A peaceful March is being called by the Citizens Against the Border Wall starting Wed. Aug 27 through Sunday Aug 31, 2008. They have asked all PRO Bloggers to help announce this event and ask all citizens that oppose the Border Wall to March in Peace with them.

Here is a breakdown of the August 27-31protest march against the border wall.
August 27(Wed). Kick off cultural event in Fort Hancock.
August 28 (Thu). From Fort Hancock, walk to Alamo Alto.
August 29 (Fri). From Alamo Alto, walk to Tornillo, hold community event. End in Fabens.
August 30 (Sat). From Fabens, walk to San Elizario, hold community event. End in San Ysleta del Sur with the Tiguas community.
August 31(Sun). Morning ceremony in San Ysleta del Sur . Then to El Paso. After arriving in El Paso, a bi-national event will be held in Anapra, Chihuahua and Sundland Park, NM.

For More Information about the March, contact Javier Perez (915) 474-4930 or via email chamucos00@hotmail.com

Via / Immigration Talk from a Mexican American

Having said that, lately I've been noticing a more and more frequent trend: retards voting for Obama for all the wrong reasons. Yes, John McCain does look like a little bit of a baby when he complains of the celebrity treatment that Obama's been getting, but you have to admit that there's a certain degree of validity to what he's saying. I feel like it's become hip to be pro-Obama, and I can't shake the feeling that a lot of people in November will be voting for him not because of his political positions but because of his rockstar status. Enough people to make a difference between winning and losing? That I don't know, I think it'd be interesting to find out though.

I don't know what exactly it is about Obama that's making him so popular. Skin color, age, looks, charisma? Maybe a combination of them all? Maybe he just got lucky, he became cool somehow and once you become cool it's very hard to become uncool. What I do know for sure is that I'd rather have McCain win because informed people simply voted for a general ideology I don't tend to agree with, than have Obama win because “omgz he's teh shits!”

Thoughts?

August 29 will mark the three-year anniversary of a hurricane that killed thousands of lives in Southern U.S. and left thousands more in extreme poverty. Both presidential nominees Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama made stops during their campaign and paid visits to the area most affected by Katrina: New Orleans. During their visits, three bloggers paid close attention and formed opinions.

Benito García Pedraza of Madrid, Spain, wrote in his blog the comments that McCain said during his tour earlier this year.

“ ‘We need to go back to have a conversation about what to do [about Ward 9 in New Orleans]: rebuild it, tear it down, you know, whatever it is.’ That was John McCain’s statement when he toured hurricane-damaged New Orleans recently. Three days later, the Senator said he didn’t remember saying that.”

Pedraza further notes that McCain didn’t support many of the relief efforts recommended for those affected by Katrina.

“I wonder if Sen. McCain has also forgotten his voting record on Hurricane Katrina, a record that suggests that he was part of the problem, not part of the solution. I trust Gulf Coast voters won’t forget. During his recent tour, Sen. McCain criticized both the Bush Administration and Congress for its handling of the disaster. Lamenting the pace of recovery, Sen. McCain said, ‘I want to assure you it will never happen again in this country. You have my commitment and my promise.’ But Sen. McCain voted against establishing a Congressional commission to examine the Federal, State, and local responses to Katrina in September 2005. He repeated that vote in 2006. He voted against allowing up to 52 weeks of unemployment benefits to people affected by the hurricane, and in 2006 voted against appropriating $109 billion in supplemental emergency funding, including $28 billion for hurricane relief.”

On the other side of the world, in Australia, Rossi the Aussie writes in her shared blog ReBelled Nation, about McCain’s many homes compared to those who were forced into foreclosure. She further examines where McCain was when Katrina paid America’s South a visit, by simply posting a picture of McCain and Bush having cake. On the bottom of the picture, lies the question:

“Where were you on August 29, 2005?”

Meanwhile, Ricardo Valenzuela of Mexico (like many other bloggers) doesn’t question where Obama was during Hurricane Katrina or his support of federal aid to those that needed it. But, he questions, in his blog Intermex Power, whether Obama and the Democratic Party will be able to successfully win the election, as many Americans (even some Democrats) doubt his abilities and if he does become president, will he be able to fully emphasize with the low and middle-class Americans?

Valenzuela ends his post saying:

“That [empathizing with low and middle-class Americans] could also help heal the wounds of the Democratic Party, which, after the bitter contest and Mr. Obama’s narrow victory, are still raw. If the Democrats remain divided they will lose the presidency. Were that to happen, after Iraq, Katrina and an economic crisis, they might well want to consider an alternative line of work.”

Speaker One: The illegals drain our economy and suck up all our resources!

Speaker Two: Undocumented workers pay millions of dollars into the system but rarely get much of anything out of it.

Here's nice summery of such a discussion all done up neatly in letter format.

My question: Since this debate pretty much reduces undocumented workers to the equivalent of the beat up car out front that is next in line to be towed away (should you let it be towed or pay the fines to keep it?), I really have to wonder what the purpose of the debate is and why immigration rights advocates keep engaging in it.

Is there a different way to consider the benefits of immigration?
What do you think?

SciDev.Net's conference blog reports that:

“An issue widely discussed in the AIDS 2008 conference is the fact that several countries deny the entry, stay or residence of HIV-positive people because of their HIV status.

According to the publication Entry denied, published by UNAIDS in partnership with other organisations and distributed at the conference, at least 67 countries are on the list of those that deny the entry to people living with HIV/AIDS.”

Mexico, where AIDS 2008 was held, has no traveling restrictions for people with HIV/AIDS, but 65 or so other nations enforce some degree of restriction on the estimated 33 million people living with HIV globally. Seven nations, according to the European AIDS Treatment Group, impose a complete entry ban on HIV-positive people: Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Sudan, South Korea, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Countries with such restrictions often argue that it helps protect public health and avoid costs associated with treating HIV-positive people from other nations.

David Cozac, who blogged about the human rights sessions at AIDS 2008, says that experts disagreed with such arguments.

“During a session on travel restrictions for people living with HIV, participants decried the fact that although there is no evidence that travel restrictions have a positive public health impact, 67 countries still have restrictions in place.”

One of the countries with such restrictions is China. Despite hopes that China would lift its HIV-related traveling restrictions before the Olympics, the country has maintained them, even during the games. Under their current regulations, tourists and short-term visitors must declare their HIV status, and those planning to stay long-term must undergo a blood test; if found to be HIV-positive, they are refused entry.

Denise Patterson, blogging from Thailand, comments on China's ban of visitors with AIDS and other health conditions during the Olympics:

” A ban on people with mental illnesses or sexually transmitted diseases? That is very amusing. If the Chinese government believes they can control every aspect of the Olympics, they are sadly mistaken…

… According to 2007 statistics, published by the World Health Organization, the HIV/AIDS rate in China is 2.9% of the population. The ‘ban' doesn't seem to be working.”

However, China may be responding to the pressure. China Daily reports that Hao Yang, deputy director of the ministry's disease control and prevention bureau, told the publication at AIDS 2008 that the two-decade-old HIV/AIDS travel ban will likely be lifted in 2009.

China may be following America's lead for change. In July U.S. President George W. Bush signed legislation to repeal the statutory ban on entry into the U.S. for HIV-positive tourists, students, and immigrants, taking the first step needed to eliminate the ban. However, for the ban to be completely lifted, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must now remove HIV from a list of diseases that prevent people from entering the U.S. HIV is currently still on the list.

Kevinf, posting on ToTheCenter.com, writes about the positive reaction to this repeal.

“Many AIDS experts and rights activists find the new legislation to be a cause for celebration. Previously, travel restrictions could cause more trouble than they prevented, causing people with HIV to lie about their condition. It was discriminatory and would also lead to many of the infected to lie.”

David Munar posts this video of Rev. Christo Greyling of World Vision International, where he discusses why such travel bans are detrimental and raises questions about the U.S. repeal.

LauraK, blogging for AIDS 2008's youth site, warns that the U.S. repeal is a major step, but not the final one.

“It is now up to the Secretary of Health to change regulations to reflect the new legislation. HIV must be taken off of the list of diseases that mean inadmissibility to the United States, but Congresswoman [Barbara] Lee is confident that this will happen soon.”

She goes on to share how such travel restrictions have impacted those with HIV, as she witnessed at an AIDS 2008 questioning period.

“One man came forward to express the sense of betrayal felt by those forced out by the restrictions, he had personal experience as a US citizen living in Canada with a partner who is HIV-positive. He still loved his country, he told the panel, but he was ashamed and angry with his government for initiating the repressive legislation that forced him to choose between his country and his partner, as well as for taking 20 years to address it.”

Photo of Red Traveling Suitcase by tofutti break on Flickr.

The incident began unfolding about 10 p.m. Tuesday, when an officer with the federal agency on patrol near the 300 block of Virginia Avenue spotted three or four people attempting to scale the south side of the border fence, according to San Diego police.
The agent fired a pepper-ball gun "in the direction" of the would-be illegal immigrants in an attempt to get them off the barrier, said Lt. Terry McManus of the SDPD Homicide Unit, which investigates all officer-involved shootings in the city.

Moments later, stones "larger than softball-size" and other debris began landing near the agent as he sat in his patrol vehicle, McManus told reporters during an afternoon briefing.

"He believed he was being attacked -- he, in fact, was being attacked by individuals on the other side of the border," the lieutenant said. "They were throwing large rocks, boulders, and in a couple of instances, pieces of concrete block towards him."

Post extendido - Leer más 'U.S. Border Patrol Reacts to a Rock With a Bullet Into Mexico'...

Unfortunately, Martinez has been using the social security number of a deceased person since she's lived in the U.S. It's her use of the social security number that has got her in all sorts of trouble now, even though she may not have even known that her number was not hers:

Martinez, who was arrested in the library, is charged with four federal felonies, all related to what authorities say was her use of a dead person's Social Security number. If found guilty, she would face several years in prison before being deported.

Post extendido - Leer más 'Using Private Health Information to Target Workers'...

This “humorous” Stoplight video from Focus on the Family asks people to pray for “torrential, small-stream-flooding, an umbrella ain't gonna help you rain” on a specific time and place.
No, not any of the California fires. Denver, over the stadium where Barack Obama is set to deliver his nomination speech, that very night.

Speaking directly to the camera, Hilton woos the American public saying:

“Hey America, I’m Paris Hilton and I’m a celebrity too, only I’m not from the olden days and I’m not promising change like that other guy. I’m just hot!

But then that wrinkly white-haired guy used me in his campaign ad, which I guess means I’m running for president. So thanks for the endorsement white-haired dude, and I want America to know I’m, like, totally ready to lead.”

The hotel heiress, better known for partying than politics, describes McCain as “the oldest celebrity in the world, like super-old, old enough to remember when dancing was a sin and beer was served in a bucket.” Hilton talks about her plans for the energy crisis, appoints her Vice-President and leaves a message for Obama and McCain: “I'll see you at the debates bitches.” Needless to say, this is a spoof ad, though reactions have been strong with many having a good laugh at the video as well as at the outsmarted candidates - Obama and MacCain.

Canadian blogger Stephen Taylor analyses how “wild cards” like celebrity endorsements can cause a political campaign to stir:

In election campaigns, its impossible to predict the wildcards such as the Ludacris endorsement. Further it’s the nature of the race that Obama would have to respond carefully to McCain “Celeb” ad by allegedly canceling on Kanye. Equally as unpredictable is this response by Hilton, which is more tangential to the core, but more viral among those with a surface view of the presidential race so far. While insiders will dismiss this as fodder for Entertainment Tonight and Jay Leno, though that’s where the populace is watching. And for McCain it’s unfortunate that Obama is popular.

In a post called “Paris Hilton Makes Me Want To Be American”, another Canadian blogger, Chantelle Oliver says that this election is in fact a no-win battle between a “husk of old politics and the a giant question mark of technology shifting”:

Neither choice is soothing. We face failure on one hand and the unknown on the other. And while exploiting her youth and sexuality, contextualized, Paris’ video makes a much more salient point: American politicians are just celebrities who are humourless, rich, and repetitive. Promising “experience” or “change” is about as democratically deep as being totally hot. And while rich and repetitive, Paris is wise enough to hire writers who are insanely more amusing.

In a post filed under “F*** America”, Jenn confesses she likes Paris Hilton and comments on the ad battle:

First, to McCain: really? Am I supposed to be impressed by this faulty logic? Of course Obama is popular, he’s running for President, nitwit. If he really wanted to, I guess Obama could attack you for being a household name too. Except, that’s kind of a stupid idea, because being popular when you are running for President is not exactly a bad thing, you know.

Apparently, Obama is popular in the exact same way Paris Hilton is. Oddly enough, for me, I like Paris more than I like Obama. Wait, what? I suppose this is because Paris Hilton is not threatening in the slightest, whereas Obama has the potential to run this country into the ground if he so chooses.

Patrix, from India, believes that Hilton's solution for energy independence “actually sounds much better than the two guys” and responds to a comment on his Nerve Endings Firing Away blog saying that Obama and McCain were both losers in the face of Hilton's parody:

isn’t it a shameful day for a presidential candidate when Paris Hilton sounds more positive and intelligent. Did you hear about that McCain spokesman who now has the gall to claim that Paris is more credible than Obama. Perhaps they should pick her as Veep.

On the other hand, Not a Sheep, from the UK, thinks that the viral campaign might be a little help for Obama:

Which one would I support if I had a vote, I think still McCain but Paris Hilton has just leapfrogged Barack Obama…

Eduardo Arcos [es] from Mexican blog aggregator alt1040, also believes that the video is beneficial for Obama:

…y con este video es posible que Paris Hilton sea una pequeña parte de la razón por la cual Obama gané, de ahora en adelante cualquier nuevo spot político de McCain va a ser motivo de risa, después de todo inclusive una rubia que va de tonta es capaz de ponerlo en ridículo.

As of today, Hilton's faux campaign clip is one of the top stories on Google News and has had more than 3,300,000 views, nearly 7,000 diggs and more than 1,200 comments in 24 hours. Reactions are continuing.

Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign launched a massive $20 million effort to attract Latino voters on Tuesday, hoping to erase the inroads the Republican Party has made with the key demographic group in the last two presidential elections.
Frank Sanchez, the chairman of the Obama for America National Hispanic Leadership Council, said the unprecedented effort will focus on paid advertising, online organizing, increased staffing in Latino communities and organizing surrogates to hit the campaign trail.

Sanchez said efforts will be particularly focused in the key swing states of Nevada, Florida, New Mexico and Colorado, where Latino voters could make up the margin of victory.

Money's not everything, of course, but $20 million will buy you a whole lotta Obama mariachi ads (or ads like the one above) in key states.