Profiling Inevitable Under New Arizona Law
My opinion Piece on the Arizona Senate Bill 1070, published in the San Francisco Chronicle.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
When I was 18, I was driving in San Francisco on 19th Avenue in the BMW that I had worked all summer to buy. I was surprised to get pulled over by the SFPD in front of San Francisco State. I wasn't speeding, I didn't have any lights out on my car, and I wasn't driving erratically.
When the officers approached my vehicle (yes, two of them approached my car), I followed procedure and handed them my license and registration. They asked me to get out of the car but didn't tell me why they had pulled me over. The officers proceeded to ask me questions like: "If we search your car, are we going to find any illegal substances in there?" I told them that they wouldn't, and that they were free to search. I was thinking that the whole situation was ridiculous.
The officers didn't search my car, but they told me to drive safely and went on their way.
At the naïve age of 18, I gave the officers the benefit of the doubt and thought they probably pulled me over because it was a routine thing to do. But as an adult, when I reflected on the incident, I realized that they pulled me over for the simple reason that I was me.
I was a young Latino, driving a nice BMW in San Francisco. Is there something wrong with that, with me, with who I was?
Thinking back on this experience has made me wonder: Will the new Arizona immigration law cause other young Latinos to question their worth as well?
The new bill will authorize law enforcement officers to stop suspected illegal immigrants and request proof of citizenship. How will the officers determine who to stop? What are the psychological effects on those young people who are stopped and deemed OK?
This bill essentially will promote a racist mind-set among law enforcement and a detrimental questioning of value among those who are being prejudged. By passing this bill, Arizona is saying ignore that old cliché. Judge a book by its cover: If it's brown, it probably doesn't belong here.
Wow.
Copyright (c) 2010, San Francisco Chronicle
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-04-29/opinion/20878130_1_officers-law-enforcement-pulledweeblylink_new_window
Thursday, April 29, 2010
When I was 18, I was driving in San Francisco on 19th Avenue in the BMW that I had worked all summer to buy. I was surprised to get pulled over by the SFPD in front of San Francisco State. I wasn't speeding, I didn't have any lights out on my car, and I wasn't driving erratically.
When the officers approached my vehicle (yes, two of them approached my car), I followed procedure and handed them my license and registration. They asked me to get out of the car but didn't tell me why they had pulled me over. The officers proceeded to ask me questions like: "If we search your car, are we going to find any illegal substances in there?" I told them that they wouldn't, and that they were free to search. I was thinking that the whole situation was ridiculous.
The officers didn't search my car, but they told me to drive safely and went on their way.
At the naïve age of 18, I gave the officers the benefit of the doubt and thought they probably pulled me over because it was a routine thing to do. But as an adult, when I reflected on the incident, I realized that they pulled me over for the simple reason that I was me.
I was a young Latino, driving a nice BMW in San Francisco. Is there something wrong with that, with me, with who I was?
Thinking back on this experience has made me wonder: Will the new Arizona immigration law cause other young Latinos to question their worth as well?
The new bill will authorize law enforcement officers to stop suspected illegal immigrants and request proof of citizenship. How will the officers determine who to stop? What are the psychological effects on those young people who are stopped and deemed OK?
This bill essentially will promote a racist mind-set among law enforcement and a detrimental questioning of value among those who are being prejudged. By passing this bill, Arizona is saying ignore that old cliché. Judge a book by its cover: If it's brown, it probably doesn't belong here.
Wow.
Copyright (c) 2010, San Francisco Chronicle
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-04-29/opinion/20878130_1_officers-law-enforcement-pulledweeblylink_new_window
Save the Children?
"The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family." Allowing gays to marry would lead “to an explosive increase in family collapse." Same-sex marriage "is a master plan out there from those who want to destroy the institution of marriage." Members of prominent groups in the United States made each of these statements. Are the statements true? What is a traditional family? Is the traditional family facing extinction because of same-sex marriage? Is traditional, heterosexual marriage safer for our nation’s children?
Same-sex marriage has been a hot topic across the country for years and is currently legal in six states and the District of Columbia. Many people feel that same-sex marriage is a threat to the traditional family, the sanctity of marriage, and the safety of the nation’s children. Same-sex marriage is not a threat to any of the aforementioned. Heterosexual marriages, alone, are compromising the traditional family, the sanctity of marriage, and the stability of our nation’s children without the help of homosexuals. Same-sex marriage is an issue of equality that should be allowed, and the facts surrounding marriage in this country support taking a step in that direction.
The traditional family is becoming less standard due to the increase of more non-traditional families becoming the norm. We are seeing children being raised by grandparents, adoptive parents, aunts and uncles, siblings, as well as same-sex couples. The sanctity of marriage was in jeopardy long before the issue of same-sex marriage was put on the ballot in California. 50 percent of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce in the United States (www.cdc.gov). These figures give the impression that those who are allowed to enter into the institution of marriage are doing so very lightly.
The other side says that in order for children to develop properly they need to be raised by a mother and a father. Overall it seems that the 50 percent of traditional families that entered into the institution of marriage and resulted in divorce pose a threat to our children’s development by creating an environment of uncertainty and instability. The affects of divorce can be extremely harmful to a child’s psyche. Young children often have a hard time dealing with the stresses of their parents’ separation (Ludolph, 2009, p. 19). During divorce the parents are typically preoccupied with sorting out the details of their unhinged partnership. This tedious and sometimes drawn out process can take away much needed time from their struggling children. With their emotional needs not being in the foreground, these children of divorce can become insecurely attached to their parents (Ludolph, 2009, p. 19). This lack of security experienced by the child seems to do more harm to their brain than if they were to grow up in a world where two people who love each other, no matter who they are, can share a life together as a married couple. Placing our children in this type of developmental danger is what will truly lead to the family collapse the other side speaks of.
Copyright (c) 2010, David Galea
Does Childhood Sexual Abuse Lead to HIV Infection in Adulthood?
Childhood Sexual Abuse (CSA) includes: persuading or enticing a child to participate in sexually explicit behavior or simulation of sexually explicit behavior. The negative experiences of CSA seem to have a lifelong impact. Many survivors of sexual abuse can have lasting psychological and physical problems throughout their lives (Wilson, 2010, p. 56). The problems these adults experience place them in less than ideal situations such as: sex work, a higher number of sex partners, risky sexual behavior, low self-esteem, and addiction that can promote the contraction of HIV (Sikkema, Hansen, Meade, Kochman, Fox, 2007, p. 121). With the absence of CSA from their lives many adults would be spared a lifetime of addiction, substance abuse, high-risk, sexual behaviors, and low self-esteem.
Researchers have found that prostitution has been linked to childhood sexual abuse( Sikkema et al, 2007, p. 122). Sex workers are typically engaging in high-risk sexual activity with a high number of partners. In the efforts to make money and survive, sex workers can be forced to put themselves in situations that can in crease their risk in contracting HIV. A sex worker may not necessarily inquire about a partner’s HIV status and may be more willing to have unprotected sex if that will make them more money. It comes down to the issue of survival for them. The trauma of experiencing abuse as a child can affect the self-esteem of these workers as well. If they don’t think highly of themselves and lack the respect for themselves then the priority of taking care of themselves is absent and further promoting risky sexual behavior.
Risky sexual behavior can include unprotected sex and sex with a higher number of partners. Survivors of CSA are more likely to participate in sexual behavior that puts them at risk for contracting HIV (Wilson, 2010, p. 60). Having unprotected sex can stem from a fear of rejection. When the victim was a child, they were most likely looking for acceptance from their abuser. At such a young age they did what they had to do in order to feel that acceptance. In adulthood, the victim of CSA most likely feels that same type of need for acceptance from their partner. The need for acceptance would perpetuate risky sexual behavior and the cycle would continue.
A higher amount of sexual partners brings about increased risk of contracting HIV. This type of behavior can be especially harmful for women. Women who experienced CSA are less likely to insist on the use of condoms (Voisin, 2005, p. 497). This lack of condom negotiation can stem from fear and inability to say “no”, which both stem from CSA (Tarakeshwar, Fox, Ferro, Khawaja, Kochman, Sikkema, 2005, p. 665). A woman who experienced CSA may have an internalized the fear and associated it with the act of sex. If a woman goes into each sexual situation, time and time again, with a feeling of fear she is constantly running the risk of contracting HIV.
A history of CSA has been linked to substance abuse (Wilson, 2010, p. 57). This substance abuse could be a way for the victim to attempt to escape the trauma of CSA. By numbing their consciousness they do not have to deal with the pain that CSA has left them with. When individuals are under the influence of drugs and alcohol, they are less likely to make wise decisions. The lack of good judgment can cause them to participate in risky sexual behaviors as well as other risky behaviors that can affect their health. If an adult is an intravenous drug abuser they could not only experience the risk of lack of judgment but they could also put themselves at risk by using a contaminated needle.
Adult survivors of CSA experience more addictions than those who were not abused (Wilson, 2010, p. 56). This addiction can be manifested in alcohol, drugs, or sex itself. Even if the individual knows that what they are doing is putting them at a higher risk for contracting HIV, it is not something that can be stopped easily or without treatment. It is very easy to tell a victim of CSA that struggles with drug use, that by using intravenous drugs they are inhibiting their good judgment and run the risk of coming in contact with a contaminated needle; however, the addiction takes over any control of stopping the high-risk behavior.
Low self-esteem stemming from CSA seems to be a central and reoccurring theme in each of the possible situations that cause adult survivors of CSA to engage in HIV risk behaviors. Low self-esteem as a result of CSA can be cited as one of the main reasons for risky sexual behavior (C. Campbell, Personal Interview, April 2, 2010, p. 1). Having low self-esteem tends to bring about a lack of respect for oneself. This lack of respect clouds decisions to take care of oneself and does not promote concern around taking care of oneself. In this mindset, having protected sex is not a priority. By adding a high volume of sex partners to the equation an individual is increasing their chances of contracting HIV. Adults that are participating in these high-risk behaviors are more likely not to know the HIV status of their partners (Sikkema et al, 2007, p. 123).
CSA leaves people feeling unworthy (C. Campbell, Personal Interview, April 2, 2010, p. 2). The feeling of unworthiness can cause individuals to not take care of themselves. Their own well-being is not a priority. In relationships the priority can shift to make the other person happy. CSA can increase vulnerability and lead to being more willing to give in a relationship (Tarakeshwar et al., 2005, p. 665). This willingness to give comes from low self-esteem. It is the same rationale behind the high school girl who has sex with a boyfriend because she wants him to like her and fears losing him. The CSA victim is willing to engage in HIV risk behaviors in order to appease the other person that they are scared of losing because they do not have the esteem for themselves to function on their own.
Ultimately there is a pattern of risky behavior that stems from CSA. Low self-esteem is the match that ignites a firestorm of HIV risk behaviors in adult survivors of CSA. Child Sexual Abuse directly affects self-esteem, which influences the number of sexual partners one has, which is directly related to the number of sexual encounters, which increases the opportunities for unprotected sex. Also, low self-esteem directly affects anxiety levels, which can lead to substance abuse, which affects safer sex decisions, which increases the opportunities for the high-risk behavior of unprotected sex (Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter, 2006, p. 446). Since low self-esteem is a mental health issue, it seems that the most logical way to help victims of CSA limit their HIV risk behaviors is to work on repairing the emotional distress that they suffer from. By putting out the match so to speak, it will help to smother the domino effect of behaviors that are putting victims of CSA at a higher risk of contracting HIV.
Copyright (c) 2010, David Galea
Researchers have found that prostitution has been linked to childhood sexual abuse( Sikkema et al, 2007, p. 122). Sex workers are typically engaging in high-risk sexual activity with a high number of partners. In the efforts to make money and survive, sex workers can be forced to put themselves in situations that can in crease their risk in contracting HIV. A sex worker may not necessarily inquire about a partner’s HIV status and may be more willing to have unprotected sex if that will make them more money. It comes down to the issue of survival for them. The trauma of experiencing abuse as a child can affect the self-esteem of these workers as well. If they don’t think highly of themselves and lack the respect for themselves then the priority of taking care of themselves is absent and further promoting risky sexual behavior.
Risky sexual behavior can include unprotected sex and sex with a higher number of partners. Survivors of CSA are more likely to participate in sexual behavior that puts them at risk for contracting HIV (Wilson, 2010, p. 60). Having unprotected sex can stem from a fear of rejection. When the victim was a child, they were most likely looking for acceptance from their abuser. At such a young age they did what they had to do in order to feel that acceptance. In adulthood, the victim of CSA most likely feels that same type of need for acceptance from their partner. The need for acceptance would perpetuate risky sexual behavior and the cycle would continue.
A higher amount of sexual partners brings about increased risk of contracting HIV. This type of behavior can be especially harmful for women. Women who experienced CSA are less likely to insist on the use of condoms (Voisin, 2005, p. 497). This lack of condom negotiation can stem from fear and inability to say “no”, which both stem from CSA (Tarakeshwar, Fox, Ferro, Khawaja, Kochman, Sikkema, 2005, p. 665). A woman who experienced CSA may have an internalized the fear and associated it with the act of sex. If a woman goes into each sexual situation, time and time again, with a feeling of fear she is constantly running the risk of contracting HIV.
A history of CSA has been linked to substance abuse (Wilson, 2010, p. 57). This substance abuse could be a way for the victim to attempt to escape the trauma of CSA. By numbing their consciousness they do not have to deal with the pain that CSA has left them with. When individuals are under the influence of drugs and alcohol, they are less likely to make wise decisions. The lack of good judgment can cause them to participate in risky sexual behaviors as well as other risky behaviors that can affect their health. If an adult is an intravenous drug abuser they could not only experience the risk of lack of judgment but they could also put themselves at risk by using a contaminated needle.
Adult survivors of CSA experience more addictions than those who were not abused (Wilson, 2010, p. 56). This addiction can be manifested in alcohol, drugs, or sex itself. Even if the individual knows that what they are doing is putting them at a higher risk for contracting HIV, it is not something that can be stopped easily or without treatment. It is very easy to tell a victim of CSA that struggles with drug use, that by using intravenous drugs they are inhibiting their good judgment and run the risk of coming in contact with a contaminated needle; however, the addiction takes over any control of stopping the high-risk behavior.
Low self-esteem stemming from CSA seems to be a central and reoccurring theme in each of the possible situations that cause adult survivors of CSA to engage in HIV risk behaviors. Low self-esteem as a result of CSA can be cited as one of the main reasons for risky sexual behavior (C. Campbell, Personal Interview, April 2, 2010, p. 1). Having low self-esteem tends to bring about a lack of respect for oneself. This lack of respect clouds decisions to take care of oneself and does not promote concern around taking care of oneself. In this mindset, having protected sex is not a priority. By adding a high volume of sex partners to the equation an individual is increasing their chances of contracting HIV. Adults that are participating in these high-risk behaviors are more likely not to know the HIV status of their partners (Sikkema et al, 2007, p. 123).
CSA leaves people feeling unworthy (C. Campbell, Personal Interview, April 2, 2010, p. 2). The feeling of unworthiness can cause individuals to not take care of themselves. Their own well-being is not a priority. In relationships the priority can shift to make the other person happy. CSA can increase vulnerability and lead to being more willing to give in a relationship (Tarakeshwar et al., 2005, p. 665). This willingness to give comes from low self-esteem. It is the same rationale behind the high school girl who has sex with a boyfriend because she wants him to like her and fears losing him. The CSA victim is willing to engage in HIV risk behaviors in order to appease the other person that they are scared of losing because they do not have the esteem for themselves to function on their own.
Ultimately there is a pattern of risky behavior that stems from CSA. Low self-esteem is the match that ignites a firestorm of HIV risk behaviors in adult survivors of CSA. Child Sexual Abuse directly affects self-esteem, which influences the number of sexual partners one has, which is directly related to the number of sexual encounters, which increases the opportunities for unprotected sex. Also, low self-esteem directly affects anxiety levels, which can lead to substance abuse, which affects safer sex decisions, which increases the opportunities for the high-risk behavior of unprotected sex (Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter, 2006, p. 446). Since low self-esteem is a mental health issue, it seems that the most logical way to help victims of CSA limit their HIV risk behaviors is to work on repairing the emotional distress that they suffer from. By putting out the match so to speak, it will help to smother the domino effect of behaviors that are putting victims of CSA at a higher risk of contracting HIV.
Copyright (c) 2010, David Galea
Social Networking: Why? What's the Point?
“I don’t care about your farm, or your fish, or your park, or your mafia!” is just one of the many special interest pages on the social networking site, Facebook. Some may say that it is the only noteworthy interest page on the site while many others would disagree. For those who disagree, social networking has taken on much more than what it was intended for and has morphed into an information overload that is on the verge of “too much.” Who are these networking maniacs? Are they socially inept loners or nerdy, tech-savvy super brains? What is it that drives this subculture to think of life in terms of status updates rather than tangible moments? Whatever the reason, it is most likely that everyone knows someone who has taken social networking from “social” to compulsive.
Facebook was started in February 2004 by a group of Harvard University students as a means to aide communication between university students. By the end of 2005 Facebook had expanded it’s membership to include anyone age 13 and over. Currently Facebook has over 400 million active users and people spend over 500 billion minutes per month on the site (www.facebook.com/facebook). Along with networking, Facebook allows its users to post links to their favorite websites, hobbies, games, musical artists, basically anything. When do people have the time to invest in this networking site? It seems that a majority take time while at work. According to someone I spoke to in a managerial position , three of the four employees that they supervise are logged into Facebook all day at work. What is the allure to social networking that would cause someone to incorporate it into his or her professional life in the workplace?
I also spoke with a woman in her early thirties, in a very time consuming position at a very large corporation. At times she can work up to 60 hours per week and post as many as 30 status updates a week. That’s one status update for every two hours of work! She doesn’t find her social networking to be a distraction she describes it as part of her daily routine. When asked to describe her motive for such frequent “facebooking” she attributed it to her social nature and fast paced lifestyle. She said that she has always been a social person and since the advent of Facebook her social nature has been given an easy, convenient outlet to express itself. So what about those people who don’t lead such a fast paced life? What is their excuse for spending countless minutes of the day glued to a networking site?
I questioned a stay at home mom in her mid-twenties about her reasons for spending so much time on Facebook. This young lady averages about 30 status updates a week. Her response to my inquiry was that she is home alone all day and uses social networking as a way to stay connected to her friends. Her response elicits another question, why doesn’t she make these social connections in person rather than via online networking? She goes on to say that it is easier for her to quickly type about what she is doing and let Facebook do the legwork of notifying everyone close to her. “With all of the tasks that need to be done at home, using Facebook as a means of communication is just a more convenient option.”
Initially one might think that boredom is the cause for such compulsive Facebook habits: however, the fact that both women hardly have time to be bored with their lives says that the cause is something greater. Although both women are in two different professional arenas they share a commonality that holds true for all humans. They are social beings! Humans have an innate desire to be social. Women especially, tend to communicate as a way to connect with people and ideas (Olson, DeFrain, Skogrand, 2008, p. 102). These two women are only doing what comes naturally to all of us. Whether they call a friend to tell them they are engaged or post a status update to convey the news, either way they are communicating.
Some may still argue that regardless of the need to be social, there is no reason for someone to write 30 postings a week about their day-to-day life. In fact, there is a reason for someone to write 30 postings about their life, the reason is simply, because they can! As technology has grown people have been able to do more and more with the click of a button. Faxing, emailing, instant messaging, texting, they are all advances in technology that have made it easier and easier for people to share their thoughts on a whim. Now, with Facebook and social networking people can chronicle every minuscule detail about their lives at a moments notice and broadcast it to their throng of admirers. Who is to thank for this technological irritant? We the people are!
Society always wants more, something newer, better, faster, and stronger! Society has created a viscous cycle of always wanting more and never being satisfied. First a fire wasn’t quick enough to cook food, then an oven was considered mediocre, now countless people spend their time tapping their feet in front of a microwave because their dinner isn’t ready quick enough. Human beings cannot help themselves. We always want newer, better, faster, stronger in all aspects of our lives.
In the end, the individuals questioned above are not solely responsible for creating their own networking compulsion; it is society as a whole who thrives on the ability to communicate to more people in a quicker and better fashion. So everyone should build their farms, feed their fish, construct their parks, and grow their mafia and don’t feel guilty for telling the whole world about it! It’s only natural, right?
(the identities of the individuals interviewed have been purposely omitted per their request)
Copyright (c) 2010, David Galea
References
Facebook, <http://www.facebook.com>
Olson, D. H., DeFrain, J., Skogrand, L. (2008). Marriages & Families: Intimacy, Diversity, and Strengths, p. 102
Facebook was started in February 2004 by a group of Harvard University students as a means to aide communication between university students. By the end of 2005 Facebook had expanded it’s membership to include anyone age 13 and over. Currently Facebook has over 400 million active users and people spend over 500 billion minutes per month on the site (www.facebook.com/facebook). Along with networking, Facebook allows its users to post links to their favorite websites, hobbies, games, musical artists, basically anything. When do people have the time to invest in this networking site? It seems that a majority take time while at work. According to someone I spoke to in a managerial position , three of the four employees that they supervise are logged into Facebook all day at work. What is the allure to social networking that would cause someone to incorporate it into his or her professional life in the workplace?
I also spoke with a woman in her early thirties, in a very time consuming position at a very large corporation. At times she can work up to 60 hours per week and post as many as 30 status updates a week. That’s one status update for every two hours of work! She doesn’t find her social networking to be a distraction she describes it as part of her daily routine. When asked to describe her motive for such frequent “facebooking” she attributed it to her social nature and fast paced lifestyle. She said that she has always been a social person and since the advent of Facebook her social nature has been given an easy, convenient outlet to express itself. So what about those people who don’t lead such a fast paced life? What is their excuse for spending countless minutes of the day glued to a networking site?
I questioned a stay at home mom in her mid-twenties about her reasons for spending so much time on Facebook. This young lady averages about 30 status updates a week. Her response to my inquiry was that she is home alone all day and uses social networking as a way to stay connected to her friends. Her response elicits another question, why doesn’t she make these social connections in person rather than via online networking? She goes on to say that it is easier for her to quickly type about what she is doing and let Facebook do the legwork of notifying everyone close to her. “With all of the tasks that need to be done at home, using Facebook as a means of communication is just a more convenient option.”
Initially one might think that boredom is the cause for such compulsive Facebook habits: however, the fact that both women hardly have time to be bored with their lives says that the cause is something greater. Although both women are in two different professional arenas they share a commonality that holds true for all humans. They are social beings! Humans have an innate desire to be social. Women especially, tend to communicate as a way to connect with people and ideas (Olson, DeFrain, Skogrand, 2008, p. 102). These two women are only doing what comes naturally to all of us. Whether they call a friend to tell them they are engaged or post a status update to convey the news, either way they are communicating.
Some may still argue that regardless of the need to be social, there is no reason for someone to write 30 postings a week about their day-to-day life. In fact, there is a reason for someone to write 30 postings about their life, the reason is simply, because they can! As technology has grown people have been able to do more and more with the click of a button. Faxing, emailing, instant messaging, texting, they are all advances in technology that have made it easier and easier for people to share their thoughts on a whim. Now, with Facebook and social networking people can chronicle every minuscule detail about their lives at a moments notice and broadcast it to their throng of admirers. Who is to thank for this technological irritant? We the people are!
Society always wants more, something newer, better, faster, and stronger! Society has created a viscous cycle of always wanting more and never being satisfied. First a fire wasn’t quick enough to cook food, then an oven was considered mediocre, now countless people spend their time tapping their feet in front of a microwave because their dinner isn’t ready quick enough. Human beings cannot help themselves. We always want newer, better, faster, stronger in all aspects of our lives.
In the end, the individuals questioned above are not solely responsible for creating their own networking compulsion; it is society as a whole who thrives on the ability to communicate to more people in a quicker and better fashion. So everyone should build their farms, feed their fish, construct their parks, and grow their mafia and don’t feel guilty for telling the whole world about it! It’s only natural, right?
(the identities of the individuals interviewed have been purposely omitted per their request)
Copyright (c) 2010, David Galea
References
Facebook, <http://www.facebook.com>
Olson, D. H., DeFrain, J., Skogrand, L. (2008). Marriages & Families: Intimacy, Diversity, and Strengths, p. 102