Shortwoman.com

That promised piece on healthcare will probably surface next week. In the meantime, here’s some related reading that will almost certainly be referenced: The Populist calls for A National Health Care Plan for All, citing the expense of insurance — even for rather mediocre coverage; the New York Times tells us about Health Care as if Costs Don’t Matter,, which tells us that “a big reason for that cost is the explosion of expensive, medically questionable care…,” implying that if we could stop “medically questionable” treatments, we could bring down costs for everyone (wasn’t this the problem HSAs were supposed to address?); Ezra Klein brings us commentary on that article; and finally the thoughts of a genuine Professor of Economics on the problem, Brad DeLong gives us “An Unrealistic, Impractical, Utopian Plan for Dealing with the Health Care Opportunity”. Memo to the world, the Chinese character for “crisis” includes the characters for “danger” and “opportunity” like the the word “shelf” contains “elf.”

I know I usually close with lots of strange but interesting things that have cluttered up my browser tabs, but instead I’d like to send you over to an item I wrote for Central Sanity entitled Stuff to Act Upon. If you’d like somebody else’s ideas of stuff to act upon, you can start with the BlogHers Act Week One Round-up.

Have a great weekend, everyone!

This is part of an ongoing if irregular series on the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution. You might check out parts One, Two, and Three.

You could probably spend decades reading nothing but things that have been written about the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. You could probably spend the next 6 years just reading what has been written on it in the last 6 years. It goes like this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The short version of this is that, with some very broad exceptions, if the police suspect you are doing something illegal, they have to go before a judge and present “probable cause” and ask for a search warrant that outlines where they want to search and what they hope to find there. It applies not only to you — your physical body — but also to your residence and “papers” and “effects” too. The nice people at Dictionary.com tell us that means “goods; movables; personal property,” i.e., your stuff.

Some of the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment are very common sense: if a cop hears someone screaming for help and gunshots, he is very likely to break the door down rather than go before a judge (and I think most of us like it that way); if you are pulled over for speeding and are stupid enough to have your illegal drug stash sitting on the passenger seat, no warrant is required to arrest you for drug possession, nor would it be unreasonable to search the rest of the vehicle for additional contraband; if, while executing a search warrant, cops find evidence not listed in the warrant but pertaining to some other criminal activity, it doesn’t get thrown out.

It is important to note that this only applies to government searches. Your Aunt Myrna does not need a search warrant to take a peek in your medicine cabinet. If your neighbor breaks into your place and takes a look around, he is guilty of “breaking and entering,” not “violating your Fourth Amendment rights.” Nor, frankly, does your boss need a search warrant to go through your desk (strictly speaking, that’s your employer’s property anyway, meaning it is his right and sometimes his duty to do so).

Things worked out reasonably well like this for a couple hundred years, with the caveat that every few years some case would get all the way to the Supreme Court that called for defining, limiting, or expanding the rights and powers involved. They managed to convict Al Capone under it. Congress even made allowances for the fact that there might be a time when it was necessary to collect evidence without an alleged criminal knowing, and created things like wiretapping laws and the FISA court (they even have their own website, such as it is). Even in these situations, however, there is a court that has issued a warrant, and an attorney who has been appointed to argue for the rights of the target person — who remember has no idea this is going on.

Then the “War on Terror” came along and things got messy.

The first, obvious messy thing was federalizing airport screeners, making them all employees of the TSA. These people are specifically employed to search the people and luggage that go on commercial aircraft. The legal gymnastics that allow these warrant-free searches by federal employees (who absolutely have the authority to have a traveller arrested) is that “[B]ecause of the special risks that attend flight, and because people have the option of not flying, our courts have relaxed Fourth Amendment requirements in reviewing blanket searches and seizures at airports.” In other words, “If you don’t like it, don’t fly commercial airlines!” This is of course only an option for people with lots of travel time or lots of money, if not both.

The second thing is the Bush Administration NSA wiretap program, which President Bush admitted was in effect in 2005. The thing that has confused most people is that the exact sort of wiretaps that are (supposedly) out there under this program could have easily been done legally with the blessing of a FISA warrant, which are notoriously easy to obtain — and you can get one of those up to 3 days after you begin recording. So much for the ticking time bomb theory. Oh, and lest you think this is an old tired story, exactly one month ago Administration Officials told the Senate that they still have the authority to wiretap anybody anytime without a warrant. Furthermore, Attorney General Gonzales has until Tuesday to hand over documents on that very program to the Senate. Hopefully he will also be asked to explain why it was necessary to bother John Ashcroft about it while he was in the hospital.

When both ends of the political spectrum agree that there are 4th Amendment problems with the War on Terror, it’s a pretty good bet they are correct: I present TalkLeft and the Cato Institute. Mr. Bush and Mr. Gonzales seem to be sailing this rhetorical boat alone.

Surely we can find a way to be safe from both terrorists and warrantless searches.

In closing: A melamine-in-the-feed problem right here in the United States was uncovered by an alert distributor who thought things just didn’t look right, what a shame he is unlikely to be rewarded for it; I’m not the only one who has figured out that China can economically ruin the United States; it turns out our soldiers are better at diplomacy than some of our diplomats; on what planet is tuberculosis “not infectious”? It makes me wonder if this wasn’t a graphic demonstration of how one person –perhaps ignorant that he is a carrier — can spread a disease internationally within days; I’ve always thought that the biggest problem with the Kyoto accords is they involved too few nations, now the Bush Administration has a plan that would involve even fewer nations; if there is a “cure” for being gay, shouldn’t somebody do animal testing on it, you know, to make sure it’s safe for humans? It turns out that Save Darfur was founded by two Jewish groups who take “Never Again” seriously, even though the group now comprises 180 interfaith groups, and their actions are sometimes controvertial; Real feminism is good for everybody; It turns out that there may be a law that should have prevented the United States from hiring Blackwater’s “mercenaries”, and it’s only been on the books since 1893; And finally, even though the BBC and Bloomberg are reporting a slow economy, somehow the L.A. Times thinks everything is rosy. Please note that the 157,000 new jobs in May that they cite is just barely enough to keep up with new entries to the work force, 22,000 were government jobs, construction jobs were flat in a busy season, and both manufacturing and retail jobs were down.

“Um, the Fat Lady isn’t even in costume and makeup yet,” or a Follow Up on the Big Immigration Compromise: The employers who helped write it are saying “maybe this isn’t such a great idea. Cnet of all places points out that this would create a giant “Green List” of eligible American workers. If you somehow aren’t on the right list, you don’t get legal work. And we all know that federal databases are not necessarily as accurate as we might desire *cough*no-fly-list*cough*. For that matter, there have been enough data breaches that such databases are not as secure as we might like. Alternet has done us the favor of reprinting this editorial from the New York Times about how nobody likes it, no registration required. The IHT brings us details of a bipartisan fight against it — who says the two parties can’t work together. As always, the Washington Post can be counted on for good political coverage, and they too signal that now that a compromise has been reached, negotiations for a compromise compromise can begin. Oh, and at least one Senator wants to scrap the guest worker part, which is a good idea because it will be abused and is not a citizenship path, but that’s the President’s favorite part. Here’s yet more commentary from MaxSpeak.

And they’d have gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for those meddling Iraqis! (pop culture reference) Would it surprise you to know that there have been multiple homegrown Iraqi plans for internal peace that were widely supported by the major internal factions? Please don’t forget to read the supporting links — and the links in the links — on this one! “Last year, a comprehensive, 28-point proposal for stabilizing Iraq was offered by the nascent Iraqi government itself after long meetings with different Iraqi groups. According to local polls and political leaders, most Iraqis believed it was the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel — the plan was attractive to the vast majority of the public, even those Iraqis affiliated with violent resistance groups. But the plan wasn’t acceptable to Washington….” That’s right: Iraq is still a problem because the Bush Administration wants it that way. The short version of why is control of oil. As for this other item, I am not sure whether it is a breathtakingly stupid manifestation of hubris, or merely a way to keep things unstable for the forseeable future. There was a plot by the Americans to kill widely revered and politically important cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr. At a peace conference! Now, even if you think he’s a Bad Guy, he is a political force to be reckoned with. Making a peace deal without him and his supporters is like building a highway that won’t allow Fords. Oh yeah, and now commanders have testified before Congress that they don’t even have a plan for withdrawing troops. At all. Never mind that Kansas would really like their trucks back. And the National Guardsmen who drive them too.

Must read article on crime in the United States: Crime is up dramatically over the last 10 years. The violent kind that hurts people:

Criminologists are worried. Federal Bureau of Investigation data shows murders and shootings hitting smaller cities and states with little experience of serious urban violence. The last similar period of volatility was right before the big crime wave of the 1980s and 1990s.

Explanations vary — from softer gun laws to budget cuts, fewer police on the beat, more people in poverty, expanding gang violence and simple complacency. But many blame a national preoccupation with potential threats from overseas since the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The article goes on to point out that all of the above are probably to blame, but the biggest culprits are a lousy economy for anybody who is not wealthy and fewer cops on the beat (figures on federal spending for local police are included). Furthermore, the things experts use as leading indicators of future crime don’t look good either. So no, it’s not your imagination, the streets are more dangerous, things are tough all over, and honest jobs for people near the bottom of the economic spectrum prevent crimes against all of us. But don’t forget, non-violent crimes by clever and soon-to-be wealthy con-men are up too. Here’s a story about some ladies who were tired of the things that real estate fraud were doing to their expensive neighborhood, so they decided to do something about it.

Sister Sister Sister: First, This is what a real feminist looks like. She is — was — a legislator in a country where rape is an acceptable political payback. She was suspended from the legislature for suggesting that her fellow legislators were behaving more like animals than humans. Meanwhile, in this country, Neil the Ethical Wereworf asks If certain “pro-life” factions want to prevent abortions, why are they actively working measures that would prevent unwanted pregnancies? Oh wait, it’s because they are really “anti-sex.” And to finish out ladies nite, Mrs. Kucinich. She sounds like a very interesting lady.

In closing, Political Troika: the most comprehensive item I’ve seen on the various healthcare reform ideas currently in play; problems at NASA; and any sufficient disaster will insure a dictatorship.

I have been specifically asked by a long-time reader for my opinions on the bipartisan compromise immigration reform bill that came out of the Senate this week. Usually “bipsartisan” implies that acceptable compromises have already been made, and there is no need for further debate. That is clearly not the case in this instance. In fact, it might be more accurate to say the only person who seems to like this agreement is the President, who has gone to some lengths to defend it. Even the Right Wing News doesn’t like it.

I think that before we examine the bill itself, it is a good idea to look at the issues it is supposed to address. Although surely others before me have gone into this in far more detail than I can, most things dealing with these issues are reduced to trite, semi-true soundbites like “Businesses need cheap labor” or “Illegal immigrants wouldn’t be here if things weren’t worse in their home countries.” Almost all of the items you will find in a quick search are clearly biased one way or the other. While I won’t claim to be “fair and balanced,” I will at least try to get beyond fear-mongering and oversimplifications.

From the standpoint of employers: There are two kinds of employers, really: those who follow the law and hire only people who can legally work in this country, and those who don’t. Those who follow the law are at a competitive disadvantage, because they are paying more money for labor. Whether they are getting a better quality work for their money likely depends on the industry. In the unskilled categories that most people claim illegal immigrants are working, it seems unlikely. As for those who don’t follow the law, there seems to be very lax enforcement. That means low risk of getting caught, and relatively low penalties should it happen. This bill supposedly contains harsher penalties for those who hire illegal immigrants, but since enforcement under the Bush Administration has been scaled back 95%, this sounds like a hollow promise at best. I’ve said it before and it is worth repeating in context, when employers hire illegal immigrants, they are probably breaking other laws as well. Illegal immigrants earn an average hourly wage of $5.45 and average individual income of $8982. These figures suggest strongly that many illegal immigrants are in fact working irregularly at below minimum wage rates. I will leave to your imagination whether they are in safe working environments.

But what about employers of skilled workers: You know what? The H-1B program makes me mad, and this bill supposedly makes it bigger. In principle, this program is supposed to help American companies hire foriegn talent that they just can’t get from American citizens. For example, an American college hiring a luminary foriegn author as a guest professor for a few semesters, or an American computer company hiring a genius away from Sony to help create a new processor architecture. In reality, many of these people end up little more than “indentured servants” with almost no path to American citizenship. Some companies use this program as a way to train outsourced workers before sending them home. And most damning in my opinion is the fact that so many high-tech companies are whining about how they need these workers in an environment where there are 400,000 fewer high-tech jobs than there were in 2000. Those workers need jobs, but they unfortunately have kids and mortgages, so they need a decent wage; the truth once again is that the immigrant is cheap labor.

From the standpoint of current illegal workers: Well, somebody had to like this thing. Or maybe not. This article is so important I will quote several paragraphs:

To become full legal residents, under a compromise Senate leaders announced Thursday… illegal immigrants would have to pay a total of $5,000 in fines, more than 14 times the typical weekly earnings on the streets here, return to their home countries at least once, and wait as long as eight years. During the wait, they would have limited possibilities to bring other family members….

The compromise Senate bill proposes an initiative to give legal status to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. It also portends a major shift in the priorities and values of American immigration for the future. It would gradually change a system based primarily on family ties, in place since 1965, into one that favors high-skilled and highly educated workers who want to become permanent residents.

In the future, low-skilled workers like the men waiting for work here would largely be channeled to a vast new temporary program, where they would be allowed to work in the United States for three stints of two years each, broken up by one-year stays in their homeland….

Illegal workers already here would gain a provisional legal status, known as a Z visa, fairly quickly. But to become permanent residents they would have to pay the big fines and get in an eight-year line behind others who have already applied legally for green cards, as permanent resident visas are known….

A first step is to eliminate, within eight years, the backlog of 4 million people who have applied to come legally to the United States, allotting 440,000 visas a year for that purpose….

So, to sumarize, illegal immigrants would have to pay fines that in many cases grossly outstrip their earnings potential, make a dangerous trip back home (where they face limited prospects and potential political/religious/ethnic persecution) to do it, get a special visa that is only good for 2 years while they wait for an 8 year backlog to go away, and they still can’t bring their families. More to the point, trying to make 12 million people legal 440,000 at a time is like drinking an extra large soda with a teaspoon.

And the sad joke of the Z Visa is that the sort of employer who currently hires cheap, easily exploited illegal immigrant laborers almost certainly will continue to do so. Holders of Z Visas will have priced themselves out of the market by demanding things like a decent wage and maybe even health insurance.

Why are these people here, anyways: Well, they are here because it’s better than where they came from. This of course meansNAFTA is a failure, and CAFTA is doomed to fail as well. But South Of The Border is not the sole source of illegal immigrants. Those Wal-Mart cleaning contractors a few years ago were European. Let’s not forget Chinese organized crime trafficking humans, some of whom thought they were getting honest if not quite legal jobs in restaurants and seamstress shops but instead end up sex slaves. Over the years, America has quite adequately demonstrated that not much can be done to improve conditions in another sovereign nation. We have also unfortunately demonstrated that quite a lot can be done to degrade conditions in another sovereign nation. This brings us neatly to…

Is there a racist thing going on here: Yes. Do you really think that apartment managers in Farmers Branch will check the citizenship of every applicant, or just the ones who look Hispanic or Arabic? Think real carefully before you answer that one. As a society we seem to take issue with “brown” immigrants much more than white ones. For that matter, which immigrants are more likely to have “work skills” and “ability to speak English” that are worth points towards a visa under the new system? The Canadian and European ones. Don’t get me wrong, English is our lingua franca, and those who cannot speak it are at a competitive disadvantage for “good paying jobs.” Moreover, having work skills will help you get a “good paying job.” But we should not overlook the fact that the majority of the “illegal immigrant problem” we are trying to address involves many “brown” people with poor English skills and often low job skills.

What about families and communities: Well, families are screwed. “Family values” is a term that apparently only applies when so-called Conservatives want it to apply. One of many tragedies of the illegal immigration problem is that because they exist outside of the law, they feel they cannot count on protection from the law. This makes them less likely to report crime in their communities or their workplace, even if they are the victim. Having 12 million people who feel they can’t report a crime is lousy for all our communities.

Aren’t some of these people criminals: It would be horribly naive to overlook the fact that some of these people make their living through illegal activies including but not limited to theft rings, smuggling of humans and goods, prostitution/pimping, and drug dealing. Some of these criminals came to this country for that purpose; others became criminals out of necessity or opportunity in this country. Not surprisingly, few of these people will be applying for a Z Visa. Many people cite figures on crimes by illegal immigrants, or the number of them in jail. It is worth noting that because being here illegally is, well, illegal, these figures are likely to be padded.

From the standpoint of American workers: Some people think there’s very little impact, and even if we deported them all, the industries that depend upon them would automate. Even this rosy view gives a nod to the fact that “Economists speculate that for the average high-school dropout, that would mean about a $25 a week raise if there were no job competition from immigrants.” Some researchers feel African-Americans are disproportionately impacted. I don’t see how having 12 million workers earning an average of $5.45 per hour can possibly not be impacting wages and employment rates for American citizens.

From the standpoint of Americans in general: We are of course a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of human beings that eat food. Many illegal immigrants work in agriculture, and there are wildly varying opinions on how much they might impact food prices. But has anybody wondered whether it’s a good idea to have our food picked and processed by illegal immigrants and the sort of company that thinks it’s a good idea to work outside the law? Anybody read “Fast Food Nation“? “Bushwacked“?

From the standpoint of the Government: There are two big problems they want to solve. First, most illegal immigrants don’t pay income tax. Obviously, they would like to fix things such that these people have enough legal standing to pay taxes. And — assuming the Z Visa program works as promised instead of how I think it will — they’ve suceeded! The other problem — and please forgive the sensationalist tone of this article — is public services used by illegal immigrants including hospitals, schools, welfare, prisons. I’m almost surprised this author doesn’t blame illegal immigrants for undue wear and tear on our roads. Whether this problem is solved by the bill in question depends on what percentage of the 12 million illegal immigrants in this country seek and obtain legal status.
When all is said and done, this bill does little to address the root causes of illegal immigration, and really only pays lip service to normalizing status. Whether it will change job prospects for illegal immigrants depends on the Administration and Congress turning its back on the corporate benefactors that want “cheap labor” and completely change direction on enforcement; if they wanted to do that, they could just enforce current laws. It does create a whole new wing of Visa bureaucracy, one ripe for abuse before it begins. No immigration reform measure is going to make everyone happy; it is too difficult to balance the needs of all the parties. This one is perhaps already doomed by its flaws.

In closing: “The Homeland Security Department is breaking the law by not telling the public exactly how personal information is used to screen international travelers, including Americans, congressional investigators [at the Government Accountability Office] said Wednesday”; The Motley Fool reprints what at first glance looks like common sense we can all use, only to ruin it with a plug for their newsletter; could it be that Hillary is just as owned by special interests as the old-school politicians she hopes to replace; one author thinks we need to stop focusing on the problems of the DOJ as if it is nothing more than politically motivated firings and keep our eye on the fact that it was an attempt to steal both past and future elections; it’s easy to get an accurate accounting of American military personel killed in Iraq, but the picture looks more bleak when you include “contractors”; the sorry state of health insurance for children — who you will recall do not have employers who can be forced to insure them — has resulted in multiple documented cases of murder by bureaucracy; news from the old hometown, Boeing figures out mass production; and finally for the Japanophiles, online resources have sparked a new interest in Kimonos. It is worth noting that while the word “kimono” means nothing more than “a thing you wear,” kimonos themselves have evolved into a complicated form of fashion most likely worn for special occasions and festivals. Some retailers are trying to change that.