Dear Meg Whitman

The Kanye Shrug doesn't work all the time, Meg. We know what you did...

via ABCNews:

California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman today found herself battling allegations that she knowingly employed an undocumented immigrant housekeeper, failed to pay a portion of her wages and then fired her in an act of political damage control. The charges come a little over a month before the November election.

At a news conference in Los Angeles on Wednesday organized by celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, Whitman's former housekeeper and nanny, Nicky Diaz, tearfully recounted how in June 2009 she was suddenly terminated by Whitman and her husband, Griffith Harsh, after she said she asked the couple for legal help to obtain U.S. citizenship. Allred also alleged that Whitman became aware of Diaz's undocumented status years earlier, but took no action. Whitman said the "charges are without merit."

Diaz told reporters that just a few months before Whitman announced she was running for governor as a Republican, the former eBay CEO fired her after nine years spent cleaning the couple's 3,700-square-foot home in an upscale Northern California suburb and shuttling their children to and from school and appointments.

"From now on you don't know me and I don't know you," Diaz said Whitman told her in the summer of 2009. "I was shocked and hurt that Ms. Whitman would treat me this way after nine years. I realized at that moment that she didn't appreciate my work. I felt like she was throwing me away like a piece of garbage."

At the current juncture of politics in the United States, the word politician and hypocrite are damn near synonymous. Especially with the emergence of the Tea Party and the so-called 'bipartisan' nature that the government is trying to engender, it's obvious that not everyone can be on the right side at all times. When it comes to election time, there ends up being a mad rush to clean up whatever muck can be raked up against a particular politician, most of it going on behind closed door meetings at the expense of lobbyists and donated dollars. That said, what happens when the political damage control just so happens to coincide with an issue at the forefront of that particular candidate's jurisdiction? Such is your case, Meg Whitman. As you prepare for election day in California, it's obvious your stake in the illegal immigration issue was much deeper than you wanted it to be.

Meg, I won't mince words: Illegal immigrants are everywhere. You know it. I know it. The American people know it. Yet, the major contention against allowing these people amnesty and asylum is that their place in American is more deeply rooted than most would like to admit. Meg, you knowingly hired an illegal immigrant in Nicky Diaz and had her in your employ for well over 9 years. By most employment standards, that's grounds for the job security AND respect that such a tenure warrants. Think about it Meg. If you had been working at a law office for 9 years and they tried to cut YOU off and disavow all knowledge of your existence for superficial political purposes, how would you feel? My guess is you'd probably file suit, go to the media and make a huge deal about it, much like your former housekeeper is doing now.

See the thing is, Meg, as a Republican candidate, you're walking a thin line here. Do you continue the status quo of using your power to manipulate other lives as you see fit, or do you stand by your party's platform of 'kicking all of the wetbacks illegal immigrants out'? They say no slave can serve two masters. Well, no political candidate can stand by two contradictory doctrines, especially on such a polarizing issue. Why try and hide the obvious, Meg? The role of illegal immigrants is as cemented in this country as is apple pie and fried chicken. You've got 9 years of faithful service to prove that, and I'm sure half of your party and cabinet have just as much if not more. I shudder to think how long it would've taken for this to get out in the open had Ms. Diaz not opened her flap.

SIDENOTE: Since TMZ is the one who reported Ms. Diaz's gripes, albeit in a professional manner, can we finally admit that, while cutthroat in their research, blogs are a legitimate source of breaking news?

Look, Meg, it sucks that you were caught with your hand in the cookie jar that your party's been trying to put on the high shelf for years now. Don't try to deny it, now that your candidacy is at stake, and certainly don't do it as a last ditch effort to cover your party's ass. That, in and of itself, would be just as hypocritical...

Dear Arizona (re: 'Anchor Babies')

via CNN:

A proposed Arizona law would deny birth certificates to children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents. The bill comes on the heels of Arizona passing the nation's toughest immigration law. John Kavanagh, a Republican state representative from Arizona who supports the proposed law aimed at so-called "anchor babies," said that the concept does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

"If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens," said Kavanagh, who also supported Senate Bill 1070 -- the law that gave Arizona authorities expanded immigration enforcement powers. Under federal law, children born in the United States are automatically granted citizenship, regardless of their parents' residency status. Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic state representative, strongly opposes the bill.

"Unlike (Senate Bill) 1070, it is clear this bill runs immediately afoul of the U.S. Constitution," she said. "While I understand that folks in Arizona and across the country support S.B. 1070, they do so because we have seen no action from the federal government," said Sinema. "Unfortunately, the so-called 'anchor baby' bill does nothing to solve the real problems we are facing in Arizona."

I guess if the Deep South was the front line of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's, then Arizona is set to become the front line of the illegal immigration debate of the 2010's (how do you say that, by the way? twenty-tens or tens?). You, as a state, never struck me as a bastion of conservative ideals until I figured out that John McCain was from there. Yet, lately, you've been about as far to the right as can be, at least when dealing with immigration. I've got a few bones to pick with you about this whole new issue, though. Here goes:

1) The whole issue of illegal immigration is completely subjective. The people who were essentially illegal immigrants in the 1800's when the state of Arizona (and it's surrounding areas) are now going after the 'illegal immigrants' of today. That doesn't sit well with me, Arizona. Your majority (soon to be minority, thanks to immigration) is like the Monopoly player everyone hates: they change the rules when it suits them to win. Why is it cool for the United States to shanghai another sovereign nation's land almost 200 years ago by just waltzing in, but when people come here looking for a better life, and actually help the economy, it's a problem? As a matter of fact, bump immigration out West. What happened to the first settlers in the US? The Pilgrims didn't have green cards or naturalization forms when they landed on Plymouth Rock and started scalping Injuns. The truth is, America was built upon the idea of expanding and sticking it's nose into locations and regions that it had no business in, all for the sake of a better standard of living. Why are you denying people that, now that America is in a position to provide that standard?

2) Since when does a state's legislation hold stronger than federal legislation that's been the standard since our nation's birth? The Civil War made it so that states ultimately have to kowtow to the federal government in matters of legislation. Why then, Arizona, do you think it's cool to just try and get around that? The Constitution states that anyone born on United States soil is automatically a United States citizen. Point. Blank. Period. And that's regardless of any affiliation that their parents have, or where their parents' legal jurisdiction lies. It's just the law, and there should be no way that you can get around that. Children, regardless of who their parents are shouldn't be turned away. Don't sit there and call them 'anchor children,' as if they crawled out of their mothers' wombs thinking: 'Hell yeah!! Now I can help my illegal immigrant parent stay in America, take up its resources and destroy its infrastructure!!' C'mon son... You're making the most innocent party, the children, into another villain, and it is SICK to say the least...

3) Last month it was a new racial profiling law that allowed police to question, arrest and detain anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrants (inherently racist). This month it's denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, even if they're born on US soil. Is it just me, or are you just trying to set up a Japanese internment camp-style system in Arizona? Because that's what it seems like. The next thing you know, anyone who looks like and illegal immigrant will have to have a number and a curfew. Before long, they'll be carted off to their own district, somewhere between Hell and a Tea Party Convention, where they'll be under military surveillance. And for what? Walking across an imaginary line protected for no reason. Of all rules to enforce, that seems to be one of the more arbitrary and less well-founded of all...

Look Arizona, I'm not saying illegal immigration is completely right. Sovereign nations have a right to protect their borders and the resources of their nation from being wasted. But when you have as many as 20 million illegal immigrants living in the US, some thriving, and many helping the economy with their labor (minus taxation), there's no reason to fight that. Rather than treat them as subhumans, you should find a way to legally integrate them. I mean, what is so hard about granting amnesty? Or better yet, what's really that special about a Green Card that it's so hard to allow immigrants to have one? My guess is that the 'red-blooded Americans' don't want to see an immigrant get a job over them. Yet, all other things being equal, if the immigrant is better, then that's just tough. Arizona, you need to stop letting your citizens and the state dictate what makes someone legal or not, because for as much trouble as you say illegal immigration is, it helps the nation just as much...

Dear Phoenix Suns

via Bright Side of the Sun:

In an extremely bold move, the Phoenix Suns as an organization made a strong political statement in opposition to the recent Arizona immigration bill. Discussions on taking action began last week after the bill passed, with an idea that came from Robert Sarver, Managing Partner of the Phoenix Suns. According to Steve Kerr, the team discussed it internally before going to the league for approval to both wear the 'Los Suns' jerseys, but also to come out publicly in this way.

Kerr said both the NBA and the San Antonio Spurs were fully supportive of the Suns move. Ultimately, the decision was left up to the players, but in a locker room led by Steve Nash, it is no surprise how that turned out.

"I think the law is very misguided. I think it is unfortunately to the detriment to our society and our civil liberties and I think it is very important for us to stand up for things we believe in," Nash said of the bill. "I think the law obviously can target opportunities for racial profiling. Things we don't want to see and don't need to see in 2010."

I've always got on the NBA for too often taking the more conservative of stances when faced with polarizing issues. Whether it's a restrictive dress code, off-the-court conduct or what have you, the NBA has typically leaned toward the safer choices, keeping their stockholders happy and their players placated. That's not the case for tonight. I'm proud to say that you, the Phoenix Suns have taken a stand against Arizona's SB 1070, which is amicably being called the 'Racial Profiling Law'. Political stances aside, I think that you as a franchise are doing the right thing. Not only does the NBA have a major Hispanic population in the playing ranks, you have two of the more recognizable Hispanic faces in the league in Leandro Barbosa and Robin Lopez. Neither of them are winning MVP anytime soon, but in a state who's Hispanic population is growing faster than that of any other cultural group, that's big. Your franchise is in the 2nd round of the NBA Playoffs, and while there are bigger fish to fry, it's nice to see that the cultural issues of this sometimes idiotic country are on your minds too. It also doesn't hurt that you guys are playing another team with Hispanic fans. Hopefully Los Spurs end up getting destroyed by Los Suns...

Dear Jan Brewer (re: Arizona Immigration Reform)

Photoshop in an Arizona police badge and we have the same scene...

via The Washington Post:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law Friday the most restrictive immigration bill in the country, setting the stage for a showdown with the Obama administration and reigniting a divisive national debate less than seven months before congressional midterm elections.

Brewer, a Republican facing a stiff primary challenge, said she had no choice but to act because Washington's failure to address the issue had effectively left border protection to the states. "We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," she said, as hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside her Phoenix office. "But decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created an unacceptable situation."

Even before it was signed, President Obama criticized the Arizona law, which requires police to question anyone who appears to be in the country illegally. Obama called the effort "misguided" and directed the Justice Department to monitor its implementation, warning that it could violate citizens' civil rights. Immediate legal challenges were expected from outside groups.

There is a huge difference between protecting the interests of the many and protecting the ignorance and small-mindedness of the few. That said, in a lot of states below the Mason-Dixon line and under the influence of Republicans, the ignorance of the few seems to reign supreme. Governor Brewer, I always thought Arizona was towards the forefront of a cordial relationship with immigrants, particularly those from Mexico. However, with this new bill focused on immigration, I can see that you and your state are about as bass ackwards as Glenn Beck attending an NAACP meeting. You see, by throwing this piece of shit legislation out, you're more or less saying to every non-white immigrant 'You are not welcome,' regardless of whether they are legal or not. This new bill doesn't enforce anything other than your own insecurities that in another 20 years, whites will no longer be the majority in your state (or much of the Southwest US, for that matter). What's the matter? Afraid that the popular vote might not swing your way again? Well, with laws like these being enacted, your hold might be a lot shorter than you think.

I mean, really.. Do we have to take it back to Nazi Germany, where any person remotely varying from the German ideal was asked 'Where are your papers?' Is that what misunderstanding and ignorance about other cultures have driven you to? Unlawful searches and unwarranted stops? By enacting this law, you're essentially giving the police the green light to racially profile people. Not that racial profiling wasn't an institution already, but I suppose having it on paper makes it all the better for you guys. Civil rights and general parity in the reach of the law don't matter when you've got a bunch of day-laborers immigrants to keep from adding to our GDP bogging down our infrastructure. You tell those wetbacks to stay on their side! And if they try to go out without identification, you arrest them and hold them for unlawful reasons! I wonder how long until they legalize racial profiling up here...