Tag Archives: Republican Party

Adam Laxalt: The Grandson of Immigrants doesn’t like immigrants?

Adam Paul Laxalt seems to have forgotten that he is a descendant of Dominique and Therese Laxalt.  He also appears to have forgotten that Dominique Laxalt started life in the great American west as a sheepherder.  I supposed he’d prefer Nevadans identify him as the grandson of former Governor Paul Laxalt, popular politician and friend of Ronald Reagan — not especially as the great grandson of a Basque sheepherder.   He must be only tenuously connected to his immigrant roots because that’s the only rational explanation for his joining the “anti-sanctuary city” case brought by 11 AGs:

 “The brief urges the court to reverse a U.S. District Court judge’s order preventing the implementation of the federal government’s executive order pertaining to sanctuary cities. The case is an opportunity to remedy the threat California’s “sanctuary cities” pose to Nevada safety, Laxalt’s office stated.” [Sierra Sun]

First let’s look at the rational as published by the Sierra Sun, and evaluate Laxalt’s position.  Part One:

“Nevada’s law enforcement officials, including all 17 currently elected county sheriffs, have consistently opposed sanctuary-city policies that would prevent compliance with federal law and compromise public safety, the office stated. In the vast majority of cases, an individual must be arrested for committing a crime and booked into a jail or detention facility before Nevada law enforcement agencies check whether the individual is sought by federal immigration authorities and, if so, alert those federal authorities, the office stated. Sanctuary-city policies that prohibit this communication allow violent offenders to be released back into the community, the office stated.”

The part about “compromising public safety” needs a bit more explication.  In standard law enforcement practice, a person does something criminal, that is commits a felony or a misdemeanor, and is detained. After detention law enforcement looks into the person’s background — outstanding warrants? Outstanding court issues? …. Immigration status? The Oval Office Anti-Immigrant policy inserts ICE into the arrest process, and herein lies a problem — If the individual arrested for being publicly intoxicated thereby disturbing the peace  (NRS 203.010) is named Smith, Johnson, or Baker what is the likelihood the sheriff’s office is going to check with ICE for his or her immigration status?  What we have here is an invitation to discrimination, whites detained face misdemeanor penalties and Hispanics face more extensive investigations by ICE for being named Hernandez.

The odds are in Nevada the person with the Hispanic surname is US born.  Hispanics are 28% of the state’s population, and of this number 61% were born in the United States. [Pew]  The most common Hispanic name in Nevada is Garcia.  [Anc.com] If Garcia is the most common surname for a person of Hispanic heritage in Nevada then we can add Jose as the most common name for a boy of Mexican descent.  Now, consider for a moment what happens when a Jose Garcia is picked up in violation of NRS 203.010 and his “name is compared” to an ICE target list.  Think there aren’t ample opportunities for mistakes to be made? Maybe think again.  As for releasing “violent offenders back into communities…” that needs to be discussed as well.

Sanctuary-city policies that prohibit this communication allow violent offenders to be released back into the community, the office stated.”  This is a misvioleading conflation of the first water. The statement works IF and Only IF we assume that the person detained is automatically assumed to be a violent offender or if violent offenders are the most commonly arrested.  It also works IF the audience assumes “those people” are likely to be violent offenders, the release of any one of them puts the population in peril.  To make these assumptions AG Laxalt would have to ignore the 2016 Crime in Nevada report. (long pdf)

A person doesn’t get far into the 2016 Department of Public Safety report before it’s obvious that the most common index crimes in this state are good old fashioned garden variety property crimes: burglary, larceny.   The five year average for property crime (2012-2016) stands at 76,833 far outpacing personal crime averages.  So, even for ‘serious’ crimes, the ones that get reported as indexed, the odds are a person didn’t get picked up for a violent crime against a person.  Therefore the argument that we should turn our local deputies into ICE officers because otherwise we’d have roving rapists and murderers in our midst is more fear mongering than reality.  Not that this prevents AG Laxalt from turning up the burners:

 “Sanctuary cities in California pose a danger to neighboring states like Nevada by making it easier for those not lawfully in this country and with violent criminal histories to evade law enforcement and travel out of state. What’s more, these cities undermine the rule of law and prevent cooperation between federal and local officials.”

“Undermining the rule of law” is a common refrain among right wing anti-immigration advocates.  We could as easily argue that what undermines the rule of law is to have people arrested and detained because they have the same name as a person on an ICE list, or that if one’s name is Smith or Jones there will be no extra scrutiny but if your last name is Garcia or … Laxalt… then the person can sweat the possibility of mistakes.  The rule of law can also be undermined by immigration agents who dump water bottles in the desert (and brag about it) or threaten a doctor with deportation for juvenile offenses ages ago, and make it all but impossible for immigrant women to press charges for sexual assaults because to do so would invite deportation proceedings.  It also undermines respect for the law if we deliberately ignore the fact that the statistics on crimes don’t support the assertion illegal immigrants commit more crimes:

“The tone and tenor of the president’s executive order blurs the line between who’s a serious criminal and who isn’t,” and between documented and undocumented immigrants, said Randy Capps, the institute’s director of research for United States programs. There is no national accounting of criminality specifically by people who are in the country illegally. But Mr. Nowrasteh said he had analyzed the available figures and concluded that undocumented immigrants had crime rates somewhat higher than those here legally, but much lower than those of citizens.”  [NYT] (emphasis added)

3 Comments

Filed under Immigration, Nevada, Nevada politics, Politics

I’m Watching a Basketball Game (Instead of the DACA drama)

Yes, in the midst of the Soap Opera that is the Federal Government of these United States this political junkie is watching a basketball game I recorded yesterday. Why? Because I received just about all the news I need for the next couple of days in perhaps less than 15 minutes this morning.   The rest will be noise.

Every pundit ever hired by every cable broadcast network will expend altogether too much energy “explaining” what the machinations of the past week “mean.”  Since I’ve come to believe they aren’t significantly better at prognostication than your average ground hog, octopus, or other member of the animal kingdom, I’ll stick to my own interpretation.

The Republicans are eventually going to own the mess they’ve made.  The DACA program was working in September 2017 when the Big Dealer in Chief stuck his foot in it.  Why? I’m going to go with the explanation that it was in support of the rather egregious House version of a Bridge Act introduced on January 12, 2017.  (HR 496 for those keeping score) There is no path to citizenship in the House version, and the bill essentially treats Dreamers as cheap labor, to be exploited by both employers and the federal government in terms of an endless assessment of fees.  It would also cover precious few Dreamers.

In today’s dispatches from delusion-ville, the White House wants an immigration bill that is “good for America.”  I think we can safely assume this means no path to citizenship for young people who’ve known no other country but this one, a “merit-based” immigration plan (which really isn’t similar to Canada’s any more than it’s similar to the Canadian health care system the Republicans were quick to malign), and it eliminates family reconciliation.   A miserable, un-American plan though it may be, I am of the opinion the House “Bridge Act” [text] is what Stephen Miller and the other racists in the West Wing have in mind.  The timing looks a bit suspicious to me, Trump signed the executive order eliminating the DACA program on September 5th, the same day there was a discharge petition in the House — which promptly went nowhere.

And now we do have a major mess.   The Big Dealer in Chief doesn’t have a position on much of anything, much less immigration.  However, that state of affairs doesn’t mean he won’t attach himself to whatever buzzwords and banners will help keep his radical base in line.  Thus we can assume he will order another Diet Coke while twittering on about “immigrants and crime” (a truly faulty proposition) or “immigrants versus citizens” (without bothering to notice the connection between immigrants and their contributions to the American economy — the economy benefiting citizens; and, giving us all to understand that the Norwegians (82.3% white) are preferable to those from those **hole places which send us an in-ordinary number of people with advanced degrees.

So, the herd on Capitol Hill has until February 8, 2018 to clean up.  Senate Majority Leader McConnell is now without one of his more important hostages — CHIP beneficiaries, and Senator McCaskill knocked the legs out from under his Military hostages when she offered an measure to pay members of the Armed Forces and Sen. McConnell objected.  What McConnell did secure was the capacity to put House Speaker Ryan into a soup largely of his own concoction.

Speaker Ryan, has a problem — he has to come up with a DACA fix acceptable to the Senate, a solution not currently available in legislative language on his side of the building.  If the House does move toward a compromise bill his Freedom (for us but not anyone else) Caucus will scream to the heavens.  If the House stays put with its current version, the Senate Democrats can shut down the government funding for round two, and this time on more solid ground.  A compromise bill will likely not please either side of the divide, however the House alternative will cement the reputation of Republicans as the Party of Racists.

Thus, the Party which has promulgated the notion that allowing anyone at any time to march down the road to full citizenship is “amnesty,”  is now fettered with a label they’ve sought to avoid since the sainted Ronald Reagan gave his “state’s rights” speech at the Neshoba County Fair on August 3, 1980 giving voice and heft to the Southern Strategy.

Popcorn anyone?

Comments Off on I’m Watching a Basketball Game (Instead of the DACA drama)

Filed under anti-immigration, Immigration, Politics, racism

Memory, Convenient and Otherwise

Some of the rationalizations for supporting accused child molester and Mall Troll Roy Moore are truly interesting.  The lamest fall into the “I wasn’t there, so I don’t know” category.  Give. Me. A. Break.

I wasn’t there, but I’m reasonably sure Qin Shi Huang was the first emperor of a unified China in 220 B.C.

I wasn’t there but I’m certain that on January 27, 1880 Thomas Edison received a patent for an incandescent light bulb.

I wasn’t there but I do know that on July 21, 2016 Roger Ailes left Fox  News under a billowing cloud of sexual harassment allegations.

So, give me a break — personal knowledge is not necessary to establish the truth of a situation.  Credibility is required, and if the women’s’ reports are credible then we can reasonably conclude that impropriety took place.  Those who have decided to discount the credibility of the women’s accusations do so at their own risk.  The first risk is that they are denying evidence which conflicts with their ideological bent. This isn’t what the world calls rational.  The second is that they are discounting evidence which in other circumstances they would admit (as if the accused was a member of another political party) thus rendering themselves hypocritical. Third, there’s a risk of discounting all allegations of sexual misconduct, as if men were never responsible for sexual harassment — this is painfully close to the “she made me do it” excuse.

We’ve had some problems with this third excuse over time, usually falling into the She Was Asking For It — category of justification.  She was dressing too provocatively.  She was moving on me.  She was where she wasn’t supposed to be if she were a nice girl.  No. This isn’t how it works.  Even though several courts in times past have allowed this defense.  That it was once a mainstay of male rationalization doesn’t make it so in the 21st century.  That bus left the station years ago.

However,  worst consequences are for the once proud Republican Party.  The Party of Everett Dirksen, Robert Dole, and Ronald Reagan is now the party of Donald Trump, Roy Moore, and Steve Bannon.  The Party that ran on family values and personal responsibility now supports those whose values are highly questionable and whose sense of responsibility comes to a screeching halt when they are called to account.

1 Comment

Filed under Politics

Bob Dole, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you?

Whatever happened to the Republican Party which heard Senator Robert Dole accept his nomination, and say:

“But if there’s anyone who has mistakenly attached themselves to our party in the belief that we are not open to citizens of every race and religion, then let me remind you, tonight this hall belongs to the Party of Lincoln. And the exits which are clearly marked are for you to walk out of as I stand this ground without compromise.”

Comments Off on Bob Dole, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you?

Filed under Politics

To Our Republican Neighbors: You Don’t Get To Talk About Weinstein, Ever

Excuse me, but if Republicans are pleased to discuss the odious adventures of Harvey Weinstein, then I have one statement for them: STFU.  They have no room to talk. They have no credibility on this subject.  This isn’t a matter of “both sides do it.”  No, this is a matter of no one should do it, and it’s the Democrats, the Liberals, who are willing to back up their opprobrium with action.  The Republicans, not so much.

Where’s John Edwards?  Certainly not in a leadership position in the Democratic Party.  Compare to Sen. David Vitter, whose involvement with the DC Madam in 2007 was conveniently overlooked by Republicans in 2010 when he was returned to the Senate.  Where’s Anthony Weiner? Certainly not active in Democratic Party operations these days.  How long did Republicans attempt to cover for Rep. Denny Hastert?  How many blind eyes were averted from Rep. Mark Foley?   And, now we come to one Donald J. Trump,  who’s been accused of various forms of sexual misconduct by at least 12 women (as of October 2016), and while we’re on the topic … what’s on the rest of those Access Hollywood Tapes, the ones we’ve not yet heard?

The ultimate irony is listening to Ultra Snowflake Tucker Carlson present his whackadoodle theory that Sec. Hillary Clinton is somehow responsible for enabling Weinstein’s behavior while he’s sitting in Bill O’Reilly’s chair broadcasting on Roger Ailes network.   As at least one comedian has observed, this renders irony officially dead.

If Republicans want to discuss the widespread and inhumane instances of spousal abuse, sexual assault and harassment, and downright misogyny,  then they may do so — but they don’t get the “both sides” do it argument so long as the Misogynist In Chief is in the White House, and they don’t get to own it while their Secretary of Education is trying to make it harder to victims of assault on college campuses to report and sustain charges against their attackers.

Republicans don’t have the high ground while they make it more difficult for women to control what happens to their own bodies.  Please, don’t try to convince me that you have women’s interests at heart while removing contraceptive prescriptions from mandatory health insurance coverage.  Don’t tell me you care about women’s health while passing some inane bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks, especially not when reputable scientific reports indicate there’s no “pain” until at least after 29 weeks, and your evidence to the contrary is spurious at best.   We know why late term abortions happen, either the woman couldn’t get access to abortion services earlier because of unavailability or logistics, or there were serious complications which could be lethal for the fetus, the mother, or both.  [Gutt]

Spare me the rhetoric while Republicans can find every dubious argument under the sun why women don’t deserve to be paid the same as men for the same work.  Thank you, I’d already heard that claptrap back in the ’60s when I was told “men had to support the family,” and other, equally risible bits of self-serving chatter.  One of my favorite examples of the latter being “it’ll just open the way for frivolous lawsuits,” — yes, and now explain to me how a suit brought to gain equal pay for equal work is “frivolous?”  But, but, but, there will be thousands of them!  Thus admitting that the practice is general, and if that’s the case then there shouldn’t be thousands of cases, there probably ought to be millions.

So, spare me you Righteous Republican faux outrage. Spare me your pontification.  Spare me your indignation and alarm until you have called for all the women who have alleged sexual misconduct on the part of your standard bearer in the Oval Office to be acknowledged and recompensed.  Until then: STFU.

Comments Off on To Our Republican Neighbors: You Don’t Get To Talk About Weinstein, Ever

Filed under abortion, domestic abuse, feminism, Politics, Women's Issues, Womens' Rights

GOP: Poor Excuses and Paucity of Empathy

By all accounts the Graham-Cassidy+Heller version of health care destruction would yield a net coverage reduction for 243,000 Nevadans. Overall it would mean a 31% cut in Medicaid for children — that’s right — children.  There’s another 15% cut for services for people with disabilities.  And what’s the rationale for this atrocity?

(1) Because we promised!  This is probably the silliest reason to do anything ever.  I may have promised to offer someone a ride to go shopping, but if there’s a blizzard on the way then it’s downright stupid to “keep the promise.”

(2) Because Obamacare is failing!  And why would that be? Because Republicans refused to make some simple fixes (risk corridors, risk sharing, and reinsurance) and the individual health insurance is unstable.  It’s a classic case of tossing the baby out with the bathwater.  Or, of finding some perfectly “fixable” problems with a law and using those to rationalize pitching the entire thing.  Head UP: They’ll try this same approach with the financial sector reforms in the Dodd Frank Act.

And then there’s the part the Republicans aren’t talking about.

(3) Because they’ve wanted to get rid of Medicaid, Medicare, and to privatize Social Security from time out of mind.

This comment sums up the situation:

“The two keys to the Republican attitude are money and ideology. If you view the modern G.O.P. as basically a mechanism to protect the wealthy, Medicaid is an obvious target for the Party. The program caters to low- and middle-income people, and its recent expansion was financed partly by an increase in taxes on the richest households in the country.”

The concept can’t be articulated more simply or directly.

Then there are the sputtered talking points, common among Republican politicians and supporters to hike around the obvious but unspoken issues they have with the Affordable Care Act.

If we don’t pass this we’ll have socialized medicine.  Please.  Even Single Payer (or Medicare for all) isn’t socialized medicine.  Medicare insurance is used to pay PRIVATE providers for medical treatment.  This obviously isn’t a nationalized medical service plan.  Only by artificially conflating medical insurance with medical services can anyone assert that this is “socialism.”

There are no guarantees in life.  So if a family in Minnesota who has a child with muscular dystrophy may be required to pay higher premiums that’s the way the markets work.  It doesn’t get more morally bankrupt than this — especially since the current system does guarantee coverage for families with chronically ill children.

This issue is long past being a public policy issue, it has devolved into pure politics in which ‘points’ are scored by a party desperately hoping to cut taxes for its most generous donors at the cost of Americans’ health care.

So, every few weeks we’ll have to call our Senators to beg them not to destroy the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid for ourselves, our families, our friends, our neighbors, and our fellow citizens.

Call Senator Heller at his Las Vegas Office 702-388-6605; his Reno Office 775-686-5770; or his DC Office 202-224-6244. 

You may also want to call Senator Cortez-Masto to thank her for her support of health care access for Nevadans. 202-224-3542; 702-388-5020; 775-686-5750.

Comments Off on GOP: Poor Excuses and Paucity of Empathy

Filed under Health Care, health insurance, Heller, nevada health, Nevada politics, Politics

Translating Republican Discomfort with Racism

It’s inevitable.  Every time a racial issue highlights problems in American society and politics we can count on Republicans to reach back into their barrel of excuses and rationalizations — by now these are clearly obvious, equally transparent, and hopelessly irrelevant.

There’s the predictable from Rep. Peter King (R-NY):

“It’s not just stunning, it’s really disgraceful,” King responded. “They’re talking about somehow trying to unify the nation, and instead they’re using the most divisive type language, the most hysterical rhetoric, and that’s totally out of bounds—it’s wrong. And politically, I think it hurts them because that alienates the American people.”

Who’s alienated? The Representative surely isn’t speaking about people who have seen their DMV offices shut down in Alabama making it more difficult to get the identification necessary to vote?  Is he talking about those whose districts have been gerrymandered to prevent them from living in a Congressional district that’s competitive? Or, does raising issues such as these make white people uncomfortable?

Meanwhile back in Pennsylvania:

 “…on Thursday morning, the Pa. Dems challenged Mango and Wagner again – this time to denounce President Trump over his widely criticized “both sides” remarks. All of the party’s releases were issued after the President’s Tuesday press conference and resulting backlash.

“The Democrats are simply trying to exploit the events in Charlottesville for political gain. It’s shameful, and everyone involved should be embarrassed,” Wagner said.”

Nothing like loading the language.  I “point to specific examples,” you, on the other hand “exploit.”   I’m not in the least bit convinced that pointing to the Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists gathered in Charlottesville as the worst examples of human beings at hand is something which should embarrass anyone, any time.

So, here they go again,

“I would say this about the president’s critics as a whole: If nothing will quiet them, than they don’t have America in their sights,” Faulkner said. “They don’t care about us. They don’t care about Americans. And shame on them. They need to step aside and let justice be done. Because if there is going to be justice, it’s going to take all of us together.”

Oh, “togetherness,” how nice.  Yes, it’s going to take all of us to condemn white supremacy and institutional racism, and if this makes Republicans uncomfortable, so be it.   “They don’t care about Americans.”  White Americans?

White Americans expressed their ‘economic anxiety:’

“Obama set racial relationships in the nation back 100 years with his divisional rhetoric. Being a Southerner, the KKK was always Democrat. So to blame it on Republicans is ridiculous. Did they have the right to march? Absolutely. Did the antifa have the right to stop them? No. That’s how violence begins — the two polar opposites don’t want the other to be heard.”

Really? “Divisional rhetoric?”  What might that have been?  Something about his reaction to the murder of Trayvon Martin?

Apparently President Obama, being African American, was just too much for some Alabama Republicans:

“I think Barack Obama is to blame. I think this country is more divided than it ever has been. I think almost all racism in world history can be tied back to liberalism, socialism, the idea everyone’s supposed to have an equal outcome as opposed to equal opportunity — those are liberal ideas that have been propagated over the past eight years through the administration, with just terrible things going on and the rhetoric w’ehe had coming out of the White House during that time.”

“Speaking while Black” makes some whites nervous.  Notice how the logic doesn’t form a chain in the comment above.  There are fragments placed in a series which logically don’t make a bit of sense, but do make an emotional framework to buttress the feelings of the white apologist.  Racism bad + racism/socialist + Obama/Black + ‘rhetoric’ = I’m Okay, those other people are bad.   It’s hard to move from the Racism is good argument of the Jim Crow era to Racism is bad BUT it’s the other side making me feel uncomfortable position of contemporary politics.   It’s hard to find “divisiveness” in the President’s comment on the Trayvon Martin case:

“…finally, I think it’s going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching.  There has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race.  I haven’t seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations.  They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have.  On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there’s the possibility that people are a little bit more honest, and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can?  Am I judging people as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin, but the content of their character?  That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.”

Then, there’s downright historical revision:

“I think they’re misled — I understand why they’re doing it; you can’t rewrite history, and so forth. I don’t think Gen. Lee would be disappointed in them moving the statue because I think he would want to preserve the union.  I understand that the guy who drove the car was a Democrat. … You obviously have to be a little crazy to drive a car [like] that. [He says he heard this on Facebook.] Americans need to learn how to resolve issues without violence.”

Someone went to sleep during American History — Lee wanted to ‘preserve the Union?”  That would be no, a resounding, four year NO.  The guy who drove the car was a Democrat? No, he was a Neo-Nazi.  No, you can’t rewrite history, but there seem to be lots of erasures in the history of the Confederacy going on.

Where do we go from here?  If there are people who felt stifled because having an African American president made it socially unacceptable to be an outright racist, and view having a white man in the White House as cover for re-emerging into the public, then it’s time to demonstrate — as the good citizens of Boston surely did — that this is still socially unacceptable.  It would be nice to hear Republicans replicate Bob Dole’s August 1996 speech:

“The Republican Party is broad and inclusive. It represents — The Republican Party is broad and inclusive. It represents many streams of opinion and many points of view.

But if there’s anyone who has mistakenly attached themselves to our party in the belief that we are not open to citizens of every race and religion, then let me remind you, tonight this hall belongs to the Party of Lincoln. And the exits which are clearly marked are for you to walk out of as I stand this ground without compromise.”

Denying history, rewriting it to fit one’s personal prejudices, playing “what-aboutism,” are counter productive.  The sooner the Republican Party disavows the racists and the bigots the sooner it will be free of the anchors weighing it down in the politics of prejudice.

Comments Off on Translating Republican Discomfort with Racism

Filed under Nativism, Politics, racism