In Vain


Back before Republicans were Republicans, a Republican president stood at a battlefield in Pennsylvania and stated

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.

In an unincorporated area outside of Tucson, Arizona in January, 2011 six people were killed and 23 individuals injured, apparently by one Jared Lee Loughner.             Critically injured, Representative Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) survived but last week announced her retirement from congress.

No verdict is anywhere in sight for Loughner, who faces a hearing in four months to be determined whether he has become mentally competent and hence able to stand trial.          But the verdict is in on the the results of the shooting: the dead have in fact died in vain.

In the justified celebration over Giffords' improvement and spectacular recovery from a horrific activity, noting that the dead have died in vain is almost as popular as was Bill Maher's statement, in the wake of the September, 2011 terrorist attacks, that the Muslim terrorists were not "cowardly."       Maher was right, of course; the perpetrators were evil but, expecting to die in their abhorrent act, were not cowardly.

Commonly, we try to make sense and to find good in the death of individuals, especially if it comes in the course of a vicious crime.      It is some consolation to the living, especially to the friends and loved ones of the deceased.

But just as the stakes were sufficiently high for Abraham Lincoln to to urge that the dead of the Civil War should not be in vain, so it is that the consequences of that January day in Arizona be seen clearly.       Last Wednesday, Pia Carusone, Chief of Staff to Giffords, told Chris Matthews on Hardball

It was determined it seems that the gentleman was, you know, really mentally ill.    And it had nothing to do with it being in Arizona or it being a difficult part of the country politically.    It wasn't that.    It could be in anyone's community.

We don't know whether the shooting had anything to do with the politics of the southwest.     And Lougner's elevator probably didn't reach the top, though, contrary to Carusone's suggestion, he has been found not mentally ill but not presently competent to stand trial.

But that is of minor significance compared to Carusone's assertion "it had nothing to do with it being in Arizona."       Because it likely had a great deal to do with "being in Arizona."      Shortly after the shooting, we read in the Arizona Republic

One thing lawmakers could do is ban high-capacity magazines like the 33-round type apparently used in the Tucson shooting, said Robyn Thomas, executive director of the Legal Community Against Violence, a San Francisco group dedicated to preventing gun violence.

"That created a huge part of the problem in and of itself," she said. The shooters in the Columbine, Fort Hood and Virginia Tech massacres used these types of magazines, Thomas said.

Magazines holding more than 10 rounds were banned under the 1994 assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004. Even during the ban, existing high-capacity magazines were still permitted for sale.

"It's not to say that would have stopped him, but it might saved lives had he not been able to discharge so many bullets so quickly without even having to stop for a moment," she said.

Arizona is not the only state which has failed to enact its own restrictions on high-capacity magazines.     But some states have, and Arizona is one of only three states to allow citizens 21 years and older to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.       (The other two are the extremely rural states of Alaska and Vermont.)

Barack Obama, elected on a slogan of "change we can believe in," gave a well-received speech following the crime in which he claimed

Already we've seen a national conversation commence, not only about the motivations behind these killings, but about everything from the merits of gun safety laws to the adequacy of our mental health systems. Much of this process, of debating what might be done to prevent such tragedies in the future, is an essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government.

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized - at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do - it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

When leadership was called for, the President cowered.      The murders had little to do with guns or the murderer- it was because we say mean things to each other.      The response was so inadequate as to be reprehensible.     On the positive side, however, Obama was no doubt pleased that it enabled the mainstream media to claim that both sides poison the political environment.      And to keep the NRA off his back.

Last Tuesday, President Obama gave his third State of the Union message.       A partial list of the broad range of topics would include:      manufacturing employment; the financial sector; China; Iraq; secondary and higher education and vocational training; immigration; energy; infrastructure repair; governmental regulation; earned benefits; tax reform; Osama bin Laden; Muammar Qaddafi.         After a year to think about it, and on an occasion which featured the triumphant return to Capitol Hill and the hurrah of Representative Giffords, President Obama said the following about gun violence:
         


Share |

If It's Broken, Expand It


The thermometer may be plunging, with rain, snow, or sleet the forecast in your area.      But it's always a good day to criticize Newt Gingrich's immigration plan.

Two of the litmus tests for a Republican is a demand that taxes be lowered for the wealthy and reasonable regulations on the business community be minimized.        Joining those non-negotiable items now is the determination to "control the border."        Though far more reasonable than the other GOP demands, no Republican has yet acknowledged that President Obama has been far more successful pursuing this goal than was either George W. Bush or Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6).          (Bush the Elder has become largely disowned by the party faithful.)       Part of Gingrich's immigration policy, at various times described as "compassionate" and "humane" is the idea Newt often repeats, as he did at last night's GOP presidential debate (transcript, here) in Florida:

You should have a guest worker program, probably run by American Express, Visa or MasterCard so they minimize fraud, which the federal government won’t do. And you should have much stronger employer penalties at that point because you can validate it.

The federal government's current temporary worker program consists of the H-2 visa, broken down into the H-2a visa (agricultural) and the H-2b (non-agricultural) visa.       Owing to the greater worker protections afforded under its terms, H-2b alone has grown in favor among employers.          

Mary Bauer and Sarah Reynolds of the Southern Poverty Law Center explained in March, 2007

In the process of attaining a H-2 guest worker visa, workers typically fall victim to bait-and-switch schemes that force them to borrow huge sums of money at high interest rates (often leveraging family homes) in order to land short-term, low-wage jobs that all too often end up shorter-term and lower-waged than promised. Under crushing debt, and legally bound to work only for the employer who filed petition for them, these workers often face the most dangerous and harsh of working conditions in places like shipyards, the forestry department, or construction, with no medical benefits for on-the-job injuries or access to legal services. Bosses often hold workers’ documents to make sure they don’t “jump jobs.”

There are two levels of the current guest worker program—H-2a for agricultural work, and H-2b for non-agricultural work. Though the H-2a program provides legal protections for foreign farm workers—such as a guarantee of at least three quarters of the total employment hours promised, free housing, transportation compensation, medical benefits, and legal representation—many of these protections exist only on paper. H-2b workers, on the other hand, have no rights or protections.

The exploitation of guest workers begins with the initial recruitment in their home country—a process that often leaves them in a precarious economic state and therefore extremely vulnerable to abuse by unscrupulous employers in this country. US employers almost universally rely on private agencies to find and recruit guest workers in their home countries.

These labor recruiters usually charge fees to the worker—sometimes many thousands of dollars to cover travel, visas, and other costs, including profit for the recruiters. The workers, most of whom live in poverty, frequently obtain high-interest loans to come up with the money to pay the fees. In addition, recruiters sometimes require them to leave collateral, such as the deed to their house or car, to ensure that they fulfill the terms of their individual labor contract.

The entirely unregulated recruiting business is quite lucrative. With more than 121,000 workers recruited in 2005 alone, tens of millions of dollars in recruiting fees are at stake. This financial bonanza provides a powerful incentive for recruiters and agencies to import as many workers as possible, with little or no regard to the impact on individual workers and their families.

Shorter explanation:   workers are exploited by unscrupulous employers and manipulative middle-men. Expansion of the guest worker concept is a truly terrible idea.      Its only saving grace is that it makes Newt Gingrich's harebrained scheme for "citizen" panels seem almost reasonable by comparison.     Barely.

Share |

Backbone Missing



When the great Dan Rather closed his last newscast as anchorman of CBS News, ending it with his signature word, he stated

To our soldiers in dangerous places. To those who have endured the tsunami and to all who have suffered natural disasters, and who must find the will to rebuild. To the oppressed and to those whose lot it is to struggle, in financial hardship or in failing health. To my fellow journalists in places where reporting the truth means risking all. And to each of you: 'Courage.'

Few of us are as courageous as those soldiers, victims of a tsunami, or anyone victim of a great tragedy or willingly risking their lives in combat.     And that is especially true of Chris Christie.    The Philadelphia Inquirer reported yesterday

Opening a new front in the battle over same-sex marriage, Gov. Christie called Tuesday for the issue to be put to voters in November as a proposed amendment to the state constitution.

The Republican governor's proposal, which would need three-fifths approval in the Legislature to be implemented, could for the first time in U.S. history ask voters to legalize same-sex marriage via a ballot question.

Christie's announcement came at an unusually timed news conference after a town-hall meeting in central New Jersey just as Democrats in Trenton held the first hearing on their new marriage-equality bill.

That bill, Christie said for the first time, will be vetoed if it reaches his desk because he opposes changing the institution of marriage. But a ballot question would avoid such an impasse, he argued, and be a more democratic way to "overturn hundreds of years of societal and religious tradition."

"This issue is too big and too consequential not to trust the people who will be governed ultimately by any change in law or maintenance of the current law," 

Christie said, suggesting that even the civil-rights battles of the 1960s could have been avoided had the issue been put to a referendum. "So I say today, let the people decide."

The legislation is likely to pass the Democratic-controlled Assembly and Senate.    However, Christie's move makes unlikely an override of the governor's veto because it gives GOP legislators cover.

Christie's reasoning, however, did spark a heated response from black leaders in the state, who apparently have a greater knowledge of recent American history than the governor.  The ambitious and opportunistic Newark mayor, Cory Booker, remarked "I shudder to think what would have happened if the civil rights gains, heroically established by courageous lawmakers in the 1960s, were instead conveniently left up to popular votes in our 50 states." Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver explained "people were fighting and dying in the streets of the South for a reason.    They were fighting and dying in the streets of the South because the majority refused to grant minorities equal rights by any method. It took legislative action to bring justice to all Americans...."   And the chairman of the Black Issues Convention pointed out "The 1965 Voting Rights act was enacted to overcome the systemic, intentional racial suppression of the black vote. It’s certainly a lack of historical understanding about how the expanding definition of who ‘We the People’ are has happened."

Chris Christie would like to become President someday.      Having decided to forego a bid for the nomination this year and instead become a prime surrogate for Mitt Romney, he likely will run in 2013 for re-election as governor in a state in which, according to poll(s), a slight majority of the electorate favors same-sex marriage.    

If Christie's veto is, as expected, upheld, he risks a backlash in a culturally liberal/progressive state with a strong gay rights lobby.       But if voters thereafter approve same-sex marriage, there will be far less hostility toward Christie's obstruction because it will have gone for naught.    Nevertheless, he will be able to go before a conservative national Republican audience in 2016 or 2020 and not have to defend gay marriage in New Jersey, given that it would have come about through a referendum over his personal objection.

Consequently, Chris Christie's call for a referendum is a brilliant political stroke.    But far from an impulse to honor the will of the populace, it is a profile in political cowardice from a guy, who, in the words of the New York Times' Kate Zernike, "has promoted his reputation as the big, blunt-talking guy." Christie should sign the bill or veto it; if the latter, he should stand by it and not slink behind a call for a referendum.      Lack of principle is no virtue.

The New Jersey governor may be demonstrating that cowardice is convenient and courage optional when a Repub politician is big and blunt-talking.      Zernike concludes by noting  

But as Democrats ridiculed him, Mr. Christie was commanding another news conference, this one about dismantling the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, a longtime goal.

A reporter noted that previous governors had the same goal. What made him think he would succeed? Mr. Christie looked exasperated in a friendly way, then smiled, and explained: “It’s me.”

Share |