Blaming Barack

Oh, how I miss (no sarcasm) the days when conservatives would blame the nation's ills on "unelected judges."

The website of Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) announces that senators Cruz and Mike Lee (R-Utah) have introduced

S. 2024, the State Marriage Defense Act, which respects the definition of marriage held by the people of each state and protects states from the federal government’s efforts to force any other definition upon them. The bill will ensure the federal government gives the same deference to the 33 states that define marriage as the union between one man and one woman as it does to the 17 states that have chosen to recognize same-sex unions. 

Cruz argues "the Supreme Court's reasoning requires the federal government to respect the primacy of the states in defining marriage." The Defense of Marriage Act denied to same-sex couples benefits which, Salon's Ian Millhiser notes, "were enacted through Congress' power under the Constitution to tax and spend money, a power which necessarily includes the authority to decide who is taxed and who receives federal spending."  In his majority opinion striking down the Act, Justice Kennedy wrote "DOMA rejects the long-established precedent that the incidents, benefits, and obligations of marriage are uniform for all married couples within each State." Kennedy's reasoning, observes Millhiser, is "a states' rights argument similar to the one tea partiers have used to claim Medicare is unconstitutional" and could be wielded to eliminate much of the social safety net.

Senator Cruz maintains additionally

I support traditional marriage. Under President Obama, the federal government has tried to re-define marriage, and to undermine the constitutional authority of each state to define marriage consistent with the values of its citizens. The Obama Administration should not be trying to force gay marriage on all 50 states. We should respect the states, and the definition of marriage should be left to democratically elected legislatures, not dictated from Washington. This bill will safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for its residents.

Section III, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as between a man and a woman, was found to be unconstitutional by a district court judge.  That was not done by the Executive branch- which stood by, refusing to defend the law in Court- but by the judicial branch.  The federal government under President Obama did not "undermine the constitutional authority of each state to define marriage consistent with the values of its citizens," a prerogative Kennedy declined to address.

The Obama Administration, which has never advocated a federal law legalizing same-sex marriage, has not undermined the constitutional authority of the state. Attorney General Holder has vowed that the Justice Department "will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections, and rights as opposite-sex marriages under federal law" (emphasis mine).  The Administration has not challenged the authority of individual states to deny to gay couples benefits  under state law.

But courts are finding otherwise.  Since the DOMA ruling, federal courts in five states have considered s-sm, and all five- including in Utah, Oklahoma, and Virginia- have decided in favor of the option.

And also, in Ohio and Kentucky.    In Ohio, a U.S. district court judge decided that for the purposes of obtaining a death certificate, the state of Ohio cannot discriminate in issuance of a death certificate against a gay couple legally married in another state.

And Kentucky, on February 12.  In the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Judge John G. Heyburn- without considering the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution- ruled in a case involving four couples that Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states.  He considered only

whether Kentucky can justifiably deny same-sex spouses the recognition and attendant benefits it currently awards opposite-sex spouses. For those not trained in legal discourse, the questions may be less logical and more emotional. They concern issues of faith, beliefs, and traditions. Our Constitution was designed both to protect religious beliefs and prevent unlawful government discrimination based upon them.

Even that court did not invalidate Kentucky's prohibition against s-sm, but rather extended to gay couples married in another state rights denied to gay couples married in Kentucky. Judge Heyburn ruled merely that same-sex couples could not be denied those benefits of marriage conveyed because they were legally married in another state. Kentucky must grant to same-sex couples married elsewhere the benefits of marriage but may continue (for now at least) to refuse its own residents the right to marry whomever they want.  Limited in scope, the decision perversely granted to some individuals who move to Kentucky rights which the state (legitimately, if not justifiably) denies to some of its own residents.

The decision in Kentucky does serve to highlight the unfairness and rank absurdity wherein one state recognizes something as a right under the United States Constitution that another does not.   That will not end until the U.S. Supreme Court makes a definitive determination regarding same-sex marriage. But even then, if it is ruled unconstitutional in the next 1069 days, the likes of Ted Cruz and Mike Lee will blame it on Barack Obama.

Share |

A Nice Thing To Say

Politico's Kevin Robillard reports that (in a shocking blow to the middle class)

Volkswagen workers in Chattanooga, Tenn., have rejected the United Auto Workers, shooting down the union’s hopes of securing a foothold at a foreign-owned auto plant in the South.

The vote was 712 to 626, said the UAW, which blamed the loss on “politicians and outside special interest groups"...

the decision is a triumph for Tennessee Republicans like Sen. Bob Corker, who lured Volkswagen to Chattanooga as mayor in the early 2000s. Corker and other Republicans warned workers that the UAW’s presence would irreparably harm the plant, and in recent days he claimed — with little evidence — that Volkswagen would choose not to expand the plant if workers unionized.

“Needless to say, I am thrilled for the employees at Volkswagen and for our community and its future,” Corker said in a brief statement Friday night.

The D.C.-based Center for Worker Freedom, a division of conservative activist Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, also campaigned against the union drive by blaming unions for Detroit’s economic woes and saying the UAW supports liberal politicians who favor gun control.

In a statement, the UAW blamed the conservative groups and Tennessee Republicans for their stinging defeat, with UAW Region 8 Director Gary Casteel saying that “politically motivated third parties threatened the economic future of this facility and the opportunity for workers to create a successful operating model that would grow jobs in Tennessee.”

“While we’re outraged by politicians and outside special interest groups interfering with the basic legal right of workers to form a union, we’re proud that these workers were brave and stood up to the tremendous pressure from outside,” UAW Secretary-Treasurer Dennis Williams said. “We hope this will start a larger discussion about workers’ right to organize.”

Or, as is more likely, embolden anti-worker politicians and groups.  Robillard continues

If the UAW couldn’t succeed in Chattanooga, it’s unlikely to find success elsewhere in the South.

The UAW had advantages in organizing the Volkswagen plant it probably won’t find elsewhere. For starters, Volkswagen — under pressure from the powerful German steelworkers’ union, IG Metall, which holds seats on the company’s board — decided not to resist unionization. The union’s presence would have also allowed the company to set up a German-style “works council,” in which representatives of both workers and middle management offer advice to executives on how to best run the plant.

“I don’t think this is a bellwether for future success for the UAW,” said Donald Schroeder, a management-side labor lawyer at Mintz Levin, before the results were announced. “The UAW almost has had a free run at unionizing.”

While the German union also has seats on the boards of BMW and Mercedes-Benz, those companies haven’t indicated they’d welcome a works council at their plants in South Carolina or Alabama. But the works council concept is still alive.

Other foreign-owned automakers in the U.S., like Nissan and Hyundai, are also likely to strongly resist unionization attempts.

In addition, Volkswagen’s workers were underpaid by industry standards, with wages topping out in the low $20-an-hour range.

President Obama, however, weighed in with his support for the workers in their conflict with Tennessee rightists.  According to reports from anonymous sources, Obama responded to a question about extension of unemployment benefits by charging GOP legislators "are more concerned about German shareholders than American workers."

The ironies abound, whether "having a free election just freaks people out" (as Chris Hayes put it Thursday) or Repubs go all in for the heavy hand of government when they can interfere with a union-management issue.  And on Friday, Hayes argued that concern of the GOP legislators probably has more to do with maintaining the tradition of cheap Southern labor than with French shareholders.

Intriguingly, Obama's largely unsolicited remarks supportive of union labor were made at a closed-door session at an annual retreat of House Democrats which took place Valentine's Day "near the end of the (voting) period."   After we've watched this nominal Democrat govern for five years, it is not too cynical to suggest that he decided to score a few points with the left, including the progressive wing of his Party, while incurring relatively little controversy for remarks made too late to have a significant impact upon the election outcome.  It's unlikely that a whole lot of autoworkers took time out of their work day to scour the Internet or listen to the local news.

But it was a nice gesture. And for a guy who still is looking for those shoes comfortable enough to join a picket line, it was a step forward.











Share |

Standing Up For Immigrants, As Long As They're Illegal

In 2010, the voters of Fremont, Nebraska approved by referendum city ordinance 5165, which mandated renters pay $5 for an occupancy license and prohibited landlords from renting an apartment to illegal immigrants. Violators would be subject to a $100 fine. The ordinance also required employers to implement E-verification, though violation would be considered a civil offense.  While the latter portion of the law has taken effect, the housing piece was upheld only recently (by the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals) and is not due to go into effect until thirty days after the results of a special election are certified as final.

On Tuesday, voters in Fremont decisively rejected a referendum to repeal the ordinance, though the city fathers and mothers (parents?) fear substantial legal costs as the measure is challenged in court.  Last year

Tim Butz, the Assistant Director with the Fair Housing Center of NE-IA, presented to the Fremont City Council explaining the impact the ordinance would have on federal funds, and how they could keep from losing them.  To get Federal Community Development Block Grant funds, cities are required by law to affirmatively further fair housing.  That means promote fair access, and equal opportunity for housing.

Butz says the U.S. Department of Housing Urban Development’s stance is to leave the legalities up to the courts, as it is being challenged.  In the meantime, they are paying much closer attention to Fremont so the city doesn't discriminate.

"We would hate to see them lose this federal funding and the opportunity for growth that this federal funding brings, but the reality of life is that he who pays the piper calls the tunes and HUD is not going to ignore a 45 year old law,” Butz described. "Their only choice in the matter is to live up to the duty of the law and to start taking this affirmatively furthering fair housing concept seriously and address it head on."

In the last 15 years, Fremont has received $7.1 million in CBDG funds for downtown revitalization, infrastructure, and economic development.

Federal fair housing law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, or disability.  Whatever may motivate the citizens of Fremont- and it undoubtedly varies from person to person- prohibits "the harboring of illegal aliens" and requires "occupancy licenses, providing judicial process, (and) repealing conflicting provisions."   It defines an "illegal alien" as "an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States, according to the terms of United States Code Title 8, Section 1101 et seq."

Nothing about race or national origin there.  Code Title 8, Section 1101 et seq  defines "alien" as "any person not a citizen or national of the United States."

Defending the ordinance in court may not be wise.   Plaintiff attorneys supporting a group on the basis of ethnicity- even if, as in this case, no ethnic group is singled out- generally are well-funded, in contrast to the plight faced by individuals who are disadvantaged on the basis of economic status. But for the federal government to prevent a municipality from requiring landlords to rent only to persons in the country legally defies common sense.

The estimated backlog for legal immigration is four million people, NPR reported a year ago. Those human beings, however, came to the country legally (other "aliens," below, from ballooncartoons.com). Their cause is not high-profile, and their representation negligible.  It is, sadly, America circa 2014.

Share |

Employment A Priority, Except When It's Not

Noting that the care of children usually is left up to women and the enduring prejudice against women in the science and math fields, Annie Rose-Strasser of Think Progress laments

One year into a profession in science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM), women are far more likely to leave their jobs than their male coworkers. A new study released Wednesday by the Center for Talent Innovation finds that women call it quits 45 percent more often in their rookie years at such STEM jobs than men.

Women are consistently underrepresented in high-tech fields. Despite making up about half the U.S. workforce, they’re a mere quarter of American STEM workers. And their numbers have been stalling. It’s not that women aren’t getting STEM degrees; they make up 41 percentof those graduating from engineering or science programs. But when they leave school, they’re not always going into the workforce for which they’ve been trained. Previous research has found that “men are employed in a STEM occupation at twice the rate of women.”

The Center for Talent Innovation (CTI) study reveals why: Women are abandoning their STEM careers within months of starting them. Nearly one in every five women with a STEM degree is out of the labor force entirely.

Much of the United States Congress (especially in the Senate) is determined, if not to reduce further the percentage of STEM employees who are (is?) women, to cut the absolute number of male and female graduates of American universities who can find jobs in the field.  Robert Oak explains that under S744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Hit particularly hard will be American Scientists, Technologists, Engineers and Mathematicians (STEM). Not only will the bill increase H-1B Visas from 85,000 to 135,000, they are allowing the limit to go to 180,000 per year. That is basically all of the jobs created each year in these occupations.  That means every single STEM job would end up being foreigners preferred, forcing U.S. workers out of their careers as the faux pas worker protections are clearly written to be vague and loophole ridden.  Just as lobbyists wrote this turkey in actuality, big business will also make sure any U.S. workers protections will be removed before actual legislation passage.

We have shown many times, there is no labor shortage at any skill level in the United States  In particular there is no labor shortage in the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics occupational areas.   Yet in this bill there would be no limits or instant green cards for the below occupational categories.  Bear in mind many STEM PhDs currently cannot find a job as there is already such oversupply of workers at this educational level.

Oak notes that comprehensive immigration reform creates new Visas an

Most of the new Visas focus on STEM jobs, so clearly the U.S. engineer is going to be wiped out, turned into a dinosaur by flooding the U.S. labor market with anyone who claims they can write a couple of lines of C# code.  The Bill seems to allow the many other employment based Visas to be used for skilled workers as well, up to 40%.  Then the bill creates a nebulously defined startup Visa with no restrictions of type of business, jobs created or employees hired from the summary.  Just to make sure Congress crowds out every American professional possible, they even replace the 55,000 diversity Visas, with even more Visas. Another 250,000 Visas to be specific, all based on merit scoring, and that merit score is really defined by lobbyists, of course. Quotas for green cards has also been increased by removing the family members of those holding employment based Visas.  That is at least a two fold increase, if not a four-fold backdoor increase in legal permanent residents per year. 

The American left often will wax indignant, as it must, about persistent high unemployment, lack of jobs, and declining real wages.  Periodically, however, it will break from its concern to support comprehensive immigration reform, often ridiculing opponents.

The labor participation rate in December was 62.8%, identical to that in October, the lowest since 1978 (first chart from The Wall Street Journal's Market Watch, below, the second from IEEE Spectrum).  Jobs- including those in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics sector- are at a premium while an unconscionable number of Americans is unable to find employment.  The answer for some is to flood the labor market and put downward pressure on wages, gutting opportunity for a generation of American workers. It is an odd sort of progressivism, one which sends workers to the back of the bus while corporate America, already flush with cash and increasingly contemptuous of the labor force, is further ensconced in the driver's seat.

Share |

The Postal Option

In his effort to improve the economy, President Obama has emphasized jobs, jobs, jobs.  In his State of the Union address in January, President Obama recognized "the budget compromise should leave us freer to focus on creating new jobs, not creating new crises."    He asserted "We also have the chance, right now, to beat other countries in the race for the next wave of high-tech manufacturing jobs" and encouraged legislators to "do more to help the entrepreneurs and small business owners who create most new jobs in America." He promised " my administration will keep working with the industry to sustain production and jobs growth while strengthening protection of our air, our water, our communities."

We'll know whether the President is true to his word on that last piece when he decides whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, designed to ruin the environment in order to allow oil companies to shift oil from the American midwest to Asia, especially mainland China (video, below).






But Obama could make a substantial difference in a less controversial area.  The U.S. Postal Service, a semi-autonomous agency since 1970, has been pre-funding retirement benefits for its employees 70 years out as required by a 2006 law.  It must pay  $5.5 billion annually into the fund, despite the $47 billion currently there, and consequently lost $354 million in 2013. The US Inspector General in a white paper has suggested the USPS be empowered to, as David Dayen later noted, "offer basic banking services to customers, like savings accounts, debit cards, and even simple loans" so the poor and the working class don't have to resort to the likes of check cashing stores, pawn shops, and payday lenders. Promoted by Dayen, the idea has been endorsed by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

But banks have expressed concern over the concept, and  Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe has not been supportive, preferring to reduce services and support a pilot program in which (non-union) Staples employees sell traditional postal service products to customers. Dayen explains 

The cynic would say that Donahoe’s preference for job-cutting and privatization over new revenue options like postal banking reflects poorly on President Barack Obama; after all, Donahoe's his postmaster general. That’s partially right and partially wrong. Though the postmaster was once a member of the presidential cabinet—the nation’s first was Benjamin Franklin—that changed in 1970, with a reorganization making the Postal Service a semi-autonomous agency. Instead, a Board of Governors, composed of nine members appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, chooses the postmaster general and chief deputy (who then become the other two members of the board). The postmaster serves at the pleasure of the board and could be replaced at any time. The Board of Governors operates like a board of directors of a private company, not only choosing the executive team but also approving compensation packages, directing expenditures, conducting long-range planning and setting “policies on all postal matters,” according to the USPS website. So postal banking rests in the board's hands.

Here’s where Obama deserves criticism: There are five vacancies on the nine-member board. He has not successfully placed a single appointee on it during his entire tenure in office. The four existing members were all appointed by George W. Bush.

Currently, the board consists of chairman Mickey Barnett, a former Republican state senator from New Mexico and onetime aide to Senator Pete Domenici; vice chair James Bilbray, an-ex Democratic congressman from Nevada; Louis Giuliano, former CEO of ITT Corporation and a senior advisor to the Carlyle Group; and Ellen Williams, a lobbyist and former chairwoman of the Republican Party of Kentucky. So the decision-making entity for the Postal Service remains in partisan Republican hands, five years into the Obama presidency. It’s not surprising, then, that they’ve used a relatively artificial retirement funding crisis to shrink the agency and privatize services. 

Obama could fill the vacancies and restore a Democratic majority (by law, no more than five members of the board must come from one party, but with five vacancies to work with, he can certainly establish a majority).2In addition, Barnett’s term has already expired, and Giuliano and Williams’s terms expire in December. So Obama could remake this board with members more favorable to a truly innovative agenda for the Postal Service that includes non-bank financial services. And since board members serve seven-year terms, they would be insulated from political shifts through the next presidential term.

The Board of Governors does not have unchecked power on postal policy. The Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), also created in 1970, oversees the USPS, determining compliance with the law and making policy recommendations for the Board of Governors. So the PRC would have to determine whether the USPS could engage in postal banking through its existing authority. In 2008, the PRC upheld that money orders were a core postal service, and in a footnote mused that “stored value cards” (i.e. prepaid debit cards) could be classified in a similar manner. A favorable ruling from the PRC would be critical to postal banking. 

Here, too, the Obama Administration has been asleep at the switch.  The PRC has two vacancies, and currently the panel includes two Republicans (a longtime Republican National Committee official and a former Congressional chief of staff) and one Democrat. Once again, actually appointing nominees would lead to a Democratic majority on the commission.

The Obama Administration has often been criticized for failing to fill executive branch agencies with key appointments in a timely manner. It was understandable for the White House to slow-walk what may have been considered low-priority appointments when Senate Republicans routinely blocked every nominee. But since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid triggered the nuclear option, nominees only need 50 votes for confirmation, lessening the possibility for obstruction and making the administration’s sluggishness far more frustrating. 

In effect, you have a Republican majority controlling an executive agency under a Democratic president, which happens to be the country’s second-largest civilian employer, behind Walmart. The loss of over 125,000 postal jobs has had a detrimental effect on employment, and the resistance to ideas like postal banking prevents low-wage communities from an alternative to payday lenders, check-cashing stores and other unscrupulous operators. Yet the White House has shown no urgency in reversing the conservative governing ideology at the Postal Service. If nothing else, there’s an economic imperative for the White House to act. They claim to want to reduce inequality through executive action. Postal banking is a major opportunity to do so.

This clearly should be done, but Barack Obama loathes traveling far from the middle of the road.  Having now ordered that federal contractors pay a minimum wage of $10.10 per hour, expecting him now to do the right thing somewhere else may be a bridge too far.





Share |

Ignore It- It Will All Go Away

This is precious. Yahoo News reports

Speaking at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach, Fla., Thomas, the second black justice to serve on the court, lamented what he considers a society that is more “conscious” of racial differences than it was when he grew up in segregated Georgia in the days before — and during — the civil rights era.

“My sadness is that we are probably today more race and difference-conscious than I was in the 1960s when I went to school. To my knowledge, I was the first black kid in Savannah, Georgia, to go to a white school. Rarely did the issue of race come up,” Thomas said during a chapel service hosted by the nondenominational Christian university. “Now, name a day it doesn’t come up. Differences in race, differences in sex, somebody doesn’t look at you right, somebody says something. Everybody is sensitive. If I had been as sensitive as that in the 1960s, I’d still be in Savannah. Every person in this room has endured a slight. Every person. Somebody has said something that has hurt their feelings or did something to them — left them out.

“That’s a part of the deal,” he added.

Thomas spent his childhood in a place and time in which businesses and government services were legally segregated. In his 2007 memoir, "My Grandfather's Son," he described his experience growing up as an African-American Catholic in Georgia during the Jim Crow era. “I was a two-fer for the Klan,” he said.

Thomas moved north from Georgia and graduated from Yale Law School in 1974. He went on to a successful judicial career that took him all the way to the Supreme Court. Thomas’ views on constitutional issues usually put him on the conservative side of the court, where he has penned opinions intended to rein in affirmative-action laws and overhaul a section of the Civil Rights Act that requires states with histories of discrimination to seek approval from the federal government before altering voting policies.

Throughout his career, Thomas said, he has experienced more instances of discrimination and poor treatment in the North than the South.

“The worst I have been treated was by northern liberal elites. The absolute worst I have ever been treated,” Thomas said. “The worst things that have been done to me, the worst things that have been said about me, by northern liberal elites, not by the people of Savannah, Georgia.”

Oh, the humanity of it all! Having to endure a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court!  Jonathan Chait replies

Right. But maybe the reason race came up so rarely was not that the racial situation was better in 1960s Georgia. Maybe the reason race came up rarely is that the racial situation in 1960s Georgia was extremely terrible.

For instance, for the first 14 years of Thomas's life, Georgia had zero African-Americans in its state legislature. Majority-black Terrell had a total of five registered black voters — possibly because African-Americans were so satisfied with their treatment that they didn't see any reason to vote, or possibly because civil-rights activists in Georgia tended to get assassinated.

So maybe "reluctance to bring up racial issues" is not, in fact, the best measure of a society's racial health.

But isn't this how it is with so many of today's conservatives?  Many Republicans maintain that race should not be discussed because the election of a black man to the presidency proves that America has gotten past its racist past.   Odd, though, that these individuals voted against the very individual whose election they claim demonstrates how great- and fair-minded- America is.

Sometimes it's not only race they want to keep hidden under the rug.   Tuesday, Rush Limbaugh commented (video of Vilma interview, below)

A lot of people may not have thought about a couple things, 'cause the media is gonna turn this guy -- whether he wants to be one or not, they're gonna turn him -- into an activist.  He is going to become one. They're already calling him things. He's the Rosa Parks, he's the Martin Luther King, he's the Jackie Robinson. They're gonna turn this guy into an activist.  I already saw a story praising an unnamed team for drafting him -- even if he can't play, for drafting him -- just to make the social statement. 

This is going to be a totally media driven-story, totally -- and because of that, it's gonna mess everything up.  Let's go to the audio sound bites. Something happened on CNN yesterday.  This is last night, Anderson Cooper 360.  Anderson Cooper was not there.  Fill-in host John Berman was interviewing Jonathan Vilma.  He's a linebacker for the New Orleans Saints. 

Vilma has been very public. (summarized quotes) "I don't think this is gonna work out.  I don't know about a gay guy in the showers here in the NFL.  I just don't know."  Ryan Clark of the Steelers says, "Look, what do we say to the guy? Do you guys know what goes on in the NFL locker room?  Everybody gets teased. I mean, guys with ugly wives get teased about it. The fat linemen get teased about it.  I mean, we show no mercy.  If a guy's dating an ugly woman, we laugh at him, we laugh at her. We make a point of it."

He's quoted as saying all this.  He says, "We don't know what to say. Somebody better tell us what we can and can't say when a gay guy shows up in the locker room.  We're gonna need some guidelines on this," and that's where the media is gonna come in and be policing all this stuff.  So because Vilma has been somewhat outspoken, CNN breathlessly tracked him down, and they had the substitute host for Anderson Cooper, John Berman, interviewing Vilma last night.  We've got three sound bites. 

Here's Berman's first question: "You talked about the showers, Jonathan -- and this is a subject that does come up quite a bit: The showers.  You said, 'You know, if I'm naked in the shower, what if he looks at me?  How am I supposed to react?' Jonathan, what's your concern there? You say you're in the shower, you're naked in the shower, and a guy comes in and looks at you, and you want to know how you're supposed to react.  What's your concern there, Jonathan?"  What's the big deal?

VILMA:  No, there is no concern.  The point I was  trying to make -- or the context I was trying to take it in -- is that I've never been put in that situation. No player in the NFL has been put in that situation. So it's not as simple as anyone saying, "Well, there's nothing wrong with it." I don't see anything wrong with it.  You have other players that may; you have other players that may not.

RUSH:  Everybody's walking a tightrope here, and there are gonna be people who fall off of this thing -- and the media is gonna be waiting for that. The media is gonna just be waiting to pounce on the first or any instance they perceive to be wrong, 'cause remember who they are and who they champion.  This guy is gonna go into the NFL as a victim.  He's gonna go in as a victim...

Now, why are they fascinated by it? 

Let me ask you a different question.  Seriously.  Why is homosexuality political?  Why is there a political aspect to -- or agenda associated with -- homosexuality, and why does heterosexuality have no political agenda at all? (interruption) What do you mean, I don't want the answer?  I'm just posing the question...

 Of course I know the answer, but I'm just asking.  Why does homosexuality have a political agenda?  Why is there anything political about homosexuality while heterosexuality has no political agenda and there is no agenda attached to it? (interruption) Heterosexuality does not have activists...








No, heterosexuality does not have activists, although Hugh Hefner served as one in times past. Nor any longer are there white activists (except a very few people on the fringe of society).  The all-white wardrobe is finally out of style, and white sheets after Labor Day always have been a fashion atrocity.

Understandably, Rush did not say who in the media is trying to transform Michael Sam into Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, or Jackie Robinson.  It also is unlikely Limbaugh even understands why the analogy to Robinson is shaky.   Robinson broke the color line in baseball; Sam cannot break the sexual preference line.  It long ago was broken by gay professional football players who knew they would be former professional football players if they came out.

For Clarence Thomas, there is no race problem except for the liberals who want to talk about it. Those (conveniently unnamed) "northern liberal elites" who have been so mean to the guy who complains about (again, unnamed) people claiming victimhood probably are Senators who called him out for being unqualified for the United States Supreme Court.

For Rush Limbaugh, there is no problem of gender discrimination in the National Football League except for what the 'liberal media' wants to create.  But the proof of the problem clearly is that there has been zero gay NFL players whom we know about.  Given that it would be statistically bizarre if there were none at all, we know the gay athletes have kept their silence because of fear of the reaction by people like Limbaugh.

Limbaugh's response comes not only from fear of, or distaste for, homosexuals.  It is part of his corporatist agenda to blame the media.  The primary risk faced by Sam, and by others before him who chose to remain silent, comes from the behemoth known as the National Football League- its personnel directors, owners, and Commissioner.  Ultimately, it is they who will provide the leadership, negative or positive, and determine the fate of Michael Sam and those who come after him.




Share |

Too Late, They Get Religion

On October 20, 2013 the editorial board of the Star-Ledger of Newark, New Jersey's largest newspaper, wrote of the incumbent governor standing for re-election

The property tax burden has grown sharply on his watch. He is hostile to low-income families, raising their tax burden and sabotaging efforts to build affordable housing. He’s been a catastrophe on the environment, draining $1 billion from clean energy funds and calling a cease-fire in the state’s fight against climate change.

The governor’s claim to have fixed the state’s budget is fraudulent. New Jersey’s credit rating has dropped during his term, reflecting Wall Street’s judgment that he has dug the hole even deeper. He has no plan to finance transit projects and open space purchases now that he has nearly drained the dedicated funds he inherited from Gov. Jon Corzine.

His ego is entertaining, but it’s done damage as well. By removing two qualified justices from the Supreme Court without good cause, he threatened the independence of judges at all levels, and provoked a partisan stalemate that has left two vacant seats on the high court. This was a power grab gone wrong.

The public gives him top marks for his handling of Sandy, but the record is mixed. Why would his administration park NJ Transit trains in a low-lying area where they flooded, causing $120 million in damage? Why did the federal government have to strong-arm the state to include more relief for renters and Spanish-speakers than Christie had proposed? And why should anyone believe taxpayers got the best price on refuse removal when the governor awarded a no-bid contract through a political friend?

Then the editors endorsed him for re-election.

To their credit, they admit now to their mistake.  Recognizing the "long list of deep reservations" at the time, Board chairman Tom Moran acknowledges "we could have skipped the endorsement altogether" but, given it was a presidential election, "swallowed our hesitations (sic) and endorsed Christie."

Unsurprisingly, Moran couldn't bring himself to a complete apology.  Although "we knew Christie was a bully" and he "boycotted the editorial board for years, an attempt to bully us into more loving coverage,"

we didn’t know his crew was crazy enough to put people’s lives at risk in Fort Lee as a means to pressure the mayor. We didn’t know he would use Hurricane Sandy aid as a political slush fund. And we certainly didn’t know that Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer was sitting on a credible charge of extortion by Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno.

His "crew" (or what would be termed his "posse" were he younger and black) "put people's lives at risk in Fort Lee" because it believed the governor would have approved the action, which was not expected to come to light.  The paper's editorial board did know, additionally, that the office of the governor of the State of New Jersey arguably is the most powerful statewide elected office in the nation and that, yes, he figuratively threw his weight around continually.  One such instance transpired in the affluent,  rural (by New Jersey standards) county of Hunterdon, in which the county prosecutor was dismissed after a 43-count indictment his office had obtained was dismissed upon the request of the then-Attorney General, appointed by Christie.  Last week, that county prosecutor, Bennett Barlyn, explained (transcript, here) on Up with Steve Kornacki

Very quickly, 2008, the sheriff is elected. She hires as her undersheriff an individual with a very checkered pass, who is subject to a state investigative report for wrongdoing in his capacity as somebody in a Warren (ph) chapter of the ASPCA. Thats the first issue. Immediately after assuming office, our office, the Hunterdon County`s prosecutor`s office, starts receiving information from an inside source of various wrongdoing in the office, and an investigation commences.

What`s interesting, Steve, is the first thing we do is contact the attorney general`s office, who is the chief law enforcement office in New Jersey, say we need some help here. There`s a conflict. We have two county law enforcement agencies who are probably going to go head-to-head in this investigation. We need your assistance. Several letters were sent, and all of them were not responded to. So we were really left to pursue this on our own. And that becomes important later on.

We obtain evidence. It unfolds like any other typical criminal investigation. We talk to witnesses. A judge signs off on a search warrant. Searches are conducted. More physical evidence is obtained.

In 2010, after Governor Christie wins his first term, members of our office go to the attorney general`s office and inform then Attorney General Dow that this case is ripe for presentation to the grand jury. And the evidence is presented, and Attorney General Dow, this isn't really disputed, gives the green light for the case to go forward. So our head of special investigations, a very experienced white-collar criminal prosecutor named Bill McGovern (ph) begins presenting the case to the grand jury. The case in March of 2010, the grand jury returns the indictment, 43-count indictment, along with a very lengthy, detailed report called the presentment, which provides information about wrongdoing that doesn`t rise to the level of criminal acts.

The day the  indictment was unsealed our prosecutor is compelled to resign. Somebody from Trenton is installed, and the dismantling of the case begins. Evidence is shipped from Trenton -- I`m sorry, from Hunterdon to Trenton. The lead prosecutor is essentially removed from the case two weeks before the dismissal, and finally on August 23, 2010, the head of the corruption bureau of the attorney general`s office marches into court and claims that there were numerous factual and legal deficiencies with the indictment, it`s dismissed. That day I complained to the acting prosecutor, said clearly there are political influences involved. Legally, there`s no way that all 43 counts could be dismissed.

The next day I`m suspended without explanation. Asked for an explanation, told I`m not entitled to one. Give my access cards in. Three weeks later, I get a one-sentence dismissal letter from the Division of Criminal Justice.

Barlyn says four grand jurors interviewed separately have "said there's nothing wrong with this case" and the case's lead prosecutor "as well as our first assistant at the time, have all agreed with our contention that the case was improperly dismissed for political reasons."  He is seeking in state appeals court to have the grand jury's indictment unsealed.

Still, even though the Star-Ledger had plenty of reason- stated, and unstated, in its original editorial- to oppose Christie's re-election, it went ahead with its endorsement. Moran pleads

If one of the tea party favorites gets the Republican nomination, then the country is at risk. Because as we have just seen, one scandal can flip the board in politics. What if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, and some dark secret emerges about her tenure as secretary of state? How does President Rand Paul sound to you?

Now ask yourself this: If the Republican primary came to a choice between Paul and Christie, which candidate would you endorse?

"Even now," he pleads "I’d pick Christie in that primary."

Not buying it.  Rand Paul has about as much chance of becoming the next GOP presidential nominee as you have- if you're not a natural born citizen of at least 35 years of age.  He will not, nor will ever, be the presidential nominee of a major political party.   Not in his lifetime, yours or mine.  His presence in the race will serve primarily to enhance the prospects of a guy not from inside the Beltway, of a candidate such as Chris Christie, whose claim to conservative primary voters is secured through vast funding by Wall Street and animosity toward workers, rather than racial animosity or a theocratic appeal.  When Rand Paul and Chris Christie had their tiff last year, it only added to the governor's credibility among the money men (and, yes, they virtually all are men) inside the GOP.   Christie's competition for the nomination never has been Rand Paul but Cruz, Huckabee, Bush, Rubio, and, especially, Governor Scott Walker.

Moran noted that the endorsement stemmed in part "on education, the most important issue for any governor, Buono ran well to the left of President Obama. She embraced the state’s regressive teachers’ union and its relentless efforts to protect bad teachers and stunt the growth of even the best charter schools."

Of course, Buono tried to "stunt the growth" of charter schools, the for-profit ventures which are publicly funded, squeeze funds from the traditional public school system, and already are a train wreck for the major New Jersey cities of Newark and Camden. However, the difference between the progressive Buono and the just-for-show President probably was only one reason the latter largely chose to avoid the race and Barbara Buono.   Monday, The New York Times reported the former State Senator

would prefer to talk about the “beautiful” emails she gets from supporters, including one from “what’s his name? I’m really bad with names. I can admit that now,” she has clearly not forgotten the names of the prominent Democrats who forgot her.

“Hillary Clinton wrote me a nice letter — after I lost,” Ms. Buono said, pointing out that the potential Democratic standard-bearer did nothing to support the candidacy of the party’s first female nominee for governor of New Jersey. (“You and I are no strangers to the challenges of seeking and holding public office,” read the letter, signed, “Hillary.”) “The vice president called me directly — after I lost.” Senator Cory Booker, the New Jersey star? “No no no. No, no,” she said. “I didn’t get help from a lot of people, and he was one of them.”

The list is rife. Patrick Gaspard, the former White House political director and Democratic National Committee executive director, promised help but did not deliver, she said. The committee’s chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, “came at the very end and it was like you were at a funeral, she was just not very encouraging.” When Ms. Buono asked the chairwoman to send out an email from her fund-raising list, Ms. Wasserman Schultz suggested she would and then “didn’t even do that; isn’t that sad?” (Ms. Wasserman Schultz has since gone on the Christie warpath, following the governor around the country and telling reporters: “Chris Christie has a culture of intimidation and retribution in his office. It was directed at his own constituents.”)

But Hillary Clinton does not hold office, no one has heard of Patrick Gaspard, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz already had proven herself little more than a mouthpiece for the President.  Moreover, while standing on the sidelines, none of them had actually furthered the re-election of Republican Chris Christie, which cannot be said of one of the individuals shown yukking it up with his buddy in the photo below:

Share |