I urge everyone to copy and paste the following letter into a message to their US congressperson TODAY. You can find your congressperson here.
One family was burglarized two days before Christmas, but when they reported it to the police, they were more interested in checking the immigration status of every family member than in investigating the crime. They eventually discovered that the grandmother was undocumented (everyone else was legal), and she was deported.
Within weeks EVERY single house in the entire neighborhood was burglarized because EVERYONE was afraid to go to the police!
THAT, not some kind of liberal hippy infatuation with immigrants, is why we have sanctuary cities. When people don’t report crimes, more crimes happen to EVERYONE, because more criminals are on the loose.
H.R. 3009 is blatantly unconstitutional (as is the preexisting immigration law it enforces) because the federal government is NOT allowed to coopt state and local officials into its workforce, and it is not allowed to coerce them into doing its bidding. It is unconstitutional for precisely the same reason that the federal government could not force state governments to expand Medicaid under Obamacare.
Further, H.R. 3009 would take away funding from precisely those programs most likely to help reduce crime, inner city gang violence, and such evils. It would thus be ridiculously counterproductive.
It is a reactionary policy that is based on the same assumptions about immigrants that Donald Trump has made when he said that Mexico sends over its rapists and criminals. First, Mexico doesn’t SEND anybody. At most, it allows them to leave. Second, petty criminals are usually stupid, mentally disabled, lazy, and NOT ambitious. That is WHY they are criminals. Because they fail at life. Immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, need to be somewhat ambitious, intelligent, and motivated to try to cross the border and make a new life for their family in a land where they are not wanted. There will always be a few bad apples; some people driven by the financial incentives of drug- or human-trafficking. But, statistics consistently show that the criminality rate (and incarceration rate) among immigrant populations is actually way lower than among natives in the USA.
Donald Trump-style reactionary immigration laws that seem like a good idea on the surface should NOT be passed without first looking at the actual underlying numbers and seeing if they actually make sense.
When someone’s kid is sexually molested, I want the pervert to be reported IMMEDIATELY, no matter WHO the victim is. I don’t want MY kid molested because someone else was afraid that they would be deported if they reported!
This law does NOT make sense for the USA. This country needs MORE, not LESS sanctuary cities. Therefore, I urge you to vote against this bill, to campaign against it, and to do whatever you can to make sure it does NOT become law.
This week’s hyperpartisan meltdown has been replaced by a boring article that just rips into Republican’s in general for their response to the Iran deal. If that fact makes you sad, then sound off in the comments, and perhaps you’ll get a pleasant surprise on Friday.
1) Republicans unabashedly denounced the Iran deal in scathing terms without having read it, without their staff even having read it.
The 100-page deal was released at 6:30 AM via an EU site that soon crashed. Within an hour of the conclusion of negotiations, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) had this to say, “This is the most dangerous, irresponsible step I have ever seen in the history of watching the Mideast.”
a) Remember how upset those same politicians were that Democrats voted on the ACA without having personally read it?
2) Republicans haven’t offered a real world alternative, because there isn’t one. Instead, they compare what Obama got to the hypothetical magical world where the USA gets everything on its wish-list without giving up anything.
Let’s go through the possible choices that the US has. 1) We accept this deal. 2) We do nothing and let Iran develop its nuclear weapons. 3) We go to war with Iran. 4) We reject this deal, strengthen our sanctions, and keep negotiating until Iran cracks.
The last choice is the one that most Republicans seem to be citing as the answer. The problem is that we actually don’t do a lot of trade with Iran. The sanctions that could/do really hurt Iran are the ones that are or might be imposed by our European partners, by China, and by Russia. The other countries that are sanctioning Iran are not interested in continuing them, let alone strengthening them, should negotiations break down. In other words, if we pick this option, what we are really picking is almost certainly: “do nothing and let Iran develop nukes,” “do nothing now and go to war later and hope Iran doesn’t develop nukes,” or “do nothing now and sign a much worse deal with Iran later, again, hoping that Iran doesn’t develop nukes.”
Conclusion
The deal is certainly not perfect. Several democrats have criticized it or vowed to take a close look before supporting it. The Washington Post’s “view” was not exactly complimentary. The deal may very well create a headache for US foreign policy in the future, as Iran becomes even more of a regional power. Iran may ultimately still develop its nuclear capacity in problematic ways. However, it could also form the basis of a new era of American-Iranian foreign policy, where we finally have a toe in the door to talk with Iran about maybe making its society just a little bit less awful to women and minorities, to maybe get them to tackle government corruption just a little bit, and maybe migrate to a form of government that is more pluralistic and functional, and maybe a little bit less angry, aggressive, and incendiary. Maybe, by being nice and understanding of Iran’s culture, needs, and ambitions, we can ultimately make the world just a little bit better place.
At the very least, though, at least now we have staved off a nuclear holocaust for a few years. THAT, at least, is worth something.
As usual, feel free to share your thoughts on the partisan BS this country wades through every day in the comments below. Also, if you have a pet issue you’d like to hear my thoughts on, post it!
“Your acid partisanship blinds your eyes to the truth and paralyzes a nation.” – Me
Hyperpartisan Meltdown – a new weekly segment where I pick an article from a hyperpartisan newsource, melt down all of the BS, and see what, if anything, is left.
This week I picked an article from Townhall, an extreme rightwing publication, called, “So Much for the Free-Speech Left.” For an optimal reading experience, take a glance at the original BS here. Always feel free to leave your thoughts in the comment section, and refer me if you happen to stumble across a hyperpartisan news article that is ripe for a meltdown.
The Melting
You know you have reached a rightwing publication when the links to other articles bear pictures of muslim men and frowning Hillary Clintons in defensive postures, and when hovering over a picture of rainbow flags outside the Supreme Court reveals the caption, “Mass Hysteria in America.” Pictures of gold coins advertise investment managers, and a pop-up asks you to vote on Marco Rubio. And, of course, the title of the piece refers to the “left,” disparagingly. These should all be signs that what you are about to read should be taken with a very large grain of salt.
The article begins by pointing out that there is violence and vulgarity in movies. Hollywood makes movies. 1) The word “Hollywood” is apparently now interchangeable with “the left;” the article offers no further evidence of liberal beliefs beyond what makes its way into movies. 2) Last I checked, the movie industry was a business, and reactionaries, of all people, should be aware that businesses are not emotional, political entities. They operate to maximize profits, and that means that they put things in movies that are going to make people buy movies. Roughly half of the people in the country are Republicans. If movies are loaded with violence and profanities, it is because people (including Republicans) LIKE to watch violence and and profanity. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that “liberals” have a secret plot to inject violence and profanity into our culture by means of “Hollywood.” For starters, even if liberals thought it was a good idea, there are like 100,000,000 of them, and they aren’t exactly known for being good at communication and teamwork… or voting…
Then, the article foregoes any attempt at logical argument and dives straight in with an insupportable conclusion: “When it comes to perfectly decent speech — spoken innocently with no bad intention — those same liberals need smelling salts.” What “perfectly decent speech” is being referenced? Presumably, from context, the author is referring to speech that sounds racist, but actually was not intended to offend. Now, I am actually a huge fan of the biblical idea that “he who takes offense when offense is not intended is a fool.” But, the article overlooks some pretty big problems: 1) Only the person who said the racist thing can know whether they intended offense. 2) When someone says something that is racist, it can cause harm to people regardless of whether it was intended to offend and regardless of whether it DID offend (it may make someone feel bad, it may make someone else think that racism is okay, it may divide us, etc.). And, 3) liberals, in fact, generally DON’T take offense when they don’t think offense was intended (they might still inform of the potential damage that the words that were said could cause, but that is just simple courtesy.).
Next, the article goes off on a rant about liberal “micro-aggressions,” “where conversation becomes a minefield of political correctness.” I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel like I am walking in a minefield when I am talking to people. For me, being respectful of others comes naturally 99% of the time. Occasionally I say something stupid, or hurtful, or mean. Then, I apologize and try to go on with my life trying to be a decent person.
If someone were to hand me a list of things that I might be saying, which might represent subconscious prejudices and negative attitudes towards others, and which might be coming across subtly in my verbal and non-verbal communication and thereby causing friction in the workplace and potentially reducing the value of others’ experience, I would say thank you and think carefully about the words that are on the list.
The author attacks such lists because they include entries which could be innocuous in some contexts. But what the author doesn’t realize is that it isn’t about the words themselves. It is about the ideas, feelings, and emotions that they represent. If you are glad that you live in the land of opportunity, and that is the thought that you consciously and subconsciously intend to convey, then there is no microaggression. On the other hand, if your real intent, conscious or subconscious, is to put somebody else down because they haven’t been able to succeed, then that IS a microaggression, and you are being a micro-jerk by saying it. Employers trying to educate their employees about how not to be micro-jerks is a solid business practice, and it is disingenuous for a conservative proponent of the free market to criticize the way a liberal (assuming that the university administrators actually are liberals) runs HER business. If the author still doesn’t understand how seemingly perfectly innocuous statements can be disruptive microaggressions that can bring an institution to its knees, I would suggest the movie, Mean Girls.
Near the bottom of the page, I would like to point out that the author actually does something perfectly reasonable: he complains about how distressingly complicated it is to be nice (Note that the reverse-compliment is a particularly well-known form of micro-aggression. ;P). It is true that in order to respect a person, you have to balance a respect for a person’s background, including his ethnic heritage, with a respect for the fact that he is still a complete human being. Trying to “integrate” Native Americans by destroying their culture in the name of being “color-blind” is NOT respect, for example. ALLOWING Native Americans to pay tribute to their culture, while at the same time ALLOWING them to participate in ordinary society to the extent that they desire to is NOT complicated. It is simply respecting their autonomy, because this is AMERICA.
Grammatically, it is kind of weird that the author moves on to the next topic within the same paragraph. His paragraphs are kind of haphazard and random in general, and the article as a whole pretty much lacks any semblance of structure. He complains that:
If you are a “store owner following a customer of color around a store,” presumably because you believe he might be shoplifting, you believe he is “going to steal,” and he is “dangerous.” And that is wrong.
First of all, old man, we don’t refer to people as “of color” anymore. Seriously. Find another way to express that thought. Second of all, YES, if you are only following black people around in your store, and you assume that all non-white people are dangerous criminals and thieves, then unless you happen to live in a really bad all-black neighborhood, you are probably a racist. Why? Because the vast majority of “people of color” are not any more likely to rob you than the white person that you are NOT following around. Also, I don’t want to get into the complex causes of criminality, but let’s just leave the idea in the air that maybe black people are humans too, and the reasons for higher criminality (to the extent that disparate arrest and imprisonment are actually caused by higher criminality and not just disparate enforcement) among some communities is ultimately caused exclusively by past and present racism and not by your imagined lazy/criminal gene.
On the second page, the author continues to rant about how things that aren’t really micro-aggressions, like asking an Asian person why he is so quiet, where he was born, or for help on your math homework, are perceived to be micro-aggressions by “nutty professors.” Yes, Mr. Author, these things COULD all be innocent. But lets face it: frequently they ARE micro-aggressive, and frequently they may be misperceived as micro-aggressive even if they aren’t intended that way. Professors aren’t “nutty” for trying to educate students about the complexities of human communication, and encouraging everyone to just not get an education is a recipe for disaster!
What’s Left?
When we melt off the partisan BS, we find a few weak points: 1) Movies are vulgar. 2) Sometimes some liberals go overboard, criticizing microaggressions that aren’t actually micro-aggressive. 3) Sometimes it is difficult to function in a complicated modern social world, especially if you are a cranky, stubborn old man who still refers to people as “colored.” 4) Sometimes people who see people of other races as inferior don’t like to be criticized when they voice their honest opinions directly or through microaggressions that those people are inferior or are likely to have negative qualities. 5) The word, “Liberals” is interchangeable with “professors” and “Hollywood.” And, 6) education makes you ignorant.
Conclusion
The author displays the hyper-partisan lens through which he sees the world in every paragraph. The article abandons logical argumentation with the first sentences, jumps haphazardly from topic to topic, and reads more like a live-stream of crazed consciousness, or a soliloquy at a Tea Party rally than like any kind of thoughtful and structured written work. Finally, the article unprofessionally uses sentence fragments and seemingly random paragraph breaks.
Yes, sometimes some liberals go overboard in their criticisms of others. But, the author of the article treats liberals as a tiny group of malevolent and powerful satanic angels which have taken control of hollywood and academia and whose sole purpose is to make the lives of honest, decent human beings harder. It perhaps should come as little surprise that a person who doesn’t understand why racial sensitivity is important, should also not see the logical problem in viewing liberals that way.
A lot of the article can be explained away with the probability that the author of the article apparently just doesn’t understand what the word “microaggression” refers too.
All I can say is this: the two biggest problems facing American capitalism today are 1) we don’t have enough workplace drama in our companies, and 2) we don’t have enough uneducated people on our streets. If we could just solve those two problems, ah, what a country this could be.
I Would Suggest…
…that if the author of the article finds that going through life without saying something racist is like walking through a minefield, then he should take a look in the mirror and reconsider the way that he subconsciously thinks, or DOESN’T think, about other human beings.
Sometimes Profound 