"The Supreme Court in essence has ruled that corporations can buy elections. If that happens, democracy in America is over. We cannot put the law up for sale, and award government to the highest bidder." Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Florida) statement introducing legislation to counter the High Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
The US Supreme Court has issued a ruling that effectively guts the McCain-Feingold Act which regulates campaign practices and funding in federal elections. A lower court had ruled that the broadcast of a corporate funded attack campaign advertisement against Hillary Clinton within the 30 day window preceding a federal election violated the McCain-Feingold Act. Two issues were at stake in the case.
First, and probably most important, was the question whether corporations have the same free speech rights as human citizens in the context of campaign funding. Opponents, including legal scholars, argue that corporations are fictitious “persons” or “citizens” whose rights are a creation of statute and not derived from any Constitutional principle. The limited rights created were for the purpose of allowing corporations to make legally binding agreements on behalf of the entity instead of in the name of a regular person representing the interests of the organization. In addition, corporate persons could go into a court of law to enforce those legal agreements. From its inception, the corporation acts were never intended to grant these fictitious persons the “natural rights” deemed inalienable under the Founders’ concept of government and society.
There is good reason for the distinction. Corporations were created to permit the aggregation of wealth and economic power that individuals typically could not muster. When the purpose was limited to the commercial sphere, this “accommodation” in the form of a fictitious person or entity enabled the investment of private capital to be employed for economic growth and expansion. This salutary purpose is, however, the precise reason why corporations should not be given unbridled license in the sphere of electoral politics. The ability to amass huge amounts of capital to influence or even “buy” elections distorts the electoral process and takes it out of the realm of democracy. Individuals simply cannot compete with these aggregated economic giants in trying to communicate a message relating to candidates or elections.
And there is currently a more insidious level in the communication process. The individual seeking to get his or her opinion or message to the public has to purchase airtime from the media. Aside from the obvious disadvantage in competing with corporation budgets in attempting to bid for that airtime, the media is owned and controlled by corporations. This incestuous relationship of corporate campaign funding through corporate owned media conglomerates further excludes the individual citizen from the democratic electoral process.
"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” President Barack Obama
The Supreme Court ruled that corporate speech could be regulated through “disclaimer and disclosure” requirements, but could not be precluded altogether. The Court did not squarely address how such disclosure requirements, such as the name of the organization sponsoring the advertisement, would counter the damage or imbalance when the corporate speech is effectively the only message broadcast.
Ironically, those Justices who rant most audibly against judicial legislation and in favor of “strict construction” or “original intent” look like the most shallow hypocrites by turning their backs on the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution in order to accommodate the interests of the corporate elite.
The second issue in the case relates to the window of 30 days prior to elections in which certain types of advertisement are banned under the McCain-Feingold Act. Logically, if Corporations are free to spend as much as they like on campaign ads, then we can expect a barrage of attack ads up to the opening of polls in future elections. Since there will be virtually no time to investigate blatantly false, misleading and even fraudulent ads until after the election has been held and the damage done, the Supreme Court can reasonably be said to have sold and subverted the democratic electoral process. On its face, this is not a partisan issue because progressive messages could be broadcast as easily as right wing advertisements. However, experience tells us that corporations nearly always favor deregulation, reduction of protections for average citizens and government interference only for the purpose of granting corporate subsidies.
The idea that corporate funding in elections would go to support candidates who favor environmental controls, fair trade regulation, restrictions on Wall Street and Investment practices, universal health care, additional public support for education of our children or any other concept directed to public well-being is fanciful at best and more aptly described as delusional. Corporations have no ethics, conscience or moral constraints as natural citizens are believed to have. Corporations only have economic interests. This is no more a condemnation than is the assertion that cars have no emotions, it is simply a fact due to the inherent nature of the thing.
That is why cases like the Ford Pinto case, deadly drug recalls, Bhopal, Black lung cases, Asbestos Cases, Exxon-Valdiz and a host of other remedial lawsuits have been necessary. Corporations act to increase and protect corporate profits, even if it means the death or destruction of thousands of human lives. A Corporation cannot be subjected to the theoretical deterrent of the death penalty for acts of intentional murder. A corporation cannot even be effectively put to death to prevent future crimes or reckless behavior. Its shareholders simply incorporate or “reincarnate” the entity and continue on with business as usual.
Congress was designed to provide a House of Representatives to balance lawmaking with the voice of individual citizens. Perhaps a third House of Congress needs to be established to channel the voice and representation of corporations. Then corporate funding would have to be directed only to election of representatives speaking and acting in behalf of these “corporate citizens.” Without some form of alteration, however, the current electoral process has just been destroyed and sold to the highest corporate bidder.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Bye Bye Miss American Pie – or – Death of the Commonwealth
If one is to believe the “national consensus” as reflected in the “dialogue” of the Blogosphere and internet commentary, the events in Massachusetts are a fitting memorial to the death of a republican democracy, a true “Commonwealth.” In the main, the rhetoric of these commentaries is characterized by self-righteous and self-centered “nattering nabobs of negativity,” to borrow a phrase from former GOP Vice president Spiro Agnew. Government can do nothing right when it attempts to aid the jobless, homeless, aged or infirm. We are urged to ignore years of destructive and divisive policies by the former Administration that pushed a solvent nation into near bankruptcy, lost or wasted jobs at a rate in excess of three quarters of a million or more each month, expended billions of dollars every month to support a war effort that was proven to be fraudulently and unnecessarily started in Iraq, and guided financial markets to a point where pensioners lost a minimum of one-third of the value of their retirement savings or benefits. Attempts to ameliorate the devastation wrought by such faulty and mean spirited policies and incompetent stewardship are attacked as “too costly” or because they failed to remedy over a decade of damage in less than one year.
The legacy of the Kennedys is hallmarked by the phrase coined by former President, John F. Kennedy, when he chided and challenged the American people to “ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country.” It was a philosophy, belief and commitment that the collective good will of the American people, when channeled through the reasonably efficient machinery of government, could improve life for the citizens of the country and give hope to the world. Robert Kennedy, prior to his assassination, used his power and talents to try to shape government policy in the direction of providing equal rights and equal protection under the law to all citizens. Ted Kennedy, the last of the brethren clan gave his last full measure and his dying breath to see the enactment of legislation that would bring universal health care to the USA, the richest and most powerful so-called developed nation lacking such fundamental regard for the well-being of its people.
Now Massachusetts has turned its back on Ted Kennedy and elected a GOP senator who is almost certain to derail the dream that Teddy fought tirelessly for decades to bring to fruition. While brain cancer technically laid the "Lion of the Senate" to rest, it is perhaps best that he did not live to see his constituency stab him in the back and turn from his values as they have done.
As a practical matter, what Freshman Senator Brown thinks is irrelevant. His ego may cause him to believe that his personal views matter, but his party affiliation is all that really does count. He is merely a tool of the GOP and the Health Insurance lobby to sabotage the health care legislation. As a new senator of the minority party, he cannot realistically be expected to achieve or even try passage of any meaningful personal initiative. As the 41st GOP vote in the opposition bloc, he can be expected to do exactly as he is told and support the obstruction of any and every progressive or citizen oriented initiative of the White House or the Democratic Majority in Congress. In 2012, the citizens of Massachusetts may recognize their folly and elect a different senator to represent their interests, but the damage will have been done. It will be interesting to see how hard the GOP fights and how much they are willing to spend to actually retain the Brown US Senate seat at that time.
Let us be frank, the GOP is intelligent. As a party of leadership, they have proven repeatedly to be a failure in the last three decades. They understand that limitation. While Democrats cannot claim any great comfort in their leadership accomplishments, there is a record of at least trying to make the life of US citizens as a whole better. For all his faults, Clinton left the nation with a positive budget and a relatively stable economy. The subsequent Administration turned that surplus into a staggering deficit by granting tax cuts that the country could not afford to people and corporations that did not need them. No, leadership is not the objective, that would be too difficult and require more work and more risk.
Instead, the GOP has adopted a strategy of negation and negativity. Consider the children playing on the beach. How easy it is for the belligerent bully to knock down the hours of effort spent by a child constructing a sand castle. And if the child tries again to construct anything of beauty or value, the bully can knock it down and destroy it in seconds. Maybe the sand castle was not of the best design, but it was a positive effort to build something. The bully stands by the side, proud of his efforts, but never having to build or defend anything worthwhile. His sole accomplishment is to destroy and frustrate constructive effort.
Look at the record, if you think this assessment unduly harsh. Other than some earmarks and pork for his home state, I have struggled to identify a single constructive initiative by Mitch McConnell. The former Senate majority leader was known, not for any constructive legislation, but rather for browbeating and intimidating fellow GOP members into submission to his will or whimsy. Until beaten down by criminal prosecution for his misconduct, he was justifiably known as "The Hammer." There have been Senators who have made furtive attempts to cross the aisle in the interests of the people of the country as a whole, but they have been chastised, ostracized and punished by GOP leadership for doing so. Witness the public opprobrium heaped upon Sen. Collins and Sen. Snowe of Maine for supporting full consideration of the Health care legislation on the senate floor. This despite their equivocation and backpedaling that they had not committed to vote for the legislation, but only to enable it to be debated openly. Their votes really symbolized only a rejection of blind, mindless opposition and obstruction. They were brought to heel on the final vote.
On the other side of the aisle, the Democrats need to shoulder blame as well. They were elected and given a majority mandate. they promised to act with vision and courage to repair serious damage by the prior Administration and to change the course of the country back to one in which the collective well being, the “Commonwealth,” once again meant something real. Weak kneed pandering to GOP representatives who had already openly declared that there was “No set of circumstances" under which the GOP would support an Administration health care initiative, was a mistake. The Democrats failed to move forward with a reasonable measure, regardless of GOP opposition. They instead allowed that measure to be shot down by unified GOP obstruction and disinformation. They opted to risk the measure being undermined by allowing the GOP time to expend hundreds of millions in lobbying funds to sabotage the effort, while pretending to “bipartisanship.” If the GOP threatened filibuster, make the issues clear and let them go on public TV. No matter how much sophistry they might employ, their fundamental opposition to any measure that would benefit average citizens in favor of protecting the interests of large corporate and private investment campaign donors would smell so ripe that even the least sophisticated citizen would have to detect it. Their argument is tautological. Because GOP Administrations have failed to provide for the common good, government is incapable of working for the common good.
But the Obama Administration has generally walked in the same path as his predecessor in too many ways. He has failed to make a clear and instill faith in his promise to end the phony and expensive military escapade in Iraq. Indeed he is embarking on another costly adventure in Afghanistan. He appointed the foxes to oversee the hen house in the financial industry, and we are still seeing executives rewarded with multi-million dollar bonuses while reporting billion dollar losses, after being bailed out by public taxpayer funds. The sham of military trials for GITMO detainees continues to mock the fundamental values and principles of the American Justice system. And no effort has been made to hold prior Administration officials accountable for clearly provable criminal actions. An ethic of non-accountability and a philosophy of "it doesn't matter what I should do, it only matters what I can get away with" carries over into much of the current Administration. It is no wonder the public has lost faith in all quarters of the government, at least based upon what they have seen for the past 13 years. But just because this is what HAS happened, does not mean that this is what MUST happen.
The pundits would have us believe that support for the jobless and universal health care are unworthy and unachievable goals, despite steps in the direction of both having seen some success. But perceptions can too quickly become reality in the political sphere. If the Democrats continue to act without spine and without principles, they very well could play into the GOP strategy and lose the Congressional majority. The GOP does not want or need the White House [consider McCain’s running mate] to achieve its goals. It needs only a sufficient voting block to obstruct or derail any Administration initiative. The democrats appear to lack the stomach and the nerve to take the initiative and the fight to the GOP and publicly expose them.
If we look behind the curtain of the loud mouthed spokespersons attacking the progressive agenda, we see how little they really have in common with the “people” they purport to speak for. When is the last time Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck ever entertained a concern about health care or unemployment benefits? [While Limbaugh’s did have concerns about obtaining his OxyContin legally, this was not an economic issue.] When is the last time either of them had to manage a small business payroll? I recall Jesse Ventura running for Governor of Minnesota pledging to end student aid subsidies [Jesse never went to college] and obtaining support from misguided college aged students, the primary beneficiaries of such public support. Perhaps these college students thought it was a rerun of "Animal House." But in any event, so many people were swayed to act and vote directly contrary to their self interest and the interests of average people generally. People who fail to hang together, as the saying goes, are likely to hang separately. And the current plight of the individual families all across the USA attests to the wisdom of that adage.
This can only occur in an environment where all faith and trust in a government’s ability to protect and advance the common well being of its citizens has been abandoned. This is not a time for alarmist rants, but it is a time for cold eyed and realistic assessment. The title of “United” should legitimately be removed from the name of a nation in which a policy of “every man for himself” prevails. And the government should be ashamed to proclaim a Judeo-Christian foundation when the admonitions of Jesus concerning care for the poor and “whatsoever thou doest unto the least” of my people are rejected as unworthy values. If that kind of nation is not truly what the people want, then they should wake up and realize that it is what they currently HAVE and get to work changing the status quo.
The legacy of the Kennedys is hallmarked by the phrase coined by former President, John F. Kennedy, when he chided and challenged the American people to “ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country.” It was a philosophy, belief and commitment that the collective good will of the American people, when channeled through the reasonably efficient machinery of government, could improve life for the citizens of the country and give hope to the world. Robert Kennedy, prior to his assassination, used his power and talents to try to shape government policy in the direction of providing equal rights and equal protection under the law to all citizens. Ted Kennedy, the last of the brethren clan gave his last full measure and his dying breath to see the enactment of legislation that would bring universal health care to the USA, the richest and most powerful so-called developed nation lacking such fundamental regard for the well-being of its people.
Now Massachusetts has turned its back on Ted Kennedy and elected a GOP senator who is almost certain to derail the dream that Teddy fought tirelessly for decades to bring to fruition. While brain cancer technically laid the "Lion of the Senate" to rest, it is perhaps best that he did not live to see his constituency stab him in the back and turn from his values as they have done.
As a practical matter, what Freshman Senator Brown thinks is irrelevant. His ego may cause him to believe that his personal views matter, but his party affiliation is all that really does count. He is merely a tool of the GOP and the Health Insurance lobby to sabotage the health care legislation. As a new senator of the minority party, he cannot realistically be expected to achieve or even try passage of any meaningful personal initiative. As the 41st GOP vote in the opposition bloc, he can be expected to do exactly as he is told and support the obstruction of any and every progressive or citizen oriented initiative of the White House or the Democratic Majority in Congress. In 2012, the citizens of Massachusetts may recognize their folly and elect a different senator to represent their interests, but the damage will have been done. It will be interesting to see how hard the GOP fights and how much they are willing to spend to actually retain the Brown US Senate seat at that time.
Let us be frank, the GOP is intelligent. As a party of leadership, they have proven repeatedly to be a failure in the last three decades. They understand that limitation. While Democrats cannot claim any great comfort in their leadership accomplishments, there is a record of at least trying to make the life of US citizens as a whole better. For all his faults, Clinton left the nation with a positive budget and a relatively stable economy. The subsequent Administration turned that surplus into a staggering deficit by granting tax cuts that the country could not afford to people and corporations that did not need them. No, leadership is not the objective, that would be too difficult and require more work and more risk.
Instead, the GOP has adopted a strategy of negation and negativity. Consider the children playing on the beach. How easy it is for the belligerent bully to knock down the hours of effort spent by a child constructing a sand castle. And if the child tries again to construct anything of beauty or value, the bully can knock it down and destroy it in seconds. Maybe the sand castle was not of the best design, but it was a positive effort to build something. The bully stands by the side, proud of his efforts, but never having to build or defend anything worthwhile. His sole accomplishment is to destroy and frustrate constructive effort.
Look at the record, if you think this assessment unduly harsh. Other than some earmarks and pork for his home state, I have struggled to identify a single constructive initiative by Mitch McConnell. The former Senate majority leader was known, not for any constructive legislation, but rather for browbeating and intimidating fellow GOP members into submission to his will or whimsy. Until beaten down by criminal prosecution for his misconduct, he was justifiably known as "The Hammer." There have been Senators who have made furtive attempts to cross the aisle in the interests of the people of the country as a whole, but they have been chastised, ostracized and punished by GOP leadership for doing so. Witness the public opprobrium heaped upon Sen. Collins and Sen. Snowe of Maine for supporting full consideration of the Health care legislation on the senate floor. This despite their equivocation and backpedaling that they had not committed to vote for the legislation, but only to enable it to be debated openly. Their votes really symbolized only a rejection of blind, mindless opposition and obstruction. They were brought to heel on the final vote.
On the other side of the aisle, the Democrats need to shoulder blame as well. They were elected and given a majority mandate. they promised to act with vision and courage to repair serious damage by the prior Administration and to change the course of the country back to one in which the collective well being, the “Commonwealth,” once again meant something real. Weak kneed pandering to GOP representatives who had already openly declared that there was “No set of circumstances" under which the GOP would support an Administration health care initiative, was a mistake. The Democrats failed to move forward with a reasonable measure, regardless of GOP opposition. They instead allowed that measure to be shot down by unified GOP obstruction and disinformation. They opted to risk the measure being undermined by allowing the GOP time to expend hundreds of millions in lobbying funds to sabotage the effort, while pretending to “bipartisanship.” If the GOP threatened filibuster, make the issues clear and let them go on public TV. No matter how much sophistry they might employ, their fundamental opposition to any measure that would benefit average citizens in favor of protecting the interests of large corporate and private investment campaign donors would smell so ripe that even the least sophisticated citizen would have to detect it. Their argument is tautological. Because GOP Administrations have failed to provide for the common good, government is incapable of working for the common good.
But the Obama Administration has generally walked in the same path as his predecessor in too many ways. He has failed to make a clear and instill faith in his promise to end the phony and expensive military escapade in Iraq. Indeed he is embarking on another costly adventure in Afghanistan. He appointed the foxes to oversee the hen house in the financial industry, and we are still seeing executives rewarded with multi-million dollar bonuses while reporting billion dollar losses, after being bailed out by public taxpayer funds. The sham of military trials for GITMO detainees continues to mock the fundamental values and principles of the American Justice system. And no effort has been made to hold prior Administration officials accountable for clearly provable criminal actions. An ethic of non-accountability and a philosophy of "it doesn't matter what I should do, it only matters what I can get away with" carries over into much of the current Administration. It is no wonder the public has lost faith in all quarters of the government, at least based upon what they have seen for the past 13 years. But just because this is what HAS happened, does not mean that this is what MUST happen.
The pundits would have us believe that support for the jobless and universal health care are unworthy and unachievable goals, despite steps in the direction of both having seen some success. But perceptions can too quickly become reality in the political sphere. If the Democrats continue to act without spine and without principles, they very well could play into the GOP strategy and lose the Congressional majority. The GOP does not want or need the White House [consider McCain’s running mate] to achieve its goals. It needs only a sufficient voting block to obstruct or derail any Administration initiative. The democrats appear to lack the stomach and the nerve to take the initiative and the fight to the GOP and publicly expose them.
If we look behind the curtain of the loud mouthed spokespersons attacking the progressive agenda, we see how little they really have in common with the “people” they purport to speak for. When is the last time Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck ever entertained a concern about health care or unemployment benefits? [While Limbaugh’s did have concerns about obtaining his OxyContin legally, this was not an economic issue.] When is the last time either of them had to manage a small business payroll? I recall Jesse Ventura running for Governor of Minnesota pledging to end student aid subsidies [Jesse never went to college] and obtaining support from misguided college aged students, the primary beneficiaries of such public support. Perhaps these college students thought it was a rerun of "Animal House." But in any event, so many people were swayed to act and vote directly contrary to their self interest and the interests of average people generally. People who fail to hang together, as the saying goes, are likely to hang separately. And the current plight of the individual families all across the USA attests to the wisdom of that adage.
This can only occur in an environment where all faith and trust in a government’s ability to protect and advance the common well being of its citizens has been abandoned. This is not a time for alarmist rants, but it is a time for cold eyed and realistic assessment. The title of “United” should legitimately be removed from the name of a nation in which a policy of “every man for himself” prevails. And the government should be ashamed to proclaim a Judeo-Christian foundation when the admonitions of Jesus concerning care for the poor and “whatsoever thou doest unto the least” of my people are rejected as unworthy values. If that kind of nation is not truly what the people want, then they should wake up and realize that it is what they currently HAVE and get to work changing the status quo.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Say It Ain’t So….
Despite continual protests that it is unfair or untrue that the media and US society has a virulent racist undercurrent, repeated experience tells us that the charge rings true. Consider the recent and ongoing tragedy in Haiti. Tens of thousands of people are already confirmed dead. Hundreds of thousands of people are displaced and without adequate food, water and shelter. It is, by any human standard, a tragedy warranting an international outpouring of assistance.
What is the response of the US mainstream media? Alleged Christian and televangelist Pat Robertson makes a public statement that the Haitian people deserved this calamity because of some “pact with the Devil” made to free the Haitian people from oppression by the French colonizers. Rush Limbaugh, that sage of the GOP limelight, announced that US citizens need not worry about giving aid to the sufferers in Haiti because the US government has already provided some foreign aid to Haiti. And today MSNBC features a “top story” attacking an aid foundation led by Haitian born recording artist Wyclef Jean. Let’s take a closer look, shall we?
Aside from the abject and deplorable ignorance of Robertson regarding some alleged superstition, making an announcement that the people of Haiti deserved such a disastrous fate at a time when calls have gone out for immediate international relief aid is, at best, monstrous. It is insensitive and falls outside the realm of acceptable human behavior. If that is the mindset and the value system of Robertson and his true believers, it is a wonder that the Bible does not shrivel up on his desk or in his pocket. What WOULD Jesus do in response to such human suffering? Would he have turned his back and declared that they victims deserved to suffer? I think not.
Rush Limbaugh may have been on another of his drug induced stupors when he announced that aid was not really needed, in the face of clear and irrefutable evidence of deaths, injuries, hunger and suffering. Rush has never been one to extol the virtues of treating your fellow humans with respect or dignity, but this rant lacks even the appearance of logic or common sense. When actions defy logic, rationality and simple standards of human decency, chances are that we are dealing with bigotry. How else can you reconcile his positions advocating the “rights” of white folks in the Southwest against an “invasion” by brown skinned Mexicans without mentioning white illegal immigrants from Canada and Eastern Europe, this latest pronouncement against Black skinned Haitians and the basic principles of coherent logic. I suggest that it cannot be done by any stretch of sophistry.
The MSNBC story lacks all sense of proportion or relevance. It fails to consider that the entire revenue of the Haitian Foundation set up by Wyclef Jean last year was $1.9 million while a single couple in the US just won a Power ball lottery of $128 million. The need in Haiti will certainly exceed hundreds of millions as schools, hospitals and other basic systems need to be rebuilt. But the lead story is to attack a Haitian for making an attempt to help the people of his birthplace, and indirectly accuse him of tax fraud or the lack of organizational resources to provide effective aid. Step aside and let the white-run big boys agencies provide the aid. A Black man is unfit to help his own people. Those are the messages of the MSNBC story, both in content and decision to lead with the story. No mention is made of the many Haitian American communities, as in Boston, who are banding together to raise and deliver aid and reconnect with relatives in Haiti. No, that story element would have provided balance and focused upon the FACT that aid is needed no matter where it comes from. It would have shown how working class and professional Haitian born US citizens [yes, I did say professionals] are shouldering an effort to help in this human catastrophe. But all that MSNBC can do is denigrate such aid efforts.
Now, what of this "unfounded" charge of racism in the US media?
What is the response of the US mainstream media? Alleged Christian and televangelist Pat Robertson makes a public statement that the Haitian people deserved this calamity because of some “pact with the Devil” made to free the Haitian people from oppression by the French colonizers. Rush Limbaugh, that sage of the GOP limelight, announced that US citizens need not worry about giving aid to the sufferers in Haiti because the US government has already provided some foreign aid to Haiti. And today MSNBC features a “top story” attacking an aid foundation led by Haitian born recording artist Wyclef Jean. Let’s take a closer look, shall we?
Aside from the abject and deplorable ignorance of Robertson regarding some alleged superstition, making an announcement that the people of Haiti deserved such a disastrous fate at a time when calls have gone out for immediate international relief aid is, at best, monstrous. It is insensitive and falls outside the realm of acceptable human behavior. If that is the mindset and the value system of Robertson and his true believers, it is a wonder that the Bible does not shrivel up on his desk or in his pocket. What WOULD Jesus do in response to such human suffering? Would he have turned his back and declared that they victims deserved to suffer? I think not.
Rush Limbaugh may have been on another of his drug induced stupors when he announced that aid was not really needed, in the face of clear and irrefutable evidence of deaths, injuries, hunger and suffering. Rush has never been one to extol the virtues of treating your fellow humans with respect or dignity, but this rant lacks even the appearance of logic or common sense. When actions defy logic, rationality and simple standards of human decency, chances are that we are dealing with bigotry. How else can you reconcile his positions advocating the “rights” of white folks in the Southwest against an “invasion” by brown skinned Mexicans without mentioning white illegal immigrants from Canada and Eastern Europe, this latest pronouncement against Black skinned Haitians and the basic principles of coherent logic. I suggest that it cannot be done by any stretch of sophistry.
The MSNBC story lacks all sense of proportion or relevance. It fails to consider that the entire revenue of the Haitian Foundation set up by Wyclef Jean last year was $1.9 million while a single couple in the US just won a Power ball lottery of $128 million. The need in Haiti will certainly exceed hundreds of millions as schools, hospitals and other basic systems need to be rebuilt. But the lead story is to attack a Haitian for making an attempt to help the people of his birthplace, and indirectly accuse him of tax fraud or the lack of organizational resources to provide effective aid. Step aside and let the white-run big boys agencies provide the aid. A Black man is unfit to help his own people. Those are the messages of the MSNBC story, both in content and decision to lead with the story. No mention is made of the many Haitian American communities, as in Boston, who are banding together to raise and deliver aid and reconnect with relatives in Haiti. No, that story element would have provided balance and focused upon the FACT that aid is needed no matter where it comes from. It would have shown how working class and professional Haitian born US citizens [yes, I did say professionals] are shouldering an effort to help in this human catastrophe. But all that MSNBC can do is denigrate such aid efforts.
Now, what of this "unfounded" charge of racism in the US media?
Saturday, January 09, 2010
How Bizarre – How Hypocritical
Having lived in and spent considerable time in New England, and particularly in Boston, there is little that can be truly surprising anymore. However there are stories that can still amuse and perhaps dismay. A very recent news article details how dozens of immigrants, accused of illegal status and under detention from INS, were trucked to Gillette Stadium to clear snow before the NFL Playoff Game.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/08/detained_immigrants_were_set_to_clear_gillette_snow/
While the article spent considerable time bemoaning the fractured immigration agency operation and faulty immigration policies, little attention was focused on the obvious issue of the use of detainees for impromptu labor details for the convenience of the city’s professional sports franchise. In years gone by, it was common in the Southern States of the USA for local police to arrest people on charges of “vagrancy” and other pretextual justifications and turn them over to be used as slave labor to politically influential landowners or companies. Their labor was supposed to be part of their penalty, though frequently the impressments occurred prior to any presentment or judicial determination of guilt. Of course, the police officials received “gratuities” for assisting the local politicos in obtaining virtually free labor.
We do not know whether these detainees forced to shovel snow at Gillette Stadium were actually paid for their services. If they were, then there was a direct breach of law relating to employment of illegal aliens. Claims that the contractor did not know the workers' status seems flimsy, at best, when a truckload of workers arrive in a vehicle marked “INS.” If the workers were not paid for their services, then the problem of using work gangs as slave labor rears its ugly head.
Certainly, in light of weather problems, Boston and its beloved professional sports franchise and fans needed to have the snow cleared. And the practice of graft and questionable "under the table" schemes involving government officials and local bigwigs is all but endemic to life in Boston. Police and Fire employees on disability collecting more from off duty jobs than they did for regular service is fairly common. The current head of the Massachusetts National Guard is to be court-martialed for fraudulent creation and misuse of a “slush fund” of about $6 million. So it is not surprising that the event sparked little outrage in Boston. I suppose if the fruit of their labor were actually going to be put to use to pay for deportation transport, a thin rationalization could be constructed. But my experience in Boston causes me to seriously doubt that the money paid for the services will ever wind up in the pockets of the workers or public coffers.
However, the question begs asking whether it is appropriate, legal or ethical to force detainees to perform work in this manner. Many of the immigrants came to the USA to flee poverty and political instability in their home country. They would gladly have taken jobs performing the same kind of backbreaking work that they have been forced to do, legally, if that were possible. After all, in the current economy, if the work assignment paid a reasonable wage and there were plenty of legal workers who wanted the job, why was the impressment of detainees necessary? So, if these workers were performing manual labor no-one else wanted, why are they denied legal opportunity to do the much needed work? Seems to me more than a little hypocritical. And for a city that was once the center of the abolitionist movement, this corrupt use of slave labor seems especially unworthy.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/08/detained_immigrants_were_set_to_clear_gillette_snow/
While the article spent considerable time bemoaning the fractured immigration agency operation and faulty immigration policies, little attention was focused on the obvious issue of the use of detainees for impromptu labor details for the convenience of the city’s professional sports franchise. In years gone by, it was common in the Southern States of the USA for local police to arrest people on charges of “vagrancy” and other pretextual justifications and turn them over to be used as slave labor to politically influential landowners or companies. Their labor was supposed to be part of their penalty, though frequently the impressments occurred prior to any presentment or judicial determination of guilt. Of course, the police officials received “gratuities” for assisting the local politicos in obtaining virtually free labor.
We do not know whether these detainees forced to shovel snow at Gillette Stadium were actually paid for their services. If they were, then there was a direct breach of law relating to employment of illegal aliens. Claims that the contractor did not know the workers' status seems flimsy, at best, when a truckload of workers arrive in a vehicle marked “INS.” If the workers were not paid for their services, then the problem of using work gangs as slave labor rears its ugly head.
Certainly, in light of weather problems, Boston and its beloved professional sports franchise and fans needed to have the snow cleared. And the practice of graft and questionable "under the table" schemes involving government officials and local bigwigs is all but endemic to life in Boston. Police and Fire employees on disability collecting more from off duty jobs than they did for regular service is fairly common. The current head of the Massachusetts National Guard is to be court-martialed for fraudulent creation and misuse of a “slush fund” of about $6 million. So it is not surprising that the event sparked little outrage in Boston. I suppose if the fruit of their labor were actually going to be put to use to pay for deportation transport, a thin rationalization could be constructed. But my experience in Boston causes me to seriously doubt that the money paid for the services will ever wind up in the pockets of the workers or public coffers.
However, the question begs asking whether it is appropriate, legal or ethical to force detainees to perform work in this manner. Many of the immigrants came to the USA to flee poverty and political instability in their home country. They would gladly have taken jobs performing the same kind of backbreaking work that they have been forced to do, legally, if that were possible. After all, in the current economy, if the work assignment paid a reasonable wage and there were plenty of legal workers who wanted the job, why was the impressment of detainees necessary? So, if these workers were performing manual labor no-one else wanted, why are they denied legal opportunity to do the much needed work? Seems to me more than a little hypocritical. And for a city that was once the center of the abolitionist movement, this corrupt use of slave labor seems especially unworthy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)