My Friend Died Yesterday; Her Name Was America

It is very difficult to describe the depth of my pain and sorrow this morning. I have long thought of America as an ideal, imperfect, but always striving to be that more perfect union. A land where the petty hatreds that have torn at the fabric of humanity for millennia could finally be laid to rest as all people would be treated equally and with dignity, a land where people could choose to live according to the dictates of their faith (or lack thereof) with the respect of their neighbors, and where people of all races could mingle knowing their differing values and views, traditions and hopes, would be welcomed to the giant melting pot. Where e pluribus unum was more than just an old motto carved into monuments.

And I know that some of those who voted for Donald Trump share that ideal.

For years, beginning when I was in junior high school and continuing through the present, in one capacity or another, I have worked to help further that vision of America and to help bring about the promise of equality and an expansion of civil rights, whether with regard to religion, race, sexual orientation, or any of a host of other categories. And, since the very beginning of 2008, I’ve written this blog. I’m pretty certain that if you go back and read about the issues on which I’ve written, you’ll discover my passion for equality, dignity, and civility has been a consistent theme. I’m sure that from time-to-time, my anger or frustration, have gotten the better of me, but I’ve strived to offer people an opportunity to engage me in civil discussion over important issues, at the core of which are the rights and dignity of all Americans.

I understand that people were angry with how the system was working (or not working). I understand some people felt dislocated by the transition in the economy from manufacturing to services and tech. I understand that some people felt left out by globalization and other rapid changes in our economy. And I certainly understand that many people feel as if their voice doesn’t matter because of the influence of money and special interests in our political system. I get that. And I get that not everyone who voted for Donald Trump did so on the basis of animus for those who don’t look or think the same way that they do.

But last night, I seemed as if nearly 60 million people told me that all of the ideals that I’ve worked for, all of those ideals that I hold at the core of what our country is supposed to represent — supposed to be — didn’t matter. They told me that they don’t care about equality for the LGBT community. They told me that they don’t care about voting rights for African-Americans. They told me that they don’t care about splitting up immigrant families or the harm to undocumented immigrants for whom America is the only home they’ve ever known. They told me that they don’t care about the plight of those fleeing civil war and horrific brutality. And they told me that they don’t care that they are aligning with those who view me as a subhuman who should be led to the gas chambers with my family because I am a Jew. Excuse me, I meant to say (((Jew))).

So when I woke up this morning and reflected on the election, I had to consider something that others have told me from time-to-time: This isn't really my country. I can only wonder if some see this as only as “their country” which they have now “taken back” from “the other” while allowing those who don’t fit into the majority cohort to stay here as something … well, something less. It is a country that belongs to its white, Christian majority that has tolerated the presence of Jews, Muslims, and others, has grudgingly granted something approaching equality to people who aren’t white, and which is reluctantly grappling with the question of what to do with the fact that there are homosexuals (and transgender people) in our midst. But I now understand, more so than I have previously, that the minority communities of America are not, at least to a large swath of the population, “real Americans”.

Please understand that I'm not suggesting and don't believe that all of the people who voted for Trump are racists, anti-Semites, xenophobes, misogynists, bigots, or the like. But I am extremely troubled that those people chose to ignore or forgive those traits when they cast their vote. A vote for Trump may not, in and of itself, represent racism and its associated bigotries, but it did validate Trump’s racist views and the views of the alt-right, KKK, and the like. Those votes told Trump that his use of racism and bigotry was a winning tactic and, as such, will likely persist and increase in the American political lexicon and playbook. And it emboldened those who viewed him as giving voice to what they perceive as an embattled white (and, in particular, white Christian) America.

So after this election, how do you look at your gay cousin who must now worry that his newfound equality (still a work in process) will be stripped away, his marriage nullified, his adoption of a baby reversed? How do you look at your Muslim colleague who wants nothing more than to live in peace with his neighbors now that he knows that a huge swath of his country and his President-elect think he is a terrorist who hates America and intends violence upon us? How do you look at your Latino co-worker who worries that her mother may be deported or that she cannot serve as a judge simply because of her heritage? How do you look at your African-American acquaintance who worries that her husband or child will be shot by police for driving without a broken brake light? How do you look at your Jewish friend who heard vicious anti-Semitism from Trump supporters, such as exhortations to put America's Jews into gas chambers?

Perhaps it's because far to many of you have no gay cousins, Muslim colleagues, Latino co-workers, black acquaintances, or Jewish friends, most likely because our society has become so bifurcated and polarized and “those people” live only in the “blue” urban areas that seem foreign and alien to you. Perhaps you don't see those people as being your friends, of being real Americans, of being human and entitled to the same dignity you expect for yourself. I don’t think Donald Trump’s presidency is going to make minorities feel more a part of our society or make you think of them as being more American.

But even if you don’t really care about the gay cousin, Muslim colleague, Latino co-worker, black acquaintance, or Jewish friend, how do you look at your daughter who now knows that you can forgive the admission of sexual assault, use of terms like "pig" and "bimbo", serial philandering, and pussy grabbing? And how do you explain to your son that the things that his President brags about are unacceptable … but that you voted for him anyway?

To me, America was both my country and an ideal; an ideal that I put years and years of effort into making more perfect so that all of us could live together in peace. Last night that ideal was ripped away.

Let me conclude with the hope that I expressed nearly a year ago, when I began to see the rise of Donald Trump as a serious candidate:

It’s time to recapture the idea of America from demagogues like Trump. It’s time to recapture the idea of an America in which competing ideas can be discussed civilly and in which the notion of a melting pot, of e pluribus unum, is celebrated. It’s time to put hate and fear aside in favor of efforts to make friends across barriers and to take the time to learn about others who may be different than we are. We can disagree on policies but recognize that we are all Americans who value the concept of America. We can disagree on those policies but learn to discuss them without hate or rancor, without viewing those with whom we disagree as the enemy or intent to destroy the idea of America.

But our democracy worked as designed. A minority of voters elected a racist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic, misogynistic, know-nothing, fascist.

I feel like a good friend died yesterday. Her name was America.

I’m Too Depressed to Write About Donald Trump’s Hate and Ignorance

I really want to write something about Donald Trump. I want to write about the hate that seems to permeate every utterance. I want to write about his utter disregard for truth or accuracy and his belief that if he says something happened, then it must be thus. I want to write about the narcissism that seems to run at the core of his entire persona. I want to write about his pandering to the most xenophobic, nativist, racist parts of our society in his quest for the ultimate victory for his ego. I want to write about the way he is throwing jet fuel on the powder keg of racial and religious tensions that have boiled to the surface in recent years.

And I want to write about the Americans who endorse his messages of hate, cheer his ignorance and lies, and feed off the fear and anger that Trump stokes.

But I can’t. The very idea of recounting his numerous lies, examining the way he categorizes and denigrates groups of people on the basis of discrete characteristics, stereotypes, or prejudices, or discussing the way he is tearing at the seams that delicately hold the fabric of our society together leaves me depressed. Seriously depressed. I’ve spent nearly eight years writing this blog, writing about our need for civility, about our need to work together, about our need to solve problems and treat one another with respect. I’ve been writing about our need to put aside prejudice and bigotry and to respect diversity and those different from us. And it looked like things were, at least in some small respects, getting better.

And then came Donald Trump and the groundswell of Americans who have gravitated to his views, buoyed by his hateful, xenophobic rhetoric that is devoid of any substance beyond fear and loathing. And hate. Pure, unadulterated hate driven, I’m sure, by fear. Hate and fear.

I find myself almost too paralyzed to address the things that Trump is saying or the damage that he is causing.

So, rather than focus on Trump, I’ll focus, instead, on We the People and what we have at stake.

We’ve worked, collectively as a society, for many, many years, trying to realize this more perfect union of ours. We’ve had a lot of successes mixed in with some failures. And it’s taken us a long time, through painful experiences, just to get to where we are now. We have a long way to go but we should be rightly proud of what we have achieved over these last two hundred and (almost) forty years.

But now it’s time to look at the bigger picture and to think about what voices and ideas like those expressed by Trump really mean for our country and the society that we’ve worked to build.

At some point, this isn’t about tax policy or marriage equality; it isn’t about black lives mattering or reproductive choice; it isn’t about gun control or religious freedom; it isn’t about prayer in schools or funding for the arts. It isn’t about Social Security, Obamacare, or No Child Left Behind. No. At some point, it’s about America. It’s about what it means when we say “America”. It’s about what it means when we feel that tingle of pride at the first bars of The Star Spangled Banner or the sight of an Olympic athlete proudly wrapped in the American flag. At some point, our politics and our civic discourse can no longer be about the issues that divide us and about which we’ve spent so much time arguing. At some point, we have to take a step back and do all we can to rescue the idea of the America envisioned by the Founding Fathers when they drafted the Constitution and adopted the Bill of Rights, the idea of America that prevailed after four years of bloody civil war, the idea of America for which an underclass of people were willing to take to the streets and risk their lives, the idea of America that has drawn immigrants and refugees from long before the Statue of Liberty shined her light of welcome.

Donald Trump’s hate is the clear demarcation line showing that we’ve reached that point. It’s time to recapture the idea of America from demagogues like Trump. It’s time to recapture the idea of an America in which competing ideas can be discussed civilly and in which the notion of a melting pot, of e pluribus unum, is celebrated. It’s time to put hate and fear aside in favor of efforts to make friends across barriers and to take the time to learn about others who may be different than we are. We can disagree on policies but recognize that we are all Americans who value the concept of America. We can disagree on those policies but learn to discuss them without hate or rancor, without viewing those with whom we disagree as the enemy or intent to destroy the idea of America.

It’s time to take America back from those for whom hate, xenophobia, and intolerance are values. It’s time to take America back to it’s core as the land of the free and the home of the brave where all men — and women — are created equally. And treated equally, too. The land that recognizes liberty and justice for all. A land that has no use for ideologies premised on hate, fear, and lies, such as those expressed by the likes of Donald Trump.

-----

Update: Before this post went live, I came across an editorial cartoon that struck a chord. I’m usually not a fan of Gary Varvel, editorial cartoonist for The Indianapolis Star, but with his image “Trump’s New Motto”, I think that Varvel got it just right.

Syrian Refugees (and Terrorism)

I started this post a week or ten days ago with a somewhat different focus; I may get back to the broader issues that I was going to discuss. But for now, I want to focus on the issue of refugees.

America is a nation of refugees. For centuries, people have found their way to our shores, often to avoid persecution, violence, or economic privation. Most of my ancestors came to America in the late 1800s, in large part to avoid institutional anti-Semitism and pogroms, but also to try to make a better life than the abject poverty found in the Eastern European shtetl. Recently, America has seen waves of Central American children trying to escape gang violence and poverty. In years before that, America has accepted refugees from war zones across the world, from the Hmong to the Somalis, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Cuba. America has accepted refugees and worked to integrate them into the broader fabric of a ever more diverse American culture.

Sadly, I can’t say that America has always welcomed refugees. Even a cursory review of our history will show a degree of discomfort that waves of immigrants and refugees caused in the American population, whether it was the Irish, the Chinese, the Mexicans, or others, we have a history of not living up to our ideals when it comes to our treatment of and the welcome shown to refugees. And, of course, we have true stains on our history when we think about some of the refugees that we turned away, most notably (perhaps) the Jews who were fleeing Nazi Germany but who could find no refuge and were thus forced to return or Americans of Japanese descent who we imprisoned on the basis of their race (while Americans of German and Italian ancestry were fully integrated into our armed forces).

Today, many in America, including many governors, want to turn their backs on refugees from Syria. I think that is wrong. I think that is un-American. I think that flies in the face of the very concept of American exceptionalism of which we are so proud.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

That poem by Emma Lazarus is inscribed upon the Statue of Liberty. That is who we are and who we must aspire to remain.

Let me be clear: I don’t think that it is America’s job to solve every refugee crisis; nor do I think that it is our obligation to accept every refugee. But as the world’s sole remaining superpower, as the largest economy on the planet, as a country with vast resources and vast territory, as a people who are more diverse than any other population on the globe, then I think that we have a duty to help when and to the extent that we can. It is part of the role of being that economic and military superpower. It is part of the role of being American. It is part of the role of being human.

“But, many of these Syrians are Muslim!” I hear many of you say. Yes. They are. So what? Are you honestly arguing that all or even most Muslims are terrorists who want to harm you or America? Seriously? Let me remind you that our Constitution has a specific prohibition on religious tests for public office. Do you really think that the Founding Fathers would have included that prohibition if they wanted a religious test for immigration or admission of refugees?

I understand, especially in the wake of the terrorist attack in Paris, that people are nervous about accepting refugees who might have among them members of ISIL or other groups who intend to do harm to Americans. I get that. And I think that it is a legitimate concern for which we must take appropriate cautions. But on that point, I think that there are several things to consider. First, the comparison between Syrian refugees flooding into Europe and those who might be admitted to the United States is a flawed comparison. For one thing, refugees have been walking into Europe in the hundreds and thousands, completely overwhelming the ability of governments to account for and deal with those refugees, let alone take the necessary time to do thorough background checks and isolate those will bad intent. Compare that situation to those seeking sanctuary in the United States who must undergo background checks often taking several years before they are permitted entry. If you were a terrorist intent on acting against Americans, would embedding yourself into a multi-year asylum process (with no sure success) that included detailed background checks be your best choice?

Furthermore, Germany alone is estimated to be taking in somewhere between 800,000 and 1,000,000 refuges compared to a far, far smaller number that has been proposed for the United States (about 100,000 over the next few years). Don’t forget that Europe, especially Germany, France, the UK, and the low countries, already have enormous Muslim populations that are often segregated (self-segregated in some instances, economically in others) and exist as a sort of permanent underclass in those societies. Compare that to the United States where Muslims of Arab descent are a much smaller percentage of the population and much more dispersed throughout a much more diverse population. While Muslims and Arabs may be disfavored by many Americans, there isn’t the degree of underclass quality that defines America’s Muslim and Arab populations.

On that note, take a guess as to just how many Syrian refugees have already been settled in Indiana. Go on. Take a guess. 10,000? 1,000? 100? How many? According to Indiana’s Family and Social Services Administration, since 2010, Indiana has been the refuge for forty Syrian refugees. Forty. But that may be overstating it. According to the Indiana State Department of Health Refugee Report Federal Fiscal Year 2014 (page 5), the number from 2012-2014 is just twelve. Review that report to see how relatively few refugees are settled in Indiana and where they originate.

Consider further how we treat other refugee populations and others who simply want to visit the United States. Visitors from the European Union don’t need a visa to enter the United States. Query then, whether we have more to worry about from terrorists bearing the passport of a European Union nation or a Syrian refugee who has undergone a multi-year background check? Most of the 9/11 hijackers traveled on (I believe) Saudi Arabian passports; none of them were here as refugees. Yet I don’t hear calls for bans on Europeans or Saudis from traveling to the US. Similarly, a refugee from Cuba need merely get his or her feet onto American soil to be entitled to claim asylum and stay in the United States. Yet until earlier this year, Cuba was on the United States’ list of state sponsors of terrorism. So how did we know that a Cuban refugee wasn’t here as an agent for the Cuban government to engage in terrorist acts? But I guess the Cuban lobby is more powerful than the Syrian lobby, even if Syria has never housed nuclear armed missiles pointed at the United States.

I think we also need to remember that, while it is possible for ISIL to embed a terrorist within the Syrian refugees seeking shelter in the United States, the brutality of ISIL is one of the things that those refugees are seeking shelter from. It would be a bit like telling a boat load of Jews fleeing the Holocaust that they aren’t welcome in the United States because we are worried that there might be a few Nazis hidden among them.

Consider further our role and reputation within the international community, both in terms of other nations and in terms of Arab and Muslim (and related) populations around the world. At least to some, the so-called “War on Terror” (and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) are part of a larger clash of cultures between Christianity/Western democracies and Islam/repressive regimes. While that is far too simplistic for most purposes, it is a lens through which many may look at the United States and our actions. When we stand up and claim to be the shining beacon on the hill and a nation and system to which others should aspire, do our actions match our rhetoric or do we appear as hypocrites who allow for repression of people that we either fear or can be perceived to simply not care about? Ask the question more simply: If we turn away Syrian refugees, will we make America more or less popular among the Arab Street? Will more Muslims turn to America as a sign of hope and strength or will they turn to ISIL as the force standing up to America? I believe that we need to show that our interest is not just in those who look and pray like the majority of Americans; rather, we need to show that American idealism and exceptionalism can extend to all people, no matter their race or religion.

I want to note two other points. First, I understand the fear of Islamist terrorism directed at America and Americans. We need to be vigilant and cautious. But we also need to take serious the threat of far right domestic terror. When Muslims destroyed the World Trade Center, we went to war. But when Christian nationalists destroyed the Federal building in Oklahoma City … we yawned. Four Americans were killed in Benghazi and we’ve had hearing after hearing after hearing and investigations ad nauseum. Nine Americans were killed in a church and, after much gnashing of teeth, we took down a flag. And what will we do after yet another attack directed against an abortion provider? Probably nothing. But what would we have done had that attack been by a Muslim and targeted a church or Hobby Lobby or Chik-fil-A? For that matter, what is the likelihood that we will hear a Presidential candidate suggest that Christian immigrants, Syrian or otherwise, be asked about their views on abortion or other social issues to be sure that they are not potential terrorists? What is the likelihood that we’ll hear a Presidential candidate suggest that Evangelical Christians be registered with the government or that their churches be monitored for radicalization or incitement speech?

Finally, there is one reason why we should be more concerned about the prospect for terrorism in the United States than should Western European countries: Guns. Those who perpetrated the attacks in Paris apparently had to smuggle their weapons from Eastern Europe. Compare that to America where even al-Qaeda has recognized and publicized just how easy it is for a prospective terrorist to acquire weapons. And don’t forget that the NRA — and those who accept NRA blood money — continue to allow those who are on the “no fly” or terrorist watch list to buy guns.

We should accept Syrian refugees. To be certain, we should subject those refugees to a vigorous background check so that we can be confident that we’re accepting refugees who mean us no harm. But we should apply that same rationale to other refugees seeking shelter on our shores. And, while we should certainly take seriously the threat of terrorism, we should be rational in our understanding of from where that terrorism may emanate and act accordingly. We can’t simply equate Islam to terrorism, just as we can’t preclude some Christians from those that we need to be cautious about. Our approach to refugees and terrorists must be both cautious and broad, without jumping to conclusions or making broad assumptions about huge groups of people on the basis of just a few and without ignoring potential threats because of a failure to directly line up to preconceived notions of who might be a terrorist.

More Stupid & Hate from the Right

It’s only been a few weeks since my last post highlighting recent stupid, bigoted, and hateful comments from the right. Who knew that August and September would be such a fertile time for the right-wing stoopid to get even stoooooopider and hate to get … um … more hatier? Sheesh. Now I’m sounding like Colbert. Anyway…

Let’s start with Maine Governor Paul LePage (R) who, according to two Republican state lawmakers, said during a Republican fundraiser that President Obama “hates white people”. Apparently, Gov. LePage said that President Obama could have been the best president ever if he’d highlighted his biracial heritage but that President Obama didn’t do so because he “hates white people”. I don’t know. I’ve never gotten the impression that President Obama hated his white mother. Or his white grandparents. But then, when you look at a picture of President Obama’s Cabinet (yes, I know that this isn’t the current Cabinet), you can really get a sense for his hatred of white people. I mean just look at how few whites he’s appointed to the Cabinet:

Hmm. Never mind.

Anyway, I thought that this tongue-in-cheek statement “proving” that President Obama hates white people, written as if it was penned by Gov. LePage, helped clear things up (I’ve made a few minor formatting changes):

People criticized me for saying “Obama hates white people”, but I can prove it. Over the past 5 years, and even over the course of his life, he has said and done things which bear me out.

#1 Obama continues to be president, even though he knows his blackness offends some white people.

#2 He has yet to repeal the 13th Amendment and re-enslave black people to please Southern whites. He hasn’t even proposed it. Nor has he offered to pay reparations to descendants of slave holders for their loss of property in the Civil War.

#3 He has invited black people to the White House, instead of only inviting white people. And he has continued to do this no matter how many times Fox News has complained.

#4 He, with his attorney general Eric Holder, has fought the efforts of Republican state governments to keep the white vote from being diluted by black and other minority voters, which has the effect of telling people their votes aren’t special or more important than non-white votes. What’s more, he has actively registered black and Hispanic voters, which also diluted the value of white votes.

#5 Some of the taxes paid for by white people go to services for non-whites. Shouldn’t white taxes go to white people and minority taxes go to minority people?

#6 He married a black woman.

#7 He had black kids.

#8 He’s even making white people pick up poop after his new black dog Sunny. Probably.

In conclusion, Obama has failed to prefer white people above all others at every juncture, which proves he hates white people. It’s just logic, so stop calling me a racist.

Sincerely,

Gov. Paul LePage

Though clearly over-the-top, there is a bit of uncomfortable truth in the views this satirical piece highlights.

Next, let’s turn to Alabama Republican Congressional candidate Dean Young who has circulated a pledge that he is asking all Republican candidates to sign. The pledge focuses on opposition to same-sex marriage (and homosexuality in general):

It is time for men and women of faith to stand for the founding Christian values and morals that made our nation great, to defend our families and the sacred holiness of marriage.

…

1. I believe that the only marriage is between one man and one woman.

2. I believe the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality and thereby gay marriage.

3. The tenants [sic] of my church oppose gay marriage.

4. I oppose gay marriage.

5. As a member of Congress, I shall take active steps to oppose gay marriage.

6. I support the by-law change to expel any member of the Republican Executive Committee who opposes the party position by supporting gay marriage.

Don’t worry about items 1-2 or 4-5; nothing new there. Rather I want to focus your attention on the preamble and items 3 and 6 of the Young’s pledge. First, note that Young isn’t being the least bit coy or circumspect. He comes right out notes that it was the “founding Christian values and morals that made our nation great”. I’m not going to take the time to debunk the whole “Christian Nation” claim (but feel free to peruse Chris Rodda’s Liars for Jesus), though I would ask if slavery and the exclusion of women from voting were included in those Christian values and morals; I might also ask why the Constitution doesn’t require us to, oh, I don’t know, pray to Jesus, maybe, or establish Christianity as the official religion?

And look at item 6 of the pledge. Apparently, in Young’s ideal version of the Republican Party, having a position contrary to that which Young supports is so bad that the person having that alternate view should be expelled from the Republican Executive Committee. Yeah, that’s going to help win young voters to Young’s cause.

But the most incredible part of Young’s pledge has to be item 3: “The tenants of my church oppose gay marriage”. (I doubt he means that the family renting his church opposes gay marriage; rather I’m pretty sure he meant “tenet” but, not being fully fluent in Teabonics, it’s not always easy to tell.) Anyway, let’s think about that part of the pledge for a minute. Young expects all Republican candidates to pledge, not only that they condemn homosexuality, but also that they are members of a church that also opposes homosexuality. Hmm. So I guess a Jew can’t run as a Republican in Young’s worldview. Certainly not a Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim. I’m not sure about a Mormon. But all of that is besides the point. Why? Because of this: “[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”. Sound familiar? It’s the last clause of Article VI of the Constitution. Perhaps, before running for Congress, idiots like Young ought to, you know, read the Constitution (after all, isn’t fealty to the text and original meaning of the Constitution a core platform of Tea Party guys like Young?).

It is possible, of course, that Young was confused given that he’s from Alabama; I mean, I’m sure that an ultra-conservative state like Alabama probably allows for religious tests or requires its elected officials to be good God-fearin’ Christians from a state-approved church, right?

[N]o religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state…

(Alabama Constitution, Article 1, Section 3.) Oh. Never mind. Anyway, is anyone else worried about people who think that in order to be elected you should make a pledge regarding your church and your belief that you should condemn other people? How very American.

Next we have Greg Abbott, the frequently offensive Attorney General of Texas (and candidate to replace Rick Perry both as Governor and, apparently, as dumbest man in Texas). Attorney General Abbott was understandably upset that the Justice Department sued Texas over its harsh new voter ID law (after all, Abbott most likely realizes that one of the best things that he can do to ensure that he gets elected is to prevent those who might vote for a Democrat from being able to vote…). But why do I mention Abbott in this post? Well, you see, in response to that suit by the Justice Department, Abbott pointed to the recent indictment of a woman in Texas for voting 5 times! Well, that sure sounds like a good reason to impose voter ID requirements, right? Um, one problem. You see, the woman who was indicted, apparently voted via absentee ballot which is not governed by the Texas voter ID law. It’s the very point that people who are concerned about voter ID laws have been making for years. If you’re really concerned about voter fraud, then target the one place where voter fraud actually occurs: absentee voting. The fact that all sorts of other voting restrictions are being put in place all across Republican-dominated states, while absentee ballots are exempted from the harsh requirements is a curious fact, no?

But don’t worry, Texas Attorney General Abbott wants us to know that “Voter IDs have nothing to do with race”. Abbott also noted that voter IDs “are free to anyone who needs one”. Well, not exactly.

[A]s to Abbott's claim that the newly required state-issued Photo IDs “are free to anyone who needs one,” as Ari Berman notes at The Nation:

[V]oters must first pay for underlying documents to confirm their identity, the cheapest option being a birth certificate for $22 (otherwise known as a “poll tax”); Texas has DMV offices in only eighty-one of 254 counties in the state, with some voters needing to travel up to 250 miles to obtain a new voter ID. Counties with a significant Hispanic population are less likely to have a DMV office, while Hispanic residents in such counties are twice as likely as whites to not have the new voter ID (Hispanics in Texas are also twice as likely as whites to not have a car).

Remember, those needing to drive “up to 250 miles” to get their “free” ID also need to do so despite not owning a drivers license! Other than that, the cost of the time off work, the cost of gas, and the cost of documents needed to receive one, those Photo IDs “are free to anyone who needs one,” as Abbott lied.

Next, let’s travel south to the creationist state of Louisiana, where Governor Bobby “Don’t Be the Stupid Party” Jindal … proved once again that he is an sparkling example of the stupid so prevalent in the stupid party. In an op-ed for Politico, Gov. Jindal talks about race in America. He actually makes some good points in his op-ed. But then he goes off the rails. First, he notes:

By the way, I noticed recently that the president of the United States, a man with whom I disagree with on almost everything, seems to have darker skin than most Americans. He hasn’t had a problem getting elected.

Has Gov. Jindal completely missed the overt and disgusting racism directed at President Obama, often from members of Gov. Jindal’s own party? Sure, President Obama was elected, but he was elected by those who aren’t racists and who do look past skin color. It was primarily people in Gov. Jindal’s party who latched onto the “birther” movement, who talk about President Obama as hating whites (paging Gov. LePage…), not understanding America, or being a sekrit Mooslim, and who send around virulently racist emails. But all Gov. Jindal can see is the fact that President Obama was able to find enough people who weren’t racists to get elected. I’d even suggest that the election of President Obama acted as a catalyst to draw out overt racism and make it, if not socially acceptable, at least something less than the anathema it should be.

And then, after a few more reasonable thoughts about race, Gov. Jindal says:

Yet we still place far too much emphasis on our “separateness,” our heritage, ethnic background, skin color, etc. We live in the age of hyphenated Americans: Asian-Americans, Italian-Americans, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Cuban-Americans, Indian-Americans, and Native Americans, to name just a few.

Here’s an idea: How about just “Americans?” That has a nice ring to it, if you ask me. Placing undue emphasis on our “separateness” is a step backward. Bring back the melting pot.

There is nothing wrong with people being proud of their different heritages. We have a long tradition of folks from all different backgrounds incorporating their traditions into the American experience, but we must resist the politically correct trend of changing the melting pot into a salad bowl. E pluribus Unum.

Wait, what? Somehow recognizing heritage is a problem? I don’t think that E pluribus Unum means that we should become some sort of homogenous society; rather it means that we become a whole that is stronger than the sum of its parts. It is our diversity, our different backgrounds, cultural heritages, and ethnic and religious traditions that make us who we are. Should I stop eating matzoth ball soup and gefilte fish because it reinforces that I’m different from my gentile friends (especially the gefilte fish!)? Should Italian grandmothers stop making pasta, Mexican families stop making tortillas, and German families stop enjoying their beer? Should Gov. Jindal’s Indian family stop eating curry? Maybe we should all just eat McDonald’s so as to wipe away those elements of our heritage and culture.

Moreover, and much more importantly, isn’t being “just” an American what so many people do strive for but aren’t able to achieve because of racism directed toward them (as opposed to some sort of inherent outward-looking racism). African-Americans have been struggling to be treated the same as white Americans for centuries. African-Americans didn’t choose to be called the sorts of derogatory  names that were used to describe them! Eventually, the term “African-American” was coined, not to highlight the “separateness” of certain Americans, but to be less offensive than calling them niggers, coons, negroes, or even just blacks. “African-American” focuses on heritage, not just skin color. Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, and others struggle with the same issues, often because they are judged on the color of their skin. Or, look at how many, especially in Gov. Jindal’s party, treat Muslims who, like Christian Gov. Jindal, want nothing more than to be able to worship freely and be treated as Americans. Yet, in cities and states across the country, their efforts to build mosques are being impeded and laws are being passed that directly target them (the so-called “anti-sharia” laws). And just a few days ago, an Indian-American (like Gov. Jindal) was crowned Miss America and immediately the racist howls of complaint flooded Twitter and even Fox News (more on that later, I hope…).

So, Gov. Jindal has the right idea that we should all be “just” Americans. But perhaps he ought to explain that to the racists and bigots in his own party who seem intent on making sure that people who don’t look like them aren’t treated as “real” Americans.

And even as to the notion that we’re all “just Americans” one need look no further than the crowning of Miss New York Nina Davuluri as Miss America. Davuluri is of Indian ancestry but was born in America, thus making her as American as … well .. as American as any other American. But it seems that quite a few people don’t really get that. Here’s a sampling of comments on Twitter immediately following her crowning (I’ve deleted the Twitter links):

@MeredithRoanell This is Miss America… not Miss Foreign Country

@kathrynryan50 shes like not even american and she won miss america

@EJRBuckeye Well they just picked a Muslim for Miss America. That must’ve made Obama happy. Maybe he had a vote

@Granvil_Colt And the Arab wins Miss America. Classic.

@Not_MissAmerica More like Miss Terrorist #MissAmerica

@jakeamick5 How the fuck does a foreigner win miss America? She is a Arab! #idiots

@sarawhitton this is America. not India

@savannah_dale97 Miss New York is an Indian.. With all do respect, this is America

@wnfraser @ABC2020 nice slap in the face to the people of 9-11 how pathetic #missamerica

@SHANN___Wow Miss America right now or miss Al Qaeda?

@JPLman95 Miss America? You mean Miss 7-11.

@kalebistoocute Man our president nor our new Miss America isn’t even American I’m sorry but Miss Kansas I salute you your the real American #MissAmerica

@JTomes84 Miss America is brought to by their sponsors PF Changs and 7-11.

@_AudreyAnn Miss America is a terrorist. Whatever. It’s fine.

@Blayne_MkItRain Congratulations Al-Qaeda. Our Miss America is one of you.

@anthonytkr #MissAmerica ummm wtf?! Have we forgotten 9/11?

@LukeBrasili 9/11 was 4 days ago and she gets miss America?

@ColtonSEvans Egypt dancing? This is America. #MissAmerica

@NateBerard Asian or indian are you kiddin this is america omg

@JAyres15 I swear I'm not racist but this is America.

Though it doesn’t matter, it’s worth noting that Davuluri is not an Arab. Nor is she a Muslim (Hindu, actually). But she’s not a Caucasian Christian, either. And I’m afraid that to far too large a portion of our population, only Caucasian Christians are “real” Americans.

And it wasn’t just random racists on Twitter spouting off about Miss America. Nope. Our own favorite version of Hate Journalism (sometimes referred to as Fox News) even got in on the action. Todd Starnes, a Fox News radio host, took to Twitter to offer the following:

@toddstarnes Apparently the liberal Miss America Pageant judges weren't ready for a patriotic, gun-toting, deer-hunting Miss America. #missamerica

@toddstarnes Miss Kansas, a gun-toting, deer-hunting, military veteran was America's choice - but not the liberal Miss America judges' choice.

@toddstarnes The liberal Miss America judges won't say this - but Miss Kansas lost because she actually represented American values. #missamerica

@toddstarnes Miss Politically Correct America #missamerica

I think that the most telling of these tweets is the one in which Starnes claims that Miss Kansas lost “because she actually represented American values”. In other words, if Miss Kansas lost because she actually represented American values then, by definition, Davuluri must not represent those same values. Why not? Are “actual” American values limited to “gun-toting, deer-hunting, military veterans”? If so, I must not represent “actual” American values either. I guess I need to start hunting deer to be a “real” American, huh? And even if Starnes wasn’t directly referring to Davuluri with his comment about “actually representing” American values … then what did he mean?

This is all reminiscent of earlier this summer when Marc Anthony sang God Bless America at the 2013 Major League Baseball Game in New York City. Even Fox News (well, to be technically correct, Fox News Latino) noted the incredible outpouring of racism:

[W]hat should have been a moment of national unity and patriotism, instead turned into a moment highlighting a persistent ugliness in American culture: prejudice against Latinos.

While Anthony, who was born in New York City to Puerto Rican parents, performed, a not-insignificant number of viewers took to Twitter to express their displeasure — and expose their hate. Some of the Tweets included:

“Why is some Spanish [expletive] singing God Bless America at the All-Star Game? That’s just wrong”

“Why the [expletive] is a spic singing God Bless America?

“Welcome to America where god bless America is sung at our national pastime by a mexican”

“Shouldn’t an AMERICAN be signing God Bless America? #getoutofmycountry #allstargame

Letting a Spanish guy sing God Bless America really hurts my heart. Figure it out America #USA

Is it a little ironic the guy singing God Bless America at the All Star game isn’t American? [When someone corrected with “he’s from New York” the author of the Tweet replied: “doesn’t look like it”.]

Was there cause for any offense to be taken or was the performance culturally insensitive in any way? No. Was Anthony draped in a Puerto Rican flag? No. Was Anthony performing the song in Spanish? No. It thus seems the disgust was simply over a Latino singing a patriotic American classic. The message seems to be: Latinos who do not assimilate will be attacked; while Latinos who do assimilate (as most do) and are fiercely proud of this nation, such as Anthony, will also be attacked nonetheless, perhaps even more viciously.

And of course that episode is reminiscent of the NBA finals back in June when a 11-year-old child was invited by the San Antonio Spurs to sing the National Anthem.

Sebastien De La Cruz of  “America’s Got Talent” fame opened game three of the NBA Finals Tuesday night and sang the National Anthem. The eleven year old got thunderous applause, but not everyone on Twitter reacted quite so kindly. Some on the social media site made disparaging and negative comments about the Latino boy, and some incorrectly said he was an undocumented immigrant who should not be singing the National Anthem.

Among the comments directed at De La Cruz was this gem [typo in original]: “WHY DO MIAMI HEAT FANS GOT DIRTY MEXICAN FIVE YEAR OLDS SINGING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM?” Other tweets (a collection of them can be found on the Public Shaming blog) referred to De La Cruz as a “wetback” and “beaner” and presumed that he was an “illegal”. But the tweet that may have best summed things up?

@jacked_doc miami=cute white girls sings national anthem san Antonio= gets alittle mexican to sing it .. i thought that was america!!!

And the beat goes on. Just a few days ago, America voted for the winner of America’s Got Talent and (apparently, as I don’t watch the show) chose Kenichi Ebina. Yeah, you know what’s coming:

@pimptastic3 If the jap wins it ill kill a bitch. This is AMERICAS got talent. Go back to your country fucker!!!!!!!

@lexbottiglieri Wow so upset that fucking gook won Americas Got Talent.. Taylor all the way!

@Ljpingleton Muslim for president, jap for AGT [followed by an emoticon of a smiley face that is crying]

@JGehling9 How does a chink win AMERICA’S got talent?

@shaunareikofski We have a chink miss America and now another one Americas got talent..#Odd

@Ridnasty26 So a Japanese guy wins AMERICA’S Got Talent. I guess we’re gonna let the whole Pearl Harbor thing slide.

But Bobby Jindal thinks that the problem is people putting emphasis on their “separateness” and on their ethnic heritage or skin color instead of being “just” Americans.

You see, the problem I think is less about individuals self-identifying as part of a particular ethnic, religious, or other group; rather, the problem is people who want (or need) to categorize others as belonging to a particular group. The problem isn’t asking to be treated equally notwithstanding membership in a group that is discriminated against; the problem is that certain groups of people are discriminated against. But it appears that neither Gov. Jindal nor many on the right understand this.

Oh, and maybe Gov. Jindal should read what Gov. LePage had to say about President Obama’s hatred of white people. Then Gov. Jindal can talk about people being “just” Americans.

Next we have radio and TV personality Laura Ingraham. Frequent readers of this blog will know that I have a real problem with violent rhetoric. So let’s listen to a clip from the August 26, 2013, edition of her radio program. In this clip, Ingraham plays a portion of a speech given by Rep. John Lewis (D-Georgia) on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech. Listen carefully.

(If the embedded audio won’t play, you can hear it at Media Matters.)

Now what could be wrong with using the sound of a gunshot to interrupt a speech commemorating the 50th anniversary of one of the greatest speeches in history? Don’t forget that Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. And Rep. Lewis, the man giving the speech in the above clip, was nearly killed himself during a civil rights march.

I’ve said it over and over, but I really worry about the eventual ramifications of the mainstreaming of violent rhetoric used in regard to politics and political opponents.

Well, I’ve got much, much more. Unfortunately. And when I say “much” I mean a whole fucking lot of similar articles and stories. Don’t worry, I’ll keep ’em coming; I follow this stuff carefully so that you don’t have to. But I’m going to stop this post for now. I’ve been working on it in fits and spurts for a few weeks and I’ve decided to go ahead and publish this and then continue the series in the days and weeks to come. So stay tuned. If your stomach can handle it.

Roundup of Recent Right Wing Idiocy and Hate

I can’t think of any better place to start this new edition of my occasional roundup of recent examples of right wing idiocy and hate than in the great state of Tennessee where Rep. Scott Desjarlais (R-Tennessee) was able to draw a big applause from a crowd at a town hall gathering. What did Rep. Desjarlais do to draw the applause? Simple. He told an 11-year-old girl that her father should be deported.

I know that the video isn’t very good (and the audio is probably worse). From The Raw Story:

11-year-old Josie Molina told Rep. Scott Desjarlais (R) that she has papers but her father does not.

During a question and answer session at the meeting, Molina stepped up to the microphone and, with a quavering voice, asked, “Mr. DesJarlais, I have papers, but I have a dad who’s undocumented. What can I do to have him stay with me?”

Rather than make any attempt to assuage the girl’s fears, Desjarlais said, “Thank you for being here and thank you for coming forward and speaking,” but “the answer still kind of remains the same, that we have laws and we need to follow those laws and that’s where we’re at.”

This “law & order” Republican couldn’t try to soften the blow to a little girl. Rather than doing what would have been the human thing to do and try to make her feel even just a bit better, Rep. Desjarlais played to the immigrant-hating crowd … and got the response that he was probably hoping for. Where is the simple humanity in applauding a little girl’s misery? But then let’s remember that these are the same people who boo American soldiers who just happen to be gay.

By the way, does Rep. DesJarlais’ name ring a bell? If you follow this kind of stuff it should. Remember that he told the little girl “that we have laws and we need to follow those laws”. That is, unless you’re Scott Desjarlais:

Desjarlais is a former physician and anti-choice crusader who was fined $500 by the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners after it came to light that he had engaged in multiple extramarital affairs with female patients. When one woman became pregnant, the staunch anti-abortion conservative pressured her into terminating the pregnancy. Another patient charged that Desjarlais prescribed narcotic painkillers to her for recreational use and frequently smoked marijuana with her.

“I know God has forgiven me” for the transgressions, Desjarlais told a conservative radio host in an interview in December of 2012.

And yet he was elected to Congress and has the … er … gumption to stand on a stage and tell a little girl that her father needs to be deported because “we have laws”. Apparently his God forgives forcing women to have abortions, cheating on your spouse, and smoking a little weed … but not being an illegal immigrant.

Next we have one of the most jaw-dropping quotes that I’ve heard recently. And please note that this quote was reported by the conservative Washington Times and Wall Street Journal:

Twenty tea party and conservative groups in Tennessee have signed onto a letter that asks Sen. Lamar Alexander to retire, claiming “our great nation can no longer afford compromise and bipartisanship, two traits for which you have become famous.”

Wait, what? (And note that we’re still in Tennessee…) Here’s the whole letter (emphasis added):

Senator Alexander,

You have served a long and marked career. You have been a part of the Tennessee political scene for as long as most of us can remember. You have worked for Howard Baker, Winfield Dunn, served as Governor, were appointed to be the Secretary of Education of the federal government, President of the University of Tennessee, were a serious contender for the nomination of the Republican Party for President, and of course you are currently serving as a United States Senator. Your life-long career in government service is noteworthy.

During your tenure in the Senate we have no doubt that you voted in a way which you felt was appropriate. Unfortunately, our great nation can no longer afford compromise and bipartisanship, two traits for which you have become famous. America faces serious challenges and needs policymakers who will defend conservative values, not work with those who are actively undermining those values. Quite honestly, your voting record shows that you do not represent the conservative values that we hold dear and the votes you have cast as Senator are intolerable to us. Furthermore we have serious doubts about your ability to fix our problems since you have played such a significant role in creating them.

The Little Plaid Book you authored contains very sage advice on politics. Rule #297 is especially important because you advise anyone running for office to “Serve two terms, then get out.”  Are you willing to follow your own advice, or will you fall into the mire of hypocrisy?

As you are likely aware, there have been polls conducted that show your vulnerability. While no viable contender has yet emerged, it is becoming more probable with each passing day that one will rise to the challenge. When a serious contender eventually does enter the race, the moment their fundraising capability makes them a viable candidate, your re-election is in serious jeopardy.

Therefore, we urge you to conclude your long and notable career by retiring with dignity instead of fighting against a serious conservative primary challenger who would expose to all Tennessee voters the actual history of your voting record.

Sincerely,

Sevier County Tea Party

Tea Party of Lincoln County

Gibson County Patriots

Benton County Tea Party

Carroll County Tea Party

Jackson Madison County Tea Party

Dickson County Tea Party / 912 Project

Obion County Tea Party

Stewart County Tea Party

Tennesseans for Liberty (Madison County)

Volunteers for Freedom (Henry County)

We the People (Tipton County)

Rutherford County Tea Party

TN 9-12 Project

Caney Branch Tea Party

TN Republican Assembly

Smoky Mountain Tea Party Patriots (Blount Co)

McMinn County TEA Party

North Sumner Tea Party

Tennessee 8th District Tea Party Coalition

Just think about that for a moment: “Our great nation can no longer afford compromise and bipartisanship”. If that sort of attitude prevailed in 1787, the Constitution, and all of the compromises therein, would never have been written or adopted. And it was that sort of attitude that, in no small part, led to the Civil War. Seriously, do you think that our problem today is too much bipartisanship and compromise? Or is the “our way or we fuck as all” platform, that the Tea Party has adopted?

And this is just too funny not to include. A Tea Party candidate has stepped forward to challenge Sen. Alexander. Look closely at his initial campaign image:

I don’t know. Maybe I’m too picky. But it seems to me that you should probably be able to spell the office to which you want to be elected. However, anyone proficient with deciphering Teabonics will recognize that this is par for the course. After the mistake was pointed out, the image was fixed. But we get a good laugh anyway.

Next, let’s go to right wing radio hosts Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner on Generations Radio. Apparently, these guys aren’t big fans of homosexuals or the decision of the Boy Scouts to permit gay scouts.

Swanson: Manhood is a problem and the Boy Scouts are going to lead the decline since the final decision came down that the Boy Scouts as a national organization are going to invite homosexuals into the troops.

Buehner: Which is just a matter [of time] until they invite homosexuals, active homosexuals, to be leaders of the troops and pretty soon you’re going to have the sodomy merit badge. Christians are fleeing like rats.

Swanson: And after that I guess it’s incest; after that I guess it’s the cannibal merit badge, where I guess you cut up human flesh, fry it—

Buehner: Cook it in a Dutch oven out in the wilderness.

Swanson: So that’s what the Boy Scouts are doing, they are trying to add abomination on abomination, effectively going into God’s word, trying to find the thing that God really, really, really hates the most. The sins listed in the Bible, going through the lists of sins in the Bible, finding the very worst ones and creating merit badges for them is where the Boy Scouts are headed.

If you really want to listen to them, head over to Right Wing Watch where they have a SoundCloud clip of the program.

Anyway, the real point here is these guys (like many of their colleagues on the right) are quick to equate homosexuality with incest. But, rather than going next to bestiality or polygamy (the usual progression for the homophobic crowd), they move on to cannibalism. Because, you know, showing compassion to homosexual children is just like cannibalism. Moreover, rather than trying to find some sort of compassion within themselves (wasn’t Jesus all about “love”?), they conclude that the Boy Scouts are going through the Bible “finding the very worst” sins and creating merit badges for them. Really? So now the Boy Scouts are going to give badges for eating shrimp, wearing a cotton-polyester blend, and cutting hair? I presume that they already have merit badges for learning how to stone a neighbor who transgresses by touching a football (pig skin).

On a similar note, it’s also worth reading what another right-wing Christian talk show host had to say. Sandy Rios hosts a radio talk show for the American Family Association. And she’s worried about the afterlife for the left, for gay activists, and for President Obama:

I would not want to be in the shoes of any of the left right now. I would not want to be in Barack Obama’s shoes. I would not want to be in the shoes of homosexual activists. I say that with humility and with fear for them because God will even the score, he will sort things out, he will be God and he will not be mocked. Whereas they think they are getting away with breaking all kinds of moral laws and mocking everyone in the process, they just don’t know God, they don’t know who they are up against and we do. And that should bring out some mercy in us because I wouldn’t want to be — what did that old evangelist say: ‘it’s a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God.’

My friend, college professor, and blogger Sheila Kennedy, had a terrific response to this comment from Sandy Rios:

Unlike all us sinners, you see, Sandy Rios knows God.

The monumental arrogance and self-delusion displayed by those who purport to know the mind of a deity they themselves describe as all-knowing and all-powerful is certainly mind-blowing. But what really gets to me is the nature of the God these people have created in their own image: small-minded, vengeful and partisan. Hardly the sort of God worth worshipping.

I don’t mean to be snarky or dismissive, but if God exists, I’m pretty confident she will reward charity, inclusiveness and loving-kindness rather than prejudice and hate. But then, I must hasten to say that I can’t really know.

Unlike Sandy Rios, I haven’t chatted with God lately.

I don’t have much to add to Kennedy’s comments, though I’d of course be concerned for Rios if her blouse and skirt are of two different fabrics or if she and the family ate at Red Lobster last night.

The Washington Times has a similar worry (internal links omitted):

Christian churches are being warned that if they continue to sponsor Boy Scout troops, they are opening themselves to multiple legal challenges that could affect whether they can “freely preach the Gospel.”

…

The policy change has legal ramifications for religious chartering groups, potentially exposing them to lawsuits if they continue to sponsor troops while seeking to maintain the traditional Christian teaching that homosexual behavior is immoral.

What could happen is “somebody would come and say, ‘We want to use your church for a same-sex wedding ceremony,’ and the church would say, ‘Wait, we have a religious belief against that,’” said Erik Stanley, an alliance lawyer and Eagle Scout.

Most states that have gay-marriage laws also have some kind of “conscience exemption” that does not require churches to perform same-sex ceremonies.

But the rebuttal by such a gay advocacy group would be, “Well no, you don’t — or if you do, you’re not sincere or you don’t follow it, because you allow this Boy Scout troop in, and you had to specifically sign a charter” saying that “you agreed with the BSA policy of allowing in openly homosexual youth,” Mr. Stanley said.

“That’s our basic concern — that it weakens the church’s freedom of religion and freedom of association arguments on that point,” he said, adding that churches may need to separate from the Boy Scouts of America to “protect their right to freely preach the Gospel” and “be a witness to our nation’s youth.”

The problem with all of that hyperbolic fear-mongering is that it’s all bullshit. Grade A bullshit. You have to do all sorts of mental gymnastics to follow the logic of this insane “concern”. One important point to note is that despite the fear being expressed, the author didn’t identify a single example of a church that had been sued to be forced to perform a same-sex marriage. Apparently, the author of this article and the groups “warning” the churches are completely unaware that there is a difference between religious marriage and civil marriage. A Catholic church doesn’t have to marry anyone it doesn’t want to; nor does a Jewish synagogue or an Evangelical Christian church. For that matter, we haven’t seen lawsuits by Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or atheists demanding that Christian churches officiate their marriages on the basis of the fact that they sponsored Boy Scout troops with Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist kids. You see, to the people pushing this kind of argument, it’s not about reality; it’s about fear. And these homophobic bigots are doing everything that they can to convince their dwindling followers that compassion towards homosexuals will inevitably lead toward some sort of Biblical smackdown or something.

Then we have Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (R-Michigan) who said this week that he wanted to impeach President Obama:

If I could write that bill and submit it, it would be a dream come true,” Bentivolio said. “I stood 12 feet away from the guy and listened to him. I couldn’t stand being there, but because he is president I have to respect the office. That’s my job, as a congressman, I respect the office.”

“I went back to my office and I’ve had lawyers come in,” the congressman continued. “These are lawyers, PhDs in history, and I said, ‘Tell me how I can impeach the president of the United States.’”

(Emphasis added.) Why, I wonder, is that Rep. Bentivolio “couldn’t stand” being just 12 feet from President Obama? Was he afraid that some of the President’s “blackness” might rub off or something? More importantly, when asked why he didn’t introduce a bill of impeachment, Rep. Bentivolio was forced to acknowledge a problem:

“Until we have evidence, you’re going to become a laughingstock if you’ve submitted the bill to impeach the president because number one, you’ve got to convince the press,” he said. “There are some people out there no matter what Obama does he’s still the greatest president they’ve ever had. That’s what you’re fighting.”

In other words, Rep. Bentivolio wants to impeach President Obama even though he has no evidence of an impeachable offense. Hmm. Why then does he want to impeach President Obama? And note further that in Rep. Bentivolio’s warped little world, the “number one” thing you need to do is not to gather evidence; rather, it’s to convince the press. He criticizes people who think that President Obama is the greatest president no matter what he does, yet he wants to impeach without evidence. Irony, anyone? Calling Alanis Morriessette.

I also “liked” this quotation from Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY) on Fox News:

“He has an agenda and he’s going to do whatever he has to do to pass that agenda, regardless of the Constitution,” Grimm said. “I mean, I think our founding fathers are turning over in the graves right now because he’s just so blatant in his — the administrators, the people he puts in charge of these agencies are bold and brazen about saying, ‘yes, we’re going to make an end run around Congress.’”

(Original emphasis deleted.) What brazen, unconstitutional, end run has Rep. Grimm fuming? The FCC has proposed a surcharge on telephone bills, that would add, for a period of 3 years, approximately $4.00 per year to an average phone bill (note that was $4.00; I didn’t mistakenly drop a 0…) in order to provide broadband Internet access to schools that don’t currently have broadband.

In the category of “hard to believe” someone actually said that, I give you this item from Tucker Carlson’s The Daily Caller about the new dog that the Obama family got this week (emphasis added):

It’s a dog named “Sunny.” Apparently it’s a girl and it was born in 2012 in Michigan, where the unemployment rate was 8.8 percent last month. It is the Obamas’ second dog, after “Bo.”

…

With the addition of Sunny, the Obamas now have two black Portuguese water dogs.

The Obamas do not have any white dogs.

Seriously? First, why was it worth noting, in an article about a dog, that Michigan has an unemployment rate of 8.8%? Note that the article didn’t mention that Michigan has a Republican governor and Republican-dominated legislature. If you’re going to mention the unemployment rate, that seems pertinent, no? But it’s that last line that leaves me nearly speechless: “The Obamas do not have any white dogs.” Obviously, that is concrete proof that President Obama is a racist that hates white people and white culture. Oh, except for the fact that the Obama’s first dog — Bo — is mostly black and a little bit white …

…you know, like President Obama whose mother was white.

Then again, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-California) doesn’t believe that there are different races in America:

Interestingly, that provision for patriotic integration is missing from the Senate legislation. The motto of this country is e pluribus unum, and one of its meanings is “from many nations, one nation, the American nation.” There’s only one race here, it’s the American race. And the only way you accomplish that is through assimilation. That is what our immigration laws are designed to promote, and that is precisely what illegal immigration undermines.

Um, what? I mean… er… Oh, fuck it. I have no words. Seriously.

But to finish, I have to go back to Tennessee and a story that many of you have already heard about. When parents of 7-month-old boy went to court about child support issues and to determine which parent’s last name the child would use, the Tennessee family court magistrate judge decided not only the issues before her. No. She also ordered that the child’s first name be changed from Messiah to Martin.

“The word Messiah is a title and it’s a title that has only been earned by one person and that one person is Jesus Christ,” Judge Ballew said.

Yes. You read that right. Judge Ballew determined that because her religion holds that “Messiah” is a title that has “only been earned by one person” then that title cannot be used as a name. I have to wonder how anyone could become a judge without even a passing, rudimentary notion of that little thing called the First Amendment.

Well, that’s enough for now. I just wish that I didn’t have so much more material that I could have drawn from for this post. If you come across a comment that makes your jaw drop, let me know!

Mitt Romney Endorses … a Far Right Extremist

Guilt by association is a dangerous game. And usually unfair. A politician shouldn’t necessarily be held to account for things that a supporter says, though it often depends on how close to the politician that someone is and just how offensive the statement may have been. Thus, I think that it’s probably unfair to hold President Obama or Mitt Romney accountable for the statements of other random Democrats or Republicans, respectively. On the other hand, when a candidate actively courts the support of a particular person or when the comments are just so far over-the-top, then the politician does have some degree of obligation to respond in some way. Thus, Sen. John McCain was correct to reject the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee. And Gov. Romney should probably have done the same following some of the more obnoxious statements of Donald Trump and Ted Nugent.

And yet it’s a different story entirely when a politician chooses to associate with or endorse someone. In that case, the politician, by giving that endorsement, especially to someone “down ticket”, essentially “owns” the views expressed by the person so endorsed. After all, the politician didn’t have to endorse the person; rather the politician, in giving the endorsement, expressed a choice and belief in that other person’s candidacy and views. That’s what an endorsement means.

Which brings me to Mitt Romney and Iowa Rep. Steve King.

I know that Rep. King may not be a household name, at least not to those who don’t follow politics as obsessively as I do. But for those who have been paying careful attention, King is someone who has likely appeared on their radar more than once. And at a campaign rally in Iowa last month, Mitt Romney endorsed Steve King. Romney told Iowa voters that they needed to reelect King and said that he wanted King to be his “partner” in Washington.

So what’s wrong with that? Well let’s look at a list of Steve King’s greatest hits, shall we? (Thanks to Think Progress for compiling some of the following items.)

• King expressed support for Missouri Republican Rep. Todd Akin after his now infamous comments about women not getting pregnant from “legitimate rape”. King is also a co-sponsor of a bill that would ban the use of Federal funds for abortions for rapes that weren’t “forcible” (e.g., statutory rape) and when asked about young victims of incestuous rape King responded that he wasn’t aware in a “personal way” with those sorts of victims.
• King also believes that US law currently permits a sexual predator who impregnates a young girl (wait, I though he wasn’t aware of such situations a “personal way”) to pick her up at the playground, drive her across state lines, force her to have an abortion, and then drop her off back at the swingset. Seriously. His words.
• King believes that the Supreme Court’s decision in Griswold v. Connecticut was wrong. That decision, you may recall, recognized a fundamental right to privacy and concluded that a state could not ban contraception.
• King’s belief about Griswold v. Connecticut isn’t surprising given his general views of contraception: “Preventing babies from being born is not medicine. That’s not— that’s not constructive to our culture and our civilization. If we let our birth rate get down below replacement rate we’re a dying civilization.”
• King has compared immigrants to dogs and suggested that we choose which immigrants to allow to enter the US in the same way that he chooses a good bird dog.
• King also advocated for certain types of profiling to catch immigrants and noted that you can tell illegal immigrants on the basis of their shoes and your “sixth sense”.
• King suggested that we build an electrified fence along the Mexican border (he even showed Congress a model he’d built) and compared that proposed fence to the way farmers handle livestock.
• Immigrants who want to be part of American society, King suggests “love taxes” and thus aren’t (or won’t be) “real Americans”.
• King also claims that undocumented immigrants are responsible for approximately one-quarter of the murders committed in the US each year. His claim is baseless (and easily refuted with arithmetic).
• King was very active in Iowa politics, even spending $80,000 for advertising, to defeat the Iowa Supreme Court judges who had ruled that Iowa’s ban on gay marriage was discriminatory.
• King … and I’m not making this up … voted against a federal ban on interstate dog fighting and against a ban on bringing children to dog fights. King compared dog fighting to consensual martial sports like boxing. Given Romney’s own issues with dog cruelty, this seems to be either an odd place for an endorsement … or a theme.
• King thinks that it is unconstitutional for states to ban foie gras. Of course, I suspect that he has no trouble with states banning marijuana or the patchwork of laws regarding alcohol.
• When, in 2010, a man flew his small plane into a federal office building in Texas, apparently to protest the IRS, King told an interviewer that he understood the man’s frustrations and seemed to sympathize with the domestic terrorist because the IRS is, you know, evil or something.
• After the passage of the Affordable Care Act, King spoke to a group of Tea Party activists and seemed to suggest that secession might be a necessary response to the new law: “If I could start a country with a bunch of people, they’d be the folks who were standing with us the last few days. Let’s hope we don’t have to do that! Let’s beat that other side to a pulp! Let’s take them out. Let’s chase them down. There’s going to be a reckoning!” (Emphasis added.) Hmm. I wonder if the folks he wants to beat to a pulp would include Mitt Romney, the architect of Obamacare’s core framework?
• King refused to vote for a House resolution honoring Ramadan (though he did offer a similar bill to honor Christmas).
• And though this should not come as any great surprise, King is a birther: “It would have been awfully hard to fraudulently file the birth notice of Barack Obama being born in Hawaii and get that into our public libraries and that microfiche they keep of all the newspapers published. That doesn’t mean there aren’t some other explanations on how they might’ve announced that by telegram from Kenya. The list goes on. But drilling into that now, even if we could get a definitive answer and even if it turned out that Barack Obama was conclusively not born in America, I don’t think we could get that case sold between now and November.” (Emphasis added.)
• Finally, King thinks that Sen. Joe McCarthy — you know, the guy after whom “McCarthyism” is named — is a “great American hero”.

Need I say more?

And this is the guy that Mitt Romney endorsed, told Iowa voters to vote for, and wants for a partner in Washington.

Sorry, Mitt. We don’t need people like Steve King in Congress (or in any other position with responsibility) and you’re decision to endorse King is just further evidence of why you need to be at home in one of your houses in January watching President Obama be inaugurated again.

President Obama, Immigration Reform, and Republican Bullsh*t

As readers of this blog most likely know, I was (and remain) a strong supporter of the DREAM Act. I’ve gone so far as to express my belief that Opposition to the DREAM Act Is a Racist “F-You” to the American Dream. And I was very critical of soon-to-be-former Sen. Lugar for dropping his support for the DREAM Act (of which he had been a sponsor for years) because, he claimed, Democrats had “politicized” the issue of immigration (I’m Losing Respect for Sen. Lugar (update)).

Now that President Obama Secretary of Homeland Security has issued her memo suspending deportations of certain undocumented immigrants, many Republicans have become almost apoplectic in their anger and dismay. So it’s no great surprise the extent to which they have decided to lie and demagogue and simply bullshit their way around the issue. The most common things you’re likely to hear Republicans say (over and over and over) are that President Obama violated the Constitution (or, perhaps, for those who prefer to be a bit less bombastic, the claim may be that President Obama overstepped his authority), that his action creates an amnesty or a “pathway to citizenship”, that the “amnesty” will encourage more illegal immigration, and that his action makes comprehensive immigration reform more difficult to accomplish. I want to (briefly, I hope) tackle each of those points. But first, it’s worth doing something that most of the Republicans and Faux News “journalists” can’t be bothered to do: Look at what President Obama and the Department of Homeland Security actually did.

So, for starters, you might want to read the memo that Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano actually wrote to the Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Read her memo and let me know which parts you disagree with:

By this memorandum, I am setting forth how, in the exercise of our prosecutorial discretion, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should enforce the Nation’s immigration laws against certain young people who were brought to this country as children and know only this country as home. As a general matter, these individuals lacked the intent to violate the law and our ongoing review of pending removal cases is already offering administrative closure to many of them. However, additional measures are necessary to ensure that our enforcement resources are not expended on these low priority cases but are instead appropriately focused on people who meet our enforcement priorities.

The following criteria should be satisfied before an individual is considered for an exercise of prosecutorial discretion pursuant to this memorandum:

• came to the United States under the age of sixteen;

• has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and is present in the United States on the date of this memorandum;

• is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general education development certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;

• has not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety; and

• is not above the age of thirty.

Our Nation’s immigration laws must be enforced in a strong and sensible manner. They are not designed to be blindly enforced without consideration given to the individual circumstances of each case. Nor are they designed to remove productive young people to countries where they may not have lived or even speak the language. Indeed, many of these young people have already contributed to our country in significant ways. Prosecutorial discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here.

As part of this exercise of prosecutorial discretion, the above criteria are to be considered whether or not an individual is already in removal proceedings or subject to a final order of removal. No individual should receive deferred action under this memorandum unless they first pass a background check and requests for relief pursuant to this memorandum are to be decided on a case by case basis. DHS cannot provide any assurance that relief will be granted in all cases.

1. With respect to individuals who are encountered by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS):

• With respect to individuals who meet the above criteria, ICE and CBP should immediately exercise their discretion, on an individual basis, in order to prevent low priority individuals from being placed into removal proceedings or removed from the United States.

• USCIS is instructed to implement this memorandum consistent with its existing guidance regarding the issuance of notices to appear.

2. With respect to individuals who are in removal proceedings but not yet subject to a final order of removal, and who meet the above criteria:

•I CE should exercise prosecutorial discretion, on an individual basis, for individuals who meet the above criteria by deferring action for a period of two years, subject to renewal, in order to prevent low priority individuals from being removed from the United States.

• ICE is instructed to use its Office of the Public Advocate to permit individuals who believe they meet the above criteria to identify themselves through a clear and efficient process.

• ICE is directed to begin implementing this process within 60 days of the date of this memorandum.

• ICE is also instructed to immediately begin the process of deferring action against individuals who meet the above criteria whose cases have already been identified through the ongoing review of pending cases before the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

3. With respect to the individuals who are not currently in removal proceedings and meet the above criteria, and pass a background check:

• USCIS should establish a clear and efficient process for exercising prosecutorial discretion, on an individual basis, by deferring action against individuals who meet the above criteria and are at least 15 years old, for a period of two years, subject to renewal, in order to prevent low priority individuals from being placed into removal proceedings or removed from the United States.

• The USCIS process shall also be available to individuals subject to a final order of removal regardless of their age.

• USCIS is directed to begin implementing this process within 60 days of the date of this memorandum.

For individuals who are granted deferred action by either ICE or USCIS, USCIS shall accept applications to determine whether these individuals qualify for work authorization during this period of deferred action.

This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights. It remains for the executive branch, however, to set forth policy for the exercise of discretion within the framework of the existing law. I have done so here.

Whew. Sorry. I know that’s a mouthful. Just out of curiosity, now that you know what the Obama administration really did, was the news coverage, punditry, or political posturing that you heard even close to accurate? If not, you might want to think about who you’re listening to, what agenda they might have, and whether you should trust other things from that “news” source. One point to chew on: This wasn’t an executive order at all and if you hear that it was … well, someone either hasn’t really looked at the facts, is playing fast and loose with those facts, or isn’t quite telling you the truth.

Now, on to the substance.

The first point that I want to make is on the subject of prosecutorial discretion. That’s not a phrase that has been used in the public sphere very often prior to this matter. In essence, the idea is simply that the government, acting through its prosecutors, has the discretion of which crimes to prosecute and which alleged criminals to bring to trial. Prosecutors exercise this sort of discretion all the time. Obviously, they may choose not to prosecute a case when the evidence is weak. The prosecutor may be convinced that the alleged criminal is, indeed, guilty, but without compelling evidence the prosecution would be a waste of limited resources. Similarly, and probably more importantly, prosecutors don’t have to prosecute every single crime. Does every teen caught with a beer go to jail or even appear before a court? Of course not. What about every person who gets pulled over for speeding or running a red light? Does every single shoplifter get prosecuted? And it isn’t just minor crimes that are sometimes ignored. How many Wall Street bankers have been prosecuted for the actions that led up to the financial meltdown? How many members of the Bush administration have been prosecuted for advocating, ordering, or permitting torture? With regard to immigration, we know that prosecutors have routinely elected not to bring deportation proceedings against certain illegal immigrants for a whole host of reasons, from economic hardship, to family obligations, to, well, the list is probably endless. And, until now, that has never really been a problem.

We have a limited number of prosecutors, a limited number of courts, and finite resources available. Thus, not every crime is, can be, or should be, treated identically. Prosecutors have to decide which cases are the most important ones to prosecute. They have to decide who to deport. And that is prosecutorial discretion.

So, in essence, Secretary Napolitano has simply instructed the prosecutors working under her (and President Obama has essentially directed the Justice Department’s prosecutors, who it is worth mentioning are political appointees) to focus their attention on other, more important crimes and “criminals” and not to waste those precious prosecutorial resources on this small subset of people who have otherwise not committed any crimes and who are valuable members of society.

One quick tangent: Let’s say for the sake of argument that a 14-year-old commits a non-violent felony. Possession of a marijuana joint, for example. When that child turns 18, absent aggravating circumstances at the time of the conviction, doesn’t that crime get expunged from the child’s record? Of course. But that isn’t true in the case of a child brought to the US illegally by his or her parents. When that child turns 18 he or she is still deemed to be a criminal, I guess because the continued act of being in the US is a crime, even though the “bad act” was not really committed by the child, but by his or her parents. OK. Tangent over.

Now, given what I’ve described about prosecutorial discretion and now that you’ve read what the Department of Homeland Security has actually done, could you please tell me how President Obama has either violated the Constitution or overstepped his authority? Recall, of course, that it is the President who is in charge of the Executive branch of which both the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department are a part. If Congress wants to pass a law that requires each and every undocumented immigrant to be deported, I suppose they could (of course, they’d also probably have to increase funding for prosecutor’s offices, public defenders, and courts). Or, they could pass immigration reform.

As for those who say that President Obama has issued some kind of amnesty (like, for example, Sen. Jim DeMint [R-South Carolina] or Rep. Lamar Smith [R-Texas]; see Politifact’s analysis of whether President Obama’s action grants amnesty), they would do well to re-read (presuming that they’ve read the memo in the first place) the last paragraph (emphasis added):

This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights. It remains for the executive branch, however, to set forth policy for the exercise of discretion within the framework of the existing law. I have done so here.

One quick issue to note about this paragraph. The statement that the memo “confers no substantive right” is likely only meaningful to lawyers, but it is extremely important. In essence, that paragraph means that someone cannot sue the Department of Homeland Security or US Government to force compliance with this memo or to prevent a prosecutor from using prosecutorial discretion to go ahead with a deportation proceeding. In other words, the memo doesn’t grant any rights to undocumented immigrants; rather, is just tells prosecutors how to handle certain situations.

Anyway, given that the memo specifically notes that it is not conferring immigration status or a pathway to citizenship and noting further that “[o]nly the Congress” can do so, if you hear a “journalist,” pundit or politician tell you that President Obama either conferred immigration status or created a pathway to citizenship, please recognize that they are lying to you.

Another of the charges leveled against President Obama is that the decision to not deport certain people will encourage additional illegal immigration. First, it’s worth remembering that the Patron Saint of the Republican Party, Saint Ronald of Reagan, granted amnesty to over 3,000,000 illegal immigrants. Hmm. Anyway, with regard to the current claim that the policy will encourage illegal immigration, it is worth recalling this part of the memo (emphasis added):

has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and is present in the United States on the date of this memorandum;

I’m not exactly sure why a policy that requires presence in the US today will encourage future illegal immigration. And just to show you how crazy some Republicans are when it comes to their need to demonize illegal immigrants and President Obama, it’s worth noting the claim made by Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) in an interview with CNN’s Soledad O’Brien:

“You’re talking about people that came over at 16 years of age. At that point, you had a say in it. And that looks kind of more like amnesty,” the congressman said.

O’Brien was skeptical of this remark, challenging the congressman: “You think a 16-year-old whose parents are coming across the border has a say in whether or not they’re just going to stay behind in their country?”

“They’re certainly in a position to have a conversation with their parents about it,” Farenthold replied.

Right. So the 16-year-old child should prevent the parents from immigrating illegally. What about a 12-year-old? 4 year-olds? Are they getting “amnesty” Congressman?

Finally, I want to look at what Speaker John Boehner had to say:

I think we all have concerns for those who are caught in this trap, who — who through no fault of their own are here. But the president’s actions are going to make it much more difficult for us to work in a bipartisan way to get to a permanent solution.

Do you have any idea what he’s talking about? I mean let’s think about it for a second. Under Boehner’s leadership, the House of Representatives refused to take up the DREAM Act (it was passed in December 2010, before the new Republican majority came to power). The Senate, meanwhile, passed the DREAM Act … oh, wait. That’s not actually true. A majority of the Senate (55 Senators) voted for the DREAM Act … but in the Senate, a mere majority, even a 5-vote majority, is not enough to override a filibuster, and thus, though supported by a majority of the Senate, the DREAM Act failed. One of the principal objections to the DREAM Act repeatedly voiced by many Republicans was that it granted amnesty and a path to citizenship. Some said that they would support the DREAM Act if it didn’t include amnesty or a path to citizenship (which, is, of course, the whole point of the DREAM Act). But think about it for a minute: Isn’t what the Republicans wanted of the DREAM Act exactly what the Obama administration did? It’s kind of like healthcare reform: Republicans wanted an individual mandate until President Obama agreed with them and gave them what they wanted; then it became unconstitutional.

So anyway, how is it that deciding not to deport children — but not granting them amnesty or path to citizenship — makes it harder to work in a bipartisan way (as if Speaker Boehner has worked in a bipartisan way since taking the speaker’s gavel…)? Remember what Secretary Napolitano’s memo said:

Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights.

But somehow, in Speaker Boehner’s world, that makes it more difficult to act in a bipartisan way.

No, the truth is much simpler. Republicans don’t want immigration reform. And, maybe even more importantly, they don’t want President Obama to have any sort of a success that he can point to. The Obama administration did something that will be popular with many Americans (not just Hispanics Latinos). And that sort of success and popularity is anathema to many on the right. So now, to act in a bipartisan manner or to work on immigration reform might, in some circles, look like a victory for President Obama. And the Republicans can’t have that now, can they?

Oh, and isn’t it interesting that Mitt Romney refuses to say whether he would overturn this decision should he become President?

Update (June 22, 2012)

I wanted to add three quick items to this post.

First, yesterday (a week after President Obama’s new policy was announced), Mitt Romney spoke to the National Association of Latino Elected Officials. Here is part of what he said:

Some people have asked if I will let stand the president’s executive action. The answer is that I will put in place my own long-term solution that will replace and supersede the president’s temporary measure.

In other words, Mitt Romney wants to pass comprehensive immigration reform … but he won’t say what that would look like and he won’t say whether he will rescind the instruction not to deport certain undocumented immigrants. And don’t forget that President Obama also wanted to pass immigration reform but was stymied by Republican filibusters and refusal to consider proposals.

Second, since publishing the original post, I’ve read several discussions about the scope of prosecutorial discretion. I’ve seen some interesting arguments as to why President Obama’s action is or is not within the scope of his powers and prosecutorial discretion. I’m still convinced that it was within his powers and is a legitimate example of prosecutorial discretion. But as always, my mind is open and I’m willing to consider arguments to the contrary.

Also, on this point, I also read one analogy of a further example of prosecutorial discretion that I think is quite apropos to the issue of deciding not to deport a particular group of undocumented immigrants. We all know what speed limits are. And we all feel comfortable going at least a little bit faster than the speed limit. Would you have any problem if the Governor, mayor, police chief, or similar official, told police officers not to write tickets for speeding on an Interstate highway unless the person was going at least 10 miles over the posted limit or was driving in a dangerous manner? I suspect that this is already the case. It seems a decent analogy to the deportation issue.

Finally, last night I recalled something I learned when I attended the first Indianapolis Latino-Jewish dialogue last month, namely that use of the term “Latino” was probably a better choice than “Hispanic”. I’ve corrected the the usage in the original post.