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.

Illegal Mormon Immigrants

This is just a quick comment on what we were talking about yesterday in class, regarding the church giving temple recommends, etc. to undocumented immigrants. Once upon a time, Brigham Young led thousands of refugees fleeing the United States and crossing illegally into Mexico in search of religious freedom, as well as economic prosperity. Today there are many who come for those same reasons from all around the world. We of all people should understand them and embrace them as brothers and sisters, regardless of their circumstances or citizenship.

LDS Temples and Undocumented Immigrants

After class yesterday I went home and googled this topic. This article I have posted below seems to suggest that undocumented immigrants can serve church missions because technically the federal law does not prohibit undocumented immigrants from doing volunteer work. I agree with this, however I think the ways in which we send these undocumented missionaries out is a little shady, considering we make them take buses and avoid airports for obvious reasons. While I feel like everyone who is worthy to and desires to serve a mission should have the opportunity, I think that there needs to be a better way to handle this.

In regards to temples, the article says many times church leaders do not ask their citizenship status, thus implementing a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The church believes that everyone who obeys the laws of the gospel should be able to reap the blessings. It also brought up the 12th article of faith and the fact that many people here illegally are not obeying the laws of the land. I think the church takes a spirit of the law perspective of this, because many of these undocumented immigrants believe God told them to come here in order to provide a better life for themselves.

The second article says that the church takes no stand on immigration and thinks that they should not be an enforcement agency.

I personally have no solutions to the problem. I think its a very sticky situation, and the church could be in very big trouble if the government ever got involved.

http://www.sltrib.com/lds/ci_12787617

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695253342,00.html?pg=2

I was quite disappointed in the one sided comments and questions we heard in the debate on Friday. Since then, I have had time to realize many of you must not be truly informed of the issues surrounding slavery and reparations. I just wanted to post some ideas and enlighten those of you who might not truly understand the depth and seriousness of the tragic consequences of slavery. The affects of slavery did not end in 1865, nor did African Americans become void of suffering, pain, and torment caused by fellow AMERICANS or the U.S. STATE and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Slavery caused a chain of negative effects that strongly affect African Americans today. If we wanted to grant reparations simply based on the individual and joint suffering African American’s experienced, it would be completely justified. However, the simple reasons for reparations being granted should also be connected to the benefits we all experience on a day to day basis because of slavery. The labor slaves offered from the 1620’s until 1865 helped build the EMPIRE we know today. To not recognize these effort through reparations (memorials, scholarship funds, education grants, generational pay-outs etc.) would be a tragedy. In the debate, one student said, “it would be unfair to make individuals pay who had no connection to slavery. This ideology suggests that it is unfair to do the right thing. Was it unfair to millions of slave men, women, and children? Yes. Now it is unfair to do the right thing? These individuals have no hesitation to accept the benefits of slavery. We, as Americans, have no problem collectively accepting the day to day luxuries of a capitalistic society that was built on the backs of millions of Slaves. But, it is just too hard (sarcasm) to accept and properly do something about the negative effects of slavery that African Americans experience each day. “One horrific evidence of the federal government complacency towards and collaboration in dehumanizing and the disfranchisement of African Americans, is that while an estimated 3,386 people were lynched from 1882 to 1930, the vast majority of which were African America men (On average that is the equivalent of 1 person every 5 days for 48 years), an anti-lynching act could not be passed in congress. Do not confuse lynching to be an isolated act of violence. Lynching’s were generally social events. For example, in Ohio on June 18, 1897 a black man was lynched in front of a crowd of estimated 9,000 people. Lynching’s were not social responses to an individual, but individual examples to the entire black community regarding the power of whites over blacks. Furthermore, there are no records of any person associated with a lynching of being convicted from 1880 – 1905, which implicates local, state and federal governments as sanctioning lynching. Recently, another example is congress refusal to vote on a resolution to apologize for the United States role in enslaving people of African descent (where 50-60% of the approximately 20,000,000 people taken from Africa, died just in crossing, Middle Passage). Given the legal precedence set by the reparation paid to Jews and aid given to Israel; the reparations given to Japanese Americans; and the Marshall plan, when one looks at the facts (I suggest The Debt by Randall Robinson, Reparations by Arnold Schuchter and The Case for Black Reparations by Boris Bittker) the rightness of African American reparations cannot be questioned. For those who suggest that providing African American Reparation will not be easy, I say true. However, “difficulty” ought not ever be the criterion for determining if something is right or not. There is much debate still needed to determine how much, in what form and how will reparations be distributed. Nevertheless, there cannot be any question of should reparations be paid to African Americans. Any clear thinking informed person must answer, YES!