florida the money DeSantis is requesting from the Federal government "fiscally responsible"? Reich poses the question: "So, would DeSantis call any form of government assistance to those in need “socialism?” Obviously, not when it's his ox that's being gored. DeSantis' hypocrisy is immense here, but it will probably work for him. He will take credit for "getting Florida and Floridians back to normal" as he enters the 2024 Presidential contest. Before Biden gives DeSantis all the money he wants, DeSantis should do a mea culpa, stating that he was wrong to vote against disaster relief for New York state after Superstorm Sandy.

DeSantis website headlines: "Governor Ron DeSantis Requests President Biden Approve Major Disaster Declaration and 100 Percent Federal Cost Share for 60 Days for Hurricane Ian" This isn't the first time that DeSantis has used Federal cash to tout his own agenda. Just prior to the fatal hurricane, DeSantis held a press conference in Jacksonville where he gave $1,000 checks to individual firefighters and law-enforcement officers that were being made available through this year’s state budget. Of course he didn't mention that this was cash the state of Florida got from the American Rescue Plan, Federal money which provided more than $8.8 billion to the state of Florida.DeSantis will likely continue to bash President Joe Biden and the Democrats for pushing policies that he says have caused inflation — which includes the massive spending included in the American Rescue Plan. I've got news for Gov. DeSantis: if he cared about inflation, he would take the money to recover from Hurricane Ian out of state taxes instead of letting the American taxpayer foot the bill while all the time giving Joe Biden no credit. He will take all that for himself.