ABORTION by Norm Gottlieb

Abortion is a highly emotional and polarizing issue.  The debate over when life begins and the rights of an unborn verses the rights of a woman to free choice over her own well-being will probably never be fully resolved.  It is a significant moral, religious, and political problem.  A somewhat different way to view the issue and to frame debate is the Right to Life” verses the “Rights of Lives” (the pragmatic impact of an unwanted pregnancy on the birth, family, and others.

Issues related to the Right to Life include:

  • When is an embryo capable of existence outside the womb?
  • Should conception by rape or incest be considered?
  • What about embryo abnormalities?
  • Should fetal tissue be used in medical research even in view of indisputable scientific merits?

Issues related to “Rights of Lives” include:

  • Are the mother-father persons able to rear a child responsibly?
  • Who will assume the costs of birth and child care?
  • What about the mother’s health?
  • What are the medical and legal considerations?
  • What are the realistic options for say a teenager or unwed mother to bear and provide for a child, for persons or families financially stressed, or for child raising by adoption or by others.

The decision to have an abortion is mainly a personal-medical problem.  Each case is unique.  The decision should not be made by legislative or judiical edict.


DRUGS by Norm Gottlieb

Globally, there are a number of issues critical to survivability and stability that need to be addressed:

  • Climate change and the environment
  • Nuclear weapons possession and proliferation
  • Poverty and the rich-poor gap
  • Healthcare and pandemic control
  • ISIS and efforts by others for world domination

In addition, nationally there are other issues threatening our well-being and democracy:

  • The influence of money in politics
  • Military expenditures versus domestic needs
  • Racial inequality and justice

All of these issues are important, but the so-called “War on Drugs” and current drug policies and practices may well have the most ramification and impact on so many facets vital to life in the United States and elsewhere.

The  “War on Drugs” is an issue demanding immediate action.  It is profound in its consequences and should be stopped.

The “War on Drugs” has been and continues to be an abysmal failure.  Learn from the past – do not repeat the mistaken alcoholic “prohibition”.  Drugs are more plentiful, potent and cheaper than ever before.  The use and addiction to drugs is a social-medical-political problem; force is not a solution to the problem but is actually counterproductive.

Drugs have been used by humans throughout history.  Today most people use drugs in one form or another, be it caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, prescription drugs, designer drugs, marijuana, cocaine or other substances. Demand for drugs is seemingly insatiable.  For most people the use of drugs is a matter of personal choice having little affect on their ability to function in society.  People use drugs to relieve pain, stress, monotony; for euphoria and social purposes.  Some people are not able to use drugs responsibly, and some get addicted

Laws labeling certain drugs as illegal and the “War on Drugs” have engendered a vast expenditure and waste of money and human resources. Some of the issues related to drug trafficking include an increase in gangs, cartels, weapons trade, money-laundering, immigration of people fleeing violence, inconsistent law-enforcement, targeting types of drugs used by minorities, underground economy not being taxed, corruption of officials, arrests for relatively minor n0n-violent offenses, mass incarceration, and international intrusions to try to interrupt the supply of drugs.

What can be done to ameliorate the situation?

  • Legalize all drugs
  • Declassify marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic
  • Regulate and control use by minors or for driver safety
  • Tax the production and sale of drugs
  • Vigorously enforce tax evasion, money-laundering, and other criminal activities
  • Educate people on harmful effects to reduce demand
  • Increase health care and treatments
  • Reform laws and enhance our judicial system
  • Expand research on drug use and alternatives
  • Change three-strikes sentencing
  • Reduce sentences for minor possession
  • Treat crack cocaine and its powder form equally
  • Reduce imprisonment and commute nonviolent offenders
  • Create programs for job training, counseling, mentoring, an for transitional support from prison to reestablishment in society


Immigration Approach  by  Norm Gottlieb


Immigration is a complex issue. Comprehensive immigration reform in the U.S. has not only stalled but appears to be unachievable at this time mainly for political reasons. A better approach might be to break the problem into parts that may have agreeable solutions that are respectful of human rights and economically viable.


The dominant issue regarding immigration is what the government and law enforcement officials are to do with the 11 million of undocumented persons living in the U.S. It is not possible to incarcerate every person who is here illegally, and it is not practicable to deport every undocumented person. In the name of humanity, it is not conscionable to break up families or separate legal children citizens from their parents.


The immigration problem is not only a human rights matter but is also a civil rights issue. Like most Americans who came to this country as immigrants, the currently undocumented are living here, working and raising families but are not able to vote, serve on juries, or have any voice in matters affecting their lives.


The vast majority of the undocumented are honest, law-abiding hard workers who should be given a reasonable, thoughtful, compassionate path to legalization.


Most of the undocumented have been living in the U.S. for many years working mostly in a large, thriving underground economy. Knowingly allowing this underground economy to continue is an economic concern and a breeding ground for corruption. Legalizing the undocumented will prevent exploitation of workers and foster equity and justice. Bringing these workers into the mainstream will increase tax revenues and improve national, state and local economies.


Many of the undocumented (some with false identification) are working for businesses as employees doing needful jobs not sought after by others in the labor market. In order for our economy to function, the U.S. needs a flow of immigrants for farm labor and domestic work.


All of the undocumented have been paying (directly or indirectly) sales taxes, gasoline taxes, property taxes and numerous other taxes and fees. Many have been paying into Social Security for which they will receive no benefit. Many are working at jobs complicit with their employers where they avoid workers compensation and income taxes.


Many of the undocumented have been forced to flee countries under life-threatening, corrupt and unjust circumstances. These are human beings, people just trying to survive without fear. They are desperately in need of a helping hand. For-the-most-part, their struggle to get here and work exemplifies the same character as others before them who built this country. Some of the undocumented are people who are economically depressed, trying to improve the well-being of their families. All of the undocumented should be permitted to come out of the shadows, apply for legalization, and if qualified should be granted legal residency, employment opportunities and civil liberties.


A number of the undocumented don’t want to become citizens because they have allegiance to their birth countries and/or family or social ties. Many of the undocumented have been living and working in the U.S, for years; they should be granted legal status, issued special identity cards, and work permits, allowing them to continue working, get drivers licenses, open bank account, travel freely to home and back. If they have skills sought by businesses, the newly documented should be allowed to compete with others in our capitalist system and be compensated fairly.


A precedent was set by President Reagan when he signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 granting Green Cards to millions of unauthorized immigrants. In 2004, President Bush proposed an earned legalization program for illegal aliens. Since 1986, all presidents have taken some executive action to ameliorate the problem.


SeniorsCAN urge President Obama and Congress to address and act on this dominant part of the overall immigration problem immediately with bi-partisan discussion and input from informed individuals and groups. Other immigration issues such as border control, guest-worker programs, and visitors overstaying their visas should be addressed at future times.


Immigration Border Control  by  Norm Gottlieb


SeniorsCAN recognize the need for border control. It is necessary not only to minimize future illegal entrants into the U.S. but also to focus on what appears to be the most contentious issue preventing comprehensive immigration reform.


Past and current efforts to seal the border between Mexico and the U.S. have not been sufficiently effective. In fact, it is practically impossible to keep determined individuals from entering the country. Erecting fences, blocking tunnels, deploying border patrols and taking surveillance measures have offered some deterrence. But entry into the U.S. is relatively open via Canada, the sea and air; coyotes evade and corrupt law enforcement; and many over-stay legitimate entries to continue visitation (VISAs) and working here (guestworker programs).


In spite of the reality that it is virtually impossible to totally “fix” the border control problem, many members of the House of Representatives have taken a firm position blocking any immigration legislation until after border control is achieved. This polarization mainly for political reasons by congresspersons from states with few undocumented workers, has stymied action. Continuing to not resolve immigration reform is giving de facto permanent residency to millions of the undocumented; inaction exacerbates the problem.


SeniorsCAN believe that solving the “border control” problem requires new thinking and multifaceted approaches, and that considering each part of the overall problem separately will facilitate deliberative debate and consensual agreement. Attempts to achieve Comprehensive Immigration Reform require too many compromises not agreeable to many legislators.


One possible solution would be to provide national identification cards to every person living in the U.S. White cards could be issued to citizens, green cards to qualified undocumented workers, and tan cards (with bold expiration dates) to guestworkers and visitors.


Producing these I.D. cards would be a massive, expensive undertaking but would solve numerous problems related not only to immigration but also to voting; jury duty; law enforcement; access to education, health care, welfare and social security; etc. The cards could be made tamper proof, possibly by embedding them with finger-print recognition.


Other approaches or regulations would be needed to solve related immigration problems such as: controlling businesses’ hiring persons with no identification or false documents, control of hiring services by homeowners, re-consideration of the law granting birthright citizenship, guest-worker and specialized hiring programs, et. al.


            “You’re an agitator.”
            “Not an alarmist?” I responded to my friend.
            “And a rebel, a persistent, pugnacious protester.”
            “All because of what I wrote about the plight of undocumented immigrants?”
            “In a word, yes.”
            I had written that apartheid was alive and well in America.  Just ask the millions of undocumented, mainly Hispanic folks residing in the good old USA. Don’t think so, do you? We don’t have a system of segregation and discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity toward this group, you say.  I beg to differ.  With regard to “illegals,” Jim Crowism is still dancing to the odious melody of “separate but equal” in our political discourse. Don’t believe we treat “the new Negro” from below the Rio Grande as canon fodder in the immigration debate?  Don’t believe we keep a visible, but powerless immigrant group subservient, our homebred “untouchables? Don’t believe this humanitarian crisis is a contemporary civil rights issue similar to what blacks went through in the 60’s?
You’re shaking your head. Denial is written on your face. Of course, being a fair person, you’re willing to listen to my reasons for these assertions. You are a fair person, aren’t you?  Well, let’s see.
            To get at the question of apartheid in the barrio, we just need to compare the state of the former slave in the aftermath of the Civil War with the present status of today’s undocumented immigrants.  What did the South most fear during Reconstruction?  You got it; suffrage for the freed black at the voting booth would alter political power in the old Confederacy. The Republican Party, supported by federal troops and the Fifteenth Amendment until 1876, protected the newly franchised black for a time. The Southern branch of the Democratic Party opposed this. That is, the white supremacists, better understood as segregationists,  simply didn’t want to share political power.
Today, the tables are turned.  How, you ask?  The new solid-Republican South doesn’t want to provide a “road to citizenship” for the undocumented, and in time suffrage.  That would be a political loss for the white voter, as many see it. Republican officeholders see this as an unmitigated disaster, quite possibly ending their reign. As for the Democrats, they now generally support a “path.”  They can literally taste potentially new Hispanic voters.
The net result is twilight status for the undocumented.  No citizenship path, no political rights on voting day, no real acceptance as a neighbor… In reality, only a “non-citizen resident,” very much like the slave before Fort Sumter, who was defined as property without legal rights, yet counted as 3/5th of a white voter for the purpose of determining Southern representation in the House. That was a neat political trick, one still  used today. Permitted to work, to pay taxes, to raise families, the undocumented qualify as citizens in every way but one. They are not permitted to vote. They have not been anointed with full citizenship.
            “That’s taxation without representation,” my friend declared.
            “But apartheid?”
            “Would protracted indentured servitude sound better?”
            “You are heated, aren’t you?” my friend asked.
            Still, don’t think we practice apartheid?  Okay, let’s talk economics.  What happened to the slave after Appomattox? He couldn’t continue in bondage backed by the whip, howling dogs, and the stern taskmaster.  What was left?  Tenant farming, a new form of servitude on the old plantation binding blacks to hard physical labor on the land and elsewhere, menial tasks.   Agricultural sweatshops one might say.  The cheapest labor possible with little recourse for the uneducated sons of Africa.
Today, the equivalent economic bondage for the ill-educated, undocumented immigrant is still hard, physical work.  Now, however, the cotton fields and tobacco roads have been replaced by migrant agricultural workers, the fast food industry, the Motel 6’s of the world, the slaughterhouses of the mid-west, and the custodial industry, all requiring cheap labor at or below the minimum wage.
And, guess what?  Industry likes this.  Cheap labor, high profits.  The public likes it.  Cheap burgers, more bang for your buck.  Government likes it.  Keeps inflation low on the back of sweat labor.  And, in every case, what can the undocumented worker do?  He is by definition, illegal. He’s a non-person.  He is a new form of quasi-property.  He exists, but not legally in the bright sunshine of equal opportunity and due process enjoyed by full citizenship. The whip is gone, but not the lash striking the backs of those who cannot challenge a system that benefits the status quo. Undocumented immigrants, forced into a shadowy economic enclave, find that the “underground railroad” has been replaced by the “underground economy.”
And we act surprised by all this.
            What? “I exaggerate,” you say.  Of course, you’re welcome to your opinion.  For my part, I fear I’m too lenient, too tolerant of the abuses heaped upon the undocumented. In that vein, I ask another question.  Almost akin to suffrage, what did the white man most fear during the high tide of slavery?  Come on.  Admit it.  He feared a slave rebellion.  A Nat Turner was always on the horizon, or a traitorous John Brown. People forced into inhuman bondage rebel; they seek freedom.  It’s a truism as old as Moses and the Israelites. That fear is still with us.
We don’t want the undocumented to rebel.  Witness the punitive nature of our immigration laws. Our harsh political debates about possible amnesty, so partisan, so angry, so “either or.”  Arming our police.  Against, terrorists, you argue.  Not against our own people, you state strongly. We’re done, you argue, clearing the Bonus Marchers from Washington or permitting another Watts Riots to disturb our tranquil lifestyle in Los Angeles. But you didn’t mention the incarceration rate of men of color, if not Hispanics in particular. They broke the law, you contend. “Jail time.” And you’re right.  But what social-economic circumstances led to the crime?  What ill-designed drug-related crime exasperated by our misplaced “three-strike law,” crammed our prisons with “lifers?”  When you add it all up, we hope that guns, laws, and prisons will keep the undocumented disorganized, docile, and compliant.
            Sure we try to soothe over the ugliness of this situation.  A modicum of health services in the emergency room…  Food stamps if falsified papers permit eligibility… A higher legal minimum wage for all, illegal workers among others.  But not too high…  A limited chance for education in our poorest schools… In short, the barest possible survival needs are met.  Exploited labor requires at least superficially healthy workers.
            What’s that you say?  “They broke the law.”  Your old refrain. They came here illegally.  They didn’t wait their turn?  They didn’t line up like everyone else.  They didn’t play by the rules.  Amnesty in any form would reward criminal behavior.  “We’re a nation of laws,” you bellow at me.  To some degree all these charges have a grain of truth, but not the whole truth.
            By force, the former slave was brought to this country, kicking and screaming. Those who made “the passage” on New England ships were chattel sold at the auction block in Charleston.  Even after 1808, when the importation of slaves was supposed to stop, it continued, thereby benefitting those needing such labor. Slave traders broke the law with the quiet compliance of federal frigates and state officials.
While not quite the same, millions of undocumented immigrants have trekked northward from Mexico and Central America not only for a better life, but because of civil wars partially encouraged by our foreign policy in Central America, or from drug wars not unrelated to America’s appetite for cocaine, heroin, and cannabis. Though we didn’t purchase Salvadorians and Guatemalans from Arab slave traders, our hands are not completely clean. Political refugees were encouraged to migrate. Add to this the desire of business to hire the undocumented and the government’s failure to stop this so-called illegal practice, and the notion of right and wrong gets even more muddled.
But they broke the law, you again assert. In response, I cry “culpability.” We all share responsibility for this situation.. We are not immune in the traffic of the undocumented.
When I added my new roof, I knew many of the workers were undocumented, especially when I innocently quizzed them about their backgrounds.  Did I care?  Not really.  I wanted a good price for the roof work.  The workers needed a job, even if there pay undercut union labor.  The company desired an edge in a competitive business in order to reap a healthy profit.  All of us benefitted by looking the other way…
In the supermarket, I never question of the immigration status of the “pickers” as I filled my cart with fruit and vegetables. Just get the “vegies” to me, fresh and cheap.  That’s all I wanted.  Sort of like the northern textile manufacturer who purchased cotton picked by slaves on Mississippi plantations, or a box of good cigars made from tobacco grown in the Deep South by “colored labor.” Who cares about the people who toiled in the field?
Certainly, it was economic exploitation.  That’s good old Darwinian business model and philosophy.  You know.  Survival. Low wages, high profits… And looking the other way by most of us was always appealing, as American as apple pie.  Of course, we’re not about to admit this.  So much easier to say, “You are illegal,” but never,  “You crossed the border without a permit in order to work in our sweatshops making inexpensive clothing to be sold in expensive shops in the Northridge Mall.”  That, of course, was after we had the car vacuumed, washed, polished, and dried at the local car wash.  Cheap labor is so nice, isn’t it?
            You’re being unfair, you say.  Biasing the evidence… Circumventing other facts…  Loading the dice…  Fixing the race…  And a hundred additional clichés…  Once more, you’re almost right.  I am biased.  But so is the historical record. For example, a visitor to George Washington’s home acknowledged the General treated his slaves most humanely, far better than most of his fellow Virginia citizens.  Most of those gentlemen, the visitor said, only gave their slaves “bread, water, and blows.”
 In a way, isn’t that what we’re doing today with our undocumented?  Bread was replaced with schooling by law, K through 12, but college was either denied or made exceptionally difficult to enter (the whip).  Water was replaced by jobs, but don’t aspire for more than menial work (the whip).  Yes, you’re guaranteed rights by our Constitution (bread and water), but if you challenge the system, you may be deported, even if your kids were born in America (the whip).  Blended families were not a guarantee. Anyone can be forced to go home. You are not safe. The Immigration Service is omnipresent (the whip).
“Much too harsh,” my friend countered.  “Sounds like a police state.”
“For the undocumented, the comparison is apt.  The undocumented are our dirty baggage — non-people, treated as such, today’s pariahs.  They are our current version of the former slave — intimidated, threatened, devalued — and sorely needed in so many avenues of our national economy.  We, if we are honest about it, cannot do without them, yet we don’t know how to live with them.”
“You reach too far.”
“Easy way to find out.”
“Become one for one month. Be an undocumented immigrant for thirty days. Step into their shoes. After that, you can cut me to the bone if I’m too harsh.”
“Confident, are you?”
“Tragically, yes. Look, the contradictions overwhelm us. Jeffersonian equality is thrown to the wind.  Constitutional protections are discarded for political expediency and votes at the next election.   Our national sense of fairness is kicked in the backside.  And ultimately, as James Madison stated, ‘Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant.’  Is that not our situation with regards to the undocumented?”
            “Okay.  You’ve made compelling arguments. Undocumented immigrants are treated roughly.”
            “In a discriminatory fashion.  They aren’t assimilated; they aren’t accepted as full citizens. No path to amnesty is provided.  Apartheid continues, Uncle Sam style.”
            “You’re catching on.”
            “It is a civil rights issue. Satisfied.”
            “Only if I could make things better.  Any ideas?”
            “Emulate King… Non-violence … Demonstrate… March on Washington… Mobilize the entire minority community, Hispanic, black, Asian… Shame the nation’s conscience.”
            “Now, who’s the agitator?”

WMD Threat by Norm Gottlieb

The U.S. does not have an enemy that poses a realistic threat to our homeland, life or property.   However, our possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction pose a significant risk to our own safety and security.

The maintenance and protection of practically all of these WMD’s are prone to accidents, thefts, misuse, rogue action, terrorism, equipment failure, obsolescence, deterioration, malfunction, human error, faulty intelligence, natural disasters, and unforeseeable consequences.

Continuing to spend vast sums of money on devices that are life-threatening, wasteful, and for the sake of humanity can never again be used is a form of insanity brought about by fear and paranoia.  This insanity also has elements of corporate profits, power, political advantage or posturing,  “Cold War” gamesmanship, military imperialism and misplaced priorities.

U.S. policy and practices of possessing WMD’s should be revisited and changed.  Whole classes of WMDs should be eliminated or curtailed.  In furtherance of our democracy there should be rational analysis and national discourse on this matter, taking into consideration not only the military need and deterrence value but also human rights, the environment conservation of natural resources and better use of manpower and finances.

SeniorsCAN respectfully urge President Obama to take action on this proposal.   Please Mr. President – Take the high moral ground and responsible humanitarian leadership.

We are fully aware of the opposition and inertia of the military-industrial-congressional complex.  But it is the right thing to do.  If you make the authoritative, principled case to the American people as only you can so eloquently articulate, we believe you would not only have their overwhelming support but also the grateful endorsement of the world’s peoples.

Be courageous.  End the “Cold War” mentality. Start an arms race in reverse.  We believe this acton would go down in history as the “Obama Declaration”.


SeniorsCAN call upon President Obama to take what would be the boldest and most far-reaching action toward world peace and security in the 21st century.

President Obama should declare that the U.S. will proceed as soon as possible to reduce our stockpile of weapons of mass destruction with the immediate aim of total elimination of chemical and biological weapons, and by 2030 the partial reduction of nuclear and conventional weapons to a minimum level needed only for deterrence and national defense.

To assure the world that we will act and abide with international treaties, we should permit the United Nations to inventory, inspect and monitor the reductions.

Such actions would benefit the U.S.  It would make us safer and less prone to accidents and terrorism.  It would enhance us economically by reducing waste and making money available for debt reduction, infrastructure improvements or other uses.  It would further U.S. prestige, international leadership, and consideration of human rights

B61 Nuclear Weapons by Norm Gottlieb

The B61’s are a remnant of the Cold War.  They are our oldest nuclear weapons and the Pentagon’s only tactical nuclear armament.

The only stated purpose of possessing and deploying B61’s and of proposing the “modernization” of these nuclear weapons is deterrence – mutually assured destruction.

Maintenance of B61’s based in Holland, Belgium, Italy and Turkey pose a risk of accidents and security at a cost not commensurate with its deterrence value.  We already have more weapons and a redundancy of systems capable of reaching any place on earth.

The possession of any nuclear devises above some minimal number deemed necessary for political purposes only makes the world less safe.  It not only does not make the U.S. more secure, but it actually weakens our defensive capability, our economy and our moral standing among nations.

It is unthinkable that a B61 would ever be used.  It could trigger a catastrophic nuclear war.  All of the B61’s in Europe are dangerous and provocative; they should be eliminated as soon as possible.

Norm Gottlieb

THE PRESIDENT’S WAR by Norm Gottlieb

The U.S is engaged in a de facto, never-ending, pre-emptive are of choice against Al Qaeda and affiliates, including the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria”.  We are also fighting Taliban factions and others identified as terrorists, Islamic extremists, militants, combatants, insurgents or rebels.

The CIA, The National Security Agency, and the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command have been killing suspected enemies within the sovereign nations of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and other countries.

President Obama should not assume “legal authority’ in conducting the so-called “War on Terror”.  Unilateral military action killing persons without due process is against U.S. principles and international law.

Congress should re-visit this issue and re-assert its Constitutional duty to declare war and to exercise its responsibility for authorizing or prohibiting targeted killings and for financing intelligence and military expenditures.

The U.S. is not able to kill all terrorists.  Attempts to rid the world of Al Qaeda using drones or other military means fosters retaliation.  Killing particular leaders of a group is a stop-gap measure virtually ineffective; new leadership always emerges.

Where is the moral outrage of the majority of Americans in allowing the President to continue this war putting people in harm’s way and depleting valuable resources?  Controlling international terrorism is not a license for an unlawful, on-going killing program.  This matter should be handled similar to methods used to fight the Mafia nationally and gangs locally.


By Norm Gottlieb:

At times, I feel frustrated with my inability to solve the myriad of problems facing this country, and those of the world.

At times, I feel impotent, that my voice is like blowing into the wind.

At times, I fall into apathetic depression, thinking of giving up taking what appear to be futile actions.

At times, I have thoughts of doing nothing; it would be easy to “let others do it”.

However,  soon after recognizing those feelings, I rededicate myself in the belief that the most effective changes occur by individual efforts leading to mass education and collective action.

I believe it is my duty as a responsible member of society to call for action toward solving even the most intractable problems by taking incremental, positive steps.

Most of the time, I feel compelled to action.  I am optimistic.  I have hope.