Category Archives: Congress

Welcome to Life?

Posted on by
1

An exerpt from the article on: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/michelle-ugenti-arizona-rep-justifies-tuition-hike_n_1304731.html

“An Arizona House committee passed a bill last week that would require every student at a public college in the state, regardless of economic status, to pay a minimum of $2,000 in tuition.
As Think Progress noted, nearly 100 Arizona students attended the committee hearing to speak out against the bill, HB 2675, expressing concern that it would make it more difficult for many students to afford college. Rep. Michelle Ugenti (R-Scottsdale) responded bluntly in favor of the new measure: ‘Welcome to life.’”

I read this article a day after reading an article in TIME Magazine’s latest issue regarding Latinos (in Arizona) potentially “electing” president. (proper sourcing to come) In this article TIME was detailing the potential force behind the Latino vote and this potential is greatest in states like Arizona. Arizona is largely a Republican State with an abundance in the Latino population. The population of Latinos here feel they are Republicans on paper but that the Republicans don’t want them (their vote) and that they aren’t Democrats on paper, but that the Democrats do want them (this is a paraphrase of a statement by a Latino community member in Arizona).

Now, I’m not a political person. I vote yes. I believe it is important. If I want to voice my opinions well I better cast my ballot vote… so of course I follow things going on politically, but I don’t consider myself to be a largely political person. (Though I admit from my blog people often consider me political. But to me, this is just human nature. It goes beyond politics… it’s.. well this is something that should be ingrained in every human…I talk about things that are rights and equality based and that shouldn’t be political. It shouldn’t be up to a Republican or Democrat…it should…well it should just be.)

I digressed… now after reading the article in TIME and reading the article from Huffington Post I think to myself… well isn’t this pushing the Latino voter further to the fringes? The statement, “welcome to life” was made by a Republican representative. These are the sort of things that push people away. I won’t openly admit if I am Democratic or Republican because to be honest I don’t believe I fit neatly into either box. The vote should be based on who is the better person for the job, not necessarily by party. BUT what I will say is, if the Republicans are out-casting a HUGE number of voters it sure doesn’t look good for them.

Furthermore, on the equality side…really, welcome to life? Who says that, besides a mother to a child? The fact of the matter is $2000 a semester is unaffordable for some people and yet people believe there is equal opportunity for everyone. What gets me is, sure the opportunity is there, but how could it be equal when it’s out of the reach of many people?

notjustmythoughts.

Cross-ownership Ban

Posted on by
1

Still on the subject of Fighting for Air: The Battle to Control America’s Media by Eric Klinenberg

Dating back to 1975 the FCC had a cross-ownership ban in place that stated that one entity could not own cross own broadcast and newspaper companies in the same market. In 2000, the FCC revisited this ban. It was determined that if the ban were lifted the American people would suffer because there would be a lack of view point diversity. (This lack of diversity began to take hold of radio with the Telecommunications Act in 1996). The Tribune Company fought this with (as you may guess) MONEY. It went on a spending spree for lobbyist from 2000 to 2003. They tripled their spending during this time. It worked. in 2003 the ban was lifted to such a degree that one company could own 45% of a NATIONAL audience. (press release from 2003 http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/02/news/companies/fcc_rules/ )

Fortunately, to some degree, this was revisited in 2011 and Federal Courts urged the FCC to old cross-ownership ban. The some degree lies in the fact that even though changes were made the damage had already been done. Companies that seized the opportunity and gobbled up markets were “grandfathered in” and allowed to stay as one entity. (link to article regarding the courts and FCC http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/3rd-circuit-tells-fcc-to-rewrite-media-ownership-rules).

The FCC failed Americans in those (approx) 8 years. There is no turning back from the media conglomerates created during the years the ban was lifted. My question is, how is the being “grandfathered in” allowed to happen? The South had tried this with limiting Black votes with the Grandfather Clause. Is it just me that believes they are one in the same?

notjustmythoughts

1996 Telecommunications Act

Posted on by
4

Thanks to an old professor of mine I was introduced to a GREAT book, Fighting for Air: The Battle to Control America’s Media by Eric Klinenberg.

I do suggest you all to check out the book just because I think it is worth the knowledge.

Anyway, one specific thing I’d like to bring up is the 1996 Telecommunications Act which opened up the flood gates to American Radio. Prior to the signing of this Act, there were greater restrictions of how many stations of broadcast (and the level of their frequency) could be owned by one person/corporations. In the releasing of these restrictions companies bought up the air waves thus creating an atmosphere where competition was limited and insights shared.

What this means? Well if one company owns 1000 stations across the U.S in both large and small markets with high frequency reach, these 1000 stations will share one common mindset… the owners’. There will be limited perspecitives on a topic and a great deal of bias with the type of information released by the stations… In a simplier way: our media is being controlled in a manner similar to a straight jacket.

Is anyone else upset by this? The implications are vast.

“Illegals” Pt 2

Posted on by
1

And so the (mis)treatment continues…

While the president considers having a foriegn leader come into our country for care…this is what happens to those already here.

http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/01/immigrant_whos_disabled_after_work_accident_dies_after_deportation.html

Please read this article from colorlines.

notjustmythoughts

Illegal

Posted on by
3

Just had my mind blown….

First, let me say that I know meanings of words change over a period of time, but this one… OH HELL NO, this is just ANOTHER racist tactic imbedded in society.

So the word illegal, in the English language, originally refered to inanimate objects and actions… now it [also] refers to a group of humans (illegal immigrants), thus dehumanizing this group of people. When in fact, they are not illegal… their actions, which got them into the country were illegal, but they are not. They are undocumented. How can you be an illegal human… somehow counterfeit or not real? 

How did this one slip right by me?! I vow to never use the words illegal and immigrant in relation to one another.

Let’s start a movement and give back the human quality these immigrants possess.

Please tell me, notjustmythoughts.

Buying Congress

Posted on by
Reply

Is this really the first time someone has thought that people are buying Congress? I’ve been saying this from the very beginning. Congress makes strides for the rich, because ultimately they are the ones who have funded “them” (the representative/senator/president) getting into office. No money = no campaign train, which in turn means not getting your word out there, which in turn means you wouldn’t win. So you win with financing from people, but when wealthy people end up contributing more money combined than money from smaller individual donations you have a skewed perspective on winning tactics. It is no longer about the people of the nation, but rather the people with money that donated and how you can get more of their money and also keep them on “your team” going into the next elections…

What does this means? Well, dig in your pocket and come up with a little under 30K for a donation and you too might have a voice… Of course, my version of irony…

The Bronx median income is about 17K/yr … now doesn’t it kind of make sense as to why the Bronx is often the forgotten borough? And the average medium income is a little more than 26K… 

And even though this article in the NY TIMES (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/deep-pockets-deeply-political/?hp) is an opinion piece, I kind of feel like they make these stories “opinion” to undermind people into thinking it really isn’t so.

Check out the article. It’s worth your time. Notjustmythoughts.