Yesterday it was an obscure, though on its surface a not entirely unreasonable theory. Today Malthus is again in the news. Except Lee was more than a Malthusian. His passionate, valid cries about the desperate state of the environment--"Nothing is more important than saving them. The Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels," Lee wrote--and humans' direct role in environmental degradation, were tinged with echoes of xenophobia. Lee's screed called on the station to shift its programming to focus on strict population control via forced sterilization. He also advocated for closed borders and an end to immigration into the country.

Lee is dead now. After a tense standoff yesterday afternoon he was shot on the scene by a SWAT officer after pointing his weapon at one of his hostages. There were no other injuries, and the building's 1,900 occupants all made it out safely. Lee's legitimate fears about the environment had been clouded in part by xenophobia. 

And not on accident, either. 

The gunman's deranged demands brought to the fore tenets of a growing sector of the environmental movement that's been co-opted by white nationalists and immigration restrictionists with extensive ties to anti-immigrant networks like the American Immigration Control Foundation, Californians for Population Stabilization, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (also known as FAIR) and its various offshoots like NumbersUSA and the Center for Immigration Studies.

And if FAIR sounds familiar to immigration rights watchers, they should. FAIR is the group, founded by anti-immigrant zealot John Tanton, that helped write Arizona's SB 1070 and has been orchestrating the growing copycat bill movement around the country.

In a political climate where immigrants make easy scapegoats for a host of social and economic ills in the country, it's easy for these anti-immigrant groups to blame immigrants, too, for increased fossil fuel use, urban sprawl, the melting of the polar ice caps. Immigrants track their dirt and babies and poverty into the country, and threaten "America's environmental stability," so the anti-immigrant environmentalists say.

The "greenwashing" of the movement has been well-documented. This summer the Center for New Community released a report documenting the nefarious connections between the anti-immigrant movement's faux-environmentalism that stretch back to the 1960's. They made an unsuccessful attempt to derail the Sierra Club's agenda; they've started websites called Progressives for Immigration Reform; they've run convincing ads in lefty magazines masking their anti-immigrant views behind concerns about the planet. But it's not that immigration restrictionists care so much about the environment; they just care much more about ending people's right to enter the country.

Lee seemed to have bought the lies. He wrote:

Find solutions FOR these countries so they stop sending their breeding populations to the US and the world to seek jobs and therefore breed more unwanted pollution babies. FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH!

Lee also condemned war as a contributor to climate change, and wanted the country to find solutions for the unemployment and housing crises. He wanted the best for the ailing planet. So should we all. But he missed a crucial point: migration is not the cause of climate change. Very often, the ravages of climate change and environmental degradation are the impetus behind people's leaving their home countries in search of work and life elsewhere. Saving the planet and protecting immigrants' rights to enter and be in the country are parallel pursuits. They are even very often unified goals among those who know that communities of color and immigrants often feel the brunt of the environmental crisis first, and worst, and know that the welfare of the planet is also dependent on the welfare of the world's most marginalized people.

The New York law requires overtime pay for nannies, housekeepers and companions to the elderly*, guarantees them weekly time off and subjects employers to state law for minimum-wage violations and sexual harassment. These are all basic rights that traditional, full-time employees have long enjoyed, but that a broad swath of workers who are not protected by labor laws have never seen. Last week, the California State Assembly passed a resolution recognizing similar labor standards for domestic workers, rights that lawmakers will likely codify as state law next year. Organizers in other states are working to generate more such victories.

The amazing New York win, spearheaded by Domestic Workers United (DWU) and the New York Domestic Workers Justice Coalition, has received its fair share of congratulations. But this is more than a moving story of downtrodden women confronting the system. Over the longterm, DWU's approach to labor rights should shape the larger, national project of designing a new economy that doesn't slowly kill off its workers.

DWU is not a union, but rather what's called a "workers' center." These small and scrappy but rapidly maturing collectives have formed the last line of defense for primarily workers of color who are excluded, either deliberately or by default, from U.S. labor protections. DWU's ability to raise public consciousness about such exclusions, its innovative organizing of thousands of dispersed workers who have thousands of disparate employers, and the issues it will confront in implementing the new law raise critical questions for all economic justice activists.

Gov. Paterson's press secretary drew a bold analogy on signing day, calling the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights the governor's own version of the Emancipation Proclamation. That boast sounds exaggerated, but the current work life of domestic workers is in fact deeply rooted in post-Civil War racial politics.

The Roosevelt administration passed many enduring economic reforms in the 1930's, including the Social Security Act and the National Labor Relations Act. The latter made it easier for workers to form unions and bargain collectively with their employers. Domestic and farmworkers, however, were explicitly excluded from both laws, a deal that allowed Roosevelt to gather the votes of Southern, white congress members, among others. At the time, 95 percent of domestic workers were black women in the South. Most agricultural workers were Black, Filipino or Mexican.

While Roosevelt's labor protections have expanded over time (farmworkers were included in 1966), the combination of formal exclusion and practical non-enforcement still leaves millions of workers on their own. Most Americans don't likely know the broad swath of workers who aren't protected by labor laws. They include, for instance, workers who are considered independent contractors (such as taxi drivers and home daycare providers) and people working for tips (restaurant servers and runners haven't seen their federal minimum wage rise in 20 years). Workers who receive public benefits through workfare programs, immigrant workers (day laborers, guest workers) and workers in right-to-work states are all excluded from varying sets of rights, either deliberately or by the lack of enforcement. Formerly incarcerated workers are subject to background checks when they apply for jobs, regardless of the severity of their conviction or the amount of time that has lapsed.*

Moreover, these workers have long been abandoned by unions that lack either the interest or the capacity to organize them. But for some years, workers' centers like Domestic Workers United and their sister organizations have been stepping into that void--and often winning substantial changes. The Restaurant Opportunities Center of New York, which I wrote about in The Accidental American, has improved labor conditions in some of the city's biggest restaurant chains, replicating many elements of union contracts, even though they are not a union.

DWU started organizing 10 years ago. Having won the landmark New York law, they will now focus on making sure it is enforceable, by changing regulations such as those that govern how workers file complaints, so that their employers can't retaliate. DWU will also advise the state Department of Labor on educating workers and employers about the new law, and will do its own outreach through workers and through an alliance with Jews for Racial and Economic Justice.

While workers' centers like DWU can play a critical role in fixing the labor economy, they have been hamstrung by the fact that they cannot collectively bargain and cannot collect union dues from an organized workplace. "The traditional collective bargaining framework poses a challenge because of how the industry is set up," says DWU organizer Priscillia Gonzalez. "There's no central work site, and no common employer. Also, there is this dynamic that because the work takes place in someone's home, the people who are hiring don't see themselves as employers."

DWU is investigating ways to get the government to hold employers accountable even in the informal economy. Can that be done by legislation or regulation, if not by collective bargaining? It's a critical question for all workers' centers, and for all lawmakers.

It's also becoming a more broadly relevant question every day. As our economy continues shifting toward service and information industries, more and more formerly middle-class and white workers have seen their jobs similarly "contingentized" as domestic workers and day laborers. As employers load up on temporary, subcontracted and part-time workers rather than full-time employees, they avoid paying into Social Security and providing unemployment insurance, health coverage, and workers' compensation. The can even avoid providing vacation or sick days.

"Labor laws aren't sufficient anymore to protect the rights of workers, whether in the minimum standards or the rules of the NLRA," said Ai-jen Poo, a co-founder of DWU who is now directing the National Domestic Workers Alliance. "There were flaws and holes because so many people were excluded. But even for those workers [labor laws] were meant to protect, they're failing because the economy has changed so much."

People of color and women certainly remain over-represented in this category. Those employed by temp agencies, for example, are more likely than traditional workers to be black or Latino. But the job sectors that have been heavily contingentized in the past 20 years range from professors, editors and writers to tugboat operators and museum guards.

The question of how to adjust to these economic arrangements has to concern traditional labor unions as well as workers' centers. A number of unions helped DWU win in New York. The doorman's union was particularly active, in large part because doormen in luxury apartment buildings have plenty of opportunities to witness first hand the abuse of domestic workers. Nonetheless, unions have an outdated organizing model, even when they are progressive on racial and gender matters. They go into a large workplace with a single employer, organize it, win an election and bargain for a new contract. As such workplaces disintegrate, however, unions have been slow to adjust and quick to lose members. Unlike workers in other countries, for instance, when American workers lose their jobs, they also lose their union memberships.

Nor is there any real trans-nationalism in American unions, although the U.S. workforce is increasingly foreign-born with strong global ties, including dependent family members. By contrast, DWU and the national alliance have worked with the International Labor Organization to produce a convention on the rights of the domestic worker and build, for the first time, global standards governing the industry.

"The experience of domestic workers challenges the framework we're used to for labor law," said Poo. "Maybe instead of talking about minimum wage, we need a floor wage. Or instead of inclusion in [existing] labor law, we need new laws." If we're going to develop a vision for protecting workers in the 21st century, it is far more likely to emerge from the people on the margins of the American labor movement than from those at its traditional center. This week's New York victory is a welcome, hopeful start.

*A previous version of this post incorrectly reported that the New York law addresses overtime pay for home health aides. We also reported that formerly incarcerated applicants are the only ones subject to background checks; they are the only workers who are checked regardless of the the type of job they are seeking.

Now, the The Morning News is reporting that the foundation's chairman is speaking out against Johnson, and it's clear that, however the allegations came to light, it's turning into another big headache for Democrats in a tough election season.

"Neither the Foundation nor the Congressional Black Caucus will allow unethical behavior in the awarding of scholarships or any programs that are designed to benefit the community," said Rep. Donald Payne, chair of the CBC Foundation. "There will be no self-dealing or nepotism in the awarding of college scholarships."

Payne has since ordered an "extensive audit" to figure out just how deep the foundation's fiscal irregularities go, and to figure out how to monitor scholarship awards more carefully.

Johnson, a nine term Democrat in Texas' 30th congressional district, was found to have awarded 23 scholarships worth an estimated $25,000 to four of her relatives and two children of her district director Rod Givens. The scholarship recipients were ineligible on several levels; on top of being related to CBC members, none lived in congressional districts represented by a caucus member, a requirement that's reportedly clearly marked on every application.

Johnson has tried to defend her actions by claiming that the rules were broken "unknowingly,", and that she probably would've have chosen different awardees if more eligible students from her district had applied. Critics contend that not enough was done to publicize the awards.

The scholarships are funded by private donations and issued through the CBC foundation, a separate non-profit entity in which lawmakers are heavily involved. Johnson chaired the caucus in 2002 and served on the foundation board for the next four years--which means she was on the board at the same time that she's accused of playing favorites.

Each CBC member is given $10,000 in scholarship money for students in their districts. The Morning News reports that last year, Johnson gave half of her pot of award money to two of her grandsons and Givens' kids.

While Johnson has promised to repay the money by the end of this week, the scandal is particularly embarrassing for the foundation, which has recently been criticized for spending more money on fundraising galas than on scholarships for needy constituents.

The caucus includes one senator and 41 House members, all of whom are Democrats. At least two longtime members, Reps. Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters, are already facing highly publicized ethics trials this fall.

It's unclear whether Republican-led animus is responsible for the scandal coming to light, or merely making it worse. The Republican National Committee has cited Johnson's "nepotism scandal" atop their list of ethically challenged Democrats in an ongoing effort to undermine House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's vow to "drain" the ethical swamp in Congress and take back the House in November.

Pelosi and member of the Democratic National Committee had previously vowed to used the handful of CBC scandals to prove that the Democratic strategy to clean up Congress was in fact working.

And he's enlisted a slew of conservative media makers in his quest, including Scott Baker as editor, who once worked for Andrew Breitbart. 

Of course, Beck's favorite news topic is himself. Sean Alfano reports, "Among the top stories appearing on The Blaze Tuesday morning were six stories related to his Washington D.C. rally, a pair of stories about the imam behind the proposed Ground Zero mosque, and a story with the headline: HuffPo Pulls Glenn Beck 'Sex Tape' Article."

Media ventures have been very good to Beck. Kai Wright wrote last week that Beck has made a fortune off book deals, his radio show, a self-titled website and spot of Fox News. In total, he rakes in a nice $32 million in profits and is ranked 43rd on the Forbes Celebrity 100 power ranking list.

Beck says that readers can expect "insightful opinions," but he warns not to "expect everything to be deadly serious." 

Insight and seriousness are the two characteristics I least expect from Beck, but where he is wanting in redeeming qualities he surely makes up in cash flow.