Saturday, July 12, 2014

166.2 - Not Good News: attacks on minimum wage continue

Not Good News: attacks on minimum wage continue

On this same topic of the minimum wage, however, we also have some Not Good News.

Last month, I mentioned that the city of Seattle had decided to raise the minimum wage in the city to $15/hour over the next seven years. Three weeks ago, I mentioned how just days after the law was enacted, a suit was filed on behalf of some large corporations saying the law is unconstitutional.

It turns out that there is a second effort underway to overturn that new law, this one by a group representing restaurants, merchants, and other businesses and bearing the typically-misleading name Forward Seattle. That group has been gathering signatures in attempting to get a ballot queston to revoke the law into the November election.

According to the group's leader, who insists this is a "principle-based fight," the group has submitted enough signatures to get the question on the ballot.

The signatures still need to be verified and based on prior general experience about the proportion of petition signatures that are thrown out, there is a question as to if they have enough, but they may well. And Seattle will have to fight the whole battle over again.

The simple reality is that you cannot try to do something that benefits the lowest-paid workers among us without getting major pushback. Too many powerful people, too many powerful forces, in our society benefit from the current arrangement.

It's notable, I think, that Forward Seattle Co-Chair Angela Cough ran out all the old "they're so powerful, we're so oppressed" lines the right wing seems to spout at the least opportunity. She claimed, for example, that her group is under-funded because members are being intimidated by opponents: They are are "simply too scared" to do more.

By the way, what was this horrible intimidation? According to Cough, it consisted of suggesting boycotts of businesses that support the attempt and making negative comments on Facebook and Yelp.

Oh, and Cough also claimed her group is not opposed to raising the minimum wage. Oh, no, it's that they object to the process by which the law was passed, to which her members offered alternatives. In other words, the city didn't do what the businesses wanted, so it's a matter of principle to get the whole thing thrown out. Which is likely true; you just have to think about what that principle is.

But like I said, you always have powerful voices saying no. You always have powerful voices telling the lowest-paid among us that they have it as good as it's going to get and they should be happy with what they have and don't dare try to make it better because you'll only make it worse.

The latest example of this is Andy Puzder, the head of CKE restaurants, the parent company of Hardees and Carl’s Jr., who says that minimum-wage workers - the kind his industry employs - would actually be hurt by an increase in their income because other people would start competing for their jobs, leading to more youth unemployment, higher prices, and increased automation. Omigod, it's too horrible to think about because, ya gotta understand, I'm just thinking of the little people, says the man who made $4.4 million in 2012, about 291 times what a minimum wage worker makes in a year, working full-time, year-round, at the federal minimum wage.

What's his solution? Quoting,
Government needs to get out of the way. If government gets out of the way, businesses will create jobs and wages will go up.
That is, just let us do whatever we damn please and everything will be great. Not surprisingly considering the source, that is utter crap. Because on this score, the federal government has been staying out of the way. The federal minimum wage has not risen in five years and - as illustrated by the graph to the right - measured in 2014 dollars, that is, in actual purchasing power, it is below where it was in 1998. In fact, the highest purchasing power reached by the federal minimum wage came in 1968, 46 years ago, when it was, again measured in 2014 dollars, $10.86. Which means that even if Congress were to enact Obama's proposal of a minimum wage of $10.10 an hour, it would still, in real terms, in purchasing power, be below where it was nearly 50 years earlier.

Andy Puzder? More like Andy Putz.

As a quick footnote, Putz's 2012 income of 291 times the federal minimum wage is low by industry standards. According to the Economic Policy Institute, in 2013 the average fast food CEO made 721 times what minimum wage workers made.

Sources cited in links:
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2014/06/1636-update-even-imf-says-raise-minimum.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/07/seattle-business-group-clears-major-hurdle-toward-repealing-15-minimum-wage/
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-downside-of-minimum-wage-hikes-200357186.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/07/andy-puzder-minimum-wage_n_5563975.html
http://www.epi.org/publication/top-restaurant-industry-ceos-721-times-minimum/
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html
http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm
http://www.epi.org/

166.1 - Good News: state and local moves to raise minimum wage

Good News: state and local moves to raise minimum wage

As whenever possible, let's start off with some good news.

Over the past couple of weeks I have been able to give some good news regarding the minimum wage wage. This wee, I have some more.

Eleven states now plan to raise their minimum wage to at least $9 per hour between now and 2018, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. This does not include other states which will reach those levels because of previously-enacted provisions that automatically adjust the state minimum wage according to some formula that state has adopted. These are additional states.

Nine of those 11 states will have minimum wages of above $9 per hour. Eight of them will be above $10 per hour.

And one will have an $11 per hour minimum wage by 2017. That state is Massachusetts, by legislation signed into law on June 26. At that point, Massachusetts will have the highest minimum wage of any US state.

Another thing we're seeing on this front is some companies that are making a point of paying their employees decent, or at least improved, wages, regarding that as good for business. It kind of goes back to the old Henry Ford idea of paying your workers enough to be able to afford the stuff that you sell.

Is it worth pointing out, however, that we're still talking about a minimum wage, not a living wage: According to a standard method of calculation, in Massachusetts a full-time worker needs get $11.31 an hour to pay for food, housing, transportation, and other regular expenses. In the Boston area, it’s $12.65 an hour. So no, the raised minimum is still not a living wage - but it is an improvement and that, and perhaps even more importantly the increasing awareness of the necessity of action, is good news.

Sources cited in links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/01/chart-eleven-states-will-have-breached-a-9-minimum-wage-by-2018/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-minimum-wage-massachusetts-20140626,0,3654096.story
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/26/companies-minimum-wage_n_5530835.html
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/06/26/minimum-wage-increase-doesn-add-living-wage/ZXSpmdWx2PBFVMj1OuDXdI/story.html

Left Side of the Aisle #166




Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of July 10-16, 2014

This week:

Good News: state and local moves to raise minimum wage
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/01/chart-eleven-states-will-have-breached-a-9-minimum-wage-by-2018/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-minimum-wage-massachusetts-20140626,0,3654096.story
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/26/companies-minimum-wage_n_5530835.html
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/06/26/minimum-wage-increase-doesn-add-living-wage/ZXSpmdWx2PBFVMj1OuDXdI/story.html

Not Good News: attacks on minimum wage continue
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2014/06/1636-update-even-imf-says-raise-minimum.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/07/seattle-business-group-clears-major-hurdle-toward-repealing-15-minimum-wage/
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-downside-of-minimum-wage-hikes-200357186.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/07/andy-puzder-minimum-wage_n_5563975.html
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html
http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm
http://www.epi.org/
http://www.epi.org/publication/top-restaurant-industry-ceos-721-times-minimum/

Clown Award: American liberals
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/06/rolling-coal-photos-video_n_5561477.html
http://www.vocativ.com/culture/society/dicks-pick-trucks-meme-rollin-coal/
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/rolling_coal_conservatives_who_show_their_annoyance_with_liberals_obama.html
http://www.vocativ.com/culture/society/dicks-pick-trucks-meme-rollin-coal/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/06/26/more-than-three-quarters-of-conservatives-say-the-poor-have-it-easy/
http://www.care2.com/causes/do-the-poor-have-it-easy-most-republicans-say-yes-they-do.html
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/
http://www.classism.org/about-class/what-is-classism

Outrage of the Week: presidents get buffer zones; women don't
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/wood-v-moss/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-says-secret-service-agents-are-immune-in-bush-protest-lawsuit/2014/05/27/ce88db08-e5b3-11e3-8f90-73e071f3d637_story.html
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-supreme-court-free-speech-protesters-20140527-story.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/27/supreme-court-bush-protest-speech/9172707/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/26/supreme-court-abortion-clinic-buffer-zones/6698787/
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2014/06/high_court_voids_abortion_clinic_protest_free_zone
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/26/supreme-irony-court-has-own-buffer-zone/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-question-of-where-protesters-take-a-stand/2014/02/16/1bc57ee0-9720-11e3-afce-3e7c922ef31e_story.html?wprss=rss_politics

Footnote: that is, some presidents get buffer zones
http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/59288822.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/gun-toter-from-obama-event-i-like-my-pastor-want-the-president-to-die
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread490906/pg1

Supreme Court ignores own ruling to benefit anti-contraceptive crowd
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/07/wheaton_college_injunction_the_supreme_court_just_sneakily_reversed_itself.html

Saturday, July 05, 2014

165.5 - Thoughts for the Fourth: on patriotism

Thoughts for the Fourth: on patriotism

I have a whole bunch of other things I wanted to talk about, other Supreme Court decisions, Iraq, lots of stuff. But I will have to put that off because I need to do this this week.

This show will be seen in the week including the Fourth of July. I hope you enjoyed your Fourth, I hope you got to see some fireworks or watch a parade or have a barbecue or a picnic or just loll in your yard or chill on your couch with a cool drink. The Fourth is a time for fun and I hope you had your share.

For the rest of the show I'm going to reprise something I said last year around this time. Maybe I'll do it every year. Kind of like my annual Fourth of July show.

Because the Fourth is not just a time for fun; it's also, of course, traditionally a day of patriotism, of celebrating our nation and our heritage. And that's what I want to talk about: what it means to be, as I see it, an American patriot.

So let me start by reminding you just what it is we are supposed to be celebrating, what heritage we are supposed to be honoring.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
That is the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which was adopted on July 4, 1776, which is why July 4 is the holiday.

Which means the Fourth is about celebrating a history of revolution, celebrating the right and duty of people to resist oppression and to achieve independence. That history, that principle, should form the basis of our patriotism.

I never used to think of myself as patriotic; I never used to think about it much one way or the other. I used to be somewhat confused about the notion of are you proud to be an American; I would think "How can I be proud of it; I had nothing to do with it. I was born here. how can I be proud of something I had nothing to do with?" I thought - and still think, in fact - that the only people who could legitimately be proud of being american are immigrants, people who made the conscious decision to come here. For me it was really a matter of chance; I might just as well be proud of being left-handed, because I had every bit as much to do with that.

At one point, though, I started thinking about a better way to phrase the question "Are you proud to be an American," one that involves the "you" in a way beyond an accident of birth - thinking, that is, of the question as being "Are you proud of what it means to be an American; are you proud of what the concept 'American; says to the rest of the world."

That point, that thinking of patriotism that way - thinking of principles, beliefs, and so on, thinking of it in that context - came during the presidential campaign of 2008. Barack Obama made a speech defending his own patriotism, which had been under attack. In the course of that speech he went out of his way to attack the antiwar activists and the counterculture of the 1960s. And it was "out of his way." If you read the speech - which I did - you could see that that whole section could be removed without impinging on his overall argument. It was just a ritualistic denunciation of an entire era and the people who symbolized it. Bluntly put, Barack Obama was defending his patriotism by attacking that of others - including mine. And yes, I took it personally.
Sadly, too many people, especially among politicians, follow suit, making patriotism a matter of political or social gain rather than substance, a matter of ostentatious display, of flag pins and the Star Spangled Banner and swirling music and fluttering flags. Next time you see a political debate, amuse yourself by noting how many of the men are dressed in red, white, and blue: red tie, white shirt, blue suit.

I say that patriotism measured in terms of wearing flag pins, of having your hand over your heart during the national anthem, and the like is worthless, dangerous, and shallow. It is a hollow "patriotism," a shell that prefers form to substance and too easily, as we too often have seen over the last years, slides from "patriotism" into jingoism, as even now people who, had they done the equivalent against the British government in 1776 our school history textbooks would be calling heroes, are instead now being labeled as traitors and yes, I am thinking of Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, among others.

Before I go any further, don't anyone bother claiming I said wearing a flag pin or whatever is "hollow." I said no such thing. I said that a patriotism measured in those terms is hollow. And it is.

So here is my understanding of patriotism, of what it means to be a patriotic american:

Some years ago I read the comment about patriotism that "it is natural to have an abiding affection for the land of one's birth." I completely agree with that. But going beyond that, I say being a US patriot means being dedicated to the ideals on which this country was supposed to have been founded and which, at its best moments, it strives to uphold in as full a measure as we can manage: Ideals such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as the right to rebellion against oppression, as "promoting the general welfare," as political freedoms, as representative government "of, by, and for the people" - the ideal of, to sum it up in a single phrase from the Preamble to the Constitution, the ideal of an intent to "establish justice," a justice I say must include the economic and the social as well as the political if it is to have real meaning.

Patriotism, that is, lies in the devotion to the ideals, not in any symbolic outward expression of it.

I do not wear a flag pin. I do not put my hand over my heart during the national anthem (which, I'll note in passing, I was taught as a child was something that some folks did but was not required). I do not sing along with the national anthem. In fact - and I know this will provide ammo for some and lead others to say I undermine my argument, but I don't care, it's the truth - I don't even stand up for the national anthem. Because patriotism does not lie in symbols or gestures.

Further, patriotism also does not lie in support for or opposition to any particular party or policy except insofar as that support or opposition is an expression of that internal commitment to those ideals.

For example, We are supposed to be a free people. Which means - since we're talking about Iraq take 3 these days - that an opponent of the Iraq war who was angered by the Executive branch's usurpation of power is much more patriotic than a war supporter who kept referring to the president as "the commander-in-chief" as if we were all soldiers expected to obey orders rather than citizens with the obligation held by any free people to "question authority."

We are supposed to be a daring people. We applaud ourselves for how we "dared" to cross the oceans, how we "dared" to cross the plains and prairies, how we "dared" to step out into space. Which means that an opponent of NSA spying is more patriotic, is more in keeping with what we tell ourselves about our heritage, than those who applaud the stripping away of our privacy and our rights as they cower in fear of a dark and vaguely-defined "other."

So I'm not patriotic as the term has unhappily come to be understood by too many: no flag pins, no singing of the national anthem, none of that. But if patriotism can be understood as embracing the ideals of our nation, as striving to hold this country to the highest of those ideals instead of the lowest of its prejudices, if it can be understood as committing to a notion of what the US, of what we as a people, can be and have at times approached being, then I submit to you that I am about as patriotic as they come. And I have neither patience with nor tolerance for those who would make patriotism a matter of empty gestures and ostentatious decorations rather than conviction.

So you have a great Fourth - and remember the radical, the revolutionary, heritage it celebrates.

Sources cited in links:
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2008/07/point-of-personal-privilege.html

165.4 - Outrage of the Week: Hobby Lobby decision

Outrage of the Week: Hobby Lobby decision

Now for our other regular weekly feature, the Outrage of the Week.

You know about the Hobby Lobby decision. I know you do, you can't not know unless you are consciously avoiding all news in which case you wouldn't be watching this.

But just to summarize: On June 30, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that "closely-held" corporations can refuse to provide coverage for contraceptives and contraceptive care in the health insurance required by the Affordable Health Care Act, aka Obamacare, based on a claim of a "religious objection."

You've heard about that. Maybe you've even heard about Ruth Bader Ginsburg's blistering dissent, in which she called the ruling "a decision of startling breadth" that can "introduce" "havoc."

Ruth Bader Ginsburg
She blew away the idea that providing contraceptive coverage as part of health insurance is a "substantial burden" on the religious views of corporate owners, noting that "[t]he requirement carries no command that [corporations] purchase or provide the contraceptives they find objectionable" and that a woman's decision to claim birth control benefits in consultation with her doctor is not equivalent to a moral action on the part of her employer.

You may also have heard it observed that the majority in the case were all men and all three women on the court were among the dissenters.

But there are some bits you may not have heard about the case and I wanted to point out some of those.

One is that the reactionary majority went out of its way to say this only applied to "closely-held" companies and so there was the usual crowd of pundits and analysts going on about how it's really no big deal, it only affects a few people, what's the big deal, nothing to see here, move along, and so on.

But the term "closely-held" is defined by the IRS as no more than five people holding at least half of the stock. As Adam Winkler of the UCLA School of Law noted, that description covers the vast majority of corporations in America. A 2000 study estimated that more than 90 percent of American businesses are closely held. A 2009 study by Columbia University found that closely held corporations employ about 52 percent of the US labor force. This is no "limited impact" ruling.

What's more, this was the first time the Supreme Court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. Which becomes even more surprising when you consider what hypocrites it makes of the reactionary five, who perpetually crow about their devotion to original intent and precedent. (Or maybe it's not surprising after all.)

For example, in 1968, Maurice Bessinger, the owner of a chain of restaurants, wanted a religious exemption from civil rights laws because he believed that segregation was justified by the Bible. The Supreme Court said no, his belief did not exempt him from the law.

For another, the very law the majority cited in this case, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, was prompted in part because of a Supreme Court decision.

In 1993 the court refused to allow a religious exemption for members of the Native American Church over peyote, a hallucinogenic drug which was traditionally used by the natives during their religious services. The court said that “We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate." That majority opinion was written by Antonin Scalia, one of the foul five in the Hobby Lobby case.

In fact, the entire Hobby Lobby decision is let's just call it disingenuous.

For example, the foul five insisted that the decision is limited to contraceptives under the health care law and "should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs."

Which is nonsense. Because how do you decide? Once you decide that profit-seeking corporations can have religious beliefs, where do you draw a new line? How can you draw a new line without favoring one religion over another? How can you say you can have religious convictions about contraceptives but not anything else?

If now a Christian Scientist employer claimed they wanted to be exempt from covering blood transfusions, how do you say no?

Go wider, but still within the healthcare mandate: If an employer wants to be able to refuse to provide any coverage for a same-sex spouse of an employee because of their religious objections to such marriages, how do you say no?

Wider still: If a Muslim business owner claimed a religious objection to hiring women who would not wear the burqa, how can the Court now say no?

The claim of a "limited" ruling affecting "only contraceptives" is crap and I say the foul five know it. This decision is likely to open the floodgates to a host of religious wackos of one sort or another who want to have their personal predilections enshrined as national policy. This is not the end. It's the beginning. And it is an outrage.

Sources cited in links:
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/06/30/justices-cant-make-employers-cover-contraception/20922400/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/30/ruth-bader-ginsburg-write_n_5544111.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/how-many-americans-impacted-by-hobby-lobby-ruling
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/01/rachel-maddow-hobby-lobby-scotus_n_5547211.html
http://newsok.com/peyote-hobby-lobby-and-the-religious-freedom-law/article/3946316

165.3 - Clown Award: Ann Coulter (cancelled)

Clown Award: Ann Coulter (cancelled)

Now it's time for the Clown Award, given as always for meritorious stupidity. Or, rather, it would have been time for it.

See, I was going to give this week's Big Red Nose to Ann Coulter for her amazingly brain-dead column that proposed that the increasing interest in soccer in the US is proof of the moral decay of US society.

But then I realized that the poor dear was just trying to get some attention, to have somebody notice her, as she slips into the gray fog of living in memories of the glories of days gone by.

And I just didn’t have the heart.

Sources cited in links:
http://www2.thepostgame.com/blog/daily-take/201406/ann-coulter-fifa-world-cup-immigration-ted-kennedy-american-soccer-usa
http://www.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/06/25/coulter-growing-interest-soccer-sign-nations-moral-decay/11372137/

165.2 - Racism (on the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act)

Racism (on the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act)

I'm recording this show on July 2, an important day in history. Today, July 2, is the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

We have, admittedly, come some distance since then. Some things are better, at least somewhat. For example, The income gap between whites and blacks has shrunk. Its still there, but it has shrunk. The difference in life expectancy has shrunk. Again, there still is a gap, but it's smaller. As compared to 1964, the percentage of blacks who have completed high school has more than tripled; the number of black undergrads is now more than 10 times what it was then; and the percentage who have completed four years of college is nearly six times what it was.

In fact, we have come so very far that even though blacks still are twice as likely to be poor or unemployed than whites and still get paid less when they do have jobs, we have come so very far that with the election of Barack Obama in 2008, pundits began talking about how we are living in a "post-racial society"

The right wing was especially intense on this, going on and on about how race just doesn't matter anymore, so that if you ever pointed out racism, that just proved that you were "the REAL racist." That attitude has been reflected in the actions of the right-wing majority of the Supreme Court to repeatedly constrain, restrict, and sometimes even deny colleges and universities the authority to consider race as even one factor in trying to achieve what even the reactionaries are forced to admit is a good thing: a diverse student population.

In one of those decisions, John Roberts - who continues to define the word "smug" - in the course of throwing out yet another school's attempt at some kind of affirmative action in enrollment, said, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." In other words, the only thing standing between us a colorblind society is all those icky programs like affirmative action and the best way to deal with racism is to pretend it doesn't exist.

Would, oh would, that were true.

The hard fact is, racism not dead in our society and the election of Barack Obama did not get us past racism; if anything, it inflamed it.

The evidence is all around us and I don't mean just in the big things like poverty statistics or the murder of Trayvon Martin - I mean the everyday slaps and slams, the everyday reminders that if you are African-American, you are still "other" in the eyes of too many.

You want the evidence? Pretty much all you have to do is look at the online comments to any news article that in any way relates to a black person. Here's one, from May:

The article described how media and locals had converged on a street corner in southeast Houston, Texas, after a shooting there earlier in the day. A man for whatever reason drove his car into a crowd of about 20 people there. No one was hurt; the driver was arrested at the scene. That was the story.

The following were all from first 20 comments on this article, and they are quoted:

- Frickin blacks. Look how many they were just standing around in the middle of the day! I know in my neighborhood. You don't see that because everyone is at the magical place called WORK! Where you actually have to WORK for money. Instead of sit on your ass and wait for the mail man to bring it to you!

- Work is a 4 letter word that will soon be banned in those communities.

- Did you hear about the little black boy that had diahhrea? He thought he was melting.

- Luckily for the driver he wasn't a white guy, we all the know the hell that would have broken loose if he was don't we!

- [To which someone responded] No white man would have been in that neighborhood.

- [To which someone else responded] Actually there were 2 or 3 white men in the video. They were the reporters and camera men. You know....the men that were out working to support themselves and their families.

- I don't expect any less of Blacks they have no respect of the law Period

- I am surprised there are that many of them awake during the day! They usually stay up carousing all night and sleep all day on the taxpayers nickel!

When Obama commented on the racist remarks of Donald Sterling, these were some of the initial comments:

- Is this clown for real. "O" is, along with his ag [i.e., Attorney General] the biggest RACIST of all. This guy is a joke,and unfortunately, a JOKE ON OUR COUNTRY...just ask REV. WRIGHT.

- Obama has racist feeling toward White America. [This same person complained that the VA "has replaced 41% of its hired help with Blacks during Obama's terms."]

- No worse than he or Eric Holder playing the race card against anyone who stands up to them, and not to forget about Al Sharpton

- He is the one who is the true racist-he has set relations back to the 60's.

And don't think it's just the loud-mouthed extremists. It's just out there all around us.

For one example, a new study, drawing on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the US census, has shown that African-Americans college students are about as likely to be able to get a job as white high school-dropouts.

Here's another: For 10 years, Massachusetts has had a program under which judges have been quietly and anonymously rated by the lawyers who appear before them. An evaluation of that 10 years of data by two Harvard sociologists brought in to evaluate the program revealed a consistent pattern of racial bias against black judges.

The researchers also convened several focus groups of lawyers and judges and concluded that what emerged was "the idea that persons of color do not match the expectations of what a judge should look like."

Here's a third: a few years ago a study of Boston hospitals showed that physicians, presented with hypothetical cases of patients coming to the Emergency Room with signs of a heart attack, consistently proposed treating whites more aggressively - that is, ordering more tests, engaging in more direct intervention - than they did African-Americans. Even after allowing for other factors including age, physical condition, previous medical history, and other relevant factors, the racial difference remained.

What's important is that in both of the latter two studies, the people who were treating blacks differently than whites denied doing so. And they were probably being honest: They probably honestly didn't realize doing it. But that is an essence of racism: the difference in attitudes and actions based on unspoken, even unrecognized, assumptions.

Racism survives on built-in assumptions. Several weeks ago I talked about "white privilege," how by being white you are privileged in multiple ways, often in terms of what people, simply because you are white, do not assume about you. These studies are just the other side of that; they reveal what is assumed about non-whites.

We are a society suffused with racism, infused with racism, infected with racism, a society in which a young black man is "suspicious" simply by virtue of being a young black man. More, not just "young" and not just "man." Black bodies - simply by virtue of being black - are associated with behavior and actions that are deemed anything from lazy to threatening to just "not the way it should be," regardless of what they actually do.

When are we going to admit to ourselves that racism and bigotry, that rancid, putrid, vomit-inducing ignorance and paranoia, are alive and thriving in our society and have been since the beginning? And yes, not only against blacks: Hispanics, for example, are just the latest target of our isolationist xenophobia. We can trace that particular affliction back generation by generation, group by group, target by target: Asians, Poles, Italians, Irish, Jews, Catholics - any wave of immigrants that was in any way "different," to be blunt, that wasn't a WASP, any time there was a wave of "different" people, we heard the same things: It's going to destroy the country, undermine it, these foreigners, they're dirty, they're filthy, they're criminals, they're all the rest of this nonsense. We can trace this right back to Native Americans, who weren't even immigrants.

Our record on this is a shameful one. It may not be the worst, it may not even be all that bad compared to some other nations. That doesn't change the fact that it is shameful.

So I don't want to hear a single breath, a single hint, a single whisper, they we are are a "post-racial society." Anyone who says that to you is lying, either to you or to themselves, I don't know which. But the fact is that we are suffused with racism along with sexism and homophobia - we are steeped in our bigotry until it penetrates our souls.

Yes, it's getting better. Yes, it has been worse in the past. Yes, we can see an impact, we can see how bigotry now is usually expressed more with a wink and a nod, with dog whistles, not with overt filth of the old sort.

Yes, we have made at least some progress, painfully slow, painfully limited, but considering we're talking about a span of 50 freaking years, that's really not saying much.

Sources cited in links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2013/08/1235-50th-anniversary-of-march-on.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2014/04/1565-outrage-of-week-scotus-ignores.html
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/05/08/man-tries-to-run-over-crowd-at-crime-scene/20882757/
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/04/27/obama-weighs-in-on-racist-comments-by-clippers-owner-donald-sterling/20876560/
http://www.studentimpactproject.org/reports
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/27/white-high-school-drop-outs-are-as-likely-to-land-jobs-as-black-college-students/
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/06/10/judging-judges-effort-address-racial-bias-judicial-reviews-has-created-racial-firestorm-bench/Iq3x11bGAJuDWJbsIGLkpM/story.html
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/06/12/3447645/lawyers-systematically-rate-black-judges-less-favorably-study-finds/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2219763/
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2014/04/1565-outrage-of-week-scotus-ignores.html

165.1 - Good News: marriage justice continues to advance

Good News: marriage justice continues to advance

Starting off, as I do when I can, with good news, the good news this week is that they're dropping like flies.

On June 25, US District Judge Richard Young threw out Indiana's legal ban on same-sex marriage along with its ban on recognizing such marriages legally performed in other states.

I've said that in each of this whole long string of decisions on this, there seems to be one line worthy of note. In Judge Young's case, it was this:
In less than a year, every federal district court to consider the issue has reached the same conclusion in thoughtful and thorough opinions - laws prohibiting the celebration and recognition of same-sex marriages are unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, back in February, District Judge John Heyburn ruled that Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal. On July 1, he followed that up with a ruling declaring Kentucky's own ban on such marriage was itself unconstitutional because, he wrote, "In America, even sincere and long-held religious beliefs do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted."

Heyburn actually had a second great line: He rejected the only argument that Kentucky offered for the ban, which was that traditional marriages contribute to a stable birth rate and the state's long-term economic stability. "These arguments," Heyburn said, "are not those of serious people."

And in what got less notice than I thought it should, on June 25 the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision of a District Court that had held that Utah's ban on same-sex marriage violated rights of due process and equal treatment under the 14th Amendment.

What's particularly important is that this was the first time an Appeals Court had ruled on the issue, and it came down on the side of marriage justice.

What's more, it probably spells doom for Oklahoma's ban, which had also been struck down at the district level and is now on appeal - to the 10th Circuit.

The appeals court dismissed arguments from Utah officials that allowing same-sex marriages would have a destabilizing effect on opposite-sex marriages:
We cannot imagine a scenario under which recognizing same-sex marriages would affect the decision of a member of an opposite-sex couple to have a child, to marry or stay married to a partner, or to make personal sacrifices for a child.

And so it goes. And goes. Justice is coming.

Sources cited in links:
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2014/06/25/judge-throws-indiana-ban-sex-marriage/11354083/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/01/same-sex-marriage-kentucky/11903703/
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-4178.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/25/utah-gay-marriage_n_5529845.html
http://newsok.com/10th-circuit-court-says-states-cant-ban-gay-marriage/article/4954878

Left Side of the Aisle #165




Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of July 3-9, 2014

This week:

Good News: marriage justice continues to advance
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2014/06/25/judge-throws-indiana-ban-sex-marriage/11354083/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/01/same-sex-marriage-kentucky/11903703/
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-4178.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/25/utah-gay-marriage_n_5529845.html
http://newsok.com/10th-circuit-court-says-states-cant-ban-gay-marriage/article/4954878

Racism (on the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2013/08/1235-50th-anniversary-of-march-on.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2014/04/1565-outrage-of-week-scotus-ignores.html
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/05/08/man-tries-to-run-over-crowd-at-crime-scene/20882757/
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/04/27/obama-weighs-in-on-racist-comments-by-clippers-owner-donald-sterling/20876560/
http://www.studentimpactproject.org/reports
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/27/white-high-school-drop-outs-are-as-likely-to-land-jobs-as-black-college-students/
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/06/10/judging-judges-effort-address-racial-bias-judicial-reviews-has-created-racial-firestorm-bench/Iq3x11bGAJuDWJbsIGLkpM/story.html
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/06/12/3447645/lawyers-systematically-rate-black-judges-less-favorably-study-finds/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2219763/
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2014/04/1565-outrage-of-week-scotus-ignores.html

Clown Award: Ann Coulter (cancelled)
http://www2.thepostgame.com/blog/daily-take/201406/ann-coulter-fifa-world-cup-immigration-ted-kennedy-american-soccer-usa
http://www.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/06/25/coulter-growing-interest-soccer-sign-nations-moral-decay/11372137/

Outrage of the Week: Hobby Lobby decision
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/06/30/justices-cant-make-employers-cover-contraception/20922400/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/30/ruth-bader-ginsburg-write_n_5544111.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/how-many-americans-impacted-by-hobby-lobby-ruling
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/01/rachel-maddow-hobby-lobby-scotus_n_5547211.html
http://newsok.com/peyote-hobby-lobby-and-the-religious-freedom-law/article/3946316

Thoughts for the Fourth: on patriotism
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2008/07/point-of-personal-privilege.html

Friday, July 04, 2014

Traditional July Fourth post the second

This is the second of my traditional July Fourth posts, which I put up every year about now. This is the text of a leaflet I wrote for distribution on July 4, 1975:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

That is the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence and these words should form the backdrop against which the Bicentennial should be seen. Our 200th birthday as a nation should not be a time for celebrating the status quo or for patting ourselves on the back in an orgy of national self-congratulation, but rather a time to reexamine and rediscover the truly revolutionary heritage which America has.

Even more than that, it should be a time to rededicate ourselves to the ideals of the Declaration, to recognize that it is, as the Declaration says, our right and duty to resist dramatically increasing government control of our lives. It is our duty to resist the CIA and FBI when they try to probe every secret of our lives; it is our duty to resist attempts to muzzle, restrict, intimidate, and otherwise restrain both freedom of speech and of the press. It is our duty to resist a militarist US foreign policy that destroys the life and liberty of people in other lands and a militarist US federal budget that proposes to increase spending on weapons by 30% while human needs go unmet. It is our duty to resist government policies that favor big business at the expense of the general public, while inflation and unemployment run rampant. It is our duty to resist a government that seems no longer (if indeed it ever was) interested in and dedicated to securing the "safety and happiness" of the populace.

We do not believe in violence, but we do believe in revolution - nonviolent revolution. And we believe that we are fully within the revolutionary heritage of America when we say we believe it is our duty to demand our rights and our duty to use nonviolence to make any changes necessary to secure those rights, for ourselves and for all others.
In the 39 years since I wrote that, I have been both encouraged and discouraged, hopeful and despairing. It has felt like some version of A Tale of Two Cities: So much has changed and so little has changed, so much has been done and so little has been done. (For one thing, if you're too young to remember it, look up the Church Committee and think about the NSA.)

Sometimes it seems that the only comfort is that the only reason things aren't worse than they are is because of the struggles there have been both during those 39 years and before. So even where we have - as we have more than often enough - fallen short, we can at least say those struggles were not in vain: No genuine effort for justice ever is, no matter the outcome.

And those struggles can be nothing but invigorated when we maintain a day-to-day awareness of, and base the only legitimate patriotism on, our revolutionary heritage.

Footnote 1: The date for the flyer is not a typo; the official Bicentennial Year ran from July 4, 1975 to July 4, 1976.

Footnote 2: UShistory.org has some interesting background on the Declaration of Independence, including earlier drafts. Some of the changes are revealing - such as one long passage denouncing the English slave trade that was deleted.

Traditional July Fourth post the first

I have two posts that I traditionally put up every Fourth of July. This first one is something I wrote about a trip to a fireworks display on July 4, 1969 - which, I will remind you, was at the height of the Indochina War.
The 4th of July and Other Downs

The Day dawns again and it's time to love freedom. All the fascists come out to play and long hair and peace are decidedly un-American. Keep muttering things like "My country, right or wrong" and "America, love it or leave it" and you're really in. Middle-class America is out in force to celebrate liberty. Don't look now, but there's a knife in your back. A car goes by covered with flags, streamers, bunting, decals, and assorted other paraphernalia vital to your well-equipped American. Off we go to a fireworks show whose rockets sounded just like mortar fire. (Everything about the Fourth is so appropriate.) A motorcycle cop chomps away on something or other and glares at us with hatred that should have melted his shades as he leans on his bike and tries to figure a way to bust us. Red, white, and blue are the colors of the day, but be careful you don't have more red than blue1 or you might get lynched in the name of freedom. (You can have as much blue as you want, but the whiter you are, the better off you'll be.) Don't look now, but all the flagpoles look like spears. All in honor of the 36,000 brave boys2 who've given their lives to bring freedom, truth, beauty, and President Thieu3 to the South Vietnamese. Three cheers for Richard Nixon and six for J. Edgar Hoover, and better dead than red. The officially sanctioned day of national paranoia has come again, and all is right with the Pentagon.
1At the time, kiddies, "red" meant "Communist."
2Another 14,000 died before it was over.
3Dictator of South Vietnam was more like it.

Saturday, June 28, 2014

164.5 - Iraq: some comments

Iraq: some comments

I'm going to spend some time, probably the rest of the show, talking about Iraq. It's actually a hard topic to cover on a weekly show like this, because the flow of events can be such that whatever I say will be passe by the time you hear it.

So, instead of some sort of up-to-the-minute overlook, herewith some perhaps disjointed observations on the overall topic of Iraq.

To start with, though, we have to consider what is going on as it is described to you by the mass media: The forces of a radical fundamentalist Muslim group called ISIS - which stands for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria - have swept through a significant portion of western Iraq, as the government army just ran away. Those forces now control the border crossings into Syria and Jordan and are threatening the capital city of Baghdad.

Now, that is in a broad sense true, but it's not entirely true, and the way it's not entirely true is significant: The forces are actually a range of Sunni militant groups, of which ISIS is the most prominent and probably the most numerous. But it is by no means the only. That can be important for what happens in the future and I will come back to it.

It's also not entirely true that the army simply ran away. There was some resistance, but the army in the area was composed of a combination of Sunnis and Shiites. The Sunnis were largely unwilling to go into battle against other Sunnis and the Shiites wound up thinking "why should I risk my life to defend Sunni towns when my Sunni comrades won't do it themselves so I'm getting out of here." And as often happens in war, retreat turned into panicked flight.

But the way to get a grip on real thing that's going on to realize about what's going on can be found by a comparison of two maps.

The first map comes from I think NBC and it displays where the militants have made their military gains in these weeks.

The second map displays the outcome of the Iraqi parliamentary elections in 2010. The dark blue areas were won by Sunni political parties; the yellow areas were won by Kurdish political parties; the green areas were won by Shiite political parties; and the light blue areas were won by Sunni-Shiite coalition political parties. The little light blue area sort of sticking up, almost surrounded by dark blue, is Baghdad.

Comparing those two maps tells a real story. All of the militant gains have come in heavily, even overwhelmingly, Sunni areas.

The fact is, we are not seeing some outside force sweeping a new caliphate into existence, we are seeing a Sunni uprising against a Shiite-dominated, highly sectarian government in Baghdad.

Our fundamental failure in understanding Iraq has been our refusal to recognize the extremely deep and sharply sectarian divisions that exist and have existed all along. Iraq is a sort of artificial nation, one whose borders were set by the League of Nations in 1921 for the benefit of western nations and without regard either to natural, ethnic, or cultural boundaries.

Our federal government shows some signs of recognition of this, as usual, too little too late, but there are reports that US is "increasingly exasperated" with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who over the past three years, since US troops pulled out, has stopped doing all the things that lead to the cooling of sectarian tensions, the reduction in sectarian violence.

Nouri al-Maliki
He stopping providing payments to Sunni tribes, stopped providing patronage to Sunni groups while favoring Shiite ones. He started persecuting Sunni politicians, jailing them, even killing them through death squads.

It's not that this is a surprise or previously unknown. Over a year ago, in the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, I warned that "al-Maliki is consolidating his personal power on the road toward a dictatorship."

Two months after that, I described how Maliki, had been "engaging in an increasing crackdown on political opponents," including police raids on peaceful Sunni protest encampments.

And in January of this year, I noted the violent arrest of a Sunni member of parliament on bogus terrorism charges and the violent destruction of the lrest of those encampments. At that time, I said:
[T]here has indeed been a resurgence of violence in Iraq, including in the capital of Baghdad. Over 8,000 people were been killed in sectarian violence in Iraq in 2013, the highest total since 2008. But blunderbuss tactics such as Maliki is employing are less likely to bring an end to such violence than they are to intensify it, as other Sunnis take up arms....

As negotiations between government officials on the one hand and Anbar provincial council members and tribal sheikhs on the other fail, Iraq stands now on the edge of a renewal of outright civil war.
Fareed Zakaria, a CNN journalist who never found an international situation he couldn't grossly oversimplify, still did manage to make a solid point when he said that what's happening now in Iraq
was inevitable in the sense it was predictable because we’ve seen this movie before. This is exactly what happened in '04, '05, and '06 when the Shia government in Iraq essentially started persecuting the Sunnis, purging them from office, disempowering them in various ways, and the Sunnis started fueling and funding insurgency. That's what created the civil war in Iraq.
And now, years later, doing the same damn things is leading to the same damn result: creating another civil war.

But of course, it's only now, now with disaster (from our point of view) at the door, only now we are pressing Maliki to make some political overtures to the Sunnis in order to create political opposition to ISIS among the Sunnis. For his part, Maliki is stalling, posturing, and pontificating, figuring that if things get bad enough, we will save his butt.

Meanwhile, while US is flying 30 or more warplane or drone missions over Iraq daily, they are merely watching the militant advance and military officials even directly deny rumors of a single drone strike.

As Time mag notes,
the U.S. military generally "sends messages" by attacking. Now it is sending messages by not attacking. And its target this time around isn’t the enemy, but its purported ally running the country.
Bluntly put, the US is dragging its feet about defending Malaki’s government, taking what Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, called "a measured, deliberate approach to help us and the Iraqis get better eyes on the situation." He added that the teams going to Iraq "will provide their findings within the next two to three weeks," and after getting and considering those reports the brass will decide what to do next. The whole purpose is to force Maliki to make concessions as a condition for expanded US assistance.

In other words, the US and Maliki are playing a sort of political chicken. The questions are who blinks first and how many die both before and after that time.

Because people are dying. The UN estimates that more than 1,000 people have been killed in Iraq in June, a figure the UN human rights office said "should be viewed very much as a minimum." Seventy-five percent of the dead were civilians.

And it may get a good deal worse. Clear signs of a return to sectarian reprisal killings are appearing in Baghdad similar to the dark days of 2006-07 when most every morning revealed victims, sometimes dozens of victims, murdered in the night for the crime of believing in the wrong version of Islam.

So what happens now? First, it's safe to say that the Sunni forces will not have it so easy from here on out, especially if they stand by their declared (at least by ISIS) plans not only to take Baghdad but to advance to Shiite holy cities such as Najaf. If they do, they are going to be finding themselves up against well-armed, well-trained Shiite militias with combat experience, who will be defending, in essence, their own turf, not someone else's.

There's another issue about those Sunni militants, which is that ISIS has a crucial weakness. As I noted at the top, ISIS is the most prominent and very likely the largest of the various Sunni groups - but with maybe 8000-10,000 fighters in Iraq, ISIS simply does not have the numbers to take and hold multiple urban centers. It is totally reliant on its support from other Sunni groups and from the local population, which still sees them as the answer to repression by the Shiite-dominated central government.

But ISIS has a record of violence, extremism, absolutism, and ruthlessness such that even al-Qaeda disavowed them and in Syria they are as busy fighting other rebel groups as they are Assad's forces. ISIS has repeatedly gained and then lost local support and it's easy to imagine the same thing happening in Iraq. So there is a real question of how long the Sunni militant coalition, for lack of a better term, can stay together.

That's where the hope for a political settlement lies, in that this is not a battle of Iraq against an invading army of fanatics, but a battle of politically-entrenched Shiites versus disaffected Sunnis, Sunnis who could, the thinking goes, be brought back into the fold with some concessions, some gestures in their direction.

My own sense, however, is that the US belief that a new power-sharing agreement in Baghdad would soothe the anger among the Sunnis is hopelessly naive. Because if once bitten is twice shy, what is twice bitten? As Zakaria said, we've seen this movie before. Why would Sunnis believe any promises from Maliki or his government about a new power-sharing agreement? Why should they believe them?

What may come out of this - after the bloodshed that always seems to be required in such matters before people come to their senses - is what others have predicted, even advocated, before: an Iraq that exists less as a nation than as a confederation of three Iraqs: one Sunni, one Shiite, and one Kurdish.

I know not talked about the Kurds. They are an important part in what happens to Iraq in the future and deserve a full consideration, which I have not given them here. But I am going to have to save that for another day.

Rather, I'm going to wrap up by saying that, who knows, maybe things will work out in Iraq because we have evidence that miracles do happen.

Last week, someone said this about Iraq:
Not one more life. Not one more dollar, not one more airplane, not one more bullet, not one more Marine, not one more arm or leg or eye. Not one more. This must end now. From the beginning, most people on the left were against going into Iraq. I wasn’t.... Liberals, you were right. We shouldn’t have.
The person who said that was Glenn Beck.

Sources cited in links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iraq
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/16/iraq-badlands-might-be-inevitable/
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2013/03/left-side-of-aisle-101-part-4.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2013/05/left-side-of-aisle-107-part-5.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2014/01/1403-bad-news-iraq.html
http://time.com/2919534/pentagon-sending-a-message-to-iraq-by-dragging-its-boots/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/24/iraq-deaths_n_5525024.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/world/middleeast/sectarian-violence-appears-to-spread-to-streets-of-baghdad.html
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/16/opinion/lister-isis-iraq/index.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/24/kurd-leader-iraq_n_5526344.html
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/06/17/leery-and-battle-tested-kurds-watch-as-isis-routs-iraqi-army/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/glenn-beck-iraq-war_n_5505424.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

164.4 - Outrage of the Week: no legal argument in kill memo

Outrage of the Week: no legal argument in kill memo

Now for our other regular feature, the Outrage of the Week.

On Monday, June 23, a federal appeals court in Washington, DC, made public large portions of that infamous Justice Department memo that deemed it lawful for the CIA or the military to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen in Yemen, based solely on the administration's internal, unreviewable, decision that he was an an operational terrorist leader whose capture was not feasible.

The memo was completed more than a year before the September 2011 drone strike that killed
Awlaki along with another American, Samir Khan, who was not specifically targeted but apparently deserved to die because he happened to be standing nearby.

Knowledge of this memo has been out there for a while and bits of information about it have leaked out over time. The ACLU and the New York Times filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act, demanding its release. After battling the case for some time, the Obama gang, faced with an appeals court order to release a redacted version of the memo, gave in after some senators threatened to hold up the nomination of its primary author, David Barron, to a position on the federal court if the memo was not released.

Now, again, we've known about the memo for a while. We've known about the "we can kill the guy" claim for some time. It was over four years ago, in April, 2010, when in response to news reports about the decision to target Awlaki that I wrote, on my blog and to the White House, "Mr. President, just who the hell do you think you are?"

But we kept hearing about how there was this legal argument for why this was okay, all according to the rules, all's fair, and all that. They were, we were told, on sound legal footing. We should trust them on that.

And so now we've seen the memo, or at least a version of it released by the court - and it's more of an outrage than ever.

Anwar al-Awlaki
Barron took the premise that Awlaki was "an operational terrorist leader whose capture was not feasible" and just declared that therefore it would be lawful for either the military or the intelligence agency to kill him, notwithstanding federal statutes against murdering Americans overseas and protections in the Constitution against depriving someone of life without due process of law.

And that's pretty much what it says, all that it says, at least in the heavily-redacted version of it released by he court.

I'm trying to make this clear, just what I find so outrageous. This is not a tightly-reasoned legal argument, it's essentially a list of talking points, of assertions, of premises presented as conclusions, conclusions that would apply not just to Awlaki but to anyone this or any future administration, it its own, again, secret, internal, judgment, unreviewed and unreviewable by any outside agency or authority or court, it would apply to anyone they decide is a "terrorist leader."

What all this means is that the administration's vaunted legal reasoning, its supposed hard-nosed argument for why it's okay to murder American citizens away from any actual battlefield, comes down to "because it just is." We can kill anyone we think deserves killing - just because.

Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said of the memo “It’s hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances.”

Pardiss Kebriaei, a senior attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, said the memo's contents showed that the targeted killing program was built on "gross distortions of law."

Gross is a description of it. So is deeply, ethically, morally, outrageous.

Sources cited in links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/us/justice-department-found-it-lawful-to-target-anwar-al-awlaki.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2010/04/its-just-question.html
http://www.newsweek.com/when-can-federal-government-kill-its-citizens-255998
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/264257771.html

164.3 - Clown Award: Google

Clown Award: Google

Now for a regular weekly feature, the Clown Award, given for meritorious stupidity.

The winner of the Big Red Nose this week is Google, whose motto "don't be evil" seems evermore internally contradictory.

To be more specific, the target of scorn this week is YouTube, which is owned by Google.

YouTube has become a major source for streaming free music with more than 1 billion visitors per month. I was just listening to a bunch of Phil Ochs recordings just the other day.

Always looking to make a buck for itself and its google-eyed masters, YouTube recently made a pact with major record labels that would create a premium service, available to consumers for a subscription fee, featuring ad-free music.

Last week, a number of indie labels came out against the plan, arguing that the terms of the deal favor major labels at the expense of smaller ones.

In response, YouTube announced that "in a matter of days" it would blacklist artists and record labels that refused to sign on to the agreement. That is, if you didn't agree to join the subscription service, you would be booted off YouTube entirely.

The Music Producers Guild, a membership-based group of industry producers and engineers, lambasting Google's subscription model and the company "abuse of its monopoly and associated market power" as well as the impact it will have on "funds available for innovative and creative content production in the future."

It should be noted that indie labels now hold roughly a third of the music industry's market share.

As of June 23, YouTube had not yet begun removing content owned by labels that did not agree to the ad-free premium deal. Doesn't matter. The fact that you would even consider it marks you and particularly your corporate masters at Google as what we've long suspected Google to be: a money-grubbing, toad-sucking clown.

Sources cited in links:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/23/youtube-indie-artists-subscription-deal_n_5522515.html

164.2 - Update: George Will and sexual violence

Update: George Will and sexual violence

Now for an update on something from two weeks ago. At that time, I gave George Will the Clown Award for a column in which said being a victim of sexual assault was "a coveted status" at colleges and universities, complete with "privileges."

He was roundly condemned in a number of other places as well as here, and in fact got hit in the best possible place: his wallet: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has announced that it will no longer run his column, indicating in a note to readers that Will had crossed a line and, referring to the column, said "we apologize for publishing it."

In response, there were of course the usual muttering from the right about "censorship" and high-falutin' talk from the left about "let him speak," but the fact is, George Will has no more right to a nationally-syndicated column than I do. Sometimes, I think less.

Anyway, I say right on, St. Louis Post-Dispatch. As every parent does or at least should know, bad behavior doesn't change if there are no consequences.

More than that, I don't want to hear about consequences suffered by George Will, consequences that would be a tiny fraction of the consequences of sexual assault to the women he belittled as little more than status seekers.

A study published in the June issue of the journal "Gender and Society" concluded that there were several reasons why girls and young women rarely report incidents of abuse - but a major reason, significantly, is because they regarded sexual abuse and violence directed against them as "normal." They regarded, they had been socialized to accept, the grabbing, the groping, the unwanted fondling, in fact pretty much everything short of physically forced intercourse, as a routine, even expected part of life.

That's what we're putting women through on a daily basis - and that's what George Will is content to see continue.

By the way, a bit of a footnote: Studies such as this one reveal that we are socializing young women so that they are expected to accept being the target of unwanted sexual aggression. Related to that, I would hope for research - maybe it's already being done and if so I'd like to see it - on how young men are socialized so that they are expected to exhibit sexual aggression. You want to be ostracized? Be a 16-year old boy among a group of 16-year old boys and say that you wouldn't cop a feel even if you could because it just not a right thing to do. See what happens.

Sources cited in links:
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2014/06/1625-clown-award-george-will.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/19/george-will-column-yanked-st-louis-newspaper_n_5510700.html
http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/watch/troubling-behavior-some-girls-see-as-normal-232153155951
http://gas.sagepub.com/content/28/3/337.full

164.1 - Good News: no-fly list declared unconstitutional

Good News: no-fly list declared unconstitutional

We start, as I try to do every week, with some good news.

The no-fly list maintained by the US government has been what one writer accurately called a "Kafkaesque quagmire" ever since it was created in the wake of 9/11.

The list bans people suspected of some sort of link to terrorism from boarding flights of commercial airlines. The list is secret, there are no clear rules as to how a name gets placed on it, there is no way to know if you are on it except by trying to board a plane, and if you're on it, no way to find out when or why and essentially no way to challenge the listing.

Another secret is just how many people are on the list. As of last year, the FBI said it included some 20,000 people, including about 500 US citizens but there's no way to know if that's an accurate number or not: Consider that a year earlier, it was supposed to have 8,000-10,000 names.

Now, finally, over 12 years after it was created, some justice has been done. On June 24, US District Judge Anna Brown ruled that the no-fly list is unconstitutional because it gives those who discover they are on the list no meaningful way to contest that decision.

The ruling came in a case filed by the ACLU on behalf of 13 Muslim Americans, four of them US military veterans, who were branded with the no-fly status. Judge Brown ordered the government to come up with new procedures that allow people on the no-fly list to challenge that designation. She said:
The court concludes international travel is not a mere convenience or luxury in this modern world. Indeed, for many international travel is a necessary aspect of liberties sacred to members of a free society.
Accordingly, on this record the court concludes plaintiffs inclusion on the no-fly list constitutes a significant deprivation of their liberty interests in international travel.
I should note that the feds insist that there is an adequate means of contesting the flight ban - but it's unwieldy and essentially ineffective.

Rahinah Ibrahim
Well, in that event, the feds claim, you can petition a US appeals court directly for relief.

Right.

The first person to successfully pursue that course was a former Stanford University student named Rahinah Ibrahim. It took nine years: The case started in 2005 and was concluded in January of this year. According to her lawyer, Elizabeth Marie Pipkin who with a team of laywers handled the case pro bono, it cost $300,000 in court costs and $3.8 million in legal fees covering some 11,000 hours of work and featured a sealed court decision with strange redactions.

So, yeah, "no meaningful way" to contest being on the list seems accurate.

Hopefully, Judge Brown's ruling will be  upheld on appeal. Now that would be really good news.

Sources cited in links:
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/07/no_fly_nightmare_proof_that_american_anti_terror_strategy_is_an_illogical_kafkaesque_quagmire_partner/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/24/judge-no-fly-list_n_5526587.html
http://www.wired.com/2014/01/no-fly-ruling/
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140417/18082226951/crazy-redactions-no-fly-list-decision-kafkaesque-on-off-on-redactions.shtml
 
// I Support The Occupy Movement : banner and script by @jeffcouturer / jeffcouturier.com (v1.2) document.write('
I support the OCCUPY movement
');function occupySwap(whichState){if(whichState==1){document.getElementById('occupyimg').src="https://sites.google.com/site/occupybanners/home/isupportoccupy-right-blue.png"}else{document.getElementById('occupyimg').src="https://sites.google.com/site/occupybanners/home/isupportoccupy-right-red.png"}} document.write('');