The Republican governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer signed a bill on Friday that requires Arizona police to question people who they feel may be in the states illegally. The law thereby demands that immigrants carry their alien registration documents with them at all times.
The bill also targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them.
The Republican governor also issued an executive order that requires additional training for local officers on how to implement the law without engaging in racial profiling or discrimination.
So that's the basic gist of the law. Critics have been calling the bill highly discriminatory and a step towards authoritarian government. Supported say that it's the first comprehensive step towards doing something about the illegal immigration problem, which I think we can all agree is being handled terribly.
I can see both sides. However if I was asked which side I stand on, I'm in favor of the bill. Oh my god! I agree with a Republican?! My liberal heart bleeds and weeps! No, really. Again, forward not left or right. I'm sure that governor Brewer and I would butt heads on many issues but taking the intiative to bear down on illegal immigration is necessary. I have nothing agaisnt immigrants-hell my mother is an immigrant! What I have a problem with is people who enter into
the country and break the law, either in a violent act or simply by feeding off of a system while not putting anything back into
it. And this is not just about hispanics. It's about anyone who enters into this country illegally. This country is built off of immigration but my grandparents came through Ellis island, legally. Does the fact that they had to sign papers and often times change their name speak of a 1984 authoritarian society? They had to learn the language-is that considered nazistic?
I have to keep my id on me while driving, along with license and registration bearing all sorts of private information. I'm fine with that. My mom had to keep her resident alien card with her, and she did. We all walk around with personal information tied to our persons.
If anyone has a better idea, I'd love to hear it. In this age of over-exaggerated politcal correctness, we seem to be more interested in looking cultural and accepting than acting it. We're either
for open borders and peace and love or we want everyone who can't draw their family tree back
to the Mayflower to get the hell out. How about some middle ground: ur welcome if u can a) learn the language, b) immigrate legally and c) contribute to the society positively. Is that authoritatively unreasonable?
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Clinton looks back
Former President Bill Clinton sat down with Wolf Blitzer in the Situation Room (sounds like something out of a superhero movie) to discuss the upcoming anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, which occurred on April 19th, 1995.
Among some of the commentary, Clinton expressed concern at the parallel moods in the country now and then. He also noted that back in '95, getting in touch with other extremists had to be done on a more local level, a more face-to-face scenario. These days, with the Internet, you can find people just as loopy as you who want to destroy the world.
"Then, you had the rise of extremist voices on talk radio. Here, you have a billion Internet sites." Clinton said. "The main thing that bothered us since the time of Oklahoma City was that already, there was enough use of the internet that if you knew how to find a Web site - and not everybody even had a computer back then, but if you knew how to find it, you could learn, for example, how to make a bomb."
You can also learn that from the Anarchist cook book, or the crazy kid next door who likes to stab roaches with bobby pins. While I agree with the Clinton on the unsettling fact that now extremist groups have access to the boundless reaches of the Internet, you can't blow up a building via the internet. You can't march on Washington via facebook.
I think the bigger problem is that extremist groups are allowed to flourish the way that they do. What happened to the people who shot rounds into windows or threw bricks into homes the day the Health Care Bill passed. What happens to the people who advocate grabbing your gun and marching on Washington? Do these people not get a red flag, regardless of how many hours they're on the internet?
Clinton noted that he didn't want to analogize the past and present too much, in fact "I actually love this political debate." He went on to say that groups like the Tea Party are highly political but "they're not advocating violence or encouraging other people to do it." Ummmmm...
“I’m cleaning my guns and getting ready for the big show. And I’m serious about that, and I bet you are, too.” Richard Behney
Tea Party hero and Minnesota congresswoman, said she wanted “people in Minnesota armed and dangerous." In Texas, the Tea Party gubenatorial sweetheart, reminded folks at a rally that “the tree of freedom is occasionally watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.”
Yeah, that doesn't sound confrontational at all. They're not advocating violence, they just want people who believe in shedding blood in the name of freedom, armed and dangerous. Oh goody.
While I'd like to think that Tea Partiers are more like the buff guy in the gym who talks a lot and acts a little, I can't trust that fragment of hope. And the Tea Partiers aren't the only extremists out there. You've got Anarchists, Larouche crazies, White Supremacists, Communists, Islamists, and on and on.
The internet can't be blamed for the ills of political extremism. What I see this as is more of a question of free speech. Where do you draw the line? On a smaller level, it is illegal to threaten someone directly. Is that also a infringement on freedom of speech? To make threats against an entire government is ok but to one person isn't?
Where do you draw that line, and why? Extremist groups should be allowed to have a voice, so long as that voice isn't riddled with death threats.
Now, I have issues with our current government. I personally feel it's a corrupt web of corporate interests spending our money and spinning our hearts and minds into corpotocratic mayhem. However, I don't believe that killing people will get my point across.
Clinton warned that demonizing the government with incendiary language can have effects beyond just rallying a crowd. This is very true. What are your thoughts?
Among some of the commentary, Clinton expressed concern at the parallel moods in the country now and then. He also noted that back in '95, getting in touch with other extremists had to be done on a more local level, a more face-to-face scenario. These days, with the Internet, you can find people just as loopy as you who want to destroy the world.
"Then, you had the rise of extremist voices on talk radio. Here, you have a billion Internet sites." Clinton said. "The main thing that bothered us since the time of Oklahoma City was that already, there was enough use of the internet that if you knew how to find a Web site - and not everybody even had a computer back then, but if you knew how to find it, you could learn, for example, how to make a bomb."
You can also learn that from the Anarchist cook book, or the crazy kid next door who likes to stab roaches with bobby pins. While I agree with the Clinton on the unsettling fact that now extremist groups have access to the boundless reaches of the Internet, you can't blow up a building via the internet. You can't march on Washington via facebook.
I think the bigger problem is that extremist groups are allowed to flourish the way that they do. What happened to the people who shot rounds into windows or threw bricks into homes the day the Health Care Bill passed. What happens to the people who advocate grabbing your gun and marching on Washington? Do these people not get a red flag, regardless of how many hours they're on the internet?
Clinton noted that he didn't want to analogize the past and present too much, in fact "I actually love this political debate." He went on to say that groups like the Tea Party are highly political but "they're not advocating violence or encouraging other people to do it." Ummmmm...
“I’m cleaning my guns and getting ready for the big show. And I’m serious about that, and I bet you are, too.” Richard Behney
Tea Party hero and Minnesota congresswoman, said she wanted “people in Minnesota armed and dangerous." In Texas, the Tea Party gubenatorial sweetheart, reminded folks at a rally that “the tree of freedom is occasionally watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.”
Yeah, that doesn't sound confrontational at all. They're not advocating violence, they just want people who believe in shedding blood in the name of freedom, armed and dangerous. Oh goody.
While I'd like to think that Tea Partiers are more like the buff guy in the gym who talks a lot and acts a little, I can't trust that fragment of hope. And the Tea Partiers aren't the only extremists out there. You've got Anarchists, Larouche crazies, White Supremacists, Communists, Islamists, and on and on.
The internet can't be blamed for the ills of political extremism. What I see this as is more of a question of free speech. Where do you draw the line? On a smaller level, it is illegal to threaten someone directly. Is that also a infringement on freedom of speech? To make threats against an entire government is ok but to one person isn't?
Where do you draw that line, and why? Extremist groups should be allowed to have a voice, so long as that voice isn't riddled with death threats.
Now, I have issues with our current government. I personally feel it's a corrupt web of corporate interests spending our money and spinning our hearts and minds into corpotocratic mayhem. However, I don't believe that killing people will get my point across.
Clinton warned that demonizing the government with incendiary language can have effects beyond just rallying a crowd. This is very true. What are your thoughts?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Oil spills, greed drills
Oh Obama...first nuclear power plants and now this. Who put weed in your cigarettes?
For those of you just joining us, allow me to introduce Obama's new plan to open up huge chunks of US coastal waters in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico to natural gas and oil drilling. This plan includes thrashing a 20 year ban on drilling off the Virginia coastline and opening up the Arctic Ocean off of Alaska's North Slope. A moratorium on drilling in the Gulf would be lifted, allowing nearly two-thirds of the available resources to be drilled.
At Maryland's Joint Base Andrews Naval Air Facility, Obama said, "This is not a decision that I've made lightly...Given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs and keep our businesses competitive, we're going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy."
Hmmmmm...oil, nuclear power, and...you're stumping me on the "new sources of renewable, homegrown energy." I'm sure Exxon-Mobil is really excited, and that Shell is toasting your name on their yachts somewhere in South America. Meanwhile, back on the farm, a few concerned citizens and I are wondering where you draw the line.
I agree that our dependence on foreign oil is unacceptable. Our addiction has caused more damage than I think any of us can fathom. However, should that addiction be supplemented with a domestic dependence on non-renewable pollutants? What about all the jobs you could create with green energy? Why don't I hear any press conferences discussing plans for light rail systems between major cities, that would create thousands of jobs? Why don't I hear talk of building wind mills and solar panels, that would create thousands of jobs? It is 2010, right? I'm pretty sure that innovation has long surpassed the viscous mess that is oil. Why can't we wipe the gunk out of our eyes and get with the program? Wake up and smell the pollution!
For those of you just joining us, allow me to introduce Obama's new plan to open up huge chunks of US coastal waters in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico to natural gas and oil drilling. This plan includes thrashing a 20 year ban on drilling off the Virginia coastline and opening up the Arctic Ocean off of Alaska's North Slope. A moratorium on drilling in the Gulf would be lifted, allowing nearly two-thirds of the available resources to be drilled.
At Maryland's Joint Base Andrews Naval Air Facility, Obama said, "This is not a decision that I've made lightly...Given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs and keep our businesses competitive, we're going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy."
Hmmmmm...oil, nuclear power, and...you're stumping me on the "new sources of renewable, homegrown energy." I'm sure Exxon-Mobil is really excited, and that Shell is toasting your name on their yachts somewhere in South America. Meanwhile, back on the farm, a few concerned citizens and I are wondering where you draw the line.
I agree that our dependence on foreign oil is unacceptable. Our addiction has caused more damage than I think any of us can fathom. However, should that addiction be supplemented with a domestic dependence on non-renewable pollutants? What about all the jobs you could create with green energy? Why don't I hear any press conferences discussing plans for light rail systems between major cities, that would create thousands of jobs? Why don't I hear talk of building wind mills and solar panels, that would create thousands of jobs? It is 2010, right? I'm pretty sure that innovation has long surpassed the viscous mess that is oil. Why can't we wipe the gunk out of our eyes and get with the program? Wake up and smell the pollution!
Abstinence costs $50 million
No wonder sex sells. It's a helluva lot cheaper than abstinence. Not to mention that it's been linked to multiple health benefits like boosting the immune system, curbing stress, lowering high blood pressure, burning calories, battling insomnia, and oh yeah, just being a damn good time.
Apparently the newly passed health care bill has a $50 million/year chunk just to tell kids that all of the above is off limits...until marriage.
According to the Department of Health and Human Services, programs that are funded by this bill must "teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems." I can buy that. The only CERTAIN way to not die when you leave your house is to never leave your house, but we see how many even keeled folks follow that logic. They must also teach that pre-marital sex is "likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects." The only harmful physical effects I've noticed are the ones that come with a smile...if you know what I mean.
But, that kind of ruffage is probably the work of the devil anyway. Sex is for procreation. Oh, and god hates gays.
There is however, another $75 million set aside for "personal responsibility education" which teaches about both abstinence and contraception. It's nice to know that what could potentially save hormone crazed kids from having kids gets less funding than telling them "just say no." Have you ever met a teen? Have you ever been a teen?
One of my favorite memories from high school was when my psychology professor started class with saying, "I'm not gonna tell you not to take drugs. I'm gonna show you what they do and let you make up your own mind." I have respected him immensely since that day.
Choice is the catalyst for thinking. If you give someone only half of the facts, how can you expect them to make wise decisions? If you tell them what to do and don't allow choice, how are you teaching them? Trust that the minds you say you care so much about will be strong enough to handle the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me Trojan condoms.
Apparently the newly passed health care bill has a $50 million/year chunk just to tell kids that all of the above is off limits...until marriage.
According to the Department of Health and Human Services, programs that are funded by this bill must "teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems." I can buy that. The only CERTAIN way to not die when you leave your house is to never leave your house, but we see how many even keeled folks follow that logic. They must also teach that pre-marital sex is "likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects." The only harmful physical effects I've noticed are the ones that come with a smile...if you know what I mean.
But, that kind of ruffage is probably the work of the devil anyway. Sex is for procreation. Oh, and god hates gays.
There is however, another $75 million set aside for "personal responsibility education" which teaches about both abstinence and contraception. It's nice to know that what could potentially save hormone crazed kids from having kids gets less funding than telling them "just say no." Have you ever met a teen? Have you ever been a teen?
One of my favorite memories from high school was when my psychology professor started class with saying, "I'm not gonna tell you not to take drugs. I'm gonna show you what they do and let you make up your own mind." I have respected him immensely since that day.
Choice is the catalyst for thinking. If you give someone only half of the facts, how can you expect them to make wise decisions? If you tell them what to do and don't allow choice, how are you teaching them? Trust that the minds you say you care so much about will be strong enough to handle the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me Trojan condoms.
Thomas who?
It's a slippery slope my principal once said, glaring at me after I punched a classmate in the stomach for making fun of my nearly blind friend. Clearly, he was exaggerating. I am happy to say I haven't punched a kid in the stomach since that day.
After hearing what's been in the news the past week, I am left to wonder if that old saying doesn't carry some weight...
The big headline that stood out to me was the Texas Board of Education's ruling on the contents of history textbooks.
Here's why this really irks me. The Texas Board of Education is the nation's largest board and many textbook publishers and authors cater to their decisions and needs since they have such heavy buying power. Apparently, they have some guidelines for what their kids will be learning about regarding their own country's history.
For example:
Thomas Jefferson is to be entirely removed from textbooks. Apparently the whole separation of church and state doesn't sit well with the Texans, or maybe they have something against our founding fathers, or the third president, or...history in general.
The Civil Rights movement “unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes” among minorities. Yeah, why shouldn't you expect a person with a different skin color to have a separate drinking fountain? While we're at it, let's make boys and girls take different buses - they have coodies.
To avoid exposing students to “transvestites, transsexuals and who knows what else,” the Board will refer to “sex and gender as social constructs.”
Emphasize the superiorities of the “free-enterprise system” and the desirability of limited government.
"References to Ralph Nader and Ross Perot are proposed to be removed, while Stonewall Jackson, the Confederate general, is to be listed as a role model for effective leadership, and the ideas in Jefferson Davis’s inaugural address are to be laid side by side with Abraham Lincoln’s speeches." (quoted from the NY Times)
Sounds good huh? I discussed these decisions with my father who is a professor and also happens to write textbooks. He said that on the bright side, many teachers use the textbook as a guideline and teach what they want anyway. While this is somewhat reassuring, what happens when the kids who learned on these books get to teaching age? Or what happens when they read out of the book, which they're bound to do anyway? The slippery slope has these conservative Texans standing at the top of the hill with a garden hose, soaking our country's youth in the propaganda of right wing beliefs.
It seems odd to me that religious conservatives would backhand the monument of free will and forcibly push children towards ideologies while blatantly covering up the truth of history. "And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." (John 8:32)
Oh, the sad irony that is religious conservatism...
After hearing what's been in the news the past week, I am left to wonder if that old saying doesn't carry some weight...
The big headline that stood out to me was the Texas Board of Education's ruling on the contents of history textbooks.
Here's why this really irks me. The Texas Board of Education is the nation's largest board and many textbook publishers and authors cater to their decisions and needs since they have such heavy buying power. Apparently, they have some guidelines for what their kids will be learning about regarding their own country's history.
For example:
Thomas Jefferson is to be entirely removed from textbooks. Apparently the whole separation of church and state doesn't sit well with the Texans, or maybe they have something against our founding fathers, or the third president, or...history in general.
The Civil Rights movement “unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes” among minorities. Yeah, why shouldn't you expect a person with a different skin color to have a separate drinking fountain? While we're at it, let's make boys and girls take different buses - they have coodies.
To avoid exposing students to “transvestites, transsexuals and who knows what else,” the Board will refer to “sex and gender as social constructs.”
Emphasize the superiorities of the “free-enterprise system” and the desirability of limited government.
"References to Ralph Nader and Ross Perot are proposed to be removed, while Stonewall Jackson, the Confederate general, is to be listed as a role model for effective leadership, and the ideas in Jefferson Davis’s inaugural address are to be laid side by side with Abraham Lincoln’s speeches." (quoted from the NY Times)
Sounds good huh? I discussed these decisions with my father who is a professor and also happens to write textbooks. He said that on the bright side, many teachers use the textbook as a guideline and teach what they want anyway. While this is somewhat reassuring, what happens when the kids who learned on these books get to teaching age? Or what happens when they read out of the book, which they're bound to do anyway? The slippery slope has these conservative Texans standing at the top of the hill with a garden hose, soaking our country's youth in the propaganda of right wing beliefs.
It seems odd to me that religious conservatives would backhand the monument of free will and forcibly push children towards ideologies while blatantly covering up the truth of history. "And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." (John 8:32)
Oh, the sad irony that is religious conservatism...
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Healthy violence
So, apparently not everyone is stoked about the Health Care Bill passing. Who knew?
I admit, I'm not entirely ecstatic about the bill. I feel that it has its fair share of flaws and by the time it got past the road blocks and obstacles, it was bruised and battered. Not to mention that, still, nobody really seems able to tell the people what the hell is actually in there, other than broad subjects like pre-existing conditions.
Well, now violence can be added as a side effect to swallowing the bitter Health Care pill.
To list just a few occurrences: Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York got an envelope with a threatening letter and white powder, Rep. Russ Carnahan had a coffin delivered to his house and placed on his lawn by Tea Partiers, a bullet was fired through Rep. Eric Cantor's (a Republican by the by) window, Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (also a Republican) received a death threat on her voicemail.
Apparently, these representatives (Democrats and Republicans, you may have noticed) are throwing blame at each other instead of at the ones responsible. Rep. Cantor accused the Democrats of "using acts of violence for political gain."
House Democratic Majority Whip, James Clyburn told CNN "We in this Congress have got to come together in a bipartisan way and tamp this foolishness down. It doesn't make sense. That's not what a democracy is all about."
I'm kinda with Clyburn, other than the fact that we're a republic, not a democracy. But over all, this is ridiculous. I'm all for moving forward and forcing people to notice the needs and issues of truly concerned citizens, as you may have seen from my rally blog. But this is not it. This is terrorism. Not to sound like a loon, but am I wrong? Targeting representatives' homes, offices and families leads to nothing more than violence and the writing off of all of us who do really care but aren't fucked up enough in the head to threaten someone's life.
If you want real change, if you want real results, organize, educate and fight the real culprits with real ammo: fight the corporate kings of America with the power of the people. We don't need a bunch of guns and white powder to get a point across. In fact, if you want to get a point across that doesn't just label you a complete stooge, use your head instead of your trigger finger.
I admit, I'm not entirely ecstatic about the bill. I feel that it has its fair share of flaws and by the time it got past the road blocks and obstacles, it was bruised and battered. Not to mention that, still, nobody really seems able to tell the people what the hell is actually in there, other than broad subjects like pre-existing conditions.
Well, now violence can be added as a side effect to swallowing the bitter Health Care pill.
To list just a few occurrences: Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York got an envelope with a threatening letter and white powder, Rep. Russ Carnahan had a coffin delivered to his house and placed on his lawn by Tea Partiers, a bullet was fired through Rep. Eric Cantor's (a Republican by the by) window, Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (also a Republican) received a death threat on her voicemail.
Apparently, these representatives (Democrats and Republicans, you may have noticed) are throwing blame at each other instead of at the ones responsible. Rep. Cantor accused the Democrats of "using acts of violence for political gain."
House Democratic Majority Whip, James Clyburn told CNN "We in this Congress have got to come together in a bipartisan way and tamp this foolishness down. It doesn't make sense. That's not what a democracy is all about."
I'm kinda with Clyburn, other than the fact that we're a republic, not a democracy. But over all, this is ridiculous. I'm all for moving forward and forcing people to notice the needs and issues of truly concerned citizens, as you may have seen from my rally blog. But this is not it. This is terrorism. Not to sound like a loon, but am I wrong? Targeting representatives' homes, offices and families leads to nothing more than violence and the writing off of all of us who do really care but aren't fucked up enough in the head to threaten someone's life.
If you want real change, if you want real results, organize, educate and fight the real culprits with real ammo: fight the corporate kings of America with the power of the people. We don't need a bunch of guns and white powder to get a point across. In fact, if you want to get a point across that doesn't just label you a complete stooge, use your head instead of your trigger finger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)