I'm not sure if that's how the saying goes but the Bush people sure hopes it does.
Sometimes it's really hard keeping track of all this administration's scandals. That's what they hope. I imagine that's why they're trying to change the subject with the president's anticipated speech to the nation on immigration on Monday. If people get back to blaming foreigners for all our problems, that's fire directed away from Washington.
Fortunately for the administration, none of the scandals involve oral sex so impeachment or the appointment of a special prosecutor are unlikely. While impunity is on trial in Africa, it's alive and well in the United States.
I had articles bookmarked that I was going to write about but I realized there was so many, I didn't have time to write a full essay on each. So here's a recap some of the scandals. (Note: I'm sure I'm going to miss some. So I apologize in advance)
I've always said that secrecy is the enemy of democracy. You'll notice a theme here.
NSA SPYING ON YOU
The USA Today, a paper that doesn't spring forth into most people's mind when talking about journalistic excellence, ran an excellent and controversial story on the National Security Agency (NSA). It turns out the NSA has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth.
The paper added The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime [emphasis mine]. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity.
The program was described as "the largest databas ever assembled in the world."
Earlier, the administration angrily defended the NSA's monitoring of phone calls, monitoring done without a court warrant despite the existence of a secret spy court set up precisely for that reason. Officials assured us that they were only monitoring calls from the US to other countries or vice versa, not internal US calls. Some attacked The New York Times for reporting on the program.
The database was collected without any warrants and with the cooperation of most major phone companies, with the notable exception of Qwest.
Defenders of the program claim that the information collected is only a list of phone numbers, not the actual content of conversations. One might be able to grudgingly accept that if the public were sure that was the extent of the trolling
But how can anyone know for sure since...
INQUIRY INTO WARRANTLESS DOMESTIC SPYING BLOCKED BY ADMINISTRATION
The Associated Press reported an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program has been scrapped because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers the necessary security clearance to probe the matter.
A Justice Department spokesman claims that despite the rejections, the spying program "has been subject to extensive oversight both in the executive branch and in Congress from the time of its inception."
Though given the obstructionism, obfuscation and the administration's traditional hostility to accountability, how extensive could the oversight have possibly been?
BUSH: SPYING NOT WIDESPREAD
On the defensive yet again, Pres. Bush insisted that the spying was not widespread and that it's only used to target terrorists. The government is not "mining or trolling through the personal lives of innocent Americans," he claimed. But given recent reports that some of the people being monitored included Quakers, Catholic anti-poverty activists and (shockingly) anti-war activists, how can we believe him?
WHY THE SECRECY?
Further undermining the president's credibility is the secrecy surrounding these programs. Not the way they work, but their very existence. The revelation of these previously secret programs have brought a wave of recriminations against the newspapers that reported on them: The New York Times and The USA Today. The Times won a Pulitizer Prize for the story but Bush apologists said they should've won a 'Pulitizer Prize for Treason'.
I'm sure the administration would agree that the purpose of such programs are ultimately to deter terrorism. Given that, shouldn't the administration have WANTED to promote the existence of these programs? Shouldn't the administration have WANTED to send a loud and clear message to potential terrorists, "We're watching you. We're listening to you. We know who you're calling."
Shouldn't the number one goal to hinder plots even being conceived in the first place? Wouldn't the promotion of the existence of these programs make it exceedingly difficult on potential terrorists by making communication and organization so onerous that they give up?
The fact that the administration has been so secretive about the existence of programs that logic dicatates they should've wanted to publicize makes me wonder why. It makes me wonder what they're trying to hide?
RED CROSS DENIED VISITS TO DETAINEES
Continuing the 'why the secrecy?' trend, the Red Cross (ICRC) has criticized the US government for its refusal to grant the ICRC access to detainees held in secret detention centers.
The Red Cross' criticism is notable because the organization almost never criticizes any government: neutrality is its guiding principle.
"No matter how legitimate the grounds for detention, there exists no right to conceal a person's whereabouts or to deny that he or she is being detained," noted the ICRC's president.
The organization's chief spokesperson declared, "[I]t is absolutely vital for such people to be held in a clear legal framework and that they are granted all basic judicial safeguards," adding that "Obviously this includes those people held in secret places of detention."
And the above doesn't even include generalized corruption in Washington (which is bipartisan but affects Republicans more because they control the place), the anticipated military action against a Middle East country for its alleged weapons program and loudmouthed leader (if this sounds familiar, it should) or the biggest scandal of all: the Iraq disaster.
No wonder Scott McClellan resigned.
Note: The New York Review of Books ran a great article by Brian Urquhart describing the damage done by the present disastrous foreign policy of the US on respect for international law. The Globalist ran a good piece on how the Bush administration's defense of torture and contempt for the rule of law is undermining the global cause of human rights promotion.
Update: the latest scandal: The Washington Post reports that a former CIA officer accuses the agency of lying to Congress with regard to torture. An editorialin The Post echoes some of my comments on how fishy the administration's hyperdefensiveness seems
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Anti-gay McCarthyism in Nigeria
This essay is part of a (more or less) weekly feature on this blog that presents interesting stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, Israel and Iraq.
In January, I wrote about a hideous bill being pushed through Nigeria's National Assembly. The bill would ban not just homosexual acts and gay marriage (neither of which are legal in the country anyway). It would criminalize any form of free speech used to agitate for gay rights.
The justice minister was quoted as promising the proposal would ban "any form of protest to press for rights or recognition" by gays and lesbians. Perhaps Fred Phelps is an advisor to the Nigerian government.
But just when you think it can't get any worse, it does.
Black Looks blog cites The Vanguard newspaper which reports that the Bill has been widened to include "punish individuals who witness, celebrate with or support couples involved in homosexual relationships". Any persons breaking the law will be subjected to a compulsory term of 5 years imprisonment.
The Vanguard article adds:
The bill also aims to prohibit any form of publicity or registration to homosexual clubs and societies. Section 7 of the bill reads thus: Registration of Gay Clubs, Societies and organisations by whatever name they are called in institutions from secondary to the tertiary level or other institutions in particular and, in Nigeria generally, by government agencies is hereby prohibited. Publicity, procession and public show of same sex amorous relationship through the electronic or print media physically, directly, indirectly or otherwise are prohibited in Nigeria.
This bill essentially invalidates the rights not only of gays and lesbians but of any straight person who wants to show support for them or the gay rights cause.
It makes you wonder which legislator is going to advance his career by becoming the Nigerian answer to Joseph McCarthy.
Bear in mind, this is being promulgated by a purportedly democratic civilian government. Since the ruling party is sure to ram this through, the only way to stop this monstrosity is if some 'activist judge' decides to declare the obvious: this bill violates Nigeria's constitution. To say nothing of it being a grotesque violation of various pan-African and international human rights treaties of which Nigeria is a part.
The international community has been quick to condemn the states of northern Nigeria for their imposition of a reactionary interpretation of Islamic Sharia law almost worthy of the Taliban. It's one of the rare times feminists and Crusaders agree. But when the predominantly Christian federal government tries to do something nearly as regressive against gays, the only place you hear about it is the progressive blogosphere.
In January, I wrote about a hideous bill being pushed through Nigeria's National Assembly. The bill would ban not just homosexual acts and gay marriage (neither of which are legal in the country anyway). It would criminalize any form of free speech used to agitate for gay rights.
The justice minister was quoted as promising the proposal would ban "any form of protest to press for rights or recognition" by gays and lesbians. Perhaps Fred Phelps is an advisor to the Nigerian government.
But just when you think it can't get any worse, it does.
Black Looks blog cites The Vanguard newspaper which reports that the Bill has been widened to include "punish individuals who witness, celebrate with or support couples involved in homosexual relationships". Any persons breaking the law will be subjected to a compulsory term of 5 years imprisonment.
The Vanguard article adds:
The bill also aims to prohibit any form of publicity or registration to homosexual clubs and societies. Section 7 of the bill reads thus: Registration of Gay Clubs, Societies and organisations by whatever name they are called in institutions from secondary to the tertiary level or other institutions in particular and, in Nigeria generally, by government agencies is hereby prohibited. Publicity, procession and public show of same sex amorous relationship through the electronic or print media physically, directly, indirectly or otherwise are prohibited in Nigeria.
This bill essentially invalidates the rights not only of gays and lesbians but of any straight person who wants to show support for them or the gay rights cause.
It makes you wonder which legislator is going to advance his career by becoming the Nigerian answer to Joseph McCarthy.
Bear in mind, this is being promulgated by a purportedly democratic civilian government. Since the ruling party is sure to ram this through, the only way to stop this monstrosity is if some 'activist judge' decides to declare the obvious: this bill violates Nigeria's constitution. To say nothing of it being a grotesque violation of various pan-African and international human rights treaties of which Nigeria is a part.
The international community has been quick to condemn the states of northern Nigeria for their imposition of a reactionary interpretation of Islamic Sharia law almost worthy of the Taliban. It's one of the rare times feminists and Crusaders agree. But when the predominantly Christian federal government tries to do something nearly as regressive against gays, the only place you hear about it is the progressive blogosphere.
Friday, May 12, 2006
6 out of every 5 statisticians agree...
Perhaps a bit cheap and I know I'm no Don Coyote but the irony of this is too delicious to pass up.
The Post-Star ran the following correction today:
A chart on the percentage of students who passed English Language Arts and math tests that was published Wednesday had incorrect information involving the state average for students who passed eighth-grade math. The chart state the average was 77 percent. The correct average is 55 percent.
I guess someone from the 48 percent who didn't pass became a copy editor at The Post-Star.
Did I say 48? Oops, I meant 43.
The Post-Star ran the following correction today:
A chart on the percentage of students who passed English Language Arts and math tests that was published Wednesday had incorrect information involving the state average for students who passed eighth-grade math. The chart state the average was 77 percent. The correct average is 55 percent.
I guess someone from the 48 percent who didn't pass became a copy editor at The Post-Star.
Did I say 48? Oops, I meant 43.
The powerless menace
The situation regarding Iran’s nuclear program is the latest thing the Bush administration has decided to make into a crisis. The administration has such little credibility and trust that no one’s sure to what degree this is a real crisis and to what degree it’s a diversion. This is the real tragedy of the administration’s obfuscations and deceptions: if there really were a potential national security emergency, who’d believe them?
In fairness, it must be added that Europe, with whom the US government has had strained relations, also fears Iran’s real goal is to develop nuclear weapons. It’s kind of sad that for many Americans, foreign governments are more credible than their own.
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a conservative populist, sent a letter earlier this week to Bush.
It was a long rambling tract (I read the transcript earlier but I can’t seem to find the link now). He criticized US foreign policy, support for Israel and made an appeal to Bush as a self-professed religious man to start acting like it.
Iran’s head of state could certainly take his own advice. He infamously called for Israel to be wiped off the face of the map. And his other belligerent rhetoric has unnerved a lot of people. Not enough to make him ‘the Iranian Hitler’ as some nutjobs but it’s certainly disturbing.
Equally disturbing is the fact that there is open talk in some US right-wing circles of military action against Iran. Apparently, they think Iraq is going so swimmingly that we can afford another intervention based on spurrious grounds.
In fact, some suspect that Bush pressured British prime Tony Blair to sack his foreign secretary Jack Straw because Straw dismissed the idea of military action against Iran as ‘inconceivable’ and nuclear strikes as ‘nuts.’ Blair reportedly phoned the Foreign Office several times to suggest Mr Straw stop going on the BBC Today programme and ruling it out so categorically. Whether Blair was pressured to sack Straw or whether there’s an implicit understanding between him and Bush, it’s clear that something’s going on behind the scenes. It’s clear that the American and British publics are being softened up for the eventuality of military intervention against Iran.
Rational and humane people should make a sober analysis before being seduced by the latest drumbeat of war. And here’s that analysis.
Westerners, particularly Americans, are focused on Ahmadinejad’s comments about Israel. For one thing, Israel is capable of taking care of itself. It has nukes too. As Vice Premier Shimon Peres, the country’s most noted dove, pointed out, "Iran, too, can be destroyed.”
The focus on Ahmadinejad’s nuttiness obscures one simple question: how much power does he really have? He’s a loud-mouthed populist but how dangerous is he really?
Iran’s president doesn’t have nearly as much power as his American counterpart. Most of the power is retained by senior clerics.
Not surprisingly, the drumbeat for war hides a glaring inconsistency.
Ahmadinejad’s predecessor as head of state was Mohammed Khatami. Khatami was widely seen as a reformist, someone who wanted to loosen the tight restrictions of Iran’s theocracy.
But his presidency was seen as a disappointment because his reform efforts were constantly undermined by the conservative judiciary and clerics. US neo-cons called for Iran’s continued isolation arguing that as well intentioned as Khatami may have been, he didn’t have the power to effectuate any significant change, that the presidency was essentially irrelevant in the Iranian system.
So if the Iranian presidency was irrelevant under the reformist Khatami, how come the right is so afraid of Ahmadinejad’s presidency that there’s open talk of yet another war?
Is it a coincidence that the neo-con assessment of the Iranian presidency went from powerless to petrifying without any structural change? Is it a coincidence that the neo-cons flip flopped based on whichever argument would better serve a hostile course of action against Iran? Coincidence or self-serving intellectual dishonesty?
In fairness, it must be added that Europe, with whom the US government has had strained relations, also fears Iran’s real goal is to develop nuclear weapons. It’s kind of sad that for many Americans, foreign governments are more credible than their own.
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a conservative populist, sent a letter earlier this week to Bush.
It was a long rambling tract (I read the transcript earlier but I can’t seem to find the link now). He criticized US foreign policy, support for Israel and made an appeal to Bush as a self-professed religious man to start acting like it.
Iran’s head of state could certainly take his own advice. He infamously called for Israel to be wiped off the face of the map. And his other belligerent rhetoric has unnerved a lot of people. Not enough to make him ‘the Iranian Hitler’ as some nutjobs but it’s certainly disturbing.
Equally disturbing is the fact that there is open talk in some US right-wing circles of military action against Iran. Apparently, they think Iraq is going so swimmingly that we can afford another intervention based on spurrious grounds.
In fact, some suspect that Bush pressured British prime Tony Blair to sack his foreign secretary Jack Straw because Straw dismissed the idea of military action against Iran as ‘inconceivable’ and nuclear strikes as ‘nuts.’ Blair reportedly phoned the Foreign Office several times to suggest Mr Straw stop going on the BBC Today programme and ruling it out so categorically. Whether Blair was pressured to sack Straw or whether there’s an implicit understanding between him and Bush, it’s clear that something’s going on behind the scenes. It’s clear that the American and British publics are being softened up for the eventuality of military intervention against Iran.
Rational and humane people should make a sober analysis before being seduced by the latest drumbeat of war. And here’s that analysis.
Westerners, particularly Americans, are focused on Ahmadinejad’s comments about Israel. For one thing, Israel is capable of taking care of itself. It has nukes too. As Vice Premier Shimon Peres, the country’s most noted dove, pointed out, "Iran, too, can be destroyed.”
The focus on Ahmadinejad’s nuttiness obscures one simple question: how much power does he really have? He’s a loud-mouthed populist but how dangerous is he really?
Iran’s president doesn’t have nearly as much power as his American counterpart. Most of the power is retained by senior clerics.
Not surprisingly, the drumbeat for war hides a glaring inconsistency.
Ahmadinejad’s predecessor as head of state was Mohammed Khatami. Khatami was widely seen as a reformist, someone who wanted to loosen the tight restrictions of Iran’s theocracy.
But his presidency was seen as a disappointment because his reform efforts were constantly undermined by the conservative judiciary and clerics. US neo-cons called for Iran’s continued isolation arguing that as well intentioned as Khatami may have been, he didn’t have the power to effectuate any significant change, that the presidency was essentially irrelevant in the Iranian system.
So if the Iranian presidency was irrelevant under the reformist Khatami, how come the right is so afraid of Ahmadinejad’s presidency that there’s open talk of yet another war?
Is it a coincidence that the neo-con assessment of the Iranian presidency went from powerless to petrifying without any structural change? Is it a coincidence that the neo-cons flip flopped based on whichever argument would better serve a hostile course of action against Iran? Coincidence or self-serving intellectual dishonesty?
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Soda is $5 a gallon: where's my rebate?!
NPR's Day to Day had a good segment on irrational consumer expectations. While 'high' gas prices has set off a wave of finger pointing, gas costs less per unit that coffee or soda, two liquids which are also guzzled in massive quantities by Americans.
Instead, the finger pointing has been directed at oil companies for alleged price gouging.
If demand increases (as it continues to do with increasing energy consumption by India and China) and sources of supply remain steady, then logically the price will increase. This isn't gouging. It's basic economics.
So why blame the oil companies? This is done mostly by populist politicians of both major parties who want to give the appearance that there addressing this problem without doing anything significant to actually address the problem.
Why won't they address the problem? Because there's not much they can do.
This brings me to the other point in the segment. When faced with perceived high prices, consumers inevitably prefer to blame someone else. This is why the finger pointing is directed at Big Oil for doing exactly what multinationals are demanded to do by their shareholders and the market (including those with 401(k) plans): make as much money as they possibly can. It's ok when these multinationals do so by destroying the lives and homeland of the people of southern Nigeria or by lining the pockets of one of the world's worst despots. But when Big Oil makes middle class Americans to pay three bucks a gallon for a product they took as their God-given right to get cheaply, then it's a national 'crisis.'
There are a lot of things for which you can reproach Big Oil but charging middle class Americans a fair market price for fueling their motor vehicles.
Because of the 'blame others' mentality, we get quick fix bandaids that do nothing to address underlying structural problems. And in some cases, exacerbate them. That's why you get federal proposals for $100 rebates so a family can get a free week or two of gasoline. That's why you get New York state proposals to cap the gas tax (thus further encouraging inefficient behavior). That's why you get proposals to drill in the Alaska's ANWAR park even though oil from there wouldn't hit the market for years.
If you're going to offer a rebate or tax breaks, why not use them to reward EFFICIENT transportation behavior? Why not exempt the purchase of hybrids from taxes? Why not offer them to people who bike or walk or take the bus to work? Or to companies to who reward their employees for doing so? After all, people who drive less or not at all are not only contributing to less air pollution, but they are easing demand on gas that's causing the prices to increase.
Free will is about choice. If you choose to buy a Hummer or a pickup truck, you have no right to complain about how much you're paying for gas. If you choose to live 50 miles away from where you work, you have no right to complain about how much you're paying for gas.
For years, I've been gently needled by some, and outright ridiculed by others, for my choice to not own a car. As I explained then every transportation option has positives and negatives and I've chosen the one that makes sense for me at this time. I took the good with the bad without blaming others or expecting others to subsidize my choice. If you want to call yourself an adult, you need to be able to do that. I've never lectured people on what transportation they should choose for themselves, only explained what I chose for myself. Yet now, many automobilists want the politicians to rush in and save them from their own lifestyle choices which have suddenly become inconvenient. I don't rejoice at high gas prices but you'll pardon me if I don't shed any tears for the protestations.
If you want to win elections, blaming others is always more effective than telling people to looking in the mirror. Voters say they want politicians to tell the truth but only if it's what they want to hear. And the truth is that at least for the near future, gas prices will probably continue to rise. If you don't like it, change your own lifestyle. Otherwise, keep your whining away from my ears.
Instead, the finger pointing has been directed at oil companies for alleged price gouging.
If demand increases (as it continues to do with increasing energy consumption by India and China) and sources of supply remain steady, then logically the price will increase. This isn't gouging. It's basic economics.
So why blame the oil companies? This is done mostly by populist politicians of both major parties who want to give the appearance that there addressing this problem without doing anything significant to actually address the problem.
Why won't they address the problem? Because there's not much they can do.
This brings me to the other point in the segment. When faced with perceived high prices, consumers inevitably prefer to blame someone else. This is why the finger pointing is directed at Big Oil for doing exactly what multinationals are demanded to do by their shareholders and the market (including those with 401(k) plans): make as much money as they possibly can. It's ok when these multinationals do so by destroying the lives and homeland of the people of southern Nigeria or by lining the pockets of one of the world's worst despots. But when Big Oil makes middle class Americans to pay three bucks a gallon for a product they took as their God-given right to get cheaply, then it's a national 'crisis.'
There are a lot of things for which you can reproach Big Oil but charging middle class Americans a fair market price for fueling their motor vehicles.
Because of the 'blame others' mentality, we get quick fix bandaids that do nothing to address underlying structural problems. And in some cases, exacerbate them. That's why you get federal proposals for $100 rebates so a family can get a free week or two of gasoline. That's why you get New York state proposals to cap the gas tax (thus further encouraging inefficient behavior). That's why you get proposals to drill in the Alaska's ANWAR park even though oil from there wouldn't hit the market for years.
If you're going to offer a rebate or tax breaks, why not use them to reward EFFICIENT transportation behavior? Why not exempt the purchase of hybrids from taxes? Why not offer them to people who bike or walk or take the bus to work? Or to companies to who reward their employees for doing so? After all, people who drive less or not at all are not only contributing to less air pollution, but they are easing demand on gas that's causing the prices to increase.
Free will is about choice. If you choose to buy a Hummer or a pickup truck, you have no right to complain about how much you're paying for gas. If you choose to live 50 miles away from where you work, you have no right to complain about how much you're paying for gas.
For years, I've been gently needled by some, and outright ridiculed by others, for my choice to not own a car. As I explained then every transportation option has positives and negatives and I've chosen the one that makes sense for me at this time. I took the good with the bad without blaming others or expecting others to subsidize my choice. If you want to call yourself an adult, you need to be able to do that. I've never lectured people on what transportation they should choose for themselves, only explained what I chose for myself. Yet now, many automobilists want the politicians to rush in and save them from their own lifestyle choices which have suddenly become inconvenient. I don't rejoice at high gas prices but you'll pardon me if I don't shed any tears for the protestations.
If you want to win elections, blaming others is always more effective than telling people to looking in the mirror. Voters say they want politicians to tell the truth but only if it's what they want to hear. And the truth is that at least for the near future, gas prices will probably continue to rise. If you don't like it, change your own lifestyle. Otherwise, keep your whining away from my ears.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
More mixed messages
On Sunday, the local daily Post-Star took a break from their routine and actually praised people (a practice usually reserved for Mondays only). Kids, actually. The paper ran an editorial praising kids who participate in SADD, Students Against Destructive Decisions.
SADD was originally called Students Against Drunk Driving. The group was formed as a recognition of the fact that only acknolwedging the reality of teen drinking will mitigate its negative effects, as opposed to the 'burn the witches' hysteria of The Post-Star. This approach has saved lives.
I too applaud SADD. Peer pressure is what's need to reduce teen drinking in much the same way it's reduced smoking. This is far more effective than self-righteous floggings by a newspaper editorial (Did the paper really need to mention a certain Fort Edward basketball player's name more than one or two times? Wasn't a mention in seven consecutive stories voyeuristic and gratuitous considering the circumstances?)
Anyways, the paper praised SADD. In an accompanying box, they indicated they were going to start recognizing the achievements of young people who have 'done something positive to improve their school or community.'
Maybe the paper realized that the Inquisition is not, in and of itself, sufficient. Maybe they realized that they can't simply tell kids to say no, they have to give kids something to say yes to. If so, then good for the paper.
But the very next day, what appears on the front page? Yet another non-urgent wire service story. For a paper that likes to pat itself on the back for the prominence it claims to give to local coverage, it sure gives a lot of its front pages to minor, national wire service stories. I have no problem with front page wire stories about Iraq or health care. But front page wire stories about dogs jumping off a bridge in Scotland (last August) or about San Franciscans who trade rent for sex (last month) are more worthy of The New York Post than the region's main daily. Just because you don't win Pulitizer Prizes doesn't mean you should have no standards.
What was the topic of this front page wire service story? 'Virginity pledges rarely make a difference.' So one day after promising to praise and feature worthy local teens, the paper chooses to run an article implicitly criticizing young people and highlighting their failings.
Is the paper trying to send mixed messages or is there just nobody there who notices these things?
SADD was originally called Students Against Drunk Driving. The group was formed as a recognition of the fact that only acknolwedging the reality of teen drinking will mitigate its negative effects, as opposed to the 'burn the witches' hysteria of The Post-Star. This approach has saved lives.
I too applaud SADD. Peer pressure is what's need to reduce teen drinking in much the same way it's reduced smoking. This is far more effective than self-righteous floggings by a newspaper editorial (Did the paper really need to mention a certain Fort Edward basketball player's name more than one or two times? Wasn't a mention in seven consecutive stories voyeuristic and gratuitous considering the circumstances?)
Anyways, the paper praised SADD. In an accompanying box, they indicated they were going to start recognizing the achievements of young people who have 'done something positive to improve their school or community.'
Maybe the paper realized that the Inquisition is not, in and of itself, sufficient. Maybe they realized that they can't simply tell kids to say no, they have to give kids something to say yes to. If so, then good for the paper.
But the very next day, what appears on the front page? Yet another non-urgent wire service story. For a paper that likes to pat itself on the back for the prominence it claims to give to local coverage, it sure gives a lot of its front pages to minor, national wire service stories. I have no problem with front page wire stories about Iraq or health care. But front page wire stories about dogs jumping off a bridge in Scotland (last August) or about San Franciscans who trade rent for sex (last month) are more worthy of The New York Post than the region's main daily. Just because you don't win Pulitizer Prizes doesn't mean you should have no standards.
What was the topic of this front page wire service story? 'Virginity pledges rarely make a difference.' So one day after promising to praise and feature worthy local teens, the paper chooses to run an article implicitly criticizing young people and highlighting their failings.
Is the paper trying to send mixed messages or is there just nobody there who notices these things?
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Legalize immigration
There's been much debate in recent weeks about immigration. Immigrants who enter through this country extralegally are either a gigantic drain on resources or they fill jobs that Americans won't do... depending on who you believe.
And since the main issue is immigrants coming from our southern neighbor, my solution to this issue is simple: remove almost all restrictions on immigration between Mexico, Canada and the United States and impose comparable environmental and labor laws between the three countries.
Warning: one thing I do not address in this essay is the fate of those folks who are already here extralegally. I will only address what should happen from now on.
At the beginning of 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect. It created a giant free trade zone between the US, Canada and Mexico. NAFTA was not without its critics, both in principle and in execution. But let's go with that for now.
One of the most intectually dishonest arguments is made by those who contend that free trade (the free movement of goods and services) is a wonderful thing that will raise poor people out of poverty but for some inexplicable reason, the free movement of labor (a service) should be exempted from this.
Simply put, there should be free movement of American, Mexican and Canadian citizens between the three NAFTA countries. The only restrictions should be on people with criminal records.
The Mexican government wants its citizens to be able to work in the US because the citizens send money home, which helps the Mexican economy. In exchange for removing most restrictions on migration, the Mexican government will accept US and Canadian help in ensuring its southern border is properly monitored. Human trafficking from Central America to the US via Mexico is a growing problem.
Additionally, the Mexican government should agree to revamp its environmental and labor laws to come more into line with American and Canadian standards. If the Mexican government wants this change, they should be prepared to give something up in return. If properly designed, and that's a big if, such changes would also address criticisms that NAFTA undermines worker protection and facilitates ecological destruction. After all, if the free movement of services allows American multinationals to enter Mexico, why shouldn't it allow American labor unions too?
Making virtually all immigration legal does some important things.
First, by making all immigrants legal, it brings them into the system. They will pay taxes, for example. It makes them feel a part of this country rather than apart from it. It makes them feel useful, rather than demonized. Removing them as a scapegoat reduces their understandable siege mentality (of both extralegal and sympathetic legal immigrants alike) and encourages their integration into American culture.
Furthermore, legalizing almost all immigration would end employer exploitation of immigrants who were previously here extralegally. Employers would no longer be able to pay slave wages. Employers would be forced to provide them decent working conditions. Essentially, employers would no longer be able to blackmail workers into accepting the unacceptable simply by threatening to report them to the authorities or to ship them back to Mexico.
As legal workers, the immigrants would be allowed to form unions. They would get workers' compensation if they got injured on the job. They would have legal recourse against employers who violated labor law. Businesses who pay slave wages to farm workers or who run sweatshops would lose their competitive advantage. It would help all workers in those industries as businesses would no longer be pressured to engage in a race to the bottom.
Such a zone is hardly unprecedented. Any citizen of a European Union country can work in any other EU state. Any citizen of ECOWAS, the West African economic community, can work in any other ECOWAS state. Why shouldn't this apply to NAFTA as well?
Either the United States believes in free trade or it doesn't. If it does, then it must apply basic rules of free trade to labor, to immigrants.
And since the main issue is immigrants coming from our southern neighbor, my solution to this issue is simple: remove almost all restrictions on immigration between Mexico, Canada and the United States and impose comparable environmental and labor laws between the three countries.
Warning: one thing I do not address in this essay is the fate of those folks who are already here extralegally. I will only address what should happen from now on.
At the beginning of 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect. It created a giant free trade zone between the US, Canada and Mexico. NAFTA was not without its critics, both in principle and in execution. But let's go with that for now.
One of the most intectually dishonest arguments is made by those who contend that free trade (the free movement of goods and services) is a wonderful thing that will raise poor people out of poverty but for some inexplicable reason, the free movement of labor (a service) should be exempted from this.
Simply put, there should be free movement of American, Mexican and Canadian citizens between the three NAFTA countries. The only restrictions should be on people with criminal records.
The Mexican government wants its citizens to be able to work in the US because the citizens send money home, which helps the Mexican economy. In exchange for removing most restrictions on migration, the Mexican government will accept US and Canadian help in ensuring its southern border is properly monitored. Human trafficking from Central America to the US via Mexico is a growing problem.
Additionally, the Mexican government should agree to revamp its environmental and labor laws to come more into line with American and Canadian standards. If the Mexican government wants this change, they should be prepared to give something up in return. If properly designed, and that's a big if, such changes would also address criticisms that NAFTA undermines worker protection and facilitates ecological destruction. After all, if the free movement of services allows American multinationals to enter Mexico, why shouldn't it allow American labor unions too?
Making virtually all immigration legal does some important things.
First, by making all immigrants legal, it brings them into the system. They will pay taxes, for example. It makes them feel a part of this country rather than apart from it. It makes them feel useful, rather than demonized. Removing them as a scapegoat reduces their understandable siege mentality (of both extralegal and sympathetic legal immigrants alike) and encourages their integration into American culture.
Furthermore, legalizing almost all immigration would end employer exploitation of immigrants who were previously here extralegally. Employers would no longer be able to pay slave wages. Employers would be forced to provide them decent working conditions. Essentially, employers would no longer be able to blackmail workers into accepting the unacceptable simply by threatening to report them to the authorities or to ship them back to Mexico.
As legal workers, the immigrants would be allowed to form unions. They would get workers' compensation if they got injured on the job. They would have legal recourse against employers who violated labor law. Businesses who pay slave wages to farm workers or who run sweatshops would lose their competitive advantage. It would help all workers in those industries as businesses would no longer be pressured to engage in a race to the bottom.
Such a zone is hardly unprecedented. Any citizen of a European Union country can work in any other EU state. Any citizen of ECOWAS, the West African economic community, can work in any other ECOWAS state. Why shouldn't this apply to NAFTA as well?
Either the United States believes in free trade or it doesn't. If it does, then it must apply basic rules of free trade to labor, to immigrants.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Decider-in-chief claims to want Gitmo closed
Many groups and citizens, including myself, have criticized the law-free zone known as the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. That's where the administration is holding kidnapees that it suspects of being terrorists but refuses to formally accuse them or put them on trial for their alleged misdeeds.
Pres. Bush and his administration have strenuously defended the camp. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who wrote an infamous memo defending torture, has called the camp absolutely essential.
The Bush administration has argued in court that US law and judicial review should not apply to Guantanamo kidnapees. Thankfully, the Supreme Court ruled the administration does not have the power to suspend the Constitution in this case.
So imagine my shock when I read the most recent comments by the president.
"I very much would like to end Guantanamo; I very much would like to get people to a court," he told German television.
Some Guantanamo kidnapees have been there for several years without trial or even formal accusation (which is precisely what makes them kidnapees). It seems that if getting these folks to court is such a pressing issue for Bush, he would've made it happen already.
"And we're waiting for our Supreme Court to give us a decision as to whether the people need to have a fair trial in a civilian court or in a military court," he added.
I thought Bush was 'the decider' so why is he waiting for a bunch of unelected judges to do the deciding for him. Respecting the courts and the law has never been a priority for him before.
The Zacarias Moussaoui case showed that the regular judicial system is capable of handling terrorism trials without resorting to contrived military commissions. The trials of people involved in the first World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings demonstrated this as well.
The president claims he would 'like to end Guantanamo' as a detention center. He's the one who decided it open and he's the one who could decide it closed. It's time he ordered the detainees there either be charged in regular courts or be released. It's time the chief executive executed the law. He doesn't need to wait for the Supreme Court to tell him to do the right thing. It's time for the decider-in-chief to a leader for once.
Pres. Bush and his administration have strenuously defended the camp. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who wrote an infamous memo defending torture, has called the camp absolutely essential.
The Bush administration has argued in court that US law and judicial review should not apply to Guantanamo kidnapees. Thankfully, the Supreme Court ruled the administration does not have the power to suspend the Constitution in this case.
So imagine my shock when I read the most recent comments by the president.
"I very much would like to end Guantanamo; I very much would like to get people to a court," he told German television.
Some Guantanamo kidnapees have been there for several years without trial or even formal accusation (which is precisely what makes them kidnapees). It seems that if getting these folks to court is such a pressing issue for Bush, he would've made it happen already.
"And we're waiting for our Supreme Court to give us a decision as to whether the people need to have a fair trial in a civilian court or in a military court," he added.
I thought Bush was 'the decider' so why is he waiting for a bunch of unelected judges to do the deciding for him. Respecting the courts and the law has never been a priority for him before.
The Zacarias Moussaoui case showed that the regular judicial system is capable of handling terrorism trials without resorting to contrived military commissions. The trials of people involved in the first World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings demonstrated this as well.
The president claims he would 'like to end Guantanamo' as a detention center. He's the one who decided it open and he's the one who could decide it closed. It's time he ordered the detainees there either be charged in regular courts or be released. It's time the chief executive executed the law. He doesn't need to wait for the Supreme Court to tell him to do the right thing. It's time for the decider-in-chief to a leader for once.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)