Bill O'Reilly Explodes Over Illegal Immigration

While doing some research for the Immigration debate we had on the Tuesday before Thanksgiving break, I came across this video of Bill O'Reilly completely losing his cool on Geraldo Rivera. Most of us know how explosive Bill O'Reilly can get, but who is right in this case?

Both Geraldo Rivera and Bill O'Reilly make conclusive arguments for the two extreme sides. One good point brought up by O'Reilly is, the man who killed the girl was an illegal immigrant who had broken the law previously before, yet remained in the United States. Yet the only thing O'Reilly is doing is screaming to get his point across, which is getting him no where.

One point Rivera brings up is that the story is getting covered by news channels because the man who killed the girl is an illegal immigrant. Would the story still get as much coverage if it was just a citizen who was drunk driving?

What REALLY is the issue in this situation, is it drunk driving or illegal immigration, or maybe it is both?

I'll let yall watch and decide for yourself.

The Truth about the First Thanksgiving

I just read an amazing account of the first thanksgiving by James Loewen (from Lies My Teacher Told Me) and thought you all might be interested.  This historian gives us an account of how we have mythologized Thanksgiving into something it never was.  This is in no way meant to dampen your Thanksgiving.  As the author states, "Surely, in history, 'truth should be held sacred, at whatever cost."  So this year, let's be thankful for the truth, or at least the truth as far as we know it.

Here is the conclusion to Loewen's essay: 

Should we teach these truths about Thanksgiving? Or, like our textbooks, should we look the other way? Again quoting LAND OF PROMISE. "By the fall of 1621, colonists and Indians could sit down to several days of feast and thanksgiving to God (later celebrated as the first Thanksgiving)." Throughout the nation, elementary school children still enact Thanksgiving every fall as our national origin myth, complete with Pilgrim hats made of construction paper and Indian braves with feathers in their hair. An early Massachusetts colonist, Colonel Thomas Aspinwall, advises us not to settle for this whitwash of feel - good - history.

"It is painful to advert to these things. But our forefathers, though wise, pious, and sincere, were nevertheless, in respect to Christian charity, under a cloud; and, in history, truth should be held sacred, at whatever cost."

Thanksgiving is full of embarrassing facts. The Pilgrims did not introduce the Native Americans to the tradition; Eastern Indians had observed autumnal harvest celebrations for centuries. Our modern celebrations date back only to 1863; not until the 1890s did the Pilgrims get included in the tradition; no one even called them "Pilgrims" until the 1870s. Plymouth Rock achieved ichnographic status only in the nineteenth century, when some enterprising residents of the town moved it down to the water so its significance as the "holy soil" the Pilgrims first touched might seem more plausible. The Rock has become a shrine, the Mayflower Compact a sacred text, and our textbooks play the same function as the Anglican BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, teaching us the rudiments of the civil religion of Thanksgiving.

Indians are marginalized in this civic ritual. Our archetypal image of the first Thanksgiving portrays the groaning boards in the woods, with the Pilgrims in their starched Sunday best and the almost naked Indian guests. Thanksgiving silliness reaches some sort of zenith in the handouts that school children have carried home for decades, with captions like, "They served pumpkins and turkeys and corn and squash. The Indians had never seen such a feast!" When his son brought home this "information" from his New Hampshire elementary school, Native American novelist Michael Dorris pointed out "the Pilgrims had literally never seen `such a feast,' since all foods mentioned are exclusively indigenous to the Americas and had been provided by [or with the aid of] the local tribe."

I do not read Aspinwall as suggesting a "bash the Pilgrims" interpretation, emphasizing only the bad parts. I have emphasized untoward details only because our histories have suppressed everything awkward for so long. The Pilgrims' courage in setting forth in the late fall to make their way on a continent new to them remains unsurpassed. In their first year, like the Indians, they suffered from diseases. Half of them died. The Pilgrims did not cause the plague and were as baffled as to its true origin as the stricken Indian villagers. Pilgrim-Indian relations began reasonably postitively. Thus the antidote to feel-good history is not feel-bad history, but honest and inclusive history. "Knowing the truth about Thanksgiving, both its proud and its shameful motivations and history, might well benefit contemporary children," suggests Dorris. "But the glib retelling of an ethnocentric and self-serving falsehood does no one any good." Because Thanksgiving has roots in both Anglo and Native cultures, and because of the interracial cooperation the first celebration enshrines, Thanksgiving might yet develop into a holiday that promotes tolerance and understanding. Its emphasis on Native foods provides a teachable moment, for natives of the Americas first developed half of the world's food crops. Texts could tell this--only three even mention Indian foods---and could also relate other contributions form Indian societies, from sports to political ideas. The original Thanksgiving itself provides an interesting example: the Natives and newcomers spent the better part of three days showing each other their various recreations.

Origin myths do not come cheaply. To glorify the Pilgrims is dangerous. The genial ommissions and false details our texts use to retail the Pilgrim legend promote Anglocentrism, which only handicaps us when dealing with all those whose culture is no Anglo. Surely, in histor, "truth should be held sacred, at whatever cost."

You can read the full essay at:

http://www.raceandhistory.com/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1006609974,95667,.shtml

Social Issues Through Cartoons

I recently came across this cartoon that addresses some of the social issues we have been discussing in our class:
 

Lou Dobbs Considers Possible Presidential Run

Former populist CNN anchor Lou Dobbs said Monday he isn't ruling out a presidential run.

Dobbs, who resigned from CNN in November after nearly three decades with the network, suggested in a radio interview with WTOP in Washington, D.C., that he's eyeing a future in politics.

"What's so crazy about that?" Dobbs quipped when asked about a possible presidential run. "It's one of the discussions that we're having."

"For the first time, I'm actually listening to some people about, about politics," he said. "We've got to do something in this country."

Support for Dobbs as a presidential contender took form on the Internet well before the veteran newsman announced his departure from CNN, where he worked as anchor and managing editor of "Lou Dobb's Tonight."

The Web site, "loudobbsforpresident.org," launched in January 2009 to rally support for a possible 2012 presidential run.

"Lou Dobbs would make a good president because he is truly a man of the people," the Web site's founder, William Gheen, told FoxNews.com Monday.

Gheen, who also heads Americans for Legal Immigration, said Dobbs "has been more in line with the American public on issues like global trade, homeland security and illegal immigration than either of the Democrats or Republicans we have been offered in the last nine years."

"People are looking for something fresh and new," he said.

Kheen said that 3,000 people pledged over $600,000 for a possible Dobbs presidential run when his Web site launched last January.

Lou Dobbs Considers Possible Presidential Run - FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

Interracial commercial

A commercial's attempt to create racial unity. How did they do?

youtube comments on Blind Side trailers

copeskoalbeachnut (5 hours ago)

0

Reply

You know what Kevinactula i've heard enough. Does it really matter about skin color. That family seen a young man in need,and helped him. Something you dont see very much these days anymore. If you seen a kid with no where to go or stay would you help him? Would you wanna help that young man to sucess? Thats all they are doing. Your to high and mighty to see that. And thats sad,your the kind of people making this world shit...dont ever say you've never been helped.

rangerscowboys (6 hours ago)

+1

Reply

kevinatucla - definition of angry black man. Take the chip off your shoulder and get a life. You've obviously showed your sports ignorance by not knowing what 'blind side' even means.  I could go on.......

kevinatucla (7 hours ago)

0

Reply

I changed my major just because of this movie. As a minority I can't have this junk be made anymore. This is degrading to all minorities. It's the white people who have the" blind side" and can't see that more and more minorities are running this country as doctors, lawyers, engineers. I guess we don't have much minorities in Film and thanks to Sandra making me angry I will put my brain in Films from now on. Thank you Sandra Bullock for making me angry enough to change things in this country!

kevinatucla (7 hours ago)

-1

Reply

she deserves to go to jail for this racist movie. Once again a black man is portrayed as a gorilla who can only succeed in sports and white people are babysitting him to success. The matter of fact is that minorities are much smarter than white trash and we have more minority doctors, engineers, lawyers, business owners. The only thing we don't have is people in movie business who still make junk like this. And I make sure that will change!! I just changed my major from Microbiology to Film!

Blind Side trailer

Some interesting articles...

I found these two articles interesting.

"Outrage in Washington over Obama's Japan bow"

"WASHINGTON (AFP) – News photos of President Barack Obama bowing to Japan's emperor have incensed critics here, who said the US leader should stand tall when representing America overseas.

'We don't defer to emperors. We don't defer to kings or emperors. The president of the United States -- this coupled with so many apologies from the United States -- is just another thing,' said Bennett.

While most of the commentary about the bow in Japan was decidedly negative, some political observers, like longtime Democratic activist Donna Brazile, came to the president's defense.

'I think it's a gesture of kindness," she told CNN, adding that the bow appeared intended to show 'goodwill between two nations that respect each other.'"
 
The second:

"According to England's The Daily Mail, a Universal spokesman said the updated ad was released 'to simplify the poster to actors who are most recognizable in international markets.'

In the U.S. version (above, left), all eight principal stars, including Hawk and Love, are seen standing knee-deep in water with their names displayed above. For the UK version (above, right), a different backdrop is shown with only the six (white) actors and actresses on display.

For its part, Universal has acknowledged the omission, saying it regretted offending anyone and is abandoning plans to use the revised poster in other countries.

But you have to wonder: If they regretted offending anyone, why would they alter the poster in the first place?

It's not uncommon for movie studios to alter promotional materials of U.S. movies for foreign markets. Of course, the title and tagline often is changed to reflect the respective country's language (sometimes to detrimental effect). But as opposed to clarifying the meaning and story of the movie, deleting any mention of Love and Hawk from the film's advertising is, at the very least, a highly bizarre decision. It's hard to imagine Brits staring at a poster with a black couple, scratching their heads and thinking, 'How did they get on the island?'"

What do you think? Is Obama out of line for bowing? Is the "Couples Retreat" poster racially motivated?

I'll Always Be Irish

You've got to love it when stuff you're learning about in class finds a way to sneak into your personal life. Last night, my friends and I were watching an old Disney movie, "The Happiest Millionaire." One of the characters is a 1st-generation immigrant from Ireland to Philidelphia in 1916. I think the clip (and the film) are entertaining, so I'm posting a link to the song. To set it up: The older man is a millionaire who owns some alligators and has a Bible/boxing class in a gym in the backyard. So the first 2:30 minutes are the millionaire talking about the alligators, then it turns to questions about the Bible, boxing, and then patriotism, which leads the immigrant to tell the Biddles about how becoming an American means a lot to him and is adding something to the Irishman he already is. If nothing else, the dancing is a riot. (The part applicable to our class starts at about 2:40, if you want to skip the alligator part) Enjoy!

No need to fire...

Looks like the posts on Lou Dobbs and the debate about the issue were well timed. Today Dobbs resigned from CNN in order to embark on "new opportunities." Here he announces his resignation. These are a few reports on the matter from different perspectives.

The New York Times

The Deseret News

Huffington Post

Do you think CNN violated any ethics by allowing Dobbs to get out of his contract in order to resign?

Do you think "new opportunties" were the true motivation, for both Dobbs and CNN, behind the issue?

Church Supports Nondiscrimination Ordinances

As I accessed www.lds.org, what caught my attention was the position the Church has taken on nondiscrimination regulations towards those with same-sex attraction:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has declared its support of nondiscrimination regulations that would extend protection in matters of housing and employment in Salt Lake City to those with same-sex attraction.

The Church said the Salt Lake City Council’s new nondiscrimination ordinance “is fair and reasonable” and balances fair housing and employment rights with the religious rights of the community.

The remarks, representing the position of the Church’s leadership, were read by Michael Otterson, managing director of Church Public Affairs, as part of a public comment period discussing the ordinances at a Salt Lake City Council meeting tonight. (Read full remarks).

Otterson told city council members: “The issue before you tonight is the right of people to have a roof over their heads and the right to work without being discriminated against. But, importantly, the ordinances also attempts to balance vital issues of religious freedom. In essence, the Church agrees with the approach which Mayor Becker is taking on this matter.”

The Church said that while protections in housing and employment were fair and reasonable, the Church also remains “unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.” Otterson also pointed out that this position was “entirely consistent with the Church’s prior position on these matters.”

Otterson added, “I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when we disagree — in fact, especially when we disagree.”

I am quite content with this position from the Church because although the Church does not condone homosexual behavior, the fact that people are being discriminated against because of their preferences, is inherently wrong. Especially here in the United States, where we claim that "all men are created equal." We do not live in a theocratic state such as Iran, where there is a ruling religion and the government is based off of that and their beliefs are shoved down everyone's throats. Not everyone is Christian here in Amuricuh, but does that not make them a citizen? Are they not entitled to the same rights? Everyone has these natural rights as human beings. Beliefs should be irrelevant. What happened to "separation of church and state?"

Anyway, those are my two cents. I especially liked the last part, “I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when we disagree — in fact, especially when we disagree.” Amen, brother.

Let me know what you all think about the Church coming out and saying this (not like it matters since it's up to the brethren and the big guy) But still...

WRI supporters

For those who are interested, supporters of the WRI have created a blog to discuss issues related to the closing of the WRI and facilitate discussions about it. There isn't a lot of information there right now, but keep checking back and there will be more over the next two or three days:

www.supportwri.blogspot.com

SAVE THE WRI!!!!

Same-Sex Attraction

I found this quote given by Boyd K. Packer in the October 1976 General Priesthood Session:

"There is a falsehood that some are born with an attraction to their own kind, with nothing they can do about it. They are just "that way" and can only yield to those desires. That is a malicious and destructive lie. While it is a convincing idea to some, it is of the devil. No one is locked into that kind of life. From our premortal life we were directed into a physical body. There is no mismatching of bodies and spirits. Boys are to become men --masculine, manly men --ultimately to become husbands and fathers. No one is predestined to a perverted use of these powers."

This was really interesting to me, considering we spent a few class periods discussing how some people were born with the tendencies to be attracted to people of their same sex. It would be really interesting to see what other quotes from the brethren that you can find on this topic. Let me know what you think!

Do Illegal Immigrants Hurt or Help the U.S. Economy

With only two days to discuss whether or not immigrants hurt or help the economy, I thought we should expand our discuss to the blog (my premise is that most of this discussion centers not around legal immigrants, but illegal immigrants).  Obviously the debate is complex and is not whether or not undocumented immigrants help or hurt our economy, but in what ways they help and hurt.  Let's try to be specific about the ways they hurt or help.

Below are some interesting comments from Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan about how illegal immigrants are helping our economy (appearing before a Senate subcommittee in April 2009):

There is little doubt that unauthorized, that is, illegal, immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of our economy.

Economists generally view the overall economic benefits of this workforce as significantly outweighing the costs.

Here is the link to the article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aeQKG53ULolk

Finally, one more point about undocumented immigrants using health care via emergency rooms.  This is definitely a problem in California that has really hurt a number of people in this industry.  The problem, according to my view, is not that immigrants take advantage of our system without putting anything in (there is plenty of evidence to suggest that immigrants put more money into our system than they take out), but how we distribute taxes in our country.  Given that 75% of undocumented immigrants have taxes taken out of their paycheck, there is a lot of tax money going to the federal government, which thus does not go to the state of California.  I think the federal government should give a higher percentage of that federal tax money to states like California that have the burden of keeping the undocumented immigrants healthy.  That would solve the problem without blaming undocumented immigrants (and this problem will only continue because any health care reform bill will not include undocumented immigrants, which means they will continue to go to the emergency rooms).

Let the debate begin!!

Another Reaction to the N.M. Hotel Manager Post

A few weeks ago, the original post was made and I have a feeling that after it goes off the front page, many will not read it as has been the case with other posts I have commented on. Thusly, I place my comment here as a post not only so it will be read more, but also since it is quite lengthy. I encourage you first to read the original post and comments after which you may read mine if still interested. The following is my post:

Sadly, I cannot refrain from discussing the inaccuracy and anguish I feel from your defending these so-called “economically sound” and “good business” practices, which are overtly discriminatory. Sorry, but many of my comments come in response to Natalia’s most recent post in defense of the business world. First, I support the business world, but I don’t support exploitation of individuals and the “economically sound” practices some businesses engage in which merely profit off of less politically and economically privileged groups.

Corrections to your post:

First, kimonos are Japanese not Chinese. And, it is astounding that you would assert that of the 1.3 billion people living in China, not one would be able to pronounce an Anglo name. I personally know people living in China that have a greater understanding of and ability in the English language than yourself. And yes they can pronounce my Anglo name, without difficulty.

Second, America (the U.S.) is a nation founded on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not English. The U.S. has no official language because it has left it up to states to decide what the official language of each state is. Moreover, New Mexico as a state has declared that both Spanish and English are official languages, which means that all government documents are now produced in both languages. What does having an Anglocized name have to do with being understood when speaking English? Just because your name is not Anglo, does not mean that people won’t understand what you say.

Third, it’s not just a problem because it is the majority (in your words “white crowd”) oppressing the minority. It is a problem because it is overt racism and discrimination. That it is destructive to individuals and the community, regardless of their race or ethnicity. It is wrong because it puts profit before people.

Fourth, why do you assume that Spanish-speaking individuals that Whitten works with are “Mexicans”?

Fifth, maybe it is a difficult request for some of his employees to speak English in front of him? Why doesn’t find out their level of comfort with the language rather than assume that when his employees are speaking Spanish around him that they are speaking about him? We go to work for our living and why should we not worry about ourselves when the economy is so poor, especially when this hotel has had 4-5 managers in the last year and the employees don’t know how stable a job this is?

Sixth, your supervisor at the MTC, why does she need to know what her employees are talking about while they are working unless it is a group think or something. Shouldn’t she be able to watch them and know if they are working? You can look and see if people are working or not. You don’t usually have to talk with them to know if they are slacking off. If they are completing their jobs, why should you care what they are talking about?

I agree that he was probably doing what had worked in the past, but just because something worked in the past doesn’t make it right. Just because the FHA made “economically sound” decisions does not make them right. Companies have social responsibilities to the communities they serve. That is good business. Investing in people and communities, that is good business. Being culturally sensitive and respectful to employees, that is good business. Making profits, yes it is good business, but not at the expense of relationships and to the detriment of individuals and communities. I disagree with you that the FHA redlining and racial discrimination that lead to increased “white flight” was economically sound. For whom was it economically sound? For whites who paid higher prices to live in the suburbs, for African Americans who were forced to pay higher prices so that real estate agents could make larger profits from encouraging whites to leave for less and then charging higher rates to African American families that moved in; for the FHA which has had multiple suits against it for the discriminatory practices that it not only supported but mandated be used by loan agencies that they worked with to protect the racial and socioeconomic homogeneity of the neighborhoods for which they made loans. I disagree that the FHA loan movement was economically sound. It has left in its wake, a racially biased system for home-ownership and loans. Just because something may improve the bottom line does not mean it is right, especially when it destroys a people, a culture, a person or a community. I could give examples, but I will merely suggest that we all think of one that might have started the second world war.