We must acknowledge that, while mobile access is better than no access, it is still not the equivalent of high-speed access from a computer. It is not acceptable for privileged, economically sound, techno savvy people to state that these two forms of access are the same. When you look at the reasons for the National Broadband Plan:
- health care
- public safety
- civic engagement
- access, organize and disseminate knowledge.
How is a separate and inferior point of access acceptable for a different socio-economic group of people?
…is a national organization working to build an inclusive green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty.
…is dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans through a clean energy economy. We work in collaboration with the business, government, labor, and grassroots communities to create and implement programs that increase quality jobs and opportunities in green industry – all while holding the most vulnerable people at the center of our agenda.
Really great summary of her story of leaving West Point in protest of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. I wish I had half her self-awareness and integrity when I was her age.
Obama is perhaps the classic case of the unloved office-holder trying to govern from the center and accommodate his liberal program to political and practical realities. By declining to pull troops immediately out of Iraq and Afghanistan or fight for a single-payer health plan or bring Wall Street to its knees he has lost the enthusiastic support of the moveon.org liberals, even as economically-anxious moderates and independents fall prey to misguided propaganda about a government takeover of the economy.
The subject of the post is the reinforcing cycle of political and economic stagnation. I was originally going for a quote about rising poverty and rising inequality (which I find to be shameful, embarrassing, and just plain sad for America), but the paragraph above is what stuck. I’m not abandoning Obama, but I’m disappointed. I’m also disappointed that a candidate that is sufficiently liberal for me is not going to get elected to so high an office any time soon, so I best return my focus to my local elections.
The DREAM Act — the acronym is for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act — was first introduced in 2001 by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). (He’s now an opponent of the bill.) The idea is to provide a path to citizenship for young people who came to the U.S. as children, some of whom don’t even realize they are not citizens until they try to get a driver’s license or apply for college.
Under the act, eligible students can apply for a conditional legal status for a six-year period. During that period, they must graduate from a two-year college, complete two years of a four-year university, or serve in the military for two years. (The military addition replaced community service, which some immigrants rights advocates have criticized.) At the end of the six-year period, they can become permanent legal residents if they have a clean criminal record.
If they have a clean criminal record. Too bad we have racial profiling going on and laws going into effect that make it a lot easier for an immigrant to accidentally pick up a criminal record.
Anyway, read on for the arguments for and against.