Trouble in the AZ

There are two major problems with the freshly-blocked immigration law in Arizona: 1) Its bigoted and unconstitutional nature, and 2) Its biggest proponent, Governor Jan Brewer.

First Brewer. In my eyes, she is a southwestern version of George Wallace. Perhaps she hasn't gone so far as to openly advocate a segregationist platform, but she has shown that she has a prejudice against human beings of Hispanic ethnicity, conveniently masked as a legitimate response to a major problem in illegal immigration. Ok, maybe that's taking it too far. But seriously, she has gone to great lengths just to defend this bill. And how convenient for her...right about the time she needs to get re-elected, she decides to put her Lucretia Mott on an enormously significant piece of legislation that will sate the public demand for something to be done about illegal immigrants. She has some major political motivation behind this bill (which actually went into effect last week), and may ride the coattails of the whole affair straight back to the governor's mansion. But doesn't that define a good governor? Sticking up for what your constituents want? For what is best for the state? Sometimes. When it means protecting your state from harmful pork spending, or excessive taxes. And illegal immigration could certainly be considered a threat to the state, in some areas! But a governor who takes such a strong stance on such a demeaning bill is acting as a mouthpiece for the perceived "public will" on a sensitive social issue...which is never a good idea. Let's look at history for a few examples. Does anyone suppose that if a referendum went out in 1890 suggesting Native Americans shouldn't be stripped of their ancestral grounds and forced into reservations that it would have passed? Probably not! What about 1954 in the case of Brown et al v. Topeka Board of Education? Do we think that the post-war society would have voted for integration? Absolutely not! We still see these issues today - Same-sex marriages (which, constitutionally, are just as legitimate as heterosexual marriages), or intervention in humanitarian crises abroad (Rwanda, Balkans, currently Darfur). As Voltaire once said, "The masses are asses," and the "public will" may not always be the best source look for ideas for major legislation.

The real problem though lies with the bill itself. Let's walk through it - A man of Hispanic heritage gets pulled over on a freeway in Arizona. An Arizona police officer, presumably a normal, un-prejudiced American, pulls him over for speeding. So far, so good. BUT - if the bill would have passed, that officer would have been obligated to inquire into the legal immigration status of the speeder. If the driver could not produce documents proving his legal immigration status on the spot and the officer had "reasonable suspicion" that the driver was in the United States illegally, the officer would be obligated to take the speeder into custody and hold him in detention indefinitely, until his immigration status was determined to be legal. If it was concluded that the man was there illegally, the proposed law gave the Arizona police the power to turn him over to Immigration for deportation.

I'm not against justice as a principle. I'm not against making those that have broken the law pay for their offense. However, I am against punitive legislation that promotes a diverse display of unconstitutional maladies. To begin with, the law expressly prohibits racial profiling, but almost forces officers to do just that! Let's be honest - what kind of "reasonable suspicion" might an officer have other than the guy has dark skin, is listening to a certain genre of music, or speaks a certain language/with a certain accent? By my definition one or any combination of those certainly constitutes racial profiling. But that part aside, the law would have given Arizona police forces the power to hold suspected illegal immigrants - that is, those that are presumably innocent because they haven't been found guilty, persons not officially arrested, much less charged with anything - indefinitely until their legal status is determined. This effectively strips that person of any remnant of due process of law that is given to them by the Constitution, or if you argue that illegal immigrants aren't entitled to constitutional rights, the due process of law that is a basic human right according to the Declaration of Human Rights as ratified by the United Nations.

There are a TON of arguments that would point to the fact that this law is such a contradiction to the Constitution that it never should have been passed. Most of the arguments I've heard in favor of the bill are that the Feds aren't doing their job and the states are sick of it. Still, the Feds don't do a lot of things well (remember the budget, energy, Afghanistan, etc crises?) and the states aren't taking action on those issues. This, to me, points to an underlying current of xenophobia that borders on racism in our country today. It's not a new problem, by any means, but just the most recent face. And that's something that we need to get over if we're going to be able to function as a State.

Watered-Down Human Rights

The United Nations General Assembly is going to vote soon on whether or not to make clean drinking water a human right. If passed, 'clean drinking water' would join the ranks of previous legislation declaring "life, liberty, and security of person", the ability to appear as a person before the law, torture, and the freedom from arbitrary arrest (among others) as passed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It seems pretty obvious to me that water should be a basic human right. People need it to survive! The nature of human rights is always the topic of a debate, and before you know it you're debating cultural relativism and who deserves what, but I think we could all agree that if humans need three things to stay alive, their life, their liberty, and enough water to perpetuate their lives is necessary. Education, shelter, even freedom from being imprisoned before knowing why - those are things that no human should have to live without. Water - that is something that no human can live without.

Oddly enough, the United States, Canada, and Australia are opposed to this motion. Of course, cost is involved. Imagine the cost of the purification systems and the infrastructures that would be necessary to bring everyone clean water! How expensive would that be?

But wait - cost comes before having clean water? I think that in any nation composed of living, breathing, drinking, rational human beings, everyone would be willing to contribute a few extra bucks to make sure some grade school-aged kids have water that isn't contaminated with human waste. Cost shouldn't be an issue - if there is one good reason to raise taxes, it isn't to bail out enormous banks, it's not even to buy million dollar helicopters, but it is to make sure everyone has clean water to drink.

There was a story on the radio last night about a family in Southeast Asia who needs to buy all of their drinking water because the other supply they draw from is in fact contaminated with human defecation. "No," the mother said, "We only bathe ourselves and wash our clothes with that water. It's not safe to drink." Pardon me and my bleeding heart, but no company should control a family's right to have access to clean drinking water. Even if the legislation does go through the UN, that family will still have to wash their bodies and clothes in contaminated water! Why add insult to injury by making them spend what little income comes in on clean drinking water?

This, to me, is the equivalent of having some people pay personal bodyguards to ensure their prolongment of life everyday, or some huge company that sells clean air - there might be safety someplace else, or there might be clean air across the ocean, but for now, you're going to have to pay to preserve your life or breathe this air that hasn't been polluted beyond safe use. It just doesn't seem right!

So let's hope that clean water does end up on the list of human rights. Let's hope that countries, our own United States included, will reconsider not wanting to spend a few million dollars installing drinking fountains and faucets in places that need them. Let's hope that the United Nations can muster the votes to pass the motion, and the resources to enforce it, to make sure than everyone is officially entitled to something as basic as staying healthy and alive.

Natural Disasters and Man-Made Governments (And Vice Versa!)

Amidst the roars of the TEA Party and demands for smaller government, it seems that when a natural or man-made disaster hits, states go running for the Feds. If the government is really too big, perhaps the states should handle own problems rather than blaming the government for taking too long (Bobby Jindal). If the government is really too big, states should take some autonomy for themselves and prove their point - that the states can do things on their own.

I understand the argument for states' rights. I've studied it for years and subscribe to a bit of it myself. But states should stay away from biting the hand that feeds them. They are a part of a successful, functioning union of over 50 entities, they are able to create their own laws and collect their own taxes, they even have their own elections. The only rule they have to follow is in Article VI, Clause 2 - and that says don't mess around with contradicting the Federal government. Simple enough, it seems. But, this points to a discussion of the natural functions of sovereign governments - what are they there for? To govern, obviously, but maybe more. The TEA Party likes to complain about it, it seems that the other side likes to make it bigger, but is there a middle ground? I don't think either side has it quite right.

There have been lots of theories thrown around about why governments exist. James Madison is quoting in saying, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary," and Thomas Paine with, "That government is best which governs least." This points to a small government that leaves a lot of control and power with the people (or states) and is one which the TEA Party would probably advocate first. However, there are others such as Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli that advocate a Leviathan or Prince that rules with an iron fist. This would suggest a strong, almost tyrannical government (if it subscribes to the Machiavellian theory that it is better to be feared than loved) that neither side would promote. Even still, history suggests some kind of mix is necessary - The Articles of Confederation bombed because there was not enough power, yet the American and French revolutions (among several others) were fought on Enlightenment ideals opposing excessive government power.

The Federalist system that the United States implemented with the Constitution creates a perfect theoretical mix of liberty and states' rights with order and federal power. The states have their autonomy and can do pretty much whatever they want except make their own money and treaties (and there are ways around the "no treaties" thing), but the Federal government and the laws it makes/enforces are still the "Supreme law of the Land." It's the perfect compromise. But nothing is perfect, much less remains perfect. So now some are complaining that the Feds are usurping power from the states (we've heard that for 200 years), and it's looking more like a Unitary style of government, as opposed to Federal. That is obviously not the case. Still, some states are passing laws that are clear violations of the 14th amendment by implicitly promoting racial profiling, others are passing laws that exempt their citizens from a national healthcare system - if you ask me, that's one step short of firing on Lincoln's supply ships headed to Fort Sumter. No one can agree on the proper proportions of Federal/State power. And now that the Federal government is exercising more power themselves (see previous post), the States, as represented by the TEA Party, are reacting swift and strong.

I have no complaints about protesting. I have no complaints about protesting an increasingly larger and more obtrusive government. But I do have complaints about inconsistencies. The oil spill this summer, Katrina in 2005 - these are two examples of how states will not survive without people, money, and management from the Federal government. And those who protest the government's interference in states' affairs as a blanket issue should think twice about how much they really want the states to be in control.

The Politicization of Politics

I don't know if it is just because I am too young to have paid much attention to the goings on of Congress before, or if this is a new trend, but it seems to me that, at least in my memory, Congress is suffering from a deep rift along party lines. It seems to me that politics in Washington are becoming more and more politicized. Of course, the reason we have two parties is to express two different points of view and represent a much broader scope of opinions than would one party. Also, our two party system exists to avoid the fifty-odd or however many parties functionally exist in Italy. But still, a two party system seems like it is set up to face off and now it seems like it has - and badly. We should have listened to George Washington when he told us, "You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these [political divisions]; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection." I'd say!

I'm not going to claim that there have never been parties so split against each other or that the two parties have never disagreed with each other more. That would not be true. But right now the Democrats and Republicans seem to be stuck in a childlike and frankly obnoxious habit of erecting barriers around their own beliefs and refusing to budge from their ideological buttresses. I have my own ideas on how we got here, too.

One would be foolish to not label President Obama as charismatic. Or a mesmerizing orator. Or just kind of a cool, basketball-playing, late night talkshow-appearing, not quite (yet?) saxaphone-playing, rockstar President. All politics put aside, I think we can give him that. However, it would also be foolish to say that Mr. Obama's personality did not play a major role in the 2008 election. I'm not saying that the ridiculously high percentage of voter turnout was composed of swooning Obama-philes, but it definitely played a role. In addition was the dump of an economy, quagmire of a military conflict, and the general unpopularity of the preceding two-termed administration. Obama did - and still does - remind the American public of how poorly things were when he took office, painting the circumstances in a similarly frightening fashion as your typical Salvador Dali painting. Needless to say, that is pretty radical. And so were then-Senator Obama's remedies.

The election of 1932 pitted Republican incumbent Herbert Hoover against Democrat Franklin Roosevelt, but it was really much more than just an election. It was a competition between two different philosophies of the nature of a federal government. Of course, FDR won that election (and the next one, and the next one, and still the next one) and instituted his New Deal, which was a 180 degree turnaround from the Dual style of Federalism that had governed Federal/State relations since 1787. Here, the government spent what it didn't have to jumpstart the economy. I'm not saying the McCain/Obama faceoff was as dramatic as the Hoover/Roosevelt, but the concept is similar. Of course, Obama was elected and within the first 2-3 months Congress wrote and Obama signed a lengthy stimulus bill into law. This was a continuation of Bush Jr's bailout plan - on steroids. Billions of dollars going towards federal projects and efforts to improve the economy, as well as keeping businesses' heads above water. And similar to what happened in 1934 during the New Deal, people didn't like it. This very liberal action prompted a very conservative reaction which now includes the TEA Party movement. I think the main reason Obama was able to push his bill through Congress so quickly was because a) He told people it would work and they were convinced, and b) The economy was truly in a pretty bad state. But still - the American populace was very trusting of our new President and the plans he had campaigned on in 2008. Now that a politician was actually carrying through on his promises, people supported him and Obama enjoyed a comfortable honeymoon period. We see more of this, of Obama reacting to poor circumstances by passing legislation - The Healthcare bill this past winter, and the sweeping Financial Overhaul bill this week. Not to mention the period in which General Motors became Government Motors and the other corporations kept afloat by enormous bailouts. And this was all possible with the popular mandate Obama received giving him the green light to go ahead with these very liberal economic measures. This would not have been possible without a reason to pass these bills (the poor economy) and the popular mandate to do so (largely influenced by Obama's charismatic persona).

Now that Congress and the President have been able to pass these left wing pieces of legislation, however, the right wing has acted out - big time. Like I mentioned, the whole TEA Party movement is largely a function of the stimulus package and other such spending programs, and the party lines have been distinctively drawn. Also - since when does it take a near super-majority to pass a bill in the Senate? I'm afraid my future government students won't believe me when I say it takes a simple majority of a quorum to pass a bill, because all of the recent votes have required 60 (Democratic) voters. The filibuster is a tribute to the Senate's devotion to the tradition of free speech, and is a powerful threat against a bill. However, when it is abused as it has been by the Republican Senators, it tends to devalue the tool and put up an annoying barrier in front of government efficiency and getting bills through the whole process. Also, the cloture vote, which takes a proposal by 16 Senators and a vote of 60, was also a rare occurrence, another tribute to the devotion to free speech. But now, since Republican Senators have adopted the filibuster as a favorite in their right-wing backlash to left-wing policies, Democrats are forced to counter with abusing the cloture. Now all votes in the Senate have been defined by party, and who has enough votes to filibuster or block it.

To add to the equation, the economy is still a dump. We still have our military in what many people see as a losing battle. And Obama is still trying to push through huge pieces of legislation (financial overhaul) and still has super-ambitious ideas, e.g. end childhood hunger by 2012. Only now, he has lost a lot of that popular mandate he had earlier in his term. His approval ratings are low, the economy is still horrible, and we're seeing more of the same spending legislation that we saw last year. Some are getting fed up with this, but others are still stringent supporters. Since the two sides are so polarized, they have to fight to make their case, which results in stiff and loyal opposition to whatever the other side has to say or proposes in Congress. It's my theory that a lot of the programs (stimulus package, healthcare, etc) got pushed through because Obama was able to use his becoming personality to convince voters and his party that it was the right thing to do. Now things still aren't going so great, so people are not as gung-ho about the President as they once were, the Democrats in Congress are just as gung-ho about their legislation, and the opposition has countered with a ferocious negative response.

So much for a twenty-minute time limit. I've spent breaks and lunches for three days trying to straighten out my thoughts and still haven't done that great of a job. But let me try to summarize in one concept:
For every political action, there will be an equal and opposite political reaction. Now we have conservatives and liberals gnashing teeth at each other because neither side is willing to listen to the other (the Republicans really thought it was a good idea to protest extending unemployment benefits? I understand the point they made about "Where is this money coming from?!" - but do not make a political statement at the cost of the unemployed in a huge recession), much less provide bi-partisan support for a bill. Some may say that the Democrats started it all with leftist economic measures. Some may say Republicans started it with a fast retreat to the far right. Either way, I'm looking forward to the day when we can meet somewhere in the middle, and bills aren't decided by a stagnant numbers of seats.

बुरका बुरका बुरका

Today the lower house of the French government approved a ban on all face-covering items of clothing in public. Not only has this forced the shamed French national soccer team to take the brown bags off of their heads, but was poignantly passed to prevent an incredibly small number of Muslim women from wearing their burkas. To clear up some definitions, a "burka" is a Muslim garment worn by women that covers their entire body, from their hair and face down to their ankles. "Incredibly small number" refers to the total of around 2000 French Muslim women who actually wear the burka. What the law essentially says is that if you are caught wearing this burka in public, you will be escorted home by the police and fined 150 Euros. If you are a man caught forcing a woman to wear the burka (as the case may be in more fundamentalist households), the financial penalty is slightly more severe. So although the wording of this law is generic, it is very clear that it targets Muslim women and men. In defense of the law, I have heard arguments made that this act is a gesture of the French government towards the empowerment of women and destruction of forced submission to male domination as mandated in some Islamic interpretations. Another reason is for the public safety - these garments are rather loose and since the wearer's identity is unknown due to the covering of the face, a male could theoretically adorn a burka loaded with explosives. In addition to that, the argument has been made that those who wear burkas are more likely to subscribe to a fundamental belief in Islam, which would also lead to a literal interpretation of the Qur'an, and more violent means of communication. As logical as that may unfold, it is still a bit of a stretch given the history of men wearing burkas to mask explosives. Which to my knowledge, does not exist.

We would never-ever-in-a-million-years see this passed in the United States, of course, because of our beloved First Amendment right to the freedom of religion. Considering the fact that the burka is a part of these French citizen's bona fide religion, the American government does not have the power to prevent them from practicing it. And what a blessing that is! That means that public school teachers can wear cross necklaces, DMV employees can wear yarmulkes, and the President can end his oath with, "So help me God," and we do not have to worry about the government telling us that we cannot. But this isn't the United States - it's France.

France has an interesting history with religion. Prior to the French Revolution in 1789, the French royalty enjoyed a perverted marriage with the Catholic Church. They were more or less synonymous, with the King taking orders from Rome and Church officials enjoying privileged benefits only the royalty could offer. Of course, since the distribution of wealth was so slanted against the Third Estate, there was a common disdain towards the Bourbon family, and the corrupt Catholic Church. When the French revolutionaries executed the King and Queen and dismissed the unpopular monarchy, they also tried to cleanse their country of the crooked Church. This legacy still appears in France today, as we see the concept of laïcité, or freedom FROM religion. The French revolutionaries pushed so hard for absolute equality (they seemed to ignore the inevitable occurrence of a hierarchy inherent to democracy) and absolute consent among the people. Any dissent was punished with the guillotine, and is known as the Reign of Terror. This included religion. Not only was any political dissent discouraged, because it was breaking away from the perfect form of anti-monarchy government, but so was expression of religious sentiment.

As a result of this history and efforts to recognize absolute equality among the French, we see common religious symbols being outlawed in France, so as to not even show religion, much less promote it. Since the American revolution was about channeling debate, not punishing it, we have a different kind of freedom, and are able to show our religion, so much as the Federal or State governments don't prohibit or promote it.

पोलिटिक्स इन थे वर्ल्ड कप

While watching and discussing the World Cup recently, I have found it fascinating how intertwined politics and sports can be. People praise soccer, FIFA, and the World Cup for uniting the world with a common love in sport, and bringing athletes and fans of every race, ethnicity, and nationality together - even more, in South Africa, a nation still recovering from the wounds of Apartheid and years of racial injustice. It is really an idealistic picture of a happy world community.

Still - is it not fascinating how much politics play a role in the World Cup and international soccer? On one level, team politics are huge. E.g. - France. One manager (apparently not popular in France, and as we have seen, not popular with the team) may or may not be blamed for France's embarrassing retreat from the tournament, and the entire team - especially the influential team captain - is arguably the laughingstock of European sports.

One level higher, FIFA politics have also made headlines during the 2010 World Cup. It is no secret that the officiating was less than perfect during the tournament; there were plenty of calls being made or missed that could have changed the face of the knockout round. But on top of that, FIFA has stubbornly refused to even entertain the idea of instant replay technology. Regardless of how one feels about the use of cameras in soccer (or baseball, or basketball, or even football), given the state of officiating in the world's most prestigious tournament, the idea is at least worth some time for discussion.

Even higher, national politics have played a role in the tournament! As a self-proclaimed political scientist, I find this fascinating. There are two examples that stick out to illustrate my point. First, the Nigerian president banned the country's team from international play for TWO YEARS as punishment for performing so poorly on the world stage. To dissect that a little, we have what boils down to a national recreational team being punished by the head of government in front of the world. Crazy! Since when does a soccer team represent anything official about a country? Could a weak soccer team represent a weak government? I understand that the team represents the country in front of the world, but let's put this in the bigger picture: every four years a selected number of teams compete in an international spotlight. It's a huge deal for roughly one month (one twelfth of a year, and one forty-eighth of the span between World Cups), then it's not really a huge deal anymore. Is a two year ban really necessary? Is it really that big of a deal? And even more shocking about the Nigerian situation is that FIFA, for all intents and purposes, vetoed President Goodluck Jonathan's decree to ban his team. So first the political leader puts the kibosh on international soccer, then the soccer organization puts the kibosh on the political leader...Who is in control?
The second example is France. French President Nicolas Sarkozy spent his time as head of state to scold the star forward Nicolas Anelka for not apologizing for critical remarks towards his coach. And the French Sports Minister (whose very position I find remarkable) was sent down to South Africa before one of France's final matches to shame the players into a victory, telling them that their behavior has embarrassed the French people and state, and something along the lines of - their kids won't think of them as heroes anymore. That seems a little drastic to me, no matter how truthful the statement may or may not have been. Needless to say, even forcibly tucking the team's tail between its legs didn't get a berth into the tournament. Like the Boston police may soon find out, shaming people into things doesn't often work.

All negative connotations with "politics" aside, there was one facet of this phenomenon that I thought was particularly interesting. That is the paradox between a global unifying factor in soccer, the clear divisions between fans and country lines, and the overall camaraderie among soccer fans. We've all heard how great the World Cup is because it brings the world together, but it also breaks the world apart, redefining country lines in an athletic sphere. What I mean by this is that national pride skyrockets during the World Cup. It is almost a rendition of the "Rally Around the Flag" phenomenon that occurs around national disasters, but through a more positive light. I've heard stories of people waving American flags after our victories, ESPN was broadcasting scenes of enormous crowds of people crammed into tiny spaces to watch the game with their compatriots on a big screen, and even stories of grand celebrations in the Basque-lands of Spain after their championship victory on Sunday! Since when are the Basques so proud to be Spanish?

Still, despite this heightened sense of national pride, there is certainly an amiable undercurrent of "world citizenship" at the World Cup - a fascinating way to interpret the politics of the World Cup and to give homage to the significance of the sport around the world.

Introduction

I decided to join the influx of friends who have started blogs, and for a couple of reasons. First of all - I do not foresee these posts as being personal little sentimental portals for friends to see what I'm up to, but rather an insight into, as Andy Allen so magnificently phrased it, my own mind-thoughts. At work, I get to listen to NPR online all day if I want to. And this is great, because I get the scoop on a lot of the major news headlines, and really enjoy listening to the discussions which are more often than not fascinating. I've even gotten to write in to a couple and have my contributions read on-air. This leads me to the second reason - NPR doesn't read enough of my emails to sate my desire to share what I think. Hence, a blog.

The stupid title is derived from the time in which I get to write in the blog; after I finish a couple of sandwiches and am otherwise twiddling my thumbs during my twenty minute lunchbreak. I figure the remaining ten minutes will give me time to say what I would like to say in a reasonable amount of words, which will help me summarize my thoughts (that has proven to be difficult in the past, e.g. any time I tried to explain something to the ultimate team at Calvin) and make the posts a reasonable length for easier reading.

I like to think that I have interesting things to say about stuff that comes up in the news or in my mind. Ask Nora for a second opinion. But as I eat my own lunch food, I hope this will offer at least some brain food. Cheesy, I know. But with a label like Brown Blog Lunch, anything goes.