Hot Topic: Facebook campaigns

This past week there was much ado about people changing their Facebook profile pictures to cartoon characters to raise awareness about child abuse. First,  it was criticized because how in the world is changing a profile picture really going to end child abuse? Then a rumor circulated that it was really a ploy by a pedophile to gain access to more children via Facebook.

To the first point - Everyone discusses how  the fundamental weakness of all Facebook campaigns from changing your status to fight cancer to not posting for a day to this latest incarnation is that these campaigns won't actually change anything unless you do something else. I mostly agree. However, I do believe there is value in the power of prayer or positive thinking.  I believe that the fact that all those cartoon character folks spent a moment thinking about the prevention of child abuse in a way that they wouldn't have without the campaign will manifest itself somehow. Will this be enough to end child abuse? Absolutely not. But it may flip a switch that makes someone send money the next time she gets a solicitation from a non-profit that supports children or intervene at the mall when an adult is being abusive to a child.  Prayers and positive thoughts matter.

To the second point - children should not be on Facebook. Children who should not be on Facebook should definitely not be accepting friend requests from people they don't know - whether the profile picture is a cartoon character or not.

What do you think?

Hot Topic: World's AIDS Day

Today is World's AIDS Day. You remember AIDS, right? That disease that scared a generation into practicing safe sex.

Remember when CNN showed stories about Ryan White, Magic Johnson and how to stem the AIDS tide instead of YouTube videos of cats peeing?

Remember the vigils, the fear, the hopelessness?

I do. I remember.

Even though football players won't be wearing red this Sunday and KitchenAid isn't making commemorative mixer - AIDS is still a huge burden here. Maybe we can forget about it because it takes place more in Sub-Sahara Africa than it does in suburbia.

But on this day we should remember. We should care. We should do something.

Maybe pray for the 33 million people battling this disease including two million children under the age of fifteen.
Maybe send money to organizations searching for a cure or a vaccine or providing comfort.
Maybe educate yourself on what is the current status of the fight against AIDS worldwide.
Maybe remind someone that AIDS still exists and lasts far longer than a one night stand.
Maybe just click on the Light for Rights banner up there on the left side of this page to see what other people are doing to remember.

Hot Topic: The Carnival Splendor

I have had it with the media coverage of the Carnival Splendor. In case you don’t know, last week the Carnival Splendor cruise ship had a fire in the Engine room. The ship was disabled – no electricity and no working toilets for several hours – and had to be towed back to San Diego. From all the passenger accounts, this very serious situation was handled professionally. The cruise line is going beyond the call of duty to make the passengers whole – reimbursing for the cruise, offering another free cruise, waiving all charges and getting people home the fastest way possible. More importantly, every single person arrived safely back in San Diego. The media is trying to spin this as the “Cruise from Hell”. I cringed listening to reporters try to goad passengers into saying bad things about the cruise line or their experience. To their credit, many of the passengers spoke about what an outstanding job the crew, the Captain, and the cruise line did. Sure, they complained about the food, but that was about it.
The news could have been filled with heartwarming stories about how everyone pulled together. The message board are filled with such andetotes – human chains carrying food between decks, passengers carrying disabled passengers from deck to deck and opening up their cabins to those without windows or working toilets. Instead, we see one reporter after another trying to manipulate the truth to build the “cruise from hell” story.

Not too long ago, we had another story of a captain who relied on his training, made good decisions and safely ferried passengers through a serious situation. They called it the “Miracle on the Hudson”, not the “Flight from Hell.” I believe that the crew of this ship deserves the accolades and it’s a shame that CNN and other news outlets missed that important part of the story.

Hot Topic: The new NFL rules

In Sunday’s Indianapolis Colts game, Austin Collie took a hard hit that left him unconscious on the field. The referees took a lot of criticism for penalizing the defense by calling the hit unnecessary roughness and giving a fifteen yard penalty. I think the ref was right to throw the flag. He saw helmet to helmet contact and a player lying unconscious on the field. The penalty was excessive for what the hit was, but without instant replay, I don’t see how the refs could have known that. This call ignited a lot of conversation because sports fan are worried that the NFL’s recent crackdown on concussions and helmet to helmet hits is going to take away from the sport. Somehow, if the defense line can crunched the head of an offense receiver, the sport will be lost.
I support the NFL’s increased attention on the risks associated with head injuries. I think they have been ignored for far too long and players have been encouraged to return too quickly from serious head injuries. I think the NFL is really missing the boat by holding only the players responsible after reviewing instant replays a week later. If the NFL was serious about head injuries, it would institute a minimum two week waiting rule for any player that sustained a head injury and all players would be evaluated by a NFL physician or physician panel in addition to the team doctor. The NFL would also begin researching alternative helmets, collars and padding that would further protect the players. A huge part of football is tackling. Any tackle, not just helmet-on-helmet could result in a serious head injury.

I understand that the men who chose to play this game understand the risks, or at least I hope they do, but if technology exists that can make the game more safe – the NFL should use it.

Hot Topic: Media Coverage of the thwarted Yemen attack

I am very upset with the recent headlines emphasizing how our law enforcement and anti-terrorism “barely” prevented the bomb attacks that originated in Yemen. Below is a copy of an email I sent to the editors of the St. Petersburg Times in response to a front page article entitled: “Bomb disaster barely averted.”

Dear Mr. Brown,


I am all fired up about a front page story “Bomb disaster barely averted.” I understand from the lack of byline that you all just pieced together the AP and wire coverage. I feel this coverage was an irresponsible way to represent the heroic acts that prevented loss of life from a terroristic attack.

You are a journalist. How in the world do you know if it was “barely”? What does “barely” mean anyway? Should they have caught them in Yemen – the country that is fake cooperating with us? Should they have hired psychics to tell them who the bombers were going to be and then imprisoned them so you could report that they clearly prevented a terrorist act? Give me a break. Yes, the bombs flew on planes before they were intercepted. That could have been your headline, in fact. “Bombs flew twice before detection.” But instead you try to sensationalize the facts and make it seem like it was luck. The truth is that THEY STOPPED THE ATTACK!

This country is under threat daily from sources and plots that we, as civilians, cannot imagine. When something goes wrong, it is an abysmal, catastrophic failure that only reinforces our leadership is inadequate. Yet, when something goes right, when loss of lives is prevented – you can’t even give them credit for that. You degrade their efforts by saying “just barely” or “they got these but there could be more.” It’s disgusting. I understand that this operation was not perfect and I am not recommending a parade, but I would appreciate some even-handedness.

I admire the St Pete Times for its journalistic integrity. I continue to subscribe because your investigative pieces are top notch. I just wish you had used some of those talents in the telling of this story instead of relying on the insulting characterizations of the AP.



Thank you.

Hot Topic: Why can’t you just tell the truth?

The big story here in Florida is that gubernatorial candidate Alex Sink looked at a text message from a staffer during a break in CNN debate. This violated the rules of the debate because both candidates had agreed not to use notes. Rick Scott and the media have made this THE issue in these last days leading up to the election. This has eclipsed life changing topics like how will a new Governor create jobs after the space program is discontinued? What is going to happen to Florida’s public schools? How will the state of Florida make the most of health care reform and stimulus dollars? Instead, we are talking about a freaking text message. Grrrrr…
If we have learned anything from the scandals in recent years – it is that if you tell the truth, acknowledge your mistake, and apologize - the media quickly loses interest. In the baseball steroid scandal, Andy Pettite admitted it and he is still pitching today while the media is still searching for a “gotcha” angle on Rogers Clemens. As far as sex scandals, David Letterman suffered a week of public skewering while Tiger Woods endured months and months. Reggie Bush returned the Heisman when there was a hint of scandal and most people didn’t even hear about it.

So why is it so hard to tell the truth?
If Sink had just said, “I made a mistake. I knew my staff understood the rules of the debate so when the makeup artist approached me with a message from my staff – I immediately got concerned it was something related to my daughter. I looked at the message. After seeing it was a campaign related message, I should have immediately shown it to the CNN moderator and apologized. I fired the staffer who did it. Now, can we get back to important issues related to the future of Florida?” But instead, she is passing the blame.

I think people understand that mistakes happen, but the true test of someone is how they respond. Seventeen years ago, the Texas Ranger manager admitted to using cocaine and violating the MLB drug policy. Because he came clean and got clean, the team kept him and now he is in the World Series.

The whole point of having an election is to determine which candidates will best represent the interests of the American people – not to see which candidates can out sound-byte or out manipulate the American people better.

It’s time to tell the truth and let the cards fall where they may.

Hot Topics: The Florida Primary

Yesterday's Florida Primary send a strong signal to the Republican Party of Florida: Shape Up or Ship Out. Rick Scott upset the Republican establishment by beating their candidate and current Attorney General Bill McCollum. Scott spent $40 million of his money to do it. The most shocking issue to me is that Rick Scott's company was convicted of one of the largest Medicare fraud schemes in history - and no one cared. In fact, one person said "All politicians are corrupt - at least his transgressions are out on the table." Scott won on a strong message of being a party outsider and "Let's Get to Work."  That theme easily resonated with people who have faced all types of corruption within the Republican Party over that last 24 months. The $40 million didn't hurt as Scott purchased lots of air time and our mailbox filled with his glossy brochures. He dominated. I can't even tell you what McCollum's message was. McCollum basically drowned in Scott's millions.

The general election will be very interesting. Scott positioned himself to the right of McCollum for primary - pro-Arizona immigration legislation, anti health care reform. I am curious to see if he sticks to that message and draws Sink (the Democratic) contender to the middle. Or if Sink is able to hold her ground and those voters who are truly centrists are the ones facing the stark choice. As with most Florida elections - this will be one to watch.

Hot Topics: Net Neutrality

The term "net neutrality"  has buzzing across and newspapers since Google and Verizon began lobbying Congress for legislation that would allow the providers to charge different amounts for different types of data streaming to cell phones. Right now, users pay a fee to access the Internet and this gives them access to everything on it. With the new system, users would buy a separate plan if they were avid users of more bandwidth heavy services like streaming audio or video. Basically you'd have your regular "reading" plan and then a "I wanna cats go potty on YouTube" plan.  Their rationale is that the demand for streaming services like video is eating up the bandwidth at an alarmingly rate and users should bear the cost of the $1 billion upgrade that is needed. Google has said it maintains it's position that all Internet should be equally accessible for wired services still stands and also wants legislation codifying the currently voluntary position of wired service providers to keep access open.

From an economic perspective, I totally agree with Google's perspective. This is an issue where some users are endangering the availability of services for everyone. The heavy users should pay for the upgrades needed to support their YouTube or TV.com addictions.

The societal implications are where this gets messy. Basically, this type of legislation would be allowing a private corporation to censor the Internet. What if the tiering system benefits Christians or Muslims or Conservatives or Liberals or the Porn industry? You have to pay to get access to CNN, but Fox is streamed for free?  The worry is that the type of data won't be where the differentiation ends. Right now, everyone is on an even playing field for the Internet. Anyone can start a blog (hi!!), post video and have it be accessible to everyone. Starting a tiered system of payment changes that. It takes away the entrepreneur highly competitive spirit of the Internet and makes it just another place where the highest bidder wins and those with the most money control the information we get. In our country, it's not the government that will censor our access to information - it's the multinational corporations like Google and Verizon that will begin to erode the last place where speech is truly free and access if truly equal. It is something to be worried about. People are protesting Google about this. If you free strongly about it, you could join that protest here.  Or you can always contact your Congressional Representative. Or contact the FCC directly. There is a FCC hearing on this issue tomorrow in Minnesota. Make your Voice Heard!

Hot Topic: State funds passed

Yesterday the the House passed  a bill to provide $26.1 billion dollars in state aid to fund education and healthcare and President Obama immediately signed it. This aid will prevent layoffs of many teachers and state employees.

State governments have been under extreme fiscal pressures as the property tax base and sales tax base have been erroded by the recession. Budgetary cutbacks on the state level generally mean that our most vulnerable citizens - the elderly, disabled and children - no longer have access to vital services like health care, rehabilitiation and education.

I am glad to see that Congress and the Administration have taken this issue seriously and have acted swiftly even in the face of opposition by Republicans. I am not clear why Republicans are so opposed to this particular bailout. I understand the criticism of too much government spending and the fear of growth in government. However, a healthy, educated, productive workforce is the cornerstone of a free market economy. In fact, when we go into "developing" nations, the first investments are transportation, education and health care because until society is "productive" there will be no ability for capitalists to make money.

I opposed the auto and bank bailouts, but I strongly support this package because the money is earmarked for specific, measurable programs, it will prevent layoffs, and the programs it supports have a multipler effect in the communities. What do you think?

Hot Topics: Reclining on Airplanes

It's Wednesday. That means it's Hot Topics day here at Ask Angie. However, my brain is fried and I am a little bleary eyed from too much travel to take on a substantive issue so it's time to do a poll!! Yay! Please look over to your left. Today's poll in inspired by all my travel:

When do you recline on an airplane?
- All the time - It's part of the "space" you purchased with your ticket
- Only on long flights
- Only when the person in front of me does
- Never - it's bad karma.

I tend not to recline just because it drives me crazy when the person in front of me does it. Especially when he hits the resistance of my knees and then flings his entire body weight against the seat to try to get it to go back more and I yell ouch! and then everyone feels uncomfortable but he still keeps trying to force the seat to recline more. Hypothetically, of course.

So what do you think? Weigh in at the poll on the left and leave your comments below.

Are you a feminist?

An interesting debate broke out on a message board I read the other day. They were discussing whether or not taking your husband’s name shows you are a feminist.
One side argued that if you “keep” your name - you are taking a stance against the “man” and therefore a feminist. (They failed to note that whether or not their last name matched their father’s or mother’s.)

The other side argued that fighting for the choice to make that decision is what defines feminism. That feminism means having options.

Both sides agreed that feminism has become a bad word due to the anti-man connotation that it has been saddled with. I cringe when people ask if I am a “feminist”. I usually answer “Yes, I believe that men and women should have access to the same opportunities.” That’s my definition of feminism – access to the same opportunities.

Growing up in a post-Title IX world, it’s hard sometimes to see the clear lines of the battlefield. Do I think that women still have to fight to be equal because there are people who genuinely believe that women aren’t as smart or as capable as a man? Absolutely.

But I also struggle with how to define myself as life gets more complicated. Does the joy I get from taking care of my husband by making dinner and folding the laundry mean I have to turn in my women’s rights card?

I think there are real gender differences that need to be accommodated in order to create an equal playing field. Study after study has shown that boys and girls relate to the world differently. And if you talk to any mom who has had a boy and a girl, they can tell you it starts at a very early age. Does this mean I can no longer claim that I believe men and women are “equal”?

What do you think? Is “feminism” relevant today? What does it mean to you?

Shirley Sherrod: Victim of the sensational 10 second press clip

Monday night, Fox News aired a video clip of Shirley Sherrod, Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the USDA. In this clip, she relates her hesitance of helping a white farmer. This brief ignited a fire storm, lit by the NAACP, and then put out when the USDA called for her resignation.
There’s one problem here: That little news clip, edited to maximize its sensational value, left off the part where Sherrod spoke out about that was a transformative experience and how she went on to help that white farmer and a lot of other farmers like him and through those experiences learned that race really doesn’t matter.

The source of the original story was biggovernment.com . His goal was to shame the NAACP for coming out against the Tea Party so he thought showing a woman talking about racism at a NAACP meeting would do just that. And it worked. Fox News aired the clip, NAACP reacted, Sherrod resigned under pressure from the head of the USDA, and truth once again took a back seat to “headline” news.

Huffington Post has both the original footage and the edited version if you are interested in seeing it for yourself.

To say this is disgusting doesn’t even begin to cover it. We are in a dangerous time when any clip, any photo, any quote can be edited or taken out of context and ruin someone’s life. In Sherrod’s case, this impacted her life, but also all those other farmers that she has helped and could have continued to help.

Right now, the outrage is directed at the Obama Administration, calling for her reinstatement. But where is the outrage towards Fox News? To say what they did was irresponsible is kind. The pressure of the twenty four hour news cycle claims another victim. Unfortunately, I don’t think this irresponsibility is limited to Fox News. I don’t harbor any hope that this phenomena will get any better. In fact, I only think it will get worse. Hopefully, the Administration will right this wrong and give Sherrod her job back. For the larger issue of false reporting, I have no idea how we begin to combat this assault on the truth. If you have any ideas, please let me know.

Hot Topic - Lebron James and the Miami Heat

So what do I think about this whole Lebron James situation? First of all, I do not follow professional basketball closely enough to have a comment on his talent or what it means for him or Miami's chances to win a championship that he chose the Heat. I do have an opinion about what the way he did it and how ESPN enabled it.

I grew up playing basketball in the glow of street lights on a hoop on our garage. Basketball is a team sport. You can have the best player in the world, but if the rest of the team can't carry their own water - you can't win. That's the thing that bugged me so much about this. He is one guy and he made everything about him. As if he was a messiah coming to hand down a championship to whichever team kissed his feet enough to get him. He couldn't deliver a championship ring to the Cavs so why does anyone think he could do it anywhere else?

Well, I guess ESPN does because they gave him an entire hour to talk about it. I have to hand it to James's PR team. They really earned their money on this one. His coverage was incredible. Maybe ESPN made the right business decision by airing the one hour special. It was heavily viewed and has been much discussed. While I don't think a sports channel has to be totally objective, this blatant player worship just rubs me the wrong way. ESPN could have negotiated exclusive rights to broadcast his press conference. This would have been better because then, at least,  they would have been covering a news event instead of manufacturing one.

I worry about what the impact of "LEBRON" will be.  I lived in Miami in 2006 when the Heat won the championship. It was incredible. The city was energized in a way that is hard to describe. The greatest thing about that year and that team was that they made it clear that they were a team. Wade and O'Neal led the way, but without the bench - it wouldn't have happened.  I worry that James's ego will get in the way of his play. That his big mouth will weigh down the team. We'll just have to wait and see.

Hot Topics: Should the news media edit images to fit the story?

Yesterday, I purchased my first Photoshop software package and this story made headlines. The Economist used a Reuters photo for its cover, but removed two of the people originally in the photo. Some interpreted this as an attempt by the Economist to make the President appear “lonely”.


Photoshop controversies are not new. The largest controversy I can remember was in June 1994 when Time Magazine darkened a photo of OJ Simpson. The outcry was so intense that Time pulled the cover and re-issued the magazines. The same accusations of skin darkening also flew during the 2008 Presidential elections as photos of Obama appeared in all shades.

In general, I feel that Photoshop is a great tool that can help improve the quality of images. However, I do have a problem when supposed “news” organizations begin taking liberties with these editing capabilities. It’s one thing to shave a few inches off a model for a perfume ad – people view that more as art than accurate reporting - it's another to completely change a photo to fit a reporter's narrative.

In the case of images being used to support a story, I believe the news media should be transparent about changes to an image. Reporter use quotation marks to denote the difference between what a person actually said and the reporter’s interpretation of what means. Now, I understand that quotes can be taken out of context, but at some point, we have relative confidence that the words actually came of the person’s mouth. Edited images offers no such assurances.

The media should let readers know when images are edited, what was taken out, and why. A photo that has been altered could have a small logo at the bottom of the image indicating this was not the original photograph. Then, a footnote should explain what had been changed about the photo. It doesn’t need to be a big deal, but people should know. People tend to trust pictures because there still is a belief that a picture is a more reliable depiction of a scene than any person’s interpretation. Now that any image can be changed, we are counting on the news media to be transparent as to how.

Peanuts on a Plane

 The Department of Transportation is considering a rule that would ban peanuts on planes to accommodate the estimated 1.8 million people who have peanut allergies. And there is quite an uproar. Peanut farmers are up in arms. Diabetics want to preserve their low carb snack. What would the airline do about fellow passengers who brought snacks containing nuts on board?

I think this is absurd. Flight crews have much more important things to worry about than patrolling passengers for what snacks they brought on board. And why stop at peanuts? What about the over 60,000 people with gluten allergies? Should gluten be banned too? What about the people who are sensitive to any perfume – should everyone have to go through a decontamination shower before going on board?

I don’t want to appear insensitive to people with allergies, because I know firsthand the struggles people with severe food allergies face. However, there are some common sense solutions to dealing with these problems and I have seen them firsthand.

Peanuts – I have seen passengers with peanut allergies handled in two different ways. One flight they substituted pretzels for peanuts (sorry Gluten-free folks). On other, the flight attendants did not serve peanuts in the 3 rows in front of and behind the passenger with the allergy. In both cases, the flight attendants had to deal with irate passengers that wanted – WERE ENTITLED TO – their peanuts.

Perfume allergy – In this case, the passenger was reseated in a less “perfume-y” zone. Thought I did find it suspicious that she was in a middle seat when she had the perfume attack and the only place she felt comfortable was an aisle seat in the extra leg room section. But, hey, maybe all that extra leg room helped dilute all those charged scent particles flying through the air.

I assume the airlines would be happy to eliminate the peanut line item from their budgets and not offer any snacks at all – just to be safe, of course. In the meantime, why do we need to regulate when I am sure most airlines do a pretty good job of accommodating this right now? This may be a clear case of how a well-organized vocal minority can get something passed because the rest of us don’t really care one way or another. That is until we are running to catch our connection, starving, and counting on that little bag of peanuts to avoid a food emergency. Then we’ll care. A LOT.

What to do about McChrystal?

Everyone I know has complained about their boss or some of their job duties at one time or another. But what if your boss is the President of the United States and a reporter covering you on the record is the one listening to those complaints? Well, that lands you in a big hot steaming mess of a situation.
General Stanley McChrystal, the Afghanistan War Commander, was quoted in a Rolling Stone article criticizing the President and Vice President. And now President Obama has to figure out what to do about it.

I believe General McChrystal has an obligation to publicly support his Commander in Chief. As a country, I believe it is critical that we portray a united military front during a war. Exposing these fissures could be devastating to our military efforts. I also think the General should be allowed to blow off some steam and express his frustrations with his job privately. The reporter acknowledged that many of the controversial comments were made during “down time” when the General was relaxing with members of his team. However, these have not been his only political missteps. He has publicly criticized Biden and the diplomacy team. He is alleged to have released a memo that forced Obama to send in more troops.

But what is Obama to do now? Has McChrystal jumped the shark and now running his own program or is he a General used to fighting under the a cloud of secrecy that just can’t get used to the politics of fighting a war in the bright light of day? Fire him to demonstrate a strong stance against insubordination and risk a disruption in the aggressive timeline for pulling out of Afghanistan or allow the General to continue in his current post and risk what he will do next? Obama really is caught between a rock and a hard place.

I believe this has to be a pragmatic decision. My primary concern is the disruption of the Afghanistan timeline. I believe this Administration will be judged more harshly for not ending the war as promised than how they dealt with McChrystal. The General’s cavalier attitude demonstrates he is not qualified to engage in the diplomacy needed to bring to conclusion the Afghanistan engagement. This is a highly political game and he just doesn’t seem to know or care about the rules.

What do you think?

Hot Topic: What's the big deal about Arizona's Immigration Law?

In continuation of my Wednesday series on controversial topics – today I am going to examine the Arizona immigration law section by section and my thoughts on it. Before I do, I want to make my bias clear:

1. I believe that undocumented workers are an economic engine in this country. The New York Times had an interesting piece in 2005 on the immigrant’s contributions to Social Security.  The The Congressional Budget Office  concluded in 2007 that 50% - 75% of undocumented immigrants pay federal, state and local taxes. As a counter point, a number of studies have indicated  immigrants are a larger drain on social resources than they are contributors to tax revenue. I agree with Ernesto Zedrillo’s opinion - this drain occurs because the other 25 – 50% of immigrants don’t have a viable way to pay taxes since they are relegated to the cash economy.

2. I believe it is for this reason that both Democratic and Republican Administrations have had some level of tolerance for an undocumented workforce.

3. I believe comprehensive immigration reform is needed in this country and that it must include an amnesty process. (More on this is a future blog)


Now to Arizona. I am assuming that the true intention of the Arizona law is to ensure compliance with current Federal immigration law as the preamble of the legislation states. I actually don’t have a problem with this. My problem is with the federal law. If all Arizona is trying to do is comply with the federal law, then how can we really be mad? Our anger should be directed toward federal policies. However, as I indicate below, I believe the method Arizona has used enters dangerous territory far beyond the federal law.

Here we go:

Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding article 8, to read:


ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS


11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of


immigration laws; indemnification


A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR


OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

On the surface this looks good, no government can adopt a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws. However, this creates a huge financial issue for local governments. Many local governments have undertaken a policy (either written or understood) that they will not actively pursue investigations to seek out undocumented workers because of the resources it takes.

Title 11 Article 8 Section 2 (B): “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 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).”

This is way too much reasonableness and creates too much liability for local governments. Hear me out. The reasonable standard will be tried over and over again and this will consume whatever resources these sub-divisions have. What a new park? How about a fire department? Nope, all the money is going to the immigration lawsuits.


What does “reasonable suspicion” mean anyway? Given that most lawful contacts made by enforcement agencies don’t involve lengthy conversations about where the person grew up and we don’t have a national language, most people have rationally interpreted this to mean that these agencies are legally required to make a “reasonable” judgment based on the person’s physical attributes. Here is the root of the claims of racial profiling. For an issue so volatile and likely to result in substantial litigation, the legal requirements should be crystal clear. The police either have to question everyone about their immigration status or they don’t. It’s either very clearly a police state in Arizona or it’s not. We force people to wear patches on their shirts indicating their immigration status or we don’t. Have I made it clear that I think it is inappropriate to question anyone who has not been accused of a violation of the civil or criminal code about their immigration status - given the national tolerance for an undocumented workforce?  And for those you who say “What tolerance?? People are rising up against immigration! Arizona is only the first.” I ask you, “Did you question your dry cleaner, your local restaurants – both fancy and fast food, your lawn service, your nanny/day care provider, your local bank, your contractor about their hiring practices?” If not, I submit that you have some tolerance.

C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

They serve their time here and then we deport them. This seems to be how the system works. I think it is a little strange that we would spend our taxpayer resources “rehabilitating” (because that is the goal of the prison system- right?) folks who don’t have the legal approval to be in this country, but hey, that’s another blog – right?

D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

I have to claim ignorance here. I can’t figure out why this section is needed and I haven’t been able to find a clear explanation. Maybe one of my trusty readers can help me out. Was there an issue in Arizona with law enforcement officials being able to transport person unlawfully present in the USA?

E. 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.
Now we are getting into a serious danger zone in my opinion. The key words here are “without a warrant”. Obtaining an arrest warrant is an important component of our justice system. It’s a double check between our law enforcement branch and our judicial branch to make sure that we have the right person and a reasonable amount of evidence to show they "probably caused" the alleged violation. Stripping this step from the process is a huge problem for me. Note that the section says nothing about the immigration status of the person being arrested. I believe this section is unconstitutional for that reason.

F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING, RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:


1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE.


2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.


3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED.


4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.

Okay, this makes some sense to me given Arizona’s goal. If someone is applying for a public benefit, service or license, asserting residency, needs to be identified, or is asserting a legal status, then officials should be allowed to verify.

G. 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 THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:


1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES.


2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.

Giving citizens a private right of action against local governments for enforcement of federal immigration laws spells disaster to me. It’s a waste of resources for these local governments to have to fight all these actions. Feel like your local county isn’t pursuing immigration stringently enough – elect a new County Commission. Don’t clog the courts with individual actions – especially when even the federal government doesn’t have the resources to enforce the federal immigration laws to their fullest extent.

Section H, I, J indemnify the officer for reasonable costs and specific where the money should be sent. The full text of the bill is available here.

The new law also makes it illegal to:
- Hire an undocumented worker
- Solicit work if you are in the country without authorization
- Be present on public or private land  if you are in the country without authorization
- Transport an undocumented person

The changes highlighted above are the most significant aspects of the bill as I believe they create constitutional issues and will have a detrimental impact on the ability of local governments to govern and provide services. This bill goes far beyond just enforcing our federal policy and for that reason, I oppose it.

What do you think?

Is the Oil Leak Obama's Katrina?

This phrase has been tossed around a lot lately: The Oil Spill is Obama’s Katrina. Cafferty’s Cafferty has commented on it as have dozens of other publications and polls.
As much as it pains me to admit it, I have to agree. Documents are coming out now that show the governmental agencies that approved Deepwater knew of the dangers it presented and did nothing. The lack of decisive action immediately following the spill was as negligent here as it was during Katrina. The idea that the company that was responsible for the accident would somehow have the incentive and ability to clean it up is laughable – especially a leak of such magnitude and complexity.

Russia has had experience with oil leaks of this magnitude. A Russian newspaper reported during the Soviet era, they successfully shut down leaking wells FIVE TIMES through small nuclear explosions.

But BP doesn’t want to do that until all options are explored ie. they don’t want to destroy their well because they can still make money from it. And that makes sense because they are a for-profit company. They are looking out for the best interests of their company and their shareholders. That’s how the "free" market works - right? However, someone needs to look out for the best interests of Americans – protecting our jobs and our environment. And that person should be the President. How long do we have to wait? Until the entire gulf is filled with oil?

I live in Florida and this is a catastrophe. The economy here is based on the tourist trade and will be destroyed as more and more oil begins to reach the shore and that’s just the short term. It’s impossible to imagine what will happen in the long term as the Gulf’s ecosystem is destroyed. Twenty years later, oil remaining from the Exxon Valdez spill is still dividing researchers on what to do.

Obama should have stepped up from the beginning. He should have quickly pulled together two expert committees: one for stopping the leak and one for the best practice in containing and cleaning up the leak. Then, using the advice of these experts, he should have immediately gone into action deploying the strategies that had a reasonable chance of success. I am empathetic that stopping this leak is complicated, but that does not excuse a failure in leadership. So much attention is being paid to BP’s liability – let the Justice Department figure that out and get to work stopping this leak.

Yesterday's St. Pete Times provided a story of a leadership success. Walton County, Florida officials grew tired of waiting for the Administration and BP for a plan to protect their coast. So they devised a plan on their own – creating a sand dam that will span the coast to protect their lakes from the oil. It’s inspiring to see such definitive action. Obama could learn a lesson or two.

What do you think? It was BP’s mess so BP should clean it up? What role should the Administration play in such a large natural disaster?

Do you support instant replay in the MLB?

This morning’s paper screamed “I just cost that kid a perfect game.” Umpire Jim Joyce made the wrong call at first base last night in the Detroit v. Cleveland baseball game and ruined what would have been a perfect game. He even apologized to the pitcher after the game. This raised a question at the breakfast table this morning – Do you support instant replay in Major League Baseball?
No. No , I don’t for two simple reasons: 1. The game is already slow. 2. There’s not much a baseball umpire can miss. (Did you hear that? All those groans from baseball umpires about how I don’t know what I am taking about?)

The game is already slow.

The thing that makes baseball great is the slow pace. You can get up, go to the bathroom, get a hot dog and a beer and still not miss a single play. You can even take a little snooze if there happens to be a mid-inning pitching change. It’s genius. And depending on the talent of the opposing pitcher – a player could be at bat for a very very long time. Plus a moving strike zone adds a little mystery and intrigue. Adding instant replay to this would be like throwing some extra weight on your local turtle. Eventually, you are going to start to wonder if the little guy will ever cross that finish line.


There’s not much a baseball umpire can miss.

All a baseball umpire has to do is follow the ball. That’s it. Follow the ball. The players basically stand still except for the batter who is going to run to the exact same place every time. Is it inside the white line and big bright yellow poles? Did the runner get there before the ball? Yes, it may get a wee bit complicated with more than one guy on base – but that’s why there is more than one umpire.

Compare to this to football – a game where I support instant replay. Twenty two men or women – each capable of breaking rules no where near the ball– all moving wildly around the field. Football umpires can easily miss something or erroneously make a call because they have the wrong angle. Coaches should have some recourse for that.

What do you think? Do you think there should be instant replay in baseball?

What should be done with health care reform? Does there need to be a public option?

Yes, there needs to be a national health plan that every man, woman, and child can receive, regardless of previous condition, that pays for 100% of their care as long as the care complies with best industry practice. Now, put turn down the Glenn Beck show and hear me out people. Our country is suffering because we do not have an adequate health care system. I took developing country economics in grad school. The experts agreed that in order to have a productive society, the workforce must be healthy and educated and there must be an infrastructure to support the means of production and export. THAT IS FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES! We are going backward.

You know that massive credit crisis we face? Could that at all be related to the fact that 41% of Americans under the age of 65 have medical debt? Imagine if that all just went away. Imagine if small businesses could retain employees. Imagine if people didn’t have to stay at jobs they hated because their kid has diabetes. Imagine if people could get adequate preventative care and therefore eliminate costly medical interventions down the road and be healthy. I don’t want to imagine that. I want to live it. I want to have a backup plan. A place where I can go – no matter what – and get health care and not have to mortgaged my house to pay for it.

Let me break down that first sentence so people know exactly what I am talking about:
There needs to be:

A national health plan – Note I said health plan – not government administered hospitals and clinics. My Congressman can’t figure out that cutting Veterans’ benefits and voting for the war are contradictory. We can’t leave it up to him. We need a smart person that knows something about medicine, and people and curing people with medicine and running hospitals and clinics and nursing homes. That’s what we need.

that every man, woman, and child can receive, regardless of previous condition – Now I am talking crazy. I can just hear your thoughts now: “We should give health care to people who we know are sick. WHAT???? That’s insane. We could actually make them better, then there would be more people in line at the Wal-mart. That would be bad. Patients with previous conditions should be forced to move to Montana and die alone.” However, I like people with previous conditions and I think they need medicine and I hate Wal-mart so the line can be filled with people with previous conditions 24/7.

that pays for 100% of their care as long as the care complies with best practice –What the heck does best practice have to do with this? Well, there are people out there – bad people. They like to give patients, especially elderly patients, lots and lots of tests and procedures they really don’t need because it makes more money for them. They appear to all live in Florida – South Florida to be exact. Using best practice will be a good check on the medical delivery system that ensures patients are getting what is best for them while the taxpayers are getting a good value on their tax dollars.

Aren’t I concerned about “government” making health care decisions for me? Well, they kinda already do. What Medicare decides to reimburse and not reimburse basically sets what the care plan is going to be for a particular disease or treatment – even for private insurers. And this is because we have a health care system where doctors and other health care professionals have to adapt their care plan to what will be covered – not what is best for the patient.

Am I concerned about socialism? Not really. A public option can be funded through tax money and still be run by the private sector. I would prefer it be run as a non-profit because I don’t think health care is the place to be skimming profits. Plus I kinda like some aspects of socialism like roads, the post office, public education, parks, sewers, police, fire protection, and all those other pesky things that taxes pay for that EVERYONE gets to access.

What I am concerned about is that this generation will likely have a worse future than their parents. What I am concerned about is that our 2004 infant mortality rate places us 29th in the world. There are 28 other countries where babies have a better chance to live. What I am concerned about is that we pay more money for health care than any other country and still 41% carry medical debt. What I am concerned about is the conversations I have with nurses and doctors about the state of our country’s hospitals.

We need health care reform and we need it now. I am disappointed and disgusted by the cowardice of the Democrats in the House and Senate and White House that refuse to step up and use the Super Majority to save this country. I am disheartened by the Medicare beneficiaries that are out raising their voices against “government health care” – even though their very lives depend on it - because talk show host told them to yell louder. I ache for the small business owners who every day have to close the doors on their dreams because they just can’t afford not to have health insurance anymore. What will it take to get what we need?

I’d love to hear your thoughts on what we need to do to fix this health care crisis.