What does a wave of immigrants do to an economy? It was fine for Florida in 1980

There is little to no hard data showing that immigrants hurt a local economy, but there are some cases where their benefits (or lack of harm) were clearly documented: http://www.npr.org/2015/10/01/444912593/when-cuban-migrants-flooded-miami-what-did-it-do-to-the-local-economy

In the case of the "Scarface" sudden influx of 125K Cubans to South FL in 1980 (incl. 25K former criminals according to the film), there was no economic evidence of negative impact. Many were processed and enrolled in jobs/school quickly, so their need for gov't services was minor. Also they served to "grow the pie" by creating more economic demand (125K refugees = 125K consumers), which resulted in more jobs and sales for Americans. Local wages did not fall. And eventually many of them got education and contributed intellectual capital to the US. Europe, with an aging population and plummeting birth rate, actually NEEDS a lot more productive young people who are willing to work manual/unskilled jobs.

I know 1980 was a different time, and many Cubans benefited from previously-migrated relatives and a familiar culture in FL. But clearly the US will not take in 100K people from the Mideast, and they won't be concentrated in one state. As we discussed before, many Syrian refugees are educated and may also speak English, so it's not like the typical Latin American migrant profile. Detractors will come up with all sorts of excuses to oppose refugee resettlement (cost, security, culture clash), but the bottom line is they have no evidence to back up those suspicions, and as a UN member we have an obligation to act. There will always been some criminals and deadbeats among any group of people, but refugees are no worse than a random sampling of Americans (in fact they're likely better).  

Another controversial Stand Your Ground killing in Florida

http://www.npr.org/2014/02/03/270874416/murder-trial-reminiscent-of-zimmerman-case-to-begin-in-florida
http://news.yahoo.com/murder-trial-opens-florida-shooting-over-loud-music-060201995--sector.html;_ylt=A0SO8yR2u.9SE2gAsPNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBsOXB2YTRjBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkAw--

Yes, again the shooter is a middle-aged, suburban, white man and the victim is an unarmed black teen. It all started when the victim (Davis) and 3 friends were filling up gas next to the shooter (Dunn). Davis' car was playing loud music and Dunn asked them to turn it down. They complied, but later turned it back up and allegedly made some threatening comments to Dunn. Dunn claims to have seen one of them "reach down for something" in the car, so he pulled out his 9mm from his glove box and fired 4 rounds. No warning shot, no "Stop what you're doing I'm armed!"... just shoot first. But here is the worst part - the youths then proceeded to flee (understandable), and Dunn fired 4 more rounds into the departing vehicle (GREAT job Reuters for failing to include that important detail - of course NPR didn't forget).


I am not sure if any of those "gratuitous" shots were the kill shot, and a later search of Davis' vehicle revealed no weapons. That seems to violate SYG to me - there was no more threat, why keep shooting? He is not Dirty Harry. Was he trying to stop them from blasting their music next time? Some people think that violence is the default response to difficult situations, and they don't consider how that perception will make things worse for everyone.

-----

Yeah, and it's not like these guys had no choice. Both Zimmerman and Dunn were not having a crime committed against them. In both cases, they did/could have called the police to resolve it, and not directly confront. And in both cases, their escalating actions made violence more likely to ensue. To be fair, if Zimm or Dunn did those things to you or I, likely no one would be dead at the end of the day. But that's the point - they have no idea who they are dealing with. So maybe they should think about whether loud music or a hoodie is enough of a problem to risk the possibility of a gunfight. But a gun in your belt/car suddenly makes you Mr. Badass, so it changes your risk calculations.

That is one of the biggest problems associated with SYG laws and America's gun culture in general. Like Bill Maher joked, America's foreign policy is "What the F you looking at!?!" Same with domestic - why is violence too often the default response to an unpleasant situation? And in a competitive, free society, unpleasant altercations are inevitable. Do we have to go OK Corral every time someone else does something we don't like? The hubris and egoism associated with the rationale behind SYG is shocking to me. I can't believe higher courts haven't looking into the Constitutional implications too.

Pretty much this is the only situation where vigilantism is justified, when a fanatical drug cult takes over your community, there is no rule of law, and your corrupt government/military is ineffective:


http://latinousa.org/2014/01/31/michoacan-101-inside-civilian-militia-uprising/

We do not and should not live in a comic book.

Obama comments about race and the Zimmerman Martin case

"I just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws," - POTUS (I said it first :)

Obama said it would be useful ‘‘to examine some state and local laws to see if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of confrontation’’ that led to Martin’s death. He questioned whether a law that sends the message that someone who is armed ‘‘has the right to use those firearms even if there is a way for them to exit from a situation’’ really promotes peace and security. -boston.com

THERE YOU GO! THAT'S THE OBAMA WE KNOW HE CAN BE! Use the bully pulpit and tell the country what it needs to hear (and what it isn't getting from other leaders and the media). He doesn't have to be tough or shocking, because truth and decency are on his side (unlike the drones-PRISM issues). Now if only he could do this with Congress and the Pentagon.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/has-president-obama-done-enough-for-black-americans/274699/
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2013/07/19/obama-says-martin-could-have-been-years-ago/8ZsgQWShtvkRA8ZC7NbnTK/singlepage.html

I was about to call out No-Drama Obama for cowardice for being the first minority president who seemed to be avoiding comment on the Zimmerman case (though he is conscientious, and probably wanted to let things simmer down a week after the verdict before commenting). He didn't event spend 24 hrs in Africa during his first term (and that was for the Cairo speech with a predominantly Arab audience), despite a massive outpouring of love (and need) from that continent. For how much Obama discussed his identity in his books, now he tends to duck race, unless he has to diffuse controversy over Rev. Wright or Prof. Gates. And in those situations, he shone - so why not talk about race more (within reason)? I think America wants it and needs it, and he is the right messenger for it. With so much political hostility and economic uncertainty, maybe race is the best medium for Obama to fulfill his promise to bring America together - and part of that involves letting go of bitterness, misinformation, and defensiveness, to start replacing pain with understanding. Only the most douchebag conservatives would cry "race baiting," which is ironic because I think they are some of the biggest bigots in politics and the most opposed to reconciliation.

Obama hasn't really done much that particularly benefits minorities during his time in office, apart from the Dream Act mostly meant for Latinos. Since blacks already vote overwhelmingly Democrat, could they be taken for granted, even by Obama? Martin is the biggest racial crisis of his presidency, so I was glad to hear his presidential and candid comments today. The goal was clear and necessary: provide context and explain to mainstream America why the black community is so upset over the case (they're not just hotheaded rioters, but this is the latest preventable tragedy in a long sad history of highly targeted prejudice). Show them what it's like to be a young black man, feared and under suspicion (and maybe harassed/attacked) even though you're doing nothing wrong. Life is a lot harder and crappier when many signs around you are telling you that you are inferior, scary, and even evil. Though it's sad that we need Obama and the gravitas of his person/office to communicate this to America. This should not be breaking news, unless you have your head in the sand. But that is the first step towards reconciliation and harmony, empathy/acknowledgement for others, even if it's hard to do - freaking obvious but sadly lacking in much of society. We can't keep using our racist past as a crutch/excuse/cop-out, but we can't sweep it under the rug either. So we can't worsen matters, and increase the risk of another ugly incident to set us back, with stupid policies and false beliefs.

On Real Time, Maher mentioned some stats that in the history of SYG in all the states that have it, a white defendant is >300% more likely to be found not guilty for shooting a black person vs. a white person (I know the context of each case could be different). A Tampa study of 200 SYG trials in Florida found that the defense worked 73% of the time when the victim was black. His guest said that 70% of the US prisons and 90% of NYC stop-and-frisk targets are non-white, yet the overall US population is 72% white. So that touches on the profiling and equal justice for all issues.


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/maher-battles-gopers-on-obamas-speech-unless-people-see-burning-crosses-they-think-racisms-over/

---

Also, I heard about half of the rebroadcast Commonwealth Club program below with Jon Alter about his book on Obama's first term and the Obama-Romney election, The Center Holds. I'd like to hear the whole thing later, but he brought up a good point for progressives to remember when we are disappointed with Obama. We have every right to be disappointed, but imagine if Romney won (kind of a false choice I know, since we would hope for and deserve better selection). Like with Carter and Reagan, Romney could have taken credit for the economic recovery started under Obama. Regardless of who sat in the White House in 2013, the deficit was going to shrink (by hundreds of billions), the markets were going to rise, and unemployment/housing numbers were going to improve. It is likely that Romney-Ryan would have repealed Obamacare, rolled back a lot of regulations, gave huge tax breaks to the rich, and implemented many parts of the draconian Ryan budget early in their term. In typical fashion, they would have taken credit for the positive economic signals, attributing them to their pro-business, anti-socialist "reforms". Of course in the fact-based world, that narrative is a joke. But those ultra-libertarian, 1% skewed policies could have gained national traction and a foothold in DC. In Alter's words, "Progressive ideas would have been set back for a generation." Not progressive ideas actually, but the commonly-accepted (by the 99% at least) beliefs that it is good for America that we care for the old/needy, have a fair playing field, and keep the US a nation of, by, and for the people - not the plutocrats.

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/2013-06-18/jonathan-alter-obama-presidency


Jonathan Alter: The Obama Presidency


Bloomberg View columnist and author Jonathan Alter uses his unmatched access and deep knowledge of politics and history to produce an unparalleled account of America at the crossroads. Peering behind the curtain at the White House and the presidential campaigns with exclusive reporting and rare historical insight, Alter reveals the twists, turns and high-stake political decisions of the Obama presidency. Alter also examines Obama's adversaries, providing fresh details about the Koch brothers, Grover Norquist, Roger Ailes and the "online haters" who suffer from what Alter calls "Obama Derangement Syndrome." Alter goes inside what he calls the GOP "clown car" primaries as well as Obama's disastrous preparation for the first debate. The program also meets Obama's analytics geeks working out of "The Cave," and the man who secretly videotaped Mitt Romney's infamous comments on the "47 percent." The conversation is moderated by Joe Tuman, professor of legal and political communications at San Francisco State University, and political analyst for CBS 5 Television.

 
Fri, Jul 19, 2013 -- 8:00pm

The Zimmerman jury may have gotten it right, but now what?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57593459-504083/george-zimmerman-verdict-former-neighborhood-watch-leader-not-guilty-in-death-of-fla-teen-trayvon-martin/

Most of us probably believe that it was wrong for Zimmerman to confront Martin in the way he did, and it was a tragedy that the boy died. But in terms of a conviction, unfortunately there just wasn't enough there to prove the strict definitions of 2nd degree murder and/or manslaughter. It's not like he killed Martin outright... he first put himself in dangerous proximity, and escalated into some sort of verbal and physical altercation. He's misguided and showing poor judgment, but not a murderer. Obviously he is a child killer, and yet a hero to many.

What about the trial's greater implications? Our culture, racial policies, and gun laws were not on trial - but they are still open issues for debate. Obviously after Oscar Grant, Martin, and many other examples, I assume the black community and many other Americans are tired of seeing young, lower income, unarmed people of color getting beaten or killed, while the lighter-skinned, gun-toting perpetrator is acquitted or given little punishment (in their opinion). Anger is high and some may want to lash out violently. On the other side, Zimmerman and his supporters may expect that. These folks probably favor concealed-carry, stand-your-ground, unrestricted 2nd amendment, and other legal provisions that enable firearms to be lawfully used for more self defense and vigilante scenarios. So they may want to carry their weapons more often, and may be even more paranoid when confronted by others whose appearance scares them. That's a volatile combination of circumstances.

We discussed this a bit before, but as you'd expect I find such laws that enabled Zimmerman to legally create the tragic situation in Sanford fairly outrageous. We know almost any adult can purchase a gun in America with next to no "qualifications". And in states like FL, you can easily get a permit (if you even need a permit) to carry your gun loaded in public - as long as you are not intoxicated, brandishing it so others feel threatened, etc. Americans get buy guns easily and have loaded guns almost everywhere in a variety of situations - thereby increasing the likelihood that a Sanford type killing, an outright crime, or an accident occurs.

Adding SYG to that, in incidents where conflict ensures and the shooter feels in danger, he/she can use deadly force as self defense and be legally justified. Premeditated malice and aggression aside, it barely matters how you got into the mess (especially when evidence is sketchy, if it's even relevant/admissible), as long as you can prove you were under attack - you have "a license to kill". Does that mean any moron can start shit with anyone else, and when they get in over their head and things go south, they can "kill their way out of trouble?" What if 2 armed people get into a fight? Whoever shoots first under threat will be the "winner". So will that incentive people in those states to be even more hasty and trigger-happy?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/03/23-other-states-have-stand-your-ground-laws-too/50226/

FL and 23 other states have some sort of SYG. They are basically every state below the Mason-Dixon, plus IL, WA, NV, OR. Maybe the best way for blacks and concerned citizens to "have their revenge" against the system and our gun-happy, conflict-happy culture is to boycott. Move out of those states, don't do business with them, don't contribute tax dollars to them. If enough people do it, leaders will start to get the picture and maybe change the laws/norms. Plus, with all the non-pistoleros leaving those communities, the only people left will be the Zimmerman types. It will be more likely that they get into armed altercations with each other, thereby reducing the pro-gun population and creating a lot of negative press for the gun/vigilante/self defense crowd. Because maybe that is the only thing that will really move the debate - when a non-poor, fair-skinned, pro-gun shooter kills a non-poor, fair-skinned, pro-gun victim. Unfortunately it seems that dead black people piled up to the ceiling (forgive my crudeness, but just look at the Chicago and Oakland cases) is not enough to get America and its lawmakers to care.

Or another option is, "if you can't beat em, join em". Zimmerman opponents can start acting like him. Imagine if Martin was an adult and went through the necessary steps to carry in public. Once Zimm. was following him and starting stuff, he could have just killed Zimm. and the trial would have been inverted. It would have been even easier to argue self defense since Zimm. was armed, was the instigator, and his prior 911 call showed prejudice and intent to confront aggressively. With Mark O'Mara, the gun lobby, AND the NAACP defending Martin, no way he would be convicted (unless the FL justice system is truly racist). Maybe that is what is needed, legally armed black people fighting back and killing gun-toting racial profilers who mess with them? Obviously I'm being facetious here, but my point is: look at what these laws and culture could lead to. A nation where almost everybody has the legal authority to be armed in public (with ever more deadly weapons), and use those arms to lawfully kill in an increasing multitude of situations, is not a freer or better society. It's goddam Tombstone. And it won't make your suburb any safer, it won't protect your kids from a deranged school shooter (who likely outguns and outcrazies you), and it won't defeat Al Qaeda or our tyrannical socialist gov't.

So yeah, I would advocate the boycott approach before the Tombstone approach.

-----

Maybe you saw last night's Daily Show: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-july-15-2013-aaron-sorkin

For the record, they also compared SYG to Tombstone - but I called it first. ;) They also showed footage of Zimm's brother discussing how George would have to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life because people may want to take matters into their own hands. It was pathetic that the brother didn't grasp the irony.

Also, CNN aired an interview with one of the anonymous jurors (who already landed a book deal, but it got cancelled after her interview aired since it seemed wrong to profit from what some see as a blatant injustice), a married middle-aged white female gun owner. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvrpp4SODBE
http://www.npr.org/2013/07/16/202566703/juror-b-37-speaks-out-about-zimmerman-verdict

When asked if race played a role in Zimm's actions, the juror said that, "[it wouldn't have mattered to Zimm if Trayvon was] Spanish, white, Asian..." Do we want to trust the verdict in a racially-charged trial to a person who can't even articulate the major ethnic groups? Heck, as the defense joked, the main criterion for juror eligibility was a lack of prior knowledge of the incident. This was the case with previous high-profile trials as well, but that's kind of scary that the court has to select the most un-informed and apathetic among the juror pool. The interviewed juror also admitted that she did not follow the judge's orders when coming to a verdict. The judge ruled to disregard the lead investigator's (Chris Serrino, sp?) testimony that he felt Zimm was truthful, yet the juror said that quote made "a big impression" on her decision because of Serrino's experience. Justice definitely served. Lastly, the juror said that of the 6 women, 2 initially believed Zimm to be guilty of manslaughter, but eventually were persuaded to join the acquit crowd (1 of the 6 abstained or still supported manslaughter). You'd think that harassing and brandishing a firearm to an unarmed minor on a public street would break some sort of US law.

Like the Ted Stevens and OJ trials, I'm getting tired of prosecutors wetting the bed. Trying to make a name for themselves or under external pressure, they over-reach with big charges that may not have enough evidence to support them. And then they totally botch the execution too. How can they agree to a jury of all women and all having common ethnicity with the defendant, but not the victim? How can they not prepare their witnesses better (the defense basically turned them over), and not put Zimm on the stand himself? I am fairly ignorant about legal matters, so I'm sure other factors were at play, but I'd like to see an explanation or expert evaluation of their decision/performance. Just not from a juror's book deal.


I think this trial did produce a conviction on US society. We are guilty of tolerating and perpetrating a culture of hostility, fearful stereotyping & over-reactions, shoot first, and "violence solves problems" that will continue to result in civil rights violations, misunderstandings, and tragedies (if not actual crimes).

-----------

From all objective legal accounts this couldn't have gone any other way.  The judge instructed them that Z was within his legal rights, per Florida state law, to follow Martin, approach him, etc.  And once a scuffle ensued if he felt threatened it would not be manslaughter to use his weapon.  Florida does not require you to retreat as part of a self defense act.  Given no other witnesses to the activity, relatively poor circumstantial evidence, etc how could someone not have a reasonable doubt that this was a legal act as opposed to manslaughter?  Are we saying there is NO reasonable doubt that Z started the fight?

 

And the ethnicity thing is killing me.  So all the women were half hispanic?  Is there some evidence somewhere that this was motivated by race?  Zim has previously stood up in city council to berate a white officer whose son attacked a black homeless man.  Not a particularly racist thing to do.  Profiling sure, i'll grant that, but those aren't the same thing.  

----------

I agree with you about the verdict - it's pretty much a slam-dunk actually, and the prosecution were morons for trying to pin him with murder 2. By the strict interpretation of the law, he was not guilty. I am not sure how the verdict would have changed in NY or CA. I never said that Z was a racist and I do think his actions were motivated mostly by a "civic duty" to protect his community from crime. But from a jury standpoint, it's hard to believe that race played zero role in their decision making process, even though the lawyers did their best to avoid the issue. Humans have biases, so if we can't remove them, at least we should balance them out and cancel them out. I'm not saying the jury was all racist either, but we tend to relate better to people who are similar to us. Isn't that why it's rare to have a very homogeneous jury? I don't know why it was only 6 instead of 12 people (maybe FL law?), but I think a mixture of backgrounds is often good to avoid tunnel vision and groupthink. Despite the racial makeup of the jury, 2 of them were initially favoring manslaughter for Z anyway, but were persuaded to change.

You'd think that harassing and brandishing a firearm to an unarmed minor on a public street would break some sort of US law (or it should, right?). I guess this trial did produce a conviction of US society. We are guilty of tolerating and perpetrating a culture of hysterical hostility, fearful stereotyping & over-reactions, shoot first, my gun is my freedom, and "violence solves problems" that will continue to result in civil rights violations, misunderstandings, and tragedies (if not actual crimes). 

-----------

Listen to the 911 call and tell me about harassing him.  And no one has any factual reports that he pulled his gun anytime but the last minute as far as i know.  

He would be guilty for sure in ca or ny or any of the more narrowly defined self defense law states.

-----------

I have not been following the case closely, but while Martin was on the phone with his friend, couldn't you hear him say [presumably to Z], "Why are you following me?" That could suggest there was harassment (and who knows what else happened that wasn't caught on tape?). 

Based on Z's initial 911 call and his motivation for being a "watchman", I think we can assume that he prejudged Martin and confronted him with the intent to run him out of the neighborhood (ostensibly to thwart a crime), possibly by intimidation/threat.

I wasn't a witness obviously, but I find it doubtful that Martin would just suddenly attack an adult stranger who approached/followed him on a dark night. So I think it's plausible that Z did something to scare/provoke Martin, and made the teen feel the need to react and "defend himself" first. But that's the problem with fighting... how do you differentiate between attack and defense, because a punch is a punch? Even straddling and pummeling a person could be defensive, if the purpose was to prevent the person on the bottom from drawing a deadly weapon.

There are "good Samaritan" laws to prevent people trying to help in a volatile situation from getting sued later if they accidentally did harm. But I think there are limits to that protection, like gross negligence voids it. I would hope that SYG laws have limits too - if the shooter puts him/herself in a bad situation and escalates it (if that can be proven), then he/she is no longer covered. Otherwise the law incentivizes violent confrontation, regardless of intent. What if I went into Little Havana with a loudspeaker and started to yell pro-Castro slogans? Assuming people took enough offense to approach me with demonstrable intent to physically harm, I can just shoot them legally? I am not an expert in SYG so maybe there are such common sense limits.

And just when you thought things couldn't get any more effed up in FL, this is another case where a jury (racial composition unknown) found a woman defendant ineligible for SYG protection. She is a PhD, mother of 3, with no prior record, and black. She previously took out a restraining order against her husband for abuse. During their latest alleged altercation, she retrieved a gun in her home and fired a warning shot (according to her) into the ceiling to keep him away. But the court decided that she could not prove she was in imminent danger, so instead she was sentenced to 20 YEARS. I am not sure what the charge was, possibly attempted murder of the husband and/or child endangerment (since their kids were present). This is because FL has mandatory minimum sentences for crimes involving guns (10 years if you have a gun, 20 if you fire it). Some have alleged that mandatory minimum sentences are immoral and maybe racist. So I guess FL enables "lawful" gun owners to have a lot of leeway, but throws the book at gun "criminals". Based on circumstance, economics, etc., one of those populations is predominantly darker skinned and poorer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2143313/Abused-Florida-wife-sentenced-20-YEARS-firing-warning-shot-husband-Stand-Your-Ground-defence-fails.html

The GOP's disenfranchisement efforts

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/15/
158869947/do-voter-id-laws-prevent-fraud-or-dampen-turnout
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-
04-28/politics/scotus.voter.id_1_voter-impersonation-voter-id-laws-voter-fraud?_s=PM:POLITICS
http://www.npr.org/blogs/
itsallpolitics/2012/08/17/158982853/federal-court-reinstates-early-voting-days-in-parts-of-florida?ft=1&f=1014

Of all developed democratic nations, the US is probably the one where it's hardest to vote. In the last few elections, conservatives have tried to make that process even harder (presumably for some voting blocs that lean Democrat). They claim that it's meant to prevent fraud and tampering, but there is pretty much zero evidence of in-person voting fraud in the last couple decades (most fraud cases have involved mail-in ballots). They respond to that by saying one fraudulent vote is one too many. But in order to stop that one fraudulent vote, how do you justify disenfranchising dozens or even thousands of legit voters? Faux News and others have done a great job implanting the idea in Americans' minds that voter fraud by the left is rampant. Dead people, illegals, and felons are on the voter rolls, etc. Well as we saw in FL 2000, that wasn't the case at all, and in fact authorized voters were being mislabeled as felons.

What are they so afraid of? If their candidates are better, and their ideas are superior, then no need to play games - the voters will validate their cause. Or if they think the voters are dumb and don't know what's best for them, then spend the corporate billions to blitz the airwaves with propaganda and get out the vote as insurance. Both parties are doing that plenty. But now they have to go one step further and block unfriendly voters from exercising their American rights? That is unacceptable. The GOP is supposedly the party of freedom, liberty, and small government. Then why are they so hardcore about enacting these new bureaucratic laws that undermine some people's liberty? They want to be the populist party instead of the elitist party, but moves like this reveal their true colors. Heck we have so much gerrymandering and don't even allow winner-by-popular-vote in many cases, precisely to be undemocratic. But is  this a gov't "of the people, by the people, and for the people" - or something else? By the way, that quote was from a certain Republican president during the Civil War.

-----------

Can you imagine who would be elected of we didn't have a system that disenfranchised voters? That's why the Republicans are so afraid. They complain about fraud and want to require govt issued ids but they can't point to any cases where this has been a problem.

Also, why not vote on Sundays (like in France which has much higher turnout) or make election day (at least for presidential) a holiday?

-----------

Yeah I agree. Voting is already so inconvenient here (and many Dem-leaning voters like students and the poor don't participate as it is), that the voter ID stuff is almost a joke. In some nations voting is mandatory (that probably wouldn't fly here). But at least in other places, the voting window is like a month, and/or voting day is on a weekend as you said. There is NO good reason voting should occur on a Tuesday (in the winter) here, with so much at stake. I know there is some law stating that employers must give workers unpenalized time off to vote, but that is probably not practical for many hourly lower-wage jobs (again, poorer minorities who may lean Dem). So the system is already so whack and undemocratic as it is, these new laws are just salt on the wound. I don't understand why there isn't more outrage over this. If only the ACLU and NAACP speak out, then the issue appears liberal and partisan, not a matter of rights and liberty that it truly is.  

Oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8651333.stm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100401/bs_afp/uspoliticsenergyoil_20100401033417

"There have been 509 fires, at least two fatalities and 12 serious injuries on oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico since 2006." -BusinessWeek

What bad timing that under a month after Obama unveiled a plan to expand offshore oil drilling in the Eastern US and Gulf of Mexico, the BP disaster occurred (11 workers suspected dead, thousands of barrels pouring into the Gulf across a 600-mile-wide area, with the slick heading towards wildlife protected wetlands). Maybe it's a sign. Obama has already ticked off much of his liberal base over concessions to the GOP/Wall Street, dithering on gays in the military, the painful passage of watered-down Obamacare, and inaction on immigration reform. Now this move has angered environmentalists.

Parts of Florida may be on the table as well, but the plan faces protest. It's funny that the flip-flopping FL GOP governor and US Senate hopeful Charlie Crist (who tends to vote anti-gay but is suspected to be a closet homosexual, but that's another story: http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/10933/npr-spikes-outrage-review-that-named-names) was historically against offshore FL drilling, but when he was touted as a possible running mate to pro-drilling McCain in 2008, he suddenly changed his mind. But now that President Obama is calling for the exact same drilling plans, he's against it again.

BP has had a bad safety run in the last decade. In 2005, their refinery at Texas City exploded, causing 15 deaths. In 2006, a corroded pipeline caused 1,500 barrels worth of oil to leak in AK's North Slope, and the next year they had a 2,000 gallon methanol leak in Prudhoe Bay. The company has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines from these accidents. Who knows how much the Gulf disaster will cost, in terms of dollars and environmental harm?

All the easily-accessible oil has been tapped in North America, and most of the world. Expanded offshore drilling through harder rock in deeper water (also areas in hurricane zones) is more expensive, complex, and dangerous. Is it worth the environmental risk and infrastructure investment to do this, just to add a few million barrels per year (and the US consumes 22M barrels per day)? So it's a drop in the bucket gain. Yes oil accidents are rare overall, but when mistakes happen, they really cause problems. Would it make more sense to just keep buying more foreign oil (by foreign, I mean Canada and Mexico mostly), or even affordable Brazilian ethanol, instead? But then US energy and farming companies have a shit fit.