We return from our terrible lack of updating to join in the celebrations as Barack Obama officially won enough delegates this evening to secure the Democratic Presidential nomination. (Yes, we’re celebrating - it’s been fairly clear whose side we’ve been leaning toward this primary season, right?)

Obama’s win was certainly expected, so why are we so excited? I suppose we could purely cite the fact that our nominee of choice will definitely be facing John McCain, but it is so much more than that. Regardless of political affiliation, I think we can all feel extremely fortunate that today we have witnessed history in the making. What happened today will be going down in the books our children will be reading tomorrow, and considering the grim happenings of the past eight years, Obama’s nomination is a breath of fresh air and a gust of hope for a better tomorrow.

Of course, there is really no shock that Hillary Clinton didn’t concede tonight - I didn’t think she would. As I watched CNN this evening, I was a bit perplexed to see that so many of the political analysts were flabbergasted by this fact. Of course she’s not going to give in the second the official victory has been reached - she’s spent the past weeks and months going strong despite the best numbers being against her. For the record, I don’t intend for this statement to be a scathing one towards her - Clinton has clearly demonstrated her ambition to be President, and I don’t doubt her ability for the position. My main problem with Hillary these days is that she has now morphed into a populist against a system, which she previously endorsed when she thought she’d have the nomination in the bag. Despite the shortcomings of her campaign, I would not expect or even be offended by the fact that she didn’t resign - it’ll come in the next few days, folks, so let’s relax and look to the months between now and November. Hillary Clinton is not enemy number one, is essentially the gist of my message.

There has also been renewed talk about the “dream ticket”, after Clinton stated today that she would consider being Obama’s VP. I’m personally not sure how well an Obama/Clinton ticket would go over considering the strong disenfranchisement many people have with the Clintons, but if the Obama campaign has proven anything, it’s that new ideas can certainly trump the status quo of Washington politics, so we shall see what fruits will bear of this ticket, if it does occur.

For now, there will be no bitching, because I for one, am ECSTATIC that we have finally arrived at a conclusion at the end of the primaries, and won’t have to wait for this mess to drag out until the convention in August. I raise my glass to Barack Obama for the amazing campaign he has led, and for a great presidency I’m sure he will lead.

(*Note: This post was originally written around a week ago and I just got around to finishing and posting it, sorry for the tardiness of the subject, but I felt it still needed to be posted.)

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

As if this election couldn’t be more meticulously monitored based on ethnicity, Hillary Clinton makes this winner of a statement. Of course, I’m more likely to attribute this to a case of “lack of head on tight”, however the fact remains, she related being hard-working to being white. I’m not sure what’s worse: the fact that Hillary, despite her best intentions, drew a strong parallel between which race is the most “hardworking”, or the fact that John McCain is touting the foreign policy card but continues to confuse Sunni and Shi’a. (For those who are not familiar, McCain stated that Al Qaeda was a Shi’a group.)

Will this hurt Hillary in the long run? Probably not. I think if anything sealed her fate, it was the extremely narrow margin with which she won in Indiana this week. If anything, it’ll just be another quote added to one of those nifty little tear-off calendars with a new stupid quote made by a politician each day.

All the same, she shouldn’t just expect to be able to shrug it off her statement by saying “these are the people you need to win”. Au contraire, if the news networks have proven anything in their obsession with race and exit polling, it’s that more than just one group counts, stupid. Both Latino and Black Americans are going to have a lot of impact on this election.

Of course, to add a more current note to this post, let’s have a looksie at what some of our favorite conservatives have had to say lately:

“That was Barack Obama. He just tripped off a chair. He’s getting ready to speak and somebody aimed a gun at him and he — he dove for the floor.” - Mike Fuckabee, referring to a loud noise backstage as he presented  at the NRA convention on Friday.

^^ Yes, because considering the history of political assassinations as far back as, you know, THE BEGINNING OF TIME, this was a REALLY great statement. Calling Mike Huckabee a “douche” doesn’t even begin to cover it… For the rest of my life, Mike Huckabee shall be referred to as receptalacum testis, you know, to exemplify the ornate and diverse language and ideas he has tried to impart.

“As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared, ‘Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this may have been avoided’. We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.” - President Bush, in reference to the Democrat’s stance on the Iraq war.

Right… because being best friends with Saudi Arabia and allowing Prince Bandar in the White House on September 12th, 2001 after their country funded 9/11… that is so completely not appeasement. Folks, I’m beginning to think it’s time that every citizen of this fine nation should mail President Bush a dictionary. Maybe his speech writers, too.

YES! OMG, YES! John Edwards is endorsing Barack Obama! *Takes a solid 5 minute break to squee like a child on Christmas morning*

Over AIM 10 minutes ago:

ElysaMNFF: YES!

Laura: YES

Laura: JOHN EDWARDS IS THE MAN

ElysaMNFF: 4 SRS

ElysaMNFF: OMG

ElysaMNFF: PWN

Laura: I love how

Laura: all you had to say was

Laura: “YES!”

Laura: And I knew automatically what you were talking about.

This is huge news, and let me explain why:

i. First of all, Edwards’ endorsement– no matter to whom it went– was/is hugely significant. Edwards has a massive following of extremely loyal populist/working class voters. This has been evidenced by the fact that, despite that Edwards dropped out of the race ages ago, he continues to garner votes in the primaries. His following is so loyal that they vote for him even when he is no longer viable, or even on the ticket. Translation: Edwards holds the hearts of millions of important Democratic voters who have refused to vote for either Clinton or Obama up to this point. Now, that’s set to change. By endorsing Obama, Edwards is releasing his constituents to vote for Obama, is in fact encouraging them to support Obama, and with such an intensely devout following this is essentially guaranteeing that they will. And mark my words. They will.

ii. It is also about the type of voters they are. Edwards, like Clinton, runs on an extremely populist message. He focuses on poverty, healthcare, welfare, et al. Therefore, his target crowd are middle/working class, blue collar Americans– the same target audience as Hillary Clinton, and the one crowd that Obama has had enormous trouble winning over, which is essentially why he lost West Virginia last night by such a massive margin: 90% of West Virginia consists of the middle/lower working class. So Edwards’ endorsement is going to be huge in closing that gap for Obama. It’s going to bring those types of voters over into Obama’s camp, giving him much more support in practically the only real electorate weakness he had (past tense now!). This is terrible news for Hillary Clinton, for the obvious reasons, but also because Edwards’ voice has so much credibility among Clinton’s strongest supporters that by supporting Obama, Edwards will not only bring him more support, but will potentially divert support from Clinton by provoking blue collar voters to rethink their choice of candidate.

iii. Thirdly, this comes at the perfect time for Obama. He just suffered a crushing defeat in West Virginia last night, so Edwards’ timing is choice and strategic. Both the media’s and the nation’s attention is going to be diverted from Obama’s loss and refocused on Edwards’ endorsement. In a political system that (unfortunately, but nonetheless) relies heavily on momentum and media/mass perception, the timing truly could not have been better. The West Virginia defeat story will be old hat within a matter of 24 hours as this Edwards story dilutes the news cycle. It reinforces Obama’s stance as the front-runner, reinstates a little lost certainty in his ability to pick up working class support, and reaffirms his campaign as being the stronger, more credible and able campaign to face McCain in the November General Elections.

iv. Lastly, when an ex-candidate formally endorses another candidate, he/she is also formally releasing their delegates. Meaning, the 19 Superdelegates that Edwards had won in the early primaries are now free to support someone else. And who do you think they’ll support if the candidate they were formally supporting has endorsed Obama? One guess.

Not to mention, of course, that Clinton worked endlessly to garner Edwards’ endorsement, so his decision to support her rival is more than a little embarrassing. No matter how you slice it, it’s utterly fantastic news for the Obama camp, meaning it’s utterly fantastic news for me and Laura. Let it be known that Wednesday, May 14, is officially some manner of National Holiday.

I’m certain I’ll have more on this later (such as what this could mean for a possible Obama/Edwards ticket), but in my unhindered excitement the threads of coherent thought are slipping speedily away.

/Elysa

Since Clinton’s rather embarrassing defeat in North Carolina and her near-defeat in the state of Indiana (a state in which she was poised to win by a margin of 8% or greater– HA), Hillary has lost some substantial Superdelegate support and has been on the receiving end of many calls to bow out of the Democratic race.

Now, let me make something abundantly clear: I do not like Hillary Clinton (as a politician/law-maker, that is). I find her polarizing, near-sighted, and utterly lacking in the ability to compromise during a time in American history when bipartisan cooperation is no longer an ideologue’s plea but a necessity. She’s part Populist (i.e., economically liberal) and I have some strong Libertarian leanings (i.e., economically conservative). Populists bother me immensely. They rally for freedom and civil liberties then endorse government control and regulation– over a fundamentally capitalist system, no less. Fail. So for me, personally, Clinton is faaaar from the ideal candidate. In many ways, I find her just as unappealing as John McCain.

But to those who are shouting for her to drop out: SHUT.UP.KTHX.

I mean, seriously. Let’s be objective, people. Let’s allow democracy to run its course. You don’t have to like her. Again, I certainly don’t. But she has huge masses of support behind her, millions upon millions of American citizens have voted for her, her campaign continues to raise money, and Obama cannot mathematically reach the necessary delegate count to be the official nominee either. Let the god damned woman run, would you? Is this not what the United States is about? Hard-fought elections and exceedingly tough political campaigns? If we can’t endure the strain of democracy at work, who the hell are we? If difficult campaign seasons aren’t worth your time and patience, perhaps you’re living in the wrong fucking country. Do your history homework. Just a thought.

And if appealing to one’s inner ideology isn’t enough, look at it from a strategic standpoint: Clinton is going to win the West Virginian and Kentucky primaries by large margins. 10% or more, possibly by as much as 18%-20% in West Virginia, because she does well in low-income, working class states (i.e., the Populist crowd). These primaries are mere days/weeks away. If Clinton dropped out of the race, what would that mean for the Obama campaign? THINK, people. Our brains can be miraculous little things. He would be losing by huge margins to a ghost candidate. One to two weeks isn’t enough time to close those wide margins and win in those states between now and then. So if she bowed out, the Obama campaign’s credibility would take a beating. “How can he lose to a candidate who has already ceded the election? If he can’t beat Clinton when she isn’t even running anymore, do we trust him to beat McCain and his entire Republican political machine in November?” I find this sort of logic ridiculous and not even deserving of the term “logic”, but unfortunately that is undeniably the inane path of thought that many– the media included– would follow should Hillary drop out now. Therefore, it could be legitimately argued that her bowing out could weaken the Democratic Party by making their supporters second-guess Obama’s validity and capability.

Do I personally buy this argument? Meh, partly, partly not. I believe that is indeed what huge portions of Democratic voters would wonder, but I have reservations as to how detrimental it would truly be. I don’t think it would deter them enough to keep them from voting for him in November. But it is a valid point that a lot of political scientists are arguing.

It’s been an exciting but obnoxious primary season, I agree, and I can’t wait for the real General Election campaigning to begin either. But guys, there’s roughly three weeks left. Three weeks’ worth of primaries, then the Democratic Convention in August. The end is near. So for the sake of all that is holy and in the name of both ideology and strategy, let’s shut our pie holes and let Clinton run her damned race.

/Elysa

Let’s talk about the Michigan/Florida controversy.

2008 Election History 101: The Democratic Party set guidelines and rules for how the states are allowed to carry out their primaries. Some of the rules were small and simple, such as “the candidates’ names must be listed in alphabetical order on the ballot,” and others were far more significant and meaningful, such as “you may not hold your primary before the date ______.” The date was different for most states, but each state received a window of time in which they were allowed to hold theirs. Each Party does this– Republicans too– and not just this season, but every election season. These rules are set down by Party officials, and for good reason. And the reason that the Parties tell the states when they can and cannot hold their primaries is because political strategy demands that some states vote before others. For instance: California cannot go first. They cannot be the first or even among the first to hold their primary, because it is such a huge state with so many delegates, that if it went first, the winner of California’s primary would receive loads of media attention, lots of support from delegates, and tons of money, on the notion that “well, if they can win California they’re pretty well set to win the rest.” And this is not always the case, obviously, so an early win in California would give democratic voters a false sense of who their candidate will be, thereby surprising and disenfranchising them later in the election season if the front-runner ends up being someone else. And what happens when voters are disenfranchised? They stop voting. Which, of course = bad for the Party.

So there is a method to the madness. Each Party sets these rules in place for specific and politically meaningful reasons.

So what happened this season to fuck it all up? Well, Michigan and Florida expressed their desire to break these rules and hold their primaries much earlier than allowed. The DNC (Democratic National Committee) told them– “Look, if you go through with this, we’re not counting your votes. Your delegates won’t be counted. I don’t know how else to phrase it. You’ll be holding your primary for nothing.” Like jackasses, both states decided to call the DNC’s bluff, and went through with it anyway, holding their primaries months before schedule. This threw off the Democrats’ election season, forcing other states to re-schedule their primaries, costing the Democratic Party money and resources. So what did they (the DNC) do? Exactly as they warned: they didn’t count their votes.

And now Florida and Michigan are “outraged” like little toddlers who’ve had their gummy bears taken away for misbehaving. “My God, how dare you do what you said you’d do?!” And they’re calling out the DNC as being undemocratic, or better yet, anti-American, because they’re “disrespecting and disregarding the traditions of democracy which demand that all votes be counted.” Hillary Clinton is eating this up, because she would do well in both states, meaning that if the DNC folds under pressure and decided to count Florida’s and Michigan’s votes, and/or Florida and Michigan are permitted to hold another primary, it will do her campaign a lot of favors. It’s a Hail Mary for the candidate who just got her ass kicked in both North Carolina and Indiana last night (yes, Indiana too, because she only won by 2% and was supposed to win by huge margins, meaning her “I’m more electable than Obama in November” argument is null).

Here’s what I think, because did you really expect me not to tell you?

SHUT THE FUCK UP. You broke the god damned rules. Get over it. It’s not like you weren’t warned multiple times. It’s not like anyone forced you to go outside your own Party’s guidelines and sabotage other states’ primary schedules. Secondly, it isn’t undemocratic not to count your votes, for two reasons. First of all, you made the choice not to have your votes counted by being pompous disobeying douche bags. I.e., it isn’t undemocratic not to count your vote when you asked for your vote not to be counted.

Secondly, these are the primaries, people. These are the elections to determine Parties’ nominees for the presidential election in November. No one is taking away your Constitutional right to vote in the General Election. No one is telling you that, come November, you won’t have a voice. These.are.primaries. And what are primaries? Primaries are Party-sponsored, Party-regulated, and Party-run elections to decide who best represents their Party. So when you flip the bird to your Party and decide not to accept the Party’s rules in the Party’s– not nation’s!– elections, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS. And there is nothing undemocratic about it, because the Party system isn’t written into our Constitution, isn’t even a democratic ideal or principle, it is an informal invention and tradition. There are no laws or rights for Political Parties in the U.S. because they weren’t supposed to fucking exist in the first place. Therefore, Political Parties are legally and rightfully allowed to conduct themselves however they see fit. So this controversy over not counting two states’ primaries because they broke their own rules is no controversy at all. If Florida and Michigan don’t like it, they can leave the Party. No one’s stopping them.

Political Parties are like clubs. When the club’s president tells you that “X” is not acceptable behavior during club meetings, and you do “X” anyway, what the fuck do you expect? “ZOMG, u be tellin me not to do dis, den I be doin it n u gets upsetz?! Who culd of new?!” Or would you go about whining about principles of democracy? LULZ, shut up, it has nothing to do with that, you’re still going to get to help determine who will be the president… Just not who will be your party’s nominee. Why? Because you… fucked over your party. Logical deductions FOR THE WIN.

I think the only reason people feel as if they have any right to throw a hot little shitfit over this is because they bear the painful misconception that political parties are state-regulated/based in law, when they’re not. I mean, really, the Democratic and Republican parties don’t even have to hold primary elections at all. The Party officials could just meet around a table, flip a coin or play Pin the Tail on the Right Candidate, and choose that way, and it would be perfectly fucking okay. Just like if you joined a club at school, and they told you, “sure, you can join, but just so you know– we don’t eat cherries. If you eat cherries here, you’re out.” Fine! And if you have a problem with that, guess what amazing little option you have? LEAVE. When you choose to join an informal club such as a political party, you are choosing to respect and abide by the terms and conditions. This isn’t the fucking government. If the government refused to count your vote, or if the government told you that you aren’t allowed to eat cherries, that would be a HUGE fucking problem. Seriously. I would personally revolt. Yes, even over the cherries. Don’t mess with the maraschinos. But this isn’t the government! This is an informal group of crazies who rally around half-baked political ideals and spam your inboxes with petulant little bits of propaganda! That’s it! Nothing more!

And this is partly why I fucking despise Political Parties. Which is another post for another day, but yeah, I don’t do Parties. Hence half of the reason I registered as an Independent. Because I chose not to join. But you know what I didn’t do? I didn’t choose to join and then bitch about the terms involved in joining.

That’s Florida’s and Michigan’s job.

-Elysa

I have three important posts in the works, but as Hell Week is quickly approaching for we college students, they’re on hold for the moment. For now, a brief and totally off-the-cuff spiff:

The current group of 18-24 year olds are statistically the most uninvolved, disengaged generation of young people in American history. Bar none. And that’s not an opinion, that’s a fact. The issue I take with those I meet who exemplify this trend is that they seem to have deluded themselves into believing that the realm of politics and government is someone else’s responsibility, and that if they choose to be apathetic, it is their right.

To me, they might as well be saying, “the earth is flat,” because that is the staggering amount of ignorance it requires to maintain such an uninformed, pitiful attitude. In a republic such as the United States, politics and government are the duty of the people. If you are not plugged in, you are being irresponsible. We, as a nation, need to start considering our right to vote, petition, and rally as the sort of obligation that we consider when we speak of providing for our families and paying our bills. Because, folks, you can accumulate as much wealth as you damn well want. You can be a responsible mother/father and feed and clothe your children, you can send them to the very best university and provide for them the very best that life has to offer. But none of that– none of it– will mean a single fucking thing if you don’t invest yourself in the government and in the country that they will inherit. All of your efforts to be a responsible member of your family– whether that is a parent, sibling, or grandparent– will be for naught if you don’t also endeavor to be a responsible citizen.

Additionally, anyone who uses the term “right” in the context of having rights in the same sentence as “apathetic” is– and I say this without hesitation– an unfortunate moron. The entire concept of the values of human/civil rights is derived (in the modern sense) from the Enlightenment Movement… otherwise known as the “Age of Reason.” Consider that. You are claiming the right to be an apathetic mooch based off the hard work and sacrifices of those who gave you the very concept. Wow. Well, I tell you what. I’m in a Henry Clay, compromising sort of mood. So I won’t argue with you over the fact that you indeed have that right, so long as you don’t argue with me over the fact that you are indeed an idiot.

Lastly, the notion that your choice to be apathetic doesn’t affect anyone else only further illuminates the precise degree to which you are an idiot. It proves your utter lack of understanding for the very foundational basics of democracy and government, and while that earns both my pity and disgust, I am frankly too revolted by your regression into a Neanderthal to waste my time teaching you the ABCs of intellect. If you are so adamant on being a lazy farce, please feel free to move to one of the many countries that do not allow your participation in government, for it would surely suit your indolent sensibilities best.

For those of you who do not wish to be apathetic, who want to be civilly engaged, but just aren’t sure where to begin or how to start informing yourselves on the issues, I at least applaud your interest. It’s a good start. I would propose a number of recommendations, starting with taking a civics/government 101 course as soon as you can. Some high schools offer them, but if yours doesn’t, take one the very second you enter college. If you aren’t attending college, most states offer free civics courses through branches of local universities. For instance, two of my politics professors teach free classes at a lodge about 20 miles from my college. The resources are out there. It only takes a little bit of investigation, and with the birth of the internets, there truly is no excuse.

In the meantime, if any of you ever have any questions about U.S. government, democracy, or politics, I would be positively honored to assist you in your search for an answer. I will answer outright and/or provide a number of resources so that you can research yourself. Whichever you prefer, because I am not free of bias and I would hate to influence your thinking without your permission. Seriously. Independent thought is a gift only you can give yourself.

“The death of democracy will not be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.” –Robert Maynard Hutchins

/Elysa.

Today it has been reported that another four US soldiers were killed last night (Sunday) in a roadside bomb, which brings the number of US casualties in Iraq to 4,000. These are 4,000 children who will never come home to their parents, and many of them had children of their own they won’t get to watch grow up. 4,000 people we will never see walking down the street, or even doing something as simple as making a trip to the grocery store. 4,000 people who made the ultimate sacrifice, and 4,000 families whose lives will never be the same again.

Let us not push these men and women to the backs of our minds, as war casualties often are. If the news outlets are tomorrow reporting on celebrity gossip - turn it off, and instead, take a moment to remember the brave people who have given their lives, and the brave people who are still in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As for now, I’d like to give the floor to some of you: What do you think about war casualties? Can they ever be worth it? I look forward to reading your thoughts.

Laura

And people are bitching about Barack Obama’s pastor????

This is a topic that has been on my mind for quite some time, and I’ve been mulling it over quite a bit over the last few days. I’m sure most people are sick of hearing about this issue - it seems like all we hear is “Candidate X wants to give illegal immigrants amnesty!” or, as an episode of South Park aptly observed: “They took our jobs!!!” (For a clip from this hilarious and scarily accurate episode, click here.) Most of us are familiar with the obvious arguments on both sides, such as the famous “taking our jobs” vs. “working jobs we don’t want” discussion most people have, but there are other things aside from the argument that have been on my mind lately (though, I won’t promise not to make an argument here).So, moving onto one of the things that pisses me off the most: social stigma against Mexicans. First of all: since WHEN did “Mexican” become an insult? Living in the south, I can’t recount the amount of times I’ve heard someone use “Mexican” as some sort of slur, and it’s funny considering these people are so willing to convert a nationality into an insult, but the second someone uses “American” in the same way, they’re up in arms about people who hold prejudices and promote stereotypes. However, it should be noted that the terms are used differently - those who use “American” as a slur use it to generalize stupidity, whereas those who use “Mexican” as an insult use it to generalize filthiness, thievery, and exploitation of America. After all, there’s no such thing as a dirty American who steals from stores and exploits things like welfare.

Continuing along that train of thought, I’m wondering how many of those who are so willing to generalize others have access to a world map. Perhaps Miss South Carolina can help them out, but in the meantime, let’s have a little review about the Americas:

Mexico is not part of Latin America or South America - it is part of North America, which *gasp* makes Mexicans Americans! Now, some people find it incredibly easy to misconstrue this little tidbit of information - this doesn’t make them citizens of the United States of America (I emphasize this because people have become prone to thinking that America is only the states) but it does make them Americans - North Americans, to be precise - just like us.

Countries like Guatemala, El Salvador, Spain, Venezuela, Chile, Argentina, etc. are not in Mexico. Sounds simple, no? Then why is it that people who speak Spanish, or even vaguely look like they come from south of the border get called Mexican? This often gets justified by people who don’t know any better that, “they all look the same”. Oh, okay, well I guess if that’s the case, then people can just start calling Americans “French” and vise versa if they feel like it - I mean, we look the same, right? Point blank: “Mexican” should not be an insult, and unless you’re geographically challenged, you’ll know that Puerto Ricans, for instance, aren’t Mexican (as if the 2,000 mile difference didn’t make if obvious enough).

Then we move onto the subject of immigrants abusing systems like welfare and social security. There is no denial that this does indeed happen. Where you have a system, you will have people who exploit it. However, seeing as there are a pretty good number of US citizens who abuse both of these systems, perhaps we should focus more on, you know, FIXING them. No, they will never be perfect - but it is a completely unfair standard to hold all immigrants to, by saying that because a few of them might not work for the life they want here, that they should all get out. If this kind of attitude holds true, I wonder when we’re going to start kicking our own citizens out for doing the same thing - the idea is simply laughable. In order to justify that an immigrant exploiting welfare is any more wrong than an American doing the same thing, we’d have to prove that being a citizen of the US gives us the right to do so!

Furthermore, what people neglect to mention about social security is that most people who are here illegally have fake SSN’s. This means they’re paying taxes that they don’t get back. You’d have to be a pretty big douche to say that people who are paying money into a system that benefits you (however flawed it may be) are taking away from you, or exploiting the social security system. Instead of bitching a blue streak about that, why don’t we take issue with the people who get larger benefits from the system than they ever paid into it during their working years?

From here, we move into the various laws that are being put in place to target immigrants. We have the SAVE Act (Secure America with Verification and Enforcement): essentially, under this, employers would have to use the electronic verification system on everyone. Is someone really trying to make me shit a brick? The e-verify system is riddled with error, and has a 10% false/positive rate. Aside from the obvious idea that the system can encourage discrimination amongst employers, can you imagine 10% of people living in the US being flagged in that system? Furthermore, if it’s got problems now, imagine what will happen when it becomes more widely used. Then of course, comes education: how the hell can states even think about getting rid of ESOL programs? Let’s just put this in perspective: 88% of Latinos under the age of 18 living in the US are citizens, with another 1% of them becoming citizens through naturalization. This leads us to another ridiculous idea: that we should get rid of a program that benefits citizens. Don’t get me wrong - if you’re going to live somewhere, you should speak the predominant language, whether it is an official or national one, of the country. If I were going to live in Germany, for instance, it would be ridiculous of me not to learn German. But how on earth is this going to happen if we take the necessary tools away?

So what should we do about immigrants? There is no doubt in my mind that we have to do something, but kicking every person who is here illegally out of this country isn’t the solution. It would be horrendous for our economy, for starters (unless US citizens decide to start picking up the jobs they currently don’t want to work), and it simply goes against the basic idea of our country being the land of dreams, corny as that may seem. It’s a rare person who can say with confidence that every last relative of theirs arrived here legally and without question. It’s also a rare person who can actually pass the citizenship tests immigrants have to take in order to become naturalized. Frankly, I’ve never heard of anyone who had time to spare waiting to be admitted anywhere when their family depended on it - perhaps so many people might not be here illegally if it didn’t take so damn long to complete the process.

I can’t give anyone a step-by-step process on how to deal with the so-called “illegal problem”, but I can say this: the racial slurs, the abusive police officers who take it upon themselves to harass immigrants, and the blame placed for our own failures is not helping. We call ourselves “the land of the free, and the home of the brave”, but sometimes I think we forget what this means. Perhaps if we didn’t view our freedom as an exclusive privilege, and owned up to the shortcomings our country does have rather than pawning them off on the most recent immigrant group, we might remember.

Laura

We interrupt our normal programming to bring you all a game of catch-up here at Political Bitches. Unfortunately, do to outside forces (*cough*midterms*cough*) this hasn’t been as kept up to date as we would like it to be, so let’s have a little news medley, shall we?

1. NY Governor Spitzer is caught in a prostitution scandal. These are always the types of stories I hate getting out about politicians, and it’s for the exact reason everyone else loves them getting out: people have an odd fascination with knowing what their public officials are doing with their private lives. Here’s an idea for those people who only care that he had *gasp* sex out of wedlock: he’s put his wife and children into an absolutely TERRIBLE position, and not only does this make him a jackass, it makes him a hypocrite. Generally, it’s not a good idea to buy sex and then go after prostitutes, Governor. I don’t give a damn that he risked his own health and career - the real problem here is he has exposed his family and the young woman (’Kristin’ as she is known) to a great deal of public scrutiny. So let’s actually try focusing on that issue, as opposed to just being shell-shocked by the act, kay?

2. Obama: “I don’t know how somebody who is in second place is offering the vice presidency to the person who is first place.” I know a few people seem to feel this provides necessary reason to call Obama out for “arrogance”, but I don’t think that’s the case at all. No one is perfect in this race, but the Clinton camp just keeps on trying to use more and more tactics in order to bring about a benefit, when in reality, it’s just adding to the separation of the Democratic party. Sure, Obama is confident in his current lead, but at least when he was behind in delegates, he wasn’t offering lesser positions to Clinton.

3. Wright and Ferraro: Not helping. Guess what? This isn’t a color race. STFU. You’re only giving stupid people ridiculous things to say about these candidates because you can’t stop flapping your mouths for two seconds.

4. Sending Dick Cheney to the Middle East to lower oil prices. Riiiiight, let’s send Mr. Halliburton to convince OPEC to boost output. Furthermore, according to this merry band of shrubs, our tanking economy is to be blamed on the increase in oil prices! But never mind that war we spend millions of dollars on every day - no, that couldn’t possibly have anything to do with our economy or the high oil prices.

5. House supports revision the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act. And of course, Bush isn’t happy about this, but what else would we expect? As a point of interest, this is the first time the House has held a secret meeting since 1983. Under these revisions, telecommunications companies can be sued for surveillance without warrant, which of course, would be getting rid of another ‘essential tool on terror’. Maybe one day we can wiretap and water board at the same time - double wammies, take that terrorists!!!!!

Laura