I've remembered!

If you read my previous post on SB 1070, the for-profit prison system, and marriage equality you will remember that I said I had another issue that I thought important to discuss but had forgotten it at the time I sat down to write. Well....I've remembered!

It's this "Ground Zero Mosque" business. Everyone's freaking out. The President has weighed in on the topic during the annual Iftar dinner (did Bush do that too? Would that make him a closet Muslim?) at the White House. Polls have been taken every which way with (surprisingly) Fox News' being the best. And news and opinion people of all stripes have had their say. So now I'm going to have mine.

Firstly, check out the map at the top of the 538.com post I linked to. It's the second link down in the above paragraph. That's what people mean by "at Ground Zero". They actually mean not at Ground Zero. The proposed location is some 5 blocks from Ground Zero in a closed Burlington Coat Factory. So important fact number one is that when someone says, "They're going to build a Mosque at Ground Zero! That's so wrong!" they have their facts wrong.

Important point number two, more widely disseminated by the media, is the fact that this is really a community center. It will have worship spaces. But it'll also have a swimming pool and art rooms and all sorts of stuff. It's a sort of Islamic YMCA as this sketch from Mike Luckovich of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution makes clear.

Important point number three, which should be noted to be the most important, is that Amendment One to the Constitution states in part:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

 That's the first part of the very short, very explicit First Amendment. Our country doesn't have an official religion. Congress can't make an official religion. And people are free to practice their religion how, when, and where they want provided that it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights; which Islam doesn't.

President Obama had a moment at the Iftar that I think reminds me of the way he talked on the campaign trail. It's very moving. In part, this is what he had to say.

 Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities -– particularly New York.  Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan.  The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country.  And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable.  So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders.  And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear.  As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country.  And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.  This is America.  And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.  The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are.  The writ of the Founders must endure.

You're free to make the argument that a mosque or Islamic cultural center that close to Ground Zero is in poor taste. I don't think it is. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about people who want to actually stop the construction/move in. They want to use eminent domain and other governmental powers to keep this from happening. And that's unconstitutional. In short, I don't care if you think muslims are the spawn of satan. In this country they're free to worship. And I'll fight for that right. Me. The damned atheist. Freedom of Religion, as it's enshrined in the Constitution doesn't just mean Protestant versions of Christianity that you're okay with. You don't get  to pick and choose. The freedoms granted American citizens by the Constitution come free to everyone regardless of race, color, creed, sex, religion, ability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, pregnancy, how many piercings they have, whether they like oranges or not, or any other status that you can thing of to use to discriminate against people.

Let's be honest. This is just intolerance and muslim bashing. Just like the rest of the last ten years. I'm pretty thoroughly ashamed of my country and how it has reacted to the events of 9/11. It could have been a turning point for us and for the world. Instead it's just another excuse for war and division.

EDIT: They have a wonderful post with a couple of points I didn't even think of over at Feministe. Take a look.

Mashup

Today's going to be a bit of a mashup because I have several things I want to talk about. Marriage equality and a bit of SB 1070 related news out of Arizona. I had one other thing but it's escaped me. Let's start with Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, SB 1070 (the Papers Please Law), and the Corrections Corporation of America.

First, the facts. It is not actually against the law to be in America without documentation. From the way the media talks about undocumented immigrants I know that that may surprise some of you. So that means that Paper Please isn't just some new law seeking to crack down on illegal behavior, it's seeking to make a behavior that isn't against the law now illegal. And what usually happens when you break the law? You go to jail. Here's where this article comes in from Phoenix's CBS 5 news. That article is really ancillary to the one I was searching for but can't find. It contains the most important bits though. Here's the quote.

A recent CBS 5 News investigation found that two of Brewer's top advisers have ties to the private prison industry. One is a current lobbyist for Corrections Corporation of America, or CCA. The second is a former lobbyist for the same company.

The second one mentioned also has a wife who is still lobbying for CCA. In short, by passing SB 1070 and making being in Arizona without documentation (or, honestly, looking like you might need documentation that you don't have on you right now) illegal you would be sending thousands of prisoners into the heavily used private prison system in Arizona which is not exactly run by, but certainly dominated by CCA. It's all a big corporate scheme to net her friends in the private prison-industrial complex as much money as possible at the expense of all those nasty brown people she doesn't care about. When asked about the lobbying connections by two of her senior advisors Governor Brewer consistently refuses to answer and even pulls a Sharron Angle and runs away. She knows what she's doing, she's been caught, and she doesn't want to admit it to the people of Arizona. Because she wants her own term as their Governor one day (she was elevated to the top spot when Janet Napolitano, a democrat, accepted the directorship of the Department of Homeland Security from then newly elected President Obama).  That's about all on 1070. On to Marriage Equality.

You know what I hate about the fight for Gay Marriage? That it's called Gay Marriage. And that it's viewed as the most important fucking thing on the "gay agenda". You know, right there at the top of the list in big bold letters. Everything else is secondary.

Queer people are fighting for the right to get married. Not the right to get "gay married" and as long as we, straight people, and the media keep talking about "Gay Marriage" it's going to be viewed as something separate and different from the institution of marriage that straight people are used to. When you're married you do all those things that married people do. When you're gay married somehow being tied to the bed doing it up the ass while wearing skin-tight leather outfits becomes mandatory in peoples minds. It's just another way to make those of us who are restricted from marriage currently seem weird, alien, and not at all deserving or the right to get married. It's just damned othering!

Let's not even talk about how all the energy put into marriage equality by organizations like the Human Rights Campaign is that much less energy that is used to work on issues that affect all queer people regardless of whether they're partnered, poly, or ever interested in marriage at all like ENDA, housing issues, and general acceptance. I would be much more supported right now if we were to pass a trans-inclusive ENDA than if Congress were to make marriage equality a reality as much as I might cheer for it. And what about those of us who are romantically involved with more than one person. Oh damn! That's right, I said it. Some of us crazy queer liberals might actually WANT to be married to more than one person. We might want all our relationships sanctioned. I know that's one of the BIG SCARY things that conservatives continue to talk about. That if we make gay marriage legal suddenly people will want to marry more than one person. And that would affect you in what ways that letting just two strangers you've never met be married doesn't?

So in short, my rant is that we're viewing this as a Big Freaking Deal when it really shouldn't be, we're talking about it in ways that are unproductive, and we aren't thinking about everyone. Still!

Sorry for all that.

Marriage Issues

I'm a bit behind the times as far as reporting on the Proposition 8 ruling in California. I've been at work, so forgive me. I'd skip it, but I'm queer and so this is sort of a big deal. More than just break down the ruling, which I'll be doing a bit of, I hope to talk about this issue more broadly.

So, yes, Wednesday afternoon Judge Walker in California District Court ruled that Proposition 8 which passed in California on the same night as President Obama's election in 2008 is unconstitutional. He ruled that it violates both the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Section 1 reads:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [bolding mine]

The bold section there is the particularly important part. States, like California, cannot make laws that violated that bolded section. By saying that straight couples (and individuals by extension) are able to marry and gay couples cannot it sets up two unequal groups in direct violation of that last section about "equal protection of the laws". Less talked about, but I think no less important is Section 5:

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Seems to me that Congress should be getting along about now to make sure our equality is protected by law. Good luck getting them to do that one.

Now I'm going to dissect the ruling for a bit. It's downloadable online but it's 136 pages so this is by no means a thorough job.

Reading through, the first bit of text that really strikes my fancy is this.

...proponents in their trial brief promised to “demonstrate that redefining marriage to encompass same-sex relationships” would effect some twenty-three specific harmful consequences. At trial, however, proponents presented only one witness, David Blankenhorn, to address the government interest in marriage.  Blankenhorn’s testimony is addressed at length hereafter; suffice it to say that he provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate.

Mr. Blankenhorn was, in fact viewed by the judge as pretty much non-important. He has no credentials to suggest that he's an actual expert on relationships, marriage, or the government. All the things he was claiming to be an "expert witness" on. Continuing. In a section entitled "Credibility Determinations" the judge had this to say about Mr. Blankenhorn.

David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, testified on marriage, fatherhood and family structure.  Plaintiffs objected to Blankenhorn’s qualification 

as an expert.  For the reasons explained hereafter, Blankenhorn lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponents’ factual assertions.

I think that speaks for itself. But it continues.

The court permitted Blankenhorn to testify but reserved the question of the appropriate weight to give to Blankenhorn’s opinions.  Tr 2741:24-2742:3.  The court now determines that Blankenhorn’s testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight. [bolding mine]

Moving on. Later in the document come what is referred to as "findings of fact". As it has been explained to me, these facts must be considered by any appeals court and the Supreme Court should the case be appealed that far. Among these findings are tidbits such as these.

19. Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage.  Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.  

21. California, like every other state, has never required that individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to procreate.   

There are quite a few interesting findings of fact included in the ruling so I suggest you download it if you want to read up on a few more of them. I'm going to stretch this out into two posts so look for a broader discussion of the topic sometime soon!

Exit Strategy

That is the current cover for Tiime Magazine and it's causing quite a stir. While I don't necessarily support using women like this to sell magazines, the image tells a powerful story about our presence in Afghanistan and our exit strategy. The abridged story is here but you have to actually buy a copy to read the whole thing. Or sneak into your local Barnes & Noble and just sit down. Either way.

This is an excellent illustration of my larger issue with a simple withdrawal from either Iraq or Afghanistan since my conversion from blind Republicanism several years ago. Sure, upwards of 90% of the country can now agree that if we could go back in time and not elect George Bush/not invade Iraq and Afghanistan it would be a good thing. But we can't. We've been in Afghanistan for nine years now and Iraq for six. We've spent unimaginable resources and the lives of some 5,000 US service members not to mention a number of Iraqi and Afghan deaths that is almost impossible to calculate and the total hours and manpower spent discussing and debating the topic here in America. We ARE there. Sure, from our side of the fight it seems to be a great idea to get out while the getting's good. This is why President Obama ran on a platform of rapid and responsible withdrawal from both conflicts. The wars aren't popular at home. But have we taken a look at what withdrawal will mean to the countries we will be leaving our mess to? This is by no means an endorsement of continued fighting. What I'm saying is that the answer is far more nuanced that just a simple call to "bring them home" as we liberals are used to crying.

I believe (don't quote me) that we have been asked at least once by the Iraqi Provisional Government to go ahead and leave. If that's the wish of the Iraqi people I'll be the first to say we should comply. But I don't think we've had anything that specific out of Afghanistan. And that's where the woman pictured up top comes into play. There has been an increasing call/realization that any sort of meaningful withdrawal from Afghanistan will mean negotiations with the Taliban. In fact President Hamid Karzai has gone so far as to invite the Taliban to run for Parliament. This strikes me as frighteningly similar to the Hamas government that was legitimately elected in Gaza and Hezbollah's governmental aspirations in Lebanon. Legitimate, yes, good for the country as a whole though, probably not. The woman featured on the Time cover ran away from an abusive husband. When the husband found her at her family's house he went to the Taliban for a judgement. Her punishment was to have her nose and ears cut off with a knife. This was a little more than a year ago, eight years after the US entered Afghanistan. This is the sort of thing that may return in full force if the US leaves and the Taliban participates in and especially gains a majority in the Afghan government. 

Many are hopeful that Afghanistan's Constitution will provide some protection from these sorts of abuses as the US leaves. Currently it does provide for women's rights as well as a mandatory female representation in Parliament of at least 25%. I think these things are good for Afghanistan. But what do I know, I'm just an American with a vastly foreign view on a place I've never been.

I'm not proposing to have the answers in this post. What I am suggesting is that the situation is much more complicated than even the best reporting we've seen in the United States would suggest. I think that much of what we ought to do will depend on what the Afghans themselves say they want. But in basing our reactions on that we have to understand just WHO it is that is doing the asking and whether they represent the whole population or not.

Discuss?

Who's on cleanup duty?

I was going to write an economic article tonight for you, but Mia Mingus, fabulous activist that she is, tweeted this story from AlterNet this afternoon and I have to write about it. There's a similar article up at thenation.com. The other post will be up soon.

In short, BP, who since capping the gushing well in the Gulf early this week has been a bit more off the radar than they should be, has been using local prison labor to clean up Gulf beaches. I'm a southerner born and raised. I don't know why I didn't think to write about this before. When I initially saw photos of the cleanup crews working on the beaches I noticed that they were pretty much all African-American men. That should have been all the tip off I needed to start digging and see where BP's labor force is coming from. I didn't. But thankfully several other people are on top of the issue. Although it's been WAY underreported in my opinion if it's only being mentioned now. This was also a topic for discussion for Mike Malloy on my way home from work tonight. It seems he was keyed in from The Nation article.

So, lets take a look at this situation critically. BP is a foreign corporation. The US has higher incarceration rates than most industrialized nations and the inmate population is heavily skewed toward men and racial minorities. Inmates have few recognized rights when it comes to work including little to no pay. BP gets a tax write-off for every inmate they employ in the clean up effort. And every employed inmate is one less Gulf Coast resident who isn't being hired in an economy where jobs are already scarce.

According to the Pew Center on the States 1 in 31 US adults are either in prison or on parole. Men are five times more likely to be imprisoned than women and African-Americans are four times more likely to be imprisoned than white Americans. Is it any wonder that BP is using our prison population to do this dirty and dangerous work? And then denying them the rights to talk to the public and the press as well as the right to wear protective gear and respirators? No one else in society seems to care about these people, their welfare, or their rights. So BP is just following our lead. They found a cheap, disposable work force to clean up their mess for them. They don't have to pay anyone to do the clean up and they get a tax break for doing it to boot! BP has been all about saving money here from the beginning. In fact, the drive to save/make as much money as possible is why we have this problem. Just days before the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig as they were finishing the drilling a BP employee made the decision to use six pins to keep the riser pipe in line rather than the recommended twenty-one. That's #2 on this list published on BP's own website for reasons the well failed.

This is about BP and their behavior, make no mistake. But it's about much more than that. We (that is Americans) have been using free or nearly free prison labor for years. Starting with the mental image of prisoners stamping license plates we now uses these people to clean up highways, mow public right-of-ways, make goods for government usage including basic protective gear for the military, and the list goes on. This is about race relations in America. When African-American men are over-represented in the prison population, and we willingly employ prisoners to do dirty, dangerous, and difficult labor for little or no pay, that's called slavery. We simply find different ways to justify it in our modern era. This Prison-Industrial Complex is the true reason for such harsh sentencing in non-violent drug offender cases that pass though the US Justice System. An excellent example is the 100 to 1 ratio for mandatory minimum sentencing for cocaine and crack as outlined below from www.drugwarfacts.org:

As a result of the 1986 Act, federal law10 requires a five-year mandatory minimum penalty for a first-time trafficking offense involving five grams or more of crack cocaine, or 500 grams or more of powder cocaine, and a ten-year mandatory minimum penalty for a first-time trafficking offense involving 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, or 5,000 grams or more of powder cocaine. Because it takes 100 times more powder cocaine than crack cocaine to trigger the same mandatory minimum penalty, this penalty structure is commonly referred to as the '100-to-1 drug quantity ratio.'"

What is not explained here is that many many times more African-Americans are arrested in possession of crack than white Americans. It's important that we keep feeding the system after all.

So, we feed the system and BP makes use of it. And the end result is that when BP makes an error and releases millions of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico and then makes only a half-hearted attempt to keep it off the area's beaches, they call in the free labor to clean it all up later. Nobody will care.

And One More Thing...

I just got wind of this set of polling data from ABC News/Washington Post and Quinnipiac. Taking the two polls together it suggests that somewhere between 52 and 61 percent of the American Public supports trying terror suspects like the Underpants Bomber Umar Faruk Abdulmutallab in military tribunals instead of civilians courts. In this case the ABC News poll was of "adults" by phone; a very amorphous group, and the Quinnipiac poll was of registered voters. I won't pretend to be a polling expert. If you're looking for that then head over to 538.com to get all you ever wanted to know and more about evaluating polls.

In any case, I feel that even if these numbers were 30-40% instead of the 50-60% that they are, they would be too high. The Bush Administration tried terror suspects in criminal courts including Zacharias Moussaoui and Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber. Especially in the Reid case, which almost exactly parallels the attempted underpants attack, it has been shown that criminal prosecutions of these sort are usually successful (especially with an airplane load of witnesses). In fact, I think the biggest issue with this sort of trial is finding an unbiased jury. That, I think is also the biggest problem in the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial. Where are you going to find 12 unbiased people within 100 miles of NYC? Or anywhere in the United States for that matter?

In any case, the arguements that have been made against civilian trials stem from the position that most of the "enemy combatants" that we're dealing with are not American citizens and so have no Miranda rights and so forth. I would argue that while this may be technically true, the rights afforded Americans under the Constitution and annunciated in the Declaration of Independence are there because they were viewed by the founders as basic human rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It is our duty as Americans to be better than those we oppose. Trying these men in civilian courts upholds the impartiality of our justice system as many on both sides of the aisle have noted. It also shows that we truly value that which is written into our basic founding documents. I don't see that we have any other choice unless we wish to return to the Bush era of being viewed as hypocrites by most of the free world.