Arizona Immigration Law Controversy

Last week Arizona's Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed into state law the nation's toughest sanctions against illegal border crossings, which caused protests across the country along with harsh words from President Obama.

The new law makes it a crime to be in Arizona illegally, and requires police to question people about their status if they suspect they may be illegal immigrants. Supporters of the law say it will help stop illegal immigrants from entering Arizona.  Critics of the law say it will encourage racial profiling and may lead to hate crimes. President Obama has called the law “misguided” and called for lawmakers to work on immigration reform.

What do you think about Arizona's new immigration law?

Scott Hinkley:
I think Arizona's new immigration law is despicable. I am certain that many of the families who condemn the latest migrant population are the same families who exploited past populations rather than extending those job opportunities to the American citizens they now seem so concerned about protecting. I think that this ignorant law has its roots and strength married to the long-tired notion of white-entitlement. I have listened to too many complaints about how the Irish and the Italians had to make it as legal immigrants and struggle without help, but wasn't it the treatment of those waves of immigrants what sparked labor movements, not to mention the extensive help they received during the Great Depression?

I am all in favor of boycotting Arizona and it's products. I think America has become so vast and isolated in it's local politics that it is very important that States choosing adopt radically regressive policies feel the sting of our disapproval. Don't call it un-American just because you are too stupid or lazy to learn another language or share your civil liberties. If you made as little money as illegals do, you would demand tax exemption anyway.

Nikki Lorenzini
I have so many mixed emotions about this that I don't know where to start. I understand why people would want to come to the U.S. There is more opportunity here than there is in other countries. They can get fed, have a place to stay, get health care, the whole nine yards. They also know that even if they do it the illegal way, people will still help them out and give them jobs. I understand that we have it fairly easy here.

Everyone knows the saying, “one bad apple can ruin the whole barrel.” That is what is happening here. I am sure that there are plenty of immigrants that are coming here legally; filling out the proper paperwork and doing everything legitimately. I know that there are a lot of immigrants in my grandmother's apartment complex who are doing things the right way, and know more about their benefits and rights than someone who was born here. So why would I want someone here doing things illegally, stealing our money, stealing our resources, and leave us high and dry?

Yes, I am sure that this law will help with racial profiling, but don't blame the law for racial profiling. It has been going on for years, this law has only given the state a reason to do it legally. Is it right? No. Do I agree with racial profiling? No. I am sure that there is an easier way for Arizona to crack down on their immigration laws. Yes, they are misguided in their approach, but I do not have an answer on how to fix it.

David Loftus
The law is redundant and (unless Arizona plans to kick in considerably more funding for the U.S. Border Patrol or beef up its own state police) nearly useless as state policy. I doubt it’s going to make potential illegal immigrants pause about coming over the border; the only change will be that they’ll try to get across the state faster. I would contend that its only real effect -- and possibly the true, subconscious reason Arizonans wanted it passed -- was to give existing law enforcement officers more reason to hassle anyone who looks vaguely Hispanic.

Racial profiling is already a fact of life, I’m sure -- perhaps no more in Arizona than in any other state. As for hate crimes, I don’t think the perpetrators of such offenses are the type to take their cues from state legislation. Arizona is already feeling the heat: as of Tuesday, six groups have canceled meeting or convention plans in the state, and more calls for a boycott are coming in. The Obama administration is looking into challenging the law in court on constitutional grounds, and even a supporter of the restrictions, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, admitted that “good people in Arizona are so afraid of an uncontrolled border that they passed a law that I think is unconstitutional.”

Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City who helped Arizona draft the legislation, defended its constitutionality by saying, “the bill will withstand any preemptive challenge” because it reinforces existing federal immigration laws and creates no new immigration crimes. Well, which is it? Either it does something new that Arizona thought necessary, and therefore merits close legal scrutiny and possibly the outcry that has greeted it; or it does nothing new and therefore is little more than a political sop to the state’s white voters. In any case, Arizona has a long history of being the opposite of progressive: many have mentioned its opposition to the Martin Luther King holiday for three years after the rest of the country had adopted it, but few have recalled its bitter fight against the Equal Rights Amendment in the early 1980s. I think the state is in the process of falling flat on its face again.

Obama Watches Deficit more Closely than Bush

Fox News reports that In an interview on Sunday, Timothy Geithner the Treasury Secretary, said that the Obama Administration is paying attention to deficits more closely than the Bush Administration. Or in other words: Obama and the Tea Party movement are on the same side. This answer was in response to a question on NBC's "Meet the Press" about the tea party protests. According to the article President Bush had a $458.6 billion deficit in his last full year in office, while Obama is projected to top $1 trillion for the next several years in a row. Did Timothy Geithner make more math errors like he did on his tax returns or do you think that the Obama administration really is paying more attention to deficits?

Scott Hinkley:

Like so many Americans, I am also concerned about the size of our growing national deficit. Our nation is experiencing a decline in both productivity and education, which is an incredibly dangerous position to be in even when we are in a state of fiscal surplus.

Further handicapping ourselves through over-spending only stands to magnify our global decline as a super-power, and the timing of our decline could not come at a worse time. More nations are learning how to sustain complex infrastructure, one of America's last frontiers of excellence, and our citizens are having to compete for food and shelter in an ever-increasingly competitive world.

While I feel that our nation's fiscal irresponsibility has been the legacy of the last century, I am certain beyond any doubt that this issue is being mined for all of the fear it can inspire by those in this country looking to keep money and control out of the hands of average citizens.

Corporations have out maneuvered the American legal system for the past 50 years, and now, when corporations are experiencing the biggest decline in their power and influence in half a decade, they are pulling on their strings as forcefully as possible.

Jokes about math might be good for concealing a desire for greed and selfishness, but the reality, which for some reason has not been a position well championed in response to the tar-and-feather approach being brought by the Tea Party and the GOP at large, is that our deficit stems almost exclusively from the dark and insidious policies maintained by the last Bush administration.

The primary cause in my opinion is the unprecedented tax-breaks which Bush permitted, while simultaneously reducing oversight so that coffers could be raided at will. At the time, the Bush administration hid behind a misdirection of claiming that more money in rich pockets meant more money in every ones pockets.

Meanwhile, the same people getting the huge tax breaks were hoarding that capital and instead encouraging dangerous loan practices, essentially liquidating the savings of a nation while preserving their own wealth. I find it ironic that Madoff received such national attention when he was one of only a few rich crooks to rob from their own peers.

Our nation has less money than ever, we allowed our privately wealthy citizens to keep all their stolen money while the rest of the country begs for a pass on their taxes, and now those same wealthy people are trying to manipulate middle-class citizens into a state of outrage that our nation is trying to continue to pay for the services we depend on while it copes with perhaps the least Christian or even secularly-moral behavior I have ever witnessed.

If American's are so concerned about the deficit, stop driving, going to parks, calling the police, littering and pay more taxes. One day our nation will collapse beneath the weight of our absurd sense of entitlement.

Nikki Lorenzini:

Oy vey. All I know is that we are in a deficit. Whether it’s $485 billion or $1 trillion, it’s a boat load of money. You can say that you are watching your money all you want, but that is not limited to watch it fly out the window. Obama can easily say that he is watching our money and our deficit, but all I see is the tax credits he is handing out, the new health care reform that will cost more money, we still have troops in Iraq, and heck, in one of last weeks blog, only what, half of America is paying taxes? Where are we getting all this money from?

I don’t doubt Obama is watching our money. Seems like Obama is a dreamer. A real big dreamer that has a huge price tag stuck to it. In a way I can’t blame him. But before I see him doing this health care reform, I would really like to see some action from him when I hear that he is watching our deficit. I would really like to see him making some type of reasonable budget on our spending, some actual cut backs that won’t harm us (maybe see some higher up officials in DC getting salary cuts?). I am sure there are ways to have this shrink up to less than what Bush had it.

I’m sure Geithner could have had some math errors, not sure if they were intentional or not (maybe some where in between). But why be mad at him for making a math error when we all know that there is still a deficit with a president who wants to spend more money?
Austin Lee:

There is a famous story by Hans Christian Andersen called, "The Emperor's New Clothes." In the story a couple of swindlers tell the Emperor that they have developed some new clothes that only those who are stupid or unfit cannot see.

The Emperor, however, cannot see the clothes himself, but lies to not appear stupid as do his high ranking officials. It isn't until a small child calls out, "He isn't wearing any clothes!" That the rest of the people begin to realize what has happened. The emperor cringes, but presses on ahead, because he is embarrassed.

Barack Obama is the Emperor. He has listened to his Liberal professors and confidants who have taught him that capitalism is evil and government is the answer to everything. And anyone who says differently is stupid, bigoted, and hate filled. While looking back at the history of the United States he has moments of doubt, but does not want to appear stupid so he agrees.

Timothy Geithner is one of the high ranking officials. He, too, is scared to be called stupid, so he continues the charade. He cannot possibly believe that the deficit is actually being watched more closely than in years past.

Let me be the one to say: THE EMPEROR ISN'T WEARING ANY CLOTHES! Barack Obama's spending spree is NOT helping our economy. We the people need to yell this louder, and louder, and louder. And on November 2, 2010 we can yell the loudest with our votes.

David Loftus:

Geithner’s reported comments make me want to laugh. Not a “ha-ha-that’s-stupid” laugh, but more of a “ha-ha-nice-try” laugh. While I have little doubt the Obama administration really is paying more attention to budget deficits than the Bush team did (for any number of reasons -- from a possibly stronger philosophical interest in the matter to the fact that we’ve now been in a recession for more than a year and there’s just a lot more pressure on Obama than there was on Bush with regard to budget deficits), that doesn’t put the White House in the same boat with the Tea Partiers. On that, I think the Tea Party crowd would readily agree with me.

That the deficits are much bigger now is absolutely no reflection on how much attention the current chief executive is paying to them, or whether he’s been attacking them the best way. To question the Obama-Geithner team’s math is beside the point. Odds are the deficits would have been comparably large whether McCain or Edwards or even Jeb Bush had been elected President in 2008, because they were largely put there by a combination of George W. Bush’s wars and the multibillion-dollar misbehavior of Enron, Lehman Brothers, and a vast array of banks.

What is “ha-ha-that’s-stupid” is the Tea Partiers’ assertions that Obama is to blame for the size of the deficits or the time it is taking (and will take) to turn them around. But then, these are the sort of people who can’t see that Medicare, Social Security, and U.S. military benefits are all socialist programs (and what’s wrong with -- no -- what is socialism, anyway? They certainly couldn’t tell you), but are inclined to hold a person’s middle name against him.

Are Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh Seditious?

Time Magazine Columnist Joe Klein suggested in an interview on The Chris Matthews Show that Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh's statements about the current administration could be considered sedition. According to the NewsBuster's article, "the legal definition of sedition is 'a revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority.'"

Sedition was declared a felony by the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. Nelson, yet the Declaration of Independence states: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

Also, according to the article, Klein charges that the only reason this is happening is because President Obama is African-American, his middle name is Hussein, and people are scared of the economy.

If a citizen believes that Congress has ignored the will of the people is it sedition to encourage the rest of the citizens to follow the Declaration of Independence? Does Joe Klein have a point or is this another example of people who disagree with the president being called racist?

Scott Hinkley:

Joe Klein appears to be picking a fight with American citizens he will never win. For any of you who have read my past political rantings, I am far from a fan of the Tea Party leaders and other right-wing politicians and media-celebrities. Having read several descriptions of the Tea Party's psudo-doctrine, I can't help but feel that the overall direction is small-minded, petty, and ignorant of the majority of problems facing most of our nation.

Having made my position clear, I think that Mr. Klein is a fool for entering into the name-calling and chest-thumping game. I think that along with so many other traditions in our young country, American's hold great reverence for the "power-of-the-people." This poorly defined and often misrepresented vision of independence and personal authority is none-the-less a critical representation of the insurance police America was forced to extend to it's future citizens in order to achieve an union of states and territories, in the first place.

I can't believe that educated taunting of Mr. Klein's ideological opponents will do anything to change the problems he is complaining about. Of course people are afraid that Obama has dark skin, of course they are afraid of his religious convictions, and of course, some of the people who feel this way are horrible racists trying nothing more that to undermine progress and preserve their personal pride at the cost of all other rights, but who wins now.

All Mr. Klein has achieved by these callous remarks is a spot on future protest posters as an example of another elite do-gooder ruining our nation. In my opinion, Sarah Palin has every right to sink her fangs deep into the xenophobic veins of her followers, and it is up to the rest of us citizens to hold strong against her well-laid (maybe?) plans. If you don't like the politics, join the cause of the opposition, but sitting judgement on television and declaring your opposition as essentially un-American, sounds like a page right out of the Palin/Beck/Limbaugh book.

I wish someone with a brain, AND a heart could manage to speak about these issues without thumbing their noses at hard working Americans. Don't win them over, don't crush them underfoot, just keep moving and make them keep up to survive. Speak to people with kindness and acceptance, and they just might listen.

David Loftus:

Technically speaking, and even philosophically, I think Klein has a point, but probably not a legal one; and I suspect he’s not really urging these loudmouths be taken to court. I read his statements as a strong hint to people who listen to Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh to stop and think a moment about the ugly, vehement, over-the-top language that these talking heads indulge in; and to consider whether it’s wise, dignified, or good citizenship to repeat everything they say to one’s friends and neighbors as if it were gospel truth (or even sensible). Palin is trying to pursue a career as a politician (I think), and I predict that she will never be elected to national office. Beck and Limbaugh are “unelected officials,” however, and they try to have it both ways: they want to be taken seriously as political thinkers, but the minute they got caught in a lie or realize they’ve overstepped the bounds of taste or dignity, they’ll say, oh, but I’m an entertainer, what I’m doing is satire.

The real point here is that opponents of the current administration are being hypocritical: they can dish it out but they can’t take it. Nobody ever openly and publicly wished for President Bush to fail, as Limbaugh has about Obama; we were merely unsurprised that he didn’t succeed. Nobody ever gave Bush a hard time for pretending to be as much of a Texan as he was a New England Yalie, let alone questioned his citizenship altogether. I don’t recall that anyone ever questioned President Bush’s patriotism, either; we merely disagreed with him on how best to express it.

More to the point, I strongly suspect many of the right-wingers who invoke First Amendment free speech rights today are precisely the ones who wanted to deny it to others in the past. I’ll give you better than even odds that many of them favored prosecution of flag burning, and lobbied not only to yank NEA funding from controversial artists but wanted them prosecuted for obscenity. Most telling of all, if you showed them the passage from the Declaration of Independence above (“it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it”), without telling them where it comes from, they not only wouldn’t recognize it but a majority of them wouldn’t endorse it. I know, because it’s been done before. In 1976, shortly before the Bicentennial, a survey did just that, and a good 75 percent of people questioned on the street thought the passage was un-American, “commie crap.”

I don’t see any way to account for the fierce opposition to the current elected President (who clearly attained office on a greater popular- and electoral-vote basis than President Bush for either of his terms) than at least partly because of racism. Hilary Clinton suffered similarly ugly attacks when her husband was president, because a good segment of the population is uncomfortable with women in or close to power, and they could deflect their discomfort with Bill Clinton’s policies onto her -- because they thought he was likable. I don’t really care whether you could make a case for sedition against the enemies of the President; what matters to me is that they’re being disrespectful to the office of the President; to their fellow citizens, a majority of whom elected Obama to that office; and yes, ultimately to their country. They do not, in fact, seem to know how to be good American citizens.

Four Day School Week

The Klamath County School system in Klamath Falls, OR will be making a decision soon that could shorten the school week to four days from the current five.

According to an article in the Seattle Times this could save the school system $6.3 million each year. The article goes on to say that District Superintendent, Greg Thede, said a $5.8 million cut to the budget and 20 layoffs are the catalyst for an idea of this magnitude.

The Klamath Falls Association of Classified Employees (a union representing classified staff) are concerned that 380 classified staff would be out of work one day per week. Regardless of these concerns the district will move forward with this plan if it would save a "significant amount of money."

We asked today's panel: Do you agree with the Klamath County School System? What pitfalls can you see?

Scott Hinkley:

I am happy that the problems of Klamath County are finally becoming newsworthy. I think it is a tragedy that schools around America are facing such major shortfalls after so many wealthy corporations have received gluttonous doses of tax-payer money. This past decade has been filled with cuts in education and expansion of class sizes across the country, and this was during the get-rich part of the decade. Guess those tax-cuts really did hurt us huh?

I think at this point, Klamath County should shift to a four day week, as much as I am sorry for the workers who will take cuts in pay and the students who will have their educations further compromised. I think that until we are exposed to the detriment and decay in our schools, rather than concealing the price of underfunding our future generations, Americans will continue to vote ourselves right out of our higher-brain functionality.

The biggest mistake Americans have made in the past 50 years has been trading information for entertainment. Our lack of education has caused us to become fat, lazy, and celebrity obsessed. Next time you complain about bad drivers or ignorant workers, ask yourself why you didn't want to pay for them to get a basic education.

Nikki Lorenzini:

I think that this idea is totally absurd. First, let me play devils advocate to this idea: Yes, this idea can help save money. Money on electricity, salaries, buses, etc, and in this economy those cuts can go a long way. I know that there are companies out there that are doing this same thing. In fact, I know the company I used to work for did something similar to this, that people had to take one day off without pay per pay period.

But schools are not a business. They are not a corporation. They are there to educate children (if that wasn't obvious). I think its crazy that they are even considering cutting back to 4 days. I know kids get into enough trouble when they are not in school, so what is an extra day do to them?

Sure, parents can find a place for them to go during that day like a "day care" of the sorts, but that will cause even more strain on the parents. The parents work, so what are they supposed to do if they have younger children?

Why can't this school district find other places to cut money from? Can't they offer an early retirement to some of the older teachers, who I am sure are earning six figure incomes. I am sure that there are extra programs that they can cut back on, like dances, fairs, etc. I just think cutting back to four days is absolutely ridiculous.

Austin Lee:

What's not to like about a four day school week? I applaud the school system for actually using their brains for a change. They see a problem: a $5.8 budget cut, and a solution: a $6.3 Million savings by closing schools one day per week. Not only does this solution eliminate the short fall, it also provides an additional $500,000 surplus.

Some may whine about what parents are supposed to do that extra day each week. Well, maybe one of the parents should be at home that day spending time with their children and providing a nurturing environment. Maybe parents should stop using the public school system as a babysitting service.

I applaud the school system for even going public with this type of proposal. Just don't try and fire any of the teachers and their union will leave you alone.

Supreme Court Vacancy - Republican Warning to Obama

Late last week Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement. Justice Stevens was nominated by Republican President Gerald Ford, however, he has been a strong liberal voice on the court.

Republicans have warned President Obama that should he nominate a justice "too liberal" they will make it a "whale of a fight." With all of the political capital expended to pass the health care reform bill just last month, should President Obama heed the Republican's warning?


Scott Hinkley:

I am very pleased that Justice Stevens is seizing this opportunity to help re-shape the direction of the Supreme Court. I am sure that he has been frustrated by the conservative and compassionless views taken by his adversaries throughout his tenure, and I have no doubts that he has felt the push from corporations who have gutted the Republican party, driving the court further into the pockets of the few at the price of the freedom of the many.

I think that Obama has every right to press back against the cronyism George W. ushered back into the American psyche. Furthermore, the unwaveringly contrary stance taken by the leaders (and wannabe leaders) of the Republican party is only serving to undermine the legitimacy of their opposition.

Let me pause for a moment and say how sad I am that there is almost no way to criticize the small-mindedness of the pirates currently looting conservative American values without seeming like the criticism also includes the values these despicable people hide behind.

I am all for fiscal-conservatism. I am all for protecting our country. I respect the power of faith and the singular value of family and community. Where are the leaders who act, rather than preach, these things? All I see are rich men spending other people's money and laughing all the way to the bank. $1.3 Million squandered on House Speaker Ray Sansom alone.

I encourage President Obama to continue to press ahead, regardless of the threats and hyperbole. Thanks to Justice Stevens for recognizing the singular power of his timing.

Ryan John:

President Obama hasn’t been very afraid to instigate criticism from the right so far in his term. Therefore, I don’t think he feels any pressure to appeal to congrassional republicans in any way with his second Supreme Court nomination.

He already offended republican Supreme Court advocates when he apologetically condemned the Supreme Courts decision to allow big corporations to spend without regulation during elections, when he delivered this years State of the Union. Instead of nominating a moderate to appease the right, I think he’ll nominate someone just as liberal as Justice Paul Stevens.

With approval ratings in jeopardy, I think Obama will use this nomination as his time to please his liberal base while propelling the liberal agenda set forth in his 2008 campaign. No matter what he does, Obama doesn’t stand much chance of bringing republicans on his side. He can, however, bring back some democrats, mostly progressives who vote according to wedge, social issues.

When Obama nominates another liberal to the Supreme Court, whoever it is better be ready to fight. It also has to be someone with little or no baggage. Some are speculating Hilary Clinton. She is on Obama’s “short list” of possibilities. I think it will be the left leaning former Georgia Supreme Court chief justice Leah Ward Sears, making her the first African American woman to sit on the court.

Extended Unemployment Benefits To Lapse Again

The Senate adjourned last week for a two week break without passing an extension for unemployment insurance benefits. Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma blocked a one month short term extension of the unemployment package by insisting that it must be paid for before a vote could be taken. The current unemployment extension package is due to expire on April 5 while Congress is on vacation. The lawmakers return to Washington on April 12.

Many unemployed Americans feel that their leaders in Washington have forgotten them, as this is the second time in a month that lawmakers have let benefits lapse before voting for an extension. Other say that it is time to stop extending unemployment benefits and start to work on building new jobs for the unemployed.

After reading our contributors' opinions on this topic, share your thoughts by leaving a comment.

AUSTIN LEE:
I was laid off from my job last October.  I called a few of my friends to tell them of the news and their initial response was telling.  My Liberal friends immediately said, "Go get on unemployment as soon as possible."  My Conservative friends said, "How can we help you find a job, you have to get back to work."  And getting a job is just what I did.  For me there was no other option.

I live below my means as a part of my life and so when I had to take a significant pay reduction in my next job I ended up being able to sustain my life.  It is high time that people take their medicine.  Stop extending unemployment benefits and start getting people back to work.  When this round expires the very least they can do in Washington is to assure us that if they extend these benefits that they are paid for.

I don't want people to be without work, but unemployment rules as they are now don't encourage anyone to take a job unless it is perfect and continuing to borrow money to provide entitlement benefits doesn't help that problem.  I am proud of Sen. Coburn for finally standing up and saying that we have had enough borrowing. And I predict without another extension of benefits more people will just go and finally get a job.

SCOTT HINKLEY:
I think we should call this what it is: another Republican filibuster. This seems to be an awfully cowardly way to handle an issue that means the difference between food and shelter for our most destitute citizens. I appreciate, though marvel at the seemingly periodic significance, the drive to deal with our budget deficit, but I don't see how we can sit back idly as tax-breaks for the rich last decade are trickling down into losses in benefits for those that never got the tax cuts. I find it one of America's biggest ironies that the party which claims strong Christian values can consistently turn its back on the most needy, and because the rest of America greedily covets the fancy things those leaders have, no one will call their bluff.

My heart extends to all those families whose lives are touched by this callous oversight. Why don't we find another way to pay for all those fancy Washington dinners or stop them until we can. I hope every congress-person gets to interact with a person on the verge of financial collapse, and I hope that person spits in the resort food the congress-person probably doesn't even know the cost of as they funnel it down their fat throats.

NIKKI LORENZINI:
I’m really not sure how to answer this one to be honest with you. I have a job, and luckily have not been fired or laid off from any of my jobs. I've never had to collect unemployment. For me, I could easily say that the people on unemployment should just get a job, but I know its not that easy. There are just no jobs out there.

It's easy to get mad at the government about them letting the unemployment extension lapse. It's really hard to depended on a job for your money, but to rely on the government for it? I’m sure I would feel forgotten too if it caused my checks to lapse. Even though I feel bad that are on unemployment, and I’m sure that there are a lot of people who actually do want to work, and didn’t have a choice in the matter of not working, I really think the government needs to start creating jobs. I’m sure they could create some more jobs somewhere to help stimulate the economy and get people off of unemployment. It’s a shame that there are so many people on it, but the government needs to push people into doing for themselves, and go get a job, and that’s even if the government needs to create them. Sure, it’ll cost more money, but if it involves saving money on unemployment, then I’m sure its worth it.

JEFF WEISS:
There are many ironies regarding this sad situation. First and foremost, the Senate is well aware that the last time they waited for the very last minute to try to pass an unemployment extension package it was held up, the deadline passed, and people in need were cut off (albeit temporarily). When they finally passed a one month temporary extension, what did they do? They again waited until the last day possible to try to pass yet another one month temporary extension – and again it's been held up, the deadline will pass without them being able to vote, and people in need are about to be cut off.

Another irony is that they actually have until the 5th of April to get an unemployment extension package passed – a package that would give a lifeline to people who have lost their jobs and have no other source of income to provide for themselves and their families – but the Senate won't be voting before April 12th because they are on vacation. So, people are forced to suffer because they have lost their jobs, while the people who should be helping them will be on a paid vacation – a paid vacation from jobs that were given to them by the votes of many of the same people who are now unemployed and about to be cut off from their benefits.

Does that seem fair to you?

Philadelphia Flash Mobs

Over the past year, “flash mobs” have popped up as a way for large groups to meet up via social networks They have taken to Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, and texting to organize everything from mass snowball fights to a giant dance tribute after the death of Michael Jackson. In Philadelphia, however, the flash mob phenomenon has taken a decidedly violent turn.



Today we asked our panel what they think causes groups of teenagers to turn violent. After reading their opinions, share your thoughts by leaving a comment.


RYAN JOHN:
For the un-evolved mind, beating someone up is the same as getting an A on a paper to the intellectual mind.  Although it doesn't take much  to beat someone up with the help of four or five other people, there is still that feeling of dominance and superiority an ignorant person gets.  Now, when professional fighters fight other professional fighters one on one, like boxing or MMA, its a science that involves skill, mental and physical dedication and I admire the guys who can do this.  The physical jousting of two trained fighter is just as impressive to me to watch as two minds debating the meaning of life.

However, when you see the sometimes violent result of these flash mobs and other vicious beating as showcased on the internet, it's human behavior at it's worst.  I haven't encountered these flash mobs in Philadelphia, but It infuriates me to think about the victimization of innocent people and business owners from some kids who have nothing better to do.

So, here we go again with the never ending question any social ill prompts. Who do we blame?  Is it the public schools, social networking sites, or the rec centers for not having enough weekend programs?  Consumers should suffer from the jacked up prices of business owners so we can tax them more to create more social programs so these kids will have something to do. I kid, of course. It's the kids faults for participating in this and the parents who don't care enough to stop it.  Pay attention!  If your son or daughter shows signs of being involved in this type of stuff, don't let them out of the house.

If these kids want to congregate all throughout the city wreaking havoc on who or whatever they want, they should be prepared to suffer the consequences.  The mayor of Philly and police commissioner have taken a pretty tough stance on this, but if the problem persists, bring in the national guard and start using violence on these kids if you have to. I can see it now.  Somebody is going to get in trouble for using excessive force on one of these kids and  that will create another issue on top of the one at hand. However it's dealt with, it needs to stop.  Innocent people shouldn't have to suffer if they want to enjoy the city streets on a nice spring weekend they look forward to all week.


SCOTT HINKLEY:
It is difficult for me to say what drives teens to violence, as I was never much for violence when I was a teenager, but I can certainly look to the usual culprits: a desire to have impact on your own life, boredom, revenge, angst. The first thing people seem to say when they hear of youth violence is "where were their parents?" I would guess that in many cases the answer is working, or caring for other younger children. I think the important aspect of this story is to look at the ways young people are using technology to leave their parents out of their decisions. I am reminded of the poor girl in Massachusetts who hung herself recently in response to bullying, much of which took place on social sites. I think the double importance here is that parents are pretty much absent from their children's on-line activities, and that the results of these activities have very real, physical, consequences.

I think it is important for parents to step up and guide their child's life on-line as well as off, but I am doubtful that there is much guidance to be had. It seem unlikely that there is much wisdom in how to conduct yourself with respect, especially with adults using on-line persona to live out all the devious and deceitful things they are too ashamed to be associated with directly. Social networks are here to say, and trying to control behavior through restrictions to these sites seems about as misguided as closing the mall to stop truancy. We need to begin to accept that communication is power, and we better respect that power, or our voices will quickly be drowned out by those looking to have their say for the first time.

ROSEANNE FRANGIONE:
While reading about the flash mobs in Philadelphia as well as the television news coverage, my first question is, “Where are the parents?” As the mother of two young boys, I am always aware of where they are and what they are doing. Of course, my children aren't teenages, however I have no plans to stop parenting when my boys become older. It may not be easy to handle children as they grow into teens, but it is still the job of a parent to guard and to guide, to love and to teach, and to lead by example. However, even with all the love and guidance a parent can give, there must be social outlets for teenagers.
Ryan and Nikki are both contributors for American Currents who are from Philadelphia. I'd like to ask them both if they are aware of any programs in Philadelphia for teens. What kind of resourceful recreation is available for the kids in the city? Fortunately for the teens my area, Tampa Bay is a year round tourist spot which enables many of them to have part time jobs after school and in the summer. There are also many youth groups and teen clubs around Tampa Bay to keep kids active and off the streets. To me, it seems as though the youth of Philadelphia have become bored and reckless, which sadly is leading to violence.
May I suggest to Philadelphia's Mayor Nutter that he look into expanding teen-related activities before being so quick to condemn and persecute his city's next generation.

DAVID LOFTUS:
“Flash mobs” are expressions of a confluence of basic human needs: for getting together with others, for escape from solitariness and boredom, for power and its expression. There’s nothing inherently dangerous in them, but when they’re not particularly well organized -- when they’re largely spontaneous -- they can bring together a volatile combination of a few people with dangerous ideas and many other followers who feel safely anonymous while committing unlawful or unethical acts.

I don’t think it’s the youth of the participants that makes a mob inherently unstable. Though there is undeniably such a thing as testosterone-overdosed teenage males (which also finds expression in extreme sports, fights organized and unplanned, gang violence, and speeding tickets), on the other hand the mobs of Nazi Germany were mostly composed of grownups.

I haven’t seen a close examination of the kids who participate in the rowdier, more violent mobs, but I have to suspect many of them are no longer under the control of adults in any case. They’re either out of high school by virtue of their age, or they’ve dropped out and/or left home anyway. God knows there are plenty of families where there hasn’t been sufficient or proper adult supervision of the children, but somehow I suspect that’s not the problem here. There’s really not much society can do except make sure law enforcement responds quickly and firmly when these things start to gather steam.

A Weighty Goal: Scott Hinkley

Looking at Ms. Simpson, which I will admit I find a difficult task in itself, she seems to me to represent an important rising (or should we say expanding) problem in America. Do we have the right to be medically obese? I wish the answer were no, but I think it is fairly certain that many in this country feel otherwise. Supporters of "fat-rights" argue that they shouldn't be discriminated against for their size. I feel that this is a misguided view, since I don't see their discrimination as being rooted in their size, but is instead based in their demonstrations of gluttonous behavior and a lack of self-disciplining. I would never support limiting an individual's rights based on their weight, no more than for a person's height, or the quality of their voice, or the number of tattoo's they have, but I believe we are defined by our actions and choices.

I find Ms. Simpson's decision to consume enough food for 5 other people to be a disgusting demonstration of her values. I think is is a disappointment that people can support her in her values while disparaging other lifestyles openly and heartlessly. When will our American egotism subside? If we had to go to war right now, 34% of Americans would struggle to rise from their seats, and would completely incapable of defending themselves, or the nation they claim is so great. Don't tread on me? Just don't sit on me.

Email Scott

Texas Textbook Controversy: Scott Hinkley

The Texas board of education made it clear last week that if any minds were going to expand in Texas, it wouldn't be a result of their school-books. The rulings on updates to the social-studies curriculum in Texas classrooms is just the latest propagandist approach being taken by and aging and fading class of authority. Our country is locked in an egotistical battle of wills right now. In many 'progressive' areas of the country, the predominant view of the nation is shifting to that of one of many nations in a world of people, while in many 'conservative' areas, our nation (chosen by god to be the greatest nation regardless of who we rape or kill) is under attack and is at risk of being reduced to being a regular nation, with peers and shared interests (like one of those crappy nations in Africa or Asia or whatever).

It seems as if America is the recovering child-star. When we were really popular, we could do all sorts of horrible things to "other" people and the world still loved us. Then we started to get awkward looking, and way to full of ourselves, and our fans lost their sense of awe in our greatness. No we are working at the mall (all be it in the couture section) and telling our friends that we will be a huge hit again, if we can only keep people focused on our accomplishments and downplay (read: erase) our mistakes.

I think Don McLeroy, Texas Board of Education member, says it best: When asked to justify the dramatic changes he supported, In true xenophobic predictability, Don said "I don't want to be just like the rest of the world. I don't want to share the world's values. America's different. Our students need to understand that." Seems hard to believe that the Christian belief of loving all God's children has any home in the American addiction to "exceptionalism" (Don's word not mine). Don, you are a tool bag, and for one second I wish to change my agnostic viewpoint, just so I can hope that you get to burn some place for a long time. Too bad you will just be worm food like the rest of us.

Email Scott

Louisiana Prom Controversy: Scott Hinkley

I am not at all surprised by the actions of this small-minded authority, but I am pleased that because it intertwined with a hot-button issue, this abuse of power is receiving more attention than usual. In my mind, this is another blatant attempt to keep lifestyles out of the community because those in power know that they will lose their support on these issues when average people because exposed "subversive" influences. The best scam ever hatched by the power-hungry is the notion that humans hold a "devil" inside them, and that only through submission and donations can that devil be exercised. I agree, people are weak, but not to the devil, to the undue influence of their peers and superiors. We want to belong, and to fit in. Constance McMillen demonstrated that she is less willing to submit under pressure from those in power, and she has been used as a strong reminder of how deep that influence runs in Itawamba County.

I am most saddened by the lack of support from other students, since it seems like a clear sign that this community will continue to champion the lowest of humanity. I have no sympathy for those who confuse a love of god with their dirty-minded self-worship. I have no respect for the drivel you preserve in your otherwise biologically capable brains. I look forward to a day when bigots can be openly despised regardless of the particulars of their hatred.

Email Scott

Gays in the GOP? Scott Hinkley

Not to split hairs, but I think the question is really if there is any room for openly gay leaders in the GOP. As we learn everyday, there are many gays working in all levels of the GOP. I am not suggesting that there is any culture of tolerance for homosexuality within the GOP or their religious base, but there certainly do seem to be many of actual homosexuals. In other circumstances I might see this as a ray of hope that could open the hearts and minds of those most closed to issues about sexuality (not to mention homosexuality), but in this case I find it a sad commentary on how much secrecy and self-loathing has been pressed upon gays and lesbians growing up in these communities.

It seems almost unbelievable to me how many "closet" gay leaders have emerged from the Republican ranks, and almost as unbelievable is the overwhelming number of gay republican leaders have voted against gay rights throughout their careers. Shouldn't this level of self-hatred, and the fact that is seems so at home within the firebrand politics of modern conservatism, worry us terribly, and make us doubt the capacity for those in leadership positions to behave with honesty and integrity? Our nation has been debating the military policy of "don't ask, don't tell" since it's first adoption. I think it is time we turn our focus to the GOPs policy of "we'll ask, but don't tell, or we'll destroy your life on principle." The only room for gays in the GOP is the ones they already have as high ranking leaders who are happier getting away with living a lie than with removing the culture of hate that drove them into the closet in the first place.

Email Scott

The Oscars: Scott Hinkley

Last night, almost all the Oscars went to the expected, and in my opinion deserved, favorites. There were almost no nail-biter moments for me, but there was one lingering air of suspense which kept me watching until the end. Could James Cameron buy a big Oscar? If last night is any indication, the Academy's reply was a strong 'no'. The winners last night seemed to be chosen for their personal depth, as much as their professional capacity, which I think it is an important comment on the complex relationships between art and entertainment.

The technical and commercial refinements are necessary, but they are insufficient to drive academy members to overlook poor storytelling. This is not always the case. I can think of many best picture awards given with less regard for social context, but I am fairly certain that with the expansive efforts of celebrities to moonlight as political activists, it appears that conscientious voting is back in vogue.

Email Scott

Did the Health Care Summit Accomplish Anything? Scott Hinkley

I think the primary thing accomplished in the latest health care summit was the continued stand by the Presidential administration against the continued resistance from the Republican constituency of the legislative branch. As far as I can tell, the Republicans are vowing to do everything in their power to deny the President any good press, while at the same time trying to aggravate Obama's staff to the point where the President will abandon his bi-partisan efforts and generate some truly bad press without their help. I am repeatedly pleased by Obama's attempts to push against the small-minded governing to which we have long grown accustomed, but I am equally saddened by the same small-mindedness within the Democratic party (not that I held them in any higher esteem previously). I think it is the Senators' personal prides which are playing perfectly into the GOPs media tactics.

As a result of these Democrats, I think Obama's attempts are being driven short of their full potential. I don't see how he could have passed up on the summit, but I understand why so many people are left wondering what the point is. Unfortunately, I feel there is very little to be done about the inequality between stalling tactics and actual progress. It is easy to stop somebody else, but very hard to go in any direction of your own.

Email Scott

Sea World Tragedy: Scott Hinkley

As an overall believer in treating all creatures with respect, I have always been disgusted by the abusive conditions at marine amusement-parks. I don't think any amount of time is sufficient to not make shows, like the one in which Ms. Brancheau tragically lost her life, acceptable, appropriate, or safe.

I appreciate that Ms. Brancheau chose her job, and that she loved that job, but I think it is awful that we train animals to tolerate such a poor quality of life.
I am pleased that Tilikum will not be destroyed, but I am fairly certain that choice has more to do with money than compassion for the whale or it's victim. Each captive killer whale is estimated to be worth around $2 million, but Tilikum is even more valuable, because he has sired multiple offspring in captivity. Since captive breeding is expensive and unreliable, Tilikum is a bit like a golden goose. In the end, people with continue to disrespect animals, and the shows will go on, but I'm sure water parks will have a more difficult time filling the "splash" rows in their performances.

Email Scott

The Buzz on Google Buzz: Scott Hinkley

In light of all the areas Google is attempting to add to it's overall branding, I thought the lack of attention to privacy issues relating to the launch of Google's new Buzz service was an a seriously damaging oversight. In my opinion, Google has been the most successful in creating a notion of e-mail as a utility rather than a luxury. There spam filtering is generally very strong, and their interface is reasonably flexible. But perhaps the most important perceived benefit of Google e-mail is the assumption that their motto "do no evil" reflects on their desire to preserve individual freedom and privacy. Overall, I think that assumption about Google as a corporation is sound, and I think this is why their exposing so much gmail related information through their new Buzz service was such a blow to their image. Had they simply defaulted to hiding users information, this would not have mattered, but it appears that in their thirst for content, they crossed some boundaries.

I understand the pressure they must have been feeling to have text and photos appear on their new service quickly, Facebook and Myspace have been soliciting content for their pages for years now, but the fact remains that the personal habits and connections people have through their e-mail is too sacred and personal to publish in such a cavalier manner. I am pleased that they responded quickly to the criticism, and I am also pleased that people are becoming more sensitive about their digital personas, as well as their flesh-and-blood selves, since it is the side of so many people we see most often now.

Email Scott

Tiger's Apology: Scott Hinkley

Tiger Woods certainly took his sweet time facing the music. I was pleased to see how much responsibility he is taking for his choices. I was also pleased to hear him express his regret for such a long list of his transgressions. I hope for his sake, his family's sake, and for the sake of his sport, that most people choose to move on from this tragic headline-orgy. I just worry that his comments are just too little too late. I understand that he felt a great deal of pressure to make the changes in his life before he had to discuss them publicly, but I think that the impact of his repentance is muted by the time he waited.

I think it would have been a much more powerful apology if it had come in the initial aftermath, rather than in such a calm, and delayed, response. I hope that the things he says are as true as he would like us to believe. Ultimately, until someone is better at gold than he is, Tiger will probably find absolution without much trouble no matter how he handles the juicy details.

Email Scott

Olympic Tragedy: Scott Hinkley

It saddens me that a seemingly avoidable accident like this had to overshadow the opening of the Vancouver games. It would seem that the news media, desperate for something to cover during the otherwise underwhelming first day of the Olympics, were somewhat overjoyed to visit and revisit the footage they had gotten, showing the horrifying end of a young life. Needless to say, I was very disappointed by their decisions to air the footage. I felt it was callous and careless. I am repeatedly upset by the absence of disturbing images from the countless conflicts and atrocities. The sterility of our info-tainment. I think the fact that this clip was deemed acceptable makes is a telling example of our hypocritical standards within mass media.

Furthermore, the fact that once the networks decided it was a mistake to continue airing the footage, they were swift in removing all copies of it from internet video sites. This seems to demonstrate clearly the goldfish-memory Americans willingly adopt in light of controversy. Alas, it is all about the money. Again.

Email Scott

Olympic Tragedy: Scott Hinkley

It saddens me that a seemingly avoidable accident like this had to overshadow the opening of the Vancouver games. It would seem that the news media, desperate for something to cover during the otherwise underwhelming first day of the Olympics, were somewhat overjoyed to visit and revisit the footage they had gotten, showing the horrifying end of a young life. Needless to say, I was very disappointed by their decisions to air the footage. I felt it was callous and careless. I am repeatedly upset by the absence of disturbing images from the countless conflicts and atrocities. The sterility of our info-tainment. I think the fact that this clip was deemed acceptable makes is a telling example of our hypocritical standards within mass media.

Furthermore, the fact that once the networks decided it was a mistake to continue airing the footage, they were swift in removing all copies of it from internet video sites. This seems to demonstrate clearly the goldfish-memory Americans willingly adopt in light of controversy. Alas, it is all about the money. Again.

Email Scott

Abolishing "Don't Ask Don't Tell": Scott Hinkley

I think it is an excellent decision to abolish the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy. Our founding fathers made a strong attempt to distance the influence of organized-religious morals on political policy, but it seems that it is only now, when a large enough portion of our population identifies with modern-rational morality, rather than morals dictated by magic and superstition, that we can begin to start overturning inequalities that have held throughout this country's history. I have never been one to understand the security-blanket of hatred and discrimination, so it is difficult for me to speak to the "valid" points of those who disagree with me, as I see no valid point in efforts to cloak fear and xenophobia in morality.

While this is only one of many loathsome policies against the principle and practice of homosexuality, I think that the issue of serving openly as yourself in the armed forces is a critical one. How can we convince those we invade that we will accept them for who they are, when we can't even accept some of those we are paying to carry-out the invasion? How can those soldier feel secure among their own ranks? I think we should keep the don't ask don't tell, but make it for biggots instead.

Email Scott

Super Bowl Ads: Scott Hinkley

I can't say that any one ad really stood out for me this year. My overall recollection of the campaigns I saw was one of mild amusement, but not really anything I would continue to talk about. In absence of specifics, I will say a bit about the resurgence of our bizarre American ideology which seems to have been a driving force in most ads I watched on Sunday: we're not dumb, but we like to act dumb, and also that we should be rewarded for it. I cannot say where this capitalist mantra originated, but I have been encountering it for all of my life, and while the overwhelming number of those ads subside at times, they always seem to keep a front-runner status.

Let me pause and say that I think it is funny to see people run around with no pants on, get tazed, be embarrassed, etc. I just think it is unfortunate that for some reason American consumers most strongly identify with the person who is the butt of the joke. Isn't the gag that the clown falls and we laugh, not that after the clown falls he gets a free cellphone, leaving all of us to wonder if the clown isn't on to something? I appreciate that there are plenty of expressions of elitism in advertising as well (just take any luxury sedan), but is there no happy medium? As a final note, I hate talking babies. Very much.

Email Scott