In the wake of Friday's gun massacre at a Connecticut elementary school that left 27 people dead, including 20 children, Facebook, Twitter, and every news outlet has been overrun with talk of the tragedy and scope of the loss, while simultaneously featuring guests who will inevitably trot out the same worn out lines and talking points that always arise whenever we have a mass shooting.
Sadly, as of yesterday, we've had 19 mass shootings since 2007, averaging almost 4 per year, so we get to hear these arguments with more and more frequency.
While some arguments provide potential solutions, there are several statements that have simply worn out their welcome, so far as I'm concerned:
5.) "I mean, I know these discussions are gonna happen, but can we at least give these poor kids 24 hours before you exploit them for political purposes?"
Not for nothin', but when was the right time? In case you've missed it, we haven't had an assault weapons ban codified into law since 2004, and there has been little effort from national Democrats to push for any sort of gun control legislation.
So when, exactly, is it the right time? Tomorrow? Yesterday? The day after tomorrow?
Frankly, I'm not certain there is ever a "right time" to talk about issues of gun violence and gun control, because every time someone attempts to bring it up, they get shut down by Conservatives and gun enthusiasts with such alacrity that it's nearly impossible to get a word in edgewise.
So, we can't talk about it within 24 hours of a mass shooting, and we can't talk about it when there hasn't been one, and we certainly can't talk about it in Congress, or at town hall meetings, or at political events.
Actually, let me amend that: "Liberals" can't talk about it. Conservatives and 2nd Amendment trumpeters are always welcome to talk about it, so long as they make sure to talk about how Democrats, Communists, Liberals, and Socialists are going to take your guns away from you, and even if there's no legislation in the works, or even being mentioned, it's just lurking in the Pinko Commie shadows, just waiting for the right moment to POUNCE onto the President's desk.
The truth behind this 24-hour moratorium is that Conservatives don't want to talk about it because emotions are high, people are scared, and they know they will lose. There is no actual concern for respecting the solemnity of the moment; it's not out of respect for the victims, their parents, their friends, or relatives - it's out of fear that someone will finally be able to shout louder than the gun enthusiasts.
So, when someone tells you that it's not the right time to talk about issues of gun control, you can rest assured that it is EXACTLY the right time to talk about gun control, because they'll be on the defensive and come out the losers.
4.) "The point I'm trying to make, here, is Liberals always jump to taking freedoms away."
Let's be honest, here - when it comes to overreacting to things, there is little question which side of the political spectrum takes the cake.
Take, for example, the reactions of supporters of the opposing party after an election:
When Republicans win a national election, Democrats will grumble for a few days about how they're going to move to France or Canada, but let's be honest - how many people do you know who have followed through on that threat?
When Republicans win elections, Democrats don't run out to the drug store and buy up all the condoms and birth control out of fear that Republicans will limit access to them; Democratic women don't run out to the nearest abortion clinic to vacate their wombs while they still have the chance.; no one starts stockpiling pentagram necklaces and hiding all their books of witchcraft and wizardry.
And then, there's the other scenario:
When Democrats win an election, gun sales spike to astronomical levels as Republicans race to stockpile as many firearms as possible, because the Democrats are going to take away their guns. Republican business owners are frequently quoted in newspapers talking about how they're going to have to scale back on hiring, because their taxes are going up.
When Democrats win elections, membership in militias skyrocket, and for some reason, every news outlet is inundated with pundits, commentators, and random people who would have never been allowed anywhere near a microphone prior to the election season, and every conspiracy theory known to man comes out to play in the minds of America's craziest crackpots.
So really, there is no parity in terms of which side overreacts in any given situation - Republicans take that prize, anyone who tells you otherwise is a bullshit artist.
3.) "Gun control won't solve the problem. If guns are taken away, people will just use knives!"
You know what, they're right. People are going to kill other people; this is an unquestionable fact of life. Not every person is stable, sane, or even nice. But, let's take a better look at the numbers:
Murder Victims, by Weapon Used
In the most recent year listed (2008), 14,299 people were murdered, and of those, 9,484 of them died by gunfire.
That's 66.3%.
With rare exception, guns are the weapon used in over 65% of murders in America every year.
So, please; tell me what's going to solve the problem. I invite you to tell me what your grand solution is that will bring that number down below 50%.
The reason why so many murders are committed using a firearm is because it's easy. It's easy to shoot someone, whereas stabbing someone, choking them, poisoning them, hanging them, beating them...those things are hard to do, both because you're likely to encounter resistance, and because it requires the murderer to be hands on, and most people just don't like to get that involved with the people they kill.
Guns provide a level of separation when the shooter doesn't have to feel the skin break as the knife plunges in, or feel the neck snap; the shooter doesn't have to look into the eyes of someone when they pull the trigger, or feel their victim struggle to escape them.
The real reason why I don't own a gun is because I know that I would use it. The first moment I felt threatened, I would not hesitate for a moment to shoot, and I would likely shoot to kill. And I know I wouldn't bat an eye. I wouldn't lose one wink of sleep over it.
The argument that people would "just kill using something else" fails to take into account human nature, and more importantly, human instincts. What separates gangbangers from serial murderers is that the latter often kill because they truly enjoy it.
There are very few instances of serial killers who use firearms to kill their victims, because it doesn't provide the same sense of satisfaction for them. They love the chase; they love to feel their victims fight to survive, and relish in the fact that they lose that fight. Serial killers are often quoted in interviews talking about the immense pleasure they feel when they kill someone, and oftentimes, there's a sexual component, as well. What is more terrifying is how often others describe them as being "the normal guy next door;" how rarely anyone could even think that this person could kill another human being.
Those who choose guns as murder weapons, however, are often portrayed as being "loners," "unfeeling," and "emotionally dead." They feel no connection with their victims, and rarely do they feel a sense of pleasure as a result of their actions. There is often a fanatic element at play, and mental health issues reign supreme.
When someone makes the "Well, they'll just use something else to kill people" argument, ask them how they would rather defend themselves: with a knife, or with a gun.
2.) "We don't have a gun control issue; we have a mental health problem! Let's just reopen all those insane asylums they closed down in the 60s!"
Not for nothin', sweetheart, but a lot of them people who got landed in those facilities are the same people you see attending TeaTard rallies. Government dissidents, conspiracy theorists, and paranoid people convinced the government was out to get them - those people were frequently locked up in those asylums.
Realistically, though, we do have a mental health access issue in this country, but I seriously doubt that the Conservatives who want to address that issue are willing to foot the bill to pay for the initiative. Most of those facilities were run by the state and Federal government, and aside from the "humane treatment" arguments, the financial concerns played an important component in shuttering them.
So, we want to address mental health issues? Imagine the outcry if every time a teacher, principal, or dean of students turned in a kid who expressed a concern that the government was out to get him, or sounded off on some conspiracy theorist rant. No doubt, we'd then have a "Free Speech" argument, and government would be too big. And then, we're back to Square One.
Access to mental health for the types of people who would go on a shooting spree is rarely something that would be voluntary, and let's be honest, here, they're very unlikely to pay for it, themselves.
So, yes - addressing mental health issues is important, but even when we address mental health issues, it's not going to be the people who go on killing sprees who voluntarily undergo treatment.
1.) "If we arm everyone, everyone will be safer! Look at Switzerland!
This is a great argument, because it's likely the only time that Conservatives will point to Europe as a model for American governance.
It is true that Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership paired with the lowest percent of murders committed using firearms. But, that statistic comes with some caveats:
a.) Switzerland does not have an active military; instead, they have a state militia, in which service is compulsory for all men over the age of 18. From a very young age, the Swiss are taught that firearms are used for national (as opposed to personal) defense.
Everyone in the Swiss militia is allowed to take home the firearms assigned to them by the militia (and until 2007, this included ammunition). When their stint in the militia is over, they can opt to return the firearms, or have it modified for civilian use.
b.) Swiss law requires those guns to be locked in a case at all times. Good luck trying that in 'Murica.
c.) Switzerland is a largely wealthy country, that is considerably isolated. They do not have widespread poverty or an active illegal drug trade that fuels much of the violent crime in other industrialized nations.
d.) In recent years, Switzerland has actually tightened its gun laws due to an small increase in violent firearms crime.
So, in order for the "let's give everyone a gun!" solution to be replicated in America, we would have to fundamentally recreate this nation. We would have to actually address poverty, which would require government to take a more proactive (and expensive) role; we would have to largely abandon laws that outlaw certain drugs; we would have to fundamentally change the way we view our government (making it not the enemy, but the protector). We would have to make military service compulsory, and that's never going to happen.
People who tout this idea look at Switzerland and imagine how great it would be if everyone had guns, here. In reality, it wouldn't work. The Swiss fundamentally trust their government, and don't view it as the enemy from which they must protect themselves. Americans have a cultural distrust of all things government, and to change that we'd have to being teaching children to trust their government at all times, and lock up some of those Faux News crackpots in those newly reopened insane asylums.
The issue of gun control is a loaded one, and there are no easy solutions. It is clear, however, that what we're doing presently isn't working. So what, I ask you, is a realistic solution to the problem? What is going to stem the tide of gun violence in this country that can actually be implemented, and which won't send 2nd Amendment enthusiasts and conspiracy theorists into a mullet fantasia? Are they willing to allow the government to pay for the resources needed to implement those solutions, or is this something that's just expected to magically happen?
I'm waiting...
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Friday, December 14, 2012
What Hides Behind the Guise of Reasonableness...
I have a handful of Republican friends with whom I occasionally engage in political banter. Every time we get into an argument (despite the lack of heat), the script is nearly identical:
Step One: We establish a fundamental disagreement about (topic).
Step Two: We begin to banter back and forth about our personal takes on the issue.
Step Three: We each provide the other with evidence that we believe bolsters our opposing positions.
Step Four: I call into question the integrity of the institution from which they gather their evidence based on documented cases of clearly (and often admittedly) partisan fact-skewing/bending/manipulating/dodging. If they're willing to lie about "x" without admitting that they're lying, how can they serve as a credible source of information?
Step Five: They dodge the question of integrity, entirely, and move into the "Well, Both Sides Are Equally At Fault" phase of the argument.
Step Six: In the effort of maintaining a friendly atmosphere in which I appear reasonable, I acquiesce that their is blame to share on both sides, and things end convivially, with each of us feeling as if we've won the argument.
Step Seven: I feel like an asshole for not sticking to my guns and pointing out that more blame lies with their side than with mine, but realize that no matter how often I point that out, nor how many examples I provide demonstrating that Republicans lie, cheat, steal, and manipulate more than Democrats, they will never admit that they are wrong.
The difference between our styles of argumentation is that, if I am wrong, I will admit to being wrong unless I can find more evidence to back up my position. As someone who works in research, I try my hardest not to rely on a single source of information; any person worth their salt will provide documentation to lend to their own credibility. This is simply the way things are "done."
What rankles me, as it does most people who want things peer edited, is when people pull out "research" done by clearly partisan "think tanks," and attempt to supplement their findings with information from other clearly partisan "think tanks."
When someone whips out a study conducted by The Heritage Foundation, and supplements it with additional research from, say, Americans for Prosperity, that is not a credible argument. This is not a solid form of argumentation because the two entities are intrinsically linked; they are both Conservative "think tanks;" there is no balance.
People who engage in this form of "research" often present their "findings" without having them adequately peer reviewed, primarily because they misunderstand the definition of "peer," as well as the process, itself.
A peer is not someone who agrees with you; it is someone who works in the same field, but is not connected to you or your backers. They often hold similar levels of education, expertise, and prestige, and have the ability to analyze your processes, methodology, findings, and whether or not the results can be replicated.
A similar example is when the NRA argues that when more people own guns, everyone is safer, and backs up their assertions with opinion poll research gathered by asking gun owners if they feel safer.
There is no balance; of course guns owners are going to say they feel safer - they own the guns.
Another way you can tell if your source of information is not credible is whether or not they consistently admit to and correct their mistakes.
One of the most frequent complaints I hear from Republicans is how much they hate Rachel Maddow. I understand why they hate her - she embodies everything anathema to the Republican ideal:
She's a woman, she's young (39), she's educated (B.A. from Stanford, D.Phil from Oxford), she's a lesbian, she's outspoken, she's not blonde, and she does her research.
Rachel Maddow is the face of everything Republicans hate because she is able to hold them accountable for things that simply do not add up in reality. Worse still, when she is wrong, she openly admits it, apologizes for her mistake, and corrects herself where she erred.
This is something that is rarely, if ever, done on the other side, and to be fair, isn't often done by journalists on either MSNBC or Fox News. It's a sad state of affairs that reporters and pundits seemingly cannot admit when they are wrong, much less correct themselves in the process.
When people tell me how much they can't stand Maddow, I have to wonder if it's because they just don't like that she's doing a superb job at journalism.
The sad reality is that, while both sides have blood on their hands, it is important to note how much blood, and how it got there. Saying that both sides are equally at fault in American politics is like saying the both the murdered who stabbed and the doctor who tried to save someone are equally at fault for his death - the guilt is not shared.
Step One: We establish a fundamental disagreement about (topic).
Step Two: We begin to banter back and forth about our personal takes on the issue.
Step Three: We each provide the other with evidence that we believe bolsters our opposing positions.
Step Four: I call into question the integrity of the institution from which they gather their evidence based on documented cases of clearly (and often admittedly) partisan fact-skewing/bending/manipulating/dodging. If they're willing to lie about "x" without admitting that they're lying, how can they serve as a credible source of information?
Step Five: They dodge the question of integrity, entirely, and move into the "Well, Both Sides Are Equally At Fault" phase of the argument.
Step Six: In the effort of maintaining a friendly atmosphere in which I appear reasonable, I acquiesce that their is blame to share on both sides, and things end convivially, with each of us feeling as if we've won the argument.
Step Seven: I feel like an asshole for not sticking to my guns and pointing out that more blame lies with their side than with mine, but realize that no matter how often I point that out, nor how many examples I provide demonstrating that Republicans lie, cheat, steal, and manipulate more than Democrats, they will never admit that they are wrong.
The difference between our styles of argumentation is that, if I am wrong, I will admit to being wrong unless I can find more evidence to back up my position. As someone who works in research, I try my hardest not to rely on a single source of information; any person worth their salt will provide documentation to lend to their own credibility. This is simply the way things are "done."
What rankles me, as it does most people who want things peer edited, is when people pull out "research" done by clearly partisan "think tanks," and attempt to supplement their findings with information from other clearly partisan "think tanks."
When someone whips out a study conducted by The Heritage Foundation, and supplements it with additional research from, say, Americans for Prosperity, that is not a credible argument. This is not a solid form of argumentation because the two entities are intrinsically linked; they are both Conservative "think tanks;" there is no balance.
People who engage in this form of "research" often present their "findings" without having them adequately peer reviewed, primarily because they misunderstand the definition of "peer," as well as the process, itself.
A peer is not someone who agrees with you; it is someone who works in the same field, but is not connected to you or your backers. They often hold similar levels of education, expertise, and prestige, and have the ability to analyze your processes, methodology, findings, and whether or not the results can be replicated.
A similar example is when the NRA argues that when more people own guns, everyone is safer, and backs up their assertions with opinion poll research gathered by asking gun owners if they feel safer.
There is no balance; of course guns owners are going to say they feel safer - they own the guns.
Another way you can tell if your source of information is not credible is whether or not they consistently admit to and correct their mistakes.
One of the most frequent complaints I hear from Republicans is how much they hate Rachel Maddow. I understand why they hate her - she embodies everything anathema to the Republican ideal:
She's a woman, she's young (39), she's educated (B.A. from Stanford, D.Phil from Oxford), she's a lesbian, she's outspoken, she's not blonde, and she does her research.
Rachel Maddow is the face of everything Republicans hate because she is able to hold them accountable for things that simply do not add up in reality. Worse still, when she is wrong, she openly admits it, apologizes for her mistake, and corrects herself where she erred.
This is something that is rarely, if ever, done on the other side, and to be fair, isn't often done by journalists on either MSNBC or Fox News. It's a sad state of affairs that reporters and pundits seemingly cannot admit when they are wrong, much less correct themselves in the process.
When people tell me how much they can't stand Maddow, I have to wonder if it's because they just don't like that she's doing a superb job at journalism.
The sad reality is that, while both sides have blood on their hands, it is important to note how much blood, and how it got there. Saying that both sides are equally at fault in American politics is like saying the both the murdered who stabbed and the doctor who tried to save someone are equally at fault for his death - the guilt is not shared.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
It's Okay to Not Be Okay...
I am of the mindset that in order to feel better about your circumstances, you have to persistently force yourself to see the bright side; to recognize that this is just a mid-point along the way to something better. This isn't a point of view I've always held, rather it was instilled in me by my three-year stint marching with The Cadets Drum and Bugle Corps.
The director, George Hopkins (no relation...maybe), is infamous for holding the entire corps hostage for his "Meetings with Hop," wherein he waxes philosophical about life, love, and the pursuit of happiness. He asks us to examine our lives in ways we may not have considered, and introduces us to ideas involving popular fish markets, overcoming adversity, and showing up to the fight.
When you're in these meetings, the only thing you want to do is go to bed. Your body is so exhausted from 14 hours of rehearsal every day that all you care about is a hot shower, your air mattress, your pillow, and getting as much sleep as you can before you're unceremoniously startled awake to stumble through an early-morning Stretch and Run. It is only later, after the season is over and you're back to "real life," that you recognize the value of these meetings.
One of the most valuable lessons I learned from these meetings was to "Choose Your Attitude." Anyone who's marched with The Cadets has heard this phrase, which during the season is often thrown about sarcastically to help allay the more dire circumstances so you can push through to the end of the rehearsal block. Afterwards, when you're back in the real world, you realize how vital that choice can be.
This lesson has been particularly important for me over the last five years, since I was diagnosed with AIDS. I'd known I was HIV+ since I lived in Atlanta in '05, but in October of 2007, my 2.5 years of ignoring it and hoping it would go away landed me in the hospital with 66 T-cells.
At first, I was swept up in what felt like an emotional tornado: my insurance dropped my coverage, it took a month to get a meeting to get on ADAP/Ryan White, and there was an asinine attempt to march winter guard, again, that left me physically broken and personally defeated. But, I had to keep some sort of positive mindset, and so I had to choose my attitude.
What they don't tell you is that, in order to really choose your attitude, you have to first accept your circumstances and, yes, even your limitations.
I don't mean to say that you have to wallow in self-pity and sorrow, but you do have to be realistic. Part of being realistic meant that I had to face the fact that I couldn't drink as much as I had been, I had to pay attention to my body's messages, and perhaps the most heart breaking part for me was the realization that I very likely won't be able to perform, again.
I have to be careful how much I push myself, now, and when my body says, "Stop," I have to listen to it, where before I could tell it to shut the hell up. I have to monitor every cold to make sure it doesn't turn into something worse, and most certainly, I have to ensure that I never, under any circumstances, miss a dose of my meds.
I am getting better. Things are not at their worst. Circumstances could always be worse, and I have to admit that I have it pretty good. Every day, I am glad that I get to fight this fight, and when I hear from friends I haven't seen in years, it reminds me of how wonderful my life and my friends really are, particularly those friends I made in The Cadets.
This morning, I'm okay.
The director, George Hopkins (no relation...maybe), is infamous for holding the entire corps hostage for his "Meetings with Hop," wherein he waxes philosophical about life, love, and the pursuit of happiness. He asks us to examine our lives in ways we may not have considered, and introduces us to ideas involving popular fish markets, overcoming adversity, and showing up to the fight.
When you're in these meetings, the only thing you want to do is go to bed. Your body is so exhausted from 14 hours of rehearsal every day that all you care about is a hot shower, your air mattress, your pillow, and getting as much sleep as you can before you're unceremoniously startled awake to stumble through an early-morning Stretch and Run. It is only later, after the season is over and you're back to "real life," that you recognize the value of these meetings.
One of the most valuable lessons I learned from these meetings was to "Choose Your Attitude." Anyone who's marched with The Cadets has heard this phrase, which during the season is often thrown about sarcastically to help allay the more dire circumstances so you can push through to the end of the rehearsal block. Afterwards, when you're back in the real world, you realize how vital that choice can be.
This lesson has been particularly important for me over the last five years, since I was diagnosed with AIDS. I'd known I was HIV+ since I lived in Atlanta in '05, but in October of 2007, my 2.5 years of ignoring it and hoping it would go away landed me in the hospital with 66 T-cells.
At first, I was swept up in what felt like an emotional tornado: my insurance dropped my coverage, it took a month to get a meeting to get on ADAP/Ryan White, and there was an asinine attempt to march winter guard, again, that left me physically broken and personally defeated. But, I had to keep some sort of positive mindset, and so I had to choose my attitude.
What they don't tell you is that, in order to really choose your attitude, you have to first accept your circumstances and, yes, even your limitations.
I don't mean to say that you have to wallow in self-pity and sorrow, but you do have to be realistic. Part of being realistic meant that I had to face the fact that I couldn't drink as much as I had been, I had to pay attention to my body's messages, and perhaps the most heart breaking part for me was the realization that I very likely won't be able to perform, again.
I have to be careful how much I push myself, now, and when my body says, "Stop," I have to listen to it, where before I could tell it to shut the hell up. I have to monitor every cold to make sure it doesn't turn into something worse, and most certainly, I have to ensure that I never, under any circumstances, miss a dose of my meds.
I am getting better. Things are not at their worst. Circumstances could always be worse, and I have to admit that I have it pretty good. Every day, I am glad that I get to fight this fight, and when I hear from friends I haven't seen in years, it reminds me of how wonderful my life and my friends really are, particularly those friends I made in The Cadets.
This morning, I'm okay.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Why I've Avoided Early Adoption
I have been privileged to be asked to deliver three guest lectures, this Fall Semester, for the College of the Canyons' Sociology of Sexualities course, taught by Professor Pamela Williams-Paez, on the topic of HIV/AIDS. In those lectures, I spoke about the history of HIV in the United States, starting in the 1980s and working up to the presents, as well as covering information about other STDs/STIs, treatment methods, prevention, and Smart Sex (a growing movement to replace the "Safe Sex" conversation that, while having proven effective, needs a serious update).
During these lectures, I take a bit of time to discuss various pharmaceutical treatments for HIV/AIDS and various other diseases such as Herpes, HPV, and Syphilis. In this discussion, I speak about my wariness of newly released drugs whose effects have not been fully tested over a long period of time. I offer up Valtrex (used to treat Herpes) as an example, highlighting how quickly it was approved and put on the market without first testing to see if it would have an adverse effect in people with suppressed or compromised immune systems. The result of this oversight was that those whose immune systems were already compromised ended up getting very ill (with several deaths to follow).
Since that time, I've been very skeptical of trying new medications that are put on the market without several years of trials to test the long-term effects. I have generally cautioned people to wait at least five years after a drug hits the street if they have any concerns or are unsure if they should go forward; basically, I advise that "Precaution is the best medicine."
Part of the shortened wait times stems from the 1988 shut down by ACT UP of the FDA headquarters in Rockville, MD, in protest over the time it was taking to approve new treatments for HIV/AIDS. At the time AZT was the only effective treatment on the market, and it was ridiculously expensive. We were seeking other options, and it was the generally sentiment that the FDA was dragging its feet in approving what had the potential to be life-saving drugs. While other nations were moving forward, the FDA seemed to be lagging desperately behind, and even today, there is that sentiment (which I largely share), though now the focus of that ire has been shifted greatly to the pharmaceutical companies.
Today, however, marks the first time that I am willing to go forward with a newly released drug on the market, Stribild. The product of Gilead Sciences, Inc., Stribild is the combination of four different HIV drugs - Elvitegravir, Cobicistat, Emtricitabine (Emtriva), and Tenofavir Disoproxil Fumarate (Viread) - that serves as a once-a-day, one-pill regimen to be taken without any other antiretroviral medications to treat HIV/AIDS.
While I am generally overly cautious about new medications, I have grown increasingly frustrated with having plateaued at around a 350-370 CD4+ count for three years, now, despite being religious about taking my meds. After discussing this with my doctor several times over the last year, he mentioned during my last appointment that Stribild would be put on the ADAP coverage schedule in November, and we should consider switching me over to that, if I didn't mind being an early adopter, and at my appointment this morning, we decided to give it a go.
I should mention, however, that my CD4+ count from my last appointment came back at 415, and I am still undetectable (meaning that my Viral Load is below 50). Despite this sudden boost in my CD4+ count, I decided to go ahead and make the switch in the hopes that the side effects from this drug interfere less with my daily life than my current regimen of Truvada, Norvir, and Reyataz. As many of my friends, co-workers, professors, and employers know, this has gotten in the way of functioning normally since I moved to California, and I have been frustrated with my lack of improvement. Hopefully, this new medication will help to address some of those issues.
Though I'm nervous as I begin this new phase in my treatment, I am confident that this new regimen will allow me to live a more active, social, and physical life than I have, recently, and I look forward to getting out in the sunshine (and into the workplace) with renewed verve, a pep in my step, and that this will help me to continue marching "straight and true to victory."
Sincerely,
Marcus J. Hopkins
11/28/12
During these lectures, I take a bit of time to discuss various pharmaceutical treatments for HIV/AIDS and various other diseases such as Herpes, HPV, and Syphilis. In this discussion, I speak about my wariness of newly released drugs whose effects have not been fully tested over a long period of time. I offer up Valtrex (used to treat Herpes) as an example, highlighting how quickly it was approved and put on the market without first testing to see if it would have an adverse effect in people with suppressed or compromised immune systems. The result of this oversight was that those whose immune systems were already compromised ended up getting very ill (with several deaths to follow).
Since that time, I've been very skeptical of trying new medications that are put on the market without several years of trials to test the long-term effects. I have generally cautioned people to wait at least five years after a drug hits the street if they have any concerns or are unsure if they should go forward; basically, I advise that "Precaution is the best medicine."
Part of the shortened wait times stems from the 1988 shut down by ACT UP of the FDA headquarters in Rockville, MD, in protest over the time it was taking to approve new treatments for HIV/AIDS. At the time AZT was the only effective treatment on the market, and it was ridiculously expensive. We were seeking other options, and it was the generally sentiment that the FDA was dragging its feet in approving what had the potential to be life-saving drugs. While other nations were moving forward, the FDA seemed to be lagging desperately behind, and even today, there is that sentiment (which I largely share), though now the focus of that ire has been shifted greatly to the pharmaceutical companies.
Today, however, marks the first time that I am willing to go forward with a newly released drug on the market, Stribild. The product of Gilead Sciences, Inc., Stribild is the combination of four different HIV drugs - Elvitegravir, Cobicistat, Emtricitabine (Emtriva), and Tenofavir Disoproxil Fumarate (Viread) - that serves as a once-a-day, one-pill regimen to be taken without any other antiretroviral medications to treat HIV/AIDS.
While I am generally overly cautious about new medications, I have grown increasingly frustrated with having plateaued at around a 350-370 CD4+ count for three years, now, despite being religious about taking my meds. After discussing this with my doctor several times over the last year, he mentioned during my last appointment that Stribild would be put on the ADAP coverage schedule in November, and we should consider switching me over to that, if I didn't mind being an early adopter, and at my appointment this morning, we decided to give it a go.
I should mention, however, that my CD4+ count from my last appointment came back at 415, and I am still undetectable (meaning that my Viral Load is below 50). Despite this sudden boost in my CD4+ count, I decided to go ahead and make the switch in the hopes that the side effects from this drug interfere less with my daily life than my current regimen of Truvada, Norvir, and Reyataz. As many of my friends, co-workers, professors, and employers know, this has gotten in the way of functioning normally since I moved to California, and I have been frustrated with my lack of improvement. Hopefully, this new medication will help to address some of those issues.
Though I'm nervous as I begin this new phase in my treatment, I am confident that this new regimen will allow me to live a more active, social, and physical life than I have, recently, and I look forward to getting out in the sunshine (and into the workplace) with renewed verve, a pep in my step, and that this will help me to continue marching "straight and true to victory."
Sincerely,
Marcus J. Hopkins
11/28/12
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Number 5: All Our Gall Is Split Into Three Parts
When people talk about the "Third Rail of politics," they are invariably talking about any issue that is so politically or emotionally charged that any politician who dares talk about it will invariably suffer as a result of mentioning the topic.
With Democrats, this generally refers to Social Security, Medicare, and Abortion, as these three issues serve to divide the Democratic and Independent voters. In reality, it's not that these issues are terribly divisive, so much as terribly misunderstood.
The Democratic party has a horrific problem with communication - they are woefully inept at communicating to American audiences their platforms and policy positions in ways that stick with them. This is a battle that the Republican party has won against the Democratic party, hands down, over every election cycle in recent memory, save for the 2008 elections, when a wave of anti-incumbent fervor swept the nation and helped to unseat several Republicans to result in majorities in both houses of Congress, and a Democratic president.
And from there...they lost their message. There were several key pieces of legislation - the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), for example - that did a lot of great things, but were so mired in controversy that party officials were never quite able to get a handle on how to present them to the American public. Combine that with the party's wholesale inability to serve as a single voting bloc in the legislature, and you have a clusterfuck largely unparalleled in modern politics.
It can often be difficult to entice Americans to vote in elections, primarily because there is an overwhelming sense that our votes don't matter; that they won't ultimately change anything. This is partially due to the fact that we don't have a direct democracy - we have a representative democracy, wherein we elect individuals to represent our interests in Congress and the Senate, who are supposed to be acting in ways that benefit all of us.
A separate issue is that we don't trust our parties to act in our best interests. There was a time when the two parties, though they disagreed on how best to approach dealing with issues of national importance, had faith that the opposing party was honestly acting in the interests of the nation. That trust is gone, having wholly evaporated over the span of the last twenty years.
Republicans are certain that the Democratic party wants to drive our economy into the ditch. The Democratic party is certain that Republicans want to hand the keys to our economic vehicle over to large corporations whose main interests lie in their own profits, rather than the overall success of the nation.
The real issue at play, here, is that we have left the realm of traditional arguments based in fact, and entered full steam ahead into the world of fiction. Both parties glom onto any set of "facts" released by their own partisan organizations (though, to be fair, Republicans are guiltier of this than are Democrats). Media outlets are trying their hardest to present "both sides of the argument," but in doing so, they legitimize points of view that are often so vastly different that it's clear they are operating on separate sets of "facts."
Fact checking organizations are doing their best to separate fact from fiction, but once they do their due diligence and report that one side is operating in falsehoods, that party refuses to acknowledge that they were wrong, and instead insists that the organization is disreputable. Obviously, no one likes to be told they're wrong, and admitting your mistakes is always difficult to do; and clearly, mistakes are going to be made in the heat of drumming up support from your base. The key to regaining trust from the American public lies in admitting these mistakes and correcting your errors. Our politicians are entirely incapable of doing this.
When it comes to "third rail" issues, in particular, owning up to factual errors requires the sort of integrity that few politicians possess, and those who do are often characterized as being weak in the face of opposition. In reality, it takes a lot of guts to admit when you're wrong, and frankly, there are a shit ton of politicians who lack the guts to do this because doing so makes them seem as if they are incapable of standing up for their beliefs, be they right or wrong.
If we want to see greater turnout at the polls, we need to restore some sense of integrity to our political system. It is this lack of integrity that helps to ensure that America is no longer Number One.
With Democrats, this generally refers to Social Security, Medicare, and Abortion, as these three issues serve to divide the Democratic and Independent voters. In reality, it's not that these issues are terribly divisive, so much as terribly misunderstood.
The Democratic party has a horrific problem with communication - they are woefully inept at communicating to American audiences their platforms and policy positions in ways that stick with them. This is a battle that the Republican party has won against the Democratic party, hands down, over every election cycle in recent memory, save for the 2008 elections, when a wave of anti-incumbent fervor swept the nation and helped to unseat several Republicans to result in majorities in both houses of Congress, and a Democratic president.
And from there...they lost their message. There were several key pieces of legislation - the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), for example - that did a lot of great things, but were so mired in controversy that party officials were never quite able to get a handle on how to present them to the American public. Combine that with the party's wholesale inability to serve as a single voting bloc in the legislature, and you have a clusterfuck largely unparalleled in modern politics.
It can often be difficult to entice Americans to vote in elections, primarily because there is an overwhelming sense that our votes don't matter; that they won't ultimately change anything. This is partially due to the fact that we don't have a direct democracy - we have a representative democracy, wherein we elect individuals to represent our interests in Congress and the Senate, who are supposed to be acting in ways that benefit all of us.
A separate issue is that we don't trust our parties to act in our best interests. There was a time when the two parties, though they disagreed on how best to approach dealing with issues of national importance, had faith that the opposing party was honestly acting in the interests of the nation. That trust is gone, having wholly evaporated over the span of the last twenty years.
Republicans are certain that the Democratic party wants to drive our economy into the ditch. The Democratic party is certain that Republicans want to hand the keys to our economic vehicle over to large corporations whose main interests lie in their own profits, rather than the overall success of the nation.
The real issue at play, here, is that we have left the realm of traditional arguments based in fact, and entered full steam ahead into the world of fiction. Both parties glom onto any set of "facts" released by their own partisan organizations (though, to be fair, Republicans are guiltier of this than are Democrats). Media outlets are trying their hardest to present "both sides of the argument," but in doing so, they legitimize points of view that are often so vastly different that it's clear they are operating on separate sets of "facts."
Fact checking organizations are doing their best to separate fact from fiction, but once they do their due diligence and report that one side is operating in falsehoods, that party refuses to acknowledge that they were wrong, and instead insists that the organization is disreputable. Obviously, no one likes to be told they're wrong, and admitting your mistakes is always difficult to do; and clearly, mistakes are going to be made in the heat of drumming up support from your base. The key to regaining trust from the American public lies in admitting these mistakes and correcting your errors. Our politicians are entirely incapable of doing this.
When it comes to "third rail" issues, in particular, owning up to factual errors requires the sort of integrity that few politicians possess, and those who do are often characterized as being weak in the face of opposition. In reality, it takes a lot of guts to admit when you're wrong, and frankly, there are a shit ton of politicians who lack the guts to do this because doing so makes them seem as if they are incapable of standing up for their beliefs, be they right or wrong.
If we want to see greater turnout at the polls, we need to restore some sense of integrity to our political system. It is this lack of integrity that helps to ensure that America is no longer Number One.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Number 6: Those Who Cannot Remember The Past Are Condemned To Repeat It
One of the most dangerous trends facing our nation, at the moment, is how quickly history is being rewritten in ways that portray certain politicians, political parties, political movements, wars, and Presidential scandals in a light that is not only more positive...but entirely false.
Regardless of your political leanings, it is entirely unacceptable to completely rewrite history; it is always acceptable to question recorded history when presented with new evidence that has been uncovered, thoroughly studied by numerous reputable historians, and backed up with evidentiary support.
Take, for example, Michele Bachmann. Now, it would be easy to simply point out that, regardless of her political leanings, the woman is batshit crazy. Regardless of her clearly evident insanity, her grasp on American history (or world history, for that matter) is suspect:
“But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States,” Bachmann added, claiming “men like John Quincy Adams… would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country.”
Unfortunately, those who are currently rewriting history to align with their own political ideologies have in no way followed this commonly accepted practice.
This leads us to today's Reason:
<hr>
Number 6: Those Who Cannot Remember The Past Are Condemned to Repeat It
Sadly, the reason behind this decade-long push to rewrite history and fundamentally alter the way history is taught to students is transparently attributable to only one political ideology.
To be fair, history has been adapted over the years by other interest groups, not to completely rewrite history, but to augment historical texts to reflect the experiences of other peoples based on historical information that has been researched, studied, and verified by numerous reputable historians who have verified these facts, been peer reviewed, and chosen for inclusion in history texts.
This process is not being followed by those who would rewrite history, today.
Instead, those who are in control of this rewriting are doing so based on their personal beliefs and preferences, suppositions that bear no basis in reality, and information that is suspect at best.
Take for example the following proceedings from the Texas State Board of Education hearings where they began contesting the way history is presented and proposing changes that best suit their own political leanings and ideologies. The problem with these hearings? No historical scholars, history teachers, or experts were present at any time during these hearings.
Below are some examples from these hearings. I will be presenting these proceedings without inject my own personal comments:
<hr>
March 10, 2010 - 6:11 PM - The board is beginning with the high school world history course. The board is considering whether references to dates use the shorthand BC and AD instead of BCE and CE. Some board members suggest BC and AD are more traditional. Yes, but that’s not what students will encounter (for the most part) when they get to college. Board member Mavis Knight urges the board to ensure that students know historians use both dating methods. But board member Terri Leo says she wants the traditional dating approach: “I disagree with the whole philosophy of why we date.”
BC & AD, by the way, won. Lowe, who had established a precedent that she not vote as board chair broke her own policy and voted in favor of this 1st amendment to the curriculum.
<hr>
March 11, 2010 - 9:30 - Board member Cynthia Dunbar wants to change a standard having students study the impact of Enlightenment ideas on political revolutions from 1750 to the present. She wants to drop the reference to Enlightenment ideas (replacing with “the writings of”) and to Thomas Jefferson. She adds Thomas Aquinas and others. Jefferson’s ideas, she argues, were based on other political philosophers listed in the standards. We don’t buy her argument at all. Board member Bob Craig of Lubbock points out that the curriculum writers clearly wanted to students to study Enlightenment ideas and Jefferson. Could Dunbar’s problem be that Jefferson was a Deist? The board approves the amendment, taking Thomas Jefferson OUT of the world history standards.
9:45 - Here’s the amendment Dunbar changed: “explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present.” Here’s Dunbar’s replacement standard, which passed: “explain the impact of the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone.” Not only does Dunbar’s amendment completely change the thrust of the standard. It also appalling drops one of the most influential political philosophers in American history — Thomas Jefferson.
This amendment passed.
<hr>
March 11, 2010 - 11:59 - Board member Ken Mercer suggests this standard: “understand how government taxation and regulations can serve as restrictions to private enterprise.”
This amendment was passed.
<hr>
March 11, 2010 - 12:04 - The current standards draft currently refer to the economic system that exists in the United States as “free enterprise (capitalist, free market).” Mercer offers an amendment to strike out “(capitalist, free market)” in the standards and leave just “free enterprise.” The board’s far-right members have repeatedly complained (absurd) that “capitalism” is a negative term and, in any case, that state statute requires students to learn about the “free enterprise system.” Scholars on the curriculum teams had argued that “capitalism” and “free market” are commonly used terms in economics courses and everyday discourse.
Terri Leo: “I do think words mean things. . . . I see no reason, frankly, to compromise with liberal professors from academia.”
Pat Hardy notes that the scholar who recommended that “capitalism” and “free market” be used in the standards teaches at Texas A&M and is a Republican. He is “not some kind of crazy liberal,” she says.
At 12:15, this amendment passed.
<hr>
March 11, 2010 - 12:28 - Board member Mavis Knight offers the following amendment: “examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others.” Knight points out that students should understand that the Founders believed religious freedom was so important that they insisted on separation of church and state.
12:32 - Board member Cynthia Dunbar argues that the Founders didn’t intend for separation of church and state in America. And she’s off on a long lecture about why the Founders intended to promote religion. She calls this amendment “not historically accurate.”
The amendment passes on a straight party-line vote, 5-10; Republicans vote "no," Democrats vote "yes."
12:38 - Let the word go out here: The Texas State Board of Education today refused to require that students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others. They voted to lie to students by omission.
Here was the amendment again: “examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others.” And this board, on a vote of 10-5, said they don’t want Texas students to learn about this basic protection for the religious freedom of everyone in America.
<hr>
March 11, 2010 - 3:38 - Cargill moves to strike this standard: “differentiate between sex and gender as social constructs and determine how gender and socialization interact.” Cargill argues that this standard would lead to students learning about “transexuals, transvestites and who knows what else.”
3:40 - Lawrence Allen of Houston notes that most high schools include gay and lesbian youth. Mavis Knight says she read the standard as an opportunity for students to study about changing gender roles for men and women over time.
3:45 - Cargill says her amendment is based on her Google research.
3:47 - Mavis Knight points out that the curriculum writers are education professionals. She argues its insulting to think that teachers would do a Google search to find out what to teach students.
3:48 - Ken Mercer: this is about sex.
3:50 - The amendment to strip out the standard passes.
<hr>
March 11, 2010 - 4:35 - Cargill moves to strip Santa Barraza from a list of Texas artists in the Grade 7 Texas history course. She wants to replace Barraza with Tex Avery and argues that Barraza isn’t appropriate for seventh-graders and apparently is distributing what some board members seem to think is an inappropriate painting. Other board members are appalled that Cargill would take an artist out because of a single painting that would never show up in a textbook anyway.
4:42 - David Bradley argues that the painting would be inappropriate for seventh-graders. We don’t know what the painting is, but it’s inconceivable that any publisher would include a nude painting in a textbook. Will this silliness ever end?
4:47 - Mary Helen Berlanga: Should the board now censor Michelangelo because of the nudes in some of his artwork?
4:51 - The amendments passes. Barraza is out, Avery is in.
<hr>
March 11, 2010 - 5:36 - The board adds Bill Martin Jr. back to the Grade 3 standards. The board had removed the author of the children’s book “Brown Bear, Brown Bear” in January, mistaking him for a man with the same name who had written a book on Marxism.
<hr>
All of this took place over two days. The full proceedings took place over a series of months during which the Texas State Board of Education completely changed the way history and other subjects are taught, not because of any newly discovered information, but because the curriculum didn't settle with their political ideologies and preferences. These changes were passed in May of 2010.
This is problematic because there are only two states who play a major role in textbook sales - California and Texas. This means that when schools around the nation go to purchase their next round of textbooks, they may be inadvertently (or perhaps purposely) purchasing textbooks filled with inaccuracies, lies, and rewritten history.
These changes were not met well by pundits, organizations, and historians on both sides of the political spectrum:
<hr>
From a 2011 report from the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute:
"Texas’s heavily politicized 2010 revisions to its social studies curriculum have attracted
massive national attention. Indeed, both in public hearings and press interviews, the
leaders of the State Board of Education made no secret of their evangelical Christian right agenda, promising to inculcate biblical principles, patriotic values, and American
exceptionalism. And politics do figure heavily in the resulting TEKS."
This report gave the TEKS U.S. History Curriculum the following grades:
Grade: D
Content and Rigor: 2/7
Clarity and Specificity: 1/3
Total Score: 3/10
It is an excellent report (and how frequently do I say that about any report released by a Conservative organization), and one worth reading in its entirety.
<hr>
From a November 2011 report written for the Social Studies Faculty Collaborative:
"...the K-12 educational system in Texas is founded upon an inadequate set of standards.
The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) were first drafted in 1998 to serve as a
systemic blueprint for the state’s textbooks, curriculum, standardized tests, and teacher
certification credentials. However, within less than a decade it became apparent that Texas
students were not being adequately prepared for college. In response, the Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board and the Texas Education Agency oversaw the creation of a set of
comprehensive College and Career Readiness Standards (CCRS) that were published in January
2008, but these new standards were not incorporated into the revised version of the TEKS
prepared in 2010. Because the standards for secondary education (TEKS) fail to meet the state’s
college readiness standards (CCRS), students—and the teachers who teach them, and those
seeking to become teachers—are left facing a gap between the state’s secondary curriculum and
the realities of the college learning experience. This report aims to bridge the gap between the
ineffective TEKS and the under-utilized CCRS."
<hr>
The sad thing about these changes is that the Texas State Board of Education is completely free to enact these changes every couple of years with little to no oversight. The TSBOE is a collection of lawyers, dentists, and realtors with no teaching experience whatsoever. Whenever experts were brought in, they were brought in NOT by the TSBOE, but by the attending community members. The amount of time allotted community members to speak was 30 minutes, but was "graciously expanded" to two hours in order accommodate the massive amounts of protests against the proposed amendments.
Unfortunately, these protests went largely unheeded.
<hr>
I specifically bring up this example of historical revisionism to point out how easily this can be accomplished.
A far more insidious method of changing how we learn and remember history is perpetrated every day on television news programs; not only on Faux News, but on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, & NBC. Commentators, pundits, and politicians go on television for the exclusive purpose of asserting their own versions of history, completely uncorroborated by either written facts, scholars, historians, or reputable expert opinion to back up their "facts."
Worse, still, is that none of the current crop of "journalists" feels the need to stop them from presenting false facts as verified truth. Rather than do their jobs as journalists by serving their patriotic duty to report facts instead of opinions and lies, they would rather present the false impression that they are "presenting both sides of the argument."
There is a difference between presenting "both sides of the argument" and "avoiding actual journalism;" between "presenting facts and letting the audience decide," and "allowing unchecked opinion to run rampant without fact-checking their claims."
It is an embarrassment for this nation that we, the citizens, and those in the media allow this historical revisionism to not only occur, but to continue and stand as a valid point of view.
It is not a valid point of view that minorities have only come this far because of the noble acts of white people; it is not a valid point of view that teaching about racism, segregation, slavery, and continued prejudice is a liberal approach to teaching history; it is not a valid point of view that Joseph McCarthy was a patriotic hero.
These aren't perceptions of history - they are lies. They are not alternate interpretations - they are lies.
It was never controversial until recently that questioning these John Birchers became an attack against "historical alternatives." There was a point in America's history where this kind of nonsense wouldn't even make it to talk radio, much less onto television, nor would it continue to be validated by allowing these idiocies to go uncontested and uncorrected.
<hr>
Next on the list, Reason 5: All Our Gall Is Split Into Three Parts - how our nation continues to be divided by political ideologies that fall along traditional geographic lines...and how that weakens us as a nation.
<hr>
Erekson, K.A. (November 2011) . Bridging the Gap Between K-12 and College Readiness Standards in Texas: Recommendations for U.S. History. The Texas Faculty Collaboratives College & Career Readiness Initiative. http://www.txfacultycollaboratives.org/images/stories/assets/documents/SocStudies_docs/Bridging_the_Gap.pdf
(n.p.). (2011) . Texas - U.S. History. The State of State U.S. History Standards 2011. http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2011/20110216_SOSHS/SOSS_USHistory_Texas.pdf
(n.p.). (March 10, 2010) . Blogging the Social Studies Debate III. The Official Blog of the Texas Freedom Network. http://tfninsider.org/2010/03/10/blogging-the-social-studies-debate-iii/
(n.p.). (March 11, 2010) . Blogging the Social Studies Debate IV. The Official Blog of the Texas Freedom Network. http://tfninsider.org/2010/03/11/blogging-the-social-studies-debate-iv/
(n.p.). (March 11, 2010) . Blogging the Social Studies Debate VI. The Official Blog of the Texas Freedom Network. http://tfninsider.org/2010/03/11/blogging-the-social-studies-debate-vi/
Regardless of your political leanings, it is entirely unacceptable to completely rewrite history; it is always acceptable to question recorded history when presented with new evidence that has been uncovered, thoroughly studied by numerous reputable historians, and backed up with evidentiary support.
Take, for example, Michele Bachmann. Now, it would be easy to simply point out that, regardless of her political leanings, the woman is batshit crazy. Regardless of her clearly evident insanity, her grasp on American history (or world history, for that matter) is suspect:
“But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States,” Bachmann added, claiming “men like John Quincy Adams… would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country.”
That quote was delivered to an audience prior to her announcing her candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination at an event hosted by Iowans for Tax Relief. When reporters pounced on these two assertions, the first that the Framers were even alive when slavery was abolished or even tried to do so, or that John Quincy Adams was twenty and had just graduated from Harvard when the Constitution was drafted and adopted in 1787, and was the son of, but never was, a Founding Father, Bachmann repeated the oft reviled "Gotha!" accusation.
On the other side of the aisle, the Democratic party would very much like to have people forget that their Dixiecrat party members in the South were instrumental in keeping Jim Crow laws alive and well. Many Democratic lawmakers have pointed out that Democrats have always worked tirelessly to promote civil rights and equality, and if time began in 1960, that would be true. History, however, has something entirely different to say about that.
Unfortunately, those who are currently rewriting history to align with their own political ideologies have in no way followed this commonly accepted practice.
This leads us to today's Reason:
<hr>
Number 6: Those Who Cannot Remember The Past Are Condemned to Repeat It
Sadly, the reason behind this decade-long push to rewrite history and fundamentally alter the way history is taught to students is transparently attributable to only one political ideology.
To be fair, history has been adapted over the years by other interest groups, not to completely rewrite history, but to augment historical texts to reflect the experiences of other peoples based on historical information that has been researched, studied, and verified by numerous reputable historians who have verified these facts, been peer reviewed, and chosen for inclusion in history texts.
This process is not being followed by those who would rewrite history, today.
Instead, those who are in control of this rewriting are doing so based on their personal beliefs and preferences, suppositions that bear no basis in reality, and information that is suspect at best.
Take for example the following proceedings from the Texas State Board of Education hearings where they began contesting the way history is presented and proposing changes that best suit their own political leanings and ideologies. The problem with these hearings? No historical scholars, history teachers, or experts were present at any time during these hearings.
Below are some examples from these hearings. I will be presenting these proceedings without inject my own personal comments:
<hr>
March 10, 2010 - 6:11 PM - The board is beginning with the high school world history course. The board is considering whether references to dates use the shorthand BC and AD instead of BCE and CE. Some board members suggest BC and AD are more traditional. Yes, but that’s not what students will encounter (for the most part) when they get to college. Board member Mavis Knight urges the board to ensure that students know historians use both dating methods. But board member Terri Leo says she wants the traditional dating approach: “I disagree with the whole philosophy of why we date.”
BC & AD, by the way, won. Lowe, who had established a precedent that she not vote as board chair broke her own policy and voted in favor of this 1st amendment to the curriculum.
<hr>
March 11, 2010 - 9:30 - Board member Cynthia Dunbar wants to change a standard having students study the impact of Enlightenment ideas on political revolutions from 1750 to the present. She wants to drop the reference to Enlightenment ideas (replacing with “the writings of”) and to Thomas Jefferson. She adds Thomas Aquinas and others. Jefferson’s ideas, she argues, were based on other political philosophers listed in the standards. We don’t buy her argument at all. Board member Bob Craig of Lubbock points out that the curriculum writers clearly wanted to students to study Enlightenment ideas and Jefferson. Could Dunbar’s problem be that Jefferson was a Deist? The board approves the amendment, taking Thomas Jefferson OUT of the world history standards.
9:45 - Here’s the amendment Dunbar changed: “explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present.” Here’s Dunbar’s replacement standard, which passed: “explain the impact of the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone.” Not only does Dunbar’s amendment completely change the thrust of the standard. It also appalling drops one of the most influential political philosophers in American history — Thomas Jefferson.
This amendment passed.
<hr>
March 11, 2010 - 11:59 - Board member Ken Mercer suggests this standard: “understand how government taxation and regulations can serve as restrictions to private enterprise.”
This amendment was passed.
<hr>
March 11, 2010 - 12:04 - The current standards draft currently refer to the economic system that exists in the United States as “free enterprise (capitalist, free market).” Mercer offers an amendment to strike out “(capitalist, free market)” in the standards and leave just “free enterprise.” The board’s far-right members have repeatedly complained (absurd) that “capitalism” is a negative term and, in any case, that state statute requires students to learn about the “free enterprise system.” Scholars on the curriculum teams had argued that “capitalism” and “free market” are commonly used terms in economics courses and everyday discourse.
Terri Leo: “I do think words mean things. . . . I see no reason, frankly, to compromise with liberal professors from academia.”
Pat Hardy notes that the scholar who recommended that “capitalism” and “free market” be used in the standards teaches at Texas A&M and is a Republican. He is “not some kind of crazy liberal,” she says.
At 12:15, this amendment passed.
<hr>
March 11, 2010 - 12:28 - Board member Mavis Knight offers the following amendment: “examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others.” Knight points out that students should understand that the Founders believed religious freedom was so important that they insisted on separation of church and state.
12:32 - Board member Cynthia Dunbar argues that the Founders didn’t intend for separation of church and state in America. And she’s off on a long lecture about why the Founders intended to promote religion. She calls this amendment “not historically accurate.”
The amendment passes on a straight party-line vote, 5-10; Republicans vote "no," Democrats vote "yes."
12:38 - Let the word go out here: The Texas State Board of Education today refused to require that students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others. They voted to lie to students by omission.
Here was the amendment again: “examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others.” And this board, on a vote of 10-5, said they don’t want Texas students to learn about this basic protection for the religious freedom of everyone in America.
<hr>
March 11, 2010 - 3:38 - Cargill moves to strike this standard: “differentiate between sex and gender as social constructs and determine how gender and socialization interact.” Cargill argues that this standard would lead to students learning about “transexuals, transvestites and who knows what else.”
3:40 - Lawrence Allen of Houston notes that most high schools include gay and lesbian youth. Mavis Knight says she read the standard as an opportunity for students to study about changing gender roles for men and women over time.
3:45 - Cargill says her amendment is based on her Google research.
3:47 - Mavis Knight points out that the curriculum writers are education professionals. She argues its insulting to think that teachers would do a Google search to find out what to teach students.
3:48 - Ken Mercer: this is about sex.
3:50 - The amendment to strip out the standard passes.
<hr>
March 11, 2010 - 4:35 - Cargill moves to strip Santa Barraza from a list of Texas artists in the Grade 7 Texas history course. She wants to replace Barraza with Tex Avery and argues that Barraza isn’t appropriate for seventh-graders and apparently is distributing what some board members seem to think is an inappropriate painting. Other board members are appalled that Cargill would take an artist out because of a single painting that would never show up in a textbook anyway.
4:42 - David Bradley argues that the painting would be inappropriate for seventh-graders. We don’t know what the painting is, but it’s inconceivable that any publisher would include a nude painting in a textbook. Will this silliness ever end?
4:47 - Mary Helen Berlanga: Should the board now censor Michelangelo because of the nudes in some of his artwork?
4:51 - The amendments passes. Barraza is out, Avery is in.
<hr>
March 11, 2010 - 5:36 - The board adds Bill Martin Jr. back to the Grade 3 standards. The board had removed the author of the children’s book “Brown Bear, Brown Bear” in January, mistaking him for a man with the same name who had written a book on Marxism.
<hr>
All of this took place over two days. The full proceedings took place over a series of months during which the Texas State Board of Education completely changed the way history and other subjects are taught, not because of any newly discovered information, but because the curriculum didn't settle with their political ideologies and preferences. These changes were passed in May of 2010.
This is problematic because there are only two states who play a major role in textbook sales - California and Texas. This means that when schools around the nation go to purchase their next round of textbooks, they may be inadvertently (or perhaps purposely) purchasing textbooks filled with inaccuracies, lies, and rewritten history.
These changes were not met well by pundits, organizations, and historians on both sides of the political spectrum:
<hr>
From a 2011 report from the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute:
"Texas’s heavily politicized 2010 revisions to its social studies curriculum have attracted
massive national attention. Indeed, both in public hearings and press interviews, the
leaders of the State Board of Education made no secret of their evangelical Christian right agenda, promising to inculcate biblical principles, patriotic values, and American
exceptionalism. And politics do figure heavily in the resulting TEKS."
This report gave the TEKS U.S. History Curriculum the following grades:
Grade: D
Content and Rigor: 2/7
Clarity and Specificity: 1/3
Total Score: 3/10
It is an excellent report (and how frequently do I say that about any report released by a Conservative organization), and one worth reading in its entirety.
<hr>
From a November 2011 report written for the Social Studies Faculty Collaborative:
"...the K-12 educational system in Texas is founded upon an inadequate set of standards.
The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) were first drafted in 1998 to serve as a
systemic blueprint for the state’s textbooks, curriculum, standardized tests, and teacher
certification credentials. However, within less than a decade it became apparent that Texas
students were not being adequately prepared for college. In response, the Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board and the Texas Education Agency oversaw the creation of a set of
comprehensive College and Career Readiness Standards (CCRS) that were published in January
2008, but these new standards were not incorporated into the revised version of the TEKS
prepared in 2010. Because the standards for secondary education (TEKS) fail to meet the state’s
college readiness standards (CCRS), students—and the teachers who teach them, and those
seeking to become teachers—are left facing a gap between the state’s secondary curriculum and
the realities of the college learning experience. This report aims to bridge the gap between the
ineffective TEKS and the under-utilized CCRS."
<hr>
The sad thing about these changes is that the Texas State Board of Education is completely free to enact these changes every couple of years with little to no oversight. The TSBOE is a collection of lawyers, dentists, and realtors with no teaching experience whatsoever. Whenever experts were brought in, they were brought in NOT by the TSBOE, but by the attending community members. The amount of time allotted community members to speak was 30 minutes, but was "graciously expanded" to two hours in order accommodate the massive amounts of protests against the proposed amendments.
Unfortunately, these protests went largely unheeded.
<hr>
I specifically bring up this example of historical revisionism to point out how easily this can be accomplished.
A far more insidious method of changing how we learn and remember history is perpetrated every day on television news programs; not only on Faux News, but on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, & NBC. Commentators, pundits, and politicians go on television for the exclusive purpose of asserting their own versions of history, completely uncorroborated by either written facts, scholars, historians, or reputable expert opinion to back up their "facts."
Worse, still, is that none of the current crop of "journalists" feels the need to stop them from presenting false facts as verified truth. Rather than do their jobs as journalists by serving their patriotic duty to report facts instead of opinions and lies, they would rather present the false impression that they are "presenting both sides of the argument."
There is a difference between presenting "both sides of the argument" and "avoiding actual journalism;" between "presenting facts and letting the audience decide," and "allowing unchecked opinion to run rampant without fact-checking their claims."
It is an embarrassment for this nation that we, the citizens, and those in the media allow this historical revisionism to not only occur, but to continue and stand as a valid point of view.
It is not a valid point of view that minorities have only come this far because of the noble acts of white people; it is not a valid point of view that teaching about racism, segregation, slavery, and continued prejudice is a liberal approach to teaching history; it is not a valid point of view that Joseph McCarthy was a patriotic hero.
These aren't perceptions of history - they are lies. They are not alternate interpretations - they are lies.
It was never controversial until recently that questioning these John Birchers became an attack against "historical alternatives." There was a point in America's history where this kind of nonsense wouldn't even make it to talk radio, much less onto television, nor would it continue to be validated by allowing these idiocies to go uncontested and uncorrected.
<hr>
Next on the list, Reason 5: All Our Gall Is Split Into Three Parts - how our nation continues to be divided by political ideologies that fall along traditional geographic lines...and how that weakens us as a nation.
<hr>
Erekson, K.A. (November 2011) . Bridging the Gap Between K-12 and College Readiness Standards in Texas: Recommendations for U.S. History. The Texas Faculty Collaboratives College & Career Readiness Initiative. http://www.txfacultycollaboratives.org/images/stories/assets/documents/SocStudies_docs/Bridging_the_Gap.pdf
(n.p.). (2011) . Texas - U.S. History. The State of State U.S. History Standards 2011. http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2011/20110216_SOSHS/SOSS_USHistory_Texas.pdf
(n.p.). (March 10, 2010) . Blogging the Social Studies Debate III. The Official Blog of the Texas Freedom Network. http://tfninsider.org/2010/03/10/blogging-the-social-studies-debate-iii/
(n.p.). (March 11, 2010) . Blogging the Social Studies Debate IV. The Official Blog of the Texas Freedom Network. http://tfninsider.org/2010/03/11/blogging-the-social-studies-debate-iv/
(n.p.). (March 11, 2010) . Blogging the Social Studies Debate VI. The Official Blog of the Texas Freedom Network. http://tfninsider.org/2010/03/11/blogging-the-social-studies-debate-vi/
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Number 7: American Nation Building - An Exercise In Failure
Today in Out of Body Politics' series, "Ten Reasons Why America Is NOT Number One," I take a look at the worst kept secret in America's history - our abysmal record at nation building.
It's no big secret that we have a history of jumping into nations where we don't belong, installing a government or leaders whom we think will best serve America's interests, and then leaving that nation to self-destruct under their tyrannical and corrupt rule.
The most recent examples of our nincompoopery lie in the utter failure that is the Iraqi nation and government, and the unmitigated disaster that continues in Afghanistan, but this isn't our first attempt (and subsequent failure) at nation building. In fact, America has a long, storied history of failed attempts at dabbling and sticking our noses into political environments where we don't belong.
If you need any further proof, look to the American South.
Mind you, this is not to say that I am Pro-South (as I'm certain that anyone who's read this blog can gather I am anything but supportive of South); it is, however, to say that Reconstruction didn't quite go as planned.
<hr>
If you want a fantastic look at how poorly we succeed at nation building, our efforts during Reconstruction provide an excellent and prescient example of how we continue to go about entering wartorn regions, installing governments and leaders, and then standing idly by while they fail to create a sustainable society; after these attempts fail, we're long gone, having burnt our bridges, and are on to our next attempt to successfully spread our version of freedom and democracy to someone else.
Without going into too many details, Reconstruction was the attempt by the U.S. government to put back together the South during and after the Civil War between 1863-1877, repatriating the eleven seceding states, and get them reseated into Congress.
Now, let us define our parties here:
Republicans of 1863 - Abraham Lincoln & Andrew Johnson: Anti-slavery, Progressive, Big Government approach to governance.
Democrats of 1863 - White, Racist, Pro-Slavery, Anti-North, Violent, Conservative, Small Government enthusiasts.
So...basically, the exact opposite of the two political parties we have, right now.
Anyway, so the 1863 Republicans go on this big nation building experiment in the South after they've just crushed them in the Civil War in a state-by-state process). When a Southern state came under Union control, that state began the Reconstruction process.
When it gets really interesting is in the summer 1865 when Andrew Johnson, in an attempt to follow in the recently assassinated Lincoln's footsteps, appointed new governors. This was done in an attempt to keep the Southern Democrats from retaking control of Congress and basically undoing everything that had just been accomplished via a bloody skirmish. In case you're wondering...this didn't really work out the way Johnson intended.
If this tactic sounds familiar, you've might recognize it from our most recents attempts in both Afghanistan and Iraq. But, prior to that, we installed the Shah in Iran, we were all for Saddam Hussein in the 1980s (I mean, hell...Donald Rumsfeld, himself, helped to arm Iraq with chemical weapons), and we helped to put Augusto Pinochet in power during the Chilean military coup.
As with the South...the results were mixed, if not disastrous.
<hr>
Now, before anyone goes and accuses me of being a Ron Paul supporter, I should set a few things straight:
1.) I am not against intervention in extreme circumstances. Genocide? Absolutely intervene; Persecution? Evacuate 'em and provide amnesty. But, extreme circumstances are not around every corner; these circumstances do not exist in every nation.
I'm sad to say it, but we can't help in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict(s); we can't solve the governmental problems in Africa; we can't fix anything that we see as "out of step" with the Middle East. These nations are not our nations, and though many will argue with me that we live in a global economy and global society, if that were the case, the plights of these disenfranchised people would be getter rather than getting worse.
Frankly, the same problems we had with nation building in the South during Reconstruction are the same problems we have when we try to replicate that dubious process elsewhere: we don't have the resources.
We don't have the human resources, the financial resources, or the support of either the "lucky nation's" citizens or even the support of our own citizens. We just don't have it. And the more we continue to delude ourselves that we do have these resources, the more we continue to incur the wrath of the global society we're supposed to be helping.
2.) We need to stop pretending that we're good at this game, because we really suck at it.
For those friends of mine who have been affected by our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm certain you're probably just as well aware of this reality as I am. Things aren't going as well as either this or the previous administration would have the nation believe. If further proof is needed, just check any foreign news source - we're not winning.
We're not winning on the ground, we're not winning the "hearts and minds" of anyone, and we haven't ever been "winning."
None of this is the fault of those who are doing the actual work - it all falls down to the fact that we entered into this "War on Terror"with no tangible or reachable objective. We entered two conflicts with no realistic goals, got there, and said, "Well...what the hell do we do, now?"
The truth is, no one really knows. We thought when we caught Saddam, that would be the end of Iraq...but, no. We finally caught Bin Laden after nearly ten years, so that would be the end of Afghanistan, right? Nope. Instead, we keep pumping money and resources into these dead end wars, and for what?
Try as they might to put a mid-20th Century propaganda spin on these two wars, most Americans caught on to those techniques after Vietnam.
3.) We will never win the "War on Terror," because "terror" is a purposely vague target designed to justify any number of misdeeds and questionable actions.
It was very specifically crafted to be as nebulous as possible so that the very usage of the term "War on Terror" would leave most Americans feeling as if we're making a difference in the world; it was designed so that the enemy was a silhouette with a question mark on it just waiting to be defined as the new "Public Enemy #1."
We will never win the War on Terror, because terror will always exist; people will always be terrorized by individuals, political parties, militias, and governments who are unafraid to use whatever means necessary to control their victims.
They will blow themselves up; they will behead their captives; they will shoot doctors in churches; they will educate their followers that anyone who is different is evil, a threat to their way of life, and form them into mobs of misinformed people out to prove a point - that their way of life is sacred to them.
<hr>
The primary reason we will always fail at nation building is because we cannot see past our own hubris to admit that we are not good at it. We are chronically incapable of objectively looking at the end results of our prior efforts to remember what happens every time we try our hand at this onerous task, and our enemies are more than delighted to play their parts, watch us fail, and strike at us where we are the weakest.
Nation building is hurting our economy, hurting our military forces, and forever damaging our reputations. I fear if we continue along this path, there won't be much of a nation when we finally come home from all of our fruitless work.
<hr>
Next up in the series - Reason #6 - Those Who Cannot Remember The Past Are Condemned To Repeat It.
It's no big secret that we have a history of jumping into nations where we don't belong, installing a government or leaders whom we think will best serve America's interests, and then leaving that nation to self-destruct under their tyrannical and corrupt rule.
The most recent examples of our nincompoopery lie in the utter failure that is the Iraqi nation and government, and the unmitigated disaster that continues in Afghanistan, but this isn't our first attempt (and subsequent failure) at nation building. In fact, America has a long, storied history of failed attempts at dabbling and sticking our noses into political environments where we don't belong.
If you need any further proof, look to the American South.
Mind you, this is not to say that I am Pro-South (as I'm certain that anyone who's read this blog can gather I am anything but supportive of South); it is, however, to say that Reconstruction didn't quite go as planned.
<hr>
If you want a fantastic look at how poorly we succeed at nation building, our efforts during Reconstruction provide an excellent and prescient example of how we continue to go about entering wartorn regions, installing governments and leaders, and then standing idly by while they fail to create a sustainable society; after these attempts fail, we're long gone, having burnt our bridges, and are on to our next attempt to successfully spread our version of freedom and democracy to someone else.
Without going into too many details, Reconstruction was the attempt by the U.S. government to put back together the South during and after the Civil War between 1863-1877, repatriating the eleven seceding states, and get them reseated into Congress.
Now, let us define our parties here:
Republicans of 1863 - Abraham Lincoln & Andrew Johnson: Anti-slavery, Progressive, Big Government approach to governance.
Democrats of 1863 - White, Racist, Pro-Slavery, Anti-North, Violent, Conservative, Small Government enthusiasts.
So...basically, the exact opposite of the two political parties we have, right now.
Anyway, so the 1863 Republicans go on this big nation building experiment in the South after they've just crushed them in the Civil War in a state-by-state process). When a Southern state came under Union control, that state began the Reconstruction process.
When it gets really interesting is in the summer 1865 when Andrew Johnson, in an attempt to follow in the recently assassinated Lincoln's footsteps, appointed new governors. This was done in an attempt to keep the Southern Democrats from retaking control of Congress and basically undoing everything that had just been accomplished via a bloody skirmish. In case you're wondering...this didn't really work out the way Johnson intended.
If this tactic sounds familiar, you've might recognize it from our most recents attempts in both Afghanistan and Iraq. But, prior to that, we installed the Shah in Iran, we were all for Saddam Hussein in the 1980s (I mean, hell...Donald Rumsfeld, himself, helped to arm Iraq with chemical weapons), and we helped to put Augusto Pinochet in power during the Chilean military coup.
As with the South...the results were mixed, if not disastrous.
<hr>
Now, before anyone goes and accuses me of being a Ron Paul supporter, I should set a few things straight:
1.) I am not against intervention in extreme circumstances. Genocide? Absolutely intervene; Persecution? Evacuate 'em and provide amnesty. But, extreme circumstances are not around every corner; these circumstances do not exist in every nation.
I'm sad to say it, but we can't help in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict(s); we can't solve the governmental problems in Africa; we can't fix anything that we see as "out of step" with the Middle East. These nations are not our nations, and though many will argue with me that we live in a global economy and global society, if that were the case, the plights of these disenfranchised people would be getter rather than getting worse.
Frankly, the same problems we had with nation building in the South during Reconstruction are the same problems we have when we try to replicate that dubious process elsewhere: we don't have the resources.
We don't have the human resources, the financial resources, or the support of either the "lucky nation's" citizens or even the support of our own citizens. We just don't have it. And the more we continue to delude ourselves that we do have these resources, the more we continue to incur the wrath of the global society we're supposed to be helping.
2.) We need to stop pretending that we're good at this game, because we really suck at it.
For those friends of mine who have been affected by our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm certain you're probably just as well aware of this reality as I am. Things aren't going as well as either this or the previous administration would have the nation believe. If further proof is needed, just check any foreign news source - we're not winning.
We're not winning on the ground, we're not winning the "hearts and minds" of anyone, and we haven't ever been "winning."
None of this is the fault of those who are doing the actual work - it all falls down to the fact that we entered into this "War on Terror"with no tangible or reachable objective. We entered two conflicts with no realistic goals, got there, and said, "Well...what the hell do we do, now?"
The truth is, no one really knows. We thought when we caught Saddam, that would be the end of Iraq...but, no. We finally caught Bin Laden after nearly ten years, so that would be the end of Afghanistan, right? Nope. Instead, we keep pumping money and resources into these dead end wars, and for what?
Try as they might to put a mid-20th Century propaganda spin on these two wars, most Americans caught on to those techniques after Vietnam.
3.) We will never win the "War on Terror," because "terror" is a purposely vague target designed to justify any number of misdeeds and questionable actions.
It was very specifically crafted to be as nebulous as possible so that the very usage of the term "War on Terror" would leave most Americans feeling as if we're making a difference in the world; it was designed so that the enemy was a silhouette with a question mark on it just waiting to be defined as the new "Public Enemy #1."
We will never win the War on Terror, because terror will always exist; people will always be terrorized by individuals, political parties, militias, and governments who are unafraid to use whatever means necessary to control their victims.
They will blow themselves up; they will behead their captives; they will shoot doctors in churches; they will educate their followers that anyone who is different is evil, a threat to their way of life, and form them into mobs of misinformed people out to prove a point - that their way of life is sacred to them.
<hr>
The primary reason we will always fail at nation building is because we cannot see past our own hubris to admit that we are not good at it. We are chronically incapable of objectively looking at the end results of our prior efforts to remember what happens every time we try our hand at this onerous task, and our enemies are more than delighted to play their parts, watch us fail, and strike at us where we are the weakest.
Nation building is hurting our economy, hurting our military forces, and forever damaging our reputations. I fear if we continue along this path, there won't be much of a nation when we finally come home from all of our fruitless work.
<hr>
Next up in the series - Reason #6 - Those Who Cannot Remember The Past Are Condemned To Repeat It.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Number 8: By the Grace of God...Get Lost!!!
There are few Western nations whose governance is so inordinately plagued by religious zealotry. Realistically, the nations who most closely mirror our recent thirty-five-year march to break down the long-establish barriers of Church and State are the nations whom Americans claim to hate, fear, and distrust the most: the Middle Eastern Countries.
Rather than spend my entire post bashing religious peoples, which we all know I am wont to do, I would rather just highlight some of the more egregious examples of religious initiatives that are no longer surreptitiously creeping into our governance, but are now stampeding through while flying the faux flag of "Religious Freedom!!!"
For those friends and readers who are religious, please know that this is not an attack on you. It is rare that I maintain relationships with friends who are unable to see beyond their own beliefs to make critical analyses, wise judgments, and neutral decisions based on reason rather than blind faith, particularly as it relates to politics.
There is, however, a terrifying influence of Christian Dominionism (a movement first defined in the 1990s as "...a commitment to defining and carrying out an approach to building society that is self-consciously defined as exclusively Christian." (Clarkson, F. & Diamond, S.) This approach to social engineering is entrenched in the belief that America always was, has been, and forever will be a Christian nation, and attempts to accomplish its goals not by using consensus to establish its hold on the U.S., but by silencing all opposition by shouting it down and attempting to publicly destroy all those who disagree with their beliefs.
This leads us to our next reason:
<hr>
As a Separationist, I believe firmly that there should be Jeffersonian "wall of separation" and a Madisonian "great barrier" between the Church and the State. I do not believe the government has any business telling me or anyone else that we much follow the religions and moral tenets set forth by any one religion; nor do I believe that any one religion has any business forcing other people to live their public or personal lives to abide by their faith.
Recently, the state of Tennessee enacted legislation that clears the way for teachers to "[help] students to understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories."
Rather than spend my entire post bashing religious peoples, which we all know I am wont to do, I would rather just highlight some of the more egregious examples of religious initiatives that are no longer surreptitiously creeping into our governance, but are now stampeding through while flying the faux flag of "Religious Freedom!!!"
For those friends and readers who are religious, please know that this is not an attack on you. It is rare that I maintain relationships with friends who are unable to see beyond their own beliefs to make critical analyses, wise judgments, and neutral decisions based on reason rather than blind faith, particularly as it relates to politics.
There is, however, a terrifying influence of Christian Dominionism (a movement first defined in the 1990s as "...a commitment to defining and carrying out an approach to building society that is self-consciously defined as exclusively Christian." (Clarkson, F. & Diamond, S.) This approach to social engineering is entrenched in the belief that America always was, has been, and forever will be a Christian nation, and attempts to accomplish its goals not by using consensus to establish its hold on the U.S., but by silencing all opposition by shouting it down and attempting to publicly destroy all those who disagree with their beliefs.
This leads us to our next reason:
<hr>
Number 8: By The Grace of God...Get Lost!!!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- First Amendment, Bill of Rights, The U.S. Constitution
<hr>
The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution have been the basis of many arguments and various interpretations since it was established that the first ten constitutional amendments were collectively named as such.
The First Amendment, however, is perhaps the trickiest to tackle because it encompasses so many of what we consider to be fundamental freedoms guaranteed to every American. It touches on religion, speech, the press, peaceable assemble, and the right to petition the Government.
This one amendment, more than any other, defines what it means to be an American; it is the amendment that we believe sets us above every other nation in the world - this is what makes us number one.
It is always the amendment that is the most frequently misinterpreted, particularly as it pertains to religion.
The portion of the First Amendment pertaining to religion is split into two clauses - The Establishment and The Free Exercise Clauses - and both of these clauses play important roles in how government and religion intermingle. No one clause is more important than the other; no one clause can best operate without the other.
<hr>
(a.) The Establishment Clause:
Originally, the Establishment Clause pertained only to the Federal government as a number of states had virtually establish state churches, already. It wasn't until 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education that the Supreme Court extended the clause to include state governance, as well.
The key question in that case involved Arch R. Everson, a taxpayer in Ewing Township, filed a lawsuit alleging that this indirect aid to religion through the mechanism of reimbursing parents and students for costs incurred as a result of attending religious schools violated both the New Jersey state constitution and the First Amendment (as it pertained to the issue of using public school transportation).
This case is important because Justice Hugo Black's sweeping ruling would define how courts would interpret the Establishment Clause for decades to come:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"
330 U.S. 1, 15-16.
This ruling set a precedent that still guides many decisions made by courts, today. It is important to me because I am a Separationist, as opposed to an Accommodationist.
As a Separationist, I believe firmly that there should be Jeffersonian "wall of separation" and a Madisonian "great barrier" between the Church and the State. I do not believe the government has any business telling me or anyone else that we much follow the religions and moral tenets set forth by any one religion; nor do I believe that any one religion has any business forcing other people to live their public or personal lives to abide by their faith.
Much to the chagrin of my family and a few of my friends, I am an atheist (Shock! Surprise!). I don't make it my life's work to go around and say to people, "Hey! Have you accepted the likelihood that nothing awaits us after we're dead, that all this "Lord and Savior" talk could be bunch on nonsense, and that there may not be gods or a single god?"
When religious organizations or legislators attempt to codify their faith-based initiatives into law, I firmly believe that this violates the Establishment Clause. Abortion, gay marriage, gay adoption, creationism, contraception, stem-cell research, prayer in school or in government-funded settings, evolution vs. creationism, and personhood amendments - these are all fine examples of issues where religious leaders, organizations, and legislators have taken it upon themselves to determine what's right and wrong for everyone else.
To differentiate between pro- and anti-[issue] legislation means, let's us first use the issue of gay marriage:
Legalizing marriage enables all citizens of a state/nation to join with one other partner in a legal partnership that is recognized by the government, and should require those citizens to abide by all of the rights, benefits, and responsibilities, regardless of their unchosen sexual orientation.
Prohibiting marriage, by means of altering a constitution (state or Federal) or making the recognition of such a union illegal, prevents a specific category of people from enjoying the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of a legal partnership that is recognized by their government.
See the difference?
Another example of the difference between pro- and anti-[issue] legislation is the recent attempt by certain states to mandate the teaching of Creation "Science" in public school.
Recently, the state of Tennessee enacted legislation that clears the way for teachers to "[help] students to understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories."
In other words, it would allow teachers to teach "Creation Science" (AKA - Intelligent Design, AKA - Creationism, AKA - Creation Myth) alongside the actual scientific theory of evolution.
One of the primary arguments made by those who support the teaching of Creationism/ID/CS is that "evolution is just a theory and it cannot be proven."
The trouble with this is that CS/ID/Creationism is not in any way science. Here's why:
In order for something to be taught as a scientific theory, it has to meet a very specific set of criteria called "The Scientific Method:"
1.) You must pose a question. In this case: "How did human beings and other creatures come into existence?"
2.) You must research - pretty self-explanatory.
3.) You must form a hypothesis. In the case of Creationists, this would be: "I hypothesize that human beings and all creatures were put on earth by God."
4.) You must develop an experiment to test your hypothesis. For Creationists, their experiment...well......
And this is where the breakdown occurs. You can't even get beyond this step to an Analysis or a scientific Conclusion, because there's no way to test their hypothesis; there is no way to prove or disprove whether or not this is true. As of this time, neither God, nor the Devil, has come to earth, show him or herself, and shown that they exist beyond people's faith that they do.
This holds true not just for Christianity, but for every religion with a creation myth (and I have yet to discover one that doesn't have a creation myth). There is no tangible prove to test and prove or disprove.
Therefore, it is not science, and does not belong in a science classroom, at any grade level. In a Religious Studies or a Philosophy class? Certainly. But, not in a science course.
Which brings us to the second clause of the First Amendment:
<hr>
b.) The Free Exercise Clause:
This is where things get really trick, because it's a hard issue to pin down...at least legally.
Is it a violation of the free exercise clause to ensure that all health insurance providers cover contraceptives for women?
In my view, no. It basically makes sure that all insurance providers are following the same set of laws and rules that everyone else has to follow.
Is it a violation of the free exercise clause to force the Catholic Church to physically dole out birth control pills to their female employees?
In my view, yes. This is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
The funny thing about this clause is that it is very broadly interpreted to basically suit whomever is making the argument that their freedom of religion is being violated. For Mormons, it was the issue of having multiple wives; for Catholics, it's whatever issue is currently stuck in their craw at the moment.
The Free Exercise Clause is simple, for me to understand and interpret - the government cannot tell you or your church how to worship. It's as simple as that. You can believe whatever you want. What it can tell you, however, is that you cannot force your beliefs on others...because you would be violating their Free Exercise of religion.
I get it...Catholics are going to disagree with me. Well...sorry to say this, but they're wrong. There's no two ways about it - they are wrong on this and, in my opinion, on virtually every other issue that comes their way.
But, you see, that's the great thing about the First Amendment - it allows me to disagree with them, haul them into court, and win on the basis that their arguments are not based in legal standing, but in pushing their own religious agendas down my throat. And, luckily for me, they almost always lose their court cases in the higher courts.
<hr>
The funny thing about religious zealotry - and by this, I specifically do not refer to any one whole religion, but rather to individuals who attempt to use their religion as a social, political, and sometimes literal bludgeoning device - is that it isn't just confined to one religion.
Unfortunately, the only type of religious extremism we hear about in America since 9/11 relates to Islam. We hear that it's a religion of extremism; that their religion rules their countries; that they use fear and oppression to control their citizens; that they spread fear of the United States and Western civilization; that they believe their battles are endorsed by Allah.
The problem is, if you turn the phrases a little bit, you get Christianity...or Orthodox Judaism...or Mormonism.
We live in a nation where we are supposed to have not only freedom of religion, but freedom from religion. When we talk about fighting Muslim Terrorists, we leave out a whole history of violence committed by Christians and Jews, alike, over two thousand years of war, destruction, and genocide.
It wasn't a Muslim extremist who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City; nor was it a Muslim extremist who shot up Virginia Tech, or any of the high schools across the country in the past four years; and it certainly wasn't Muslim extremists who shot Dr. George Tiller in both arms in 1993, or walked into a church and shot him in the head in 2009.
And this is another reason why we're not Number One; we pride ourselves of being a nation of religious tolerance, yet we are anything but tolerant or accepting. We, as much as any nation, operate in an "U.S. vs. Them" social contract, where we are right, and they are wrong. Certain people of faith in our nation are insistent that their form of Christianity should be the basis upon which we operate in our society, other religions and atheists be damned.
<hr>
Next up, Reason Number 7: We SUCK At Nation Building
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Number 9: Americans Have No CLUE What They're Talking About When It Comes To Taxes...EVER
Over the last thirty years, taxes have become one of the most talked about, least dealt with issues in politics. Each party is plagued by its own tax demons, and neither party really has the nation's or its citizens' best interests at heart.
The above statement should be readily identified as "true" when you look at the fact that the Republicans have all signed this stupid oath saying they'll never raise, and only lower taxes, and that the Democratic party talks a big game about increasing revenues, but never raises taxes, thus looking like pussies in the process.
This brings us to Reason #9 that explain why America is NOT Number One (and hasn't been for a LONG time):
<hr>
9.) What We Believe: America has a rigidly progressive tax system where Americans pay a higher percentage of their wealth as they make more money.
Reality: Taxes are much more complicated than that, and have been since Republicans tried to "simplify" the tax code by lowering the effective personal income tax rate, lowering corporate tax rates, and lowering the capital gains tax rate - all while maintaining the number and amount of deductions you can claim without tying them to the lowered tax rates. To boil that down to something more understandable, the basic premise is, "When you make more money, you are now able to say you're paying an effective tax rate that is higher than everyone else, when you're actually pay 1/3 to 1/2 of what you're supposed to be paying, and often making money off of their idiocy."
It's actually much more complicated than that, and how tax issues are viewed is really dependent upon your political affiliation rather than relying solely on facts.
There are a number of tax myths (read: outright lies) that exist as a result of the political parties' obfuscation of fact and figures. Why they choose to hide or lie about tax issues is dependent, again, on party affiliation and political and fiscal ideology.
The first greatest of these myths is that America has the highest effective corporate tax rate in the industrialized world.
It's no surprise that this assertion originated with the GOP. It should come as no further surprise that this is, in fact, false.
38% must sound extremely high...if that's what they were actually paying:
"A comprehensive study released on [November 3, 2011] found that 280 of the biggest publicly traded American companies faced federal income tax bills equal to 18.5 percent of their profits during the last three years — little more than half the official corporate rate of 35 percent and lower than their competitors in many industrialized countries."
The above statement should be readily identified as "true" when you look at the fact that the Republicans have all signed this stupid oath saying they'll never raise, and only lower taxes, and that the Democratic party talks a big game about increasing revenues, but never raises taxes, thus looking like pussies in the process.
This brings us to Reason #9 that explain why America is NOT Number One (and hasn't been for a LONG time):
<hr>
9.) What We Believe: America has a rigidly progressive tax system where Americans pay a higher percentage of their wealth as they make more money.
Reality: Taxes are much more complicated than that, and have been since Republicans tried to "simplify" the tax code by lowering the effective personal income tax rate, lowering corporate tax rates, and lowering the capital gains tax rate - all while maintaining the number and amount of deductions you can claim without tying them to the lowered tax rates. To boil that down to something more understandable, the basic premise is, "When you make more money, you are now able to say you're paying an effective tax rate that is higher than everyone else, when you're actually pay 1/3 to 1/2 of what you're supposed to be paying, and often making money off of their idiocy."
It's actually much more complicated than that, and how tax issues are viewed is really dependent upon your political affiliation rather than relying solely on facts.
There are a number of tax myths (read: outright lies) that exist as a result of the political parties' obfuscation of fact and figures. Why they choose to hide or lie about tax issues is dependent, again, on party affiliation and political and fiscal ideology.
The first greatest of these myths is that America has the highest effective corporate tax rate in the industrialized world.
It's no surprise that this assertion originated with the GOP. It should come as no further surprise that this is, in fact, false.
38% must sound extremely high...if that's what they were actually paying:
"A comprehensive study released on [November 3, 2011] found that 280 of the biggest publicly traded American companies faced federal income tax bills equal to 18.5 percent of their profits during the last three years — little more than half the official corporate rate of 35 percent and lower than their competitors in many industrialized countries."
Now, of course lower tax rate zealots (AKA - Grover Norquist) insists that companies still pay too much in taxes because they are taxed on profits made outside the U.S. It is telling, however, when the GOP and Norquist talk about how awful it is when companies outsource jobs...and yet, the CEOs responsible for the vast majority of outsourcing jobs are often members of the Republican party. Worse, they do so specifically to avoid paying taxes.
Unfortunately for Norquist and his cadre of brainwashed tax dunces, the facts do not align with their pseudo-reality.
They love to make lots of excuses for why these facts, which are publicly available, aren't accurate, ranging from, "Well, when a company loses money, they pay less in taxes; it doesn't matter that they made a profit" to, "Why should an American company pay taxes on profits made overseas?"
Again, the answers to their anti-tax assertions are generally divided along partisan lines, and frankly, neither side will ever convince the other of the validity of their arguments. As I've said before, it's hard to argue facts with people who argue faith, and Reaganomics has never been a matter of fact, but a matter of faith...often misplaced.
The theory behind Reaganomics is that if you allow the "job creators" to keep more of their money by lowering taxes, it will allow them to hire more people, and the money will just magically "trickle down" into the rest of the economy. Unfortunately for the tax wizards who thought this up and their followers who place their faith in this fantasy, that never happened.
So, we're going to look at three different charts:
While this chart is slightly confusing, it makes abundantly clear that some of the most storied, profitable companies in the U.S. actually end up paying less than zero in taxes. For that to happen as an individual, you have to make so little that you are exempted from paying the 10% tax that is levied on the lowest tax bracket ($0-8,700 for a single person)...and still doesn't exempt you from paying sales, gas, or food taxes.
So, basically, if you're rich, you can pay as little as you want.
Yes; these two charts are, in fact, accurate. To break it down for ya': Thanks to the GOP redefining for the U.S. our concept of economics and taxes, corporate income tax now stands at roughly 1% of GDP, and likely even less, now, given that in 2010, corporate income tax made up a little more than 9% of the Federal Tax Revenue.
Basically, if you call yourself a corporation, move the most profitable parts of your company overseas, and employ cheap foreign labor (while pretending to be pro-America), you can pay virtually nothing when compared to your total income/profits.
Reactions to this injustice once again fall along partisan lines. For those of us who believe that our nation should require everyone to pay their fair share of taxes, this is a travesty; for those who believe that profits come before people, this is just the way of the "free market."
Ironic, then, that even though the Citizens United ruling that deemed corporations people, these "people" aren't audited and brought up on charges of tax evasion.
<hr>
Obviously, we have repeatedly redefined how we perceive taxation. We fought a war to escape "taxation without representation," a phrase that describes being taxed without having a local representative acting in your interests to the governing body who is collecting said taxes. The phrase does not, however, apply to Americans paying taxes to the IRS, much to the chagrin of the Tea Party people...well, it would be if they understood taxation or representation.
Thanks to Saint Ronald of Reagan, the GOP Patron Saint, we lowered capitol gains, corporate income, and the top personal income tax rates so that they could create jobs. Unfortunately, that has never seemed to be enough.
"Taxes are still too high," say those who are now paying the lowest effective tax rates in the last 70 years. "If we just paid less in taxes, we'd bring back those jobs!"
It will never happen, just like Reaganomics will never "trickle down," and horses are unlikely to fly of their own volition. In fact, the irony of the last thirty years is that the best economic period has been under a Democratic president (Clinton) who increased the number of taxes and regulations, while the worst period of job growth and economy have been under the two major Republican presidents, (Reagan and Bush II).
And this is why America's approach to taxation makes us not "number one," and until we get some legislators in office who are sane enough to reverse course or brave enough to raise taxes on their biggest donors, we're going to continue losing revenue like a sieve, the economy will continue to be stuck in the doldrums, and nothing will improve.
<hr>
Up next, Reason #8: Religious Influence in Politics - How the Land Who Would Not Establish a National Religion Has Been Overrun by Christian Dominionists.
Kocieniewski, D. (November 3, 2011) . Biggest Public Firms Paid Little U.S. Tax, Study Says. The New York Times Online Edition. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/business/280-big-public-firms-paid-little-us-tax-study-finds.html
Kroll, A. (June 2, 2011) . GE, Exxon, 10 Other Major Corporations Paid Negative Tax Rate. Mother Jones Website. http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/ge-exxon-10-other-major-corporations-paid-negative-tax-rate
Masters, J. (April 5, 2012) . U.S. Corporate Tax Reform. Council on Foreign Relations - Renewing America. http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-corporate-tax-reform/p27860
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)