In 1857, a judge named Roger authored an opinion—the Dred Scot decision—that was supposed to strike a “death blow” to the anti-slavery movement, finding that blacks had “no rights that a white man was bound to respect.” In 2011, another judge named Roger struck what he believes is the death blow to health care reform, finding the law so intrinsically-tied to the requirement that people who choose not to have health insurance be obliged to pay a tax, that the entire law should be scrapped and “sent back to the clockmaker.” Both of these Rogers were clearly out-of-touch with the times, playing to a constituency whose motivation was fear and partisanship hatred rather than reality. The decision of the first Roger did not in fact destroy the anti-slavery movement in the North, but strengthened it; the decision of the second Roger mere proves that he is a right-wing extremist who delivered precisely what the Republican attorneys general expected he would delivery.
Neither Roger had any credibility as a dispassionate jurist; both had a preconceived political and social ideology dating from a time passed. Both displayed mindless zeal in trying to thwart their “enemies.” Neither understood that the problem of the case before them could not be solved by looking back. Neither understood that the effect of their decision would only exacerbate and enlarge the problem. The present Roger knows that his decision—if it becomes the opinion of the Supreme Court—will effectively kill health care reform, because after two year the Republicans still have no rational alternative plan of their own, and with a Republican majority in the House, no responsible plan that addresses the abuses of the current health care system can be expected come out of it.
Like the Dred Scot decision that galvanized the anti-slavery forces instead of killing them as intended, this latest Roger decision should galvanize the pro-health care reform forces by its very arrogance and conceit. It’s bad enough that right-wing jurists will accept the erosion of individual rights if it is in the name of “national security” or law enforcement, yet find citizen responsibility unacceptable if it is in the name of addressing serious economic and social evils.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
The battle against ignorance goes on
These days, even checking a copy of the Seattle Times at a newsstand to find out about the day’s weather (I certainly won’t pay 75 cents for the “privilege”) can be an exercise in disgust. Of course, I wouldn’t expect to see a story about how the 13-year-old Latina, Astrid Valdivia, was “accidentally” shot in the back and killed by multiple gunshots from police fire (and it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that the two cops were also wounded by “friendly fire”). However, I would expect to see what I did see: More screaming headlines about the brown menace in the state. The reporter whose name I didn’t mention in my “vermin” post last week, Lornett Turnbull, and the Times remind me of Seattle’s “Anti-Crime” black-shirts, who even after being caught on video beating on a “suspect,” instead of taking a breath, stepping back and re-evaluating, go into a huff and take a step forward, and deliver another beating.
There has been so much misinformation about the illegal immigration problem that it is clear that racism and prejudice is the driving factor in all this. Illegal immigrants are taking jobs; illegal immigrants are exhausting social services; illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. All of these claims are either vastly overstated or outright false and provided without a hint of context, particularly in regard to the state of flux that certain sectors of the economy and labor market have always been subjected to. It seems that it is more useful to supply the populace with scapegoats instead placing the blame squarely on an incompetent and partisan politics and an unvisionary voting populace. It is also interesting to note that although the Pew Foundation claimed that their analysis of the 2010 Census suggests that there was a 35 percent increase in the number of illegal immigrants in the state—230,000—over the past three years, this is contradicted by the Foundation’s own “fact sheet” in 2007, which estimated that there were 250,000 illegal immigrants in the state in 2006, as well as by the GAO study that estimated that there were 280,000 illegal immigrants in the state that same year (the Pew Foundation, by the way, also estimates that ¼ of illegal immigrants come from countries outside of Latin America). Meanwhile, last fall the Associated Press examined government records to determine if, considering the down economy, that “natives” were applying for farm work in greater numbers. This proved not to be the case; even in California’s San Joaquin Valley, where unemployment was nearly 16 percent, getting the “natives” interested was a tough sell. Across the state, 80 percent of farm work could not be filled by U.S. citizens; even regarding the few who did accept the work, as one grower complained, it was difficult keeping them on the job, and “we had people asking for time off after they had just started. Some were actually planting the plants upside down." The AP also had trouble extracting information from the U.S. Labor Department about the application of the H2A work visa program, whose records are apparently not open to public scrutiny, but would likely confirm the difficulty growers have in using the system.
Meanwhile, an examination of the National Agriculture Workers Survey, the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey and the Farm Labor survey done by someone named Gary Huang for the Educational Resource Information Center revealed the following tidbits:
56 percent of farm workers were migrants who had travelled more than 75 miles to do crop work. 17 percent of those were “shuttle migrants” who travelled more than 75 miles between two crop jobs. 39 percent travelled to work more than 75 miles from their permanent in-state residences—and back.
Although migrant farm workers received little in employer benefits, they rarely used social services. Only one-fifth had applied for unemployment benefits in the previous two years, and not even 1 percent had applied for Social Security or disability benefits. Use of “need-based” services was also very low; despite their impoverished situation, only 17 percent applied for either government food assistance, Medicaid or other public assistance. These figures are lower than what the state claims because of the current economic situation and the fact that only those who can provide proof of legal residence can apply. Of course, people have a tendency to see one Latino face and multiply it by 10, or a hundred.
What does all of this mean? Unlike the “natives,” migrant farm workers, who may or may not be fifty percent undocumented workers, are more willing to travel the great distances necessary to actually find the work. No one is paying their “travel expenses”—such as the $2,600 being spent (yes, your tax dollars “at work”) to import every Jamaican laborer who has replaced those removed by ICE raids; of course, warm-weather Jamaicans have the added political benefit of not wishing to stay longer than necessary because of the cold weather east of the mountains—although whether they or their friends back home have any desire to come back here at all for another go is another story. The examination of the surveys also give lie to the tale that migrant workers, undocumented or not, are a burden on public services. At least for once, someone actually asked them, instead of relying on paranoid myths and stereotypical assumptions.
It’s hard to find reliably information about the Jamaicans, but one “on the spot” reporter for Fox, Dan Springer, found them on the Gebbers Farm. Despite the recent ICE raids, it still employs 700 guest workers from Mexico, along with 300 Jamaicans. The transportation costs of the Mexicans was virtually nil, but it cost nearly $800,000 to import the Jamaicans on the government dime; it is estimated that there are 4,000 Jamaican guest workers in the country, even in states like Michigan which have always been hard-hit by unemployment. Because these workers are virtually being forced on certain employers, it costs the government at least $10,000,000 to foot the tab each year to ship them in, and ship them out. Springer noted that despite a wage of $11-an-hour and pay incentives, it was virtually impossible to find “native” labor to fill these positions; he also noted that the Jamaicans couldn’t wait to get home before the snow started flying. As for their work habits, no one is speaking to that. If all the Mexicans were replaced by Jamaicans, it would cost you, Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer, $2.6 million just for Gebbers’ labor needs before even one apple was picked.
In Turnbull’s story (which is more paranoid, racist propaganda than reasoned thinking), it was noted that the state is also targeting legal immigrants, although I doubt she has the Jamaicans in mind—or the Eastern European and African immigrants I see working at the airport. For one vendor, ¾ of its work force is from Africa, most of the rest from Europe. I was surprised to learn that they earn $2-an-hour more to start than what my company offers—although I know that one airport employment agency has a website extolling the virtues of such workers, mainly by pointing out that there is a government and private business fund available to help subsidize their wages. Why would the government do this? To keep them off the public dole; spending a little prevents spending a lot—even if it means a ”native” doesn’t get the job.
But this is all humdrum stuff; aren’t you here to beat-up on “Mexicans?” While I respect Thom Hartmann—who tell us that he has the “Number One Progressive Radio Show” in the country—when I used to listen to his show I was continually frustrated when he kept blaming “Mexicans” for low wages and no jobs, as if he had never heard of China, Southeast Asia or India. The fact is that immigrant labor (especially “illegal” labor) is keeping the prices of the necessities of life low for the rest of us to afford. Raising wages to what a lazy person thinks is sufficient to get off his duff, particularly in industries like agriculture and textiles, means that the cost of the products would go beyond what the low-wage person can afford without availing themselves to charity. Raising the wages of laborers in these occupations would be nice, but then we must ask the question do these wage increases outdistance the subsequent rise in cost of food and clothing, especially in occupations where wages are not raised? If so, then I can see the point; if not, then what is your point? Rising prices also means that people will inevitably gravitate toward cheaper foreign-made goods. This country has always had this problem; migrant farm work and sweat shops have always been notorious, and foreign suppliers even worse. So while ignorant bigots give the people who feed and clothe us their closed fist, the reality is that the economy of this country cannot be “fixed” by focusing blame on the least at fault. High paying manufacturing jobs have disappeared, but like tax cuts for the richest Americans, the question is even if we had them would people buy more food or clothing in sufficient quantities to justify higher wages in those industries? That is not entirely clear; tax cuts for the rich certainly haven’t created sufficient consumerism to create jobs. And where are all these “brains” from business colleges cooking-up new and better products and creating new and better jobs? Well, most of them are trying to make a quick buck in financial gambling casinos.
As an aside, I was listening to a sports radio station when the subject of the Washington State student section at a recent game chanting “No means no” and calling an unnamed UW player a rapist came-up. Some people noted that the investigation into the case was still going on and people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Afterwards, UW play-by-play announcer Bob Rondeau was asked about the chanting, and he pointed out that Husky fans had little to grumble about. He recalled how former Oregon basketball coach Ernie Kent was greeted by fans in Washington with sombreros and “Mexican” songs after a rumor leaked out that he allegedly had taken a woman to Mexico in order to have an “affair,” which Rondeau regarded as classless. He might also have remembered Stanford’s Chris Hernandez being exposed to taunts and abusive treatment by UW students chanting “Hernaaaaaandez! We’re in your head!” Hernandez was thought to allow this treatment to get into his head, which only excited fans on. But why wouldn’t he feel “picked-on?” After all, there are few Latino players in basketball, and fewer still attending UW, which is why the antics are so despicable. They think it is safe to stereotype people they don’t have any contact with or deign to even acknowledge.
There has been so much misinformation about the illegal immigration problem that it is clear that racism and prejudice is the driving factor in all this. Illegal immigrants are taking jobs; illegal immigrants are exhausting social services; illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. All of these claims are either vastly overstated or outright false and provided without a hint of context, particularly in regard to the state of flux that certain sectors of the economy and labor market have always been subjected to. It seems that it is more useful to supply the populace with scapegoats instead placing the blame squarely on an incompetent and partisan politics and an unvisionary voting populace. It is also interesting to note that although the Pew Foundation claimed that their analysis of the 2010 Census suggests that there was a 35 percent increase in the number of illegal immigrants in the state—230,000—over the past three years, this is contradicted by the Foundation’s own “fact sheet” in 2007, which estimated that there were 250,000 illegal immigrants in the state in 2006, as well as by the GAO study that estimated that there were 280,000 illegal immigrants in the state that same year (the Pew Foundation, by the way, also estimates that ¼ of illegal immigrants come from countries outside of Latin America). Meanwhile, last fall the Associated Press examined government records to determine if, considering the down economy, that “natives” were applying for farm work in greater numbers. This proved not to be the case; even in California’s San Joaquin Valley, where unemployment was nearly 16 percent, getting the “natives” interested was a tough sell. Across the state, 80 percent of farm work could not be filled by U.S. citizens; even regarding the few who did accept the work, as one grower complained, it was difficult keeping them on the job, and “we had people asking for time off after they had just started. Some were actually planting the plants upside down." The AP also had trouble extracting information from the U.S. Labor Department about the application of the H2A work visa program, whose records are apparently not open to public scrutiny, but would likely confirm the difficulty growers have in using the system.
Meanwhile, an examination of the National Agriculture Workers Survey, the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey and the Farm Labor survey done by someone named Gary Huang for the Educational Resource Information Center revealed the following tidbits:
56 percent of farm workers were migrants who had travelled more than 75 miles to do crop work. 17 percent of those were “shuttle migrants” who travelled more than 75 miles between two crop jobs. 39 percent travelled to work more than 75 miles from their permanent in-state residences—and back.
Although migrant farm workers received little in employer benefits, they rarely used social services. Only one-fifth had applied for unemployment benefits in the previous two years, and not even 1 percent had applied for Social Security or disability benefits. Use of “need-based” services was also very low; despite their impoverished situation, only 17 percent applied for either government food assistance, Medicaid or other public assistance. These figures are lower than what the state claims because of the current economic situation and the fact that only those who can provide proof of legal residence can apply. Of course, people have a tendency to see one Latino face and multiply it by 10, or a hundred.
What does all of this mean? Unlike the “natives,” migrant farm workers, who may or may not be fifty percent undocumented workers, are more willing to travel the great distances necessary to actually find the work. No one is paying their “travel expenses”—such as the $2,600 being spent (yes, your tax dollars “at work”) to import every Jamaican laborer who has replaced those removed by ICE raids; of course, warm-weather Jamaicans have the added political benefit of not wishing to stay longer than necessary because of the cold weather east of the mountains—although whether they or their friends back home have any desire to come back here at all for another go is another story. The examination of the surveys also give lie to the tale that migrant workers, undocumented or not, are a burden on public services. At least for once, someone actually asked them, instead of relying on paranoid myths and stereotypical assumptions.
It’s hard to find reliably information about the Jamaicans, but one “on the spot” reporter for Fox, Dan Springer, found them on the Gebbers Farm. Despite the recent ICE raids, it still employs 700 guest workers from Mexico, along with 300 Jamaicans. The transportation costs of the Mexicans was virtually nil, but it cost nearly $800,000 to import the Jamaicans on the government dime; it is estimated that there are 4,000 Jamaican guest workers in the country, even in states like Michigan which have always been hard-hit by unemployment. Because these workers are virtually being forced on certain employers, it costs the government at least $10,000,000 to foot the tab each year to ship them in, and ship them out. Springer noted that despite a wage of $11-an-hour and pay incentives, it was virtually impossible to find “native” labor to fill these positions; he also noted that the Jamaicans couldn’t wait to get home before the snow started flying. As for their work habits, no one is speaking to that. If all the Mexicans were replaced by Jamaicans, it would cost you, Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer, $2.6 million just for Gebbers’ labor needs before even one apple was picked.
In Turnbull’s story (which is more paranoid, racist propaganda than reasoned thinking), it was noted that the state is also targeting legal immigrants, although I doubt she has the Jamaicans in mind—or the Eastern European and African immigrants I see working at the airport. For one vendor, ¾ of its work force is from Africa, most of the rest from Europe. I was surprised to learn that they earn $2-an-hour more to start than what my company offers—although I know that one airport employment agency has a website extolling the virtues of such workers, mainly by pointing out that there is a government and private business fund available to help subsidize their wages. Why would the government do this? To keep them off the public dole; spending a little prevents spending a lot—even if it means a ”native” doesn’t get the job.
But this is all humdrum stuff; aren’t you here to beat-up on “Mexicans?” While I respect Thom Hartmann—who tell us that he has the “Number One Progressive Radio Show” in the country—when I used to listen to his show I was continually frustrated when he kept blaming “Mexicans” for low wages and no jobs, as if he had never heard of China, Southeast Asia or India. The fact is that immigrant labor (especially “illegal” labor) is keeping the prices of the necessities of life low for the rest of us to afford. Raising wages to what a lazy person thinks is sufficient to get off his duff, particularly in industries like agriculture and textiles, means that the cost of the products would go beyond what the low-wage person can afford without availing themselves to charity. Raising the wages of laborers in these occupations would be nice, but then we must ask the question do these wage increases outdistance the subsequent rise in cost of food and clothing, especially in occupations where wages are not raised? If so, then I can see the point; if not, then what is your point? Rising prices also means that people will inevitably gravitate toward cheaper foreign-made goods. This country has always had this problem; migrant farm work and sweat shops have always been notorious, and foreign suppliers even worse. So while ignorant bigots give the people who feed and clothe us their closed fist, the reality is that the economy of this country cannot be “fixed” by focusing blame on the least at fault. High paying manufacturing jobs have disappeared, but like tax cuts for the richest Americans, the question is even if we had them would people buy more food or clothing in sufficient quantities to justify higher wages in those industries? That is not entirely clear; tax cuts for the rich certainly haven’t created sufficient consumerism to create jobs. And where are all these “brains” from business colleges cooking-up new and better products and creating new and better jobs? Well, most of them are trying to make a quick buck in financial gambling casinos.
As an aside, I was listening to a sports radio station when the subject of the Washington State student section at a recent game chanting “No means no” and calling an unnamed UW player a rapist came-up. Some people noted that the investigation into the case was still going on and people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Afterwards, UW play-by-play announcer Bob Rondeau was asked about the chanting, and he pointed out that Husky fans had little to grumble about. He recalled how former Oregon basketball coach Ernie Kent was greeted by fans in Washington with sombreros and “Mexican” songs after a rumor leaked out that he allegedly had taken a woman to Mexico in order to have an “affair,” which Rondeau regarded as classless. He might also have remembered Stanford’s Chris Hernandez being exposed to taunts and abusive treatment by UW students chanting “Hernaaaaaandez! We’re in your head!” Hernandez was thought to allow this treatment to get into his head, which only excited fans on. But why wouldn’t he feel “picked-on?” After all, there are few Latino players in basketball, and fewer still attending UW, which is why the antics are so despicable. They think it is safe to stereotype people they don’t have any contact with or deign to even acknowledge.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
I guess it's only a story now in Salt Lake City
Update from a Salt Lake City media outlet, dated February 1:
“SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A 13-year-old girl who police say ran away from a South Salt Lake foster home was identified as the person killed by police in a Sunday shooting outside a Walmart store in Washington.
An official with the Pierce County Medical Examiner's office confirmed to ABC 4 News that Astrid Valdivia died from ‘multiple gunshot wounds’ after an encounter between Kitsap County deputies and Anthony Allen Martinez on Sunday.
Police say Astrid Valdivia was with Martinez as a companion (and) ran to his aid. She was also shot, and police say she died after being taken to a local hospital.”
Note that this story states categorically that Valdivia was killed by “multiple” gunshots—by police. I did a search on the Seattle Times website, and there was nothing about this. I contacted the Times reporter who wrote the last story on the case a couple days ago, about why the paper is so far behind the eight ball on this story, and she still doesn't "get it." They put this on the front page for two days and then they just let it die. Until you (reporter) "gets it," Leave Me Alone with those, arrogant, self-serving excuses!
“SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A 13-year-old girl who police say ran away from a South Salt Lake foster home was identified as the person killed by police in a Sunday shooting outside a Walmart store in Washington.
An official with the Pierce County Medical Examiner's office confirmed to ABC 4 News that Astrid Valdivia died from ‘multiple gunshot wounds’ after an encounter between Kitsap County deputies and Anthony Allen Martinez on Sunday.
Police say Astrid Valdivia was with Martinez as a companion (and) ran to his aid. She was also shot, and police say she died after being taken to a local hospital.”
Note that this story states categorically that Valdivia was killed by “multiple” gunshots—by police. I did a search on the Seattle Times website, and there was nothing about this. I contacted the Times reporter who wrote the last story on the case a couple days ago, about why the paper is so far behind the eight ball on this story, and she still doesn't "get it." They put this on the front page for two days and then they just let it die. Until you (reporter) "gets it," Leave Me Alone with those, arrogant, self-serving excuses!
Monday, January 31, 2011
Packers: Stop your bickering and put the Steelers in their place
Over the weekend I overheard commentary concerning which NFL team was “America’s Team.” One commentator thought that the Dallas Cowboys were the fan favorite among NFL franchises, and two thought the Pittsburgh Steeler franchise was tops. Green Bay managed to make it into the top-five. I profess not to see the point in making such comparisons, because we’re dealing in different eras and different memories. The only two teams we should be talking about as the greatest franchises in NFL history are the Packers and the Chicago Bears, who have been the two constants since the league began, and are still 1-2 in the number of NFL championships won. Dallas, like the New York Yankees, is a team for the lame bandwagon crowd, for people in markets without teams to latch-on to so they can vicariously be attached to a perceived successful team; nobody wants to be associated with a “loser.” Of course, one loses the emotional highs and lows with a team that isn’t perpetually “relevant.” If you are a Brett Favre fan, you know these emotional swings all too well; last year, the mind-blowing high after his TD pass in the final seconds against San Francisco directly correlates to the primal scream low after his interception in the waning seconds of regulation against New Orleans in the NFC title game. This is what really makes the game special; that is why every year I can't wait for football season to start to put me out of my MLB and NBA snooze.
Since two of the three commentators chose the Steelers as the top NFL franchise, we should examine if that franchise really deserves this status. I think not. People born in the post-baby boom era seem to think so, meaning the merger era. These people seem to be oblivious to the fact that the Steelers were around long before they moved to the AFC. Back in 1933 they were known as the Pittsburgh Pirates before changing their name as not to be confused with the baseball team. For nearly forty years the Steelers were the perennial whipping-boy of the NFL; they did manage to make it to one “playoff” game during that span—losing 21-0 to the Philadelphia Eagles in a 1947 tie-breaker game to determine the eastern conference champion—but the team was better known for its incompetence, such as being the team that cut Johnny Unitas as a rookie in training camp (because he wasn’t “smart enough”). From 1933 to 1971, the Steelers had an overall .384 winning percentage; unlike other teams, it never had an “era” during that period where it won more games than it lost longer than two consecutive seasons. It wasn’t until 2002—70 seasons—before it won more games than it lost over the franchise’s history. And even in the merger era, it had its draught: 26 years passed between Super Bowl wins in 1980 and 2006. Every team has had its “draughts”—especially the Cowboys in the 1980s and 2000s. There is no such thing as a perpetually “dominant” or “relevant” franchise.
Why should the Packers and the Bears be given greater consideration as the most important franchises in NFL history? In the early years, the fledgling NFL had to fight to survive and earn “credibility.” The college game was considered superior to the motley professional game, and it wasn’t until the 1950s that the NFL champions achieved a clear advantage in the College All-Star game (discontinued after the weather-shortened 1976 game, won by Pittsburgh 24-0). It was the Packer and Bear franchises which alone survived and maintained continuity while other franchises came and went, or merged because of the lack of players; some teams even tried to illegally field high school players to fill rosters. Although the dramatic 1958 championship game between the Unitas-led Baltimore Colts and the New York Giants is often credited with giving professional football a higher profile, it was the dominance of the Lombardi Packers in the television age which gave the game a focus it hadn’t had before—greatness in the pro football game had been given a definition. Proof that pro football had a hold on the public imagination was further granted by the “Heidi Game,” when thousands of irate fans flooded NBC phone lines complaining of the network’s cutting away from the final minute of a 1968 contest between the “lowly” AFL’s Oakland Raiders and the New York Jets. While the opening credits of “Heidi” were airing, the Raiders were scoring two touchdowns in a nine-second span--after the Jets had “apparently” kicked a game-winning field goal; after the movie broadcast, NBC management felt compelled to issue an on-air apology to football fans.
Now, will Packer players stop their whiny bickering long enough to end this foolish talk about the Steelers being the “best” franchise?
Since two of the three commentators chose the Steelers as the top NFL franchise, we should examine if that franchise really deserves this status. I think not. People born in the post-baby boom era seem to think so, meaning the merger era. These people seem to be oblivious to the fact that the Steelers were around long before they moved to the AFC. Back in 1933 they were known as the Pittsburgh Pirates before changing their name as not to be confused with the baseball team. For nearly forty years the Steelers were the perennial whipping-boy of the NFL; they did manage to make it to one “playoff” game during that span—losing 21-0 to the Philadelphia Eagles in a 1947 tie-breaker game to determine the eastern conference champion—but the team was better known for its incompetence, such as being the team that cut Johnny Unitas as a rookie in training camp (because he wasn’t “smart enough”). From 1933 to 1971, the Steelers had an overall .384 winning percentage; unlike other teams, it never had an “era” during that period where it won more games than it lost longer than two consecutive seasons. It wasn’t until 2002—70 seasons—before it won more games than it lost over the franchise’s history. And even in the merger era, it had its draught: 26 years passed between Super Bowl wins in 1980 and 2006. Every team has had its “draughts”—especially the Cowboys in the 1980s and 2000s. There is no such thing as a perpetually “dominant” or “relevant” franchise.
Why should the Packers and the Bears be given greater consideration as the most important franchises in NFL history? In the early years, the fledgling NFL had to fight to survive and earn “credibility.” The college game was considered superior to the motley professional game, and it wasn’t until the 1950s that the NFL champions achieved a clear advantage in the College All-Star game (discontinued after the weather-shortened 1976 game, won by Pittsburgh 24-0). It was the Packer and Bear franchises which alone survived and maintained continuity while other franchises came and went, or merged because of the lack of players; some teams even tried to illegally field high school players to fill rosters. Although the dramatic 1958 championship game between the Unitas-led Baltimore Colts and the New York Giants is often credited with giving professional football a higher profile, it was the dominance of the Lombardi Packers in the television age which gave the game a focus it hadn’t had before—greatness in the pro football game had been given a definition. Proof that pro football had a hold on the public imagination was further granted by the “Heidi Game,” when thousands of irate fans flooded NBC phone lines complaining of the network’s cutting away from the final minute of a 1968 contest between the “lowly” AFL’s Oakland Raiders and the New York Jets. While the opening credits of “Heidi” were airing, the Raiders were scoring two touchdowns in a nine-second span--after the Jets had “apparently” kicked a game-winning field goal; after the movie broadcast, NBC management felt compelled to issue an on-air apology to football fans.
Now, will Packer players stop their whiny bickering long enough to end this foolish talk about the Steelers being the “best” franchise?
Friday, January 28, 2011
Washington state joins "patriotic project" of "cleansing" country of "vermin"
I came across the following declaration while surfing the Internet recently:
“Cleansing the USA of diseased illegal vermin is a huge, patriotic project that SHOULD be unifying the Left and Right in the USA.”
This was not on a white supremacist or even a Tea Party website, but one of those Yahoo question and “best answer” pages; the question went something like this: “Who will we blame for the country’s problems when we can’t blame illegal aliens anymore?” Except for one or two who wanted to blame “liberals,” most of the responses seemed completely oblivious to the question.
The sentiment seems to be catching fire, with Arizona-style paranoia catching hold even in an alleged “blue” state like Washington—where Democrats in the state legislature are telling themselves “Hell, if it works for Republicans, it can work for us.” The Seattle Times reported on this the other day, Lou Dobbs-fashion. I always thought the wrong daily newspaper in Seattle folded; maybe people with an inordinate amount of swell-headedness confused the Seattle “Times” with the New York “Times.” Despite the fact that the Times print version has shrunk to little more than a scandal sheet largely dependent on their “network” partners for hard news, it has managed to survive, with local coverage largely pandering to (or attempting to) the right-wing and “populist” segment of its perceived audience; although Latinos represent 10 percent of the state’s population, they are largely ignored, because that would mean some consideration of their opinion on certain matters—such as the Times habit of pounding them into the ground with stories that “substantiate” the prevailing stereotypes and popular prejudices—things it avoids assiduously in regard to the black community.
And so the story in the Times on Thursday concerning the state legislature’s apparent “plan” to “fix” the state budget crisis by denying undocumented workers the ability to obtain a driver’s license, is in reality part of the cynical scapegoating theme based on unproven hysteria and very little common sense. But you’d never know by what the reporter chooses to report as “facts.” I actually expected a story like this from this reporter (who is black); I once or twice questioned her via e-mail concerning what I regarded as anti-Latino bias in her stories dealing with that demographic, and she revealed herself by regrettably falling into the black vs. brown trap. Between black and white is a hard place indeed. Mainstreaming hate against one group tends to legitimatize it against other groups down the road, but that's for another day. In Washington, Latinos have little political or social clout, so it is easy for cowardly, hypocritical politicians and media to pick on them.
According to the story, the driver’s licensing issue is partly about “national security,” and also about money: “‘Illegal aliens are able to obtain Washington driver's licenses and from there they can gain employment, public benefits and other taxpayer-funded benefits,’ said Craig Keller, who heads a group called Respect Washington, which is preparing to back an initiative for the sixth straight year to discourage illegal immigration in the state.”
The “national security” issue, of course, has little application to a Latino farm laborer, but a great deal to do with all of the terrorists in this country who were either U.S. citizens, legal residents or had come into the country with valid visas. And, as usual, the reporter and the Times refuse to talk to anyone who disputes the claims that undocumented workers are a drain on public services or—in the opinion of most economists—that immigrant labor has historically been necessary for the continued economic growth of the country; setting aside the question of being illegal or not for a moment, most of these people of working age are actually here to work, are consumers contributing to the economy, and pay the same sales and property taxes as everyone is required to do. It is not their fault that they can find work and while others whine and bellyache on the sofa that there are no jobs they are willing to do. Undocumented workers are also generally younger, and thus are less apt to use health care services. Study after study by non-partisan groups have revealed that undocumented workers use fewer services than legal residents, and their tax contributions outstrip the services they use. But this simply doesn’t play to the masses for any positive benefit for politicians, apparently of either party at least in this state.
"We are attracting a population to the state of Washington that distorts the state budget, makes teachers scream about overcrowded classrooms and absconds with congressional seats" the story goes on. A Pew Foundation study found that 62 percent of 643,000 Latinos in Washington state in 2008 were native-born citizens (I know, shocking), 47 percent are homeowners (meaning they pay property taxes), and all pay state sales taxes. They account for 14 percent of students in K-12. It is absurd to blame Washington’s multi-billion dollar deficits on the “Mexicans,” and if classrooms are over-crowded, it’s because 3,000 teachers are laid-off because of education budget cuts; “screaming" about kids says more, by the way, about the quality of teacher than the kids. The state and its voters blind refusal to cut tax exemptions or approve an income tax on the wealthy who pay a fraction of their income compared to what the poorest in the state pay comes closer to understanding the real problem in this state, not blaming undocumented workers.
Several months before the Tucson massacre, the Tucson Sentinel published an op-ed that decried the “emotionalism” that clouded the immigration debate. “History is full of appeals to fear, anger and prejudice that have poisoned public discourse, divided communities and fueled violence…emotionalism has not fared well among political philosophers. As one writer put it, emotion is often viewed by scholars as ‘mysterious, inarticulate, thoughtless, blind, impulsive, intractable, extreme, biased, and selfish’…Voting or otherwise acting on the basis of emotion has even been considered by some as a failure of true citizenship…This poses challenges in forming public policy, which typically arises within a framework of laws and procedures that rely heavily on pragmatism, reflection, compromise and the neutral evaluation of empirical data. Considered in this light, Arizonans' fixation on illegal immigration has been excessive. While undocumented immigrants do increase costs and service demands for the state's institutions, there seems little factual basis for blaming illegal immigration for all or even most of Arizona's woes.”
Whether-or-not rationality has come to Arizona after the massacre is uncertain, and even if it does, it will likely be but a brief respite.
The Sentinel went on to say that “Many undocumented Arizonans work — or did until the recession — and thus contribute to the state's economy through their labor, consumption and tax payments. The importation of Mexican laborers is a long-accepted practice in the United States, dating back at least to a 1909 agreement between President William H. Taft and Mexican President Porfirio Diaz.” The Sentinel also pointed out that effective policy-making is hampered by the anti-immigrant forces use of “faulty evidence, highly contested evidence or no evidence” at all. As for crime, “border officials and other law enforcement authorities have repeatedly stated that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants have no connection to drug smuggling and are not criminals; crime, in fact, has been dropping in Arizona.”
The right-wing libertarian Cato Institute, meanwhile, has pointed out that much of the labor that is seasonal and short-term is most efficiently filled by immigrant labor—provided that a common-sense work visa program is instituted, instead of the current non-functional one. One reason why we don’t have one is businesses and private persons were perfectly happy to have labor that seemed available whenever they needed it, so why change the law? Those who resent this ultimately have only themselves to blame, because they sit around waiting for jobs to come to them instead of taking the ones that are available—because they “don’t do that kind of work.”
If Arizona’s immigrant “problem” is greatly exaggerated, then what can we say about the “problem” in Washington? It is clear that both parties are beating on undocumented workers for cynical political purposes; even Democrats, frightened by the Tea Party “express” which will likely run out of steam given sufficient time to expose their empty--if bombastic--banality, are trying to attract that bigoted voting demographic, feeding its search for a minority group to scapegoat for the state’s self-induced problems. That these problems are entirely the fault of a gutless and incompetent state government backed by an equally blind electorate suggests that this state continues to be mired in the backwater “McCabe and Mrs. Miller” days.
“Cleansing the USA of diseased illegal vermin is a huge, patriotic project that SHOULD be unifying the Left and Right in the USA.”
This was not on a white supremacist or even a Tea Party website, but one of those Yahoo question and “best answer” pages; the question went something like this: “Who will we blame for the country’s problems when we can’t blame illegal aliens anymore?” Except for one or two who wanted to blame “liberals,” most of the responses seemed completely oblivious to the question.
The sentiment seems to be catching fire, with Arizona-style paranoia catching hold even in an alleged “blue” state like Washington—where Democrats in the state legislature are telling themselves “Hell, if it works for Republicans, it can work for us.” The Seattle Times reported on this the other day, Lou Dobbs-fashion. I always thought the wrong daily newspaper in Seattle folded; maybe people with an inordinate amount of swell-headedness confused the Seattle “Times” with the New York “Times.” Despite the fact that the Times print version has shrunk to little more than a scandal sheet largely dependent on their “network” partners for hard news, it has managed to survive, with local coverage largely pandering to (or attempting to) the right-wing and “populist” segment of its perceived audience; although Latinos represent 10 percent of the state’s population, they are largely ignored, because that would mean some consideration of their opinion on certain matters—such as the Times habit of pounding them into the ground with stories that “substantiate” the prevailing stereotypes and popular prejudices—things it avoids assiduously in regard to the black community.
And so the story in the Times on Thursday concerning the state legislature’s apparent “plan” to “fix” the state budget crisis by denying undocumented workers the ability to obtain a driver’s license, is in reality part of the cynical scapegoating theme based on unproven hysteria and very little common sense. But you’d never know by what the reporter chooses to report as “facts.” I actually expected a story like this from this reporter (who is black); I once or twice questioned her via e-mail concerning what I regarded as anti-Latino bias in her stories dealing with that demographic, and she revealed herself by regrettably falling into the black vs. brown trap. Between black and white is a hard place indeed. Mainstreaming hate against one group tends to legitimatize it against other groups down the road, but that's for another day. In Washington, Latinos have little political or social clout, so it is easy for cowardly, hypocritical politicians and media to pick on them.
According to the story, the driver’s licensing issue is partly about “national security,” and also about money: “‘Illegal aliens are able to obtain Washington driver's licenses and from there they can gain employment, public benefits and other taxpayer-funded benefits,’ said Craig Keller, who heads a group called Respect Washington, which is preparing to back an initiative for the sixth straight year to discourage illegal immigration in the state.”
The “national security” issue, of course, has little application to a Latino farm laborer, but a great deal to do with all of the terrorists in this country who were either U.S. citizens, legal residents or had come into the country with valid visas. And, as usual, the reporter and the Times refuse to talk to anyone who disputes the claims that undocumented workers are a drain on public services or—in the opinion of most economists—that immigrant labor has historically been necessary for the continued economic growth of the country; setting aside the question of being illegal or not for a moment, most of these people of working age are actually here to work, are consumers contributing to the economy, and pay the same sales and property taxes as everyone is required to do. It is not their fault that they can find work and while others whine and bellyache on the sofa that there are no jobs they are willing to do. Undocumented workers are also generally younger, and thus are less apt to use health care services. Study after study by non-partisan groups have revealed that undocumented workers use fewer services than legal residents, and their tax contributions outstrip the services they use. But this simply doesn’t play to the masses for any positive benefit for politicians, apparently of either party at least in this state.
"We are attracting a population to the state of Washington that distorts the state budget, makes teachers scream about overcrowded classrooms and absconds with congressional seats" the story goes on. A Pew Foundation study found that 62 percent of 643,000 Latinos in Washington state in 2008 were native-born citizens (I know, shocking), 47 percent are homeowners (meaning they pay property taxes), and all pay state sales taxes. They account for 14 percent of students in K-12. It is absurd to blame Washington’s multi-billion dollar deficits on the “Mexicans,” and if classrooms are over-crowded, it’s because 3,000 teachers are laid-off because of education budget cuts; “screaming" about kids says more, by the way, about the quality of teacher than the kids. The state and its voters blind refusal to cut tax exemptions or approve an income tax on the wealthy who pay a fraction of their income compared to what the poorest in the state pay comes closer to understanding the real problem in this state, not blaming undocumented workers.
Several months before the Tucson massacre, the Tucson Sentinel published an op-ed that decried the “emotionalism” that clouded the immigration debate. “History is full of appeals to fear, anger and prejudice that have poisoned public discourse, divided communities and fueled violence…emotionalism has not fared well among political philosophers. As one writer put it, emotion is often viewed by scholars as ‘mysterious, inarticulate, thoughtless, blind, impulsive, intractable, extreme, biased, and selfish’…Voting or otherwise acting on the basis of emotion has even been considered by some as a failure of true citizenship…This poses challenges in forming public policy, which typically arises within a framework of laws and procedures that rely heavily on pragmatism, reflection, compromise and the neutral evaluation of empirical data. Considered in this light, Arizonans' fixation on illegal immigration has been excessive. While undocumented immigrants do increase costs and service demands for the state's institutions, there seems little factual basis for blaming illegal immigration for all or even most of Arizona's woes.”
Whether-or-not rationality has come to Arizona after the massacre is uncertain, and even if it does, it will likely be but a brief respite.
The Sentinel went on to say that “Many undocumented Arizonans work — or did until the recession — and thus contribute to the state's economy through their labor, consumption and tax payments. The importation of Mexican laborers is a long-accepted practice in the United States, dating back at least to a 1909 agreement between President William H. Taft and Mexican President Porfirio Diaz.” The Sentinel also pointed out that effective policy-making is hampered by the anti-immigrant forces use of “faulty evidence, highly contested evidence or no evidence” at all. As for crime, “border officials and other law enforcement authorities have repeatedly stated that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants have no connection to drug smuggling and are not criminals; crime, in fact, has been dropping in Arizona.”
The right-wing libertarian Cato Institute, meanwhile, has pointed out that much of the labor that is seasonal and short-term is most efficiently filled by immigrant labor—provided that a common-sense work visa program is instituted, instead of the current non-functional one. One reason why we don’t have one is businesses and private persons were perfectly happy to have labor that seemed available whenever they needed it, so why change the law? Those who resent this ultimately have only themselves to blame, because they sit around waiting for jobs to come to them instead of taking the ones that are available—because they “don’t do that kind of work.”
If Arizona’s immigrant “problem” is greatly exaggerated, then what can we say about the “problem” in Washington? It is clear that both parties are beating on undocumented workers for cynical political purposes; even Democrats, frightened by the Tea Party “express” which will likely run out of steam given sufficient time to expose their empty--if bombastic--banality, are trying to attract that bigoted voting demographic, feeding its search for a minority group to scapegoat for the state’s self-induced problems. That these problems are entirely the fault of a gutless and incompetent state government backed by an equally blind electorate suggests that this state continues to be mired in the backwater “McCabe and Mrs. Miller” days.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Palin-Bachmann in 2012: bring 'em on
After President Obama’s State of the Union speech, CNN came under fire from some commentators for not just airing the official Republican response by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, but the “official” Tea Party” response given by Minnesota’s lunatic congressperson Michele Bachmann. Bachmann has been spouting the same simplistic nonsense well before there was a “Tea Party” movement, which only tells us that “Tea Party” right-wing extremism is as old as the hills these billies came down from. From what we saw from congressional Republicans these past two years, there is essentially no difference between “mainstream” Republicans and Tea Party Republicans; what difference there is seems to be that the latter have not sense enough to keep their silly mouths shut. Obama’s speech was of course subject to the latest media gimmick, the “factcheck”—which seems to have only been in use for the past year, and certainly seemed absent when George Bush was starting his Mideast adventures and judging the effect of his massive tax cuts; the use of this device seems easier to aim at people who are actually trying to put forth policies to fix the economy (Democrats) rather than those who are not offering anything of substance (Republicans). It would be interesting to see the media “factcheck” doing nothing, but that would require some work on their part, instead of relying on “facts” given to them by right-wing think tanks.
Anyways, the real reason why CNN deserves censure for airing Bachmann’s “response” is that she is for all intents and purposes an intolerant bigot who has little grip on reality. A few days ago she gave a speech in Iowa (not, of course, to test the waters for a potential presidential run against the “inadequate black man”) in which she spouted the usual simple-minded anti-tax propaganda and the budget deficit—which is a direct result of Bush’s tax policies and lack of regulatory restraint which failed to allow sufficient cushion to get the country out of its deepest recession since the Great Depression. And it isn’t just a federal problem. In the past two years for the first time in recent history, state government response to pain caused by the recession did not include increased spending, because of sharp revenue falls; instead, massive cuts that have going on for years before the recession are the order of the day—and states have become more dependent on federal assistance. Texas, for example, faces a shocking 25 percent short fall in revenues in the next two years because of its anti-tax policies; Molly Ivins called her state “ low-tax, low-service”—meaning that Texas depends on federal government assistant more than any other state to cover its own shortfalls, especially in health care.
But that’s all just more of the usual hypocrisy. While people are holding signs accusing Obama’s health care plan as creating “white slavery,” Bachmann was telling historical tales according to the right-wing, history-denying Texas Board of Education textbook:
"It didn't matter the color of their (immigrants) skin. It didn't matter their language. It didn't matter their economic status. It didn't matter whether they descended from nobility or whether they have a higher class or lower class. It made no difference. Once you got here, we were all the same. Isn't that remarkable?"
Tell that to Irish Catholics subjected to Know-Nothing Party paranoia, the Chinese subjected to “colored” laws in California, and the stereotypes and prejudices Latino immigrants have endured through-out this country’s history; try to tell them that being “brown” makes no “difference” the way you are treated in this country. It also “mattered” when this country first enacted the immigration quota law in 1924, to keep “illiterate,” “imbecilic” and “criminal” Eastern and Mediterranean Europeans from immigrating in large numbers.
Blacks, of course, were mainly involuntary immigrants, but what does that matter to a historically-illiterate congresswoman and her Tea Party audience? Bachmann went to say that the founding fathers “worked tirelessly” to end slavery, which, of course, ignores the fact that all the founding fathers were dead long before the Civil War; while many of the founding fathers did not like slavery, they never countenanced the idea of actually ending it—in fact it was written right into the Constitution to appease Southern slave-holders. Maybe John Quincy Adams didn’t like slavery, but that didn’t mean he opposed the “peculiar institution” wholesale; he didn’t want it expanding outward. Bachmann, like Sarah Palin, also seems to have similar problems with identifying who a “founding father” is; George Washington was not technically a part of the group that established the governing principles of the country, nor was Adams—although his father, John Adams, was.
Was Bachmann engaging in a sad effort to portray herself and the Tea Party movement as something other than intolerant bigots, especially in the wake of the Tucson massacre? If so, telling blatant feel-good falsehoods designed to obscure the history of discrimination in this country that has not really left us will only fool those who wish to be. Bachmann was subsequently the subject of much harsh criticism on MSNBC, but also by Anderson Cooper over on CNN; Cooper said that on CNN, “facts matter.” Like, since when? I’ll give Cooper some credit for taking on some real right-wing flakes on his show, but for his network in general, not a bit.
I found a recent study by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race and Sexuality about the content of Tea Party websites and their top-heaviness in non-race neutral subjects to be particularly useful in understanding the Tea Party “phenomenon.” For example, subjects dealing with “patriotism/take the country back”—code for white intolerance—is 10 percent of the content; attacks against the alleged “socialist” bogeyman—i.e. the “leveler” of society—is 23 percent of content. Personal attacks on Obama is 8 percent of content, attacks on immigrants is 6 percent, while overt racist commentary is 4 percent of content. Attacks on the media registered at 15 percent, and big government/states’ rights commentary came in with 14 percent. Interestingly, foreign policy issues register a meager 2 percent.
The “mainstream” conservative National Review’s content was examined, and 75 percent of its subject matter dealt in foreign policy, national security and governing issues. However, the content of Glenn Beck’s ranting was closer to the Tea Party’s—although his election year rants were heavier on “big government” and foreign policy than the Tea Party’s. The study also revealed the obvious: Tea Partiers were much more likely to believe that we have gone “too far” in trying to achieve racial equality and equal opportunity; in fact, only 31 percent of Tea Partiers who were part of the study thought that if everyone was treated equally, we’d have fewer problems in this country. Interestingly, only 37 percent of Tea Partiers, and 63 percent of all whites, thought that Obama was “intelligent.” The study also found that half of whites across the ideological spectrum—not just Tea Partiers—gave similarly middling marks to blacks and Latinos on such topics as intelligence, work ethic and “trustworthiness.” Interestingly, Tea Partiers were less to apt to be approving of their fellow whites than the whites as a whole, although we can assume this reflects their belief in the number of minorities, liberals and “socialists” in the country.
I must admit that given all this Tea Party hype, is there a chance that we'll see a Palin-Bachmann presidential ticket in 2012? Sure it's like having a root canal without anesthetic, but being a Democrat I kinda like the sound of it come 2012.
Anyways, the real reason why CNN deserves censure for airing Bachmann’s “response” is that she is for all intents and purposes an intolerant bigot who has little grip on reality. A few days ago she gave a speech in Iowa (not, of course, to test the waters for a potential presidential run against the “inadequate black man”) in which she spouted the usual simple-minded anti-tax propaganda and the budget deficit—which is a direct result of Bush’s tax policies and lack of regulatory restraint which failed to allow sufficient cushion to get the country out of its deepest recession since the Great Depression. And it isn’t just a federal problem. In the past two years for the first time in recent history, state government response to pain caused by the recession did not include increased spending, because of sharp revenue falls; instead, massive cuts that have going on for years before the recession are the order of the day—and states have become more dependent on federal assistance. Texas, for example, faces a shocking 25 percent short fall in revenues in the next two years because of its anti-tax policies; Molly Ivins called her state “ low-tax, low-service”—meaning that Texas depends on federal government assistant more than any other state to cover its own shortfalls, especially in health care.
But that’s all just more of the usual hypocrisy. While people are holding signs accusing Obama’s health care plan as creating “white slavery,” Bachmann was telling historical tales according to the right-wing, history-denying Texas Board of Education textbook:
"It didn't matter the color of their (immigrants) skin. It didn't matter their language. It didn't matter their economic status. It didn't matter whether they descended from nobility or whether they have a higher class or lower class. It made no difference. Once you got here, we were all the same. Isn't that remarkable?"
Tell that to Irish Catholics subjected to Know-Nothing Party paranoia, the Chinese subjected to “colored” laws in California, and the stereotypes and prejudices Latino immigrants have endured through-out this country’s history; try to tell them that being “brown” makes no “difference” the way you are treated in this country. It also “mattered” when this country first enacted the immigration quota law in 1924, to keep “illiterate,” “imbecilic” and “criminal” Eastern and Mediterranean Europeans from immigrating in large numbers.
Blacks, of course, were mainly involuntary immigrants, but what does that matter to a historically-illiterate congresswoman and her Tea Party audience? Bachmann went to say that the founding fathers “worked tirelessly” to end slavery, which, of course, ignores the fact that all the founding fathers were dead long before the Civil War; while many of the founding fathers did not like slavery, they never countenanced the idea of actually ending it—in fact it was written right into the Constitution to appease Southern slave-holders. Maybe John Quincy Adams didn’t like slavery, but that didn’t mean he opposed the “peculiar institution” wholesale; he didn’t want it expanding outward. Bachmann, like Sarah Palin, also seems to have similar problems with identifying who a “founding father” is; George Washington was not technically a part of the group that established the governing principles of the country, nor was Adams—although his father, John Adams, was.
Was Bachmann engaging in a sad effort to portray herself and the Tea Party movement as something other than intolerant bigots, especially in the wake of the Tucson massacre? If so, telling blatant feel-good falsehoods designed to obscure the history of discrimination in this country that has not really left us will only fool those who wish to be. Bachmann was subsequently the subject of much harsh criticism on MSNBC, but also by Anderson Cooper over on CNN; Cooper said that on CNN, “facts matter.” Like, since when? I’ll give Cooper some credit for taking on some real right-wing flakes on his show, but for his network in general, not a bit.
I found a recent study by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race and Sexuality about the content of Tea Party websites and their top-heaviness in non-race neutral subjects to be particularly useful in understanding the Tea Party “phenomenon.” For example, subjects dealing with “patriotism/take the country back”—code for white intolerance—is 10 percent of the content; attacks against the alleged “socialist” bogeyman—i.e. the “leveler” of society—is 23 percent of content. Personal attacks on Obama is 8 percent of content, attacks on immigrants is 6 percent, while overt racist commentary is 4 percent of content. Attacks on the media registered at 15 percent, and big government/states’ rights commentary came in with 14 percent. Interestingly, foreign policy issues register a meager 2 percent.
The “mainstream” conservative National Review’s content was examined, and 75 percent of its subject matter dealt in foreign policy, national security and governing issues. However, the content of Glenn Beck’s ranting was closer to the Tea Party’s—although his election year rants were heavier on “big government” and foreign policy than the Tea Party’s. The study also revealed the obvious: Tea Partiers were much more likely to believe that we have gone “too far” in trying to achieve racial equality and equal opportunity; in fact, only 31 percent of Tea Partiers who were part of the study thought that if everyone was treated equally, we’d have fewer problems in this country. Interestingly, only 37 percent of Tea Partiers, and 63 percent of all whites, thought that Obama was “intelligent.” The study also found that half of whites across the ideological spectrum—not just Tea Partiers—gave similarly middling marks to blacks and Latinos on such topics as intelligence, work ethic and “trustworthiness.” Interestingly, Tea Partiers were less to apt to be approving of their fellow whites than the whites as a whole, although we can assume this reflects their belief in the number of minorities, liberals and “socialists” in the country.
I must admit that given all this Tea Party hype, is there a chance that we'll see a Palin-Bachmann presidential ticket in 2012? Sure it's like having a root canal without anesthetic, but being a Democrat I kinda like the sound of it come 2012.
Google caves to industry pressure--sort of
Due to pressure from industry groups, Google has “secretly” installed a software filter that will prevent certain “keywords” from automatically displaying results via its “autocomplete” and “instant” search mechanisms. This step amounts to little more than a fig-leaf, since last summer Google won a court case brought by Viacom in which the search provider was found not responsible for removing copy-righted material from YouTube; if a person or company wanted copy-righted material removed from YouTube, they had to make a specific request in order that it be done. The search terms being filtered-out are ones that supposedly are used by entities involved in piracy and illegal downloads, such as upload/download sites like Rapidshare, Megaupload and Depositfiles, and torrent sites like Bit Torrent. Admittedly, the filter is far from completely effective, and is mainly aimed at “newbies” completely unfamiliar with internet downloading. For example, if someone who does not know what Rapidshare is, they will not come across the term “accidentally.” You would have to type in the entire word before any “instant” search results are listed. However, it is virtually impossible for any filter to prevent access to anything that is uploaded, short of destroying the Internet as an effective medium for communication and commerce altogether; the only way to effectively stop illegal downloads is to shutdown upload/download sites altogether, but new sites pop-up all the time, and sometimes based in countries that don’t respect copy-right law and are out of the reach of international law. Reality is tough to except, but there has been some effort to make such entities “pay sites” and advertisement-laden in order to reimburse owners of copy-rights.
The music industry claims it is losing millions or billions of dollars from pirating, which may or may not be literally true. I buy a song if I absolutely must have it (I certainly won’t buy a whole album unless it’s a “hits” compilation), but if it is something I can live without, I won’t bother; too much of new music does nothing for me, and I already have most of what I do like converted from old CDs. On the other hand, like my preference for paper-bound books over “e-books,” I’d much rather buy a clean, director-approved DVD than settle for an inferior download, "free" or not; the biggest problem I have with industry group bellyaching is that many “illegal” downloads are material that is impossible to find legally; for example, many films that have never been available on DVD (such as Looking For Mr. Goodbar, The Sterile Cuckoo and Lili) or have been discontinued can sometimes be found via torrent, although usually converted from old VHS tapes; I don’t have the time or patience to avail myself to torrent downloads, since it usually takes days or weeks for large files to download by this method—although unlike other download mechanisms, torrent downloads can be saved and resumed at anytime as long as there are peers and seeds online (or so I have read). In 2009, a Swedish court found the torrent provider The Pirate Bay guilty of allowing serial copy-right infringement, and four of its management team were each sentenced to one year in prison and $900,000 fines; the four were released after an appeal, but this past November a Swedish appeals court reduced the prison sentences but raised their liability. Meanwhile, the website continues to thumb its nose at authority, still conducting its business as usual.
It obviously will take a great deal of time before the Internet is completely tamed, and it may never be, short of eviscerating it to the point of rendering it useless. The genie is out of the bottle, and as the record industry has learned, it costs more to stop illegal downloading than regaining the revenue it believes it has lost because of it; all you have to do is look at the slim pickings on record shelves these day.
The music industry claims it is losing millions or billions of dollars from pirating, which may or may not be literally true. I buy a song if I absolutely must have it (I certainly won’t buy a whole album unless it’s a “hits” compilation), but if it is something I can live without, I won’t bother; too much of new music does nothing for me, and I already have most of what I do like converted from old CDs. On the other hand, like my preference for paper-bound books over “e-books,” I’d much rather buy a clean, director-approved DVD than settle for an inferior download, "free" or not; the biggest problem I have with industry group bellyaching is that many “illegal” downloads are material that is impossible to find legally; for example, many films that have never been available on DVD (such as Looking For Mr. Goodbar, The Sterile Cuckoo and Lili) or have been discontinued can sometimes be found via torrent, although usually converted from old VHS tapes; I don’t have the time or patience to avail myself to torrent downloads, since it usually takes days or weeks for large files to download by this method—although unlike other download mechanisms, torrent downloads can be saved and resumed at anytime as long as there are peers and seeds online (or so I have read). In 2009, a Swedish court found the torrent provider The Pirate Bay guilty of allowing serial copy-right infringement, and four of its management team were each sentenced to one year in prison and $900,000 fines; the four were released after an appeal, but this past November a Swedish appeals court reduced the prison sentences but raised their liability. Meanwhile, the website continues to thumb its nose at authority, still conducting its business as usual.
It obviously will take a great deal of time before the Internet is completely tamed, and it may never be, short of eviscerating it to the point of rendering it useless. The genie is out of the bottle, and as the record industry has learned, it costs more to stop illegal downloading than regaining the revenue it believes it has lost because of it; all you have to do is look at the slim pickings on record shelves these day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)