Racial Politics: SB 1070's New Crime: Breathing While Brown

There are two issues in the new immigration law in Arizona (SB 1070): Principle and Practice.

I will accept that the law does not allow police to just run around and pick up brown people off the street corner and accuse them of being illegal (though the practice of at least one sheriff seems to contradict that statement as we will see).  However, there are still problems.

In principle the law allows police broad discretion to use their prejudice to determine who might be here illegally.  When they pull me over and demand to see my liscense, which I have forgotten at home, am I going to be accused of being an illegal?  No, because I have pale skin and I speak excellent english.  Would my father be accused in the same circumstance?  probably, even though he speaks impeccable english, he has dark skin.  Would me grandmother?  most likely yes, because even though she is a citizen, she looks hispanic and she speaks soft english (but still fluent).  the problem is that even though each of us is a citizen, the police would be responsible for deciding which is more or less likely to be a citizen and make an accusation accordingly.  Thus, my problem.  My citizenship status, or that of my family members, is not decided by the police, and they have no right to accuse me of not being a citizen without cause.  And not having a driver's license on me is NOT cause.

In practice it appears that all the fears were warranted.  Today, Huffington Post reported that a Phoenix sheriff when on a crime sweep and rounded up 89 criminals 61 of which were illegals.  seems kinda strange that 61 of your 89 would be illegal.  If you are just rounding up criminals regardless of their status and with no prejudice why would such a large proportion be illegal?  Unless you are stupid enough to subscribe to the myth that illegals are here to commit crimes against us, this should make you question whether the cops were really out to find people they suspected of being illegals.

If you really believe any of the following you might be a little bit racist:
1) illegals are here to commit crimes against americans
2) illegals commit more crimes than other people in their communities
sorry to tell you but neither is true.  most illegal immigrants are here to find a peaceful life where their children can become successful and wealthy and live the American dream.

Looking to the future.  This whole debate has dug up issues from English as the National Language in Alabama to racist comparisons in the US House to censorship in schools.  Clearly this is a great law if it has such great affects.

Common Sense

Anti-Gay Rhetoric 101: How to Destroy a Republican Senator.

Usually it makes me smile when a self-righteous republican gets outed as a gay man (there are so few republican women that the probability of one of them being a lesbian is pretty low).  Lindsey Graham being accused of being gay is only slightly less amusing for me.  Not only because he seems like a decent guy and senator, but because it's almost like watching the kids in Lord of the Flies go crazy and kill the fat kid.  You wish that we were civilized enough not to kill the weaker members of the pack, but the GOP proves that we are not.

This seems to be just another example of the infighting going on in the GOP, but also it reveals that when you want to discredit a republican all you have to do is insinuate that they are gay.  It may or may not be true (Lindsey Graham seems like he could definitely be gay), but the point is that the insinuation is enough to make national news.  The GOP really thinks they are not homophobes and bigots?  I'm sorry, but if your whole strategy is to destroy someone's career by stoking fears that they MIGHT be gay, thats textbook homophobia.

On to a deeper point, lets say Lindsey Graham is gay.  If you've seen the movies Outraged (which you should watch to gain some perspective on the subject of closeted republicans) or Gay Republicans, you know that being gay on capitol hill is common for either party.  The republicans even have very open gay supporters.  So, why are they attacking their own people?  for the extreme anti-gay religious right?  for a voting block of a few million people?  As they say in Outrage, the gays make the capitol run on time.  In my experience the gays really do influence everything.  From the stereotypical gay fashionistas to the powerful mega-lesbian CEOs and senior business women.  Those are just stereotypes, gay men and women come in all shades in between those two extremes, but the point is YOU can't live without us, so why are you taking us on?

Common Sense

On The Environment: Drill, Baby...Spill?

There is plenty of hoopla streaming across the national media regarding the recent oil spill, and I couldn't help but notice a few rather interesting contradictions.

1) The big name "Drillers" from Palin to Steele haven't said a word.  Palin did however take time to point out that she too was part of an oil spill from the Exxon, and so she sympathizes with the families of the oil rig.  Thanks Sarah!  now how about some action.  Don't just say "I went through that too" and then continue to advocate policies with disastrous consequences (isn't the definition of insanity "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time... I knew she was insane).  How about you actually advocate policies that don't cost billions in clean up costs and even more in irreversible natural loses.

2) Everyone is up in arms about the impending environmental disaster ... except 83% of fox news online viewers who when asked whether this disaster should result in a scaling back of oil drilling in the gulf responded "No, off shore drilling is necessary to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.  Drill, Baby, Drill."  It seems impossible to argue with that logic ... unless you have an ounce of basic intelligence.  First of all, drilling off the coast will only fractionally decrease our dependence on foreign oil reserves.  In fact, if we were able to immediately draw out all of the oil off the coast it would last about 5 years.  Thats not reality.  Reality is that working at full capacity, the best we could hope for is that we would meet less than 1% of world demand.  Since we only just opened up the coastal oil fields, and rigs cost $2 Billion and ten years to build, you do the math.  even our kids wont see our oil production at full capacity.


Now the question is, are we really willing to sacrifice our environment for a fraction of 1% of the market?  apparently the answer to these selfish neo-con thugs is yes.  And in 300 years when all the oil on earth runs out (assuming we survive that long) they can look forward to cleaning up the giant mess they made.  but if they have their way we wont survive that long.  we'll barely make it to 2050, at which time we wont have much of a planet left.  Thanks neo-cons.


3) where is the righteous indignation about "oil rig safety" that accompanied the disaster in the West Virginia Mine collapse?  Everyone is more interested in making this about Obama's energy policy (Fox News, HuffPo).  So, coal mine collapses, it's a labor issue, but if an oil rig explodes it's an issue of energy policy?  And where is the coverage of the 11 people who died on the oil rig?  I couldn't turn on the TV a week ago without hearing about the miners who died in WV, but I actually had to dig to find any mention of the oil rig crew.


Lesson learned?  1) GOP leaders are hypocrites.  2) Fox news viewers are selfish and more interested in driving their cars than perpetuating our planet past 2050.  3) The media grabs onto the first story line that causes controversy and pushes it till it's dead (or till all the people are dead).


Common Sense

Return of the Blogger

So, I just spent the last 4 months writing, defending, editing, and submitting my Master's Thesis.  Now that it's over and graduation is growing near, I have time to dedicate to blogging again.

It is also worth mentioning that one of my colleagues today informed me that she reads my blog and finds it amusing.  Thank for the support Mary. =)

So, where to begin?  there is just so much that has happened in the past 4 months that demands a little common sense.  Stay tuned...

Practice Non-Religion: Non-Religious Generation

Here is an interesting, but overwhelmingly ignored poll conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.  According to this new poll almost 80% of our generation do not actively practice religious observance.  Most still believe in an afterlife (why wouldn't you?  it's a safe assumption), but that doesn't translate into attendance at religious ceremony anymore.

My question is, why was it buried in a corner the Huffington Post?  A dramatic shift like this should be front page news for weeks.  What do we get instead?  Tiger Woods and an angry Orca.  Those are not useful topics of conversation.  sad?  yes.  lessons to be learned?  yes.  useful to the general public?  no.

What this article should spark is a debate on the nature and relevance of religion to public policy and the future of our nation.  I would never deny the fact that our country is overwhelmingly religious (for the moment), and that religion is protected by the constitution (just as we should be protected from it).  However, this poll should suggest that religion as a form of political power is a dying power, and will be irrelevant in the near future.  It should also be a lesson to conservatives who like to hang their hat on the "religious nation" or "Christian nation" mantel.  We may be a religious nation now, but that might change when millennials start to dominate public and private life.

I can only hope that this poll represents a permanent shift that signals the end of religious domination in our lives and our country.  Too many wrong have been committed and too much progress halted because of religious intransigence.  It is up to this non-religious generation, to make sure the future is a little bit brighter for all Americans, not just the faithful.

Common Sense

Neo-Con Agenda: Mount Vernon Statement

Today conservatives reaffirmed their fundamental belief in constitutional principles which they have spent the past 50 years undermining at every chance.  The truly ironic part of the Mount Vernon Statement is that only two of the 5 principles they present can actually be located in the constitution.  The remaining three are neo-con principles that have evolved over the past 50 years as today's republicans rested control of their party away from classical conservatives and limited government conservatives.

Here are the "Constitutional Principles" that the neo-cons have decided to stand for:

(1) It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.
(2) It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
(3) It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
(4) It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
(5) It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

Alright, so to be fair the first two are definitely constitutional principles, but lets not pretend the republicans EVER respected those principles.  Republicans have been all to happy to expand the size and role of government under their rule.  Take for instance George Bush.  On the economic front, he used to tax policy to pump money directly into the bank accounts of the rich, which by all realistic measures caused the enormous over-growth of our economy that resulted in the enormity of the economic crash of the past 2 years.  on the social front, he was happy to support the regulation of sexual practices (sodomy, which was only overthrown thanks to the liberal leanings of the court) and marriage.

As for individual liberty, I'm not sure who gets the liberty.  Certainly not gays, minorities (who are being denied higher education thanks to conservative intervention in admissions policies), women (who may soon lose control of their bodies), or the non-religious.  So who exactly gets liberty in conservative america?  oh yeah, straight white religious men.  That doesn't really sound like a good thing to me.

The second three are not even constitutional principles.  The free market was always separate from the constitution, because economic policies are irrelevant.  It was only in the 1950s during the Red Scare that liberty, democracy, and free markets were associated as a means of alienating the communists.  There is nothing necessary about Free Markets, it simply happens to be the most fitting form for our economy and also the most effective, but that is irrelevant to a discussion of constitutional principles.

Advancing freedom is also found no where in the constitution and involving ourselves in the affairs of others has ALWAYS been a suspect practice and one that has hurt us in the past.

I don't think I even need to note why family, community and neighborhoods would be irrelevant to the framers of the constitution.  As for faith, the government was never meant to defend faith it was meant to stay out of it and defend itself from faith.

Notice how the last three look a whole lot like a laundry list of policy pandering to the three powerful constituents of the republican party: Social conservatives, economic conservatives, and war hawks.  Republicans, lets not pretend that this has anything to do with going back to constitutional principles, it is a bold faced attempted to pander to your base.  Nothing more.

The results of today's declaration are nothing more than a reaffirmation that Republicans will continue to abuse the constitution to push their power-hungry agenda of religious extremist, military domination and oppression of the world, and economic incompetence.

Common Sense

Neo-Con Agenda: Why it's too early to count out the Dems

Let's be frank, a lot can happen in the next 7 months before the elections and the republicans are not up by THAT much in most districts.

I watched a show on MSNBC, and they have all but given the house to the GOP (I would remind you that it's still 7 months away).  However they were squabbling over whether the Senate would stay in Democratic hands.  They even put Nevada, home of the Majority Leader, as a likely GOP take over.  I've seen those polls.  Reid is down by 9 points to either challenger, but again, lets be frank, he's been busy.  He hasn't rolled out a robust re-election campaign yet, so lets assume when he does that he picks up 5 points.  that makes a a 4 point game, which is most polls falls just shy of the margin of error.  The real question becomes can the democrats change the message in time to make up those 4 points and then grab some extras to spare.  I say, yes, they will.  and here is why:

(1) In the past 7 months the economy has gone from bad to worse and then from worse to still bad but not spirally out of control.  Taking my cues from the most recent economic news, everyone was bummed out that we lost 20,000 jobs instead of the 5,000 we expected.  come on!  20,000 is still better than 700,000 losses.  At the same time we went from 10.2% unemployment to 9.7%, a drop of half a percent.  Not bad, huh?  well don't expect the media to catch onto that.

The reality is that the economy is poised for a rebound.  The Dow is on solid ground compared to where it was last year, the employment numbers suggest we are on the brink of job growth, and every economist worth their expensive degrees is saying the worst is behind us.  Me prediction:  Unemployment will drop slowly until May/June, when it will fall sharply (if most companies are like my university than that will mark the end of their current hiring freeze, and they will begin to take some chances).  I tentatively suggest that by August we are at 7.5 to 8.0% unemployment.  Guess who is going to get the credit for that?  And don't forget the president's new job plan.

(2) Health care will be yesterday's news.  Assuming the democrats take care of health care immediately, by the time the elections role around people wont be as angry about it.  The Republicans will still try to use it as a weapon, but it wont make a lot of sense since most of it wont take effect until 2011, well after the elections.  So the facts wont support the republican position and lets all remember that the public ha about a 3 month memory when it comes to politics.  Prediction: Health care won't be a big issue on election night 2010.  Exit polls will say that the economy, jobs, and social issues will be the big issues, because that is always what people say, despite the fact that statistics show Republicans often vote against their economic interests.

(3) Incumbent democrats haven't started "running" yet.  Republicans have been running for 2010 since November 5, 2008.  Democrats have been trying to govern.  Just as Reid will pick up points when he kicks his campaign into high gear, so too will other democrats.  Between now and the summer, I would expect some small changes in the numbers with republican leads shrinking but staying solidly outside the margin of error, but starting in June I would be very surprised if those leads don't disappear with at least a few Democrats pulling into the lead.

So here is my over-all predictions:

(1) Democrats will hold both houses

(2) Republicans will pick up 2 seats in the senate (57-43)

(3) Republicans will pick up between 10 and 20 seats on the house (246/236-188/198)

This election is NOT 1994.  Will the republicans win back some seats, yes of course.  The only reason the congress swung so far to the left was because Democrats were VERY motivated in 2008.  That and Obama managed to pull a lot of informed moderates and uninformed fair-weather voters toward the democrats who were seen as the inevitable victors.  The Republicans will pick up seats because the congress will be working it's way back toward a comfortable equilibrium, not because their policies win over any credibility.  How could they?

Common Sense

Sarah Palin: Fire Rahm Emanuel

Let me start by saying I am not at all a fan of Mr. Emanuel.  Most of the time I find him smug, unpleasant, manipulative, and crude.  further, being that he is chief of staff, much of the blame for a lousy first year can be laid at his feet as much as Obama's.  However, I think Palin is, at best, exaggerating the severity of his crime if she thinks he should be fired for calling other Democrats retarded when they were threatening to jump on the anti-health reform band wagon.

The fact that Palin wants him fired for using the word "retarded" isn't what pisses me off about this situation.  What pisses me off is that she is using her child's tragic disorder as a means for grabbing the media spotlight once again AND for furthering her extremist neo-con agenda to bring down the administration.  I think that is reprehensible and she should be ashamed.

Now, lets be clear, what he said deserves a swift and serious response.  I would agree that there is a similar sentiment surrounding the work retarded and the n-word.  both are justifiably offensive and should be avoided in civilized daily conversation.  However, this is an opportunity to smack some sense into Rahm, not fire him.  The movement to fire him is tantamount to more of the same neo-con bullcrap, that they have been throwing at all of Obama's nominees, appointments, etc.  They need to get over it and stop trying to throw everything including the kitchen sink at the guy for screwing up.  Admonish him sure, but Obama isn't the one losing credibility because he throws a temper tantrum every time someone doesn't single-handedly save the economic turmoil left by failed Republican policies or isn't able to keep himself from using bad language.  Not that the neo-cons have much credibility these days among people with any semblance of common sense.  Most of their constituents are so stupid they still think Obama is a racist, socialist foreigner.  Plus, since when do republicans give a damn about vulnerable groups?

But by all means, let's keep feeding the ignorance and pandering to the anger of stupid people.  Way to go GOP, really raising the bar on that one.  Sarah, the guy screwed up.  Admonish him, then get over it and do something constructive with your time instead of using your children for political gain.  perhaps an education campaign would be a better use of your time than destroying out political system.  just a thought.

Common Sense

Anti-Gay Rhetoric 101: Child Abuse and Family Structure

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is now pointing to a recent government study in an attempt to provide proof that children living in non-traditional households are more likely to be abused than those who live in the nuclear family with both biological parents.  A 10 minute perusal of the document only serves to demonstrate that once again NOM missed the point, and, worse yet, grossly over exaggerated their case.  In their effort to discredit gay parents and tear down these families, this is an excellent example of this countries need for better education in basic math.  Let's examine a couple points.

(1) This study is of primarily heterosexual relationships.  Doesn't it seem somewhat intellectually dishonest not to recognize that gay and lesbian parents are purposefully denied access to a supposedly stabilizing institution (Marriage) and then punished them because they fall into the less stable category?  Of course they do!  If gay people could get married there would be no point to be made here because some would fall into each category, so really, this has nothing to do with homosexuality and shouldn't be used as a referendum on anything other than family structure.  IF ANYTHING, this is proof that gay people should be allowed to marry so their children would have a more stable household (since any kind of married parents are better than single with partner apparently).

(2) The problem is Single parents who live with their partner (what might be considered the only gay relationship category on here), but the problem is that there is another problem to be noted here.  The number of incidents of abuse in these relationships is about 33 per 1,000.  BUT here is a wrinkle, most of those incidents are perpetrated by the BIOLOGICAL parent, and not the partner.  In fact, in EVERY type of relationship 87% of the time it is the biological parent who is the perpetrator of abuse.  So, I guess that means the whole biological aspect of this argument doesn't hold much water.  So that really only leaves the married part.  Further support for gay people getting married!

(3) Now, lets talk about some statistics.  Children living with single parents and their partners are about 8 times more likely to be abused (33.0 incidents as opposed to 4.0 per 1,000).  However, those of you with half a brain already picked up on the HUGE omission in this argument.  33/1000 = 3.3%.  Translation.  Only 3 in every 100 children in these relationships are abused.  In strict statistical terms, this means there is probably a HUGE probability that this correlation isn't very strong and that there might be other factors.

For example, The same study finds that children with unemployed parents are about 2 times more likely to abuse their children, and three times more likely if they are not even in the labor force.  Why isn't this a referendum on unemployed parents?  Children in low SES families are 5 times more likely to be abused.  Why isn't this sparking a war on poor parents?  Children in families with 4+ children are twice as likely to be mistreated than those in families with 2 children.  Why aren't we talking about limited the number of births?  This is just three examples that I could find in 5 minutes.

(4) Finally, if you look at basic statistical scores (Appendixes), it looks pretty clear that half the stuff they are reporting isn't statistically significant by even the more relaxed research standards.  This begs the question, why is this being reported at all when it might not even be significant?  and why aren't people up in arms about this stuff?  (because they don't understand any of what I just said most likely)

Common Sense

Anti-Gay Rhetoric 101: Pro-Gay Dating Site Super Bowl Ad Rejected only Weeks after Anti-Choice Ad Accepted

You know, I'm all about the freedom of networks to decide what commercials it will air, and the Super Bowl should be no different, but this is getting kinda rediculous.

Just a few weeks after deciding it would allow advocacy ads, CBS rejects a Pro-Gay dating site advertisement, while accepting an anti-choice advertisement sponsored by the hate filled group, Focus on the Family.  Lets remember NBC rejected a PETA advertisement just last year.  Now, I'm not fan of PETA, but what happened to the "liberal media" bias?

So, basically anti-choice ads are ok, but animal protection and pro-gay ads are bad?

That doesn't sound right.

Common Sense