First of all, I would like to thank those with whom I have been able to disagree with respectfully. I have, however, received a handful of threatening and less than eloquent responses (if we qualify the term "handful" with hands the size of frying pans.)
I understand that a lot of people who disagree with the DREAM Act are roaring ideologues, spouting charged nativist chants such as "No Amnesty!" and "America for Americans!". I am not one of them. What I am, however, is a skeptic. I am not against immigration, but I am against the DREAM Act because I feel that it was poorly constructed in the rush to have legislation of its kind introduced and passed, and I cannot see it as being pragmatic or effective legislation because of what it lacks.
Showing posts with label Social Issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Issues. Show all posts
December 06, 2010
December 04, 2010
DREAM Act: In Folly Ripe, In Reason Rotten
In my previous blogs, I have made points that appeal mostly to people who already disagree with the DREAM Act. The general response I have received otherwise is "You have valid points, but the principle of the DREAM Act trumps these things." So, I would now like to approach this issue from a different angle.
Beyond the hunger strikes and the trite chants of "No human is illegal", is the DREAM Act likely to live up to its supporters' expectations when put into practice?
Beyond the hunger strikes and the trite chants of "No human is illegal", is the DREAM Act likely to live up to its supporters' expectations when put into practice?
November 28, 2010
DREAM Act: A Compilation of Editorials
As most people who I've spoken to know, I have a lot of opinions about the DREAM Act, which is currently still up in the air. As such, I felt that it would be helpful for people who have not kept up with the legislation quite as much to compile some editorials both for and against it. Below, find a collection of some helpful editorials I have looked up, with a quote from each. Whichever side of the issue you are on, I think it is important to have a balanced view. I would also like to take the opportunity to plug my earlier blog post with my own opinion on the issue, which you can read either by scrolling down if you are accessing my main blog page, or by clicking here.
(This listing will be updated as I find more articles, so check back periodically. Also, if you have an editorial you have written or felt strongly about, send it my way!)
FOR:
"If you knew that by passing legislation to allow 2.1 million American students to pursue higher education or military service, our government could collect $3.6 trillion over the next 40 years, would you do it?"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45524.html
"This law allows students to pay in-state tuition in the public university system if they have attended a California high school for three years and have graduated. That means students like Arthur and Rodrigo are exempt from more expensive nonresident tuition."
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/17/3190948/dream-act-should-be-the-law-of.html
"Sure, there are other priorities, such as extending tax cuts and unemployment insurance. But there always are. Only squeaky wheels get the oil, and the squeak among Hispanics is getting loud and angry."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111803068.html
"The DREAM Act promises a pathway to citizenship if these young people enroll in higher education or commit themselves to military service -- in short, to give back to America more than we expect native-born American citizens to do. And, for what it's worth, these youth want to do it."
http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2010/11/why-we-need-the-dream-act-and-what-you-can-do-steve-lis-story.html
"If the bill, known as the Dream Act, does not pass before a more conservative Congress takes power in January, it is unlikely to pass for years to come."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dream-act-20101128,0,5057601.story?track=rss
Even if they lack the right papers, the young people who would benefit from the DREAM Act are unquestionably American.
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/28/3214064/dream-act-holds-promise-of-economic.html
Coming from a family of simple means, there is no one stepping up to pay for his college. He is an illegal immigrant not by choice but by virtue of transport - his parents brought him here.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/88691977.html
AGAINST:
"...its prognosis for the future might be better if citizenship were reserved for those who earned it through true sacrifice or public works rather than giving it away to anyone willing to spend a couple of years in college building his or her own résumé or skills."
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/fix-the-dream-act-so-it-can-work-937572.html
"Under no circumstances must the DREAM act for Illegal Immigrants become law. This unwise and foolish plan can and must be stopped now before it destroys our country."
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-11-23/news/bs-ed-dream-act-20101123_1_dream-act-lame-duck-illegal-immigrants
"The real victims are the children of illegal immigrants. However, it doesn't change the fact that their parents knowingly broke the law when migrating to the United States. The DREAM Act is putting a band-aid over a bigger issue on immigration."
http://media.www.sdcitytimes.com/media/storage/paper1083/news/2010/10/26/Opinion/The-Dream.Act.Con.Dream.Act.Could.Become.A.Nightmare-3950052.shtml
"Many people are under the false impression the Dream Act would grant citizenship to children born here of illegal immigrant parents. But such children are, at present, automatic U.S. citizens at birth. Instead, the Dream Act would grant legal status to immigrants younger than 36 who arrived in the U.S. as children, have lived here for five years, and are currently either in college or serving in the military."
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/harry-s-dreaming-103606819.html?ref=819
"Six years after their legalization, amnestied aliens can apply for citizenship and petition to bring relatives, including the “seed” criminals (their parents who brought them here illegally), to the United States. This makes the effective size of the amnesty much larger."
http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_dcdc5082-acc7-11df-b9c0-001cc4c03286.html
Unfortunately, Americans are excluded from the benefits of these bills but they will be expected to foot the tax bill and incur some other penalties.
http://www.bloggersbase.com/politics-and-opinions/dream-act-could-become-nightmare-for-us-taxpayers-and-students/
ILLEGAL ALIEN advocates are pressuring the government to grant them amnesty, and Liberals are happily going along with their request!
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010112112147/us/homeland-security/dream-act-will-equal-nightmare-for-american-taxpayers.html
(This listing will be updated as I find more articles, so check back periodically. Also, if you have an editorial you have written or felt strongly about, send it my way!)
FOR:
"If you knew that by passing legislation to allow 2.1 million American students to pursue higher education or military service, our government could collect $3.6 trillion over the next 40 years, would you do it?"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45524.html
"This law allows students to pay in-state tuition in the public university system if they have attended a California high school for three years and have graduated. That means students like Arthur and Rodrigo are exempt from more expensive nonresident tuition."
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/17/3190948/dream-act-should-be-the-law-of.html
"Sure, there are other priorities, such as extending tax cuts and unemployment insurance. But there always are. Only squeaky wheels get the oil, and the squeak among Hispanics is getting loud and angry."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111803068.html
"The DREAM Act promises a pathway to citizenship if these young people enroll in higher education or commit themselves to military service -- in short, to give back to America more than we expect native-born American citizens to do. And, for what it's worth, these youth want to do it."
http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2010/11/why-we-need-the-dream-act-and-what-you-can-do-steve-lis-story.html
"If the bill, known as the Dream Act, does not pass before a more conservative Congress takes power in January, it is unlikely to pass for years to come."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dream-act-20101128,0,5057601.story?track=rss
Even if they lack the right papers, the young people who would benefit from the DREAM Act are unquestionably American.
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/28/3214064/dream-act-holds-promise-of-economic.html
Coming from a family of simple means, there is no one stepping up to pay for his college. He is an illegal immigrant not by choice but by virtue of transport - his parents brought him here.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/88691977.html
AGAINST:
"...its prognosis for the future might be better if citizenship were reserved for those who earned it through true sacrifice or public works rather than giving it away to anyone willing to spend a couple of years in college building his or her own résumé or skills."
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/fix-the-dream-act-so-it-can-work-937572.html
"Under no circumstances must the DREAM act for Illegal Immigrants become law. This unwise and foolish plan can and must be stopped now before it destroys our country."
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-11-23/news/bs-ed-dream-act-20101123_1_dream-act-lame-duck-illegal-immigrants
"The real victims are the children of illegal immigrants. However, it doesn't change the fact that their parents knowingly broke the law when migrating to the United States. The DREAM Act is putting a band-aid over a bigger issue on immigration."
http://media.www.sdcitytimes.com/media/storage/paper1083/news/2010/10/26/Opinion/The-Dream.Act.Con.Dream.Act.Could.Become.A.Nightmare-3950052.shtml
"Many people are under the false impression the Dream Act would grant citizenship to children born here of illegal immigrant parents. But such children are, at present, automatic U.S. citizens at birth. Instead, the Dream Act would grant legal status to immigrants younger than 36 who arrived in the U.S. as children, have lived here for five years, and are currently either in college or serving in the military."
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/harry-s-dreaming-103606819.html?ref=819
"Six years after their legalization, amnestied aliens can apply for citizenship and petition to bring relatives, including the “seed” criminals (their parents who brought them here illegally), to the United States. This makes the effective size of the amnesty much larger."
http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_dcdc5082-acc7-11df-b9c0-001cc4c03286.html
Unfortunately, Americans are excluded from the benefits of these bills but they will be expected to foot the tax bill and incur some other penalties.
http://www.bloggersbase.com/politics-and-opinions/dream-act-could-become-nightmare-for-us-taxpayers-and-students/
ILLEGAL ALIEN advocates are pressuring the government to grant them amnesty, and Liberals are happily going along with their request!
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010112112147/us/homeland-security/dream-act-will-equal-nightmare-for-american-taxpayers.html
If I can D.R.E.A.M...
The DREAM Act is something that I have been thinking about a lot, after first hearing about it pre-news hype. While I feel that anything that encourages pursuing an education is a step in the right direction, I have come to the conclusion that the DREAM Act is not what we need.
In essence, the DREAM Act will allow undocumented immigrants the ability to pursue an education or military service as an avenue towards citizenship. The highly politicized name in and of itself makes me feel wary - while the intentions are admirable, the manipulative aspect of the name makes me cringe. It automatically wants to attribute stigma to anyone who disagrees with it:
"You're against the DREAM Act?"
"You want to kill the DREAM?!"
It's a little bit hypocritical to tout adages about freedom and equality, and at the same time try to stigmatize anyone who disgrees with you.
I also think the wording of the legislation itself is somewhat vague, and leaves a lot of room for corruption in its enforcement. There's a lot of room for paperwork to be lost or unaccounted for. Even if the intention is right, enforcing the DREAM Act could get messy, because something like this is unprecendented, and leaving it up to the states instead of creating federal regulation does not seem to be realistic.
My biggest peeve with the legislation, however, is the fact that while the United States does need to improve its educational system, there is something about the DREAM Act that our economy does not need: further concentrating the population of individuals with postsecondary education within the United States.
I don't think that it has evaded anyone's notice that the American economy and job market are going through a low point - and a great deal of this is due to the outsourcing of menial labor and manufacturing jobs to less developed nations where the labor can be contracted for cheap. Meanwhile, "underemployment" is becoming widespread in the United States, a circumstance which requires educated individuals to take jobs that require less than their education level in order to have jobs at all.
Allowing more people to be educated in the United States and to stay here will only exacerbate this conditon - more educated individuals becomind citizens and staying in the United States means more people competing for jobs which are already few and far between. Passage of the DREAM Act will discourage immigrants from pursuing an education in their home countries and these countries, especially in the developing world, will continue to be looked to as simply sources of cheap labor.
What is needed for a worldwide economic recovery is a worldwide effort to improve educational standards, not merely shepherding all of the educated individuals into the United States. If the Asian nations where American companies outsource the majority of their labor were to transition to countries in which more individuals were more educated, that labor would not be as cheap, and those jobs could be brought back to the United States. Concentrating postsecondary degrees in the United States as the DREAM Act would do, however, would have the opposite effect.
While I recognize that the DREAM Act is a valuable contribution to the people to whom it applies, I also feel that it only puts a bandaid over the problem the world economy faces. If we want to keep up this system of having a global economy, we have to think on a global scale.
In essence, the DREAM Act will allow undocumented immigrants the ability to pursue an education or military service as an avenue towards citizenship. The highly politicized name in and of itself makes me feel wary - while the intentions are admirable, the manipulative aspect of the name makes me cringe. It automatically wants to attribute stigma to anyone who disagrees with it:
"You're against the DREAM Act?"
"You want to kill the DREAM?!"
It's a little bit hypocritical to tout adages about freedom and equality, and at the same time try to stigmatize anyone who disgrees with you.
I also think the wording of the legislation itself is somewhat vague, and leaves a lot of room for corruption in its enforcement. There's a lot of room for paperwork to be lost or unaccounted for. Even if the intention is right, enforcing the DREAM Act could get messy, because something like this is unprecendented, and leaving it up to the states instead of creating federal regulation does not seem to be realistic.
My biggest peeve with the legislation, however, is the fact that while the United States does need to improve its educational system, there is something about the DREAM Act that our economy does not need: further concentrating the population of individuals with postsecondary education within the United States.
I don't think that it has evaded anyone's notice that the American economy and job market are going through a low point - and a great deal of this is due to the outsourcing of menial labor and manufacturing jobs to less developed nations where the labor can be contracted for cheap. Meanwhile, "underemployment" is becoming widespread in the United States, a circumstance which requires educated individuals to take jobs that require less than their education level in order to have jobs at all.
Allowing more people to be educated in the United States and to stay here will only exacerbate this conditon - more educated individuals becomind citizens and staying in the United States means more people competing for jobs which are already few and far between. Passage of the DREAM Act will discourage immigrants from pursuing an education in their home countries and these countries, especially in the developing world, will continue to be looked to as simply sources of cheap labor.
What is needed for a worldwide economic recovery is a worldwide effort to improve educational standards, not merely shepherding all of the educated individuals into the United States. If the Asian nations where American companies outsource the majority of their labor were to transition to countries in which more individuals were more educated, that labor would not be as cheap, and those jobs could be brought back to the United States. Concentrating postsecondary degrees in the United States as the DREAM Act would do, however, would have the opposite effect.
While I recognize that the DREAM Act is a valuable contribution to the people to whom it applies, I also feel that it only puts a bandaid over the problem the world economy faces. If we want to keep up this system of having a global economy, we have to think on a global scale.
November 07, 2010
Reaction to the Johannes Mehserle Sentencing
Alright. I've been super busy lately, but it's been a big topic of discussion lately how the Johannes Mehserle sentencing went down, and I want to put my two cents in on the subject as well.
1. I am by no means saying that Oscar Grant's character is or should have been on trial in this situation, but my initial emotional reaction was that if he was a wholesome family man that loved his daughter the way his supporters are touting, why wasn't he spending New Years at home with his family, instead of being out with his boys that night?
2. Johannes Mehserle messed up. He did something stupid, and he didn't think - but this isn't so much a strike against him personally as it is a strike against BART police training, if anything. When you're in law enforcement and you're in a delicate situation, you don't hesitate. Hesitating when things could potentially become dangerous could cost your fellow officers and plenty of innocent bystanders their lives, especially when an altercation is occurring in a public place.
3. For people saying that Mehserle's "I thought it was my taser" excuse is flimsy -- have you ever worked any sort of military or law enforcement? Have you ever worked the night shift on New Year's? I have no doubt that the police spent the entire night dealing with rowdy, unruly BART riders and partygoers, probably in the thousands. By the late hour that the call was made leading to the apprehension of Oscar Grant and his friends, I can imagine how tired frazzled all of the officers must have been. They probably didn't have many people able to relieve them on duty, because everyone able to work was already working, and plenty of them probably put in for time off because it was a holiday and they wanted to spend it with their families (see #1).
4. More of an addition to the previous point, it was New Years, and Mehserle was probably dealing with more than his share of belligerent, unruly partygoers under the influence of drugs and alcohol - and Oscar Grant was one of them, according to most accounts. This even includes accounts by Oscar Grant's supporters.
5. As a "person of color", I do not want to be represented by Oscar Grant. I don't want to put him on a pedestal as the next MLK because if this was a case of Martin Luther King Jr. being apprehended on a train platform by racist police officers, he would have let them slap the cuffs on him with his head held high. Oscar Grant isn't a martyr for the new wave of the civil rights movement. There are plenty of white men who do equally knuckleheaded crap (excuse the language) as Oscar Grant was doing, and no one would have objected to a gun being pulled on a "drunk wigger actin' a fool" in the same way they have to Oscar Grant.
1. I am by no means saying that Oscar Grant's character is or should have been on trial in this situation, but my initial emotional reaction was that if he was a wholesome family man that loved his daughter the way his supporters are touting, why wasn't he spending New Years at home with his family, instead of being out with his boys that night?
2. Johannes Mehserle messed up. He did something stupid, and he didn't think - but this isn't so much a strike against him personally as it is a strike against BART police training, if anything. When you're in law enforcement and you're in a delicate situation, you don't hesitate. Hesitating when things could potentially become dangerous could cost your fellow officers and plenty of innocent bystanders their lives, especially when an altercation is occurring in a public place.
3. For people saying that Mehserle's "I thought it was my taser" excuse is flimsy -- have you ever worked any sort of military or law enforcement? Have you ever worked the night shift on New Year's? I have no doubt that the police spent the entire night dealing with rowdy, unruly BART riders and partygoers, probably in the thousands. By the late hour that the call was made leading to the apprehension of Oscar Grant and his friends, I can imagine how tired frazzled all of the officers must have been. They probably didn't have many people able to relieve them on duty, because everyone able to work was already working, and plenty of them probably put in for time off because it was a holiday and they wanted to spend it with their families (see #1).
4. More of an addition to the previous point, it was New Years, and Mehserle was probably dealing with more than his share of belligerent, unruly partygoers under the influence of drugs and alcohol - and Oscar Grant was one of them, according to most accounts. This even includes accounts by Oscar Grant's supporters.
5. As a "person of color", I do not want to be represented by Oscar Grant. I don't want to put him on a pedestal as the next MLK because if this was a case of Martin Luther King Jr. being apprehended on a train platform by racist police officers, he would have let them slap the cuffs on him with his head held high. Oscar Grant isn't a martyr for the new wave of the civil rights movement. There are plenty of white men who do equally knuckleheaded crap (excuse the language) as Oscar Grant was doing, and no one would have objected to a gun being pulled on a "drunk wigger actin' a fool" in the same way they have to Oscar Grant.
September 09, 2010
What's the Word?
What frustrates me, even though I have wholeheartedly practiced it all my life and still do, is that Christians, more than anyone, adopt a holier-than-thou attitude when most Christians are not particularly well-versed in their OWN Scriptures.
Most Christians, myself included, do not even speak the language our Scriptures were written in: Hebrew and Aramaic.
Many Jews read the Torah in Hebrew. Many Muslims read the Quran in Arabic.Christians read TRANSLATIONS of our Bible. In English. And who translated these Bibles? How can Christians preach that their knowledge and their faith is superior than another when they haven't even REALLY read their own Scripture?
I don't mean this in any way to say I am disowning my religion, but to say that I am secure enough in my faith that I can practice it without feeling compelled to marginalize anyone else's.
Most Christians, myself included, do not even speak the language our Scriptures were written in: Hebrew and Aramaic.
Many Jews read the Torah in Hebrew. Many Muslims read the Quran in Arabic.Christians read TRANSLATIONS of our Bible. In English. And who translated these Bibles? How can Christians preach that their knowledge and their faith is superior than another when they haven't even REALLY read their own Scripture?
I don't mean this in any way to say I am disowning my religion, but to say that I am secure enough in my faith that I can practice it without feeling compelled to marginalize anyone else's.
January 27, 2010
In Memoriam of Howard Zinn (1922-2010)
I just needed to post a blog in memoriam of Howard Zinn, historian and political activist, who today passed away at age 87.
I was first introduced to "A People's History of the United States" when I was in high school. Ever since then, I've used the things I learned in his book to critically analyze the messages presented in the political science and history classes I've taken, and to broaden my understanding of the images we are brought to believe in our education and exposure to messages regarding the state of the society around us.
In honor of a well-educated visionary, I'm going to recommend a few books that everyone should read, in the spirit of Howard Zinn's critical perspective.
"A People's History of the United States: 1492 - Present" (Howard Zinn)
"Lies My Teacher Told Me" (James W. Loewen)
"Guns, Germs, & Steel" (Jared Diamond)
"Pedagogy of the Oppressed" (Paulo Freire)
I was first introduced to "A People's History of the United States" when I was in high school. Ever since then, I've used the things I learned in his book to critically analyze the messages presented in the political science and history classes I've taken, and to broaden my understanding of the images we are brought to believe in our education and exposure to messages regarding the state of the society around us.
In honor of a well-educated visionary, I'm going to recommend a few books that everyone should read, in the spirit of Howard Zinn's critical perspective.
"A People's History of the United States: 1492 - Present" (Howard Zinn)
"Lies My Teacher Told Me" (James W. Loewen)
"Guns, Germs, & Steel" (Jared Diamond)
"Pedagogy of the Oppressed" (Paulo Freire)
November 30, 2009
At Odds: Religion and Social Change?
First of all, before I get down to business, I know this is sort of an unusual opinion in some circles. I'm a person of very mixed political tendencies - some issues I lean left, others I lean right. I believe strongly in women's rights, but I am also strongly pro-life and a deeply devout Christian.
I don't know what got me started in thinking about this - but living in and around San Francisco, you see a lot of protests. Some of them, you agree with, but others, you find distasteful.
What I don't understand is why there is such a rift between political activism and being devoutly religious. I know a lot of devout Christians - good, educated, moral people - who are unequivocally, completely against political activism, saying that it's too liberal, too radical - a lot of heavily loaded adjectives.
Lately, I've been doing some thinking, and I came to ask myself - how can you believe in Jesus Christ and hate political activism? There are time, admittedly, when activism goes out of line, but to think of it as something negative in every case? To simply hate all cases of protest, because it is protest?
Jesus Christ, for those who choose to believe in him either as a historical or a religious figure, was a political activist. Think about it - even reading the Bible will tell you so.
Jesus Christ stood up to the existing, oppresive secular and nonsecular powers of his time, advocating a movement towards positive social change. Biblical figures - Moses, Joseph, and I'm sure Christian with a background with the Bible could name dozens more - were activists.
Not every form of protest, in my opinion, is justified - when protest escalates into violence, when innocent and undeserving people are hurt, then it becomes different. But people who raise valid, important, controversial and at times disconcerting dialogues in the name of social change shouldn't be shunned or frowned upon by devoutly religious colleagues.
Perhaps the terminology of a radical social scientist and a devout Christian may differ at times - but in many cases, isn't the goal still leaving in the same direction of positive social change?
January 14, 2009
BART Protests
You know, these protests about the shooting at BART need to just ice their underpants already. They're getting ugly and violent.
You know how they have those bumperstickers that say "Fighting for peace is like f*cking for virginity?"It's like that.You know, most of those people probably don't really, genuinely care about the life that was lost, or the family of Oscar Grant.
They're just a bunch of attention whores who want to be on tv under the disguise of "standing for something." To be honest, I find it sickening.Honestly."Some guy was just shot and killed, he was such a good person, doing good things with his life and wanted only good things for everyone, so in his honor - let's set fire to things, flip police cars, and cause havoc!"
Ok, something's wrong with that.I have no doubt that Oscar Grant was a good person. It's these protesters who are doing a terrible disgrace to his memory, and it needs to stop. I dont think he death of Oscar Grant is right by any means, but where do these people get off terrorizing their own community? Hypocrites.
May 17, 2008
Gay Marriage - a matter of etymology.
I don't know how I feel about striking down a ban on "Gay Marriage," actually.
Marriage is a term symbolic of a monogamous, procreative relationship of a sort that existed BEFORE the establishment of formal legal institutions. Marriage as we know it in America is an establishment which is historically rooted in religion, and calling the non-procreative union of homosexual couples a "marriage" just strikes the wrong chord with me.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that gay people should be allowed to have civil unions, and be considered one another's spouses - I believe that steps should be taken to equalize the status of "marriage" and a civil union, but I don't support the idea of gay "marriages." I just think that the word "marriage" is steeped in tradition and ideals that deserve some level of reverence.
I think part of the reason marriages nowadays are degraded - divorce rates have increased, getting married at all has declined - is partially because people don't value it they way they used to.
I don't see anything about the term "civil union" that implies second class citizenship. What a husband and a wife share is also considered a civil union in the legal sense, it is only ADDITIONALLY called a marriage because of the religious or traditional implications of that bond.
Marriage is a term symbolic of a monogamous, procreative relationship of a sort that existed BEFORE the establishment of formal legal institutions. Marriage as we know it in America is an establishment which is historically rooted in religion, and calling the non-procreative union of homosexual couples a "marriage" just strikes the wrong chord with me.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that gay people should be allowed to have civil unions, and be considered one another's spouses - I believe that steps should be taken to equalize the status of "marriage" and a civil union, but I don't support the idea of gay "marriages." I just think that the word "marriage" is steeped in tradition and ideals that deserve some level of reverence.
I think part of the reason marriages nowadays are degraded - divorce rates have increased, getting married at all has declined - is partially because people don't value it they way they used to.
I don't see anything about the term "civil union" that implies second class citizenship. What a husband and a wife share is also considered a civil union in the legal sense, it is only ADDITIONALLY called a marriage because of the religious or traditional implications of that bond.
May 05, 2008
Gentrification & the City
I think there's a good side to gentrification too that a lot of people ignore in order to pursue a cause, and being from San Francisco, I see redevelopment and gentrification happening every day as well.
First of all, gentrification doesn't necessarily assume that members lower income communities are going to disappear when their communities are redeveloped. Instead, these populations with higher rates of crime and poverty are diluted, and they can seek low-income housing in other communities where they won't be so concentrated.
Because there is no longer any "poor" community that is easy to cut funds from, and instead a lot of communities that have approximately equal rates of income or crime, or other socioeconomic factors, funding and resources will be allotted to communities more evenly by the city or county.
It's a matter of dialectical materialism - poor communities ripe for gentrification are the thesis, the possibility of new, developped communities is the antithesis. Therefore, the synthesis is the integration of the lower income community into better communities. It's a gradual process, but let's face it. Lower income communities that are often targets for gentrification usually are less educated and receive fewer services or resources, because it's considered a waste of money from the budget. So, by gentrifying communities and causing lower income citizens to be members of communities instead of a community in and of themselves, they're more likely to receive what they need.
It's by no means an ideal solution, but it's one of the only realistic means of returning distribution of the budget among communties to some semblance of equilibrium.
**edit
Also, I don't support gentrification universally, it really depends on the population of the community on the chopping block. If it's an area of historical importance, or one with relatively low crime rates regardless of poverty, or are home more to a large proportion of elderly residents, then no, they shouldn't be gentrified. But in communities that are infamous for crime, especially in San Francisco, then yes, I think gentrification is the way to go.
First of all, gentrification doesn't necessarily assume that members lower income communities are going to disappear when their communities are redeveloped. Instead, these populations with higher rates of crime and poverty are diluted, and they can seek low-income housing in other communities where they won't be so concentrated.
Because there is no longer any "poor" community that is easy to cut funds from, and instead a lot of communities that have approximately equal rates of income or crime, or other socioeconomic factors, funding and resources will be allotted to communities more evenly by the city or county.
It's a matter of dialectical materialism - poor communities ripe for gentrification are the thesis, the possibility of new, developped communities is the antithesis. Therefore, the synthesis is the integration of the lower income community into better communities. It's a gradual process, but let's face it. Lower income communities that are often targets for gentrification usually are less educated and receive fewer services or resources, because it's considered a waste of money from the budget. So, by gentrifying communities and causing lower income citizens to be members of communities instead of a community in and of themselves, they're more likely to receive what they need.
It's by no means an ideal solution, but it's one of the only realistic means of returning distribution of the budget among communties to some semblance of equilibrium.
**edit
Also, I don't support gentrification universally, it really depends on the population of the community on the chopping block. If it's an area of historical importance, or one with relatively low crime rates regardless of poverty, or are home more to a large proportion of elderly residents, then no, they shouldn't be gentrified. But in communities that are infamous for crime, especially in San Francisco, then yes, I think gentrification is the way to go.
May 01, 2008
...It's Because I'm Filipino, Isn't It?
Whoever this is, I applaud you. Throughout my academic career, there has been a regrettably failing attitude among students regarding the issue of "race" or ethnicity. This attitude consists of a very Marxist notion that all things can be blamed on certain elites misusing their power. While this is true in some cases, it's sad that it has become a cure-all excuse for laziness.
Many times, I hear people of ethnic "minorities" blame their inability to succeed academically on their ethnicity, arguing that white supremacist attitudes are innate in educational systems. In my personal experience, however, I have found that the fault lies with the students, not the administrators.
First, we will look at academic failure in and of itself. It should be noted that "people of color" are not the only ones who receive failing grades or are placed in lower level classes. A significant number of white students sugger from the same pitall. If both Caucasians and people of color are both equally able to fail, then race cannot be the determining factor.
Second, the people of color who tend to fail, especially those who form their own communities, create for themselves an environment which does not len itself to success. A pervasive attitude among communities of color is that success, as well as certain patterns of speech or dress that are conducive to it, are white-washed or "yuppie". This creates a false dilemma, compelling members of a community to choose between academic achievement or social acceptance; because the gratification is more instant, the latter will often but not always win out.
Many times, I hear people of ethnic "minorities" blame their inability to succeed academically on their ethnicity, arguing that white supremacist attitudes are innate in educational systems. In my personal experience, however, I have found that the fault lies with the students, not the administrators.
First, we will look at academic failure in and of itself. It should be noted that "people of color" are not the only ones who receive failing grades or are placed in lower level classes. A significant number of white students sugger from the same pitall. If both Caucasians and people of color are both equally able to fail, then race cannot be the determining factor.
Second, the people of color who tend to fail, especially those who form their own communities, create for themselves an environment which does not len itself to success. A pervasive attitude among communities of color is that success, as well as certain patterns of speech or dress that are conducive to it, are white-washed or "yuppie". This creates a false dilemma, compelling members of a community to choose between academic achievement or social acceptance; because the gratification is more instant, the latter will often but not always win out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)