RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
A Case for Dismantling the US Border Patrol Print
Sunday, 25 February 2018 14:55

Alan Boyce writes: "Upon assuming office in 2000, Mexico's former president Vicente Fox inherited a border police agency so violent and so corrupt that he fired its entire workforce and repurposed its mission from law enforcement into an unarmed humanitarian service agency."

US border patrol. (photo: Getty)
US Border Patrol. (photo: Getty)


A Case for Dismantling the US Border Patrol

By Geoffrey Alan Boyce, NACLA

25 February 18


The U.S. Border Patrol’s violent, racist, and ineffectual policies have come to a head under Trump. What can be done?

pon assuming office in 2000, Mexico’s former president Vicente Fox inherited a border police agency so violent and so corrupt that he fired its entire workforce and repurposed its mission from law enforcement into an unarmed humanitarian service agency. While this move didn’t eliminate abuses by Mexican border police, Fox’s intervention at the time nevertheless accomplished a paradigm shift to Mexico’s approach to migration and border security. As the U.S. Congress debates the future of the United States’ own immigration and border policy, perhaps it is time that we consider a similar path. This is a case for why this is the most ethical course of action.

The Border Patrol’s Ingrained Culture of Cruelty

Since 2004, the southern Arizona humanitarian organization No More Deaths has documented U.S. Border Patrol agents committing human rights abuses, ranging from cruel, unsafe, and unsanitary detention conditions to physical and sexual assault. Independent research funded by the Ford Foundation verifies these findings, and concludes that at least 11% of individuals who pass through Border Patrol custody experience this kind of mistreatment.

On January 17, 2018, No More Deaths, alongside Tucson’s Coalición de Derechos Humanos, issued a new report which reveals how Border Patrol agents contribute to the widespread disruption of humanitarian efforts, including the destruction of 3,586 gallons of clean drinking water placed along migration trails between 2012 and 2015. Within hours of the report’s release the Border Patrol retaliated by raiding a humanitarian aid station in Ajo, Arizona and arresting Scott Warren, a professor at Arizona State University and No More Deaths volunteer, along with the two migrants to whom he was providing care. Warren now faces felony charges under a human smuggling statute. Less than a week later, eight humanitarian volunteers received indictments for leaving clean drinking water along the “Devil’s Highway” area of the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. These acts of retaliation appear to confirm the worst allegations about the Border Patrol, including that the agency’s institutional culture maintains a fundamental contempt for the sanctity of human life. This attitude is not new, but rather has been woven into the strategy of U.S. border enforcement since at least the early 1990s.

The Border Patrol’s Harmful and Counterproductive Deterrence Strategy

In 1994, the United States Border Patrol launched a nationwide enforcement strategy, described internally as “prevention through deterrence.” The logic governing this border strategy was simple and straightforward: by ratcheting up the hardship that unauthorized migrants endure along the journey north, they might be successfully “deterred” from crossing the border altogether. This outcome was to be accomplished by weaponizing the geography and terrain of the borderlands, and concentrating agents in urban areas to push migration routes into increasingly remote and treacherous areas. At the time, then-Immigration and Naturalization Services Director Doris Meissner said, “We did believe that geography would be an ally for us. It was our sense that the number of people crossing through the Arizona desert would go down to a trickle once people realized what it’s like.”

Since 1994 at least 7,000 human beings have lost their lives attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border, and thousands more have disappeared along the journey north. For example, the Pima County, Arizona Medical Examiner’s office counts 939 unidentified remains of border-crossers found between 2001 and 2016, while the Coalición de Derechos Humanos identifies more than 1,200 unresolved missing persons cases reported to the organization during 2015 alone. The harm inflicted by the death and disappearance of migrants extends to communities across the United States, Mexico, and Central America. As the Border Patrol deploys additional military tactics and technologies along the border like drones, Forward Operating Bases, and surveillance towers, and ramps up criminal prosecution and prison time for the crime of “unauthorized entry,” migrants are forced to cross ever-more dangerous terrain–leading to a spike in the death rate.

One of the key indicators written into the Border Patrol’s 1994 strategy document meant to measure the “success” of its deterrence strategy is the price that human smugglers charge to help people successfully enter the United States. This measure is premised on the belief that the more difficult the journey becomes, the more reliant migrants will be on organized smuggling groups, who will in turn increase their rates. Over the last two decades the cost of hiring a smuggler has indeed gone up. By 2012, researchers at the University of Arizona found that this cost had increased to an average of $2,400 per person. But this outcome has only made the border more chaotic, and more dangerous.

Indeed, as early as the late 1990s, organized criminal groups previously connected to the drug trade began to consolidate their control over the human smuggling industry, fueling violence and rendering migrants increasingly vulnerable to various forms of predation including extortion, assault, robbery, kidnapping, trafficking, torture, and murder. The scale of this violence is breathtaking, producing disruptions to everyday life in border areas and across Mexico, and driving new cycles of migration.

The role of the Border Patrol’s enforcement strategy in driving, rather than deterring, migration, is much more significant than frequently acknowledged. The increasing cost of migration has resulted in smuggling fees that are far beyond the income of most people in Mexico and Central America—especially those desperate to flee violence. This has led households to take on considerable debt to finance their journey. On the one hand, the resulting debt has a disciplinary effect on undocumented workers in the United States—who try to keep their heads down, work long hours, and accept workplace abuses in order to pay back this debt as quickly as possible. On the other hand, when an individual fails in their journey north—an outcome that the Border Patrol’s strategy of prevention through deterrence seeks to make increasingly likely—families risk losing homes, land and other essential resources used as collateral for their unpaid debts. Newly published research reveals that in order to avoid financial ruin, households may increase their chances of success by sending multiple family-members north, with the hope that at least one of them will make it across the border. Rather than being deterred, those who fail on their journey are just as likely to be incentivized to attempt crossing again as quickly as possible.

The Border Patrol’s Persistent Racism and Corruption

The Border Patrol’s contributions to organized crime and unauthorized migration are not only inadvertent or indirect. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) currently reports 168 cases of Customs and Border Protection agents who have been prosecuted for “mission compromising acts of corruption,” the highest-level corruption charge that includes active cooperation with smuggling cartels. These 168 cases only include those for whom sufficient evidence was gathered to indict and prosecute, and likely reflect only a fraction of the overall problem.

Indeed, in 2014, James Tomsheck, former assistant commissioner of the Border Patrol’s Office of Internal Affairs came forward as a whistleblower, claiming that by his estimation between 5 to 10% of the agency’s workforce are now or have been at one time been actively corrupt. The implications of this claim are staggering. On the one hand, it suggests a systemic failure of oversight and accountability, which would help to explain why acts of abuse and cruelty are so commonplace. On the other hand, when between 5 and 10% of the agency’s workforce is rotten, increasing the number of enforcement personnel, as Republicans are demanding, would likely have little impact on curtailing smuggling operations. Meanwhile, the militarization of border enforcement is doing tremendous damage to those U.S. communities where the agency’s operations concentrate. Nowhere is this clearer than in the use of racial profiling.

Consider for example the town of Arivaca, Arizona, situated about 12 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border. Arivaca is surrounded on all sides by semi-permanent Border Patrol checkpoints. In the course of any and all routine activities–driving to work, attending school, visiting a doctor or a grocery store–Arivaca residents must undergo inspection by federal agents and prove their citizenship or lawful status. After years of complaining about abusive treatment, a group of locals finally came together and petitioned the Border Patrol for information on how the checkpoints are used, whether and to what degree they are effective as intended, and whether Latinxs are disproportionately stopped and investigated–only to be told that the agency doesn’t track this information.

In 2013, Arivaca’s residents took things into their own hands, setting up a campaign to directly monitor checkpoint operations and record the patterns they observed. The results of this investigation were shocking: after documenting more than 2,379 separate vehicle stops, the checkpoint observers found that Latinxs were over 26 times more likely to be asked for their papers, and nearly 20 times as likely to be referred for secondary inspection as white, Anglo passengers and drivers. Adding insult to injury, not a single observed inspection resulted in arrest–meaning all of the drivers stopped and harassed were engaged in perfectly lawful activity. 

Allegations of racial profiling are not limited to the United States’s southern border. In 2012 the American Immigration Council released a report revealing that Border Patrol agents in the state of Washington routinely monitored emergency 911 calls to identify Spanish-language speakers, and would then follow-up to investigate and detain these individuals. A 2011 report from the New York Civil Liberties Unions, meanwhile, documented systematic racial profiling by Border Patrol agents who board trains and buses along the U.S.-Canada border. The agency tracked those apprehended according to skin tone, with fully 84% recorded as being of “dark” or “medium” complexion. Agents, meanwhile, were offered gift cards to Macy’s and Home Depot as an incentive for reaching arrest quotas, resulting in hundreds of wrongful and trivial arrests.

Border Militarization is a Waste of Money

Since 1994 the annual budget for the U.S. Border Patrol has increased nine-fold, from $400 million to $3.8 billion dollars. Much of this funding has gone toward high-tech surveillance programs that the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General agree are ill-suited to the Border Patrol’s mission and to the environment and terrain that its agents patrol, and therefore fail to perform as intended. Yet whether we consider the construction of a border “wall,” the Border Patrol’s Predator B drone program, or its quest for a high-tech virtual fence, the agency’s general practice has been to throw good money after bad–doubling down on enforcement programs regardless of their efficacy, while funneling billions of taxpayer dollars to defense and security contractors. 

This pattern reflects a desire among agency brass to approach the border as a straightforward engineering problem—one that can be solved with the right mix of technology, infrastructure, and personnel. The problem, of course, is that most social problems are not engineering problems, while those in particular that drive human migration—violence, insecurity, family separation and economic inequality—cannot be meaningfully addressed, let alone resolved, by concentrating resources at the border. These social problems, rather, are spatially extensive, and require solutions that are responsive to particular local conditions.  

An Alternative Proposal for the Borderlands

When launching his presidential campaign, Donald Trump famously disparaged immigrants from Mexico, suggesting “[T]hey're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,” he said. Such flagrantly alarmist and misleading assertions are consistent with those continuously advanced by the Border Patrol and its agent’s union. For example, in late 2017 when two agents fell victim to an accident near Van Horne, Texas, the Border Patrol immediately blamed immigrants or drug smugglers, despite having no evidence to support this assertion. Even as the FBI and local investigators ruled out any kind of foul play, the agent’s union continued to spin this narrative, lashing out at the media and claiming their assertions were based on unique but unspecified insight. The Border Patrol’s claim that agents increasingly come under assault, therefore justifying the expansion of enforcement resources and authorities, is similarly dubious and unsupported by evidence –explaining why so few of these “assaults” are ever prosecuted.

Contrary to the lies circulated by the Border Patrol and its union, federal crime statistics reveal that border counties are among the safest in the United States. Instead, the forms of insecurity most pertinent to border communities are the same ones confronted across the country: poverty, racism, unemployment, outdated infrastructure, food insecurity, underfunded schools, unaffordable healthcare, unaffordable childcare, unchecked environmental pollution, and climate change.

Communities along the southern border, as elsewhere, could benefit from sustained federal investment around social issues that for too long have remained unaddressed. Rather than spending billions of federal dollars on walls, drones, and surveillance towers, why not invest this money in programs and infrastructure that will be of benefit to communities in the borderlands? At 21,370 agents, the Border Patrol itself already provides significant personnel who could be disarmed, retrained, and immediately put to work improving infrastructure, expanding Head Start and all-day kindergarten, providing meals to children and seniors, opening new centers for job training and adult education, advancing conservation and environmental restoration, and transitioning our country toward a clean energy future. Such efforts would certainly provide greater benefit and security for borderlands residents than the continued occupation of an armed, aggressive, and unaccountable federal police force.

The president’s continued lies and misrepresentation of borderlands and immigrant communities has taken us down a dark, toxic, and destructive path that is tearing at the fabric of the United States. The Border Patrol and its union have been among the chief champions of this agenda; for example, in 2016, the union broke with tradition and endorsed Trump early in the Republican primary cycle, boosting his candidacy and providing him legitimacy as a national leader. Trump and his allies in Congress have repaid the favor, attempting to funnel an almost unimaginable volume of money and resources into the hands of agents and the private security and defense contractors who support them (most recently, as a condition for continuing negotiations on the DREAM Act). Sooner or later the Trump era will come to an end, and we will have to find ways to begin to heal and reverse the tremendous harm his policies have unleashed. Turning a page on this era will require a decisive paradigm shift. We can begin by dismantling the Border Patrol.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Robert Reich | Where Is Mueller Heading? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36361"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Sunday, 25 February 2018 13:07

Reich writes: "Where is Mueller heading? In the last 10 days, he's indicted 13 Russians and 3 Russian companies, added new charges against Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chairman, secured a guilty plea from a lawyer tied to Manafort's business dealings with pro-Russian figures, and got a guilty plea from Rick Gates, Trump's former deputy chairman."

Robert Reich. (photo: Getty)
Robert Reich. (photo: Getty)


Robert Reich | Where Is Mueller Heading?

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page

25 February 18

 

here is Mueller heading? In the last 10 days, he's indicted 13 Russians and 3 Russian companies, added new charges against Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chairman, secured a guilty plea from a lawyer tied to Manafort's business dealings with pro-Russian figures, and got a guilty plea from Rick Gates, Trump's former deputy chairman.

My guess is Mueller is gaining evidence of a money-laundering scheme involving Russian oligarchs - i.e., friends of Putin -- who financed Trump via Cypress and Deutsche Bank. After 4 bankruptcies, Trump couldn't get money for his far-flung business ventures out of reputable U.S. banks.

Which increases the odds of a quid pro quo from Trump to Putin and his oligarch friends. Why else would Trump fire Comey, disparage the FBI, be outraged that Sessions recused himself from the investigation, play down Russian meddling in the 2016 election and make no move to prevent its meddling in the upcoming midterm elections, and delay sanctions?

What do you think?


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Elizabeth Warren on Her Journey From Moderate Republican to Progressive Democrat Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=47633"><span class="small">Ryan Grim, The Intercept</span></a>   
Sunday, 25 February 2018 11:51

Grim writes: "Elizabeth Warren's first political memory is from around the time she was 6 years old, listening to stories about the Great Depression from her grandmother, Hannie Crawford Reed."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren. (photo: Michael Dwyer/AP)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren. (photo: Michael Dwyer/AP)


Elizabeth Warren on Her Journey From Moderate Republican to Progressive Democrat

By Ryan Grim, The Intercept

25 February 18

 

lizabeth Warren’s first political memory is from around the time she was 6 years old, listening to stories about the Great Depression from her grandmother, Hannie Crawford Reed.

“They lost money when those banks closed up,” she said of her grandparents and others in her extended family in Oklahoma. “They watched these little towns shrivel up when the bank was gone. There was no money, there were no jobs. So my grandmother used to say one thing that was political that I can remember. She’d say, ‘Franklin Roosevelt made it safe to put money in banks,’ and she would say, ‘And he did a lot of other things, too.’”

The Depression loomed especially large in her family lore. “I wasn’t born until long after the Depression, until after World War II, but I grew up as a child of the Depression, because my grandmother and grandfather, my aunts, my uncles, my mom and my dad, all my older cousins had lived through the Depression. And it was such a searing experience in Oklahoma, that the Depression hung around our family like a shroud. It was always there,” she said.

As a politician from Massachusetts, Warren has had little incentive to talk about her time growing up in Oklahoma or her early years as a young mom in Texas. But they were formative political experiences, which Warren spoke of at length in a recent interview with The Intercept. Oklahoma, when Warren was a child in the 1950s, was still home to a vibrant movement of populist, prairie Democrats.

“I grew up on the stories [about] my oldest brother,” she said, recalling the family’s harrowing survival of the 1930s, when the dust bowl laid waste to Oklahoma. “Mother used to tell this story about how she’d put Don Reed to sleep and she would wet a sheet — a big regular bed sheet — and she would drape it across his crib so that it went across the top and hung down on the sides to protect him from the dust. And she would come back a few hours later, and the sheet would be dry and stiff and covered with caked mud. And that’s how they lived,” she said.

“Out on the farms, the ground was so dry for so long that the ground would crack open enough that a calf could fall in, so farmers took to walking the land to make sure they hadn’t lost an animal.”

If she had to guess, she said, she would say that her parents were populist Democrats, fond of FDR, but they never discussed partisan politics. The subject was not a part of her 20s or 30s, either. Warren married young, at the age of 19, and two years later had her first daughter, Amelia, who’d later become her co-author. (The mother-daughter duo co-wrote the 2003 book “The Two-Income Trap” and 2005’s “All Your Worth.”) But at the time, the responsibility of caring for her new daughter was an obstacle between Warren and her plans to go to law school. Amelia was 2 when Warren started at Rutgers University and was along for the ride, eventually with younger brother Alexander, as Warren would grow to become a professor, author, researcher — and now senator and potential White House contender.

****

In early polling on the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary, Warren and Bernie Sanders, representing the Democrats’ progressive flank, consistently garner at least 40 percent of the vote between them. The rest are scattered among other hopefuls, ranging all the way from Kirsten Gillibrand to Oprah Winfrey and The Rock.

But while Sanders and Warren may have wound up in similar spots on the ideological spectrum, at least in the public eye, they took very different routes to get there. Sanders took a traditional path, reading Marx and throwing himself into the civil rights, antiwar, and environmental movements, followed by support of indigenous movements in Central America in the 1980s. He kept an arms-length relationship with the Democratic Party, willing to engage in electoral politics, but not on the party’s terms — caucusing with it while in the House and Senate, but never formally joining.

Warren, by contrast, was for decades what a political consultant might refer to as an infrequent voter, often missing midterms and primaries. And, despite her formidable education and intellect, she was a low-information one at that.

Her first presidential vote, in 1972, had been cast against a man she said she disliked passionately, Richard Nixon. But reflecting on how little she had paid attention to day-to-day politics at the time, she couldn’t immediately recall who had been running against him. When told it was Democrat George McGovern, she said, Yes, she would have voted for him but didn’t have any specific memory of having done so. (She was living in New Jersey at the time.)

Going to the polls, she said, was nothing new for her. Warren’s mother had been a poll worker and brought her young daughter to the polls each Election Day.

Nixon was re-elected that year, of course, but resigned and was replaced by Gerald Ford. Warren said she had voted for him in 1976, believing that “Ford was a decent man.”

But she was happy with Jimmy Carter, who beat him. “I thought he [also] was a decent man,” she said, transferring her then-standard for what she wanted in a politician from Ford to Carter. “He was a really good man.”

As the ’80s wore on and her research on bankruptcy progressed, Warren started waking up politically. At the time, though, the two parties had yet to separate entirely along ideological lines, as some deeply conservative and racist Democrats still held office, as did some genuinely liberal Republicans.

In 1988, Warren voted for Michael Dukakis but, in 1992, split her ticket, voting for Republican Arlen Specter for Senate and Democrat Bill Clinton for president. Specter is a good example of the one-time flexibility of the party system and the politicians within it: He began and ended his career as a Democrat, but was a Republican for much of the middle of it.

By the fall of 1987, she had moved to Pennsylvania and registered there as a Republican. Warren said she couldn’t quite remember why she did it but that she was a fan of Specter. “Again, I thought he was a decent man,” she said. She couldn’t recall whom he ran against. (His Democratic opponent was Lynn Yeakel.)

That GOP registration, though, has set off speculation over the years that one of the Senate’s most progressive champions may have at one time been a Ronald Reagan backer.

So we asked her: Is it true? Is it possible the champion of the regulatory cops on Wall Street voted for the man who made deregulation a hallmark of his presidency?

No.

In 1980, she said, she was a registered independent living in Missouri City, Texas, and cast her vote to re-elect Carter.

When Reagan won, she wasn’t happy but not crushed the way she was on election night in 2016. “I was disappointed and didn’t like him, but I wasn’t deeply worried for the country, not anything like when Trump was elected,” she explained. If she could go back in time, she said, she would tell herself “this was a far more pivotal historical moment than you understand.”

****

Indeed, her most recent book divides the 20th century into two pivotal epochs, 1935 to 1980 and 1980 to 2016.

As that history was unfolding before her, she was becoming increasingly aware of what was going wrong with the country. In 1978, Warren divorced, remarrying within two years. In 1981, she began working with Jay Westbrook and Terry Sullivan on what would become a lifelong project investigating the causes of bankruptcy, a study that continues up through today.

Warren said that when she went into her bankruptcy work, she was to the right of her collaborators. Westbrook confirmed that recollection. “I would have said when I first met her that she was closer to being a moderate Republican. She never said that to me in so many words that I remember, but if somebody had said, Hey, Jay, what are Liz’s politics? I’d have said, Well, I don’t know, but I’d guess that she’s a moderate Republican,” Westbrook said.

“When we went into the whole consumer bankruptcy thing, I think her attitude was very much balanced between, on the one hand, no doubt there are people who have difficulties and they’re struggling and so forth, and on the other hand, by golly, you ought to pay your debts, and probably some of these people are not being very committed to doing what they ought to do.”

Warren said that doing the work changed her politics.

“Terry and Jay went into that with a pretty sympathetic lens that these are people, let’s take a look, give them the benefit of the doubt that they had fallen on hard times,” she said. “I was the skeptic on the team.”

Her own experience shaped how she saw the families she was studying. Raised on what she has called “the ragged edge of the middle class,” she was the youngest of four, with three significantly older brothers. When she was 12, her father had a heart attack and lost his job, throwing the family into financial turmoil. The car was lost and the family house was on the line when her mother was able to get a minimum wage job at Sears, which paid enough at the time to keep the family afloat until her father could recover. She talks often about the experience today to make a variety of points — both to demonstrate that she knows what it means to struggle, but also to talk about how a fairer economy and a more robust minimum wage made it possible for her family to survive.

In the early 1980s, it shaped her worldview differently. “I had grown up in a family that had been turned upside down economically, a family that had run out of money more than once when there were still bills to pay and kids to feed — but my family had never filed for bankruptcy,” she said. “So I approached it from the angle that these are people who may just be taking advantage of the system. These are people who aren’t like my family. We pulled our belts tighter, why didn’t they pull their belts tighter?”

But then she dug into the stories of those who had. “Then we start digging into the data and reading the files and recording the numbers and analyzing what’s going on, and the world slowly starts to shift for me, and I start to see these families as like mine — hard-working people who have built something, people who have done everything they were supposed to do the way they were supposed to do it,” she said. Now they “had been hit by a job loss, a serious medical problem, a divorce or death in the family, and had hurtled over a financial cliff. And when I looked at the numbers, I began to understand the alternative for people in bankruptcy was not to work a little harder and pay off your debt. The alternative was to stay in debt and live with collection calls and repossessions until the day you die. And that’s when it began to change for me.”

Westbrook, who has spent years in bankruptcy courtrooms, said that the same phenomenon routinely happens with judges. Even a lawyer who spends their career before the bench as a lawyer for creditors gradually shifts, he said, under the weight of seeing, day after day, good families destroyed by bad luck.

From there, said Warren, she zoomed out from the particular stories of hardship she was encountering and began asking why she was seeing so much more of it in the 1980s than she had before.

“This happens over the space of a decade, I began to open up the questions I asked. I started with the question of the families who use bankruptcy. But over time it becomes, So why are bankruptcies going up in America?” she said. “The numbers just keep climbing every year to where we’re getting well over a million families each year filing for bankruptcy. Because people — this is the other half of it — people have lost jobs and gotten sick and been divorced for decades, but bankruptcy filings had stayed far lower. What was changing in the 1980s and 1990s? What difference was there in America?”

The answer to that question, she said, led her to become a Democrat. “I start to do the work on how incomes stay flat and core expenses go up, and families do everything they can to cope with the squeeze. They quit saving. They go deeper and deeper into debt, but the credit card companies and payday lenders and subprime mortgage outfits figure out there’s money to be made here, and they come after these families and pick their bones clean. And that’s who ends up in bankruptcy. So that’s how it expands out. And by then I’m a Democrat,” she said.

****

By the mid-’90s, she had accepted a job at Harvard and by then was a full-fledged, registered Democrat, she said, a claim backed up by voter registration records.

Westbrook pinpointed her turn toward becoming a partisan Democrat to her appointment to the National Bankruptcy Review Commission. Being a part of that panel, he said, put her into contact with high-level politics in a way that she’d never been before. Her work on that commission led to her subsequent lobbying around bankruptcy reform.

Becoming a partisan is difficult for a scholar, Westbrook said. Academic researchers start with a question, collect data, analyze it, and form a conclusion. Partisans start with a conclusion — say, taxes are too high or spending on infrastructure is too — and find data to back it up.

That could partially explain why Warren has not in fact proven to be a reliable partisan, willing to criticize President Barack Obama for being too soft on Wall Street, or then-Sen. Hillary Clinton for voting the wrong way on bankruptcy reform.

After the financial crash, as she stepped up her lobbying on behalf of her brainchild, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, she thought back to those moments at the knee of Grandma Hannie. Barney Frank, then-House Financial Services Committee chair, told Warren that he wanted to regulate the banks before turning to the consumer bureau.

“One of the earliest conversations we had about how to think about financial reform in the wake of the 2008 crash was, What goes first? What’s the first thing we need to think about? And Barney wanted to start with the nonbank financial institutions,” she said, “and stronger regulations over the largest, too-big-to-fail banks.”

Warren agreed that the argument made sense on a policy level, but politically, it was important to win people’s trust. “I argued back to Barney that we needed to start where the crash had started, and where families understood it and felt it and that was, family by family, mortgage by mortgage, how those giant banks had taken down the economy. He and I were kind of going back and forth and then I said, ‘Barney, let me tell you about my grandmother,’ and I told him that story,” she said. “Once he made it safe to put money in banks, my grandmother trusted Franklin Roosevelt. And so my argument to Barney was, Start where people will understand what we’re trying to do. And that’s with the consumer agency. And Barney sat there for maybe — you know Barney, he has the quickest mind on earth — he cocked his head, it took about 3 seconds and he said, ‘You’re right. We’ll start with the consumer agency.'”

It was uncanny insight for a politician, and it was made possible, perhaps, by the decades she spent before becoming one. If Warren’s launch into politics is accurately pinpointed to 1995 with her commission appointment, that would mean that well into her 40s, she was still living, voting, and thinking, politically speaking, at least, like a regular person. That’s an unusual path for a politician.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Nasty, Brutish and Trump Print
Sunday, 25 February 2018 09:57

Krugman writes: "On Wednesday, after listening to the heart-rending stories of those who lost children and friends in the Parkland school shooting - while holding a cue card with empathetic-sounding phrases - Donald Trump proposed his answer: arming schoolteachers."

Students staged a
Students staged a "lie-in" outside the White House on Monday to promote gun control reform. (photo: Zach Gibson/Getty)


Nasty, Brutish and Trump

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times

25 February 18

 

n Wednesday, after listening to the heart-rending stories of those who lost children and friends in the Parkland school shooting — while holding a cue card with empathetic-sounding phrases — Donald Trump proposed his answer: arming schoolteachers.

It says something about the state of our national discourse that this wasn’t even among the vilest, stupidest reactions to the atrocity. No, those honors go to the assertions by many conservative figures that bereaved students were being manipulated by sinister forces, or even that they were paid actors.

Still, Trump’s horrible idea, taken straight from the N.R.A. playbook, was deeply revealing — and the revelation goes beyond issues of gun control. What’s going on in America right now isn’t just a culture war. It is, on the part of much of today’s right, a war on the very concept of community, of a society that uses the institution we call government to offer certain basic protections to all its members.


READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Sponsors Flee From NRA After Corporate America Second-Guesses Association With Organization Promoting Mass Murder Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=44994"><span class="small">Bess Levin, Vanity Fair</span></a>   
Sunday, 25 February 2018 09:54

Levin writes: "If there's one clear point that's emerged from the Parkland shooting, it's that change in gun-control policy is not going to come from Washington politicians."

NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre, who believes the N.R.A. is the only one that truly cares about the children. (photo: Getty)
NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre, who believes the N.R.A. is the only one that truly cares about the children. (photo: Getty)


Sponsors Flee From NRA After Corporate America Second-Guesses Association With Organization Promoting Mass Murder

By Bess Levin, Vanity Fair

25 February 18


Companies are severing ties with the National Rifle Association en masse.

f there’s one clear point that’s emerged from the Parkland shooting, it’s that change in gun-control policy is not going to come from Washington politicians. Exhibit A: even as he was being absolutely flayed by teenagers during a town-hall debate on Wednesday night, Senator Marco Rubio, whose constituents were murdered in the massacre, refused to say he would stop taking donations from the National Rifle Association, a group whose primary purpose is to influence gun legislation. But another notion that’s come out of the tragedy is that kids too young to vote are going to do the job their representatives—whose ability to walk upright sans spines continues to defy logic—will not. And because we’re living in the era of social media, they’re going to do it through the president’s favorite social-networking service.

After many of the Parkland survivors got the ball rolling by telling politicians exactly what they thought of their policies via Twitter, activist Michael Skolnik posted a list of companies offering discounts to N.R.A. members and requested that his followers “please tell them nicely to end their partnership,” using the hashtag #BoycottNRA. The hashtag quickly jumped to the top of the trending section, with concrete consequences: since then, Enterprise Holdings, Wyndham Hotel Group, security systems maker Simplisafe, LifeLock owner Symantec, and insurance giant MetLife have all cut ties with the organization. “Symantec has stopped its discount program with the National Rifle Association,” a company spokesperson told Bloomberg, while a spokesman from MetLife said, “we value all our customers but have decided to end our discount program with the N.R.A.”

Meanwhile, First National Bank of Omaha, which for the last decade has issued N.R.A.-branded cards that provide a cash-back bonus equivalent to the group’s annual membership fee, announced on Thursday that it will no longer serve as the “official credit card of the N.R.A.” BlackRock, the world‘s largest asset manager whose C.E.O. urged companies in January to prioritize social responsibility, told CNBC that in the wake of calls from investors who don’t want their money associated with the gun industry, the firm is “working with clients who want to exclude from their portfolios weapons manufacturers or other companies that don’t align with their values.” On Friday, insurer Chubb said it had notified the N.R.A three months ago that it would “discontinue participation in the N.R.A. Carry Guard insurance program under the terms of our contract.”

(Others have stood by the organization; “Our company provides discounted rooms to several large associations, including the N.R.A.,” Tim Hentschel, the co-founder of HotelPlanner.com, said in a statement, adding, “These associations greatly benefit our customers by buying discounted rooms from groups that might otherwise be charged a penalty by hotels for not using all of the rooms in their block,” which is apparently the worst thing that can happen to a person, short of not getting a chocolate on their pillow during turndown service.)

So far there’s little evidence that the Twitter-shaming campaign will have a huge effect on the N.R.A.’s bottom line—after all, they still have millions of paying members. But it has had a cultural impact, reinforcing the idea that the N.R.A. ought to be barred from polite society. It’s also more proof that any policy change will start not in Washington, but elsewhere; as Andrew Ross Sorkin opined on Monday, the way to really stick it to the N.R.A.—which, in an amazing bit of delusion, said this week that gun control advocates “don’t care about our schoolchildren” and are simply pushing their agenda to “make all of us less free”—is through the banks. In his column, Sorkin noted that since the finance industry collectively has “more leverage over the gun industry than any lawmaker,” it would make sense for credit-card companies, credit-card processors, and banks to effectively cut gun sellers off at the knees by changing the terms of their services to state that they “won’t do business with retailers that sell assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and bump stocks”—something PayPal, Square, Stripe and Apple Pay did years ago.

It’s not like there isn’t precedent: earlier this month, Bank of America, Citigroup, and JPMorgan Chase banned using their cards for the purchase of cryptocurrencies. And from what we can tell, Bitcoin is just a little less dangerous than a semiautomatic rifle.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 Next > End >>

Page 1330 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