All Entries in the "Just Thinking" Category
Whatever Happened to the Hybrid Car?
Four days ago, USA Today ran an article questioning, “As sales fall, is the hybrid car fad over?” Humorously comparing the hybrid car to bell-bottom pants, the article nevertheless delivers some sobering statistics, including a noticeable decline in interest of key sales areas such as the San Francisco Bay Area. After peaking in 2007, sales fell a staggering 36 percent last year alone and it isn’t likely that amount is going to revive anytime soon.
So, has the hybrid car craze officially run out of gas?
The figures would certainly seem to indicate so. According to The Wall Street Journal, registration of new hybrid cars is down exponentially in the Bay Area, from 27,292 two years ago to just 17,575 last year. The national trend mirrors the grim outlook from the Bay Area as well; registration of hybrid cars plummeted from a healthy 350,701 in 2007 to just 288,952 in 2009. The indication is that the market for hybrids is experiencing a chill, if not an outright freeze.
Sign of the Times
Admittedly, the change in response to the hybrid car is somewhat surprising. Mintel, a market intelligence company, reported in March that nearly one-third of Americans are willing to pay more for products that are environmentally beneficial, or at least more eco-friendly. But the study narrowed the results to personal care products and food items, and a separate Gallup poll found that the concern among Americans for the environment had hit a 20-year low. Of particular interest is that Americans are not only less concerned about the environment, but air pollution in particular has seen a sharp decline in concern.
Gallup concludes that the reason isn’t apathy regarding environmental issues, but a surge of optimism from the perception that environmental concerns are being addressed. However, while it’s still too soon to fully determine how incidents like the recent Gulf oil spill may have undermined that confidence, it remains likely that Americans will continue to have their larger-ticket green choices regulated by other factors, like cost.
Though the government offers a considerable number of financial incentives and tax credits for the purchase of new hybrids, the hefty price tag will deter households that are barely surviving the current economic state of affairs as it is. The highly-anticipated Chevrolet Volt, the new plug-in electric hybrid car from General Motors, will cost $41,000. Even with the $7,500 tax incentive, the leftover amount prices it right out of the affordability of the average American car buyer, according to Charles Lane at Slate. Lane, citing figures from Deloitte Consulting, asserts that for the next decade, only individuals from households earning $200,000 or more a year would be interested in new hybrids or all-electric calls. Specifically, hybrids are a commercial reality for the moderate to very wealthy, like celebrities.
“And that’s my problem with the Obama administration’s energy policy, or at least with his lavish subsidies for the Volt, Nissan’s all-electric Leaf (likely sticker price $33,000), and Tesla’s $100,000 all-electric Roadster: Where does the federal government get off spending the average person’s tax dollars to help better-off-than-average Americans buy expensive new cars?” Lane blasts on July 31.
It’s Not Easy Being Green
Cost is playing another role in keeping consumers from stocking up on hybrid cars. The same stagnant economy leading buyers to tight fist their dollars and cents has also stabilized gasoline prices. With the average pump price being just under $3 a gallon, fuel cost isn’t nearly as much of a priority as during the oil shock days of the Bush administration. Interestingly, as long as the economic recovery remains sluggish, gas prices are likely to remain balanced.
“Consumers continue to benefit from a remarkable pattern of price stability at the retail level,” Chris Plaushin, director of federal relations for AAA, tells the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Aug. 19. “The drop in crude prices is directly attributable to less than favorable economic news from the U.S. and abroad.”
Even the increase of competition among hybrid cars are not likely to deter the high sticker. While the Toyota Prius once dominated the market, Chevy, Hyundai and Infiniti are all set to introduce their hybrid vehicles in the next year, but will likely be passed over without much fanfare. The biggest roadblock that has yet to be addressed by the countless loans and subsidies given to auto manufacturers is, of course, the battery. Lobbying for support in Michigan, President Barack Obama insisted that advances in technology will drive the cost of batteries down by 70 percent in the coming years. Though other technological breakthroughs, including cellphones and laptop computers, have proven the wisdom behind this claim, Lane is quick to point out there’s a difference between the mass manufacturing of cellphone batters and those for cars.
“But the technical challenges of mass-producing cell phone batteries are relatively modest compared to mass-producing batteries for cars, and for the most part, cell phone and computer industries grew with private, not public, capital at risk,” he writes. “Cutting through the hype and bias that plagues official advanced-battery cost forecasting, a recent study by Boston Consulting Group projects a 60 percent to 65 percent reduction in the cost of batteries to car manufacturers by 2020—smaller and later than Obama’s bullish claim.”
Is Extinction Ahead?
Regardless, the reduction of cost may not be enough to save hybrid cars. Already, people in their 20’s (the key demographic for hybrids) are exploring alternative methods of transportation. A recent survey by the Department of Transportation found that people between the ages of 21 and 30 accounted for just 13.7 of the nation’s total vehicle miles in 2009, marking a decline of over 20 percent since 1995. This, despite the growing number of individuals aging into the demographic, rather than aging out.
This could be the death knell for hybrid cars, which have long catered to two fundamental demands from the 21-30 demographic: technology, and environmental consumerism. As more young people find themselves without gainful employment, economic concerns are likely to overshadow eco-consciousness, making public transportation a more acceptable option than it would have been three years ago.
And the technology is starting to date itself, too. Tom Gillis, a Cisco Systems Inc. executive who lives in Los Altos, earlier this year decided against a hybrid and went for a Roadster by electric-car maker Tesla Motors Inc., according to The Wall Street Journal. The latest development in alternative fuel cost the 45-year-old more than $100,000.
“Hybrids are boring,” Gillis tells the publication. “Electric cars are so exciting. It’s like taking a roller-coaster to work.”
Where Are The Donations For Pakistan?
The flooding in Pakistan is the worst in 80 years, covering nearly 1/5th of the nation and displacing 20 million people, or 1/9th of the population. Thousands have already died, but the worst is on the way: aid groups are unable to distribute relief, drinking water supplies are tainted and unclean, and the monsoon season is not yet over. Ban Ki-Moon, the Secretary General of the United Nations, has called it the worst disaster he has ever seen, commenting “I have witnessed many natural disasters around the world, but nothing like this.”
Yet, here in the United States, the public response has been tepid at best. There’s no massive campaigns for $10 text message donations, no film or music stars opening up volunteering headquarters on the ground, no constant twitter chatter like we had with the earthquake in Haiti. So why is this?
Part of this reason is that Pakistan already holds a position in the American mindset, and it certainly isn’t as a victim. It’s closely associated with the war in Afghanistan which is — like most wars that go on for over 9 years — viewed negatively by much of the public. Furthermore, Pakistan’s role in the war is ambiguous at best, with stories addressing both their assistance in counter-terrorism operations, but also their alleged refuge and assistance to extremist organizations, including the Taliban.
And rather than a single earth-shattering event (the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, the 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia, et cetera), the flooding in Pakistan started small and has slowly grown. It’s harder to connect with a disaster that’s been slowly growing in magnitude, and even more difficult to stay emotionally connected to it for so long.
Speaking of staying emotionally connected, “compassion fatigue” may also play a part in our apathy. Being inundated with disasters ranging from the recent earthquake in Haiti to the BP oil spill to the overall financial disaster that we’re still combating is incredibly taxing, both emotionally and financially. The idea behind compassion fatigue is that we have a limited amount of “compassion capital,” and it has been exhausted over the last two years.
What is really interesting is that we can’t chalk up the lack of donations to the economy. It’s not that people don’t have the money, there is simply no emotional connection. The economy has improved since Haiti (albeit not too much), so economic hardship in the USA cannot be the real barrier.
The deficiency in donations doesn’t just extend to private citizens, but governments as well. According to the U.N., on August 15th (over 2 weeks after the floods began), only about $90 million in aid had been promised, despite a $460 million request.
Americans’ reluctance to engage the disaster in Pakistan is particularly unfortunate given our strategic alliance with the South Asian country. With many reports of Al Queda fighters in remote borderlands between Pakistan and Afghanistan, along with a lingering negative sentiment towards the United States because of the U.S. military and CIA drones, amongst other things, winning the hearts and minds of Pakistanis may be much better accomplished by the American public rather than the armed forces.
If you’d like to donate to help Pakistani flood victims, there are a variety of options: more traditional aid organizations such as Oxfam and the Red Cross, or organizations that assist on-the-ground NGO’s such as the American Jewish World Service.
Dr. Laura Ends Show Over Racism Flap
Radio talk show host, occasional author and always moral proselytizer Laura Schlessinger has encouraged her fair share of tirades in her three decades as a public figure. Feminists especially have been quick to dismiss the brash, regressive diatribes that have ranged from blatant misogyny to frank hypocrisy (for example, she published In Praise of Stay-at-Home Moms last year, despite the fact she has always maintained a career inside the non-domestic work force) and unapologetic homophobia.
But “Dr. Laura,” as the radio wave Phyllis Schlafly is more colloquially known, achieved astonishing new lows this week when she decided to inform listeners that strong reactions to racism are the result of people being “hypersensitive.” To prove her point, Schlessinger threw in plenty of n-bombs for good measure, encouraging the caller on the other end of her rant “not to NAACP” her. To top it off, Schlessinger also asserts that “a lot of blacks” only voted for Barack Obama in the most recent presidential election due to his heritage.
Not surprisingly, Schlessinger’s recent dose of ignorance has ignited a media firestorm, culminating in her announcement that she would be leaving her radio show at the end of the year to find a platform that won’t infringe on her First Amendment rights.
“Schlessinger, like so many of her conservative compatriots, has a tenuous grasp on what the First Amendment actually promises (hint: it doesn’t promise that radio hosts can say whatever offensive bullshit they want and people need to be cool with it), and, like Don Imus before her, also doesn’t seem to realize that just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do,” Andi Zeisler, co-founder of bitch magazine writes.
Zeisler goes on to acknowledge that far more troubling than Schlessinger’s thin understanding of free speech is the idea that she “needed” to express bigoted notions to begin with. Even before the caller identified the actual episodes of racism, Schlessinger had decided that the caller couldn’t possibly have experienced actual racism, because racism is simply the product of two things: hysterical reaction to people refusing to be politically correct, and a double-standard that allows marginalized groups to use certain words while simultaneously denying that permission to dominant others. Never mind, of course, that such words and phrases emerged when those dominant others wanted to perpetuate the oppression of those marginalized groups.
In a nutshell, of course she doesn’t “get it;” and it isn’t because the issue itself is confusing. A privileged white woman, Schlessinger cannot possibly hope to understand the complicated history of racial slurs that leave most persons of color feeling conflicted about their use. While it’s true a lot of African-Americans subscribe to the school of thought in “taking back the power” of racial slurs through their frequent use, it’s not a characteristic of all African-Americans, just as not every Feminist agrees the way to avoid being degraded by the term “cunt” or “bitch” is by using it in a complimentary or empowering fashion. Until the debate over the power of certain charged words is fully resolved, it’s best for communities not impacted by their use to avoid them altogether.
Not that that completely resolves the issue with Schlessinger’s tirade. Racism is far from a phenomena of the past, and the election of Obama has certainly polarized the country in a way that has never been seen before. Many of the criticisms lauded at him, particularly by the neoconservatives of the right, are tinged with de facto or overt racism because they would never be voiced against a Caucasian Commander-in-Chief. John McCain, for example, was actually born outside of the country, but had he won the election, would the Birther Movement be just as adamant in demanding he prove his Constitutional legitimacy to lead the country? Probably not, and that’s not even getting into “Is he or isn’t he” debate about Obama’s standing as a Muslim.
Pertinent to Schlessinger, however, would be the idea that people of color overwhelmingly voted for Obama because of his heritage. It’s beyond dispute that Obama fared well with the African-American voters in 2008, but not inconsistently compared to the previous presidential elections. In fact, 90 percent of African-Americans voted for Al Gore in the 2000 election and 88 percent voted for John Kerry in the 2004 election. In other words, if Schlessinger is right and African-Americans were motivated to vote for Obama solely on the basis of his race, it would still only apply to about five percent of the voters he won. It’s worth wondering what percentage of voters likewise cast their ballot for any candidate who wasn’t Obama, simply on the basis that his heritage is partially African.
Of course, Schlessinger typifies the approach much of America tends to favor towards race and identity politics, and has for as long as she’s been on the air. Immediately following her tirade, Schlessinger remarked, “we’ve got a black man as president and we’ve got more complaining about racism than ever. I think that’s hilarious.” What’s really hilarious is the idea that just because the American people voted Obama into office, racism isn’t an issue, or that the election somehow coincides with the explosion of race-motivated dialogs. It’s worth pointing out that the caller in question was seeking advice on a personal experience, which Schlessinger was apparently bent on turning into a political one. Twice during the call she steered the discussion to Obama, suggesting that even her contempt for the marrying of the two is shallow at best. It’s okay for her to do it, in her prerogative, because she’s not part of the problem; she’s merely bringing it to light. As if to cement this view, Schlessinger never officially apologized for her racial epitaph, but rather expressed regret that she lost the point she’d be trying to make.
Though many of us who have watched Schlessinger make a career out of berating minority groups are glad to see the end of her reign over the airwaves, it’s obvious she’s shopping around for some other options. While most people weren’t familiar with radio host Imus until the 2007 NCAA Women’s Basketball Championship, the radio host had a long history of racist, sexist and otherwise prejudiced remarks. Despite this, the Fox Business Network gave him his own show, suggesting that patterns of bigotry won’t disqualify a potential air jockey and, indeed, can provide ratings security.
In other words, Schlessinger’s latest faux pas may very well guarantee her continued presence in the media (it helps she’s already had Sarah Palin begging her to “reload”) where marginalized groups in this country can continue being told their sensitivity to the exploitation of that marginalized status is the result of “hypersensitivity” complicated by their blanket loyalty to the president they mindlessly voted for because he looks just like them.
Appeals Circuit Grants Stay on Prop 8 Case
It turns out advocates for same-sex marriage were right to treat last week’s historic court ruling with a hefty dose of caution. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco froze Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision which struck down California’s ban on same-sex marriage as discriminatory and unconstitutional. The three-judge panel issued their ruling without explanation in a brief, two-page document which imposed a stay on Walker’s Aug. 4 decision that struck down the voter-approved Proposition 8.
“I’m completely devastated by this,” Rebekkah Guston, a self-identified lesbian from Missouri, explains. “The battle for gay legitimacy is being fought in California, and this is a huge setback in our movement. How much longer do they expect citizens to wait for them to decide we deserve equal protection?”
Guston, like countless other gay couples and advocates in the status quo, is not comforted by the built-in provision of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. According to the document, an appeal will be heard on Dec. 6.
“I suppose they think we should be grateful that we’re still receiving something like due process, but when it’s being shared in the same breath as denying you other rights, it just comes across as lip service,” she says.
Strange Bedfellows
But others are recognizing that the unusually groundbreaking nature of the case calls for any number of accommodations and unconventional forms of redress.
“I think the court realized the importance of this case and expedited it,” Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, the state’s largest gay civil rights organization, tells The San Francisco Gate. “Normally, the Ninth Circuit court takes a year and a half to decide an issue, but this one they’ve indicated they want done in months.”
The stay was granted just 48 hours before California was set to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as instructed in Walker’s ruling. Since rendering his decision two weeks ago, both Jerry Brown, California’s attorney general, and governator Arnold Schwarzenegger–the chief defendant in the Perry case--publicly stated their support for gay marriage.
“The Administration believes the public interest is best served by permitting the Court’s judgment to go into effect, thereby restoring the right of same-sex couples to marry in California,” Schwarzenegger’s brief reads, according to CNN. “Doing so is consistent with California’s long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect.”
The public display of support from Brown and Schwarzenegger seemed to guarantee that gay marriage had a strong foundation that would bolster Walker’s decision under judicial scrutiny. According to John Schwartz of The New York times, Walker’s lengthy analysis was deliberately constructed as a “finding of fact,” in the hopes of providing greater defense against a possible appeal in the future.
“The reason, he said, is that while appeals courts often overturn lower-court judges on their findings of law — like the proper level of scrutiny to apply to Proposition 8 — findings of fact are traditionally given greater deference,” Schwartz writes on Aug. 4.
Losing the Battle to Win the War
Which may mean that the battle is far from over, particularly as legal scholars see this most recent development as beneficial to the long-term health of the cause. The stay delays the case’s appearance before the Supreme Court, which will inevitably invite other states to consider taking their own actions to approach same-sex marriage with a fresh prospective. When voters passed Proposition 8 two years ago, they did so with a slight, 52 percent majority. In recent months, statistics have revealed a complete reversal of the trend, with nearly 53 percent of residents in favor of extending marriage rights to gay couples. Such a trend is indicative of a culture that is not only becoming more tolerant of same-sex couples, but more favorable to the extension of their inalienable rights. Capitalizing on this could create a smart legal strategy, scholars argue.
“In the year or more that it could now take for the case to reach the high court, more states will have time to adopt same-sex marriage statutes, and more judicial opinions will be formed to support the issue, the thinking goes,” Daniel B. Wood opines in the Aug. 17 edition of The Christian Science Monitor.
Had the panel not issued a stay on Walker’s ruling, supporters of Proposition 8 were prepared to seek a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court. Already divided on the issue of same-sex marriage, even the most sympathetic Justices–Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy and newcomer Elena Kagan–are likely to find the issue of rights affirmation Herculean in nature. Kagan, especially, amidst the rumors of her own sexuality, her lack of judicial experience and her age, is likely to feel the pressure to prove herself as a worthy, neutral interpreter of the law, thus breaking with the liberal block if she can find a sound enough reason to do so. Delaying the appearance of the case before the court may assure the ultimate victory, The Christian Science Monitor suggests.
“In terms of the ultimate result, this may be a good thing for Prop. 8 opponents because it doesn’t force the issue before the US Supreme Court right now,” Kelly Strader, a law professor at Southwestern Law School, tells the publication.
She also cautions Proposition 8 supporters from celebrating the Ninth Circuit’s decision to stay Walker’s ruling. San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who appeared before the Ninth Circuit to ask for marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples, maintained that Prop. 8 supporters have no right to appeal or even ask for a stay. Obviously, proponents for Proposition 8 have disagreed they lack ground. In a nutshell, the stay was granted to give proponents for Proposition 8 time to demonstrate their ground in seeking to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling. It means that a simple stay of Walker’s ruling isn’t a guarantee of anything.
“I think if they are overly optimistic from this, they are misreading the ruling,” Strader tells the San Francisco Gate. “It will be a different panel of judges which will ultimately decide this.”
Such words are a small comfort to Guston, who had been considering marriage options for her partner of five years. She’s at the place where she feels she can’t take any decision at face value.
“Maybe this isn’t a loss, but I don’t really see it as a win, either,” she says. “All I know is at the end of the day, whatever hope I had from the decision given two weeks ago is gone.”
YOXI: Social Justice Through Creative Competitions
The Internet has been revolutionary in bringing ideas together, and a site called Yoxi takes the idea of crowd-sourcing, democracy, and creativity to a new level with a series of competitions designed to solve today’s pressing problems. It’s an interesting concept to start; made even more compelling by great partnerships with GOOD magazine and Idealist.org.
Yoxi competitions approach large problems with a specific multi-faceted solution. Their pilot project was to “create an initiative to increase the number of cyclists on the streets of urban areas.” It addressed urban congestion, air quality, public health and safety, and other issues (seriously, the list of advantages to increasing the biking population is endless). Yoxi participants are given background information, the ideal target of solutions, and the forms and formats in which their idea should be pitched. In this case, they were asked to send in videos that explore their impressions of the problem and its impacts, two specific products, services or ideas that would address it, and finally a short elevator pitch that could promote their ideas and persuade the public to get involved. The resulting entries were judged by various “mentors” from the field, but also by the public at large. In the spirit of democracy, the public’s vote was worth 70% of the final score, while the mentors’ was worth 30%.
The first competition has finished, with a group called Urban Futurists taking the grand prize of a $5,000 donation to a charity of their choice. Their idea was a mobile phone application called “Bike Tab” — a social game platform that allowed people to gain points and special offers should they persuade friends to join them on bike rides. Besides points, riding with friends would incentivize individuals to get on their bike and go. This solution seems highly geared towards city-folk in their 20s who have smartphones; arguably these people have relatively higher rates of bike-riding already, but I suppose their heightened awareness would make them more likely to actually take it up. Urban Futurists donated the money to Recycle-A-Bicycle, which fixes up old bikes destined for New York City dumps and donates them to children. Cool!
This model of social innovation through creative competition and online accessibility looks great, and I’m looking forward to seeing more projects and ideas. I also hope to learn the meaning of their name, pronounced Yo-see (random two-syllable web companies are so 1999). Right now, you can go to their website and vote on the subject of the next competition, ranging from increasing healthy food in markets to advancing sustainable and affordable home design.
[Yoxi]
Missouri Voters Reject Federal Health Care Reform
Missouri voters on Tuesday approved a state-wide measure aimed at nullifying the new federal health care law, becoming the first state in the nation to oppose the health care reform that pushed through Congress five months ago. According to The New York Times, Proposition C, as it was called, was designed to invalidate the requirement that citizens carry health insurance or pay a tax penalty.
“Supporters of the measure said it would send a firm signal to Washington about how this state, often a bellwether in presidential elections, felt about such a law,” Monica Davey’s article reads on August 3. “The referendum drew support from 71 percent of nearly 939,000 voters.”
NUMBERS GAME
While a number of conservative outlets are heralding this outcome as evident that the American public is reacting to the unfair requirement of health insurance, the results aren’t nearly as impressive as they seem on the surface. After all, yesterday was also a primary day in the Show-Me State, and there were no major Democratic contests. The end result, as Steven Benen rightly identifies at The Washington Monthly, guaranteed success for a largely conservative measure due to the sheer raw number of voters participating. Over two-thirds were Republican primary voters anyway, representing just 23 percent of eligible voters in the state. Still, the dominating Republican identity virtually ensured that Proposition C would not only pass, but would do so with an overwhelming majority.
“All told, this was a symbolic “victory” that everyone saw coming, and which will have no meaningful effect on the policy itself,” Benen writes.
Advocates for Proposition C insist that the measure was designed to represent the will of the people. Jane Cunningham, a state senator from St. Louis County, is responsible for the crafting of Proposition C and hints that the health care reform amounts to tyranny.
“It is unprecedented in the United States of America for a government to say just because you live in this land and you breathe in this land, you will buy a product, any product, with your own money against your will,” she tells National Public Radio’s Marshall Griffin. “That has never before happened in America.”
DIRTY POLITICS
But critics of Proposition C find the policy arguments convenient, believing that a far less sound reasoning fueled the mass support for the measure. McKenna Jessup, an uninsured college student who lives in Kansas City, takes it a pessimistic step further, believing many of those who voted in favor of Proposition C did so simply out of spite.
“Sure, people got a point across–the point that as long as it’s a policy implemented by Obama, they want no part of it,” Jessup says. “Most of the people who turned out to vote in favor of this measure already have some kind of private coverage. So what’s their issue? Nothing, except making sure that people like me know they will fight to keep us from receiving health care, too.”
Jessup, like many other college students, is directly at the heart of the health care debate. Over 2 million college students are currently uninsured, and in 2008 alone, college students accounted for $120 to 235 million in uncompensated medical bills, according to a recent report released by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Jessup, like many other college students, relies on her college’s student health center for routine health concerns including discounted birth-control pills, but knows the time could come where she needs more intensive care. Having just completed her freshman year, Jessup isn’t set to graduate until 2014–putting her squarely in the middle of the health care reform’s time table, something threatened by the changing attitude represented with Prop C.
“What it comes down to is that people really misunderstood what the health care was trying to do,” Jessup says. “I wish I could understand why. People think this will hurt small businesses and the poor, and it’s like they forget we’re already hurting because we can’t get insurance anyway. The health care reform was our only hope, and this is just the result of dirty politics. You really wonder if the politicians care about who they hurt when they stir up these kinds of laws, because you know at the end of the day if they need to see a doctor, there’s nothing stopping them, because they have private insurance while you’re lucky if you can buy Sudafed for your cold.”
A GLIMMER OF HOPE, OR A SIGN OF THINGS TO COME?
However, sources are encouraging those fretting over the result to temper their disappointment. The passing of Proposition C is largely symbolic, due to the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which dictates that federal laws regulating commerce–in this case, the commerce being health insurance–trump state laws. Ultimately, Missouri’s efforts to opt out of the federal health care law will most certainly be struck down, making Proposition C a toothless piece of legislation.
Which might seem acceptable, if the very process of law-making in this country wasn’t inherently cost-prohibitive. Supporting an initiative that is guaranteed to be overturned because it conflicts with the governing doctrine of the land is not only legislatively irresponsible, but abuses the established system. It undermines the legitimacy of proposed laws and measures by clogging the rolls with laws that have no reasonable chance of being approved. It should also go without saying that issues like access to health care shouldn’t play out to a political theater wasting tax dollars, Jolie Justus, a Missouri senator, argues.
“It’s really frustrating to watch all of this take place because it seems to me to be politically motivated,” Justus tells the local NBC Kansas City affiliate.
Missouri’s end result, despite the clear demographic of who voted to empower Proposition C, may nevertheless only serve to be the first state in a succession protesting the health care overhaul. Last week, a similar Florida proposal was pulled off the November ballot by a state judge, but many sources are anticipating that the action will be challenged. Arizona and Oklahoma are already boasting similar referendums on their November ballots, with rumors persisting Colorado will have one as well. Five states–Georgia, Idah, Louisiana, Utah and Virginia–already laws opposing the federal law, but Missouri is the first that gave voters the power to decide.
More so than the other states, Missouri’s outcome has the potential to shape the national attitude towards health care due to returning the power to the voters.
“Christie Herrera, health task-force director of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of conservative state lawmakers, said if other states have election results like Missouri’s, it will likely spur state lawmakers elsewhere to consider placing the proposal before voters,” The Wall Street Journal reads on August 4.
Despite the fail safe of the Constitution to defeat measures like Missouri’s Proposition C, the Show-Me State is in a unique position to derail the Democrats’ stronghold in Washington, with health care serving as the harbinger of destruction. If enough states introduce their own ballot initiatives to the voters, Washington will need to rethink the full extent of health care reform’s implementation, particularly with midterms looming on the horizon.
In the interim, how such decisions will impact the roughly 42.6 million Americans currently without health care remains unseen.
Obama Signs Tribal Law and Order Act
Earlier today, President Obama signed into law the Tribal Law and Order Act. After three years of political wrangling, the Act made it through the senate last week to deal a harsh blow to the rampant commission of crimes which take place on tribal reservations through out the United States. Violent crimes, particularly those that are sexually violent in nature, have a tendency to go unreported and, therefore, remain unaddressed by traditional prosecution methods.
“The reservations overall have violent-crime rates of more than twice the national average, according to a congressional investigation,” Michael W. Savage writes for The Washington Post earlier today. “Some individual reservations have even higher levels of violence. The Standing Rock Sioux reservation, which straddles the border of North and South Dakota, had a violent-crime rate of more than eight times the national average in 2008.”
The problem of violence on reservations is well-documented, with numbers reaching nearly epidemic proportions. However, many of the government remedies are rendered impotent by the very nature of reservations, which function as independent states with their own sovereignty. Part of that sovereignty gives each reservation the power to adjudicate their own crime and supply their own police force for criminal investigations and law enforcement.
However, the separation of powers between the Federal government and individual tribal bodies has allowed native women in particular to be disproportionately vulnerable to crime. The Washington Post points out that only nine police officers patrolled the 2.3 million-acre Standing Rock Sioux reservation in 2008. With lax guidelines in place prior to the Act’s passing today, the tribal authorities had more discretion with which crimes were reported to the federal government.
Additionally, the culture on reservations helped promote a wall of silence.
“But in Indian Country, rape survivors bear additional burdens. They must report their crimes to federal law enforcement authorities, whom long and hard experience has told them to distrust. Cultural sensitivity is often nonexistent,” Ms. blog contributor Ajijaakwe writes. “Often, the law enforcement officers, investigators, prosecutors and health examiners are white men, and for many Native women cultural traditions may militate against talking to them about such intimate matters. So when you read that one in three Native women will be raped at least once in her lifetime, you can be assured that those numbers are underreported at even greater rates than in the general population.”
Sexual violence, in particular, presents a difficult issue for tribal authorities to grapple with. More than 86 percent of rapes against Native American women are carried out by non-native men, most of them white, according to the Justice Department. These sorts of jurisdictional problems made it difficult for non-natives to stand trial for their crimes. These stark issues of ethnic and race relations discouraged rape victims from coming forward, for fear their attackers would never face justice.
“When victims know that their perpetrators will be held accountable for their behavior, they will be more likely to report crimes,” Sarah Deer, assistant professor at William Mitchell College of Law and a consultant for Amnesty International’s 2007 report, tells The Iowa Independent. “Empowering tribal law enforcement personnel to protect their communities is the key.”
Empowering the tribal law enforcement is the subsumed goal of that Tribal Law and Order Act. Not only will tribal authorities have the ability to hand down tougher sentences to perpetrators, it strengthens the reporting requirements for crimes. While previously tribal authorities had the decision to essentially cherry pick which crimes were brought to Federal attention, the Act’s provisions make a clear mandate for crime across the board. The Act will also open up new spaces for communication between the self-governing bodies of tribal forces and the Federal government; special U.S. prosecutors will be appointed to adjudicate cases part of the violence epidemic.
However, the Tribal Law and Order Act isn’t without it’s flaws. The legislation that empowered the separate justice system for tribal nations, called the Indian Civil Rights Act, establishes an exception to the Sixth Amendment. Nowhere is there a requirement that any person tried in the tribal system must have legal representation.
“The 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act notably did not include a right to counsel even though it is a constitutional (6th Amendment) right that also applies to the states,” Chris Stearns, a Navajo lawyer, tells Indian Country Today. “My understanding is that this giant exception was made because back then no one thought that tribes would be able to pay for attorneys, or that there were even attorneys around at all on the reservation.”
The issue of cost is a relevant one. With the increase of bureaucratic process, particularly the ability to sentence convicted defendants to three years under the enhanced provisions, one can only assume the cost would likewise increase, and the issue of poverty on reservations is well-established. Historical racism can certainly account for enabling reservations to be cultural death camps where women can expect to be victimized, but it’s the modern indifference to the plight of indigenous people which continues to punish them for the consequences of that racism. In this case, that racism has allowed perpetrators to skirt justice through tribal authorities, as well as render reduced sentences for the few that are officially brought to answer for their crimes. While tribes now have power for longer sentences, it’s a power that will cost them financially.
As Susie Madrak of the news blog “Crooks and Liars” writes, “Hannah August, a spokeswoman for the Department of Justice, said the law will not cost tribes anything unless they choose to exercise the enhanced sentencing authority it provides. Of course, that places the cost burden on the tribes, and not all of them can afford it. So they’ll be “allowed” to maintain a two-tiered system of justice if they can’t pay for the better version — which, come to think of it, makes them just like the rest of our country!”
Still, many supporters of the law are indicating that the Tribal Law and Order Act is another example of the Obama administration’s ongoing commitment to tribal communities. Earlier this year, Obama enacted a piece of legislation which boosted health-care provisions for native communities. The law was the first major recognition that tribal forces have seen in recent administrations.
Discouraging Coverage of Protests in Oakland
The streets of downtown Oakland erupted in protest on July 13th after the judge handed down an involuntary manslaughter verdict in the murder case of Oscar Grant, who was shot in the back by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Police officer Johannes Mehserle. His sentence, while not yet decided, will be between 2 and 4 years, with the possibility of extra time because he used a firearm. In response, G20-like “anarchists” looted stores, burned cars, and damaged police property. At least, that’s what most news organizations talked about.
The real story of Oakland is that most protesters were non-violent, and had put a great deal of prior planning before the verdict was read to try to guide the community towards more constructive means of voicing their opinion. Rather, when I turned on the news that Thursday, all I saw was footage of thugs stealing shoes from a Foot Locker, or breaking windows of a bank. Sensationalist journalism loves a story like this, though they may not mentioned that the police let the violence happen.
The Oakland community really came together to try to encourage non-violent protests The New York Times had a great story about how people of different ages, races, religions, and political persuasions came together to encourage peaceful activism. However, the title of the story was “With Verdict in Officer’s Trial Near, Oakland Braces for Violence.” Why not “Oakland Pursues Peace?”
Subtle and unsubtle cues like this extend the pervasive myth in American society that protest is just for crazy leftists (or, given the recent Tea Party movement, crazy extremists on either side of the political spectrum). The political middle class gets smaller and smaller because people come to the conclusion that either a) I have to join a group whose views are in line with mine, even if they’re more extreme, or b) politics is too heated on both sides, and I don’t have the time/energy/willingness to deal with it. In the end, news coverage of one of the most meaningful examples of democracy — protesting the government — actually discourages political participation.
Arguably, this is a very American phenomena. For example, when I lived in Argentina, my host-mom got a call one evening from a friend about a bad decision the president made. So, she did what everyone else was doing: got out her stock pot and wooden spoon, went to the Pink House (Argentina’s White House) and joined hundreds of other people young and old in loudly banging that cookware in protest of the decision. And this is in a country where not too long ago, political dissidents were disappeared! Yet in the United States, where we (very arguably) enjoy so many freedoms and generally do not have to fear the government, protesting is not all that common. And let’s be honest: there’s a lot to protest about.
So, when we look back at Oakland on July 13th, let us not think about the “anarchists” and looting by non-residents, but rather the way a community tried to come together in the face of difficult times, united in peace against violence and police brutality.
Carbon Economy–Huge Changes in America
I’m currently sitting outside looking over the rolling hills of a Central Kentucky farm. Today has been overcast but pleasant. Despite the serene setting, I’ve had something nagging me in the back of my mind. I typically avoid watching the mainstream news but a recent internet search has revealed an alarming silence on a new bill that, for now has passed through the House of Representatives and awaits a vote in the U.S. Senate. The bill will not only have enormous consequences on American businesses and American households, but will also have major effects on the every nation in the world. Anyone interested in entering the business world, law, engineering, science, or finance needs to pay attention.
Senators Waxman and Markey introduced a bill called the “Waxman-Markey Climate and Energy Bill”, which was zazzed up by publicly naming it the “American Clean Energy and Security Act,” on June 26, 2009. The heart of the bill is a carbon cap and trade system. It should be noted that both Obama and McCain promised to pass a cap and trade program during their campaigns for president, with just a couple of differences. When Obama was on the campaign trail he spoke very intelligently about the prospects for a cap and trade. Unfortunately, President Obama is not the one who wrote the bill. In fact, the bill started out at about 900 pages and 300 additional pages were added at 3:00 in the morning; about 12 hours before the vote. When state representatives did vote, no actual physical copy of the bill had been printed yet. This let’s you know what we’re in for.
