RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
What to Watch in Today's Biggest Midterm Primaries Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=12985"><span class="small">Josh Voorhees, Slate</span></a>   
Tuesday, 15 May 2018 08:23

Voorhees writes: "Pennsylvania voters go to the polls on Tuesday for the first elections since the state redrew its congressional maps to make Democrats more competitive."

Voters at a polling precinct. (photo: Getty Images)
Voters at a polling precinct. (photo: Getty Images)


What to Watch in Today's Biggest Midterm Primaries

By Josh Voorhees, Slate

15 May 18

 

ennsylvania voters go to the polls on Tuesday for the first elections since the state redrew its congressional maps to make Democrats more competitive. The Keystone State results will shed light on everything from Democrats’ chances of retaking the House to whether women can lead them to victory. The three other states that vote on Tuesday—Idaho, Oregon, and Nebraska—will have a less dramatic effect on the balance of power, but they’re not without contests worth watching. The gubernatorial GOP primary in Idaho and a congressional Democratic race in Nebraska feature establishment-backed candidates and rivals trying to outflank them.

Here’s what to watch:

Pennsylvania

Republicans have held 13 of the state’s 18 congressional seats for most of the past decade, but the state Supreme Court reset the field earlier this year when they forced legislators to redraw the state’s gerrymandered congressional map. Toss in a handful of key GOP departures, and Democrats could realistically gain nearly a quarter of the 23 seats they need this fall to retake the House in Pennsylvania alone. The Cook Political Report is now giving Democrats better-than-even odds of winning three open GOP seats, even odds of taking down two Republican incumbents, and an outside chance of defeating another two GOP congressman along the way. Whether that comes to pass will depend in large part on who gets nominated on Tuesday.

The Democrats’ three best pick-up opportunities are in districts that would have gone for Hillary Clinton if they had existed two years ago. In the new 7th District, where GOP Rep. Charlie Dent would have run if he had not retired this year, Democrats are deciding between Susan Wild, an EMILY’s List-endorsed former city solicitor; Greg Edwards, a Bernie Sanders-backed pastor; and John Morganelli, a well-known local district attorney who has angered progressives with his anti-abortion views and some kind words he once said about Trump.

In the new 6th District, where GOP Rep. Ryan Costello isn’t seeking re-election, Democrats are thrilled to have an Air Force veteran Chrissy Houlahan, running unopposed on Tuesday.

And in the new 5th District, where GOP Rep. Patrick Meehan resigned in the  face of an ethics probe into his affection for a former staffer, there are ten Democrats battling it out in a race that no one seems to have any idea who will win. The race could be a test case for those hoping the historic surge of female candidates this year results in similarly historic gender gains in Congress.

Tuesday also marks a second chance for Republican Rick Saccone who lost a high-profile special election to Democrat Conor Lamb in March—a loss that national Republicans were quick to blame on Saccone’s failings as a candidate. But that was before the new districts took shape, and Saccone is now running in the GOP primary in the new 14th district, which theoretically favors the GOP, but so did the last one. (Lamb is running unopposed on Tuesday in the new 17th district, which is far less conservative than the one that he won in earlier this year.)

Republicans voters will also pick a Senate nominee to challenge Democratic Sen. Bob Casey in a general-election race that isn’t yet considered competitive. GOP Rep. Lou Barletta, who has been endorsed by Trump, is expected to win that nomination easily over state Rep. Jim Christiana.

Nebraska

In the Cornhusker State, the main event is in the state’s 2nd District, where Democrat Brad Ashford, a former congressman, is trying to reclaim his old seat. Ashford lost to Republican Don Bacon two years ago by a single percentage point, and national Democrats are eager to see him reclaim it. But Ashord is being challenged in the primary by non-profit exec Kara Eastman, who has the support of progressive groups, and is running hard to his left, calling for Medicare For All and a full repeal of the GOP tax law. Still, despite having all the ingredients for a nasty intra-party fight, this one has remained mostly civil, and Ashford’s name recognition makes him the favorite.

There’s not much suspense elsewhere in the state. The gubernatorial front-runners—Republican Gov. Pete Ricketts and Republican-turned-Democrat state Sen. Bob Krist—are expected to sail to their nominations, as is GOP Sen. Deb Fischer and her likely Democratic challenger, Jane Raybould, a city councilwoman and an executive at her family’s statewide chain of grocery stores. Rickets and Fischer will head into the general as the clear favorites, though Raybould could make things interesting in the Senate race if the GOP takes the seat for granted.

Idaho

The Gem State does not have a Senate race this year, and neither of its two congressional contests is expected to be competitive. Instead, all eyes will be on the race to replace outgoing Republican Gov. Butch Otter in a state that hasn’t had a Democrat in the governor’s mansion since 1995.

The GOP primary involves a trio of familiar conservative archetypes, each of whom appears to have a legitimate chance at the nomination: Rep. Raul Labrador, who co-founded the House Freedom Caucus, is an anti-immigration hardliner and the most conservative candidate in the race. Lt. Gov. Brad Little, who bills himself as the pro-business pragmatist, has the backing of the state’s Republican establishment. And Tommy Ahlquist, a doctor-turned-developer who is using his own money to fund his campaign, has laid claim to the “outsider” lane. (Notably, none of three voted for Trump in the GOP primary two years ago, but all three are now singing the president’s praises.) The state is in the midst of a population boom and the results should provide a helpful snapshot of how the political climate is—or isn’t—changing in the dark red state.

Oregon

In Oregon, all five congressional incumbents are expected to win another term easily, and neither senator is on the ballot this time around. The most exciting race is the historically crowded Republican primary for governor, where state Rep. Knute Buehler has yet to pull away. But it might not matter. Gov. Kate Brown is effectively running unopposed for the Democratic nomination, and the state hasn’t sent a Republican in the governor’s mansion in 30 years, a fact that’s unlikely to change even with the state’s current budget problems.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Stasis: My Experiences With Hollywood Sexism and Why It Will Never Change Print
Monday, 14 May 2018 11:42

Sheedy writes: "This isn't about naming names. I don't have enough for a lawsuit, but I do have enough for a broken heart/spirit. Nothing will change in Hollywood."

Ally Sheedy in 'The Breakfast Club.' (photo: Universal Pictures)
Ally Sheedy in 'The Breakfast Club.' (photo: Universal Pictures)


Stasis: My Experiences With Hollywood Sexism and Why It Will Never Change

By Ally Sheedy, Vulture

14 May 18

 

was eighteen years old when I went to Hollywood to begin my acting career, after growing up in NYC and being raised, in great part, by feminists. My mother, Charlotte, took me to small grassroots meetings that eventually evolved into the women’s liberation movement of the 1970s, and I had listened to arguments about the framework of the Equal Rights Amendment, gone on marches, and attended consciousness-raising sessions.

In one session designed for the kids, a woman demonstrated how her walk changed when she put on high heels. What I clearly remember is someone saying, “If I’m wearing those heels I can’t run away.”

Hollywood was, to put it mildly, a shock.

On one of my first auditions, a director told me he liked me but could not possibly cast me because there was a “beach” scene. Apparently, my thighs and ass were going to get in the way of my fledgling career. I was five seven and weighed about 130 pounds.

It did not matter that I did a good job on auditions, that I was smart, that I had natural ability. My thighs were the “thing.”

So I dieted. All. The. Time. I learned that whatever I might contribute to a role through talent would be instantly marginalized by my physical appearance. I learned that my success would be dependent on what the men in charge thought about my face and my body. Everything I had learned back home had to go out the window as I adapted to these new requirements: what I looked like was paramount.

It wasn’t even just whether I was pretty or thin; it was that I wasn’t sexy. When I managed to land my first part in a big movie, I was given a ThighMaster as a welcome present and told to squeeze it between my legs at least a hundred times a day. A director of photography told me he couldn’t shoot me “looking like that” when I walked on set one day. He said it in front of the whole crew. I was too wide, I guess, in the skirt they had given me to wear.

A few years later, I was told point-blank that my career was moving slowly because “nobody wants to fuck you.” There was something about me, sexually, that wasn’t selling.

It was a challenge for me starting out, but it seems almost impossible for young women now.

I do volunteer work in film and theater with teenage students at a public school in New York. The kids are gifted and, in my junior class, we recently completed a performance of Shakespeare scenes for the rest of the theater department. I asked four sixteen-year-old actors with real acting chops and courage what they’d experienced trying to make the leap to professional work: Kai, Michelle, Layla, and Jo.

Kai, who played Lady Macbeth, told me she was thirteen when she first got a call from an agent, and they told her father to leave the room: “Then they asked me how tall I was and for my weight and that I should put my weight on my résumé,” she said. “They asked me for my cup size. They told me to turn around and then told me ‘Work on your sex appeal.’ ”

At fifteen, she was asked if she would feel comfortable “humping a table” in the audition room and her mother was asked if she would be “comfortable” with Kai working in only a bra and panties.

She explained that she’s now sent to auditions in the “slut category” and was told to diet down to a size 4 because her agent would not re-sign her contract if she were above that size. So, Kai said, she understands that “body size comes first”: it doesn’t matter that she can handle Lady Macbeth at sixteen, because she will be playing thin and overly sexualized characters if she wants to get work.

Layla, who chose to play Iago in a scene from Othello, also told me that casting people have been “typing” her: “It’s my boob size, butt size, skin tone. I get cast as the hairdresser and not the pretty sorority girl.”

Michelle, who played Lady Anne in Richard III and also sings, overheard a director saying, “I was so distracted by her boobs I couldn’t hear her voice” after an audition. For some roles, she said, “I’m too busty. I’m too curvy.”

And it’s not just in the acting world: “I was in class and a teacher kept staring at me and staring,” Michelle told me. “He kept bringing up his wife to me. Then I left class and my friends told me he said, ‘Man, I wish I was still in high school’ about me. I reported it and nothing happened. Even teachers will see you in that light.”

These are gifted adolescent women who don’t get to be judged on their impressive talent: their bodies are already paramount to the work they want to do and it’s only going to get worse. At sixteen these students are being judged on their sexual attractiveness. Their talent is a gift, but it is not enough.

As Michelle says: “We are told to ‘use what you have to work with … boobs, ass.’ ”

Jo, who played Paulina in A Winter’s Tale, said, “I don’t care how talented you are, it’s your ‘look.’ ”

Kai says: “What is ‘the look’? What can I be? What should I have?”

Apparently, the look is now a superthin stomach area, big breasts, big butt, gorgeous face, and a freed nipple. When they first told me about the nipple thing, I tried to understand but it was clear that it was not the “burn the bra” mentality with which I was raised. These young women must be comfortable without a bra and with visible nipples under a thin shirt as part of a perfect breast — big enough to be sexual, but not so big that it’s “slutty.”

Meanwhile, a director recently told Kai: “I don’t see the innocence.”

“I’m so close to giving up on everything,” she said.

These girls say that there is an unattainable image that men have set for them in their professional lives — and that the men subscribing to this image have been raised to think this way.

Layla explained: “Laws can’t be changed. It’s psychological attitude. It’s not being fixed. It gets worse. People think it’s being fixed … It’s not fixed. It can’t be fixed.”

I realize I am privileged: I am white and work in the film and television industry. I’ve had great opportunities, worked hard for them, and done the most I could do with them. But I also made the conscious decision to not market myself in a sexual way, and it cost me. It is very, very hard to create a career as an actor without sexualizing oneself; I have been navigating this minefield for over thirty years with varying degrees of success. I’ve spoken out about the sexism in my industry before and faced backlash. I’ve been called “bitter” and told my behavior was “cringe worthy.” Whatever.

There were things I just could not bring myself to do: the film by the (great) director that would require me to shoot a scene in a shirt but no panties, for example. (He was making some kind of statement, I suppose.) I rejected the advice to “date” men that could possibly advance my career. I didn’t go on auditions for films that I felt glorified sex work, that depicted women being sexually abused in a gratuitous way, or that required me to leave my sense of self on the doorstep. (All of these films became huge hits.)

But this is the way women are set up in the media. There has been some movement, I suppose, but not much. It’s a frustrating and demoralizing struggle with some moments of triumph in spite of itself. And I still love acting. I still love a good role more than just about anything.

Why is the female physical appearance so important in the arts? Sean Penn is the most gifted actor of my generation, and I don’t think he’s gotten Botox. I don’t think Bryan Cranston had butt implants.

What is a woman to do? Turn on the TV and you get a good look at rape culture. I have tried to make a career without contributing to it.

I’m still trying.

It used to be, when I was younger, that there was the “bombshell” role and the role of the less attractive friend. At my age, it’s a little different: there is one major female role available for every five roles available to men my age. There’s the mother role and maybe something a bit more than that. One of my favorite TV roles a couple of years back was that of a rather ruthless lawyer described in the script as “40s,” brilliant and … thin. Sometimes the characters I play or could play are described as “still attractive,” in spite of their age — because women my age aren’t usually attractive, or so Hollywood seems to think.

The best characters I get to play are the complicated, dark, kind of crazy ones. I love those characters because I can just do my job and not deal with whether or not some producer finds me “sexy” or reasonably attractive for my age — but I’ve had to search for those kinds of roles. My kid has asked me why I love playing deranged characters: the quick answer is “no makeup” followed by “no men.”

From feminist teach-ins at Columbia and Barnard as a student, to Hollywood and beyond as an artist, to teaching young actors in a prestigious public school, I can see the fight for women’s equality remains. I can look at myself in the mirror without shame (but with endless bills to pay) because I circumvented the exploitation rampant in my industry, somehow. But what do I tell my students? How can I tell them to not accept that their success is dependent on their physicality, but also that they may be contributing to the same stereotypes that hold them back?

The issues women are facing in the film and television industry are not just about fair pay for famous rich white actresses: I find it shameful when my superwealthy peers complain about being paid only $400,000, though it is, indeed, helpful to illustrate the wage gap between men and women in the industry.

It’s more important to tackle the absence of a platform for young women who are extremely talented but who are not thin, blond, white, and/or deemed sexually desirable by the powers that be. It’s more important to tackle the frustrating status quo where the powers that be are still male and take up disproportional space in the audition room and the boardroom.

We have to end the system where it is only white men who decide when a woman — in any position, “privileged” or not — is deserving of power and agency.

I’m still navigating the sexual appearance standard in professional work. When I am called to consider a role or audition for a role in TV/Hollywood Land, my talent is never in question. The “studio” or the “network” wants me on tape to see what I look like now.

I was never alone in a hotel room with Harvey Weinstein, but I’ve been at “dinners” that felt like come-ons and I’ve walked into rooms where I’ve been sized up and then received phone calls or “date” requests that I’ve turned down.

Today, if the producer or executive or male director in charge finds me sexually attractive, then I’m on the list. This is how it goes. This is how it IS. If the Harvey Weinstein disaster illustrates anything at all, it illustrates the entirety of the power structure. The lurid details of his rapes are disgusting and yet a shield, in a way, for the greater toxicity of that power structure.

His behavior and his crimes are so … what? Undeniable?

Shocking? Inexcusable?

Any culpable man in the entertainment industry can pull up some feigned dignity and state publicly (or privately) “Well, I didn’t do THAT … exactly” as a kind of self-protective blanket of denial. There are some actors that have expressed “support” for the women who have spoken up about Harvey Weinstein who are guilty of the same or similar behavior. It’s good PR for them but there are quite a few liars.

There are scores of directors and executives and producers who have not spoken up because they are complicit and behave in just that Weinstein way. They don’t want to be called out.

This isn’t about naming names. I don’t have enough for a lawsuit, but I do have enough for a broken heart/spirit. Nothing will change in Hollywood. Some men will get careful. Some men will pretend they never behaved like predators and wait this out. What’s so disheartening is knowing Harvey Weinstein’s sick actions will be addressed (finally) and yet the entire culture and context for his sick shit will remain in place.

I hope it changes.

I hope I’m wrong.

I’m not holding my breath.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Trump-Mueller: Now It's War Print
Monday, 14 May 2018 10:42

Parton writes: "Trump's 'witch hunt' counterattack is working - with his base. It also might strengthen the coming blue wave."

Mueller and Trump. (photo: Getty Images/Salon)
Mueller and Trump. (photo: Getty Images/Salon)


Trump-Mueller: Now It's War

By Heather Digby Parton, Salon

14 May 18


Trump’s “witch hunt” counterattack is working — with his base. It also might strengthen the coming blue wave

udy did it again. Last Friday, Giuliani gave an interview to the Huffington Post, and the subject of Trump fixer Michael Cohen's recently revealed arrangement with AT&T about the pending merger with Time Warner came up. In his usual thoughtless, arrogant fashion Giuliani explained that AT&T didn't get anything for their money because "the president denied the merger."

The president is not supposed to interfere in such decisions, and the White House has repeatedly denied that he did. But ever since the Department of Justice unexpectedly moved to block the merger, unless (among other things) the company agreed to spin off CNN, Donald Trump's nemesis, it had seemed likely Trump was behind the move. He had said on the campaign trail that he was opposed to the merger, but blocking it was considered an unusual decision by a Republican DOJ, and the stated rationale seemed thin. Considering Trump's repeated threats to take the Justice Department in hand and muzzle the press, it's not surprising people would wonder about all this.

The resulting lawsuit has been in court for some time, and the judge has not allowed AT&T's attorneys to pursue this line of inquiry, so the suspicions quieted down until Giuliani stuck his foot in it again. He later walked it back, of course, telling CNN's Dana Bash that the president had nothing to do with the decision after all. But it was yet another example of Giuliani creating more problems than he solves.

Not that he's shutting up, mind you. In fact, he telegraphed the Trump team's plans to "make a little fuss" this coming week over the length of the Mueller investigation as it approaches the one-year mark. They had already trotted out the talking point last week when Vice President Mike Pence sat down for an interview with Andrea Mitchell and put on his patented pained expression and sanctimoniously declared it was time to wrap it up, reminding everyone of another sanctimonious phony who served as veep and later president:

Nixon resigned seven months later.

Shameless as they are, or perhaps just historically illiterate, even after that embarrassing allusion, Trump and his henchmen are apparently going with this new P.R. push to try to force Mueller to close up shop. After all, he's only indicted or gotten guilty pleas from 19 people. If the man can't finish an investigation that runs from New York to Moscow into a possible criminal conspiracy to upend American democracy in a year, there's obviously nothing there.

According to The Washington Post, the administration is going on a "war footing" or, as Giuliani put it, “We’ve gone from defense to offense.” What that evidently means is a new push in the campaign of character assassination against Mueller himself. Trump's angry denunciations of the FBI, the DOJ and the special counsel have already had an effect.

According to a new Economist/YouGov poll, 75 percent of Republicans now agree that the Mueller investigation is a "witch hunt." Only 13 percent of the GOP believe it's legitimate. An alarming 61 percent of Republicans and 25 percent of independents believe the FBI is framing Donald Trump. Only 17 percent of GOP voters disagree with that. This is a testament to the efficacy of Trump's constant repetition on Twitter and television of mantras like "Witch hunt!" and "No collusion." Those have had their effect, particularly as they are echoed by Fox News and talk radio:

The president of the United States has managed to convince tens of millions of Republicans that he's being set up by his own Justice Department. That would seem to run counter to everything they have previously believed -- until you realize that his victimization at the hands of Big Government fits neatly into the well-worn grooves of the conservative movement's narrative about itself. Nobody knows the troubles they've seen.

Only 34 percent of Republicans believe that Trump should fire Mueller, while another 34 percent say he shouldn't, with the rest unsure. It's not exactly a ringing endorsement, but it suggests that Trump still has some work to do if he's planning to take steps to end the investigation.

It has become an article of faith among the political class that the country doesn't care about any of this and that Trump and his problems are just a fetish inside the Beltway and among the political media. Speaker Paul Ryan spoke to a group in Wisconsin over the weekend and insisted that nobody cares about the Trump scandals:

Whether I'm running around southern Wisconsin or America, nobody is talking about Stormy Daniels. Nobody is talking about Russia. They're talking about their lives and their problems. They're talking about their communities, they're talking about jobs, they're talking about the economy, they're talking about national security.

This refrain is picking up speed on both sides of the aisle as the midterms approach. You would think that would motivate the White House and people around President Trump to try to calm the waters and tout their alleged accomplishments, rather than going on a war footing over the Russia investigation. After all they seem to have convinced their base that the whole thing is a hoax. But The Washington Post quoted former Trump legal adviser Mark Corallo saying, “I don’t see any downside at this point for the president and his team to make a full-throated public defense of their situation. There are very few outside the Beltway who are in the we-need-to-prosecute-and-impeach-this-guy camp.”

That sounds like wishful thinking. If the turnout in special elections over the past few months is any indication, Trump "fighting back" does have a galvanizing effect -- on the Democrats. In this polarized political world, for every member of the base he thrills with his tweeted war cries, there's a member of the Democratic base having exactly the opposite reaction. Trump's new "war footing" will likely raise their already high enthusiasm for winning back the Congress.

Donald Trump has an instinct for what his voters want to hear from him, and he knows how to deliver it the way they want it. His weakness is that he thinks everyone else agrees with him and it's just that the system is rigged and the media is dishonest. He believes the whole country, not just his base, deep down loves him. That's a very big blind spot.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump Has Become a Cheerleader for the Pharmaceutical Industry Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=44519"><span class="small">Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders' Facebook Page</span></a>   
Monday, 14 May 2018 08:44

Sanders writes: "Instead of standing up to the power of the drug companies, who have spent nearly $4 billion on lobbying and campaign contributions since 1998, Trump has become a cheerleader for them."

Senator Bernie Sanders and his wife Jane O'Meara Sanders wave to supporters upon taking the stage on the Burlington VT waterfront during the Bernie 2016 presidential announcement, May 26th, 2015. (photo: Arun Chaudhary)
Senator Bernie Sanders and his wife Jane O'Meara Sanders wave to supporters upon taking the stage on the Burlington VT waterfront during the Bernie 2016 presidential announcement, May 26th, 2015. (photo: Arun Chaudhary)


Trump Has Become a Cheerleader for the Pharmaceutical Industry

By Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders' Facebook

14 May 18

 

hat a hypocrite! During his campaign Trump promised he’d provide “health insurance for everybody,” but then supported a bill to throw 32 million Americans off of health care. He said the wealthy wouldn’t gain a nickel under his tax plan, and then signed tax legislation giving 83 percent of the benefits to the top 1 percent. Today, the president made clear that he will not keep the promises he made during the campaign to lower the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs. Instead, he has become a supporter of the pharmaceutical industry's extraordinary greed.

Instead of standing up to the power of the drug companies, who have spent nearly $4 billion on lobbying and campaign contributions since 1998, Trump has become a cheerleader for them. Unbelievably, instead of lowering drug prices in the United States, he wants to raise prices abroad – giving the drug companies even more profits. Unlike Trump, Congress needs to start listening to the American people and take real action to lower the price of prescription drugs. That means we need to pass legislation requiring Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices and allow for the reimportation of safe, low-cost prescription drugs from Canada and other countries – precisely what Trump promised during the campaign. I will continue to do everything I can to end the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and lower the outrageous cost of prescription drugs.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Kelly's "Family Separation" Recalls Slave Era Practice of Selling Parents Down the River Print
Sunday, 13 May 2018 14:10

Cole writes: "John Kelly, White House chief of staff, is an immigrant-hating bigot, as demonstrated by a long series of Draconian statements and measures that would have embarrassed most normal people into a lifetime vow of silence in their wake."

John Kelly at the Medal of Honor ceremony on July 31, 2017. (photo: Joshua Roberts/Reuters)
John Kelly at the Medal of Honor ceremony on July 31, 2017. (photo: Joshua Roberts/Reuters)


Kelly's "Family Separation" Recalls Slave Era Practice of Selling Parents Down the River

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

13 May 18

 

ohn Kelly, White House chief of staff, is an immigrant-hating bigot, as demonstrated by a long series of Draconian statements and measures that would have embarrassed most normal people into a lifetime vow of silence in their wake.

Kelly bizarrely defended Confederate slave drivers of the 1860s as having lived at a time before the evils of slavery were apparent to moral people. Haiti abolished slavery in 1804, Mexico in 1824 and Tunisia in 1846. But Kelly’s assertion becomes a little more understandable in view of his NPR interview on May 11.

On undocumented immigration, Kelly’s interview went like this:

Kelly: “But a big name of the game is deterrence.
NPR: “Family separation stands as a pretty tough deterrent.”
Kelly: “It could be a tough deterrent — would be a tough deterrent. A much faster turnaround on asylum seekers.
NPR: “Even though people say that’s cruel and heartless to take a mother away from her children?”
Kelly: “I wouldn’t put it quite that way. The children will be taken care of — put into foster care or whatever. But the big point is they elected to come illegally into the United States and this is a technique that no one hopes will be used extensively or for very long.

Kelly’s doctrine of “deterrence” of undocumented immigration into the US through family separation is undergirded by a special kind of sadism and ignorance combined. First of all, villagers in Honduras are not going to know about Kelly’s policy. Second, they are so desperate that many will take the risk anyway. Third, it is wrong to pounce and take US citizen children away from their mothers and fathers all of a sudden, giving them no time to make alternate arrangements. As for foster homes, with all due respect to the dedicated people who often run them, social science has proven that they are the biggest producer of a criminal class in the US. Children growing up without strong parental role models have a much greater chance of ending up in prison. Yes, that’s right. Social science says that if you want a safe society, don’t deport the parents of US citizen children.

Under Trump, ICE (which was only created recently and should be decommissioned) has been routinely doing things like traumatizing families by arresting undocumented parents when they come to pick up their children at school, in front of the eyes of the children, and leaving the latter unattended. The agents are not wrong to enforce the law, but this sort of tactic is clearly the result of instructions from Kelly and his successor, and is deliberate psychological warfare on American citizens.

Kelly’s self-satisfaction with getting rid of unwanted adults and putting their children, our fellow US citizens, in “foster care or whatever” (!!!) can only be compared to one phenomenon in American history.

Back in the days of slavery, white slave owners in the mid-Atlantic states like Kentucky used to separate fathers and sometimes mothers from their children and “sell them down the river” to the big plantation owners of the deep south.

Brown and black slaves were, like undocumented immigrants, not citizens and so they were not conceived by white elites as fully human persons. Hence, their families could be divided at will and parents could be sent far away, never to see their children again. They were treated like thoroughbred animals.

Kelly went on to slam these immigrants for not knowing English and for being unassimilable and having no skills. In fact, as conservative godfather Milton Friedman argued, they wouldn’t come here if they weren’t finding jobs that locals would not or could not fill. As for language and assimilation, Kelly’s own Italian-American side of the family came without English and remained here without citizenship for decades.

Undocumented immigration to the US is no longer a big problem. Every year, more Mexicans have left than come in during the past decade. There was an issue in the 1980s and 1990s, but measures were taken to deal with that issue. Since 2002 about 5 million persons have been deported, possibly a bit more under Obama than under Bush. There isn’t a crisis of arrivals and there isn’t a crisis in enforcement. Most of those who came in the 1980s and 1990s, by now have firm roots in their communities and are thick with citizen relatives, and some sort of amnesty ought to be arranged if we were a decent society. But then if we were a decent society we wouldn’t have invaded and occupied Iraq or elected Donald Trump president.

Kelly’s unconscious evocation of the old white supremacist practice of separating brown and black families and selling the adults down the river tells us that not as much has changed since the 1860s as a lot of us would have liked.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 Next > End >>

Page 1253 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN