Illegal

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.

Dalits

A Dalit is an “untouchable” in India. As I was reading this article in the NY Times I kept thinking, kind of sounds like the gap between the wealthy and the poor here in America… and then this paragraph:

“Dalits still lag behind the rest of India, but they have experienced gains as the country’s economy has expanded. A recent analysis of government survey data by economists at the University of British Columbia found that the wage gap between other castes and Dalits has decreased to 21 percent, down from 36 percent in 1983, less than the gap between white male and black male workers in the United States. The education gap has been halved.”

I bolded the text to signify what stood out to me.

Read the full article here…http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/world/asia/indias-boom-creates-openings-for-untouchables.html?ref=world

notjustmythoughts.

 

Buying Congress

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.