Bittersweet Taste of Exploitation: A Postscript

An immediate result of the foreign student-worker protests at Hershey’s Pennsylvania packing plant has been the launching of several investigations into the incident by both the State Department and the Department of Labor. Quoting political reporter Julia Preston: “a spokeswoman for the Labor Department, said inspectors had opened two investigations since Friday. One will look into the students’ claims of wage-and-hour violations…A team of four State Department officials arrived Wednesday in Hershey to interview students who engaged in the protest and others who continued to work, as well as their employers.” State Department officials said they would “focus on the Council for Educational Travel, U.S.A., to make sure it had properly monitored the students’ working conditions.” OSHA inspectors will be investigating the safety aspects of working conditions. Furthermore, Hershey’s has asked the contractors running the packing plant to give the workers a week off with pay so that they could travel around and get to know something about this country. Several of the protestors have already done just that refusing to return to work, opting to go on tours of Pennsylvania and New York sponsored by labor unions.

There have been several misconceptions as to what are the real issues behind this protest. Some have tried to paint the problems here as a “failure of government” suggesting that the students where “hosed” as a result of government incompetence. However, as Ms. Preston revealed the students were recruited and their employment arranged by independent contractors, not the federal government: “About 120,000 students come to the United States each year on what are known as J-1 visas, which allow them to work for several months and then travel for a month as tourists…The students at the packing plant, who came from China, Romania, Ukraine, Nigeria and other nations, were employed through one of those agencies, the Council for Educational Travel, U.S.A…” That said there is little evidence of “government” failure other than to have trusted the agencies to do the right thing by the student-workers. Needless to say, the State Department needs to revamp the J-1 visa program so as to eliminate this sort of abuse in the future. Professor Jennifer Gordon, who teaches labor and immigration law at Fordham University and who’s Op-Ed: “America’s Sweatshop Diplomacy” recently appeared in the New York Times said: “The America that the Hershey’s workers have seen is surely not the one the J-1 visa was created to promote. But perhaps it is the America we have become. Hershey’s business strategy is a microcosm of the downsizing and subcontracting that so many American companies have pursued during the past few decades in search of ever cheaper labor…Indeed, the J-1 program is attractive to employers because it is uncapped and virtually unregulated; companies avoid paying Medicare, Social Security and, in many states, unemployment taxes for workers hired through the program.” Thus, considering the aforementioned it’s more than clear where the blame for the unfortunate events at Hershey’s lay and to the extent that there is any government responsibility it is in trusting private contractors to represent the United States in the venue of foreign student exchanges. Clearly the Council for Educational Travel, U.S.A has failed and should not be trusted to run student-worker exchange programs in the future.

Some have tried to make the case that it was the rent, not the pay, that really caused the problems. However, this line of reasoning falls short of the facts and can’t be taken seriously. For one thing, if the students were adequately compensated, they wouldn’t have had a problem paying their rent in the first place. Secondly, according to Ms. Preston’s analysis of the student worker’s grievances’, “They said that after the council [Council for Educational Travel, U.S.A] deducted as much as $400 a month from their paychecks for rent, they did not earn enough to cover their expenses or to afford to travel, or even to earn back the up to $6,000 many had paid to obtain the visas.” If the students couldn’t even recoup the cost of their visa’s and ended up working for meager wages without any opportunity to interact with Americans outside of the workplace and enjoy legitimate cultural exchanges, how can this be considered anything other than exploitation? After all, meeting and interacting with Americans outside of work was an essential part of the bargain and the prime motivating factor for these students to come here in the first place. Does anyone really believe they were motivated to spend $6,000.00 for a visa so as to earn $8.35 an hour? Are these students supposed to net a financial loss so as to come to this country and work at jobs which can only be characterized as exploitation? Some have gone so far as to suggest that it was the unions who goaded the students into striking. Once again this doesn’t stand the test of basic logic either as the students wouldn’t have gone on strike if they we satisfied with their pay. This is particularly the case as they were short term employees whose reason for taking these jobs wasn’t to work in a chocolate factory, it was to earn money and see America while not at school. Thus these student-workers had no long term vested interest in working for Hershey’s and little reason to wish for better pay and benefits in the future. Those who have tried to deny that the student workers were cheated and shortchanged would do themselves a favor by looking a little bit further into the facts while at the same time reexamining their own particular logic and reasoning as to how this is anything but exploitation.

Lastly some have said that if the students are unhappy with their experiences here in the United States that perhaps they would have enjoyed a summer in the sweatshops of China instead. It goes without saying that that sort of logic is flawed on its face. The idea that these kids should substitute exploitation in China for a lesser degree of exploitation in this country misses the fact of what this type of program is supposed to achieve in the first place. It’s not supposed to be a comparative study in a global race to the bottom in working conditions. Its supposed to provide foreign students with a chance to see America at work and interact with the American people so that they go home with a positive image of this country that will work in the long run to counteract negative images and propaganda aimed at the United States and our way of life. It goes without saying that in today’s post Iraq war world, a positive image of the United States isn’t exactly a given. Those on the far right can go on saying “to hell with those who don’t like the U.S.A.”; but that sort of attitude isn’t going to do anything to further the interests of the United States either. It will only serve to further alienate those in the global community with whom we must continue to coexist.

British historian Timothy Garton Ash once said that if you look at the long haul of history what you see is that civilization has been dominated by eastern powers for a longer period of time than by those in the west. He went on to suggest that we are in the process of world power once again shifting to the east with the rise of China, India and the Asian Tiger economies. To the extent that these students are familiar with such a theory, and if they come from China they certainly are, then as a result of their experiences at Hershey, they will be more than convinced that there is little here worth repeating in their home countries. After all, thus far they’ve been denied the chance to get out and see what America is all about so what else do they have to go on but their experience at Hershey’s? Their only experience was one of labor exploitation. Surely that experience couldn’t and wouldn’t be one that left lasting positive impressions of what America is supposed to be. Anyone who ever worked in sales or marketing knows the old adage, “you don’t get a second chance to make a first impression.” That said, the first impression of the United States and American society that these student workers received will probably be everlasting and to the detriment of the United States. Needless to say, that’s not a welcomed development.

SJG
8/28/11

Sources:

Oh the Bittersweet Taste of Exploitation
http://open.salon.com/blog/steven_j_gulitti/2011/08/20/oh_the_bittersweet_taste_of_exploitation

U.S. Checks Conditions for Workers in Walkout by Julia Preston

America’s Sweatshop Diplomacy by Jennifer Gordon

Why Can’t Libertarians Get Any Respect?

Last September I penned an article entitled “Where Have all the Libertarian’s Gone?” In that piece I opined: “In the din and roar surrounding politics in America today much is made of the importance of Libertarian thinking. Some have pointed out its importance to the Tea Party Movement: “More recently, the Libertarian theme of the “tea party” began with Republican Congressman Ron Paul supporters as a fund raising event during the 2008 presidential primaries to emphasize Paul’s fiscal conservatism, which laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement.” That said it’s interesting to consider the following two questions: First, if Libertarian ideas are so compelling, how come Libertarians garner such a small portion of actual votes during major electoral campaigns? Secondly, if Libertarians command such low voting totals, how is it that there is such a disproportionate number of Libertarian organizations and who is putting up the money to support them?” I went on to point out that in the 2008 election there was a Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr, the former Republican Congressman of Georgia. Barr garnered a paltry 523,686 votes or 0.4% of the total votes cast in the 2008 presidential election.

Well it goes without saying that questions much the same as these are once again in order in the aftermath of the Iowa straw poll recently conducted in Ames. You see it seems that the supporters of Ron Paul are complaining that the national media didn’t or won’t give Ron Paul the recognition he deserves seeing as he came in a close second, trailing Michele Bachmann by a mere 152 votes. Paul’s supporters are claiming that the “mainstream media” is giving him short shrift. A representative look at these comments is in order:”Richard Timm wrote that “Ron Paul’s 2nd-place finish merited much more attention… Even if you don’t believe he can win the nomination, don’t you think it’s worth giving the only anti-war Republican a little more emphasis?”; “We live in a democratic republic, where the votes of the people deserve to reported by the media, not editorialized into obscurity,” wrote Matthew H. Harder.”; “It’s absolutely horrendous and despicable the lack of media coverage Ron Paul is getting,”; “The story is that Ron Paul clobbered seven candidates and was basically in a statistical dead heat for the win, and the media is trying to ignore that,” said David Fischer, vice chairman of Paul’s Iowa campaign.”

All of this said, the real question is entirely different. That question is as follows: Is Ron Paul not getting covered by the mainstream media because in reality he doesn’t have a chance to win in 2012 so why bother? or Does he not have a chance at winning the presidency in 2012, or any other year for that matter, because he’s not getting adequate coverage from the “mainstream media”? I think a reasoned analysis of these dual questions would lead the rational observer to conclude it’s the former rather than the later.

Ron Paul has run for President numerous times and never been competitive. In the final analysis his Libertarian views are too far off the mark to be appealing to the vast majority of Americans who will show up at the polls in November of 2012. The leadership of the Republican Party knows this as well as do the voters, both inside and outside of the G.O.P. The sentiments of the voters don’t exactly lead anyone to really view Ron Paul as a true presidential prospect. Based on results appearing in PollingReport.com, favorable ratings for Ron Paul run from a high of 39 percent to a low of 11 percent, not exactly the kind of numbers that you’d expect to see from a strong candidate in 2012. Moreover, polling results from the conservative leaning Rasmussen organization shows that among Republican primary voters, Ron Paul still can’t get any traction, polling at a nine percent favorability ranking. Quoting the Gannett Company’s Statesman Journal, “Republican Party officials and experts on presidential politics agreed that Paul’s economic viewpoints have gained traction but said other aspects of his candidacy undermine his appeal to the Republican caucus and primary voters who will choose the next presidential nominee…He does excite and energize people who think like he does, but he takes some positions that would not be consistent with conservative Republicans…I think there is a perception that, one, Paul doesn’t speak for all the values that the Republican Party has, and, two, that he would not be electable in a general election…Paul’s libertarian views open a divide between himself and social conservatives on some issues, while his strict stance against military involvement abroad diverges from current Republican orthodoxy.” Likewise, conservative commentator Michael Gerson has a similar, less than flattering take on Ron Paul’s chances in 2012: “Well, I think he’s not a serious contender for the Republican nomination. He has a floor of very committed supporters and a ceiling that’s not too much higher than the floor, because he has very radical views, which came out in the debates. He seemed very much excusing of Iranian behavior. He’s a libertarian on even the hardest — legalization of the hardest drugs. You know, he has views that are definitely not mainstream views, in my view and in the view of most Republicans. So, I do think that he is a force, but I think that he has a very committed core that’s not likely to expand beyond that group.”

Thus in the final analysis, it’s not the pundits in the “mainstream media” that have put the fix in on Ron Paul, its the Republican establishment reflecting the sentiments of the majority of those rank and file voters who can be expected to show up in November 2012 to vote for the Republican candidate. Should Ron Paul have been given better coverage as a result of his performance in the Ames Straw Poll? Well, I guess that depends on whether or not you take Ron Paul seriously. Apparently not too many people take him seriously at all so in the long run his lack of coverage matters not in the great scheme of things in the 2012 presidential contest.

S.J. Gulitti
8/21/11

Sources:

Where Have all the Libertarian’s Gone?
http://open.salon.com/blog/steven_j_gulitti/2010/09/06/where_have_all_the_libertarians_gone

Ames Straw Poll
http://theiowastrawpoll.org/

Q&A: After near-win in poll, Ron Paul fights for respect
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20110820/OPINION/108200319/Q-After-near-win-poll-Ron-Paul-fights-respect

Paul: He Who Shall Not Be Named

The Caucus: Followers of Ron Paul Criticize News Coverage
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/17

Backers: Paul’s runner-up finish getting underplayed
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_18696468

Paul Takes on Rivals
http://thepage.time.com/2011/08/16/paul-takes-on-rivals/

PollingReport.com – Ron Paul
http://www.pollingreport.com/p.htm#Paul

Marcus and Gerson on GOP Candidates’ Language, Presidential Vacations
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec11/mandg_08-19.html

Is the Far Right Shooting the G.O.P. in the Foot?

Peggy Noonan, columnist for the conservative Wall Street journal and one time primary speechwriter and special assistant to Ronald Reagan said today on ‘Meet the Press” that Rick Perry’s recent comments made her wince. Noonan said that Perry, like other Republicans in the 2012 presidential sweepstakes, read Michele Bachmann and possibly Sarah Palin, presently have a persona problem in that they can’t tone down their rhetoric to the point that moderate voters find them appealing. Judging from the fact that independent voters have decided the last three elections, that’s a real problem for the Republican Party going forward. Financial commentator Maria Bartoromo appearing on the same program pointed out that even on Wall Street, a bastion of conservative sentiment, that people have grown tired of comments such as those made by Rick Perry since he has entered the 2012 race. Likewise Maria Cardonna of CNN opined: “(Perry) announced his candidacy on Saturday and has since campaigned like an angry bull cornered by a Matador. . . . This approach may help win him the nomination, but it also will help lose him the White House. . . . The firebrand technique may endear him to the tea party faithful, but it will alienate him from the critical voting bloc made up of sensible, rational, moderate, mainstream independent and even Republican voters put off by the extreme right-wing factions of their party.” Frank Bruni of the New York Times labeled Perry’s comments “general-election arsenic”: “And thus did a candidate who appeared so fearsome on the horizon — and who, for now, rides high in polls — come to look somewhat frizzier and patchier in the barnyard upon closer inspection. . . . Perry and Michele Bachmann, with their particular evangelical fervor, frighten many Republicans as much as they do Democrats and could be general-election arsenic.”

But it’s not just the pundits on political television that are pointing out the potentially destructive farce and folly of comments like those of Rick Perry. Conservatives with established bona fides like Karl Rove, John Podhoretz, Ed Morrissey, Ron Paul, Michael Gerson and others are pointing out the same thing. To wit; Karl Rove: “You don’t accuse the chairman of the federal reserve of being a traitor to his country. Of being guilty of treason. . . . And, suggesting that we treat him pretty ugly in Texas. You know, that is not, again a presidential statement.” John Podhoretz: “What Perry did was make a thoughtless blunder, an unforced error; we’re now going to spend a couple of days discussing whether he was summoning violence on Ben Bernanke’s head or not, which is of absolutely no use to Perry. … This was a serious rookie mistake on the national stage.” Ed Morrissey: “Perry needs to learn a lesson from this experience. It’s good to offer red meat to the base, but it’s bad to let yourself get caught up in the feeding frenzy.” Ron Paul: “Now they have this other governor, I can’t remember his name . . . . He realizes that talking about the Fed is good, too. But I’ll tell you what, he makes me sound like a moderate. I have never once said Bernanke has committed treason.” Michael Gerson: “I think the unfortunate context here is that that’s the importation of language that’s used on the Internet, used on talk radio, used in book titles. We have titles like “Treason.”… that type of language has been imported in the Republican primary process. I agree that it’s a long-term problem. I don’t think that it’s necessarily a short-term political problem in Iowa and other places.”

The bottom line in all of this is that the Republican Party has got to come to terms with its fatal attraction to the Tea Party. It must decide whether or not it wants to become the party of political extremism or a conservative party that can offer some semblance of an alternative to the Democrats and it must come to this conclusion in short order as the 2012 political season is now underway and gaining steam all the time. What all of this hot rhetoric on the right does is to reframe the 2012 presidential debate from whether or not the “hope and change” of 2008 is to be rejected to whether the fear of electing a right-wing radical is just too great a risk for the American people to take. That fear would thereby make the reelection of Barack Obama the safer course to follow.

S.J. Gulitti
8/21/11

Sources:

Meet the Press; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

Talking Points: Rick Perry’s political land mine; http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/1041905–rick-perry-s-political-land-mine

Perry Made ‘Rookie Mistake’ With Bernanke Comments; http://www.newser.com/story/125973/perry-made-rookie-mistake-with-bernanke-comments.html

Marcus and Gerson on GOP Candidates’ Language, Presidential Vacations; http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec11/mandg_08-19.html

Oh the Bittersweet Taste of Exploitation

Here’s an unfortunate story about foreign students who were recruited to work at a Hershey’s Chocolate packing plant. These kids were sold a bill of goods that they would come to America to work and then have some free time to travel around the country and get to know the American people.

Julia Preston in an article entitled “Companies Point Fingers as Students Protest Conditions at Chocolate Plant” reveals: “About 400 students, mainly from universities in China, Turkey and Eastern Europe, came to work at the packing plant under a summer cultural exchange program offered by the State Department. With visas called J-1, the students work for several months and then may travel around the country.

The students, including many from medical and engineering graduate schools, said they were expecting a relaxing summer job and opportunities to befriend Americans. They were encouraged, they said, by the Web site of the council, which shows laughing students on a highway before a panoramic mountain landscape, promising a chance to “live your dream.”

Instead, the students were dropped into the middle of a transformed American workplace, doing fast-paced production line and lifting work in round-the-clock shifts for wages of $7.25 to $8.35 an hour, under multiple layers of contractors. The students said they rarely saw American employees in their area of the plant, where they were packing Reese’s, Kit-Kat and other candies.”

What is all the more remarkable here is that in the face of being concerned about being sent home to their native lands 150 of these students staged a protest strike and walked off of their jobs. All I can say is that this sort of thing is sad commentary on just how far some companies will go to exploit labor. But the real tragedy here is less the fact that exploitation has occurred and more about who are the victims. If this is the introduction that these students have to the American version of capitalism how can we ever hope to convince those from emerging nations that our model is the one to follow in this new century?

SJG
8/20/11

Companies Point Fingers as Students Protest Conditions at Chocolate Plant
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/us/19students.html?pagewanted=1&sq=companies point fingers&st=cse&scp=1

Rick Perry, Does He Even Understand the Meaning of Treason?

What is it about those Tea Party types, are they genetically programmed to spout out absurdities as a way of getting attention? Does this constitute some sort of political personality disorder? The verbal pratfalls of Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell or Sharron Angle are by now all the stuff of political fact if not legend. To this we now add the ridiculous yammering of the latest entry to the 2012 Republican presidential race, Rick Perry. Not that Perry needs all that much of an introduction. He’s already on the record as having said that, under certain circumstances, Texas might leave the Union. However, now only days after entering the 2012 presidential sweepstakes, Perry has gone so far as to suggest that Fed Chairman Ben Bernake might be guilty of treason. In Perry’s own words: “If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I dunno what y’all would do to him in Iowa but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treasonous in my opinion.”

So what in fact is Perry suggesting? That Ben Bernanke, if he were to engage in further monetary easing and then decided to show up in Texas, should be pursued by a lynch mob or vigilantes so as to be subjected to some old fashioned frontier justice? Really? What would Rick Perry suggest his “Texans” do to Bernanke; hang him till he quit kicking, tar and feather him or hot brand him with the Tea Party logo “DON’T TREAD ON ME”? If this is the mindset of a G.O.P. presidential hopeful in 2012, then perhaps we can create a work release program for any number of convicted Mafia hoods currently doing time who are more than well practiced in the arts of intimidation and extortion, both verbal and physical. That said, the prudent and rational participant in American democracy can only ask the one compelling question that has to be on his mind; Based on this kind of talk, is Rick Perry even remotely qualified to lead the leading nation of the free world into this challenging century and out of the the Great Recession? The answer is, most likely not. Moreover is this latest Perry pratfall the last straw for Michele Bachmann? Will she, as a strategic campaign ploy, now take off the gloves and accuse Rick Perry of anti-American views in the same manner in which she has accused so many liberals and progressives on Capitol Hill?

You know for all of the problems besetting the embattled Barack Obama as he enters the 2012 election season, he and his consort must be thanking God in heaven above for the Bachmann victory in Iowa and the entrance of Rick Perry into the 2102 presidential campaign. They may very well bail Obama out of the predicament within which he is currently embroiled.

Steven J. Gulitti
8/18/11

Sources:

Perry on Bernanke: ‘I dunno what y’all would do to him in Iowa but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas’
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/08/15/296552/perry-on-bernanke-pretty-ugly-down-in-texas/

Rick Perry Accuses Bernanke of Treason
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/08/rick-perry-wants-get-ugly-ben-bernake/41310/

Gov. Perry: Bernanke printing more money would be ‘almost treasonous’
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/176985-perry-bernanke-printing-more-money-would-be-almost-treasonous

3 Points on Rick Perry
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/three-points-on-rick-perry/243679/

Will Bachmann Now Condemn Right-wing Anti-American Views?

Michele Bachmann once condemned Barak Obama for his “anti-American” views and suggested that the media should investigate “anti-American” sentiments in Congress. Ms. Bachmann would later retract what she said about Barack Obama, however she has never retracted her general position that there are those on Capitol Hill who harbor “anti-American” sentiments. Now that Bachmann has jumped into the forefront of the 2012 Republican presidential race will she turn and condemn “anti-American” views on the right?

Rick Perry, who recently threw his hat into the ring had once suggested that Texas could leave the Union. Isn’t that an anti-American sentiment? If you believe that America should remain as it is and that the strength of this country is a function of how it is presently constituted shouldn’t Rick Perry’s comments be seen as anti-American? Didn’t we settle this question with the outcome of the Civil War? Why raise the specter of another Civil War when the country is in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression? Needless to say Texas leaving the Union would cause significant disruption with all of the military bases there, the fact that much of our petrochemical industry is there and a good portion of the through flow of trade with Mexico comes through Texas. Thus wouldn’t Texas leaving the Union directly threaten the well being of the united States? Will Michele Bachmann take Rick Perry to task on this?

Ron Paul, during the Iowa Debates on August 12, suggested that Iran’s attaining of nuclear weapons is not a concern of ours. Isn’t this also an anti-American sentiment? Even though Iran doesn’t currently have the capability to strike U.S. soil, a nuclear Iran could threaten Israel and American allies in Europe and Asia, thereby threatening our foreign policy and larger defense interests. Presently the Iranians have good relations with the Chinese and their acquiring of long range intercontinental ballistic missiles isn’t entirely out of the question. As such Ron Paul’s views here can clearly be seen as contrary to the best interests of American security. Isn’t Ron Paul guilty of anti-American sentiments as his tolerance of a nuclear Iran could ultimately put this very country in danger if and when the Iranians come to possess intercontinental ballistic missiles? Will Michele Bachmann take Ron Paul to task on this?

Well what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If Michele Bachmann is truly concerned about the threat of anti-Americans among us, isn’t she now required to go after those on the far right who harbor sentiments that could clearly be seen as inimical to the greater national security of the country that she now hopes to be elected president?

SJG
8/14/11

Tea Party Congressman Supports Essential Air Service Program

Talk about hypocrisy. A West Virginia Republican who used the Tea Party to help him gain his office finds nothing wrong with a little federal pork as long as it lands in his own district. To wit: “Rep. David McKinley, a Republican who came into office with tea party support, sided on the issue with Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a fellow West Virginian who has used his position as chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation to support the current funding.”

Moreover, he seems quite at home with the notion that government spending can create jobs, again, as long as it’s in his district. To wit: “McKinley describes himself “as a small government, free-market focused owner of a small business,” but said airports that receive subsidies “serve as crucial engines of job creation for many small towns and rural areas.”

Now correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the Tea Party crowd supposed to come to Washington and do away with things like excessive and wasteful government spending? I guess if you can grab some of the taxpayer’s loot and spread it around in your own neck of the woods, well so much the better. Sounds and seems like business as usual to me.

sjg

8/12/11

Gov’t pays for empty flights to rural airports:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AVIATION_SHUTDOWN_RURAL_SUBSIDIES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-08-11-21-42-37

If Rick Perry is Elected President Will America Secede From Itself?

Well if the 2012 Republican field of challengers arrayed against Barack Obama wasn’t interesting enough, we now have Texas Governor Rick Perry throwing his hat into the ring. Fresh off of an old timey religious tent revival meeting and not a moment too soon, mind you, as the Iowa Straw Poll will be conducted this Saturday.

Perry’s entry into the race certainly adds yet another twist to a already interesting if not bizarre field of candidates and pseudo candidates. Let’s see there’s one who doesn’t seem to know where the American Revolution actually started but would like to be president of the country anyway, one who is running for the umpteenth time, hoping beyond hope that being a Libertarian will somehow matter this time when it hasn’t yet mattered, a guy who wants’ to legalize marijuana, one who created a forerunner to Obamacare that now treats his creation like tar baby, one who having committed serial matrimony now has found God as a Roman Catholic and one who isn’t running but keeps showing up in Iowa or New Hampshire at the same time the actual candidates are in state.

To this we can now add Rick Perry, a man who just a few months ago publically mumbled that if things didn’t quite suit his fancy that the State of Texas might just leave the union. All this begs a rather interesting set of questions. If Rick Perry were to be elected and if his election were close, like the past three or four have been, would he then take the states that voted for him and leave the union thereby abandoning those states where he had not received enough popular votes to gain their electoral votes? If faced with divided government and stymied by an intransigent Democratic controlled Senate or House, would a President Perry, upon being frustrated, attempt to force a dissolution of the federal government or would he simply retreat to Texas and attempt to effect a recreation of the old Confederacy? We had a vice presidential candidate who, upon losing in the 2008 election, decided to resign as Governor of Alaska. Thus can we expect that a guy who suggested that his state should leave the union might just secede from the presidency himself if he were to find himself frustrated by divided government or the politics inside of the Beltway?

All of this has a bit of the tragicomic about it considering that while the country is in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the 1930s, the Republican Party’s process for nominating a contender has become less like what one expect of the G.O.P. and more and more like a traveling circus every day. And all of this with the theatrics of the Tea Party movement as a backdrop. Well, at least it’s good for a laugh if nothing else.

sjg

An Inexcusable and Absurd Hypocrisy

There are those among us, who for the past several weeks have tried, ever so desperately, lamely and ultimately in vain, to make the argument that President Obama’s main motive in the debt ceiling debate is that: “the president is more interested in politics than actually submitting a budget which deals with the debt.” Ironically all of this is presented in contrast to a cascade of news that reveals just the opposite, including Mr. Obama’s nationally televised address of 25 July.

What strikes the prudent and educated observer of current American politics as being rather odd about this desperate paroxysm of anti-Obama rant is the degree to which the Tea Party claque in the House of Representatives remains unscathed by the criticisms leveled at those who are “more interested in politics” than in doing what’s right for the country. The larger absurdity of the entire argument is the fact that by admitting that even Barack Obama engages in political maneuvering somehow legitimizes the self delusion that his critics have “been right all along” about both the President and his “modus operandi” in the political arena. That being said, all of this begs the larger question: If Barack Obama is acting in line with the wishes of the majority of the American people, then is it legitimate or even remotely intelligent to label his actions as being “more interested in politics” then otherwise? Likewise, if the Tea Party claque on Capitol Hill is deliberately acting to undermine the desires of the American people then why are they held harmless from the scathing critique reserved for those who are “more interested in politics than actually submitting a budget which deals with the debt” After all it is in fact they who have more than amply exhibited the aforementioned shortcomings of being more interested in politics than actually submitting a budget which deals with the debt and that in stark contrast to the actions exhibited by Barack Obama.

If you presently find yourself at a loss for the information that you may require to answer this question, please consider the latest poll on this very subject: “Americans Back Mixed Solution for Debt Crisis”: Reuters/Ipsos poll”; http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/26/us-usa-debt-ipsos-idUSTRE76P5Q220110726 The findings of the poll are as follows: “Americans overwhelmingly are concerned about the U.S. debt crisis and a majority backs the type of compromise pushed by President Barack Obama. The poll found that 56 percent of Americans want to see a combination of government spending cuts and tax increases included in a deal to bring down the U.S. budget deficit and permit a vote to raise the country’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.” Moreover with regards to deep cuts to social programs, the poll shows: “19 percent said the best approach is only to cut existing programs.” When it comes to affixing blame it’s not Barack Obama but the G.O.P. that comes out on the losing end. To wit: “The Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 31 percent of respondents held Republican lawmakers responsible for the debt impasse, 21 percent blamed Obama and 9 percent blamed Democratic lawmakers. Along those lines, 29 percent said Republican lawmakers should give the most ground in the negotiations, a quarter said Obama should and a fifth said Democrats should.” Moreover, if you had been tuned into MSNBC’s post speech coverage on the night of 25 July, you would have seen commentator Lawrence O’Donnell reiterate to a Tea Party backed congressman the fact that the preponderance of polling favored Obama’s approach and not his, a fact that left the Tea Partier at a loss in the way of a comeback.

So in the final analysis isn’t it more than a bit absurd and hypocritical to label Barak Obama as the primary antagonist in the debt ceiling drama when it is in fact the Tea Party backed Republicans on Capitol Hill who are recklessly driving the America towards the cliff of default? I think that, judging from the facts which have obtained over the past few months, that the absurdity of this hypocrisy is more than evident and it’s high time that the citizens of this country call the reckless to account. After all the ultimate safety and security of the country is at stake and so its really not too much to ask now is it?

SJG

Ms. Bachmann a Migraine Headache for the G.O.P.?, A Postscript

In an earlier post, Ms. Bachmann a Migraine Headache for the G.O.P.? I pointed out that Michele Bachmann appeared to be the target of a “political hit” which emanated from within the G.O.P. establishment. Judith Warner in an Op-Ed published July 21 pointed out some related information that may ultimately affect Bachmann’s ability to parry any attempts from within the G.O.P. to derail her bid for the presidency in 2012.

Warner stated that “I do not believe that Mrs. Bachmann’s migraines, in and of themselves, should be viewed as a disqualifier for running for the presidency. Migraines are largely treatable and can be “controlled” through medication — as Mrs. Bachmann said in response to the Daily Caller article that revealed her condition earlier this week. What Mrs. Bachmann does, however, to control her headaches, how she responds to them, thinks of them, lives with them, is something that voters should pay attention to. While there is much about migraines that will forever elude her control — weather changes, for example, can trigger terrible headaches — managing migraines involves a lot of meaningful decision-making. And those decisions can speak volumes about who she is as a person and how she might deal with the stresses of the presidency.” Warner went on to say, at this time “Voters have not been provided with the kind of information that would give a clear picture of how Mrs. Bachmann manages her condition.” To date the Bachmann campaign has done whatever it takes to divert attention from Ms. Bachmann’s condition and especially the particulars of those treatments that she is undergoing to battle her migraine problems.

So based on how events have played out thus far and how the Bachmann campaign has fielded questions pertaining to her condition the voting public is left in a political limbo of sorts in determining whether or not Bachmann is fit to be our chief executive. The longer her handlers take to dispel questions about the degree to which Bachmann’s migraine headaches are incapacitating her and impeding her ability to perform under pressure the longer the “political hit” put on Bachmann will continue to do damage.

SJG

Me, Michele and Our Migraines