tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32064965818945137322024-03-12T19:00:37.858-07:00The WashboardGet a brainwash
with conservative perspective on politics and culture. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04336708563163197908noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-17313652082173823432014-05-08T19:37:00.002-07:002014-05-08T20:05:32.669-07:00Obamacare vs. the Common Core: GOP Flunks on Priorities<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguzDrnAVSCHG1FrDhMVT43vZRQBf-uPbMArzQKGpVTqywHp4tQF-uRxfDV0LUrjgQetlOn-2kmhraAQlk1eJJgFkV5ojyV7Icd2qMrBRXoQx8cgkS7D487wAM7IMMVEp8X0gArSuRuw4I/s1600/common+core.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguzDrnAVSCHG1FrDhMVT43vZRQBf-uPbMArzQKGpVTqywHp4tQF-uRxfDV0LUrjgQetlOn-2kmhraAQlk1eJJgFkV5ojyV7Icd2qMrBRXoQx8cgkS7D487wAM7IMMVEp8X0gArSuRuw4I/s1600/common+core.png" height="142" width="400" /></a></div>
<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600"
o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f"
stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/>
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/>
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/>
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/>
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_3" o:spid="_x0000_s1027" type="#_x0000_t75"
alt="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLkF6TugroI2KJ23sEe4VJolXpyAfJ7IMSncaHvvyqVsopJizGZ5scMmt_HVRzXtBskC-NK1T-LEGhP95z_MS0vMNqb1qCk8cazvykGdUVEwdYgkdwRXl4Gth4Gpg0LI5xvVePV_bbWBY/s1600/common-core1.png"
href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLkF6TugroI2KJ23sEe4VJolXpyAfJ7IMSncaHvvyqVsopJizGZ5scMmt_HVRzXtBskC-NK1T-LEGhP95z_MS0vMNqb1qCk8cazvykGdUVEwdYgkdwRXl4Gth4Gpg0LI5xvVePV_bbWBY/s1600/common-core1.png"
style='position:absolute;margin-left:0;margin-top:0;width:240.25pt;height:85.2pt;
z-index:251659264;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square;
mso-width-percent:0;mso-height-percent:0;mso-wrap-distance-left:9pt;
mso-wrap-distance-top:0;mso-wrap-distance-right:9pt;
mso-wrap-distance-bottom:0;mso-position-horizontal:absolute;
mso-position-horizontal-relative:text;mso-position-vertical:absolute;
mso-position-vertical-relative:text;mso-width-percent:0;mso-height-percent:0;
mso-width-relative:page;mso-height-relative:page' o:button="t">
<v:fill o:detectmouseclick="t"/>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\Cody\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png"
o:title="proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-8KfECmSF3Zc%2FU0GvQKV2fdI%2FAAAAAAAAAIA%2Ff6AvqjZC77M%2Fs1600%2Fcommon-core1"/>
<w:wrap type="square"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->Would you be okay with your 4<sup>th</sup>
grader learning how to masturbate from his school textbook? Would you think it’s
a good idea to teach kids that the correct answer to 72+81 is 150, not 153?
What about cutting Tom Sawyer from the curriculum, and replacing it with
articles about the imminent dangers of man-made global warming? Do you look
forward to the day your teacher informs you your kid has been held back,
because he just “isn’t getting” the coursework?<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
With the passing of the Obamacare enrollment deadline last month,
Republicans have sunk their teeth even deeper into the disastrous healthcare
exchange, tearing to shreds the broken promises and misleading enrollment
numbers from talk radio, to Fox News, to the blogosphere.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-size: 11pt;">It's pretty clear that the GOP is
flunking Political Priorities 101. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-size: 11pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-size: 11pt;">It's one thing
to encumber an adult's ability to buy affordable healthcare coverage; it's
another to target children, America's future, with the most damaging and
far-reaching education policy ever to be implemented on a national scale: the
Common Core, an exhaustive set of allegedly "rigorous" K-12
education standards aiming to make graduates "college and career
ready".</span><o:p></o:p><br />
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-size: 11pt;"><br /></span>
Common Core is one of the real and present dangers our nation faces, economically, politically, and culturally. But
the Republican Party, as usual, is trying to ice the bruises and bandage the
cuts from a botched Obamacare rollout when the patient is experiencing the
rapid and ravaging spread of a cancer we should have diagnosed years ago.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
The Common Core was initially introduced to us as a set of "rigorous
standards", applicable to mathematics and the literary arts, that
will prepare our children for competition in a global economy, providing a
uniform academic standard of measurement for every public school in
the country. They claimed they were "<a href="http://arizonansagainstcommoncore.com/Benchmarks.html">internationally
benchmarked</a>" and would make our K-12 students "career and college
ready". <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
The results have been far from what we were promised, but neither this
or the fact that not a single educator approved the final standards hasn't
stopped Bill Gates from expressing strong support for the admirable cause
Common Core espouses to serve, giving $200 million to fund the
efforts of bureaucrats from various Big Ed institutions, including
the Department of Education, Achieve Inc., and the Council of Chief State
School Officers, to craft the set of standards. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
In 2011, <a href="http://www.ascd.org/common-core-state-standards/common-core-state-standards-adoption-map.aspx">45 states quietly adopted</a> Common
Core standards through the National Governor's Association, and the mainstream
media didn't catch so much as a whiff of a story.<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYqG0fI5BiCBLLngzuANDjhzR-yhDDmfnkOgpF7ntTBsF545mo2SLxPXONGhtZxzjUj9oRUIP1KGPUrHOfTyxsEzfDyTOIsUdx3KB_xSmNuGMJvqaKPZQ-UaSgUmq14jrcM2J8_Jv_MC8/s1600/common-core-the-peoples-cube.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYqG0fI5BiCBLLngzuANDjhzR-yhDDmfnkOgpF7ntTBsF545mo2SLxPXONGhtZxzjUj9oRUIP1KGPUrHOfTyxsEzfDyTOIsUdx3KB_xSmNuGMJvqaKPZQ-UaSgUmq14jrcM2J8_Jv_MC8/s1600/common-core-the-peoples-cube.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
But the standards merely laid the foundation for the developing shift in
standardized testing, and a hugely consequential "curricula
shift" that is at once radically incompetent, and competently radical. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
While the use of a uniform set of content for educators has not been
mandated for Common Core, the textbook companies have already shifted to
producing course material aligned with the standards, targeting their sales to
capture as much of the federal subsidies states received under the Race to
the Top initiative as possible, which, in wake of the recession, they
eagerly accepted in exchange for signing on to Common Core. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
The result is a curricula market that is flooded with Common Core material
tailored to meet the extensive set of standards, making alternative course
material difficult to find and more expensive. It's infected the bloodstream of
American education, and every public school, every cell, will manifest the
consequences.<o:p></o:p><br />
Take note that Common Core shares this in common with Obamacare: they aren't
top-down mandates per se, but a steadily and increasingly limited range of
choices. If you like your textbook, you can keep your textbook... until you
can't. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
Welcome to the new educational paradigm; the shift is nearly complete.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
Although the battle against this disease seems like a losing one at the
moment, we have the technology to at least track its symptoms as it spreads.
The internet is one of society's most effective tools, and you can find
copious parent and teacher testimonies on YouTube regarding the
negative content and deeply leftist approach in the K-12 textbooks, including
demonstrations of social justice themes and<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSHoxWaVeto&src_vid=rGph7QHzmo8&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_2878302051" target="_blank"> lessons for 1st graders</a> on how
to use "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdPz7Eg18jU" target="_blank">emotional words</a>" to provoke anger or sadness in
their readers to get them to do what they want, which not only teach children
to manipulate people on an emotional level, but stunt their rational thinking
and their ability to empathize.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIk1g4rsELEpCTvxzH1UQftAOfTpMqArvBYwgwYM2ukbiKFF1RhHKcZEZrkktFAlakqwtPy1_irevqYwslwOfNbfS35HfLtclu_awQ0UvyH2RRbZeecOJTNh72kg__FdwuvvBNuLCkGiU/s1600/planned+parenthood.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIk1g4rsELEpCTvxzH1UQftAOfTpMqArvBYwgwYM2ukbiKFF1RhHKcZEZrkktFAlakqwtPy1_irevqYwslwOfNbfS35HfLtclu_awQ0UvyH2RRbZeecOJTNh72kg__FdwuvvBNuLCkGiU/s1600/planned+parenthood.jpg" /></a></div>
<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_s1026"
type="#_x0000_t75" alt="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhciJcOWGNLylaJxzglEOoCoyEUhHXVJXPyxbJynlyWDI2K96X9fzMPQOUY0KCh7uhGuTBQ1g3GMvUk4GUvw_0F03g3AB573jUWVGnNEMsSbJyakolXvo-zCcGv-Ov1AwEYgYEJnD4iVJg/s1600/untitled+(2).png&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*"
href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhciJcOWGNLylaJxzglEOoCoyEUhHXVJXPyxbJynlyWDI2K96X9fzMPQOUY0KCh7uhGuTBQ1g3GMvUk4GUvw_0F03g3AB573jUWVGnNEMsSbJyakolXvo-zCcGv-Ov1AwEYgYEJnD4iVJg/s1600/untitled+(2).png"
style='position:absolute;margin-left:0;margin-top:.15pt;width:152.8pt;
height:185.15pt;z-index:251658240;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square;
mso-width-percent:0;mso-height-percent:0;mso-wrap-distance-left:9pt;
mso-wrap-distance-top:0;mso-wrap-distance-right:9pt;
mso-wrap-distance-bottom:0;mso-position-horizontal:absolute;
mso-position-horizontal-relative:text;mso-position-vertical:absolute;
mso-position-vertical-relative:text;mso-width-percent:0;mso-height-percent:0;
mso-width-relative:page;mso-height-relative:page' o:button="t">
<v:fill o:detectmouseclick="t"/>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\Cody\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image003.jpg"
o:title="proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-uTzKHUr8jVM%2FUz84rl8EVAI%2FAAAAAAAAAHk%2F_T7ULNFx0Fk%2Fs1600%2Funtitled%2B(2)"/>
<w:wrap type="square"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->There's a heavy sexuality component to
the "health-related" coursework as well, aligned with the National
Sexuality Educational Standards and spanning <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OPpbQWg9X8#t=2331" target="_blank">grades
as low as<strong> </strong>2nd grade</a> up through high school. The standards
for the elementary grades focus heavily on sexual orientation and
"how to recognize different family structures", even how
to argue for their value (you can guess what "family
structure" means here). Planned Parenthood is seeking to get into the
textbook industry as well, providing children as young as 2<sup>nd</sup> grade
with graphic illustrations of masturbation. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
Not all this content is mandated by federal law, but Common Core has yanked
open the door, previously left ajar, to full-blown indoctrination and
re-education.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
In mathematics, where the majority of students already struggle, the
designers of the Common Core Standards have taken a most unscientific,
uneducated, and unprecedented approach to teaching math. Commentators are
cracking a lot of jokes about the "right is wrong" nature of
the Common Core math curricula, where 3x4 can equal 11,
"estimative math" is encouraged, and the answer to 7x6 isn't
"42"--it's 42 <em>circles </em>drawn on the page, but it really isn't
that funny.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
Multiple psychologists have <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrQbJlmVJZo" target="_blank">criticized</a>
the radically incompetent, damaging and stress-inducing standards placed
on children whose brains can't fully comprehend what's being asked of
them, but instead are trained on the right answers in order to pass their
tests. For instance, one of the uniform K-12 math standards is to
"reason abstractly and quantitatively", and one of the kindergarten
standards asks 5 year olds to "fluently add and subtract within 5",
despite the fact that anyone who's ever spoken with a 5 year old knows
that the former is impossible, and the latter will take massive amounts of
class time to train on.<br />
Psychologist <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrQbJlmVJZo" target="_blank">Dr. Megan
Koshnik</a> asserted that to teach by these standards, teachers "would
have to wear the hat of a magician".<br />
<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTs5f5R8VQfncuDEmwqoEcLDR189L9978NMdRBCTXtPCrs-Lw6coKoTXhSHlNRm-1RbfG15usx0l60McHw3Tgrh4Mn-zQluZpKD49M34o02lANnvoAyNUDUsKB5Pf8OlKVp4hXRVU7ZQw/s1600/Common-Core-cropped.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTs5f5R8VQfncuDEmwqoEcLDR189L9978NMdRBCTXtPCrs-Lw6coKoTXhSHlNRm-1RbfG15usx0l60McHw3Tgrh4Mn-zQluZpKD49M34o02lANnvoAyNUDUsKB5Pf8OlKVp4hXRVU7ZQw/s1600/Common-Core-cropped.jpg" height="171" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Without a solid foundation of
concrete understanding, they'll have to learn all over again in the
upper grades, or even be held back.<br />
<br />
Graduation won’t be the joyous occasion your teenager hoped for, as he
contemplates the choices left for him without the skills needed for college
STEM classes; he may be incapable of even gaining entrance into the selective
institutions of higher education. High school will be spent learning all the basic qualitative skills they should have mastered in the lower grades, and freshman year at college will be spent learning all the
math and science competencies they should have gained in high school—only
these classes are much more expensive.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
At the same time that we're pushing advanced concepts on immature
brains of elementary school, the level of "rigor" we should expect
from high schoolers simply doesn't exist. Do they read the classics? No, though
they might read a few pages from each, and maybe Mark Twain's "Jumping
Frog".<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
In a competently radical fashion, Common Core requires a 50-50 split between
literature and informational works, increasing to 70% by 12th grade. Going back
to the themes of social justice, this required space for non-fiction
texts is the perfect platform for activist education, for taking up even
more of a students brain space with <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0__RkRbEr4" target="_blank">anti-American
sentiments</a>, the positive societal impact of 99%
movement, and the <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/17/Colorado-Common-Core-Elementary-School-Assignment-Slams-Fossil-Fuels" target="_blank">imminent dangers of climate change</a>. Not only that, but as a<strong>
</strong><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCoOv_DwaAk" target="_blank">Hillsdale
professor </a>illustrated, this is destroying any creativity of thought or
imagination that might have survived the previous 9 years of dictatorial
classroom training. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWAnoc_ReywQ0veisUkTJGxXJcTeoxV7k0dNKuheMZ56bgLMGKaUA6FQr0lhzH3JT9tq6-cjv6ySwNyYYzntdRJ526BRmo3ym8KXUWStYK1yMSOt-xqAuKDN6btVJPYUe-ieKiyqIAmOE/s1600/Rottenecards_CommonCore3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWAnoc_ReywQ0veisUkTJGxXJcTeoxV7k0dNKuheMZ56bgLMGKaUA6FQr0lhzH3JT9tq6-cjv6ySwNyYYzntdRJ526BRmo3ym8KXUWStYK1yMSOt-xqAuKDN6btVJPYUe-ieKiyqIAmOE/s1600/Rottenecards_CommonCore3.png" height="224" width="320" /></a>So you've gotten just a glimpse of Common Core's threat to public K-12
education. You'd think the direct impact of Common Core would cease when the
grads throw their caps, but the cancer has reached beyond the involuntary
organs to infect the higher functions, our education's voluntary institutions
of higher learning.<o:p></o:p><br />
The<a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/milpitas/ci_25547510/new-sat-format-align-common-core-college-curriculum" target="_blank"> SAT</a> and<a href="http://www.act.org/solutions/college-career-readiness/common-core-state-standards/" target="_blank"> ACT</a> have already reformed their tests to align
with the Common Core standards. That means not only that universities will be
basing entrance evaluations off exams that aren't meant to test college
readiness, but rather the results of Common Core education, but that private
and homeschooled students will be at a disadvantage going into it, not having
the same base knowledge or skills (if you can call them that) as the public
school student.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
The many emotions that course through me when I think of Common
Core are overwhelming, at once a burning rage and an ice cold fear.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
As someone who was homeschooled and then graduated college two years
early, I am severely disappointed that even fewer people will have the kind of
opportunity a rigorous education provides. I'm despondent over the
fact that if your kid doesn't have a brain <i>exactly</i>
wired to be receptive to Common Core methodology, they'll likely be labeled as
defective or remedial learners, just because they learn differently. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
The thought that some of the world's most brilliant minds will go
unrecognized and dis-incentivized in a classroom that stifles independent
thought and creativity crushes my spirit. They will likely never know or
reach their potential, all because some bureaucrats thought they knew how to
teach your kids better than you or their teacher can.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
As a future mother, I am outraged on behalf of the kids I will someday have,
whose futures I'm seeking to protect. What future am I preparing them for, if I
remain speechless and compliant?<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
And as an American, I have a much deeper and more intense fear of Common
Core's effect on our country than I do of Obama's limitations on health
insurance and incompetently run healthcare exchange.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
Common Core is not just putting "health" and education in the iron grasp of
government bureaucrats. It is putting your children's future, and their
children's future, under the watchful gaze and manipulative hands of a radical
elite aimed at indoctrination and social control. And the thing is, the next
generation won't have the intellectual capability, much less the freedom,
to fight back.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
It's past time Republicans wise up and reassess their
priorities. Your biggest threat is not the most visible, the surface
wounds from the Affordable Care Act; it is the disease that's spreading
rapidly, almost unhindered, through the our education system. It's Common Core,
and competent radicals will not yield to an opposition that doesn't take the
fight to them.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-8KfECmSF3Zc%2FU0GvQKV2fdI%2FAAAAAAAAAIA%2Ff6AvqjZC77M%2Fs1600%2Fcommon-core1.png&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLkF6TugroI2KJ23sEe4VJolXpyAfJ7IMSncaHvvyqVsopJizGZ5scMmt_HVRzXtBskC-NK1T-LEGhP95z_MS0vMNqb1qCk8cazvykGdUVEwdYgkdwRXl4Gth4Gpg0LI5xvVePV_bbWBY/s1600/common-core1.png" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-uTzKHUr8jVM%2FUz84rl8EVAI%2FAAAAAAAAAHk%2F_T7ULNFx0Fk%2Fs1600%2Funtitled%2B" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhciJcOWGNLylaJxzglEOoCoyEUhHXVJXPyxbJynlyWDI2K96X9fzMPQOUY0KCh7uhGuTBQ1g3GMvUk4GUvw_0F03g3AB573jUWVGnNEMsSbJyakolXvo-zCcGv-Ov1AwEYgYEJnD4iVJg/s1600/untitled+" -->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04336708563163197908noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-34743973291245459572014-03-19T02:23:00.001-07:002014-03-20T00:22:46.569-07:0076% of Americans Live Paycheck to Paycheck and the Left Wants to Boost Minimum Wage. SHOCKER.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLhpWPvV8iHSm-7kNKMr1GbnCsJ1JFAseHmqEW0_8RVBgBQ8aOu2qV9hwRnO0nDieJw6uOtVK2cQAEEQbPNI5XuGY51muYAHXi161RInpJGPz_G7Hgcd6nMTm6oEVLaMZ3f2v2dYfDUlQ/s1600/paycheck_to_paycheck.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLhpWPvV8iHSm-7kNKMr1GbnCsJ1JFAseHmqEW0_8RVBgBQ8aOu2qV9hwRnO0nDieJw6uOtVK2cQAEEQbPNI5XuGY51muYAHXi161RInpJGPz_G7Hgcd6nMTm6oEVLaMZ3f2v2dYfDUlQ/s1600/paycheck_to_paycheck.png" height="179" width="320" /></a></div>
Every once in a while I'll see a report on cable news, the radio, or some other medium, telling me that most Americans live paycheck to paycheck. CNN just reported that <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/index.html" target="_blank">76% of Americans</a> don't have enough savings to cover major life upsets, such as a health emergency or getting laid off.<br />
<br />
That's not a comforting statistic, especially with health plans dropping all over the place thanks to Obamacare. The fact that the great majority of Americans "live <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/index.html" target="_blank">paycheck to paycheck</a>" is a zinger of a one-liner for pro <a href="http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2022420118_minimumwageeconomyxml.html" target="_blank">minimum-wage-hikers</a>, because after all, everyone should feel secure, right?<br />
<br />
Salon.com, for instance, has <a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/03/17/paycheck_to_paycheck_can_this_documentary_help_raise_the_minimum_wage/" target="_blank">this </a>to say about the matter: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Bonuses allotted by firms on Wall Street in 2013 could “cover the cost of more than doubling the paychecks for all of the 1,085,000 Americans who work full-time at the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.” Even more alarming is the reality that millions of Americans are still living paycheck to paycheck. And while President Obama has signed an <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/miniumum-wage-executive-order-barack-obama-103450.html">executive order raising the minimum wage</a> for employees under federal contracts to $10.10 an hour, Congress continues to drag its feet on wage increases nationwide.</blockquote>
While it may pluck the heart-strings of other liberals in that 76% percent and benevolent billionaire leftists, it is simply exasperating to responsible earners like my husband and me.<br />
<br />
I'll explain why, to the dramatic tune of the world's tiniest violin.<br />
<br />
As a general rule, at least in Western societies, <strong>people spend what they earn</strong>. When you get a pay bump, so does your lifestyle. It's almost automatic, and I've experienced it myself. Before you've realized the trap you've fallen into, you have a financed 2012 Honda Civic in your parking spot, an Xbox One, and $50 spent eating out every weekend, and $26k in student debt (personal example). <br />
<br />
America really does have a luxurious middle class that spends more time consuming than they do producing, and often spend even more than what they make. You might be reading this post on your iPhone 5, or glancing through it while simultaneously watching cable on your 42" flat screen TV. You're probably sitting on cushy retail furniture. <br />
<br />
Even below the poverty line, the majority of households don't go without the <a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-americans-poverty-typically-have-cell-phones-computers-tvs" target="_blank">standard "essentials" of modern living</a>, including TVs, cell phones, microwaves, washers and dryers, and even air conditioning. Just under 30% have gaming systems, 33% have flatscreen TVs, and <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor" target="_blank">63% have cable.</a> And as for healthcare, the supposed trump card for government involvement on behalf of the poor--only 13% of poor families reported not being able to afford <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor" target="_blank">medical attention</a> at any point during the year (2009).<br />
<br />
In other words, the fact that most Americans live paycheck to paycheck means that people usually have what they need, and more. <br />
<br />
Mr. Money Mustache (I know, strange name), an extremely popular personal finance blogger and early retiree, shows through a case study that even<a href="http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/09/26/reader-case-study-minimum-wage-with-a-baby-on-the-way/" target="_blank"> minimum wage earners </a>can get out of their debt<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAfF2HTdwlyS-SGFg1tHC5HnmMxTUCZWlzJXg-OPtvjvisgtJTSSF9DlBKir8aJ1L1Gp2it1wFBtZcT-sPmx3IrWJmg5ricza3WnMhRxH0hlnjFAVOas9FQSys8kNUrOw10k3SMQlFRks/s1600/Mr-Money-Mustache-Logo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAfF2HTdwlyS-SGFg1tHC5HnmMxTUCZWlzJXg-OPtvjvisgtJTSSF9DlBKir8aJ1L1Gp2it1wFBtZcT-sPmx3IrWJmg5ricza3WnMhRxH0hlnjFAVOas9FQSys8kNUrOw10k3SMQlFRks/s1600/Mr-Money-Mustache-Logo.jpg" /></a></div>
and spending cycles and starting building security by reforming their spending habits (yes, even in the city!). Actually, by implementing some of his strategies, my husband and I are about $300 a month away from being able to live off one income.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, the typical American seems widely unaware of his potential, and continues to consume the entire value of his labor...and that would be fine, if Life didn't happen. But as <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPMsZYyesRE" target="_blank">Michelle Obama</a> incessantly reminds us, Life does happen. Maybe you fall off a bar stool and break your arm, or crash your uninsured car...or blow up your kitchen trying to make hash oil (congrats, Seattle). Life can sting like a Washingtonian sunburn in June. We can agree on that. <br />
<br />
What we can't agree on, however, is how to address America's vulnerability to financial crises. Liberals say America "needs a raise", and are pushing for a higher minimum wage.<br />
<br />
Conservatives disagree, but is a politician really expected to look straight into the camera and assert that no, we don't need a raise, and that we personally should stop consuming so much and start building some savings? That guy is definitely not the Man with the Plan.<br />
<br />
And unfortunately, it seems that the general public does want some sort of plan from government to help ensure their general security.<br />
<br />
The messaging from the Right seems less than robust in this regard, at least in Seattle, and as a result we come out looking like the wary watch dogs of corporate interests, not the defenders of liberty and opportunity. "Minimum wage kills jobs" is not a particularly persuasive response to low wage workers, especially since it is so difficult to prove (how do you prove that a job <em>would have been</em> created under different circumstances?) meaning the Left can flat out deny the economic costs again and again. <br />
<br />
I'm no political mastermind, but if an Independent were to ask me, "What would YOU do about the fact that Americans live paycheck to paycheck?" I would drive home a message of empowerment, maximizing opportunity and earning potential through a thriving economy that welcomes new businesses and new ideas to improve our quality of life, and ultimately reduce the cost of living.<br />
<br />
I'd throw in some practical policy rhetoric, but just enough to pique their interest and let them know we have practical solutions, like tax-free health savings or emergency accounts and letting you buy the insurance plan that fits your budget.<br />
<br />
I'd say we aim to make life easier and more simple for everyone, and let you make your own decisions on what you should put away... and if you're really barely scraping by, encouraging workers to demand higher wages or find someone who will pay them more. If I were a local statesman, I might even add a line or two about mandating Personal Finance classes for public high schools.<br />
<br />
This is precisely the opposite of the liberal messaging, but it's just as appealing, if not more so. Liberals aim at benefiting a tiny portion of the population, while conservatives want to expand opportunity for everyone. Liberals don't have a plan to truly increase opportunity, only a plan to privilege a few by mandating that opportunity be given to them at someone else's expense--the opposite of their own messaging.<br />
<br />
And while the Right is fighting for you to keep what you earn, the Left chips away at your take-home pay with taxes and withholdings, and increases your living expenses with countless levies, tolls, tabs, and costs passed on to you from businesses--all while assuring they're keeping you safe.<br />
<br />
Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and most do it by choice. But there is something we can do about it after all, if you take into consideration the way liberals are quietly robbing you of your ability to use your income when you need it. Conservatives want you to have the freedom to negotiate your own employment terms, and do whatever you want with your income...doesn't that sound appealing?<br />
<br />
So while this 76% statistic is annoying and misleading, I am all for letting my fellow citizens consume, save, and give however they want. The individuals who brandish this statistic as a weapon of class warfare want the opposite. <br />
<br />
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-N7tYY7hHcws%2FUyqWYYnA57I%2FAAAAAAAAAG4%2FnDT7q6wQDoQ%2Fs1600%2FMr-Money-Mustache-Logo.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAfF2HTdwlyS-SGFg1tHC5HnmMxTUCZWlzJXg-OPtvjvisgtJTSSF9DlBKir8aJ1L1Gp2it1wFBtZcT-sPmx3IrWJmg5ricza3WnMhRxH0hlnjFAVOas9FQSys8kNUrOw10k3SMQlFRks/s1600/Mr-Money-Mustache-Logo.jpg" -->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04336708563163197908noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-38972066676141936962014-03-14T00:13:00.001-07:002014-03-15T17:59:02.427-07:00Identity Politics II: I Discuss a Liberal Response to "How the Left Wins on Gay Rights"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA0y-uhklAgrgGnsU0K6YV87ow3KGbX_D8NFcgypl4CAnMmOAZ_NWLEDvWL9QI0uDyQZ2udOtdtXkqWyuLzQBJ-t_UbnQMpSMAK_5FOal12MAL0RrNcn_IUEoK7JcR1lYG26kREiztzek/s1600/1374220248_left-vs-right-politics.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA0y-uhklAgrgGnsU0K6YV87ow3KGbX_D8NFcgypl4CAnMmOAZ_NWLEDvWL9QI0uDyQZ2udOtdtXkqWyuLzQBJ-t_UbnQMpSMAK_5FOal12MAL0RrNcn_IUEoK7JcR1lYG26kREiztzek/s1600/1374220248_left-vs-right-politics.jpg" height="235" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
On the evening I posted <a href="http://mywashboard.blogspot.com/2014/03/identity-politics-and-how-left-wins-on.html">Identity Politics: How the Left Wins on Gay Rights,</a> I received an opposition response on Facebook from a friend of a more liberal bend. Here is the response in its entirety. Nothing has been edited or removed:<br />
<br />
<em>Interesting points, Georgi. My two cents from the other side of the fence: </em><br />
<em>On your first point, on the liberal's broad generalization and categorizing as a political tool: I find this perspective interesting. I see what you are saying, but I disagree. I find that the left's success in representing minority groups is actually that, while they do seek to define them initially (as I believe you must do in broad scale politics, on either side of the table), they're interested in bringing them into the fold. In other words, I think many people see the left as inclusive, and the right as exclusive. The left accomplishes this, in part, by touting the "your minority *doesn't* define you. You deserve to be treated like everyone else." mantra.</em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em>This shifts into your last point, the creation of a victim group. I frankly find this portrayal to be insensitive, and invalidating to the members of minority groups. Rather or not it is your belief, your wording to me sounds like the many issues facing minority groups are simply political construction, and not the living reality of many people. The left is more successful than the right at treating these groups inclusively, often using their very real victimization as a political tool. But they do not create victims, and why would they? They certainly don't need to. There are plenty of disadvantaged people in the world. </em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em>Additionally, your last point seems contradictory to your earlier ones. When you discuss the gay sports players, and talk about how the right wasn't concerned with them because their sexuality has nothing to do with their ability as players, this seems to be the attitude you accuse the left of earlier. The right is only concerned with these people as one thing, sports players, and does not consider them holistically as people. The left however, takes advantage of the situation, acknowledging that these young men made a difficult choice in coming out, and taking the chance to celebrate that fact. </em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em>Lastly, while the left may be accused of resting overly on the disadvantages of minority groups, the right has the opposite issue: Not acknowledging that things like the sexuality, class, skin color, and sex you are born to have a drastic effect on your ability to live: safely, comfortably, or in some cases at all. Some people are born into better circumstances than others, and it's the responsibility of those of us who are in that position of privilege to help and champion others who are less fortunate.</em><br />
<br />
Dear Friend,<br />
<br />
Let me start out my saying that I believe you are truly compassionate and interested in doing what you think is right for people in general. For that reason, and that identity politics is part of the core dialogue between the Left and the Right, your comment deserves a response. I don't expect it to persuade hard-core liberals, or even you, but it should at least provide more clarity for those who aren't 100% persuaded for or against my argument.<br />
<br />
Your response to my initial first point, about liberals dividing the population into broad demographical categories, was this, "<em>I find that the left's success in representing minority groups is actually that, while they do seek to define them initially (as I believe you must do in broad scale politics, on either side of the table), they're interested in bringing them into the fold. In other words, I think many people see the </em>left as inclusive, <em>and the</em> right as exclusive"<em>. </em><br />
<br />
Well, you're partially right. Many people <em>do </em>see the Right as exclusive, and the Left as inclusive and trying to bring minorities into the fold. However, whether you means to convey it or not, this is an <em>ad populum </em>fallacy, and it only holds up under the critique of those who believe that perception and consensus is the both the ends and the means. <br />
<br />
What's funny about this claim to Inclusiveness, which is supposed to give liberalism the moral high ground, is that while conservatives may not center policy debate around people's ethnicity like liberals do, liberals have their own sets of people that they go out of their way to exclude from debate, target, or deny protection to.<br />
<br />
Here are a few: <br />
<ul>
<li><strong>Religious minorities. </strong>Anyone who pays attention to the products that come out of Hollywood, or hears Chris Matthews or Nancy Pelosi talk, knows this is true. In fact, the far-left is bent on destroying these groups.</li>
<li><strong>Educational minorities. </strong>The Left would see homeschooling banned tomorrow if they could, which is why these individuals rely on the HSLDA to protect them from anti-home education policies. </li>
<li><strong>Fathers</strong>: when dysfunctional parents go to court, it's almost always the father that gets shafted in custody battles. Liberals heavily favor mothers, regardless of whether the father is better fit to raise the child. </li>
<li><strong>Small business people & employers</strong>: People motivated by profit are consistently excluded from the liberal agenda. </li>
<li><strong>The unborn</strong>: Need we even discuss how the left has neglected the most vulnerable among us?</li>
</ul>
<br />
As for "seeking to define them initially", I understand what you're getting at regarding having to define people broadly, since you have to have words in order to talk about things, or in this case, people. However, the argument that I made in my previous post was that liberals go beyond simply talking about people in general terms, to actively seeking to represent people through a single defining descriptor, in large categorical blocks. (i.e. gay, black, Latino, etc.). For instance, instead of talking about America, as a liberal I'm more likely to talk about Hispanic America, Black America, and White America, as if somehow there's a critical difference among these ethnicities that has to be reflected in policy in order for us to be a fair and just society . The Left has succeeded in having ethnicity be reflected in policy, beyond making sure that we are all equal under the law (Affirmative Action, for instance). Social Justice is <em>all about </em>grouping people and treating each group differently.<br />
<br />
When you say that liberals seek to tell minorities, "<em>your minority doesn't define you; you deserve to be treated like everyone else</em>", this might be consistent with certain strains of "academic liberalism", which is the pleasant and seemingly benign kind that children are taught in school. The kind that everyone should agree with, in theory. However, when you enter political dialogue and policy application, this simply isn't true. <br />
<br />
When Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor got up to discuss minority activism, that certainly wasn't the case when she said, "'I'm <em>very optimistic about the power of minorities to change the dialogue</em> (not just activists or good people).. <em>Money was the obstacle to women and minorities in government. We [minorities] are going to have to work the political system at the highest level."</em> As if Latino or African American students have a particular obligation, simply <em>because</em> of their ethnicity, to make certain kinds of political efforts. <br />
<br />
So I would ask anyone to show me where I can find this broadly used rhetoric about how "your minority doesn't define you" among Democrat politicians and community organizers, because that simply has not been my experience. <br />
<br />
As for the second point of the response: "<em>I frankly find this portrayal [of a victim group] to be insensitive, and invalidating to the members of minority groups. Rather [sic] or not it is your belief, your wording to me sounds like the many issues facing minority groups are simply political construction, and not the living reality of many people."</em><br />
<br />
It certainly was not my intent to convey that all issues facing minorities are a fictitious, and if you read any of my other writings, you won't find any evidence in support of this. Rather, what I was articulating in my first post was that liberals generate a victim mentality within an entire group, instead of focusing on the <em>actions </em>of specific individuals who would harm or hold back anyone simply because of their minority status, or directly address the economic issues that heavily affect certain minorities. <br />
<br />
The left frequently manipulates minority categories on a demographic level, taking any specific instances of homosexuals coming out, or minority individuals being introduced on the political stage, as opportunities to portray whole groups of people as victims, and whole groups of people (always conservatives) as persecutors. Liberals make poor generalizations from the specific to the group level, because they so strongly tend to view people in groups, not as individuals.<br />
<br />
If you acknowledge this, it isn't surprising to see the Diversity Coordinator of South Sound Community College publicly defend an invitation to a "<a href="http://diverseeducation.com/article/61203/">diversity happy hour</a>" that explicitly excluded whites from attending... because white people as a general rule are so racist as to make minorities feel uncomfortable sharing their beliefs about diversity. Or take the ACLU's lawsuit against the <a href="http://www.yakimaherald.com/home/1929514-8/yakima-council-members-deposed-in-aclu-lawsuit">City of Yakima </a>on the ground that the Latino ethnicity doesn't have any representation on the "all-white" city council... therefore the city council <em>must</em> be treating Hispanics unequally. <br />
<br />
You continue: "<em>But [liberals] do not create victims, and why would they? They certainly don't need to. There are plenty of disadvantaged people in the world." </em><br />
<em></em><br />
Yes, there are many disadvantaged and persecuted people in the world. That's precisely where the great hypocrisy of applied liberalism comes to bear, because the most disadvantaged among us are refused protection from by the Left. It's nearly impossible to find common ground with a liberal on the abortion debate, but you cannot deny that the rights of the unborn are not completely neglected by the Left. <br />
<br />
If we look internationally, we see terrible human suffering: religious persecution, ethnic hatred, oppression of women... and yet the Left is very selective when it comes to which victims they call attention to, give money to, or work through policy to protect. I think liberals and conservatives are guilty of this to some degree, but the Left in particular seems extraordinarily willing to poor precious resources into fighting a <a href="http://mywashboard.blogspot.com/2014/02/opportunity-knocksand-brewer-gets-her.html">non-existent anti-gay bill</a>, or for "women's right to choose", than they are for the rights of women to be educated in Saudi Arabia.<br />
<br />
...More willing to stand on the Senate floor <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/10/senate-democrats-plan-all-night-global-warming-talkathon-in-support-of-er/">all night</a> to lament the imaginary impact of man-made global warming than to work on providing clean drinking water to underdeveloped regions...<br />
<br />
...More concerned with <a href="http://bwog.com/2014/03/11/israel-apartheid-week-causes-a-stir-at-barnard/">Palestinians' right</a> to settle in historic Jewish land and call it their own than for the right of Israel to have even their existence acknowledged... <br />
<br />
...More interested in the righteousness of<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/07/mark-zmuda-discrimination-lawsuit-_n_4920342.html"> suing a Catholic school</a> for discrimination against a homosexual than in the Constitutional right of religious people to freely express and defend their convictions...<br />
<br />
...More provoked to publicly defend the dignity of an <a href="http://nypost.com/2014/03/13/a-porn-star-is-born-with-support-from-duke/">barely legal porn star</a> than to call for action against human <a href="http://www.womensfundingnetwork.org/resource/past-articles/enslaved-in-america-sex-trafficking-in-the-united-states">sex trafficking</a>, which in some US cities maintains a <a href="http://www.chinapost.com.tw/international/americas/2014/03/14/402734/US-prostitution.htm">bigger black economy</a> than the drug trade.<br />
<br />
I don't lay these out because I revel in proving somebody wrong; indeed, I think you're probably much more aware of many of these issues than the general liberal population. I lay them out so that we can clearly see where resources are being spent and where attention is being drawn. If liberals devoted the same time to the latter issues as to the former, imagine what they could accomplish! Imagine what life and liberty could be preserved and restored! <br />
<br />
With regard to the third point of your response: "<em>When you discuss the gay sports players, and talk about how the right wasn't concerned with them because their sexuality has nothing to do with their ability as players, this seems to be the attitude you accuse the left of earlier. The right is only concerned with these people as one thing, sports players, and does not consider them holistically as people."</em><br />
<em></em><br />
This brings an opportunity to elaborate on a point I didn't unpack in my last post, for the sake of brevity. And that is <em>merit</em> versus <em>characteristic</em>. If only reading that paragraph on the surface level, you could see how that statement might seem contradictory. I asserted that liberals are focusing with laser-like precision on NBA player Jason Collins' homosexuality, and I stated that conservatives are not that interested in Collins <em>in general, </em>because they tend to be more interested in sports than in athletes' sexuality. However, if Collins had been a particularly <em>good </em>basketball player, you might see a little more interest in, for example, how this announcement would affect his contracts, sponsorships, or team affiliation, if at all.<br />
<br />
It should also be noted that, short of being real-life friends with Jason Collins, it's not reasonable to expect the general population to see Collins "holistically". We see him as an individual, not just a symbol of a larger societal category; however, the only sides you can really get of Collins from the mainstream media is his sexuality and his profession. <br />
<br />
That brings us to the last paragraph of the response: "<em>Lastly, while the left may be accused of resting overly on the disadvantages of minority groups, the right has the opposite issue: Not acknowledging that things like the sexuality, class, skin color, and sex you [sic] are born to have a drastic effect on your ability to live: safely, comfortably, or in some cases at all. Some people are born into better circumstances than others, and it's the responsibility of those of us who are in that position of privilege to help and champion others who are less fortunate."</em><br />
<em></em><br />
So here we have the assertion that the Right has "the opposite issue", and do not acknowledge that race, class*, skin color, and sex have a "drastic effect" on not just your life, but your <em>ability </em>to live. Conservatives don't "acknowledge" this drastic effect because we don't believe it exists nearly to the same extent or is as widespread as liberals portray. This repeated assertion, not backed by a close examination of the evidence (see FBI crime reports, as far as safety is concerned), represents the victimhood foundation of liberalism.<br />
<br />
The idea that conservatives are in denial of the effects of certain minority statuses again sets the Left on the moral high ground, and puts the Right in the swamps of ignorance and prejudice. This is always how the Left positions themselves, but it's not reality. If you set it up in absolutes, as in "this is reality, conservatives deny it, therefore conservatives are ignorant and bigoted", then liberalism will come out as the champion of minorities every time.<br />
<br />
However, if you ask a conservative if the believe racism against African Americans and Hispanics exists in America, about 98% of them will say yes, but it represents a very small, lonely minority of the US population. If you ask her, "Does your gender affect your ability to live comfortably in America?" she will say no, because that is preposterous. <br />
<br />
As far as a minority's ability to live comfortably (women are not a minority!), that's an extremely subjective statement that depends on a variety of factors. Certainly no minority is strictly confined to poverty, although it's true that a disproportionate percentage of racial minorities live below the poverty line as compared to whites. The Right and Left have differing ideas on how to lift these people out of poverty.<br />
<br />
With regard to personal safety, any reasonably educated conservative will tell you that your ethnicity or sexual orientation could jeopardize your life itself in some parts of the world, but an instance of this kind of hate crime in comparison to all other violent crime in America is extremely rare. Note that out of<a href="http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls"> total violent crime</a> reported in 2012, only about .003%* were motivated by <a href="http://www.crimeinamerica.net/2013/11/27/6700-reported-hate-crimes-in-2012-48-percent-motivated-by-racial-bias/">bias</a>. In other words, as a minority you're much more likely to be a victim of anything <em>other than</em> minority bias.<br />
<br />
All this to say, an individual's life experience is influenced by minority status, positively or negatively, and conservatives do not deny that. But in general, we believe that ethnic and sexual minorities in the United States enjoy a level of tolerance, opportunity, and quality of life that would be hard to exceed in any other country. <br />
<br />
As for helping those who aren't born into better circumstances, I don't think anyone is denying it's importance or that it's the right thing to do. However, when we speak of "championing the disadvantaged", that's where the Left and the Right divide.<br />
<br />
Conservatives want to champion freedom and the rights of the individual, rights that apply to everyone equally, regardless of minority status. We believe that freedom and unalienable rights are the foundation for prosperity and peace. <br />
<br />
Liberals, on the other hand, have often taken the strategy of setting up a champion for each of the various categories of people in the belief that identity and degrees of privilege matter more than our God-given human rights. "Leveling the playing field" matters more than making sure everyone plays by the same rules.<br />
<br />
Having a Congress ethnically and sexually proportional to the population matters more to the Left than electing people who are qualified to defend our life and liberty. Conservatives avoid the kind of tokenization approach that liberals take with their elected politicians, where minority status is often considered a qualification for leadership (Latina Sonia Sotomayor, for example). <br />
<br />
I hope by now that the distinction between how the Right and the Left see people, and its tremendous impact on our culture and politics, is clear. <br />
<br />
I appreciate that you provided a thoughtful and respectful counter response. Discussion of key issues is important, and I appreciate every one of my readers that comments, tweets, or shares my content. I give consideration to anyone who offers thoughtful and educated disagreements.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">*Calculated by dividing the total number of violent crimes found in the FBI table by the total hate crimes against persons found on crimeinamerica.net.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">*I don't consider class a "minority" status, because class, in America at least, is far from permanent--a social construct we use to talk about inequality, usually in divisive ways. Both poverty and wealth are states you can start in, fall into, or work your way into... Poverty can be overcome, and millions of people do it.</span><br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04336708563163197908noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-31075444678359659342014-03-09T17:29:00.003-07:002014-03-18T17:10:04.468-07:00Identity Politics and How the Left Wins on Gay Rights<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi60Eyki7LK830yiIGBN4I4M3NYCLLKAMovIytawVAkPMsC3e92Wya6xfMenSUFJ2Q9TQNlRUYvm4_Ba6DKq74XrVEYp4uryWHen0kM6p_-kwvAZQb2D-UdSHjwvoqSOoPJrI-6cjPpiTo/s1600/pricetagstyle+(2).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi60Eyki7LK830yiIGBN4I4M3NYCLLKAMovIytawVAkPMsC3e92Wya6xfMenSUFJ2Q9TQNlRUYvm4_Ba6DKq74XrVEYp4uryWHen0kM6p_-kwvAZQb2D-UdSHjwvoqSOoPJrI-6cjPpiTo/s1600/pricetagstyle+(2).jpg" height="167" width="320" /></a>I've filled out dozens of job applications over the past couple weeks, and with each page I am confronted with the absolutely impossible task of defining myself. Questions pop up like, "What are the 3 words that best describe you?", "Check the box next to the ethnicity that best describes you" and "In 160 characters or less, what makes you unique?"<br />
<br />
The full-time job of defining myself on a page for employers to review might not be so overwhelming, if not for the several social media accounts that already demand that I condense myself into a few painstakingly chosen descriptors--I think my Twitter account says something like "Blogger, homeschooler, wife". If you glance down on the right hand column of this blog, you'll see several adjectives I've chosen to let readers know what I'm about.<br />
<br />
Today's social landscape demands self-representation through a few simplistic facets of ourselves-- "tags", if you will, so others can make similar split-second judgments online to the ones they make in person. They also help us identify potential allies or beneficial relationships based on what categorical boxes you're both renting space in. <br />
<br />
Our social lives are built on categorical identity and deliberate, calculated self-expression. Naturally, our national politics are built on identity, too.<br />
<br />
There's no greater hot-button issue in social politics than gay rights. Some of my readers whose memories go a little farther back than 1993 may be a little perplexed as to how our country could have possibly gotten to this point with regard to homosexuality, in both popular attitude and policy. After all, it wasn't until 1974 that the American Psychiatric Association stopped defining homosexuality as a <a href="http://www.behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2011/10/08/homosexuality-the-mental-illness-that-went-away/">mental illness</a>. <br />
<br />
I contend that part of the answer lies in identity politics. The Left is much more deft at manipulating and maneuvering through identity politics than the Right, who consistently find themselves on the defensive... it's only after the debate is over that conservatives recognize, bitterly, how the liberals have used identity to their favor.<br />
<br />
The Left's strategy for winning with identity politics can be broken down into three words, which seems fitting given the context:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbj4kxjwUcOqTrLVSb3zsF2ReTX0QgeX1zFvx0P0pUEmGwYP9oDFjgKLzwUpMUaa5liyRImTet_DM8jFsSRyKIJ7Z-zoavd7PR6tomZoqH1npYdJsIlCvVVpQVWVQureqZPeDe8f7Eobc/s1600/lgbtq_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbj4kxjwUcOqTrLVSb3zsF2ReTX0QgeX1zFvx0P0pUEmGwYP9oDFjgKLzwUpMUaa5liyRImTet_DM8jFsSRyKIJ7Z-zoavd7PR6tomZoqH1npYdJsIlCvVVpQVWVQureqZPeDe8f7Eobc/s1600/lgbtq_1.jpg" height="125" width="200" /></a>1) <strong>Project</strong>. <br />
Projecting, in this context, is the application of a <strong>broad category</strong> to a group of people who share a characteristic or behavior in common. Categories must be portrayed as permanent and defining, on par with race (even though it's a social construct) or (for almost everyone) nationality. <br />
<br />
So if Alfredo's parents are from South America, then Alfredo's main identifier is his Latino ethnicity, along with Rosa, Juan, and Ramon. To liberals, Alfredo is Latino, with a capital L.<br />
<br />
Or alternatively, if Freddie is sexually attracted to other men, then Freddie's main identifier must be his gayness. Who is Freddy? To liberals, Freddie is Gay with a capital G., or to be more inclusive, a member of "LGBTQ". <br />
<br />
2) <strong>Protect</strong><br />
Once a category has been successfully established as permanent and defining, then liberals must protect the category, which, according to their logic, protects everyone <em>in </em>the category. <br />
<br />
This sort of rhetoric is laced throughout our national political dialogue: some Republican questions the necessity or benefit of a policy geared toward a specific category of people, say, an adult ESL program, and the liberal responds indignantly, "How dare you not support this bill! You're bigoted against Hispanics!" <br />
<br />
Never mind if the program actually benefits Hispanics; the point is that liberals believe it's a moral obligation to the Hispanics to provide the ESL program, so anyone who stands opposed to such policies is morally wrong and must be racist.<br />
<br />
If you want more examples on how the left does this, watch Chris Matthews; he's an expert at this strategy. Matthews once accused Newt Gingrich of racism for calling Barack Obama "<strong>the Food-stamp President</strong>".<br />
<br />
3) <strong>Victimize</strong><br />
Liberalism is built on victimhood.* Without a victim group, liberals have no one to label as <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjuO9XrzZiylUt7D4sEy9KjsEd4QrHC3j4HxxsAQ-pj8TL1TMHOfgm3WJabHQGSHOflhkxiMlewQKKAD0Nx9HVI4xU3EI-tEKBG3lZrCg9apP_FEN9rJ9dZPCmkI7nnrcuKDu1bP4Vf8U/s1600/jason_collins.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjuO9XrzZiylUt7D4sEy9KjsEd4QrHC3j4HxxsAQ-pj8TL1TMHOfgm3WJabHQGSHOflhkxiMlewQKKAD0Nx9HVI4xU3EI-tEKBG3lZrCg9apP_FEN9rJ9dZPCmkI7nnrcuKDu1bP4Vf8U/s1600/jason_collins.jpg" height="320" width="239" /></a></div>
persecutors, no one to portray as cruel or unjust. Without a persecuting class to take down--the bourgeois, the 1%, the Religious Right, whatever--liberals cannot win.<br />
<br />
These sorts of one-dimensional, defining categories generate a victim mentality, if not directly among its members, then on their behalf, and that victim mentality is the driving force behind the liberal agenda.<br />
<br />
Remember <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/03/leitch-on-jason-collins-michael-sam-coming-out.html">Jason Collins</a>, the basketball player who came out just a few months ago? Collins was praised by the Left as a hero for announcing he was gay. At the same time, those who expressed apathy or were exasperated by the media bandwidth being spent on Collins were ridiculed full-force as homophobic and nasty, as if they were attacking a defenseless individual under persecution by the general public. Jason was a hero to the Left; he was conditioned as special. He even got a call from the President himself. <br />
<br />
What made Collins so special, or gay football player <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/09/us/sport-football-michael-sam-comes-out/index.html">Michael Sam</a>, who came out soon after him? Why did his announcement cause such a media hype? Because as homosexuals, Collins and Sam had been conditioned by the Left as victims. Collins was a victim of persecution from the religious right. As such, Collin's coming out afforded the Left the opportunity to lash out at religious conservatives in "defense" of Collin's brave act. Both Sam and Collins' announcements were chances for liberals to repeat their victimizing mantra, "Look at all these hateful religious people! Collins and Sam were victims; it took such courage for them to come out". <br />
<br />
With the LGBTQ community, liberals have created an entire group of victims through exactly this method. What most people don't realize is that this victimhood is as much about destroying the people set up as their persecutors--religious Americans--as it is about affirming the morality of their behavior. <br />
<br />
Of course, the truth is that conservatives weren't impressed by Collins because he's not a good basketball player, and because they generally are apathetic toward athletes' personal lives. They're much more interested in merit than they are in personal preferences.<br />
<br />
To me, the most damaging aspect of liberal identity politics is the fact that it strips people down to a single characteristic: you're "gay", you're "latino", you're "black", etc. It may be effective in pushing forward the liberal agenda, but it's also sadly dehumanizing. <br />
<br />
I have gay friends, and they are some of the most fun people to be around. I don't see them as "gay", I see them as whole individuals, with rich personalities, unique gifts, and personal goals. Not as one-dimensional members of a victim class, but as complex, vibrant people like you and I. <br />
<br />
This, I think, illustrates the fundamental divide between liberals and conservatives. Where liberals see people's categories and their inherent victimhood, conservatives see people's merit and their inherent worth. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*Some of my readers may find this statement harsh or downright offensive, but I encourage them to <em>really</em> listen next time they hear Hillary Clinton, President Obama, or Ed Murray speak. Liberal rhetoric is effective in that it stirs up your emotions, your sense of justice and compassion, and this clouds a listener's ability to see the arguments themselves. <br />
<br />
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-PBB7ZfOQEGM%2FUx0BazwUauI%2FAAAAAAAAAC8%2Fku1ePVkrMfM%2Fs1600%2Fjason_collins.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjuO9XrzZiylUt7D4sEy9KjsEd4QrHC3j4HxxsAQ-pj8TL1TMHOfgm3WJabHQGSHOflhkxiMlewQKKAD0Nx9HVI4xU3EI-tEKBG3lZrCg9apP_FEN9rJ9dZPCmkI7nnrcuKDu1bP4Vf8U/s1600/jason_collins.jpg" -->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04336708563163197908noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-74059369035243293262014-02-27T17:41:00.003-08:002014-03-15T17:59:12.338-07:00Opportunity Knocks...and Brewer Gets her Gun: SB 1062<div class="separator" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMvWMps5Lvly1UH0OqH4ST9uMyQWnR_kWfbKDyZGmwjyZ3fuhWRS0k-rh5yD0KgOLVxLLQNoiDLXA1bCHEI5mlBjlKG3FYR8w6j3WyzZSO_p6di7WqmfLTyd2oMrfeLL9sVF1W1qSWfuw/s1600/Jan_Brewer.jpg" height="320" width="270" /></div>
<br />
Predictably, our more prominent Republican figures shot from the hip in demanding that Gov. Jan Brewer (AZ) veto the supposed "anti-gay" bill (SB 1062). <br />
<br />
Governor Brewer vetoed the hyped-up Senate bill, stating that there were no present threats to religious liberty or discrimination lawsuits in her state that would warrant such legislation, as well as asserting the notion that the bill would "divide" Arizonans in many ways, and would have negative unintended consequences. <br />
<br />
Opportunity crumpled to the floor before the podium yesterday, gunned down by irresponsible interjections, from the established Right as much as the Left.<br />
<br />
But before we can connect the dots in this travesty, we need to take a look at the crime scene and the character of its victim, SB 1062.<br />
<br />
Michael Medved, whom I consider an intelligent resource for information and perspective on policy issues, critiqued the legalese of the bill with his usual precision and flaming passion against Idiocy. His reason being, the law doesn't really do anything.<br />
<br />
And he's right. For all of you who have been misinformed by the media (the Alphabet networks and Fox News alike), SB 1062 essentially is just another tool for business owners to defend themselves in court against discrimination lawsuits OR other lawsuits that would place "an undue burden" on the individual's sincerely held religious beliefs. When you cut through the technical language, the intent of the bill is to<strong> specifically state that an individuals has the right to cite sincere religious convictions as a reason for the action (or non-action)</strong> that landed them in the hot seat of a court of law.<br />
<br />
Note that there is no specific "anti-gay" language here--in fact, the bill doesn't even mention sexual orientation. This bill simply enshrines the 1st Amendment rights for business owners. <br />
<br />
Never mind the fact that sexual orientation is not even a protected class in Arizona; a cake shop can actually turn down service to an engaged gay couple <em>and cite a religious conviction </em>for the refusal and not be found guilty of anything in the eyes of the law (or at least that's what the law says on paper).<br />
<br />
The real question the media should have been asking when the bill first hit the state Senate floor was, given current Arizona law, why was this bill proposed? <br />
<br />
Unfortunately it's too late for that question to really inform public opinion. The public's mental space is already jam-packed with gay discrimination rhetoric and utterly misleading claims about the function of this legislation.<br />
<br />
So what was the right question, specifically for Republicans, to ask amid the irrepressible controversy? Almost everyone who gives a tweet about politics can agree that Republicans... they're not so good at strategy. Or politics in general.<br />
<br />
With this specific bill, McCain, Romney, and the like were completely blind to the opportunity Jan Brewer had here. Why? Because they thought this was about <em>policy, </em>not <em>politics. </em><br />
<em></em><br />
This was never about policy, as Medved seemed to perceive it. This was politics--pure and simple. It was about making a politically charged <em>statement, </em>on both sides, by way of a legally neutral bill. <br />
<br />
In fact, it doesn't even matter if the bill was initially intended to be a statement, because through the predictable media hype, it inevitably became one. Like gold, legislation, however useless, derives its value from public opinion. <br />
<br />
This bill had a high political value. It became a prime opportunity for Republicans to do basically what the left does in order to get their way--scream and stamp their feet and turn miniscule, obscure stories into massive hyper-narratives too heavy and bloated to push out off the public stage...even if urgent matters of state stand hidden behind its largess. <br />
<br />
The difference is that<strong> this controversy could have been used to stand in defense of our most basic American liberty: to practice and express our faiths openly, unapologetically, and without reproach. </strong><br />
<br />
Instead of turning this whole controversy into a win for conservatives through making a strong pro-liberty post-signing statement, Jan Brewer caved to relatively mild political and economic* pressures.<br />
<br />
Again, it didn't matter what was in the bill. The only thing that mattered was what people said about it, especially Governor Brewer.<br />
<br />
McCain and Romney's bullets injured Opportunity, but Brewer put a round right in the chest. <br />
<br />
<br />
*Do you really think that if the bill had been signed, that the NFL would have withdrawn the Super Bowl from Arizona? Or that the airlines would have boycotted the state, losing millions of dollars on ticket sales? Seriously? Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04336708563163197908noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-9889654007350140612014-02-20T14:07:00.000-08:002014-02-20T21:48:13.447-08:00Dead Wrong: The Moral Deficit in Inslee's Moratorium<div class="separator" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lq985TVEkco/UwZbjShJY8I/AAAAAAAAARw/uqOAIWpfkP0/s1600/death-penalty.jpg" height="320" width="249" /></div>
<br />
Inslee's moratorium on the death penalty has uncovered some curious rationales for why the death penalty shouldn't be used.<br />
<br />
Inslee claims that by declaring a moratorium on capital punishment while he is governor, he hopes we all will <span style="color: black;"><span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">"join a growing national conversation about capital punishment."</span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: proxima-nova, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 17px;"><br /></span>
However, instead of setting an agenda for a discussion on the inherent morality or immorality of the death penalty, he wants to talk about the "inherent flaws" in the system, including the costs incurred by the drawn-out procedures and processes leading up to a final execution.<br />
<br />
It's true that some counties have <a href="http://blogs.seattletimes.com/opinionnw/2014/02/18/how-the-death-penalty-can-bankrupt-a-county/" target="_blank">more money</a> to spend on prosecuting the death penalty, while others may not be able to afford it. Inslee said the death penalty is currently "unequally applied"--in this sense it's true.<br />
<br />
It's also true that on average, a<a href="http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty" target="_blank"> death sentence at the trial level costs</a> about $470,000 in additional costs <i>over </i>the costs of pursuing a sentence to life in prison. Most would agree that this is a large sum of taxpayer dollars spent to win a single death penalty.<br />
<br />
Essentially, all Inslee's premises are correct--the system is expensive, and due to unequal budgets, some the death penalty is pursued for some criminals, while it is not for others. <br />
<br />
However, I believe our governor's conclusion is dead wrong. Inslee has reasoned the issue this way:<br />
<br />
The death penalty is expensive. <br />
The death penalty is not applied equally for equal crimes (largely because it's expensive).<br />
Therefore, we must not apply the death penalty.<br />
<br />
Notice that he is <i>not </i>basing his decision on a moral belief that the death penalty is wrong.<br />
<br />
There's a serious moral and logical deficit in this argument, and if you haven't identified it yet, you'll see it in this comparison:<br />
<br />
-In Kitsap County, <a href="http://www.doc.wa.gov/offenderinfo/capitalpunishment/sentencedlist.asp" target="_blank">Jonathan Gentry</a> fatally bludgeoned to death a 12 year old girl with a rock in 1988. He is currently on death row.<br />
<br />
-<a href="http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Suspected-or-convicted-serial-killers-in-1107863.php#page-2" target="_blank">Martin Lee Sanders</a> was convicted of raping and killing 2 teenagers in Spokane in 1983. He did not receive the death penalty, but is in prison in Washington.<br />
<br />
I am not an attorney, but it seems from reading the Washington state sentencing laws that both of these cases qualify as <a href="http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=10.95&full=true#10.95.030" target="_blank">aggravated 1st degree murder</a>, and as such, barring certain factors which may "merit leniency", which don't seem to apply here, they are capital crimes.<br />
<br />
In other words, in the eyes of the law these men (if you can call them that), deserve to die. <br />
<br />
But in the mind of Jay Inslee, if one man deserving of death cannot be sentenced accordingly, then NO MAN, no matter how evil, should be punished with death. <br />
<br />
<strong>Inslee would rather have no justice served, than half the justice that <em>should</em> <em>be</em> served on behalf of the victims of these horrible crimes and their families.</strong> <br />
<br />
This is the same perverted logic used by leftists who cry out against the<a href="http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row-inmates-state-and-size-death-row-year" target="_blank"> racial disparity</a> on death row (I can't confirm that Inslee has directly related racial inequality to the "unequal application" of the death penalty). If we can't have a racially proportionate death row, then how could we stand to have a death row at all? Because if we don't have racial equality in any aspect of life, then that aspect should conform to proportional regulations in the name of Equality, or else be eliminated.<br />
<br />
It doesn't matter whether their crimes were unspeakable acts of evil. It doesn't matter if they deserve to die* (which Inslee has not explicitly denied). It only matters that they all be punished to equal degrees.<br />
<br />
Any morally discerning person should be deeply disturbed by this twisted kind of reasoning.<br />
<br />
Yet this is the leftist mindset--that equality should be valued above all else, including justice. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*I know there are many people that truly believe the death penalty is inherently immoral, and there are valid and invalid arguments for this assertion. I'm not making a pro-capital punishment argument here; I'm highlighting the perverted rationale on which Inslee and other liberals have based their stance toward the death penalty.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-63005116238035757742014-02-04T21:36:00.001-08:002014-02-06T12:25:51.496-08:00Why the Great Debate is Life and Death<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-G-2lDugeU8s/UvHMXwghgRI/AAAAAAAAANw/V-BLlo3UyJc/s1600/pillars-of-creation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-G-2lDugeU8s/UvHMXwghgRI/AAAAAAAAANw/V-BLlo3UyJc/s1600/pillars-of-creation.jpg" height="246" width="320" /></a></div>
For many of you, the question of how we all got here is an uncomfortable conversation, but it's as serious as life and death.<br />
<br />
I grew up in a Christian home, raised by parents who cared deeply that I build my worldview on a solid Christian foundation.<br />
<br />
My father was probably the single biggest influence on my core convictions. When I opened moral discussions, he gave me his full attention, his whole mind bent toward the truth, toward challenging me, and making sure that I not only saw it, but saw why it was truth, and just as importantly, why it mattered.<br />
<h3>
Why it matters for us</h3>
That's the point that so many Christians fail at articulating, even when they understand the truth. Why they fail is a subject for another post. Here I am concerned with demonstrating precisely why It matters.<br />
<br />
The truth I am referring to is a simple one, an obvious one to those of us who are of the Judeo-Christian faith. The world didn't come about through an unguided process of natural selection. Life did not begin as a few strands of nucleic acids floating about in the primordial ooze. <br />
<br />
Life was created by an intelligent force--we call that force, that Designer, God. <br />
<br />
And (this is where the uncomfortable bit comes in), God did not use a "guided' process of evolution to bring us into existence. <br />
<br />
Some of you would rather not go this far--what would be the point? If we all agree there's a God, and the story of salvation is true, then that's really all we need to grow together as a God-fearing community, and all we need to communicate to new believers. <br />
<br />
Let them keep their belief in evolution--after all, there's a scientific consensus that evolution is true. Perhaps you yourself, as a Christian, Catholic, or Jew, believe it. All the textbooks say it, all the PBS broadcasts say it... who argues for Creationism now days?<br />
<br />
Right?<br />
<br />
No. You see, there is an underlying principle of evolutionary theory that some would rather leave hidden beneath the sweeping explanation for life and the universe. <br />
<br />
When you look closely, it's quite easy to pull the rug out from underneath a Christian who has built his explanation of the world on evolution, and I don't have to pull a single shred of empirical evidence to do it. <br />
<br />
If he really is a Christian, you will ask him when Death entered the world, and he will say "when sin entered the world". <br />
<br />
When you ask him when Sin entered the world, he will say "at the fall of Man". <br />
<br />
When you ask him how Man fell, he will say "When Eve ate from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". <br />
<br />
Now before I make my point, don't misunderstand me--this is not an argument for a" literal" interpretation of Genesis. That is irrelevant--if you believe it to be an allegory, that's all fine and good.<br />
<br />
Now if death entered the world when Man disobeyed God, when he <em>sinned</em>, then death did not in fact enter the world until after human beings came to exist.<br />
<br />
The entire premise of evolution is based on death. On billions of generations of life forms falling and rising according to natural selection. But how can death precede God's relationship to man?<br />
<br />
That is the most straightforward and simple way to debunk "guided evolution". Many Christians cling to it because it is so very convenient. It fits with pop culture--it let's you<em> fit in</em>.<br />
<br />
If you are swayed one direction or another by convenience, Christianity is not right for you. It is the very opposite of convenience. <br />
<br />
<h3>
Why it matters for the world</h3>
Now there's the matter of why the question of how life originated is important to argue outside the Judeo-Christian community. <br />
<br />
Consider the fact that every day, millions of students are taught in school that evolution is the Answer. The unguided process of natural selection can explain all you see before you. It is in their textbooks, it is in pop culture, it is pervasive and hegemonic in every classroom from elementary school to post-graduate courses.<br />
<br />
Even if you grew up in a religious home, but are lukewarm on the matter yourself, the teaching of evolution as the answer is bound to influence your perspective. Couple that with the secular influences of popular culture, and the break-away from your "traditional" upbringing is all too easy. <br />
<br />
All your questions are answered. There need not be any lingering doubts about "why this" and "why<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H0c7UrmnmzQ/UvHNUMQr7WI/AAAAAAAAAN4/JxqmsWHlILs/s1600/Q-EvolveFishWt.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H0c7UrmnmzQ/UvHNUMQr7WI/AAAAAAAAAN4/JxqmsWHlILs/s1600/Q-EvolveFishWt.png" /></a></div>
that", because the evolutionary theory is not only all-inclusive (or so it is touted), but on top of that, you don't have to look over your shoulder whenever you make a morally questionable decision, since there is no meddlesome God to interfere with your personal choices. You don't need God, because evolution tells you that everything is possible without at God. <br />
<br />
But if you are one of those spiritual people, it's okay if you want to hold onto that feeling that there's a higher power, and a greater meaning--but that is your personal belief, not a cornerstone of your worldview, and doesn't have anything to do with your scientific conclusions about how we all got here. <br />
<br />
The fact that evolution presents itself as a grand answer to life's biggest questions of Why are we here, and How did we get here, is exactly why the Great Debate matters. God is no longer the Answer by default. He hasn't been for over a century. <br />
<br />
Some people take the Great Debate to mean one party arguing that he has proof that evolution is the answer, and the other party arguing that he has proof of a Creator. <br />
<br />
Perhaps there are some debates that happen that way, but by and large, that is not the case. The goal of the Creationist (or the proponent of Intelligent Design) in the Great Debate is not to prove God's existence, for he knows that by faith. <br />
<br />
The imperative of the Creationist is to <em>disprove</em> evolution, and there is a vast repository of scientific evidence to support his case.* For by disproving evolution, he leaves only one answer, and that is an intelligent designer.<br />
<br />
It is far easier for non-believers to come to an understanding about life, sin, death, and salvation if they know, due to the woeful inadequacies of evolutionary theory, that there is a Designer behind this universe. <br />
<br />
Some believers would rather we ditch the Great Debate, removing it from the public scene. It is divisive, they say, unnecessary, and takes attention away from "the real issues". <br />
<br />
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-N-7YA8VlsDc/UvHQka2wwYI/AAAAAAAAAOQ/bOD3HXoFyl8/s1600/4609144106_c5fcd81031_z.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-N-7YA8VlsDc/UvHQka2wwYI/AAAAAAAAAOQ/bOD3HXoFyl8/s1600/4609144106_c5fcd81031_z.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a>How terribly misguided they are. To them I ask, are you really so blinded by your mainstream aspirations of mutual goals and peace among ideologies that you have forgotten why you chose to follow Christ? Have you forgotten that standing up for the truth is a Biblical imperative, and that choosing silence only lets more of God's loved ones fall into darkness?<br />
<br />
I am not saying that there isn't a wrong way to go about arguing against evolution. There certainly are more effective ways and less effective ways, and an argument appropriate for one occasion may not be so for another. <br />
<br />
What I am saying is that the Truth about how the universe came to be is a matter of life and death. It is not an optional piece of understanding. It is not supplemental knowledge, or acceptable differences of belief among denominations. It isn't a course of study for the over-zealous. <br />
<br />
It is life and death. We have no righteous choice but to treat it as such.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
*I encourage you to dig into the wealth of credible scientific resources that exists on this debate, even if you aren't scientifically minded. Creation.com is a decent place to start. </div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-H0c7UrmnmzQ%2FUvHNUMQr7WI%2FAAAAAAAAAN4%2FJxqmsWHlILs%2Fs1600%2FQ-EvolveFishWt.png&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H0c7UrmnmzQ/UvHNUMQr7WI/AAAAAAAAAN4/JxqmsWHlILs/s1600/Q-EvolveFishWt.png" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-N-7YA8VlsDc%2FUvHQka2wwYI%2FAAAAAAAAAOQ%2FbOD3HXoFyl8%2Fs1600%2F4609144106_c5fcd81031_z.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-N-7YA8VlsDc/UvHQka2wwYI/AAAAAAAAAOQ/bOD3HXoFyl8/s1600/4609144106_c5fcd81031_z.jpg" -->Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-34790812455030624772014-02-01T20:20:00.000-08:002014-02-02T13:00:52.800-08:00Why Football is More Like Chess than Boxing<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--M2UmxIkM98/Uu24y-W3TZI/AAAAAAAAAKM/PjILcPpN2DE/s1600/r.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--M2UmxIkM98/Uu24y-W3TZI/AAAAAAAAAKM/PjILcPpN2DE/s1600/r.jpg" height="228" width="320" /></a></div>
Last week the New York Times published an article titled <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/magazine/is-it-immoral-to-watch-the-super-bowl.html?_r=0" target="_blank">"Is it Immoral to Watch the Super Bowl?" </a><br />
<br />
Commentary on the subject peppers the internet and talk radio. For some religious fans, a consciousness has colored their perspective on the celebrated game, an uncomfortable itch on the front of their minds. <br />
<br />
<strong>Ben</strong> <strong>Shapiro</strong> made a fascinating <a href="http://ktth.com/listen/9966922" target="_blank">comparison </a>last week as he himself, both a Hawks fan and an orthodox Jew with libertarian leanings, wrestled with the issue. <br />
<br />
In the early 20th century, Christians had made a push to outlaw the sport of boxing, and it was at one point illegal in many states. To Christians, boxing, a form of brutal combat for entertainment, bared a disconcerting resemblance to ancient <a href="http://www.historyoffighting.com/boxing-in-the-ancient-world.php" target="_blank">pagan practices.</a> Surely beating each other's noses bloody for no greater purpose than sport could not be right in the eyes of God.<br />
<br />
Shapiro drew a comparison that would be easy for anyone to recognize. Football is a violent game, a dangerous one--and one that has never been more popular in America. The tackles are aggressive, the hits are hard. Players perform under the constant threat of brain damage and <a href="http://mashable.com/2014/02/01/nfl-injuries-infographic/" target="_blank">severe injuries</a>. <br />
<br />
The claim that football players, like boxers, are paid to do violence to others, and that we, the viewers, sponsor it, is not entirely unreasonable. I do understand the argument. <br />
<br />
But I see as much contrast as I do similarity between the early 20th century boxing Shapiro referenced, and football. It's difficult to identify, because the difference does not lie in conduct, but in purpose, not in the behavior, but the goal. <br />
<br />
The ultimate goal of boxing was, and remains to be, the "knockout". Bringing your opponent to the <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6Jlj65OAFqg/Uu26bhMjBRI/AAAAAAAAAKY/uV1RS610cu0/s1600/thH1Y6P8GS.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6Jlj65OAFqg/Uu26bhMjBRI/AAAAAAAAAKY/uV1RS610cu0/s1600/thH1Y6P8GS.jpg" height="212" width="320" /></a></div>
floor by force is the point of boxing. Blows equate to points; knockouts mean wins. <br />
<br />
If football's violence is the same as that of boxing, then I suppose sacking the quarterback is the goal of football. That, of course, is not the case.<br />
<br />
The ultimate goal of football is to score more points than the other team. To score points, you try to get as far down the field as you can. To get as far down the field as you can, you have to either coordinate a reception, or coordinate a rush for positive yardage--neither of these are violent in themselves. <br />
<br />
But the violence is undeniably present in both the protection (the offensive line, for instance), and thwarting (the defensive line and backs), of these efforts. It is an important part of executing a win in football, but it is not the game in itself. <br />
<br />
On the other hand, one can make a very convincing case that boxing is won on violence alone--to win, you must score points or execute a knockout. But what are the points? They are blows; fist meets body in brutal contact. To win at boxing is to be better at violence than your opponent.<br />
<br />
Football is something entirely different. <br />
<br />
For most of my life, I didn't have a clue about football. All I saw was a herd of huge men running around on a field after a ball. I didn't understand any of it, except that each team wanted to score "touchdowns".<br />
<br />
I only started following the game this year. Once someone explained the rules to me and the basics of game play, I was fascinated. It was only a couple months after following the Seahawks that I was giving my undivided attention, whole quarters at a time, to other football games. <br />
<br />
How did football manage to captivate my mind? Violence certainly does not appeal me--anyone who's seen me squirm uncomfortably through fight scenes on TV can testify to that. <br />
<br />
Football engages my brain with strategy. If any of you haven't bothered to learn about the game, you shouldn't bother reading any further; it will make no sense to you.<br />
<br />
The violence of tackles and blocks is indeed part of executing a win, but what happens in the huddles and in sideline discussions is far more important. The careful deliberation and intelligence that goes into play-calling and delivering a game-winning strategy is not only world-class, but not in the least bit surprising. <br />
<br />
Football, like chess, is a strategy game. In chess, the ultimate goal is <em>not</em> to take out as many of the <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-w3ppEq9V_FM/Uu28huzNzHI/AAAAAAAAAKs/kmi6UlzF73I/s1600/checkmate.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-w3ppEq9V_FM/Uu28huzNzHI/AAAAAAAAAKs/kmi6UlzF73I/s1600/checkmate.jpg" height="207" width="320" /></a></div>
opponent's "players" as possible. It is to put the opponent in checkmate. Football, too, shares a goal beyond damaging the opposing forces, and that is to score points. <br />
<br />
Yet with 22 living, intelligent pieces, it's arguably even more intricate. There are thousands of possible play calls and millions potential outcomes. Making the right read of the situation, and the right call, is what makes great football, more so than the skill and violence of the plays themselves. <br />
<br />
Football is more like chess than boxing.<br />
<br />
Boxing is one-on-one combat; it's ultimate goal is debilitating violence. Football is a game of collective strategy; its ultimate goal is to score more points than the other team.<br />
<br />
Is the difference not clear?<br />
<br />
As far as the question of football's morality is concerned--if you believe that the ultimate goal does not matter, that the fact that violence is a part of the game at all is immoral, then follow your convictions. Don't watch the Super Bowl.<br />
<br />
If you believe that football is not on the same moral plane as boxing, a sport of violence for its own sake, that the morality of the goal should determine whether or not you should participate rather than strictly the conduct involved*, then you will enjoy the game.<br />
<br />
I will be a proud 12th man tomorrow. I will watch every tackle and every block, and I will not be thinking of them as singular acts of violence, but as calculated efforts that will put more points on our side of the scoreboard than the other. That's the essence of football.<br />
<br />
*<span style="font-size: x-small;">I know someone is bound to bring up the controversial moral statement of "the end justifies the means" and accuse me of subscribing to this belief. I do not. What is implied in this statement is that <em>any</em> means are justified through their end--that acts otherwise considered immoral or unethical are pardoned for the greater good. If winning a football game meant killing another player, we all agree that that would be unacceptable. On the flipside, if winning a war meant killing enemy soldiers, then most people would not consider it immoral. I'm sure you get my point.</span> <br />
<br />
<br />
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-w3ppEq9V_FM%2FUu28huzNzHI%2FAAAAAAAAAKs%2Fkmi6UlzF73I%2Fs1600%2Fcheckmate.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-w3ppEq9V_FM/Uu28huzNzHI/AAAAAAAAAKs/kmi6UlzF73I/s1600/checkmate.jpg" -->Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-72291329731572218992013-05-10T13:00:00.002-07:002014-03-09T17:31:05.248-07:00Prepackaged Learning and Mental Malnutrition: The Case for Challenging Students<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W1FYmpLH0q4/Uu6y8yKpk7I/AAAAAAAAAMA/Ygr3QRYCRNg/s1600/H44-10913955.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W1FYmpLH0q4/Uu6y8yKpk7I/AAAAAAAAAMA/Ygr3QRYCRNg/s1600/H44-10913955.jpg" height="222" width="320" /></a></div>
Admittedly, I've had almost zero boring teachers. Home-school co-ops are great that way--but from the sound of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3bYv2AKPZOk" target="_blank">Jeff Bliss</a> of Duncanville, Texas, his classroom experience was characterized by anything but excitement. <br />
<br />
His impassioned lecture to the teacher who was handing out test prep packets, given in words you can only hear from a frustrated teen, was surreptitiously recorded by a classmate. It went viral, and the internet is a-buzz with commentary on boring teachers and dropout rates.<br />
<br />
This Wednesday I was discussing the very issue of bored students with a coworker. Kids aren't being challenged and engaged enough, I said. They're bored. I think many kids would think twice before dropping out if they actually felt invested and interested in their education.<br />
<br />
I am well aware that many students work their tails off in school, despite uninspiring learning environments. Given the opportunity to pursue their own interests and seek inspiration once out of school, they probably thrive. But I'm guessing they had more than natural motivation carrying them through senior year and beyond--they probably have one or some combination of the following: great parents, a stable financial situation, an encouraging mentor or older sibling, or some hobby that feeds their brain where their conventional education obviously doesn't--I had an exceptionally intelligent friend who used to memorize Bible verses under her desk while in class. She was also an exceptional student.<br />
<br />
But what about the students who don't have that kind of external support or internal motivation? <b>What happens when these kids get bored?</b><br />
<br />
Well, they don't learn to play classical piano or memorize the Bible. They often end up doing stupid things only teenagers do--they have too much time on their hands, and too few school faculty that sincerely care and that consequently they feel accountable to. A great place to see evidence of the effects of boredom is Driver's Ed--Driver's Ed classes that aren't taught through the high school take kids from public, private, and alternative schools (and homeschoolers). It's a fascinating sample of sophomores.<br />
<br />
I remember being in that class; the kid who sat next to me, let's call him Ted, attended an alternative school. I knew he had a rough background that included some drug use, which was probably why he landed in that school--but what really puzzled me about him was that he was <i>smart. </i>The kind of smart where you can just see the cogs of their brain turning behind their eyes. But Ted was also something else: bored. He only had four school days a week, and from what he told me, he wasn't exactly being challenged academically; actually, it sounded like he was being held back. <br />
<br />
I don't know what has become of Ted, but I do remember feeling like his educational/correctional situation was just plain wrong.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>And I still think that to knowingly letting students remain disengaged and disinterested is wrong.</b><br />
<br />
By foregoing the opportunity presented to each teacher to engage students, to mentally challenge them and encourage<i> learning </i>and not just "staying in school", educators are doing a disservice to the next generation. Albeit not willfully, they are impeding students from realizing their potential while they still have direct access to teachers and learning resources. <br />
<br />
The minds of our children are being malnourished, fed prepackaged worksheets aimed at prepping for a standardized test designed to pass every student in the class. I wonder how accomplished some of the middle and upper-grade students feel when they get As and Bs with minimal effort. I wonder how interested they must be in the stack of busy-work handed to them at the end of class. If they're in AP classes, I wonder how "advanced" and smart they feel when they are still, after all, being rushed across a lot of material only to be taught how to pass another standardized test--one many AP students still manage to<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/ap-classes-are-a-scam/263456/" target="_blank"> fail</a>. The textbooks and learning material are over-processed, and due to boring teachers like Jeff's, the classroom experience is stripped of its potential to allow exploration of interesting topics and encourage different ideas. We've crowded out the sweet peas, tomatoes, and bell peppers to plant neat little rows of genetically modified soy beans.<br />
<br />
The brains we entrust with tomorrow's solutions are deprived of intellectual stimulation, robbed of the challenge they deserve and the skills they need for future success; instead they are spoon-fed from a box processed information that plays little part in building a healthy and and active mind. <br />
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_pFgus5AHJI/UY1RxR1JeNI/AAAAAAAAAJM/o_PACLgFigM/s1600/growing+mind.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_pFgus5AHJI/UY1RxR1JeNI/AAAAAAAAAJM/o_PACLgFigM/s1600/growing+mind.jpg" /></a><br />
Schools of America, <b>it's time to go organic.</b> It's time to plant seeds that will blossom into something strong, beautiful, and fruitful. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-17366429838331433972013-04-24T12:36:00.000-07:002014-02-02T14:18:30.982-08:00Job Creation 101: Divide to Multiply<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DQmQ2I6O6h0/Uu7CAFpZh2I/AAAAAAAAANE/HGzzeS3ffts/s1600/PartTimeCarefull+(2).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DQmQ2I6O6h0/Uu7CAFpZh2I/AAAAAAAAANE/HGzzeS3ffts/s1600/PartTimeCarefull+(2).jpg" height="115" width="320" /></a>About a week and a half ago, I entered the world of retail as a Part Time employee. I am an early graduate from the University of Washington with a high GPA and a year's worth of Part Time work experience.</div>
<br />
I am working about 24 hours a week in retail, and 16 at at the job I already held. Yes, I am working two jobs with below-average pay for a college grad and no benefits.<br />
<br />
The real question is, why am I, as a college graduate, working two part time jobs and barely getting 40 hours a week?<br />
<br />
The answer may surprise those who haven't paid close attention to the sections of legislation, rushed through Congress with its contents largely uncomprehended by the legislators, that are currently taking effect.<br />
<br />
A heretofore scarcely known section of the Patient Affordable Care Act (Obama-care) has reduced the national Full Time employee status from 40 hours a week to just 30, the goal apparently being to force companies to offer insurance benefits to more of their employees, thus reducing the percent of the uninsured U.S. population. Many proponents of the healthcare reform expect the statistics to render Obama-care a success in reducing the number of "unprotected" Americans.<br />
<br />
For a long while, I couldn't decide whether PACA advocates, particularly the legislators, are simply incompetent or uninformed in this regard, or if there is some ulterior motive for bring Full Time status down to 30 hours a week.<br />
<br />
Now that I have been personally affected by this legislation (my supervisor referenced it directly during the interview process as the reason I cannot work "full-time"), I am convinced of the latter.<br />
<br />
I, like most people, don't kid myself about the state of the economy: it's miserable. The Obama <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm" target="_blank">Monthly statistics</a> fluctuate, sometimes showing a slight uptick in employment, but in real life, <i>my </i>life, I know the recession is far from over.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
administration knows that, and despite over $1,000,0000,000,000 total in stimulus and "shovel-ready" projects, we haven't seen significant improvement in the jobs market. <br />
<br />
As my Stats instructor used to say, "Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics"--especially politicians who need their administration to appear a success, despite all evidence to the contrary. <br />
<br />
I didn't get a whole lot out of that class, but I have the basic math skills to understand that if a company used to have 12 employees working 40 hours a week, and suddenly it is faced with a costly increase in the provision of insurance benefits, the best way to cope with the new regulation would be to reduce 5 of your employees to PT status at 25 hours/week, and decide against hiring any more FT employees unless the nature of the job requires as many hours, such as management. You will hire another 3 employees at 25 hours to compensate for the loss of labor. Alternatively, you could cut 5 jobs (or more) to 20 hours a week and create 5 new 20 hours/week jobs.<br />
<br />
The company deserves a pat on the back from the Obama administration. They haven't eliminated any jobs, <b>they have created 3 by cutting the hours of 5. </b>That's a 25% increase in employment with <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aeGDMPvuPDY/Uu7EJtWuQtI/AAAAAAAAANc/5CMUajf44Dc/s1600/02d977335fa3b349b8da292d1a6f5ccc+(3).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aeGDMPvuPDY/Uu7EJtWuQtI/AAAAAAAAANc/5CMUajf44Dc/s1600/02d977335fa3b349b8da292d1a6f5ccc+(3).jpg" height="192" width="320" /></a></div>
the company. As a result, those workers must seek out additional labor opportunities to make up for the hours they lost, likely picking up PT positions newly created by other companies inflating their labor force in the same manner.<br />
<br />
National statistics will reflect this type of job creation, so the next time you hear a member of the Obama administration say the percent of employed members of the workforce has increased, think about that.<br />
<span style="color: #a64d79;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="color: #990000;">They say a recession is when your neighbor loses his job; a depression is when you lose yours. A Great Recession is when you have two.</span></b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-58932958347508830682013-04-19T14:28:00.001-07:002013-04-19T14:28:58.005-07:00The Original Welfare SystemThe word "welfare" is strongly associated with the state in contemporary American politics and pop culture, calling to mind terms like Social Security, welfare checks, and Medicare--and if you lean toward the right, the additional terms of socialism, the Nanny State, state-ism and "cradle-to-grave". Semantically, this is how we think about welfare: welfare comes from the government.<br />
<br />
A 2011 Pew Research Poll found that among college-age and post-college adults, <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/28/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism/?src=prc-headline" target="_blank">49%</a> held a positive view of socialism. Socialism as it is generally considered implies that the welfare of the collective should be provided for through functions of the state, and one of the its main functions should be the redistribution of wealth. The idea that the government is responsible for the collective's welfare is gaining popularity, and if we include government policies along with popular opinion, we can clearly trace its rise in the American consciousness as a valid solution to poverty and socioeconomic disadvantage.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K2_K-NYevI4/UXGxXbNkN1I/AAAAAAAAAIM/ML2X7OHRL7U/s1600/family+cartoon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K2_K-NYevI4/UXGxXbNkN1I/AAAAAAAAAIM/ML2X7OHRL7U/s200/family+cartoon.jpg" width="200" /></a>I've stewed over the governmental connotations of "welfare" for a while. To really understand a concept, you have to put it in a different context, turn it upside down, find the exception to its rule--if welfare is almost always a word for government assistance to the poor, what else can it mean? What is welfare outside of government?<br />
<br />
Well, national governments are fairly new, in the grand scheme of history. So what would welfare have been before their development? I asked myself: <b>what was the original welfare system?</b><br />
<br />
If you think I'm going to take us back in time to uncover some obscure Babylonian or Egyptian social system, you'd be wrong. The answer is actually quite simple and very logical, but due to welfare's involuntary mental associations, it isn't that obvious.<br />
<br />
It's<b> family. </b>Kinship has been humanity's primary form of welfare--like it or not, everyone needs family in one way or another. In the U.S. we take a sentimental approach to family, seeing it more as an emotional support group than an economic co-op. Matters of material support are considered more individualistically, and the paths of brothers and sisters, both in geography and career, often diverge upon leaving their parents' home.<br />
<br />
The value of individual achievement and personal responsibility that generally pervades American life, although weakening, feeds into the idea that family is not there to ensure your success; asking for support is considered a last resort. In a sense, getting a handout from a family member implies personal failure.<br />
<br />
Generally speaking, <b>you sink or swim on your own</b>. You don't ask your brother to throw you a life preserver from the boat.<br />
<br />
But the truth is, family makes the best welfare system imaginable, if you do it right. I doubt you've ever met a bureaucrat that knows your individual situation, your motivations, your faults, your work ethic. I doubt you've ever met a legislator who talks with you one on one to determine the best course of action and the best way to help you. I doubt you've ever met a social worker that will sacrifice for you like a sister would.<br />
<br />
You might object to this reasoning by asking, "What if your whole family is poor and under-educated? Then who helps you?"<br />
<br />
This is a very possible situation, if you consider your family to be yourself, your parents, and your siblings.<br />
The nuclear family has been the most popular American model--aunts, uncles, and grandparents are people you generally dine with occasionally and visit when they are ill, and intimate relationships and frequent social involvement with in-laws are uncommon.<br />
<br />
But logically speaking, the larger your family network, the more opportunities and support exist for you. Your parents and siblings may be no better off than yourself, but are<i> all</i> your aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, nieces and nephews equally disadvantaged? Of course not.<br />
<br />
For the family welfare model to work, two strong American attitudes must change:<br />
<br />
1) T<b>he idea of family must be widened to include "extended" members</b>, or in other words, we must remove the "extended" prefix.<br />
<br />
2) Our attitude about sacrifice and sharing must change. There's a fancy term for the principle that drives the success of the family welfare model: <i style="font-weight: bold;">reciprocity.</i><br />
<br />
<i style="font-weight: bold;"></i>Reciprocal exchanges differ from direct exchanges, such as financial transactions, because they take varying amounts of time and are "repaid" in a variety of ways. If your brother takes two of his vacation days to help you move, he's done you a favor. When the time comes for him and his wife to go on a real vacation, you're expected to return the favor by babysitting his children and pets for a week. Some years it may seem like you're sacrificing much and getting little in return, while other years you might enjoy a lot of help from family members at their immediate expense.<br />
<br />
Reciprocity is the smartest social strategy for survival, particularly in high risk, high gain situations. There's <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YeGMFsE8JQs/UXGtkCuRYrI/AAAAAAAAAIE/t5OEqDSubY4/s1600/juhoansi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YeGMFsE8JQs/UXGtkCuRYrI/AAAAAAAAAIE/t5OEqDSubY4/s200/juhoansi.jpg" width="133" /></a></div>
hardly a better example of this than among the Ju/'hoansi of Southern Africa. At one time a completely hunter-gatherer community, each individual's survival ultimately depended on the cooperation and sharing of others--many times a hunter would come back empty-handed, but those few who did make a kill would distribute the meat among them all so that no one went hungry. The next success a hunter has is expected to be shared, just as others had shared with him. If you hunted for only yourself, you would most likely die of starvation in periods where gathered foods were scarce.<br />
<br />
The point is that when you fall on hard times, there's always going to be family experiencing relatively good times that can help you out. As an added bonus, family members can be held accountable for their reciprocal participation in a way government cannot.<br />
<br />
Ironically, both the traditional American values of individual success and responsibility and the newer positive attitudes toward state-provided welfare inhibit consideration of family as an economic co-op in<i> addition</i> to being a set of emotional attachments. Socialism emphasizes the state's responsibility to care for you, while individualism stresses a sink-or-swim attitude.<br />
<br />
As Americans, we need to change the way we think about family and about welfare. There is no shame in accepting help from family, as long as you are willing to someday return it. Seeing as our government is dead broke, if I were the President, or any other government official for that matter, I would promote the value of family cooperation like nothing else, even if its success is in doubt. Because what the heck, <b>it's free.</b><br />
State welfare isn't.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-81871296830493088602013-04-17T13:26:00.000-07:002013-04-19T11:01:17.369-07:00Attractive Absurdities: Women's Right to Choose and Women in CombatIn a <a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3206496581894513732#editor/target=post;postID=7847465885115599841;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=7;src=postname" target="_blank">previous post</a> I discussed the false antagonism between conservatives and feminists, as portrayed by the media.<br />
<br />
Although I do consider myself a feminist and support many feminist projects, there are some prominent threads of feminist rhetoric emphasized as main tenants of feminism in pop culture that I find repulsive--namely, <b>women's right to choose </b>and <b>women in combat. </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<h3>
Flesh of My Flesh</h3>
The woman has no "right to choose". And even if she <i>were </i>to choose, it would be the father's right, too (the baby has, after all, half his DNA). The "right to choose" is accompanied by another mantra: a "woman's right to control her own body", and both of these have enjoyed considerable traction on college campuses and Democratic rallies because it appears to uphold a human right, even making that right seem obviously timeless and universal. It's taken as given. This assertion ironically denies a human right instead of upholds one, and it is an abysmal excuse for a supposed reason why women should be able to "terminate their pregnancies".<br />
<br />
It is critical that everyone understand why this is a fallacy, since this reason is at the root of all pro-life arguments:<br />
<br />
<i>It is not her own body over which she is trying to exert her control. </i>It is another body with a unique genetic code, a separate being that in his or her current state is completely dependent on the woman for nourishment and safety.<br />
<br />
Here's an analogy: if a friend of yours falls on hard times and has absolutely no where else to go, and is therefore residing in your house, is that person a part of your house? Is that person expendable and controllable property, as is your house, or any of your other possessions? A general truism in American law is that your own body is your own property, just like your house. You own it. However, not since the abolition of slavery has any American had the right to own another human being. Mothers have <i>custody </i>of their children, including the unborn, but this concept is distinct from <i>property. </i>Children have certain rights that come with their own bodies, among them, the right to <i>live. </i>The fact that a child is literally inside her mother for several months does not grant that mother power to decide if he lives or dies.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
Don't Fight for Your Right...to Fight</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-idpzvGqVMzY/UW77QHttK1I/AAAAAAAAAH0/aUqFxnVfAes/s1600/soldier+carries+soldier.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-idpzvGqVMzY/UW77QHttK1I/AAAAAAAAAH0/aUqFxnVfAes/s200/soldier+carries+soldier.jpg" width="141" /></a></div>
Here's why I think putting women in combat is an absurd idea: <i>Given that women are generally anatomically weaker and smaller than men, women do not have an equal chance to survive as men do. </i>Women have less upper body strength than men, and do not build and maintain muscle as easily as men. Combat troops have a lot to carry, and the time may come when they have to carry one of their teammates. I know the idea of women in combat sounds like a fantastic step toward gender equality, but it endangers not only the women, but the men on her team, in combat. By putting her own life at undue risk, she also increases the the risk posed to her teammates, who may have to aid her or slow down to allow her to catch up. And that is not fairness.<br />
<br />
This is an exemplary controversy in illustrating the <a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3206496581894513732#editor/target=post;postID=7847465885115599841;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=7;src=postname" target="_blank">misrepresentation</a> of the opposition to this policy. "Conservatives" may not (probably don't) oppose it because they are sexist and think women are inherently inferior and should not ever pick up a gun. Rather, opposition comes from a rational and obvious conclusion that women do not have an equal chance to survive. They may not be concerned with maintaining male exclusivity and power, or pushing women back into a domestic role, but with the safety of all combat troops.<br />
<br />
We want all our troops to come home safe, and one of the ways to help ensure this is to ensure to the best of our ability that those who are not 100% qualified to enter direct combat do not end up there.<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-22492339889495793162013-04-12T13:27:00.000-07:002013-04-12T13:51:51.646-07:00To Complicate Your Healthcare, Please Press 1<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.quizzle.com/blog/2011/03/4-ways-to-save-on-prescriptions/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="160" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-m6OG6FQhjok/UWhrqa_ZDII/AAAAAAAAAHg/Yp099xPIUZA/s200/money+and+pills.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
No one likes having their time eaten up by bureaucratic complexities.<br />
<br />
Between March 19 and April 12, I've had the displeasure of making over a dozen calls to five different parties, getting the run-around as well as some misinformation from four of them. Here's a chronological summary of my attempt to transfer my prescriptions from a pharmacy to a mail-order service, but <b>please <a href="https://www.facebook.com/notes/georgi-blessing-boorman/transferring-prescriptions-dont-even-try/10151422741329001" target="_blank">just skim</a>.</b><br />
<br />
<div>
Going through this process, I experienced firsthand the fact that:</div>
<div>
<b>The more complicated a policy is, the more complicated the process for enacting it.</b></div>
<div>
<b>The more complicated the process, the greater number of people necessary to conduct it.</b></div>
<div>
<b>The more people involved in the process, the greater the probability of error.</b></div>
<div>
<b>The greater the probability of error, the greater the probability that the patient will be negatively effected.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
New parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, widely known as Obamacare, take effect this year. The PPACA as a law is only <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf" target="_blank">906</a> pages, but with every line of legal code come dozens of pages of bureaucratic regulations that develop as new sections are enacted. As of March 12, the total number of pages is over <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/photo-828-pages-of-new-obamacare-regulations-in-just-one-day/article/2524020" target="_blank">20,000</a>. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9hhiQ2M6_dY/UWhftRwYRqI/AAAAAAAAAHQ/9uCRC3D-sa4/s1600/Obamacare.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9hhiQ2M6_dY/UWhftRwYRqI/AAAAAAAAAHQ/9uCRC3D-sa4/s320/Obamacare.jpg" width="212" /></a></div>
<div>
As a patient <b>required by law </b>to be insured, or as an employer required to insure your employees, you will spend many hours sorting through your policy. If you are enrolled in the Affordable Care Act, your coverage will be complicated. It will not, in the long run, be affordable, fast or easy to apply, or even easy to understand.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A great step forward in fixing our healthcare system?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You be the judge.</div>
Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-80996293977669423732013-04-10T13:58:00.001-07:002013-04-12T13:49:55.568-07:00My Experience with the World's Most Obscure Competition: Bible Quizzing<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_quizzing#Alliance_Bible_Quizzing" target="_blank">Bible Quizzing</a> as an activity floats somewhere between being a "real sport", like baseball and football, and being a "nerd sport", like spelling bees, debate team, and math quiz bowls. As an individual wedged for life in odd cracks and crevices among more defined and easily identifiable things, I doubt it's mere coincidence that I "jumped" (pun intended) into the obscurity of "church sport" (i.e. Bible Quizzing). The best quizzers always jump on instinct.<br />
<br />
At risk of sounding phobic of nerd sports, let me explain why Bible Quizzing is not this--it's important, trust me. Bible Quizzing requires not an insignificant amount of physical activity (and dare I say prowess?)--that is, involving more than your hands pressing a button or gesturing to an audience. Actually, it involves your calves, quads, and buttocks. Very significant muscles, as we all know.<br />
<br />
At risk of sounding superior to real sports, Bible Quizzing involves a good deal of strenuous mental activity. I don't care how many plays are in your book, you football players are definitely not on our level. Your whole playbook memorized cover to cover is still a pitiful accomplishment compared to the top quizzers' recitation of Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Collossians in one sitting (or should I say, pacing).<br />
<br />
Been there, done that.<br />
<br />
Word.<br />
Word of God, actually.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-k_6c9IM2qWc/UWXMyGSuiAI/AAAAAAAAAF4/rDzhglnuuaU/s1600/Georgi_BQ.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="211" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-k_6c9IM2qWc/UWXMyGSuiAI/AAAAAAAAAF4/rDzhglnuuaU/s320/Georgi_BQ.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>The "thinking stance"--Internationals 2008</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Part of what makes Bible Quizzing appealing, at least to me, is this peculiar combination of physical and mental ability. To be a great quizzer, you can't have one without the other. I wanted to be a great quizzer, and by logging hundreds of hours memorizing, pacing back and forth across my cold bedroom floor with a tattered quiz book hanging from my fingers, in conjunction with weekly sets of practice questions (and some "list-making"--that <i>really </i>does put me into nerd territory, I'll admit)*, I became a pretty good quizzer. I can name a couple dozen other quizzers from my district who were better, but I did pretty well.<br />
<br />
Another appeal is the ability to, well, appeal. In BQ it's called "challenging"--when a team captain believes that the quizmaster has ruled incorrectly, he simply stands up and says, "I'd like to challenge", and he presents his case based on his knowledge of the text and the rulebook.*<br />
<br />
I made a lot of challenges, and I had a pretty low rejection rate. There's something really gratifying about instantly reacting in protest, just hopping to your feet and having an immediate and simple process for considering your objections. Rulings generally take less than five minutes, and when your challenge is accepted, it inspires a sort of thrilling satisfaction I never got from anything else--A+s didn't even come close.<br />
<br />
Lastly, BQ was an attractive environment for someone who for most of her teenage years was rather anti-<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-f6JDlyPudlE/UWXNEH71xQI/AAAAAAAAAGA/x9pYE7F1Cf0/s1600/georgi_squished.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="150" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-f6JDlyPudlE/UWXNEH71xQI/AAAAAAAAAGA/x9pYE7F1Cf0/s200/georgi_squished.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Chilling with: 2 Canadians and 1 Texan</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
social, but who preferred the company she did keep to be of kids two or three years older. From my own experience, BQ has been surprisingly un-cliquish, possibly due to the wide age range of 6th to 12th grade, and the consequent variety within each church and each team. The great diversity of ages (and backgrounds, since a much higher proportion were homeschooled compared to the general population), as well as the encouragement from coaches and captains to reach out to people they wouldn't otherwise hang out with, kept me from feeling excluded, even when I didn't feel like actively "belonging" to any group in particular.*<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UEgVJRe0v0s/UWXPFD4yVhI/AAAAAAAAAGQ/WAG-QBHHW28/s1600/georgi_hall_bq.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="150" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UEgVJRe0v0s/UWXPFD4yVhI/AAAAAAAAAGQ/WAG-QBHHW28/s200/georgi_hall_bq.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Loitering Quizzer-style</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
I believe part of what keeps the social particles from agglutinating and congealing is the even playing field. It doesn't matter if you're 12 or 18, you all play together, against each other, and have an equal opportunity to succeed and win. There's no Little League or Varsity team. Just you, your team, and your ability. It was for me a precious simplicity and fairness I didn't, and still don't, see in any other activity. It seems so simple and right that you should be judged solely on your talent, skills, and reasoning, yet the phenomena is surprisingly rare. As someone near the end of a lengthy stint of employment as a job hunter, I feel I know this all too well.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-q9wC12QNeig/UWXOUHlU7RI/AAAAAAAAAGI/UyYif_RVS-c/s1600/Team_quiz.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="158" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-q9wC12QNeig/UWXOUHlU7RI/AAAAAAAAAGI/UyYif_RVS-c/s200/Team_quiz.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
In short, Bible Quizzing presented a world that I fit into, and it into me, incredibly well. Now that I'm 20 and a college grad, looking back on high-school and middle-school, I see that most of my best and clearest memories were from Quizzing. I like being stuck in the mismatched middle ground, and Quizzing was just quirky enough and just serious enough to become a passion of mine for almost five years of my teenage life.<br />
<br />
<br />
*Once you've memorized something pretty well, but you want to recall it word-for-word in the most intimate fashion, you must recruit an unfortunate younger sibling to read through your scribbles and high-lighting and crinkled pages as you recite the material for a general maximum of 30 minutes. This practice became known in my family as "quiz-30". It went as such:<br />
"Hey Poofy, guess what time it is?"<br />
"No! No, it is <i>not </i>quiz-30!"<br />
"It definitely is."<br />
"FINE!"<br />
*There was one quizzer, from way back in the day, that is still humorously remembered for addressing the quizmaster as "Your Honor".<br />
*Qualifying and attending select meets like Great West Invitationals and Internationals basically douses you in social lubricant. Squished between a junior and a senior in the middle row of a crowded van, you kind of get to know people. And you make lasting memories, whether you wanted to or not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-51877575903001921292013-04-09T14:25:00.000-07:002013-04-12T09:12:23.273-07:00I Do, You Don't: The Selective Nature of Marriage Equality and Traditional Marriage<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-meVW7dy0-Ws/UWdypbOBHOI/AAAAAAAAAGg/xVRSTHv9YEE/s1600/equal+love.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="149" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-meVW7dy0-Ws/UWdypbOBHOI/AAAAAAAAAGg/xVRSTHv9YEE/s200/equal+love.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Recently there's been an uptick in the level of discussion regarding gay marriage. The Supreme Court is currently deliberating whether same-sex marriage will be federally recognized and DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), which does not grant to same-sex marriages the federal benefits that opposite-sex marriages are eligible for, will be overturned.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As we anticipate the Court's ruling in the coming months, there are some aspects of the arguments, affirmative and negative, that I'd like to draw your attention to. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Tuning in to the AM political chatter last week, I heard multiple callers attack the "traditional marriage" view espoused by the show host and demand instead that "marriage equality" be established by the courts. It occurred to me how remarkably narrow each of these counterpoints were. Unable to escape a quick mental dip into anthropology, I considered how marriage has been defined in different societies and cultural environments around the world.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Any position that refuses to be situated in a global and historical context deserves particular scrutiny and skepticism. From the discourse on marriage I've heard so far, <b>the two dominant stances ironically argue for a universal definition, but at the same time refuse to consider how the universe really does define it.</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
• Advocates of "marriage equality" appeal to our Western concepts of love and fidelity, and use them as a fairly solid foundation for their campaign. Even Obama appears to subscribe to this reasoning, as you may have noticed from his last inaugural speech; he argued that, "Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is undeniably a convincing argument. Gay marriage lines up perfectly with our romantic ideals; restricting marriage to be between a man and a woman prohibits the legal expression of their love for one another, and that is unjust.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Defenders of "traditional marriage" often declare that "marriage is between a man and a woman."</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Tf4vd5kLr_4/UWdy0HqxnOI/AAAAAAAAAGs/M8ic11pfixs/s1600/mom+and+dad.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="142" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Tf4vd5kLr_4/UWdy0HqxnOI/AAAAAAAAAGs/M8ic11pfixs/s200/mom+and+dad.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In advocating this blanket definition of "traditional marriage" they commonly commit a fallacy called <i>ad antiquitatem</i>--meaning that they appeal to tradition, to the customs and cultural sensitivities ingrained in the mind of natural born American citizens since birth. Marriage has been between a man and a woman, therefore it must continue to be.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Unfortunately this idea is only appealing to those who are already convinced of the rightness of traditional marriage. The ad antiquitatem is really only a poor argument advanced because an appeal to morality would be an utter failure in contemporary popular culture and politics. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Both the affirmative and negative arguments have this in common: <b>they take something that is true or right in one case to be true or right in all cases.</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
"Marriage equality" makes a great deal of sense to us who believe in love and would like to love one person for the rest of our lives. It justly grants gay couples legal marital status. However, beneath the emotional and ideological appeal of marriage equality lies an ignorance of what marriage means, and has meant, to thousands of people groups across the planet and throughout history.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
From an historical and cultural perspective, “marriage equality” and “gay rights” are not synonyms, as our pop culture understands them. Polygamy has been fairly common at different points in history--even Biblical history--and if you include the keeping of concubines, it is even more common. The Quran allows up to four wives; an ESL student where I work once related to his class that he had two wives back home. Can both his legal wives apply for immigration to the U.S on the grounds of spouse-hood if this man were a U.S. citizen?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My question to the affirmative is: <b>why are you not also defending the rights of thousands of Muslims to marry multiple wives, according to the permissions of their religious teaching? Is that not marriage equality? </b>This is an honest question that deserves and honest answer. By not picking up the torch for polygamous rights, the mainstream marriage equality movement runs the risk of exposure as hypocritical and narrow-minded. It demonstrates to the public that you are not, in fact, championing equality for all kinds of marriage, only your own. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Although no true and just universal definition exists, marriage is not all about love. Marriage has been a social and political tool for thousands of years--they've been used strategically for anything from securing peace and economic relations between clans to expanding power and land wealth among royalty. Not everyone marries whom they love, or loves whom they marry. Nor is it always their choice. Marriage is as much a social and economic institution as it is an expression of romantic love and mutual commitment. This very fact, ironically, is at the heart of the above mentioned Supreme Court Case--it involves benefits. Tangible benefits, things that put money in your pocket and let you bypass red-tape, not just a right to equal expression of love.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As for the guardians of traditional marriage, namely Christians, Jews, and Mormons, they should be ready and willing to give an answer that makes sense to those who would ask them why God's favored people practiced polygyny in the Old Testament, and why it should not be considered legitimate in our era. The "traditional" argument for "traditional marriage" is already weak; more persuasive arguments, such as the fundamentally children-oriented nature of marriage, must be put forward. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My question to the negative is: What is your position on polygamy? Compared to gay marriage it has a much firmer foundation in history, even Biblical and Islamic history. Should a man and his wives, or woman and her husbands, receive the same recognition of their love and commitment and the same legal entitlements as a husband and a wife?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As the debates over the definition of marriage move forward, we must consider how other people have defined and used marriage as an institution, and in that broader context, how we as a people wish to restrict or expand our legal definition of marriage to the inclusion or exclusion of multiple kinds of arrangements, not just same-sex relationships.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-18654484232304841782013-04-08T16:55:00.001-07:002013-04-12T09:19:38.490-07:00The Importance of Being Right"There's <b>probably</b> no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life" --Atheist bus poster<br />
<br />
Probably, they say. They have to say it, because there's no way to prove there <i>isn't </i>a God (or gods). The irony is glaring when you consider that believing there is no God is just as much an act of faith as believing there is one. Hence, <i>probably. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
For all the smack that Christians have taken for their supposedly weak and unscientific arguments for God's existence, this is about as weak and unscientific a conclusion as they come.<br />
<br />
Probably, they say. Well then, if the odds are in your favor, just relax and live a little. Go on, says the little devil on your shoulder, be daring, be scandalous, be outrageous, break the rules. You only live for so long. Why preoccupy yourself with an afterlife that <i>probably </i>doesn't exist?<br />
<br />
Well, I will tell you. It's not very often that I get a chance to say this outright (especially when I was in college), but<b> being <i>right </i>is important</b>. Not just your life is in your hands, but life that comes after.<br />
<br />
I, for one, am not willing to bet my life on the odds of <i>probably.</i> Someone told me once, upon entering into a conversation between another coworker and I, that whether there is a God or not is not important to her at all. She had better things to do with her life, she said.<br />
<br />
Really? There are things, multiple things, that are more important than discerning the ultimate truth that reveals your ultimate fate, and moreover, the fate of all humanity?<br />
<br />
For argument's sake, let's allow ourselves to accept the existence of God as a given. What does this mean to you? What kind of God is it--does he care about you, did he make you in his image, does he watch and listen, will he let you into heaven? And if there is a God, you must ask yourself <b>what is the point of humanity at all, for there must be one</b>, since we were not mere accidents of nature as the atheists believe. One cannot be created and be pointless, just as one cannot create something pointless.<br />
<br />
<b>There is a point to your existence.</b><br />
<br />
But to answer the questions that shape your understanding of the entire universe and what the point is of it all, you first have to decide what God you believe in. Unfortunately, people don't always shop for "religion" with reason as their guide; they often fall for whatever makes them feel better about themselves and the world.<b> Reason should be your guide</b>, for although choosing to believe in God is an act of faith, your understanding of that God can be entirely shaped by reason and knowledge and studying the natural world. I firmly believe this--as a Christian, I take the Bible to be the Word of God, and it reveals much about his character. And yet those who wrote the Bible recognized that God is self-evident, that his truth is evident in nature, from your position on a tiny rock called Earth, to the position of the sun, to the arrangement of the galaxies.<i> "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made so that people are without excuse"</i> (Romans 1;20 NIV).<br />
<br />
In other words, <b>you do not have an excuse to believe that there is no God</b>. All the evidence is there, and great organizations such as <a href="http://creation.com/">Creation.com</a> (from whom I borrowed the bus sign story) commit all their energy toward uncovering it. And it is truly spectacular.<br />
<br />
To review, <b>being right is important</b>, <b>there is a point to you being here</b>, and <b>you don't have an excuse not to believe</b>.<br />
<br />
There is one last point I must make. The atheists said "stop worrying and enjoy your life", as if a life of belief is necessarily full of anxiety and deprived of joy, as if you are supernaturally oppressed. I must tell you that they are wrong. Belief offers profound joy of a kind that cannot be found in earthly pleasures, joy that the nonbelievers will never have the opportunity to experience.<br />
<br />
Cease that joy. Find the point to your life. But most importantly, be right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-28961127803262775222013-03-18T16:42:00.000-07:002013-04-12T09:15:48.366-07:00Are You Talking About Me Behind In Front of My Back?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-a5by5sqmhHE/UVy_GZm3r6I/AAAAAAAAAFE/el_OQGlsuE8/s1600/UW+graduation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="171" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-a5by5sqmhHE/UVy_GZm3r6I/AAAAAAAAAFE/el_OQGlsuE8/s200/UW+graduation.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Dear Class of 2013,<br />
<br />
Almost none of you will hear what I have to say here, but I just wanted to let you know that I heard <i>you</i>...all week long, all month, for six quarters<i>. </i>But you probably didn't even realize I was there, did you?<br />
<br />
I beg your pardon, fellow students in this esteemed institution of higher learning. For six quarters I heard you endlessly complaining about the treatment of this minority and that minority; I heard you rail self-righteously against the White Man and the military; I heard you blame nearly every flaw of modern humanity on capitalism and corporations (which apparently are "people"); I heard your fits of indignation when education funding is cut, and while speaking out the other side of your mouth, I heard resentment and constant snubs at those who, despite the stereotyping and the blatant ignorance and the prejudice against all things Christian, ironically deny the representation and the voice of certain minorities.<br />
But I can rest assured, even after the Hispanic population becomes the majority in the U.S., you will tirelessly defend their rights as an oppressed minority, while you consistently deny any rights to the unborn, the unseen, the unprotected. Dear class of 2013, I know you will not defend me either. At least not for a long while.<br />
<br />
In other words, <b>you are talking behind in front of my back</b>. My mother used to say this all the time--it's an old idiom, freshly painted with irony and thrown out in good humor to let us all know when we are stepping in to represent her with a "she'll just say" here, or a "she won't" there, leaving her no room to represent herself. But this clever turn of phrase is also an apt description for what happens in the classroom of the typical university, and, I imagine, in most public schools. Ironically I can't tell you for sure, because I am that irritating minority that just didn't go to school.<br />
<br />
Did you really not see me there? Are the currents of power and dominance so strong that no fish can<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xkaFlqOSqpA/UVzBDRwrgTI/AAAAAAAAAFM/zYHRNW4dhNM/s1600/Education.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="219" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xkaFlqOSqpA/UVzBDRwrgTI/AAAAAAAAAFM/zYHRNW4dhNM/s320/Education.jpg" width="320" /></a> possibly swim against them? Yet seemingly suspended beneath the reflective, rippling surface of the river, a few of us still try to do that. Perhaps it is because our movement is so restricted in this direction that you cannot notice us there with you, in the row behind you, inthe corner, even front and center--although you might cast your net over Red Square to drag in the braver ones who make little leaps forward above the water.</div>
<br />
I am a tired fish. For six quarters I beat my tail against the current, my little thought bubbles promptly swept away from my mouth unnoticed. Feeling entirely able to articulate my opinions, yet deprived of voice, there in the corner. Even when I wasn't in the corner, I felt like I was. To all you grad students, I might as well have been a housefly, a mere nuisance buzzing around your heads, or a biting mosquito who does little more than make you scratch the back of your neck.<br />
<br />
Classmates of '13, I am a tired fish. I leave the university feeling like I've made very little impact on anybody there. Zero progress. Of course, I can't blame it all on the current. Perhaps I could have done more, I could have fought harder and made those brave leaps. I felt like I was swimming alone though; I belonged to no organization, no support group, and I had precious few classmates who would ever be willing to back me up. In my discipline of Anthropology it was particularly hard. Anthropologists are an irreligious bunch, all urgently seeking to rectify the atrocities of the field's colonial past. It's not that I disagree with this goal, or that their irreligiosity disturbs me, but rather these facts tend to fill the whole disciplinary view, obscuring many ideas and institutions that have a major impact on millions of people, but nevertheless are too uncomfortable and too close to home to really treat with any serious critical thinking--in the anthropology of Christianity (a minuscule sub-field, and possibly my future career), we call it the "familiar Other". Christianity, as with alternative educational backgrounds such as homeschooling, is ignored by most anthropologists because it so rubs against the ideological grain, and, so they claim, it's "such a part of our culture", that why should we bother with it?<br />
<br />
So, fellow consumers in the so-called "marketplace of ideas", you can see that given the prevailing disciplinary attitude toward my upbringing and values, actually having to hear about them in class, first-hand, and take unwelcome criticism about ideas seen as given and true, would be rather uncomfortable.<br />
<br />
Please, don't even speak to me about being uncomfortable. Although in many ways beneficial, I have been pushed so far out of my comfort zone that I nearly fell off the periphery. I clung to cliffs of overlapping belief, my only sure footing where I took shelter from avalanches and the talons of predatory birds. But of course, if I actually <i>said </i>what made me so squeamish, I would be castigated. So, fellow graduates, I will mercifully spare you, and give you the accommodation that I never received.<br />
<br />
There is no middle ground between accommodation and discrimination, as I've recently realized through some Supreme Court cases. This is true in every institution, even those that champion freedom of conscience, radical ideas, and expression. <b>It is indisputable that if one is not granted sufficient ideological freedom to express their beliefs, they are denied self-representation</b>--that precious right of the individual that those who swim with the current take for granted.<br />
<br />
They say that<b> the first step toward change</b> (that concept that the University of Washington is so enamored with) <b>is acknowledging that there is a problem</b>.<br />
<br />
Dear class of 2013, we have a problem. We have a crisis of representation generated by the long-standing mechanisms of discrimination and relations of power, in some departments more than others. When you've gone out and experienced life outside of academia, and you've gained some perspective from a marketplace that is much freer, <b>come back and fix it</b>. I will be there, waiting.<br />
<br />
<br />
Addressing You Directly,<br />
G. B. Boorman<br />
<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-78474658851155998412013-03-06T17:02:00.000-08:002014-02-02T14:05:42.991-08:00The Info Babe and the One with the ApronI <b>am</b> a feminist.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-smJzqd_q3aM/Uu65Dp9UL0I/AAAAAAAAAMQ/lUEA_6nHIA0/s1600/393434_292337607475676_205701245_n+(2).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-smJzqd_q3aM/Uu65Dp9UL0I/AAAAAAAAAMQ/lUEA_6nHIA0/s1600/393434_292337607475676_205701245_n+(2).jpg" height="209" width="320" /></a></div>
A false antagonism has been constructed between the feminists and the conservatives in pop culture. The general line of reasoning is that the "three waves of feminism" rose up in necessary opposition to conservatives, and conservatives are still actively trying to suppress their efforts, lobbying instead for a submissive attitude and supportive role for women. The two groups are seen as diametrically opposed to one another, and each <i>seems</i> to support and build upon a social construction or "fiction" of the other. The misconceptions built into these constructions should deeply concern those of us who wish that everyone be able to represent themselves in as fair and honest an environment as possible.<br />
<br />
I want to tackle two big myths: "<b>the ugly (or shrill) feminist</b>" and the constructed identity of the typical "<b>conservative woman".</b><br />
<br />
But before I get into this, it is necessary to do what far too many scholars and social critics have neglected to do: define the terminology. Specifically, to the term <i>feminist. </i><br />
<i><br />
</i>Feminists believe, in short, that women are people, too. I know, mind-blowing. I<b>f you believe that women are people, too, then you're a feminist.</b> If you don't, then you are what is called a "misogynist" (a.k.a. pig-head and drag on social relations of all types).<br />
<br />
I like to think that I'm a person, and that I deserve to be treated like a person. It has always been accepted that men are people, so in practical terms, what I'm saying is that women deserve the same levels of respect and the same expectations of capability (except in physical labor) that men deserve.<br />
Equal respect <i>should </i>translate into equal compensation for goods and services rendered...which hasn't happened yet.<br />
<br />
Equal respect <i>should </i>mean the nonexistence of denigrating feminine tags, like "cop lady" or Rush Limbaugh's "info babe". Still there.<br />
<br />
Equal expectations of capability <i>should </i>mean the elimination of patronizing and denigrating extra "support" in the workplace. Still there.<br />
<br />
The point is that feminism as a social movement, not just as a theory of equality, is justified in its existence. I don't consider myself an activist, and I'll readily admit that there are certain strains of feminist ideology that I find idiotic and counterproductive, but I do respect those who take this issue to heart and actually try to change their world for the better.<br />
<br />
Now that I've covered my definition of feminism, it's important to define<i> conservative</i>. We must keep in mind that not everyone who self-identifies as a conservative holds exactly the same beliefs, values, and priorities that other conservatives hold. On the social side of things, you might say that a typical conservative has a general acceptance or promotion of religion (well, Christianity, Judaism, Catholicism, and Mormonism, at least) in public, is pro-life, and considers marriage to be between a man and a woman.<br />
<br />
But this is<i> </i>tenuous. I would wager that the majority of those who identify as "conservative" (taking into account polling choices like "moderately", "very") don't believe in everything in this list. In fact, a "conservative" doesn't really exist. It's simply a category we put ourselves and others into, based on how well we think they fit what a conservative "should" be, or if you're not "a conservative", what you think conservatives "really believe".<br />
<br />
My assertion here is that we must destroy the pervasive stereotype of the Conservative, who also happens to be a Fundamentalist, a Creationist, a Male Supremacist, or a Subservient Housewife. These associations have been dangerously generalized to encompass all who bear this title, thus making people less receptive to what a "conservative" has to say, and even swaying the vote away from those who have been unfortunately stigmatized.<br />
<br />
This stigmatization and antipathy toward conservatives is probably nowhere more evident than among feminist liberals. <i>Conservatives want you to stay home and cook, conservatives want to rob you of your rights, conservatives actively discriminate against women, conservatives want to ban birth control, conservatives hate public education, </i><i>conservatives are racist, </i>and so on, ad nausea<i>. </i>This is simply not true, at least not as a generalization about conservative ideology. For example, it is a <b>lie </b>that Mitt Romney wanted to ban birth control. A myth. A fabrication. A mis-characterization. An untruth...whatever you want to call it.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<b>The Subservient Housewife</b></h4>
And if you believe all these things about conservatives, then it is logical to assume that <b> conservative </b><b>women</b> are submissive, believe themselves to be ever relegated to the secondary, "supportive" role, that they must be married, that birth control is wrong, that children must be sheltered and disciplined etc. They are therefore both the enemy and the victims that must be released from their bondage.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Tnig21hrhlQ/Uu7ARyNB9wI/AAAAAAAAAM8/cpJUE2rySaI/s1600/housewife2+%25282%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Tnig21hrhlQ/Uu7ARyNB9wI/AAAAAAAAAM8/cpJUE2rySaI/s1600/housewife2+%25282%2529.jpg" height="320" width="229" /></a></div>
<br />
My parents are conservative. They pretty much adhere to everything on the list of conservative beliefs. Did my mom tell me I shouldn't bother going to college, because I need to get married and start having children, and I must be home to attend to my husband's every need? Did she force their opinions on me and fill my head with fundamentalist dogma? Did she prevent me from interacting with "the world", and from accessing worldly knowledge? <b>No. </b>Did she tell me I shouldn't be on the pill? No. Did she tell me to just stay back and let my husband make all decisions on his own, and who was I to involve myself in the decision-making process? No again.<br />
<br />
And my mom isn't the only woman I know who doesn't fit the largely liberal-generated image of the conservative woman. I, of course, don't match up with this image either, nor do the vast majority of my friends.<br />
<br />
<h4>
The Ugly Feminist</h4>
Conservatives are just as guilty of misrepresentation as the feminists; they are equally as irresponsible with their characterizations and ignorant of accurate information that's readily available. The stereotype set forth by conservatives is that of <b>the ugly feminist.</b><br />
<br />
The epitome of this imagery is put forth by none quite so audacious as Rush Limbaugh. Rush, a <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NPVTYRdG3cM/Uu6-LW-DBaI/AAAAAAAAAMs/MtUHCThVGXo/s1600/liberatad_feminist_idiots.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><br /></div>
leading conservative talk show host whom millions of conservatives lend their ears and their credence, subscribes to and purports the idea that women become feminists (at least nowadays) because they are unattractive and therefore marginalized, have experienced mistreatment at the hands of the male species, or are female supremacists, or some combination thereof. He specializes in supplying snide remarks on the unattractiveness of many feminist politicians, such as Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, or Janet Nepolitano. He paints feminists as whiners who let cries of victimization ring out from media strongholds. I'm not saying Rush is evil or that I hate him, but this is one area where I believe he's just flat out wrong, and should be ashamed of his conduct.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SI0o4npzGZ8/Uu69i8VFBpI/AAAAAAAAAMg/W5nlaMTl-CI/s1600/6786_suffrage_cartoon5201+%25282%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SI0o4npzGZ8/Uu69i8VFBpI/AAAAAAAAAMg/W5nlaMTl-CI/s1600/6786_suffrage_cartoon5201+%25282%2529.jpg" height="320" width="196" /></a>As I've said, feminists are a much broader group than El Rushbo interprets. While you certainly may find some women who are motivated by the emotions evoked through marginalization and personal claims to suffering caused by men, there are thousands upon thousands of feminists who sincerely uphold the ideal of gender equality for its own sake, and may (surprise!) actually be quite attractive.<b> Feminism is not a reactionary movement formed through personal bitterness toward the male species, it is a belief that women are people, too.</b><br />
<br />
<b></b>There are feminists are working to stop the sex-slave trade, feminists who run women's shelters, counselling, and rehab, feminists who push for equal pay for equal work, and feminists who push for higher penalties for rapists and domestic abusers. Those are projects we all should promote, no matter what you call yourself.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Stop and Reflect...</h4>
The antagonism between conservatives and feminists portrayed by popular media, although it seems clearly evident among a few prominent politicians and activists, has been built up to such great heights as to overshadow all those who do not find themselves comfortable in one ideological box or the other, even if they identify themselves as conservative or feminist. Their representation has been mailed pre-printed to their door like a magazine they didn't subscribe to, and confusion, undeserved antipathy, and misplaced anger are the results. Before we assume a set of beliefs and attitudes to a perceived group of people, we must pause and consider whether we are giving priority to our own preconceived notions of their ideology, or their voice as individuals--the former will only lead to further misrepresentation. A better, fairer world for men and women, conservatives and feminists, begins with understanding each other.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
</h4>
<h4>
</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<b><br />
</b><b><br />
</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-NPVTYRdG3cM%2FUu6-LW-DBaI%2FAAAAAAAAAMs%2FMtUHCThVGXo%2Fs1600%2Fliberatad_feminist_idiots.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NPVTYRdG3cM/Uu6-LW-DBaI/AAAAAAAAAMs/MtUHCThVGXo/s1600/liberatad_feminist_idiots.jpg" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-Tnig21hrhlQ%2FUu7ARyNB9wI%2FAAAAAAAAAM8%2FcpJUE2rySaI%2Fs1600%2Fhousewife2%2B%2525282%252529.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Tnig21hrhlQ/Uu7ARyNB9wI/AAAAAAAAAM8/cpJUE2rySaI/s1600/housewife2+%25282%2529.jpg" -->Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-65575449186114922002013-02-21T16:47:00.000-08:002013-04-12T09:19:59.457-07:00October Baby, UFOs, and the Importance of Being Human<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-W8kAzrtONYs/UWd4bAj6wqI/AAAAAAAAAHA/3ORZ6WQ-e2s/s1600/cloud+ufo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="147" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-W8kAzrtONYs/UWd4bAj6wqI/AAAAAAAAAHA/3ORZ6WQ-e2s/s200/cloud+ufo.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
February 7th: <b><a href="http://octoberbabymovie.net/" target="_blank">October Baby</a></b> (2011) follows the endeavors of a college-age girl to find her real mother after discovering she was the survivor of a botched abortion. The harsh truth prompts her to reflect on her own humanity and the way she had perceived herself until that point--the feelings of worthlessness, of drowning, of inexcusable existence, as well as her various health problems, suddenly come together as a unique complexity that's both coherent and disturbing.<br />
<br />
Backtrack. February 1st. The headline reads, <b>CHRISTIAN DISCOVERS SHOCKING TRUTH ABOUT</b> <b>UFOS</b>-- "Local Seattlite now convinced about UFOs existences, gov't efforts to suppress knowledge"<br />
<br />
"And I was like, oh my gosh, it's really true. It's all true," explained Boorman, a lifelong Evangelical Christian and UFO skeptic. "My whole family, except for my older sister, won't hear a word of it. But you know, when you see the actual footage, and the common shapes and witness experiences, and the declassified documents, it seems a whole lot more legit. My jaw just hung there that whole first night after watching a couple documentaries. It's crazy."<br />
Boorman says that the documentary <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_Blue_(2002_film)" target="_blank">"Out of the Blue"</a> (2002), by producer Michael Jay Fox, showed a lot of evidence and solid analysis that just couldn't be refuted, she claimed, "without sounding even more ridiculous than the UFO 'nuts'". "The counterarguments for some of these cases are pathetic. Like, a <i>lighthouse, </i>really? When the guy actually went up and touched the craft, and it left scorch marks and everything?"<br />
Boorman says she doesn't see any inherent incompatibility between her faith and this new-found conviction. "I have a lot of Christian friends who dismiss UFOs outright through deductive reasoning, saying there couldn't <i>possibly </i>UFOs because we are alone in the universe, you know, like 'Wouldn't God have said something in the Bible if there were other creations?' But I mean, who are we to put limits on God, if he can do anything? So that's my position. I don't put God in a box." And, she added, "I try my best to use inductive reasoning whenever possible, because it gets more accurate conclusions. The UFO phenomenon shouldn't be any different."<br />
<br />
Forward to February 11th. Headline: <b>BOORMAN: EVEN MORE DISTURBING TRUTH ABOUT UFOS.</b><br />
<br />
Ostensibly a UFO "convert" just one week ago, Boorman, a native Washingtonian, is retracting her opinion on Unidentified Flying Objects.<br />
"I watched <a href="http://www.adullamfilms.com/UFOConspiracy.html" target="_blank">another documentary</a>, 'cause, you know, I do that...and toward the end it brought up some really interesting and <i>really </i>frightening insights on the UFO phenomenon. It basically argued that these things [the UFOs] are the work of demons, and that there're strong similarities between historical depictions of demons and the present archetype alien."<br />
Boorman continued, "But that's not even the strongest evidence. There's also the missing-time phenomenon, and the fact that they make absolutely no sound, which is impossible...I did some more research online and found the real clincher: predictions made by alien abductees, who claim contact with the aliens, are often freakishly similar, or exactly the same, to prophesies and information given by mystics, mediums, psychics, and automatic hand-writers, who all claim contact with the spirit world." Emphatically, she added, "I mean, how can you explain that in any sort of respectable scientific way? How can you explain that away, especially when some of these prophesies, the kind that are way more detailed than educated guesses, come true?"<br />
Boorman admitted that she hasn't related these new discoveries to her family yet--just her husband. "The funny thing is, when Cody [husband] called his mom up [almost two weeks ago] and said that <i>I </i>believed in UFOs, she immediately and matter-of-factly said, 'Oh, I think<a href="http://www.chodesh.info/ufos-operation-trojan-horse-gems.htm" target="_blank"> they're demons</a>'. I actually thought it was a ridiculous proposition at the time, but now I totally see that she's right. And to boot, my faith is totally reaffirmed, and yet again provides a coherent and rational explanation for something everybody wonders or is confused about."<br />
She paused, and then concluded, "Don't ever dismiss a theory as ridiculous until you do the research. I think that's one thing I've learned from this whole experience."<br />
_____________________________________________________<br />
<br />
Right now you're asking, what does October Baby and UFOs have to do with each other?<br />
<br />
Excellent question.<br />
<br />
Answer: Both October Baby and my UFO revelations have caused me to seriously reflect on the concept of humanity: <b>what does it mean to be human? </b><br />
<br />
For the brief period when I was quite sure that there has been some form of contact with extraterrestrials on this planet, I kept imagining what the first highly public interaction between the human race and another would be like. How would the world react? What would they say, what rights would be claim they have, or don't have?<br />
<br />
What perplexed me was the very idea of humanity, and what it entails, not just what it privileges itself with. What characterizes it? What's inherent in our biology; what's purely social; how do we think?<br />
<br />
I realized that the fiction (social construction) of aliens and <b>the narrative of invasion or mass contact is a unique tool for allowing us to see our reflections</b>--it's impossible to "define" humanity without having something to compare it with. The concept of difference in my field of anthropology is the crucial first step to understanding ourselves, for it is only when we are confronted with difference that we begin to decode our own language and customs, to constructively interpret our way of life. A classic historical example comes from Middle Age Europe--it was only after the Voyages of Discovery had begun that "race" began to carry serious meaning for the white Europeans, raising a whole host of questions that had not previously been asked.<br />
<br />
Although to some the "savages" of the New World and of Africa may as well have been aliens--something other than human--contemporary thought brings us all together as equally human; <b>we are not all that different,</b> at least not biologically, not inherently.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, for a significant percentage (as in at least one person) of the world's population humanity is in dispute in a different way. The film mentioned at the beginning of this post reminded me, but this time more profoundly and more painfully, of the concept of sacred human life. <b>Words like "abortion controversy", "abortion debate", "women's rights", or "pro-choice/pro-life" are pathetic in their utter failure to describe and relate such crucial ideas, and despicable in their capacity to strip the very idea of humanity out of our minds</b>--the more I turn it over in my mind, the more appalled I am at our vocabulary (at least in English) regarding this "issue." The word "abortion", meaning "termination" "cessation", or "abandonment of a mission" is a word Americans have swallowed unconsciously and washed down with its accompanying wave of euphemisms and p.c. terms for decades, as if it were the multivitamin sent down with a gulp of water.<br />
<br />
Sometimes I wonder if we don't deserve that noble title of humanity. But that's my Romantic side speaking.<br />
<br />
I know that even among Christians, and between Christians and Catholics, there are differing views on When Human Life Begins, When the Soul is Born, or whatever you choose to call it. I'm not here to force my view down your throat; actually I don't honestly think I can directly answer the question with any degree of certainty. But this film, October Baby, hit me in the gut with the beautiful, terrible, undeniable force of human empathy--and <b>empathy is something one human can only feel for another, on behalf of another</b>. When you see a picture of a baby at 20 weeks, and it feels like your heart has dropped into an abyss and left your chest empty and yet filled with fire...what word can describe this but empathy.<br />
<br />
That may not sound scientific to some of you. It does not pretend to be. <b>This is not a question of science</b>, not by any stretch of the imagination. It is <b>a Human Question </b>that remains unanswered outside of that natural state of humanity we call religion, a rational set of explanations and morals that stem from a reverence for a God or gods that we call faith.<br />
<br />
If there were other intelligent beings who contacted we humans in a big way (if not a threatening way), <b>I wonder if we would extend our humanity to cover us all, if we could find enough commonalities between us to rouse our sense of morality</b> and quiet our fear of the Other; to stay the masses from rioting, the missiles from launching and the drones from swarming the Visitors. <br />
<br />
I doubt it--if we all cannot even agree on including the unborn under the canopy of Humanity, how could we include those who do not share our biology, our history, or our languages? <br />
<br />
These are the thoughts the fiction of aliens and stories of the barely-born provoke. They make us aware of the milieu of ideas and assumptions that we inhabit, test and temper our convictions, raise the Questions we cannot ask without an Other to project an image of Ourselves back at us, to be our reflection and our Difference. Without these, how difficult it would be to realize the importance of being Human. <br />
<br />
<br />
Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-3120445532218332892013-02-06T14:30:00.004-08:002013-04-12T13:35:54.209-07:00Beer and Pancakes: What Most Professors Don't Know about Me<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;"> </span></b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nak8cSFI-I4/UWd3kQwZTxI/AAAAAAAAAG0/o9c_1c5Bbbo/s1600/beer+and+pancakes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="149" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nak8cSFI-I4/UWd3kQwZTxI/AAAAAAAAAG0/o9c_1c5Bbbo/s200/beer+and+pancakes.jpg" width="200" /></a></span></b></div>
<b style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;"> </span></b>I generally steer clear of self-commentary, especially given the writing dictations of my particular field--after all, we can’t have everyone spilling themselves like maple syrup into half-fried thoughts on social issues.You get a pancake that's all sweetness and no substance. It just falls apart when you poke it.<br />
<br />
When someone asks you about your background, what do you say? I try to avoid heavily connoted words like “homeschooler” or “conservative.” These end up blocking any further understanding of my identity, as the inquirer drives along road blocks, not looking for a way around, but just to see how far the barrier goes and if it gets any taller.<br />
<br />
So what other words do I have? Do I tell them I’m “alternatively educated” (a term actually found in some county educational paperwork), and that I’m individualistic and hold “traditional values”? The first term is an obvious euphemism, and the others are still more empty clichés than descriptions. Actually, (I hope this doesn’t make me a frustrating personality) I’ve found that unusual statements like “I didn’t go to school until I was sixteen” or “I wouldn’t know; I’ve never been to high school” prick curiosity, and suddenly they’re more easily guided down a more narrow path to identity. Of course, they can’t resist detours into questions like “did you do school in your pajamas?” and, “so how did you get any friends?” or even, “So, like, your mom was your teacher?” to which I politely respond “no, I got dressed like any other kid; I belonged to a co-op as well as a church, and I Bible-quizzed, so I got to meet people from around the state, and I rode horses (with other people); no, not since I was in like 5th grade. I pretty much taught myself what I didn’t<br />
learn at co-op.”<br />
<br />
Of course, the biggest ditch is the religious affiliation. Church. Bible. These words are somehow louder than the rest of my explanation. (Actually, my roommate, whom I am quite fond of, asked me concernedly if I was homophobic, because, she explains, she has gay friends. I was slightly offended, and said Christianity is about loving people, not condemning them.) “Oh, so you’re like, a Christian?” They ask as if it’s already affirmed. I half-smile. “Yep,” I reply, although I have to admit that sometimes I feel reluctance as almost palpable in my throat, particularly at the University. There seems to be this idea permeating nearly every mind on campus that if you’re a Christian, you’re a whole bunch of other (negative) things, too. I can almost see connections forming through their eyes, just before they say something to the extent of, “Oh, so that’s why you were homeschooled?” I let out a slight sigh; I generally don’t want to launch into this discussion, especially if I’m on my way to class or work. Or I’m really hungry.<br />
<br />
But of course, I usually bite anyway, “No,” I reply hesitantly, shifting my backpack, “my parents decided that homeschooling was the best way to let us learn how to think for ourselves and be responsible for our own learning; how to think, not what to think. Plus it allowed me to spend more time with my parents, and to work at my own pace,” I say, but then tag on hastily, “No, I don’t regret being homeschooled. It was awesome, and hey, I think I turned out pretty well.” I bow my head a little, as if evaluating myself from toe to head, from my “normal” shoes (not rubber boots or 90s tennis shoes) to my “normal” (not jean skirt and baggy shirt) clothes, to my “normal” (not long enough to sit on) hair. Bravely, I make sure my left hand is visible, with that suspiciously sparkly band on my ring finger.<br />
<br />
Eyebrows are raised, even if maybe I’m just imagining it. This visual seems acceptable, although still, in the mind, a not fully process-able walking contradiction. I inform them that I was a Running Start student, so that was kind of like junior and senior year of high school—a desperate attempt to relate, I know.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the other lane of the road to identity isn’t much better. A Christian friend of my father-in-law asks my major; I tell him Anthropology; he promptly asks if that isn’t the study of how we came from monkeys. I curtly reply that I’m not in biological anthropology, but sociocultural. Monkeys usually don’t enter the discussion.<br />
<br />
It almost goes without saying that gay rights and creation vs. evolution are the two most irksome and redundant conversations for a walking contradiction like me. It seems like the questions press in from all sides, even if only indirectly to my particular public, as rhetorical “gotcha” questions reaching out from the screen to grab me by the ears. The mainstream media is sure to turn my hair gray. I have my own (I call it nuanced, others may call it flaking) opinions and approaches to the discussions, which I usually confine to the living room setting after dinner, preferably very late, and with beer. And maybe some pancakes.<br />
<br />
You might find a few of these candid commentaries on my blog; ironically, it's the most public medium in which I've written. I sincerely hope this candor does more to draw people into discussion than it does to turn them away in disapproval. Most professors never know about me, personally, for a reason--I hope here in cyberspace that that reason is not quite so prevalent, and that people enjoy hearty pancakes that aren't quite so syrupy sweet.</div>
</div>
Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-35274789468994127222013-02-04T16:58:00.000-08:002014-02-02T13:02:48.606-08:00No Problema: what Spanglish says about U.S. inter-culture dynamicsRegardless of your political attitudes on immigration, difference or assimilation, I know you know some Spanglish. Everyone does, and everyone throws in a Spanish word (or suffix) here and there; it seems to come naturally, at least for those who at least occasionally bump into Spanish speakers or live near Chicano neighborhoods.<br />
<br />
Naturally--that's the key word here. Interestingly enough, language incorporation is a social phenomenon that almost seems biologically programmed--regardless of the prevailing anglocentrism and Spanish's low social status, (even when it is the majority language of a particular area), that darn idioma continually seeps into our American English dialect. It's simply the inevitable result of language contact, and as many English words make their way into Spanish vocabulary as do Spanish words into English.<br />
<br />
So what does this mean, you ask? I am of the opinion that this linguistic exchange, albeit minor, is indicative, and anticipates, a larger shift in American attitudes toward Spanish-speakers (hispanophones). Spanish is slowly becoming more tolerated, as the proportion of hispanophones, and therefore exposure to the language, steadily increases. This, coupled with an increasingly global economy that demands more bilingual speakers in a variety of languages, is curbing the enthusiasm of monolingual proponents and leaving younger generations to ponder what opportunities exist in a diverse marketplace as a monolingual American.<br />
<br />
I'll just be as frank as possible. This is where the piano hits the ground. <i><b>This is going to happen</b>. </i>Sí, verdad. There is nothing anyone can do to keep back the rising tide of Spanish in American society--it has been estimated that perhaps by 2050 over half of the country will speak Spanish with some degree of fluency. That may be a bit exaggerated, but the fact is that it will happen sooner or later, and you crossing your arms and "putting your foot down" is not going to change a single thing. Nada.<br />
<br />
This inevitability seems to distress some Americans, for reasons that I do understand. Proponents of English-only education and business in America believe that our common tongue has been a great national unifier and pillar of our socioeconomic success; business is easier when everyone understands each other effortlessly. I get that. Comprendo.<br />
<br />
Yet I have to question the assumption that English is indeed our great unifier, as well as if "unity" is really what we need more of at all. I happen to think the United States are <i>too </i>unified, and are increasingly losing their distinctiveness--society has become increasingly mobile with the invention of the automobile and then the plane, then with television, and now the internet. Communication from coast to coast is instantaneous, freely and constantly circulating. <br />
<br />
Language is a perfect representative of this homogenization; a certain dialect called "standard English" is almost universally preferred in media, which we now consume incessantly day in and day out. This, combined with easy mobility, has drastically reduced the number and size of localized dialects.<br />
<br />
I suspect that this homogenization of language both reinforces and indicates a weakening sense of place, of "situatedness", and a poor awareness of our federalist structure. Pop culture, being nationally, well, popular, is focused almost exclusively on federal issues and "national problems". Cable news is the same, no matter what state you are in, and I think that this increasingly non-specific national awareness is doing more harm than good. Honestly, I think <b>the last thing America needs is to be more "unified".</b><br />
<br />
That being said, I don't think Spanish in itself is going to rip the country apart or ruin our economy. Quite the contrary--although the transition from a mono to bilingual culture is painful, in the end our country will come out stronger for having increased its bilingual speakers. Spanish is the second-most spoken language in the world.<br />
<br />
Notice that I said Spanish <i>in itself. </i>In reality, I think<strong> the rejection of Spanish as a common American language is really a misappropriation of blame stemming from concern for a deeper cultural and political issue that I, too, share. It is the concern of Hispanic community exclusivity, which inoculates the members of the community against general American values and any sense of common patriotism, not to mention communication.</strong> <br />
<br />
The fear is of <b>"a nation within a nation,"</b> and it is very real, particularly for those in the Southwest. If Hispanic communities close themselves off from the rest of society, there will be no common ground to stand on, and thus antipathy and misunderstanding will perpetually fester in the rift between the Chicanos and the "real" Americans. If this indeed became a widespread phenomenon, I wouldn't be surprised if in a hundred years there would be an effort by Arizona or Southern California to secede from the Union and unite with Mexico. It's not actually all that crazy a speculation.<br />
<br />
But as I said before, <b>pushback against Spanish will not prevent this from happening</b>; for many, I think it is merely the manifestation of the fear discussed above. I know what you're thinking--well then, señorita knowitall, what's the solution?<br />
<br />
I'll admit I have no fine-tuned theory to solve this problem, but I do think I can point out where the real problem lies--with advertising and marketing, and with non-citizen (or "undocumented", which is the p.c. term) status.<br />
<br />
Let's start with the latter, because I think it's a bit more important than the former. <strong>Status as an undocumented worker means you are in a sort of liminal socioeconomic state, and each country holds a certain magnetic charge that attracts or repels you</strong>--the opportunity American offers attracts you, but that opportunity is not guaranteed for life. When it runs out, so does the attraction, and the attraction generated by lifelong experience as a Mexican (or Guatemalan, or Cuban, etc.) pulls you back home. <br />
<br />
But what if you're fortunate enough to have a steady job? Or what if circumstances are bad here, but they're much worse in your motherland? You'll probably stay, but you're not staying because you want to <i> be </i>an American, you stay because you want to<strong> maximize your benefits and minimize costs</strong> (not just financially, but in terms of safety, health, opportunity, etc.). <br />
<br />
And you're human--you don't want to feel alone, so you are socially attracted to the relatives and friends already here, and other undocumented immigrants, and a Hispanic community naturally evolves. And for all intents and purposes, you're here to stay.<br />
<br />
<b>But what if there was a pathway to legal status</b>? What if your only choice to remain in the U.S. is to become a legal resident, with a tax ID, a thumbprint scan, and name in the national database? It's a long process, for sure, and it's no piece of cake, but it's the best deal you have.<br />
<br />
My theory is that the process of becoming a legalized resident (citizen or otherwise), of being confronted with the concept of actually becoming "an American", in all legal respects, will cause you to think about your place in American society, about what it might mean to "be an American" in the fullest sense of the word.<br />
<br />
Suddenly police are no longer an extenuating threat. Employers can no longer take advantage of you. If are granted the opportunity to become a citizen, now you can vote. Sure, now you pay taxes...but at least you're entitled by law to Social Security and other government "perks."<br />
<br />
<b>The process of becoming legalized is actually a wealth-creating process</b>, albeit indirectly--by undergoing this arduous process, an individual accumulates cultural capital. He acquires essential knowledge of the country, including that of laws and important history, often embedded in everyday language as "cultural texts" (an example would be "all men are created equal", "one nation under God", or a "lone gunman").<br />
<br />
The somewhat parallel process of learning English is an investment of time and effort that produces invaluable socioeconomic capital, for obvious reasons, and is a veritable bulldozer to the social barriers built on the severe deficit of communication.<br />
<br />
<b>The individual who invests in and achieves a new identity</b> (at least a reflexive one), whether national, religious, or ideological, <b>is likely to produce more wealth for himself by continual investment of his capital</b>; the more wealth he gains, the stronger his identity becomes as he builds a social network, a career, and maybe even a family in the larger context of American culture. <br />
<br />
And so the process continues, and time is a steady investment, like an automatic payment or a Keep the Change program; the longer one stays in a particular place, the deeper his social roots and sentimental attachment, and so the less likely he is to leave it.<br />
<br />
All this is to say that in order solve the issue of a "nation within a nation", our country must make an effort to legalize the immigrant population. A crackdown on the use of Spanish and bilingual preference will not work. Universal tolerance of Spanish will not work. Mass deportation will not work. A taller fence will not work. Not even sped up naturalization will work.<br />
<br />
In our present American context, legalization is the only theory I have any credence in. Buena suerte, America.<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-72382231857868405782013-01-28T15:55:00.000-08:002013-04-12T09:16:41.782-07:00Unwelcome Criticism I<span style="color: #45818e;">ABSTRACT:</span><br />
<span style="color: #45818e;">This dialogue (see below) is a rough metaphor for the general pattern of how minority "crazy" beliefs come to be accepted by the larger academic community.The hegemony of established theories and "facts" make it very difficult just to get anyone of power to "lend you their ears". Add unconventional theories on to academia's competition, and it seems as much a miracle as a triumph of reason. I shall have an uphill battle, no doubt.</span><br />
<span style="color: #45818e;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #45818e;">In Anthropology, the universal approach to the study of "cultures" is not that of objectivity per se, but more specifically the assumption that all ways of life, are equal. All cultures are to try to be understood <i>on their own terms, </i>because that's really the only way they'll make any sense. Implied in this approach is the assumption of human rationality--people make rational decisions and logical calculations...Cultural relativism is awesome; the issue I have with this kind of relativism is not in the soundness of the theory, but in the reasonableness of its application. Relativism is an excellent tool of methodology when studying other cultures. If all our research is conducted with the tentative assumption that their social structure "works", that their practices "make sense" in context, then we will produce a coherent and maximally objective synthesis of information. But if your family or friends express disgust or hostility toward the foreign customs and beliefs you explain to them over dinner, do you rebuke them in the name of relativism, try to change the subject, or maybe nod in agreement? </span><br />
<span style="color: #45818e;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #45818e;">"Who is to say this is wrong?", snaps the Moral Relativist. "Who are you to say what they should and should not believe; who are you to judge the reasonableness of their judgments or morality of their institutions?" Relativism is his replacement for religion, despite his allegiance to secularism... But I am no Moral Relativist, I am a Christian, and I have no problem explaining universal morality across cultures to my future children. I am comfortable with dinner-table value judgments. </span><br />
<div>
<span style="color: #45818e;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #45818e;">But let's consider a heresy against cultural relativism as a guiding principle: <b><i>Some social structures, institutions, and practices are more successful than others at accomplishing their task. </i></b>Anyone who dabbles in politics and has at least roughly formed ideologies about how government should be structured and what place it should have in the life of a citizen should recognize this truth. But it doesn't just apply to the state, it applies to <i>all </i>aspects of social organization: All versions thereof vary in their efficacy of fulfilling a social need...<b><i>Not all cultures are equal. </i></b></span></div>
<br />
<br />
Me: The sky is <i>not </i>blue.<br />
<br />
You: What? Yeah...it IS.<br />
<br />
Me: No, no it isn't. It's not blue.<br />
<br />
You (confounded and irritated): Ye....what, what are you saying? This is ridiculous.<br />
<br />
Me: I can prove it.<br />
<br />
You: If you're going to go into some complicated scientific elaboration, I don't really care to hear it. The sky is blue, as far as everybody is concerned.<br />
<br />
Me: Look up.<br />
<br />
You: Look it up? Look up what? (whips out iPhone, thumb ready to prove me wrong)<br />
<br />
Me: No, no LOOK UP!<br />
<br />
You: ...Oh.. (cheeks flushed with embarrassment)<br />
<br />
Me: So does that sky look blue to you?<br />
<br />
You: (staring at the woolly gray blanket that cloaks the Northwest for several months out of the year) No. No, it's not blue.<br />
<br />
Me: (smiles smugly)<br />
<br />
<br />
This dialogue is a rough metaphor for the general pattern of how minority "crazy" beliefs come to be accepted by the larger academic community. Of course, there are a lot of fringe scholars that never do succeed in getting the main body of academics to look up and see that the sky is gray, partially (in my opinion) because they never insist on the rationality of their ideas. The hegemony of established theories and "facts" make it very difficult just to get anyone of power to "lend you their ears". The elite, the supreme theoreticians, the cream of the intellectual crop, are tucked away in ivory towers, where blasphemous cries are unlikely to be heard, and much less are welcome.<br />
<br />
I know it sounds dramatic. But despite popular belief, academia is quite dramatic: crusades are begun, witch hunts carried out, feuds perpetuated. Great minds (well, at least they think they're great) spar--they write a book (or a lecture that becomes a smash hit on YouTube), and then write another after a retort is published, and then when they die they leave the next scholastic response to their favorite student.<br />
<br />
All this to say, I doubt it's much easier to "make it" in highly competitive ivy-league universities than it is in Hollywood. Add unconventional theories on to that, and it seems as much a miracle as a triumph of reason. I shall have an uphill battle, no doubt.<br />
<br />
I won't be too much of a grumbling hypocrite though, since I do realize the potential power free speech, particularly in cyberspace, really has. I'm going to exercise that free speech right here, with subsequent blasphemies against "Science" and "Progress" and the like to come in later posts.<br />
<br />
Before I willfully desecrate a holy temple of modern Reason, specifically the temple of Relativism, let me just say...<br />
<br />
God bless America<b>.</b><br />
<br />
Oops, I think I just did.<br />
<br />
<h4>
The Temple of Relativism</h4>
<div>
In Anthropology, the universal approach to the study of "cultures" is not that of objectivity per se, but more specifically the assumption that all cultures, all ways of life, are equal. People don't do bad, they do different. They don't live worse, they live different. They don't think wrong, they think different. <b>All cultures are to try to be understood <i>on their own terms, </i>because that's really the only way they'll make any sense.</b> Implied in this approach is the assumption of human rationality--people make rational decisions and logical calculations; this can be evinced if we try to understand the<i> perspective</i>, the worldview, that shapes their motivations and consequently their actions within a given social framework.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Cultural relativism is awesome. Well, let me qualify. The issue I have with this kind of relativism is not in the soundness of the theory, but in the reasonableness of its application. I think <b>relativism is an excellent tool of methodology </b>when studying other cultures--it's the traction tires that keep us from sliding into the mire of ethnocentrism, and the consequent narrow-mindedness that develops from wading laboriously through an deep and endless valley of ideological muck. Besides, in my field evaluative statements, or "value judgments", are strictly prohibited. Even if we personally disapprove, we will never say it. All this is good, <i>methodologically. </i>If all our research is conducted with the tentative assumption that their social structure "works", that their practices "make sense" in context, then we will produce a coherent and maximally objective synthesis of information. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But what happens when you go home at the end of the day and you're no longer an anthropologist, but a mother, no longer a scientist, but a role model and leader? If your family or friends express disgust or hostility toward the foreign customs and beliefs you explain to them over dinner, do you rebuke them in the name of relativism, try to change the subject, or even nod in agreement? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I can tell you what those anthropologists who subscribe to not just cultural relativism, but moral relativism would do. (And many of them do; it's an intellectual virus on campus that is hard to escape.) They would rebuke their friends; "Who is to say this is wrong?", snaps the Relativist. "Who are you to say what they should and should not believe; who are you to judge the reasonableness of their judgments or morality of their institutions?" <b>Relativism is their replacement for religion</b>, despite their allegiance to secularism; their simple guidebook in the absence of a sacred text or god. (Ironically, it does become a sacred text--read God of the Journalists to see what I mean.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I, however, live not by relativism but by faith, faith in a One True God and the goodness of his commandments. I have a sacred text that tells me right from wrong pretty clearly most of the time. So I am no Moral Relativist, and I have no problem explaining universal morality across cultures to my future children. <b>I am comfortable with dinner-table value judgments. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But let's set aside morality for just a second, and consider a heresy against cultural relativism as a guiding principle:</div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
<b><i>Some social structures, institutions, and practices are more successful than others at accomplishing their task.</i></b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
I know. Mind-blowing. Scandalous. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But let's really <i>really </i>think about this. Anyone who dabbles in politics and has at least roughly formed ideologies about how government should be structured and what place it should have in the life of a citizen should recognize this truth. But it doesn't just apply to the state, it applies to <i>all </i>aspects of social organization: marriage, kinship structure, economy, social hierarchy, gender relations, etc. All versions thereof vary in their efficacy of fulfilling a social need--the general task being to support the physical and emotional welfare of all individuals in a society. So if my first statement is true, it follows that, as far as fulfillment of social welfare is concerned,</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><i>Not all cultures are equal. </i></b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
Gasp! The horror!</div>
<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-11906681264754067752013-01-26T16:05:00.001-08:002013-04-12T09:12:23.267-07:00The God of the Journalists<span style="color: #45818e;">ABSTRACT: </span><br />
<span style="color: #45818e;">Man is never left without something to worship. A Rolling Stones reporter Michael Hastings has written an e-book explaining the positively melting effect the presence of our great leader has on journalists and reporters, who "lose their minds" when fortunate enough to have the opportunity for questions. I have asserted that Communism isn't truly godless. Wherever one finds evidence of Communism or another atheistic form of fascism one also finds evidence that eerily resembles that of a triumphant religious revolution or revival. Glorious statues of Lenin and Stalin were erected in Soviet Russia (actually, you can find a statue of dear Vladimir in the Fremont district of Seattle), immortalizing them as supreme beings...I would argue that this fawning and gasping our President seems to elicit from members of the press is not all that different in principle to the idolizing of Lenin and Mao, or the worship of Buddha or the Virgin Mary. These journalists are not religious, God-fearing individuals, of course--they are liberal progressives and secularists who claim freedom from religion to be the purest form freedom can take. And yet here they are, uplifting Obama to a standard absolutely no other living human is privileged with, unwittingly granting him semi-divine status and pledging devotion. My husband Cody disagrees; he maintains that irreligious people can really be irreligious...they need no higher power to whom they would be attributed. I hold the opposite view, of course. Whether it be consecrated to a man like Obama, an ideology like socialism, or a cause like the halt of global warming--in the mind of every human, there is a shrine at which he kneels.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Man is never left without something to worship.<br />
<br />
The past few days I've heard many reporters and journalists serve as easy cannon fodder for conservative commentators against the liberal/progressive Media Machine, and boy do those cannon balls fly. Honestly, it really is hard not to laugh when you hear about a Wall Street reporter who used an inquisitive <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/reporter-on-obamas-amateurish-press-corps-when-theyre-near-him-they-lose-their-minds/" target="_blank">sock puppet</a> to coax some responses from President Obama.<br />
<br />
A Rolling Stones reporter Michael Hastings has written an e-book explaining the positively melting effect the presence of our great leader has on journalists and reporters, who "lose their minds" when fortunate enough to have the opportunity for questions. Dozens of soundbites from similarly giddy contributors on cable news (well, <i>is </i>it news?) shows back up Hasting's claims.<br />
<br />
I mulled over this phenomenon in my head for a while, and then was reminded of something I had said previously in a class last quarter: the discussion had been about the resurgence of Islam in Central Asia under Soviet domination, despite the atheistic Communist doctrine of the U.S.S.R. Naturally a comparison between the Communist philosophy and major world religions came up--I asserted that Communism isn't truly godless. Wherever one finds evidence of Communism or another atheistic form of fascism one also finds evidence that eerily resembles that of a triumphant religious revolution or revival. Chairman Mao virtually wrote his own scripture to be disseminated among the masses (the Little Red Book); glorious statues of Lenin and Stalin were erected in Soviet Russia (actually, you can find a statue of dear Vladimir in the Fremont district of Seattle), immortalizing them as supreme beings, certainly far better than any other human, and worthy of universal devotion.<br />
<br />
I would argue that this fawning and gasping our President seems to elicit from members of the press is not all that different in principle to the idolizing of Lenin and Mao, or the worship of Buddha or the Virgin Mary. What I mean is that many members of mainstream press, probably most, do not kneel before Buddha, before an altar, or even at their bedside. These are not religious, God-fearing individuals--they are liberal progressives and secularists who claim freedom from religion to be the purest form freedom can take. And yet here they are, uplifting Obama to a standard absolutely no other living human is privileged with, unwittingly granting him semi-divine status and pledging devotion and, certainly, their testimony to his supreme wisdom as granter of social justice and defender of the Truth of science. God does not bless the President; the President blesses the believers.<br />
<br />
My husband Cody disagrees; he maintains that irreligious people can really be irreligious, with no exceptions to the absolute ordinariness of humans and the material world, and certainly no belief in anything beyond it. They may have their principles and morals (without really knowing where they come from), but they need no higher power to whom they would be attributed. I hold the opposite view, of course. Whether it be consecrated to a man like Obama, an ideology like socialism, or a cause like the halt of global warming--in the mind of every human, there is a shrine at which he kneels.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3206496581894513732.post-34563719105546735942013-01-24T18:23:00.000-08:002013-04-12T09:20:27.688-07:00This is How We Write a Title: A real title, since the preceding title doesn't make sense<h2>
</h2>
<div>
<span style="color: #45818e;">ABSTRACT: </span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #45818e;">As some of you may know, I will graduate the University of Washington in March with a B.A. in Cultural Anthropology, and some years from now I plan to get a Ph.D. in it. The heading of this post pokes fun at myself and other anthropologists: this is almost always how we title our papers, and in a way speaks to the characterization of anthropology itself. <i>Anthropology is the study of mankind in all times and places, and it is</i> the biggest part of my current studies. It consumes obscene amounts of my intellectual energy. Now to the meat of the matter. Being an anthropologist in the Social Science community is like being the Dr. Who nerd at a Star Trek convention. It's all sci-fi, but somehow you don't quite fit in with the rest of the group. I love being the Dr. Who nerd--not to denigrate the Trekkies, the Star Wars geeks, or the StarGate fans. It has occurred to me on more than one occasion that my choice in academic studies is ironic, and fitting... Certain connections can be drawn from anthropology and some aspects of my person...As someone who in many respects doesn't "fit in" quite as well as I could, I'm now normalized in the one Department that also doesn't quite fit in with the rest of the group. Today in class (Religion and World Politics with Professor Gill--I highly recommend it) anthropology was mischaracterized and criticized once again. I just laughed and shook my head; Isn't it just like an anthropologist to be misunderstood, I thought, when all we're trying to do is understand how these misrepresentations come about in the first place.</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
As some of you may know, I will graduate the University of Washington in March with a B.A. in Cultural Anthropology, and some years from now I plan to get a Ph.D. in it. Some of you other people might have just come back to my page after a Google search for the definition of anthropology, and are now even more confused.<br />
<br />
The heading of this post pokes fun at myself and other anthropologists: this is almost always how we title our papers, and in a way speaks to the characterization of anthropology itself. My very first anthropology instructor, Dr. Fortenbery, offered a short and very broad definition, which is the only one (there are more than one, all hotly contested) that I'll give out as an explanation to those outside the discipline. <i>Anthropology is the study of mankind in all times and places. </i>This is perhaps the one definition that's so broad that no "armchair academic" can possibly criticize it. Ironically, anthropological discourse is admirable for its incredible specificity and nuance of definition and attention to detail: we don't write thesis sentences, we write thesis paragraphs. Perhaps I will discuss other definitions of anthropology in later posts, but here I want to talk about something <i>clearly </i>more interesting and important:<br />
<br />
Me. Specifically in relation to my field of study. I'm only half-joking when I say this is more interesting and important; anthropology is the biggest part of my current studies, and consumes obscene amounts of my intellectual energy. It is the most common lens through which I photograph the world, or to use another metaphor, my favorite pen for writing out my observations. Naturally, this blog has an anthropological tone to much of its content, although it is not by any means a field journal or collection of academic papers. (I'm a person, too, and I have a personal opinion and attitude for pretty much everything. It will be clear when I transition between analytic and evaluative commentary.)<br />
<br />
Now to the meat of the matter. Being an anthropologist in the Social Science community is like being the Dr. Who nerd at a Star Trek convention. It's all sci-fi, but somehow you don't quite fit in with the rest of the group. Like the Doctor, Anthropology has been reincarnated many times (and yet somehow its death is always foretold), and like anthropologists, the Doctor is curious and open-minded about all mankind (or I suppose in this case, sentient-kind) in all times and places, in all social situations. He's often content to observe. He often muses philosophically. He has no real home, and he is a loner. So it is with my beloved discipline.<br />
<br />
I love being the Dr. Who nerd--not to denigrate the Trekkies, the Star Wars geeks, or the StarGate fans. Well, to be honest my relationship to Star Wars is quite analogous to my relationship to the "rival" discipline of Sociology. Like Star Wars, I think Sociology is overrated and over-cited in pop culture--"heroes" of Sociology litter every social science magazine, and the newspapers and cable shows, too. You can find as many sociologists in pop literature as you can Han Solo on lunchboxes. And like the cult-epic space story, it has ideological underpinnings which, as a social scientist who tries to look at things as objectively as possible, really <i>really </i>annoys me.<br />
<br />
It has occurred to me on more than one occasion that my choice in academic studies is ironic, and fitting. Certain connections can be drawn from anthropology and some aspects of my person: I'm left-handed, so the conventional scissors (conventional social science, you might say) never really fit properly, and I've always had trouble finding a spot at the dinner table where I wouldn't accidentally elbow somebody in the ribs or knock their glass over. As a Christian and (mostly) a conservative, I am a minority as well. One time when I was little I wrote an illustrated children's book about feet. And so, as someone who in many respects doesn't "fit in" quite as well as I could, I'm now normalized in the one Department that also doesn't quite fit in with the rest of the group. Eager in its consumption of knowledge and somewhat excessive in its nonverbal communication, it elbows people at the table and knocks their glasses over. Without pause, it may then gesture to the fascinating pattern the wine has made on the tablecloth.<br />
<br />
Today in class (Religion and World Politics with Professor Gill--I highly recommend it) anthropology was mischaracterized and criticized once again---it was the most egregious of insults---to have a certain idea about culture (a poor one, of course) mistakenly assigned to anthropology instead of sociology, the <i>real </i>culprit. I just laughed and shook my head; I didn't even bring the issue to the professor after class. Isn't it just like an anthropologist to be misunderstood, I thought, when all we're trying to do is understand how these misrepresentations come about in the first place.<br />
<br />
<br />
~Georgi Boorman<br />
<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0