Please watch as much of this as you can spare time for:
OK, so maybe their tactics are a bit strong, and the law is a touch severe, but thank goodness SOMEONE has the guts to make a stand against a degrading and immoral lifestyle against God's will.
-------------------------
It saddens me to think of how many of my friends would probably respond the way I just wrote or were nodding their heads and completely miss the point, which is not whether homosexuality is "OK" but what right the government has to put people to death for it, let alone imprison them, as well as what homosexuality is and the consequences of the way we talk about it.
The bill, which a government-appointed commission has apparently recommended be withdrawn despite the author's refusal to personally do so, would increase the severity of punishments for homosexuality, which is already illegal there, and put to death repeat-offenders who are HIV-positive, would fine or imprison anyone who does not report a known homosexual within 24 hours of finding out, and would imprison homosexuals for up to life. Such severe measures sound incredible to most Americans, I think, but we're talking about a country in which some past king was a hideous pedophile who apparently put his young male pages to death for refusing, based on their Christian beliefs, to have sex with him, so maybe it's understandable why so many are blindly believing the lies being fed to them and shouting battle cries in what they regard as a moral, or spiritual, war.
War, whether physical or spiritual, real or fabricated, is a favorite tool of the power-hungry and proud to wield control over the masses, to feel justified in oppression, lies, fear tactics, and vengeance by creating a false or exaggerated enemy, to spread the lie that any means are justified to avoid a dastardly end or the rise of a destructive or threatening people. It's been done to Jews, African Americans, Native Americans, Mormons...
If what Ssempa preaches is true, then all the gay folk I know are going about it all wrong, concerned about the welfare of youth who feel different from their peers but certainly not interested in recruiting, and thinking of their homosexuality in terms of love and affection more than sex. As far as I know, eating crap is revolting to as many gay people as straight people, but maybe I'm just duped by the nefarious gay agenda...you know, the real homosexuality. Some may believe Ssempa's cause to be righteous, but the fruits of his preaching and that of those like him are lies (or, at best, half-truths), hatred, and fear, which are Satanic by most Christian doctrine. This is not, I assert, how Jesus would bring his people up in righteousness. Call me crazy.
Of course, there's far more to this story, like addressing the claims of the evangelical anti-homosexuality preachers, or paralleling the tactics used there with certain much milder but similarly specious tactics used here against gay rights, but we can have that conversation one-on-one 'cause it's more complex than I care to write about right now. After all, haven't I gone on long enough? :-)
28 May 2010
27 May 2010
Brain Fascination
OK, so I'm finally getting around to reading a book I bought several months ago: The Happiness Hypothesis. I wrote a blog entry mentioning it a while back, and I've started to read it a couple of times, but I've finally made it past page 8. ...Yes, this is typical for me. I want knowledge, but I don't like to read. It's a sad dilemma.
Anyway, the first chapter has gone into human dichotomies and, as part of the exposition, an explanation of the right and left brains and studies done on patients whose corpus callosum had been severed or damaged and how they responded to...OK, I'll try to explain briefly. The author says a researcher would flash an image to the right or left of a dot the subject was asked to focus on. The images were flashed long enough to register in the brain but not long enough for the subject to take their eyes off of the dot to examine the image. If flashed on the right, the image was processed by the left hemisphere of the brain (because the light from the image entered the left side of the retina, yadda yadda yadda) which is responsible for language, and when asked what the image was, the subject would answer: for example, "hat". But if the image was flashed on the left, it was processed by the right half of the brain which has no language processing, so when asked what they saw, they answered, "Nothing." But if they were asked to point to which image they were shown on a piece of paper, they could point to it. Weird! Then, the researcher flashed two images simultaneously. One image was to the left of the dot, the other to the right. In one example, he flashed a chicken claw to the right and a snow-covered house and car to the left. When asked to point to which image corresponded with what they'd been shown, the subjects pointed to a chicken with their right hand and a shovel with their left. When asked why they chose what they did, they didn't answer, as one might expect, "I don't know why I'm pointing to the shovel. Must have something to do with what you showed my right brain." They answered that the chicken claw goes with the chicken, and the shovel was to clean out the chicken shed."
Wow. So essentially, the left brain interpreted the association the best it knew how by making up a connection. Granted, this phenomenon only applies to people whose left and right brain have been cut off from each other by brain damage or surgery, not to normal people, but I couldn't help but wonder how many quirks about people might be explainable if we only knew their brain make-up. Another example it gave was a school teacher who had a brain tumor and, quite suddenly, began propositioning young women randomly. When his tumor was removed, his behavior stopped. It was found that this tumor was interfering with portions of the brain which inhibit behaviors and process consequences. Can this happen on a more subtle level? Do some people have greater ability to predict the consequences of their actions? Do some have less inhibition because of brain activity or lack thereof? Are some more able to see themselves objectively than others?
On a related note, I also was fascinated, last week, by a fascinating interview on NPR about memory and our tendency to see and remember things within a framework that most makes sense given what we know within our current paradigms. One of my favorite parts, because we all know one of them, is the lady who called in saying her sister has a tendency to share other people's memories as her own:
In addition to the very personal, practical application of remembering that we all have our strengths and shortcomings and can't expect everyone to see or behave the same way, all of this has me really interested in the brain and its physiology in relation to emotion, psychology, and the rest of the body. I've been thinking a bit more about what I want to do with myself professionally, so I guess this is just sneaking in as a possible area of interest I had previously overlooked but which now seems kind of obvious... Now the question: is it too late for me to start into such an involved, specialized field? Ugh, maybe it's best as a point of interest rather than a possible career. I don't know. Have to look at it.
Incidentally, I found the following stories while trying to find the one above, and they look interesting, too:
Anyway, the first chapter has gone into human dichotomies and, as part of the exposition, an explanation of the right and left brains and studies done on patients whose corpus callosum had been severed or damaged and how they responded to...OK, I'll try to explain briefly. The author says a researcher would flash an image to the right or left of a dot the subject was asked to focus on. The images were flashed long enough to register in the brain but not long enough for the subject to take their eyes off of the dot to examine the image. If flashed on the right, the image was processed by the left hemisphere of the brain (because the light from the image entered the left side of the retina, yadda yadda yadda) which is responsible for language, and when asked what the image was, the subject would answer: for example, "hat". But if the image was flashed on the left, it was processed by the right half of the brain which has no language processing, so when asked what they saw, they answered, "Nothing." But if they were asked to point to which image they were shown on a piece of paper, they could point to it. Weird! Then, the researcher flashed two images simultaneously. One image was to the left of the dot, the other to the right. In one example, he flashed a chicken claw to the right and a snow-covered house and car to the left. When asked to point to which image corresponded with what they'd been shown, the subjects pointed to a chicken with their right hand and a shovel with their left. When asked why they chose what they did, they didn't answer, as one might expect, "I don't know why I'm pointing to the shovel. Must have something to do with what you showed my right brain." They answered that the chicken claw goes with the chicken, and the shovel was to clean out the chicken shed."
Wow. So essentially, the left brain interpreted the association the best it knew how by making up a connection. Granted, this phenomenon only applies to people whose left and right brain have been cut off from each other by brain damage or surgery, not to normal people, but I couldn't help but wonder how many quirks about people might be explainable if we only knew their brain make-up. Another example it gave was a school teacher who had a brain tumor and, quite suddenly, began propositioning young women randomly. When his tumor was removed, his behavior stopped. It was found that this tumor was interfering with portions of the brain which inhibit behaviors and process consequences. Can this happen on a more subtle level? Do some people have greater ability to predict the consequences of their actions? Do some have less inhibition because of brain activity or lack thereof? Are some more able to see themselves objectively than others?
On a related note, I also was fascinated, last week, by a fascinating interview on NPR about memory and our tendency to see and remember things within a framework that most makes sense given what we know within our current paradigms. One of my favorite parts, because we all know one of them, is the lady who called in saying her sister has a tendency to share other people's memories as her own:
In addition to the very personal, practical application of remembering that we all have our strengths and shortcomings and can't expect everyone to see or behave the same way, all of this has me really interested in the brain and its physiology in relation to emotion, psychology, and the rest of the body. I've been thinking a bit more about what I want to do with myself professionally, so I guess this is just sneaking in as a possible area of interest I had previously overlooked but which now seems kind of obvious... Now the question: is it too late for me to start into such an involved, specialized field? Ugh, maybe it's best as a point of interest rather than a possible career. I don't know. Have to look at it.
Incidentally, I found the following stories while trying to find the one above, and they look interesting, too:
Masters of Light
Two artists whose work I first discovered in Stanfield Fine Art in Park City, UT (one of my favorite galleries I've seen) continue to captivate me and were immediately added to my very short and very ignorant list of favorite current painters, along with Wyland, Sharon Rickert (now deceased), and...well, maybe those are the only names I recognize. Like I said, I'm not any kind of connoisseur. All I know is that I fell immediately in love with the work of these two artists and realized that capturing the inspirational glow of light in various forms needn't be gimicky, gaudy, or girly. The simple beauty of light is inspiration enough.
Alexander Volkov hones in on the beauty of natural light and reflection in a way that immediately captivates and calms me in its natural warmth.
Alexei Butirskiy tends to focus on cityscapes and street scenes in the glow of dusk or artificial lights and is probably the most polished I've seen in this "genre", if it can be called that.
Alexander Volkov hones in on the beauty of natural light and reflection in a way that immediately captivates and calms me in its natural warmth.
Alexei Butirskiy tends to focus on cityscapes and street scenes in the glow of dusk or artificial lights and is probably the most polished I've seen in this "genre", if it can be called that.
11 May 2010
Experimentation
While house-sitting for my bro, I'm also dog-sitting, and when you give the dog his dinner, you tell him to sit, then put the food in his kennel, then tell him, "OK," and he runs in to eat. He's a very obedient dog, so it's kind of comical sometimes when he's really eager to eat and you can tell he really doesn't want to wait for the "OK" but is patiently sitting anyway. It sparked an idea.
I wanted to see how he would respond to subtle variations on the usual routine, which takes place three times a day. So the second day, I said, "O-" and stopped before saying "K", just to see what he'd do. He started to get up but immediately caught himself and looked at me with eager anticipation. I said, "K" and he ran into the kennel. I laughed with hearty fascination. The next day, I just made a noise that sounded vaguely like, "OK". That seemed to be enough, and off he went. The next day, I just motioned with my hand and off he went. Next, I said, "OK" very monotonously and slowly. No response. I said, "OK" in the normal, fast way but being very careful not to give any nonverbal cues like nodding my head or motioning with my hand or even making eye contact. Off he went. Very interesting. I'd decided not to test him more than once a day (today's second test, which I'm about to mention, being unintentional) because I didn't want to disturb the routine too much or grey the cues for him. I was just intrigued as to what, exactly, he considered the green light. Was it the tone? The word? The nonverbal movements? All of the above?
So today, I started to wave him in, and he was so eager that as soon as I brought my hand up and said, "O-" he started running towards his kennel, but I said, "Stay!" and he stopped and sat. I think he realized I hadn't finished. I said, "OK," and off he went.
After that last incident, I thought to myself, "Good grief, he's probably getting really tired of being tested with variations on the command. The poor guy just wants to eat!" and I figured I should probably stop experimenting on the little (big) dude. It's just that when I get a question in my head, I want to explore the answers, and if it involves experimentation, better yet, so I examine and pinpoint, testing from different angles, experimenting with different stimuli and responses... Thinking about this, I realized: I do this, probably even on a subconscious level, with just about everything, including relationships with people.
I get bored, in a way. On one hand, it's enough to just be with people I care about and enjoy time together, but on the other hand, I always want to understand them on increasingly deeper levels, particularly if I find them interesting. So I act this way or that and test their responses, ask probing questions, challenge their statements to see what's behind them... It's a curse, but it's a curse I rather enjoy entertaining. Unfortunately, I probably wear some people out that way. They just want to "be", and I'm always subtly poking and prodding and testing and exploring because that's what makes life interesting to me. Sometimes I just want to be, not have to defend myself or debate, and even I get annoyed being on the other end of it, so certainly people who are less analytical get utterly fed up!
...I guess what I'm saying is I should probably learn to rein it in a bit and recognize when my poking and prodding is too steady and incessant, and I should deliberately force myself to stop testing people to give them a breather more often. And regardless of however well I learn to manage that tendency, I'll probably need to be with someone who enjoys being poked. ...You know what I mean.
I wanted to see how he would respond to subtle variations on the usual routine, which takes place three times a day. So the second day, I said, "O-" and stopped before saying "K", just to see what he'd do. He started to get up but immediately caught himself and looked at me with eager anticipation. I said, "K" and he ran into the kennel. I laughed with hearty fascination. The next day, I just made a noise that sounded vaguely like, "OK". That seemed to be enough, and off he went. The next day, I just motioned with my hand and off he went. Next, I said, "OK" very monotonously and slowly. No response. I said, "OK" in the normal, fast way but being very careful not to give any nonverbal cues like nodding my head or motioning with my hand or even making eye contact. Off he went. Very interesting. I'd decided not to test him more than once a day (today's second test, which I'm about to mention, being unintentional) because I didn't want to disturb the routine too much or grey the cues for him. I was just intrigued as to what, exactly, he considered the green light. Was it the tone? The word? The nonverbal movements? All of the above?
So today, I started to wave him in, and he was so eager that as soon as I brought my hand up and said, "O-" he started running towards his kennel, but I said, "Stay!" and he stopped and sat. I think he realized I hadn't finished. I said, "OK," and off he went.
After that last incident, I thought to myself, "Good grief, he's probably getting really tired of being tested with variations on the command. The poor guy just wants to eat!" and I figured I should probably stop experimenting on the little (big) dude. It's just that when I get a question in my head, I want to explore the answers, and if it involves experimentation, better yet, so I examine and pinpoint, testing from different angles, experimenting with different stimuli and responses... Thinking about this, I realized: I do this, probably even on a subconscious level, with just about everything, including relationships with people.
I get bored, in a way. On one hand, it's enough to just be with people I care about and enjoy time together, but on the other hand, I always want to understand them on increasingly deeper levels, particularly if I find them interesting. So I act this way or that and test their responses, ask probing questions, challenge their statements to see what's behind them... It's a curse, but it's a curse I rather enjoy entertaining. Unfortunately, I probably wear some people out that way. They just want to "be", and I'm always subtly poking and prodding and testing and exploring because that's what makes life interesting to me. Sometimes I just want to be, not have to defend myself or debate, and even I get annoyed being on the other end of it, so certainly people who are less analytical get utterly fed up!
...I guess what I'm saying is I should probably learn to rein it in a bit and recognize when my poking and prodding is too steady and incessant, and I should deliberately force myself to stop testing people to give them a breather more often. And regardless of however well I learn to manage that tendency, I'll probably need to be with someone who enjoys being poked. ...You know what I mean.
09 May 2010
What I would have written...
...if I was writing for the common denominator, broadest interest, or mass appeal:
08 May 2010
SB 1070 Part Dos
In response to comments left on my previous post (the version which was imported to Facebook), I wrote a response which became long enough that I decided to make it a whole other post because I just love to hear myself talk that much. Bleh.
The comments included (names changed because I didn't ask their permission to post their comments on my blog--and I will gladly remove them if they so request):
My friends are predominantly politically conservative-to-moderate. No lefties have piped in on this yet. My response:
I've read the first two pages of the bill. I only skimmed the rest.
Example, lines 20-24: "FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."
Fortunately, you guys are right that they have to have "reasonable suspicion", which I understand to be a stronger legal qualifier than it might appear, so that's great. And Stewy, you're right that police have always had the right to check, but this law is new in that it requires them to, where reasonable. Yes, that's only telling them they HAVE to do what they were always allowed or perhaps implicitly "supposed" to, but it is a change.
I think concerns center around wording such as "any lawful contact", which isn't just stopping people for a crime or violation (that's misinformation) but can apparently include something like questioning witnesses or victims of crimes (as described by Chief Roberto Villasenor of Tucson in an interview on NPR). These aren't just hyperbolic, imaginary fears but--as far as I can tell in my ignorant mind--include some practical, legal concerns.
But I think a lot of concern also comes from social dynamics most of us white bread folks in predominantly white, middle class communities where the police are our championed protectors don't completely relate to. You and I haven't been brown-skinned people living in areas full of illegals where tensions are high, and the police may engage in harassment, including legal citizens, using any excuse to stop someone they might not have stopped otherwise except they have brown skin and look "evasive", so they can find some legal reason for stopping them, which they wouldn't have done if they were white and non-suspicious. BUT I suspect we won't actually see much of that because, as Stewy said, they've been ALLOWED to do basically this very thing all along, so why should it change drastically now just because they're required to check ID, as reasonable, when they're already in legal contact? They're not required to stop more people, just to check when suspicious, and if they fail to do so, they can face consequences for choosing to turn a blind eye. And as my blog entry points out, there are legal immigrants, such as Gabriela Saucedo, who are not afraid of the outcome and have confidence the police will be fair in enforcing it. Oh, and then there are those who are just afraid of and angry about being held accountable for their illegal status...there are surely some of them as well.
So I hope it won't be a crazy witch-hunt, but I also strongly believe we must keep an eye on the police forces to make sure their power doesn't become tyrannical, which, as Stewy pointed out, is all part of the process. Those concerns of police tyranny shouldn't be cause for dismissing the law outright, but they're also not something to dismiss as hysteria, no matter what the righteous crusaders at Fox News say. They're masters of poo-pooing to achieve the following the political right needs to gain and keep power. OK, OK, for you right-wingers, I'll add MSNBC to the masterful poo-pooers list in cases where the left needs to rally the drones for battle. Oh, it's tiresome. But that's another post...
The comments included (names changed because I didn't ask their permission to post their comments on my blog--and I will gladly remove them if they so request):
Stewy: 'A) Fear of how the police will enforce a law should not be used as argument, such an argument can be used against ANY law. Police are imperfect humans and as such their enforcement of laws will be imperfect. As such, that is why we have courts and internal affairs officers to correct the mistakes made by police in enforcing the law.
B) The police have the right to ask anyone for identification. White, black, American, Slovenian, whatever the police have the right to ask for identification. This is nothing new.
All I feel like typing for now.'
Aloysius: "Actually, if you read the bill, the officer has to pull you over for some other reason, such as reckless driving. THEN they have to have other probably cause, like having a foreign drivers license. Only then can they ask to see proof of the legality of their presence in America. Anyone using this 'Looks Illegal- Show Me Your Papers' rhetoric is either grossly un-informed or hyperbolic."
Stewy: "The Federal Immigration and Nationality act of 1952 reads: 'Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him.'
Those who think the Arizona law is bad, should read up about President Eisenhower's 'Operation Wetback'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback"
My friends are predominantly politically conservative-to-moderate. No lefties have piped in on this yet. My response:
I've read the first two pages of the bill. I only skimmed the rest.
Example, lines 20-24: "FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."
Fortunately, you guys are right that they have to have "reasonable suspicion", which I understand to be a stronger legal qualifier than it might appear, so that's great. And Stewy, you're right that police have always had the right to check, but this law is new in that it requires them to, where reasonable. Yes, that's only telling them they HAVE to do what they were always allowed or perhaps implicitly "supposed" to, but it is a change.
I think concerns center around wording such as "any lawful contact", which isn't just stopping people for a crime or violation (that's misinformation) but can apparently include something like questioning witnesses or victims of crimes (as described by Chief Roberto Villasenor of Tucson in an interview on NPR). These aren't just hyperbolic, imaginary fears but--as far as I can tell in my ignorant mind--include some practical, legal concerns.
But I think a lot of concern also comes from social dynamics most of us white bread folks in predominantly white, middle class communities where the police are our championed protectors don't completely relate to. You and I haven't been brown-skinned people living in areas full of illegals where tensions are high, and the police may engage in harassment, including legal citizens, using any excuse to stop someone they might not have stopped otherwise except they have brown skin and look "evasive", so they can find some legal reason for stopping them, which they wouldn't have done if they were white and non-suspicious. BUT I suspect we won't actually see much of that because, as Stewy said, they've been ALLOWED to do basically this very thing all along, so why should it change drastically now just because they're required to check ID, as reasonable, when they're already in legal contact? They're not required to stop more people, just to check when suspicious, and if they fail to do so, they can face consequences for choosing to turn a blind eye. And as my blog entry points out, there are legal immigrants, such as Gabriela Saucedo, who are not afraid of the outcome and have confidence the police will be fair in enforcing it. Oh, and then there are those who are just afraid of and angry about being held accountable for their illegal status...there are surely some of them as well.
So I hope it won't be a crazy witch-hunt, but I also strongly believe we must keep an eye on the police forces to make sure their power doesn't become tyrannical, which, as Stewy pointed out, is all part of the process. Those concerns of police tyranny shouldn't be cause for dismissing the law outright, but they're also not something to dismiss as hysteria, no matter what the righteous crusaders at Fox News say. They're masters of poo-pooing to achieve the following the political right needs to gain and keep power. OK, OK, for you right-wingers, I'll add MSNBC to the masterful poo-pooers list in cases where the left needs to rally the drones for battle. Oh, it's tiresome. But that's another post...
SB 1070
There's a lot of rhetoric flying around about Arizona's Senate Bill 1070, which was signed into law, and before looking into the issue, it sounded like most of the country was outraged against it. The perception being thrown around is that police officers will have the right to stop anyone who "looks illegal" and demand identification proving their right to be in the country or face arrest and consequent deportation. Visions of Nazi tyranny are associated with it. On the other side, supporters are touting overwhelming support for the law, even among immigrants, and saying it's simply the state implementing what the federal government is already supposed to be doing according to law but is failing to enforce, so what's the big deal?
I think most of us know better than to trust the combined voices of either Fox News or MSNBC to give us the full story; at least I hope we do. After doing a little digging, I've found a variety of sources, right- and left-wing and moderate, which paint a more complete picture.
Let's begin with what I think is a pretty useless video by Governor Brewer:
Wow, that music certainly raised my blood pressure. Creepy. :-)
Arizona has problems, for sure. Many people just have problems with HOW the state's leadership is tackling them, or at what cost, or the likely outcomes of passing such a bill even if they're not guaranteed outcomes (a bit like people lamenting the end of our nation over health care reform which was "likely" to open the door to death panels, and other panicky cries).
Obama's joke wasn't implying Arizona's problems or border control are trivial but was a jab at the way they're approaching it. That statement was made at an event where "roasting" and eyebrow-raising jokes are not only common but expected: watch the whole event.
Nice try, Governor Brewer, but this ad is mostly a smokescreen and didn't address the actual concerns around the senate bill. But I'm sure it's effective in emotionally rallying those who already support the bill.
One site shows clips from various talking heads claiming the majority of immigrants in Arizona support the bill then attempts to refute those claims.
Then there are the reader comments at the L.A. Times, where people are quite familiar with immigration issues.
A writer at the Chicago Tribune piped in with an article I found interesting about how asking for ID is something which is already done in many situations, and this bill is only adding one element to that. He also quotes some of the wording of the bill to show what it does and does not require:
Then there's an argument by legal immigrant Gabriela Saucedo before the Tucson City Council regarding her view of the bill and not understanding why people are so upset about it:
On NPR's All Things Considered, I heard an interview with Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villasenor about his concerns around the bill, as well, including his concerns about the requirement that reasonable attempts be made to request documentation during a "contact", which can include things such as questioning a victim of a crime:
You can also read an interesting report by NPR's Alan Greenblatt which addresses some of the bad press about the bill.
For a more extensive conversation about the bill, try NPR's Tell Me More, in which Michelle Martin interviews two conservatives with differing views of the bill:
Something I haven't read or heard on TV is the idea that this law could also potentially lead to police harassment, such as selectively enforcing community ordinances as an excuse to come into contact with suspected illegals and fish for reasons to request ID. They can claim they're not racially profiling, but that's hard to prove or disprove in predominantly latino areas where they can claim they're just enforcing ordinances such as using too much water, having something too close to the street, etc. I haven't seen it addressed, so I'm wondering if that's just a small concern or if it's not a concern at all.
It's an interesting debate, and as usual, I'm finding that the truth is not found on any one news station and that as I dig for more information, I find it hard to be especially passionate for any one side. I'm concerned about the consequences of the law and hope Arizona's government will make sure it's enforced in a proper way to avoid harassment, but it seems like it could, if properly enforced, be completely fine. Anyone care to save me from my misguided moderate stance? :-)
I think most of us know better than to trust the combined voices of either Fox News or MSNBC to give us the full story; at least I hope we do. After doing a little digging, I've found a variety of sources, right- and left-wing and moderate, which paint a more complete picture.
Let's begin with what I think is a pretty useless video by Governor Brewer:
Wow, that music certainly raised my blood pressure. Creepy. :-)
Arizona has problems, for sure. Many people just have problems with HOW the state's leadership is tackling them, or at what cost, or the likely outcomes of passing such a bill even if they're not guaranteed outcomes (a bit like people lamenting the end of our nation over health care reform which was "likely" to open the door to death panels, and other panicky cries).
Obama's joke wasn't implying Arizona's problems or border control are trivial but was a jab at the way they're approaching it. That statement was made at an event where "roasting" and eyebrow-raising jokes are not only common but expected: watch the whole event.
Nice try, Governor Brewer, but this ad is mostly a smokescreen and didn't address the actual concerns around the senate bill. But I'm sure it's effective in emotionally rallying those who already support the bill.
One site shows clips from various talking heads claiming the majority of immigrants in Arizona support the bill then attempts to refute those claims.
Then there are the reader comments at the L.A. Times, where people are quite familiar with immigration issues.
A writer at the Chicago Tribune piped in with an article I found interesting about how asking for ID is something which is already done in many situations, and this bill is only adding one element to that. He also quotes some of the wording of the bill to show what it does and does not require:
"For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest made by a (state or local) law enforcement official...in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation." (emphasis added by the article's author)
Then there's an argument by legal immigrant Gabriela Saucedo before the Tucson City Council regarding her view of the bill and not understanding why people are so upset about it:
On NPR's All Things Considered, I heard an interview with Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villasenor about his concerns around the bill, as well, including his concerns about the requirement that reasonable attempts be made to request documentation during a "contact", which can include things such as questioning a victim of a crime:
You can also read an interesting report by NPR's Alan Greenblatt which addresses some of the bad press about the bill.
For a more extensive conversation about the bill, try NPR's Tell Me More, in which Michelle Martin interviews two conservatives with differing views of the bill:
Something I haven't read or heard on TV is the idea that this law could also potentially lead to police harassment, such as selectively enforcing community ordinances as an excuse to come into contact with suspected illegals and fish for reasons to request ID. They can claim they're not racially profiling, but that's hard to prove or disprove in predominantly latino areas where they can claim they're just enforcing ordinances such as using too much water, having something too close to the street, etc. I haven't seen it addressed, so I'm wondering if that's just a small concern or if it's not a concern at all.
It's an interesting debate, and as usual, I'm finding that the truth is not found on any one news station and that as I dig for more information, I find it hard to be especially passionate for any one side. I'm concerned about the consequences of the law and hope Arizona's government will make sure it's enforced in a proper way to avoid harassment, but it seems like it could, if properly enforced, be completely fine. Anyone care to save me from my misguided moderate stance? :-)
07 May 2010
Look into my eyes
Have you ever paid attention to where you're looking when you're actually "looking someone in the eyes"? Maybe I spent so much of my life generally avoiding eye contact that actually making eye contact became a deliberate thing, but I realized, recently, that I had changed the way I looked people in the eye.
At some point, I started bouncing back and forth between both of their eyes in rapid motion, which somehow felt awkward. Sometimes, I've also looked at their eyes generally but in a non-focused way, just looking in the direction of their eyes but not into them. But when I noticed I was doing that, I decided to focus my attention, and when it's been natural and steady, I noticed I tend to look at people in their right eye, or the left from my perspective. Unless their right eye is somehow covered, crooked, or vacant, then I switch to the left and stick with it.
And as I've stopped myself from scanning back and forth between both eyes, and instead looked more intently into their eyes (or, more accurately, their single eye I've chosen to focus on) I've noticed more of a connection when talking, and I've regained that sort of "window to the soul" perception. It's been good.
So now I've been noticing what other people do, too. Since everyone I know has the use of at least one functional eye, I can ask y'all: what eye do you look into? Or do you look through them? Or bounce back and forth between both? Or avoid eye contact altogether? Or have you never thought about this and think I'm weird for even asking? You might be right. I'm going to sleep.
At some point, I started bouncing back and forth between both of their eyes in rapid motion, which somehow felt awkward. Sometimes, I've also looked at their eyes generally but in a non-focused way, just looking in the direction of their eyes but not into them. But when I noticed I was doing that, I decided to focus my attention, and when it's been natural and steady, I noticed I tend to look at people in their right eye, or the left from my perspective. Unless their right eye is somehow covered, crooked, or vacant, then I switch to the left and stick with it.
And as I've stopped myself from scanning back and forth between both eyes, and instead looked more intently into their eyes (or, more accurately, their single eye I've chosen to focus on) I've noticed more of a connection when talking, and I've regained that sort of "window to the soul" perception. It's been good.
So now I've been noticing what other people do, too. Since everyone I know has the use of at least one functional eye, I can ask y'all: what eye do you look into? Or do you look through them? Or bounce back and forth between both? Or avoid eye contact altogether? Or have you never thought about this and think I'm weird for even asking? You might be right. I'm going to sleep.
05 May 2010
Did I Do Thaaaaat?
Another dream (for some reason, I'm remembering them the last few nights, sleeping on a hide-a-bed at my bro's house): I had just left a get-together of some sort, and as I was leaving a parking lot, backing out of a space, I found that my brakes were weaker than I remembered, and as I checked my mirrors to make sure I wouldn't hit anything behind me, I just kept pressing harder on the brakes, with mushy results, and even shifting down or to neutral didn't help much.
Have you ever had a dream where you're trying to run down a long, narrow hallway, but your legs don't seem to work, and the hallway just seems to get longer? You know, like in Poltergeist. I think I had a dream like that when I was little. But my frustrating dreams were typically different. The one I most remember was me jumping across or over something and having sudden super-strength, flying into the air, then falling, bracing myself for impact, bouncing high into the air again, etc. Try as I might to either absorb the impact or find a bar to hold on to or something, I wouldn't be able to stop bouncing. I'd sometimes wake up from some reflex, feeling completely frustrated, and sometimes this played out in my head while I was actually awake: a thought cycle I couldn't stop but refused to let go of until I'd forced myself to stop "bouncing", which I don't think I ever did. I eventually learned to just let go of needing to stop myself or insisting I should be able to and instead directing my thoughts elsewhere until the cycle faded away, which (seemingly paradoxically) stopped me from bouncing. Is that symptomatic of obsessive thoughts? Am I revealing too much? ;-)
Anyway, this experience with the brakes was similar. The brakes wouldn't work, and I bumped my rear bumper into a wooden rail on the edge of the lot with a thud. Oddly enough, as it happened, a small green convertible on the other side of the barrier, slightly higher than where I was, jolted as if it had been hit, and though I was sure my bumper couldn't have reached 4 feet through the barrier to cause such damage, there was no other clear explanation, and as I sat there trying to figure out if I should find the owner and explain what happened, even though I couldn't be at fault, the convertible started rolling down the embankment, landing in a dented mess in the parking lot. This was nasty, certainly no cheap fix. I should at least find the owner and explain what I'd seen, even if it would seem like I was to blame. A resident of the complex came out and was apparently taking down my license plate number. Great. Now I definitely had to get out and clean this up.
That resident was nice but was convinced the damage was my fault because it happened when I hit the barrier, and clearly there was no other explanation, he'd said. I patiently spoke with him, not trying to explain how unlikely it was that my bump could've caused such a chain reaction lest I should appear to be only exonerating myself, and he seemed nice and sincere but quietly convinced it was my fault. Long story not-as-long, I ended up running into the convertible owner, who was some scrappy, pothead dude roaming around in his underwear. He put on some clothes and came out to talk to me, casually and almost jovially asking when he could expect payment for damages. I thought it was weird he could be so cavalier and seemingly not surprised, but I pushed away thoughts that he'd somehow orchestrated the whole scene as a way to get insurance money or something. Maybe part of me did fear my barrier bump had caused the convertible to be all bashed up, even though that didn't really make sense. Stranger things have happened, right? I was trying to acknowledge how it must appear and admit it might have been my barrier collision but also explain that this damage was not likely to have been caused by my bumping the barrier, and saying I'd work with him to find a solution. As I was hoping he'd at the very least see that I had truly done all I could to stop my car when my brakes seemingly went out and have some mercy because of it, I woke up, thankful I didn't have that mess to clean up.
Sometimes, it's "just a dream", but I think much of the time, our dreams do have some connection with what's going on inside our minds. And this one I hadn't suspected as such until I wrote it out and thought, "Oh wow...yeah...I think I know where that's coming from." There may be a parallel between this situation and the thoughts which were racing through my head and keeping me up last night in relation to not having all the answers but having seen what doesn't make sense, yet not being able to convince anyone of that even if I wanted to because they'd rather have a scapegoat and a story that doesn't fit together--and the ability to dismiss as guilty someone who challenges that perception--than accept that there's no known explanation yet and not have a sense of justice or someone to blame. Yeah, I know that may seem abstract to many of you, but those of you familiar with the last year of my life can probably grasp what I mean, though very few of you truly sympathize. Maybe I'm feeling a little vulnerable and understandably but (in my opinion) unfairly scrutinized lately.
It's not a huge deal. I'm not bent out of shape over it. I feel quietly confident and reassured. But the tension is surely a source of some stress in my life. We all have them and deal with them.
Have you ever had a dream where you're trying to run down a long, narrow hallway, but your legs don't seem to work, and the hallway just seems to get longer? You know, like in Poltergeist. I think I had a dream like that when I was little. But my frustrating dreams were typically different. The one I most remember was me jumping across or over something and having sudden super-strength, flying into the air, then falling, bracing myself for impact, bouncing high into the air again, etc. Try as I might to either absorb the impact or find a bar to hold on to or something, I wouldn't be able to stop bouncing. I'd sometimes wake up from some reflex, feeling completely frustrated, and sometimes this played out in my head while I was actually awake: a thought cycle I couldn't stop but refused to let go of until I'd forced myself to stop "bouncing", which I don't think I ever did. I eventually learned to just let go of needing to stop myself or insisting I should be able to and instead directing my thoughts elsewhere until the cycle faded away, which (seemingly paradoxically) stopped me from bouncing. Is that symptomatic of obsessive thoughts? Am I revealing too much? ;-)
Anyway, this experience with the brakes was similar. The brakes wouldn't work, and I bumped my rear bumper into a wooden rail on the edge of the lot with a thud. Oddly enough, as it happened, a small green convertible on the other side of the barrier, slightly higher than where I was, jolted as if it had been hit, and though I was sure my bumper couldn't have reached 4 feet through the barrier to cause such damage, there was no other clear explanation, and as I sat there trying to figure out if I should find the owner and explain what happened, even though I couldn't be at fault, the convertible started rolling down the embankment, landing in a dented mess in the parking lot. This was nasty, certainly no cheap fix. I should at least find the owner and explain what I'd seen, even if it would seem like I was to blame. A resident of the complex came out and was apparently taking down my license plate number. Great. Now I definitely had to get out and clean this up.
That resident was nice but was convinced the damage was my fault because it happened when I hit the barrier, and clearly there was no other explanation, he'd said. I patiently spoke with him, not trying to explain how unlikely it was that my bump could've caused such a chain reaction lest I should appear to be only exonerating myself, and he seemed nice and sincere but quietly convinced it was my fault. Long story not-as-long, I ended up running into the convertible owner, who was some scrappy, pothead dude roaming around in his underwear. He put on some clothes and came out to talk to me, casually and almost jovially asking when he could expect payment for damages. I thought it was weird he could be so cavalier and seemingly not surprised, but I pushed away thoughts that he'd somehow orchestrated the whole scene as a way to get insurance money or something. Maybe part of me did fear my barrier bump had caused the convertible to be all bashed up, even though that didn't really make sense. Stranger things have happened, right? I was trying to acknowledge how it must appear and admit it might have been my barrier collision but also explain that this damage was not likely to have been caused by my bumping the barrier, and saying I'd work with him to find a solution. As I was hoping he'd at the very least see that I had truly done all I could to stop my car when my brakes seemingly went out and have some mercy because of it, I woke up, thankful I didn't have that mess to clean up.
Sometimes, it's "just a dream", but I think much of the time, our dreams do have some connection with what's going on inside our minds. And this one I hadn't suspected as such until I wrote it out and thought, "Oh wow...yeah...I think I know where that's coming from." There may be a parallel between this situation and the thoughts which were racing through my head and keeping me up last night in relation to not having all the answers but having seen what doesn't make sense, yet not being able to convince anyone of that even if I wanted to because they'd rather have a scapegoat and a story that doesn't fit together--and the ability to dismiss as guilty someone who challenges that perception--than accept that there's no known explanation yet and not have a sense of justice or someone to blame. Yeah, I know that may seem abstract to many of you, but those of you familiar with the last year of my life can probably grasp what I mean, though very few of you truly sympathize. Maybe I'm feeling a little vulnerable and understandably but (in my opinion) unfairly scrutinized lately.
It's not a huge deal. I'm not bent out of shape over it. I feel quietly confident and reassured. But the tension is surely a source of some stress in my life. We all have them and deal with them.
04 May 2010
Another Time-to-Wake-Up Moment
In my dream, I was reading news about an incident at the hospital my fully-functional mother checked herself into (if you know her, that's already pretty outlandish), and a stranger was mentioned in the article: "Officials questioned Fed-Sheze, a white alexander with semi-nude electricity." Yeah, just wake up before the dream gets weirder or you find out what "semi-nude electricity" entails.
I posted my last such incident on Facebook: When I'm holding a crescent wrench with a round, knurled handle, and someone tells me, "You guys are gonna need to iron out that broken skillet," and I'm standing there with my wrench trying to make sense of what I need to be doing, it's probably just time to wake up. So I did and thought, "Thank goodness I'm awake. That wasn't making any sense."
Dreams are fun. I wish I remembered them more often.
I posted my last such incident on Facebook: When I'm holding a crescent wrench with a round, knurled handle, and someone tells me, "You guys are gonna need to iron out that broken skillet," and I'm standing there with my wrench trying to make sense of what I need to be doing, it's probably just time to wake up. So I did and thought, "Thank goodness I'm awake. That wasn't making any sense."
Dreams are fun. I wish I remembered them more often.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)