Neither an OBAMAnation or an Abomination: Silencing the Sensationalism

I know turn my ear to the faithfully reoccurring conversations on how Obama’s socialist economic initiatives serve to further cripple this nation. The loss of jobs in Maryland and areas alike are always a direct result of Obama’s legislation and the left’s political missteps. I liken the weaponizing of the term “socialist” to the political propaganda of the 1960’s that made use of the word “communist” to stand for anything subjectively “un-American”. I do understand that some of Obama’s legislation that is purposed to help those most economically disadvantaged may take from some of those more affluent or economically privileged, but does that make him, by nature of the title “socialist” un-American? I argue that it doesn’t. Also held within the umbrella of socialism is this idea of healthcare being made universal. Most right-leaning proponents comment on this idea as being against essential American ideals: free-market and individualism. I argue the contrary; that it goes against the ideals of equal opportunity and American principle of “we the people” working for the betterment of the nation.

It is a truth our nation needs to accept and account for the fact that we are, “under God,” all created equal; however, under our societal mechanism that is of this nation’s construction, all men are not held equally. It’s this truth that guides the fact that those that are of the demographic majority and economic advantage, are brought to oppose any legislation or political ideology that takes from their privilege and wealth to help their fellow deserving American brethren. I have grazed in the shadows and lived in the ails of American prosperity and by God’s will have made it to greener pastures, and have even made it to one of the leading public Universities in the nation. I anticipate success in my future, and with this unique perspective and an affirmed sense of patriotism, will not be so self-absorbed as to not give a little, the approximate daily cost of a Grande triple soy white chocolate mocha latte from your leading coffee house (about 6.25 without tax) that many of us are all too familiar with, to help those that reside in and below the mark of middle America.

The funny thing is, there are individuals following ideas and ideology that don’t work to their immediate benefit or the country’s benefit, wholly, but instead work to the benefit of only the top 2%-5% of the nation’s wealthiest citizens. It has been said by left-leaning politicians that “conservative republicans are destroying America’s middleclass” by promoting tax-cuts for the elites in our nation. I agree and in doing so, they’re masking the fact that those held in-between are left souring in the heat of economic downturn. Instead, I place faith in the tax-cuts that Obama proposes for our middle-class, extending middle-class tax cuts to the “common working man” that makes up the majority of this nation. Both parties are running in circles screaming that their ideas will “create more jobs in this nation.” I’m no economist but I can count on what I have seen and lived, and I’ve seen no benefit or fairness in the habitual tax-incentive given to the economic upper-echelon. I feel we are on the eve of change and everyone won’t be happy with the transformation, but that is the nature of progress. To prosper, you must first endure a level of difficulty. Some people are given promotions (and thus pay increases) but are mad that it took as long as it did for them to receive it. No matter your political affiliation, you are going to be met with dissatisfaction, let’s just be open to mature dialogue and keep open minds so as to shape this nation in a fashion that is conducive to all of our lives.

"Attacks on Arizona" or Arizona Attacks?

In holding with my own post, I decided to respond to a post concerning illegal immigration and the immigrant-reform laws currently in Arizona, titled “Attacks on Arizona,” by Andrea Cleave. My biggest problem with this argument is that it seems to be rooted quite heavily in biased, right-leaning commentary that too often uses divisive “scare tactics” to instill fear in an individual, thus creating a sense of security with their (the right’s) proposed intentions. This tactic is I’m sure bounced between both sides of the political arena, but I’ve seen its most abundant use by the right within these immigration debates. To explore this pronounced fallacy in your argument, I propose a few facts. You write, “There has always been a law banning aliens, it just was not watched closely, but now that illegal immigration is getting out of hand and Arizona is finally acting, people are behaving as if it is something new.” Now I must ask you, what proof have you seen of Illegal Immigration getting out of hand? One prominent argument held in this debate is that illegal immigration is getting out of hand and rampant violence surrounding their increase in “illegals” are both reasons for the Arizona laws, and legislation of the like, to be passed (on its necessity). These claims simply aren’t true, and it’s available for anyone willing to look to see for themselves.

Let’s look at the numbers: the number of murders in Arizona have went down from 404 in 2007 to 322 in 2009 (and even lower now), the number of aggravated assault is down from 16,889 incidents to 15,430, and Larceny-Theft is down from 166,531 to 151,755 incidents- so what violence is there that is so declaratively running rampant? The list of crimes goes on and on, but the numbers are all down from the previous year, holding true for the year previous the one before. In looking at the comparative count of detainees of Arizona’s border patrol, this being the best aggregate measurement of the number of (captured) illegal immigrants, the number of detainees is also down from the year before. From this arises the issue of those that aren’t caught, afterall that is the nature of illegal immigration. To this I respond, the only other thing we could look at to measure the number of estimated “illegals” in this country is the number detained within the state border of Arizona, apart from the number captured at the border. This, like all the other numbers explored thus far, is down from the year before. So what are the political pundits and personalities looking at? Only God knows, but I found that after watching political commentary from both the right and the left, respectively, I’d do my own research. And, not surprisingly, I found (quite easily I might add) the figures above, by literally typing “Arizona’s crime statistics” and “Arizona’s illegal immigrant stats” into Google. The information, also worth mentioning, is via a report made by the state of Arizona Department of Security (here is the link to this report).

My biggest problem with the laws are the ethics (or lack thereof) that encircle their existence. It is not ethically or morally acceptable to go around racial profiling individuals on the sole basis of them “looking like an illegal immigrant” and not being to provide adequate identification. I invite you to journey to a place you very well may have never seen with open eyes, the discrimi-NATION of the United States. Now, I am by no means a person who throws the race card at every mal-natured occurrence or everything that doesn’t go in accordance with my ethnic and cultural fabric, but I do speak from what I have seen and expierenced, as this is the truth that builds my ideology. I was once stopped while driving through an upscale residential area called Cypresswood, in Houston (with a very low crime-rate, might I add) and was stopped, frisked, and placed in the back of a police car for, and I quote, “driving slowly through the neighborhood in a black SUV, in a black hoody, so late at night.” He said (and again I quote), "you look suspicious." I also might add that it is winter time (hence the hoody), and the speed limit is 15mph through the neighborhood (hence my driving slow). Once I wasn’t able to provide a Driver’s license, because I’d forgotten my wallet at home, I was placed in the back of the police car and given 3 tickets, with a verbal threat of jail-time. It wasn’t until I revealed that I was a student at the University of Texas at Austin and only visiting for Winter Break that he expedited the process and treated me with the respect I was vehemently denied only moments earlier. Now think of the people that will be detained on the grounds of looking like an immigrant and then further hassled by the inability to immediately produce identification. On top of this, we must think of those that will inherently abuse the provisions of this law, putting power in the hands of law enforcement that far supersede their capacity to execute them.

"This Is Our Land": Commentary On Hyper-territorialism

In recent binge viewing of political commentary from the Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN Television stations, I have come to be quite disgusted with much of the back and forth that plagues our conversations, especially now that we’re nearing the midterm elections. Even more so than that, is the close-mindedness that keeps commentary (on both sides) so narrow that I often can’t navigate the path of reasoning to logistically understand their position. Indicative of this phenomenon is a display of narrowness shown by Jim Rutledge, a Maryland senatorial candidate, who in an interview with Conservative Right-leaning media source PJTV, said the following: “The people [of Maryland] are being burdened by the illegals. There are teachers that can’t even teach their lessons for having to take time out for students who don’t know how to speak English…” This sort of dismissive, hyper-territorial, “this is our land” attitude bothers me. Our nation was built upon the pursuit of happiness, as guided by the escape of social and religious persecution our colonial ancestors sought and fought for. Isn’t that what America is about? We are, after all the land of the free. Have we become so close-minded and within our own right that we are content with leaving those who seek the “American dream” just as we’ve had a chance to, behind at the expense of our political and social conservations? It’s time to straighten our posture and set out toward the attitudinal shift that will bring our country to a place I only dream of seeing in my lifetime.

It rattles my core that there is legislation in this country which literally okays the persecution of those that “look like” illegal immigrants, that has made it as far as it did. This means that there are people in power (in Arizona) that actually believe racial profiling is an acceptable and constitutional means of securing our border and combating the problem of illegal immigration. Now please don’t mistake my fervor for inclusion for the hyper-sensitive fluff that too often dominates the conversation (when it’s not finger-pointing, name-calling, and blame-gaming). I too squirm at the thought of weak border security, so in that right I am in support of strengthening our national defense, but I don’t believe achieving that means kicking out all foreigners, especially those that have established a life here. I’m a strong believer in the necessity to secure our borders and hold illegal immigrants accountable for their pursuits, but there is a way to do that that goes in accordance with our founding principles. What’s this method I so allusively speak of, you ask? Well let’s adapt a program that makes attaining citizenship a feat not so seemingly insurmountable. Illegal immigrants are literally help keep our economy afloat by keeping labor costs low and taking jobs that so often were not adequately filled by Americans. Let’s help those that are helping us behind the scenes.

Are We Really Losing Our Freedom of Religion?

As follows the current trend of “political ping-pong,” as I like to call it- our politicians and governmental bodies condemning each other’s ideologies and bouncing the blame from one side of the political arena to the next- I look to an article titled, "Obama Moves Away From 'Freedom of Religion' Toward 'Freedom of Worship'," that offers commentary on our President by using the rhetoric that so prominently pollutes the political dialogue in this country. This article, written by Randy Sly, discusses a change in the President’s (and Secretary Clinton’s) language that brings concern to the right and some within the religious community. As Sly states, “the change in language [is] barely noticeable to the average citizen but political observers are raising red flags at the use of a new term ‘freedom of worship’ by President Obama and Secretary Clinton as a replacement for the term freedom of religion.” He continues to discuss how this is a move to limit and restrict the freedoms that come with “freedom of religion” that won’t be protected with “freedom of worship”. He argues that, “any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship” and with this language, none of these acts (Such as religious Muslim women wearing headscarves or religious Quakers not being able to go to war) would be protected.

Although, Sly disagrees with the president’s language, it is expressed in a manner that doesn’t demonize him outright but instead looks at the issue for what it is- a shift in language, that (as I see it) otherwise may have no effect on our government. In fact, I find this linguistic shift so small that many won’t even pick-up on it or find it to be of acute significance. In essence, his approach is far more delicate than many of the heavy-handed commentaries, I’ve encountered thus far. I do agree that if brought to popularity, this shift could perhaps have an effect on how we Americans look at and think about religion in this nation, but I don’t believe it was intended to take away from our personal religious right in any way.

I believe this article forms an opinion out of rhetoric that appeals to those that are right-leaning. Using what many political analysts refer to as “(political) scare tactics,” Sly aims to persuade those of the importance of this minute linguistic shift by claiming that Obama’s shift in language is an attack on our religious freedom, as we know it. The way he fell short in bringing me to believe in this reasoning is that he relies too heavily on the “fright capacity” of the reader. By this I mean that the person reading has to have the potential and capacity to be frightened by there being such a small shift in language. I, being a religious young man, have confidence that this is not an attack on my religious freedom, and instead displays a hyper-sensitivity that is ever-popular in the political realm today.

America's "Race War"

The issue of race is a very fragile device in this country; that if handled too heavy-handedly, will surely implode, exposing the fragilities kept within our society. And yet, somehow, “we the people” are drawn to the controversy and misalignment associated with the word itself. More present now than it has been in a while- perhaps due to the induction of an African American president- is the issue of race in this country. This word has somehow become intricately interwoven into the tapestry of social and political dialogue; fraying the edges of our societal fabric. Unfortunately, instead of directly addressing the very real issues that are associated with race in this country, our conversations are instead riddled with talk of which side (of the political spectrum) has the most racially insensitive and “racist” individuals among its ranks. The article "Obama's Race War", captures this phenomenon quite effectively. The article comes from the New York Times, by a young African American columnist, Charles Blow- which in itself probably gives insight as to the political ideology that is to be expressed within the article and who his projected readership is. I found this article to be, before anything else, helpful in that it gave a succinct overview of the current “race” issues, by narrating through the key events that have attributed to this “race war” as he terms it. He fosters an outlook on the issue that didn’t immediately jump to one side of the ideological spectrum. He instead offered a mature and critical commentary of the “race war.” His claim in this opinion piece is that, “mature commentary on the subject [of race] has descended into tribal tirades, hypersensitive defenses and rapid-fire finger-pointing.” He enters his substantiation by explaining how, “many on the left have taken an absolutist stance, that the anti-Obama sentiment reeks of racism [and] many on the right feel as though they have been convicted without proof — that tossing ‘racism’ their way is itself racist.”

I agree with Blow in his evaluation of the “race war,” as I feel this political current has become quite infantile, with name-calling and finger-pointing being the most prevalent political strategy of our time. The article takes a left slant toward its end, when Blow condemns the witch-hunt for a “racist” among the NAACP’s ranks that led to the “Sherrod charade,” as he terms it, which only served to further fuel this “race crucade,” as she (Sherrod) was later reinstated on grounds of wrong accusation. She even got a presidential apology- solidifying the political misstep that’s so evidently a product of this “race war”. Blow’s resolution to the mal-natured on-goings is a promotion of civil discourse by the president to address this nation’s racial sensitivity. I also agree with this approach, althgouh ultimately change rests within our hands. An executive step from the president, however, could be just what the government needs to straighten the political path that has gone so awry.

NAACP not invited to the Tea Party?

With my aforementioned political ideology, I bring into play a conversation that is reeling in the media and political realm, alike: discussion of the Tea Party (and its proclaimed acute conservatism). I’ve never been the most politically keen or politically engaged but in my newfound affiliation with the NAACP (I’m the president of the newly formed UT Student Chapter); I do try to follow with the most trending of topics, especially those directly regarding the African American community. It’s in this spirit that I found this article, “Hartigan: Is the Tea Party Racist?” in the Statesman, concerning the Tea Party and the NAACP’s resolution about their “bigoted elements within the Tea Party”. What I found most openly appealing and in-line with my political ideology is the fact that the element of “racism” is removed from the front-line of the conversation. We are allowed to digest elements of race and America’s avoidance and aversion of the issue of race in our nation. What I found most interesting about the article are the statistics about the Tea Party that are so pervasive and enlightening, showing us that race is an ever-present issue in our country that often times is over-looked in social and political dialogue. In the Tea Party, almost 90 percent are white, predominantly male, and noticeably ”better off economically than the nation at large”. I like that this article addresses this without attributing the “racist” stigma over the T-party’s head. It’s a good introductory read if you wish to delve into the issue of race regarding the T-party and the NAACP without jumping too deep into the meat of the situation, as it’s often convoluted with rhetoric and biased judgments.

My Political Ideology defined

I am what you’d consider “politically porous,” a term coined to represent my ideological stance on politics and life in general. So what does it mean, exactly? Quite simply, it means that I am open to hearing and considering different political and ideological stances, readily considering the application, reality, and relevancy of the position. Though open to other viewpoints, I do hold a set of stout ideologies and viewpoints that essentially shape my political direction and allows for a certain range of “absorption” in terms of other ideas. With this, I find myself being highly perceptive to others’ viewpoints and thusly, hold a unique ideological fabric by which I form my own opinion. Simply put, I allow the benefit of the doubt with every stance, always trying to understand one’s reasoning before posing my position.