How Alaska Airlines still managed to get out from under the SeaTac minimum wage law

 

I just happened upon a yard sign today that was advertising jobs for a company that provides ramp and baggage work  for a particular airline at Sea-Tac Airport. You wouldn’t be seeing such signs around unless, of course, the company was desperate for bodies. And indeed, as one former employee of the company stated on a business review site in just the past month, it “throws out employees every week,” while another writes “High turnover is going to be a thing.” One current employee says “Don’t come to work for this company. The work environment is very hostile…hard workers for the ones who don’t do work…the leads just sit around playing with their phones and watching videos…the equipment is very old, it doesn’t work and they don’t give it proper maintenance.” Another person says “coworkers steal equipment and get in physical fights over this daily.” Still another says that due to “nepotism” and “favoritism,” the job is “alright” if you are an “islander/Polynesian,” probably in reference to the Samoans.

Sounds like what people used to say about Menzies Aviation, the UK company which Alaska Airlines contracted after it failed to reach a pay-cut agreement with the ramp and baggage-handler union back in 2005.  I remember those days when I was working at the airport: everyone who was a member of a union just hated anyone wearing a Menzies uniform, the equipment that Alaska forced them to use was junk and/or in short supply, and people actually hid tugs in faraway corners of the airport so no one else could use them.

And, apparently, nothing has changed since McGee Air Services took over ramp and baggage duties in 2016—with mostly former Menzies employees to start, although I'm fairly certain that most of them have "turned over" by now, although the  people replacing them come from the same pot. Why did Alaska Airlines make this switch? Even though McGee’s rampers and baggage-handlers were now “automatically” enrolled in the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), that turned out to be not quite the positive result for those employees as it would have first appeared.

First off, The Seattle Times aerospace reporter, Dominic Gates, is a bit of a hypocrite. He frequently demeaned Menzies employees, making exaggerated claims (probably from what disgruntled airline employees told him)  of incompetence and damaging planes—conveniently forgetting that the last serious accident involving Alaska Airlines, AA Flight 261 in 2000 that killed 88 passengers and crew, occurred five years before Menzies took over ramp duties. In that flight, a jack screw flaw was not discovered due to lax maintenance procedures, and the plane slammed so fast nose-diving into the Pacific Ocean that none of the bodies recovered was identifiable, save from forensic investigation.

Gates eventually had to change his tune when McGee was obliged to “rehire” most of Menzies workforce—ironic, since Menzies literally had to start from scratch after Alaska laid-off most of its union rampers who refused to work at a lower pay rate. Another irony is that although it was Menzies who was sued for not paying the $15-an-hour  rate after the city of SeaTac law was passed, and eventually had to pay back wages, it was Alaska Airlines that was the true “villain” in all of this, as it always had been, since they had continued to fight the minimum wage law, and left Menzies in no position to pay the higher wage since its contract with Alaska did not provide for the additional money needed. In fact, soon after the state Supreme Court forced compliance with the wage law in 2015,  Alaska was back in action to undermine it.

Forced to pay Menzies employees the $15-an-hour as stipulated by the law,  Alaska contracted with McGee Air Services, which was “mysteriously” founded that year by former Alaska employees in Renton. It claimed it would be a “better” employer than Menzies after Alaska announced they were ending their partnership with that company at Sea-Tac Airport. Why was Alaska doing this? Menzies was an outside company, like any of the eateries or car rentals that had “franchises” inside the airport facility. They were not technically employees of Alaska, so they were subject to the city’s laws, per the court ruling.

Although McGee claims to be “independent” and can “partner” with other airlines, it is in fact owned by Alaska as one of its “subsidiary” companies—thus they operate at the whim of Alaska. Former Menzies employees “rehired” by McGee found this out when their next paychecks were slightly lighter than the one’s before, and because of an “exemption” in the IAM contract they were forced to sign on too, many of the “new” workers, like cargo handlers, saw their base pay actually drop $4-an-hour less than the “minimum” wage, including yearly hikes. The McGee Air Service and IAM collective bargaining agreement with Alaska for the period 2016 to 2023 for “ground handling agents” states that the initial base wage at “date of hire” is to be $12, and stops at $13.25 after three years from date of hire; this presumably only applies to “new hires,” but that does not seem to be the case for everyone, and other union members expressed concern that they would be replaced by new hires under this contract.

It is at Alaska’s “discretion” that it would abide by any city law concerning minimum wages in regard to its own employees, and in fact the SeaTac law allows such discretion, which it did because it feared that airlines would take their opposition to the federal courts. That isn’t all: the union agreed that while new hires would have a six-month probationary period, this could be extended indefinitely, and employees could be “severed” without cause and without notice. Medical benefits only need to comply with the ACA’s “bronze” plans, meaning the minimum coverage allowed by the ACA. And as anyone knows who has worked at the airport, if you are not a supervisor or office worker, there is no such thing as a “holiday.” It always seemed somewhat unfair to me that you could make “double time” if your work schedule had you working on a national holiday—you were just more “lucky” than someone else who worked the exact same amount of hours you did.

There is also this interesting tidbit:

The Union agrees that it shall indemnify the Company and hold the Company harmless from any and all claims, awards, and judgments, including court costs, which arise out of any action brought by an employee by virtue of any terms of this section.

What this means is that McGee and the Union agrees to “absolve” Alaska Airlines of any “responsibility” or financial damages from a complaint brought forward by an employee in the union. The grievance procedure in the CBA seems unnecessarily complicated and full of red tape, clearly designed to discourage complaints. If the “aggrieved” employee is demanding monetary compensation, the process can take many months and even longer before the case reaches something called the “System Board of Adjustment,” and even if “successful,” awards are limited to “actual compensation accruing from the date of the violation, but in no case earlier than 30 days prior to the date the grievance was filed. The Board will have no authority to award punitive damages or other penalties or demands that go beyond, or are inconsistent with, direct compliance with the Agreement.” That means that Alaska is not liable for anything other than what it was responsible for in the first place.

Then comes that infamous “waiver” of local ordinances and regulations:

It is the intent of the parties that, to the extent permitted by law, this Agreement supercede and/or waive any local ordinances and regulations that otherwise would be applicable to the Company’s employees covered by this Agreement with respect to wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment. 

And this is how Alaska Airlines found it’s backdoor way to get out from under full compliance with the SeaTac law mandating a $15-an-hour wage for airport employees. For all the brickbats aimed at it, rampers were probably better off with Menzies; they'd have the same lousy gear to work with, but at least they'd be making more money.

Republicans are just following the mob that is following Trump

 

The Republican Party has been for decades the party without a clue and without ideas, beyond cutting taxes for the rich and building walls both literally and psychologically. It has survived solely on corporate money and expanding its “Southern Strategy”—the appeal to white grievance in reaction against civil rights—and expanding its tentacles across the country. Many if not most Republicans view Trumpism as the “logical” progression of this movement: anti-immigrant, demonizing anyone to the left of center-right (i.e. “moderate”), and encouraging irrational fear of any government initiative aiming to help (as opposed to hurting) people. Such people, as we have seen, have the potential to exchange democratic elections for a Third World dictatorship.

Lies, misinformation and out-right falsehoods all play a part in undermining democracy in this country. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy—who has already sacrificed what’s left of his credibility in the real world by whitewashing his memory of the events of January 6 and Trump’s part in it—is promoting another big lie, except that this is one is really "big":

We represent Americans of all backgrounds and continue to grow our movement by the day. And unlike the left, we embrace free thought and debate. All members are elected to represent their constituents as they see fit, but our leadership team cannot afford to be distracted by the important work we were elected to do and the share goals we hope to achieve.

And this after Republicans who dared question Trump’s election lies have been censured and threatened? This is a party that permits “free thought”? Removing Liz Cheney from her leadership position is “embracing free thought and debate”? Note also that McCarthy uses the term “all backgrounds” rather than all races, creeds or religions, which somewhat reduces the size of the "tent." What exactly is the “work” that the party cannot be “distracted” by—what was it again?—“free thought and debate”? The usual Republican pastimes of obstruction and name-calling? How about that Maryland billboard with Biden and Kamala Harris superimposed on a pile of feces, with a caption calling them “shitheads”; local officials won’t remove it because it is a “free speech” issue, but I don’t think it is too tough figure out who the real “shitheads” are there.

As Sen. Lindsay Graham so “succinctly” put it, Republicans have chosen to sink or swim with Trump, whether he strengthens or destroys the party. The fact is that most Republicans simply do not know where their fealty to Trump is leading them. They are not even exactly following Trump personally, since deep down, many dislike him personally and find his lack of intellect frustrating. But he is followed by a largely ignorant mob that believes in conspiracy theories and is small-minded and bigoted. These people swarm around Trump like flies to a dung pile; Republicans don’t really follow Trump, at least not those who consider themselves “adults”—they follow the mob that is following Trump. And they will keep following the mob until they tire of him, or Trump reveals himself “unworthy” of their adulation, or he just gets too old to keep acting in this unreality show.

And when the “show” is over, where will Republican credibility as a party be then? Most of them will have already left their own burning in an ash heap.  In states like Texas, whose Non-Hispanic white population makes up only 41 percent of the population—a  number that will only keep going down—will diehard Trumpists be too “confused” about what’s next for them, or will they keep looking for another radical Trumpist, united solely on the immigration issue? With Republican moves to suppress minority voters with new anti-voting laws, and the large majority of the under-18s minority, it is only a matter of time when a new, more progressive voting block arises, alienated by the efforts of white Republicans to close their “tent” to them. When Texas does flip, the Republican refusal to disengage from Trumpism/fascism will have done its part.

Some Republicans, of course, realize the limits to success of Trumpism. Sen. Mitt Romney asserted rightly that attempts to remove Rep. Cheney from her leadership position simply because she continues to call out Trump for his continuing efforts to undermine democracy only “satisfies” the radicalized base, and more likely will lose Republicans votes from fence-sitters who see the party as much less tolerant to diverse opinions than they claim to be. Even McConnell seems to realize that merely being the “party of no” and obstructionist is tuning out a majority of voters. Biden has, according to one recent poll, a 63 percent job approval rating, which seems to suggest that his promotion of a job-creating infrastructure plan, and immigration and voting rights reform creates the image of a man-with-a-plan.

And just having a “plan” is a positive development in a time of uncertainty after four year of chaos, which reached its culmination with the January 6 insurrection.  Revelations that Capitol police deliberately ignored indications of an imminent attack by a large group of Proud Boys, instead concentrating their attention on a few small groups of “counter-protesters,” shows how far awry the country’s moral compass had become. Former acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller—who for a month during the transition period refused to cooperate with the Biden team—defended his failure to insure that there was even the unarmed National Guard presence that had been requested, and ”praised” his own actions even though by the time the National Guard was deployed, the insurrection was largely over. Who wanted more of this?

McConnell and some of his Senate colleagues are now suggesting they may be willing to “compromise” with Democrats on an infrastructure proposal, because after positive reviews from the public on the Biden COVID relief package that passed with no Republican votes, only a party beholden to an ignorant buffoon like Trump would choose to be the one that voters will ask come the midterms “And what have you done for me anyways?” and the answer will be “not much.”

Even with vaccine availability, we are still a long way from "herd immunity," if we ever get there

 

I admit that I was on the fence about getting a COVID-19 vaccination shot. Save for a couple of normal sinus flare-ups, I haven’t felt “sick” at all since the pandemic started. I did everything I was supposed to do: wear a mask in public and at work, and even outside  when there was no one around. I don’t “hang out” with people during my off-hours, so I wasn’t around people who might have the virus. Besides, “only” 10 percent of the population has officially tested positive for the virus, so there is this notion that some people are more “immune” than others.

For the past couple of months I have walked past the ShoWare Center in Kent, which is housing an official King County vaccination site; I saw long lines outside the building, which was sufficient to dissuade me. Anyways, you read news reports about people getting sick and even dying after getting a shot. I’m thinking “I’ve been feeling perfectly fine, and what if my system reacts negatively if something like this is injected in my body now?”

Then last week the lines disappeared and the electronic billboard was telling people that walk-in appointments were now allowed. That kind of changed things; I didn’t have that excuse anymore, or to wait in line to do any thinking. Just walk in, and get the hell out. I was off on Friday, so I decided to mosey on over, half hoping that there would be those lines again and appointments required. But no such luck, just a few guides standing outside. OK, here we go.

I was directed toward a door and registered at the “guest” table, where I had to provide personal information, and answer a few questions—like what my “race or ethnicity” was. I told the person to put “other”; she persisted in my being more “specific,” suggesting terms like “Latino or Hispanic.” I told her I didn’t know what the hell I was, but I thanked her for providing me her honest assessment of what she thought I was; I don’t want to live in a world of illusion.

Then I went to a table where I was to receive my first dose of the Pfizer vaccine. I rolled up my sleeve, and someone stuck a needle in me that I didn’t even feel go in. I asked this person what would happen if I didn’t get a second shot, and she said “nothing.” After that I was given a note card as a vaccination record, and piece of paper that indicated how long I had to sit in the auditorium (15 minutes) before getting an appointment for a second shot in three weeks.

I asked some guy who was there as a guide how far the needle was supposed to go in, because I hadn’t felt a thing; he indicated that the needle is supposed to go in an inch, which caused me to wonder if I had been given a proper shot. But checking the web on my phone, apparently other people noted that they hadn’t felt the needle go in at all. I felt fortunate that I must be one of those “lucky ones” who didn’t have any side effects from the shot.

But my “luck” ran out about four hours later when I began to feel soreness in my shoulder. That at least convinced me that the shot was “real,” and the soreness lasted for about 24 hours. And that was that. I don’t feel any different than I did before I got the shot—only now I feel I did my duty as a patriotic and responsible citizen and had at least begun the process of being an anonymous number on a spread sheet that moved the state one step closer to “normalcy.”

There have been reports of overflows of vaccine availability throughout the country, such as in Los Angeles, where “walk-ins” are now allowed. This isn’t actually a “good” thing, since reports indicate that people are simply not coming in to be vaccinated. As of today, the CDC vaccination tracker indicates that no state is even close to having 50 percent of the eligible population fully vaccinated. Only eight states are above 40 percent, and the state of Washington is only at 36 percent.

Of the states hardest hit by COVID deaths, New Jersey is at 41 percent, South Dakota and New York are at 39 percent, Pennsylvania and Michigan are at 36 percent, California is at 35 percent, Florida is at 32 percent, and Texas is at 30 percent. Tennessee is at only 27 percent, and—naturally—Mississippi brings up the rear at 25.13 percent. What is with Mississippi, anyways? Does it take “pride” in being last in everything?

Some of these states, mainly in the South, have not taken the pandemic seriously for political reasons, which accounts for their relatively low vaccination rates. We can assume that in Florida, where people are actually attacked for continuing to wear face-masks, people are just following their “leader,” and in Texas—where Hispanics account for half the COVID-related deaths—“outreach” hasn’t exactly been a priority by the virus-denying Republican state government and the lack of availability of  affordable health care for low-income people in that anti-ACA state.

As for Mississippi, The New York Times is reporting that half of Republicans say they have no plans on being vaccinated, while only four percent of Democrats in the state say they will not consider vaccination. Black Mississippians have still received vaccinations at a lower rate per their population than whites, and misinformation about the vaccines appear to be rampant. One Mississippi physician, Dr. Vernon Rayford, noted that while blacks feared the health care system, white refusal to be vaccinated was based on distrust of the government. Mississippi health officials are in fact obliged to focus their attention on blacks and Hispanics, because whites in Mississippi only seem willing to listen to Republican Gov. Tate Reeves, who has been a COVID “skeptic.”

It is estimated that from 70 to 90 percent of the adult population must be vaccinated for “herd immunity” to be effective. In regard to that, The Times notes that a recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that only 55 percent of blacks, 61 percent of Hispanics and 64 percent of whites have been or intend on being vaccinated. As the CDC statistics show, we still have a long way to go before we even reach that level of intended vaccination, let alone the level that is needed for herd immunity.

Of course, we could go the way of India, Brazil, Mexico and Sweden (or, for that matter, South Dakota), which provide examples of how a politically-controlled health care system by Republicans would work, where hundreds of thousands (or more likely, millions) of “useless eaters” would be sacrificed so that the privileged and well-off can keep partying.

Beware of Trump/QAnon supporters among us; to them, all "libs" are potential "pedophiles" who deserve to be shot

I was walking toward Capitol Hill in Seattle when a man and a woman holding hands walked past me from behind. Neither one was wearing a face-mask like about 90 percent of everyone else was, since businesses, stores and walk-in restaurants and coffee shops still requires them. The man looked like your typical “tough guy” with hairless head and tattoos; it was obvious that they were making a “political statement” here in this alleged bastion of runaway “liberalism.” Normally, I would just consider them a couple of jerks—save for what I saw on the man’s shirt. I didn’t want to take a picture of him too close up, because I was afraid he might take a swing at me, but it was about the same as this:

I called out to the man “Oh, is that why you are not wearing a mask?” and then “Trump Nazi!” He turned around and said something which I didn’t quite make out, and I repeated the same, which caused him to disengage from his partner, but he was persuaded to ignore me. and kept walking. I was satisfied that I had made my point, and this was one person he wasn't fooling. Now why would I be so rude as to call this guy an anti-masker and a Trump Nazi when he was only “concerned” about the kids? Because as we have learned from QAnon and far-right thinking, “pedophiles” is just another word for “libs.” There are of course variations on the “theme”:

And this one, which seems to be more to the "point" these people are trying to make:

The people who concoct these slogans are also responsible for this:

And this:

The places where you find these for sale do not, it seems, have an anti-Trump or anti-fascist clothing line, but they do use  teen and minority “models,” apparently either to prove they are not white-supremacists/nationalist, or to poison the minds of the next generation to think this all has a “morally superior” motivation.

Far-right types and Trump supporters frequently claim they oppose mask-wearing because it allows “pedophiles” to conceal their identity. The question is why they go so over-the-top with this execution-style approach. Why don’t they mention all the other “crimes” they could accuse people of wearing masks for (there is the child-trafficking meme, but that is just a distinction without a difference). I mean, the most notorious perpetrators of pedophilia in this country are Catholic priests, and no matter how guilty they are, I don’t think that giving head shots or lynching priests will sit well with most people. The people who parade around in these outfits don’t even have the “moral” credibility of someone like “Jimmy” in the film Mystic River, who executes vigilante-style an innocent man he needs to believe is guilty of killing his daughter.

Pedophilia is an awful crime, but we have to separate the politics of what is really going on here from actual “concern” about children, since you don’t see these same people advocating similar vigilante executions of mass shooters. This all really started in the fall of 2016, when pro-Trump, white supremacist twitter material claimed that the NYPD had “discovered”  a “pedophilia” and “Satanism” ring operating out of a Washington D.C. pizzeria called Comet Ping Pong, supposedly revealed in emails by Anthony Weiner and John Podesta. Fake news and far-right extremist websites ran with the “story.” Other pizzerias and eateries were also accused of being “sex rings” where children were trafficked. Close to a 100 million people on TikTok apparently found the story of “interest,” and foreign governments hostile to the U.S. also found the story “useful.”

The owner of the Comet pizzeria repeatedly insisted that the claims made against his establishment had zero truth, but that didn’t stop the conspiracy theories. Anyone on social media who posted positive comments about the establishment were automatically accused of being “Satanists” and pedophiles. In December 2016 a man named Edgar Welch decided he was going to “investigate” the claims himself, although it seems that the bullets he fired from an AR-15 were doing most of the “investigating.” Welch claimed that he was just there to “rescue” the children who were not there.

This conspiracy theory was easily debunked, with all the evidence in support of it just random pieces from entirely different puzzles being shoehorned into nonsensical “fits” that only the truly insane could “decipher.” But despite the debunking, “Pizzagate” has simply morphed into the QAnon “theory.” As QAnon podcaster Travis View told Salon in 2019,

QAnon is based upon the idea that there is a worldwide cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who rule the world, essentially, and they control everything. They control politicians, and they control the media. They control Hollywood, and they cover up their existence, essentially. And they would have continued ruling the world, were it not for the election of Donald Trump.

And as Molly McKew stated on CNN, the people who believe this are “fixated on the pursuit of enemies and villains described in such extreme terms that any action—either by adherents by identified champions like President Trump—becomes justifiable. By drawing on the culture and value system, Q adherents have justified violent attacks.”

So is our anti-masker also a QAnon and Trump supporter who is trying to make a political “statement” about “liberals” right in the heart of “liberal” Seattle, one  that is based on a crazy, debunked conspiracy theory using pedophilia merely as a prop? I’d give it a 95 percent probability I am right about him.

Enough of Aaron Rodgers' apologists blaming Matt Lafleur for his failure to play big in big games

 

Alright, enough is enough. I turn on my phone and the first thing I see on the news feed is Mike Holmgren blaming the Packers for the impasse with Aaron Rodgers. Before I get into Holmgren’s main point, once again there was that ridiculous assertion that the Packers lost the NFC championship game against the Buccaneers because Matt Lafleur didn’t let Rodgers throw a fourth incomplete pass after first-and-goal late in fourth quarter, instead kicking a field goal. Look at what LaFelur was facing: that Rodgers would connect on a fourth try was hardly a “gimme,” and even if he did, the Packers would still need to go for a two-point conversion to tie, and the Packers were 0-3 on two-point conversion attempts in this playoff run.

The field goal was the “guaranteed” points, and Lafleur was putting his faith in a defense that after allowing the Buccaneers to score a touchdown on their opening drive in the second half, had intercepted Tom Brady three times and allowed just 3 points, and the Packers still had three time outs to get the ball back. They almost did with 90 seconds to play, save for a ticky-tack third-down pass interference call.

But what if Lafleur had given the ball to Rodgers, and let him throw another incomplete pass? What would we be talking about then? Rodgers' failure to convert on two first-and-goal opportunities? His two interceptions, including the one late in the second quarter that allowed Brady to extend the Buccaneer lead to 21-10 at halftime? His failure once again to play clutch in a critical game?

But getting back to the main point of Holmgren’s comments, I’ve already stated what I think is the real behind-the-scenes reason that Rodgers wants out of Green Bay, and it has nothing to do with “respect” or who the general manager is. Holmgren doesn’t help his case claiming there was a similar dynamic in play with the 49ers “not telling” Joe Montana that they traded for Steve Young from Tampa Bay; there were similarities in certain ways, but not in way Holmgren interpreted them. Bill Walsh wanted a player with some playing experience after Montana missed half the 1986 season from injury. Getting Young as a backup was a smart move, and wasn’t meant to “disrespect” Montana.

Young continued to be Montana’s backup for four years until the 1991 season, when Montana suffered a serious elbow injury and missed the entire season. Montana then pushed his “rehabilitation” too far and spent most of 1992 on injured reserve. In relief, Young led the NFL in passer rating both seasons as he would for the next two seasons, and winning the Super Bowl in the 1994 season. Young had supporters in the locker room, and the rift created forced the 49ers to trade Montana.

I didn’t think it was a smart move for the Packers to pick Jordan Love in the first round, because they could have gotten someone who was a better prospect in a later round. But why would Love “rattle” Rodgers—unless, of course, Rodgers being worried that having his worst season the year before, and coming off a campaign in which he was often tentative in a new system with a new coach, and being blown out twice by the same team (the second time in the NFC championship game) had anything to do with it.

What right does Rodgers have to question what the team does at this stage of his career anyways? Sit around and do nothing at the most important position? The only thing I’m disturbed about is that the Packers didn’t draft a quarterback who was actually worthy of wasting a first round pick on to insure the team is at least "competitive," which is the only thing that is "guaranteed" with Rodgers. After all, Tom Brady was only a what? A sixth round pick? And how many Super Bowls has he won? One thing for sure: whoever the Packers’ next quarterback is, he will begin with just one fewer Super Bowl appearance than their future Hall of Famer. 

The U.S.- Iran relationship is the international version of Hatfields and McCoys

 

The U.S.-Iran relationship has seemed like the international version of Hatfields and McCoys; because of some wrong that occurred in the distant past, the self-perceived wronged party poisons the minds of the entire clan against the other clan, and the threat of violent tit-for-tat is always present. One clan wants to let bygones be bygones and be at least “civil” to each other, but the other clan has that “feeling good about feeling bad” syndrome that is now part of its core identity. While the U.S. claims to want only an Iran that is a “responsible” player in the world and would be quite happy to reach some kind rapprochement with its regime, Iran’s religious leaders and fanatical “revolutionary guard” remain committed to propping themselves up with propaganda about the Western bogeymen, with the U.S. the principle threat to its survival.

In this country, we may see the release on Iranian state-run television a “dramatization” of a “revolutionary guard” force invading and sacking Washington D.C. a bit on the juvenile side, but then again, it is typical of a lesser “power” to dream about outsized revenge for the assassination in Iraq of one its top generals, albeit one who was a legitimate target. Donald Trump certainly didn’t help the situation by vacating the nuclear deal without first consulting with other signatories to the agreement, none who follow his lead. Trump’s actions only strengthened the anti-U.S. element in the Iran and created rationalizations for not abiding by the letter the treaty, and with upcoming elections that promise to strengthen the hardline element over “moderates” like current Iranian president Hassan Rouhani, time is running out for both Iranian “moderates” and the Biden administration to find “common ground”—which the hardline anti-Iran element like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo in the Trump administration failed to even try to get a jump-start on.

I remember the hostage crisis in 1979, when a more radical element stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran. The embassy had warned Pres. Jimmy Carter not to allow the terminally-ill Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi—the recently deposed shah of Iran—from entering the U.S. for treatment, given the anger Iranians were already feeling because of U.S. supporting the long-unpopular shah, who was accused of human rights violations in the country. Current U.S. support for democratic governments in Iraq and Afghanistan is in fact not the typical international behavior of this country; in the past, it has worked to depose popular democratic governments in Central and Latin America in favor of right-wing, authoritarian regimes—and it was no different for Iran.

The CIA worked with the British behind the back of Pres. Harry Truman to undermine the democratic regime of Iranian prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq in the early 1950s, and with approval of Pres. Dwight Eisenhower helped stage a coup that put the shah back in power as a reliable ally of the U.S. The reason for the coup was cynical enough: the British controlled Iranian oil production and took most of the profits for itself, and Mossedeq had announced his intention to nationalize Iran’s oil production. While the shah was a staunch friend to the U.S., few average citizens in Iran forgot the U.S.’ complicity in overthrowing a popularly-elected government, and bankrolling the shah’s power. 

The shah’s bitterest foe was the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who opposed Western influence in the country and demanded a return to Islamic rule. He was arrested and imprisoned, but following widespread anti-government rioting he was exiled to Iraq, where he continued to be a thorn in the side of both the Iranian and Sunni Iraqi regimes, and when Saddam Hussein kicked Khomeini out of the country in 1978, he settled in France briefly. This set-off more anti-government rioting, and in January 1979 the shah was deposed and he left the country. Khomeini returned to Iran the next month, and he proceeded to execute hundreds of former members of the shah’s government and its supporters, and established an Islamic state which was anti-U.S. to the core—it is the “Great Satan”—and remains so today.

All of this could have been avoided, of course. Until the 1950s, most Iranians considered the U.S. a friend to its sovereignty against the predations of Russia/Soviet Union and the British. Successive Iranian regimes sought American help to modernize its economy in the early 20^th Century. Financier Morgan Shuster was brought in to be the official government treasurer, and in his capacity as a private citizen and not as an agent of the U.S. government, he supported the democratic revolution in Iran until he was forced out by Russian and British interests.

But in general the U.S. had little interest in the domestic concerns of Iran until it felt obliged to support British control over  Iranian oil, and to support a new regime that would be a reliable ally in the Cold War, given Iran's strategic position bordering the Soviet Union, before Turkmenistan became “independent.” The U.S. might have benefited had it not intervened in Iranian affairs and not propped-up the unpopular shah; however, one must remember that the U.S. had no interest in Afghanistan—whose attempts at constitutional government failed on its own—until the country became so chaotic that it gave the Soviet Union an opening to invade the country—and from there, becoming a haven for Al-Qaeda terrorists.

It also should be pointed out that Iran didn’t start its nuclear program from scratch; it had been in existence since the 1950s with the technical assistance of the U.S.; why the U.S. did this in an oil-rich country is not clear, but it has had the consequences we are seeing now.  

Meanwhile the gamesmanship between the two countries continues, particularly with tit-for-tat actions in the Persian Gulf, the revolutionary guard “mistakenly” shooting down civilian airliners, and Iran supporting any international player who makes things difficult for the U.S. and Israel. For most Americans, Iran is getting to be a very old story; but as the Atlantic Council pointed out, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei “doesn’t want détente with the U.S.—ever.” After the 2015 agreement, Rouhani suggested that there was a “possibility” of the U.S. and Iran resuming diplomatic relations, but Khamenei quickly shot down any such notion, asserting that once the “Great Satan” had been “expelled” from the country, it should never be allowed back in again. Of course that doesn’t mean that the two countries can’t occasionally scratch each other’s back, as we learned from the Iran-Contra scandal.

So that is where we are at with Iran; only regime change at the top in Iran will bring “peace” between the two countries, and that may only happen if the people there become frustrated enough to start another revolution. The current regime has remained in power because it allows the “façade” of something that looks on the outside like “democracy,” but Iran is like any authoritarian regime where the people are allowed a “voice”—but one that is only heard at the pleasure of the “supreme leader.” For now, the U.S. has to treat Iran as that annoying kid who won’t stop throwing fire crackers at you at the beach no matter how often you chase them away.

Are many Asian-Americans willing tools of white racists?

 

The U.S, Senate recently passed a hate crime bill which addressed “violence and discrimination” against those of Asian origin by those who blame them for the COVID-19 pandemic. Asians are just as much the victims of a virus that recognizes no distinctions by race or ethnicity. But while it is certainly wrong to scapegoat every Chinese national for the actions of their government, on the other hand they are guilty of collusion in keeping the virus a “secret” for many months. Why shouldn’t the world be “mad” at the Chinese, or at least its government and government-run media? Reports now say that the Chinese knew they had a “problem” virus as early as August 2019, but denied its existence until January 2020.

You can point to the flawed efforts to contain the COVID-19—especially in India, which is now seeing even worse numbers than the peak rates in the U.S.—but there is also an argument to be made that given the massive traffic to and from China, the virus was probably already well-seeded throughout the world by the time it was “officially” reported. China had given itself a five-month “head start” to contain the virus, and its “official” numbers certainly do not include the real “first wave” of the virus, and people all over the world have a right to be angry at China’s contempt for them as anything other than replaceable consumers of its products.

But that wasn’t the only problem China imported to other countries, and most particularly the United States. During the 1970s, the Chinese government invited African students to attend its universities, with the intent to indoctrinate them into a Chinese-friendly element in their home countries and help the Chinese exploit their natural resources. What those African students experienced while in China was not welcome but racism, and today as then there have been many instances of racist assaults and rioting that harken back to the darkest days of race relations in America—except that in China, the government has taken little action to stop it, and law enforcement tends to take the side of Chinese nationals in “disputes” clearly instigated by them.

Many Chinese even had the audacity to scapegoat Africans for the COVID-19 and forbid them access to commercial establishments and restaurant, although the government claims it has “zero tolerance” for discrimination against foreign nationals. Meanwhile, a “performance” in a Chinese festival featuring blackface actors dancing as half-naked “savages” earlier this year was defended as being a show of “solidarity” with BLM protests. Things are no better in “democratic” Hong Kong, where Africans and South Asian domestics have been subjected to abuse, discrimination and exploitation.

The Chinese are not the only Asian group with race problems; after all, Michelle Malkin is Filipino-American, and she has gone out of her way to impersonate a Nazi. However, they are a starting point, because it has been both Chinese-Americans and Chinese immigrants who have been at the forefront of opposing diversity programs aimed at under-represented minorities, although they have had some assistance from Indians who have their own “caste-class” priorities. Now, suppose you were a member of a historically-discriminated against group, at one time not even considered a group that had rights a member of the privileged group was bound to respect, and then finally after numberless years was finally allowed a place at the table, albeit at the “pleasure” of those who hold the levers of power and set the rules. And then after these hard-fought gains, a new group arrives from across the sea, and by taking advantage of the rules that the privileged group had in place to insure their own places at the table, slid into some spots while the others were arguing about who and how many could sit at the table. The privileged group is in a bind because they made the rules that allowed this to happen, while the historically discriminated against group finds itself not only blamed for what happened by disgruntled privileged group, but also by the new group which not only has no knowledge of or sensitivity to the many years of struggle to secure a place at the table for the historically-discriminated group, but come from societies that still practice class and race discrimination.

Naturally, the privileged group is too conscious of the fact that it created the rules that the new group is using against it, and to reclaim its “privilege” would expose them as seeking “affirmative action” for themselves. So now they want take back more of the crumbs they gave to the historically-discriminated group and make them eat it off the floor instead of the table. The new group claims that any effort at reclaiming any part of the battlefield that had been won with much “blood” by the historically-discriminated group that it simply came in and occupied while the other sides were still fighting discriminates against them, using the same language that the privileged group used to justify generations of discrimination and prejudice. And let's not be blind to the fact businesses owned by these people in this country tend to hire only their own kind--which, of course, is discrimination.

I suppose there is a lot there to unwrap, but it isn’t really that tough to figure out. Under-represented and historically-discriminated against groups like blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans have fought many generations for a place at the “table,” even at the cost of their own blood, and now we see what was gained is now threatened once again by relative newcomers who have been generally welcomed by “unsuspecting” whites who find their own dominant position under threat. As I mentioned in my education-during-the-pandemic post, college campuses look much different than they did even 20 years ago. While the affirmative action was being debated to increase “diversity,” the ones who actually benefited the most from this were female students through the front door, and Asian students through the backdoor while no one was looking. Initially, many of these students were “international” students who decided to stay in this country instead of taking their education back home where it was needed, like India which has one of the worst healthcare systems per capita in the world and is now paying the deadly price for it.

While it is true that polling seems to show that most Asian-American students oppose efforts to end affirmative action, these are mostly people who already have a spot at the table. As we have seen here in the state of Washington, Chinese immigrant activists are especially vocal about being “discriminated” against, and have been instrumental in convincing many that passing last November’s referendum overturning the anti-affirmative action I-200 hurt Asians, and it appears that this opposition contributed to the referendum’s razor-thin defeat. In a 2018 op-ed in USA Today, Prabhudev Konana, of Indian extraction—in support of the Trump Justice Department’s attack on diversity, claimed that Asian-Americans deserved “fairness” from Harvard and other universities and reward their “hard work, not penalizing them in the name of diversity.” We are not supposed to “devalue” Asian-American grades and scores. Diversity is “no excuse for racial bias.” The arrogance, insensitivity, dehumanizing and racism inherent in these statements merely parrots that which white racists use. Terms such as “Chinese exceptionalism” is a racist concept “worthy” of Nazi “master race” ideology.

There are many ways that we can say that the University of Washington is not exactly representative of the state. 53.6 percent of the student population is female; but as the Seattle Times editorialized, you can’t do anything to help male students to correct that imbalance that “hurts” female students, although doing the opposite—which created that imbalance—is just fine. 46 percent of the student body is white, 23 percent Asian, 3 percent black and 8 percent Hispanic. UW doesn’t include the race of its international students, which comes out to about 13 percent of the student population. But as could be implied in my education post, these numbers don’t seem to jibe with the “eye test.” UW doesn’t include the race of its international students, which comes out to about 13 percent of the student population, but it is fairly obvious that nearly all of them are from east and south Asia. And it isn’t just the “big” schools: one-quarter of Seattle Central (Community) College’s full-time students are International students, mainly from China, Japan and Vietnam; of course that isn’t counting Asian-American students already there.

Nevertheless, NBC News reported last year that 70 percent of Asian-Americans opposed the lawsuit against Harvard’s diversity program. John Yang of the civil rights nonprofit Asian-Americans Advancing Justice asserted that “Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders have been used as a wedge and certain groups have purposely showcased Asian-American dissent to affirmative action as a way of masking their anti-black and anti-Latino agendas. Such efforts hide the fact that most opponents of affirmative action are really trying to increase the number of Caucasian students at the expense of Black, Latino and Native-American applicants.” That is of course what is really going on here: White students know that can’t “compete” with Asian-American students based on “scores,” so they are trying take back some of the crumbs they threw underrepresented groups.

Still, it is a “problem” that at colleges and universities across the country, Asians are vastly over-represented; at UC Berkeley, they make up 40 percent of the student population. What does that mean? Their claims that they are “discriminated” against doesn’t hold water.  Why should they be the only ones who can benefit from higher education and make a contribution? After all, underrepresented minorities have fought long and hard for that place at the table, and now they are being shoved aside by relative newcomers based on what arbitrary measures of “merit”? And it isn’t always so clear-cut; many Asian-Americans support affirmative action because 70 percent of Asian college students are either Chinese or Indian, and in particular many Southeast Asians see themselves as being discriminated against in favor of supposedly “superior” east and south Asians.

Unfortunately, the question of racism in this or that group cannot be simply dismissed because one them happens to be the favored flavor of the month. In TIME last year, Viet Thanh Nguyen writes that he felt “haunted” by the knowledge the face of Hmong-American police officer Tou Thao—who stood by while his partner, Derek Chauvin, choked George Floyd to death, ignoring the pleas of bystanders to stop him—is at once like his, but not like his. They may be of different “ethnicities,” but they are still both Asian, just as Italians and Swedes are both white. “Asian-Americans are caught between the perception that we are inevitably foreign and the temptation that we can be allied with white people in a country built on white supremacy. As a result, anti-Black (and anti-brown and anti-Native) racism runs deep in Asian-American communities.”

Despite being a racial minority group, in the generality Asians have chosen to align themselves with white racists. It is hypocritical, Nguyen observes, rightly, to complain about prejudice against them because they are Asian, yet engage in racism against other groups themselves—and the “temptation” to blame the “weak” rather than the “strong” for their issues in this country. Asian immigrants have “pulled themselves up,” yet many have done so aided by discriminatory attitudes that keep other minority groups “down.”