Don't Fool Yourself: How much did morals play in the election? After 11 states put into law a ban gay marriage, one could argue that the fear of corrupt morals and un-Christian values brought the masses to the polls. I am glad I don't live in any one of those states. But what brought California to the polls? However much California prides itself for being progressive and standing against the grain of the rest of the country, Tuesday marks another moment where fear overtook the hearts of many of those who went out to vote. It was fear provoked through the use of language and the way media spins the messages that many of us are bombarded with on a daily basis. Wal-Mart poured over $500,000 into defeating Proposition 72, the measure that would have required California businesses to provide health care for its workers. It's no surprise because Wal-Mart has one of the worst track records in benefits and salaries to their employees. Other opponents of the measure argued that government sanctioned health care was the goal of Prop. 72. "SOCIALISM." Just days before the election, it seemed like Prop. 66 would have won and the three strikes law, a law that helped Pete Wilson get re-elected for governor in 1994, would have been able to be fixed. Then, enter another governor Arnold: "DON'T LET LOOSE KILLERS AND RAPISTS." Proposition 69 makes it legal for the Department of Corrections to take the DNA of anyone arrested for even just suspicion of a felony. They don't even have to be charged, just suspected. And Prop. 69 will allow authorities to collect DNA from those who were arrested even a decade ago. "CSI SOLVING CRIMES." Of all the "progressive" initiatives, Proposition 71 passed with 59 percent of the vote. No wonder, for it was backed up by the all white slate of the late Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox and Arnold, all in the name of science saving lives. But whose lives is this science really saving when 80% of working people with families do not even have the necessary health care to even have access to this science? My friend and I were talking after the elections about the concept of "justice judgement" a term she describes as one's inner ability to make everyday decisions with social justice in mind. I think justice judgement is clouded when people are forced into fear into making these decisions. Thanks to mainstream media, this fear is ultimately rooted in a sense of the fear of losing one's own privilege in society. However, when I flip the script, businesses would have gained healthier workers. I see amending the three strikes law as a step towards healing and reconciling families and communities. The possession of our biological fingerprints by the police would just be more ammo for them to target our communities of color. The aftermath of this year's election 71-72-66+69 really just adds up to a continuance of injustice. Figuring out what is really going on is much easier when you have the numbers in front of you and damn it, hindsight is always 20/20. But with numbers like 187, 21, 66, and now 69 on the table, it makes it a lot harder for us to live in peace and with justice. Currently, there are a few propositions that are being circulated for the 2006 election that will directly affect the lives of youth. One proposition that is trying to gain support is a law that will require doctors to notify the parents of minors before getting an abortion. Another is one that will prevent undocumented immigrants from obtaining drivers' licenses, government issued identification, or qualify for college loans and grants. And there is yet another proposition that is trying to gain signatures to limit the sex-education in public schools, making it harder to provide information for youth to make informed decisions on sex. Hopefully, we could use the lessons learned from this past week to make sure these propositions never make it to law.
|
|
||||||||
