Obamacare vs. the Common Core: GOP Flunks on Priorities

Would you be okay with your 4^th 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?

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.

It's pretty clear that the GOP is flunking Political Priorities 101.

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".

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.

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 "internationally benchmarked" and would make our K-12 students "career and college ready".

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.

In 2011, 45 states quietly adopted Common Core standards through the National Governor's Association, and the mainstream media didn't catch so much as a whiff of a story.

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.

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.

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.
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.

Welcome to the new educational paradigm; the shift is nearly complete.

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 lessons for 1st graders on how to use "emotional words" 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.

There's a heavy sexuality component to the "health-related" coursework as well, aligned with the National Sexuality Educational Standards and spanning grades as low as 2nd grade 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^nd grade with graphic illustrations of masturbation.

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.

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 circles drawn on the page, but it really isn't that funny.

Multiple psychologists have criticized 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.
Psychologist Dr. Megan Koshnik asserted that to teach by these standards, teachers "would have to wear the hat of a magician".

Without a solid foundation of concrete understanding, they'll have to learn all over again in the upper grades, or even be held back.

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.

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".

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 anti-American sentiments, the positive societal impact of 99% movement, and the imminent dangers of climate change. Not only that, but as a Hillsdale professor illustrated, this is destroying any creativity of thought or imagination that might have survived the previous 9 years of dictatorial classroom training.

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.
The SAT and ACT 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.

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.

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 exactly wired to be receptive to Common Core methodology, they'll likely be labeled as defective or remedial learners, just because they learn differently.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Opportunity Knocks...and Brewer Gets her Gun: SB 1062

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).

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.

Opportunity crumpled to the floor before the podium yesterday, gunned down by irresponsible interjections, from the established Right as much as the Left.

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.

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.

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 specifically state that an individuals has the right to cite sincere religious convictions as a reason for the action (or non-action) that landed them in the hot seat of a court of law.

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.

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 and cite a religious conviction 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).

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?

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.

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.

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 policy, not politics.

This was never about policy, as Medved seemed to perceive it. This was politics--pure and simple. It was about making a politically charged statement, on both sides, by way of a legally neutral bill.

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.

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.

The difference is that 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.

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.

Again, it didn't matter what was in the bill. The only thing that mattered was what people said about it, especially Governor Brewer.

McCain and Romney's bullets injured Opportunity, but Brewer put a round right in the chest.


*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?

Why Football is More Like Chess than Boxing

Last week the New York Times published an article titled "Is it Immoral to Watch the Super Bowl?"

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.

Ben Shapiro made a fascinating comparison last week as he himself, both a Hawks fan and an orthodox Jew with libertarian leanings, wrestled with the issue.

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 pagan practices. Surely beating each other's noses bloody for no greater purpose than sport could not be right in the eyes of God.

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 severe injuries.

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.

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.

The  ultimate goal of boxing was, and remains to be, the "knockout". Bringing your opponent to the

floor by force is the point of boxing. Blows equate to points; knockouts mean wins.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Football is something entirely different.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

Football, like chess, is a strategy game. In chess, the ultimate goal is not to take out as many of the

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.

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.

Football is more like chess than boxing.

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.

Is the difference not clear?

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.

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.

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.

*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 any 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.

Job Creation 101: Divide to Multiply

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.

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.

The real question is, why am I, as a college graduate, working two part time jobs and barely getting 40 hours a week?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I, like most people, don't kid myself about the state of the economy: it's miserable. The Obama Monthly statistics fluctuate, sometimes showing a slight uptick in employment, but in real life, my life, I know the recession is far from over.

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.

 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.

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.

The company deserves a pat on the back from the Obama administration. They haven't eliminated any jobs, they have created 3 by cutting the hours of 5. That's a 25% increase in employment with

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.

 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.

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.

Attractive Absurdities: Women's Right to Choose and Women in Combat

In a previous post I discussed the false antagonism between conservatives and feminists, as portrayed by the media.

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, women's right to choose and women in combat. 

Flesh of My Flesh

The woman has no "right to choose". And even if she were 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".

 It is critical that everyone understand why this is a fallacy, since this reason is at the root of all pro-life arguments:

It is not her own body over which she is trying to exert her control. 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.

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 custody of their children, including the unborn, but this concept is distinct from property. Children have certain rights that come with their own bodies, among them, the right to live. 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.

Don't Fight for Your Right...to Fight

Here's why I think putting women in combat is an absurd idea: Given that women are generally anatomically weaker and smaller than men, women do not have an equal chance to survive as men do. 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.

This is an exemplary controversy in illustrating the misrepresentation 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.

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.

To Complicate Your Healthcare, Please Press 1

                                                                                                                                                                                       

No one likes having their time eaten up by bureaucratic complexities.

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 please just skim.

Going through this process, I experienced firsthand the fact that:

The more complicated a policy is, the more complicated the process for enacting it.

The more complicated the process, the greater number of people necessary to conduct it.

The more people involved in the process, the greater the probability of error.

The greater the probability of error, the greater the probability that the patient will be negatively effected.

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 906 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 20,000. 

As a patient required by law 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.

 A great step forward in fixing our healthcare system?

You be the judge.

I Do, You Don't: The Selective Nature of Marriage Equality and Traditional Marriage

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.

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. 

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.

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, 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.

•       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." 

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.

• Defenders of "traditional marriage" often declare that "marriage is between a man and a woman."

  In advocating this blanket definition of "traditional marriage" they commonly commit a fallacy called ad antiquitatem--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.

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. 

Both the affirmative and negative arguments have this in common: they take something that is true or right in one case to be true or right in all cases.

"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.

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?

My question to the affirmative is: 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? 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. 

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.

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. 

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?

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.

The Info Babe and the One with the Apron

I am a feminist.

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 seems 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.

I want to tackle two big myths: "the ugly (or shrill) feminist" and the constructed identity of the typical "conservative woman".

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 feminist. 

Feminists believe, in short, that women are people, too. I know, mind-blowing. If you believe that women are people, too, then you're a feminist. 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).

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.
Equal respect should translate into equal compensation for goods and services rendered...which hasn't happened yet.

Equal respect should mean the nonexistence of denigrating feminine tags, like "cop lady" or Rush Limbaugh's "info babe". Still there.

Equal expectations of capability should mean the elimination of patronizing and denigrating extra "support" in the workplace. Still there.

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.

Now that I've covered my definition of feminism, it's important to define conservative. 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.

But this is 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".

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.

This stigmatization and antipathy toward conservatives is probably nowhere more evident than among feminist liberals. 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, conservatives are racist, and so on, ad nausea. This is simply not true, at least not as a generalization about conservative ideology. For example, it is a lie that Mitt Romney wanted to ban birth control. A myth. A fabrication. A mis-characterization. An untruth...whatever you want to call it.

The Subservient Housewife

And if you believe all these things about conservatives, then it is logical to assume that  conservative women 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.

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? No. 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.

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.

The Ugly Feminist

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 the ugly feminist.

The epitome of this imagery is put forth by none quite so audacious as Rush Limbaugh. Rush, a

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.

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. Feminism is not a reactionary movement formed through personal bitterness toward the male species, it is a belief that women are people, too.

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.

Stop and Reflect...

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.

 

No Problema: what Spanglish says about U.S. inter-culture dynamics

Regardless 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.

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.

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.

I'll just be as frank as possible. This is where the piano hits the ground. This is going to happen. 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.

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.

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 too 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.

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.

 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 the last thing America needs is to be more "unified".

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.

Notice that I said Spanish in itself. In reality, I think 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.

The fear is of "a nation within a nation," 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.

But as I said before, pushback against Spanish will not prevent this from happening; 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?

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.

Let's start with the latter, because I think it's a bit more important than the former. 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--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.

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  be an American, you stay because you want to maximize your benefits and minimize costs (not just financially, but in terms of safety, health, opportunity, etc.).

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.

But what if there was a pathway to legal status? 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.

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.

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."

The process of becoming legalized is actually a wealth-creating process, 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").
  
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.

The individual who invests in and achieves a new identity (at least a reflexive one), whether national, religious, or ideological, is likely to produce more wealth for himself by continual investment of his capital; 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.

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.

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.

In our present American context, legalization is the only theory I have any credence in. Buena suerte, America.

Unwelcome Criticism I

ABSTRACT:
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.

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 on their own terms, 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?  

"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. 

But let's consider a heresy against cultural relativism as a guiding principle: Some social structures, institutions, and practices are more successful than others at accomplishing their task. 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 all aspects of social organization: All versions thereof vary in their efficacy of fulfilling a social need...Not all cultures are equal. 

Me: The sky is not blue.

You: What? Yeah...it IS.

Me: No, no it isn't. It's not blue.

You (confounded and irritated): Ye....what, what are you saying? This is ridiculous.

Me: I can prove it.

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.

Me: Look up.

You: Look it up? Look up what? (whips out iPhone, thumb ready to prove me wrong)

Me: No, no LOOK UP!

You: ...Oh.. (cheeks flushed with embarrassment)

Me: So does that sky look blue to you?

You: (staring at the woolly gray blanket that cloaks the Northwest for several months out of the year) No. No, it's not blue.

Me: (smiles smugly)


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.

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.

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.

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.

Before I willfully desecrate a holy temple of modern Reason, specifically the temple of Relativism, let me just say...

 God bless America.

Oops, I think I just did.

The Temple of Relativism

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. All cultures are to try to be understood on their own terms, 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; this can be evinced if we try to understand the perspective, the worldview, that shapes their motivations and consequently their actions within a given social framework.

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 relativism is an excellent tool of methodology 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, methodologically. 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 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? 

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?" Relativism is their replacement for religion, 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.)

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. I am comfortable with dinner-table value judgments. 

But let's set aside morality for just a second, and consider a heresy against cultural relativism as a guiding principle:

Some social structures, institutions, and practices are more successful than others at accomplishing their task.

I know. Mind-blowing. Scandalous. 

But let's really really 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 all 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,

Not all cultures are equal. 

Gasp! The horror!

The God of the Journalists

ABSTRACT: 
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.



Man is never left without something to worship.

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 sock puppet to coax some responses from President Obama.

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, is it news?) shows back up Hasting's claims.

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.

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.

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.