Aren’t you glad summer’s finally here? The recent reemergence of the sun makes me crave days at the beach and nights spent camping. But the recession means that for many (hell, most of us) a vacation simply isn’t that feasible this year.

We should consider ourselves lucky if that’s the worst recession can do. It’s hit a lot of people a lot harder. Every year, the number of families who are homeless skyrocket at the beginning of summer. This year has been particularly bad. People from 10 000 families will become homeless in New York alone this summer, an increase of more than 28% from last year. At last count, that number had already hit 9420—9420 moms, dads, brothers, sisters, and children on the street in one city. That’s A LOT of people—so many, that if you wanted to meet them all, one a day, it would take you more than 27 years.

But numbers are just statistics. They don’t tell the whole story. People do. Like 11 year old Arielle Figueras, who completed fifth grade one day and was in a shelter with her family the next. Or the Dixon family, who were evicted in April, have been separated in various homes since then, and are now reunited on the streets. Families who had found short-term solutions—like staying with relatives or asking the landlord to temporarily take pity on them—are booted out now that the weather is warmer and the kids are out of school and underfoot.

Across the nation, families are becoming homeless faster than any other demographic. PBS estimates that roughly a third of the homeless are families. Families who approach shelters are subjected to intense questioning, metal detectors, long waits, and overcrowding in addition to the stress of displacement and an uncertain future. Many of them are not allowed in the shelter during the day, left to wander the streets. 1 in 2 families are split up and put in different shelters. They are the lucky ones—one third of families are turned away from shelters entirely because of a lack of resources.

It’s a summer ritual that makes you understand why not everyone welcomes summer. . .

In the middle of downtown Miami, a tent city exists not far from the mansions and beaches that Miami is famous for. Yet despite their proximity, neither community ever mixes—it’s forbidden by law. Why? Because the tent city is “home” to approximately 70 sex offenders, who are forced to live there due to a local law that mandates sex offenders who abused children must remain at least 2500 feet away from locations where there are high concentrations of children.

This is outrageous! All of the people who are forced into the tent city have served their time in prison; completed the punishment that society had chosen for them. So how is it that they are still being punished long after they’ve left prison? They’re living in cramped tents with no running water or electricity. They’re cut off from friends and family. They are given no support, whether financial, medical, psychological, or otherwise. They’re surrounded by other sex offenders, many of whom suffer mental or physical disabilities. And in the middle of all this, they are supposed to rehabilitate, recover, and become productive members of society?

WTF? How are you supposed to go on with your life, start over, and become a better person in conditions like that? Who goes along with schemes like this?

Apparently, a bunch of people do. Police drop newly-released offenders off at the site. Local politicians won’t touch this issue with a ten foot pole, afraid that people will accuse them of being sympathetic to sex offenders. Some offenders even have drivers’ licenses with the underpass as their home address. It wasn’t until early this month that one brave city commissioner, Marc Samoff, dared to say something. He wrote a letter to Charlie Crist, the Governor of Florida, begging him to close the tent city and provide housing for the current inhabitants.

Kudos, Mr. Samoff, for recognizing that this is an issue that extends far beyond partisan politics–it’s a matter of human rights and basic dignity.

Here’s hoping the rest of Miami catches on.

In the good ol’ vein of ‘what-the-hell-is-going on’, our friend Brentin Mock highlights an interesting development in his latest column in The American Prospect.

According to published reports:
“a recent Treasury Department ruling has disqualified the Gulf Coast region from a significant portion of stimulus funding specifically set aside to help low-income housing developments languishing due to the recession”.

This ruling is HUGE. Why is New Orleans disqualified from these treasury funds?

Has it been too long?

Are people starting to forget what happened?

Check out Brentin’s piece over at The American Prospect!

Yesterday, President Obama gave a speech in Cairo that has been regarded as both balanced and fair-handed as well as “discursive and uninspired”. Ultimately, the reaction was mixed. However, there’s one part of the speech that just about everyone seems to be talking about:

Essentially, Obama attempted to extend an olive branch to the Muslim world during a key moment of his speech, calling for civil discourse and an end to threats of violence and terror.

The real question is: what is hindering the relations with the Islamic world and the US? The issues are liable to make one’s head spin. But have no fear! Here at 99Problems, we’re gonna go over a few factors, AFTER THE JUMP!

Much of the hatred lobbed towards America abroad has to do with our former tendency to “militarize without discussion” or “force democracy”. President Obama had this to say:

“I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years,” the president began, referring to the recent unpleasantness, “and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.”

To say that former president George W. Bush was hated in the middle east is an understatement. According to political analyst Robert Creamer, much of the hatred that had been brewed in recent years had to do with the topic of cultural respect:

What the Bush policy on terrorism ignored was that more than anything else people want a sense of meaning and identity – and their corollary: respect. The polling shows that Muslims feel that their culture and the religious traditions, that in many ways define their sense of personal identity, have been disrespected by Americans and former American leadership.

The overwhelming narrative of the years after 9/11 seemed to address that terrorism, the hotbutton issue of the day, was a product of “hatred of freedom”, or quite simply was “a product of the radical extremism of the Muslim World”. That sense of political rhetoric seemed to damn an entire section of the globe, condemning an entire group of countries for being way too ‘batshit-wacko-koo-koo-for-Cocoa-Puffs’. Luckily, this political condemnation has seemed to all but disappear during the Obama administration’s foreign policy relations.

Even in and of itself, the statement ‘Muslim World’ is itself a fairly ironic phrase – colloquially, it means those groups of countries that mandate Islam as a state religion or are predominantly populated by followers of Islam, but in truth, Islam is one of the world’s most prevalent religions, second only behind Christianity.

So, in a few words, what is Obama trying to do? When it is boiled down to its essence, it’s simple. He’s pushing for the same things that all people desire, that is considered an inalienable right all over the world. Mutual respect of religious views, human rights, and a life free from the fear of attack.

By working together and engaging in vibrant, open-minded dialogue with countries worldwide, Prez O has the opportunity to undo years of deep seated mistrust, anger and violence and push forward to further peace in the global community. In manifesting a sense of communication, the extremism that breeds will cease to have such a strong foothold. Discussion can do much better work than bombs can.

What do you think? Have the threat of wars and drastic extremism killed any semblance of peace or is Obama doing a great job? Say your piece in the comments.

In a sign that decency and honor might actually be on the rise in our fair country, Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont has proposed a bill that would allow legal immigrants in America to pursue residency for their same-sex partners if they are not yet citizens.

President Obama has immigration reform on his agenda, though the specifics of all the pending legislation is, of course, hotly contested.  Senator Leahy’s bill appears particularly ambitious with its union of immigration and gay rights, certainly two much talked about issues with massive energy on both sides.

Here’s an explanation of the current system, from the NYTimes:

Under family unification provisions in immigration law, American citizens and legal residents can petition for residency for their spouses. There is no numerical limit on permanent residence visas, known as green cards, for spouses of American citizens, and this is one of the main channels for legal immigration to the United States. Same-sex couples, though, cannot petition for partners, and many face the prospect of an immigrant partner’s deportation.

Right now, any American citizen can petition for a green card for their non-resident spouse, but that ability does not extend to same-sex couples.

Leahy’s bill is titled The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), and its numbers in Congress are S. 424/H.R. 1024. The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for the bill began TODAY, and if you’re interested in watching the hearing live you can pick it up here.

We’ll be back later with updates as they come.

-sam

Dr. George Tiller was murdered while attending Church in Wichita, Kansas yesterday. As details develop, the picture is clear: Dr. Tiller was killed for offering abortion services to pregnant women.

No other issue transcends policy and government as completely as the abortion debate.  It stretches back to the moment of creation, for each one of us. 

What fundamental, undeniable control does a woman have over her own body? At what point does the life of a growing child enter our social compact? 

I am pro choice; it feels rights to me. But in debate after debate, I have come to realize the incredible diversity of feelings on the subject. It is certainly one of the most difficult issues facing our country and our government. We need action from our administration to create policies the people of America can follow.

Last week, the White House released a statement saying that President Obama did not ask his Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, about her views on abortion during his interview with her.  It goes on to feature this quote from the President:

“I believe, however, that a judicial nominee with a history of undermining settled law like Roe v. Wade deserves greater scrutiny…[n]ominees to the federal bench who are out-of-step with mainstream America should not be confirmed.”

An interesting comment, from a President whose strong support for a woman’s right to privacy eroded during his run up to the Presidency.  In recent months, he’s sought to avoid a public debate about Choice.  But all he’s doing is keeping the Government out of a debate that is happening, one way or another.

A new, widely publicized poll states that Pro Life Americans, for the first time in 15 years, outnumber those who identify as Pro Choice. Many people question the accuracy of those statistics, but the friction from both sides of this debate is unmistakable.

The Obama Administration can not avoid this issue forever.  I just hope that, when it comes time to vote, we are able to debate with words, not weapons.

Violence is a sickness….

and it goes both ways.  No matter who ends up in the ground, it is a tragedy, and it is a social illness for which the only cure is unconditional love.  It is naive to believe that trust can exist without communication.

We have to open up, believe in each other’s humanity! Honor the memory of Dr. King, honor the memory of Oscar Grant, Sean Bell, and the policemen who lost their lives needlessly.