President Barack Obama on Tuesday sought to shift the nation's attention to a sunnier topic: the coming benefits from the Democrats’ recently-passed healthcare reforms.
Surrounded by a sea of seniors in Wheaton, Md., Obama defended the legislation from GOP attacks and trumpeted the arrival of one of earliest benefits of the new law: a $250 rebate to tens of thousands of seniors caught in the coverage gap of Medicare’s prescription drug benefit — a gap known unendearingly as the “doughnut hole.” The government will begin mailing out those checks on Thursday.
“Frankly, we shouldn’t have had a doughnut hole to begin with,” Obama said in a thinly veiled shot at the Republicans who created the coverage gap.
Tuesday’s televised town hall is an early sign that Democrats continue to see their health reform law as a political winner in the lead-up to November’s midterm elections. It’s also an indication that, as each new benefit in the law arrives, Democrats don’t intend to let it go unnoticed among a public that remains skeptical of the sweeping reforms.
The town hall came just a day after the administration launched the first phase of a five-year, $250 million program designed to bolster insurance rate review procedures. The voluntary initiative — also a provision of the new health reform law — will provide $1 million grants in 2010 for states to improve their oversight of insurance rate hikes.
Still, Republican leaders, who were unanimous in their opposition to the health reforms earlier in the year, remain unconvinced of the law’s merits. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that other provisions of the bill will hike drug costs for a majority of the nation’s seniors.
“Behind every $250 check are more than three seniors who will be paying more as a result of this bill,” McConnell said on the Senate floor prior to Obama’s remarks.
“Americans never wanted this bill,” he added, “and they’re reminded everyday why they opposed it.”
Obama also announced the launch of a new initiative designed to eliminate fraud in the healthcare system. The program — a partnership between the Health and Human Services and Justice departments — aims to establish better cooperation between state and federal regulators, while installing stiffer penalties for criminal offenders. The White House says it will cut Medicare fraud in half by 2012.
“It’s appalling,” Obama said of the fraud, “and we’re going to put a stop to it.”
By Jordan Fabian - 06/08/10 12:44 PM ET The author of the Senate's amendment to audit the Federal Reserve expressed confidence on Tuesday that the amendment will remain in Wall Street reform legislation once the House and Senate merge their two bills.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told Vermont Public Radio that the measure has the support of people on both sides of the political spectrum.
"I think it will," he said when asked if his amendment will be in the final bill. "I am going to do everything I can to make sure it is in there."During debate over the legislation in April, the self-described democratic socialist modified the controversial measure over concerns that it would strip
the Fed of its independence in the area of monetary policy.
Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress supported the effort to open up the Fed to greater scrutiny, citing its role in the 2008 financial bailouts.
The Sanders amendment requires a "one-time" audit of the central bank concerning loans it made to large financial firms since 2007.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the author of the more stringent House version, said that Sanders "sold out" on his amendment immediately following his decision.
But Sanders said his amendment will survive conference.
"I think the American people, whether they are conservative — a lot of cons want to see [us] audit the Fed, a lot of progressives want to see audit the Fed," he said.
President Obama put the spotlight back on health care Tuesday when he held a town hall with senior citizens about a rebate check under the recently passed overhaul.
After talking about the Gulf Coast oil spill and financial regulation for weeks, the president used the opportunity to get in some pre-election jabs at Republicans.
"They still think that none of this should have happened, they don't think you should be getting these rebates," he said at a senior center in greater D.C. as seniors across the nation phoned in to listen. Obama's appearance was part of an ongoing effort by the White House to highlight favorable aspects of the law. Senior citizens will get a $250 check to offset the Medicare Part D donut hole left by prescription drug costs. The president addressed concerns about potential fraud and cautioned seniors to be wary of such scams.
But Obama wasn't there just to discuss the rebate, as the Washington Post reports:
For the president, the public relations event is an effort to move past the year of hearings, speeches and protests. But on Capitol Hill, the two parties -- and particularly the Republicans -- are still arguing about health care.
Republicans are still talking about repealing the law.
"The administration and congressional Democrats think the debate over health-care reform is in the rear-view mirror, but they couldn't be more wrong," Indiana Republican Rep. Mike Pence told the Post. "House Republicans will not rest until we repeal Obamacare lock, stock and barrel."
Conservative John Goodman previewed what that could look like in a column in Health Care News .
"Although it's too early to tell, next year we may have a very different Congress in Washington," he began, listing a series of steps conservatives could take to reduce the impact of the health law.
Goodman advised that Republican lawmakers repeal state-specific benefits in the health plan, such as the Medicaid funding promised to Massachusetts and Vermont. Next up in his plan is to get rid of employer mandates and small business fees. Some states continue to fight the health law, too.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinnelli argued that Congress went beyond its jurisdiction by passing the bill in a court filing Monday, the Virginian-Pilot reports.
A state law bans imposing health care mandates on Virginians, but the federal law would overrule that unless a judge intervenes.
"If the government prevails... then Congress will have been granted virtually unlimited power to order you to buy anything," Cuccinnelli said in a statement. Other states are sampling new approaches touted in the overhaul.
Pennsylvania has spent millions of dollars on "patient-centered medical homes" that are supposed to help streamline efforts among providers.
The pilot program basically assigns a primary-care doctor to oversee treatment for complicated or long-term illnesses. The provider works with colleagues and an oversight group to ensure that there is no doubling of efforts or wasted resources.
Instead, the creation of a statewide clearinghouse for medical homes has increased costs as well as personnel needed to treat patients, the Wall Street Journal reports.
The article notes that there are cost benefits in the long term when doctors coordinate what they do and eliminate redundancies or inefficiencies. The medical home approach can also make it cheaper and easier to control long-term illnesses like diabetes. There are more hiccups when it comes to updating health technology.
Democrats got a head start on updating dated hospital equipment and digitizing patient records by included money for that in the 2009 stimulus package.
But the program's eligibility criteria has proven too strict for even the most tech-savvy of health providers, the New York Times reports.
Health information technology experts at premier institutions like Kaiser Permanente and Mayo Clinic have complained to the White House that the plan sets unrealistic goals and unachievable deadlines.
Some told the Times that "the issue offered a cautionary tale of what could happen when good intentions meet the reality of America’s fragmented health care system." Ambreen Ali writes for Congress.org.
Landmark credit-card legislation signed into law last year halted some of the predatory tactics used by banks to attract student borrowers, but the new law hasn't stopped colleges from preying on their own students. Some of the nation's largest universities are selling students' names and addresses to credit-card companies for millions in kickbacks from big, bailed-out financial giants like Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase, the Huffington Post Investigative Fund reports.
Through inconspicuous collegiate-corporate relationships known as "affinity agreements," schools and their alumni associations not only profit from selling students' personal information, they also earn royalties for each student who keeps a university-sponsored credit card open for more than 90 days. Schools can earn up to three times more—about $3 per cardholder—when students carry a balance on these cards, and some colleges earn bonuses when students incur debt.
The Huffington Post obtained 17 contracts detailing affinity agreements between universities and banks, but it's unclear just how many of the nation's 2,700 four-year colleges are involved. At Brown, Bank of America agreed in 2006 to pay $2.3 million over seven years for students' names and addresses. At Michigan in 2003, the bank agreed to pay $35.5 million over 11 years for its student information. In total, BOA has affinity contracts with some 700 schools, and more than 100 schools are believed to have affinity agreements with other financial institutions, according to the Huffington Post.
Bank of America claims it's not taking advantage of students; rather, it's amassing a new base of loyal customers. But consumer advocates beg to differ, questioning whether colleges with affinity agreements are doing enough to safeguard young people from financial ruin. "Universities should place the welfare of their students as their highest priority," said Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director for the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups. "[They] shouldn't sell them off for profit."
Let me ask you a question. When was the last time you saw your black male colleague, especially if you're in a white-collar profession, show anger or rage in public? My hunch is never. There's a reason for that. African American men are taught at very young ages (or learn the hard way) to keep our emotions in check, to not lose our cool, lest we be perceived as dangerous or menacing or give someone a reason to doubt our ability to handle our jobs. Think of the emotional corset women in leadership positions are expected to maintain to ensure they never cry in public or show TOO much compassion for fear of raising the same doubt and seeming weak.
I pose this question because over the last two weeks, I have watched and listened with increasing frustration to the criticism that President Obama hasn't shown enough emotion, enough rage over the ceaseless flow of BP oil choking the Gulf Coast. Sure, I, too, have asked the president to connect more with the American people over this disaster. To show a little emotion. But I have never and would never advise Obama to do what movie director Spike Lee advised last week on CNN: "One time, go off!"
We all know one of the reasons why Obama won't "go off."' He's just not wired that way. Despite the feisty interview he did with NBC News's Matt Lauer that aired this morning, overt expressions of rage (or any overheated emotion) are not in his personality. That's why Maureen Dowd has consistently dubbed him President Spock. And Obama's cool, "say what I mean and mean what I say" demeanor is exacerbated by his reliance on the TelePrompTer.
But he can't "go off." And I want to talk about why.
Doug Graham, a Facebook friend from Birmingham, Mich., sent me a note after my post on Obama's third trip to Louisiana last Friday. His words gave voice to my frustration and anticipated this piece.
What the media does not comprehend about Obama and his response on the Gulf Crisis is that he is responding in anger the best that he can!
Black men, especially educated black men, grew up with images of non-violent protests in the face of aggressive policemen, consequences of actually "displaying anger" like the Rodney King situation and are conditioned not to "act out" in crisis situations. Even in sports, you see "fits of rage" with black athletes, but even that is more controlled than, say, hockey, where if black athletes were to display that level of rage -- it would be called a riot!
If Obama were to display anger he runs the risk of Angry Black Man syndrome, becoming too scary or threatening to the public, immediately non-presidential!
Ah, the Angry Black Man. That boogeyman who haunts many African American men, particularly professionals, whether they acknowledge it or not. Who scares us into zen-like tranquility when fury is warranted, whether we are prone to it or not. "You always have to be at your best behavior, because if you're not you never know what's going to go wrong. You never know who's perceiving you differently," said Andy Shallal, the owner of Busboys and Poets, in a video for "Being a Black Man," The Post's 2007 Peabody Award-winning series.
The 2009 arrest of renowned Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates in his own home after he mouthed off to cops investigating reports of a break-in there is a prime example of what could go wrong.
Americans expect their presidents to be cool, calm and collected in a crisis. But we have to recognize that Obama already has this manner (or skill) mastered because it attaches to any black professional, especially those in positions of authority.
"Blacks at that level have to operate like that," Rev. Al Sharpton told me, "Whether you're Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas or Dick Parsons." That was an intriguing slate to ponder. Powell, Thomas and Parsons are three very different men. And yet the way they operate in their respective professions is very similar. "You grew up in the time when Sidney Poitier was the prototype of how you operate in a white world," Sharpton said, "cool and smooth."
"You and I are held to a somewhat different standard in the way we comport ourselves in professional environments," a black Democratic strategist with close ties to the business community said. "We are oftentimes held hostage to the myth of the 'angry black man' in ways that constrain us."
"As a black man, as a big black man, I know there are certain ways I can behave," an African American executive told me last week. "We don't have the luxury of making certain kinds of mistakes that would have us viewed as unintelligent.... You're carrying this burden of not having the luxury of messing up."
"You can't show anger, otherwise you are judged a certain way," said one prominent friend who would only speak about this on background. "It's already a societal thing where people find black men dangerous. So you can't be angry.... You learn early on there are certain lines you do not cross." Think about it. There's no African American version of, say, Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff with a widely known and celebrated reputation for F-bombs and confrontation.
Thomas's controlled-burn response to allegations of sexual harassment during his 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearings -- which he called a "high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves" -- was the closest we've come to seeing rage from a black man on such a prominent stage.
Of course, there isn't universal agreement on this. One prominent African American I spoke with was having none of it. "I don't think you can define [Obama] and his presidency in terms of his being a black man. I think you have to define his presidency in terms of his being president." When I asked him about the stated similarities in the operating styles of of Powell, Thomas, Parsons and Obama, he said, "That in and of itself distorts the notion of black."
Fear of unleashing the "angry black man" stereotype or not, none of the men I spoke with want Obama to emote just to please the media or anyone else. "I like being cool, and I like seeing him being cool," said one. "And he is what he is and we have to accept that. We cannot ask him to be what he wants to be for us and be in betrayal to...who he really is." The Democratic strategist said, "I don't need my president to feel my pain. I need my president to take on problems and solve them." This is where I, the men I talked with and the American people are all in agreement.
A prominent Houston attorney with a long record of winning settlements from oil companies says he has new evidence suggesting that the Deepwater Horizon's top managers knew of problems with the rig before it exploded last month, causing the worst oil spill in US history[1]. Tony Buzbee, a lawyer representing 15 rig workers and dozens of shrimpers, seafood restaurants, and dock workers, says he has obtained a three-page signed statement from a crew member on the boat that rescued the burning rig's workers. The sailor, who Buzbee refuses to name for fear of costing him his job, was on the ship's bridge when Deepwater Horizon installation manager Jimmy Harrell, a top employee of rig owner Transocean, was speaking with someone in Houston via satellite phone. Buzbee told Mother Jones that, according to this witness account, Harrell was screaming, "Are you fucking happy? Are you fucking happy? The rig's on fire! I told you this was gonna happen."
Whoever was on the other end of the line was apparently trying to calm Harrell down. "I am fucking calm," he went on, according to Buzbee. "You realize the rig is burning?"
At that point, the boat's captain asked Harrell to leave the bridge. It wasn't clear whether Harrell had been talking to Transocean, BP[1], or someone else.
On Friday a spokesman for Transocean said he couldn't confirm or deny whether the conversation took place. He was unable to make Harrell available for an interview.
During hearings held late last month by the Coast Guard and the Minerals Management Service, Harrell denied any conflicts[2] with his BP or Transocean bosses. He said that he did not feel pressured to rush the completion of the well, even though the rig had fallen behind schedule.
Yet Buzbee's claims add weight to other statements that contradict Harrell's version of events. Testifying[3] before the Coast Guard and MMS panel last month, Douglas Brown, the chief mechanic on the Deepwater Horizon, said that on the morning of the day that the rig exploded Harrell had a "skirmish" over drilling procedures during a meeting with BP's "company man," well site leader Robert Kaluza. "I remember the company man saying this is how it's going to be," Brown told the panel. As Harrell was leaving the meeting, according to Brown, "He pretty much grumbled, 'I guess that's what we have those pincers for,'" referring to the blowout preventer on the sea floor that is supposed to be the last resort to prevent a leak in the event of an emergency. The blowout preventer failed following the explosion on the rig, causing the massive spill. (Transocean's chief electronics technician, Mike Williams, also recalled[4] the argument but named a different BP "company man," BP's top official on the rig, Donald Vidrine).
In a statement to the Wall Street Journal, Transocean appeared to back the claims[5] that Harrell had feuded with BP: "The testimony certainly seems to suggest that [Harrell] disagreed with the operator's instructions, but what those were and why he disagreed are matters that will ultimately be determined during the course of investigations."
Other rig workers have also claimed that they were pressured by BP and their supervisors to cut corners. Transocean roustabout Truitt Crawford told the Coast Guard that he overheard senior management saying that BP was "taking shortcuts[6]" by replacing drilling mud in the well with saltwater, which would have provided less weight to contain the well's surging pressure. Transocean's Williams told[7]60 Minutes that a supervisor had dismissed evidence that the well's blowout preventer had been damaged. And workers with Halliburton, the well's cementing contractor, had complained that BP's use of cement "was against our best practices[8]" and told the oil company that it would likely have "a SEVERE gas flow problem[9]" unless the well's casings were centered more carefully.
Buzbee told Mother Jones that the sailor's version of Harrell's phone conversation following the explosion was corroborated by a statement from a second crew member who says he also overheard the call. Both statements were taken in-person by Buzbee's investigator and safety consultant, who has interviewed some 60 people involved in the disaster, and signed by the witnesses, he said. Buzbee declined to make the full statements available to Mother Jones because, he said, "it is work product, meaning that it is something that I do not have to produce or disclose in litigation but that can be used at the right time in the litigation." He added that he intends to take a deposition from the crew members at a later time.
Buzbee's case against the operators of the Deepwater Horizon is hardly his first foray into suing major oil companies. After a BP refinery in Texas City exploded in 2005, killing 15 workers and injuring dozens more, he won $100 million in punitive damages from the company. In the wake of the 2002 shipwreck of the Prestige oil tanker, which devastated the coast of Galicia, he won a $70 million settlement from Spain's government on behalf of the country's Basque region. And he's also nabbed $15 million from Transocean and $6.2 million from Halliburton for injured offshore oil workers.
Yet Buzbee is convinced that the Gulf oil spill lawsuit will be his biggest ever. "It's the grandaddy of all cases," he said. "This is going to define BP and whether BP survives. This is going to be the biggest case in the history of the United States, no doubt about it."
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Buzbee won a $70 million settlement from the American Bureau of Shipping for its role in the Prestige oil spill off the coast of Spain. The settlement came from Spain's government. Mother Jones regrets the error.
Last night, the media boomlet of the nano-moment was President Obama's Chuck Norris moment, when he told NBC's Matt Lauer that the reason he talked to experts about the Gulf oil spill was because they "potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick."
Boo-yah! Obama's showin' some outrage! He's takin' it to the street! Bluster, baby, bluster!
Except, no. I was unhappy that Obama said this because I don't think he should give in to the yahoos who insist that he needs to be the emoter-in-chief, but I didn't bother commenting on it because something about the clip seemed slightly off. I wasn't sure what, but it didn't quite scan. Today, via Steve Benen, I know why. Here's the whole exchange:
June 8, 2010KICK-ASS CONTEXT.... I've seen some mild criticism of President Obama this morning, from those wondering if the "whose ass to kick" line on the "Today" show was excessive bravado. Adam Serwer noted, for example, that Americans are "not going to be happier because the president has pulled out his Bruce Willis impression."
That's hardly an unreasonable take. The president doesn't usually speak this way, and as Atrios explained, a "return to Bush-era fake bluster" would be annoying.
But it's probably worth noting the context of the exchange, because the president's choice of words was a direct reflection of the question. Here's the Q&A:
LAUER: Critics are now talking about your style, which is the first time I've heard that in a long time. They're saying here is a guy who likes to be known as cool and calm and collected, and this isn't the time for cool, calm and collected. This is not the time to meet with experts and advisers; this is a time to spend more time in the Gulf and -- I never thought I'd say this to a president -- but kick some butt. And I don't mean it to be funny.
OBAMA: No, and I understand. And here's what -- I'm going to push back hard on this. Because I think that this is a -- just an idea that got in folks heads, and the media's run with it. I was down there a month ago, before most of these talking heads were even paying attention to the Gulf. A month ago I was meeting with fishermen down there, standing in the rain talking about what a potential crisis this could be. And I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick.
The "whose ass to kick" line wasn't just some scripted attempt to sound tough. Lauer pushed the notion that the president shouldn't meet with experts; he should "kick some butt." Obama responded that he meets with people who know what they're talking about so he'd know "whose ass to kick."
In this context, the president really was just responding to the basis of the question, not trying to sound like an action hero with overwrought bravado.
Posted by Katelyn Sabochik on June 07, 2010 at 08:09 PM EDT
Ed Note: Today, President Obama delivered the commencement address at Kalamazoo Central High School in Kalamazoo, Michigan. View an interactive map of commencement addresses delivered by the President, Vice President, First Lady, Second Lady and senior administration officials here.
Do you remember your high school commencement speaker? The class of 2010 at Kalamazoo Central High School in Kalamazoo, Michigan will probably never forget theirs. Today, President Obama delivered the commencement address at Kalamazoo Central - the winner of the 2010 Race to the Top High School Commencement Challenge.
The Commencement Challenge asked high schools around the country to submit an application telling the President how their school is making significant strides on personal responsibility, academic excellence and college readiness, and how they are working toward the President’s national goal of having the most college graduates by 2020. After three rounds of competition, Kalamazoo Central High School was named the winner.
The President began his remarks by congratulating the students and the Kalamazoo community on their innovative approach to education:
Together as a community, you’ve embraced the motto of this school district: “Every child, every opportunity, every time,” because you believe, like I do, that every child – regardless of what they look like, where they come from, or how much money their parents have – every child who walks through your schoolhouse doors deserves a quality education.
President Barack Obama delivers the commencement address to the graduates of Kalamazoo Central High School at the University Arena at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan, June 7, 2010. June 7, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
The President also took this opportunity to give the graduates some advice on navigating the waters after high school. He told students that success is determined not by one’s circumstances but by “by how hard you try; how far you push yourself; how high you’re willing to reach.”
But meaningful achievement, lasting success – that doesn’t happen in an instant. It’s not just about the twist of fate, or the lucky break, or the sudden stroke of genius. Rather, it’s about the daily efforts, the choices large and small that add up over time. It’s about the skills you build, the knowledge you accumulate, the energy you invest in every task, no matter how trivial or menial it may seem at the time.
In addition to working hard to achieve their dreams the President encouraged the class of 2010 to take personal responsibility for their successes as well as their failures:
The truth is, no matter how hard you work, you won’t necessarily ace every class or succeed in every job. There will be times when you screw up, when you hurt the people you love, when you stray from your most deeply held values.
And when that happens, it’s the easiest thing in the world to start looking around for someone to blame. Your professor was too hard; your boss was a jerk; the coach was playing favorites; your friend just didn’t understand. We see it every day out in Washington, with folks calling each other names and making all sorts of accusations on TV.
This community could have easily gone down that road. You could have made excuses – our kids have fewer advantages, our schools have fewer resources, so how can we compete? You could have spent years pointing fingers – blaming parents, blaming teachers, blaming the principal or the superintendent or the government.
But instead, you came together. You were honest with yourselves about where you were falling short. And you resolved to do better – to push your kids harder, to open their minds wider, to expose them to all kinds of ideas and people and experiences.
Finally, President Obama recognized the efforts of Kalamazoo students to give back to their community and encouraged them to continue to give back, even as their lives become busier:
And once you start juggling those classes and activities and that campus job; and you get caught up in your own dramas and anxieties; you may feel like you’ve got enough on your plate just dealing with your own life. It might just be easier to turn the channel when the news disturbs you; to avert your eyes when you pass the homeless man on the street; to tell yourself that other people’s problems really aren’t your responsibility.
But think for a minute about the consequences of that approach here in this community. What if those Kalamazoo Promise donors had said to themselves, “Well, I can pay for my kid to go to college, why should I pay for other people’s kids too?”
To learn more about the Commencement Challenge, read the finalists’ essays, and watch the finalists’ videos, go to WhiteHouse.gov/Commencement.
President Barack Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, left, congratulate a graduate during the commencement ceremony for Kalamazoo Central High School at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan, June 7, 2010. June 7, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
This is an academic blog exploring the influence of Christianity on our legal system, as well as the legal profession. In particular, the focus of this blog is the influence of "progressive" Christianity, as opposed to a more conservative, politicized view of the Christian faith.
Arizona has been in the news a lot lately. Our new state law to fight illegal immigration has drawn scorn locally, nationally and even internationally. There is much I could write about the controversy. But I’m not an immigration law expert, so this blog post will focus on the bill’s passage from a more personal, granular level.
First of all, the state bill seemed to come out of nowhere. I didn't hear any news coverage of it until right before it was enacted. Both civil and criminal immigration laws already existed at the federal level. Indeed, immigration has heretofore generally been a matter within exclusive federal jurisdiction. Meanwhile, our state has been dealing with unprecedented economic issues, e.g., high unemployment, a dire state budget deficit, the collapse of real estate prices, and a tragically high foreclosure rate. It seemed surprising to me that in that context the legislature would take on something new (i.e., immigration) when we're simultaneously slashing the state budget.
I am a member of the Arizona Asian American Bar Association, and received an e-mail from the organization’s leadership a couple days before the bill was signed into law. The e-mail explained that it was a nonpolitical organization, and typically did not take stands on legislation. However, the group was breaking from tradition and urging Governor Brewer to not sign S.B. 1070.
That same day, my Criminal Law class was fortunate enough to have a wonderful guest speaker, a lawyer who practices federal criminal law. During the Q & A period at the end of her lecture, one of my students asked her opinion on the pending state immigration law. I have known this lawyer for a few years, and she has not struck me as particularly partisan or radical in any way. Prior questions that day had sought her opinion on the war on drugs; she did not express a lot of interest in the policy issues involved, but indicated she did not think it would be wise to decriminalize narcotics. However, when the issue of Arizona’s pending immigration law was raised, this lawyer became much more animated. She was particularly incensed and frustrated at the accusation by the bill’s supporters that the federal government is not doing enough to fight illegal immigration. She noted how much time and how many resources were consumed in her own practice by the federal prosecution of immigration crimes. She also pointed out that Arizona is the busiest federal district in the entire country because of all the immigration crimes processed.
After Governor Brewer signed S.B. 1070, I was personally disappointed and more than a little stunned. But there are so many injustices in this world, and we all are busy with our own lives. The week after the bill was enacted, I was busy grading student memos, and my husband’s old car was getting a ton of repairs done. In the meantime, I was receiving semi-hysterical e-mail updates from Sojourners that S.B. 1070 now made it potentially a criminal offense to drive family members or neighbors to church. Sojourners was encouraging subscribers around the country to voice opposition to the new law.
Over the next few days, I kept hearing more and more about the bill on the radio. What I was hearing was that if a person was pulled over (e.g., for a traffic violation), and if the police had reasonable suspicion to think the person was in the country illegally, they could demand documentation to prove their immigration status. Supporters of S.B. 1070 are adamant that this new law will not lead to racial profiling. Indeed, they point out that racial profiling is illegal. But in all the news coverage, I have yet to hear a coherent explanation as to how police will come to have “reasonable suspicion” about one’s immigration status without paying attention to one’s race or ethnicity. That is very troubling. I’m Caucasian and my complexion is fairly pale unless I’ve been to the beach recently. But I’ve got brown eyes and very dark colored hair. On numerous occasions in the United States and in Mexico, I’ve been mistaken for someone of Hispanic heritage. I began to wonder if I ought to begin carrying my passport or voter registration card around just in case.
One evening, I heard an NPR interview with J.D. Hayworth, who is running against John McCain in the Republican primary for Senate. Mr. Hayworth is pretty conservative and is a viable contender for the nomination. As a result, Senator McCain has lately taken a less moderate position on several issues, most notably immigration reform. In the interview, Mr. Hayworth dispelled the notion that S.B. 1070 was aimed only at Hispanics. He conceded that due to our geography illegal immigration from Mexico was our biggest problem in Arizona, but he noted we also had a serious problem with Chinese nationals and people from the Middle East who were in Arizona illegally. My daughters are Chinese American. And in the past when we have encountered border patrol stops (e.g., crossing back from Canada, traveling through Texas, traveling through California), our family has had to endure intrusive questioning with ugly undertones that sometimes upset our children. The night I heard Mr. Hayworth’s interview, I talked to my husband privately about whether he needed to carry their passports when they were out running errands.
A woman at the law school where I work has been organizing a clothing drive for a local school district. She has been trying to get dressy clothes that seniors can wear to their graduation ceremonies. As she made a recent pitch for donations, she noted that the school district in question is in a lower income area and most of the students are Hispanic. She added that even those who have money to buy clothes for graduation are afraid to go shopping since the passage of S.B. 1070.
Since the law was enacted, there have been daily protests at the state capitol in Phoenix. On the second Saturday after enactment, our whole family went down to join the protests. There were a lot of other families with small children. We explained to our kids what was going on, and what a privilege it is to live in a country where we can speak our minds freely and not fear government reprisal. I told my older daughter about the Tiananmen Massacre that took place in the PRC even before she was ever born, and compared it to the peaceful protests against S.B. 1070. The two of us read the signs, t-shirts and banners that people brought to the Arizona state capitol that day. My husband, our daughters and I all joined in the march as organizers got us into a line to begin processing down the street. We added our voices to the cheers of “¡SÃ, se puede!” and discussed with our kids what that phrase meant. Our younger daughter conked out pretty early on after we ran out of cold soda, and insisted my husband carry her. But my older daughter was a little trooper. She and I held hands, and walked with the crowd. We smiled at the television cameras and the police officers on duty to maintain order. It was a beautiful sunny day in Arizona, and it wasn’t yet that hot.
At one point as we were all marching, an angry man in a pick-up slowed down as he drove past us. His window was down and he shouted ugly words at the protesters. My first inclination was to think he was a jerk, and my face probably went into an instinctive glare. But some woman farther back in the line immediately shouted back to him “We love you!” I was shamed at her instinctive non-hostile, generous response. I have no idea who she was or what her beliefs were, but clearly she was reacting in a much more Christ-like way than I had. To my surprise, the angry man shouted back (though at a lower decibel level and a bit begrudgingly), “I love you too.” It was a little surreal.
That weekend at church, we read from John 13:34-35, and our pastor taught on the power of love. Specifically, she talked to us about how Jesus taught us to love people even though they may not be that lovable. It seemed a good follow-up to our experience at the protest. Later in that same church service, during our community’s prayers, our pastor asked God for a Christ-like resolution to our border issues. Amen.
Matthew 2:13-15 (New International)
When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him." So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod.
whitehouse—June 04, 2010 — First Lady Michelle Obama addresses hundreds of chefs on the South Lawn of the White House for the "Chefs Move to Schools" program, a part of the "Let's Move!" campaign to end the epidemic of childhood obesity. The program will pair chefs with schools across to help teach kids healthy habits.
President Obama's nominee for nationl intelligence director, Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, retired in 1995 after 32 years.
Washington (CNN) -- Calling him one of America's "most experienced and most respected intelligence professionals," President Barack Obama has nominated Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper to be the new director of national intelligence.
"He possesses a quality that I value in all my advisers, a willingness to tell leaders what we need to know, even if it's not what we want to hear," said Obama. He made the announcement in the Rose Garden with Clapper on Saturday.
Clapper, who retired from the Air Force in 1995 after a 32-year career, served as head of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency from September 2001 to June 2006.
Clapper, now a top Pentagon intelligence official, would replace Dennis Blair, who resigned at the end of last month. Obama said he'll be looking for Clapper "to ensure that we have the most capable and efficient intelligence community possible."
If confirmed, Clapper will become the nation's fourth DNI in the last five years. The position was created after the September 2001 terrorist attacks to oversee the 16 agencies of the U.S. intelligence community.
Obama said he's indicated to other Senate leaders that the confirmation should be carried out "swiftly."
"The Senate has voted to confirm Jim for senior positions on four separate occasions, and each time it has done so overwhelmingly," he said.
"This nomination can't fall victim to the usual Washington politics."
Some political observers have indicated that Clapper's prospects for confirmation on Capitol Hill, however, are questionable.
Intelligence Committee Chair Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, recently said the "best thing for the U.S. intelligence community is to have someone with a civilian background in charge."
Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Kit Bond, R-Missouri, said he has reservations about Clapper. "I believe he is too focused on the Defense Department issues and he has tried to block out efforts to give more authority to the DNI," Bond argued.
Bond's counterpart on the House side, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Michigan, also said he believes Clapper is the wrong person, because he is "not forthcoming, open or transparent" with Congress.
But Obama said: "Jim also understands the importance of working with our partners in Congress. As he has said, not merely to appear when summoned, to keep Congress informed and seek members' consent."
Blair, a retired admiral, was pressured to resign as DNI because of differences with the White House over the scope of his role and turf wars with CIA Director Leon Panetta and other members of the intelligence community. One source familiar with Blair's situation said that from the very beginning, "the White House did not have the same view (as Blair) of what the DNI should be."
Panetta, in a statement Saturday, said, "Few people have more intelligence experience than Jim Clapper. The men and women of the CIA look forward to working closely with him in his new role to strengthen America's national security."
President Barack Obama delivers the commencement address to the graduates of Kalamazoo Central High School at the University Arena at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan, June 7, 2010. June 7, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) 
President Barack Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, left, congratulate a graduate during the commencement ceremony for Kalamazoo Central High School at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan, June 7, 2010. June 7, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) 