Immigrant Marches & Border Walls

Perhaps in no other issue in American politics is the Bush Administration’s contempt for the rule of law and the decency of people more evident than when it comes to immigrants and immigration.

All the more reason that this May Day is important for everyone to support pro immigrant marches to show that Americans still believe in the rule of law and spirit of the constitution even if the Administration does not.

On May Day 2006, the undocumented immigrant community startled the governing class by marching en-masse in the millions across America’s cities. Got things so stirred up that local governments have been trying ever since to outlaw immigrants almost any way they can. Although it is still playing out in the courts, the local anti-immigrant movement still rests on the shifting sands of hate, fear and uncertainty.

The Bush crowd knows their days are numbered and they are taking it out on immigrant workers and their supporters.

For example, DHS Secretary Chertoff has brushed off dozens of federal laws as he endeavors to leave a seven hundred mile trail of broken fence segments along the Mexico border. This corporate boondoggle for Boeing has already proven itself a failure and yet the attack on Latino and Native American border communities continue.

Chertoff and Boeing are in the process of dividing the Tohono Oodham Territory nears Sells Arizona, dividing families, persons from employment and destroying sacred lands. They are also in the process of condemning personal property of land grant families in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. This is land that has been in these families for more than 200 years and is now in the process of being destroyed for a fence that will not work.

Bush Co cares as much for effective border control as about respecting the rule of law. In the meantime its time is spent whipping up nativist fears which benefit its corporate partners.

By marching and speaking out this May Day, the immigrant community could send the message of “Basta ya.” It is time to go.

Hillary’s “Testicular Fortitude”?

Women must be very proud. The first serious woman candidate for the democratic nomination since Shirley Chisolm in 1972 seems tickled that two recent endorsements also happen to accentuate her “testicular fortitude” and the fact that she is not a “pansy.” quite a tribute.

The physiological component to the first comment is something only Bill really knows anything about and he’s not talking. The fact that she is not a pansy is, well, homophobic, isn’t it. And she stood proudly by and accepted these endorsements, making her, i presume, a homophobic transgendered, or hermaphrodite candidate for president?

Or perhaps presidential candidates need not embody the characteristics ascribed them by their supporters. Perhaps endorsements should be seen for what they are, metaphors, rather than literal ascriptions of personal characteristics. (and, perhaps the candidate need not have to be responsible for everything an endorser says). If a metaphor, then she sure is one tough lady. Perhaps such a personna was necessary for Margaret Thatcher in the 1970s and 80’s, but is this ‘tough guy’ image thing really necessary now in a 2008 pomo universe?

I have seen my wife give birth, twice. I’d say, ovarian fortitude trumps testicular fortitude any day of the week. and it sure would get my vote.