I do not on principle object to stronger border enforcement or deporting those who enter the country illegally. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s justification of this bill however, is to protect Arizonans from rising cross-border violence in the state due to the influence of drug cartels (her words).

The bill doesn’t go after drug cartels. It instead invites racial profiling of minorities for harassment and identification. And although the law is not to take effect until mid-summer, some of the law enforcement in Arizona is not hesitating to make use of it, and already one of our own citizens has been harassed and detained (video from an Arizona news channel). The man detained underlines the point that Arizona’s lawmakers refuse to accept – that this man, being as stereotypically categorized as “illegal”, presumably because of the color of his skin and his accent, is in fact as American as they are. The truth is that is exactly the type of person the bill is intended to target, harass, and annoy.

Supporters cite that police are prohibited from using the law unless there is ‘reasonable cause’ for suspicion, and that it cannot be on the basis of race. It is well-established that the police are at times an overbearing power against the citizens. In particular, Maricopa County Sherrif Joe Arpaio’s methods are reminiscent of Bull Connor’s during the 1960s. These provisions do nothing but encourage the fabrication of ‘reasonable cause’ by police forces. The requirements for reasonable cause of suspicion is easily reached by any behavior that an officer feels is justified.

The fabrication of these circumstances are encouraged by the provision that allows citizens to sue their police forces or local governments if they do not adequately enforce this law. In comparison, I want to point to an ordinance in Los Angeles that would be illegal in Arizona, called Special Order 40. This order mandates that officers will not initiate police action for the purpose of determining immigration status. It does not prevent criminal suspects who have been booked for other crimes from being reported to immigration authorities, but in fact mandates it if there is cause for suspicion. In the belief of the past several police chiefs of the city and myself, it creates a safer society when residents are able to report crimes against them to police authorities without fear of reprisal. The nature of the Arizona law makes already besieged communities targets for criminal and administrative misconduct because they cannot report crimes against them. When a population is fearful of the police, crimes go unreported and unresolved. This will raise, rather than lower the amount of crime in Arizona, especially against minorities, and does nothing to stem the tide of violence or those who engage in criminal activity.

This law will undoubtedly affect Americans who fit a stereotype and reside in Arizona, or pass through the state. Citizens everywhere should be offended that the encroachment upon their 4th Amendment rights that this law codifies. While a boycott of Arizona products is short-sighted and accomplishes only the further destruction of the legal economy there, opposition is rightly directed at those who support this legalized discrimination and the political officials who created and passed it.

To learn more about how to take a stand against SB 1070, please visit ¡Alto Arizona!

It’s inherent that many people who work for a corporation, for instance, don’t agree with its’ political aims. Is it fair to take the profits of a corporate entity, contributed to by people of all beliefs and ideas, and use them to donate to political campaigns? If I work for Company X who donates $100 million (which I have contributed to) to Candidate X, but it’s in my own best interests to support Candidate Y, how is it fair that I must basically attempt to outspend myself?

The same is true with unions, PACs, etc, who can pool large amounts of money towards the campaigns of candidates who have platforms to which all its’ members may not ascribe to.

I have an idea, a seed, of a solution: Ban all non-private political campaign donations. If I am the CEO of a multinational corporation, I may very well vote and contribute in the same way, with a large sum of money, but I believe that the political interests of corporations and organizations are inherently against the interests of the people in general.

PACs and organizations may still publicize a preferred candidate, and as members of said organization, there is the option to vote or donate along the suggested lines, but the control stays within private hands. This is definitely a step towards public campaign funding, which I don’t particularly see as a bad thing. Maybe with less of an ad-spend, we’ll be able to get messages that matter, or in-depth policy comparisons. Maybe we could have intelligent discussions about the state of politics.

I’m not sure I’m asking if this can be achieved at all – it would take more than a blog post to discuss, but rather, a movement. I want to know if in theory, this is a flawed concept, or a sound one.

I want your feedback, potential issues with this idea, please!

OK, it’s kind of funny, but mostly it’s a sad statement on how well (read: poorly) the governor and legislature has worked together in California.

1. most people don’t really know what socialism is, or what it means, and
2. because the people in the US who do know what it is, think the way things are going, they could use at least a little socialism.

I personally fall into the second category, socialized medicine works well in other countries, and it is at the heart of many of our problems.

There’s elements of socialism in some of the greatest programs this country has, and in addition, the “New Deal” to bring us out of the last depression was a very socialist movement, why would it be a mistake to move that direction? I prefer socialist programs to pure capitalist imperialism, that by all accounts, leads to governmental corruption and massive wealth disparities between the rich and poor.

Isn’t it a better world for the rich if it’s a better world for everyone? I think those that are exceptionally well-off do not agree.

It’s important to note that despite what Obama represents for many Americans, he is once again, simply the “lesser of two evils”. Sadly, nobody could make it this far without the influence of specifically Mayor Daley of Chicago’s democratic political machine, and the support of Democrats like Nancy Pelosi. I feel he’ll be very beholden to the party, and so, risk alienating the conservatives of America.

The issue at hand is trust – people give government an immense amount of money, etc. for security, and feel abused at every turn. They begin to believe that everyone must be in it for themselves, myself included, so resist giving away any more (money, power, rights, laws, beliefs, anything personal to themselves) than they absolutely need to. The culture of America has the change before the country can.

Rob

Feature Article – Jour351b

Rob Olague

Sometimes, there’s a man. Or a woman, one could argue, that is fit for the presidency. The question for this Democratic Convention, is which one?

To a nation of young voters consumed by popular culture and hungry for something different than what they’ve known, they are coming out in droves to support Barack Obama.

A black man from Hawaii or a white woman from Illinois might be the next president of the United States. Which one represents the political climate of the United States?

Obama has built his campaign on a message of uniting the country and ending bipartisan politics. Whether this is a dream or realistic goal is immaterial.

Clinton has built her campaign on a message of experience and coalitions of politicians to enact legislative goals.

What is laid bare is the numbers – Obama’s message resonates, as does Clinton’s. His message and her ideas are nearly neck-and-neck in the polling and delegate counts.

More than anything, Obama is a blank slate for the newest generation of voters. He cares about what they care about. He has no political baggage, and resonates with nearly everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike admit that at the very least, he is “likeable”.

Obama’s popularity is a reflection of the dissatisfaction in young people with their system of government, especially in consideration of the last eight years of George W. Bush. Obama promises to change the government fundamentally, and taking input from both sides of the political system, where Hillary promises to do the best with what she’s been given – a divided country and political system.

To the popular culture that lives on Digg and YouTube, the CNN and CBS of young people, Obama has become a slate for people to project their aspirations for the nation upon. He has no baggage or old political foes, no special interests he has had a change to be swayed by. He is simply the man for his time and place, whose Internet presence is unparalleled, as evidenced by Will.I.Am’s “Yes We Can” and “Obama Girl”.

His admission of trying drugs in the past resonates with a youth culture that increasingly accepts experimentation of drugs, as long as a candidate doesn’t lie about it. There are no repercussions in admitting past bad behavior as long as one doesn’t try to cover it up. The honestly and exposure inherent in the Internet generation resonates, and Barack Obama accepts those new avenues of political action, and embraces the messages of his constituency.

Barack Obama is a product of his circumstance. He’s a charismatic leader, with a mother from Kansas, and a father from Kenya, and an inspiring story that as he puts it, “Could only happen in America”. His birth alone is an affirmation of the racial healing and American Dream he champions. He’s worked with communities on the streets of Chicago and lived in Hawaii and traveled abroad extensively.

Hillary Clinton is a product of her circumstance. She has been in the right places, championing health care reform, gaining a senate seat after being in the White House for 8 years as first lady. She has met with world leaders, worked in the legal system, and has an unmatched deftness in politics.

Ultimately, only one can be the face of the Democratic party nominee. Hillary Clinton has defined the shape of her politics and message by appealing to the issues that her constituents care about. Barack Obama is appealing to the message that he cares about the same issues, but is one of the people affected by them as well.

Barack Obama is very the man for his time and place, embraced by the pop generation as one their own, and a reflection of their desires for a radically new government. He’s made no promises except to try, but the promise alone resonates with a group alienated and distrustful of their government. Obama may not be different than any other politician, but he fits the time and place.

Regardless of who gets the vote, this political race will go down to the wire. Barack Obama is the very man for his time and place, embraced by the pop generation as one of their own, and his own desire for political reform. Who wouldn’t like a president that could dunk?

Yet running against an adversary such as Hillary Clinton, a well versed and experienced campaigner, it will be interesting to see the outcome at the National Democratic convention.

As the Cowboy says in The Big Lebowski, “I only mention it become sometimes there’s a man… I won’t say a hero, ‘cause what’s a hero? Sometimes, there’s a man…Sometimes there’s a man, well, he’s the man for his time and place. He fits right in there. And that’s the Dude.”

The young people of America are calling with louder and louder voices that they want the Dude in the Oval Office. Only time will tell if The Dude does better than the Dude Rancher.

Name Redacted
State Department of Rehabilitation

These folks pay for my books and partial tuition. Meaning you, the taxpayer, and the state of California, provide for my education. SO, it might be nice if legislature signed a budget.