TAP Goes to the Oscars: The Florida Project is a film about life as a poor kid. It doesn’t erase the innocence of childhood—or the harshness of poverty.Kalena ThomhaveFeb 02, 2018
By Kalena Thomhave | Feb 01, 2018
Under pressure from Major League Baseball, the Cleveland Indians announced this week that beginning in 2019, they’ll retire the Chief Wahoo mascot—the cartoonish, red-faced figure that’s meant to depict a Native American chief—but only from on-field team uniforms.
“We have consistently maintained that we are cognizant and sensitive to both sides of the discussion,” said Paul Dolan, the owner of the team. And in fact, they are trying to please “both sides” by retiring Wahoo on the field, but not from merchandise sold by the Indians organization, allowing it to keep profiting from the logo.
Opponents argue that these depictions “honor” Native Americans, but studies have shown that stereotype-based mascots and related imagery in sports have real, damaging psychological and social consequences for Native Americans—and they especially impact the development and self-esteem of Native youth.
In a statement, MLB, which will no longer be selling Wahoo apparel in its official shop, said the mascot “was no longer appropriate.” Was it ever? Native Americans have been calling for the removal of Wahoo for decades, most recently with the #NotYourMascot campaign. And while this move is a step in the right direction, activists were quick to point out that the team name itself needs changing, too. (There’s a movement in Cleveland to change the name to the Spiders, the name of the city’s baseball team in the late 1800s.)
There’s a certain football team that I’ll only call “the Washington team” that might want to revisit its branding next.
By eliminating a popular free checking account, Bank of America only reminds us that traditional banking is for everyone—except the poor.Kalena ThomhaveJan 25, 2018
By Kalena Thomhave | Jan 19, 2018
As time winds down for Congress to pass a short-term spending bill to avoid a government shutdown, Republicans have another plan in the works—not only to place the blame for a shutdown squarely on Democrats but to blame them for a failure to fund the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
Early Friday morning, House Speaker Paul Ryan had this to say:
Republican Representative Martha Roby of Alabama had this to say:
ICYMI: Last night I joined @HouseGOP to shed light on the unfortunate games that are being played w/ CHIP funding. Many families I represent in AL depend on CHIP, & I know there are many others across the country who would suffer tremendously if CHIP funding were to expire. pic.twitter.com/BTIDtRXusz
— Rep. Martha Roby (@RepMarthaRoby) January 18, 2018
It’s a clever, albeit diabolical, strategy. CHIP is an extremely popular program—88 percent of Americans say it is important to reauthorize the health insurance program. But it couldn’t be clearer that House Republicans are using CHIP’s popularity as leverage against the Democrats, hoping that by including CHIP’s reauthorization in the spending bill that Democrats will be forced to vote for it.
MSNBC’s Chris Hayes recently tweeted,
BTW, the answer to the question "Why hasn't GOP funded CHIP" is now clear: They were always using it as a hostage/bargaining chip. They appear to view children's healthcare not as a good policy, but as a thing the other side wants that they will use to extract value.
— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) January 18, 2018
Given many Republicans’ views on CHIP in the past, one tends to side with Hayes over Ryan and Roby.
While it’s true that the program largely enjoys bipartisan support (Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and his good friend Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah sponsored the creation of CHIP in 1997) there are many Republicans who are ambivalent about the program and support it grudgingly. A standalone bill that funds CHIP would easily pass, especially considering CHIP expired in September.
But it’s not as if all Republicans have always supported health care for low-income kids. In 2009, President Obama signed a bill that expanded the program to cover an additional four million low-income children; for the most part, the bill passed on party lines. Republican Representative Steve King of Iowa said the program would be the “foundation stone for socialized medicine in the United States.” President George W. Bush had vetoed two similar expansion bills in 2007, believing, as Bush said, that those measures went too far toward “the federalization of health care.”
Compared to poor adults, most people view poor children as worthier of government assistance. Though CHIP may resemble just another abhorrent entitlement program for some conservatives, the reality is that Americans say that want to support poor kids. (The same often cannot be said about supporting poor children’s care providers, their poor parents or guardians: witness the current state of the Medicaid debate.) That’s why Republicans have moved to use CHIP’s reauthorization as a political football to try to bring the Democrats to heel on other issues, including DACA. How the Democrats respond will be instructive: Will they cave into the pressure in an election year or will they forcefully refuse to compromise on protecting DREAMers?
The Republican tax proposal, soon be signed into law, will particularly impact the health of people with disabilities.Kalena ThomhaveDec 21, 2017