Thursday, September 6, 2007

Re: Speaking of Delirium...


Only a few hours after I posted my entry about New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin's supposed intention to run for Governor of Louisiana, news broke that he did not register his name for the race in time for today's deadline. Congratulations to Nagin for excercising some good judgement in his decision to not run.


This is not to say my blog entry is wasted, as my criticism of his performance as mayor, specifically during and after Hurricane Katrina, still applies. Let us hope that this is a sign that Nagin will complete his term as mayor and retire from public life. The city of New Orleans should be so lucky.



Speaking of Deliruim...

Wrote here on Tuesday about what I thought was a delirious ruling by the U.S. District Court regarding the legality of the Department of Homeland Security warning employers of prosecution for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Then I read an AP story this morning about New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin considering a run for Governor of Louisiana.

Yes, that Ray Nagin. The one that said in a speech, shortly after Hurricane Katrina: "we as black people, it's time, it's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild a New Orleans, the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans. And I don't care what people are saying Uptown or wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day" (Courtesy: Wikipedia.com).

This is not delirium, folks. This is downright psychosis.

The subtitle of the AP story says it all: "NEW ORLEANS — Mayor Ray Nagin could be days away from announcing he will run for governor of Louisiana — a move many in this stricken city regard as preposterous." Emphasis on the word "preposterous." Rest assured, the absurdity of this idea is not restricted to the stricken city of New Orleans. Nagin would presumably run on a platform promoting his successes in New Orleans, which is curious, considering he displayed a level of ineptitude during and proceeding the crisis that is scarcely imaginable. Despite days of warning, the evacuation of the city was slow, inefficient, and disorganized. Pictures of fleets of empty buses submerged under water should be damning enough to sink Nagin's political future. Let us not forgot his excuse for this mistake: "there was no one to drive them."

The cleanup and rebuilding efforts have been similarly lacking. Instead of taking responsibility, Nagin has repeatedly blamed the federal government for lack of sufficient support. While there is no doubt that FEMA and others are not blameless, Nagin's culpability in the whole mess is starkly apparent. As secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff has noted, the responsibility and authority for an evacuation lies with state and local officials. Federal aid is meant to augment this effort, not be relied upon as the sole resource. Nagin is quick to point out that 60 percent of the city's original population have returned, as if this is some sort of accomplishment, proving the "success" of the rebuilding effort. It should be noted that this 60 percent includes a lot of working class blacks who either never left or returned to the city as soon as it was reopened for lack of another place to go. One only needs to look at Nagin's reelection in 2006 as proof of this, as this is the only demographic still supporting Nagin after Katrina (he received 80% support from black voters). New Orleans has been known as a pit of corruption in Nagin's tenure, even before Katrina struck. He has done nothing to rectify or improve this perception. The crime rate in the city, already a problem pre-Katrina, has become so egregious that a protest was held at City Hall in January of this year. Protesters brought criticism of Nagin's leadership as a main reason for the high crime rate and overall lack of progress in the city's reconstruction. According to the AP story, Nagin's disapproval rating stands at 65 percent.

Lastly, we should consider the fate of current Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco. Blanco, like Nagin, was harshly criticized for an ineffective response to Katrina. Blanco has decided not to seek reelection amid these criticisms. Yet Nagin, despite the same, if not, harsher criticism, is going to run for governor? I assure you the capabilities of the human brain are not sufficient to make sense of this.

Just to punctuate my diagnosis of "abject delirium" on Mr. Nagin and his intended Gubernatorial run, I will quote him from the end of the AP article. Nagin says of his legacy: "My legacy will probably be one of honesty and integrity and bringing that to government in a meaningful way. I'm sure my legacy will also be this guy said things pretty straight and wasn't your typical politician."

Sigh.

**Read the AP story here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295746,00.html

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Judicial Delirium

CNN reported on its website last Friday that a federal judge ruled to block the Social Security Administration from sending letters to employers warning of more serious penalties for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. The SSA has been sending out similar letters for about twenty years that were largely ignored by employers. This year, those letters are to include "notices from the Department of Homeland Security outlining strict new requirements for employers to resolve those discrepancies within 90 days or face fines or criminal prosecution if they're deemed to have knowingly hired illegal immigrants" (CNN.com). The AFL-CIO has brought a lawsuit on the issue, claiming the new rules "violate workers' rights and unfairly burden employers." U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney ruled to temporarily stop the Department of Homeland Security notices to give the court some "'breathing room' before making any decision on the legality of new penalties aimed at cracking down on the hiring of illegal immigrants."

I think I'm going to need some breathing room, too, or I may pass out.

This is logic in exile. Let us examine briefly the AFL-CIO's contention that bringing penalty on employers who knowingly violate the law is somehow an infringement on workers' rights. These workers are, theoretically, illegal immigrants. They have entered the country illegally and/or are not documented citizens of the United States, which is in violation of a number of laws. As non-citizens, what obligation does the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration have to recognize their rights as workers? Why should we expect any less of our government agencies than to hold American employers accountable for consciously circumventing the law?

It is well within the AFL-CIO's prerogative to bring this lawsuit, however ridiculous it sounds. The responsibility lies with the court to swiftly reject it. Granted Judge Chesney did not explicitly rule that the new rules were illegal; she delayed the notices from being sent until the court can hear further arguments on October 1. What further arguments need be heard? The court is essentially reviewing the legality of actually punishing lawbreakers. Let's broadcast this onto a hypothetical. Imagine that the current penalty for dealing cocaine is a letter that may contain a small fine. For years, dealers have been brushing aside these fines as a cost of doing business. The dealers are knowingly breaking the law by dealing cocaine, and the federal government is aware of their crimes. Cocaine addiction is becoming a growing problem in the United States, and it is becoming apparent that the fines are insufficient to discourage cocaine dealing. The FBI, in response, decides to include a notice in the letters to dealers that warns of prosecution if their illegal activity continues. Would there be any question as to the legitimacy of the FBI's actions here? Would the FBI not be well within its rights to enforce laws against cocaine dealing? Could you imagine an organization bringing a lawsuit against the FBI, citing a threat to the rights of cocaine addicts? Then try to imagine that when the court hears this suit, it decides it needs two months of "breathing room" in order to decide whether or not it is legal for the government to enforce the laws against cocaine dealing?

It does not take much thought to come to the conclusion that the lawsuit is ridiculous, and that Judge Chesney's decision to delay the letters, even temporarily, is patently absurd. Let us hope that come October 1, the four weeks that will have gone by will be enough time for the courts to come to the same conclusion that I came to in about four seconds.

**Read the full CNN.com article here:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/31/immigrant.employers.ap/index.html

Monday, September 3, 2007

The Shortcomings of Our Political Discourse

I have chosen to lose my blogger virginity on the topic of the presidential primaries, in an attempt to address a deeper issue that is as current as it is important.

It is that wonderful time in the political season when a handful of candidates from the major parties are vying for our attention and support. They are working strenuously to separate themselves from their like minded presidential hopefuls in order to win nomination. The electorate, meanwhile, is left to separate the truth from the spin and identify the candidates it will support. On a personal level, prospective voters will examine candidates in relation to the issues, and draw conclusions that will eventually lead to a choice on election day.

Pessimists will quip that the general election (and indeed the primaries) always boils down to a choice between the lesser of two (or more) evils. This is true to some significant degree, however inevitable as a consequence of our system of government and the inescapable shortcomings of human beings. How, then, do we choose to support one candidate or another when all of them represent stances on some issues that we cannot square with our own? A popular sentiment is that no candidate is perfect, so voters should either focus on one issue that is important to them and choose their candidate accordingly, or support the candidate that identifies with the greatest number of issues they support. Sort of a quality vs. quantity method of choosing political candidates. I would submit that these approaches are flawed, and contribute to the misguided nature of our political discourse.

What does the average voter consider in preparation for an election? Our discourse manifestly shows that issues of abortion, gay marriage, taxes, health care, the environment, and foreign policy dominate the conscious of the electorate. Voters will ask of their candidates: "Do you believe that life starts at the moment of conception?" or "Should homosexual couples be allowed to marry?" or "Will you raise the minimum wage?" Questions of this sort are legitimate, insofar as they are important to such a large percentage of the electorate. The problem is that something fundamental in our discourse is lost in the smoke of our moral battles. The right questions about key issues are simply not being asked or discussed with the amount of frequency or vigor they deserve. Instead of "should homosexual couples be allowed to marry?", we should ask our candidates: "should the federal government have the power to legislate marriage?" Instead of "will you raise the minimum wage?", we should ask our candidates: "should the federal government have the power to impose a minimum wage, and should there be one at all?"

Of course, many people will have to ask themselves these questions before they ask them of their candidates. This is a consequence of the widespread acceptance of our system of government without sufficient examination or criticism. Not enough people ask the fundamental questions, and this blurs the lens through which most of us examine our candidates. Should it matter to you, for example, what Mit Romney believes about the sanctity of marriage? Maybe. Certainly not to the extent our discourse suggests. It should matter just as much to you what Mit Romney believes about the role of government, or lack thereof, in regard to marriage. The criteria with which we judge our politicians (and, indeed, our own political beliefs) is top heavy. The structure of our political discourse is a house of cards that will topple violently unless we begin honestly appraising the foundations of government and politics. Let's start asking the right questions of our own political beliefs, and ultimately, those of our candidates.