Trying to Keep The American Dream Alive

Bisera Rozic is a DePaul University student majoring in Economics and a PCG intern.

It is known that the Obama Administration has had a record amount of deportations during its term. But with the fight to pass the DREAM Act,  Friday's announcement does make one wonder if it was a political move or something more. It is important to point out that most of those deported have broken the law, either through committing a crime or breaking immigration rules. On Friday, it was announced that the Obama Administration will not deport young undocumented immigrants if they met a certain criteria.

• They were under 16 years old when they entered the United States
• They are currently under 30 years old.
• Are enrolled in school, have completed high school in the States, or have served in the military.
• They have lived in the States for at least 5 continuous years. 
• They have been law-abiding residents with a clean record. 

Political pundits see the announcement as a political move because Mitt Romney has vowed to veto the DREAM Act if he became the president.There has been a lot of heat coming from the GOP. Arizona governor, Jan Brewer, called the President's move as "blatant political pandering". The LA Times also reports that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the Administration's move to relax deportation by saying, “It is an exercise of discretion to … ensure that we are not clogging the immigration system with low-priority cases involving productive young people.”

Since the Obama Administration will not seek deportation of those who meet the criteria, this means that some 800,000 people will be spared deportation and will have the ability to pursue the American Dream. No one can argue with valid proof that undocumented immigrants do not contribute to the economy. Alabama felt the impact of their anti-immigration law in a negative way through their economy. Aside from working jobs that most citizens would not do, most undocumented immigrants pay taxes.

Whether it is a political move or not, I hope the shift stays and lawful, productive youth have the ability to strive for their dreams.

Our Evolution on Same-Sex Marriage

Bisera Rozic is a DePaul University student majoring in Economics and a PCG intern.

It is still unbelievable that in 2012, same-sex marriage is illegal in most states in the U.S. This year marks 39 years since the American Psychiatric Association declared that homosexuality was not a disease. In 1973, the APA changed its definition of sexual deviance with 81 Words, and while a lot has changed since then, equality is still nonexistent for the LGBTQ community. It took 30 years since then for a state to legalize same-sex marriage in the United States when, finally, Massachusetts passed the groundbreaking law; however, today only 6 states allow same-sex marriage, 9 allow some form of spousal rights such as civil unions or domestic partnerships. This means that in the other 35 states, same-sex couples do not have the right to a partnership, a civil union, let alone marriage. For 39 years, we have known that homosexuality is not a disease and only 15 states are, for the most part, on board with this.

Since his announcement, we have seen an increase in well known people coming out in support of same-sex marriage. Jay-Z came out in support of President Obama's announcement telling CNN's Poppy Harlow, "I've always thought it as something that was still, um, holding the country back". The hip hop community has not been very friendly to the LGBTQ community, especially having lyrics that include homophobia among other things. This is why President Obama's announcement means so much. It led to a rapper coming out in support of gay rights. Floyd Mayweather Jr. also came out in support of President Obama's announcement by posting on his Twitter, "I stand behind President Obama & support gay marriage. I'm an American citizen & I believe people should live their life the way they want". This was important because the sports world has not been very supportive of gay rights either. This is why the announcement is huge.

President Obama's support of the LGBTQ community has been evident throughout his term thus far. His administration is the first administration to fight for the rights of the community by signing into law a memorandum which granted federal benefits to government employees that are in same-sex partnerships, inclusion of the LGBTQ community in the non-discrimination act, hospitalization rights, and the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. These all serve as evidence of the President's support for equality, but it is different to hear a sitting president say those words. It's a way of saying to a bully on the playground, "this is my buddy, I got his back". Imagine all the kids he has saved just by saying he supports them. That announcement gave them the hope, the courage, the sense of belonging that they did not have before. This is the most the LGBTQ community has achieved in such a short time. This is what progress looks like.

Mitt Romney Believes in America and So Should You!!: Part 2

***This is part 2 of a post on Mitt Romney's campaign ad, "Believe in America." If you haven't yet had a chance to read part 1, you can scroll down and find it on the right hand side under "Blog Archive."***

So as it turns out, Romney’s campaign voluntarily admitted the full context of Obama’s comments in a blog post written by Gail Gitcho, a Romney spokeswoman, the very same day the ad was released:

“Three years ago, candidate Barack Obama mocked his opponent’s campaign for saying ‘if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.’ Now, President Obama’s campaign is desperate not to talk about the economy…Now, the tables have turned – President Obama and his campaign are doing exactly what candidate Obama criticized. President Obama and his team don’t want to talk about the economy and have tried to distract voters from President Obama’s abysmal economic record.”

From this statement, it seems that Romney’s campaign is suggesting that their ad is actually pointing out the hypocrisy of 2008 Obama’s criticism of McCain in light of the fact that 2011 Obama is ‘desperate not to talk about the economy.’

But am I honestly supposed to accept that Romney’s campaign sincerely believes the American public would pick up on that subtle, highly implied criticism in a 60-second TV ad? Or, just as unlikely, that more than a few thousand voters will read Gitcho’s full explanation of the ad? No. The reality is that the Romney campaign’s intention was to make Obama look bad in the eyes of the general American public, while pre-empting the response from the Obama camp and generating extra media attention in the process. A media strategist might say that they achieved their goals. But as a citizen interested in seeing more honesty and integrity in our politics, I am irritated—though sadly, not surprised.

Look, I’m not trying to make Obama into a saint on this matter. His 2008 comments on McCain’s campaign strategy were sensationalized and somewhat decontextualized in their own right. We can debate who was more deceptive, but the bottom line is that we need to learn to think for ourselves. Rather than take politicians’ words at face value, we need to critically examine their statements, their sources, and their motives. It is the responsibility of both the public and the news media to avoid being manipulated by highly-paid political strategists and well-crafted rhetoric. 

We are accustomed to throwing up our hands and saying, “That’s politics for you!” We label idealistic (or worse, naïve) those people—like me—who believe that we can cultivate a political system grounded in honesty and transparency. But collectively, we have the power to hold accountable those who prevent this very system from taking root.

Urge President Obama to Oppose the Keystone XL Pipeline

The Keystone XL Pipeline is a proposed tar sands pipeline that would stretch 1700 miles from Alberta Canada to the Gulf Coast in Texas. It's a project proposed by TransCanada, and could ship up to 900,000 barrels of tar sand oil a day. This particular type of oil is difficult to extract and considered much dirtier than crude oil. (see fact sheet)

The pipeline would traverse Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas - passing under significant portions of our countrys agricultural heartland, and leaving our rivers and water aquifers at risk of pollution from pipeline leaks. In 2010 alone the Enbridge pipeline, which runs from Alberta through the great lake states, spilled over one million gallons of tar sands oil. TransCanada's recently completed Keystone pipeline has already had three spills. 

The Keystone XL Pipeline is not worth the devastating environmental impacts it will cause - the potential for water, air, and land pollution is far too great, not to mention the health risks that come with increased emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and other toxins.

In order for the construction of the pipeline to begin, a presidential permit is required. In other words, President Obama has the power to prevent this pipeline from being built.

Please sign the petition and pass it along to others. Thank you for taking the time to act.

Life in Marvelous Times

Praying and expecting everything to come from God and not doing anything yourself is not praying. This is laziness; this is alienation. This is passivity, conformity. This is not the time, dear brothers and sisters, to say: It is God’s will. Many things happen that are not God’s will. When people can contribute something of themselves to improve the situation and ask God for the courage to do so, then there is prayer.
Oscar Romero, 1979, El Salvador

This week, amid news of political debates, two death row executions, mass graves in Libya, plummeting stocks, and hand-wringing from the General Assembly of the United Nations, I found myself standing in a crowd in downtown Chicago listening to the words of the rapper and political/social critic, Mos Def in his song, Life in Marvelous Times:

…we are alive in amazing times
delicate hearts, diabolical minds
revelations, hatred, love and war
and more and more and more and more
and more of less than ever before
it’s just too much more for your mind to absorb…

In times like these, when world issues swirl in our heads and politicians ascend the bully pulpit with what seems like no direction at all, I struggle to find focus. I struggle to avoid hopelessness, even despair. What can we do in the face of all of this pain, this fear—what, among all of these issues, lies at the heart of the upheaval?

On Friday, new statistics were released on poverty in the state of Illinois. This information comes on the heels of national poverty stats that place the U.S. poverty rate at its highest level in 52 years. As both sets of census information reveal, poverty levels have skyrocketed.

Given the fact that there are 1,731,711 million people in Illinois and 46.2 million in the U.S. living below the poverty line, I think this is a good place to start.

The effects of the economic crisis on working people in Illinois and throughout the nation have been devastating. The vulnerable include the unemployed, the under-employed, the elderly and the disabled. As unemployment rises and the state of Illinois experiences yet another budget crisis, a growing number of working people are falling into poverty. As income disparity between the upper and lower classes grows, those who had least to begin with are now faced with, in the words of Mos Def, “more of less than ever before.”

In the wake of these startling figures, and in the face of the utter devastation of countless sisters, brothers, children around us, people of faith are called to respond. The poor are always with us, yes, but this does not mean that poverty is an issue to be ignored, and while it’s hard to imagine a simple solution to an overwhelming problem, I would propose that the first step we should take as Christians, people of faith, or even just as people of conviction, is to simply bring attention to this issue.

The poverty line in the United States is established at an annual income of $14,710 for a family of two. For a family of four, the poverty threshold is an annual income of less than $22,350. There are 46.2 million people in this country living below that line. These numbers are astounding, and the worst part of looking at figures like these is the realization that behind every statistic is the face of a person who cannot make ends meet.
Last week, we heard presidential candidates wax poetic about everything from HPV vaccinations to climate change. We shook our heads as Barack Obama introduced a bill that may or may not increase jobs and boost our economy. We walked down the streets of our major cities and passed protestors calling for an end to corporate personhood. But then what did we do? What can we do?

Perhaps the easiest place to start (or maybe this is the hardest) is to think about the way we are voting. When we think about the upcoming elections we are inclined to think about our own self-interest, but now is the time as people of faith to remember the 46.2 million people around us and to be sure that our voices and our votes speak out for this population.

In these hard times, there are glimmers of hope. Churches and charities continue to do a really good job of helping people in need. There are more and more food pantries, shelters, etc. popping up all over the city of Chicago. These are all helpful and necessary resources when poverty is running rampant. But clearly poverty is a systemic problem and one that continues to grow.

In the coming months, we are going to hear all sorts of politicians talk about the policies that are good and the policies that are bad. I urge you to do your best to remember these facts and figures. Think of the faces of the people you pass on the street. And imagine raising your two children on $22,000 a year.
We have seen the way that politics can stir a nation. As a new election season approaches, and as a host of potential new leaders emerge, my prayer is that our hands, our feet, our voices and our votes can be used to help those who need it most.

Friday Links - Plus a Special Song

Chart Via Ezra Klein's Blog

 

-President Obama said last night that the media was painting everything in terms of re-election, and that should not be the point.  I don't think that is going to change, and I also don't think 99.9% of politicians think that way either (nor should they? though that is a question for another day). 
-A number of other reactions to President Obama's speech, as put together by Andrew Sullivan.
-Paul Harvey (Religion Dispatches) argues that 9/11 did nothing to change the narrative of war in America.

As we think about 9/11 this weekend:

The Presidency and Angry Progressive Christians

Jonathan Chait/New York Times:

Yes, Bush passed his tax cuts — by using a method called reconciliation, which can avoid a filibuster but can be used only on budget issues. On No Child Left Behind and Medicare, he cut deals expanding government, which the right-wing equivalents of Greenwald denounced as a massive sellout. Bush did have one episode where he tried to force through a major domestic reform against a Senate filibuster: his crusade to privatize Social Security. Just as liberals urge Obama to do today, Bush barnstormed the country, pounding his message and pressuring Democrats, whom he cast as obstructionists. The result? Nada, beyond the collapse of Bush’s popularity.

Chait, Obama defender extraordinaire (and I do not say that negatively), comes back with a follow up to his New Republic article defending Obama against those who feel our president is failing due to a lack of rhetorical backbone.

I highlight this quote because we should not lose sight of the fact that legislative success and failure is a part of every presidency.  Charisma is not the same as totalitarian power. 

Progressive Christians would benefit from harping less about Obama, and doing more to actually try and persuade our brothers and sisters (yes they still are our brothers and sisters are they not?) that Jesus was not a free market crusader.  Part of me always wants to give up on this task, because it seems like a giant waste of time.  But what is the purpose of the Church if not to make such a task worthwhile?

-Tim

Is it Time to Panic Yet?

Picture Source: Newsweek via Funny Or Die

Over the weekend, I was deathly ill with a high fever, and Michele Bachmann won the Iowa Straw Poll.  We now essentially have a three person battle between Mitt Romney, Bachmann and Moral Arc favorite, Rick Perry.  The post about a Mormon and two hardcore (my estimation at this point: Bachmann is for real and Perry is wielding it more as giant Jesus shaped flaming political sword) Christian fundamentalists as Republican front runners in 2011-2012 will have to wait.  Instead, I think we must first wonder whether or not there is anything to really fear.

Call me a crazy, but I believe in the idea that a party's establishment still matters.  Populism is much easier to smash apart into factions than people concerned about the status quo of their economic interests.  Bachmann and Perry do not represent the Republican Party establishment.  They do not translate very well (at this point at least until they renege on just about everything they've said) to a general election.  I think, I hope, I pray, they scare progressives enough to stop licking their wounds and make something happen.  As Teagan Goddard points out, the Wall Street Journal just published an article showing "just how dissatisfied the Republican establishment is with the current field."  Let us see how strong the money makers are.

(Is anyone else as torn as I am between how they want this to play out?  On one hand, having Bachmann win the Republican nomination would theoretically mean an almost sure defeat for her against Obama.  On the other hand, who knows what crazy things can create a cut in the fabric of time and space where we wake up one day and Michele Bachmann is the leader of the free world.  My God)

The Obama Blame Game

A longer-than-normal post, but an oh so important topic no?

In the Red Corner! (Color not chosen for any symbolic reasons...though it may seem that way)
Drew Westen: When Dr. King spoke of the great arc bending toward justice, he did not mean that we should wait for it to bend. He exhorted others to put their full weight behind it, and he gave his life speaking with a voice that cut through the blistering force of water cannons and the gnashing teeth of police dogs. He preached the gospel of nonviolence, but he knew that whether a bully hid behind a club or a poll tax, the only effective response was to face the bully down, and to make the bully show his true and repugnant face in public.  
IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze.

In the Blue Corner!
Jonathan Chiat: Westen's op-ed rests upon a model of American politics in which the president in the not only the most important figure, but his most powerful weapon is rhetoric. The argument appears calculated to infuriate anybody with a passing familiarity with the basics of political science. In Westen's telling, every known impediment to legislative progress -- special interest lobbying, the filibuster, macroeconomic conditions, not to mention certain settled beliefs of public opinion -- are but tiny stick huts trembling in the face of the atomic bomb of the presidential speech. The impediment to an era of total an uncompromising liberal success is Obama's failure to properly deploy this awesome weapon.
Westen locates Obama's inexplicable failure to properly use his storytelling power in some deep-rooted aversion to conflict. He fails to explain why every president of the postwar era has compromised, reversed, or endured the total failure of his domestic agenda. 

If you look at progressive circles, Westen's argument seems to be the one people want to believe.  I have seen at least one prominent progressive Christian organization publicizing Westen's article, and have heard a similar line of thought from many I have talked to.  Its an argument that comes from the heart.  But if you read Chiat's rebuttle, its hard not to conclude that sometimes the heart is profoundly mistaken.  

Every "victory" for the progressive agenda thus far has been dampened hugely by the fact that concessions had to be made (the public option in the healthcare debate comes to mind first for me).  But that is the reality of the political system we inherited.  To think that if Obama gave the best speech ever written in the history of mankind about the public option (which he did do a pretty good job of arguing for), we'd have it right now, is a delusion beyond delusions.  Rather, maybe if the White House didn't decide to waste so much time waiting for the Senate's gang of six, we might have a different outcome (I know this stuff was a long time ago but it still stings damnit!)  As Chiat points out, the primary issue to be taken up with Obama is a tactical one. 

I also want to add that the economic crisis we face now is an entirely different animal than the national security crisis Bush was dealt.  With an economic crisis, people are prone to all sorts of ideas about how the economy works because despite what some economists might think, the tangible answers are not as clear as "go and shoot the bad guy."  When we feel like our lives are in danger, we are willing to applaud the president as he lets the rockets fly.  When our jobs our in danger, we become partisan ideologues.  If 9/11 never happened, would Bush have been able to convince the nation to go to war on rhetoric alone?

-Tim