#042 - Where to Land on Arizona?

The speculation and public outcry regarding Arizona's questionable new bill has reached critical mass. Just about every news outlet is covering it about 6 hours a day, and celebrities, athletes, tweeters, politicians, foreigners, Democrats, Republicans, and nobodies have been chiming in with their two cents about the recent decision. Frankly, I'm not sure how to feel. I'm also quite worried that not being sure immediately paints me as insensitive and race-biased. It seems like the overwhelming answer (especially for someone of my loose political ideals) is that this new law is wrong, wrong, wrong, and fringes on alienating people's civil liberties. It seems like what I should be doing is slamming this bill for all its worth.

But the more I think about it, the more I really don't think there IS a right answer. At least not right now. I watched an interview the other day with a local Arizona sheriff and a California state politician, and besides the fact that neither of them really addressed what the other person was saying, it seemed like only the sheriff had the clear cut intention of trying to tackle the problem. The politician said things like, "This is wrong, it's unconstitutional, and what we need to do is sit down and talk about a better way to approach the problem." I'm not saying he's wrong, but that response is one that I've really grown tired of over the years. When one side doesn't like the the solution the other side has come up with, instead of coming up with a solution of their own, their response is usually, "Let's sit down and really talk about this." Do you think the Arizona state senate didn't TALK about it? Do you think they didn't spend hours and days and weeks contemplating different proposals, trying to figure out how to deal with the problem? Of course they would love it if they could have ten thousand armed guards standing along the border protecting the country. It's just not possible. And everyone has admitted this, they've said point blank, the only reason they had to find themselves in this unenviable position is because the federal government hasn't provided them with any of the solutions they sought. While a lot of people don't appreciate what they've decided to do, and would prefer to get this going in some real serious Congressional debate, think of it this way--schools in bad neighborhoods constantly have issues with students bringing weapons to school. They need a solution, they need a long-term solution to this problem. But how long could that take? Months? Years? Right now, the first thing they can do is set up metal detectors and search the students on the way in. Sure, not every student is carrying a weapon. In fact, a huge percentage of them are not. But would you rather them let the students continue to do what they're doing until that long-term solution is established? No. Hell no. What you do is put those metal detectors up and get cracking right away on that long-term solution. You certainly don't want the short-term solution to be the long-term one. It's ugly, it slows things down, it stops people from doing other things that they should be doing, and it hinders the freedom of the 95% of people who aren't the cause of the problems. But right now? Imagine the following scenario:

1) Guard stops Student A and checks his bag. Finds nothing. Student A annoyed. Guard stops Student B and checks his bag, finds knife. Student B is detained.

2) Student A and Student B go into school undeterred. In the bathroom, Student B pulls knife on Student A.

It's not too hard to make the connection from that to:

1) Officer stops Worker A and asks for identification. Worker A produces state ID. Guard stops Worker B and asks for identification. Worker B can't produce legal documentation. Worker B is detained.

2) Worker A and Worker B both attend work undeterred. Worker B works for uncompetitive wages and Worker A loses out as a result.

Obviously, in both these scenarios, option 1 is not the ideal long-term solution. There needs to be a change in culture. Businesses (especially farms and blue-collar industries that are hiring illegal immigrants) need to be punished for practices that appeal to illegal workers. But those laws are already on the books. It just takes a lot of time and a lot of effort to figure out a way to prevent employers from undercutting their legal workers with illegal ones.

The part that's hard to address is the issue of profiling. As much as you can say that the officers won't employ profiling techniques (which is a new amendment they've added to the bill), the reality is it's going to happen. White guy in suit and tie sitting on a bench waiting for a bus. Probably not going to ID him. Hispanic guy in jeans and workboots sitting on a bench waiting for a bus. Hmmm... I know that that's unfair, and for legal Hispanic residents who have worked their asses off to come to this country and stay here, it's going to be a pain in the ass. They're going to be subjected to the same constant scrutiny that Middle Eastern descendants are subjected to at airports. What I'm sincerely hoping is that it's not nearly as intrusive, or assumptive. I think what the state has announced to its residents is that it wants everyone to be able to provide documentation of their legal status, to be ready to do that. They should absolutely not let this new law be interpreted as freedom to search and seize whatever they please. That's the WRONG approach. The more reasonable one? "Hey, there are a bunch of guys waiting on a corner to go out to the fields and work, maybe I'll just stop and ask them for ID."

Sadly, I know I'm being naive and idealistic when I think that maybe things will go in this nice, clean-cut way. I realize you're going to get all kinds of police intimidation across the board, and many times they will probably use their position to leverage things out of civilians (even legal citizens) in an underhanded manner. You kind of have to accept that in any circumstance where police officers are given an extra bump in power. And most likely it's going to end up hurting the Hispanic residents of the state, even the ones who have been there just as long if not longer than most white people. And there are ways, I think, to make it a little more even across the board, and to limit the direct influence of profiling on the state citizens. If they're serious about making this identification law stick, they could apply it to certain events that people might commonly do--for instance, at certain transactions, you must provide proof of legal residency. Driver's license, state ID, passport, whatever. At every point of sale for liquor or tobacco, maybe. Why not? You're already supposed to to prove your age, why not start doing it for everyone? States are making huge tax profits on the sale of liquor and tobacco, if they want to prove they're serious about trying to cut down on illegal residents (by pinpointing behavior, not race) they can do it at these times.

I'm not sure, I think I'm just rambling, and I haven't really thought these things through so thoroughly. I think the important thing is to limit the sort of imposing Big Brother figure that is going to loom over Hispanic residents, at least for the time being. American citizens are supposed to have certain rights, regardless of their ancestry or looks. It's important to maintain that staple of our country's political freedom, but the fact is, illegal immigrants don't really have those same rights. If you're here illegally, you shouldn't be here. I know our country was founded on an open door policy, but with the way things are now, there are too many people who would be risking their lives and livelihoods to let things continue the way they're going. Not to say that I would be one of those people--the truth is I wouldn't. I'm physically and mentally distanced from what's going on in Arizona, and so are a lot of the people who are spouting off about injustice this or unconstitutional that. It's hard for people outside of that situation to really understand what it's like. But I do know that here in Philadelphia, we have our own seemingly endless problems--including a big problem with violence. And I think that if I had to show my ID to police officers a little more often in order to ensure that the streets and sidewalks of the city would be a little safer, it's something I think I could live with--as long as I didn't become subject to hostile or abusive treatment. Maybe that's oversimplification. But violence is a problem here, and I'd give a couple minutes a day if the administration were trying to step up its efforts to crack down.

There's always a delicate balance that needs to be struck with these things. These days, keeping people safe and happy are usually two separate, opposing directives. Arizona seems to be crying out for help, just as a friend who is having some trouble might. Maybe they're doing things not everyone agrees with right now, but they don't seem to be left with much of a choice. And now that they're doing what they have to do, it's up to everyone else to pitch in and help out--that is, unless you want to see them go down a potentially destructive path.

#016 - Fire David Letterman. Right Now.

Click that link. Fun stuff.

In case anyone is unaware, sometime last week Letterman made a joke on his late show that went something like this:

"Sarah Palin got a real surprise last week when Alex Rodriguez impregnated her daughter in the 7th inning of a Yankees game."

Apparently Palin actually attended the game with her 14-year old daughter, Willow, and not her 18-year old daughter, Bristol, the one who recently had a child. There's been a lot of outrage about this, people claiming Letterman to promote statutory rape, slandering the girl for being a prostitute, all this kind of stuff.

I think this is kind of getting out of control. Let's take a look at some of the facts:

-Palin is a public figure. She's controversial, polarizing.

-She had a young daughter who got preggers.

-ARod is a public figure. He's controversial, polarizing, and seemingly has no sense of humor about himself.

-His sexuality has been a bit of an issue recently, and something to poke fun at.

Letterman apologized for his joke, saying that he had intended to combine the elements of Bristol's pregnancy with ARod's absurd public persona, which have both been topics of jokes on his and other shows for months. He didn't mean to suggest it was supposed to be Willow, I guess he didn't do his homework about which daughter it was who was at the game, and he didn't clarify which daughter he meant at the time. I guess it's one of those things where theoretically it's funnier if he lets the audience decide, but in reality it just turns out to be much more controversial. Looking at this list of facts about the situation though, and knowing he's a comedian, who makes jokes for a living, and belongs to a community of comedians who do this sort of thing all the time, is it really so ridiculous for him to make the joke? He'd basically be doing his job wrong if he didn't take advantage of a highly public situation like that, a perfect opportunity to utilize the coming together of two divisive personalities. It turned out it was not a funny joke, one that people kind of cringed at, but that doesn't mean he should lose his job. A lot of comedy is sick and twisted. If you thought comedians were actually in favor of all the topics they discuss during their acts, I think they'd all be arrested no questions asked.

Not saying he made the right decision by making the joke, but he apologized, it's kind of an absurd reaction for people to have to attack him like this. I'm not even a huge fan of his, really, and I never watch the show. But he's a comedian. He's supposed to utilize shock value. Maybe it would be more effective to go out there and picket all the ACTUAL rapists and pedophiles out there? As opposed to someone who mistakenly made that reference during a stand up comedy routine. Just a thought.

#014 - Some Men Are Truly Saints.

I don't even really know where to begin with this story.

Just read it:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=reilly_rick&id=4247723

It's almost unfathomable that this kind of person exists in the world. I understand he just wants to make a buck, and that, realistically, he's only taking money from a professional sports organization and nobody is getting hurt here since they make plenty. But come on. What he's basically going to do is drive sports franchises to the point of never offering special promotions, especially on Mother's Day, a day which has become immensely popular across Major League Baseball for its support of breast cancer-related causes and expression of gratitude to all of the mothers and women out there (who are normally invisible to sports marketers). What he's trying to say is, "Hey, let's NOT promote women's health! Those bitches are always getting their way!" It's almost the same as going to an AIDS clinic and saying, "I don't have AIDS, but I want the drugs anyway." And then when they refuse to allow you to deprive a seriously ill person the treatment that they need, you sue them. Hooray for lawsuits. I propose that they form a committee, of 101 members (2 from every state plus me, the chairman) that overlooks all potential lawsuits, and just throws out the truly absurd ones like this. If you are in favor, clap your hands twice.

And it's again somewhat baffling that this comes from the state of California, a state which I feel like for a while had the perception of being forward-thinking, a haven for open sexuality, and a home to money-grubbing studio execs.

The studio execs are as money-grubbing as ever, but what the hell is going on with the rest of the state?

#007 - Land of the Free, Home of the Straight

I'm not gay (insert your "Really? Are you sure?" joke here) but I can't for the life of me understand why so many people have this alarming hate towards gay people. I mean, yeah, I don't think I'd really want to share a bed with a gay dude, but walk down the street with him? Sit next to him on a bus? Vote in favor of his right to be happy? Any of these things would do.

The California State Supreme Court upheld the ban on same-sex marriage. You already know this. But why? I mean, really, why? I kind of want to have a discourse on this matter, and while I'm sure there are plenty of websites out there that explain the conservative reasoning on it, I just don't feel like searching for them right now. But it kind of boggles my mind.

A) Isn't California supposed to be liberal? What's going on out there? Republican Governator, no gay marriage... I think the state is starting to feel some of the backlash from the art set's decision to spurn the sunshine for the Big Apple. And while the Supreme Court's decision is saddening, you can't really fault them for upholding a decision that the residents already voted on.

B) How much can gay people getting married have an impact on the daily lives of our citizens? Seriously. I live in a city, I'm fresh out of college, I like to act, you would think of all people, I'd be in the prime demographic for interaction with homosexuals. And the reality is, it almost never happens. I'm sure I talk to some gay people, probably unknowingly, but really their lives don't affect my life one bit. Why the hell would I want to go out of my way to affect THEIR lives?

C) How's murder doing? Drug abuse? Have we cut down on those things? How's the economy? I guess since everything else in the country is going so well, we should focus our collective energies on taking away some people's marriage privileges. With all of the negative shit going on in our country, why is it the only thing that's getting banned is marriage? I mean really? You can purchase and carry a handgun whereever the hell you want, including a national park (thank you log rolling), but instead of revoking someone's ability to fire metal projectiles into the body cavities of others, we're revoking someone's ability to profess their love for a person they care deeply about. That's right, that makes perfect sense.

(You totally thought I was going to go with some sort of lewd innuendo after that metal projectile line, didn't you? Get your mind out of the gutter.)

Seriously though. I just throw my arms up. I mean, really people, is this what you want to go down in history as? Generation XY-XX NO SUBSTITUTES. I don't like ranting, I feel this has become a rant, and honestly I'd like to reel it back a little bit. There are people out there who don't like gay people. There are tons of them. But could you imagine what it would be like if there were votes to take away certain privileges from straight people? (I keep wanting to say "rights" but apparently it's been made clear marriage is a privilege, not a right) It would seem ludicrous right? You can't do something just because you're straight? UNBELIEVABLE! My roommate Jon made a great point last night. He proposed the thought that white male college graduates couldn't marry, and how livid he would be if that happened. What's the difference with same-sex couples? Guess what, they're people too. In fact, if you didn't KNOW someone was gay, you wouldn't know they're any different than you are. They just happen to want to spend their time with someone of their same gender.

And with the current state of the marriage institution in this country, let's face it, they might be on to something.