So, the long march toward November continues, and it's getting closer and closer to voting time. Today, some links on the Tea Party for those of us who are still a little baffled about how a bunch of whiners and/or flag-waving crazies sponsored by corporate Republican interests have become an actual political movement in this country:
CNN.com's "What is the Tea Party?"
Leo Hindry, Jr. of the Huffington Post explains Tea Party Politics & Economics.
And here's NPR's take on how the Tea Party of today and its namesake.
Showing posts with label national politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label national politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Missed Connections
There was quite a media stir yesterday about a report released by SAMHSA (the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, a federal agency) that found illegal drug use had increased by 60% in 2009.
About 21.8 million Americans, or 8.7 percent of the population age 12 and older, reported using illegal drugs in 2009. That's the highest level since the survey began in 2002. The previous high was just over 20 million in 2006. ... Marijuana use rose by 8 percent and remained the most commonly used drug. ... Other results show a 37 percent increase in ecstasy use and a 60 percent jump in the number of methamphetamine users.
The reports focused in on the marijuana numbers, and all the coverage I heard discussed only one reason for the increase:
"I think all of the attention and the focus of calling marijuana medicine has sent the absolute wrong message to our young people," Kerlikowske [director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy] said in an interview.
Today, another report is circulating the newsrooms. This one, from the Census Bureau reveals (duh) that poverty rose in 2009:
The poverty rate rose to 14.3 percent during 2009 from 13.2 percent the previous year as household income stayed flat and the number of people without health insurance reached its highest level since such data has been collected, the government announced Thursday.
For working age people between 18 and 64, 2009 saw the highest poverty rate -- 12.9 percent -- since 1965.The overall rate is the highest since 1994. Some poverty watchers had expected the poverty rate to jump as high as 15 percent.
"Today's news is sobering, showing that 2009 was a year with increased poverty and rising numbers of uninsured Americans," said Rebecca Blank, the Commerce Department's undersecretary for economic affairs.
Now, neither of these reports is surprising to me. What IS surprising, or rather, disappointing, is that no one in the mainstream media seems to be drawing ANY connecting lines between these two dots. Does it not seem like maybe, just perhaps, an increased rate of poverty contributed to an increase in illegal drug use (I'm not even going to get into drug policy and the messed-up definitions of "illegal" vs. legal drugs)? Does a possible connection between poverty and despair and millions of uninsured folks and increased self-medication not seem worth investigating or at least pointing out?
It is deeply disappointing that an increase in marijuana use is blamed on the democratic process taking place in the form of discussions of legalization, rather than on the widespread unemployment, hopelessness, and despair of so many in this country.
There was particular concern about marijuana use by young people, and the only young person I heard interviewed was asked about whether he thought the drug is safe, not what leads him or his friends to use it.
This is a classic example of media shaping and spinning two very important issues as completely separate problems to be dealt with by their own agencies, rather than encouraging analysis and thoughtful reflection on society as a whole. At least Obama has approved Elizabeth Warren to play a role in setting up the new Consumer Protection Agency, so someone will be looking out for the poor and middle class!
Monday, June 28, 2010
The Big Everything
I predict that the central question of U.S. politics for the next few decades is going to be "how much control do private corporations have over our government?" Corporate interests have either publicly or covertly been at the heart of the most recent and ongoing debates our country faces: health care, climate change, financial regulation and reform, raising the cap on oil spill liabilities for companies like BP.
You've probably heard already (but no sweat if you haven't heard) about the JanuarySupreme Court decision that allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in political elections. This so-called "corporate personhood" set back the movement toward people-centered, people-owned government. Point, corporations.
Counter-point, people. Recently, the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act out of committee and it's headed to the House and Senate floors soon for a vote.
In a nutshell, this bill could be the big everything of financial reform for the Obama presidency. Here are the highlights:
Consumer Protections with Authority and Independence: Creates a new independent watchdog, housed at the Federal Reserve, with the authority to ensure American consumers get the clear, accurate information they need to shop for mortgages, credit cards, and other financial products, and protect them from hidden fees, abusive terms, and deceptive practices.
Ends Too Big to Fail Bailouts: Ends the possibility that taxpayers will be asked to write a check to bail out financial firms that threaten the economy by: creating a safe way to liquidate failed financial firms; imposing tough new capital and leverage requirements that make it undesirable to get too big; updating the Fed’s authority to allow system-wide support but no longer prop up individual firms; and establishing rigorous standards and supervision to protect the economy and American consumers, investors and businesses.
Advance Warning System: Creates a council to identify and address systemic risks posed by large, complex companies, products, and activities before they threaten the stability of the economy.
Transparency & Accountability for Exotic Instruments: Eliminates loopholes that allow risky and abusive practices to go on unnoticed and unregulated -- including loopholes for over-the- counter derivatives, asset-backed securities, hedge funds, mortgage brokers and payday lenders.
Executive Compensation and Corporate Governance: Provides shareholders with a say on pay and corporate affairs with a non-binding vote on executive compensation and golden parachutes.
Protects Investors:Provides tough new rules for transparency and accountability for credit rating agencies to protect investors and businesses.
Enforces Regulations on the Books: Strengthens oversight and empowers regulators to aggressively pursue financial fraud, conflicts of interest and manipulation of the system that benefits special interests at the expense of American families and businesses.
California also scored points for the people with the recently defeated Propositions 16 and 17. 16, sponsored by Pacific Gas & Electric, was an effort to make it very difficult for local governments to create municipal utilities, or community wide clean electricity districts called Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs). Prop 17 would have allowed insurance companies to offer a discount to new customers who have been covered continuously for long time. Opponents argued that what it would really do would be allow insurance companies to hike up rates for new customers who hadn't been insured continuously, i.e. a lot of working poor people. Voters rejected both.
As for me, I'm on the side of the people, and I'll fight for legislation and politicians that are, too. The Dodd-Frank bill has the potential to protect American freedom and democracy in a huge way if it's successful in reining in the power of financial corporations. Stay tuned here for updates!
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Rachel Maddow Talks Some Sense
Wow. Just, wow.
I always appreciate Rachel Maddow's analysis of issues, but this just blew me away. Here's Rachel giving her version of what she wishes Obama's Oval Office address on the BP oil spill. Her version actually includes a plan and takes some strong progressive stances on regulation and clean up efforts.
Maddow for president in 2012! Or 2016!
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Maddow for president in 2012! Or 2016!
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
'Bout Damn Time
After 8 weeks of oil gushing from the BP well into the Gulf of Mexico, the talk is finally turning to long-term solutions to our country's energy and oil addiction in addition to solutions for the current crisis in the Gulf.
Notice how I said in addition to? Well, some people are conveniently missing that concept when they hear Obama and others talk of clean energy initiatives, saying that our sole focus right now needs to be on spill cleanup and Gulf rehab. We Americans have got to get past this kind of either-or thinking. We don't need to choose between short and long-term solutions, and in fact, if we do choose to only focus on short-term fixes, we're going to be paying for it 100 times over very soon in the form of climate change.
The funny thing is that many of the people who are pushing for cleanup only focus right now are saying that in talking about long-term energy solutions, Obama is politicizing this oil spill for his and his party's gain. In reality, it's those who say that we have to choose, either-or, short or long-term, who are politicizing the debate by making it an issue with two sides. It's simply not helpful to think of our situation as a choice between jobs and environment, between now or the future, between recovery and planning. We have to do it all.
It's time for the U.S. and its leaders to learn to hold more than one priority at a time. The issues that our nation faces right now are too complex to demand that everyone take sides in a fight where we're either all going to win, or we're all going to lose.
Notice how I said in addition to? Well, some people are conveniently missing that concept when they hear Obama and others talk of clean energy initiatives, saying that our sole focus right now needs to be on spill cleanup and Gulf rehab. We Americans have got to get past this kind of either-or thinking. We don't need to choose between short and long-term solutions, and in fact, if we do choose to only focus on short-term fixes, we're going to be paying for it 100 times over very soon in the form of climate change.
The funny thing is that many of the people who are pushing for cleanup only focus right now are saying that in talking about long-term energy solutions, Obama is politicizing this oil spill for his and his party's gain. In reality, it's those who say that we have to choose, either-or, short or long-term, who are politicizing the debate by making it an issue with two sides. It's simply not helpful to think of our situation as a choice between jobs and environment, between now or the future, between recovery and planning. We have to do it all.
It's time for the U.S. and its leaders to learn to hold more than one priority at a time. The issues that our nation faces right now are too complex to demand that everyone take sides in a fight where we're either all going to win, or we're all going to lose.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Simply Unbelievble
Arizona lawmakers have really gone too far now. As if their racial profiling law of last month was not bad enough, some lawmakers are now saying that they plan to introduce a bill that would deny birth certificates to babies born to illegal immigrants in the state. This is in direct opposition the Constitution's definition of citizenship, i.e. anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen by birth. Children of immigrants, "legal" or not, suffer enough already. Millions of U.S. citizen children of immigrants do not receive the social services they are entitled to, and many live in poverty. This law would also add hospitals to the list of places where immigrants without papers can no longer feel safe. It would mean that when a woman goes into labor, she would have to choose whether to go to the hospital to receive care in delivering her baby, knowing that if she doesn't produce papers, her child will not be a citizen. Will they then deport the woman and the baby after the birth?
Several Democrats from Arizona have already come out in opposition to the law. The way I see things playing out, the coming storm over this bill will be a tipping point in the national discourse about immigration. Either all this talk of "anchor babies" (the derogatory term for a child born to illegal immigrants) will make everyone realize how unfair and destructive this line of lawmaking is, or it will get anti-immigration forces and their allies newly energized to continue pushing their hateful agenda. I hope it's the former, but in a country where we can even talk about laws like these, I'm losing my hope that we can humanely resolve our immigration issues.
Several Democrats from Arizona have already come out in opposition to the law. The way I see things playing out, the coming storm over this bill will be a tipping point in the national discourse about immigration. Either all this talk of "anchor babies" (the derogatory term for a child born to illegal immigrants) will make everyone realize how unfair and destructive this line of lawmaking is, or it will get anti-immigration forces and their allies newly energized to continue pushing their hateful agenda. I hope it's the former, but in a country where we can even talk about laws like these, I'm losing my hope that we can humanely resolve our immigration issues.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Required Reading
Please check out this great post today from Mike Lux on OpenLeft, one of my favorite progressive blogs. Based on the idea that progressives value community and compassion, it offers a unique perspective on the ever-more-radical conservative movement in this country and is hereby official Cara Politica required reading.
Mike Lux has the best analysis of what it means to be a "progressive" of anyone I know or have read about. Luckily for me, Mike falls into the "people I know" category. I worked during Summer 2008 at Progressive Strategies, the D.C.-based political consulting firm that Mike founded. I already identified strongly as a progressive when I started interning there, but my time at Progressive Strategies gave me a more concrete understanding of how to put my values into action, how to find out what is going on in the progressive movement (including how and which blogs to read), and how to talk about politics.
Among Mike's many achievements is a book called The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be that outlines progressive principles and tracks the movement through history and into the present day. I'd highly recommend this book to anyone even mildly interested in politics or community change. Bonus: I performed some of the research that is included in the book!
Mike Lux has the best analysis of what it means to be a "progressive" of anyone I know or have read about. Luckily for me, Mike falls into the "people I know" category. I worked during Summer 2008 at Progressive Strategies, the D.C.-based political consulting firm that Mike founded. I already identified strongly as a progressive when I started interning there, but my time at Progressive Strategies gave me a more concrete understanding of how to put my values into action, how to find out what is going on in the progressive movement (including how and which blogs to read), and how to talk about politics.
Among Mike's many achievements is a book called The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be that outlines progressive principles and tracks the movement through history and into the present day. I'd highly recommend this book to anyone even mildly interested in politics or community change. Bonus: I performed some of the research that is included in the book!
Thursday, May 27, 2010
WTF Thursday
Since I don't anticipate being able to blog tomorrow (regularly scheduled WTF Friday), I'm officially declaring this WTF Thursday.
John McCain (you remember him, right? the let's-work-together, I-love-the-military, Mr. Bipartisanship of 2008?) is saying that he will "without a doubt" support a filibuster blocking the entire defense budget to stop the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. What is this man's problem?
He is also apparently asking the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines to oppose the bill, even though Obama and the Defense Secretary support it.
This is Right-Wing Hatred and Obstructionism at its worst. Honestly, holding up the bill that funds protective gear for our men and women in combat, security at our airports, and oh yeah, those borders that the right is up in arms about, just in order to keep LGBT folks in the closet a little longer.
Gross.
Thanks to the Courage Campaign for this breaking story.
John McCain (you remember him, right? the let's-work-together, I-love-the-military, Mr. Bipartisanship of 2008?) is saying that he will "without a doubt" support a filibuster blocking the entire defense budget to stop the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. What is this man's problem?
He is also apparently asking the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines to oppose the bill, even though Obama and the Defense Secretary support it.
This is Right-Wing Hatred and Obstructionism at its worst. Honestly, holding up the bill that funds protective gear for our men and women in combat, security at our airports, and oh yeah, those borders that the right is up in arms about, just in order to keep LGBT folks in the closet a little longer.
Gross.
Thanks to the Courage Campaign for this breaking story.
Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Vote Possible
Big news on the Don't Ask Don't Tell front: Congress could vote to repeal it TODAY! NPR reported this morning that there should be no trouble in the House, the Senate will be tougher, but sponsors are confident that the repeal will pass.
In a compromise with military leaders, the bill says that the military can take as long as it wants to implement the repeal, but even so, a vote today rather than in December (when some want to push this off till) is big news.
If you've got an extra 30 seconds today (come on, who doesn't?) call your Senators. You can reach anyone in Congress by calling the capital switchboard at (202)224-3121 and asking for them by name.
More updates later if and when the vote happens.
In a compromise with military leaders, the bill says that the military can take as long as it wants to implement the repeal, but even so, a vote today rather than in December (when some want to push this off till) is big news.
If you've got an extra 30 seconds today (come on, who doesn't?) call your Senators. You can reach anyone in Congress by calling the capital switchboard at (202)224-3121 and asking for them by name.
More updates later if and when the vote happens.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Primaries 2010: Progressives Win Big Edition
There's so much talk flying around about last night's primaries that I would be remiss if I didn't add my $0.02.
The main theme of the headlines is "Establishment loses big," "Dem and GOP Incumbents Go Down." This is true, but I agree with what Cenk Uygur (commentator on The Young Turks, a spectacular progressive internet talk show) says: the establishment lost, but Progressives won. Who cares about losses by "Establishment" Democratic candidates who are so far from progressive, it's hard to even claim them as Dems? Their losses are a win for the party. It seems to me that Democrats are working to use their voice as a party and are willing to fire candidates who aren't representing the party's values and goals, and from where I'm standing, that's a very good sign.
On to the results roundup:
Pretend-Democrat Arlen Specter is out in Pennsylvania, replaced by Joe Sestak. Anti-Progressive "Democrat" Blanche Lincoln faces a runoff in Arkansas, and the AFL-CIO, for one, says the runoff will not be a problem for challenger Bill Halter. Back to Pennsylvania, where Democrats will hold on to the late Representative John Murtha's seat, won by Mark Critz in a special election last night.
Not quite the "Republican Sweep" that the GOP had talked up, eh? Well, a sweep maybe, but not in the direction they had hoped.
And finally, in a follow-up to the NC primaries and now runoff, third-place candidate Ken Lewis is endorsing Elaine Marshall. This is great for the Marshall campaign, as Lewis brings a nice chunk of votes from the Triangle area. The main focus of the Marshall campaign should now, I think, be getting out the vote on June 22 so that we can defeat Burr soundly.
And by the way, my favorite place to track polling, primary results, and general elections-specific news is the Swing State Project. Check out their post about yesterday's primaries for more detailed results and analysis, but if you're not into that sort of thing, no worries. You can always check back here for more quick and dirty distilled politics.
The main theme of the headlines is "Establishment loses big," "Dem and GOP Incumbents Go Down." This is true, but I agree with what Cenk Uygur (commentator on The Young Turks, a spectacular progressive internet talk show) says: the establishment lost, but Progressives won. Who cares about losses by "Establishment" Democratic candidates who are so far from progressive, it's hard to even claim them as Dems? Their losses are a win for the party. It seems to me that Democrats are working to use their voice as a party and are willing to fire candidates who aren't representing the party's values and goals, and from where I'm standing, that's a very good sign.
On to the results roundup:
Pretend-Democrat Arlen Specter is out in Pennsylvania, replaced by Joe Sestak. Anti-Progressive "Democrat" Blanche Lincoln faces a runoff in Arkansas, and the AFL-CIO, for one, says the runoff will not be a problem for challenger Bill Halter. Back to Pennsylvania, where Democrats will hold on to the late Representative John Murtha's seat, won by Mark Critz in a special election last night.
Not quite the "Republican Sweep" that the GOP had talked up, eh? Well, a sweep maybe, but not in the direction they had hoped.
And finally, in a follow-up to the NC primaries and now runoff, third-place candidate Ken Lewis is endorsing Elaine Marshall. This is great for the Marshall campaign, as Lewis brings a nice chunk of votes from the Triangle area. The main focus of the Marshall campaign should now, I think, be getting out the vote on June 22 so that we can defeat Burr soundly.
And by the way, my favorite place to track polling, primary results, and general elections-specific news is the Swing State Project. Check out their post about yesterday's primaries for more detailed results and analysis, but if you're not into that sort of thing, no worries. You can always check back here for more quick and dirty distilled politics.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Boycott Arizona Businesses: the promised list
As promised, here is a list of AZ-based businesses that you can boycott in protest of AB1070, the immigration law. I love that the Grand Canyon is listed as its own business. I hate that I have patronized at least 3 of these in the past month.
I think that to have even more of an impact, I am going to let the businesses I boycott know that I'm boycotting, and why. When I don't go to Petsmart for my next bag of puppy food, I won't just be taking about $15 out of their profits (which is easy to miss), I'll be sending them a letter and/or email that tells why and promises to return my business once the company speaks out publicly against the law. Hopefully this will be harder to overlook, especially if more people than me do it.
Thanks to Denver-based Padres Unidos, Jovenes Unidos for the list!
I think that to have even more of an impact, I am going to let the businesses I boycott know that I'm boycotting, and why. When I don't go to Petsmart for my next bag of puppy food, I won't just be taking about $15 out of their profits (which is easy to miss), I'll be sending them a letter and/or email that tells why and promises to return my business once the company speaks out publicly against the law. Hopefully this will be harder to overlook, especially if more people than me do it.
Thanks to Denver-based Padres Unidos, Jovenes Unidos for the list!
2011 Major League Baseball All-Star Game, Location: Chase Field, Phoenix, AZ
Apollo Group (University of Phoenix). Headquarters: Phoenix, Arizona
Arizona Diamondbacks, Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Best Western International, Inc., Headquarters: Phoenix, Arizona
Cold Stone Creamery. Headquarters: Scottsdale, Arizona
CSK Auto (Checker Auto Parts, Schucks Auto Supply, Kragen Auto Parts, Murray's Discount Auto Stores), Headquarters: Phoenix, Arizona
Dial Corporation, Headquarters: Scottsdale, Arizona
Discount Tire Company (America's Tire Company). Headquarters: Scottsdale, Arizona
Fender Musical Instruments Corporation, Headquarters: Scottsdale, Arizona
Go Daddy. Headquarters: Scottsdale, Arizona
Grand Canyon
Mesa Air Group (Mesa Airlines, Go!, Freedom Airlines). Headquarters: Phoenix, Arizona
P. F. Chang's China Bistro. Headquarters: Phoenix, Arizona
PetSmart. Headquarters: Phoenix, Arizona
Sky Mall, Headquarters: Phoenix, Arizona
Taser International, Headquarters: Scottsdale, Arizona
U-Haul. Headquarters: Phoenix, Arizona
US Airways. Headquarters: Tempe, Arizona
Friday, April 23, 2010
Legalizing Racism
In case you're not already outraged by the heinous bill passed in Arizona earlier this week, here's a recap:
AZ state legislature passed a bill that makes it a state crime to be an "illegal immigrant" in Arizona and gives the police the power and responsibility to question anyone who looks "reasonably suspicious" and ask to see their documentation papers. Translation : brown people might be illegal, so it's okay to pull them over and demand proof that they're not. But don't worry, it's not just because someone's brown that they might be "illegal," as California Republican Representative Brian Bilbray explains: "They will look at the kind of dress you wear, there is a different type of attire, there is a different type of -- right down to the shoes, right down to the clothes." Whew, am I relieved! It won't just be racial, but class-based and culture-based profiling too!
Two not-white friends of mine have experienced racial profiling by the police IN THE PAST WEEK here in NC. It disgusts and terrifies me that as a white person, I will never be pulled over or stopped on the street just because of my color, but my partner might, because she's (gasp!) brown. This is a slippery-slope bill that, if signed into law, will legalize racial and class-based profiling, violate the civil rights of millions, and breed race- and color-based hatred.
President Obama finally weighed in on the bill today, taking a stance against it. While ironically attending a naturalization ceremony for several "illegal" US SOLDIERS, Obama said that the law would "threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Yup.
In an email I got from Traction (an awesome progressive young folks' group in Durham) today, a friend writes:
Tal vez pensamos, "O, eso a mi no me afecta." Tal vez no nos damos cuenta que SI nos afecta, porque cuando le niegan los derechos humanos a un pequen~o grupo de gente solo poorque lucen diferentes, es solo el principio. Si no actuamos, despues nos tocara a nosotros.
[Maybe we think, "Oh, that doesn't affect me." Maybe we don't realize that it DOES affect us, because when human rights are denied to a small group of people just because they look different, that's only the beginning. If we don't act now, it will be our turn next.]
These words really rang true to me, and prompted me to action. If we allow police to demand papers from brown people with "illegal immigrant shoes" today, what will we allow tomorrow? Requiring a proof-of-straightness test before adopting a child? "Suspicious" and "Non-suspicious" lines at the airport?
At this point, the AZ bill has been passed by the state legislature and is on the desk of the governor, who can either sign it, veto it, or let it pass into law unsigned. I emailed her today to urge her to veto this racist, rights-denying bill. It's not too late to add your voice to the opposition here: http://presente.org/ref/ad/31/campaigns/arizona
UPDATE 4:40 PM: Arizona Governor Jan Brewer says she will sign the bill into law. Guess we can look forward to hearing from the ACLU soon.
AZ state legislature passed a bill that makes it a state crime to be an "illegal immigrant" in Arizona and gives the police the power and responsibility to question anyone who looks "reasonably suspicious" and ask to see their documentation papers. Translation : brown people might be illegal, so it's okay to pull them over and demand proof that they're not. But don't worry, it's not just because someone's brown that they might be "illegal," as California Republican Representative Brian Bilbray explains: "They will look at the kind of dress you wear, there is a different type of attire, there is a different type of -- right down to the shoes, right down to the clothes." Whew, am I relieved! It won't just be racial, but class-based and culture-based profiling too!
Two not-white friends of mine have experienced racial profiling by the police IN THE PAST WEEK here in NC. It disgusts and terrifies me that as a white person, I will never be pulled over or stopped on the street just because of my color, but my partner might, because she's (gasp!) brown. This is a slippery-slope bill that, if signed into law, will legalize racial and class-based profiling, violate the civil rights of millions, and breed race- and color-based hatred.
President Obama finally weighed in on the bill today, taking a stance against it. While ironically attending a naturalization ceremony for several "illegal" US SOLDIERS, Obama said that the law would "threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Yup.
In an email I got from Traction (an awesome progressive young folks' group in Durham) today, a friend writes:
Tal vez pensamos, "O, eso a mi no me afecta." Tal vez no nos damos cuenta que SI nos afecta, porque cuando le niegan los derechos humanos a un pequen~o grupo de gente solo poorque lucen diferentes, es solo el principio. Si no actuamos, despues nos tocara a nosotros.
[Maybe we think, "Oh, that doesn't affect me." Maybe we don't realize that it DOES affect us, because when human rights are denied to a small group of people just because they look different, that's only the beginning. If we don't act now, it will be our turn next.]
These words really rang true to me, and prompted me to action. If we allow police to demand papers from brown people with "illegal immigrant shoes" today, what will we allow tomorrow? Requiring a proof-of-straightness test before adopting a child? "Suspicious" and "Non-suspicious" lines at the airport?
At this point, the AZ bill has been passed by the state legislature and is on the desk of the governor, who can either sign it, veto it, or let it pass into law unsigned. I emailed her today to urge her to veto this racist, rights-denying bill. It's not too late to add your voice to the opposition here: http://presente.org/ref/ad/31/
UPDATE 4:40 PM: Arizona Governor Jan Brewer says she will sign the bill into law. Guess we can look forward to hearing from the ACLU soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
