editorials and opinion

By DALE McFEATTERS
Scripps Howard News Service
Thursday, May 10, 2007

If Vice President Dick Cheney thought his flying visit to Iraq would reassure the public about the course of the war -- entering its third year in "the last throes" _ he probably would have been better off not going.

A Cheney aide said the purpose of the visit was to tell the Iraqis, "It's game time," although you have to wonder what the Iraqi leadership made of that. The vice president's departure from his Mideast itinerary was not disclosed to the press traveling with him until Air Force Two was in the air.

He did not, as a congressional delegation did, stop off in a local market that an Indiana congressman described as safe and relaxed as any farm market outside Muncie, assuming you had close air support and a combat brigade at your elbow. Instead, he choppered straight to the Green Zone.

In an unfortunate bit of timing, P.R.-wise, the U.S. Embassy had just ordered its people to wear helmets and body armor while outside or in an un-reinforced building and to hold outdoor movement to a minimum. Basically, just stay in the bomb shelter. It seems the insurgents didn't get the memo about the surge and regularly subject the Green Zone, one of the most heavily fortified places on the planet, to mortar barrages.

Clearly, some new thinking is needed.

Meanwhile, President Bush and Congress are making no progress on solving the problem of 12 million illegal immigrants or agreeing on how to end the war. Maybe there's a solution here.

We can't keep people out of our country. The Iraqis can't keep people in. Over 2 million have left, mostly to neighboring Jordan and Syria, which are in no shape to help. We are building walls in our country and we're building walls in their country.

Instead of keeping the Iraqis out of our country -- and the way we've treated the people who have tried to help us is a disgrace -- why not let in any Iraqi who wants to come here on a temporary work visa.

The bright and skilled Iraqis will help fill high-tech jobs that would otherwise go to India and the unskilled would take the jobs the illegal immigrants now do. The illegal workers would get discouraged and go home.

If 12 million Iraqis came here _ and surely not that many would _ it would cut the population about in half, making it easier to flush out the insurgents and other bad guys. They couldn't hide among the general population if the general population was largely gone.

That would give us a chance to fix up the country. The Iraqis could then return to a country that has electricity, running water, working sewage, a functioning government and safe streets. They would also have the money they earned, and people who have nest eggs generally don't kill their neighbors.

Some of us by then would have learned to speak Arabic from our drywall contractors, landscapers and the crew at the help desk, meaning we're less likely to screw up again in Baghdad because we don't know the language.

So, we've solved both the war and illegal immigration and, as an ancillary benefit, driven the Iranians nuts with jealousy. Sounds crazy, yes, but no crazier than telling desperate people, "It's game time."

By ADAM LYNN
Tacoma News Tribune
Wednesday, May 09, 2007

A woman who claimed she was gang-raped by three employees of a Tacoma car dealership won a multimillion-dollar judgment against two of the men this week.

The woman also reached a $100,000 out-of-court settlement with Mallon Ford, where the men worked at the time of the alleged rape.

She sued the dealership for negligence, claiming it hired one of the men, Richy D. Carter, even though he had a previous assault conviction and was "known to be violent and assaultive toward women," according to her lawsuit.

On Monday, Superior Court Judge Vicki Hogan ordered Carter and Michael Dolajak to pay the woman a total of $2.5 million for causing her "extensive emotional and physical distress," according to court documents.

Hogan issued the default judgment when the two men failed to show up to defend themselves at trial.

The judge dismissed the case against the third man, who still works for the dealership.

The woman, who called herself "L.S." in court filings, filed a police report the night of the alleged incident, but none of the men was ever charged.

The woman's attorney, Lincoln C. Beauregard of Tacoma, said his client was satisfied with the outcome. "She basically wanted to make sure the truth came out," the attorney said.

Attorney Dan'L W. Bridges, who represented Mallon Ford, said the woman originally had sought more than $1.5 million from the dealership. The fact that she settled for less than 10 percent of that shows her case against the dealership was weak, he said.

"While $100,000 is a large sum of money, it is little more than the defense costs through trial and less than defense costs if an appeal was filed," Bridges said. "This is actually an entirely favorable result in terms of dollars and cents. The downside is that it deprives my client of the vindication it would have received at trial."

The dealership maintains it did nothing wrong in hiring Carter, Bridges added. The dealership made Carter get a job elsewhere, complete anger-management classes and abide by the requirements of his probation on the assault charges before it hired him, the attorney said.

The woman claimed she was raped in the early morning hours of May 11, 2003, after spending several hours drinking with Carter, Dolajak and the other man.

She met Carter the day before when she bought a car at the dealership, according to her complaint. Carter invited her to go out that night to celebrate her purchase and she agreed. On their way home from a bar in Kent, they stopped at a friend's apartment to use the bathroom, according to the complaint. It was there the woman claimed she was attacked and raped by both men.

Bridges said no formal charges were ever filed because the woman gave inconsistent stories to police detectives.

(Contact Adam Lynn at adam.lynn(at)thenewstribune.com.)

By JORGE MARISCAL
Hispanic Link
Wednesday, May 09, 2007

PBS and Ken Burns still don't get it.

After months of negotiations with Latino advocacy groups, academics, veterans and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the powers that be at PBS and their house director, Ken Burns, fail to understand the real issues at stake in his exclusion of the Latino experience in his World War II documentary "The War."

In an article published May 5 in The New York Times, Burns continued to make self-aggrandizing and ignorant statements.

According to the Times, Burns called his 14-hour series, scheduled to be shown during Hispanic Heritage Month in September, "a sort of epic poem and not a textbook."

He must be kidding. Several weeks ago, Burns compared his film to the U.S. Constitution. Now he says it's sort of an epic poem.

If he knew anything about epic poems, he would know that they were composed with the goal of representing an entire community's historical experience. They had nothing to do with an individual artist's personal vision. The singer of the Iliad or the Poem of the Cid was simply a vehicle for a shared collective experience.

Clearly, Burns is not interested in any of these things. He has his individual "vision," which cannot be tampered with. He is a self-righteous romantic who has no business and not enough knowledge to chronicle an event as momentous as World War II.

No one in the group that raised questions about the film asked Burns to turn it into "a textbook." Let him be as lyrical and non-narrative as he wishes. No one wants to deprive him of his artistic freedom. But he has no right to invent a history of the war that excludes a community that paid a very high price for its participation.

The Times article stated: "Mr. Burns, who was not at the meeting (between PBS executives and Hispanic leaders), said he found it painful that the controversy was erupting over a film in which he explores an episode of American history that brought citizens together."

Burns is pained by the controversy. Then why doesn't he stop his pain by doing the right thing? Is his "vision" more important than an inclusive account of the war? It was his flawed "vision" and sloppy research (not those who raised legitimate questions) that created divisions.

While it is certainly true that World War II brought the American people together, Burns needs to go back to school to learn about events like the Zoot Suit Riots and the Felix Longoria case. World War II was not as utopian for some communities as Burns thinks it was. He didn't do his homework.

Burns should either fire his researchers or fire himself. As long as PBS continues to take money from the public treasury, it should fire all of them.

Can we Latinos look forward to some future Ken Burns excluding us from the history of the U.S. war in Iraq?

Finally, the Times reported: "Mr. Burns said there was no chance that the film would be re-edited. It would be destructive, like trying to graft an arm onto your child," he said. "It would destroy the film."

Give me a break. Any decent writer or filmmaker not blinded by ego knows that any text or film thought to be finished can be reopened and revised without the slightest negative impact on overall tone and structure. It might actually get better.

To think otherwise displays either a total lack of creative imagination or a stubborn refusal to listen to other voices, or both.

A film is not a child. And if it were, no one is asking Burns to attach a third arm.

Simply put, Latinos are asking Burns to reshape the entire artifact into a harmonious object that reflects every community that lived the experience of the war against fascism.

One of the cities featured in the current film is Sacramento, Calif. Competent historians could quickly provide Burns with stories of Latino veterans from that city that might be seamlessly woven into his film.

But, unfortunately, PBS and Ken Burns still don't get it. Or they simply don't care.

(Jorge Mariscal, a veteran of the U.S. war in Vietnam, is a professor of history and literature at the University of California-San Diego. Contact him at gmariscal(at)ucsd.edu.)

An editorial / By Dale McFeatters
Scripps Howard News Service
Wednesday, May 09, 2007

A moment of sympathy, please, for HNWIs -- High Net Worth Individuals.

The waiting time for a new Ferrari, traditionally a year, has risen to 18 months to two years and even three years in some locations. If you're going to spend $190,000 to $280,000, you'd think you could at least drive it home the same day.

It seems that newly created millionaires in China, Russia and the Mideast now want to cement their status as super-rich with a new Ferrari. A used one, which you can get without a wait, doesn't cut it for them.

The Italian carmaker is slowly raising production from 5,700 cars a year to 6,000, but is wary of diluting the brand's exclusivity. The result is a lot of disappointed HNWIs who are unaccustomed to car dealers saying don't call us, we'll call you _ in a couple of years or so.

The result, according to The Wall Street Journal, is a "gray market" in Ferraris where car buyers get on the waiting list, sometimes under several names, and then once they have possession, flipping the car for a large premium to a desperate rich person.

Just goes to show you that the life of a new Chinese or Russian millionaire is now all leather seats, six-speed transmissions and 612 horsepower. Very sad.

An editorial / By Dale McFeatters
Scripps Howard News Service
Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Although about 145 U.S. jurisdictions have such laws, Maryland has become the first to enact a statewide "living wage" law. It should be an interesting experiment that will show whether the higher wage really lifts families out of poverty or simply adds to the state's budget deficit.

The law covers businesses with state contracts worth over $100,000 and it contains a two-tier wage structure, which seems a poor idea -- unfair to some workers by happenstance of geography and a departure from the principle that government benefits should fall equitably.

Workers in the Washington and Baltimore areas would be paid $11.30 an hour, those elsewhere $8.50.

The law has some exemptions _ nonprofits, the state university system, the state lottery and small businesses with 10 or fewer workers having state contracts for less than $500,000.

The living-wage idea is not new in Maryland, a largely liberal and Democratic state. Baltimore became the first large city to adopt a living wage in 1994, and backers have been trying to pass it statewide for a decade.

The law takes effect next Oct. 1 and is expected to affect about 50,000 workers. One of its supporters in the state legislature declaimed grandly: "This law lifts tens of thousands of families out of poverty and into the middle class."

That's a quantifiable goal and one that can be measured. Other states considering following Maryland might want to see if this law truly is an effective poverty-fighting measure or whether it merely passes the bill for more expensive state services on to the taxpayer.

By ESTHER J. CEPEDA
Hispanic Link
Wednesday, May 09, 2007

As Mother's Day approached, I sat with 8-year-old Saul in the courtyard of St. Adalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago, where he lives with his mother, Elvira Arellano, who has avoided the reach of U.S. immigration officials for nine months.

Away from a small group of other parishioners who were also enjoying a barbecue lunch, we engaged in some serious conversation.

Saul is a U.S. citizen by virtue of being born here. His mother isn't. She arrived in the United States from Mexico without papers 10 years ago. On Aug. 15, 2006, she defied a federal order to report to the Chicago office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation proceedings. She had been swept up in a raid at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, where she had worked for a year as a cleaning lady.

Last fall, long separated from Saul's father, Elvira took the boy, then 7, and sought sanctuary in the United Methodist church. Her hope was that Chicago agents would not raid the church, and time would bring an avenue for her to stay in the United States legally with her son. The agents have stayed away, in part perhaps because of the Arellanos' celebrity status in the community.

During the May Day immigration march, pro-immigrant organizers took Saul to Chicago's Grant Park to address a crowd of thousands. Always thin and shy, he has grown, by his mother's measure, five inches since August. But around adults his speech remains guarded.

I have spoken with mother and son on several occasions while reporting on their status. I have a son Saul's age, which I hoped would guide me in moving our conversation.

Framing his predicament carefully, Saul told me he was content living in the church but felt confronted daily by his mom's lack of freedom. "She can't take me to the store and can't take me to school. It makes me feel a little bad. My friends -- they have their moms and their dads," he said. "It's different for them."

He described how he and his mother used to go to the park and run around together. Now they settle for watching movies on TV in the room they share in the sanctuary church.

On special occasions Elvira does her best to bring the party to Saul. "For my birthday we invited all my friends over. We played and ate," he said. "We had pizza, hot dogs, nachos and apple juice."

The boy is growing up much faster than he wants. He has traveled across the country accompanied by advocates for his mother's cause, speaking to countless radio, television and newspaper reporters about her situation, using the spotlight to plead for a compassionate law that would let families threatened with separation stay together in the United States.

He has appeared on talk shows, gone to Washington, D.C., multiple times to meet politicians, and even traveled to Mexico City, his first trip across the border, to ask that nation's legislators to lobby the United States government on his mother's behalf. They quickly obliged.

He relishes the things his mother does for him, like his special meals during her 25-day hunger strike which ended May 1. "She fixes good soup -- with vegetables and meat and small pieces of corn on the cob so they fit in the bowl." He fantasizes about walking out of the church with his mom to get pizza at his favorite Chuck E. Cheese.

He describes their daily routines, hanging out and doing homework at the table where Elvira works on the computer. They watch TV together, play with his action figures, and practice vocabulary for his weekly spelling test.

For Mother's Day, he explains, "We made cards at school. They have different hearts on them and I wrote something on it but I can't remember what."

How else might he show his love for her?

"I think she likes flowers."

Then one more wish tumbled off the child's tongue. "I want President Bush to end the deportations so my mom and other families can stay here in the United States."

(Esther J. Cepeda of Chicago is a contributing columnist with Hispanic Link News Service. She may be reached at chihuahua33(at)hotmail.com. To comment or for more stories visit scrippsnews.com)

Editorial
Las Vegas Sun
Wednesday, May 09, 2007

With President Bush dropping in polls and war going badly, watch for GOP to change course

Republicans in Congress are throwing out intimations that they may change their tune on Iraq at summer's end _ just in time to have a new image for their party firmly in place by early 2008, when their own elections and the presidential race will starting getting hot.

With a new poll by Newsweek magazine showing President Bush's approval rating at 28 percent, a new low even for him, Republicans know they must distance themselves from the White House or face political annihilation at the ballot box.

It is unfortunate that it takes election worries to move Republicans away from their rote support of the White House's policy on the Iraq war. Policy, though, is too kind of a word. Bumbling bull-headedness is a more apt description. Now that Bush is lurching toward lame-duck status, it is only too predictable that support from his longtime complicitous base in Congress will begin lessening as its members attempt to separate themselves from that description.

U.S. forces in Iraq number nearly 150,000 and will number more than that when Bush's surge of 30,000 additional troops has been fully implemented. Republicans united earlier this month to sustain Bush's veto of a Democratic war-funding bill that would have seen significant force reductions by next year.

But to hear many Republicans talk now, it appears they are intending to use the surge as a handy jumping-off point, as in jumping off the Bush bandwagon.

"By the time we get to September, October, members are going to want to know how well this (the surge) is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B?" House Republican Leader John Boehner said on "Fox News Sunday."

Three more Republicans _ Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, all up for reelection _ chimed in on that same theme in comments published Tuesday by The Washington Post.

Expect to see many more congressional Republicans beginning to reposition themselves on the Iraq war as the 2008 election draws closer.

By TOM KISKEN
Scripps Howard News Service
Wednesday, May 09, 2007

The kiss came moments after the Rev. Bill Lowe was ordained as the first married priest in the nation's largest Roman Catholic archdiocese last week.

It was delivered by his wife of 44 years, Linda, just outside the sanctuary at Padre Serra Parish in Camarillo, where about 700 people had gathered to watch a father become a father. It came a heartbeat before one of Lowe's first acts as a Catholic priest.

"He blessed me," Linda Lowe said.

The 68-year-old Lowe was ordained by Cardinal Roger Mahony by way of a little-known pastoral provision that allows married clergy who have left the Episcopal Church to enter Catholic priesthood. The requirement of celibacy is waived.

More than 70 men have used the 27-year-old provision to become Catholic priests in the U.S. Lowe, who is 68 and retired in 2002 after 32 years as an Episcopal priest in Newton, Mass., is the first in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

Mahony said people should view the ordination as an exception and not an indication the church may change its requirements and bring in more married priests.

Many of the parishioners weren't listening. Worried about the shortage of priests, they viewed the ordination as a symbol.

"I think it's opening a door for married priests in the future," said Michelle Paschen of Camarillo. "And yes, I think priests should be married."

John Blankenship, 68, of Camarillo went further.

"I think it's great that we're moving forward," he said. "Hopefully that will eventually lead to women being priests."

Lowe was ordained in a ceremony of ancient rituals punctuated by burning incense and the singing of the refrain "pray for us." He lay face-first on the floor of the church, near an altar made of black granite, to show his humility. Anointing oils were poured in a pool in the palms of his hands.

He became a priest for the second time in his life when Mahony placed his palms on the top of Lowe's head as a laying on of hands. Linda Lowe helped her husband change from a plain white robe to priestly vestments of beige and muted grays and yellows.

The couple views the ordination as a partnership, just like the rest of a life that has brought them three adult children and five grandchildren.

"We don't know what God has in store for us," Bill Lowe said earlier, "but we're up for the adventure."

They've been in Camarillo for about four years. He's always laughing and, according to parishioners, always has time to listen and help. She's into tennis and gardening and understands that as the wife of a Catholic priest, she may be under as much scrutiny as her husband.

"Early on, I found it a little frightening," she said. "Being the wife of a priest is not new to me but it's new to everyone in the (archdiocese)."

Others predict that attention focused on the marriage and the spouse will fade as Lowe goes about the day-to-day work of being an associate pastor at Padre Serra and ministering to people's needs.

"I think it's a 10-day wonder we're looking at as far as the focus being on Linda," said the Rev. Jarlath Dolan, senior pastor at Padre Serra Parish. "And if the focus is on Linda, I can't think of a better person to handle it."

The Lowes view the priesthood as a calling from God. That's why it's hard to answer questions about "why" other than that Bill Lowe didn't like being retired.

"The real reason can't be put into words because this is what God is calling us to do in this time and in this place," Linda Lowe said.

Lowe is not only the first married priest ordained in the archdiocese but also the first Episcopal priest. Mahony, in his homily, spoke of how the paths of different Christian communities run parallel.

"Today your onramp has merged with our onramp," he said.

The ordination was filled with unusual sights: a television reporter wearing high heels but walking on tiptoe so as not to interrupt the service. An usher holding up a camera to try to capture a moment or two of the ceremony. Afterward, parishioners ate cake with chocolate cream filling and stood in a long line to be blessed by the new priest. And if some didn't like the idea of a married priest, they weren't the ones talking.

"I have no problem with it. We need priests," said Adele Marietta, who was in charge of the meatballs at the post-ordination reception. "Marriage is a sacrament, so I see nothing wrong with married priests."

an editorial/The Providence Journal
Wednesday, May 09, 2007

The Senate is overstepping its constitutional authority in trying to take away the right of drug companies to advertise their products. Citizens should not stand for it, because if Congress is allowed to shred the First Amendment, the rest of our freedoms will also quickly disappear.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions panel reported onto the floor a bill that would let the government, through the Food and Drug Administration, bar the advertising of new drugs for their first two years on the market. That is a direct assault on the First Amendment, which says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Who knows what information government will next try to control or suppress if this is allowed to pass?

Newspapers, such as this one, have an obvious interest in defending the right to advertise. But we have an even greater interest in defending freedom of speech, the foundation of all our liberties.

There is little indication that advertising for prescription drugs has harmed many consumers; to the contrary, many millions have been helped by it: Such advertising alerts consumers that drug therapies are available, giving them information they can discuss with their doctors to treat a wide range of ailments.

Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., has pushed a far more sensible approach, one that would create a system for monitoring ads and assessing fines for those that are untruthful or misleading. Allowing the government dictatorial control over which ads run is a very different thing. Bureaucrats should not be cutting off the flow of information to citizens and their physicians.

Senators should reject this scheme. Even though odds are that President Bush would veto this legislation and the courts would overturn it on First Amendment grounds, it is better not to try to undermine essential freedoms to begin with.

By CLIFFORD D. MAY
Scripps Howard News Service
Wednesday, May 09, 2007

What can you, an average citizen, do to help defend America against terrorists sworn to our destruction? How about not investing in them?

A campaign to cut off such investments is gaining momentum. The Center for Security Policy, a Washington think tank, has organized a "Divest Terrorism Initiative" (www.DivestTerror.org) -- a campaign to persuade pension funds, college endowments, 401(k) plans, retirement account managers and individual investors to make sure their money is not used to support regimes that underwrite terrorism.

Highest on the priority list: Iran, Sudan, Syria and North Korea. "These countries have been sanctioned by the United States government as sponsors of terrorism," said Sarah Steelman, the treasurer of Missouri, the first state in the nation whose pension fund has divested from companies doing business with terrorist masters. "Investing in terrorist ... countries is not acceptable to the citizens or the public employees of Missouri."

In Florida last month, the state Senate unanimously passed legislation that would lead to divestment of its $150 billion pension fund from foreign companies investing in Sudan and Iran. Lawmakers in California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and several other states also are attempting to have their pension funds stop putting money into companies working hand in glove with those who slaughter innocent men, women and children for political purposes.

About 100 public pension systems in the United States currently have an estimated $200 billion invested in publicly traded companies -- American and foreign -- that conduct commerce with terrorist masters. Drying up this cash flow is more than a way to make a statement. It's a way to pressure regimes to change their behavior, and perhaps even to push them toward collapse.

Without foreign investment, the government of Sudan, responsible for the genocide of black Muslims in Darfur, can't get its oil out of the ground.

Iran's oil is flowing, but output will decline steeply over the next few years if foreign investment in technology and equipment can be turned off. What's more, foreign firms are now selling Tehran petroleum products -- including about 40 percent of its gasoline and diesel fuel -- that Iran hasn't the refineries to produce on its own. Without that fuel, Iran's highways become parking lots.

Syria's economy is weak and dependent on Iran. North Korea is an economic basket case whose principal exports are counterfeit American money, heroin and ballistic-missile technology.

Investors do not need to sacrifice a chunk of their portfolios to invest terrorism-free. The Missouri Investment Trust actually generated higher returns after divesting from companies with ties to terror-sponsoring regimes. The Roosevelt Investment Group's Anti-Terror Multi-Cap Fund also has done well compared to other mutual funds.

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., and a few other members of Congress are looking for ways to further encourage Americans to get out of the terrorism-funding business, for example by passing legislation that would allow taxpayers to defer paying capital-gains tax on any investment they sell due to a company's terrorist connections.

"Divestment should be part of our strategy to isolate these regimes until they give up their drive for nuclear weapons and/or their support for terror," said Sherman, who chairs the House subcommittee on nonproliferation and terrorism. "Right now the door is open to American dollars going into the pockets of terrorist countries. Our job is to close that door one step at a time."

Who would argue against that? For one, the National Foreign Trade Council, a powerful lobby. Its president, William Reinsch, claims that disinvestment laws are unconstitutional because they interfere with the ability of U.S. presidents to conduct foreign policy.

Missouri Treasurer Steelman fires back: "We are not in the business of setting foreign policy. We were just implementing foreign policy set by the State Department," which designates which countries are terrorism sponsors and therefore should not be America's trading partners.

Terrorism-free investment alone will not end suicide bombings in Israel, plots to blow up girls' schools in Iraq or attempts to bring down trans-Atlantic passenger jets using explosive sneakers. It will not stop conspiracies to kill American soldiers at Fort Dix. But it can play an important role in a comprehensive strategy to defeat those waging a terrorist war against the West.

Both lawmakers and Wall Street can help recruit investors to the struggle against America's enemies. "It seems strange to me that we send men and women to defend freedom, some of whom pay the ultimate sacrifice," Steelman said recently. "However, we have not yet used our most powerful weapon, America's financial markets."

(Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.)