It's a start

DES MOINES --- Gay rights activists celebrated after the Iowa House took a historic vote Wednesday to extend civil rights protections to gays and lesbians, giving approval to the measure in the waning days of this year's session of the Iowa Legislature.

More stuff on immigration

Thanks to Sebastian Mallaby

Enough is Enough!

A University of Iowa student left a lecture hall and called police Thursday after another student came into the auditorium wearing a hooded jacket and a ski mask and did not immediately remove them.

The student wearing the mask, Justin Walker, was detained for two hours by university police, who had also alerted Iowa City police and the Johnson County sheriff’s department, according to The Des Moines Register. “I did nothing,” Mr. Walker said later. “It was just my apparel.”

The university’s vice president for student services, Philip Jones, said in a university news release: “Given the circumstances of the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech University, we simply cannot tolerate actions that even appear to be threatening.”

“The student who called the police immediately did the right thing, and police followed the appropriate procedure by responding immediately with sufficient numbers to conduct an investigation expeditiously.” The university is still considering whether to file charges against Mr.
Walker.

Alright, I've had enough of this. I'm as upset about the VA Tech tragedy as anyone. I continue to shed tears as I read accounts of the bloodstains, the chalk outlines, the police tape, and the students--dear god, the students.

Yes, we are all on orange alert these days and we will be for a very long time. I've suspended almost all sarcastic references to assassins, shootings, and other forms of violence. And I deplore those people who do not censor themselves likewise, or whose memories seem so short-term that their general references and cynicism ignore the tragedy.

But come on...

Contrary to the DM Register's assessment, it was pretty cold here last week. So yes, I can understand why a student would come to class in a hooded jacket. Was a ski mask reasonably necessary? Perhaps. Last Thursday (the date in question) was especially cold, although not windy, but were my scarf and gloves available, I probably would have worn them. So maybe a ski-mask was warranted.

But what is the possibility that the student was trying to push a boundary, in light of the VA Tech massacre? Trying to see just how far he could go, or maybe even trying to make a point? It's not too far-fetched to imagine a misguided and impulsive undergraduate student doing something like this without considering his action's poor taste or ramifications. And if that was the case, then the student deserves a reprimand, or at least a lesson on university civility behaviors.

But here is where I think the university may be going too far: They are considering filing charges against the student!!!??? For what???? Refusing to remove a ski-mask? Shouting "I'm cold" in a crowded lecture hall? Carrying a concealed hoodie?

Frankly, I am at a loss as to how far the pendulum must swing to protect ourselves, our students, and our society. But I certainly hope it doesn't go so far as to allow me to be fined should I feel the need to wear a few extra layers in April.

Supreme Court Intellectualism

By now most of you have probably read about the Supreme Court decision banning Dilation and Extraction procedures after 12 weeks of pregnancy. Anyone who knows me and has read my unabashed liberal perspectives can probably guess how I feel about the SCOTUS decision.

But you would be wrong.

I doubt this ban will have the huge chilling effect that many pro-choice advocates are espousing. Less than 1% of overall reported abortions use D&E. Even the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology acknowledges how very rarely the procedure is performed. It’s one of several options available to women who must face termination after the first trimester. So women are not being stopped from enacting their choice. Although the venue for playing out their choice is being restricted, that is not legally chipping away at Roe v. Wade. And once the threshold is reached where enough procedures are blocked so as to render Roe obsolete, I am confident that we will see SCOTUS scales tip back to favor reproductive rights. Time and again, that’s the pattern we see with Supreme Court decisions. There is no reason to believe the political landscape of reproductive rights is the exception to the rule.

So I’m just not that worked up over the decision. What does get me worked up are the fallacies, the bad data and the made-up stories that were used by the lawyers supporting the ban.

Contrary to their stories, there is no abortion epidemic of viable babies. Yes, it does happen. And when it does happen it’s because of a life-threatening and previously undiagnosed illness to the mother or the baby. It’s a difficult choice that must be made within the context of extenuating circumstances. For example, does the government have the right to decide that a woman with a life-threatening illness must die and leave her surviving children without a mother simply because doctors didn’t diagnose her disease early enough? Do *you* want to be the person to explain that to the children left behind? What if a parent learns that her unborn child has tay sachs and is doomed to live in pain for a few short months at most? After the mother of that child has her heart broken from the news that the baby previously known to be healthy is going to die a certain, untimely, and painful death, do you want to require her to have her heart broken again by being forced to endure the child’s living pain? Do *you* want to be the person to explain to the mother why this is so necessary?

And what of this tripe that abortion should be illegal because years later, women often regret their decisions? There are hundreds of thousands of things people regret doing in their lives. People regret getting married. Some regret getting divorced. Most high school and college drop-outs report regretting their choices a few years later. Should we make all these actions illegal? Can you imagine the burden on our law enforcement agencies if they find themselves required to “protect the public” from people who simply do things they may later regret? Now *there’s* a job my mother would love.

So while I am not so worried about the D&E ban per so, I am far more concerned about the low level of intellectualism demonstrated by attorneys arguing the case, and by the justices who bought the arguments. Because in the end, it is that lack of rigor that chips away at our rights and freedoms.

Top 10 ways that Noah is just like me:

10. Outlaw hair. With at least three cowlicks each and hair the texture of straw, we both just do whatever our hair tells us to do. That way no one gets hurt.

9. Poor kid has inherited my freckles and my height (or lack thereof). High school is *so* going to suck for him.

8. Competition keeps us going—as long as you let us win.

7. We’ll eat almost anything if we know that there’s chocolate for dessert.

6. We have only two speeds: “warp” and “asleep.”

5. Event planners extraordinaire! It’s 8 a.m., Mom. Am I going to school today? Will I get to color? Can I make a superhero? Do I have to take a nap today? Can I play with Sadie when I get home? What’s for dinner tonight? What’s for dessert? Do we have to take baths before bed? How many days until Friday…

4. Brute force works for us. Gotta gain control of a noisy room? Just yell. And if that doesn’t work, kick the crap out of your brother.

3. We share the same fears: going downstairs (or upstairs) alone in the dark, not having anyone to play with on Saturday, and not having done anything substantial with our lives.

2. Neither of us like girls.

And the top piece of evidence that Noah is just like me:

1. At age five, we both had “the meanest Mommy in the whole wide world!”

Suffer the Children

With all their chatter about "family values" why the hell would our government enact legislation that forcibly separates children from their parents?

According to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, anyone born in the United States is a citizen, entitled to all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities thereof. Unless, of course, your parents are illegal immigrants. In that case, you have no right to be raised by them. The government’s immigration enforcement is having the effect of either a) forcibly separating U.S.-born citizens from their parents or b) violating the U.S. Constitution by forcing the young citizen to leave the country with said parents.

The article is a gut-wrenching story about the many minors who face their parents’ unwilling abandonment at the hands of this nation’s immigration laws and policies. It is filled will faulty arguments and leads to a compassionless solution.

Comparing this situation to those of incarcerated parents is simply a misnomer. For one thing, prisoners still have the right to see their children. In many cases inmates are able to keep their young children with them during incarceration. In addition, judges' sentences are often modified based on hardship to families, especially those where there is no one to care for young children. Third, a jailed parent is protected, given regular food and water, and generally receives resources for rehabilitation. So even if the child is living away from his or her parents, at least the child can feel some sense of security knowing that the parent is safe. Not so for young citizens of deported parents, many of whom came to the US for political refuge or asylum, or to be able to feed their families. And finally, a prison term typically has a *start and end* point. Deportation has no identified end-point and may in fact be forever.

And this talk about "Jack-pot" kids is repugnant. Should we deride families in the U.S. that view their children as "another tax write-off” or “an additional hand around the farm?” Whether or not we think it’s a good thing, our country has structured benefits that encourage people to have and raise children. But most loving people are not reproducing for the tangible rewards—especially not rewards that couldn’t be obtained for 21 years! To suggest otherwise is to imply that illegal immigrants do not have the same hearts, the same souls, the same intelligences, and the same cognitive complexities, as any other human being.

But that, I fear, is where this immigration debate is going to lead us.

Growing up, I was taught that *all people* deserve the utmost respect and appreciation; that what we do to the "least" in our community is what we do to the "greatest." This means two things: the judgments, rules, and values we impose on one person or group of people should be the same judgments, rules, and values we impose on all people or groups of people. To do otherwise perpetuates a societal schism where, in this case, citizens of illegal parents would bear “second class” status.

But it also means that what we tolerate from, and demand for, the world’s poorest and downtrodden will "trickle up;" if we can tolerate violating the rights of a group that has no financial resources, voice, or protection then we shouldn’t be surprised when our own rights are similarly violated. In small steps we chip away at those rights for the groups with higher status. More important, we chip away at our collective soul. If we cannot even show compassion to the people who have no control over their destinies, how can we show compassion to anyone?

For all the grass-roots good our society has done to appreciate diversity and to develop innovative ways to implement and promote equality of achievement, the government can find two or three ways to frack it up. Not only is the government unconstitutionally taking away rights and privileges from some US citizens, but it is also indoctrinating a very dangerous precedent: that anyone whose parents are not who the government wants them to be isn't deserving of our nation's sympathy or protection.

We can argue the facts with regard to these issues all we want and we will probably never agree. But why do we have to agree on those facts? Can't we all concur that what is happening to a segment of our American youth--legal American youth--is a travesty? Can't we all agree that there has to be a better, more compassionate solution than forcibly separating the child from his/her parents? Can't we all agree that violating a citizen's rights is *never* an appropriate solution?

In Chinese philosophy, yin and yang are described as two opposing and co-existing forces. Nothing is wholly good or wholly bad. And so it must be when legislating governmental policy. So of course I realize that there is no perfect solution to the immigration debate—we will all lose, even as we all win. But we must strive to agree on the priorities of outcomes and consequences. I myself am not certain of my outcomes priority. But I can tell you unequivocally that leaving a young U.S. citizen without the care of his/her willing parents is at the top of my list of consequences that must be avoided at all costs.