In the 1930's, occupations held largely by African Americans were not protected under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Today, there is still little federal protection for professions many undocumented workers hold -- namely agricultural laborers and home healthcare workers.

Agricultural workers do not have the right to collect overtime; home healthcare workers and "tipped" workers are afforded a minimum wage of $2.13 an hour; and agricultural and domestic workers are, federally, not allowed to unionize. This lack of protection encourages employers to hire undocumented workers and to ignore labor laws, Harold Meyerson wrote in an Op-Ed in Friday's pages.

Last week, New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez and California Reps. Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park) and George Miller (D-Martinez) introduced legislation (the POWER Act) that would give workers like Diaz provisional "U visas." The visas were designed to provide temporary legal status to immigrant victims who come forward to report violent crimes, and the proposed legislation would expand the protection to those who come forward to report workplace violations. Such legislation, Menendez pointed out, would not only protect immigrants but keep unscrupulous employers from lowering labor standards generally. "When some workers are easy to exploit," Menendez said, "conditions for all workers suffer."

Readers are overwhelmingly against providing illegal workers anything, really, aside from a jail sentence and a ticket home. Still, there are a few people who feel employers should face consequences too. And some readers do weigh in on the side of undocumented workers.

Focus on the legal immigrants, not the ones breaking the law

If a legal worker wants to get a visa, the have to go through an application process, pay a fee, and line up outside a US Embassy in a foreign country to get 'interviewed' and the forms accepted, then wait a week to get their passports with their visas back.

If a legal worker is in the US and working on a visa, and needs to get it renewed, they have to go through the exact same process again, including leaving the US to lineup outside an Embassy in another country, wait a week, etc.

My point is that I wish our representatives would give some thought to fixing the 'process' that legal workers have to follow, before spending their time and our money legislating for new visas for illegal aliens so that they can claim a kind of 'whistleblower' status.

The only good thing that will come of this is that no one will want to hire day laborers anymore.

--psb962

Don't reward illegal workers

I wonder if the latest barrage of pro illegal alien articles and editorials from the Times is changing anyone's minds or even adding anything to the discussion.  They sure seem repetitious.

We get it, the Times and the Sanctuary crowd sees no difference between a legal immigrant or someone on a work visa and an illegal alien, except maybe the legal immigrant is wasting the time and expense to get a visa.

I guess as long as they repeat themselves we need to rebut these silly requests for more privileges and benefits for illegal aliens as well as the new and creative "paths to citizenship."

Nobody should abuse their employees and yes these employers should be prosecuted for A) hiring illegal workers and B) ignoring workplace standards and employment laws.

However, the illegal workers should not be rewarded with a visa.  Let them report the violations anonymously if they're afraid of deportation, like that is a real possibility.

--areeda

Put the employers in jail

Mandatory jail time for executives of companies that hire illegal aliens will help stop this from happening. 

Solutions are already in place.... we simply lack the backbone. 

--trust no one

The solution is to enforce U.S. law

The statement is true enough: "When some workers are easy to exploit," Menendez said, "conditions for all workers suffer."  However, it is the presence of illegal aliens in this country that makes them exploitable.  Their numbers combined with their willingness to work for meager wages and allow themselves to be exploited that is the problem.  In a tight labor market, potential employers willingly make concessions with regard to wages, working conditions and benefits.  The solution is not a path to citizenship, rather a vigorous enforcement of our laws.  This includes jailing employers. . .

-- lynnke

Send them home instead of passing more laws

Here's the easiest protection of all, send them back.  Solves all their problems about being exploited, fearing reporting crimes against them, etc.  The solution is so simple, yet the government keeps piling laws and regulations on top of laws and regulations to try and solve additional problems caused by not solving the first one - deporting illegal immigrants.

--Anonymous.

The economy needs these workers; let them unionize

Sending all of these workers back would send the economy into a tailspin, the housing market in particular couldn't lose them. Despite all the rhetoric the pro-corporate Republican party (democrats too) will never effectively 'go after' the employers of undocumented workers.  The right wing makes a lot of noise but really doesn't have real solutions.  Best way to 'go after' exploitive employers: Let the workers Unionize! Its always been the case and always will be.

--ScottLamson

Day laborers are hardworking and take jobs others won't

1. Day laborers fulfill a market need. They would not be here if the mostly white, upper-middle class employers would not solicit work from them. Furthermore, they provide services that many, if not all of you, benefit from...immigrants & day laborers pick fruits & vegetables, clean & maintain the hotel & stores you frequent, maintain the yards and landscapes of the offices you work at, cook, clean and wash the dishes in restaurants you go to...also, these people also contribute to the economy with the rent/mortgages they pay, fuel they purchase, goods & services they pay for, etc. They also pay sales taxes & many also pay income taxes and cannot apply for a refund.

2. This country is quintessentially a nation of immigrants & just because your ancestors came at a time when there were little to no regulations or restrictions does ...not mean you're above anyone else.

3. These people are being criminalized for WORKING. Wow. What a crime. MOST immigrants are hard-working, decent people who just want to earn a living for themselves and their families and you and I benefit from the services they provide. There will always be "bad apples" in ANY group but you can't scapegoat all of society's problems onto people you don't know. If you're so against them, don't buy, shop or visit any place where immigrants have provided a service...you won't have too many places to go...

--lowera

*Spelling errors in the above comments were corrected.

ALSO TRENDING:

Does the U.S. need China?

Who takes Michele Bachmann seriously?

Alabama's harsh immigration reform law

Obama: Another disappointing black politician?

Catholic Charities should get out of adoption business if it can't accept same-sex marriage

--Samantha Schaefer

In this June 16 photo, farm workers load a truck with cucumbers on a farm in Leslie, Ga. Credit: John Bazemore / Associated Press

U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith this week asked the Department of Justice to sue Utah over a new law that allows illegal immigrants to work in the state. The rule also grants police more powers to check the immigration status of those arrested.

Smith, a Texas Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, said in a letter to the Justice Department that it should go to court  because Utah's law  is unconstitutional. Failure to sue, he said, would raise questions about the federal government's willingness to enforce the law equally. He noted the Justice Department challenged Arizona's controversial immigration law that permitted police to question individuals about their immigration status under some circumstances. 

Smith's demand has sparked a war of words, but not with the Obama administration. Instead, it's a fellow Republican who is fighting back. Utah  Gov. Gary Herbert said Smith and Congress were forcing states to adopt a patchwork of rules by not acting.

"Typical Washington-attempt to deflect criticism that comes from Washington's abject failure to address immigration, then sue a state over something that won't even take effect for two years, rather than use those two years to do something positive," Herbert said in a statement. "A lawsuit is completely premature. The people of the U.S. would be better served if the federal government used the time between now and 2013 to actually address immigration, rather than sue Utah for trying to manage the practical realities we face as states due to the absence of federal action."

Immigration is a thorny issue for those Republican lawmakers who represent districts or states with large farms or agricultural businesses that rely heavily on immigrant workers. Nearly half of all seasonal farmworkers are in the United States illegally.

I can't imagine that Smith's position is popular with agribusiness. Despite the high unemployment numbers, growers continue to complain they can't find legal workers to help harvest crops. It's unlikely that an enforcement-only approach will increase the pool of legal farmworkers.

RELATED LINKS:

Immigration, state by state

Immigration reform: The Utah path

Increase immigration for economic growth?

--Sandra Hernandez

Photo: House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), right, accompanied by Senate Judiciary Committee Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), speaks during a news conference in Washington earlier this month. Credit: J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press

A new front in the battle over union power opens this week in the House of Representatives, when lawmakers debate the ability of labor unions to organize railway and airline workers. And though some recent GOP efforts to rein in labor have seemed like partisan politics masquerading as government reform (e.g., the bids to eviscerate public employees' collective bargaining rights), on this one I think the Republicans are right. But as usual, it's not as clear-cut an issue as advocates on either side would have you believe.

The dispute centers on the National Mediation Board's decision to reinterpret a provision of the 1926 Railway Labor Act regarding the right of employees at railroads and air carriers to unionize. The law states, "The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class for the purposes of this chapter." The federal government had long interpreted "majority" in this instance to mean a majority of the workers who were eligible to vote on whether to form a union. But in mid-2010, two Democratic appointees on the board pushed through a new interpretation, over the objections of the board's Republican chairman. From that point on, "majority" meant just the majority of those casting ballots.

The change made it easier for workers to form unions by effectively reducing the number of votes needed to win an election. Under the previous rule, every eligible voter who didn't cast a ballot was effectively counted as a "no" vote. The new interpretation confines the "no" votes to those who actually cast a ballot against the union.

This outraged some airlines ...

On the 100th anniversary of the Triangle fire that killed 146 garment workers -- mostly young Jewish and Italian women and girls -- laboring in sweatshop conditions, we are reminded why it's so important to pay tribute to their tragedy. Annoyed NYC taxi drivers: take note.

Remembering labor's martyred heroes

And yet the events of that day were a turning point for labor activism. The fire helped to fuel a new labor movement, and it energized the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, which demanded and got significant improvements in the way workers were treated and the conditions in which they worked.

I believe that how we remember and honor our lost heroes defines who we are as a nation. When we forget, we falter — and we often forget. We've forgotten much about our grandparents, immigrants from worlds so oppressive they were willing to work for low wages under wretched conditions, all for a chance at their own version of the American dream.

--Alice Hoffman, Los Angeles Times

Remembering the Triangle fire

Given the enormous differences, politically, socially and culturally, between our time and the time of Triangle, it would be glib to draw specific lessons for today from the reformers who pulled some good from the ashes of the fire. But perhaps we can learn from their broad approach. The seemingly technical, incremental reforms that came in the aftermath of Triangle — requirements for sprinklers and fire drills and unlocked exit doors that open outward — were no more the result of modest thinking than the sweeping New Deal reforms like Social Security that came two decades later. Rather, they came out of a shared belief by socialists, unionists and even progressive presidents like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson that the society they lived in was fundamentally disordered, with institutions, rules and customs inappropriate for the needs of the people. The world needed reinventing. But if the spirit of revolution infused the air, so did the practical draw of social engineering and respect, grounded in daily experience, for the importance of even small changes in the conditions of work.

Today, the labor movement and progressives fight one dispiriting battle after another to defend wages, benefits, social programs and government protections from further dismemberment. Even the thrilling mobilization of labor and its allies in Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana has remained, so far, defensive — necessary, but not enough even to win incremental advances. We live in a society that simply does not function for an ever-growing part of the population. It is too late to rally around restoring the status quo ante, an impossible and not particularly attractive ideal. Rather, like the social forces fused together by the flames at Triangle, we need to imagine a new way of being, a new set of customs and laws designed for our world of commoditization, financialization and globalization, which has brought so much wealth and so much misery — some new combination of regulation and self-organization. Only by recapturing the spirit of the reformers of a century ago, that the world belongs to us, to make right as we see fit, can we achieve even modest improvements in our daily reality.

--Joshua Freeman, the Nation

The lessons of the Triangle fire may be lost 100 years later

Passing laws alone isn't enough to save lives.

On Sept. 3, 1991, 25 workers died from burns or suffocation and another 54 were injured when a 25-foot-long deep-fat fryer burst into flames at the Imperial Foods Products chicken-processing plant in Hamlet, N.C. As with the Triangle fire, the fire doors were locked to keep workers from stealing chickens. The plant had never been inspected -- not by OSHA or any other federal or state safety agency -- during its 11 years in operation, North Carolina accident investigators reported.

The deaths continue today. Just look at what happened during one month last year.

On April 2, an explosion at the Tesoro petroleum refinery in Anacortes, Wash., killed seven workers. Three days later, in West Virginia, 29 miners died when Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch mine exploded. Fifteen days later, on April 20, 40 miles off the Louisiana coast, the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling unit exploded and killed 11 workers and injured 16 others.

These multiple-fatality tragedies garner headlines and cause politicians in Congress to bang their fists on tables, demanding action," said O'Connor.

"Our country suffers from a silent epidemic of workplace deaths that elicit little or no outrage, he said, citing the construction worker with no harness who falls to his death from an unguarded roof. Or the sanitation worker with no protection or training who enters a confined space permeated with deadly chemical fumes. And the 18-year-old kid in his first week on the job who is buried alive in a collapsed trench.

--Andrew Schneider, AOL

PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS:

Protecting L.A.'s artistic identity

Critiquing Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya

Gen. Petraeus' assessment of the war in Afghanistan

Evaluating the risk of nuclear power plants

Three views on immigration policy

--Alexandra Le Tellier

 Photo: Firefighters worked to douse the flames at the Triangle Waist Co. in the Asch building at the corner of Greene Street and Washington Place on March 25, 1911, in New York City. Credit: Hulton Archive / Getty Images

One of my favorite songs about childhood is Bruce Springsteen's "My Hometown," especially these  lyrics:  

I was 8 years old and running with a dime in my hand
Into the bus stop to pick up a paper for my old man

I'd sit on his lap in that big old Buick and steer as we drove through town
He'd tousle my hair and say son take a good look around, this is your hometown.

Just those few lines evoke images of things that have mostly disappeared: a newspaper at a bus stop -– for a dime -- and a big old Buick. 

And, of course, an unrestrained 8-year-old sitting on his dad's lap, steering a car.

I thought of "My Hometown" reading The Times' story on new child-safety seat recommendations for cars.

Seems the American Academy of Pediatrics now believes that children should be kept in rear-facing child-safety seats at least until age 2, and preferably longer.

The pediatricians also recommend that children remain in booster seats until they are 4 feet 9 -– a height most children don't reach until they are between 8 and 12 years old.

Also, forget about sitting on Dad's lap at 8 and driving. 

Even when children are tall enough to change to adult seat belts, the academy's policy is that they should ride in the back seat until age 13.

Wow. Makes you wonder what a future Springsteen will pen:

I was 8 years old and strapped in my car seat by a five-point harness

With nothing in my hand so I couldn't accidentally choke

I was trapped in the back of the little Toytota Prius as my dad drove us around

He’d tap on his navigation system and project it on the rear DVD screen, saying son this is our hometown.

It's not that I'm against child safety. My own kids were always (uh, mostly) in car seats. But as someone who grew up in the 1950s and '60s, I still wonder: How did we survive without child seats and "Baby on Board" signs and the like?

Of course, when it comes to keeping kids safe, some things, sadly, haven't changed enough.

Sunday's Times featured a story on young farmworkers endangered by grain bins in the Midwest. Seems that workers who enter the silos are sometimes sucked under by loose grain and suffocate.

Last year nationwide, 51 men and boys were engulfed by grain stored in towering metal structures that dot rural landscapes, and 26 died -– the highest number on record, according to a report issued by Purdue University.

The story tells of the deaths of 14-year-old Wyatt Whitebread and 19-year-old Alejandro "Alex" Pacas, killed last summer in a grain bin accident in Mount Carroll in northern Illinois.

Safety measures were ignored at the facility, OSHA says, alleging that the company didn't train the young workers, provide safety harnesses or make sure machinery was turned off.

The company's defense?  Its lawyer said it was challenging OSHA's jurisdiction because it is a farmer-owned facility that has fewer than 10 employees.

Which, I suppose, is true -– especially if you factor in that two of those workers are now dead. 

-- Paul Whitefield

Photo: Karen Lutton of Newport Beach places her one-year-old daughter Haley Lutton in her carseat. Credit: Alexander Gallardo/Los Angeles Times

And you thought the Wisconsin labor union battle was tough. Wait until there's no Super Bowl --  uh, make that Super Bowl XLVI -- next year.

Somewhat lost in this hectic news week has been the breakdown in talks over a new contract between the NFL Players Assn. and NFL owners.

If you're like most casual fans, you may have trouble understanding the issues. So here's a primer:

On one side are super-rich guys, called owners. How rich? Well, there are 32 NFL teams, and every one of them is ranked in Forbes' list of the top 50 sports franchises in the world. The Dallas Cowboys, in fact, are the second-most-valuable sports franchise in the world, at $1.65 billion, Forbes says.

How good do the owners have it? Here's what Richard Walden, head of sports finance at JPMorgan Chase, said: "I've never seen an NFL team lose money."

On the other side are the more-normal rich guys, called players. How rich?  The minimum salary is $325,000. Stars, of course, earn much more: Patriots quarterback Tom Brady gets $18 million a year.

What are they fighting over?  The league splits $9.3 billion in revenue. The owners want more of it.  The players don't want to give up their share. 

In between are the chumps -- er, I mean, the fans -- who ultimately provide that $9.3 billion. 

Oh, and the owners want to play 18 games instead of 16, which the players don't want to do, because most of the players are so beaten up by the time their careers are over that the phrase "walking away from the game" is a bad joke.

Anyway, there's a lot more legal stuff going on, but it's boring. It boils down to this: the two rich sides aren't talking anymore. 

Like in any labor dispute, though, sacrifices must be made.

For example, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and league general counsel Jeff Pash are slashing their salaries to $1 each until there's a settlement. Goodell earns about $10 million a year, including bonuses, and Pash nearly $5 million. Hopefully they have enough saved up to get them over the hump.

And on the player's side, the union has issued a 64-page handbook that offers money-saving tips. Mostly normal, common-sense stuff like:

-- Reduce the size of your entourage. 

-- Hold off on buying motorized toys and expensive jewelry,

-- If you go out, remember to "leave the club with your wallet and budget intact." And when socializing, do so "with a purpose," such as dining out to network.

-- Say "no" or "not now" to money requests from family and friends.

-- Don't "pay friends to perform work that you can easily do."

Still, as you can imagine, feelings are raw. Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson, for example, described the players' situation this way:  

 "It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money ... the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money. I understand that; these are business-minded people.... But as players, we have to stand our ground and say, 'Hey -- without us, there's no football.' "

Peterson makes about $10 million a year.

Personally, I'm on Peterson's side (not the slavery part; just in general; as the son of a union man, I always take the side of the working man).

Besides, the players may think they're rich now, but as Times columnist Bill Plaschke wrote, "a study showed that 78% of NFL players are either bankrupt, divorced or unemployed within two years after the end of their career."

I doubt that's true of any of the owners. 

ALSO:

NFL stadium: A near-unanimous nay by letter writers

L.A. should follow the cheeseheads

Pro football in L.A.: Paging James Cameron

Cartoon: Pitching a professional foosball team for L.A.

-- Paul Whitefield

Photo: NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, joined at left by Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson,  speaks with reporters at the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service in Washington on Friday. Credit: J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press

Opinion L.A.

Observations and provocations
from The Times' Opinion staff

March 16, 2011 buzz: Sex, lies and faith

Comments (0)

(0)

(0)

March 16, 2011 | 12:06 pm

Most viewed: Secrecy won't heal a sex scandal

The names of church officials should be included on the confidential documents to make good on the L.A. archdiocese's vow of transparency and accountability in its pledge to help heal old wounds, writes the editorial board. Is new Archbishop Jose Gomez up to the task?

Most commented: Republicans: Why stop lying on the way to the White House?

What do Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and Rick Santorum all have in common? (No, it doesn't involve Fox News' payroll.)

Most shared: Shaking open our self-centered eyes

"The key is not to rid ourselves of seeing the world in human terms," writes Fenton Johnson, author of "Keeping Faith: A Skeptic's Journey Among Christian and Buddhist Monks." He continues:

We're imaginative creatures, our imaginations are where our greatest fun lies, and besides, we comprehend the universe by placing it in a box whose boundaries and metaphors we draw from human experience. We don't need to abandon anthropomorphism, but we desperately need a bit of distance from the tendency to see the world through our inevitably self-centered eyes.

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Twitter: @latimesopinion

Facebook: latimesopinion

More in: Los Angeles, Religion, Republican Party

Abortion. Again. Still. Always?

Comments (0)

(2)

(0)

March 16, 2011 |  9:49 am

Curious, isn't it? Conservatives in the "tea party" and beyond are ardently committed to undoing the healthcare law that passed Congress and was signed into law by President Obama about a year ago. Watch out, they warn! It comes between doctors and patients! It takes away choice from patients! It lets politicians and bureaucrats dictate treatment! How un-American!

Well, looky here, America.

Conservative legislators in a score of states are trying to do exactly what they profess to despise: to step between doctors and female patients, to take away choice from female patients, to dictate treatment to female patients.

South Dakota's politicians are about to require women to wait 72 hours after they see a doctor before they can go ahead with an abortion. Women will have to have mandatory counseling at a crisis pregnancy clinic that, in all likelihood, is one of those places where women are only "counseled" not to have an abortion. No, no, says one influential supporter of this law. This isn't pressuring someone not to have an abortion. It's just a free second opinion!

Ohio is debating whether to prohibit women from having abortions at all if there's a detectable fetal heartbeat. And in Texas, pregnant women seeking an abortion could be required, ordered, mandated -- choose your word -- to look at fetal sonograms and listen to doctors' in-depth description of them before they would be permitted to have an abortion.

Texas GOP state Rep. Sarah Davis sees the, shall we say, inconsistency of what her fellow Republicans are trying to do. As she said in a statement, "To me, the issue at stake was not about abortion, but about the role of government in our personal lives. I was compelled to seek office following the passage of 'ObamaCare,' as I am vehemently against the government involving itself in our healthcare decisions. The Sonogram Bill does just that -- government interference with the doctor-patient relationship.''

Across the aisle there in Austin, Democratic Rep. Marisa Marquez gigged the opposition by introducing an amendment mandating that if a woman who is forced to watch a sonogram decides to go through with her pregnancy, she can get a court order to require the father to get a vasectomy -- if he's already fathered at least two other out-of-wedlock children.

As the Dallas Morning News reported, female legislators on both sides of the aisle applauded.

RELATED:

Chipping away abortion rights

Congress versus Planned Parenthood: Game on?

Women's rights: Let's abort the bills proposed by Christopher H. Smith, Joe Pitts and Mike Pence

-- Patt Morrison

Twitter: @latimesopinion

Facebook: latimesopinion

More in: Abortion, Democratic Party, Healthcare, Patt Morrison, Politicians, Republican Party, Tea Party

Ads by Google

Free Sex Offender Report

Where do Sex Offenders live in Your Neighborhood? Find out in 60 secs!

www.neighborhoodscan.com

Expungement Professionals

Free Evaluation (951) 719-4211 Riverside Expungement Attorney

www.expungementprofessionals.com

Dust-Up: Should the entertainment industry accept piracy as a cost of doing business? [Round 2]

Comments (1)

(5)

(30)

March 16, 2011 |  7:00 am

In the first installment of our piracy Dust-Up, Harold Feld, legal director of Public Knowledge, and Andrew Keen, advisor to Arts and Labs, debated how big a risk piracy poses to the entertainment industry. Voicing the opinion of many Internet users and online entrepreneurs, Feld said it was time for the industry to adapt. Keen disagreed and argued for more legal protection,  not just for Hollywood but for the independent filmmakers and copyright holders who'll be driven away if piracy continues.

Today they face off on whether piracy should be accepted as a cost of doing business.

Says Feld:

[L]earning to accept some losses as a cost of doing business, just as retailers do with shoplifting, opens up doors to billions of dollars in new sales. Crushing Napster didn’t help the music industry, but embracing iTunes did.

Says Keen:

No, nothing -- especially complex legislation over a subject as controversial as online intellectual property -- is ever perfect. But, as a legal scholar, Harold knows better than me that man-made laws are, by definition, imperfect. Yet that shouldn't mean that we surrender to the online thieves by treating piracy as a "cost of doing business" and simply write off the billions of dollars lost every year to the American entertainment industry as an unavoidable misfortune, like a plague of locusts or that proverbial bolt of lightning from the heavens.

Continue reading Round 2 of their debate after the jump.

In case you missed it: How big a risk does piracy pose to the entertainment industry? [Round 1]

Check back Thursday: What's the true impact of illegal downloading on jobs and the arts? [Round 3]

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: Fernando Capristan and Elena Campillo use links through websites at Emule and RapidShare to download movies in Spain. Credit: Angel Navarrete

Continue reading »

Twitter: @latimesopinion

Facebook: latimesopinion

More in: Art, Web/Tech

Politics: Recalls are busting out all over

Comments (10)

(15)

(6)

March 15, 2011 |  6:02 pm

An angry electorate is not a patient electorate. Hence the profusion of recall elections at the local and state level across the country, including one Tuesday on whether to recall Miami Mayor Carlos Alvarez and Commissioner Natacha Seijas. The two drew the ire of billionaire car dealer (and former owner of the Philadelphia Eagles) Norman Braman, who helped fund the recall effort, because they supported a 14% increase in the county's property tax rate and a pay raise for county employees.

It's fairly easy to follow a single recall effort, particularly when it's happening in your community, but keeping track of them all? That's a job for someone like Joshua Spivak, a scholar of U.S. recalls who's a senior fellow at the Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform at Wagner College in New York. Now Spivak has loosed his expertise on the blogosphere, launching The Recall Elections Blog.

Here's how Spivak described his efforts in an e-mail. Note how he debunks the "angry electorate" meme I relied on at the top of this very post (my bad!):

Wisconsin, Miami and other jurisdictions have led some to cite a wave of unprecedented voter anger as being the cause of the revitalization of the recall. This is a strange assertion as it ignores more important developments, primarily technological changes, which suggest that the recall is now coming into its own and, barring changes in the law, will continue to grow in use nationwide.

The recall is also interesting from a theoretical perspective as it puts a heavy thumb on the scale of one of the fundamental "irresistible force v. immovable object" questions of representative democracy, namely, whether an elected official should act as a trustee and vote his own opinion, or perform as a delegate and vote according to the wishes of his constituency.

I intend to use the blog to critically examine the latest updates on recalls happening across the nation, the history of the device, provide a detailed examination for state legislative recalls that have taken place up till now, and look at some of the big historical figures involved with the recall.

The near-existential question he raised about the proper role of elected representatives is, to me, the most interesting one raised by the recall phenomenon. Anyway, if you're interested in what's happening in Miami, Wisconsin or anywhere else the ground is crumbling under officeholders, check out Spivak's blog. It's young yet -- he started it last week -- but it's a wonderful topic.

-- Jon Healey

 Photo: Miami Mayor (for now) Carlos Alvarez. Credit: Associated Press

Twitter: @latimesopinion

Facebook: latimesopinion

More in: Elected Representatives, Politicians, The Interwebs

Republicans: Why stop lying on the way to the White House?

Comments (30)

(30)

(8)

March 15, 2011 |  5:41 pm

As my colleague Dan Turner noted previously, GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann's worst blunders have less to do with historical trivia than her willingness to propagate outrageous lies, including the myths of President Obama's "death panels" (which she didn't invent but was happy to retell) and that lavish trip to Asia that supposedly cost taxpayers $200 million a day. Bachmann isn't alone among fellow 2012 GOP hopefuls. Separately, Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee entertained conspiracy-like theories related to Kenya; Sarah Palin midwifed the "death panels" canard; and Rick Santorum, he of "man-on-dog" infamy, accused the president of supporting infanticide.  

Mythomania aside, what do they all have in common? (No, it doesn't involve Fox News' payroll.) According to a new Gallup poll, those five bomb-throwers have the biggest shares of devoted followers among the 2012 GOP field:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee leads the field of possible GOP presidential candidates in "positive intensity" among Republicans nationwide with a score of +25 among Republicans who are familiar with him, followed by Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota with a score of +20. Huckabee is recognized by 87% of Republicans, compared with Bachmann's 52%. A number of other possible Republican presidential candidates trail these two in Positive Intensity Scores, including Sarah Palin, who is the best known of the group.

It's tempting to dismiss the poll as a symptom of early-primary politics, which often favor a party's less centrist elements (Howard Dean, anyone?). John McCain, after all, was the subject of numerous political obituaries before coming back to snag his party's nod. But the hopefuls in the 2012 GOP field have something important in common with McCain: They're running against the incumbent. McCain had always traded heavily on his willingnes to oppose a fellow Republican in the White House, which served him well politically (in the primaries, anyway) when that Republican's poll ratings dipped to Nixonian lows.

The 2012 race shaped up into a contest on the incumbent not long after Obama emptied his boxes in the Oval Office. The Romneys, Pawlentys and other less galvanizing technocrats can try to wait out this wave of GOP populism, but it has been the hyperbole and, yes, lies from the Bachmanns and Palins that have added weight to the president's falling poll numbers. In playing a huge part in weakening the incumbent and boosting the chances of Mitt Romney et al in the general election, the "tea party" favorites have turned themselves into formidable opponents for their more qualified Republican pragmatists to overcome.  

With results like these (so far, anyway), why quit fibbing?

RELATED:

Politicians: It's not the gaffes, it's the lies

Fact-checking Michele Bachmann: What good is it?

Fox News pulls Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum off the air because of their interest in running for president

-- Paul Thornton 

Twitter: @latimesopinion

Facebook: latimesopinion

More in: Barack Obama, Elected Representatives, Politicians, Republican Party

March 15, 2011 buzz: Exploiting Japan's tragedy? And a feasible way for conflict resolution between Israel and Palestine?

Comments (2)

(0)

(2)

March 15, 2011 |  3:25 pm

Most viewed and shared: Talk about a meltdown

In his Tuesday column, Jonah Goldberg wishes that politicians and activists wouldn't use Japan's nuclear plant crisis to bolster their own policy agendas.

"A crisis," Rahm Emanuel famously declared in the early days of the Obama administration, "is a terrible thing to waste."

That this axiom didn't generate more controversy always struck me as bizarre. I mean, shouldn't it be "a crisis is a terrible thing to exploit"?

Most commented: A fatal Israeli-Palestinian flaw

The board's editorial about the "self-destructive tit-for-tat mentality" that continues the cycle of conflict between Israel and Palestine has received a lot of responses. Here's one from "Archibald" who wishes more people would recognize our "common humanity" as a way to move toward peace.

For some, Jews, Arabs, Christians, Muslims, and posters here, what I will suggest will be impossible: To recognize our common humanity. If you grieve and demand revenge for the murdered children of Itamar but do not grieve the murdered children of Sabra and Chatila Massacres or vice-versa, then you are part of the cycle of violence. The reason that recognizing our common humanity should be evident, but I will elucidate the point: Killing a person requires that one person believes that the other person is less than human and thus deserves death. It is harder for one person to kill another person. Recognizing our common humanity will not resolve all the problems, but Palestinians recognizing Israeli security needs while Israelis merely recognizing the Palestinian people right to exist would be small steps toward a just peace.

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Twitter: @latimesopinion

Facebook: latimesopinion

More in: Israel, Jonah Goldberg, Politicians

March Madness: Everyone into the office pool

In times of crisis, America has always been fortunate to have great leaders step forward.

Now, with several states engulfed in labor strife, such a leader has arisen to stand for the working man.

Charlie Sheen.

Tired of not being sufficiently coddled, the star of CBS' "Two and a Half Men" fought back this week. Like the abused coal miners and longshoremen and Teamsters of years past, he just wasn't gonna take it anymore.

Now, true, as a leader, Sheen is cut more in the mold of, say, Libya's Moammar Kadafi. Witness the letter he wrote attacking the executive producer of "Two and a Half Men": (His reference to "Haim Levine" is an apparent slur against Chuck Lorre, who was born Charles Michael Levine.)

"What does this say about Haim Levine after he tried to use his words to judge and attempt to degrade me? I gracefully ignored this folly for 177 shows. I fire back once and this contaminated little maggot can't handle my power and can't handle the truth. I wish him nothing but pain in his silly travels especially if they wind up in my octagon. Clearly I have defeated this earthworm with my words -- imagine what I would have done with my fire-breathing fists. I urge all my beautiful and loyal fans who embraced this show for almost a decade to walk with me side-by-side as we march up the steps of justice to right this unconscionable wrong."

But tell me you don't hear an echo of the pugnacious Jimmy Hoffa in that? Which is not to suggest that Sheen should end up like Hoffa, buried in an end zone somewhere. (Also, don't forget that Sheen may be suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome, brought on by his role in the Vietnam War movie "Platoon.")

And, yes, Sheen's tirade did get his show canceled, which cost about 200 staffers their jobs. But hey, you can't make a revolutionary labor omelet without breaking some eggs.

Besides, it's not like Sheen isn't sacrificing: The star is giving up an estimated $2 million an episode. That's likely to put a severe crimp in his Moet & Chandon plus porn starlet lifestyle.

And I would say that this is more of a lockout than a strike, as Sheen told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Friday that he plans to show up for work. 

Admittedly, it's a little odd for someone to come to work when they're not supposed to -- after they've gotten in trouble for not coming to work when they were supposed to.

But hey, in Sheen's octagon, that's pretty normal. 

My hope is that Sheen will take his fire-breathing fists to Wisconsin. There, maybe he can defeat another earthworm, er, governor, Scott Walker, who -– by cutting taxes to create a budget crisis so he could bust the unions -– proved that he lives in his own octagon.

ALSO:

Hollywood: Banksy redefines the Oscar campaign

Entertainment: Long Beach, the chameleon by the sea

Hollywood: Lindsay Lohan, you're no Farrah Fawcett

Entertainment: Iowa's dashed field of dreams

-- Paul Whitefield

Photo: Charlie Sheen in Los Angeles. Credit: Chris Pizzello / Associated Press

News flash: Gasoline prices are high! And they're going higher!

In California, the usual suspects have been rounded:

Said The Times on Friday:

"California's high prices result mainly from its increasing reliance on foreign imports, refineries operating far below capacity and the seasonal change to a more expensive summer blend, analysts say.

"In addition, less oil is being produced in California than in the past, making the state more dependent on higher-priced imports."

Yea, sure.  

Here are my culprits:

1-3 / Greedy oil companies. (To be fair, that’s usually 1-10 on most people's lists.)

4/ That giant solar flare last week. If it can mess up cellphones, surely it can mess up the pumps.

5/ Jupiter is not aligned with Mars, making this the Age of Ethyl. (Only those over 50 understand this reasoning; the under-30 types will just have to trust us.)

6/ Gov. Scott Walker's attempt to bust the unions in Wisconsin.

My dad was a union pipeline welder, and he always told me: "Don't mess with the working man." Now I understand.

7/ The railroading of Lindsay Lohan  on trumped-up theft charges;

and

8/ Jennifer Aniston cut her hair.

Hollywood is to blame for most things.

9/ The fact that no one can figure out how to spell Moammar Kadafi's name. (Honestly, this is just a shameful  plug for my Tuesday blog post.) Oh, and that there's some sort of revolution going on there.

10/ Crude oil prices are skyrocketing. Maybe, but I'm skeptical. Just like the deniers of  global warming, I don't believe there's any connection between oil prices and gasoline prices. You put oil in the engine but gasoline in the tank -- how can they be the same?  I didn't learn much in public school, but I've done some research on the World Wide Web, and this sounds fishy to me.  

 But I'll leave the last word to local resident Lusine Mkrtchyan, quoted in The Times on Tuesday:

"She scoffed when told that analysts were blaming high pump prices on unrest in the Middle East. 'It's just ridiculous. Isn't there always unrest in the Middle East?'" she said, buying a few gallons for her Mercedes CLK350. 

Nice car:  Estimated MPG: 17 city, 25 highway. Want a good used one?  $41,492, Mercedes-Benz of Calabasas.

--Paul Whitefield

Photo: Oil prices rose to their highest in 2 1/2 years on Tuesday as investors worried that the revolt in Libya could spread to top Middle East producers, as companies suspended operations and ports were disrupted. Credit: Gary Hershorn / Reuters

It seems like only yesterday -– wait, actually, it was Friday  -– that The Times editorial page was decrying Republican lawmakers in California for collecting a paycheck while failing to do their jobs, refusing to negotiate on solutions to the state’s budget problems and instead simply letting Democrats handle the business of governance. But at least California Republicans are showing up for work. You can't say the same for Democrats in Wisconsin.

Turmoil that some have likened  to the Egyptian democracy movement has broken out in the Badger State, where Gov. Scott Walker, a conservative Republican who was elected after promising hefty cuts to state spending, kept his word by introducing a bill that would strip public employee unions of most of their collective bargaining rights. In response,  unions have organized massive protests at the state capitol, schools have been shuttered for days as teachers called in sick, and President Obama has called the bill "an assault on unions."

That’s democracy and free speech in action, but the tactics of Democratic lawmakers in Wisconsin represent something else. On Thursday, Democratic members of the state Senate disappeared. Knowing they had no chance of stopping the Republican majority from passing the measure, they decided to halt all Senate business by denying a quorum.

Liberals have had nothing good to say in recent years about the naked obstructionism exhibited by Republican minorities in Congress and the California Legislature, but the tactic is just as reprehensible when practiced by Democrats.

What’s happening in Wisconsin is concrete evidence that elections matter. Walker and his conservative cohorts are doing precisely what the people of Wisconsin elected them to do. If they succeed and voters don’t like the consequences -– if schools can no longer recruit teachers because of uncompetitive compensation, or other public services deteriorate -– they can elect new leaders the next time around who can undo the changes. But this system breaks down when one party declines to participate or employs stunts to shut down the government.

Obstructionism is the enemy of progress. Even when it's performed by progressives.

-- Dan Turner

* Photo: Teachers and iron workers protest in Madison, Wis. Credit: Andy Manis / Associated Press

I can't say I'm surprised by the revelation  that GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman employed an undocumented worker for nearly a decade (Whitman is, after all, wealthy and Californian). She admitted as much before her former housekeeper, Nicky Diaz, appeared with attorney Gloria Allred to accuse Whitman of knowingly violating federal law and "throwing me away like a piece of garbage" once her employment became politically unpalatable. Whitman says she hired Diaz only after all the necessary documentation had been provided but fired the housekeeper after she admitted she was in the country illegally. Could happen to anyone (who can afford hired help).

If Whitman's account is true -- and I'm inclined to believe her story, since it can be easily verified by examining tax records -- then she deserves to be let off the hook. But it’s too bad that this will probably demolish any credibility Whitman may have on immigration. Her positions,  though harsh to those of us who support comprehensive reform by the feds, are moderate by conservative standards (build the wall, increase workplace inspections, send National Guard troops to the border, etc.). In the primary campaign, she showed some depth on the issue by distancing herself from Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, who promised  to deny illegal immigrants public benefits, including public education and emergency services. Though Whitman believes Arizona's draconian anti-immigration law should stand,  she wouldn't support the same kind of legislation in California.

None of this is to say Whitman's views on immigration are especially heartening, but her comparatively tempered rhetoric on the issue suggests she wouldn't be given to implementing the harsh measures advocated by California Republicans. Whitman may be inclined to embrace more extreme positions to restore any lost credibility among her conservative base. She ought to resist that temptation.

-- Paul Thornton

Photo: Celebrity attorney Gloria Allred speaks to the media as she represents Whitman's former housekeeper, Nicky Diaz, at Allred's offices in Los Angeles.

Credit: Kevork Djansezian / Getty Images