Bulls%$t on Main Street: How "Main Street" Political Rhetoric Means Nothing

Since the election, an entirely new set of words has been added to the political dictionary. When Obama and McCain were stumping for their respective campaigns, they both promised to help "Main Street" instead of "Wall Street." This made it simple for the public by providing a clear dichotomy: Wall Street was the unregulated spending and risk that put us in a recession (the Bernie Madoffs, Allen Stanfords, AIGs, Lehmans, CountryWide, etc) and Main Street was the public and the small businesses, hurt by Wall Street's risky business.

But, Main Street's definition expanded beyond financial overhaul and evolved to become the symbolic representation of all of those hurt by the recession, regardless of culpability. According to the White House, Main Street was hurting and only policies that encouraged stimulus of the spending power of Main Street would help us through the recession. In short, Main Street became the American people.

This is all true: I am very certain that most Americans were affected by the recession. Small businesses saw less of a customer base, and had to either cut costs by laying off workers, or buying up less supplies. People lost their life savings, their retirements and the 401(k)s. Philanthropy dropped (initially) and the national unemployment rate jumped above 10%. As of now, the picture is not going to get any better, with a possible double-dip and a global slow down in the EU (Greece debt, et al.)

The Obama Admin. decided to reign in on its promise to help Main Street by passing a Stimulus Package (phallic jokes aside) chock full of investment money and tax breaks for businesses and "Main Street." (Milton Friedman did a couple flips in his grave). The Republicans who voted for it do not mention it, and the Republicans who voted against it mention it too much. Then came the healthcare bill, passed through reconciliation almost a year after it was introduced. In between, some people wasted some tea and bitched about socialists, a moron with the last name Beck cried a lot in front of a huge American Flag, some guy from South Carolina questioned the "truthiness" of the President (thanks Colbert) and another guy from Texas voiced his opinions about infanticide. (its funny when you generalize).

Republicans from DeMint to Bachmann had a love fest with some TEAbaggers, calling for reform in Washington so that "Main Street" would not be enveloped in an incoming socialist/Marxist/fascist/Muslim Armageddon-Holocaust brought by an illegitimate president whose middle name was the same last name as that guy from Iraq.

I digress....

But, all that rhetoric and all that banner waving mumbo-jumbo about the end of American civilization (and the possible return of Arrested Development? We can always pray) was for nothing. Once Obama tried to extend unemployment, a retired hall-of-fame-baseball-pitcher-turned-Senator from KY with nothing to lose named Bunning blocked it because it would add to the deficit.

Ah, yes....the deficit. Conservatives on the Hill are usually deficit hawks, and don't let any useless spending get by them without giving it a piece of their mind (see McCain's pork list). With the deficit becoming a little hefty these days, Obama has decided to take on the difficult, and oxymoronic task, of looking for places to cut spending while spending more to get prop up a fledgling recovery. Republicans call this tax-and-spend, which is entire mystery to me because Obama hasn't really raised taxes (except on tanning beds, as of July 1st, 2010). But, conservatives would rather see the money spent from the stimulus instead of taken out of the deficit. Hence, Bunning.

Back to the point. So, Bunning, a Republican, stopped the extension of unemployment to Main Street because of his own, personal views on deficit spending. He put the livelihood of a whole lot of American people on the hook the make a point about the deficit. This selfish son of a....nevermind.

Then, came the financial overhaul. This was the reason why Main Street entered our political lexicon in the first place. Initially, Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, and Chris Dodd, the lame duck senator from Connecticut negotiated in a bipartisan fashion to write an overhaul that protected the people from another bailout and the insurgence of "too big to fail." Again, the Republicans balked on the issue, choosing to filibuster cloture (for neophytes, a vote for cloture means that the bill will be INTRODUCED to the Senate floor, not passed). While they talk about no bailouts and protection of small businesses, they don't even want to talk about protecting taxpayers from another bailout. Status quo....gimme a second helping. Democrats lost two of their own (because they thought the Bill was too soft), but gained a couple Republicans to finally start debate. Where is the bill now? Far from passing, especially without Sen. Byrd. What did we lose? Any regulatory power in a new Consumer Protection Agency and a $50 million fund that would prevent bailouts, which was of course a victim of political hyperbole (called a "slush fund").

Next, came the bill to extend unemployment for millions of Americans. The bill, once it made it to the Senate was stripped of ALL provisions except for unemployment and home buyer tax credits. In the 11th hour, when millions of Americans were about to lose their unemployment, Republicans balked once again because of the deficit issue. The deadline came and went, and once again Congress chose to go on vacation instead of help the American people (that goes for both sides). So, when you come back to your deficit ridden states, with high unemployment, look someone in the eye and tell them that you screwed them over because of your personal feelings about deficit spending. Tell them that you decided to take a week off, while they struggle to feed their family and make ends meet. Enjoy that vacation, Senator!

My issue is this: Do not even think you represent Main Street if you consistently leave them behind because of the deficit. I get it, there is a deficit. It will cause problems in the future, of which I will have to deal with. But, there are people on Main Street suffering now, and they have no control over it. They are the same people you tout as real, hard working Americans who cannot find a job. This is not because they are lazy and dependent (message brought to you by Sharon Angle), its because there is 1 job for every 5 qualified applicants.

There is a thin line between being principled and being a hypocritical a$$hole. Congress is certainly skirting that line.

60 Minutes Interview with Deep Horizon Chief Technician Mike Williams

This is a very captivating, scary first hand account of the explosion on the BP Deep Horizon well. Chief Technician Mike Williams gives a detailed account of the panic on the rig, his injuries, and moment when the blowout preventor fails and his jump from the rig into the water and subsequent rescue. It is a very amazing interview.


Watch CBS News Videos Online

In Memory of The Wizard of Westwood: RIP John Wooden

To put this in perspective, he gave UCLA 10 NCAA titles. I believe the team with the next highest amount of titles has less than 5. So, you can imagine how good of a coach he was, and how important his lessons are, even today.

His legacy will live on in the players he coached, the coaches he taught and the countless number of UCLA alums and students who are inspired by his words and life lessons.

Arizona HB 2881: Teaching Intolerance by Encouraging Tolerance

In a recent post, I implored the public to read SB1070, the immigration bill that has caused a national uprising amongst Hispanics and concerned citizens who see the bill as leading to civil rights violations. I concluded that the bill, while not explicitly stating that law enforcement could search individuals based on their appearance, did contain very ambiguous language which did not protect against abuse and civil rights violations.

Once again, Arizona’s state legislature has proven itself to be a bunch of backwards ignoramuses. In this case, the legislature decided to amend a section of state law dealing with curriculum taught in state funded educational institutions (public schools K-12). I read the 5 page bill, and here are my conclusions:

The bill is summed up in the first page:
A. A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL IN THIS STATE SHALL NOT INCLUDE IN ITS PROGRAM OF INSTRUCTION ANY COURSES OR CLASSES THAT INCLUDE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. PROMOTE THE OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
2. PROMOTE RESENTMENT TOWARD A RACE OR CLASS OF PEOPLE.
3. ARE DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR PUPILS OF A PARTICULAR ETHNIC GROUP.
4. ADVOCATE ETHNIC SOLIDARITY INSTEAD OF THE TREATMENT OF PUPILS AS INDIVIDUALS.

For the first point about the overthrow of the government: There is a litmus test that has been used back to the days of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (Supreme Court justice extraordinaire) that says that a person’s first amendment rights should be balanced against the national security and general security implications of that person’s actions. This goes hand-in-hand with the idea that someone is not allowed to openly advocate and advertise violence or actions to do violence against the US government. But, it is within their rights to teach about and talk about the overthrow of the U.S. government. They can also talk about a preference to overthrow the government without directly talking about taking action or advertising action to overthrow it. So, the first point is vague on its constitutionality.

The second point is not as controversial as the last section. There are plenty of contemporary areas of study and research that examine writings that show and promote resentment towards a race or class of people. These things have historic, social and cultural significance, and should not be banned. Just because one book talked about Mexican resentment towards the U.S. takeover of Mexican territory, doesn’t mean you should ban all racially or ethnically charged or divisive literature. If you know anything about US History and intervention in the world, you know there will be a lot of writing that shows resentment towards the US and certain ethnic groups that are seen as benefitting from US presence.

Section 3 and 4 go together. Classes that these sections challenge do not exist. There are no classes that exclude individuals based on their race, class or ethnicity in public schools. Classes may be designed to teach about a specific ethnicity or race, but they do not overtly exclude anyone. With that said, the argument can be made that they are “designed” for a specific race or class and they present a covert message that individuals outside of that race or class should not take the class. This argument is weak, as it is based on individual perception instead of actual policy. They policy is that all classes are open for all individuals.

I doubt any of these teachers will punish a student if they do not go along with some sort of “ethnic solidarity” that is in line with the themes of the class. These classes are meant to teach about the different ethnicities and races that young students encounter every day in order to encourage tolerance. They do not accomplish this by teaching intolerance. If that were the case, the problem should be solved through disciplinary action against the teacher, not banning all classes outright. Even in that case, it is extremely difficult to discern the reason for punishment. This will be complicated by the law, which will most likely, and inadvertently, encourage ethnic solidarity effectively negating the purpose of the law (see Prohibition Amendment).

Lastly, I want to look at another section:
NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO RESTRICT OR PROHIBIT THE INSTRUCTION OF THE HOLOCAUST, ANY OTHER INSTANCE OF GENOCIDE, OR THE HISTORICAL OPPRESSION OF A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE BASED ON ETHNICITY, RACE, OR CLASS.

This makes sure that the law does not stifle the teaching of historic examples of oppression. Those include: the Holocaust, Slavery, Armenian Genocide, Rwanda, Civil Rights, Somalia and many more. But, what this section ignores is that these examples of historic oppression have an effect on politics and cultural morays of today. In other words, they encourage the teaching of history but ignore the effect of history. They are making the gravest of mistakes. They are leaving history out of its contemporary context, which is detrimental to the education of young students, especially in primary school. And, it strips students of a contemporary perspective, leaving history to be just a subject of dates, facts and people.

Arizona needs to encourage the free flow of ideas and encourage the study of many cultures, races and ethnicities. If they wanted to stop the banning or exclusion of a race in public education, they are going about it in an a$$ backwards way. They should be encouraging the study of as many ethnicities and cultures as possible as to inundate the students with knowledge about the world around them. This will teach them tolerance for other people’s cultures and traditions, without harboring some sort of stereotypical vision or hatred towards a culture that isn’t theirs. This isn’t about the oppression of a minority, its about the correct way to teach and encourage tolerance.

TVA Coal Ash Spill, Dec, 2008

I just want to give everyone a glimpse into one of the worst environmental disasters in US History. It makes Exxon-Valdez and BP look like puddles. In Kingston, TN a relatively small coal ash pond near a TVA owned coal fired power plant burst, inundating the local environmental and destroying homes and livelihoods. It released 1 billion gallons of toxic coal ash. For a comparison, Exxon-Valdez spilled 11 million gallons of oil, and BP has spilled about 5.5 million gallons of oil.

Michael Brown, You’re Irrelevant

I usually try to keep my blogs about the bigger picture and less about railing on individuals. But, this one such individual (if you can call him that) has been the subject of my ridicule, dating back to Hurricane Katrina. Michael Brown, horse trainer, former head of FEMA and the face of the Bush Administration’s failure in New Orleans after Katrina, is now imparting his infinite wisdom and unending intelligent discourse onto our open and loving ears.

The subject: The Gulf Coast BP Oil Spill.

His conclusion: The Administration allowed oil to spill into the gulf to appease environmentalists and undermine their own plan to continue offshore drilling. BRILLIANT! The government must have been behind it!

The last time I heard something like that was when I was walking down Bruin Walk at UCLA and saw a 9/11 conspiracy table. The fact that he thinks the administration would deliberately allow for the destruction of fragile ecological habitats in order to pander to environmentalists is unbelievably contradictory bordering on stupidity.

The fact that he has the audacity to assert that Obama has some sort of political agenda in regards to this tragedy shows that he is completely and utterly irrelevant, and no one cares what he thinks.

Here is my open letter to Mr. Brown:

Dear Michael Brown,

You’re irrelevant. Your hyperbolic, politically motivated, soap box bulls$%& doesn’t amount to diddly. You didn’t matter during the Bush administration, and you don’t matter now.

Sincerely,

The USA

Arizona SB1070: Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act

The great state of Arizona has been in the news recently, and not because John McCain has found out he is of Mexican descent (we can all dream). Arizona’s SB1070, the new immigration law, has set off protests all around the country. Even Obama called the law “misguided.” Some Republicans have reacted with caution, ambiguity, avoidance and careful diction. In other words, it is an election year. Conservative Republicans have come out in full favor of the law, even considering similar legislation in their states. Finally, others have just gone independent. Well…just Charlie Crist.

I am going to read the 17-pg (yawn…) and give you, the avid reader, some semi-objective guidance. I will cover some of the more controversial sections along with some of the boring detail.

No hyperbole, just the facts…kinda:

“FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.”

The ambiguity comes from the words “reasonable suspicion.” What constitutes “reasonable suspicion?” Will it be treated like “probably cause?” More importantly, is it ambiguous enough that it can withstand an argument of violation of XIV rights?

“A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.”

What constitutes an “offense that makes the person removable from the United States?” If the person is a citizen, and is arrested on suspicion of being illegal or doing an “offense that makes the person removable from the United States,” but turns out to be a citizen doing a crime that is punishable by US law, would the conviction be overturned due to the lack of warrant? Is “probably cause” akin to “reasonable suspicion?”

“A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.”

If any section of this law comes into conflict with federal law, and impedes the full enforcement of such a law, it can be challenged in superior court. This also allows for citizens to sue the state if they believe the law is not being implemented in its fullest.

A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS 1. A CLASS 3 FELONY IF THE PERSON VIOLATES THIS SECTION WHILE IN POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

(a) A DANGEROUS DRUG AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-3401.

(b) PRECURSOR CHEMICALS THAT ARE USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF METHAMPHETAMINE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3404.01.

(c) A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-105.

(d) PROPERTY THAT IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING AN ACT OF TERRORISM AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-2308.01.”

This is a no-brainer. This is the “we care about national security” section. Stop traffickers, stop terrorists, stop WMDs.

"’Smuggling of human beings’" means the transportation, procurement of transportation or use of property or real property by a person or an entity that knows or has reason to know that the person or persons transported or to be transported are not United States citizens, permanent resident aliens or persons otherwise lawfully in this state or have attempted to enter, entered or remained in the United States in violation of law.”

In a previous section, the law prohibits human trafficking, and designates different levels of misdemeanor for a couple of circumstances (age of individual, citizenship, if intimidation or abuse occurred, etc). This section defines human trafficking as to include the transportation of illegal aliens over the border. So, this makes US citizens involved in such activities (“Coyotes”) liable to prosecuted as human traffickers. This might be inherent, but I decided to include it anyways.

IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO ENTER A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY IN ORDER TO BE HIRED BY AN OCCUPANT OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND TO BE TRANSPORTED TO WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.

C. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR WORK, SOLICIT WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENTCONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE.

Take a look at section C, and compare it to the above paragraph. This section is a little broad and ambiguous for my taste. What is the individual being hired or picked up is a legal citizen? What will happen if one person is being picked up by their employer on the sidewalk and their car impedes the flow of traffic because of that? Do both of such things make them prosecutable under this new immigration law? Maybe the top part is unnecessary, and might not stand up to either an illegal search and seizure or violation of civil rights argument.

“AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENTRAPMENT IF THE EMPLOYER WAS PREDISPOSED TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY PROVIDED THE EMPLOYER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION. IT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY TO USE A RUSE OR TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY. THE CONDUCT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THEIR AGENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING IF AN EMPLOYER HAS PROVEN ENTRAPMENT.”

An employer can claim “entrapment” if being prosecuted for hiring illegal aliens. There are various definitions of entrapment, with the most prevalent being a coercive act by a law enforcement agent forcing the person to violate the law. But, it is not entrapment when the employer was “predisposed” to violate the law or when officers “merely provide the employer with an opportunity to commit the violation.” Is there a way to discern the line between coercion (thus entrapment) and “merely providing an opportunity?” And who will verify coercion or entrapment when considering “the conduct of law enforcement officers and their agents?”

CONCLUSION: While the law is ambiguous and cries out for a legal challenge, I find no explicit section giving power to AZ law enforcement to indiscriminately stop anyone they deem “illegal.” But, it does give open ended statements which can be interpreted to enforce the purpose of the law, but not ensure against abuse and vigilantism. For this law to stand up to legal challenges, it must clearly outline the guidelines for “reasonable suspicion” and ensure that the lawful activities and civil rights of U.S. citizens are not unconstitutionally scrutinized or violated.