To the Oklahoma Lawmakers: poem

Fear and Loathing in Arizona

Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for humankind, not humankind for the Sabbath…” - Mark 2:27

Arizona’s new law about immigration has not created new problems or proposed “solutions” that haven’t been stated before. It is not generating new issues, only feeding old ones and ushering in a new environment in which fear rules over compassion and in which we confuse our safety with our comfort.
The main thrust of support for this immigration bill is, as far as I can tell, built on the idea that illegals bring crime and that something must be done about that. As Daniel Griswold points out on his blog, this may not be completely accurate:
“The crime rate in Arizona in 2008 was the lowest it has been in four decades. In the past decade, as the number of illegal immigrants in the state grew rapidly, the violent crime rate dropped by 23 percent, the property crime rate by 28 percent. (You can check out the DoJ figures here.)”
First off I would say that being an “immigrant nation”, which is what we have been, are and will be, is an inherently risky venture. Anytime there is free flow of anything (ideas, capital, human beings, etc.) you risk something. And I also think that Texas, New Mexico and Arizona share an undue burden as far as immigration support goes. But New Mexico, for some reason, seems not to share its neighbors’ concerns or policy decisions. New Mexico’s government officials, including Governor Bill Richardson, have largely spoken out against Arizona’s legislation. So this is not a universal opinion for border states.
But what troubles me more than the law itself is the manner in which people are being labeled and how that allows us to “other” them. What concerns me is the generic “illegal” label that gets applied with no acknowledgment of the complexity of this issue. And what troubles me even more is that such an issue is being raised over the status of “illegal” immigrants who are guilty of what is, for a single offense, a misdemeanor. Just for the record, depending on the jurisdiction, examples of other misdemeanors include: public intoxication, disorderly conduct, trespass, vandalism, reckless driving, and other similar crimes…hardly the kind of activity that motivates people to build miles of fencing or separate families for years or interrogate children.
So this leads me to think that perhaps something is going on behind the movement against “illegals” beyond just a sudden interest in law enforcement.
The truth is that I am not really worried about what the common reaction to this law will be. I happen to know and trust many law enforcement officers as just like all the rest of us – decent, fair-minded people who are not geared towards violence or wishing to inflict harm or pain on anyone, least of all the innocent. Still, they will have a duty and perhaps some tough decisions to make in the coming months.
What I am worried about are the very few who would engage in racial profiling because they believe in it, or xenophobic slants to their enforcement of the laws because they harbor their own racist ideologies. This law enables those people. Archbishop Desmond Tutu said it best in a recent blog commentary on the Arizona law:

“Abominations such as apartheid do not start with an entire population suddenly becoming inhumane. They start here. They start with generalizing unwanted characteristics across an entire segment of a population. They start with trying to solve a problem by asserting superior force over a population. They start with stripping people of rights and dignity - such as the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty - that you yourself enjoy. Not because it is right, but because you can. And because somehow, you think this is going to solve a problem.
However, when you strip a man or a woman of their basic human rights, you strip them of their dignity in the eyes of their family and their community, and even in their own eyes. An immigrant who is charged with the crime of trespassing for simply being in a community without his papers on him is being told he is committing a crime by simply being. He or she feels degraded and feels they are of less worth than others of a different color skin. These are the seeds of resentment, hostilities and in extreme cases, conflict.
Such "solutions" solve nothing. As already pointed out, even by people on the police force, Arizona's new laws will split the communities, make it less likely that people in the immigrant communities will work with the police. They will create conditions favorable to the very criminals these laws are trying to disarm.”

This has been partially addressed. In the latest version of the bill, amended recently, the language has been changed, supposedly to “remove fears about racial profiling”. The original law said that police can conduct an immigration status check during any “lawful contact,” if they have reasonable suspicion a person is an illegal immigrant. The amendment replaces “lawful contact” with “lawful stop, detention or arrest,” clarifying that police may not stop people without cause.
But here’s the catch. A police officer can pull anyone over for any reason; they just have to answer to “probable cause”, which is really verified by the police officer. I know what the law says, but I also know that “driving while black” is a very real situation and that “driving while brown” will be just as real. If we’re talking about the “few bad apples”, then the law gives them every window they need. They can say the person was speeding or jaywalking or they thought they saw them shoplifting and had to pull them aside. That is an elephant-sized loophole and it places the burden on the accused, not the accuser.
What this law really accomplishes is the spreading of the same fear that caused its inception in the first place. I understand that the federal law already requires immigrants to carry their papers with them at all times. I understand that the “probable cause” clause is in the law. What I also understand is that the wording of this law and the already unreasonably hostile environment towards immigrants (legal or not) creates an atmosphere in which legal people who happen to look “suspicious” will at least be hassled more often and where many will be subject to a new level of harassment over something that is a misdemeanor (on first offense).
Beyond the legal issues there is something else – a moral issue. The law and morality are not the same, never have been. In fact, it could be argued that our laws more accurately reflect our broken morality than any idealized one. And this law is no exception.
Until we begin to see human beings, especially in the case of illegal immigration, instead of people guilty by existence, we may be living legally but that doesn’t bode well for our principles. The borders we have drawn on the world God created are ours…God doesn’t see them. And the laws we choose to create are for us, not us for them. And, as I think the biblical record shows, these values around the care of the nomad or the stranger – at least from God’s perspective - are the exact opposite of what we are no professing.
This is the next wave of human and civil rights debate in this country. We want free trade, but closed borders. We want a global economy but a national identity. These things cannot work together – something has to give. Perhaps Arizona is the Selma of our time – the front lines of the next question in the ongoing debate – who is in, who is out? Who counts?

The Most Radical President Ever?

Speaking at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans (an irony in itself that Republican leadership would be celebrated in New Orleans), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called President Obama the "most radical President in American history" who oversees a "secular, socialist machine."

This is from a college history professor who apparently feels that whatever President Obama has done,something he doesn't really elaborate on, it is worse than the previous 8 years which saw the unprecedented dismissal of participation in the Geneva Convention, the introduction of the Patriot Act which disassembled individual rights more than any document in the past 75 years, and introduced preemptive war as the driver of foreign policy in the past decade. This is on top of the wave of deregulation and lack of enforcement of still existing regulation (and we saw how that turned out)and the blatant misuse and abuse of the Presidential "signing statements", a practice than continues now (thanks to precedence) and was rejected by the American Bar Association as a action that "undermine(s) the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers."

My biggest gripe however is that when you watch this video, he goes from such an inflammatory remark right into the coming election season, calling on the cheering crowd to turn out and make a Republican majority and Presidency that will "repeal the radical agenda" placed into law by the current administration.

First off - how does such a sweeping and drastic statement like "most radical ever" get challenged? Shouldn't a person have to offer some evidence for such a statement? I mean, radical is a relative label. I can easily refer to the previous administration as radical (something I think I just did) and find many who would agree with me, so where does that leave us?

It is clear to me that all of this demonizing is for the sole purpose of winning elections. It is exactly where Gingrich goes immediately following his unsupported critique and listeners should have no doubt - this man is running for office and greasing the skids right now. This is what infuriates me more than the political back and forth between the partisan talking heads...the idea that in elections all things are on the table. Win at any cost - damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!

In the wake of this slash and burn politicking is our national identity, our civil discourse and our democracy. Fairly soon, I'm afraid, this level of incendiary rhetoric is going to get someone killed...maybe a whole lot of somebodies. We in Oklahoma City know all about that kind of hate and how seemingly innocuous but irresponsibly heated rhetoric can feed dark hearts like gasoline on a fire.

So, thank you, Newt Gingrich. You have just split America in two once again. I'm not sure at this point that we can sew ourselves back together again. But maybe you'll win the next election. I guess that will be worth it to you.

Prop 8's ridiculous argument...

Prop 8 in California which institutes a ban on same-sex marriage is being tried once again. Yes, the voters have spoken...but the voters in Mississippi and Alabama voted at one time on the status of people with darker skin than they had...didn't make it right.

The argument that same-sex marriage weakens "traditional" marriage gets made all of the time - well, it really doesn't get made because there never is any evidence given than it does weaken hetero marriage, which seems pretty capable of weakening itself thank you very much. I have never had anyone present me with a case of how two gay men marrying makes my hetero marriage weaker. In fact, I think that by taking the "institution" of marriage more seriously we make it stronger. I'd like some propositions on real family values like good school systems, childcare, maternity leave and ways to include these things in the workplace. Focus on jobs that pay living wages, not the commitments of two human beings which are just as legitimate and well-intentioned as any hetero matching.

Well - here's a GREAT article on this issue from The Daily Beast. In it, retired philosophy professor Linda Hirshman makes mincemeat of the ridicuolus and scary argument being put forth in the courtroom defending Prop 8. It is another case, like HB 3408 here in Oklahoma, of manipulation of voters with a hidden agenda. If the argument that they are laying out in the courtroom had been front and center during the Prop 8 voting, would we have Prop 8?

Snow Day

Well, here's another day of schools cancelled (which means dad's plans cancelled too) and life inside the house (for the most part). I'm going to the store later under the premise that the roads are passable (I tried themt his morning) and that the store will be pretty quiet. I like shopping slowly.

As I peruse the internet I am aware of some key dates coming up very soon:
•Feb. 18 — Spring training: Reporting day for Red Sox pitchers and catchers; MLB voluntary reporting date for pitchers, catchers and injured players

•Feb. 20 — Spring training: First workout for Red Sox pitchers and catchers

•Feb. 22 — Spring training: Reporting day for Red Sox positional players

•Feb. 23 — Spring training: MLB voluntary reporting date for other players

•Feb. 24 — Spring training: First Red Sox full-squad workout

•March 2 — Spring training: Mandatory reporting date for players

•March 3 — First Red Sox spring training game vs. Northeastern

•April 3 — Last Red Sox spring training game vs. Nationals (Nationals Park)

•April 4 — MLB Opening Night: Red Sox vs. Yankees at Fenway Park; active rosters reduced to 25 players

It will be here before you know it. Already my Red Sox pal Jay and I are planning our trip to Kansas City for the first road game of the 2010 season. The last time we went to KC to see the Sox (and the debut of a certain Japanese pitcher) they won the whole shooting match....so, maybe we need to pay attention to such baseball voodoo!

At least this morning as I look outside it finally looks like school should be cancelled...

A Game Changer!!!

There are times in politics when you must be on the right side and lose.
-- John Kenneth Galbraith

Chief Justice John Roberts, in handing down a bombshell of a decision yesterday warned: "The fact that the law currently grants a favored position to media corporations is no reason to overlook the danger inherent in accepting a theory that would allow government restrictions on their political speech." And there's the rub.

The entirety of this decision rests on the idea that a corporation should have the same rights as an individual citizen. This ruling overturns over a century of legal precedent against such a concept. If this is not "judicial activism", I don't know what is.

The case for why this is such an egregious case of activism is made by Michael Waldman in the Washington Post:

"For starters, the court boldly reached to consider a major constitutional case when it didn't have to. The case itself addressed an arcane issue: whether campaign finance laws were properly applied to an infomercial critical of Hillary Clinton. The justices easily could have ruled on narrow statutory grounds. Instead, last summer, they announced a rushed re-argument, making clear they were itching to overturn a century of constitutional doctrine, even though the case offered no factual or trial record on the broad question of corporate spending. This week the justices struck down laws in 22 states and overturned key decisions from 1990 and 2003 -- all in the middle of a new election cycle. It is hard to remember an instance where the justices reached so far to make major constitutional law. It will have immediate political consequences. Business managers now will be able to spend at will Bloomberg-level sums in congressional races across the country. In partisan and political impact, this rivals Bush v. Gore."

We are fast becoming something that we will not like. All of the "tea-partiers" wanting the "average guy" to be heard need to kiss that dream goodbye. This is a game changer in the largest sense. We no longer have representative democracy in my opinion, unless you feel like you are represented by a corporation. What is next? Will we have candidates decked out in clothing covered by sponsor emblems? Will our next congressional representative look like a european soccer player?

In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said this:

At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

So true...we are now awash in the very thing that almost everyone agrees is the major cause of gridlock and corruption at the congressional level. If you think that you don't see any action from Congress now, just wait. All it will take is a couple of incumbents being badly beaten thanks to corporate spending in response to a political ruling against their interest to have everyone at Capitol Hill afraid to even legislate anything but the mildest of appeals.

So, as I heard one commentator wonder out loud...have we now given citizenship rights to foreigners? Halliburton, for one, is registered in the Cayman Islands as a tax shelter. Why does that corporation which calls another country its headquarters get the same rights that I do as an American citizen?

Corporations are not people! They are made up of people and that is where their representation comes from. Money poisons the well again and we will soon know that power corrupts...and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

A very sad day in American history.

Haitian nightmare

There could not be a worse place for a 7.0 earthquake to hit than Haiti. This is a very difficult place to live in terms of infrastructure on a good day, much less after a powerful earthquake. Many of these people have nothing and the government infrastructure is almost non-existent. I thought yesterday of how much stress and suffering 14 inches of snow brought to Oklahoma City on Christmas Eve...of how many people commented on the slow speed of emergency response and government reaction. Yet you would have to multiply this a thousand fold to even approximate the environment in Haiti. We simply cannot imagine it, nor do we want to.

And the worst part is that there is truly little a person like me can do other than donate. So I have and yet that seems woefully inadequate. So then I pray - but what do I pray for? Do I pray for food and water and some end to the immediate suffering of those who have survived? Do I pray for the shattered hearts of all of those people who have lost those most important to them? Do I pray for more reasonable government in Haiti or and end to economic blight which keeps them down? There's only so long that you can rescue drowning people from the river before you wondering who keeps throwing them in there in the first place.

In this week we mark the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr...the man who reminded us that we are caught in a web of mutuality and that whatever happens to one of us happens to all of us. In this week we should remember his words as we look to Haiti, the forgotten place.

This is a quote from Tracy Kidder in the NYT: "Haiti is a country created by former slaves, kidnapped West Africans, who, in 1804, when slavery still flourished in the United States and the Caribbean, threw off their cruel French masters and created their own republic. Haitians have been punished ever since for claiming their freedom: by the French who, in the 1820s, demanded and received payment from the Haitians for the slave colony, impoverishing the country for years to come; by an often brutal American occupation from 1915 to 1934; by indigenous misrule that the American government aided and abetted. (In more recent years American administrations fell into a pattern of promoting and then undermining Haitian constitutional democracy.)"

In light of the ever sensitive Pat Robertson's comments, and the anniversary of Dr. King's birth, I want to go on record as saying (as if there were any doubt) that I'm on Dr. King's side. I don't know who this God is that Robertson talks about, but I do know the God that King told us of - a God who's heart was one of justice and compassion and who asked the same of us.

Dr. King once said, in perhaps his most controversial speech given at Riverside Church in New York City in which he spoke out against the Vietnam War, that "I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered."

This is time again. There is no better example for us that we are materially-driven not people-driven than Haiti. May God turn our hearts...

Please give if you can.

There's room in the world religions class, Brit...

This may suprise you, but Fox News Sunday was the site of some evangelical Christian proselytizing last week. Anchor-turned-commentator Brit Hume went on the offensive with the Tiger Woods fiasco when he said that Tiger just needed Jesus. He was working from public statements on Mr. Woods' part in which he stated that he is a Buddhist. Buddhism, Mr. Hume posited, doesn't "offer the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith".

I think that the almost complete silence on the part of Buddhists would counter that opinion, Mr. Hume. If anyone has a beef with you right now it is Buddhism. Yet even one of the more public voices of Buddhism, the Columbia professor Robert Thurman, refused to "strike back" on this morning's edition of the Takeaway on Public Radio. He was quite willing to counteract the vastly oversimplified and usually incorrect assumptions from Hume's statements, but he was very unwilling to say much more than Mr. Hume needs a comparative religions course.

The funny thing is that it takes Professor Thurman, a practicing Buddhist, to show that Hume's statement is in fact counter to the teachings of Jesus. To imply that simply being Christian means that you can make a "complete recovery", as if he no longer will have any sin to contend with or the very real issues with a wife and family is not something that Thurman (or I) agree with. Buddhism and Christianity alike prohibit Tiger's recent behavior (if the reports are accurate) as some of the worst actions a person can do.

The worst that Thurman could manage was that Hume was rude. He was rude to Buddhists and Christians alike. I'll say amen to that.

A war on terrorism is about as effective as a war on drugs...

So, having been inundated like everyone with underwear bomber and shoe bomber news...with people actually comparing Obama's response to the foiled attempt in Detroit with Bush's response to 9-11 (there's a slight difference of scale) and hearing that Yemen is the new front on the war on terror (which Dick Cheney wants to make sure is still called a war) despite this not being a new idea to the entire intelligence industry, I have had a few thoughts.

Very much like a "war on drugs" a "war on terrorism" accomplishes only two things. First, it makes people hate us more because fighting "wars of choice" really means that we are invading countries and going to war without declaring war, often in the "pre-emptive" fashion that has now apparently become the accepted norm.

Second, fighting such a war in a single-minded fashion only addresses a symptom. Just like law enforcement alone will never send drug use, military might can never kill or capture all of the terrorists. Hell, we don't even have good ways to tell them from the population of innocent bystanders in such a war.

The pieces are being put in place to open a new front in this "war" in Yemen. Yemen currently spends 6% of its GDP on its own military, often fighting the same people we would be engaging. They haven't eradicated or even slowed them. In fact, they have created more of them.

This recent article from SLATE does a great job explaining why a country like Yemen in an oil-rich area of the world struggles so much.

Journalist Brian Palmer says this: "More problematic for Yemen's long-term prosperity is the mismatch between the country's needs and means. Agriculture is a good example. While 43 percent of its employed adult men are farmers, the nation imports more than 75 percent of its food. A few decades ago, Yemenis were able to feed themselves; now many farmers have switched over to growing qat, a leaf containing an amphetamine-like drug that is illegal in most Western countries." Perhaps there's more in common with a "war on drugs" and a "war on terror" than is immediately apparent.

Corruption, greed and the merging of corporations and government (things which should be driven by very different goals)has effectively hamstrung Yemen. It is a theme which we should be familiar with and very scared of. Until we begin to understand that power concentrated in the hands of a few at the expense of the many is an equation that leads to dysfunctional social constructions like drug use and terrorism or radicalism we won't make a dent in those problems.

By and large people want the chance to live in peace, be prosperous and take care of themselves and their families. When that opportunity is hindered in some way, people react. They react and they take what opportunity is there. Perhaps it is drug production/sales/use, perhaps it is striking out in whatever way they can against what ever "enemy" they can be convinced is responsible for their plight.

Fighting this in conventional ways accomplishes nothing but feeding that beast. It is time to starve the beast by evoking the most dramatic and radical notion ever - loving our neighbors as ourselves.