Wednesday, April 27, 2011
CNN Settles The "Birther" Questions
The folks at CNN have decided to settle this question once and for all. They sent a reporter to Hawaii to find the truth, and discover if there is even a grain of truth to the questions posed by the "birthers". Here is what they found:
1. Birthers say the president refuses to release his "official" long form birth certificate and that the certificate (shown above) which he has released is not official.
This is nonsense. The Certificate of Live Birth pictured above is not only the official birth certificate, but it is the ONLY birth certificate given out by the state government. Anyone born in Hawaii who asked for an official copy of his/her birth certificate would receive a form that looked exactly like the one the president has already released. And the form says right at the bottom of it that the form will serve as "evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding". How much more official can a form get?
2. Birthers say the president won't release his long form certificate because it says he is a muslim on it.
More nonsense. While the state used to have a longer form which contained information like the hospital the person was born in and the father's occupation, state officials say the form never contained any information about the baby's or the parents' religion. CNN viewed some of the longer (discontinued) forms and verified that there was no information about religion on it.
3. Birthers claim that the birth notice in the Hawaii newspaper was placed there by Obama's family so he could receive government services (or for some other nefarious purpose).
Again, not true. Both the newspaper and the Department of Health Services say there was no way for parents (or other relatives) to place birth announcements in the paper. All of the birth announcements printed in the newspaper came directly from the Department of Health Services (and they had no interest in placing a false announcement).
4. Birthers, especially Donald Trump (the most famous birther), say it is strange that no one remembers the young Obama in Hawaii.
This is not strange because it is simply not true. A lady named Monika Waidelich had her son at the same time and in the same hospital. She remembers seeing the president next to her son in the nursery because, "In those days, there were hardly any other black babies." A professor at the University of Hawaii, Alice Dewey, was faculty advisor to Obama's mother and knew the president as a child. She remembers discussing with his mother the difference between giving birth in Indonesia (where Obama's sister, Maya, was born) and Hawaii (where Barack Obama was born). Even the current governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, was a friend of Obama's mother and remembers seeing the child immediately after his birth and helping her celebrate the birth.
The fact is there has never been any real doubt that Barack Obama was born in the United States -- specifically in Hawaii. As I said before, this is an invention of some racists in America who are upset that an African-American was elected president. They will grasp at any straw and make up any lie to try and change that fact.
I appreciate the effort of CNN to try and lay this matter to rest, but I seriously doubt it will do any good. The "birther" beliefs were never based on any facts, and no fact will ever change their minds. But then they are Republicans, and to believe in Republican policies one needs to have an ability to ignore inconvenient facts -- both voters and politicians.
American Public Dislikes Trump And Palin
This appeal to "birtherism" has worked well for Trump. He has quickly shot up to become one of the leading Republican hopefuls. He has finished in the top three in all of the recent national polls -- usually in first place or tied for first. But it looks like the Republicans should be very careful about nominating Trump (or Palin for that matter).
It turns out that among the general public, both Donald Trump and Sarah Palin are very unpopular. A recent Gallup Poll (conducted April 20th through April 23rd of a random national sample of 1,013 adults) shows that significant majorities of the American people say they would not vote for either Trump or Palin -- majorities much larger than can be accounted for by the 4 point margin of error.
Only about a third of the respondents say they would/might vote for the two (35% for Trump and 34% for Palin). Meanwhile, a full 64% say they would definitely not vote for Trump and 65% say they would definitely not vote for Palin. This doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't get the Republican nomination since they both appeal to the teabaggers, and the teabaggers will have a large voice in the Republican primaries and probably also at the convention. But it does mean they would have a very hard time defeating the president if nominated.
Here is how the general public feels about the top four Republican candidates (and President Obama):
PRESIDENT OBAMA
would/might vote for...............54%
would not vote for...............46%
MITT ROMNEY
would/might vote for...............48%
would not vote for................45%
MIKE HUCKABEE
would/might vote for...............46%
would not vote for...............46%
DONALD TRUMP
would/might vote for...............35%
would not vote for...............64%
SARAH PALIN
would/might vote for...............34%
would not vote for...............65%
These large negative numbers for Trump and Palin would seem to preclude their nomination to run against the president. But I wouldn't count them out yet. Whether the Republican establishment likes it or not the teabaggers now control their party, and these teabagger voters have shown a propensity for voting for ideology over a candidate that has a better chance of winning. Remember, in the 2010 election they passed up candidates almost guaranteed to win in Nevada and Connecticut senate races to nominate Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell -- both of whom lost after running fringe right-wing campaigns.
And a majority of Republicans say they would/might vote for all four of the above candidates. Here is how Republicans answered the survey:
MITT ROMNEY
would/might vote for...............69%
would not vote for................26%
MIKE HUCKABEE
would/might vote for...............69%
would not vote for...............22%
SARAH PALIN
would/might vote for...............60%
would not vote for...............37%
DONALD TRUMP
would/might vote for...............52%
would not vote for...............46%
Of course the deciding factor will be in who shows up at the polls during the state primaries and caucuses. Candidates like Palin and Trump (and Bachmann and Santorum) might be better placed than some of us think, because the teabagger element is almost sure to vote. It remains to be seen if more moderate Republicans (if there still are many left in the party) will vote in as large a numbers as the teabaggers.
Judge's NFL Ruling Makes No Sense
But what confuses me today are the seemingly inconsistent actions of the judge. Just a couple of weeks ago she demanded that the NFL and the union (?) continue their negotiations through mediation -- a mediation scheduled to continue about the middle of May. Then she issued her opinion that said the owners could not lock out the players. They could have locked out a union, but she ruled the union was legally decertified and the NFL could not lock out what is now essentially about 1900 individual players.
Don't these two positions seem to be diametrically opposed? If there is no union, then how can negotiations continue? How can the owners be expected to negotiate with an entity that does not exist? If the former union is now nothing more than sort of a social club composed of 1900 individuals who are under no obligation to obey the dictates of that social club, then wouldn't the owners have to negotiate with all 1900 players individually?
The judge has ordered the two sides to continue negotiating, but said the players have no union authorized to do that negotiating. This makes no sense. Either there is a union or not -- and if there isn't then each player would have the right and responsibility to negotiate on his own, and the league would have the right to make all the rules that would bind all the clubs and players.
With her differing order and judgement, the judge has allowed the players to have their cake and eat it also. They don't have a union but can negotiate as though they did. That's just ridiculous!
Please don't take my statements to mean I am siding with the owners. Personally, I think the owners are just as stupid and greedy as the players -- and just as wrong. This is just a battle of two greedy sides, neither of which gives a damn about the fans (who pays all the bills in case they have forgotten). Thirty-two owners and 1900 players are being offered a $9 billion pie, and they are all too greedy to decide how to fairly cut that pie.
But in spite of the continuing stupidity and posturing by both sides, the actions of the judge just doesn't make sense. At least that's what I think. What do you think (or do you even care)?
Another Great One Is Gone
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Marriage Is Marriage
Could Business Survive Paying A Fair Wage ?
The public seems to go back and forth on this, and right now the pendulum has swung to favor the position of business. This has been true since the Reagan presidency, when policies began to be put in place that favored the corporations and the wealthy. This was done by convincing many people that when business had lots of money they would share the wealth by creating jobs and raising wages. It was called the "trickle-down" theory, and it has been a failed policy.
Instead of creating new jobs and raising worker wages, businesses have just squirreled away the extra money in their bank accounts or used it to play the stock market. And while they got much wealthier, the wages of workers have been stagnant for many years. Workers now have less buying power than than did in the early seventies (or earlier). But business still claims they would be mortally wounded by having to pay higher wages. Is this true?
Take Wal-Mart for instance. This discounter has made billions by keeping their prices low (and by paying their employees some very low wages). Wal-Mart has 1.4 million workers in the United States. The company says that paying it's workers a livable wage (defined as about $12 an hour) would force them to have to raise their prices to an exorbitant level, and it is easy to believe that paying that many workers several dollars an hour more could do that. After all, that's a lot of workers and would take a lot of money.
But while their argument may seem to be reasonable on its face, it is simply NOT TRUE. A new study shows that low-wage employers like Wal-Mart could pay their workers a livable wage without threatening their profitability. The study was done by ken Jacobs and David Graham-Squire at the UC Center for Labor Research and Education, and by Stephanie Luce at CUNY's Murphy Institute for Worker Education and Labor Studies.
They found that the average Wal-Mart shopper would pay about 46 cents extra per shopping trip -- or about $12 dollars per year (not exactly a back-breaking rise in prices). They estimate that the wages could be covered by only a 1% price hike (or no price hike since that is well below the mark-up margin). That means an item that had cost $1.00 would go up to $1.01 (or a $10.00 item would be $10.10). And according to these researchers that would be the "most extreme estimate" (meaning it would probably be even less).
This blows the old "we can't afford to do it" argument out of the water. They could afford to do it, and so could most other low-wage businesses. They just don't want to do it. They don't really care about their workers, and if it weren't for the minimum wage laws (which have driven wages up to their current pitiful level) they would happily pay even less. They couldn't care less whether their workers have a decent standard of living.
Some might make the argument that the price raises would hit the poor hard. But only 28% of Wal-Mart shoppers can be classified as poor, and the slight increases would significantly impact even them. However, it would help the poor (who would get about 40% of the additional income -- an additional $1,670 to $6,500 a year).
It's time to discard this specious argument being made by business (and their Republican politicians). It would not break business to pay a livable wage, but it would be a huge boost to lower-paid American workers (and would probably actually benefit business since these workers would have more money to spend on their goods and services).
We don't need to lower or abolish the minimum wage. We need to raise it substantially.
Haley Barbour Accepts Reality
This is not really surprising. Barbour has had problems from the very first. Among these are a past of working as a lobbyist and very little name recognition outside of Mississippi -- not to mention his having less charisma than a swamp toad. There have been numerous national political polls and Barbour has been unable to score better than three or four percent in any of them. I think he hoped to build up support, but was unable to gain any traction at all.
And when Donald Trump entered the race (or at least said he might enter) and his numbers shot up to near or at the top, Barbour began to see the writing on the wall. It wasn't that it was too early for the poll numbers to show movement, but that people just weren't interested in his candidacy. Too many saw him as a lobbyist, a party regular, or a racist (especially after he tried to defend the White Citizens Councils in the South as not being racist -- when they were started just to protect segregation).
Here is what Barbour had to say about his decision to not run for the Republican presidential nomination:
“I will not be a candidate for president next year. This has been a difficult, personal decision, and I am very grateful to my family for their total support of my going forward, had that been what I decided.
Hundreds of people have encouraged me to run and offered both to give and raise money for a presidential campaign. Many volunteers have organized events in support of my pursuing the race. Some have dedicated virtually full time to setting up preliminary organizations in critical, early states and to helping plan what has been several months of intensive activity.
I greatly appreciate each and every one of them and all their outstanding efforts. If I have disappointed any of them in this decision, I sincerely regret it.
A candidate for president today is embracing a ten-year commitment to an all-consuming effort, to the virtual exclusion of all else. His (or her) supporters expect and deserve no less than absolute fire in the belly from their candidate. I cannot offer that with certainty, and total certainty is required.
This decision means I will continue my job as Governor Mississippi, my role in the Republican Governors Association and my efforts to elect a new Republican president in 2012, as the stakes for the nation require that effort to be successful.”
I think Barbour was just hit in the face with a bit of reality. He finally realized that in running he would just be wasting his own time and his supporters' money. And I give him credit for that. A lot of the other candidates will continue long after any hope of winning has died.
Racial Inequality Is Still A Problem In America
Thanks to a lot of brave civil rights workers and demonstrators (of all races) and some politically courageous leaders the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the Fair Housing Act were passed. Those laws ended legalized racism, but they did not end all racism. The racism had been institutionalized in our society and that made it very hard to get rid of. Even the election of an African-American president has not ended this racism (although many on the right would like us to believe it did).
The ideal would be a true meritocracy -- where each person is judged only by his/her character and skills. But we are still a long way from that. I found these words by H. Roy Kaplan at the excellent blog called Racism Review, and I thought they were worth passing along (and I urge you to go over and read the entire post):
While remarkable changes have occurred in race relations in this country over the last several decades, giving some people of color access to better lives and others (whites included) hope in the future, the fact remains that disparities between whites and people of color exist in important areas:
1. In educational attainment, as measured by graduation rates and standardized test scores in math, reading and science, blacks and Latinos are 30 percent lower than whites, and a disproportionate number of children of color are suspended and expelled and relegated to special education programs.
2. In health, measured in longevity, black life expectancy is as much as eight years less than whites; infant and maternal mortality nearly double that of whites; and blacks and Latinos have lower rates of health insurance coverage than whites
3. In criminal justice, measured in the disproportionate number of people of color incarcerated and the disparities in sentences they receive compared to whites for the same or similar offenses.
4. The net worth of whites is eight to ten times more than blacks. Three times as many blacks as whites live below 125 percent of the poverty level, and black median household income is only 65 percent that of whites.
These disparities have not changed significantly in decades. The gap between whites and blacks and Latinos has even been widening since the onset of the Great Recession. Unemployment among African Americans has been twice as high as whites and 50 percent higher for Latinos than whites.
We are raised believing in the notion of a meritocracy—that one can become successful by embracing the concept. The assumption in this proposition is that of a level playing field where we all have equal opportunities to develop our abilities and potential. Conversely, if someone or group fails in the game of life in America, then that is because of some personal defect of character or even biology. We have seen this theme repeated in attempts of the wealthy and their apologists in the Academy to link intelligence to success and superior genetic endowment. It is a recurrent theme used to blame the victims of systemic, institutionalized racism, sexism, abelism, homophobia and all other forms of discrimination used to marginalize people who have been systematically prevented from participating fully in this society.
While it may be comforting and convenient to believe that only the most highly qualified people are recruited to occupy the upper echelons of the organizations which run our society (and indeed the world’s), it is far too simplistic to assume that the centuries of human pain, suffering and failure experienced by marginalized groups rests solely on their purported social, psychological and physiological imperfections. Certainly, marginalized people have made political and economic advances. They must continue to believe that there is hope for more, but we all must recognize the limitations imposed on people by institutions that are dominated by a white male minority who continue to resist significant changes in their use and abuse of power. I believe in this country and the concept of a meritocracy, but I am also aware of the balance of power and political realities that limit people who have not had the opportunities which prepared them to assume the roles of political and corporate leadership. By analyzing and exposing the weaknesses in our system, it is my hope that we will be able to fulfill the promise of “liberty and justice for all.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)