8-5-2008
I don’t know about you, but one of the ways that a movie can become one of my all time favorites is by having a great line. The Usual Suspects is one of those movies. Most people like the film because of its incredible acting and one of the best plot twists of all time. I’m not one of those people; I love the film because of one simple line. That point in the film where Kevin Spacey who plays the role of Verbal Kent, who is under interrogation as law enforcement, explains the power of the criminal master mind Keyser Soze by simply stating that “[t]he greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist.” I like that line and now I’m going to plagiarize Verbal Kent.
The greatest trick that the anti-immigrant movement has played on African Americans is convincing us that the anti-immigrant movement is no threat to us. I beg to differ. In fact I would like to make a modest proposal to Black America. That proposal is this: I believe that if there were not one immigrant or refugee in the United States we would still have an anti-immigrant movement. Why? Because the current so-called debate on immigration is not about coming to terms with the issue of migration; it is about who is an American and what will American look like. At its core anti-immigration is a national debate about civil rights, citizenship and national identity.
Beneath the irresponsible roar of Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly and other radio wannabes lays the underbelly of this so called anti-immigrant movement. It is a layer that they hope that African Americans don’t see. In fact, they are so worried that the key anti-immigrant organization - Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) - has created two front groups in an attempt to distract African Americans. The two groups are Choose Black America and the Coalition for the Future American Worker. Both “organizations” are staffed and/or received support by FAIR. While FAIR says that it cares about the welfare of Black Americans it has never used any of its resources to support one single piece of legislation seeking to lessen the economic plight of Black America. It has never returned the 1.2 million dollars that it has received from the anti-black Pioneer Fund, and refuses to hold accountable board members and staff that align themselves with individuals and organizations with ties to political extremists, including white nationalists.
Meanwhile, while lulling African Americans to sleep with Federation for American Immigration Reform and its constellation of organizations, they have systematically dismantled voting rights at the state level, supported armed vigilantes targeting brown skin people and are now in the mist of seeking to destroy the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. By using the racist term “anchor baby”, members of Congress, who are part of another FAIR front group called the House Immigration Reform Caucus, they were able to introduce into the present House of Representatives H.R. 1940. Sponsored by 103 Congressional Members, passage and implementation of H.R. 1940 would require eviscerating the 14th Amendment, a question of insurmountable import to black people who citizens’ rights have been historically guaranteed by this constitutional amendment.
While the debate on American identity is occurring on the backs of immigrants, I think it’s time that African Americans come to terms with the fact that an old enemy is undercutting the gains of the civil rights movement. The first step in fighting back is admitting that the anti-immigrant movement just might be the modern day face of white nationalism. Of course some of us will continue to believe the lies of FAIR, but that’s nothing new. The devil has always been able to buy souls on the cheap, apparently even ours.
Are African Americans Missing the Point on Immigration
Can the American Economy Recover?
8-4-2008
While McCain and Obama hone in on their battle for the American presidency, both candidates’ economic plan becomes more similar or bipolar – depending who they’re speaking to and if they’re in Ohio or California. The sad part is that the majority of American voters don’t believe either candidate has what it takes to heal the American economy, according to a new national poll posted in the Washington Post.
So what’s the problem? Have American voters lost faith in American politicians, or do Ohioans and Californians believe that the problems with the American economy are too big to fix?
The American economy has drastically changed over the last 40 years. Americans hardly produce tangible goods, like TV’s, refrigerators, and clothes anymore. Instead, the majority of people produce a “service.” Workers guide lost soul down the aisles, stock shelves and ring up registers at big box stores, like Target, Wal-Mart, and Home Depot.
But did it have to change? Why did American businesses take their shops overseas instead of relying on Americans to build household products and the clothes on our backs?
Companies realized that if they could sell TVs, clothes, shoes, and bikes at a lower cost, they could increase their sells. In other words, more people could afford more stuff if they lowered their prices. (Which is why more Americans can afford to buy TVs today than 50 years ago.)
So what happen? American businesses decided to move overseas so they could decrease how much it cost to build TVs, clothes, computers, pencils, or furniture. They decided to move their companies off American soil so they could pay workers less than they paid American workers. Why? Lower wages means cheaper price tags. Why else do you think American made products are so expensive.
And let’s not forget, businesses around the world compete against each other. They compete for peoples’ money. Therefore, American companies have to compete with foreign businesses in order to succeed. They must produce cars, TVs, pencils, clothes and computers cheaper than China, Germany, Brazil, and India in order to thrive.
That’s a fact, that’s the way economies around the world have operated for more than 200 years. Bi-weekly and monthly paychecks - along with the materials needed, like glass, plastic, or metal to make the things people buy – dictate the price tags shining on new refrigerators, sofas, houses, and bikes. (Along with the ole supply and demand theory, but I’ll save that topic for another time.)
So what’s the problem? American businesses are having trouble competing against foreign businesses, it’s that simple.
So when you hear Obama or McCain talking about giving American businesses tax breaks, it’s because they’re trying to help American companies compete against Chinese or Indian business. But every time they do, every time they give businesses tax breaks and forget to increase wages, each candidate indirectly supports lowering American wages. But if they don’t, American companies will continue to loose their competitive edge, unemployment will drastically increase and monthly grocery bills will jump higher than they are today. Why else do you think prices are increasing?
(And no it’s not just the price of oil. Sorry anti-war folks, oil isn’t the answer for everything. The world is more complex than you think.)
So have Americans completely lost faith in politicians or are people losing faith in how we do business?
Maybe Americans are beginning to see the writing on the wall and their tired of being taken advantage of. Maybe Americans are asking Obama and McCain to create a new way of doing business. Maybe voters are asking each candidate to use their power as one of the world leaders and create something new.
It’s too bad Obama and McCain aren’t listening.
Dear Italy, It's Me Again
By Jill G.
7-30-2008
Dear Italy,
America here. We need to talk. You're probably sick of hearing from me, but trust me this is for your own good. I heard you went back to Berlusconi. I know you’ve had problems before with letting him back into your life, but I thought that was all over with. This guy is seriously bad news - can't you see he doesn't love you for who you are?! He's as slippery as a snake and you're a fool to trust him.
I know what you’re going to say – I’ve had my problems with men as well. I admit I've made mistakes, but "you know who" is about to be out of my life for good and I think I've finally got someone who really cares. He's showing me all the things I have to be hopeful for, and change is possible. You too can change - I believe in you!
Then there's this business of criminalizing your immigrants, and even your own children. Deep down inside you're warm and loving, and yet you allow yourself to be controlled by fear-mongering men. Don't you know when you allow these things to happen all anyone can see of you is hate? Again, I realize I haven't set the best example, but I'm trying to work out my issues (and boy are they deep). I believe I can do better; we can both do better.
Italy, the truth is, you're breaking my heart. I feel like you're a part of me and I don't want to lose you. Please think about what I've said, only you can prevent more tragedies.
Love,
America
Businesses Should Follow the Money Trail on Immigration
7-22-2008
(Image gratefully borrowed from Vinh Tran (on left) and WelcomingIdaho (at the bottom) at flicker.com/creativecommons)
Yesterday was hot and humid in Chicago. One of the things I like best about summer heat is that it gives me the perfect excuse to ingest one of Dunkin Doughnut’s Frozen Latte. Yesterday, while I was killing some time and sucking down my frozen latte, I decided to give in to another guilty pleasure and grab yesterday's New York Times.
As I was giving the front section a good look over, I noticed an editorial entitled Pushing Back on Immigration. In the editorial it is clear that business leaders are frustrated at their inability to secure a workforce and with the federal government’s unwillingness to create rational migration laws in the United States. The NYT editorial congratulated employers around the country who have banded together to defeat local and state-level anti-immigrant legislation.
What isn’t mentioned in the editorial is that the political action committees (PACs) of these same businesses have been some of the most enthusiastic financial supporters of the very same Congresspersons who have blocked meaningful immigrant legislation.
Consider Home Depot’s PAC; they gave $130,500 in campaign contributions to anti-immigrant politicians, more than 17% of its total donations. Ironically, these same elected politicians took Home Depots money with one hand, and with the other they introduced anti-immigrant legislation that directly attacks Home Depot – and the business community at-large - because of its supposed neutral stance on immigration.
Home Depot is not alone. Almost 2600 political action committees gave campaign contributions to anti-immigrant members during the 109th Congress (2005-2006), according to a comprehensive analysis of Federal Elections Commission records conducted by the Center for New Community.
As I sat there with my creamy frozen latte, I realized that even the milk industry was not immune from mistakenly financing individual members of Congress who, as a block, are responsible for creating the very labor shortage that the dairy industry currently faces.
All told, fifteen of the PACs closely tied to the dairy industry’s interests have contributed over $400,000 to anti-immigrant campaign coffers. In addition, when one adds the amount given by all agricultural related interests, the number sharply rises to millions of dollars. These anti-immigrant members of Congress have received campaign contributions from a surprisingly wide range of dairy industry sources, including Select Milk Producers PAC, United Egg Association EggPAC, and the Dairy Farmers of America Inc. DEPAC to name just a few. How did this happen?
While members of the business community tend to view congressional members as individuals, nearly a quarter of the House of Representatives have joined together to act as a bloc. Under the umbrella of the House Immigration Reform Caucus (HIRC), over 118 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have opposed virtually ever piece of key legislation aimed at relieving present labor shortages. In addition, HIRC members have increasingly placed the administrative burden of verifying the legal status of employees onto businesses themselves, forcing companies into acting like immigration enforcement officers.
The House Immigration Reform Caucus is led by Brian Bilbray, from California’s 50th Congressional District. Before his election to Congress, Bilbray was a lobbyist for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), and today continues to serve as co-chair of it s National Board of Advisors. The Federation for American Immigration Reform has a long history of accepting funds and associating with political extremists, including some folks with ties to white supremacist organizations. As Bilbray took over the HIRC in January of 2007, the California congressman announced plans to “work closely” with groups, such as FAIR and the Center for Immigration Studies – a FAIR spin-off, to seek their input on legislation.
If business is really serious about encouraging realistic solutions, perhaps they might start by not financially supporting those who promote policies that can be fairly described as both inhumane and anti-business. Perhaps it’s time for them to put their money where their mouths are.
Do We Really Want Change?
By Sarah Viets
7-21-2008
Have you ever broken up with someone because they rarely stood on their own? Or because they stimulated you, but the tone of their words muted the sound of your voice - their words and thoughts towered over your every word.
I have. Then I promised myself I’d never date a replica of my past. I made a vow to meet someone who would challenge me and get me to see the world and myself through a different prism. I was so tired of making all the decisions, no matter how serious or trivial they were. Tired, tired tired…
But then life goes on and my previous experiences are remembered as a small and insignificant part of my past. I meet someone new and his/her personality appears to contrast a familiar face. But then I notice something. I’ve ended up exactly where I once was. Ugg! Who put a magic mirror above my bathroom sink?! Why do I continue to not see situations as they are; is my mirror permanently distorted?
Worse yet, I desire that familiar voice of the one who is responsible for my solace and despair.
I say I want change and want to try something new. I want to break away from the only experiences I’m most comfortable in. But when it comes down to it, my actions contrast my ideals. Instead, of choosing what I desire, I merely choose a different shade of a previous color.
I live in an age of change - an era that thrives to see and experience unfamiliar paths. The internet connects us to new ideas and people across the globe, allowing me to sit in my living room and download new movies and foreign rhythms and beats.
While the present moment rings of opportunity, the opportunities we choose are not optimistic.
People may claim they’re adaptable and “open-minded,” but the only people and ideas we believe are merely echoes our own. People really don’t seek anything different, just a larger exposition of what they already proclaim to know. And if somebody challenges a point of view, people don’t question the roots of a personal position. We respond in defense by clinging to our ideals while not knowing what the opposing side actually represents. We become loyal and rigid, keeping our feet locked in place. We don’t second-guess our original stance. Re-thinking previously stated opinions are defined as wavering weak assessments and not evolving conclusions.
At the same time, we present ingrained opinions; we don’t hesitate to say why someone is wrong. Individual interpretations based on personal experiences possibly explain unfamiliar patterns.
While I obsessively shuffle through a friend’s friend-list on facebook, search on-line for that Icelandic band I heard at a friend’s house, or play chess with cyber friends from who knows where, am I really taste-testing unaccustomed flavors?
With that said, do people prefer subconsciously pre-determined opinions? And if so, is the inability to feel grounded in undetermined conclusions an individual problem or a social phenomenon?
Looking at current events, debates about immigration reform usually present solutions that aren’t any different from the past. Proposed state-wind ballot initiatives and city council ordinances that try to address problems with immigration are masked as new and innovative approaches, but they’re not.
Kind of like old policies that either banned slavery, implemented “gradual” emancipation, or held tight to their slave auctions and enacted the Fugitive Slave Act. In fact, for more than 100 years, colonies and states couldn’t decide what to do. So they began to use their borders (like states and city ordinances) as a way to advance pro-slavery positions. Even more, there were over 20 different local and state wide policies that limited where black people could work, live, and who black folks could marry.
But states could never really decide what to do to. One minute they might pass some law to protect husbands, wives, daughters and sons running away from the south, and then the next minute they might protect segregation.
It was a HUGE mess. So much that the south declared itself independent from the north (the Southern Confederacy) so they could assert their strong support for buying and selling moms and dads like a piece of cattle.
Now, I know bringing up history is like bringing up a bad relationship that you’re trying to forget. But how can anyone learn from his or her mistakes unless they draw lessons from old mistakes?
I know it’s easy to say slavery was bad, that our old relatives were off their rockers, but at one moment and time, they weren’t. It was socially acceptable to protect slavery and hunt for runaway slaves, kind of how the Minutemen (a modern anti-immigrant group on the border) hunts for immigrants on the border.
(and here's a picture)
We desperately need new ideas - we need change. But new non-traditional ideas should be examined with caution, unfamiliar views should at least be considered before firmly rejected. That’s what makes our country beautiful: the ability to challenge and adapt our American constitution.
Maybe its time to re-define what it means to be a Citizen. Maybe its time to re-think what it means to be American.
(picture gratefully used from www.dneiwert.blogspot.com)
Obama, Satire, and Reverse Racism
7-18-2008
This week, news anchors and politicians are attacking the New Yorker (a national political magazine) for printing a dicey image of Michelle and Barack Obama. The cover of the magazine is an image of Obama wearing traditional Islamic dress, Michelle looking pissed off with an Afro and carrying an AK-47, and the American flag burning in the fireplace. (Image gratefully borrowed from www.gothamist.com)
Conservatives and progressives are calling the drawing offensive and disturbing.
At the same time, comedians across the nation are asking why they can't make fun of Obama. They’re asking why they can’t use conservative urban legends for shits and giggles.White comedians are asking why Obama is free range for black comedians, but not for them. People like Jimmy Kimmel, a host for one of ABC's late-night talk shows said, "There’s a weird reverse racism going on. You can’t joke about him because he’s half-white. It’s silly." (Quote pulled from the NY Times 7/15.) But he also said it's harder to make fun of Obama's picture-perfect image.
But I'm willing to bet that Kimmel isn't alone. I bet there's a lot of white comedians and TV viewers asking the very same question. The only difference is that Kimmel blurted it out.
But is Kimmel right? Why don't white comedians have free range to poke fun at anyone, regardless of the color of his/her skin?
Think about it this way, if you don’t trust someone, are you going to believe his or her intention?
Let me put it another way:
Since it’s hard to trust a white comedians’ and TV viewers’ intention. It’s hard to know if white folks are making fun of black stereotypes like, “black people are criminals, lazy and irresponsible,” if they're actually making fun of his/her character as a person and not because they’re black, or if they’re rehashing some racist stereotype. Why? More black people live in poverty than white folks, it’s that simple. (Click on blue link to read 2006 census bureau on poverty.) And black poverty breeds anti-American stereotypes.
And since a lot of progressive folks like to spend their time buying separate garbage cans for their plastics, paper and glass bottles, and the Iraq War, than they do thinking about black poverty, how is someone suppose to know they’re not racist?
(That's not to say recycling, or any other issue isn't important. I just think there's a better way to incorporate each issue under one common theme (like American Identity) so the majority of American people can recognize and define what it means to be progressive. And I don't think this currently exists. If you don't believe me, ask some random Joe on the street the difference between republicans and democrats and see what they say.)
So what’s the reason?
Maybe it’s ignorance. Maybe some liberal folks don’t understand how black poverty affects them personally and attacks their American identity. Or maybe it’s because the problem seems too big to tackle.
But at the end of the day, the reason doesn’t matter. To ignore why there are very few jobs in non-white neighborhoods suggests that black people are personally responsible for high school dropout rates. When progressives ignore why dishonorable weekly paychecks breeds crime, they give folks the impressions they personally believe black people are criminal, irresponsible, and lazy – the exact stereotypes they claim to denounce.
So why should black people trust white comedians and white viewers when they potentially – and secretly - believe black stereotypes? Tell me again, Mr. Jimmy Kimmel, why this is “reverse racism?” If you’re tired of double standards, then stop complaining and do something about it.
If you want to use black folks for satire without being called a racist, then do something to erase black stereotypes.
On the other hand, I could be completely wrong. I’m as white as they come. (In fact, I probably glow in the dark.) So I don’t know what it’s like to be black and hear white comedians. But I do know a lot of white folks who say they’re “open-minded” and not racist, but always find a way to spit out random racist stereotypes.
But I also know we’re better than this.
America, don’t pull the ole “reverse racism” card. Do something to destroy anti-American stereotypes. Do something that makes you proud to be an American.
Racism Italian Style
By Jill G.
7-16-2008
A few weeks ago I was enjoying a warm afternoon at the park with my friend, Lynn and her daughter Mary. As we twirled lazily on the swings I saw a man striding across the playground towards a young woman pushing her infant on the baby swings. The way he moved, with his head thrust forward, arms rigid at his side, sent a tingling shiver of unease up my spine. Lynn and I exchanged looks as he approached the woman. Silently calculating the way women often do when they detect a threat to children.
We watched as he talked, aggressively leaning into the side of her face. Finally she turned to look at him. They argued for several minutes, until the baby sat unmoving in her swing. He grabbed her wrist and I could see that he wanted something from her hand. He wasn't very big, perhaps smaller than the girl, but even from a distance I could smell his meanness.
"Momma, I wa-ant to go", Mary whined while tugging on her mom's sleeve. Without looking away from the couple Lynn said in her firmest mom voice; "We're not leaving."
I don't know if the man heard what she said or maybe just her tone, but at that moment he turned to look at us. He must have been surprised to see the hard glares of two women who were ready to kick his scrawny butt. His hand dropped away from her arm and a few moments later he stalked back across the playground, his head down - hands balled into tight fists.
When I heard of the proposal by Italian government officials to fingerprint Roma people (aka Gypsies), including Roma children in order to "crackdown on crime," I had the same premonition of danger as that day in the park.
The Roma have faced persecution and ethnic cleansing for centuries. During the holocaust alone it's believed that hundreds of thousands perished in death camps. Today, they are widely dispersed throughout the world as a result, but across Europe they still face heavy discrimination and social exclusion. This past May the poor encampments where the Roma live near Naples, Italy were attacked by an angry mob and set fire in response to the rumor of a crime.
Many of them have never been permitted to become citizens in their country of residence even though their families have been there for generations. Italy's current government has openly said they hope to identify anyone "who does not have a valid document" in order to expel them from the country. It sounds eerily familiar to 1935 when the Nazis stripped the Roma people of their citizenship along with the Jews.
Many of us probably feel that what happens in Italy is none of our business. I say, so what if it’s none of our business? When a government takes measures to criminalize an entire ethnic population, especially children, we make it our business.
Tell your friends, call your 2nd cousin twice removed in Rome, send emails to your favorite columnist asking that they write about the issue. Let's send a message that Americans are watching. We're not looking away, not this time.
Birthday’s don’t Pay Like They Used To
7-15-2008
I don’t know about you, but I’m a grandmaster of birthdays, well at least my birthday. If you happen to be one of those people who know me personally you probably know about my birthday. I celebrate my birthday for fifteen days straight. That’s seven days before and seven days after, just in case you’re doing the math. In light of all the recent studies showing a stark decline in leisure time, I want to make sure I give each of my friends the opportunity they need to free their time and juggle finances to celebrate me!
My birthday has always been special to me. It’s during that time that I like to take stock of my life and accomplishments. It’s when I like to stare into the mirror and give myself the “stern talking to,” “the pep talk,” or what I like to call the “look of satisfaction.” It’s during those quiet times - in-between opening the many wonderful presents, devouring the amazing cakes, or answering the hilarious phone calls from friends - that I think it’s important to assess my past, present and future.
I can remember most of my birthdays clearly. I can even tell you what I was doing on those days. When I was younger, my birthday parties were an excuse for the whole family to get together. Although the focus on me quickly shifted to family gossip, I also got birthday cards filled with hard cold cash. Like any American kid, I was ecstatic to see those green bills. I would negotiate with my mother over how much I had to put into my savings account (the Play-Dough container on my shelf), and over how much money I could spend on comic books, toys and candy.
I like to say I was good at saving, but I would eventually spend the money in my special container. I am sure many of you can relate to the disappointment upon picking up a piggy bank that is too light to contain much cash. (How does it go so fast? I still wonder that every pay check.) In many ways my birthdays served as my earliest lesson in the importance of taking personal responsibility for my finances.
Now that I’m an adult, it’s rare to find cash in my birthday cards. But I haven’t forgotten the financial schooling those birthdays provided me. I may not be the smartest with my money, but I still try to tuck a little away for a rainy day. And taking personal responsibility doesn’t just mean staring at my wallet, it also means looking at the wallet of the country. I mean it’s my tax dollars at work, isn’t it?
Well I’m looking at our nation’s wallet today and I don’t like what I see. A day before my birthday, IndyMac Federal Bank closed its doors and was taken over by the F.D.I.C. Two days after my birthday, Washington Mutual stock fell by 50%. Experts say these are simply the first partygoers who had a little too much to drink and that others will shortly leave the festivities as well. And there are far too many Americans for whom the gluttonous celebration has always been off limits. It’s not much of a stretch to imagine both large and small piggy banks across the country coming up empty.
While I listen to anxiety inducing news reports as I celebrate my birthday this year, I can’t help but wonder what my role has been. I mean, how did I help create a situation that allowed banks to close their doors? It's as if I've been teleported back in time to The Great Depression?
As I stare into the mirror for an answer, it’s clear that I just don’t know enough about how the economy operates to answer. That shows a lack of personal responsibility on my part, and that just won’t do.
Well, I’ve given myself a stern talking too and I’m about to do something about it. From July 27 – August 2, 2008 the Center for Popular Economics is coming to Chicago. They will teach me how economics impacts my life, my community and my work. The summer institute is designed for folks like me who slept through high school economics and don’t know the difference between the “mean” and “median.” This is my present to my country and me this year.
When you see me walking down the halls at the Summer Institute be sure to wish me Happy Birthday!
(Image gratefully borrowed from jenn_jenn's photostream on flicker.com/creativecommons)
Our Anti-American Supreme Court
By Jill
7-9-2008
Last week the Supreme Court overturned a Washington D.C. ban on handguns, effectively removing most of the District's gun restrictions. This ruling, unfortunately, leaves the door wide open for the National Rifle Association to challenge similar laws around the country. They've already sued to overturn handgun bans in other cities, such as Chicago, based on the Supreme Court's ruling.
The National Rifle Association has such a fanatical obsession with demolishing handgun bans, I'm curious to know more about their connection to the issue. Maybe their membership could shed some light on the subject, like, for example what is the race, gender , and age of their card-carrying members? Or if it's easier to compile, non-white men under forty? The NRA conveniently doesn't collect demographic information on their membership. If they did we might be able to compare the NRA's demographics to that of the people who are actual victims of handguns.
After all, in 2005 African-Americans were 49% of our country's murder victims, yet they made up only 13% of the population. A majority of them were 17-29 years of age, and 93% of them were killed by other African-Americans (a similar percentage of white murder victims were killed by other whites in case you're wondering).
Let's go out on a limb and assume very few of the NRA's members are African-American and between the ages of 17-29. So if they aren't going to jail for gun violence and they aren't on the receiving end of gun violence, shouldn't they be the least vocal group on handgun restrictions? And yet the NRA is one of Washington's most powerful lobbying groups in favor of handguns, and more troubling, their leadership has a long history of racist statements, read more about that here.
A few years ago I had a heated argument over handgun restrictions with a friend that ruined a dinner party. As our companions looked on in dismay, we loaded all our moral, constitutional, and logical ammunition either in favor or against handgun bans and shot them across the table. Luckily for all the suffering bystanders, my friend made a fatal mistake by citing a section of the popular book Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dunbar that describes how backyard swimming pools kill far more children in the U.S. than firearms. It's a common statistical gem that gun advocates like to use. It states that 550 children under the age of 10 drown in swimming pools each year and 175 children under 10 die from gunshots. Swimming pools are obviously a greater danger to children, but the book fails to mention that children under 10-yrs-old are not the at-risk population when it comes to handguns, it's actually suicidal individuals over the age of 13.
Between 1990-1997 there were 147,000 suicides using firearms; 90,000 of these suicides were performed with a handgun.
I told my friend I would wholeheartedly support laws to regulate swimming pools, but first I would appreciate him citing ALL the information on handguns from his source, specifically the section (pp. 118-122) that says handguns undoubtedly contribute to our countries high homicide rates (2/3 of which are committed with handguns), and laws permitting citizens to carry firearms in self-defense are ineffective crime-stoppers.
As much as I love the idea of little old ladies defending themselves with pistols under their pillows the truth is in 1997 only 2.3% of handgun homicides were considered justifiable or 193 out of 8,503.
Despite the ruined dinner party, I left with the smug satisfaction that I had won the argument, but in retrospect neither my friend nor I were saying the right things. He should have argued that bans on handguns aren't effective because the black-market for firearms is so strong we now have over 200 million guns in the United States, and you can ban all you like but those 200 million have a long shelf life.
And I should have responded that we can debate statistics all we like, but highlighting racist factors or morbid death rates won't save lives, and handgun bans probably won't either, but at least they're a step in the right direction.
Regardless of all the talk about constitutional rights and civil liberties, the simple truth is that guns are designed, manufactured, sold, and used to efficiently kill people, nothing else. The gun industry is just another big business that benefits from the death and destruction of American lives, and anyone who helps the gun industry or gives in to the NRA is just plain unAmerican in my book.
Smell Something Burning? It’s Probably Arizona
By Eric K. Ward
7-8-2008
Did you ever play the “If I had lived during [insert appropriate historic period here] I would have . . .” game? Back when I was a kid my friends and I would sit in a tight circle often with popsicles juice running down our fingers while we discussed how each of us would have reacted to the Great Chicago Fire, escaped the Titanic, survived in the Land of the Lost, or ran bootleg rum from Canada, though I’m sure we didn’t even know what rum was.
As we grew older the game changed and took on even more significance. It was no longer made up of fantasies of how I would have invested in Disney and made it rich. Instead, I thought about how I might imagine myself reacting to important moments in U.S. history. Actually it was just one moment that fascinated me, the one called the Civil Rights Movement. “Would I have been able to keep my cool desegregating a lunch counter?” “Could I have worked up the courage and registered to vote knowing that I might get a visit from the Klan that evening?” Would I have left the comfortable confines of college to spend my summer in a place that very well might cost me my life?”
Of course I was always full of bravado about what I “would have done” if given the chance, but I made these boasts from the comfort of the present - a nice place to explore “what if?” and “what may?” I don’t think I’m alone in this and I still think many still wonder what they might have done had they been in places called Selma, Montgomery, Jackson and Boston.
In Arizona, like the tattered pages of an old paperback, the wondering is long over. With over 181 bodies recovered in the deserts in 2007, fifty five pieces of anti-immigrant legislation to be submitted in 2008, and a local Sheriff who resembles Bull Connor (a southern police officer and KKK member in the 1960's) more than Wyatt Earp, Arizona is becoming to immigrants rights, what Mississippi was to the 1960s civil rights movement—a defining moment in which each of us will be called to either embrace inhumanity or redeem the soul of America.
While I still wonder what I might do, others are acting. From day laborers in Phoenix, Arizona, who face down the Sherriff and his posse because they know that work is not a crime, to community members in Flagstaff, Arizona who were detained last weekend for “disturbing the peace” because they dared to honor the very meaning of the 4th of July by joining the annual 4th of July parade.
Kaitlyn Fahrenbruch a spokesperson with The Coalition to Repeal took part in the 4th of July Parade with seven others to deliver a declaration of their own (click to watch video). “Our goal is the repeal all anti-immigrant laws; federal, state and local,” says Fahrenbruch “We were marching in the defense of freedom for all people to live, love, and work anywhere they please” she said. Is the message extreme? Maybe it seems extreme to me, but then I remember English King George didn’t take it very well when he was told a similar message about us celebrating American Independence each year on the 4th of July.
Beyond the debate on the economic pros and cons of immigration, I think The Coalition to Repeal has realized something that I had forgotten. That hundreds of people dying in the desert each year is extreme, children coming home to empty kitchens where parents have disappeared is extreme, beings jailed for seeking work is extreme. Asking that each individual in our society be treated with basic human decency is not—it is as American as apple pie. It’s what we have been seeking since 1776.
What would I have done had I lived in the 1960s? I guess I don’t have to wonder anymore. Arizona, here I come!
Isolation Bad, Globalization Good
By Sarah Viets
7-7-2008
I don't think isolationism should influence American foreign policy and here's why:
The rise of isolationist foreign policies is in response to globalization. And Why?
When our American economy competes globally, so does our individual income. In result, how much we make per hour or each year competes with the standard amount of money people make in various countries.
So, if we can agree our cost of living is higher than developing countries, than we can also agree the amount of money we make is also higher.
Therefore, if we compete within global markets, our individual wages and economic standards of living will decline.
So, is this a good thing?
No and Yes
For instance, we're all aware we are the richest nation in the world. But, where’s the source of our wealth?
If we want to increase the wealth and standards of living for other countries, if we want to make sure everybody has access to basic human needs, that each mother and father has enough food to feed their family, we must realize our standards are too high and perpetuate global poverty.
And Why?
Everybody knows there are only so many pieces in a pie. If you take more than your share, somebody will always get shortchanged.
At the same time, even though you can’t compare American hard times to African, Indian, or Cambodian hardships, doesn’t mean the concerns of Americans aren’t valid.
So we can respond to foreign competition in 2 ways:
1-Cut of all ties to save our own neck. With that said, we all know problems never really go away, no matter how much we ignore them. They merely present themselves in different ways.
or
2-Engage in foreign competition. Why? Because we know companies are most interested in finding cheap prices for labor. In other words, the lowest wages. For example, why else do you think our clothes are made in China, Korea, Cambodia, Mexico, etc.
While it's easier to blame Koreans, Mexicans, or Ecuadorians, who work for old American based companies, aren't they simply doing what you do every morning? Just like you, they get up every morning, kiss their loved ones good-bye, and head out to work to feed and clothe their family.
But, if you prefer to stay in a bidding war against foreign competition, aren't you also saying you deserve a job more than somebody else? If so, you're also saying, you have more of a right to feed your family than the person standing next to you.
So, we can either pretend their desire will vanish, or we can wake up and realize globalization is here to stay.
What do they say? In order to change something, you must first acknowledge what already exists...
The Real Truth About Obama and Islam
By Eric K. Ward
If smoking as many cigs as I can is the best way to get over my urge to smoke, than those who are convinced to prove that Obama is a “Muslim in disguised” have done one even better. Their massive email drives have single handily assured that I will never, ever, check my Yahoo email account again. Since the middle of March I have received, at last count, over one hundred and sixty-eight emails pleading with me to understand that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim and might even be a follower of Islam too!
Granted I’m a survivor of what’s left of the public school system in the United States, but I was always taught that being a Muslim means you are a follower of Islam. Like a good syndicated episode of the X-Files, my Obama is a Secret Muslim Friends (or OSMF as I like to refer to them), don’t let a good conspiracy yarn get in the way of the facts.
From a sampling of these emails you would think that my OSMF had the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution incarcerated in Guantanamo while I was off sampling my 5 PM Gin Martini (dry, stirred and three olives, if you’re curious)? Also, if you’re wondering if all these rumors have any grain of truth to them, stay tuned readers, I have the real answer for you at the end of this blog.
While my unchecked Yahoo account continues to fill up with OSMF (I just received another while writing this) I want to suspend their particular fantasy and insert my own question. Is it the false belief, that Obama is a secret Muslim, that will drive potential voters away from this particular candidate, or does the lie that Obama is a secret Muslim simply provide people the excuse they were looking for not to vote for him? Let’s test it out.
Let’s say that Obama was Muslim. What would be the big deal? We didn’t have a problem when Muslims gave us free labor (it is estimated that nearly 13% - 20% of enslaved Africans in the America’s were followers of Islam). We don’t seem to have a problem with American Revolutionary War Hero Peter Salem being placed on a postage stamp. We didn’t cry conspiracy when that Muslim country, called Morocco, stepped forward to be the first country to officially recognize the young fledging United States. Nor did we raise a big stink when Islam helped to influence America’s very own, The Blues. I guess it’s okay to be a Muslim in America as long as you don’t run for President, seriously?
So after all of this, it still comes down to that one question I promised to answer: “Is Barack Obama Muslim?” Does it really matter?
Our litmus test for who is the best President should revolve around knowing if our vote counts, how we’re going to put food on the table, how much we’re paying for gas at the pump, and keeping our children in schools were the teacher doesn’t have to work two jobs to survive. Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, or Baha’i (or no belief at all), we have more in common with each other than my OSMF. That’s because in our America, it’s not the religious lines that increasingly concerns us, but the economic one.
Employer Sanctions, Border Security is Anti-Civil Rights
By Sarah Viets
Some folks vehemently believe US borders are weak and feeble. They believe porous borders threatens American security, strains American social services, declines US wages, and fosters unemployment. Now, I can either create a counter argument for each claim, or I can change how people debate immigration.
I choose the latter. But, it's also important to address American's hearts and minds. Each of us is frustrated by the direction of our country. And each of us desperately desires an alternative to our current status quo.
But blaming immigrants for old problems confuses me. Inadequate social services, educational resources, low wages, and high unemployment are not new problems. Broken borders aren’t responsible for each specific problem.
The amount of money spent on education, roads, bridges, levees, and health care has been declining for years, a decision made by elected politicians, like mayors, city councilpersons, senators, and house of representatives. They decide what programs to fund and what departments to cut. But that's not the only reason.
When largely unionized industries, like textile and steel mills and automotive industries moved outside American borders, so did high paying jobs with health care and pensions. In it’s place, low paying American service jobs replaced industrial work. Large malls, new hotels, restaurants and large retailers filled American landscape and replaced $2,000 monthly paychecks. In other words, American employers paid minimal wages at American's expense.
In result, real wages (American's income) stayed the same while the cost of living increased. To put it another way, every time light bills, monthly food budgets and gas prices went up, American paychecks stayed the same. If bi-weekly pay stubs increased with the cost of gas, minimal wages would exceed $10.00 an hour. Even more, Americans pay more health care bills and receive shaky pension plans unparalleled to previous decades.
None of these points are new information. In fact, you probably skipped them. (I don't blame you, it's depressing).
So, complaints about new immigrants are actually fights for resources. For instance, a fight for resources argues that there aren’t enough resources to feed the entire globe. Therefore, strict border enforcement and employer sanctions are needed to fight and maintain what little resources there are.
However, while this argument is justified, why should we reserve American resources specifically for Americans? Is it because we're citizens? If so, this argument says Americans deserve jobs and resources over people who aren't American.
These questions strike me as odd. And they're why I label strict border enforcement and employer sanctions as anti-civil rights, and here's way:
Civil rights are "the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality..." At the same time, some definitions say rights are only guaranteed to citizens. However, I would argue that "legal, social and economic equality" should apply to all human beings, not just citizens. But if I say only citizens should enjoy "the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality..." and not all human beings, regardless of citizenship, then I'm also defining who has a right to life. (Particularly since the majority of immigrants come to our country for jobs.)
Let me put this another way, if a human being doesn't have access to basic human needs, they'll die. For instance, if I give one-person milk, a nice juicy steak or chicken, a house, English and math school books, the ability to call their grandparents and brother or sister for money or a babysitter, and a reason to get up in the morning, or in other words, a J-O-B, while at the same time, limiting or prohibiting someone from working, nagging and fighting with their parents or family siblings (everybody has family drama!), buying their kids clothes and making their favorite meals gives one person more of a right to live than another.
But I don’t have more of a right to live simply because my birth certificate reads, “Born in the U.S.A. I don’t deserve my dad’s burnt hamburgers, writing tons of papers so I can graduate college, or building a family, like my mom and dad did, more than the next guy.
This is why I refuse to support any policy that says I have more of a right live and experience life more than the next person. I refuse to vote for any law that weakens my American identity. I refuse to support any policy that defines who should and who shouldn't aim for the American Dream. Even more, I refuse to blame immigrants for under funded schools and why my friend (who is an American citizen) had to declare bankruptcy because of insane hospital bills.
I have a better idea, instead of targeting immigrants, why not demand higher wages, better health care and education reforms? Why? If we clamp down on immigration, our current problems won't go away. It's not like our resources will suddenly increase if we advocate strict enforcement.
Even more, why delay American prosperity? Immigration reform organizations, like Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR), Numbers USA and Americans for Better Immigration, say strict employer sanctions and strict border security will increase wages and employment and improve our education and health care systems. But what they don't tell you is that immigration policies don't guarantee higher wages and employment, and educational and health care improvements. Their idea is a big fat theory with a bunch of holes.
But battles for educational reforms, employment, increased wages, and adequate health care do.
Why make life harder than it is? The clock is ticking, with no room for mistakes.
In Support of Mother Nature
By Jill
A study released on June 16, 2008 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences lends further evidence to the biological origins of homosexuality. It has become generally accepted that homosexuality is a predisposed orientation that cannot be rejected at will; although genetics is increasing being ruled out as a factor in that predisposition. In other words there probably isn't a "gay gene". This new study finds that the areas of the brain that develop according to the levels of hormones a fetus is exposed to during gestation may be the same areas that distinguish sexuality. Basically if a female is exposed to too much testosterone in the womb certain areas of her brain may develop more like a male brain and therefore she will eventually prefer women over men sexually.
The upside of this finding is that mother nature may be the ultimate decider in sexuality, and we no longer have to hear scientists densely debate why the homosexual genetic "mutation" hasn't been corrected by evolution. This also offers the sweetest retort thus far to homophobes who enjoy condemning homosexuality as an unnatural sin; it is in fact quite natural to be gay and mother nature rarely does anything without a good reason.
Here is the downside; we may not be able unlock all of nature's intentions, but we're not above manipulating them. Already scientists are testing other species to see if they can influence sexual preference by controlling hormonal exposure during pregnancy.
It doesn't take a genius to see where this is going. There may come a day when we have the option to control reproduction enough to effectively eradicate gayness. I'm sure many people will choose to exercise this given the choice, having convinced themselves that they are simply sparing their children social rejection. Perhaps all we can ask is that they consider our society's rejection of homosexuality insignificant when compared to nature's timeless acceptance.
Decisions make up each one of us, whether they be biological, parental or cultural, they’re decisions nonetheless that define us, and most of them are out of our control. When I think about the millions of uncontrollable factors that have made me who I am, I wouldn't change one of them, and I hope my friends who are gay wouldn't change their decisions either. I like them just the way they are.
Is Don Imus Racist?
By Sarah Viets
Tuesday morning, Don Imus, a national radio host for MSNBC, got slammed a racist. (Again)?!
Here’s the gist:
The sports announcer on Imus' radio show, Warner Wolf, rehashed why the Tennessee Titans suspended Adam Jones (also known as Pacman) for the entire 2007 NFL season, and Jones’ recent involvement in a shooting in a Las Vegas nightclub. In response, Imus asked, “What’s color is he? Wolf answered and said, “He’s African American.”
(And here’s where it gets juicy.)
And then Imus said, “Oh, well there you go. Now we know.”
“Now we know?” What the heck is that supposed to mean?
Let’s not forget, last year Imus got slammed for calling young African American women basketball stars “nappy headed hoes.”
But instead of attacking Imus’ behavior, I’d rather talk about his comment. What’s Imus saying?
I think his comment has two different interpretations:
Here’s the 1st:Since African Americans commit more crimes than white folks, its not surprising Adam Jones has been arrested six times.
And now the 2nd:Since Adam Jones is African American, it’s not surprising he’s been arrested six times. Why? Not because African Americans are more likely to commit crimes, but because some folks assume African Americans are criminals because black people are more likely to be dishonest, untrustworthy, and break the law
Now, some of you are probably thinking, “That’s not true, the majority of black folks are dishonest and dangerous because African Americans commit crimes.”
In other words, police officers arrested Adam Jones because he’s black. They arrested Jones because they assumed he’d committed a crime, not because he actually did anything wrong.
But what about white Americans?
If you hear someone say that Black folks commit the majority of crimes - without asking why crime exists or without looking up any facts – they’re indirectly saying Black Americans are more likely to break the law and act dishonestly because they’re black. In other words, someone is using negative personal characteristics to define black skin.
Moreover, if you hear someone say African Americans commit the majority of crimes - which means you’re also saying black folks commit more crime than white folks – the person is also inadvertently categorizing white Americans as trustworthy and “well-behaved.”
So, if hear someone say there are more black criminals than white criminals, they’re also creating a stereotype about black and white Americans. And these stereotypes are popular. They are widely accepted and used to explain personal behavior. Moreover, crime isn’t linked to under funded and overcrowded schools, limited head start programs, lower income levels.
It’s kind of how people cited bible verses to justify slavery. But when that got old, white folks turned to biology. Folks said its okay to buy and sell black people like cattle because they’re not as smart as white folks. They said black folks are biologically inferior to whites . But when folks couldn’t use science to rationalize the “Whites Only” signs posted above water fountains and bathroom stalls, folks turned to culture.
Let me put it another way:
After the 1964 Civil Rights Act, racist ideas didn’t vanish; people didn’t stop categorizing blacks and whites differently. White folks didn’t stop searching for explanations to explain personal behavior. Folks’ arguments just changed. Instead of citing biblical scripture or scientific data, some folks started saying Black culture causes criminal behavior.
So the next time you hear someone say Black culture breeds dangerous, dishonest, and criminal behavior, remember that the person’s argument isn’t any different than before. They’re still using stereotypes.
And since people make culture, the person is still saying it’s easier to trust white people because they’re white, and black people are dangerous because they’re black. The individual just re-framed his/her argument so it’s accepted.
In other words, thank stereotypes for stories of triumphs, not hard work. Black stereotypes help white folks land jobs and promotions, influence whether or not politicians feed money into crime bills or public education and deter police officers from stopping white drivers behind $50,000 cars.
As a young white American woman, I don’t want any stereotypes attached to my white skin. I want to walk into any job interview, classroom, professor’s office, or crowded street without anyone using my skin color to categorize me. I want to earn my keep because of me, not because I’m white.
I can’t think of anything more un-American.
As for Don Imus, I’m not sure what he met, and it’s hard to believe his intentions when you examine how many racial slurs jump out of his mouth.
But I will say one thing:
Don Imus, your cowboy hat and Carhartt jacket makes me think of America’s beautiful countryside, open dirt roads, and spending Sunday mornings farming with my dad.
I just wish your words represented my American memories.
Attacks against Immigrants attacks Black America
By Eric K. Ward
I’m African-American and my family moved to California almost a hundred years ago after a lynching took place outside their hometown in Kentucky.
I’m also undocumented, or in the current anti-immigrant vernacular, “illegal.” I don’t have the necessary documents to prove my identity. Therefore, within four years, I won’t be able to vote, have access to social services, or receive state identification to travel.
Let’s start from the beginning:
In May 2006, I lost my passport and Social Security card at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (I don’t have a driver’s license because of a visual disability). When I went home to Chicago, I learned that in order to receive a state identification card, I needed to obtain a certified copy of my birth certificate, which allows me to apply for a Social Security Card to replace my passport.
Later in the week I contacted the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder and was told that in order to receive my birth certificate, I needed to present a copy of my passport, or driver’s license, to verify I was, in actuality, Eric K. Ward.
Since it was obvious, after twenty minutes of discussion, that I didn’t own a driver’s license, a passport, or a social security card, they told me to fill out the proper forms in front of a notary public in Chicago. I quickly opened the phone book and had a co-worker drive me to a notary public. But when I got there, the notary public said I needed a passport, social security card, or driver’s license to receive an official notary seal.
Lucky for me (when I’m in a pinch) I can become very persuasive. And since I had a number of newspaper articles with photos documenting my identity, the notary public accepted my articles with somewhat dubious satisfaction. Next, before anyone could change their minds, I walked next door to the Post Office and happily mailed my documents to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder and went on with my life.
Four weeks later my birth certificate arrived!
But when I arrived at the Post Office to pick it up, the attendant asked me to produce a passport, driver’s license and, most ironically, a copy of my birth certificate to obtain my birth certificate. After waiting an hour and pleading with two supervisors, I‘m proud to say that I now possess a certified birth certificate!
I wish I could say everything went smoothly from this point on, but the adventure only began and came to a screeching halt within a week.
A few days later I headed to the Social Security Administration to obtain a replacement social security card. But when I got there, the Social Security Administration said I needed more than just a copy of my birth certificate. They said I also needed a passport, driver’s license, or state identification card to prove my identity.
But since I went to the Social Security Administration to obtain a new copy of my social security card so I could get a new passport, the Social Security Administration didn’t know what to do with me. So, they told me to head across town to the Illinois Secretary of State’s office to get my social security card. But when I arrived, the Illinois Secretary of State’s office said I needed my social security card to obtain any official document to prove my identity.
Now I’m stuck in a Catch-22 and I’m not alone in this predicament. Almost nine percent of African Americans (18 or older) are unable to document their citizenship. * Roughly 2 million African Americans, eleven million native born citizens, and nearly twice as many low income Americans than citizens with higher incomes don’t have a social security card, driver’s licenses, passport, birth certificate or proof of naturalization. *
In 1950, Sam Shapiro, now Emeritus Professor of Health Policy and Management at the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, conducted a case study for the journal Population Studies, and also found that, due to segregation barring black children from being born in white hospitals, one-fifth of African Americans born between 1939-40 were never issued birth certificates.
When you correlate Shapiro’s figures to the 2000 US Census Data on African American Population by Age, Shapiro’s figures show that by 2010, nearly half-a-million elderly African Americans born before 1941 may loose their right to vote and access to federal services. Remember, this is only for African Americans born before 1941!
Most recently, Tim Vercelloti, a professor at Rutgers University, found that 5.7% of African Americans are less likely to vote in states that require voter identification. And let’s not forget, voting is a right African Americans struggled to secure for all American citizens.
If U. S citizens don’t have the “required” documents to prove their identity, an increasingly large portion of U.S. citizens will be denied access to social services and the right to vote at the federal, state, and local level.
For example, in 2006, officials in Maricopa County, Arizona denied almost 5,000 US citizens the right to vote because they didn’t have the “required” documents. In 2005, The Draft Reduction Act denied anyone re-applying for Medicaid who didn’t posses the same “required” documents. And by 2010, the Federal Election Integrity Act (passed in 2006) will deny all American citizens the right to vote if they’re can’t produce the “required” documents.
What are the “required” documents? You guessed it: a passport, birth certificate or proof of naturalization.
Why is this happening?
Strict ID requirements that target immigrant and refugee communities also target African Americans, poor, and elderly communities. Federal, state, and local laws that attack undocumented immigrants and refugees threaten Americans’ voting rights, the right to travel without fear of imprisonment, and access to social services.
Anti-immigrant activists say strict ID requirements are a necessary burden that folks should be happy to shoulder in the fight against “illegal” immigration. But that’s pretty easy to say when you’re not African American, poor, or a member of the elderly community.
As African Americans we should be deeply concerned about the ongoing attack on immigrants and refugees. Why?
We know what it’s like to be second-class citizens---and it’s about to happen again.
Is there a Woman in the House?
By Jill
Like many progressive women across the nation I faced a tough decision leading up to the democratic primaries. I began to question my friends about who they would choose and why. One friend told me she voted for Hillary in the primary because her seven year-old daughter asked that she vote for a woman. Other friends have told me they voted for Clinton simply because she’s a woman, not because they identified with her on particular issues. Then there are the women who wanted to vote for her, but didn’t. One friend conveyed her discomfort with Clinton’s adeptness at playing a man’s game. I can’t blame her for suspecting Clinton is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Oddly enough, both sides of the debate resonate with my inner feminist.
Part of me argues that if we want a woman to win we have to be prepared to let her play like a man, we must stand with her unequivocally. But then I watched Clinton stoke the embers of racial tensions and inconceivably support McCain’s plan to suspend the federal gas tax this summer, and I find myself ashamed that she’s pulling the same cheap tricks of Washington’s old men.
Clinton made it abundantly clear that she was going to fight to the bitter end for her campaign, but I wondered if she was going to fight to the end for our nation? Was she going to fight for the embittered working-class or the increasingly homeless middle-class? These are the people that desperately need real solutions to energy costs and cultural reconciliation in their communities.
Despite the generational debate recently between feminists, feminism hasn't been the movement du jour for some time. I believe the women’s movement can be resurrected, but I’m not sure I’d want Clinton cast as leader or divider. Exactly what the movement has sorely lacked (an inclusiveness of women of color) is what Clinton cannot bring. She has certainly got the tough-as-nails, no-nonsense side down pat, I applaud her on that front, but she would have to possess true compassion for the people to be a feminist in my book. I want a woman in the White House not just for the sake of electing a woman, but because I truly believe that a progressive woman can do a better job. I believe that the lives of oppressed women and therefore all of the oppressed will be better with a woman’s leadership.
I am grateful for her work; she has undoubtedly advanced the cause for women in governance, and I have the inkling that, as a woman, I am supposed to be disappointed by her loss. Though the feminist in me says as a woman, as an American woman, I’ve compromised enough. I’ll hold out for the day that a tough, compassionate woman gets to the top without having to follow anyone else’s rules.
"The Nation," Advertising, and Bigots, Oh My!
By Eric Ward
Before I get to the point at hand, let’s set a few things straight. Before you accuse me of censorship you should know that I oppose any government interference that infringes on freedom of speech, curbs freedom of press, or restricts American’s ability to petition the government. Maybe it’s the civil libertarian in me, but I embrace the concept of free speech whole-heartedly. So, you may find it strange to hear that I’m pissed at The Nation for utilizing our First Amendment right to run a full-page advertisement sponsored by some bigots in the June 16, 2008 issue.
The Nation is part of a long line of venerable political magazines in the United States, like the right-conservative National Review to the left-liberal Mother Jones. The magazine is one of America’s oldest political rags and runs current political news stories and commentaries. Founded in 1865, The Nation made history when it took leadership against slavery to strengthen American identity by proclaiming itself an abolitionist newspaper. Nearly 150-years later, The Nation appears eager to jettison its past by selling America’s oldest political magazine to the highest bigot.
Nearly one year ago (May 14, 2007), The Nation allowed an organization called The Coalition for the Future American Worker (CFAW) to run a full-page advertisement that contained a plethora of misinformation to exploit and divide the African American community. Even more, The Nation failed to tell its readers that CFAW is really a front group for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national anti-immigrant organization that has accepted millions of dollars from a foundation that funds scientific research to prove that white Americans are biologically superior to African Americans.
Would The Nation accept a full-page ad by the Ku Klux Klan? Would The Nation accept a full-page ad endorsing domestic violence? Would The Nation accept an ad denying the Holocaust? If not, why should demonizing immigrants be any different?
The Federation for American Immigration Reform has very little to do with the national debate on immigration. Instead, FAIR repeatedly injects bigotry and racism into America’s national dialogue on immigration reform. For instance, FAIR does have an interesting history of accepting 1.2 million dollars from a racist foundation (the Pioneer Fund), employing a staff member who belonged to the reconstituted white citizen’s council (Council of Conservative Citizens), and has a board members who maintains ties to political extremists, including white supremacists.
Thru front groups, like CFAW, FAIR is committed to turning Americans against one another. FAIR and its ilk can’t be satisfied by dividing conservatives, they have to split liberals as well. You would think that after twenty years of sustained attacks on liberals by conservatives during the so-called “Culture War,” The Nation would have learned a valuable lesson. Perhaps it has, but I think the wrong one.
The Nation should want its readership to have proper information to make informed opinions, particularly when it comes to advertisements that serve to promote racism and bigotry. Instead, The Nation has decided to show its readership that if someone is trying to divide and confuse your country, the best thing to do is assist racists’ in their effort while making a buck too.
This June, The Nation ran another one page ad sponsored by FAIR, twice! This time, along for the ride, are four other organizations (American Immigration Control Foundation, Social Contract Press, NumbersUSA and Californians for Population Stabilization). Each organization claims to be concerned about immigration, but seem more comfortable associating with organized racism. This time rather than just allowing these bigots access to The Nation’s Black progressive audience, The Nation decided to expand access to progressive environmentalists as well. Once again, instead of giving readers the tools to defend themselves against a racist assault, the magazine hides behind its advertising policy. Unbelievably, The Nation attempts to cover its own derrière by telling those of us committed to one America that they have no control over what type of advertisements are published. Here’s what The Nation says: On page 27 readers will find an ad paid for by America’s Leadership Team for Long Range Population-Immigration-Resource Planning. Needless to say, we disagree with the ad’s premise and politics. Our ad policy can be found at www.thenation.com/mediakit/policy/.
Instead of writing a flimsy excuse, The Nation should have used the valuable editorial space to tell its readers that the groups running the ads have relations to political extremists including white supremacists. Here’s what The Nation failed to tell its readers:
• American Immigration Control Foundation (AICF) executive director John Vinson has spoken often to the white nationalists Council of Conservative Citizens. AICF has also
utilized funding from the white supremacists/eugenics Pioneer Fund.
• Social Contract Press editor is Wayne Lutton, who is also on the advisory board of the
white nationalist Council of Conservative Citizens.
• NumbersUSA executive director Roy Beck spoke to the white nationalists Council of
Conservative Citizens and writes for the racist Social Contract Press.
• Californians for Population Stabilization is funded by the white supremacists/eugenics
Pioneer Fund. One board member also attempted to recruit vigilantes to help overturn
affirmative action in Missouri.
Is this information left-liberal readers of The Nation would most likely like to know? Probably. Is it information readers will get from The Nation? Not likely. The Nation is too busy making a buck off of suffering immigrants.
Somewhere along the way, The Nation has forgotten the most important lesson of the 1st Amendment (freedom of speech for us regular folk). While even bigots have the right to free speech, none of us are required to build their platform.
