Last opinion of the day - this morning's hostage swap between Israel and Hezbollah. I must be woefully uneducated on this issue because the more I think about what happened, the more I'm wondering what Olmert or anyone in the Israeli Cabinet is really doing here.
The UN "brokered" this deal between Israel and the terrorist organization known as Hezbollah. Hezbollah "captured"/kidnapped Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev in July 2006. Hezbollah held these two soldiers as hostages to barter the release of convicted Lebanese prisoners. No other justification has been given for their being held - they were on Israeli territory on the Northern border, and their capture was done during an illegal Hezbollah raid. Yet the UN works tirelessly to "resolve" the issue and "broker" this deal.
Cut to yesterday. Israeli Cabinet approves a swap of the two soldiers for five Lebanese prisoners - at least one of which is a convicted, remorseless killer of an Israeli policeman, a civilian and a 4 year old girl. Hezbollah won't let Israel know whether their soldiers are alive or dead, but the assumption is that they are dead because the Red Cross has not been allowed to see them and there's been no word otherwise. Yet despite the uncertainty, the swap is approved.
Today in Southern Lebanon. Five Lebanese prisoners are given the red carpet treatment in to a cheering mob of people. Liberated. Freed. A hero's welcome for these convicted murderers and felons who were released as the ransom for two Israeli soldiers.
Today in Israel. Two black coffins are released to Israeli authorities. DNA evidence confirms that they contain the bodies of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Israel has released terrorist criminals, who will no doubt go on to do greater things in the terror business, for body parts. Israel has shown the world that there's no advantage to keeping Israeli soldiers alive and healthy, when Israel will pay dearly for body parts.
What happened? Israel (or the UN) couldn't insist on knowing whether the soldiers were actually alive before agreeing to the trade? Or are we to accept that in Israel alive or dead soldiers are equally dear? Why? Shouldn't Israel have put a premium on their being alive? Some reason to incentivize, oh I don't know, NOT KILLING ISRAELI SOLDIERS? I'm thoroughly disgusted.
I confess a part of me would not have blamed Israel if, upon discovery of their soldier's nonliving status, Israel had executed the five prisoners scheduled for the swap. I'm not advocating senseless or retaliatory violence. But at least that would have been closer to an even exchange.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Parity...
I'm a little disturbed by the equal pay issue that's being kicked back and forth between the candidates. Obama supports the Fair Pay Restoration Act and McCain opposes it. The FPRA is Congress's attempt to address last year's Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear where the court, in a 5-4 decision, disallowed a woman's claim for discriminatory pay because it was filed too late. The majority's rationale there was that the discriminatory act occurred when the pay decision was made, and not when each affected paycheck was issued. Ledbetter argued that each paycheck was a discriminatory act and should be actionable under Title VII. Enter the FPRA.
FPRA wants to make each paycheck a discriminatory act regardless of when the original discrimation occurred which resulted in the lower compensation. This would mean an affected party (woman, minority, etc.) could sue an employer at any point, even many years later, as long as her claim is filed within 180 days of picking up her last discriminatorily-lower paycheck.
Now I'm all for equal pay, and I don't know that there's any rational, legitimate arguments not to be for equal pay. (Wingnut opinions that disparate pay is good to encourage women to stay in the home are not being considered.) But calling something a Fair Pay Restoration Act does not magically restore fair pay. (Any more than cleverly named acts determine one's level of patriotism, or that no child will indeed be left behind.) It should really be called an Indefinite Deadline Extension for Challenging Discriminatory Pay Act, because that's all it does. Does extending this deadline make things fairer for women in the workplace?
McCain's position is that this act does way more harm than good, opening up avenues of litigation to disgruntled employees that should have been closed years earlier. This drives up expenses for all businesses, both large and small, and increases, what is often, frivolous lawsuits by employees who, like many employees out there, feel underpaid, underappreciated, and maybe a little vindictive when they are ready to leave a job.
Obama's position is that this act will make it harder for companies to get away with discriminatory acts. I'm not sure that's even true, but even if it is, making something harder to do doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. You could force companies to report every pay dollar to a Federal agency by age, sex, race, religion and location. That would make discrimination more difficult, but it would raise tremendous costs for businesses and taxpayers, not to mention civil libertarian issues.
In addition, discriminated parties have less incentive to investigate discriminatory practices, knowing they can wait until they're ready to leave before filing a claim. These claims give them leverage which they can use to milk the company into generous settlements or severances so the company doesn't have to shell out tons of money in litigation expense fees, or insurance policies to cover these types of situations. This may make it less likely that discrimination will decrease, and more likely that the law will be abused.
The media casts this issue as pro-women, like abortion lite. I see it more as pro-plaintiff, not very different from the opposition to tort and medical malpractice reform. The same issues are at play.
FPRA wants to make each paycheck a discriminatory act regardless of when the original discrimation occurred which resulted in the lower compensation. This would mean an affected party (woman, minority, etc.) could sue an employer at any point, even many years later, as long as her claim is filed within 180 days of picking up her last discriminatorily-lower paycheck.
Now I'm all for equal pay, and I don't know that there's any rational, legitimate arguments not to be for equal pay. (Wingnut opinions that disparate pay is good to encourage women to stay in the home are not being considered.) But calling something a Fair Pay Restoration Act does not magically restore fair pay. (Any more than cleverly named acts determine one's level of patriotism, or that no child will indeed be left behind.) It should really be called an Indefinite Deadline Extension for Challenging Discriminatory Pay Act, because that's all it does. Does extending this deadline make things fairer for women in the workplace?
McCain's position is that this act does way more harm than good, opening up avenues of litigation to disgruntled employees that should have been closed years earlier. This drives up expenses for all businesses, both large and small, and increases, what is often, frivolous lawsuits by employees who, like many employees out there, feel underpaid, underappreciated, and maybe a little vindictive when they are ready to leave a job.
Obama's position is that this act will make it harder for companies to get away with discriminatory acts. I'm not sure that's even true, but even if it is, making something harder to do doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. You could force companies to report every pay dollar to a Federal agency by age, sex, race, religion and location. That would make discrimination more difficult, but it would raise tremendous costs for businesses and taxpayers, not to mention civil libertarian issues.
In addition, discriminated parties have less incentive to investigate discriminatory practices, knowing they can wait until they're ready to leave before filing a claim. These claims give them leverage which they can use to milk the company into generous settlements or severances so the company doesn't have to shell out tons of money in litigation expense fees, or insurance policies to cover these types of situations. This may make it less likely that discrimination will decrease, and more likely that the law will be abused.
The media casts this issue as pro-women, like abortion lite. I see it more as pro-plaintiff, not very different from the opposition to tort and medical malpractice reform. The same issues are at play.
Parody...
So, I have three things on my mind today, and none of them have to do with explaining why I have not blogged for almost a year. I will post them separately so the posts don't run too long.
First, about that infamous New Yorker cover of Barak and Michelle Obama...
You have to wonder what kind of drugs they're doling out in the press room to think this was a good idea. This is cowardly, sensationalist journalism at its worst. There's nothing clever or satirical about drawing a cartoon which depicts the most racist, misogynistic, anti-Muslim, anti-American, discriminatory drivel which festers around the bottomfeeding rumormongers who spam email inboxes, sell inflammatory T-shirts at GOP events, and otherwise pollute the system through which we choose our next leader. I am probably not voting for Barak Obama, for reasons which I may delineate in a later post. But none of those reasons include the abject stupidity depicted here.
The bigger question is, why does The New Yorker think this cover was, in any way, acceptable? By pointing out a controversy, do you have license to demonstrate it to an extreme? Or create an image that becomes it's own controversy? Case in point, would it have been okay if the New Yorker drew a cartoon of Curious George with Barak Obama's face on it? Perpetrating a controversy is not an effective way to comment, even satirically, on that same controversy. If anything, it has the opposite effect. A writer for the Huffington Post sums it up nicely: "Anyone who's tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who's tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism— well, here's your image."
First, about that infamous New Yorker cover of Barak and Michelle Obama...
You have to wonder what kind of drugs they're doling out in the press room to think this was a good idea. This is cowardly, sensationalist journalism at its worst. There's nothing clever or satirical about drawing a cartoon which depicts the most racist, misogynistic, anti-Muslim, anti-American, discriminatory drivel which festers around the bottomfeeding rumormongers who spam email inboxes, sell inflammatory T-shirts at GOP events, and otherwise pollute the system through which we choose our next leader. I am probably not voting for Barak Obama, for reasons which I may delineate in a later post. But none of those reasons include the abject stupidity depicted here.
The bigger question is, why does The New Yorker think this cover was, in any way, acceptable? By pointing out a controversy, do you have license to demonstrate it to an extreme? Or create an image that becomes it's own controversy? Case in point, would it have been okay if the New Yorker drew a cartoon of Curious George with Barak Obama's face on it? Perpetrating a controversy is not an effective way to comment, even satirically, on that same controversy. If anything, it has the opposite effect. A writer for the Huffington Post sums it up nicely: "Anyone who's tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who's tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism— well, here's your image."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)