Minority Report

Bill Frist, Comedian

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist actually wrote this in a letter to Harry Reid:

"I sincerely hope the Senate minority does not intend to escalate its judicial obstruction to potential Supreme Court nominees," Dr. Frist said in introducing his proposal on the floor. "That would be a terrible blow to constitutional principles and to political civility in America."

Says the man who threatened the "nuclear option" if the Senate Democrats didn't sufficiently cow to their demands. Says the man who suggested that the other party is against religion. Demanding civility now is like knocking someone's teeth out and expecting them to be grateful.

Not Serving Bin Ladens at Denny's

You'd think after all of the racial discrimination at Denny's in the early 1990s, that the company would have learned its lesson by now. They settled the lawsuits, they brought minorities into executive management positions, they made a boatload of contributions to minority organizations. They even brag about how all 70,000 Denny's corporate and franchise employees, both management and non-management, have received their "award-winning" diversity training. Well, they may not be discriminating against Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics any more, but clearly they must have left out the section on Arab Americans:

The seven men say they went to Fernandez's restaurant in Florida City, on the southern tip of the Florida peninsula, about 2 a.m. Jan. 11, 2004. They say they were seated, given menus and received their drink orders. But an hour later, their food hadn't arrived. One of the men — Ehab Albaradi — approached Ascano and inquired about the group's order, the lawsuit says.

Ascano allegedly said: "Bin Laden is the manager of the kitchen" and "Bin Laden is in charge."

Albaradi and a second man, Usama El-A-Baidy, decided to speak to Ascano again about their order.

Angered, Ascano told the short order cooks in the kitchen to cancel the group's order, the suit claims.

El-A-Baidy then asked Ascano why he had used the name bin Laden.

"We don't serve bin Ladens here! You guys, out!" Ascano allegedly said.

Because It's the Right Thing to Do, Dammit.

Suresh in the comments makes note of another important pressure point:

Actually another sucessful campaign against similar jerks in philly was run by targeting advertisers: basically calling up companies that advertise on the radio show and telling them what their advertising is going towards.

Absolutely. I guess the reason I wasn't thinking about it was because since I'm in Pittsburgh, I've got no idea who the advertisers are or even anyone I could ask to find out.  Definitely hitting the advertisers will hurt their bottom line. Hitting them on anything that they care about matters. The program director will care about the money and I think the deejays seemed to indicate that their credibility in hosting a candidate forum was important to them. If the candidates then publicly lambast them, that's probably a good way of getting these guys to shape up.

I have a close colleague who is working on this issue who has received mail from individuals who think it's inappropriate to respond to this New Jersey 101.5 FM incident. They think we should treat the racial comments about Asians as a joke and focus on more important things. While I generally don't like having to justify why we need to respond to things like this, I realize that it's important to do so that people don't think it's simply a mechanical response and people who believe in civil rights are humorless, anally politically-correct  individuals.

The first reason to respond is the racist nature of the comments. There is good reason to be concerned that a deejay spewing racist rhetoric might inflame the passions of someone who is willing to act on that hate and therefore discriminate or worse, attack, someone on the basis of those comments. This isn't alarmist - it's exactly what happened after 9/11 and fears of foreigners aren't exactly on the decline.

Going beyond the racist content of what they were saying, the second reason to respond is that the deejays are advocating for the political disenfranchisement of Asian Americans because they aren't sufficiently "American" enough. It is serious business to say that politicians shouldn't be listening to Asian voters because they aren't  American. Similar justifications were used to deny blacks, women, and others the right to vote. We live in a community. We have a stake in that community. We have a right to be heard on issues that matter to us. Anyone who thinks differently is messing with a fundamental civil right.

The third reason to respond is correct the notion that seeking the "Asian vote" is an unusual act. Seeking the votes of an identity group is neither wrong nor unusual.

People who live in a community have different needs and different interests. People with the same needs and interests often identify with each other and are often identifiable. Politicians group them together because it's easier to speak to those interests. That's why politicians are always going after the Black vote, the Jewish vote, the elderly vote, the small business vote, etc. Going after the Asian vote isn't unusual, it's only new because traditionally, politicians ignored Asians and their particular interests. The fact that they are now interested in the "Asian vote" is a good sign that Asian Americans are maturing as a group and are perceived to have some clout worth the attention of elected officials. It means that Asian American interests are finally going to be noticed and heard.

Finally, the Jersey Guys show is espousing their views using public airwaves. Certainly, they have a right to spew whatever viewpoints they want, however, that doesn't free them from criticism of those views. Someone needs to remind them that they live in a larger community, that community is made up of Asian Americans, and the views that they advocate are not universally held. Even if it doesn't change the show or how to do things, it's important just to put them on notice that they are being heard and their views are not acceptable.

UPDATE: If you want to contact the seven Republican NJ gubernatorial candidates who may be appearing in a Jersey Guys-sponsored candidate forum and encourage them to make a statement condemning the show, follow this link for email addresses.

UPDATE 2: SAALT has begun a public letter-writing campaign. Take a look for suggestions on what to ask for.

Please Don't Create a Naked Human Pyramid with the Prisoners

It's sad that this needs to be explicitly laid out in an army manual:

The Army is preparing to issue a new interrogations manual that expressly bars the harsh techniques disclosed in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, and incorporates safeguards devised to prevent such misconduct at military prison camps in the future, Army officials said Wednesday.

The new manual, the first revision in 13 years, will specifically prohibit practices like stripping prisoners, keeping them in stressful positions for a long time, imposing dietary restrictions, employing police dogs to intimidate prisoners and using sleep deprivation as a tool to get them to talk, the officials said.

Those practices were not included in the manual in use when the bulk of the abuses occurred at Abu Ghraib in Iraq in the fall of 2003, but neither were they specifically banned.

Because, really, we need a manual to know that you shouldn't torture people. What will happen now is that anything that isn't specifically prohibited will be okay. Interrogators will just get more and more creative in figuring out depraved ways to get what they want.

Anatomy of a Radio Show Takedown

So, of course, after I see the transcript of the radio show that makes racial comments against the Asian American community, my political strategist hat comes on and I'm thinking about the pressure points. Sending angry emails to the radio station is, of course, the first recourse to see if the station will be sufficiently chastened by community outrage. Judging from the program director's comments, it doesn't look like they feel they've done anything wrong:

Johnson, the station's general manager, defended Carton and Rossi's show.

"Our talk show hosts give strong opinions, and we've been doing it for 15 years," Johnson said.

"I've heard them do Italian accents, Jewish accents," he continued. "Carton has made fun of his heritage, it's all tongue-in-cheek."

Clearly, this idiot thinks the controversy is about people talking in funny accents. While offensive, that doesn't even get to the heart of the matter - advocating the political disenfranchisement of Asian Americans because they are of Asian descent.

So, where are the other pressure points? From the transcript, it's clear these guys care a lot about politics, especially Republican politics. They clearly care about their gubernatorial candidate forum that will take place in May and that seems the most natural point to strike.

The GOP governor's race will be extremely contentious with SEVEN Republican candidates. These guys need every vote they can get and I doubt they will be as discriminating as our radio host friends. I think that each one ought to be pressured to make a statement condemning the radio station comments,and appearing at the candidate forum without condemning the station's comments is tantamount to supporting racism.

Feel free to contact them by clicking to the email links below:

Todd Caliguire
Paul DiGaetano
Doug Forrester
Steve Lonegan
John Murphy
Robert Schroeder (no email address - just a volunteer form that has space for comments)
Bret Schundler

Damn Orientals and Indians

A Korean American immigrant is running for mayor of Edison, New Jersey - a story appeared in the Star Ledger that noted that he will be seeking support from the sizable Asian American community in Edison but the white people are none-too-happy to hear it. What the hell has gone wrong with the FCC that radio station DJs think that it's okay to spout off any kind of bigoted, xenophobic thing on public airwaves? Here's another one from New Jersey (click 'read more' to get the whole transcript) but below are the highlights:

Carton : And here’s the bottom line... no specific minority group or foreign group
should ever ever dictate the outcome of an American election. I don’t care if the
Chinese population in Edison has quadrupled in the last year, Chinese should never
dictate the outcome of an election, Americans should.
...
Carton: There should be like Asian-only rooms in casinos… but just to be fair, I have
nothing against them…
...
Carton: And if we cry about it… you know what’s brought up? Slavery... or if we cry
about it… well you know, ching chong, ching chong [Mimics Chinese accent] you
bombed us [Chinese accent] you know? The fact is, I don’t care if whites are a minority, it doesn’t matter to me, there’s no voice of the average blue collar white guy anymore, cuz all these politicians are worried about the fringe groups.

It's basically a long-winded, xenophobic attack on Asian Americans for daring to seek elected office and against politicians who would dare to seek the Asian American vote. It goes back to that constant rant about how white people are losing the country and reminds me of the question that Chris Rock once asked - "If white people are losing, who the hell is winning?"

Never mind that white people make up the majority of most local, state, and federal offices, a majority of the judiciary, a majority of corporate executive and management positions. Somehow, I think if Asian Americans win a few elected seats, white people will be just fine...

Still, it's nonsense for deejays to be spewing racist rhetoric on public airwaves so be sure to register your anger. The show is the Jersey Guys show which aired on April 25th.

Eric Johnson, Program Manager
New Jersey 101.5 FM Radio
PO Box 5698
Trenton, NJ 08638
http://www.nj1015.com

UPDATE: If you want to contact the seven Republican NJ gubernatorial candidates who may be appearing in a Jersey Guys-sponsored candidate forum and encourage them to make a statement condemning the show, follow this link for email addresses.

UPDATE: SAALT has initiated a public letter-writing campaign. Take a look for suggestions on what to ask for.

Debating Social Security

Last Friday, the school held its first debate tournament on the question of whether social security should be restructured into a private account scheme instead of the current social insurance scheme. I won the tournament, beating three opponents by arguing for privatization twice and against it in the final round. I think that some of what I argued might be instructive for framing the debate as well as being prepared for the other side.

Although there is some dispute over a few of the facts (such as what year the Social Security trust fund will run out), there is no question that it will run out by at least 2041. Which means that some kind of fix must be made, sooner rather than later.

Setting aside whether this is the right type of policy right now, this is a policy values debate - over what kind of values we want to espouse in our public policy. The privatization side argues that this is about empowering individuals, by allowing them to create real wealth for themselves and allowing them the opportunity to not be dependent on government handouts.

I think the flipside to that is to recall the initial justification for Social Security - to recognize that the American people are certainly about hard work, but also about helping our neighbors in their time of need. We recognized as a society that for some, it was difficult to set aside savings towards  retirement. We established  a system to guarantee that when they were no longer productive, that they wouldn't have to worry about their basic needs. This is part of our social compact as Americans - ties that bind us together as a people and speak to our values.

I think the values-based argument is weak for the privatization side, especially since its critique is that it separates us as Americans by breaking the social compact. It separates Americans from one another by forcing the separation of our monies.

Moreover, their strong suit is really on the policy side - the returns gained from the market versus what the government sees. Real returns for the stock market are over 7% over the past fifty years and even in the Depression, real returns were over 3% whereas Social Security returns are just 2%.

The difference is obviously in the risk involved. The stock market inherently has a lot of risk, even in the safest investments, whereas Social Security is invested in assets that produce a guaranteed, risk-free return. The argument I used was to say that the amount you get out of your retirement package is largely dependent on the performance of the market. If the market is in a boom, you luck out. If the market has crashed that year, your portfolio may be decimated. I also point out that people who were born during the Depression have now seen two stock market crashes in their lifetime so it's plausible that it could happen to current and future retirees as well. Social insurance, however, eliminates risk and insures that everyone will make out the same and equally, regardless of what the market is like.

I've been told the most influential argument I made in favor of the present Social Security system was the one I borrowed from Marie Coco at Newsday:

The Social Security trustees say it would require an immediate tax increase amounting to 1.89 percent of payroll to bring the giant plan into long-term balance. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says it's only about half that - roughly 1 percent of payroll, director Douglas Holtz-Eakin told the House Budget Committee recently.

It would be a tax increase of less than 1 percent, split between workers and employers. The hike could be little as one-half of 1 percent each.

You haven't heard much about this piddling number. Talking about it suits no one's political purpose. For the president, admitting that fixing Social Security is, in fact, pretty straightforward - even simple - destroys his argument that the task requires the newfangled nonsolution of private accounts.

For congressional Republicans, talking about taxes means talking about cutting them, and never hiking them. Any talk about increasing them - even by raising the current $90,000 cap on wages upon which the Social Security payroll tax is levied - splits their party. And it robs them of a convenient, if overused, cudgel against the Democrats.

For Democrats, backing a tax hike of any kind automatically brings upon them that convenient Republican cudgel. And most Democrats would - correctly - point out that the Social Security payroll tax is regressive, falling hardest on those who earn the least.

A 2% increase provides 100% solvency for the future? Yep, that's a no-brainer. Too bad no one's got the political balls to stand up for it.

Microsoft Caves to Christian Pressure

Microsoft should be ashamed that they've caved to bigots:

The Microsoft Corporation, at the forefront of corporate gay rights for decades, is coming under fire from gay rights groups, politicians and its own employees for withdrawing its support for a state bill that would have barred discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

..."Our government affairs team made a decision before this legislative session that we would focus our energy on a limited number of issues that are directly related to our business," said Mark Murray, a company spokesman. "That decision was not influenced by external factors. It was driven by our desire to focus on a smaller number of issues in this short legislative session. We obviously have not done a very good job of communicating about this issue."

...But State Representative Ed Murray, an openly gay Democrat and a sponsor of the bill, said that in a conversation last month with Bradford L. Smith, Microsoft's senior vice president and general counsel, Mr. Smith made it clear to him that the company was under pressure from the church and the pastor and that he was also concerned about the reaction to company support of the bill among its Christian employees, the lawmaker said.

Microsoft shouldn't delude themselves. Dropping your support of a position isn't "neutral." The homophobic faction will now do two things: First, they're going to brag about how powerful they are to get one of the world's largest corporations to cave on an issue. Second, they're going to crow about how poor this legislation must be if Microsoft changed it's position. Any way you look at it, Microsoft is leaving gays out in the cold.

I can't believe that the company is so dickless that they would even cave in the first place. How serious can they take a boycott threat? Even if every Mac user in the world were to boycott Microsoft, we wouldn't make a dent in the company's profitability. Worse, we would simply end up isolating ourselves from the rest of the world. I mean, how do you get shit done without Microsoft? It's virtually impossible! What are conservative Christians going to do? Use Word Perfect? Give me a fucking break!

What's next? Is the company going to have to cave on hiring Arabs? After all, they might be terrorists. What about people who are pro-choice? Gotta get rid of them too. Musn't upset the right-wing religious wackos...

Test Marketing Xenophobia

In order to finance my love of movies on the meager budget of student loans, I regularly participate in online marketing surveys. The most recent one makes it clear that Anheuser-Busch plans to take a page from the Republican playbook and play the patriot card. I was asked to evaluate my impression of Anheuser-Busch based on the following marketing statements:

• The fact is, there’s only one major American brewer who remains proudly American born, American brewed and American owned.  Keeping jobs, profits and dollars right here in the U.S.
• Today, only one major American Brewery was born here, is brewed here and is proud to say that we’re owned here.  For American jobs and American pride.  These colors can’t be bought.  Anheuser-Busch, The American Beer Company.
• Miller might say that they are American, but the fact is they’re owned by a foreign conglomerate headquartered in South Africa and London.  At Anheuser Busch we’re proud to be American born, American brewed and still American owned.
• Brewed by Americans. At our 12 breweries located throughout the country.
• Anheuser-Busch:  Proudly an American company.  We didn’t sell-out.
• The only major American Brewery that’s still American owned.  No foreign conglomerates.  No foreign ownership. This is where we started it. This is where we finish it.  This is Anheuser-Busch, The American Beer Company.
• Anheuser-Busch:  American Owned, your dollars stay here.
• Born here. Brewed here. Owned here. Anheuser-Busch, The American Beer Company.
• Consumed by Americans. You make us the leading brew.
• Anheuser-Busch, the only major brewery that’s still American Owned.  So when you buy our products, your dollars stay in the U.S.
• While Miller and Coors have recently been sold to foreign conglomerates, we remain fiercely independent and proud to say that we are Anheuser-Busch, The American Beer Company.
• Anheuser-Busch, the only major brewery that’s still American Owned.  It’s where we’ve been and where we’re going to stay.
• Anheuser-Busch, the only major brewery that’s still American Owned.   Because when profits stay in the US, so does your money.
• Anheuser-Busch, the only major brewery that’s still American Owned.  Because when you buy American products your dollars stay in the U.S, creating jobs for your friends and neighbors.
• Anheuser-Busch:  Owned by Americans.
• Anheuser-Busch:  American Owned, profits stay here.
• Anheuser-Busch, the only major brewery that’s still American Owned.  Because when your dollars stay in the US, so do jobs.

I don't think Anheuser-Busch's problem is that people aren't aware that they're an American beer - how can you not watch one of their obnoxious commercials featuring bathroom/frat boy humor, scantily clad fantasies, and bizarre talking animals and not think that Anheuser-Busch doesn't represent America? Like many Americans its designed to appeal to, their ads are crude, boorish, simple- and single-minded. Unfortunately, the same can be said about the taste.

It's a sad statement on the beer that they need to resort to cheap, xenophobic appeals to patriotism to get customers to fork over their hard-earned dollars for substandard piss-water and expect them to be happy that at least the company kept their profits in the US. A free market mentality might actually suggest that if the company is unsuccessful at selling its swill to customers against its competitors, it deserves to go out of business.

I can't say that I care much for any of the Anheuser-Busch brands of beer and these advertising messages left an even more unfavorable impression. That said, given A-B's enormous marketing clout and tremendous advertising budget, I'm more than a little alarmed that these are the messages that the company is testing out. I have no doubt that the target audience of current and former white fraternity brothers and other assorted red-staters will find the message appealing and as a result, Anheuser-Busch will steal customers from Miller, Coors, and Milwaukee's Best.

What worries me is if they are successful - will we then see a tide of advertisers that will appeal to bigotry and patriotism in order to sell their products in the mass market? Will McDonald's change their menu to sell "freedom fries?"  Will we learn about how Tide is the best detergent for ensuring that our flags have the brightest whites, while maintaining vibrant reds and blues?  How long until Wal-Mart brags that its US stores use only American workers? It's bad enough that politicians have crammed patriotism so far up our asses that everyone feels the need to sport 1-3 patriotic "ribbon" magnets on the back of their SUVs. We can really do without the patriotic preaching from already obnoxious and hyper-exposed consumer goods companies.

At least if they're going to be obvious about it, they should be REALLY obvious (they are after all, dealing with frat boys and red-staters). Here's my top five slogans for Anheuser-Busch:

• "Anheuser-Busch: Because wine is for sissy French people."
• "We at Anheuser-Busch believe strongly that outsourcing is Un-American. At the only American-owned major brewery, we make beer the old-fashioned way - we hire illegal day laborers from Mexico."
• "Only gay people drink Miller and Coors."
• "If Jesus lived now, he would turn water into Bud Light."
• "Terri Schiavo would have lived if she'd only gotten a Michelob."

Why You Won't Be Hearing About My New Job

As the practice of blogging has spread, employees like Mr. Kennedy are coming to the realization that corporations, which spend millions of dollars protecting their brands, are under no particular obligation to tolerate threats, real or perceived, from the activities of people who become identified with those brands, even if it is on their personal Web sites.

They are also learning that the law offers no special protections for blogging - certainly no more than for any other off-duty activity.

...and why I'll continue to post anonymously here. Not that I agree that this is right - if you're not able to speak freely without consequence, can you really say that you have free speech? With school loans, a mortgage, and possibly a car payment, I'm in a bad position to negotiate. I think I'll make a donation to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.