Palin says rhetoric not to blame for Arizona shootings, but recent history suggests otherwise

U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, left, and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin

Within hours of the Saturday, Jan. 8, shooting spree in Tucson, Ariz., that left six dead and 14 — including the gunman’s apparent primary target, U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords — wounded, a nationwide discussion — perhaps “argument” is a better word — had begun over the role that extreme political rhetoric had played in the massacre. And one of the first names to pop up in that discussion was that of Sarah Palin, the former Alaskan governor and former vice presidential candidate turned rightwing political pundit and reality TV star.

Giffords was one of the Democratic members of Congress who, in a campaign flyer posted on Palin’s website, had been “targeted” for defeat by Republicans in last November’s elections. The flyer included a graphic of a map with the “targeted’ districts marked by gunsights. That flyer along with Palin’s “don’t retreat, reload” comment, along with Nevada rightwinger Sharon Angle’s “Second Amendment remedies” comment, have gotten a lot of play in the days since the shootings.

Palin’s people took the flyer off the website within hours of the shooting, but it wasn’t until today that Palin herself spoke up, releasing a video in which she declares that political rhetoric had nothing to do with the shootings in Arizona  and decrying the “irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame” for the massacre to her and other rightwing pundits. The responsibility, Palin declared, lies solely with the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner.

Since we don’t know yet — and really may never know — what prompted this young man to open fire at Giffords and the others on Saturday, I find myself agreeing with Palin, at least a little. Let’s get our facts straight, so to speak, before we start laying blame.

—  admin

U.S. Labor Department redefines ‘family’

New definition could benefit 100,000 children including those with same-sex parents and whose parents are in the military

Hilda Solis Guest Columnist

It’s been 17 years since Congress passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, or FMLA — groundbreaking legislation that allows parents to take unpaid time off from work to care for their children.

Since then, thanks in large measure to technology, work has changed. And as a result, workers have changed, often at warp speed. But what many have been slow to recognize is the fact that “families” have been changing for a very long time. Well, the Obama administration took a major step in recognizing that change last month when the U.S. Department of Labor clarified the definition of “son and daughter” under the FMLA.

Our interpretation ensures that an employee who assumes the role of caring for a child receives parental rights to family leave regardless of the legal or biological relationship. We’ve done so because the realities of who is a “mother” and who is a “father” — and new, important and responsible concepts of “parenthood” — simply demand it, at home and at work.

It’s called in loco parentis, a Latin phrase and legal doctrine meaning in the place of a parent. When applied to the new realities of work and family, it means all employees who have assumed the responsibility for parenting a child, whether they have a biological or legal relationship with the child or not, may be entitled to FMLA leave.

Consider the case of Nazanin Meftah and her partner, Lydia Banuelos, a lesbian couple in Tucson, Ariz. Meftah developed medical complications after the birth of the couple’s children in 2007 and 2009.

Despite a clear need and obvious relationship to the children, Banuelos was denied unpaid leave both times by her employer. She wasn’t able to care for the kids because she was not a biological parent or legal guardian.

I had the chance to meet Ms. Meftah, and her story is sadly as common as it is compelling. The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law estimates that more than 100,000 children growing up in same-sex families could benefit from this simple, but important action.
The Labor Department’s interpretation of the FMLA makes clear that children can get the support and care they need from the people who love them and are responsible for them.

This is certainly a win for LGBT families, and recognizes the importance of a partner who shares in the parenting of a child in a same sex relationship.

But it’s also a win for “Tia” (Spanish for aunt), who steps in to care for her young nephew when his mother has been called to active military duty, or a grandmother who takes responsibility for her grandchild.

We know that family-friendly policies and laws like the FMLA aren’t “niceties” but rather necessities that contribute to the well-being of all families and a better bottom line for employers. No further interpretation of that is required.

Hilda L. Solis is the U.S. Secretary of Labor.

This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition July 9, 2010.

—  Michael Stephens