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:

"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? :-)

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.

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.

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.

LDS Non-Right-Wingers: You're Not Alone

On Facebook, a friend posted a link to an article entitled Ezra Taft Benson: The End of All Political Debate? from The LDS Left Blog about the influence of Ezra Taft Benson's personal views on LDS political culture. I think anyone who has studied LDS Church history beyond seminary knows the institutional church wasn't necessarily always as "conservative" in certain ways as it is today, which wouldn't be surprising considering its misfit, somewhat revolutionary beginnings. But today, popular culture in the LDS Church generally holds the republican party to be the Lord's anointed, with democrats tolerated in the way Jesus allowed sinners at the table. Thank goodness for the boundless charity of the political chosen ones.

I used to believe that it was no particular sin to be democrat or to embrace "liberal" ideals, but it reflected a lack of understanding of certain eternal truths, and we all have our failings and lack of understanding. Democrats weren't evil, they were just pitiable. With my current, more "independent" take on politics, I now believe both modern conservatism and liberalism espouse and overlook true principles in different ways, and popularly understood capitalism and socialism each manage and overlook different aspects of the realities of human nature.

But my opinion doesn't count. Most of you know the church and I are on friendly but distant terms, so clearly my opinion is to be taken with a grain of salt as being from one who has let worldly philosophies of moderation lead him astray. I wouldn't want to misrepresent myself and lead poor, unsuspecting saps into the darkness of rational objectivity at the expense of eternal perspective. But that said, the understanding that popular politics in "Mormon culture" have been heavily influenced by the philosophies of men mingled with scripture was a perspective I had mostly accepted by the time I was at my apex of church-faithfulness and church activity, around ages 20-23. So I know it's possible to hold a moderate political stance and be faithfully LDS. Left wing or liberal, though? Well, I wasn't that deceived. I still considered myself a moderate conservative. I was squarely on the "right" side.

Still, it's possibly useless to try to get most right-wingers to acknowledge that MAYBE currently understood American right-wing politics aren't the Lord's only begotten form of government, and this author's mere mention of things like "men like any other" and questioning teachings about birth control or people of African descent and the priesthood raises immediate red flags of apostasy for many, I'm sure. I know that over a decade ago, I would've read this and said, "The church has been refining and evolving, and recognizing and learning to fully embrace conservative ideals has just been one of those steps. Besides, even members of the first presidency can be wrong, but it's best to follow the majority of the brethren, so it's no bother if there's a smattering of democrats here and there in leadership: their hearts are good, they just don't understand economic and social realities..."

But whether or not extreme right-wingers will ever regard liberal ideals with anything but contempt, it's helpful for non-right-wingers to know they're not alone in active church membership and in faith and that they have the support of prominent church leaders past and present. That may not mean much coming from me personally, but I have a few friends who are quite active, quite faithful, and quite non-right-wing, closeted though they may be. Awaken, ye righties, to the possibility, and be comforted, ye lefties, by the understanding that much of today's American LDS political ultra-conservatism actually may come from ideas of certain church leaders mingled with truths and principles, some of which applied directly to then-existing forms of government and their accompanying despotic dictatorships, and that perhaps the church leaders who quietly disagreed with them about certain aspects but considered the pulpit an inappropriate forum in which to do so had every bit as much of a grasp on the gospel and its application to politics as the outspoken Birchers. It could happen. So to my liberal or moderate LDS friends: you're not alone. Say it one more time, "I'm not alone." You are loved in ways that can't be shown (lest anyone be reported to the Mormon Mafia as a "communist sympathizer")...