Every now and again, people on every end of the political spectrum agree on things. Unfortunately, these rare glimpses of agreement and progress don’t get much press. One such occurrence happened right before legislators earlier this month.

Congress approved the “21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act,” a bill that would make new primarily Internet-based technologies more readily available to the blind or deaf.

The whip count in each house was staggering. It passed with unanimous consent in the Senate. The House approved it with a vote of 348-23. Passage of the bill came on the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Key tenets of the new bill include easier Smartphone programs for the visually impaired and a $10 million a year program to help low income visually- or hearing-impaired people buy services that make the Internet more accessible.

Programs that make phone calls over the Internet, like Skype, need to be suited for hearing aids, and close captioning is mandated for television shows watched over the Internet.

Many of us take our vision and hearing for granted. According to the Research to Prevent Blindness, 15 million people in the United States are blind. The American Foundation for the Blind estimates close to 91,500 blind people live in Arizona – 45,400 of those people are ages 18 to 64.

According to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 36 million adults in America suffer hearing loss to some degree.

Combined, approximately 51 million Americans suffer from hearing or vision deficiencies. This bill now helps many people use technology the way that others use it. Whether it is for communication, business, education or sheer enjoyment, those with disabilities will now have an easier time with new devices.

The legislation ensures the disabled have a voice in the development of new technologies that affect them directly. The bill creates advisory councils that are required to include people with disabilities for the development of Internet, television and phone technologies that aid people, according to the American Association of People with Disabilities.

Passing this bill is a significant victory for the U.S. and those who live with hearing or vision problems. What strikes me as odd though, is that the press did not report the passage of this bill with the fanfare it deserves. Maybe such overwhelming agreements aren’t newsworthy or don’t fit the divisive narrative this country seems to be following.

Either way, we should relish in this moment and understand that we can still ensure that all of our citizens have that equal opportunity that defines the American dream.

Getting a college degree is more essential to success than ever before. Yet Arizona voters will see a proposition in November that questions if we should allow minorities access to programs designed to help them earn a diploma to help them succeed.

Proposition 107, also known as the “affirmative action proposition,” could end those programs, if passed.

However, the notion that affirmative action exists in Arizona is a misconception, according to Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix.

“What we do have are equal opportunity programs,” she said. “They are programs that allow people to succeed. Affirmative action is not legal in Arizona.”

Admitting a student of color to a university, with a greater consideration of ethnic background than academic qualifications, would be affirmative action. This is not allowed in Arizona.

“You get admitted [to universities] based on your merit,” Sinema said.

ASU has several programs that could be affected with the passage of this proposition, including Native American Summer Institute, ASU Summer Bridge and Women in Engineering and Science (WISE).

“The key drawback is to higher education,” Sinema said. “This amendment, if passed, would prohibit state funding to serve populations that are normally under populated on a college campus.”

According to The State Press, Proposition 107 could possibly dismantle ASU Summer Bridge, a successful transition tool for some freshmen. The program targets people in demographics where college attendance is uncommon.

A similar program in California was gutted after the passage of Proposition 209, which ended the state’s affirmative action programs. In 1997, then-California Gov. Pete Wilson decided that the California Summer Science and Technology Academy offered preferential treatment to minorities and women when the program’s stated purpose was to engage high school students who showed potential in math, science, and technology in university classes and activities.

“In the departments of science, math and engineering, women make up less than 25 percent of the population,” Sinema said. “WISE is a program that encourages more women to go into these fields. If Proposition 107 passes, we will lose all state funding to operate WISE.”

Proposition 107’s text is innocuous and innocent: “This state shall not grant preferential treatment to or discriminate against any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.”

While most people would support this statement as is, it would drastically change the makeup of ASU.

“ASU would look more like it did before we had these programs,” Sinema said. “Previous (University) presidents instituted these programs because they realized we were missing out on a key group that could be a part of Arizona’s economy.”

By putting certain groups of people at odds with attending a university, we put ourselves at odds with our state’s economy. These groups of people contain the next generation of entrepreneurs, doctors, teachers and legislators — all of which are imperative to the success of our state.

We must vote down Proposition 107 if we really do stand for justice and equality. It is important to give everyone a fair chance, even if that means providing certain programs to level the playing field.

The principles of our country evolved from an insurrection against tyranny when American colonists resisted British taxes without representation in Parliament.

While our country was founded with the ideals to protect the American public from a different type of tyranny, perhaps one more dangerous than a monarchy, we have largely abandoned these principles.

The tyranny I refer to is that of the political majority. In this dangerous divide of power, the majority of citizens deprives a particular minority or minorities of their rights and alienates them.

Political thinkers throughout history have warned of this, from Aristotle to Thomas Jefferson. Now our citizens are falling prey to this downfall of democracy; it can literally be seen coast to coast. Senate Bill 1070 in Arizona and the ground zero mosque in New York are two prominent examples of this.

With SB 1070, lawmakers are theoretically holding all Hispanics accountable for crossing the border illegally, as the law makes it a crime to be in the state illegally. According to a 2007 survey by the Pew Hispanic Center, only a quarter of Hispanic adults are illegally in the U.S.

Advocates of the law say it is to deter crime. But, according to a press release from the Maricopa County Attorney’s office, the crime rate in Maricopa County has dropped more than twice the national average between 2004 and 2008. Murders fell by 16 percent, sexual assault crimes fell by 6 percent, and vehicle thefts have decreased by 23 percent.

The worst part is a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted in late July showed a solid majority, 55 percent to be exact, support the new law even though 54 percent said the law would lead to discrimination against Hispanics.

Support for the law is clearly divided along racial lines as the CNN opinion poll shows.  Thirty-four percent of whites are against SB 1070, while 71 percent of Hispanics oppose it.

Thankfully, U.S. Federal District Court Judge Susan Bolton issued an injunction against portions of the law that would require law enforcement officials to check a suspect’s immigration status while enforcing other laws.

She also outlawed the warrantless arrest of a suspect who may have committed a crime that has grounds for deportation.

“There is substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under [this section of the law],” Bolton wrote in the injunction.

Hispanics are not the only minority under fire lately. Islamic-Americans have taken heat for moving to build a community center that houses a mosque several blocks from ground zero.

A poll conducted by CNN/Opinion Research Corporation found 68 percent of the country opposed this move, while only 29 percent favored it. The polling firm Rasmussen Reports found similar numbers, 54 and 20 percents, respectively.

This is an emotional issue, as it is right next to one of the locations of this country’s worst terrorist attacks. While Sept. 11, 2001, is a day that should always be mourned, we must remember who committed the cowardly act. These were extremists associated with the Islamic religion.

Those in favor of building the mosque are anything but extremists. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who worked with organizations to accomplish the construction of this mosque, has worked with former President George W. Bush’s administration on diplomacy with the Muslim world. So the far right’s claims that he is a radical have no ground.

Even the Anti-Defamation League, an organization that champions human rights and fighting anti-Semitism, has come out against the construction of the Ground Zero mosque. “Ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right,” ADL said in a statement about the mosque.

However, two rights are at stake here: property rights and religious rights. The mosque will be built on private property, and Muslims should have the same freedom to worship that Christians, Jews and Buddhists do. Our Founding Fathers championed both of these rights.

Thankfully, President Barack Obama came out in favor of the mosque at a dinner acknowledging the breaking of the Ramadan fast, an important tradition in Islam.

“As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country,” he said. “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.”

As of 2008, Religioustolerance.org reports that 76 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christian. Now, if Christian extremists were responsible for Sept. 11, would the country demand we knock down every church in Lower Manhattan? Of course we wouldn’t.

As a country, we pretend we have made large strides in equality and justice. And we certainly have. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 are proof of this. But we have so much further to go. It is our duty to remain vigilant for the minorities and those who are being discriminated against in this country. We must not let this great nation succumb to tyranny of the majority.

Are private prisons worth the cost?
An examination of the problems with private prisons.

Republicans Hot, Cold On Constitution
A look at right wing hypocrisy.

The Charitable-Giving Divide
Very nice study on who is more charitable in America.

Paul Krugman: Appeasing The Bond Gods
Krugman takes on the people who are fear mongering about the deficit.

Diehl Assists In Netanyahu’s ‘Settlement Moratorium’ Farce
A bit of a rant on the Israel’s settlement policies.

Under President Obama’s Plan For The Bush Tax Cuts, Everyone Still Gets A Tax Cut
Good thing to point out, Obama is cutting taxes.

CNN POLL: 52% Believe Gays And Lesbians Should Have Constitutional Right To Marry
Good news. First time that approval is over 50%.

The Laffer Test (Somewhat Wonkish)
A good explanation of the Laffer curve and the point where it actually curves down.

Hosted by the YDA Minority Caucus, I spoke alongside Elizabeth Pastrano of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute and Jose Luis Marantes of the Center for Community Change.

Together, we told and heard the same story around the room.  While Republicans like Jan Brewer and Joe Arpaio play politics with SB 1070, people live in fear of drug cartels killing ranchers in Cochise County, AZ, small business owners in El Paso, TX, and helpless immigrants in Arizona who can no longer call the police.

Democrats like Terry Goddard have worked across party and state lines to confront drug cartels.  Goddard has partnered with law enforcement in Mexico to investigate, confront and eliminate cartels.  President Obama sent his entire national security team to Mexico to help end the civil war between cartels and the Mexican people.

Immigration and border security shouldn’t be about playing politics, but about good policy that keeps people safe and allows our economy to flourish.  We need immigration and border security reform now, and we won’t accept any filibusters, procedural moves or political games from Congressional Republicans like John McCain.

Arizonans are victims of a broken system.  Drug cartels exploit the gridlock in Washington to make billions and kill anyone in their way.  Immigrants break archaic immigration laws Washington has failed to fix or enforce.  Our economy needs immigrants, as it has for centuries, and our immigration system needs to adapt.

I was privileged to share Arizona’s perspective in the national immigration debate.  By our panel’s end, Young Democrats were united towards a common purpose: fixing our broken border and immigration system, NOW.

Cole Hickman is President of the East Valley Young Democrats and works for Attorney General Terry Goddard.

In mid July, I had the opportunity to attend the Young Democrats of America (YDA) Summer Conference in Washington, DC. The conference was extremely productive with many different training and networking opportunities but I have to say, the best part was the Women’s Caucus Meeting. I was thrilled that the Caucus put together a “Women in Leadership” panel with speakers from both the Women’s Campaign Forum and WUFPAC. The best part was that it wasn’t the panelists that inspired me, but what the panelists asked the women in attendance to do. They had them stand up and state why they didn’t wait to be asked to run. I thought maybe a few ladies would raise their hands but it was even more than what I expected. All of these women were running or had been elected to local and state office, and all of them didn’t wait to be asked. Their stories and reasoning were all different, but each woman ran because they knew they were the best person for the job or that they could do better than the current office holder.

I felt so inspired during this meeting, all these young leaders were under the age of 36, from all corners of the county and they had all taken the initiative to run for office and make a difference in their respective communities. The other thing they had in common was that they had all not gone through a program like Emerge. Just think of what Emerge can continue to do as we recruit more women into our amazing network and train them to run for office. Change is in the air, women are starting to realize that being “asked” to run for office isn’t needed; what is needed – a program like Emerge that helps women realize their potential in public service, hone their skills to win and continue to increase the number of Democratic women in public office. I came back from this conference realizing the difference Emerge has already made in so many lives and am excited at the potential we have to continue growing and reaching out to more women.

Emerge Arizona has been a premier democratic training for women in Arizona since 2004 – applications for emerge are now available for the 2011 class, please visit www.emergeaz.org for details.

YDAZ Executive Vice President and Arizona Democratic Party Secretary, Brittni Storrs, just graduated from the Emerge Arizona program in 2010 and I, myself, am also an alumni of the program and now the current executive director of Emerge Arizona.

Ideas have always been fuel for the engine of democracy. New thoughts and concepts constantly come up, always propelling our democracy forward – well, until now. The mid-term strategy coming from the right seems to be simple – no, no, no.

This has, apparently, brought conservatives decent results.

“We’re very comfortable where we’re at; we have very few members who feel endangered,” Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., told The Washington Post. “We feel like we are reflecting a broader mood of dissatisfaction. Right now, the American people want us saying no.”

Perhaps Cole and I are reading a different electorate, but it seems the country wants solutions.

Unfortunately, ‘no’ is not a solution. According to a recent poll conducted by Politico, 72 percent of the general population said that the political system is broken.

Also in the same poll, the Republican leaders in Congress received far less favorable ratings than President Obama. House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, received a “very favorable” rating of 4 percent while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., received a rating of 2 percent. The president received a much higher rating though – 25 percent of those polled had a ‘very favorable’ opinion of Obama.

The doom and gloom among liberals has led many pundits predicting that November will be reminiscent of 1994, when the Republicans regained control of both chambers of Congress for the first time in four decades.

However, there is a fundamental difference between then and now—and that difference is simply how the GOP has presented itself.

In 1994, conservative leaders devised the “Contract with America.” This “contract” was a platform that most of the Republican candidates ran on. It gave the American voters a distinct idea of what the Republican Party would do, should they be elected.

However, this year, the Tea Party movement has defined the Republican Party. In the Politico poll, serious warning signs exist that the general population is not pandering to the far right, as they like to think.

It has received very little notice from the electorate—31 percent of poll respondents did not know enough about the Tea Party movement to judge its future. Also, 26 percent of those polled said the movement was a fad. Totaling the two numbers, 57 percent of Americans know very little about the Tea Party movement or don’t take it seriously.

The GOP could take a lesson from 1994 if they choose to succeed.

Understanding a candidate positions and what they stand for is much more defining than what they do not stand for.

Our politics is compromised of two parties, giving it a “this or that” feel. That should not be the notion that dominates legislative affairs of our country. If the GOP wishes to succeed, it needs to come up with new, innovative ideas— something more interesting than cutting taxes.

Schoolteachers Driving Cadillacs
Krugman explains that despite conservative claims, public employees are not overpaid in comparison to private ones.

Slow to Spend
Nice article explaining that Obama is pro-business despite what Republicans say.

A Battle Abrewing Over Birthright Citizenship
A look at the disturbing calls made by republicans to repeal the 14th amendment in order to end birthright citizenship.

World War II
A nice historical lesson on macro economics that shows when government commits to mobilizing resources it can effectively lower unemployment.

It’s been said that you are bound to nothing but your dreams. They are what define you as an individual and set the course for your future.

If this is the case, illegal immigrants are at odds with this ideal. Instead of taking on their lives’ goals, they are tied to a piece of legislation.

Two ASU graduate students showed their disdain for this fact by protesting in Washington, D.C.

According to The Arizona Republic, grad students Erika Andiola and Dulce Matuz were arrested Tuesday while expressing their support of the DREAM Act, an immigration bill that aims to help illegal immigrant minors earn citizenship status.

Both Andiola and Matuz were involved in a sit-in that took place in the offices of several U.S. senators. Andiola sat in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office while Matuz sat in Arizona Sen. John McCain’s office.

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act would offer children brought into the country before the age of 16 a path to citizenship. Attending college or serving in the armed forces for a minimum of two years would earn them legal status.

These two ASU students deserve our admiration for standing up for their beliefs. Andiola and Matuz believed in their cause so much that they not only traveled across the country but also ended up being detained by Capitol police.

What these students stood for does not amount to amnesty. Yes, it provides illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, but the group that the bill is tailored to committed no wrongdoings. Rather, they are reeling from the actions of their parents, who decided to immigrate illegally to the United States.

These students affected by the DREAM Act would prove they are contributing members of society, as the bill requires them to attend college or serve in the military and maintain “good moral standing” with the law. They would not get a free pass; rather, the citizenship would be earned.

Also, passage of this bill would help our economy. In 2007, the then-head of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Julie Myers, told a Senate committee that it would cost $94 billion to find and remove all 12 million illegal immigrants, according to CNN. A new study from the Center for American Progress reports that cost would now be $285 billion.

Ninety-four billion dollars or $285 billion, take your pick.

Either way, it is a lot of money that could be used in more productive ways.

What if we were to offer tax cuts to small businesses to encourage them to hire? Perhaps the money could be used to fund education or aid to cash-strapped states.

Not only would we be losing this money if we relied on mass deportation, but we would lose all the talent that exists within this group of students that would otherwise be deported.

Entrepreneurs exist in this pool of students who will start businesses that will provide jobs and help the economy get back on its feet. Doctors can be found among those affected by the legislation as well.

Though time is dwindling down in this congressional session, the DREAM Act can still be passed. It has broad bipartisan support in both houses, something that is rare in the current partisan atmosphere. Though comprehensive immigration reform has been ruled out for this congressional session, there is still time to pass the DREAM Act.