When I read this article I was sad and quite disgusted. I thought incidences like this didn't happen anymore. The poor man just wanted to use the bathroom! Since it was the owner of the store who led the attack of this man, it made me wonder how many black people had ever entered his store before. Was he one of the only blacks who had ever walked in? Surely they have had other black customers? Why was this innocent man attacked. This article made me realize that although there are many federal protections for black people, racism and hate is still very alive in America.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Three Men Sentenced to Prison for Attacking a Black Man
The black men entered a convenience store to use the restroom when he was "forcibly escorted" out of the store, threatened with a chainsaw, and had his car stolen.
Horrifying Violence On Our Doorstep
I am leaving on my mission to the México Chihuahua mission soon and have been reading a lot of articles dealing with the drug wars, especially in Juárez, which is on the border across from El Paso, TX. Cuidad Juárez is in my mission and there are missionaries traveling up to the city to proselyte during the day. The situation is horrible for the people living in these crime-ridden cities. Here is an article talking about the violence in Juárez specifically. I take a lot of this into account when taking on the issue of why some cross the border to the US. It is another factor we need to take into account when discussing the issue and how to resolve the immigration problem. This article also shows why the issue is so difficult because we need to stop the drug cartels and their transportation into the US, but we are doing very little.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/20/v-print/1589618/danger-zone-crime-in-juarez-drives.html#ixzz0ll4tSmfz
In Mexico's Ciudad Juárez, murder is a way of life
The cemetery in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, has graves as far as the eye can see -- a sign of the sky-high homicide rate in the border city. (Tim Johnson/MCT)
At the traffic lights in this city, only the killers look at other cars. Everyone else looks straight ahead, afraid of ticking off potential assailants. By nightfall, vehicles disappear from the roads.
``People are afraid to go out into the street, so the restaurants are doing badly,'' said Alejandra Marquez, an architect. ``You don't go out to eat. You go to the mall, which has more security.''
Ciudad Juárez, the sprawling Mexican metropolis of 1.3 million people across the border from El Paso, Texas, is Murder City, probably the most dangerous city in the world outside a declared war zone.
Already this year, 686 people have been murdered here. Residents hunker in trepidation. Most answer cellphone calls only from people they know to avoid random extortion attempts. Instead of going out on the town, they hold private parties -- and only with close friends.
Those residents who can afford to leave have left.
``The exodus is dramatic,'' said Gustavo de la Rosa, the local ombudsman for the Chihuahua State human rights commission. ``There are at least 20,000 abandoned houses, and maybe up to 30,000.''
Americans have reason to be concerned, too. The U.S. does about $1 billion a day of trade with Mexico, and nearly one-sixth of that trade goes through the Juárez-El Paso region.
Crime in Juárez also threatens to bleed across the border. Criminal gangs working for drug cartels already operate on both sides of the border, and in a sign of the growing risks, on March 13 gunmen killed three people linked to the U.S. consulate in Juárez. The sky-high murder rate is driven by two rival groups -- the Juárez cartel and the Sinaloa cartel -- and their battle for control of drug smuggling into the U.S.
The FBI estimates that 40 to 60 percent of the narcotics and marijuana smuggled from Mexico to the U.S. moves through the corridor, which runs from the Texas border with New Mexico to Big Bend National Park, about 300 miles southeast.
Murder is only one of Juárez's problems. Ambitious cartel underlings have diversified into extortion, kidnapping, carjacking and robbery. When President Felipe Calderon sent 10,000 soldiers to Juárez in March 2008 to bolster security after a purge of corrupt police, the army largely ignored other crimes to focus on the cartels, and crime has taken off.
The result is a palpable sense of unease, despite insistence from the mayor, José Reyes Ferriz, that only 200 of the 2,400 people killed last year were innocent bystanders.
``The perception of security -- that `it won't affect me' -- is less and less,'' said Carlos Chavira Rodríguez, local head of the Mexican Employers Federation. ``Everyone knows you might get robbed in the street or hit by a stray bullet.''
Signs saying ``For Rent'' in Spanish and English dot shuttered restaurants, bars, hotels and other businesses.
``Six thousand businesses have closed during the last nine months,'' said Daniel Murguia Lardizabal, head of the local branch of the National Chamber of Commerce. ``Downtown is dead.''
The miserable employment situation has fueled the ranks of the gangs.
``Juárez has 70,000 young people between the ages of 15 and 29 who neither study nor have jobs,'' said Chavira, of the Mexican Employers Association. ``These people are easy pickings for the gangs.''
Those gangs are locked in a fight to the death that experts say threatens anyone who has the misfortune to be nearby.
``To kill one person, they shoot hundreds of rounds and maybe hit the person with five,'' said Enrique Torres, spokesman for the joint police-military command in the city. ``We've arrested people who were paid only 300 pesos ($25) per killing.''
The battle for Ciudad Juárez began about two years ago when the Sinaloa drug cartel, led by Joaquin ``El Chapo'' Guzman and based along Mexico's Pacific coast, began trying to wrest control of the crucial drug smuggling corridor into the U.S. from the Juárez cartel.
Fighting for the Juárez cartel is a street gang known as the Aztecas that operates on both sides of the border. Most Azteca members are heavily tattooed ex-cons who served time in Texas jails. One of the top Azteca leaders, Eduardo Ravelo, is a U.S. citizen.
The Sinaloa cartel's street gangs include the Assassin Artists and the Mejicles, which are less disciplined than the paramilitary-style Aztecas but every bit as homicidal.
Neither side holds the advantage, and the violence is likely to go on.
``Our intelligence does not indicate that the Sinaloa cartel has taken over the Juárez corridor, however they are making serious attempts to do so,'' said Joseph M. Arabit, the special agent in charge of the El Paso field division of the Drug Enforcement Administration. ``The upper hand changes from week to week because this is an ongoing struggle.''
Calderon's decision to send in the army in 2007 has seemed only to make matters worse -- the death toll of 1,623 in 2008 rose to 2,635 in 2009 -- and many want the army gone.
Last week, authorities pulled soldiers from the city and turned security over to some 5,000 additional federal police brought to Juárez from around the country.
The city, meanwhile, tries to cope with the executions that average seven per day -- so common that this reporter drove by one shortly after it happened. A body lay covered by a sheet on a sidewalk.
On another day, after a hit squad in the Erendira district executed a man, a radio report said children in an adjacent park ``kept on playing,'' paying no heed to the slaying.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/20/v-print/1589618/danger-zone-crime-in-juarez-drives.html#ixzz0ll4tSmfz
30 Days
I found this online while researching the 30 Days episode that we watched in class about illegal immigration. The episode made it look like Frank Jorge, the Minuteman, had a change of heart with regards to illegal immigration. This is what he himself wrote in response to that "Fabricated Conversion".
Thirty Days With Illegal Aliens—And A Fabricated Conversion
By Frank Jorge
[Previously by Frank Jorge: LAIR’s Frank Jorge Reports On That Costa Mesa Convulsion]
Recently, I finished working with the Fox Network’s "Thirty Days" producers on an episode in which I lived with illegal aliens for thirty days.
Before I signed my contract, I read it thoroughly and noticed that it actually said that they could defame me and say, or release embarrassing information about me.
I took this to mean that they neither have to be truthful or ethical in the treatment of the person under contract....me.
As a person who has himself produced and edited videos, I know how much damage can be done. Anything taken out of context can appear to represent a point of view completely foreign to the person making the statement.
But I spoke with my wife about whether I should participate or not. And I decided that I should do so for the sake of my country—even though the production might mischaracterize me, defame me or twist facts.
It was, and is, my viewpoint that I would still be part of a documentary in which illegal aliens are shown for close to thirty days living in East Los Angeles, California, without any fear of being deported. The episode could well have been titled, Thirty Days Without Enforcement of Immigration Law. It is an inescapable fact that not only can illegal aliens exist in our country without immigration law being enforced, but that they can demonstrate against American citizens, assault them, belittle them, and now....they can be seen on American Television participating in a documentary.
All of this speaks volumes about our Federal, state and city governments, whose unwillingness to enforce immigration laws goes against the wishes of its legal citizens.
Two producers for the show came to my home to show my wife and myself the finished program. I was told that it still needed a little work but that the network executives liked it and that they had approved it.
I really liked it too—even the parts that made me look bad in a number of ways.
And then came the last five or so minutes.
In these last few minutes, the editing crew had a field day putting together a sequence that, to people as sensitive as myself and my wife over this issue of illegal immigration, appeared to twist things to make it appear that I had changed my mind—and am in fact in favor of the illegal immigrant family of seven staying here; and of allowing more in.
This travesty begins with the eighteen year-old illegal alien girl, Armida, saying “I think he's changing his mind". This is followed by another video clip where she asks me: “Are you still going to the borders?" I then answer "It would seem strange to do so now."
You are not allowed to hear the rest of what was said, because they edited it out.
Allow me to explain. I have been active both on our borders and also in our cities. I had not, however, knocked on politicians’ doors myself.
My experience living for Thirty Days in East Los Angeles, California did indeed cause a tremendous change in my perceptions of what I should be doing. I decided that I need to work on the politicians personally to persuade them to enforce immigration laws, or enact new ones that will make the four cities near where I live uninhabitable to illegal aliens.
This change was caused by living in a former USA city that is now a Mexican city —to the point where, as I wandered the streets, I asked the illegals if this city reminded them of a Mexican city and they said yes: Guadalajara, Mexico.
Another shocker was a video clip showing me walking down the street saying: “Why not be part of the process of bringing them here legally?"
What you don't get to hear was my qualification: "If this family of seven goes back to Mexico and applies for legal entry into the USA, I promise to sponsor them...why not be part of the process of bringing them here legally?"
I actually made that offer to them. But if they accepted, they would have had to leave. They refused my offer, since it meant that they would have had to get to the back of the legal immigration line and probably wait years before they could come here.
I told the producers that they had deliberately twisted the story. They said that I had actually said those things. I replied that they had taken them out of context from the 300 hours of video that they had shot.
After going back and forth for the longest time, they refused to make any changes. I asked them to allow me to add an audio file that would bring everything back in balance so that Americans might know that I had not changed my point of view.
I was told that I had no control over the contents.... as if I didn't know. But I told the producer, Jonathon, that an army of lawyers and the contract that I had signed would not keep me from addressing this issue.
Finally they said they would add in writing, at the end that I was still a Minuteman and that I was working to have our borders secured.
I cannot tell you how much I prayed to have God intervene in this affair. I feel it is important because our people deserve the truth—not for my sake, but rather for the morale of our American people.
Then I was invited to a press conference, held on July twelfth at 1 PM at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Pasadena California.
A limousine was sent to pick my wife and I at our modest home in Mojave, CA.
I sat on a panel with the illegal alien girl, three executives from Fox network and 30 Days’ host Morgan Spurlock, whom I met that very day.
When the questions started coming from the reporters, I told them of the deceit that had been put into play. How millions of Americans would be manipulated into believing something that wasn't true about one of their countrymen. How a fine production at the last moment took a twist so dreadful that its status as a documentary was compromised by its morphing into a movie, without respect for truth at a time when our people deserve the truth more than ever.
All reporters listened intently for the full hour of the conference. The producers showed extreme discomfort. Truth when spoken is powerful.
I was given a DVD with the "rough cut” of the episode, as were the reporters. When I was able to see this DVD, I found it was completely different from what I was shown earlier. This second rendition of the episode is in keeping with the truth. It is graceful and intellectually engaging. It is a masterpiece without peer.
So there are two renditions of the product: one truthful throughout; another, still great and a must see, but in the last few minutes it takes a Hollywood flight from reality.
Why then would the Thirty Days’ crew take a quality work and degrade it? Was it because ratings would be better? Why was the host, Morgan Spurlock refers to me on the show as an "anti-immigrant" Minuteman? If you look at the film you will see that even they know that I am an immigrant myself!
Well, this was the Thirty Days’ crew:
Producer: female, born USA, Colombian parents, speaks Spanish, visits Colombia. Age 40.
Assistant Producer: female, born USA, Colombian parents, age twenty six. Fluent in Spanish. Definite loyalty to illegals established.
Co-coordinator: female, age twenty seven, born in Peru, illegal alien who overstayed her visa. Definite loyalty to illegals established.
Cameraman: male, USA, believes in "one world, one people". Definite loyalty to illegals established.
Soundman: male, born USA, unknown loyalties.
Assistant Cameraman: Mexican illegal alien. Definite loyalty to illegals established.
During all the days that we filmed, I frequently felt as if I were the only person who believed as I do.
It is not an accident that the film took the turn that it did.
I never failed to mention my anti-illegal immigration point of view everyday. The crew was aware that upon completing the filming I would fly to Crawford, Texas to protest Bush for being soft on illegal aliens. They knew that I was the originator of the event and had paid for everything that we had purchased for it. They had been shown my website for the event.
How could they possibly even dare to think that I had changed my mind?
Not a chance!
Change induced by bonding and isolation is actually common in some of these reality shows. But the problem in my case is that the change that occurred was very subtle—and of a different kind than the crew expected. While I did most definitely bond strongly with the Gonzalez family, I realized that I must work on my local politicians to act on immigration—because time is short for my country.
Failing to get the type of conversion the expected and desired, the 30 Days’ crew fabricated one.
If they wanted to know how I felt after the thirty day period all they had to do was ask. They didn't even have to. I told them time and time again:
"Secure the borders with regular military troops, fine and imprison the employers of illegal aliens. Arrest illegal aliens in this country and put them to work building a wall on our border with Mexico. Start desert tent detainment centers like Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona has done. Deport all illegal aliens who do not self deport. Impeach Bush for being the traitor that he is and try him for treason!"
As always, immigration patriots are treated poorly by the mainstream media. Rather than run, we must stand and fight until they yield to the truth and stop the propagation of lies.
As for the illegal alien family, I can tell you that I grew to love them for their warmth and sincerity. It makes it that much more meaningful when you love some of these folks–and you still say, in their presence, "our laws must be enforced".
I did it. I hope many of you can do it too.
The word from those who have worked in Hollywood for years and whom I consulted with on this issue is that reality shows are not reality driven. Everybody in the industry knows it.
I participated in this documentary in order to fight for the truth on behalf of all patriotic citizens, past present and future, who love, and will love, this glorious nation.
And the 30 Days documentary will have an impact on the illegal immigration debate. To that extent, Fox and 30 Days are to be commended.
PS: This must-see documentary will air on July 26th, 10 pm and 11 pm on the Fox channel.
Frank Jorge (email him), an immigrant from Cuba, is a staff member with Latino Americans For Immigration Reform [LAIR]
Thirty Days With Illegal Aliens—And A Fabricated Conversion
By Frank Jorge
[Previously by Frank Jorge: LAIR’s Frank Jorge Reports On That Costa Mesa Convulsion]
Recently, I finished working with the Fox Network’s "Thirty Days" producers on an episode in which I lived with illegal aliens for thirty days.
Before I signed my contract, I read it thoroughly and noticed that it actually said that they could defame me and say, or release embarrassing information about me.
I took this to mean that they neither have to be truthful or ethical in the treatment of the person under contract....me.
As a person who has himself produced and edited videos, I know how much damage can be done. Anything taken out of context can appear to represent a point of view completely foreign to the person making the statement.
But I spoke with my wife about whether I should participate or not. And I decided that I should do so for the sake of my country—even though the production might mischaracterize me, defame me or twist facts.
It was, and is, my viewpoint that I would still be part of a documentary in which illegal aliens are shown for close to thirty days living in East Los Angeles, California, without any fear of being deported. The episode could well have been titled, Thirty Days Without Enforcement of Immigration Law. It is an inescapable fact that not only can illegal aliens exist in our country without immigration law being enforced, but that they can demonstrate against American citizens, assault them, belittle them, and now....they can be seen on American Television participating in a documentary.
All of this speaks volumes about our Federal, state and city governments, whose unwillingness to enforce immigration laws goes against the wishes of its legal citizens.
Two producers for the show came to my home to show my wife and myself the finished program. I was told that it still needed a little work but that the network executives liked it and that they had approved it.
I really liked it too—even the parts that made me look bad in a number of ways.
And then came the last five or so minutes.
In these last few minutes, the editing crew had a field day putting together a sequence that, to people as sensitive as myself and my wife over this issue of illegal immigration, appeared to twist things to make it appear that I had changed my mind—and am in fact in favor of the illegal immigrant family of seven staying here; and of allowing more in.
This travesty begins with the eighteen year-old illegal alien girl, Armida, saying “I think he's changing his mind". This is followed by another video clip where she asks me: “Are you still going to the borders?" I then answer "It would seem strange to do so now."
You are not allowed to hear the rest of what was said, because they edited it out.
Allow me to explain. I have been active both on our borders and also in our cities. I had not, however, knocked on politicians’ doors myself.
My experience living for Thirty Days in East Los Angeles, California did indeed cause a tremendous change in my perceptions of what I should be doing. I decided that I need to work on the politicians personally to persuade them to enforce immigration laws, or enact new ones that will make the four cities near where I live uninhabitable to illegal aliens.
This change was caused by living in a former USA city that is now a Mexican city —to the point where, as I wandered the streets, I asked the illegals if this city reminded them of a Mexican city and they said yes: Guadalajara, Mexico.
Another shocker was a video clip showing me walking down the street saying: “Why not be part of the process of bringing them here legally?"
What you don't get to hear was my qualification: "If this family of seven goes back to Mexico and applies for legal entry into the USA, I promise to sponsor them...why not be part of the process of bringing them here legally?"
I actually made that offer to them. But if they accepted, they would have had to leave. They refused my offer, since it meant that they would have had to get to the back of the legal immigration line and probably wait years before they could come here.
I told the producers that they had deliberately twisted the story. They said that I had actually said those things. I replied that they had taken them out of context from the 300 hours of video that they had shot.
After going back and forth for the longest time, they refused to make any changes. I asked them to allow me to add an audio file that would bring everything back in balance so that Americans might know that I had not changed my point of view.
I was told that I had no control over the contents.... as if I didn't know. But I told the producer, Jonathon, that an army of lawyers and the contract that I had signed would not keep me from addressing this issue.
Finally they said they would add in writing, at the end that I was still a Minuteman and that I was working to have our borders secured.
I cannot tell you how much I prayed to have God intervene in this affair. I feel it is important because our people deserve the truth—not for my sake, but rather for the morale of our American people.
Then I was invited to a press conference, held on July twelfth at 1 PM at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Pasadena California.
A limousine was sent to pick my wife and I at our modest home in Mojave, CA.
I sat on a panel with the illegal alien girl, three executives from Fox network and 30 Days’ host Morgan Spurlock, whom I met that very day.
When the questions started coming from the reporters, I told them of the deceit that had been put into play. How millions of Americans would be manipulated into believing something that wasn't true about one of their countrymen. How a fine production at the last moment took a twist so dreadful that its status as a documentary was compromised by its morphing into a movie, without respect for truth at a time when our people deserve the truth more than ever.
All reporters listened intently for the full hour of the conference. The producers showed extreme discomfort. Truth when spoken is powerful.
I was given a DVD with the "rough cut” of the episode, as were the reporters. When I was able to see this DVD, I found it was completely different from what I was shown earlier. This second rendition of the episode is in keeping with the truth. It is graceful and intellectually engaging. It is a masterpiece without peer.
So there are two renditions of the product: one truthful throughout; another, still great and a must see, but in the last few minutes it takes a Hollywood flight from reality.
Why then would the Thirty Days’ crew take a quality work and degrade it? Was it because ratings would be better? Why was the host, Morgan Spurlock refers to me on the show as an "anti-immigrant" Minuteman? If you look at the film you will see that even they know that I am an immigrant myself!
Well, this was the Thirty Days’ crew:
Producer: female, born USA, Colombian parents, speaks Spanish, visits Colombia. Age 40.
Assistant Producer: female, born USA, Colombian parents, age twenty six. Fluent in Spanish. Definite loyalty to illegals established.
Co-coordinator: female, age twenty seven, born in Peru, illegal alien who overstayed her visa. Definite loyalty to illegals established.
Cameraman: male, USA, believes in "one world, one people". Definite loyalty to illegals established.
Soundman: male, born USA, unknown loyalties.
Assistant Cameraman: Mexican illegal alien. Definite loyalty to illegals established.
During all the days that we filmed, I frequently felt as if I were the only person who believed as I do.
It is not an accident that the film took the turn that it did.
I never failed to mention my anti-illegal immigration point of view everyday. The crew was aware that upon completing the filming I would fly to Crawford, Texas to protest Bush for being soft on illegal aliens. They knew that I was the originator of the event and had paid for everything that we had purchased for it. They had been shown my website for the event.
How could they possibly even dare to think that I had changed my mind?
Not a chance!
Change induced by bonding and isolation is actually common in some of these reality shows. But the problem in my case is that the change that occurred was very subtle—and of a different kind than the crew expected. While I did most definitely bond strongly with the Gonzalez family, I realized that I must work on my local politicians to act on immigration—because time is short for my country.
Failing to get the type of conversion the expected and desired, the 30 Days’ crew fabricated one.
If they wanted to know how I felt after the thirty day period all they had to do was ask. They didn't even have to. I told them time and time again:
"Secure the borders with regular military troops, fine and imprison the employers of illegal aliens. Arrest illegal aliens in this country and put them to work building a wall on our border with Mexico. Start desert tent detainment centers like Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona has done. Deport all illegal aliens who do not self deport. Impeach Bush for being the traitor that he is and try him for treason!"
As always, immigration patriots are treated poorly by the mainstream media. Rather than run, we must stand and fight until they yield to the truth and stop the propagation of lies.
As for the illegal alien family, I can tell you that I grew to love them for their warmth and sincerity. It makes it that much more meaningful when you love some of these folks–and you still say, in their presence, "our laws must be enforced".
I did it. I hope many of you can do it too.
The word from those who have worked in Hollywood for years and whom I consulted with on this issue is that reality shows are not reality driven. Everybody in the industry knows it.
I participated in this documentary in order to fight for the truth on behalf of all patriotic citizens, past present and future, who love, and will love, this glorious nation.
And the 30 Days documentary will have an impact on the illegal immigration debate. To that extent, Fox and 30 Days are to be commended.
PS: This must-see documentary will air on July 26th, 10 pm and 11 pm on the Fox channel.
Frank Jorge (email him), an immigrant from Cuba, is a staff member with Latino Americans For Immigration Reform [LAIR]
Saturday, April 17, 2010
BYU Honor Code: A Forced Obligation
Although it is our choice to come to BYU, it is NOT our choice whether or not we wish to sign the honor code commitment. If we don’t sign the honor code agreement each year AND ascertain that 1) We will live by the standards embodied in the honor code, 2) We have been striving to live by them and 3) We will encourage others to live by them and report those who do not live by them, we will not be able to enroll at BYU. In my opinion, the honor code is not our choice. Encouraging students to report roommates or friends who are not abiding by the honor code is not in harmony with our gospel principles.
What about the Savior who teaches us not to “judge not, that ye be not judged”?
In Matthew 7:3-5 it reads:
“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
Why does this not apply to the honor code? Encouraging students to report others who are not complying with the honor code perpetuates self-righteousness in the church. A student takes it upon himself to tell his roommate’s girlfriend sitting in the living room at 12:01am that she is breaking the honor code and needs to leave. He goes on to say that she is causing him to break his commitment to the honor. Not only does he concern himself with his roommate’s choices, he admonishes them and places himself in a higher position and feels dignified in his action. He feels that he is doing the “right” thing. The action of condemning another’s behavior and judging our brothers is enhanced through the honor code.
I have felt protection from obedience and keeping my word. I am grateful for the values embodied by honor code and the wisdom of leaders who created it; however, it is not my job to tell another that their choices are wrong or that they need to follow certain rules. Nor do I believe that it should be required that all BYU students commit to it. The honor code should be our individual choice, not our forced obligation.
What about the Savior who teaches us not to “judge not, that ye be not judged”?
In Matthew 7:3-5 it reads:
“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
Why does this not apply to the honor code? Encouraging students to report others who are not complying with the honor code perpetuates self-righteousness in the church. A student takes it upon himself to tell his roommate’s girlfriend sitting in the living room at 12:01am that she is breaking the honor code and needs to leave. He goes on to say that she is causing him to break his commitment to the honor. Not only does he concern himself with his roommate’s choices, he admonishes them and places himself in a higher position and feels dignified in his action. He feels that he is doing the “right” thing. The action of condemning another’s behavior and judging our brothers is enhanced through the honor code.
I have felt protection from obedience and keeping my word. I am grateful for the values embodied by honor code and the wisdom of leaders who created it; however, it is not my job to tell another that their choices are wrong or that they need to follow certain rules. Nor do I believe that it should be required that all BYU students commit to it. The honor code should be our individual choice, not our forced obligation.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Obama orders hospital visiting rights for gays
I found this on USA Today and thought it was pretty interesting.
____________
As President Obama raised campaign money in Miami last night, his office blasted out an e-mail that heralded a major expansion of rights for gay Americans.
Obama ordered hospitals to grant visitation rights to same-sex couples, and honor the requests of gay patients who want their partners to help make major medical decisions.
The order also covers close friends and co-religionists.
"For all of these Americans, the failure to have their wishes respected concerning who may visit them or make medical decisions on their behalf has real consequences," Obama wrote in a memo to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
The Human Rights Campaign praised the order as a victory for all Americans. The Family Research Council denounced it as pandering to a special interest group.
Here are some excerpts from the president's memo:
There are few moments in our lives that call for greater compassion and companionship than when a loved one is admitted to the hospital. In these hours of need and moments of pain and anxiety, all of us would hope to have a hand to hold, a shoulder on which to lean -- a loved one to be there for us, as we would be there for them.
Yet every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides -- whether in a sudden medical emergency or a prolonged hospital stay. Often, a widow or widower with no children is denied the support and comfort of a good friend. Members of religious orders are sometimes unable to choose someone other than an immediate family member to visit them and make medical decisions on their behalf. Also uniquely affected are gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whomthey may have spent decades of their lives -- unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated.
For all of these Americans, the failure to have their wishes respected concerning who may visit them or make medical decisions on their behalf has real consequences. It means that doctors and nurses do not always have the best information about patients' medications and medical histories and that friends and certain family members are unable to serve as intermediaries to help communicate patients' needs. It means that a stressful and at times terrifying experience for patients is senselessly compounded by indignity and unfairness. And it means that all too often, people are made to suffer or even to pass away alone, denied the comfort of companionship in their final moments while a loved one is left worrying and pacing down the hall.
____________
As President Obama raised campaign money in Miami last night, his office blasted out an e-mail that heralded a major expansion of rights for gay Americans.
Obama ordered hospitals to grant visitation rights to same-sex couples, and honor the requests of gay patients who want their partners to help make major medical decisions.
The order also covers close friends and co-religionists.
"For all of these Americans, the failure to have their wishes respected concerning who may visit them or make medical decisions on their behalf has real consequences," Obama wrote in a memo to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
The Human Rights Campaign praised the order as a victory for all Americans. The Family Research Council denounced it as pandering to a special interest group.
Here are some excerpts from the president's memo:
There are few moments in our lives that call for greater compassion and companionship than when a loved one is admitted to the hospital. In these hours of need and moments of pain and anxiety, all of us would hope to have a hand to hold, a shoulder on which to lean -- a loved one to be there for us, as we would be there for them.
Yet every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides -- whether in a sudden medical emergency or a prolonged hospital stay. Often, a widow or widower with no children is denied the support and comfort of a good friend. Members of religious orders are sometimes unable to choose someone other than an immediate family member to visit them and make medical decisions on their behalf. Also uniquely affected are gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whomthey may have spent decades of their lives -- unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated.
For all of these Americans, the failure to have their wishes respected concerning who may visit them or make medical decisions on their behalf has real consequences. It means that doctors and nurses do not always have the best information about patients' medications and medical histories and that friends and certain family members are unable to serve as intermediaries to help communicate patients' needs. It means that a stressful and at times terrifying experience for patients is senselessly compounded by indignity and unfairness. And it means that all too often, people are made to suffer or even to pass away alone, denied the comfort of companionship in their final moments while a loved one is left worrying and pacing down the hall.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Discrimination at BYU
Denying equal treatment to people that belong to different social groups is consider as discrimination. Our societies are divided in social groups. Sometimes this social groups do not accept each other; which causes people to do inappropriate behavior. It is easy to notice discriminatory behavior when it is directed to us. However, it is really hard to detect discriminatory behavior that we commit or that our social groups commit. I think BYU commits Structural discrimination. I think BYU commits discrimination. This little essay will provide the reasoning of this idea.
There are three types of social discrimination: Individual discrimination, Institutional discrimination, and structural discrimination. Individual discrimination refers to an individual of a social group that treats differently or harmfully to another individual of another group. Moreover, Institutional discrimination can be defined as the rules created by the dominant group that might affect the subordinate group. Finally, structural discrimination is very similar to individual discrimination. The difference is that structural discrimination has impartial stand on race, gender, class and sexuality.
BYU as many different rules for students. Most of the rules belong to the honor code. Rules give an important balance in every type of society. Also, it is understood that without rules everything would be a chaos. However, some rules do not have a real purpose at BYU. For example, removing facial hair is a rule that is in the honor code. If students let their beard grow, it has been told that they cannot access some places at the University. Places like, the testing center, cannon center, etc. Two semester ago I asked my religion professor the reason of shaving. He said that being shaved is a way to look clean and nice. That is a very naïve perspective of what is clean and nice. It is true that in many places being shaved causes a nice impression. However, it is only a opinion among many, not everyone shares the same opinion. Obligating students to shave is going too far. I have seen people say that if I do not like the rules I should go. I value a lot more my education, that is why I shave and come to school. Nevertheless, I do not like the rule and I believe it is discriminatory against me and people who do not share the same values. With rules like this I feel the schools wants me to acquire the values and ideals that the school has. I believe that it is wrong because my values are not being respected.
Finally, I think the school should give the liberty to people to so whatever they want to do with their faces. Mostly if they are not Mormons like me. Respecting other people’s culture, values and ideas is very important to coexist. I do not like this rule because it does not have a real fundament. That is why BYU should allow students to decide whether they want a beard or not.
There are three types of social discrimination: Individual discrimination, Institutional discrimination, and structural discrimination. Individual discrimination refers to an individual of a social group that treats differently or harmfully to another individual of another group. Moreover, Institutional discrimination can be defined as the rules created by the dominant group that might affect the subordinate group. Finally, structural discrimination is very similar to individual discrimination. The difference is that structural discrimination has impartial stand on race, gender, class and sexuality.
BYU as many different rules for students. Most of the rules belong to the honor code. Rules give an important balance in every type of society. Also, it is understood that without rules everything would be a chaos. However, some rules do not have a real purpose at BYU. For example, removing facial hair is a rule that is in the honor code. If students let their beard grow, it has been told that they cannot access some places at the University. Places like, the testing center, cannon center, etc. Two semester ago I asked my religion professor the reason of shaving. He said that being shaved is a way to look clean and nice. That is a very naïve perspective of what is clean and nice. It is true that in many places being shaved causes a nice impression. However, it is only a opinion among many, not everyone shares the same opinion. Obligating students to shave is going too far. I have seen people say that if I do not like the rules I should go. I value a lot more my education, that is why I shave and come to school. Nevertheless, I do not like the rule and I believe it is discriminatory against me and people who do not share the same values. With rules like this I feel the schools wants me to acquire the values and ideals that the school has. I believe that it is wrong because my values are not being respected.
Finally, I think the school should give the liberty to people to so whatever they want to do with their faces. Mostly if they are not Mormons like me. Respecting other people’s culture, values and ideas is very important to coexist. I do not like this rule because it does not have a real fundament. That is why BYU should allow students to decide whether they want a beard or not.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Confusing race and ethnicity
Remarks of Richard Rodriguez
Journalist and Author
May 23, 1997
You are listening to the complexity of all of that. Do you understand? Mexico doesn't have a notion of multiculturalism. In Mexico, most Mexicans are some blend of races, usually a blend of the European and the Spaniard. But many of us also are African. We are totally all that - we are that before anything else.
Let me talk to you a little bit about the 15th Century. In 1492, we are told that Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas. What we are not usually told, of course, is that the Indians discovered Christopher Columbus and literally so. On that day in October of 1492 when the sight of Columbus appeared on the horizon, the Indians came out of the forest to look at Columbus. They didn't run into the forest. They came out to look. Columbus thought he was headed for a good curry meal and the Indians came out to look at this guy. A lot of time we portray the New World Indian as this victim of a European design, as someone whose whole history can be described purely as victimization. But we had a moment in human history where people who didn't beat each other, confront one another and they are both equally curious. You know, sometimes that happens when strangers meet. Sometimes strangers don't simply go to the opposite sides of the room. Sometimes strangers are attracted by the foreignness, by their difference. When I see you, I want to know who you are. That's my Indian side again. I'm not afraid of you. Never have been.
By the 18th Century in Mexico, the majority population was mixed race, which means that there were more mixed race people in Mexico than there were either pure Indians or pure Europeans. By the 18th Century in Mexico, the slave had long been freed. And the intermarriage between the Indian and the African in Mexico was so great, that it has never again been duplicated in the history of the Americas.
José Vasconcelos, the great educator/philosopher of Mexico in this century, talked about the Mexican as the cosmic race. The European, the Indian, the African, and by the 19th Century, there was also an Asian migration, mainly Chinese, to the Western side of Mexico.
I remember a few years ago, I was on an interview show with Bill Moyers who is sort of the conscience of public television when Julia Child is not being the conscience of public television. And he gets that sort of very worried Baptist look that he gets. I think he's a trained minister, and in the presence of real chaos he sort of gets that worried look. He pulled back in his chair in the middle of the discussion and he said, "Mr. Rodriguez, let's see if we can clarify this. What are you trying to tell those nice people in Sacramento?" He said, "Are you Hispanic or are you an American?" Interesting choice that, don't you think? And I said, "Mr. Moyers, I'm Chinese."
I believe that, incidentally. I believe that you people have souls, as I have a soul. I don't think that's a metaphor. And I believe that we change one another in contact with one another. I believe that if you get that chair too close to the chair next to you, you're going to end up looking like the person next to you. You're elbows - pull them in, because take a look at who is sitting next to you (laughter).
I remember being in England a few years ago. I was being interviewed on the BBC, and this woman said, "Mr. Rodriguez is in favor of assimilation."
And I thought to myself, I'm not in favor of assimilation any more than I'm in favor of the Pacific Ocean. I didn't decide, when I was child walking down the streets, that I was going to become an American. I didn't decide, "Well today I'm going to become 40 percent Mexican and 60 percent Gringo." It doesn't work that way. You end up walking like other people because that's what you end up doing. In a few minutes, you're all going to walk out of this room with the same American slouch. You don't think about that. You don't premeditate that, but in fact you start behaving like one another. You start sharing an impatience. You start sharing a kind of American genius.
Now the Anglo-Saxon genius of the United States has always treasured the importance of the individual. As one who has benefited a great deal from that Anglo-Saxon inheritance, I would like to say that I am very grateful to the British for having given the New World that idea of the first person, singular pronoun - the "I." I am. I feel. I think. I want. I know.
The Latin-American genius, on the other hand, is the first person plural pronoun, the "we." That is what I want to talk about today because it seems to me, when I look at California these days and the Hispanic future of California (which is both demographic and real), what we are talking about really, is a cultural influence that is quite new and quite shattering to the conventional notions of the eye.
I would like to suggest to you, as an Indian that has a Spanish surname, that this room constitutes a "we." That for all of your physical differences, for all of your age differences, for all of your cultural and religious differences, you have extraordinary things in common and that you are also responsible in various ways for making each other. That is, your story is part of her story. And it is the business of American libraries, it seems to me, to be attune to that fact. Blending. Mixture. Intermarriage. Have you ever looked inside of a burrito? Have you ever noticed how mixed up the burrito is? The thing we [Mexicans] shocked America with was the notion that, in fact, we were not pure. We have never been pure. Our genius is for contamination. We will contaminate you.
America keeps saying, "Well can't you stay on that side of the line? Can't you comprende that? That's your side of the line." I keep telling young Latinos, "You know, instead of worrying about how much you're assimilated or not assimilated, if you really want to scare the United States of America, all you would have to say to the United States of America is "I'm going to marry you. I'm going to start dating your son. You're going to start eating my food, Neighbor."
Richard Nixon invented me in 1973. Actually in 1972 he asked Cap Weinberger, who was then at the Office of Management and Budget, to determine the major racial and ethnic groups in this country. Richard Nixon sent all these bureaucrats off and they went to a hotel room, much like this presumably, and they sort of brooded over all your pictures and your phone books and they decided after one year, that there are in fact five major racial and ethnic groups in this country. Count them - five. The first - and this is no order of priority or preference - is the White, the second is Black, the third is Asian/Pacific Islander (you know those people in Honolulu), the fourth is American-Indian and the fifth is, ladies and gentlemen, coming up fifth but not last, is the Hispanic.
The interesting thing about Hispanics, of course, is that you can travel all over Latin America and never meet one. There are no Hispanics in Latin America. There are Bolivians, Chileans and Mexicans. You have to come to Miami or Sacramento to meet a Hispanic. There is a large controversy among us as to whether we are Latinos or Hispanics. Hispanics are nothing if not people preoccupied by fathers and ceremony, and we worry a great deal about which is the right word for us. The argument against Hispanic is that it gives too much of our identity to Spain.
I have never understood why "Latino" is any less a colonial word since it is, after all, a Spanish word. It refers to the bosom of the Mediterranean and to Rome ultimately, the Latin World. So I'd like to use the word Hispanic just because I'm not supposed to. My mother always says, "Behave yourself," but I always liked the word I'm not supposed to use. I think as an Aztec I would have used the Spanish just because I wanted their language. I've always wanted your language; never been afraid of it. And I like the idea too, that I would use an English word, Hispanic, to describe myself as a descendant of the Spanish Empire which is, in some way, the great triumph of Queen Elizabeth over the Spanish Armada. The last triumph. Her caked face cracking as she thinks about it. All of those ships going down into the Atlantic and 400 years later there would be this Mexican-American who would call himself, in the language of Queen Elizabeth, Hispanic.
I should tell you that the majority of Hispanics in the United States, the vast majority of us, like 65 percent, are from Mexico. The ones you will see on television, most of them are from Cuba because they're prettier. The second largest number of us are Puerto Ricans and, if you think about it, the fact that most of us are Puerto Rican and Mexican is interesting. Because I always have to make clear to American audiences that there is no Hispanic race in the world. There is no Hispanic race. Most Americans think that there are these brown people, somewhere on the floating Isle of Hispaniola who have little fingers and whose women put roses behind their ears. And the men are amorous but ineffectual lovers and that we all wear a size 7B shoes. But I assure you that there is no race called the Hispanic race in the world.
There is in Latin America, every sort of race that you can imagine. Every nationality is in Latin America. There are Lebanese-Mexicans, there are Chinese-Mexicans, there are Black Brazilians. One of my closest friends in Los Angeles is blonder than the sun. She considers herself a Mexican and she says, "Why is it whenever I say I'm Mexican, Americans never believe me?" Indeed, why? Well, because we think people who live South of the Border are these little brown people. But I assure you, the most revolutionary aspect to Hispanicity is not that we are the third largest race. We are not comparable to Whites and Blacks because we are an ethnic group, not a racial group. You understand?
So what is really interesting is not that the census bureau reported last week that by the year 2005, Hispanics will outnumber Blacks. That is an impossible statement, because many Hispanics are Black.
By the year 2050, the projection is one-quarter of all Americans will be Hispanic. The only sense that I can draw out of that fact is that by the year 2050, one-quarter of all Americans will identify themselves by culture rather than by race and that is interesting. You already have Black Dominicans, for example, who have marked themselves as Hispanic. And this seems to be just the beginning of new ways of imagining who we are in this room. That not simply a racial identity is at stake here but our cultural identity. How many Mormons are there in this room? How many gays are there in this room? How many widows are there in this room? How many Southerners are there in this room? There are new ways of organizing the information about who we are, that are cultural and not simply racial.
I would like to say that something is going on in this country right now that we have not seen before and it is part of what I consider the Hispanic future of the country. And that is that we are looking for new ways to describe who we are because the old vocabulary not longer fits.
I met a young girl in Oakland the other day who told me that her father is Mexican and her mother is African-American. I said, "What are you?" She did not have a word for it. You know what she told me? "I'm a Blaxican."
I raise these issues because it is your job, it seems to me, to introduce California to itself, and we don't have a vocabulary yet. You don't have a vocabulary yet to even talk about what California is. This place is not simply this little neighborhood over here and that freeway exit over there. Something else is going on here.
Karl Marx wrote in the 19th Century that in the history of the world, the discovery of gold in California, not far from here, would be a more important event than the discovery of the Americas by Columbus. When Columbus found the Indians off the West Indies, Europe met the Indian. But when gold was discovered in California in the late 1840s, the entire world met itself. It had never happened in human history before. Never.
Suddenly you had African alongside of Australian alongside of Malaysian alongside of Filipino, alongside of Peruvian alongside of Indian alongside of Chinese, and they were all looking for the same gold. Nothing would bring man to a part of the world faster than gold. They were all at each other's necks, but it was the beginning of California. You are the fulfillment of that moment. Your libraries represent this extraordinary moment in human history that has never happened before.
I was in Merced, California recently and in Merced, the two largest racial ethnic groups are the Mexicans and the Laotian Hmongs. And I was spending the day with these Laotian gang kids and they were really down on the Mexicans. But I kept thinking to myself, you know, in the history of the world, Laotians have never lived alongside of Mexicans. This is pretty amazing. Well the Laotians were going on about how they hated the Mexican kids, and that Mexican kids were always getting in their faces. They couldn't stand each other and so forth, and so on. And I thought to myself, "What's not computing here. There's something that's not making sense to me." And then I realized it. You know what it was? The Laotian kids were all speaking English with a Spanish accent.
We keep talking about how California is breaking apart. We cannot stand each other. It strikes me as at least important to notice that Los Angeles, the capital of this union in our state, has three times the national average of miscegenation, of inter-racial marriage. What do you make of that? You know the city in this state that has the highest number of inter-racial marriages? Guess? Stockton. Blue-collar, bulky, good old boy, country music, sweaty Stockton.
I heard that Bill Clinton is going to have this meeting in a few weeks of people who call racial relations in America and I know what it will be like. They will all tell us how terrible our race relations in America are. And in many ways they are terrible. But it'll be all the people from what I call the level of physics. Up here. Where they talk about society as this abstraction and then go on to another conference.
At the level of biology, something remarkable is going on in America. At the level of biology, you're eating more salsa than you are ketchup. Because they interest me so much, I've been following Jehovah's Witnesses, and I've been going to some of the meetings around the state. I want to tell you, this is considered working class Christianity. But in those congregations, there is a level of inter-racial participation that I see nowhere else in this state, the very bottom of the society. I say that also about certain forms of Evangelical Protestantism. It is amazing to me how racially mixed they are. At the bottom, there is this thing going on.
Here we are in 1997, and we do not know what to make of Tiger Woods. We don't know what name should we give him? African. Yes. Tiger Woods. Exactly. African. Asian. Indian. European. He's Californian. (from the audience, "He's a golfer.") And he's a golfer.
On page 8 of his autobiography, Colin Powell says, that he is African, but he is also, by birth British, Scottish, Irish. And then he says what every African-American friend of mine has always said. Somewhere in the middle of our friendship, they say, "By the way, did you know my grandmother was a Cherokee?" I don't have a single African-American friend who does not have a grandmother who is a Cherokee? And Colin Powell says to Barbara Walters, "I'm American-Indian." And she says, "That's nice dear, but what does it feel like to be the first Black candidate for president?"
I say this quite seriously because it's interesting me more and more, but the Indian-African marriage in the United States is a story that has been rarely told in the American history books. It is one of the most astonishing stories and it is truly the contra-story for all of our separation. These two races were getting together with shared suffering. I don't know what brought them together. But it is an extraordinary story.
There's a moment in the de Tocqueville journey across America when he, the Great European on his horse, comes upon these two women walking together. This is in a Southern state in the 19th Century. He sees these two women walking together. One of them is Indian and the other is African. And at the moment in which the women see him, they have opposite reactions. The Indian, when she sees the European, runs into the forest. The African waits for him to approach. And de Tocqueville says, "Well here is the fatal mistake of both races, regarding the European. The Indian is too haughty; she does not want to have a relationship with the European. The African is too docile; she cannot imagine herself except by reference to the European."
But nowhere does de Tocqueville wonder about what the Indian and the African were talking about. Or why they were easy in each other's company.
You know, one of the things we need to do or understand as librarians is that some cultures are not simply separate entities, but they overlap. That by the year 2007, the world population of Mormons is going to become the majority population. And the majority population is going to be Spanish-speaking (that was predicted, by the way, by Mormon prophesy).
One of the things that we should understand is that people are not simply separate from one another but that her history is also his history and vice-versa. And that whenever we try to celebrate a history - this week is Hispanic History Month - we must also show other races, other peoples, other nations as participating within that history. It seems to me that that's a California insight. That is not a New York insight. That's a California insight. To understand the way lives are interconnected and the way, in fact, my life is part of your life.
On March 17th, which is St. Patrick's Day, have you ever heard anyone say that this is a great day for Mexico? I'm going to say that. This is a great day for Mexico. When the Irish started coming to this country in the 1840s, the argument against allowing Irish immigration into the United States was Mexico. Not too many people know that, but then not too many people know very many versions of history. Whose fault is that, I wonder, librarians? Whose fault is that, I wonder, publishers? Whose fault is that, I wonder, teachers? Whose fault is that, I wonder, ministers?
In the 1840s, the argument against allowing the Irish into this country was Mexico. The native's argument went, if you let the Irish into this country, they would unite with their fellow Catholics, the Mexicans, and overturn the Protestant State. I've always thought that was a pretty good argument. But in fact it's an extraordinary story. In fact there was real worry because a large number of Irish immigrant boys ended up in the Mexican-American War fighting on the American side. General Scott, in fact, would go to Mass with these boys - he was a Protestant - just to ensure that they understood that he was with them. A large number of Irish recruits changed sides. You will never hear their story in the American history books. They became known in Mexico as San Patricios, the St. Patrick's Brigade, and they fight for Mexico against the United States of America. There were a number of them who were apprehended by U.S. troops and hung on the Zocolo of Mexico City. It is on the Zocolo of Mexico City on March 17th, every year to this day, that the Mexican President salutes the Irish Ambassador.
And we think to ourselves, well this is the Irish Week now, and we can't talk about anybody else, because this is Ireland's week. I keep saying to myself, "You know, there is no one in California who is innocent of anyone else's story." I am Filipino. I am Chinese. I live in an Asian City. I live in San Francisco. In the same way that Sacramento changed me and turned me into a Valley Boy 40 years ago, San Francisco is making me Asian. That's not a conceit. That is a human fact.
Art Sadenbaum, when he was still alive at the LA Times, was a good friend of mine. I love smokers by the way. I don't like smoking; I don't smoke myself, but I love smokers just because they're so abused in our society.
I was at this college in Colorado over the weekend and I was talking to these undergraduates and it was amazing. There is nothing you can do to offend their moral sensibility. You can get an abortion or not have an abortion. You can take drugs or not take drugs. You can do almost anything in society but one thing and that's, "Don't smoke in my room."
Anyway, I remember that at the LA Times, there is a tiny balcony where all these smokers have to go to smoke and so you meet the most interesting people there. Everyone else has clear lungs inside but the people outside have really interesting ideas. And I remember I was with Art on that balcony overlooking Civic LA one afternoon. This was ten years ago maybe. And he had seen the numbers. He had seen the statistics that said that California was about to become a Hispanic State, that LA is a Hispanic City and so forth.
He sucked in on his cigarette and he said, "What do you make of that? You know, are we all going to speaking Spanish in ten years?" It has taken me about ten years to figure it out, or at least to have an answer. What my answer would be, would be my nephew.
My nephew who has a Scottish surname who I recently was watching rehearse Hamlet. He's a teenager. He's caught in Hamlet some extraordinary adolescent quality. You know we always get these middle-aged Lawrence Olivier's to play Hamlet and we forget just how juvenile Hamlet is. How wonderful it is to hear Hamlet's voice changing because suddenly he's in the middle of an adult world and he doesn't know what to do about it.
So there he was up on the stage in tights; this kid who is the result of a conspiracy of the Dutch, the Scottish and Mexico - all of whom have created this boy who looks Italian, who's a pretty good actor, who is pretending that he's a Danish prince in English.
And I think to myself, "That's what it means to be Hispanic. That's what it means to live in the Hispanic State of California." Something like that is going on in human history and it's even more miraculous. It's not even and not only that we are sharing our identities with one another, which is the easiest way of talking about this. The more interesting thing is that we are becoming one another.
Shirley MacLaine is under the impression that she is a 14th Century Peruvian Indian. At the moment it is the Peruvian Indians that are becoming Protestants. So you have all these granddaughters of the pioneers who killed off the Indians communicating with dead Indians while the Indians are working at the Holiday Inn making you your lunch. It's really quite extraordinary. It's almost as though you know there are only a certain number of possibilities in human history and once one group gets that, then the other group has to become them.
About three years ago I was on the border between the United States and San Diego... I mean the United States and Tijuana. And I met these three guys from Victory Outreach, which is an evangelical church that works with kids with serious drug problems and gang problems along the border, on both sides of the border. You know Victory Outreach? It's a terrific group!. These boys were coming up to the United States of America, like 503 years after Columbus, to convert the United States of America back to Protestantism.
And I thought to myself, "That's kind of interesting, the Indians are coming this way to convert us back to Protestantism." This year, in 1997, Victory Outreach is sending missionaries to Europe. I didn't see that noted anywhere in the history books. I see that Columbus made it over onto this side, on his Holiday Cruise with dispatch, but I don't see that we are noting that the Indians are going to Europe this year to France, to Paris, to London, to Frankfurt, to Amsterdam, to convert Europe back to Protestantism. Isn't that interesting?
There's one word which I saw on your brochures which I just want to protest and that's the word "information." I speak to a lot of library groups these days. I'm one of the last remaining writers, people who make their living as writers. I live in the age of Bill Gates and I know we're all supposed to sort of bow down at the Great Alter of Information but I don't. I find information interesting and I find it useful but I just want to remind you that the libraries that I used as a child, the libraries that I still use, do not simply give me information. I want to tell you quite plainly that all the things that information is not. Information is not an idea. Information is not a feeling. Information is not an insight. It is true that you need information many times to have a good idea, but information itself does not provide a good idea. Information is not wisdom and there ain't much wisdom around these days.
Our president and various other politicians are wiring up our classrooms so that all these kids are on the 'Net. We have e-mail now to communicate with each other instantly. You know, actually can you Fed Ex it to me because I need it tomorrow. Well actually, UPS has an 8:00 a.m. service, if you can send it to me. You know, actually I needed it yesterday. What do you need yesterday? What are we communicating over e-mail that is so valuable? Have you noticed? No one is saying anything, but we're saying it quickly. (laughter).
What you gave me, librarians, was a library that was so confusing. It was not separated by ethnicities and race. You gave me a library that gave me James Baldwin when I was about nine years old. I remember reading, Nobody Knows My Name. I remember reading about growing up in Harlem and I thought to myself, "This life is so different from mine. But why is it that my gut feels so tight with it. Why do I feel connected to this man?"
And I remember reading My Antonia by Willa Cather and thinking to myself, "Hell, I've never even seen snow and I'm standing there on a train station on a snowy night and these immigrants from a place called Bohemia. What is this? Who is she? And why do I care so much about her? Why is her life mine?" That is what you gave me. You didn't give me information. You gave me the deepest intuitions of a life and that is that we are connected to each other at some deeply human level.
There will always be ways in which I am one, single, I. And I deeply am grateful to this country, especially its Anglo-Saxon judicial system, for honoring my I-ness, for honoring all the ways in which I am separate from you. Separate even from the people who love me. Separate even from my family. Those incredible subtle ways in which a child is always separated from its parents. That mystery when you look into your child's eyes and realize that separation.
I have come to speak of the other knowledge, the Hispanic knowledge. And that is that we are constantly making each other, creating each other. We are constantly eating each other's food, hearing each other's music. There is no one in this room who does not speak Black English. There is no one in this room who is not Filipino. There is no one in this room, Compadres, who is not Hispanic. Thank you very much.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Racist Announcment at Walmart Store
Whether we realize it or not, our country still has issues with race. We try to avoid people's negative comments about minority groups, but we need to recognize there's a problem and not avoid the issue. This story shows that racist views still exist. We need to teach children while they're young that different races exist, but that we are all equal, and we should never treat a person with disrespect because of the color of their skin.
Bruce Shipkowski, Associated Press Writer, On Thursday March 18, 2010, 1:07 am EDT
WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, N.J. (AP) -- A Walmart store announcement ordering black people to leave brought chagrin and apologies Wednesday from leaders of the company, which has built a fragile trust among minority communities.
A male voice came over the public-address system Sunday evening at a store in Washington Township, in southern New Jersey, and calmly announced: "Attention, Walmart customers: All black people, leave the store now."
Shoppers in the store at the time said a manager quickly got on the public-address system and apologized for the remark. And while it was unclear whether a rogue patron or an employee was responsible for the comment, many customers expressed their anger to store management.
"I want to know why such statements are being made, because it flies in the face of what we teach our children about tolerance for all," said Sheila Ellington, who was in the store at the time with a friend. "If this was meant to be a prank, there's only one person laughing, and it's not either one of us."
Ellington, of Monroe, and her friend Patricia Covington said they plan to boycott the retailer until they're assured the issue has been addressed so it doesn't happen again.
The pair said they were stunned when they heard the announcement and initially believed they had misheard it. But once the words sank in, they grew angry.
"I depended on Walmart for all my needs, because the store has pretty much everything you could want," Covington said. "But until this issue is addressed in a way I'm comfortable with, I can't walk through those doors again."
Officials with Wal-Mart Stores Inc., based in Bentonville, Ark., said that the announcement was "unacceptable" and that they're trying to determine who made it and how it happened.
"We are just as appalled by this incident as our customers," the company said in a statement. "Whoever did this is just wrong and acted in an inappropriate manner. Clearly, this is completely unacceptable to us and to our customers."
This is not the first time the retailer has faced such problems.
There have been several past instances of black customers claiming they were treated unfairly at Walmart stores, and the company faced lawsuits alleging that women were passed over in favor of men for pay raises and promotions.
In February 2009, the retailer paid $17.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging racial discrimination in its hiring of truck drivers.
And the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the company in May 2009, claiming some Hispanic employees at a Sam's Club subsidiary in California were subjected to a hostile work environment. That suit alleges managers failed to stop repeated verbal harassment, including the use of derogatory words, against employees of Mexican descent.
However, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has said the company has worked hard in recent years to show it cares about diversity.
Bill Mitchell, a former Walmart employee who was shopping Wednesday at the store, said that he was saddened to hear about the announcement but that "as a black man, I've heard worse things."
As customer Sharon Osbourne, of Williamstown, left the store Wednesday, she called the announcement "appalling, stupid and sad."
Monday, April 5, 2010
Black LDS Mormons
I wanted to let everyone know of a website that I found called Black LDS Mormons.
Visit it here: http://www.blacklds.org/
And I quote from their homepage:
This site celebrates the contributions of Blacks to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and to their communities. Latter-day Saints are also known as Mormons due to their belief in the Book of Mormon in addition to the Bible.
We hope to correct racial myths and misunderstandings that linger from critics of Mormonism as well as from Latter-day Saints themselves. We strive to build the Gospel vision that we are all children of God, of great and equal worth in His sight.
Blacks have been Latter-day Saints since the church’s beginnings in the 1830’s. Some held the priesthood and served missions in the early church. Click on History to see a timeline on how Latter-day Saint events and views toward Blacks unfolded along with religious and secular racial history in America. Read the stories of Black pioneers.
Click on Priesthood to learn how limitations on Black Latter-day Saints were lifted in 1978 and how Latter-day Saints have worked to improve respect and understanding.
Haitians Illegally in U.S. Given Protected Status
The Obama administration extended a special immigration status on Friday to Haitians living illegally in the United States that protects them from deportation for 18 months and allows them to work here.Calling the aftermath of the earthquake “a disaster of historic proportions,” the secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano, said she was granting the designation, known as temporary protected status, for Haitian immigrants because their safety would be at risk if they were deported.
Administration officials said the special status would cover at least 100,000 Haitians believed to be living in the United States illegally, as well as about 30,000 Haitians who had been ordered deported. Haitians who receive the temporary status will be able to obtain documents allowing them to live here and work legally.
The administration’s decision followed a rising chorus of calls for the temporary status after the earthquake on Tuesday. On Friday, 80 representatives and 18 senators, including Democrats and Republicans, sent appeals to the administration to grant the status, as did the conference of Roman Catholic bishops.
Ms. Napolitano said the protection would extend only to Haitians who were already in the United States as of Tuesday. Until now, officials had hesitated to grant the temporary status for fear it would encourage a new exodus of desperate Haitians by boat toward South Florida.
“Attempting to leave Haiti now will only bring more hardship to the Haitian people and nation,” Ms. Napolitano said Friday. She said Haitians who tried to travel illegally to the United States after this week would be sent back to Haiti.
The administration’s move drew praise from members of Congress. “To send Haitians back to that country right now would be nothing short of inhumane,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on immigration.
Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Republican of Florida, lauded the administration, saying he had requested the status for Haitians in a telephone conversation on Friday with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. State Department officials took part in the decision by providing their assessment of the scope of the disaster.
Refugee advocates were elated. Cheryl Little, executive director of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center in Miami, said she and other advocates had contended that allowing Haitians who lacked legal status to work in this country could help prevent a new wave of boat people because the immigrants would send money back to needy relatives in Haiti, giving them resources to rebuild.
On Wednesday Ms. Napolitano suspended deportations of Haitians.
She can grant temporary protected status to immigrants in the United States from countries that have suffered a catastrophic war or “an environmental disaster” that would make it dangerous to deport their citizens back home. Although the status is granted originally for a short period, in practice it has been renewed for years for citizens of some countries. Immigrants from Honduras and Nicaragua have enjoyed the status since 1999, after Hurricane Mitch battered their countries. El Salvador was added to the list in 2001. Somalia and Sudan were added more recently.
The Haitian government and refugee advocates have been asking for protected status since 2008, when four major hurricanes killed about 800 people. The Bush administration decided not to grant the request. The Obama administration continued to deport Haitians last year, but officials said that those cases mainly involved people who had committed crimes in the United States.
Some groups that have opposed protected status for Haitians changed their views after seeing the destruction in Haiti. Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, called Thursday for the protection for Haitians. But he said officials should also cancel the status for immigrants from El Salvador and some other countries.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/world/americas/16immig.html
I thought this was interesting and relevant to the issues we have been talking about in class. It seems funny to me that we are allowing only some illegal immigrants special benefits and not others. If we are doing this for Haitans, why not offer this to Mexicans.
I understand that there has been some major disasters however, I believe that policies like this encourage racism to still live in America. I believe we should treat everyone equally, whether they are illegal immigrants or not.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Mexican Helicopter Crosses into U.S. Airspace
What appeared to be a Mexican military helicopter was spotted hovering over U.S. territory Sunday afternoon, said Zapata County Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez.
The incident — at least the second reported this month — occurred Sunday afternoon over RV parks on the southwest outskirts of Zapata, a small town about 100 miles northwest of McAllen near the Rio Grande, the sheriff said.
Several people at the parks reported seeing the helicopter, which flew about 150 to 200 feet above the ground before returning south of the border.
“It looks to be military,” Gonzalez said of the helicopter. “But at the same time, I don’t know if it’s being used to transport narcotics or people into the country.”
U.S. Border Patrol agents responded to the area after receiving reports of the helicopter sighting Sunday afternoon, said Jason Darling, a Laredo-based spokesman for the agency.
Agents did not see helicopters flying over the area upon arrival — so they cannot confirm whether the helicopter actually crossed into U.S. territory, Darling said.
“We did not witness a helicopter flying into the United States,” he said. “Not to discount anything else (but) just for Border Patrol’s part, solely, we received the report and responded to the area.”
U.S. State Department officials referred questions to the Department of Defense, which said via e-mail that officials were “looking into it” and would respond today.
A similar incident occurred March 10, when a Mexican navy helicopter was spotted crossing the border near Falcon Dam in Zapata County and then returned to Mexico without landing. U.S. Customs and Border Protection confirmed an agent spotted the helicopter that day.
That incident prompted Gov. Rick Perry’s office to issue a statement about the “helicopter incursion into our airspace,” demanding that federal authorities boost funding for border security — one of several such written requests for border security enhancements that his office has released in recent weeks.
Mexican Defense Ministry officials in Mexico City could not confirm the helicopter’s crossing via telephone Tuesday afternoon and requested questions to be submitted via e-mail. No response was received by Tuesday night.
Mexican army and navy troops are stationed in border cities as they continue to battle suspected drug cartel members, who are vying to preserve narcotics smuggling routes through the country and into the United States.
“The Mexican military is conducting military operations,” said Darling, the Border Patrol spokesman. “Part of those operations encompass the area near Zapata along the Rio Grande. Some include helicopters.”
Sheriff Gonzalez said his deputies are ready to respond if the U.S. considers the Mexican helicopter crossings a violation of international boundaries. But the sheriff said he has received no response from federal authorities.
“We could knock it down, but I don’t want to tell them to go ahead and do it,” he said. “If it’s something the United States government is aware of, let us know they’re working an operation with Mexican government. Then it’s no big deal.”
With our town meeting on Friday about the border situation, i thought this was an interesting article. I think we have things like this going on all the time and I don't think those in the helicopter intended any harm. I personally don't believe it is that big of a deal and I don't think that the helicopter should be shot down, but I wanted to get others' opinions on the situation and how we should handle it.
The incident — at least the second reported this month — occurred Sunday afternoon over RV parks on the southwest outskirts of Zapata, a small town about 100 miles northwest of McAllen near the Rio Grande, the sheriff said.
Several people at the parks reported seeing the helicopter, which flew about 150 to 200 feet above the ground before returning south of the border.
“It looks to be military,” Gonzalez said of the helicopter. “But at the same time, I don’t know if it’s being used to transport narcotics or people into the country.”
U.S. Border Patrol agents responded to the area after receiving reports of the helicopter sighting Sunday afternoon, said Jason Darling, a Laredo-based spokesman for the agency.
Agents did not see helicopters flying over the area upon arrival — so they cannot confirm whether the helicopter actually crossed into U.S. territory, Darling said.
“We did not witness a helicopter flying into the United States,” he said. “Not to discount anything else (but) just for Border Patrol’s part, solely, we received the report and responded to the area.”
U.S. State Department officials referred questions to the Department of Defense, which said via e-mail that officials were “looking into it” and would respond today.
A similar incident occurred March 10, when a Mexican navy helicopter was spotted crossing the border near Falcon Dam in Zapata County and then returned to Mexico without landing. U.S. Customs and Border Protection confirmed an agent spotted the helicopter that day.
That incident prompted Gov. Rick Perry’s office to issue a statement about the “helicopter incursion into our airspace,” demanding that federal authorities boost funding for border security — one of several such written requests for border security enhancements that his office has released in recent weeks.
Mexican Defense Ministry officials in Mexico City could not confirm the helicopter’s crossing via telephone Tuesday afternoon and requested questions to be submitted via e-mail. No response was received by Tuesday night.
Mexican army and navy troops are stationed in border cities as they continue to battle suspected drug cartel members, who are vying to preserve narcotics smuggling routes through the country and into the United States.
“The Mexican military is conducting military operations,” said Darling, the Border Patrol spokesman. “Part of those operations encompass the area near Zapata along the Rio Grande. Some include helicopters.”
Sheriff Gonzalez said his deputies are ready to respond if the U.S. considers the Mexican helicopter crossings a violation of international boundaries. But the sheriff said he has received no response from federal authorities.
“We could knock it down, but I don’t want to tell them to go ahead and do it,” he said. “If it’s something the United States government is aware of, let us know they’re working an operation with Mexican government. Then it’s no big deal.”
With our town meeting on Friday about the border situation, i thought this was an interesting article. I think we have things like this going on all the time and I don't think those in the helicopter intended any harm. I personally don't believe it is that big of a deal and I don't think that the helicopter should be shot down, but I wanted to get others' opinions on the situation and how we should handle it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
