Recently in Government Organizations Category

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36714961#36739929

This is an interview that was done with Latino Civil Rights leader Janet Murguia regarding the recent immigration bill that was passed in Arizona. She talks about some of the negative consequences of this bill on the Latino population of Arizona. She argues that the passing of this bill will essentially legalize racial profiling in that if anyone is at all suspected of being in the country illegally, authorities will have the right to search their homes and/or personal possessions. It sounds that if one is of Latino decent, that is all the proof authorities need to, basically, remove your constitutional rights. I'm not all that familiar with this story, but it definitely sounds unconstitutional to me.

What do you guys think? Does it seem to you that racial profiling is inevitable through the passing of this bill? Does the bill need to be changed to better protect the rights of the Latino population in Arizona? If you have not already heard about the passing of this bill, I would imagine that it will be hard to avoid as it snowballs in the uproar it is causing.


Here are a couple more news clips regarding some of the details of this bill - They make it sound that people can be identified as "possible illegals" based on appearance only, including the type of SHOES a person wears.....Are you kidding me?! Is our country going backwards away from civil rights legislation? What the hell....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36714961#36735699

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36714961#36726296

Something tells me this bill will not be around for too long....

Here's a link to a video about the U.S. Census: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36101466#36101466

The problem is people are having difficulty filling out the form when they have to choose a "box" or group to identify with. One of the newscasters shares his family's stories. Also, the statistics about Hispanics are interesting too.

What should be done about this issue? How should we address it?

 

I came across the following article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36449471/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts about a man named Albert Snyder. His 20 year old son was killed in Iraq four years ago and now he is in a legal battle against the Westboro Baptist Church. Church members picketed his son's funeral with signs reading "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "You're Going to Hell". The church, which is mostly comprised of the Phelps family, has targeted several soldier funerals and claim that "military deaths are the work of a wrathful God who punishes the United States for tolerating homosexuality." This is completely perposterous to most people, but the question becomes: When do we draw the line when it comes to freedom of speech? It is illegal for someone to yell "Fire!" in a public place, but it is perfectly legal to express such hatred towards others because of their sexuality, race, ethnicity, and the like. I have a serious problem with this. Next week the U.S. Supreme Court decide whether or not the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church are protected by the first ammendment. What do you guys think? Where do we draw the line in terms of freedom of speech?

This article on msnbc: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36208200/ns/us_news-washington_post/ immediately caught my eye. Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) of Virginia recently declared April as Confederate History Month. Various civil rights groups have expressed outrage over the governor's move, and I think rightfully so. Gov. McDonnell's defense was that it is a means of promoting tourism in the state. Seriously?? You have got to be kidding.

This also brings to mind the issue with the Confederate flag. I know driving through the south I have sometimes seen people displaying the Confederate flag as if it is something to be proud of. I once asked someone why they didn't view the flag as being a problem and their response was that the flag symbolized southern tradition and not racism. Aren't those one in the same though? To me they are.

What do you guys think? 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/03/31/2010-03-31_somethings_queer_with_census__gays.html

You may have already heard about this, but this is an article about a movement for the U.S. Census to include responses for single gay individuals. This year's census had an option for homosexual married couples, but that was it. Does it surprise you that the U.S. Census, one of the most organized and expensive survey organizations, doesn't include something so socially salient on their survey? Shouldn't this be something that was identified as missing before the census was even close to being sent out?

In addition to this, the article talks about transgendered individuals being identified on the census. This year transgender individuals were told to check "male" or "female" according to which sex they most identified. They argue that a separate box should be included for this question. This is something that has, from my knowledge, hasn't been included on any other survey's I've come across. Do you agree with adding this box to the "Sex" question on the census? Is this something that would then need to be included on other official surveys or demographic forms?

"The launch -- the last scheduled one in darkness for NASA's fading shuttle program -- helped set a record for the most women in space at the same time. Three women are aboard Discovery, and another is already at the space station, making for an unprecedented foursome."

"U.S. forces in Afghanistan are using a controversial tool in their efforts to hold the ground recently captured from the Taliban. It is the work of civilian anthropologists and other social science researchers, who advise military commanders on how to win the hearts and minds of local people"

Author Tim Wise does an excellent job describing the state of racism in America (both before the age of Obama and during his 2008 presidential campaign). Wise's book is broken down into two main parts, or essays as he describes it. The first is an overview of racism and discrimination in America, citing both explicit and subtle forms of racism within the realms of employment and income, housing, education, criminal justice and law, health care, and even going into great detail of the inequality demonstrated during hurricane Katrina in 2006 and the 2008 presidential campaign. This portion of the book was mainly aimed at getting across the point that racism in America is still going strong, despite the fact that statistics show that most white Americans believe Obama's election as our president signals the end of racism in our country. Wise argues that although the election of a black man to our highest ranking position is a big step in the right direction, it does not mean that white people view black people on the same level they may see the president (he uses the analogy of Bill Cosby and the Cosby Show in terms of how white people view him differently because he does not fit the stereotype-consistent role of the "black man in America". Wise also spends a good portion of this part of the book criticizing Obama for his failure to address racism in a more direct fashion, stating that Obama has often side-stepped the issue of race in America and what needs to be done to promote more equality within the realms I mentioned above. My question regarding the first part of the book is: Is it really Obama's task to focus more of this effort on racism in America because he is our first black president? Because of the fact that he is our first black president, does it just come with the territory, whereas presidents before him were not "expected" to tackle this issue because they were old white men?

The second essay of the book focuses on what needs to be done to help alleviate modern racism (or racism 2.0, as Wise refers to it). In particular, Wise focuses on what white America needs to do in order to help promote equality in our country. He mentions five main goals for white America: 1) Take personal responsibility addressing racism and white privilege. 2) Listen to black people regarding racism. 3) Stop the denial of our disturbing history dealing with race. 4) Connect with anti-racist white culture to help promote understanding. 5) Speak up! - When you see racism, no matter how subtle, take action and make a difference.

Overall, I thought this book was a well organized argument for how racism is still a very big issue in our country and it can be seen where ever we go. Wise definitely did an excellent job getting the point across about how Obama's election to president does not mean racism is ending, it is simply not what it used to be....racism has evolved. Wise point out several instances of racism and discrimination in the book that relate to many concepts we have discussed in class, including stereotype threat, ingroup/outgroup biases, situational factors that bring out hidden prejudices, and institutional and modern racism. I would recommend this book to anyone who is looking for a good overview of where America stands in our battle against racism and discrimination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/us/23scotus.html

Two cases of racial discrimination were brought to the table of the Supreme Court.

   Firefighters filed that there has been issues with the Chicago fire department, claiming that they has been issues were applicants who took the exams passed, and because of there ethnicity (White's & Hispanic's) there test were throw out based on racial bias. 
  
   According to new york times"The Chicago firefighters sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits race discrimination in employment and required them to file a claim within 300 days of the contested practice. the Argument on Monday concerned whether each of 11 rounds of hiring based on the 1995 test reset the clock on the statute of limitations."
   Based on the statute of limitations, I don't believe that the Supreme Court should not throw the case out, if there is a problem the Chief Justices should take it into consideration that there is a problem that has not only affected someone because the color of their skin, but it effected their families as well. Because of someone using bigotry, and a bias to select applicants.    

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9kT1yO4MGg

During the 1963 segregation was used by Police Chief Bull Connor, But was it right for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, and the SCLC to demonstrating in Birmingham, Alabama.  The use excessive force by Bull Connor was a deliberate action which should be used on children, women, and man by the use of police dogs attacking demonstrators and fire hoses knocking people off of there feet, was seen across the world.

President John F. Kennedy then mention the civil rights, later singed in 1964 by President Johnson after the assassination of Kennedy.  If it was not for Bull Connor being a prick in his beliefs the nation would not have seen the problem that minorities faces during the 1960'.    

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIB6ST9nNG0

This video is based on the actions of war which soldiers endure in the field. How does a man or women dissociate emotions while seeing a fellow solider or a comrade die before them, the reaction of the flight or fight is built in all of us, as a mechanism to protect  us from harm. It maybe graphic for some people to watch live action..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APVa_55Jpgs&feature=channel

this video is something that is not very surprising to me due to the results of war, we maybe fighting the war on terrorism, but in actuality we our also promoting violence in the heart of kid, maybe one of there family member were killed by our US or collation forces. Making children want to did for a cause, or the jihad. I not saying that it is justifiable for the kids to do it, but for the American/collation force soldiers at war, how does it effect them in taking a child's life or murdering a women or a man that have bombs strapped on to there bodies...

What do you think about this? Do you think it is right that I touched on this subject?

I did it for a reason i do have a friend that lost her husband in the War of Afghanistan living his wife to raise three children alone, and the effect it has on soldiers families that people do see.. 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/05/28/2009-05-28_black_cop_killed_by_white_officer.html

This is a strong problem that we face in today's society. What do you think can be done to make police more aware and cautious about these things?

http://www.kwwl.com/Global/story.asp?S=11953503

Friday afternoon  I learned about this incident while having a meeting with the Cedar Falls Police Chief, Mayor, and City Attorney. As I was showed pictures of the graffiti, seeing it i was upset knowing that this type of activity is still going on here in the city. This is the first time  mentioning anything about it, because seen it on the news.      

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/victims.html

I was looking at the FBI statistics on hate crimes in 2008. And i found that there are different categories that are interesting. that range from racial bias, sexual-orientation, religion, ethnicity and disability. it is interesting on how they categorize the different crimes and the statistics. I wonder if we can look up which part of the country is the highest crime rate, and hate crimes.

Maybe this can help in showing the numbers of event happening with in the United States.

I found this article on yahoo the other day about an Iraq War vet in my hometown of El Paso, Texas. Back in 2003, a convoy from Fort Bliss in El Paso, got lost and later ambushed by the Taliban in Iraq. Most of you probably have no idea what I am talking about at first. But what if I were to say Jessica Lynch? Ring a bell? Jessica Lynch, a 19 year old soldier was attacked and taken as a POW for several days but not before "bravely fighting her attackers" and trying to be a hero. Later, Jessica fired back at the military and the media for spinning this story to promote their agenda. She went on to say that she never fought back because her weapon had been jammed. Instead, she just prayed. We heard headlines about Jessica Lynch for weeks on end. The media and the country declared her a "Hero". But what about the rest of her colleagues who were captured or killed? Why weren't they declared heroes? The article I picked out is about a woman named Shoshana Johnson. She too was captured that day, alongside Jessica, and she too was later rescued. What's the difference you ask? Shoshana Johnson is African American:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_pow_memoir

 

http://www.hulu.com/watch/125747/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-wed-feb-3-2010#s-p1-sr-i0

Feb. 3 Daily Show with John Stewart talked about the proposal from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in the military. John Oliver came on and gave a little satirical twist to the issue. Is the issue of Don't Ask Don't Tell really the right way to go from a Psychological perspective or would it be better to repeal it? Would revealing sexual preference ruin unit cohesion, or do you think it would create mistrust between soldiers?
      I posted the whole episode, but it is the on the first segment. The second segment of the show actually is good as well. Sam Bee deals with gender equality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ8npzELNmQ&feature=related

The G-20 was established in 1999, in the wake of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, to bring together major advanced and emerging economies to stabilize the global financial market. Since its inception, the G-20 has held annual Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meetings and discussed measures to promote the financial stability of the world and to achieve a sustainable economic growth and development.

To tackle the financial and economic crisis that spread across the globe in 2008, the G-20 members were called upon to further strengthen international cooperation. Accordingly, the G-20 Summits have been held in Washington in 2008, and in London and Pittsburgh in 2009.

I came across this article this morning and was astounded. Although there has been racist and discriminatory remarks from both political parties, this one takes the cake:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35067031/ns/politics-more_politics/?gt1=43001

 

Some highlights of what he said:

"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed! You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that."

This goes back to what Kim was saying in class last week. A lot of racism and discrimination is preceeded by or tied in with poverty. Unfortunately, a disproportionate amount of minorites fall in this category.

So my question is: Do people dicriminate against others more so because of there SES or because of their race? Is one a stronger influence than the other?  

Here is a link to a show titled "Border Wars" on the National Geographic Channel:

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/border-wars/all/Overview?source=banner_house_118

As you may have already guessed by the title, Border Wars is about what goes on along the 2,000 mile border between the U.S. and Mexico. Most of you are from the Midwest so this show is a good way to gain a better understanding of what it is like to live on the border, what Border Patrol agents go through on a daily basis, as well as the various reasons/motivations thousands of impoverished men and women have to immigrate into this country particularly through extremely harsh weather and terrain. I think this show will be an eye opener to those of you who are unfamiliar with what goes on in the south.

http://www.eeoc.gov/

"The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit"