Archive for April 2010
The face of Arizona’s harsh immigration law isn’t just brown
Would you suspect this person under the new law in Arizona, where police can ask people to prove they are American citizens?
If police had “reasonable suspicion” against this person, should they be able to ask this person to prove he is an American citizen?
This is not a hypothetical person; this person is real, lives and works in the Phoenix area. And this person was not born or raised in the United States. This person may or may not be a U.S. citizen, might just have a work visa or some other legal document. But there is every right to suspect that this person isn’t a U.S. citizen or might be here under illegal circumstances.
The reality is that even in a traffic stop or other such excursion, this man won’t be asked for his papers.
For non-sports fans, you might not recognize Steve Nash, star NBA player with the Phoenix Suns. Nash was born in South Africa and grew up in Canada. You might have seen him during the 2010 Winter Olympics as one of the final torchbearers, or on the TV ad promoting life in British Columbia.
If anything, the police are more likely to ask for Nash’s autograph than his citizenship papers.
The new law in Arizona isn’t designed to stop Canadians, or other athletes from various countries who play for the Diamondbacks, Cardinals, Suns, or Coyotes — or any of the minor leaguers, Arizona fall league players, or Cactus League participants.
What good is the new law if it won’t be applied equally under the law? If the people who want this law passed really feel this is needed, then they should be up in arms over the grave potential that this new law won’t be processed equally, and won’t be equally enforced.
Of course, they aren’t upset by the inactions of the new law they so passionately want for Arizona and other states. Because they know that the law will be used on people of certain backgrounds, legal or otherwise.
Yes, that’s right. The law will be used to upset the lives of legal U.S. citizens of certain backgrounds. And whatever you might think of the new law, this is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. You know, the Constitution of the United States that guarantees certain rights for its citizens.
Those who fought and successfully passed a law making it a state crime to be in the United States illegally are willing to sacrifice the rights of U.S. citizens to make sure there are only U.S. citizens here.
Those who know the least make the biggest decisions: what a sense of democracy.
The “good news” in all of this is that people who hadn’t given much thought to immigration issues are now upset. The protesters in front of Wrigley Field in Chicago before an afternoon contest between the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Chicago Cubs are proof that concern goes well beyond the borders of Arizona.
And this new law could affect the Senate race for John McCain’s seat in the Republican primary and the general election.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t immigration issues in Arizona and other states. And yes, immigration reform should be addressed. But the alleged impatience of Arizona’s Republican power base is a false reason to pass bad legislation.
Conservatives claim that liberals don’t respect the police over the way they fight crime. But conservatives passed a law that disrespects the police because the police don’t just fight crime. They protect people.
If you are attacked or robbed or otherwise need the police in this country, you want to feel like you can trust the police. In Arizona, thanks to this new law, you can’t trust the police anymore if you fall under certain backgrounds. Remember, liberals didn’t do this; conservatives did.
If people don’t feel comfortable reporting crimes to the police because they fear the police will focus more on their skin color than the crime involved, those of us who aren’t of those races will still suffer. How often do you hear in crime stories — “If only they had been caught earlier, my [relative] would still be [ok/alive].”
Laws that hamper the ability for the police to do their sworn duty should be discouraged, especially by conservatives. But those who are blind don’t know that they can’t see. If only they were color-blind too, then we wouldn’t have had this legislation.
Photo credits: Steve Nash courtesy of this site; protest pictures taken by me with all proper copyrights applying.
If you don’t want FDA to control salt, how do you want to solve the problem?
Understandably, people are freaking out over the prospects of the Food and Drug Administration controlling the amount of salt in processed food and restaurant meals. It’s the classic “I don’t want the government to interfere in my right to eat as much salt as I want.”
Well, there are a few problems with this scenario. The FDA is only considering the idea. And they aren’t likely to go nearly as far as many will fear. And no one will ever stop you for consuming as much salt as humanly possible.
Politically, the right thinks the FDA shouldn’t be going after salt. The left wants the FDA to go after high-fructose corn syrup before salt. Whatever you think the government’s role should be in this manner, we already have the problem.
If you don’t want the government to solve the issue, then ask yourself what should we do.
“Government control” becomes the boogeyman. And they mean “federal government control.” If states wanted to regulate salt consumption, theoretically that would be OK but they would likely come up with a reason why that would be bad as well.
So the argument comes up with “let the free market decide.” Clearly, in terms of salt in these foods, the free market concept is prevalent.
But those people who fought so hard against health care reform are pretty much the same ones saying “No government control over salt.”
From a health standpoint, some of us can’t afford to wait until they sort out their contradictions.
We eat about 1½ teaspoons of salt per day, more than double what we need. We’re not getting that from the salt shaker at home; we buy the products in the store and eat out in restaurants.
We eat Double Down sandwiches, not knowing/realizing/caring about the sodium level.
High blood pressure is rampant, and leads to much more expensive medical issues.
Putting pressure on food companies is a good place to start, but even as an assembled group, we don’t have the power that, say, government does to make a difference. And if you say “avoid all processed food and restaurant meals,” ask yourself how realistic this is.
Denying the problem exists sounds charming, but the problem doesn’t actually disappear.
Even liberals might freak out over government controls on salt. But at least they acknowledge that there is a problem and they are offering a solution. Conservatives, can you rise up to the challenge?
We get upset when there is lead in the drinking water or asbestos in our walls. We believe in some basic concept that the government should work to make us safe. We can disagree over what that role should be, but all people should be working toward a solution.
Health care costs rise because people ingest too much of something that they shouldn’t. We can’t stop someone who wants to ingest as much salt as they can, but we should make it more difficult. Right now, it’s too easy.
(For more, check out my expanded take on my food/nutrition blog, BalanceofFood.com.).
If you embrace faux lesbians, you must accept real lesbians and gays
I’ve been enjoying the MLB Extra Innings/NHL Center Ice free preview. Sure there are plenty of free baseball games as its season begins and lots of hockey action as playoff slots are determined.
But the extra fun is watching out-of-town and in some cases, out-of-country commercials. Two of them had an interestingly similar theme, especially given the audience of the ads.
Commercial #1 is from Jack in the Box featuring its new grilled sandwiches. Two women describe why their sandwich is the best. Jack turns to the camera and says this is the worst commercial he has ever been in. One woman says, “We could kiss.”
Commercial #2 is from Yellow Pages Canada. A woman sits in a restaurant eyeing a guy across the way. The woman’s imagination runs away from her and we soon see her in a wedding dress as the guy takes off. A waitress comes into view and the announcer says that she could be “Plan B.”
We have in these two commercials the hint of lesbianism. At least, there is the hint of faux lesbianism.
We also got a hint of faux lesbianism during the RNC lesbian bondage scandal. One of the themes of the place is to have faux lesbians on display sharing affection.
So we’ve established that women sharing affection is considered OK as long as they don’t really love each other. The Canadian commercial involves a wedding, but then again, lesbian can legally get married in Canada.
And since Republicans officially endorse faux lesbianism, why does the real thing scare them and others?
Why are real people who love each other who happen to be the same gender so scary and faux situations be OK?
We hear how gay marriage is a horrible idea, in much the same way as we heard that interracial marriage was a horrible idea. But fake gay people sharing affection is cool.
As a straight male, I am not here to deny any man the thrill of watching women pretending to be lesbians. It would violate the straight man rules, and I won’t hear of any violation.
But what should be part of the guy code is that if you embrace fake lesbians, you should accept real lesbians. And real gay people. And let them live their lives in freedom, peace, and harmony.
If you blasted the young woman in Mississippi for wanting to take her girlfriend to the prom, if you voted for or supported drives to thwart gay marriage, if you have ever said the word “f*gg*t” to scare or intimidate someone, you should lose the right to enjoy faux lesbians.
If you truly believe that two people of the same gender shouldn’t love or communicate affectionately, then you should be consistent and look away when two women are pretending to like each other that way. You can’t imagine your wife or girlfriend and a friend of hers locked in an embrace. You can’t have fantasies about two women rolling around in their underwear, remnant of this classic Miller Lite ad.
A few years back at a Chicago White Sox game, the Kiss Cam was going around the park. If you aren’t familiar with the concept, the camera shows couples throughout the ballpark and stays on them until they kiss. They try to pick married or committed couples, but sometimes they pick brother-sister combos or friends, but not the kissing kind.
In this game, they centered on a group of women who happened to be sitting right in front of us. Two of the young women were on the screen, and motivated by the exposure and the crowd egging them on, they kissed right in front of us and for the camera.
My friends and I cheered when they did it. The crowd loved it. And by no coincidence, the White Sox came from behind after the kiss to win the game.
We talked with the young women, asking them if they went that way. They said no; they did because they felt like it. Good for them.
The crowd may have loved it because they knew it was fake. But that isn’t fair to them, regardless of their sexual orientation.
The hypocritical contradiction of embracing lesbians is at the core of our disturbing stance on “don’t ask, don’t tell” and gay marriage. Plenty of those against change don’t mind if two straight women kiss, as long as they don’t mean it.
You’re welcome to see real lesbians kiss and pretend that they don’t mean it. You’re welcome to have freedom of thought. Just keep your prejudice inside your head. And let consenting adults live in the freedom you preach of so high and mighty.
Christiane Amanpour’s Sunday morning ascent shows foreign experience is valuable
Congratulations to Christiane Amanpour, who will be the newest host of “This Week,” ABC’s Sunday morning political wrapup show. Amanpour replaces George Stephanopoulos, who is off to do cooking segments on “Good Morning America.”
With the exception of Tom Shales, Amanpour’s move to Sunday mornings on ABC is seen as a good thing, whether the category is gender, foreign policy emphasis, and new accents.
In society, we have generally accepted that a variety of inputs into the workforce makes for a better workplace situation. While we are all human beings, our perspectives are different.
We had this struggle after the death of Tim Russert, longtime host of “Meet the Press.” In the first opening on a network Sunday morning talk show since 2002, there was extensive debate over where we should go. I personally threw out the names of Keith Olbermann and Gwen Ifill as needing serious consideration.
But NBC went with the traditional white bread route of naming Tom Brokaw as the interim host and selecting David Gregory for the permanent nod. Even Shales might argue that NBC might have made a decent short-term decision, but not so much of a long-term strategy. Gregory’s shallowness is more visible in that traditional Sunday morning time slot.
This makes Amanpour’s selection all the more poignant. Since there is so little room for serious discussion elsewhere in the TV schedule, the hope for Sunday morning is that the discussion can be for adults instead of a click-through, “microwave isn’t moving fast enough” TV news mentality.
Having a host who has served overseas as an international reporter, someone who grew up not in this country with a true outside perspective — what a nice idea.
In the Dan Rather-Tom Brokaw TV anchorman era, the one who always seemed left out of the equation was Peter Jennings. Rather and Brokaw had been on our TVs more than Jennings before getting the anchor chair. And Jennings started out as a three-headed monster, anchoring in London while Frank Reynolds handled duties in Washington and Max Robinson in Chicago.
But Jennings, who was Canadian, and had served as a Middle East correspondent, had a more dramatic perspective of the world around him than his counterparts. Brokaw had been the White House correspondent before hosting “Today” and Rather was a top reporter for “60 Minutes.”
This doesn’t mean that every show should have a foreign accent — but it’s good for viewers to feel like they have a choice. Once August arrives, you have a show anchored by a longtime political reporter and former anchor (Bob Schieffer, Face the Nation, CBS), a pretty boy vacuous reporter (David Gregory, Meet the Press, NBC), and a seasoned foreign-based reporter (Christiane Amanpour, This Week, ABC).
That news plate has a lot more variety. Good for us, good for news viewers, good for journalism.