Mexican Mad Hatters

In Illegal Immigration Debate my fellow class mate outlines why she is in support of the Arizona Immigration Law. She is in favor of turning in anyone she suspects is an illegal immigrant and finds racial profiling acceptable and in my opinion infers not speaking english as suspicious behavior.

I agree with this writer that illegal immigration is a problem and that it is high time the U.S. takes action to resolve this issue but that is where our views diverge. Supporters of the Arizona Immigration Law justify this law because of fear of gang violence, drug runners and the criminals smuggling people over the boarder. But the key word here is criminals. There is no doubt that the horribly violent drug war between several Mexican cartels are spilling over into the U.S. . By March of 2010, 2000 people have been killed in drug related murders. But these criminals are a small percentage of people coming to our country. Most illegal immigrants come here to better their lives economically and their quality of life. Poverty, overpopulation, wars (including drug wars) are all motivators to escape to the U.S. and who can blame them? Isn’t this why most of our ancestors move to America? Considering that 22,700 people have been killed in drug related deaths since 2007, could these immigrants apply for political asylum?

But why is the violence happening here? As stated by Andrew Selee at the Washington Post, because the cartels are fighting over territory. Because the trafficking in Mexico is driven by U.S. consumption. Because somewhere between $18 billion to $39 billion goes into Mexico from the U.S. each year for those drugs. Because much of this money pays for high-caliber weapons purchased in the U.S. So, I dare say these are not the people wanting to mow your yards or bus your tables.

So what’s the solution? Not turning in someone because they speak spanish and are brown. Take a look at this video of street gangs fighting in a very affluent neighborhood in UpTown Chicago. To combat this violence this community has positive loitering nights. All the neighbors, and I mean ALL THE NEIGHBORS, hang out on the corners. They get to know one another, they are forging their community not by building walls but supporting each other. How could we help fight poverty and improve the quality of life in Mexico? How about paying fair wages? Many immigrants labor as migrant workers working for extremely low pay. How about assisting in the education? Join the NAFSA: Association of International Educators. Legalize and regulate drugs. Statistically fewer people drink now and have less access to alcohol now than during prohibition. There are many ways to resolve the immigration issue than just locking up anyone on your block that looks different. And one last Word from the Colbert Report.

Noam Chomsky 101

According to Chris Hedges at truthdig, Noam Chomsky has “Never seen anything like this.” and warns we have very little time to save our democracy. Comparing the current political climate to Weimer Germany, the Conservative and Liberal parties were hated and diminished leaving a vacuum that the Nazis managed to take over. “The United States are extremely lucky that no charismatic figure has arisen.”

“The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people.” Noam Chomsky

If this seems like an extreme statement then take a look around. Arizona’s Immigration law makes it a state crime for illegal immigrants to be in Arizona, requires police to check for evidence of legal status and bars people from hiring or soliciting work on the streets. SB1070 states that if any official or agency has “reasonable suspicion” that someone is unlawfully in the U.S. they can be asked to provide federal verification they are here legally. It also allows that any person may sue any official or agency that does not enforce the law to the full extent. Immigration advocates are scrutinizing the law for weaknesses to challenge it’s constitutionality before the law goes into effect this summer. The wording “reasonably suspicious” is vague and easily manipulated as depicted in this Daily Show Law & Border story. But at the heart of this law is hate and anger. The Arizona law’s sponsor, Russell Pearce, who describes himself as gun loving mormon who only cares about his family, his country and the law, claims as his main passion, illegal immigrants whom he calls “invaders”. Pearce says the new law empowers the police to do their job but to many others it legalizes racial profiling.

“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” Noam Chomsky

Then we have Repent Amarillo, a Christian group lead by David Grisham, a security guard at a nuclear-bomb facility. On it’s militaristic website, Repent calls it’s self the Army of God (yep, just like Hezbollah). They target gay pride events, Earth Worship events like earth day, breast cancer events, spring break, Halloween and “any other events that the ministry feels called upon to confront”. The site features a warfare map literally pinpointing businesses and “compromised churches”, a call for Christian soldiers and youtube videos of group members outing targets on the local news. They claim freedom of religion and freedom of speech are justification for their actions, yet they have no problem terrorizing anyone they feel, in their own words “called upon to confront”. Repent Amarillo doesn’t even worry about changing the laws like Arizona. As reported by Salam-News, they’ve violated the privacy of members of a local swingers club, stalking them, taking videos, copying their license plates, digging through their trash and revealing the member’s private activities to neighbors and coworkers. Repent shut down “Bent” a play about the persecution of gays by Nazis by falsely calling the fire marshal regarding the theater permit. They also clashed with the staff at a nature preserve calling them witches.

“I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to exist, then it would choose the American system.” Noam Chomsky

And of course I must mention the Tea Party. Their motto is “A community committed to standing together, shoulder to shoulder, to protect our country and the Constitution upon which we were founded.” But for what? Their members sport t-shirts saying “One Country Under God” but the constitution was founded on freedom of religion. Their slide show has photos of lots and lots of white people, horses, puppies, Sarah Palin firing a machine gun, the words Liberal and Evil intertwined, a little white girl flipping off President Obama and Obama on a poster with Hitler and Stalin all calling for change. Most of the Tea Party members have health insurance, have not lost their jobs and are wealthier and better educated than the general public. Tea Partiers, when interviewed by Michel Martin, said they aren’t racists however they also feel that too much attention is paid to the problems of black people and that the Obama administration is too worried about black people and the poor. They feel the country is headed in the wrong direction and they are angry about it.

“Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while maintaining privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists.” Noam Chomsky

Yet, Chomsky feels liberals, in his words “serve as a smoke screen for the cruelty of unchecked capitalism and imperial war”. He feels the liberal intellectual tradition is “one of servility to power” and that it only sets limits to far right aggression only to increase their own power. Labeling these groups as white, dogmatic Christian bigots simply feeds the liberal illusion of superiority.

“Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it’s from Neptune.” Noam Chomsky

So what do we do now? Chomsky challenges each of us to think for ourselves, to not fall under the pressure of propaganda, not to allow censorship and to detest the attempt to impose American hegemony. This is not accomplished by marching lock step to Christian authority or Capitalism. Chomsky asserts that “power is illegitimate and the burden of proof is on those in authority to demonstrate why their position is justified.”

I Choose Choice

Fellow class mate’s blog Pro-life or Pro-Choice? Brooke posses the Pro-Life argument. She feels abortion is wrong and that our government should not allow it to be legal. I doubt anyone would disagree with Brooke that abortion is bad however I feel she is not fully informed regarding the Pro-Choice stance.

As defined on Wikipedia, Pro-Choice is the political and ethical view that a woman should have control over her fertility and the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy. This encompasses reproductive rights, sexual education, access to safe and legal abortion, contraception and fertility treatments as well as legal protection from forced abortion. Indeed many Pro-Choice advocates do not consider themselves “pro-abortion” and are anti-abortion but feel abortion bans actually endanger women’s health. Prior to Roe v. Wade, many sought back-alley abortions with catastrophic results.

I’m not going to debate when life begins. As a Buddhist, I strive to value all life from the unborn fetus to the death row inmate. I’m also not going to discuss why someone in their “right mind” would have an abortion. Obviously no one chooses to get pregnant only to end with an abortion. The core issue is how to prevent abortions. Even in the Silent Scream, they pose the challenge to find a non-violent answer. Many Pro-Life groups include in their argument against abortion the argument against birth control, sex education and premarital sex and want no government support of any organization that provides these services or information. How is this giving young women tools to make educated controlled decisions regarding their future and the future of their children? Pro-Life groups often provide as their only solution abstinence. Ironically the newest poster child for abstinence is teen mom Bristol Palin shown in this PSA for Candie’s Foundation. Bristol, in my opinion, arrogantly shows how it’s just fine for her to be a teen mom since she comes from a “famous family” but if she didn’t it would be unglamorous.

What are some options supported by Pro-Choice? Pro-Choice groups like NARL and Planned Parenthood provide information about and access to reproductive health care. Yes this means abortion but it also includes birth control, sex education, treatment for stds, spiritual support, prenatal treatment and adoption assistance. Their services are not limited to women but encompass male issues and provide male contraceptives such as condoms and even information regarding vasectomies. I’ve yet to find a Pro-Life group that even considers vasectomies. Let’s face it. That would prevent countless unplanned pregnancies.

With out government support of Roe v Wade, women's rights are greatly restricted. I challenge those who support Pro-Life to recognize that people are sexual and that denying it limits this simple facet of being human. Provide solutions rather than shame. Advocate education rather than ignorance. Acknowledge there are many layers to this issue not just Life or Not.

Don't Ask, Just Repeal

President Obama stated on October 11, 2009 “We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country. I’m working with the Pentagon, its leadership and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy, legislation that has been introduced in the House to make this happen, I will end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’(DADT) That’s my commitment to you.”

Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced new measures on March 25, 2010, that would make it difficult to discharge openly gay men and lesbians. New guidelines for the dismissal of an enlisted person who violates the ban must be approved by an officer that is a one-star general or higher and testimony provided by third parties are given under oath. The goal is to make the law more fair and consistent. “These changes reflect some of the insights we have gained over 17 years of implementing the current law, including a need for consistent oversight and clear standards,” Gates said.

Even Dick Cheney in an interview on This Week said “I’m reluctant to second-guess the military in this regard. When the chiefs come forward and say, ‘We think we can do it,’ then it strikes me that it’s - it’s time to reconsider the policy.”

So I wonder if President Barack Hussein Obama (craaaaazy radical liberal) to Dick Cheney (ehem) are saying repeal this law, what’s the problem? What are the arguments against allowing openly gay men and women serve in the military?

One concern I’ve found has to do with what proponents for DADT call Logistics citing imagined scenarios between bunk mates. Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway stated “I would not ask our Marines to live with someone that’s homosexual if we can possibly avoid it.” This argument does not follow logic. Gay men and women are currently sharing rooms with straight service people. No one gets to request a room change now just because they aren’t getting along with their bunk mate.

Another fear in conservative military groups is that gays will make unwelcome advances towards their peers. That their behavior is unpredictable and promiscuous. However this argument is unfounded as well. Sexual harassment is not allowed regardless of gender.

There is also concern that allowing gays to serve openly will undermine the military, making them weak.The tension and anxiety would be detrimental to teamwork. But this was the same argument against integration. Columnist David Wood writes it’s been 16 years since he has even heard and argument about homosexuals serving. One Marine quoted “If you’re a woman or a gay or a Martian, you gotta meet the standards. Otherwise go do something else.”

A legitimate argument is aggression against homosexuals within the military, whether it is a case of retaliation as in the discharge of Lacye Presley and Holly Thompson profiled on CBS News or simple violence against those even suspected of homosexual conduct. Each of the arguments against repealing DADT stems from fear. Homophobia is a serious issue in the military and should be address through education and discipline.

We can even look to other countries to see that allowing homosexuals in the military is not detrimental. Of the twenty-six nations that are included in the NATO military, more than twenty allow homosexuals to serve. Countries that allow homosexuals to serve in the military include Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. All nations I think we would want to count as allies. Countries that disallow homosexuals to serve include Cuba, China, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Syria, all countries that have questionable human rights issues.

It is widely accepted that people have few basic needs, food, shelter, safety and affection. I feel it is not only fair but a right that the people that choose to protect our basic needs should be able to pursue them as well. There is no factual reason to maintain Don't Ask, Don't Tell. There are currently about 66,000 gays serving in our armed forces. Allowing them to serve openly is the first step of many to begin treating them with the honor they deserve.

Glenn Beck, named must your fear be before banish it you can.

If anyone wants to pick a fight with Glenn Beck, count me in. The television in the lobby at my job runs Fox News uninterruptedly and frankly I'm amazed the man hasn't been carted off to the crazy house. Yet I'm even more surprised at people I normally think of as kind and clearheaded not only follow his show but believe his rants. So I try and try to find under the hyperbole and melodrama a hint of reasoned thought. After all maybe it's just me.

Imagine my relief when I found not one but several blogs on God's politics speaking out against Glenn Beck. Aren't these his people, his core? Beck says Christians should leave churches that believe in "social justice" saying it is code for communism and Nazism. Pastor Jim Wallis asks fellow Sojourners to turn themselves into Glenn Beck as Christians that believe in social justice as justice is a basic part of Christian teachings. Fellow Pastor Michael Hidalgo posts a reply to e-mails he has received questioning what Beck meant by his call to leave 'Social Justice' churches. Hidalgo states God is not a Nazi, Communist, Democrat or Republican and "In fact, God has no political affiliation". He also thanks Glenn Beck for calling Christians to leave their church if they don't want to hear preachers preaching about poverty, human rights, economics and justice because there is no room for people that want to see "justice roll on like a river". Lastly, Ernesto Tinajero, questions Beck's basic understanding of Christian teachings and basic meanings of the words justice and social conjuring an image of Beck "running away from an Ice Cream Social as a closeted gathering of Marxists".

So why do Glenn Beck's statements or the responses expressed on God's politics matter? Because words matter. The motives behind the words matter. A well turned phrase can inspire compassion or an angry mob. What are GB's motives? I cannot say for certain but the results seem to encourage fear and hatred. Emotions that rarely lead to betterment of society and in actuality tear it down. Comments on God's politics show thoughtful engagement for their readers through biblical quotes and examples of social justice in action.

Statements from two of my favorite philosophers that underscore my point of view are…

"Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible." Dalai Lama

"Remember a Jedi's strength flows from the Force. But beware. Anger, fear, aggression. The dark side are they. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny." Yoda

One final thought…Glenn Beck Attacks YOU!

Breaching the Summit

It is the beginning of the fiscal year for my health insurance company. I can tell because I received my new insurance card. Normally I don’t pay much attention. There have been adjustments in my coverage in the past. This year, however, my co-pay went up fourty-two percent. I suppose it is coincidental that the Health Care Summit is this week also. Somehow it seemed significant enough to draw my attention to the news coverage of this event. Watching CNN, Fox News and MSNBC I can understand why it was called “political theater”. So I turned to the commentary of people that have made a career of observing these events and maybe gain some clarity.

The Christian Science Monitor posted two opinions regarding the President’s showing at the summit. The Monitor’s Editorial Board calls it Obama’s “Clinton moment”. The event was intended to bring Democrats and Republicans together and find a compromise. They feel Obama was successful in deflecting Republican criticism of the program as government take over and diffused their objection of the $1 trillion cost by showing how in ten years the deficit will be reduced by that much according to their plan. Mark Greenbaum, an attorney and freelance writer at the Monitor, also characterized Obama’s performance as successful. This said however, neither feel it will make a difference on it’s own. Though they seem to support the President’s opinion, they say it is a little too late.

The opinion of The Christian Science Monitor and Mark Greembaum both seek to move past the TV drama and find the underlying thread. They target readers who understand the issue yet strive to navigate the miasma of entrenched political opinion. I have to agree with both commentaries. The public is worried about health care costs but they are also inured to the debate and more concerned about just keeping their jobs. With politicians in both parties looking to keep their jobs too, both articles state it is time to work on compromise, take ownership of the problem and just get it done. Though I would love to see our nation’s leaders strive to do what is best for everyone. After all having a healthy population benefits each person in that population...let’s at least move towards a common ground.

Mad Hatter's Tea Party

Like most people it's my nature to avoid confrontational situations. I prefer to spend my time and energy on activities that support my own liberal philosophies. However as an Independent voter it is a responsibility to acknowledge and try to understand differing ideals. With this in mind the Tea Party National Convention caught my attention.

With statements like "America is ready for another revolution" and "Take back America" they sound powerful. But what are they taking back, what needs to be revolutionized? CNN reports on the key note speech by Sarah Palin show she received a standing ovation as she held President Obama's feet to the fire for the economy, the Iraq and Afganistan wars and health care reforms. Palin To Tea Party All issues the current administration did not create. Yet the Official Tea Party web site, 1776 Tea Party, claims as their platform "recapitalizing failed businesses and creating jobs, provide affordable health care and 21st century education" which are all objectives Obama claims. So what are the Tea Party solutions? How will we pay to recapitalize these businesses when they say the free market will prevail? How do we provide affordable health care and not have "socialized medicine"? How do they propose we get out of war yet keep fighting until we win? I can see the power of their anger yet I don't see anything else uniting their movement. No new ideas, no action but tearing down anyone else's attempts. They fear the Republican Party hijacking their movement yet they claim Republican Scott Brown's election as their own victory. Even as Sarah Palin's speech touts the strength of real American's taking action, the founder Dale Roberts calls Palin a turncoat who's "well delivered speech and attractive demeanor is little more than a veneer for her less attractive political philosophy." While I stand by my principle of considering differing points of view I'm still waiting for a cohesive idea from these folks.