Here is a unbelievable story coming out of Dallas. The police department has been giving tickets to drivers for not being able to speak English! The police chief has apologized, and they are going to give the motorists their money back.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Hate Crimes Legislation
President Obama signed legislation that extends federal hate crimes rights to more groups, including gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disabilities.
This law has been named the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Act, so named in remembrance of Matthew Shepherd, a gay man who was brutally murdered by straight counterparts for his sexual orientation. The murder took place in 1998 when two men offered Shepherd a ride in their car. They subsequently beat him, robbed, him, tied him to a post in a remote are, and left him. He was found 18 hours later in a coma, taken to a hospital, and died from head related injuries.
More information on Matthew Shepherd can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepherd . More information on violence against LGBT people in general can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people .
This legislation is groundbreaking for the gay rights movement because the idea that LGBT people should protected in terms of hate crimes is still a controversial idea. Other issues of discrimination are even more dynamic in their disagreements. For example, it is not against the law in Utah to fire a worker based on his or her sexual orientation.
I find that to be very interesting because it certainly is illegal in most places to fire someone based on his or her religious practices, and those against making it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation would argue that sexuality is a matter of choice rather than nature. I, personally, feel that religious practices are much more of a choice than sexual orientation.
To listen to the story about President Obama signing the hate crimes legislation, follow the link here: http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=114237513&m=114237508
Monday, October 26, 2009
Hate Groups and Religious Extremism
I apologize for the strong language and potentially offensive material. The first ten minutes is especially difficult to watch, but the rest is fascinating.
"The Most Hated Family in America" is a documentary concerning the Westboro Baptist Church. Made in 2007 by the BBC, reporter Louis Theroux follows the church membership through their daily activities, such as picketing soldier's funerals with signs saying "God Hates Fags."
"In their world, being hated was proof they were doing the right thing."
Does this sound familiar?
In my view, the Phelps family has dug themselves into a paradox. While they proclaim that America is doomed and its armed-forces promote sodomy, it is the very government they protest that protects their right to say so. They are currently not allowed to enter the United Kingdom.
Do you think the government should have laws prohibiting these kinds of demonstrations? The US has laws that prohibit hate speech in public institutions. In some way, this documentary makes me a little more patriotic, for it is the most extreme freedom of speech - a reminder that we, as citizens, have the right to openly speak. Some say it is not for us to judge them; do you think that is dancing around the issue?
I also found this clip interesting. It is from the 2006 documentary "Jesus Camp."
What do you think?
"The Most Hated Family in America" is a documentary concerning the Westboro Baptist Church. Made in 2007 by the BBC, reporter Louis Theroux follows the church membership through their daily activities, such as picketing soldier's funerals with signs saying "God Hates Fags."
"In their world, being hated was proof they were doing the right thing."
Does this sound familiar?
In my view, the Phelps family has dug themselves into a paradox. While they proclaim that America is doomed and its armed-forces promote sodomy, it is the very government they protest that protects their right to say so. They are currently not allowed to enter the United Kingdom.
Do you think the government should have laws prohibiting these kinds of demonstrations? The US has laws that prohibit hate speech in public institutions. In some way, this documentary makes me a little more patriotic, for it is the most extreme freedom of speech - a reminder that we, as citizens, have the right to openly speak. Some say it is not for us to judge them; do you think that is dancing around the issue?
I also found this clip interesting. It is from the 2006 documentary "Jesus Camp."
What do you think?
Hotel owner tells Hispanic workers to change names
By MELANIE DABOVICH, Associated Press Writer Melanie Dabovich, Associated Press Writer – Mon Oct 26, 8:57 am ET
TAOS, N.M. – Larry Whitten marched into this northern New Mexico town in late July on a mission: resurrect a failing hotel.
The tough-talking former Marine immediately laid down some new rules. Among them, he forbade the Hispanic workers at the run-down, Southwestern adobe-style hotel from speaking Spanish in his presence (he thought they'd be talking about him), and ordered some to Anglicize their names.
No more Martin (Mahr-TEEN). It was plain-old Martin. No more Marcos. Now it would be Mark.
Whitten's management style had worked for him as he's turned around other distressed hotels he bought in recent years across the country.
The 63-year-old Texan, however, wasn't prepared for what followed.
His rules and his firing of several Hispanic employees angered his employees and many in this liberal enclave of 5,000 residents at the base of the Sangre de Cristo mountains, where the most alternative of lifestyles can find a home and where Spanish language, culture and traditions have a long and revered history.
"I came into this landmine of Anglos versus Spanish versus Mexicans versus Indians versus everybody up here. I'm just doing what I've always done," he says.
Former workers, their relatives and some town residents picketed across the street from the hotel.
"I do feel he's a racist, but he's a racist out of ignorance. He doesn't know that what he's doing is wrong," says protester Juanito Burns Jr., who identified himself as prime minister of an activist group called Los Brown Berets de Nuevo Mexico.
The Virginia-born Whitten had spent 40 years in the hotel business, turning around more than 20 hotels in Texas, Oklahoma, Florida and South Carolina, before moving with his wife to Taos from Abilene, Texas. He had visited Taos before, and liked its beauty. When Whitten saw that the Paragon Inn was up for sale, he jumped at it.
The hotel sits along narrow, two-lane Paseo del Pueblo, where souped-up lowriders radiate a just-waxed gleam in the soft sunshine as they cruise past centuries-old adobe buildings. One recent afternoon, a woman slowly rode her fat-tire bicycle along a cracked sidewalk, oversized purple butterfly wings on her back and a breeze blowing her long, blonde dreadlocks.
The community includes Taos Pueblo, an American Indian dwelling inhabited for over 1,000 years, and an adobe Catholic church made famous in a Georgia O'Keeffe painting.
After he arrived, Whitten met with the employees. He says he immediately noticed that they were hostile to his management style and worried they might start talking about him in Spanish.
"Because of that, I asked the people in my presence to speak only English because I do not understand Spanish," Whitten says. "I've been working 24 years in Texas and we have a lot of Spanish people there. I've never had to ask anyone to speak only English in front of me because I've never had a reason to."
Some employees were fired, Whitten says, because they were hostile and insubordinate. He says they called him "a white (N-word)."
Fired hotel manager Kathy Archuleta says the workers initially tried to adjust to his style. "We had already gone through four or five owners before him, so we knew what to expect," Archuleta says. "I told (the workers) we needed to give him a chance."
Then Whitten told some employees he was changing their Spanish first names. Whitten says it's a routine practice at his hotels to change first names of employees who work the front desk phones or deal directly with guests if their names are difficult to understand or pronounce.
"It has nothing to do with racism. I'm not doing it for any reason other than for the satisfaction of my guests, because people calling from all over America don't know the Spanish accents or the Spanish culture or Spanish anything," Whitten says.
Martin Gutierrez, another fired employee, says he felt disrespected when he was told to use the unaccented Martin as his name. He says he told Whitten that Spanish was spoken in New Mexico before English. "He told me he didn't care what I thought because this was his business," Gutierrez says.
"I don't have to change my name and language or heritage," he says. "I'm professional the way I am."
After the firings, the New Mexico chapter of the League of United Latin American Citizens, a national civil rights group, sent Whitten a letter, raising concerns about treatment of Hispanic workers. Whitten says he sent them a letter and posted messages on the hotel marquee, alleging that the group referred to him with a racial slur. LULAC denied the charge.
The messages and comments he made in interviews with local media, including referring to townsfolk as "mountain people" and "potheads who escaped society," further enflamed tensions.
Taos Mayor Darren Cordova says Whitten wasn't doing anything illegal. But he says Whitten failed to better familiarize himself with the town and its culture before deciding to buy the hotel for $2 million. "Taos is so unique that you would not do anything in Taos that you would do elsewhere," he says.
Whitten grew subdued as a two-hour interview with The Associated Press progressed. He said he was sorry for the misunderstanding and insisted he has never been against any culture.
"What kind of fool or idiot or poor businessman would I be to orchestrate this whole crazy thing that's costed me a lot of time, money and aggravation?" Whitten said.
Whitten should have dealt with the situation differently, especially in a majority Hispanic town, said 71-year-old Taos artist Ken O'Neil, while sipping his afternoon coffee on the town's historic plaza.
"To make demands like he did just seems over the top," he says. "Nobody won here. It's not always about winning. Sometimes, it's about what you learn."
Whitten definitely seems like a racist, but of course he won't admit it. He is trying to justify his actions. He thinks that it is okay to change the names of his employees who work the front desk so that they are easier to pronounce. I have been to plenty of hotels where there are people from all over the world working. They keep their name and are very open to telling you how to pronounce it. They are proud f their heritage and their bosses let them be. They are not forced to become more Americanized. Whitten has no right to force his employees to become more Americanized and change who they really are. It is also interesting that the hotel that he is trying to revamp is in an area that has a unique heritage and culture that is important. It is wrong to force people into your own way of life just because they are different from you.
TAOS, N.M. – Larry Whitten marched into this northern New Mexico town in late July on a mission: resurrect a failing hotel.
The tough-talking former Marine immediately laid down some new rules. Among them, he forbade the Hispanic workers at the run-down, Southwestern adobe-style hotel from speaking Spanish in his presence (he thought they'd be talking about him), and ordered some to Anglicize their names.
No more Martin (Mahr-TEEN). It was plain-old Martin. No more Marcos. Now it would be Mark.
Whitten's management style had worked for him as he's turned around other distressed hotels he bought in recent years across the country.
The 63-year-old Texan, however, wasn't prepared for what followed.
His rules and his firing of several Hispanic employees angered his employees and many in this liberal enclave of 5,000 residents at the base of the Sangre de Cristo mountains, where the most alternative of lifestyles can find a home and where Spanish language, culture and traditions have a long and revered history.
"I came into this landmine of Anglos versus Spanish versus Mexicans versus Indians versus everybody up here. I'm just doing what I've always done," he says.
Former workers, their relatives and some town residents picketed across the street from the hotel.
"I do feel he's a racist, but he's a racist out of ignorance. He doesn't know that what he's doing is wrong," says protester Juanito Burns Jr., who identified himself as prime minister of an activist group called Los Brown Berets de Nuevo Mexico.
The Virginia-born Whitten had spent 40 years in the hotel business, turning around more than 20 hotels in Texas, Oklahoma, Florida and South Carolina, before moving with his wife to Taos from Abilene, Texas. He had visited Taos before, and liked its beauty. When Whitten saw that the Paragon Inn was up for sale, he jumped at it.
The hotel sits along narrow, two-lane Paseo del Pueblo, where souped-up lowriders radiate a just-waxed gleam in the soft sunshine as they cruise past centuries-old adobe buildings. One recent afternoon, a woman slowly rode her fat-tire bicycle along a cracked sidewalk, oversized purple butterfly wings on her back and a breeze blowing her long, blonde dreadlocks.
The community includes Taos Pueblo, an American Indian dwelling inhabited for over 1,000 years, and an adobe Catholic church made famous in a Georgia O'Keeffe painting.
After he arrived, Whitten met with the employees. He says he immediately noticed that they were hostile to his management style and worried they might start talking about him in Spanish.
"Because of that, I asked the people in my presence to speak only English because I do not understand Spanish," Whitten says. "I've been working 24 years in Texas and we have a lot of Spanish people there. I've never had to ask anyone to speak only English in front of me because I've never had a reason to."
Some employees were fired, Whitten says, because they were hostile and insubordinate. He says they called him "a white (N-word)."
Fired hotel manager Kathy Archuleta says the workers initially tried to adjust to his style. "We had already gone through four or five owners before him, so we knew what to expect," Archuleta says. "I told (the workers) we needed to give him a chance."
Then Whitten told some employees he was changing their Spanish first names. Whitten says it's a routine practice at his hotels to change first names of employees who work the front desk phones or deal directly with guests if their names are difficult to understand or pronounce.
"It has nothing to do with racism. I'm not doing it for any reason other than for the satisfaction of my guests, because people calling from all over America don't know the Spanish accents or the Spanish culture or Spanish anything," Whitten says.
Martin Gutierrez, another fired employee, says he felt disrespected when he was told to use the unaccented Martin as his name. He says he told Whitten that Spanish was spoken in New Mexico before English. "He told me he didn't care what I thought because this was his business," Gutierrez says.
"I don't have to change my name and language or heritage," he says. "I'm professional the way I am."
After the firings, the New Mexico chapter of the League of United Latin American Citizens, a national civil rights group, sent Whitten a letter, raising concerns about treatment of Hispanic workers. Whitten says he sent them a letter and posted messages on the hotel marquee, alleging that the group referred to him with a racial slur. LULAC denied the charge.
The messages and comments he made in interviews with local media, including referring to townsfolk as "mountain people" and "potheads who escaped society," further enflamed tensions.
Taos Mayor Darren Cordova says Whitten wasn't doing anything illegal. But he says Whitten failed to better familiarize himself with the town and its culture before deciding to buy the hotel for $2 million. "Taos is so unique that you would not do anything in Taos that you would do elsewhere," he says.
Whitten grew subdued as a two-hour interview with The Associated Press progressed. He said he was sorry for the misunderstanding and insisted he has never been against any culture.
"What kind of fool or idiot or poor businessman would I be to orchestrate this whole crazy thing that's costed me a lot of time, money and aggravation?" Whitten said.
Whitten should have dealt with the situation differently, especially in a majority Hispanic town, said 71-year-old Taos artist Ken O'Neil, while sipping his afternoon coffee on the town's historic plaza.
"To make demands like he did just seems over the top," he says. "Nobody won here. It's not always about winning. Sometimes, it's about what you learn."
Whitten definitely seems like a racist, but of course he won't admit it. He is trying to justify his actions. He thinks that it is okay to change the names of his employees who work the front desk so that they are easier to pronounce. I have been to plenty of hotels where there are people from all over the world working. They keep their name and are very open to telling you how to pronounce it. They are proud f their heritage and their bosses let them be. They are not forced to become more Americanized. Whitten has no right to force his employees to become more Americanized and change who they really are. It is also interesting that the hotel that he is trying to revamp is in an area that has a unique heritage and culture that is important. It is wrong to force people into your own way of life just because they are different from you.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
CNN: Lou Dobbs or Latinos in America?
Lou Dobbs is notorious for spreading myths and stereotypes about Latinos and immigrants, even as his network (CNN) is wooing Latino viewers with their new program Latino in America. This has caused quite the controversy and a number of groups are trying to get Lou Dobbs fired.
What do you think? Should Lou Dobbs be tolerated or should he be fired?
What do you think? Should Lou Dobbs be tolerated or should he be fired?
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Sex ed and a trip to Hooters
I don't think this father thought he would get that much attention with this story...
After a big victory in a youth football game recently, my parents and I took my 11-year-old son toHooters for lunch. Though this was his first trip to Hooters, he knew from his friends exactly what the restaurant chain is famous for.
Here is an interesting story that started as a father's blog (http://therainracer.wordpress.com/). He then wrote a column about this in the USA Today (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/10/column-sex-ed-and-a-trip-to-hooters-.html). I just listened to him talk about it today on Talk of the Nation (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114045285&ps=cprs).
What do you think? Do you agree or disagree with the way this father wanted to teach his son about sex ed?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
What does it mean to be a Feminist?
Lately I have been looking through several different podcasts and I happened to stumble upon one called, Stuff Mom Never Told You, which I found very interesting. One episode that I found particularly intriguing was one titled "What does a feminist look like?" Among our generation, feminism seems to have such a negative connotation. I agree with a lot of the issues that feminist fight for, but I don't necessarily want to label myself as a feminist because it seems like it always carries such a negative tone. Some of the social and political baggage that accompanies the title of "feminist" does not fit with ideas that I hold from being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, such as abortion rights.
However, after listening to this podcast it gave me a lot to think about. They define feminism as "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes/organized on behalf of women's rights and interests." According to this definition I think that I would generally define myself as a feminist. Anyways, I guess my question here would be what exactly does it mean to be a feminist?
I thought that this was pretty interesting too. I found this article on http://people.howstuffworks.com/feminism.htm.
Ms. magazine hit stands for the first time in 1972 with the headline, "Wonder Woman For President," stretched above an image of the comic book heroine. Thirty-seven years later, a cover depicting Barack Obama in a Superman-like pose and wearing a T-shirt that proclaimed, "This is What a Feminist Looks Like," struck a chord among Ms. readers. Some applauded the clever twist, hailing Obama's progressive political platforms. Others derided the magazine for defining a feminist as a man.
That reaction among the magazine's feminist readers demonstrated the inherent challenge of defining what feminism is precisely. Depending on the context, you can spin the term as a philosophy, social movement, history, badge of honor or an insult. While feminists have made radical strides toward gender equality and flung open many new doors for women, the movement and philosophy behind it have become culturally and politically polarizing. For instance, when conservative Alaska governor Sarah Palin told Katie Couric that she considers herself a feminist, shock waves rippled throughout the feminist community. As an outright opponent of abortion and sex education in schools, how could Gov. Palin possibly fit the feminist mold, some asked. But politics aside, a working mother of five running for vice president hardly seems antifeminist.
At its core, feminism is the belief in equality. It seeks to eliminate the social, cultural and legal barriers between men and women. Its goal is to create a truly egalitarian society. Beyond that, the waters grow murkier. Feminist factions disagree sometimes on what constitutes equality -- whether it's sexual freedom, career advancement or something else. Some people who label themselves feminists perceive that battle for equality as over and done with; others still view society as rife with patriarchal restrictions. Recently, a debate has stirred over whether feminism has become outdated as term and should even be used at all.
So is feminism today a potent force for change? Or is it the "f-word," spit out like a bitter seed? By examining its unifying philosophies and causes, as well as the schisms within the movement, we can properly evaluate and answer those questions.
According to feminist theology, men have always enjoyed at least some form of gender-based privilege, whatever their class or race. Therefore, some people have questioned whether men can really be feminists. President Barack Obama has labeled himself as a feminist, and plenty of men ascribe to feminist principles of ending sexual discrimination and patriarchy. Most leading feminists welcome men's participation in the movement, but not all allow their male compatriots to call themselves feminists. Some groups -- including members of the National Organization for Men Against Sexism -- identify men as pro-feminist, instead.
So my second question would be, do you think that it is alright for a man to say that he is a feminist as well? It seems contradictory for a feminist to be offended that a man would want to stand up with them for equality. What about men that don't even know what feminism means and they have to look it up in a dictionary?...
Is it really right to close the borders?
After reading the chapters for class about Mexico and the expansion of America into Mexico, it really got me thinking about the issues in our world today, and the fact that we are trying to close the borders. But is it really right to be closing the borders when in the expansion years the Americans crossed the Mexican borders "illegally" and made themselves at home by taking their land and resources? I personally don't think that it is. We are all immigrants to this nation and therefore I believe that everyone should be welcomed in if they are willing to follow the rules of the nation. And so I was wondering what other people thought about this.
1. Do you think that we should be closing the borders?
2. Do you think that it was right for the American's to cross the Mexican border and take their land?
3. Who really can claim America as "their" land?
1. Do you think that we should be closing the borders?
2. Do you think that it was right for the American's to cross the Mexican border and take their land?
3. Who really can claim America as "their" land?
Monday, October 19, 2009
Health Care Debate... Whats even going on?!
So the current poll has got me thinking about the health care debate. What would I advise my legislators to do? I've decided. READ THE BILL!!! There has been so many scare tactics, propaganda, etc. that is has become practically impossible to figure out whats really going on. Public Option or no? What the heck is this about death panels? Illegal immigrants? How much in taxes? Its ridiculous. And on top of all of this confusion, the President has been asking Congress to push this through ASAP because it's apparently that important. Well Mr./Mrs. Congressman, this is what I have to say...
READ THE BILL!!! It is obvious that something needs to be done to reform our current healthcare system. Costs are rising without a parallel rise in quality of care (in fact, it might even be a decrease). We, the people, have elected you to represent us in the decision making process. We are too busy to read every bill and policy that needs to be passed, so we have elected you to get all of the information, come back and talk it over with us, and then make the decision that you feel is best for our nation. Please don't ram this bill through for the sake of reform, whether or not its actually going to help. Take the time to create a system that will work, long-term, for all of us.
Do I ask too much?
READ THE BILL!!! It is obvious that something needs to be done to reform our current healthcare system. Costs are rising without a parallel rise in quality of care (in fact, it might even be a decrease). We, the people, have elected you to represent us in the decision making process. We are too busy to read every bill and policy that needs to be passed, so we have elected you to get all of the information, come back and talk it over with us, and then make the decision that you feel is best for our nation. Please don't ram this bill through for the sake of reform, whether or not its actually going to help. Take the time to create a system that will work, long-term, for all of us.
Do I ask too much?
Racism's Wrong, So....What?
My roommate took Soc 113 last semester and hated it because she couldn't understand the basis for any racist views and how anyone could think differently of a different group just because of their skin color. (There are many different races where she lives, and she's in the minority as a white person). She talked about some of the stuff her class did, so I thought I knew what I was getting myself into. I'll be honest, I know I have some views that aren't exactly PC and are even somewhat racist, but I came in with in open mind. Here lies my problem: Where are the solutions?!?
I grew up in a town where >95% of the population is white, majority of whom are Christians. With this background, I've learned some negative views through opinions of family, friends, neighbors, the local news, national news, and school. Some of these negative views have come up in class as discussion topics. Through these discussions, I have changed some of my ideas about certain topics for the better. But the thing is, there's one comment that seems to come up in each of these discussions that is sending me over the edge: "Why do people think that? That's just stupid! That's just wrong!" ...Thank you. I am now thoroughly convinced of the error of my ways and have converted to your method of thinking. Yes, people (myself included) come up with warped views of things because of the society and environment they grow up in, and a lot of it is from ignorance. HOWEVER, telling me I'm being ignorant and being stupid isn't going to help anything. For me, I wanted to defend my position even more just to prove that there is validity to what I believe. Telling me one of my ideas is dumb isn't going to make me go home and Google your point of view to see why you're right. Keep dreaming. In some of these situations, I've felt that these comments make the other side ignorant since the only defense against my opinion is "It's just wrong to think that."
So we've recognized an idea is wrong. Great. Grand. Class have been a success, right? I disagree. I think this class is great to bring light to the issues we're dealing with. But what good is it if all we're left with is "knowing" someone else is wrong? We aren't coming up with solutions. Granted, I'm not saying our small group needs to rise up to abolish racism and discrimination and prejudices from the entire world before we graduate. I just feel we should be finding more from this class than "Racism's wrong." Tell me why, not just that it is and that it exists. Use facts, not emotions, because you can't refute my emotions with yours. I think this is one of the solutions we can take with us from this class. Being informed is good, but it's better to be educated and help educate others. We did mention one day that education was the best solution, but it's not going to magically start happening once we take the final test and move on with our lives if our current discussions don't incorporate this. I do owe thanks for many comments that have helped educate me thus far in the course, but no problem is being helped in any way, shape or form by saying it's wrong and leaving it at that.
(I have noticed Charlie trying to get people to expand these ideas that something's "wrong," but since we have a limited time frame, there have been a times when the final word on a topic had to be, simply, "It's stupid to think that" since we had to move on to other things. And it doesn't come up in every discussion, but it comes up much more often than it should.)
I grew up in a town where >95% of the population is white, majority of whom are Christians. With this background, I've learned some negative views through opinions of family, friends, neighbors, the local news, national news, and school. Some of these negative views have come up in class as discussion topics. Through these discussions, I have changed some of my ideas about certain topics for the better. But the thing is, there's one comment that seems to come up in each of these discussions that is sending me over the edge: "Why do people think that? That's just stupid! That's just wrong!" ...Thank you. I am now thoroughly convinced of the error of my ways and have converted to your method of thinking. Yes, people (myself included) come up with warped views of things because of the society and environment they grow up in, and a lot of it is from ignorance. HOWEVER, telling me I'm being ignorant and being stupid isn't going to help anything. For me, I wanted to defend my position even more just to prove that there is validity to what I believe. Telling me one of my ideas is dumb isn't going to make me go home and Google your point of view to see why you're right. Keep dreaming. In some of these situations, I've felt that these comments make the other side ignorant since the only defense against my opinion is "It's just wrong to think that."
So we've recognized an idea is wrong. Great. Grand. Class have been a success, right? I disagree. I think this class is great to bring light to the issues we're dealing with. But what good is it if all we're left with is "knowing" someone else is wrong? We aren't coming up with solutions. Granted, I'm not saying our small group needs to rise up to abolish racism and discrimination and prejudices from the entire world before we graduate. I just feel we should be finding more from this class than "Racism's wrong." Tell me why, not just that it is and that it exists. Use facts, not emotions, because you can't refute my emotions with yours. I think this is one of the solutions we can take with us from this class. Being informed is good, but it's better to be educated and help educate others. We did mention one day that education was the best solution, but it's not going to magically start happening once we take the final test and move on with our lives if our current discussions don't incorporate this. I do owe thanks for many comments that have helped educate me thus far in the course, but no problem is being helped in any way, shape or form by saying it's wrong and leaving it at that.
(I have noticed Charlie trying to get people to expand these ideas that something's "wrong," but since we have a limited time frame, there have been a times when the final word on a topic had to be, simply, "It's stupid to think that" since we had to move on to other things. And it doesn't come up in every discussion, but it comes up much more often than it should.)
Sunday, October 18, 2009
'Illegal Alien' Costumes
Here is the description of the costume from the manufacturer's website:
Description:
He didn't just cross a border, he crossed a galaxy! He's got his green card, but it's from another planet! Sure to get some laughs, the Illegal Alien Adult Costume includes an orange prison-style jumpsuit with "Illegal Alien" printed on the front, an alien mask and a "green card".
"The only people getting upset are the hyper-sensitive, over-politically correct, pro-amnesty, illegal alien-supporting nuts," said Gheen. "You can't attack people's freedom in this country."
I guess I fall into the 'hyper-sensitive, over-politically correct, pro-amnesty, illegal alien-supporting nuts' camp. I'm just frustrated with all of the misinformation about undocumented immigrants, not to mention the prison jumpsuit that comes with this costume. Most Americans already think that undocumented immigrants are criminals, and this costume doesn't do anything but strengthen that stereotype. Here's an interesting fact: 1st generation Mexicans are less likely to commit crimes than native-born white, and that is on a national scale.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Interracial couple denied marriage license in La.
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.
"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."
Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."
If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.
Bardwell estimates that he has refused to marry about four couples during his career, all in the past 2 1/2 years.
Beth Humphrey, 30, and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.
Humphrey, an account manager for a marketing firm, said she and McKay, a welder, just returned to Louisiana. She is white and he is black. She plans to enroll in the University of New Orleans to pursue a masters degree in minority politics.
"That was one thing that made this so unbelievable," she said. "It's not something you expect in this day and age."
Humphrey said she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples. Bardwell suggested the couple go to another justice of the peace in the parish who agreed to marry them.
"We are looking forward to having children," Humphrey said. "And all our friends and co-workers have been very supportive. Except for this, we're typical happy newlyweds."
"It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann. She said the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 "that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry."
The ACLU sent a letter to the Louisiana Judiciary Committee, which oversees the state justices of the peace, asking them to investigate Bardwell and recommending "the most severe sanctions available, because such blatant bigotry poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice."
"He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it," Schwartzmann said.
According to the clerk of court's office, application for a marriage license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period. The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce.
Other than that, all they need is a birth certificate and Social Security card.
The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed by a Louisiana minister, justice of the peace or judge. The original is returned to the clerk's office.
"I've been a justice of the peace for 34 years and I don't think I've mistreated anybody," Bardwell said. "I've made some mistakes, but you have too. I didn't tell this couple they couldn't get married. I just told them I wouldn't do it."
"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."
Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."
If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.
Bardwell estimates that he has refused to marry about four couples during his career, all in the past 2 1/2 years.
Beth Humphrey, 30, and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.
Humphrey, an account manager for a marketing firm, said she and McKay, a welder, just returned to Louisiana. She is white and he is black. She plans to enroll in the University of New Orleans to pursue a masters degree in minority politics.
"That was one thing that made this so unbelievable," she said. "It's not something you expect in this day and age."
Humphrey said she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples. Bardwell suggested the couple go to another justice of the peace in the parish who agreed to marry them.
"We are looking forward to having children," Humphrey said. "And all our friends and co-workers have been very supportive. Except for this, we're typical happy newlyweds."
"It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann. She said the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 "that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry."
The ACLU sent a letter to the Louisiana Judiciary Committee, which oversees the state justices of the peace, asking them to investigate Bardwell and recommending "the most severe sanctions available, because such blatant bigotry poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice."
"He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it," Schwartzmann said.
According to the clerk of court's office, application for a marriage license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period. The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce.
Other than that, all they need is a birth certificate and Social Security card.
The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed by a Louisiana minister, justice of the peace or judge. The original is returned to the clerk's office.
"I've been a justice of the peace for 34 years and I don't think I've mistreated anybody," Bardwell said. "I've made some mistakes, but you have too. I didn't tell this couple they couldn't get married. I just told them I wouldn't do it."
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Senator Harry Reid Criticizes LDS Church for Prop. 8 Support
"Washington » In a meeting with gay-rights activists last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid criticized the LDS Church for backing a ballot measure banning same-sex marriage in California, saying the leaders of his faith should have stayed out of the contentious political fight.
Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, is the highest ranking elected official who is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He previously has not commented on the flood of Mormon money and volunteers who helped propel Proposition 8 to victory in November.
But three organizers of the past weekend's National Equality March said Reid brought up the topic during a conversation in his office.
"He said that he thought it was a waste of church resources and good will," said Derek Washington, a Nevadan who worked as the outreach director for the march. "He said he didn't think it was appropriate."
Reid spokesman Jon Summers would not discuss the private meeting, but he didn't deny the conversation took place.
"While Senator Reid agrees with his church that marriage is between a man and a woman," Summers said, "he also believes that the resources that went into the Proposition 8 effort could have been put to better use."
LDS Church officials declined to comment Monday. But Frank Schubert, campaign manager for the pro-Prop 8 movement, said: "All churches have not only the opportunity to speak out on important public issues, but really a moral obligation to do so."
The Mormon Church, headquartered in Salt Lake City, repeatedly has fought attempts to legalize same-sex marriages. California's Prop 8 was no different. Church leaders announced their support in a letter that was read during Sunday services in meetinghouses throughout the Golden State. LDS officials called for financial donations and volunteers. Members of the church did not disappoint."
More than 1,000 Utahns contributed either individually or through a business to the Prop 8 fight, giving $3.8 million. More than 70 percent of that cash went to groups backing the gay-marriage ban. Utah ranked second only to California in the amount given to the ballot battle.
The LDS Church kicked in nearly $190,000 in in-kind contributions to ProtectMarriage.com, the leading pro-Prop. 8 group. In the end, Prop 8 passed with 52 percent of the vote.
Marchers in Sunday's equality rally, which drew tens of thousands to the U.S. Capitol, repeatedly referenced the Prop 8 defeat in signs, statements and even face paint. But when organizers sat down with Reid, it wasn't a topic they intended to raise. They wanted to thank him for supporting the march and push him on their desire for federal action giving gay Americans the ability to get married, serve openly in the military and fight workplace discrimination.
Reid signed a letter supporting the march and encouraged a sustained lobbying campaign.
In the meeting, those present touched on issues most important to them. Dan Choi, a veteran of the Iraq War, who was booted from the military under the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, thanked Reid for lobbying President Barack Obama on his behalf. Robin McGehee, of California, talked about her own family. Then, McGehee said, Reid brought up his LDS faith and discussed a recent meeting with Mormons in which he criticized the Prop 8 efforts.
"He personally said they needed to be focused on other things," she said, "and he felt it was harmful for the church to focus on such a divisive issue."
By Matt Canham
The Salt Lake Tribune
Reconsider Columbus Day?
What do you guys think? Although Columbus "discovered" the Americas does he deserve to have a day on which we remember and pay tribute to his achievements? Or shall we remember the people, cultures and history impacted then and recognize and celebrate the people and cultures of today.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
"Don't ask, don't tell"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_gays
The title of this article caught my eye right away since we just recently discussed the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for the military. In this article, Obama says, "We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve the country. We should be celebrating their willingness to step forward and show such courage." I do not feel that these patriotic Americans are being punished. There are people in the military that are gay, but they keep it to themselves. In an atmosphere like the military, I believe that your sexual orientation is only your business.
One thing Obama says in the article that I agree with is that he wants to stop discrimination. It is important to accept people the way they are but it is hard to change the way people think and feel about these controversial issues.
I have a friend who is in the military, and we briefly discussed the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He said that he got "hit on" by a gay guy in his unit, and after that, he felt awkward around him. He said that it was hard to have the same kind of unity and comradery with that guy as he did with the other guys. This had a negative effect on the unit. I'm not saying that it is okay for gays to be discriminated against, I'm just saying that it takes a lot of work to influence people to think and feel differently than what they are used to.
I don't mean to sound harsh but these controversial issues are difficult to deal with and to express in a way that will not offend people.
The title of this article caught my eye right away since we just recently discussed the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for the military. In this article, Obama says, "We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve the country. We should be celebrating their willingness to step forward and show such courage." I do not feel that these patriotic Americans are being punished. There are people in the military that are gay, but they keep it to themselves. In an atmosphere like the military, I believe that your sexual orientation is only your business.
One thing Obama says in the article that I agree with is that he wants to stop discrimination. It is important to accept people the way they are but it is hard to change the way people think and feel about these controversial issues.
I have a friend who is in the military, and we briefly discussed the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He said that he got "hit on" by a gay guy in his unit, and after that, he felt awkward around him. He said that it was hard to have the same kind of unity and comradery with that guy as he did with the other guys. This had a negative effect on the unit. I'm not saying that it is okay for gays to be discriminated against, I'm just saying that it takes a lot of work to influence people to think and feel differently than what they are used to.
I don't mean to sound harsh but these controversial issues are difficult to deal with and to express in a way that will not offend people.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Racism vs. Culturism ??
OK, so I was talking to a friend of mine the other day about our class discussions on racism. This turned into a discussion that lasted for a few hours! One thing that we talked about really made sense to me, and how I can be biased. I wanted your opinions.
We talked a lot in class about judging and discriminating a person based on race, and it is very evident that that happens. However, in my belief, it is much more common (and understandable) for us to judge based on someone's perceived culture. We are most comfortable around those whom we normally associate with, and begin to feel uncomfortable when we interact with someone of a different cultural background, no matter what their race may be. For example: If I walk past a black guy dressed up like a 'gangster', I'm going to feel uncomfortable based on my preliminary judgement of him, associating his clothing with a certain culture. However, if I see a hispanic or white guy dressed the same, I am going to feel equally as uncomfortable. Now, if a go to a doctor's appointment and the doctor walks in and is knowledgeable and respectful, it won't matter to me what race they are, I will feel comfortable around them.
So, could it be that we as a society are much more likely to discriminate based on different cultural backgrounds rather than race alone?
(This could also be an explanation as to the emergence of "Racism 2.0", because we'll feel more comfortable with someone of another race who shares our culture.)
We talked a lot in class about judging and discriminating a person based on race, and it is very evident that that happens. However, in my belief, it is much more common (and understandable) for us to judge based on someone's perceived culture. We are most comfortable around those whom we normally associate with, and begin to feel uncomfortable when we interact with someone of a different cultural background, no matter what their race may be. For example: If I walk past a black guy dressed up like a 'gangster', I'm going to feel uncomfortable based on my preliminary judgement of him, associating his clothing with a certain culture. However, if I see a hispanic or white guy dressed the same, I am going to feel equally as uncomfortable. Now, if a go to a doctor's appointment and the doctor walks in and is knowledgeable and respectful, it won't matter to me what race they are, I will feel comfortable around them.
So, could it be that we as a society are much more likely to discriminate based on different cultural backgrounds rather than race alone?
(This could also be an explanation as to the emergence of "Racism 2.0", because we'll feel more comfortable with someone of another race who shares our culture.)
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
The Giant Pool of Money
The Giant Pool of Money
Another Frightening Show About the Economy
Bad Bank
Return To The Giant Pool of Money
And finally, here is an interesting story that discusses how the housing crisis has disproportionately affected African Americans in the United States, thus updating the story from right after WWII when African American GIs were denied entry into new homes in the suburbs (from the PBS video, Race: The Power of an Illusion, where the Jewish guy said that we had our golden opportunity to help blacks and blew it). Here is a link to the story:
Mortgage Industry Bankrupts Black America
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Crazy Mormon Conservatives
Okay, so the title is a little harsh, but I figured it would get people interested. Before I begin, I am LDS and proud of it, so don't take any of this the wrong way. Today my best friend showed me a website with a rather unusual painting by an LDS artist:
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353#Interview
I highly recommend that you all check it out. Hopefully upon seeing this painting you will realize the dislike I have for it. It is a painting of Jesus Christ, dressed in white and gold, holding the constitution. Behind him are many founding fathers and other influential figures in our countries history. In front of him, to his left and right, there are two different groups of people. If you go to the website and move your mouse around the painting, you should notice names of specific individuals, specific occupations, and some commentary off to the left. The commentary is all done by the artist and it clearly expresses his extreme conservative views. As you read his comments about those to Christ's left, you should start to notice that these people are what the artist would consider "evil," (professors, lawyers, politicians, liberal news reporters, a pregnant woman (???)) I mean he has them sitting in a group with Satan for heavens sake. Those on the right hand of Christ, the artist seems to consider "good" (Christian ministers, college students, family doctors, etc.). One example that I found particularly alarming was the artists description of a professor, sitting on the left hand side of Christ: "He tightly holds his "origin of species" book by Charles Darwin. This represents the liberal lefts control of our educational system. His smug expression describes the attitude of many of the educational elite. There is no room for God in education. There is contempt for any other viewpoints. Humanism dominates the educational system of America and I believe that is wrong (are you serious?!). Notice that he is the only one sitting on the top step. He tries to place himself on an equal footing with God, but he is still nothing next to the intelligence of the creator." Okay yes, I do believe that he is not nearly as intelligent as God, but is this artist really serious about the rest of this? I mean he says that the professor has contempt for any other viewpoints, but I really think this artist has contempt for any other viewpoints. Apparently he thinks that all professors are just evil, wicked, non-religious, super liberal people; I wonder what he would have said had a gay/lesbian individual been in the picture. Sorry, you can tell that I am bugged by this close minded man and now I am just venting. I really just cannot believe that people are this close minded, I mean get off your high-horse man! There is good and bad everywhere, but you cannot just put entire groups of people into good and bad categories and then basically rant on how they will all burn in hell (pardon my French). I love being LDS, I love the gospel and I love my savior Jesus Christ, but I now understand just why it is that people all around the world hate us. It is because of people like this artist who are ultra conservative and think that everything other than what they believe is evil. Guess what, everyone thinks differently and believes differently. We really need to be accepting of other cultures, people, ideas, religions, jobs, etc. and realize that no one is perfect, and chances are they are not going to burn for it. People with liberal ideas are not going to destroy America and they are not evil (contrary to what this artist believes), nor are people with conservative ideas. Please! for your own sake, don't be so closed minded. Anyways, I really suggest that you spend some time looking at this painting. While it is a little frustrating at times, it is also really funny. Also, this blog: (http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/09/29/come-ye-poets-of-the-bloggernacle/) has some really awesome comments concerning the painting. I hope it makes you think as much as it made me. Enjoy!
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353#Interview
I highly recommend that you all check it out. Hopefully upon seeing this painting you will realize the dislike I have for it. It is a painting of Jesus Christ, dressed in white and gold, holding the constitution. Behind him are many founding fathers and other influential figures in our countries history. In front of him, to his left and right, there are two different groups of people. If you go to the website and move your mouse around the painting, you should notice names of specific individuals, specific occupations, and some commentary off to the left. The commentary is all done by the artist and it clearly expresses his extreme conservative views. As you read his comments about those to Christ's left, you should start to notice that these people are what the artist would consider "evil," (professors, lawyers, politicians, liberal news reporters, a pregnant woman (???)) I mean he has them sitting in a group with Satan for heavens sake. Those on the right hand of Christ, the artist seems to consider "good" (Christian ministers, college students, family doctors, etc.). One example that I found particularly alarming was the artists description of a professor, sitting on the left hand side of Christ: "He tightly holds his "origin of species" book by Charles Darwin. This represents the liberal lefts control of our educational system. His smug expression describes the attitude of many of the educational elite. There is no room for God in education. There is contempt for any other viewpoints. Humanism dominates the educational system of America and I believe that is wrong (are you serious?!). Notice that he is the only one sitting on the top step. He tries to place himself on an equal footing with God, but he is still nothing next to the intelligence of the creator." Okay yes, I do believe that he is not nearly as intelligent as God, but is this artist really serious about the rest of this? I mean he says that the professor has contempt for any other viewpoints, but I really think this artist has contempt for any other viewpoints. Apparently he thinks that all professors are just evil, wicked, non-religious, super liberal people; I wonder what he would have said had a gay/lesbian individual been in the picture. Sorry, you can tell that I am bugged by this close minded man and now I am just venting. I really just cannot believe that people are this close minded, I mean get off your high-horse man! There is good and bad everywhere, but you cannot just put entire groups of people into good and bad categories and then basically rant on how they will all burn in hell (pardon my French). I love being LDS, I love the gospel and I love my savior Jesus Christ, but I now understand just why it is that people all around the world hate us. It is because of people like this artist who are ultra conservative and think that everything other than what they believe is evil. Guess what, everyone thinks differently and believes differently. We really need to be accepting of other cultures, people, ideas, religions, jobs, etc. and realize that no one is perfect, and chances are they are not going to burn for it. People with liberal ideas are not going to destroy America and they are not evil (contrary to what this artist believes), nor are people with conservative ideas. Please! for your own sake, don't be so closed minded. Anyways, I really suggest that you spend some time looking at this painting. While it is a little frustrating at times, it is also really funny. Also, this blog: (http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/09/29/come-ye-poets-of-the-bloggernacle/) has some really awesome comments concerning the painting. I hope it makes you think as much as it made me. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
