Subscribe via RSS Feed

Category: General

Women and Contraception: Continuing to Cause Wingers to Lose What Remains of their Minds

[ 33 ] May 3, 2013 | Scott Lemieux

Shorter* Andrea Tantaros: The Obama administration eliminated arbitrary obstacles for women 15 or over who want to obtain emergency contraception because he HATES FREEDOM. The federal government should get out of our lives by imposing my bizarre views about human sexuality on everybody.

*Note: any attempt to summarize this ludicrously incoherent chain of buzzword non-sequiturs is to vastly overstate their coherence. The editors regret the excessive charity, also reflected by not even getting into the most offensive part of the idiotic rant in question.

[Via Atrois]

Alito Defined

[ 18 ] May 3, 2013 | Scott Lemieux

Hogan, on Alito’s work from earlier this week:

It’s like Kafka and Heller had a baby, sent it off to be raised by rabid hyenas, and it grew up to become a Supreme Court justice.

See also Alito’s criminal procedure jurisprudence, passim.

A Broken Justice System and the Supreme Court’s Indifference

[ 59 ] May 3, 2013 | Scott Lemieux

Perhaps the most compelling story in Karen Houppert’s superb Chasing Gideon is Greg Bright’s.   Bright spend nearly 30 years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit, based on evidence weaker than the “evidence” that convicted Cameron Todd Willingham. The state had no physical evidence, a credible alternative theory based on people who (unlike Bright) had a motive, and its case rested solely on the eyewitness testimony of an exceedingly impeachable witness.  How did this happen?

Partly, this was the result of one New Orleans specialty, gross prosecutorial misconduct.  The state suppressed the police reports showing that they had been pursuing another more plausible lead, that the eyewitness who was their sole source of evidence had told multiple, radically different stories about what happened, and most importantly that said eyewitness was not only a convicted felon (under a different identity) but a paranoid schizophrenic.  (The trial was actually delayed because the witness was in a mental hospital, so these issues were well-known to the state.)

And yet, Bright’s story is the centerpiece of a book about the right the counsel because, even with the systematic violations of the Brady rule, any mildly competent defense lawyer should have been able to get a not-guilty verdict.   Bright’s public defender, however, failed to visit the crime scene where he would have seen that the witness couldn’t have seen what she claimed, to prepare any substantive opening or closing statements, to call Bright’s alibi witnesses, or to conduct an effective cross-examination of a paranoid schizophrenic who had never told the same story twice.  And nor was this the story of one bad apple.   Louisiana’s system for providing counsel to the indigent pretty much guaranteed these miscarriages of justice.  By paying a flat fee to lawyers, appointed by local judges, who had to divide time between paying and non-paying clients, the state pretty much guaranteed that countless people accused of serious crimes would receive an inadequate defense.  It should also be noted that Bright was finally released from prison not based on findings by anybody within the Louisiana criminal justice system, but because the Innocence Project happened to open an office in Louisiana.

All of this background also says something about contemporary judicial conservatism this well.  Earlier this week, using classic Alito authoritarian zen koans (“but what if the delay wasn’t about the underfunded public counsel system, but about the defense complaining about the underfunded public counsel system, man?”) the Supreme Court rejected an opportunity to make it clear to states that the failure to provide counsel would weigh against the state for the purposes of the speedy trial clause of the Sixth Amendment.   And in an even more egregious 2011 case, the Court’s Republican appointees strained as hard as they could to ensure that nobody could be held accountable for appalling prosecutorial misconduct by the New Orleans district attorney’s office.   When the institutions charged with supervising Louisiana don’t care about its violations of the Bill of Rights, it’s hard for the system to improve.

Sherpa Exploitation

[ 158 ] May 3, 2013 | Erik Loomis

When we think of labor, we probably don’t really think of the Sherpas, who guide climbers up Mt. Everest and other high Himalayan peaks. But in fact, the climbers often treat the Sherpas like beasts of burden. It is very dangerous work and Sherpa deaths are far from uncommon. The Sherpas aren’t organizing into a union or anything like that, but they do sometimes get sick and tired of being treated like animals. A group of Sherpas got into a fight with the climbers they guided when the climbers didn’t listen to them and kicked ice down the mountain at them. That the climbers are largely very rich people and the Sherpas very poor has also caused resentment. This is a thoughtful overview of the issue from a climber’s perspective.

As a side note, it’s been my experience that mountain climbers and even rock climbers are the least pleasant group of people you meet in the outdoors world. Both are dominated by highly masculine cultures that revel in the challenge of conquering something and are too often indifferent to the rest of the natural world out there, not to mention the pollution and other problems they can cause. When you add in the extreme wealth of high-end mountain climbing, the potential for jerks can be quite high.

….Note–this story makes it clear that the fight was between solo climbers and the Sherpas who were working for a different group.

This Day in Labor History: May 3, 1911

[ 20 ] May 3, 2013 | Erik Loomis

On May 3, 1911, Wisconsin created the first workers compensation program, followed almost immediately by Washington and most of the Northwestern states. This was the beginning of a system, albeit quite limited even now, to compensate workers properly when they are injured or killed on the job.

The 19th century was terribly dangerous for workers. The 1842 Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in Farwell v. The Boston and Worcester Rail Road Company codified the doctrine of risk for workers on the job, saying that employers had no responsibility for workplace injuries or death because workers agreed to take on the risk when they took the job. This decision comes out of the growth of northern free labor ideology, which essentially held that each individual had the right and responsibility to control one’s own labor and contract it out if they wished. But after the Civil War, with the rapid growth of industrialization, the reality of the American workplace meant gruesome injuries and horrible deaths spun out of control in steel mills, on railroads, in meatpacking plants, in coal mines, and really everywhere through the workforce.

As a scholar of logging, let’s look at how a couple of loggers died. On August 28, 1905, Clise Houston reached to clear an obstruction from the saw he worked when he fell into it, killing him. Finnish immigrant John Koski found a job with the Simpson Logging Company in a camp near Matlock, Washington. On June 18, 1904 nearby tree fallers shouted “Timber!” Perhaps Koski’s engagement in his own work did not allow him to hear the fallers. Or perhaps he had a poor knowledge of the English language and could not understand the shout. He did not move and the tree landed directly on top of him, crushing him almost beyond recognition. Koski had no family in America and his co-workers had no way to inform his relations in Finland of his demise. The company paid for the burial. Karl Carlson worked in the Anderson & Middleton mill in Aberdeen, Washington. In 1905, a belt fell off its course and Carlson tried to guide it back on to the pulley with a shovel. The shovel became entangled with the belt and he lost control of it. The machine tore the shovel from his hands and plunged it, handle first, through his body. Carlson died the following day, leaving behind a wife and child.

Shingleweaver in timber mill with his remaining fingers, circa 1910s

Workers began fighting back though through the courts. Although most courts stood by Farwell, after 1900, judge and juries began loosening the restrictions and granting payouts to workers. Again, let’s look at logging in the Pacific Northwest. Timber executives breathed a sigh of relief in 1901 when a Lewis County, Washington judge dismissed a case filed by a mill sawyer who sued for $6000 over the loss of three fingers. The company denied responsibility because the sawyer assumed the risk when he took the job. But in 1904, a Washington court granted a worker who lost both legs in a mill accident $50,000, leading George Cornwall, the publisher of the timber magazine The Timberman, to complain about personal injury laws “causing a flood of litigation of a very questionable character.” Moreover, beginning with the 1898 case Holden v. Hardy, when the Supreme Court upheld a Utah court decision which upheld a law limiting smelter workers hours due to the toxic nature of fumes, courts began slowly, though inconsistently, moving toward a doctrine of state regulation of workplace health and safety.

Washington first introduced a bill for workers compensation in 1909; Cornwall announced his support to protect the industry from the growing number of lawsuits filed by “ambulance chaser lawyers.” Ralph Clement Bryant, professor of forestry at Yale University, summed up the industry’s desire for a new system, noting that lawsuits “usually proved expensive to all concerned, often resulting….in granting heavy damages to those who were not entitled to them.”

Thus, soon after Wisconsin passed its law, the Pacific Northwest states followed, with Washington leading the way and seven additional states by the end of 1911. Angry employers who resented any responsibility for workplace conditions immediately sued in Wisconsin, but the state Supreme Court upheld the law in November 1911. Oregon paid out its first death claim in July 1914, after Julian Mason died while working for the Nibley-Mimnaugh Lumber Company of Wallowa, Oregon. His widow received $30 a month until remarriage, when she would receive a $300 lump sum. The final state to pass a workers’ comp law? Mississippi (big surprise!) in 1948. Until 1917, these laws were participatory for employers, but after the Supreme Court ruled the laws constitutional in that year, states changed the laws to make workers compensation required for most workers.

Interestingly, much of organized labor was quite suspicious of workers’ compensation laws because the AFL and other relatively conservative elements in the labor movement thought social welfare programs would undermine the independence of the American worker to control his (and they meant his) own labor. This despite the obvious changes in the American economy that made American workers almost helpless in the face of modern corporate capitalism. They didn’t like that employees could no longer sue corporations for damages. Labor leaders were also not convinced that employers would take advantage of lower premium rates by making workplaces safer. But Samuel Gompers convinced the AFL to reverse its opposition to these laws in 1909.

What the workers compensation laws did ultimately was to limit liability for employers. Washington’s workers compensation law only provided minimal compensation, leading to questioning the humane side of the law. One worker missed twenty-four days after an injury. He lost $108 in wages and his medical expenses came to $19.50. His state compensation amounted to $27.65. Another missed fifty-five days. He lost $192.50 in wages and had medical expenses of $55.50. He received $63.45 from the state. Although better than no compensation, workers arguably had a better chance for a fair financial settlement through the courts than the state systems.

The American workers compensation system has never properly compensated people suffering from workplace injuries or the families of those killed on the job. Yet at least it is a sign that the government felt some responsibility for the care of injured workers.

Note as well that this is also a taste of my theoretically forthcoming book (someday!) on timber unions and the environment, as most of this post is drawn directly out of that project.

This is the 58th post in this series. The rest are archived here.

A Hack With One Fewer Conflict Of Interest

[ 44 ] May 3, 2013 | Scott Lemieux

Howie Kurtz fired has decided to move in a different direction towards a more proactive paradigm.

One could argue that the smear of Collins, special mix of loathsomeness and incompetence that it was, was not in itself a firable offense. (I’m not sure I would be the one, but I can imagine it.) When combined with the relentless submediocrity of his body of work, though…

Vintage Aesthetic Stalinism

[ 128 ] May 2, 2013 | Erik Loomis

This is good old school David Brooks-era Weekly Standard:

For the last few years, America has experienced a revival in swing dancing. Big bands and young neo-swing “jump and jive” groups like the Cherry Poppin’ Daddies — who are currently receiving airplay on rock radio and selling ten thousand copies a week of their Zoot Suit Riot album — are once again playing the music of Count Basie, Glenn Miller, Louis Jordan, and Cab Calloway in clubs and ballrooms jammed to the walls with jitterbuggers, most of them in their teens, twenties, and thirties. Indeed, the phenomenon has gotten so big that the Gap clothing store is running an ad featuring jitterbuggers lindy-hopping to Louis Prima’s 1956 “Jump, Jive, and Wail.”

This is good news for conservatives. If swing takes over pop culture the way rock-and-roll did in the early 1950s, it could do more to repair the cultural damage of the last thirty years than the war on drugs, the Republican Congress, and the Christian Coalition combined.

I am glad the long-lived cultural relevance of the Cherry Poppin’ Daddies heralded the rise of a conservative, backward-looking culture that prioritized white people, fedoras, and dresses that showed enough to turn on Bobo’s employees but not so much as the make those women likely users of Plan B.

I would also like to note that in I believe 1994, I was on a city league basketball team with the saxophone player from Cherry Poppin’ Daddies.

Leave No Strawfeminist Unburned

[ 12 ] May 2, 2013 | Scott Lemieux

I guess on one level it’s hard to blame Katie Roiphe for relying on the same tired schtick for decades since it still pays well, but Jesus enough already. Not that “allow me to attack an argument that isn’t being made in order to tell lies about how sexism no longer exists” was even interesting once.

Someone is Wrong on the Internet

[ 68 ] May 2, 2013 | bspencer

Please note the date, because it’s not often you’ll see me telling me someone that he is is “wrong” about art (if, for all intents and purposes, we’re including sitcoms under the umbrella of “art”).

In my thread about conservative reaction to pop culture, I note that “Frasier” succeeded as a spin-off because

I think the genius of that show lay in making Niles Frasier x 2 rather than his kooky opposite.

To which a commenter responded

No the genius was in making the retired cop father smarter than both his sons put together.

No. Wrong. Super-duper extra triple double-dog WRONG. The reason “Frasier” succeeded is because it spit in the face of convention. Convention would have had Frasier ping-ponging off of his sloppy hippy-dippy or ultra-conservative sibling. That he was always butting heads with an exaggerated doppleganger instead was the show’s strength. The competition between Frasier and Niles was the show’s lifeblood; it was where half the show’s plotlines came from.

The NRA’s New President

[ 61 ] May 2, 2013 | Erik Loomis

The NRA has a new president. He is very special. Jim Porter is an Alabama lawyer. He is also a neo-Confederate Obama-hater who talks about “the war of northern aggression,” describes the NRA as “warriors for freedom,” and makes references to squealing pigs.

At least the NRA is avoiding stereotypes.

Early Republican Views of Race and Freedom

[ 26 ] May 2, 2013 | Erik Loomis

When we think of the Republican Party in its early years, we often think of it as a party of freedom because it opposed slavery. But that’s way too simplistic on a number of levels. The Republican Party was rife with internal factions over just what opposition to slavery meant. Many did not want to interfere with slavery in the states and simply wanted to keep it out of the territories. Others felt blacks and whites could not live together and promoted colonization, including Abraham Lincoln until well into his presidency. Once that freedom was achieved, what did freedom mean? Was it truly the ability to control your own labor? What was the limitations that race placed upon free labor? These were all highly contested questions.

It wasn’t just black and white either, as Stacey Smith shows in her Disunion piece on the California laws to bind Native American labor to whites, something that was only eliminated with great reluctance by supposedly free California. The core paragraphs:

The incomplete nature of Indian emancipation in California reflected Republicans’ own ambivalence toward Indian freedom. Most Republicans opposed the kidnapping and enslavement of Indians. They believed that Indians, like former African-American slaves, should be entitled to reap the economic rewards of their own work. On the other hand, they asserted that the key to “civilizing” Indians was to force them to participate in the California labor market. They could not be free to support themselves through traditional mobile hunting and gathering practices that removed their labor from white supervision and tied up valuable natural resources. Such a lifestyle was, in Republicans’ minds, little more than idle vagrancy. Just as their Republican colleagues on the East Coast argued that ex-slaves should be schooled to labor by being bound to plantation wage work through long-term contracts, California Republicans began to advocate compulsory labor as the only way to cure Indian vagrancy.

The Republican vision for Indian freedom quickly took shape after the Civil War. Republican appointees who oversaw California’s Indian reservations compelled all able-bodied Indians to work on the reservation farms. Those who refused, or who pursued native food-gathering practices, forfeited the meager federal rations allotted to reservation Indians. By 1867, one Republican agent declared that “the hoe and the broadaxe will sooner civilize and Christianize than the spelling book and the Bible.” He advocated forcing Indians to work until they had been “humanized by systematic labor.” These policies persisted long after the war. At Round Valley Reservation, one critic observed in 1874 that “compulsion is used to keep the Indians and to drive them to work.” Indian workers received no payment for “labor and no opportunity to accumulate individual property.”

As African-Americans learned in late 1865 when they demanded and were denied land and control over their own future, even most northern Republican whites were compelled by white supremacy to support stark racial difference ensconced into the law. We see this all over. John Chivington, the architect of the Sand Creek Massacre, was an abolitionist. Lots of Republicans were perfectly happy to go along with the Compromise of 1876 that effectively let the South control its own race relations now that slavery was in fact dead. Northern Republicans believed that African-Americans proper place was on plantations working for whites. They should just be paid a bit for it. The racial and ethnic exploitation of northern factories after the war was just another side of this.

Bangladesh in Historical Perspective

[ 77 ] May 2, 2013 | Erik Loomis

M.T. Anderson has an excellent essay placing the tragedy in Bangladesh, now with over 400 dead, into its proper historical context

Again and again we see the same pattern, which stretches back to the original hiring of rural New England girls to operate the first spinning and weaving machines. The girls were delighted, for the most part, to leave behind rural drudgery. After a few decades, management began various cost-cutting measures that eventually became untenable. Labor activism spread rapidly and was countered, sometimes brutally. To avoid increased expenses associated with labor reform, the mill managers essentially would flush their working population and pull in a new one. Protestants were flushed in favor of destitute Catholics. The Irish were hired in the same New England mills in the 1840s, and then, when they became too demanding, the French Canadians, the Italians — waves of immigrants, one after the other.

In this way, for the last 200 years, garment manufacturing has flowed from ethnicity to ethnicity, as well as from region to region, from New England to the Middle Atlantic states, from North to South. Each group, when it begins to demand more accountability and a living wage, is discarded. Manufacturing change flows quickly to stay ahead of legislative change. Like water, industrial management seeks a route of least resistance — eventually flowing out of our shores altogether in the 1990s and, finally, flooding (among many other places) the alluvial plains of Bangladesh.

Only when we demand accountability from the clothing operators no matter where they site their factories will this cycle come to an end. That accountability must include real civil and criminal penalties in corporations’ country of origin when they benefit from unsafe working conditions at their local subcontractors.

Here’s another good piece on the local employer/thug who owned the collapsed factory and how he took advantage of the clothing industry’s economic imperatives to create an empire for himself based upon exploiting people. He may be the most hated man in Bangladesh, but as Bangladeshis know, there are more of them out there and they will continue to hurt people until the clothing industry becomes accountable for the system it fosters.

And for whatever it’s worth, the Pope has condemned the entire system of garment employment in Bangladesh as “slave labor.” Of course, if the Catholic Church transferred 1% of the energy it spends fighting reproductive choice and gay rights to workplace rights and social justice, we might get somewhere.

Page 10 of 787« First...89101112203040...Last »
  • Switch to our mobile site