As the fallout of President Obama’s latest healthcare mandate resounds around Capitol Hill an the nation with house speaker John Boehner vowing to block the controversial rule stating all employers must provide contraceptives as part of insurance coverage, even after the White House compromise placing the final burden on insurance companies, not religious institutions, Obama is still blasted. The latest, right wing republicans pointing to the mandate and saying this is what big, liberal government looks like, government making decisions for you. GOP current front runner Rick Santorum echoing them, adding in comments about the Paul Ryan healthcare plan, including turning Medicare into a voucher program, saying we wanted to give people choices, and he/they President Obama, democrats said oh no this what you should have. Santorum moved out of healthcare to the newest regulations on banks and lenders requiring full disclosure of both loan parameters and risks with a derogatory comment, now we’re going to tell you what kind of loans you can have. Fortunately for women and the American public, people who really are being told what to do, turns out, don’t like it very much and there has been pushback from Catholics against the hard line taken by bishops anti-Obama, anti the provision. Despite opposition party claims, it is routinely republican, conservatives, radical, religious conservatives who truly intrude on people’s lives, insist on making laws dictating the personal choices people make for themselves, their significant other, their family, are focused on regulating behavior in an extreme way.

 Contrast the 2 videos here; on top is something to be worried about, on the bottom are people complaining about seeing boxers, the equivalent of shorts.

 They are the ones telling you how or even if you can dance in a bar, restaurant, they are the ones passing laws telling you what kind of underwear, bikini or pants you can wear in public; no matter if you can’t see the first two items mentioned, even banning flip flops on visitors participating in Whitehouse tours. Conservatives, tea party or otherwise, are the ones telling you who you can marry and who you can’t, who marriages should be between, what kind of sexual activities you can enjoy between 2 consenting adults, not under biblical law, Islamic law, Torah law, but the city, county, state, and if they had their way, federal law of the United States of America. Remember the illegality of prostitution is trading money, goods, property for sex, not how many people you have sex with, not whom, providing they are willing and of age. The same conservatives who tie the moral fabric of a nation to do you or do you not wear pajamas in public, tie personal character to whether you sag your pants, not as you go to a job interview, not as you work, but as you shop, go to school, do everyday things.  It has routinely been republicans who support taxes on sugary beverages; one Illinois republican going so far as to say parents of obese kids should have tax deductions taken away. Bans on fast food restaurants and toys may have been sponsored or supported by democrats but are rooted in the conservative views of their constituents. Apartment complexes, housing developments and home owners associations have, for years, dictated everything from no smoking, no pets, to mandatory hanging of Christmas lights. My own city fines people who wash their cars on their own front lawns, regulations all usually enacted and supported by grouchy old people who have no use for freedoms they don’t agree with who  should qualify for fossil status, as they aren’t being taken seriously anyway.

Those who read my work regularly will recognize our favorite commissioner and his rant on pajamas; featured here again as a prime example of, once again, the true origins of “big government.”   

 Worse are those who may well be listed as a democrat or independent but quickly get drunk on their own power while in their small town, government job, using the council seat, office of mayor, state senator, governor to wage war on their list of pet peeves, some who make it all the way to Washington and then try to do the same on a national scale. Just look at Michigan’s emergency city manager law giving total financial and other power to one person. People who can do damn near anything from break union contracts, dissolve municipalities, take over pension systems, even set school curriculum with little qualification; in this case, 5 years experience and “demonstrable expertise in business, financial or local or state budgetary matters.”  What does this really mean; well for Michigan it means their elected city officials have been taken away and now the city manager has literally taken their voice away. How, by trying to sell the city’s radio station, both license and equipment on E-bay; something that is, by the way illegal. The FCC must approve any sale of a radio station license and the ad was thus removed from the auction site. Subsequently the emergency manager in question said he had a buyer for the station, previously getting no bids, the one bid meant to give it back to the people rejected, so we, along with the people of Michigan, will wait and see. Here it’s even more egregious because city commissioners have been traded for one person who doesn’t even know what’s legal and what’s not regarding the action he wanted to take; he obviously didn’t check to make sure it was, and even if you wanted to sell something as important to a community as a radio station, needed to for the money, surely you could find better avenues than e-bay.

And conservatives are the ones telling women their employers don’t have to provide them birth control, yet are the same conservatives who want to shorten unemployment benefits, cut people off welfare and food stamps regardless of why they lost their job, how hard they try to get another one, or the 4-5, 6, 7, 8 kids they have to support thanks to mandates engineered and backed by conservative politicians basically stripping reproductive rights, the right not to reproduce. Not everyone can be as wealthy as Mr. Romney, Mr. Santorum; not everyone can afford the family size they have.  These are the same politicians pushing implementing abstinence only sex education, while shouting about personal responsibility; ironic since they don’t want well informed young people, at least one saying birth control was irresponsible, is a license to do unnatural things. Then horrified by a statistic that something like half the children born to women are born out of wedlock, wanting to blame that on birth control instead of a lack of proper information, sex education.  Of course this was a Catholic and Catholics are taught sex is only for procreation; how then priests explain the Songs of Solomon, we don’t know.  Ron Paul, championing personal responsibility in his own way, is looking to end social security and say people figure your retirement out; FEMA, no more rebuild your own disaster stricken home.  Newt Gingrich was at C-PAC spouting his usual rhetoric saying to get unemployment you should have to sign up for a business lead training program to modernize our workforce; here’s the rub, those have to A- exist, B- be up to date and C- be in session when busses run so people without cars can attend.   In my own city bus service ends at 6:25 3 days a week and the only clerical training program available teaches very basic skills in business letters, memos; PC skills are limited to MS office and the local vocational rehabilitation is steering their clients away from it because it is too simplistic up against employers who want adobe applications, accounting, book keeping, marketing, business school and so forth. Gingrich followed up that speech with a wonderful line on C- Span regarding the Obama budget, saying, contrary to the establishment, he would lower spending to revenue levels not increase revenue levels to finance the Obama credit card. But to do that, it means less care for our wounded veterans, welfare and food stamps will be cut off, unfortunately for all the wrong people, many of whom will be children, job training will go in favor of national security, just scratching the surface. The same “Obama credit card” looking to repair, rebuild infrastructure, thus creating jobs, boosting education, bolstering clean energy so we don’t need the Canadian pipeline to Huston. An “Obama credit card” partially financed with higher but fairer, proportionate taxes on the rich. Keeping in mind Gingrich is the identical would be commander and chief who wants to spend billions putting a colony on the moon by his second term, who is vying for the support of the tea party, a group willing to play chicken with the debit ceiling to “change Washington’s way of doing things,” forget if it stalled business, suspended stipends, schooling for the disabled, and grind our country to a halt.   

By contrast democrat, independent, fringe parties and our current president seek to safeguard the public, make laws aimed toward fair play evident in the new healthcare rule saying to women, no matter where you work, the moral, religious, doctrines, compunctions of your employer, you will have access to birth control, contraception should you choose to use it. How they have gotten by with not doing so all this time is a mystery, considering it is blatant discrimination of women. Neither is any of this big government making decisions for you, in fact it is actually making sure all options are open to you. Examining the validity of Santorum’s comment regarding the Paul Ryan plan, said plan was minus key details except it involved changing how Medicare worked for those younger than 55, including people in their mid to late 40’s, between 50 and 55 who have paid in all this time, planned around the system as it exists currently, who may not get equal coverage, who may not be able to retire, not only as planned, but for years to come. Couple that with making it a voucher program, which under the guise of giving people choices would inevitably throw some people under the bus, as they suddenly couldn’t get certain coverage for things automatically covered under the 80% Medicare pays for Parts A and B, persons eligible for various forms of part D also get prescription drugs at a fraction of the price. And certainly people were agitated and against it in favor of having to peddle a voucher at a big company hoping you can get what you need. Continuing, the idea was to put competition into health-care in order to keep costs down, but the reason that works for prescription drugs is because it is one commodity with multiple drug makers making the same thing, not so with unique kinds of care, specific programs, certain medical practice specialties.

No Obama legislation on full disclosure of mortgage types, requiring mortgage documents be written in plain, understandable English was not meant to tell people what loan they could have, rather tell them what loan they were getting, to make sure borrowers where fully aware of  both the risks and responsibilities of the loan they signed up for. Similar to the rules for banks and credit card companies saying no more hidden fees, no more unexplained rate hikes on people making their payments. All actions spurred in the interest of knowledge and fair play. Financial reform has been almost the exclusive goal of democrats wanting to return sanity to the financial market, re-institute things put in place after the great depression, fought tooth and nail by republicans concerned, they say about killing jobs, weakening the recovery, who want to tout the wonders of capitalism, more akin to crony capitalism, than the capitalism of the industrial revolution, the capitalism creating solid, beneficial business. Along those same lines are the comments uttered about creating a free market, wanting to eliminate the Federal Reserve; on the less extreme end scaling back regulations. No one realizing, or more aptly willing to admit, the reason we need additional regulation is because business, the financial sector hasn’t operated on the tenets of fairness, responsibility, good business sense, integrity for decades, preferring to function on greed, manipulation, whose collective moral compass centers around well it’s not technically illegal, so why not?  In that kind of an environment how can the government not act in the best interest of the public, yet when it doesn’t happen as fast as they think it should the accusation is a failure of leadership. When it does happen, the government tries to get ahead of problems; oh they are too big, making our decisions for us, taking our freedoms away. Conservatives are the ones who call Medicare, social security entitlement programs, who seem to want seniors to eat cat food, seeing as they will cut said programs before raising taxes, who balk at the payroll tax cut in favor of taking months or years to roll out sweeping restructuring of the tax code in a congress who can’t do such rudimentary tasks as pass a federal budget.

Holding up conservative vs. non conservative approaches to social issues, things surrounding civil liberties, yes Obama agreed to look at taxing sugary drinks, but has yet to try and enact any such measure, instead saying public schools must serve healthier options, making the same mandate for fast food, restaurant kids’ meals. The first lady has pushed for education campaigns to get kids exercising and eating better, not banning toys in Happy Meals, not going along with nicknamed fat taxes or added pricing of insurance based on do you like cheeseburgers. It is President Obama who understands the hardships of this recession hints 99 weeks of unemployment, who told someone in a recent interview people become eligible for food stamps he doesn’t make them so; as opposed to other politicians who mix food stamps up with other programs who must not want them to ever get jobs if they are willing to take away monies that allow them to buy toothpaste, mouthwash, shaving cream, sanitary napkins. Of course if they don’t it gives them something to campaign for reelection on themselves. While he, the president, with other non-conservatives have focused on bringing relief to struggling people, now and knows big, multifaceted policy changes must be implemented slowly. It is why the payroll tax holiday is on the agenda now and why parts of his healthcare plan do not take effect until 2014. Another example of, not big government, but leveling playing fields and giving options; under one of the last pieces of so called Obamacare all employers must provide health insurance, all people must have health coverage, regulation, legislation going both ways. An example of balanced government that is not in our closets, our bedrooms, our refrigerators, or telling us what we can put there. Balanced government that is not trying to tell us what clothing we can wear or rather can’t, who despite differing views of the constitution, didn’t do something blatantly illegal and certainly not out of ignorance of the law. No democrat, liberal government is not big government, never has been; fairer government maybe. Conservative government is the big, over reaching, monstrosity many want no part of.                                   

###

Amid twin controversies involving healthcare, one regarding a new rule for employers and one embroiling the well-known Susan G. Komen foundation in a scandal, some people particularly women, have to marvel that yes, we are indeed living in 2012. All of this fueled further by the GOP presidential race becoming fodder for conservatives who now want to stand up and clamor there is an attack on religion by our sitting president; candidate Rick Santorum, fresh off wins in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri, saying we are losing the freedom of conscience. What sparked the heated words, an Obama rule that all employers must provide birth control in their health coverage regardless of if their religious organization has an objection to its use. Adding to the debate, the Susan G. Komen foundation’s decision to pull all donated funding from Planned Parenthood, as it could no longer support changing ideologies and demands. Angering members of the public further, a reversal of that decision some saying it was political, others saying they were bullied, one donator saying to the AP all of the good they stood for, had done was now tainted and she was pulling her support. While logical people try to understand how we get from health insurance guarantees a debate on the legality, morality of contraceptives and from breast cancer research, prevention to another haggle over abortion what is lost is the growing gap in healthcare. Between the employers who don’t provide any at all, to the battle to enact the previsions that kept insurers from dropping people the moment they got sick, to denying those with preexisting conditions; now individuals, families, especially women, have to contend with something else, restrictions on reproductive services, appalling in the 21^st century.

Yes if you are an employer you should have to provide a full range of health services, regardless of your religious compunction; because at that point, you are not just a charity, a church, synagogue, religious based hospital, you are an employer of employees, who may not share your rigid views on abortion, contraception, stem cell research and who are depending on you to provide health coverage that may one day save their life or that of their family. And where a doctor can refuse to perform a procedure on religious grounds, where people receiving care can be transferred out of a religious based hospital to one willing to perform the questionable procedure desired by the patient, employees don’t have that option first and foremost due to cost. Neither do people in today’s economy have the luxury of choosing where they work; they could easily find themselves working for a church, charity because it’s work, RN’s LPN’s, other medical personnel find themselves working in a religious hospital to keep their children in the same school, stay close to a support system, continue to live in the same city. Mergers of healthcare facilities can also mean you find yourself working in a religious environment that wasn’t one when you were hired on, and even with the high demand for medical staff, quitting isn’t so simple. Say your health coverage is better than that of your spouse, your child needs unique medical or mental health services only offered in select places or the program they are on is just starting to work, just starting to make a difference; changing insurance plans could detail all that, lead to substandard care compared to before with disastrous consequences. Independent of their religious affiliations these are places operating in a public space, many times with public dollars; to say nothing of this is already law in 28 states, meaning it isn’t a new idea. President Obama simply intends to make it uniform across all 50; a positive move considering a CDC poll revealing 99% of women use birth control at some time in their lives and 98% of Catholics will.  Also meaning, despite what the Catholic Church says, the main denouncers of this rule, women are still doing what is right for them.

Part of what makes this so important has nothing to do with contraception, abortion, reproductive rights, reproductive services of any kind; rather it has to do with preserving all medical options, avenues regardless of who is providing your insurance. If we continue to let employers opt out of providing, i.e. paying, for certain types of care based on moral beliefs where does that leave us tomorrow, 20 years from now, are we without blood transfusions due to no coverage based on the Jehovah’s Witness belief it equates to drinking blood? Are we without coverage for organ transplants because other religions see it as desecrating the dead, without bone marrow transplants for either one of the above reasons, children sans productive lives, cures for their disease gene therapy, treatments for sickle cell anemia, cancer because it involves stem cells, something everyone associates with embryonic stem cells whether they came from cord blood, or in more and more cases, the patient’s own body? Do we lose the rights to experimental treatments not just based on how costly they are carrying no proof of enhancing quality of life, saving life, but on moral and ethical grounds of people who aren’t facing the issue? With that said how long is it also before religious grounds becomes another clever way for employers all to avoid costs of expensive albeit lifesaving procedures?  Speaking of people whom these moral decisions are based on, many of them appear to need to acquaint or reacquaint themselves with the medical applications of contraceptives; they are not just for teens wanting to indulge in carnal appetites, not just for adults who want the same thing without the responsibility of potential pregnancy. The pill, arguably the most popular contraceptive, is used by teens to control acne, reasonably because it’s one of the safest treatments. Women suffering from mild PMDD (premenstrual dysphoric disorder) PCOS (poly cystic ovarian syndrome), heavy menstrual periods may find relief, alleviation of symptoms taking the pill. A verity of hormonal imbalances are also often treated with so called birth control pills along with complications from fibroids, pre-menopausal and menopausal symptoms like hot flashes. 

At some point we have to ask which is the greater sin; families that keep having so many children they need welfare and food stamps to support them, families where both parents are working a total of 5 jobs to keep everyone housed, clothed, fed and they really have no time to raise them? Are we really for engineering a situation that leads to more abused, neglected children let loose on society to become criminals, psych cases because parents who would have taken birth control had no access to it, being thus forced into a responsibility they didn’t want, couldn’t properly cope with?  How about over taxing the already strapped foster care system, a system known for causing kids to trade one form of abuse for another, a system plagued with people just in in for the money; now let’s add an influx of abused and neglected children the product of parents who didn’t want them, couldn’t do anything about having them, a foster system recently under attack for over medicating kids with powerful psychotropic drugs, using similar drug cocktails unsafe for adults, because it is a quick Band-Aid for the patients, care and stability of loving parents, something they can’t have. Is the goal honestly to make that worse because the Catholic Church says contraception is wrong, because our pastor, our church, religious affiliation says the same? Making it more insidious is this is not a debate about free healthcare for poor people, services provided by free clinics but allowing employee insurance, something people are no doubt paying a premium to keep, not to pay for not only birth control, but requested sterilizations, abortifacient drugs; meaning no tube tying, no vasectomies done on her insurance because it’s the better coverage, no morning after pill. How dare we even think about sending a bill to a rape victim, incest survivor saying we will pay for the ER visit, the exam, any procedures, but not the cocktail of STD preventatives, due to it containing the morning after pill. Something that is not an abortifacient, does not damage an existing pregnancy, only prevents pregnancy, just like the pill. How dare we say you have to carry the living, breathing consequence of a horrific event you had no choice in for 9 months before you can give it up for adoption.  How dare we demonize a pregnant incest survivor saying you can’t have an abortion even though the child could have any number of genetic issues, as result of being conceived from 2 first degree relatives, or didn’t Catholic Church leaders pass 10^th grade biology?

What about women with any of the aforementioned disorders and more; do we deny these up to 58% of people taking it the medical “birth control” when intercourse and pregnancy have nothing to do with it; do we likewise put others in the position of being in a committed relationship, being married and saying you can’t enjoy sex, that could lead to pregnancy because you have PCOS, we won’t give you birth control, won’t pay for you to tie your tubes and therefore the miscarriages, caused by an unhealthy womb, are on your conscience? Again are we honestly for creating more instances like Andrea Yates, cases of postpartum psychosis because we have a moral hang up giving people the tube tying they asked for; particularly mentally ill people who can’t handle taking the pill, who are set to get married, are already married but don’t want children, however they still want a healthy relationship as man and wife, including sex? Or by defacto saying no to them are we also saying, because you are mentally ill, are being treated for a chronic mental health issue you can’t get married, can’t be in a committed relationship because it might lead to sex and pregnancy? Is that seriously the implication, the message we want coming across? This is not Obama acting like a reigning king, usurping the constitution, only doing things by executive order because congress won’t act. This is not a battle for religious freedom. Nor is it the result of big government, the inevitable outcome when government decides it’s going to make healthcare decisions for you, for everyone, despite what conservatives claim. It’s a fight for women to have complete range healthcare; this is Obama making sure that happens. We are losing a freedom, but it’s not the freedom of conscience; it’s the freedom to be well informed, to make intelligent decisions for ourselves and our families, as opposed to going along with conservative, religious rhetoric, what national, world leader for your religious affiliation says on a subject this week, this month, this year, this decade.   

As for the Susan G Komen foundation, it appears the public was shocked to find the breast cancer charity was giving money to Planned Parenthood at all, but why they were giving it is what’s important. They were not giving it for abortions, Planned Parenthood’s most known portion of reproductive services, but for breast cancer screening, breast exams performed by a doctor, mammograms done where machines are present and referrals in cases where there is no machine in the facility. A referral, incidentally you must have to receive the test to begin with, no matter where it is done.  Remaining a mystery is exactly why Komen decided to pull funding from the controversial clinic in the first place unless it was politically motivated resulting from this being an election year, trying to win over conservative dollars from donators that might have gone to a GOP candidates election campaign or trying to get the attention of a GOP runner for president in order to call attention to the organization and get more funds in this still struggling economy. Supporters, would be supporters considering donations in light of the shift, represented in Komen’s first announcement suggest their motivation was to escape continuing bad press generated by Planned Parenthood being under investigation in Florida; while the reason for the reversal seems obvious, what is lost on everyone but the angry public is who this controversy short changes. No not just the unborn, the yet to be born but women looking basic, preventative health services. So if Planned Parenthood is the only women’s services, women’s specialty clinic in your area under the original decision you could have been denied everything from a breast exam, mammogram, to a mammogram referral for lack of money; under the current decision you’ll get your exam possibly, be diagnosed with breast cancer, but the research that could save your life will be stymied by a debate many women are calling ridiculous, nonsensical owing to the facts of what medical conditions contraceptives like the pill also treat.  

Maybe the solution is to get the politics out of healthcare, to have some simple rules applying to everyone regardless of religion, like most of our laws; no matter your religion you can’t murder people, steal things. But when this is exactly what President Obama tried to do, analysts are saying it might cost him reelection. Even his opt out option no longer putting the burden on religious institutions, instead saying insurance would provide it to women at no cost garnered uproar and whining; uproar from catholic leaders saying the compromise doesn’t meet their standards, insurance company representatives whining they actually have to pay for something, both complaining they weren’t consulted on the issue. One church leader appearing on Fox News admonishing the president for doing things geared toward reelection when what he needed to do was the right thing, but the right thing is to guarantee people all healthcare options no matter where they work. Because, for all the talk of rights, freedoms, religious or otherwise, the right to choose, the rights of women are once again pushed aside; just as you have the right to choose not to use certain medicines, refuse certain procedures, you and others equally have the right to use any and all medicines, procedures, techniques at yours, your doctor’s disposal in treating your disease, keeping you in good health. Just as women have the right not to use contraceptives in preventing pregnancy, to have a come what may attitude in what happens to their body in that regard; other women have the right to choose to use whatever contraceptives are on the market, prevent pregnancy in any medically approved way, including implanted devices and tube tying. Both things equally tied to allowing women to say what happens to their own body, something that shouldn’t change because you are biologically capable of bearing children.      

If you are a church, religious organization, perhaps you should learn to get by with volunteers not workers thereby avoiding the insurance conundrum all together. If you are a school, private, religious k-12 or college, university, consider paying your teachers and staff with donations then you can dictate what you will and won’t pay for in all aspects, the least of which being health insurance for employees. However good luck getting students to come to your school with no federal ranking, no standard battery of statistics comparing them to others, no accreditation. However if you are a hospital you must realize you operate in a public space, end up somewhere along the line accepting either government standards or dollars, translating into you’re just going to have to deal with the rules. Keeping in mind, no one is saying you suddenly have to offer birth control, abortion, sterilization to every patient walking through the door asking for it sans standard screenings before said procedures, only that the health insurance you provide to employees gives it as an option to women and their families. Neither is anyone saying religious entities, organizations, hospitals will now be required to shove these medications, procedures down the throats of women; it still remains a choice, their choice. Your religious school can still not offer free condoms at health services, birth control or anything else under that heading you object to, you can refine how you teach sex ed. k-12 with an emphasis on chaste until marriage, abstinence as pregnancy preventative; that hasn’t changed.  Returning to the Susan G. Komen foundation, here again we are losing the battle of the well informed, the intelligent decision because you don’t have to agree with their philosophy, everything they do to give money to some portion you do believe in. When you make a donation of any kind, you can earmark it to a project you want it to be used for, specific research, equipment, rendering most of the controversy null and void. But as a citizen, a donator you have to know that. It’s a sad say that we live in 2012, more than a decade into the 21^st century, have some of the most cutting edge medical breakthroughs and yet political conservatism, religious conservatism seems to be pushing us backwards, taking our rights not giving them, restricting our freedom not expanding it.  One final thought on religion, if Jesus were here now, I and many, could easily imagine him saying, there are some things I shouldn’t have to tell you.                                 

###

Beijing-based indie folk band Shanren has tapped crowdfunding launchpad and community RocketHub to offer a win-win experience for both audiences and fans on the band on their first North American tour this March. With a goal of raising $5000, the four-member ethnic rock band from southwestern China isn’t just accepting donations – they’re giving back to the fans as well.

Shanren Crowfunding RocketHub Campaign
http://rockethub.com/projects/5431-shanren-tour-shangri-la-to-north-america

Fans and audiences will be able to have first-hand experiences with Shanren, sharing the culture of Yunnan, an area thought to have inspired the Shangri-La of Hilton’s classic novel, Lost Horizon. With incentives ranging from limited-edition signed CDs and handmade ethnic instruments to private music lessons and even a dinner party with the band, the crowdfunding campaign will not only help make the tour a financial success, but will also create a genuinely interactive cultural experience for fans and audiences.

“Shanren sees this tour as an exchange – it’s about both sides being rewarded,” noted Shanren’s manager Sam Debell. “The band doesn’t just want to plays shows – they are creating an opportunity for fans to have a real connection with their culture through the rewards they’ve developed. They’re using the internet and crowd-funding to make the tour a financial success, and also to bond with the fans beyond the performance, especially Chinese ex-patriots and students. Shanren is going the extra mile to say thanks to their supporters, and it’s not just a gimmick – this is something that they are doing from their hearts.”

With their distinctive musical style, Shanren have been selected to appear at the Slacker Canadian Music Fest (the Slacker Radio-sponsored 30th edition of Canadian Music Week), which will be held in Toronto in March 2012 with 900 artists spread across 60 venues. The festival appearances will anchor their first North American tour that will launch at New York’s Pianos on March 6th and include performances in Brooklyn, Philadelphia, Staten Island, Hamden, CT, Pittsfield, MA, Arlington, VA, and Asbury Park, NJ.

Emerging from southwestern China, Shanren (山人, literally “mountain men”), a group of four musicians with members representing the Wa and Buyi ethnic minorities. Employing instruments like the xiangzi and qinqin (four-stringed plucked instruments) and xianggu (a type of drum), they play both original compositions and reworkings of traditional folk songs, adding touches of rock, reggae, and ska. While the band members preserve their cultural heritage and update it for a 21st-century audience, the result is a global dance party along the lines of Gogol Bordello, Manu Chao, or their countrymen Hanggai.

Since forming in 2000, Shanren has energized Beijing’s small folk venues and performed at Barcelona Festival Asia in 2010, MIDEM in Cannes in 2011, and Liverpool Sound City in the UK. They’re staple headliners at China’s major music festivals and have been featured twice on Hunan Television, reaching an audience in the tens of millions.

Contacts:

Eric de Fontenay
E: ecfont [AT] musicdish.net
T: +1-718-278-0662

Jennifer Conrad
E: jenniferannconrad [AT] gmail.com
T: +1-347-564-8137

Sam Debell (Asia)
E: unitysam [AT] gmail.com

T: +86 152-1027-0868

 Yes it has become a campaign trail staple smaller government, getting government out of our money, our personal lives, our decision making, giving all those things and more back to the people. However on the flip side many of our tea partier’s, current front runners, politicians hoping to transform government as we know it also herald states’ rights on an extended level, giving those in local control more say in what is needed for their area, their city, their town, with some strange, downright humorous results. Yet legal goings on in these places has been largely ignored, seen as a colloquialism to be tolerated, fodder for a good laugh. But what is missed in all of this is just how much of our freedom is taken by laws that should be removed from the books due to age and no longer having relevant application to laws that never should have been in place to begin with, because common sense dictates there is no need.  At least bans on smoking, a law in California putting 8 year olds back in booster seats, government recommended  regulations on salt are designed to aid the public’s health; however most don’t have that claim on their side. It goes beyond outdated, no longer enforced laws about where you put your horse on Sunday, your wagon, how and where you can wear your hat, silly laws about lending vacuum cleaners, apparently illegal in Denver or the Utah illegality of not drinking milk; in Hawaii it’s illegal not to own a boat, though the latter could be due to the state being completely surrounded by water and the need for emergency evacuation. And it goes to the slow and systematic removal of our freedom be that to make stupid decisions for ourselves, or simply to live our lives in the best way for us, our families, to something even darker discrimination, racism.

We see this played out in the microcosm of any educational institution public or private, K-12, community college or university; colleges calling the parents of intoxicated, drugged out students to deal with it rather than college administrators realizing the students aren’t the only people to have now joined the real world. Public schools banning hugs to cut down on harassment, banning Christmas as not to offend students of other faiths, dictating what parents can put in their child’s lunch to avoid allergens, choking hazards, the injury risk of the can involved in can fruit. Students who have been arrested, carted off to alternative or reform schools for doodling on a desk, the 6 year old arrested for sexual harassment, use of Swiss army knife on food equaling a stint in reform school, kindergarten boy guilty of kindergarten behavior severely punished under anti-bullying statutes; it seems every day there is a new headline about a school prohibiting something. Clothing is no different in schools from t-shirts with explicit images, language to those with alcohol or drugs, pushed up pant legs popular with gangs, the banning of yoga pants worn by one high school’s girls on the grounds the pants were too form fitting, too much of a distraction. The latest, a Pennsylvania middle school that banned the wearing popular Ugg boots because students were using them to hide food and cellphones, devices that are supposed to remain in their lockers during the day. Parents were mixed about the decision ranging from comments regarding students already wearing uniforms, implying they should just go ahead and extend that to dress shoes, to one parent pointing out she doesn’t have all kinds of money to buy her daughter lots of shoes to comply with the ban. Kids attending the school had different things to say, including that phones could be hidden in basketball shoes as well as other places. Must we say it, a girl’s bra? Some, similar to the yoga pants banning high school, planned to get a practical lesson in civil disobedience as they organized to wear the restricted items in protest.   

Again it is one thing to regulate schools perhaps more than society at large due to the fact you are dealing with the safety of children in a time where schools have become defacto parents for students who have none, whose parents refuse to parent or are either extraordinarily poor or poor at it.  Yet missed in all the uproar about shoes is the fact the phones are already not allowed in class; simply confiscate the phone, require a parent come get it and leave everyone’s footwear alone. Parents who have to continually come to school to retrieve the phone will no doubt take it away from them.  Once more regulations on smoking, purposed tax on soda, citizens hoping for tougher regulations on harmful foods, limiting the building of new fast food restaurants, like in California, demanding calorie counts for items be disclosed, adjusting insurance premiums according to lifestyle on a greater scale can be put under the guise of guarding public health. Unfortunately that society is shaping up to be worse than overprotective, micromanaging schools, quickly usurping the rights of adults to do the most benign things, a society clearly anti the very freedoms our country was founded on. Enter bans on “dirty dancing” style dancing in one town, dancing at all in another. Enter arguments over clothing worn on adults, not for a job, not in a church, not as a member of a specific organization, but just out in public. And what you have stumbled onto is bans on baggy, sagging pants as well as a new push in some states to prohibit the wearing of pajamas in public; the latter based on one Louisiana commissioner’s “shocking” Wal-Mart experience in which he saw two young men with loose fitting PJ’s “with their privates about to come out.” He went on to cite a lot of families and senior citizens shop the store on weekends, speaking to the local news reporter about the moral fiber of America being torn away. Today it’s pajamas tomorrow it’s underwear. Oh and they’ve tried that too in Yakima, Washington to name one city where they banned the wearing of thong underwear and see through clothing in public. While completely forgotten about are existing laws against public lewdness, actually exposing yourself. Our kids seem to have a better handle on civil disobedience and fairness than anyone over 30.

Note the commissioner mangles the acronym ACLU and becomes a terrific example of why we have an American Civil Liberties Union in the first place.

Instead we allow the enacting of openly discriminatory statutes targeting young people in the first instance; more importantly targeting a style that has become a symbol of culture and identity among black people, in the second case, along with perpetuating stereotypes that all people who sag their pants are gangsters, all people who wear these clothes seek to break the law, both equally untrue statements. Nevertheless the law stands. Similarly laws attempting to ban pajama pants is not only an assault against freedom of expression, freedom to exist no matter what clothing you wear, provided you are wearing clothes, it perpetuates stereotypes that people who do so are poor, slovenly, possibly mentally unwell, or, in the case of our commissioner, blatantly lacking in moral fiber, all unlikely. Going further are the facts and practicality issues surrounding these particular laws; fact one, you see more bare skin on a woman wearing an bikini than you do on anyone wearing any of these styles; men are not even required to wear shirts at the beach or in public. So it reads like the family values police overreacting because they saw the band of some guy’s underwear, the design of someone’s boxer shorts, not to be confused with their genitals. The Louisiana commissioner is reacting to something he nearly saw not actually saw, sending exactly the wrong message. Bringing us to something else, enforcement; how are you going to enforce such stringent rules, as much of the apparel that could be classified as pajamas only slightly differs from workout clothing used for jogging, yoga, sessions at the gym? Meaning are they going to accost people going to work out, jogging in parks and on trails; at the same time, are we going to do the same thing with people frequenting hospital for everything from antibiotics to chemo, because they are sick and may not feel like or be capable of getting fully dressed before seeing their doctor. What about people visiting the pharmacy, picking up cold, flu medicine from a department store pharmacy, obviously sick, obviously looking to get better, perhaps it’s the middle of the night and they’re getting fever meds for a child; are we really going to slap them with a fine, haul them to jail?

Speaking of discrimination, laws that target otherwise law abiding members of the public anti sodomy laws are not only openly hostile to the gay community, infringing on their freedom of choice to make decisions for themselves, but considering the backlash against gay marriage, republican office runners speaking out about contraception and even masturbation, it could be a growing threat to the public health. Now to their credit, most cities, municipalities, townships have seen fit to repeal said laws others simply don’t enforce them, but 18 states still do despite a 2003 decision striking down all such laws on a federal level; repeatedly ignored are established laws against public sex, prostitution, forcing someone into a sex act still qualifies as sexual assault, sexual battery, rape, depending on what occurred during the crime. Regardless loopholes and application of sodomy, or crimes against nature laws, also fly in the face of general anti-discrimination statutes unchallenged; example people fogging up their windows in a secluded area are likely to be ignored by police as long as they are heterosexual; homosexuals on the other hand are likely to be arrested under these laws, and though usually never prosecuted, are still humiliated, still out the money spent in hiring a lawyer not to mention the stress and strain of dealing with the situation. One couple was thrown out of a restaurant for kissing and told by police they could be cited under Texas law; when in fact they would have had to have been engaged in intercourse for a charge to be filed.  States use a provision in the decision saying it does not apply to minors, public conduct, prostitution to target teens engaging in homosexual, anal or oral sex. Others argue their current laws on prostitution say nothing about oral or anal sex and crime against nature laws are therefore needed to handle those instances related to prostitution.  Here’s how it becomes a threat to public health; below is a segment from an article dated August 2011 from equality matters .org regarding such laws that require those convicted to register as sex offenders, fact at least under Michigan and Louisiana state law, laws that are continually harsher on gay individuals than a standard prostitution charge for a heterosexual.

“Being forced to register as a sex offender can have devastating, life-long consequences for those who are charged under “crime against nature” laws. Ian Doe, a Louisiana resident who was kicked out of his house at age 13 for being gay and turned to sex work in order to survive, explained how being labeled a sex offender has undermined his ability to find a job and secure medical care:

DOE: And because of this charge, I can’t get a decent job now. I can’t do anything because of the charge … I’ve been everywhere trying to get employment. I’ve been — the minute they find out that I’m a sex offender or I’m a registered sex offender, they tell me “no thank you” or they’ll call me back or they’ll get back with me, and they never do. … I don’t believe that I deserve this kind of — this kind of punishment. I did four years in prison for this. While I was in prison for this crime, for this crime that I didn’t even do that –all I said was “fifty dollars,” and they put me away for four years. And while I was in there, I was raped by an officer, a federal officer of the law that worked at the prison who was dealt with. I also was infected with HIV. I go into prison, and I get infected, and while — and now I’m out here dealing with my health. I’m dealing with trying to get a job. … I don’t believe I deserve to be punished like this. I believe that this should be changed for many reasons. But for one, we don’t deserve this. I mean, it’s because all the lack of a judgment of one police officer to do something, so if he wants to put a prostitution charge or if he wants to put a “crimes against nature” charge on you. There’s no crime committed.” Additional ways it can become a public health threat when patients visiting their doctors refuse prostate or colonoscopy procedures because they fear their doctor may discover evidence of anal sex and report it to police; they are a married woman and don’t want the whole area knowing their sexual preferences. Others may not seek treatment for their possible STD or receive the wrong treatment for what turns out to be an STD potentially spreading it all the while, because the condition was in their mouth, a result or oral sex and they did not want to be fined, go to jail along with having the whole community know their sexual business; score one for small, backward towns in the United States of America.    

If we truly want smaller government then it is time to stop discussing the constitutionality of income tax, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, FEMA, the evils of the Federal Reserve, shouting about getting government out of our money and focus on getting state and city government out of our homes, our closets, our undergarment drawers and for god sakes our bedrooms. Getting those same entities and more to stop telling us how we can dance in a bar or equivalent establishment, pointedly not places where children and families are going to be. Hemming and hawing about standards, the standard is and always should be you have a right to smoke in your own home and retain your job. You have a right to reasonably affordable medical care no matter what perceived stupid choices you make about smoking, how many cheese burgers you eat or that you like buffet style restaurants. And right to life shouldn’t only apply to severely injured, disabled people on feeding tubes, the unborn but to availability of medical care as well. No matter what kind of pants you wear, underwear you have on, you have the right to be in public without the threat of police harassment; actual police are not the fashion police for a reason.

For those who think it is a case of it’s about time, I think you should get a copy of the B movie flick Demolition Man starring Sylvester Stallone and Sandra Bullock whatever your feelings on the actors, the acting and the overall quality of the movie, one will readily be able to pick up some disturbing aspects of the futuristic society, people fined public credits for foul language, the illegality of red meat, cigarettes, alcohol, along with regulation of sexual activity to virtual reality and procreation strictly to a doctor’s office. While this may sound like utopia to some people what is not so serine about this society is what happens to outsiders who only want the freedom to choose their lifestyle relegated to living in sewers, stealing food, eating rat burgers because it’s meat. Today we ban baggy pants here, pajamas in public somewhere else, thong underwear another place, dancing in this town, sodomy in this city, tomorrow who knows. And as we can see, small town governments are more notorious than their federal counterpart. Still don’t believe me, ask yourself this question you really wanna be the guy sitting on his couch in a kimono drinking a banana broccoli shake singing I’m an Oscar Mayer wiener,” the only thing that survived futuristic radio entertainment our old commercials. 

It seems every election season there is a debate surrounding at least one candidate and their wealth, one candidate and their Ivy League education, which candidate is telling the truth or most of it.  From how they made their money, did they inherit it, to how much they pay, or rather don’t pay, in taxes, to where they put their money; do they have any of it in offshore accounts, to who’s an elitist to who’s morals meet our standards.  This time around it’s no different and singled out is one Mitt Romney, republican presidential candidate, making headlines for flubbing a debate question about releasing his income tax returns, eventually saying he would do so in April, at tax season, when candidates traditionally do so. Earning flack for not doing it now so South Carolina voters can vote fully informed. Further raising eyebrows by disclosing he pays closer to the lowest tax rate than that of most Americans around 15% due to much of his money coming from investments rather than earned income. Analysts wasted no time pointing out he didn’t do himself any favors by also telling media he made some income but not much in speaking fees; not much being 374,000 dollars; opponents quick to jump on Romney as out of touch with poor, struggling people in this country, a cross between Gordon Gekko and Richie Rich. But is the depiction accurate; better yet, how does it differ from any other politician, running for any other office in recent modern history? Mitt Romney may be wealthy, ridiculously so by some standards, but so is everyone else running for office today, right down to the person currently sitting in the White House, also pegged the elitist in the coming election.

However in this case it’s who specifically is doing the calling out, among his political rivals, that casts suspicion on the finger pointing, coupled with their own actions; Newt Gingrich was one of the first to pounce on Romney’s pronouncement about his taxes using it as a moment to proclaim perhaps it’s time there was a flat tax rate for everyone at 15%. The same Gingrich making thousands in speaking fees himself, the same Gingrich, paid 1.6 million by now defunct  Freddie Mac, the same Gingrich who owed up to half a million dollars to a New York Tiffany’s jewelry store.  Many people would no doubt like to see his tax returns as well, that could very easily house bigger skeletons than the just released Romney returns citing 42 million in income over 2 years, 7 million given to charities or the 14% taxes paid because the income was derived from investments not employment. In fact that skeleton did come, when Gingrich’s contract with Freddie Mac was released showing he was not a historian as he claimed but as a consultant reporting directly to the top government lobbyist for the company; while he insists he was not a lobbyist for the mortgage giant, experts have been quick to point out the expanded definition of lobbying, as it applies to this situation, that includes preparation, research or assistance related to lobbying. Of course Gingrich is far from the first politician to stretch the truth or try to put their truth in the most favorable light; however, it is somewhat insulting to the voters to hear him decry super PACs, like he decries so many other things, while using one no less, go into town halls and say he wants to reform running for public office so the average person can do so, meaning taking the money out of politics, only to find out he’s no different than anyone else to ever run. It is equally insulting to hear his comments on work, food stamps and welfare, teaching the poor to work, get a job, get a better job, was part of a debate line, when he hasn’t held an average job in years, doesn’t remember what it’s like to live paycheck to paycheck, if he ever did. 

 Other political hay has been made about Mitt Romney having money in the Cayman Islands, a recently closed Swiss bank account; painting it as a picture of another wealthy someone stashing money away to avoid paying larger taxes. Despite Romney insisting that he pays the same rate there as he would here at home. Further Romney has been open about the tax rate he pays, and until the political and public outcry went forth, was planning to release his tax returns in April like several office runners have done before, according to tradition, something elections are steeped in. Unlike Mr. Gingrich who comes off as a person who thought he’d be clever releasing the contract, to compete with Romney’s disclosure, apparently thinking no one would notice what his job title was or what that meant contrasted with what he said, making it look like he tried to hide it. And don’t think this only applies to front runners right now; it is reasonable to assume Rick Perry’s wealth, allowing him to run for office, came from Texas oil, but no, not quite; make that Texas land. A series of well-placed land deals have provided him the opportunity to go from accumulating modest thousands in annual income to achieving numbers just over the million mark, though analysts strongly suspect his political influence and connections played a part in that.  Herman Cain was successful a motivational speaker doing dozens of speaking engagements having written at least one book and hocking another one while on the campaign trail. Give it another year or so and we will no doubt see a book talking about how race brought down his bid for the White House, not his womanizing ways, wacky tax plan or shaky foreign policy. Dr. Paul, now senator Paul ranks 105 out of 430 something house members in terms of wealth 75% of that coming from investments in real-estate, mining, income estimates in the millions.

People quickly forget, if they ever realized, that these people, political office holders aren’t making their money from typical means, your average 9-5 where they go into an office every day, work construction, push a broom, do accounting, telemarketing; neither do they have the typical investments average American’s participate in surrounding retirement, 401K portfolio investments tied to the stock market, whether we like it or not, something you sign up with via your employer and they make most of the decisions, give you possible stock options and you are at the mercy of the market. Instead public office holders, at least by the time they make a legitimate bid for leader of the free world, have bought land, have invested in real-estate. The only candidates having held anything close to a regular job in recent years are struggling runners like Rick Santorum and John Huntsman in the form of rental properties they of course collected rent from, but likewise had to maintain and be property managers of, translating into some sort of work the American people can identify with. Yet by the time they make it to running for president they have amassed wealth doing consulting work, sitting on a board of directors in Santorum’s case, speaking fees in the cases of both Romney and Gingrich, and a healthy dose of family money for Mr. Huntsman. As per what people have long both suspected and known, these are not just frugal people building a million over a lifetime, clipping coupons, living in what many would consider thread bare ways to buy a house with cash, cars with cash similar to couples featured on the morning shows. These are not people possessing a Dugger work ethic largely doing the work as a family; turning properties over for rent determined to do right by people. These are persons who have found smart, many would say, smart-alecky ways to make money using other people’s money; who have figured out how to make money without really putting in a day’s work physically, intellectually or creatively.    

Again it’s the conversations not being had; candidates are too focused on tax rates, tax returns paid and submitted by their fellow runners to notice not one of them has done anything illegal. At the same time no other politician currently running for office has used this as an opportunity to champion tax code reform, other than the president, so we no longer have a tax system rewarding millionaires, so the wealthiest among us are no longer getting tax subsidies in the form of home mortgage deductions spread across multiple homes, just to name one, and pay their fair share. No one, not even the so called Buffett rule, has put forth the idea that earned income, investment income it should all be taxed at the same percentage; if anything the break given to those generating earned income, as it means they are employed, not even Mr. more Americans need to work.  Instead the only thing said, apart from mudslinging, was the Gingrich suggestion of a flat 15% tax, a known boon for millionaires, billionaires, at minimum keeping their tax rate the same, lock step with republican rhetoric saying give the wealthy tax breaks so they can go create jobs. Forgoing the fact the uber wealthy don’t create jobs small businesses do; hints Obama’s state of the union comments on raising taxes for millionaires to give incentives to small businesses to be able to start in the first place.  Neither has anyone stood up for the average, struggling, disenfranchised American populous and put forth the concept making it illegal to place your money in offshore accounts, Cayman Islands, Swiss banks, whatever, whether you’re running for office or not, whether you’re a politician, the CEO of a mega corporation or a person who just won the lottery. Rather than opening that dialog, top competitors hoping to become our next commander and chief only look down their nose at the ones who do use legal avenues at their disposal for handling their money. And our closest to real work candidates have no shot at the nomination never mind the White House because of their bizarre, unpopular, unhelpful views. Mr. Santorum who believes part of solving social security is increasing our birthrate by disallowing abortions; one could guess on the premise more people would then be paying into it. Mr. Huntsman who wants to end capital gains taxes, virtually translating into the wealthy paying no tax at all, because they have no earned income.  

Once more sidestepping the real conversation was arguably the loudest candidate, former speaker Gingrich calling recent Romney attack ads, questions about his Freddie Mac contract and opposition from the establishment of his own party the last desperate attempt by the old guard to throw everything and the kitchen sink at him, because he intends to change the establishment. Yet, lesser of the two evils though it may be, people should be rooting for the old guard, perhaps republicans rooting for the democratic guard, because the old guard isn’t going to try to put our 11-13 year olds to work first as school cooks and janitors then relax labor laws everywhere so poor children get the short end of the education stick the moment they can earn money for their family. The old guard isn’t mocking desperate people on food stamps and talking about teaching poor people to work, as if they don’t know how, insulting minorities asserting they should demand paychecks instead. While ironically pushing grandiose, ridiculous ideas about putting a colony on the moon by his second term, no plan on how to pay for it though, as too many struggle to get by. Neither are they confusing food stamps with other programs trying to lump stipends for the disabled and mentally ill in the same category as welfare, also known as something to be gotten rid of ASAP.  Or his latest, what could almost be called racial epithet, in calling Spanish the language of the ghetto, parallel to pushing English as the national language of government; one could suppose in an effort to save a few dollars printing important documents in native tongues of immigrants. Because we wouldn’t want them to understand a citizenship exam or a driving test to get a job, before they could speak perfect English. Likewise off the table by establishment republicans upending Medicare Medicaid and social security for current or future generations, making working people, who’ve saved all they can all their lives, nervous. Nor is it just long serving members of politics and the Republican Party who do not want Gingrich as the GOP nominee, see it as a blight on the prospects of the party; many freshman along with woman law makers oppose him fearing he could damage the chances of republicans vying for lower offices across the country with his off the wall ideas.

Similarly are the long standing rhetorical claims president Obama is an elitist; all of the participants in the GOP primary are college educated, at nationally known institutions,  most holding MA’s, PHD’s or specialty degrees in law or medicine, people who, though they may have come from humble beginnings, have assuredly risen above them to notoriety and wealth. Fact is Joe plumber, now a symbol of working America, his tax bracket has never made it to the White House democrat, republican, independent or member of a lesser fringe party; none of them quit traditional day jobs to run for the highest office in the land. Leaving people with choices that are all essentially from the same pile wealthy, well-educated and yes pegged as out of touch with people who work themselves to the bone to get by, people worried about retirement or so busy just trying to survive they can’t think that far ahead. So as American’s we then have to choose who is right for us; the people who think billionaires create jobs ergo let’s give them more tax breaks, or the guy currently holding that sacred office who says, liar though he may be, trying to get reelected though he may be, people like himself making 250,000 a year or more should pay more in taxes. We have to decide do we want a leader of the free world unwilling to give up on clean, renewable energy, just because one company failed, a leader who says no harming the environment in small localities for self-reliant energy sources or those who want more drilling, more hydrofracking sans consequences. The question becomes do we want a commander and chief who understands the hard times and the welfare programs that separate us from third world countries or someone who mixes up their facts, puts largely government facilitated misfortune on the average person, who is so interested in competition he’d rather put people on the moon? Speaking of competition, it’s either a leader who understands global market dynamics and education or persons who think putting teens and tweens to work will do the trick, restoring local education control resulting in a hodgepodge across the country. The choice really is ours; pick your candidate.                   

That’s a version of what immigration law protesters’ signs say, trying to remind citizens in some of the toughest immigration areas that illegals, as they are often called, are still, first and foremost, human, deserving to be treated as such. A message that was reinforced when the justice department cracked down on Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio citing Maricopa County law enforcement had run afoul of the constitution, engaged in racial profiling, denied immigrants, suspected illegal Latino inmates, basic civil rights including medical care for those who could speak little or no English, punishments doled out to those who could not properly understand instructions given to them, even going so far as to detain one legal US Latino resident for driving without a license, who was subject to the same abuse before his residency status could be confirmed. While this is the most significant backlash against tough state immigration law, as well it should be, it’s not the only one; Alabama is now suffering the consequences of its own overzealous legislation, not just in terms of famers harvesting crops but in terms of drawing business to the state, as one Chinese company is considering backing out of their significant investment and a steel company has decided to wait until foreign workers feel more at ease in the area. But the latest, most shocking, immigration story is that of a 14 year old runaway who gave a fake name to police then was deported to the country of Colombia, given a work card and released to a work program there

Joe Arpaio is no stranger to controversy forcing inmates to live in tents, forcing males to wear pink, all effective, if non-conventional methods, considering the goal is to make sure inmates do not become repeat offenders, but the Arizona sheriff’s stance on immigration enforcement is something else when you talking about denying medical care and basic services to people who hardly speak the language, locking them in their cells with no access to food for up to 72 hours (it’s reasonable to assume that’s what is meant by barring them from the “canteen area,” for that time period) It’s something else when inmates are thrown into solitary confinement 23 hours a day for failing to understand commands in English, when inmates are subject to listening to racial slurs on the part of their jailers, when officers refuse to process request forms for services, mistreatment complaints just because they are written in Spanish. Worse police officials were compelling signatures, from limited English speakers, on forms stating they understand their rights in legal matters without interpreters. While this may all sound well and good to many, factoring in these people have been convicted of crimes, are suspected of committing serious offenses outside flouting immigration rules, the question must be asked, how many of these people are truly guilty of what they are accused of taking into account the tactics of their arrest? What details are being missed in handling limited or no English speaking persons minus translators? Just because you are guilty of being an illegal immigrant doesn’t mean you are guilty of all other crime, nor does it mean you forfeit your rights as a human being.     

According to the associated press his patrols known as sweeps have been under investigation since 2009; current investigative findings determining Latino drivers were 4 to 9 times more likely to be stopped than others. His immigrant smuggling squad conducted traffic stops without reasonable cause, detaining legal U.S. residents and rarely leading to smuggling arrests. Even went as far as to arrest groups of possible Latinos for gathering outside businesses but having committed no crime.  So who else is being arrested, jailed, possibly convicted without anyone getting to the bottom of what really happened? Next what about Latino victims of crime; our Arizona sheriff treats them no better than ones he has already deemed guilty in his mind, if the child sex crimes uncovered are any indication; in which this sheriff’s office failed to investigate 400 of such cases properly or, in certain instances, at all. However when higher authorities intervened they discovered 32 reported child molesters virtually ignored, despite suspects being named in the majority of cases bringing up questions of adequate policing within the Hispanic community. Further evidence painting Joe Arpaio and his office as an entity out of the old west, making its own rules and running rough shot over all else are his tendencies to arrest, jail, silence people who speak out against what he is doing, lawsuits filed against attorneys and other officials he doesn’t like, all falling apart before getting to court. Mr. Arpaio, according to press releases, calls the report “a sad day for America as a whole.” No what is sad is it has taken this long to rein in a rouge law enforcement power house along with his office; no, what is sad is this is how we are willing to treat human beings period, never mind ones whose only sin is being born on foreign soil but wanting to make a better life here. What is even sadder still is how much support actions like this have among the American public; how many will say good for him, there’s only room for us here now.   

Alabama has a different problem in their near blood lust to rid the state of illegal immigrants and their accompanying ills, they have forgotten how to treat legal ones, forgotten the importance of their foreign investors, not only for their economy but the national economy. Example, the Chinese company, mentioned in the opening, coupled with a Canadian one having spent 230 million on factories in Thomasville, creating 800 jobs in a town of 5,000 people, now the former is ready to back out solely because of the new law. The steel company is not writing off the US or Alabama, instead waiting for the day workers feel welcome to both work and reside their without the restrictions of such an oppressive legal maneuver. When you have off shore investors point blank telling you, you didn’t think you actions through you should know you have a problem, but are they repealing the law, no. Their only partial solution is a measure up before the state legislature in February making it a crime for non-citizens not to no carry their citizenship documentation, this after a German Mercedes businessman, here legally, spent a night in jail post traffic violation. And being without his citizenship information, presumably it took that long to ascertain his residency status. Alabama officials say they are only taking such a hard line on the issue because the federal government has done that poor a job on the matter; however, it took CBS news no time to point out the Obama administration has deported more illegal immigrants than any other. How many of those 800 jobs will be lost because of bad legislation; how many more jobs will never come to the state when word goes abroad about citizenship documentation regulations, when people in other countries hear about the reception, treatment received in Alabama and begin to think all of the U.S. is like that?

The problem, their law isn’t merely cracking down on the brown people characterized as working for lower wages, taking jobs from hard working American citizens; neither is it deporting the supposed criminal element certainly not working, epitomized as those likely to be picked up by police for loitering, trespassing, vagrancy, public intoxication, urination, exactly the kind of people you don’t want in your city, all the more so if they are not supposed to be. What it is clearly doing is driving away successful people who want to invest money in the area; people who are white, Asian, speak no hint of Spanish, arguably speak more understandable English than natives of the region. Not that their skin color should matter for a moment, or dialects should be mistaken for unintelligence,  but even of a visual, visceral level these are people who command respect, who are now nervous about building, expanding their business in states, cities, communities hanging out signs, physical or not, saying no outsiders welcome. Alabama in its thirst to rid themselves of the “undesirable brown people” detailed above have no compunction about the perceived harassment international would be investors might feel in encountering an immigrant hostile environment, how alienated they might feel being forced to produce citizenship documentation during a routine traffic stop. Better than spending a night in jail, yes, but neither should have happened; the man should have been issued a ticket for his violation, told how he could resolve it, pay the fine, or what office to visit for further information, instruction.

Added to that people should shutter when they hear that phrase, because something says we’re not talking about a simple passport, visa or green card, rather documents far more extensive, invasive and intrusive to people sightseeing, making an honest living, getting educated or running businesses in Alabama. Even if citizenship documentation requirements didn’t sound eerily like slave days and masters giving passes for slaves to be on the road, even if it didn’t sound reminiscent of passes in British controlled India to track and control native populations, even if it didn’t strike a chord similar to Nazi Germany and Jews walking around with stars sewn on all their clothing, how stiff a penalty are they willing to level on some tourist who accidentally left their passport in their hotel, students who left it in a dorm? Speaking of, it doesn’t take a psychic to know what will happen to millions, possibly billions of tourism dollars if innocent visitors, young college kids start turning up in local jail cells either because they didn’t know of the law or just forgot. Similarly what impression does it leave on the business man or woman settling fines, being booked; sure they may stay for the sake of their investment, but they will no doubt tell their home country colleagues to stay away. Continuing, do the police in Alabama have a plan, should the February law pass, to handle people whose documentation was left in a vehicle, purse, travel bag that was suddenly stolen; following currently employed logic, they’ll be locking up victims of theft for lacking proof of citizenship. Just another reason people shake their head, look at the south and wonder at its reputation shadowed with ignorance. 

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo playerHow does a US citizen, and a minor US citizen at that, get deported to another country; that is one of the many questions facing both the state department and the family of Jakadrian Tuner, a 14 year old runaway who gave a fake name when picked up by police for shoplifting. Apparently the name, Tika Cortez, matched that of a 22 year old foreign national illegally residing here from the country of Colombia; while immigration officials maintain they did everything to confirm the identity of the detainee they were holding, questions still abound as to how this 14, currently 15 year old, was mistaken for someone 22, how they managed to buy her story seeing as she spoke not one word of Spanish, and more compellingly how this obviously African American girl was taken for Latino. Subsequent interviews given by the family have led many of the public not to believe the young girls story that she was taken in by a trafficker, scared to call home for fear of shaming her family, or that she told officers her age and they didn’t believe her, that she tried to tell them who she really was and the result was the same, that she didn’t understand the deportation hearing. Adding insult to injury, once her identity was confirmed on the US side, both governments agreed she could be sent home, but the family would have to pay airfare; only after the news broke the botched deportation story was Jakadrian released from the detention center, that picked her up on behalf of the US government, and put on a plane.  Many have come to the conclusion that is what happens when you lie, when you are dishonest, there are consequences and yes, you could be deported, going a step further saying the girl was coached on what to say “so these people could get rich” was one comment on a related story.

Independent of kids lying, doing stupid things, this by far being one of the stupidest, and the ramifications thereof; it doesn’t preclude police officials doing their job and doing it correctly. Lying shouldn’t lead to the deportation of a US citizen to another country. What, they had no picture of this 22 year old illegal immigrant, no finger prints, no sketch artist wanted or missing poster, despite the real Tika Cortez having warrants? Then how were they supposed to find her or identify her once they had, considering if a 15 year old can give a false name, an illegal person picked up by immigration, fearing deportation certainly can. Other astute members of the public, along with the Turner family, justifiably chide the immigration department for believing her story taking into account she spoke no Spanish, possessed no accent consistent with where she stated she was from and didn’t look 22; next, a missing persons report, no doubt including a photo, was filed on Jakadrian with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, something immigration enforcement says did not come up in the investigation. Again, what they’ve never dealt with possible runaways; police don’t automatically start out in immigration enforcement. By the time they end up in such a post they have been around the block a few times, but it seems police only went by the name Jakadrian gave as hers. Bringing us to another point, outside this teen’s story, how many people of the same name there can be in an area; the name Tika Cortez may sound unique enough to average Americans, yet Huston has a heavy Latino population where such names are common. Looking at the shoddy job done investigating this case; had the young girls name actually been Tika Cortez, she could have easily been a natural born US citizen, a naturalized US citizen, a legal resident alien here with a green card, student or work visa, a tourist in possession of a passport, confused with a felon who then would still be deported unjustly.

Do we need a sound immigration policy, perhaps even immigration reform, yes, but most can agree none of the actions here constitute anything close to it. Adhering to immigration policies that support denying people civil rights, human rights only reflects poorly on us as a nation, reinforces our reputation as selfish, self-centered and cruel. Not to mention giving power hungry bullies like Joe Arpaio places of authority will taint even the best immigration guidelines.   Shunning international investors, coming off as inhospitable to persons just because they weren’t born here is egregious enough, but doing so to people looking to create jobs here, looking for a market for their product, is almost unforgiveable, especially in this economy. Making visitors feel welcome, making people feel free to work, thrive here provided they go through the proper process, obey the laws, which these people all seem willing to do, is critical to operating in the global economy, never mind leading it as America wants to.  At the same time treating minor offenses like traffic violations the same, regardless of immigration status, cuts down on feelings of harassment and ill will towards people far from home, and no matter if they are just a student, tourist or worker, doing us a favor by buying goods supporting their regional economy. Of course we need to deport illegal people causing mayhem, people who have warrants here or in their own country, yet it is equally important to confirm who you are deporting, to prevent embarrassments, tragedies like what happened above or worse. Because this is what happens in the zealotry of politicians not wanting to look soft on immigration, innocent people get caught in the middle and we lose both credibility and investment capital                                                                        

She is regarded as having bridged the gap between rhythm and blues and rock and roll, and is the winner of six Grammys and seventeen Blues Music Awards. She was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in 1993, the Blues Hall of Fame in 2001, and the Grammy Hall of Fame in both 1999 and 2008. Rolling Stone ranked James number twenty-two on their list of the 100 Greatest Singers of All Time and number sixty-two on the list of the 100 Greatest Artists

She’s singing now!!

IMN PR – William James :
St. Augustine, FL – The music industry is buzzing about the debut CD release by David Watt Besley titled ‘Believe These Eyes’, which upon listening will make a believer out of you! Featuring former Bon Jovi member Kurt Johnston and RPM member Barry Dunaway, along with a host of other top Northeast Florida musicians, David has created a unique sound. If you molded Cat Stevens and John Prine you would come up with David Watt Besley. Freelance writer Richard Wall says, “I really got the Cat Stevens influence, particularly in David’s singing style. But the songs have a newness to them; they are well written, telling his stories from the heart, along with some sterling accents on a solidly enjoyable musical foundation, which suits the material.” Inside sources say that ex-Bon Jovi Kurt Johnston contributes some memorable piano and guitar parts to ‘Believe These Eyes’. “He is a good friend and we have done many projects together through the years and have played a lot of music together,” says David.

Virginia-born singer/songwriter David Watt Besley currently resides in. In the mid-seventies David was part of the band Saucer, who were one of the first US bands looked at by Virgin Records. In the late seventies David played bass and wrote music with the NorthStar Band, one of Washington, DC’s most influential music groups. In the early 1980s David toured with Bob Margolin (Muddy Waters). In 1986 he joined his brother Ed Pickett and formed The Seiners, based out of Jekyll Island, Georgia and toured the southeast. In the early ’90s David joined the group Those Guys (several times voted Saint Augustine’s #1 band). The band also included Artimus Pyle (Lynyrd Skynrd) and Banner Thomas (Molly Hatchet). In 2009 he reformed Northstar with his brother Ed and signed a publishing deal with Shadow Mountain Music. In 2010 David put together The Big Lonesome, a group featuring some of David’s favorite local players and writers. During this time he also started a solo career simply called “DAVE”. Even though David loves to get together with Northstar and The Big Lonesome, he has found that his solo career is the most enjoyable – Dave and his music. Which leads to the release of his critically acclaimed debut CD ‘Believe These Eyes’; a CD that has been receiving praise from press and fans alike worldwide.

“There is no real concept behind the CD,” David explains. “It was just a group of songs I put together for my first solo release. A friend of mine called me after listening to ‘Believe These Eyes’ and jokingly said, ‘Stop writing songs about my life!’ Whatever is in my heart at the time comes out in my song lyrics.” David is currently playing select gigs in support of his latest CD release.

With longtime friend and co-producer Jim Stafford (Eclipse Recording Company), David had been busy over the last year and a half recording his sophomore CD ‘Hopeless Romantic’ to be released later this year. Along with Kurt Johnston and Barry Dunaway, who also worked with Survivor, Pat Travers, Yngwie Malmsteen and many other notable bands, David has used many talented people to record on ‘Believe These Eyes’ and his forthcoming release and is very proud of the contributions they made: Wayne Johnston, Rob Peck, Chris McVey, Ed Pickett, Woody Pernell, Rusty Springfield, Janine Newfield, Michael Howard, Michael Houpt and Marc Douglas Berardo. David also had two lifelong friends he played with in the ’60s, Jim Miner and Chuck Caudill, join him on the recording sessions.

Finally David had this to impart: “Music is my life, it is what makes my world go around. I have had the chance to hang with many great writers and players over the years. I have been blessed with a great audience that supports my music. There have been so many magic moments over the years. To me that’s what music is all about, sitting down with other writers and creating something.”

For more information visit www.DavidWattBesley.com

To Purchase David Watt Besley – ‘Believe These Eyes’ CD: www.cdbaby.com/cd/davidwattbesley

Press Inquiries: Glass Onyon PR, PH: 828-350-8158, glassonyonpr (at) cs.com

by INDIE MUSIC NEWS
The proposed U.S. legislation (SOPA/PIPA) that threatens internet is here! We are supporting a fight for freedom on the web and urge everyone to help stop this ugly bill! Internet protections are already in place and this bill goes to way to far and into a different level that gives government too much power over a medium that needs to be protected not censored.

There’s a bill in the U.S. Senate that if passed would put publishing freedom severely at risk, and could shut down entire sites at the whim of media companies. PLEASE GET INVOLVED!! MUSIC SITES ARE RIPE FOR ABUSE BY MAJORS.

Fight for the Future! created this nifty video to sum it up better than I can.

mozilla
https://donate.mozilla.org/page/s/SOPA?source=sopa_page

google.com
https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

wordpress

http://en.blog.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/join-our-censorship-protest/

Why Is the Media Ignoring SOPA?
http://act2.freepress.net/sign/media_sopa/?akid=3207.9891948.ld_j8b&rd=1&t=1

REPORT: News Networks Ignore Controversial SOPA Legislation
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201050008

please follow
#StopSOPA #fightfortheftr #sopa #pipa #smokesignals2: #OccupyWallStNYC #StndUpFightBack #musicgroupscom #indmusicnews