Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

Jefferson would have especially valued Marie Colvin of the Sunday Times of London and Anthony Shadid of the New York Times, both of whom died this week in Syria.

Colvin was killed in a savage artillery bombardment of a residential neighborhood in Homs, Syria’s third city. In her last report, filed hours before she was killed, she explained to CNN’s Anderson Cooper why it was important to show video of a two-year old boy dying of shrapnel wounds to the chest.

“I feel very strongly that it should be shown. That’s the reality: there are 28,000 defenseless civilians being shelled. That baby will probably move more people to think ‘What is going on and why is no one stopping these murders that are going on every day?’

“The Syrian Army is shelling a city of cold, starving civilians.”

Shadid died of an asthma attack as he was walking out of Syria to file his latest report. He knew of the danger he faced, and was frightened by it. He told NPR’s Terry Gross that he persisted when there was a story that was important for the world to know. He had been shot and wounded in 2002 while covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After reporting from Tunisia and Egypt, he moved on to Libya, where he was kidnapped and beaten by government forces. Not long after, he knowingly risked his life again to sneak into Syria, where he was reporting on the resistance movement when he died.

Both Colvin and Shadid knew real courage—to be filled with fear and still go on. The world is richer because of reporters like them.

Foxconn Technology, maker of iPhones, iPads, and countless other consumer electronics goods, announced Saturday an immediate pay raise of 16%-25%, to about $400 a month,  for the lowest paid workers in its Chinese plants.

At Apple’s request the industry-sponsored Fair Labor Association has started an audit of its suppliers’ factories in China. The pay raise won’t affect the audit, but it’s nevertheless good news for the workers who build Apple’s products as well as reassurance for the people who buy them. (Like me.)

My amazing iPhone 3GS was made in Foxconn’s huge factory in Shenzen, China, where workers toil long hours under unhealthy and downright dangerous conditions, put in forced, unpaid overtime, sleep in crowded dormitories, and—occasionally, commit suicide.

Now I’m ready to upgrade to the newest iPhone 4S, with Siri, the personal assistant with attitude. But can I give Apple more business with a clear conscience?

The outsourcing of millions of jobs to low cost countries has eliminated the American consumer electronics industry. Virtually all desktop and laptop computers are made in Asia, along with nearly all mobile phones, TV sets, and radios. Americans have gone on to other jobs, but many have never found employment as good as they had in manufacturing.

The cost to Americans is arguably far outweighed by the benefits of a dizzying variety of goods that are far, far more affordable than they were years ago. But do our benefits come at the cost of exploiting workers in China, for example?

If we look at the working conditions at Foxconn we’re tempted to say yes. And many people have taken what they consider a principled stand against buying Apple products, or indeed, any products made under sub-standard—by American standards—conditions.

But the Foxconn workers aren’t slaves—they flock to Shenzen
from all over China for a job that’ll be their ticket to a better life. Outsourcing from the developed world has already lifted hundreds of millions of Asians out of extreme poverty. When you buy an iPhone you help Chinese workers enter the middle class as they become able to rent their own flat, support a family, and buy an iPhone.

As New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is fond of saying, “The only thing worse than a sweatshop is no sweatshop at all, no employment whatsoever.”

Apple has a code of conduct for its suppliers that requires “to provide safe and healthy working conditions, to use fair hiring practices, to treat their workers with dignity and respect, and to adhere to environmentally responsible practices in manufacturing.” The company itself conducts some inspections of supplier operations, and just yesterday, in response to reports of dire conditions at Foxconn, asked the industry-funded Fair Labor Association for an intensive audit of conditions at Foxconn.

We know that Apple is doing something to take responsibility for working conditions in their supply chain. Whether they are doing enough is still open to argument. But it’s unarguable that buying my iPhone 4S will help, not hurt, Chinese workers. 

This proves he doesn’t care. If he thinks the safety net is OK he’s out of touch, and his out-of-touchness proves his lack of concern.

The safety net leaves millions of minimum- or low-wage earners without enough to feed, clothe, and shelter their families, leaves them dependent on emergency room visits for any medical care, and—if they’ve been unemployed for a long time—facing termination of their unemployment checks. And candidate Romney, along with nearly unanimous Republican Senators and members of Congress, are reflexively opposed to “fixing” the safety net.

But appearing so heartless can be costly to a Presidential candidate. So Romney tried to lie his way out of it, saying he misspoke. But he didn’t misspeak. Misspeaking is when I call my granddaughter by her sister’s name. Misspeaking is when John McCain tells a Romney gathering that he’s confident that President Obama will cure the nation’s ills. Misspeaking is not saying something, then when challenged explaining what you said. He didn’t misspeak.

The interview that got Romney into this mess went like this:

The candidate told CNN’s Soledad O’Brien on Wednesday that he’s “not concerned about the very poor,” explaining that he’s concerned about the middle class.

“I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”

O’Brien gave him a chance to explain:

“I know I said last question, but I have to ask you. You just said ‘I’m not concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net,’ and I think there are lots of poor Americans who are struggling who would say, that sounds odd. Can you explain that?”

Romney made it clear that he meant what he said:

“Well, you had to finish the sentence, Soledad. I said, I’m not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them.”

Yesterday Romney told Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston that he didn’t mean any such thing.

“It was a misstatement. I misspoke. I’ve said something that is similar to that but quite acceptable for a long time. And you know when you do I don’t know how many thousands of interviews now and then you may get it wrong. And I misspoke. Plain and simple.

When Mel Gibson and Michael Richards let loose with vile racist and anti-Semitic rants they tried to lie their way out of it: “I misspoke.” They didn’t misspeak. Neither did Romney.

Hollywood pioneer Samuel Goldwyn famously said of a colleague he admired, “His verbal contract is worth more than the paper it’s written on.” 

This ‘Goldwynism’ applies to new Washington Redskins defensive backs coach, Raheem Morris, who verbally accepted a Washington offer on January 11. The very next day Morris was offered the job of defensive coordinator by the Minnesota Vikings.

Morris turned down the bigger, and likely much more lucrative, Minnesota offer, explaining,

“I believe that in this game, all you have is your word and your tape, and I gave these guys my word, and I wanted to come here and help them this year, and I was going to do it.

Keeping your commitment, even when—or especially when—it costs you a lot of money—is a central tenet of ethics. The Redskins have a winner in Morris.

Rick Santorum explained today why he didn’t challenge the woman who, at a Santorum town hall yesterday, pronounced President Obama a foreigner and a Muslim.

“I’ve said repeatedly that President Obama is not a Muslim and he’s qualified. It’s not my responsibility to defend the President. I’m not here to defend the President against scurrilous attacks. It’s not my job, it’s yours [referring to the media]. It’s your responsibility to defend the president, not mine. When the media and others say lies about me and call me names and do things … it’s OK and, in fact, it’s promoted and encouraged and made fun of when we do it. Stop it.”

Santorum was being questioned on MSNBC’s Morning Joe program by political writer John Heilemann, who then pointed out that John McCain had responded honorably in a similar episode during the 2008 campaign. Santorum responded indignantly.

“It’s very clear. I am not John McCain. I’ve never been like John McCain. I’m not running as a candidate who’s anything like John McCain.”

Amen.

Rick Santorum is no John McCain. I can’t imagine the right word for Santorum—spineless? craven? sleazy? When a woman at a McCain rally in 2008 started to go off on Obama, saying,

“I can’t trust Obama. I have read about him and he’s, uh . . ., he’s an Arab.”

 McCain shook his head and scolded her

“No, ma’am. He’s a decent family man and citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that’s what this campaign’s all about. He’s not [an Arab].”

McCain’s rejoinder drew some boos and “C’mon, John” from the crowd, but McCain had done the ethical thing.

Today at a Santorum town hall in Florida one of his fans raised her hand in the Q&A period:

“I never refer to Obama as President Obama because legally he is not.”

Laughter and cheers from the crowd, and a smile from the candidate. The woman went on.

“He constantly says that our Constitution is passé and he totally ignores it. He does what he damn well pleases. He’s an avowed Muslim.”

Applause from the crowd, a continued smile from Santorum. She got to her question:

“Why isn’t something being done to get him out of our government? He has no legal right to be calling himself President.”

Did Santorum give her a lesson on citizenship and civility? You judge—here’s his answer:

“Well, yeah! I’m doing my best to try to get him out of there.”

I guess we shouldn’t expect honorable behavior from someone who has compared homosexuality to man-on-child or man-on-dog sex.

Luis Luna, 20, was an illegal immigrant, smuggled here from Mexico at 3. The LA Times tells his story. Luis did well in school, graduated, got engaged to his high school sweetheart, got a job, then got pulled over while on the way to work for a broken headlight. He had no driver’s license, Immigration was called in, and Luis was deported to Mexico.

He tried to get back by riding the undercarriage of a boxcar, scant inches above the train roadbed, until the train stopped at a U.S. border checkpoint, where a German Shepherd sniffed him out, sank his teeth into Luis’s ribcage, and dragged him out. Luis is now homeless in Nogales, hoping to find a way legally to return to his girlfriend-now-wife, his family, friends, and the only life he’s ever known.

Luis’s tragedy could have been precluded under the Dream Act, which would provide temporary residency and a possible path to citizenship to Luis and hundreds of thousands like him who were brought here as small children and have played by the rules ever since.

President Obama supports the Dream Act, which passed the House last year but failed to get the 60 votes needed to avert a filibuster in the Senate. Mitt Romney says he would veto it, Newt Gingrich says he supports it—a principled position that is costing him dearly with Republican primary voters.

Sometimes when a politician says something stupid it’s just something stupid. But Rick Perry’s remarks at last night’s Republican debate are fifteen yards beyond stupid. They’re dangerous and unethical.

Unethical because a Presidential candidate should know something before he maligns an American ally—or anyone, come to think of it. Thoughtless or ignorant words damage America’s power in the world

Debate moderator Bret Baier asked Perry whether he thought Turkey should continue to be part of NATO.

Perry jumped in by calling Turkey’s leaders “Islamic terrorists.”

“Well, obviously when you have a country that is being ruled by, what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists, when you start seeing that type of activity against their own citizens, then yes, not only is it time for us to have a conversation about whether or not they belong to be in NATO, but it’s time for the United States, when we look at their foreign aid, to go to zero with it.”

Perry further promised to send a message to “countries like Iran and Syria and Turkey” that the United States is serious and will have to be dealt with.

The Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reported that the Foreign Ministry condemned Perry’s remarks.

The current Turkish government deserves criticism in a number of areas (Stay tuned!), but to call them terrorists or to link them to Iran and Syria is wildly wrong and does America no good. Neither does Gov. Perry, or the people who even imagine him as President. The only mitigating factor is the breathtaking ignorance the governor of America’s second largest state showed.

Perry is standing by his stupidity.