I hate Obamacare.
There...I said it.
I have always thought that it was some of the worst piece of shit legislation ever penned.
Rarely has there been a piece of legislation with more loopholes, exclusions, special exemptions, perks, and kickbacks than the Affordable Care Act. Well, other than TARP and Dodd-Frank.
We went into 2009 under the belief that we would get healthcare reform, and instead, we got health insurance reform. The idea was that we were going to provide healthcare for every American citizen, and in so doing, we would ensure healthier Americans, a more productive citizenry, and we would stop running a "sick care" system, and start running a "healthcare" system.
Yeah, that didn't happen.
<hr>
While I can't (and won't) get into the particulars of why the legislation is doomed to fail in the longrun, I will go into how we ended up with this bastardized attempt at addressing a decades-old problem in this nation.
It started on day one of the healthcare debates. With barely the blink of an eye, the prospect of a Single-Payer system (AKA - Universal Healthcare paid for by everyone's tax dollars) was immediately off the table. The very idea that both Clinton and Obama pushed during the Democratic primary season, and upon which the Democratic platform's hopes were placed, was dashed against the rocks in the Congressional Sea.
Why? Because Republicans and a handful of Blue Dog Democrats would never vote for it. So, in the name of expediency, the very system voters said they wanted was cast aside, and then, they got down to the bullshit.
There were all of these other options, but what we ended up with was insurance reform. We took the enemy, for-profit insurance providers whose rates were already astronomical, and basically said, "Here ya' go! Have everybody who can afford to pay your rates, and everyone who can't, we'll toss into the Medicare/Medicaid pool. Oh, and you can charge whatever you want, and we won't do anything to stop you."
So, instead of solving the problem of unaffordable healthcare, we expanded the problem of unaffordable healthcare. With almost half of the nation one personal financial crisis away from falling below the poverty line, exactly what kind of health insurance is "affordable?"
Oh, that's right - NO health insurance is the most affordable plan for people who can't afford insurance.
But, then we've got this genius system of the state's expanding their Medicaid and Medicare coverage to pick up the people who can't afford insurance - but, only if you make below a specific dollar amount per year.
Oh, yeah, and there's that glitch that leaves families whose employers refuse to chip in for family premiums, but cannot afford the entire cost of the family premium are inadvertently locked out of the subsidies provided by the government to help cover the cost.
Just awesome.
So, basically we got insurance reform ramrodded through the legislative process without it really being checked to make sure stupid shit didn't happen.
<hr>
Don't get me wrong - I don't agree with Republicans who say that they didn't get their say in the bill. In fact, their say in the bill is how we ended up in this mess in the first place.
In an attempt to cull Republican votes, the authors of the bill specifically incorporated several traditionally Republican ideas into the bill (that never really work), and then, none of the Republicans who contributed those ideas voted for them.
To my way of thinking, if they're not going to vote for it after they've had their say, rip out every single proposal they snuck in, and go ahead with your own plan without their bullshit in it.
Additionally, I know that it was "historic" that someone finally did "something" about healthcare, but as someone who is currently being covered by those "safety net" programs they're so proud of, I would've rather had comprehensive reform toward a universal coverage system.
Some of the main reason why healthcare is so unaffordable weren't even addressed - stabilizing the cost of medical care, surgeries, and other procedures; lowering the cost of prescription medication regardless of whether or not the pharmaceutical companies like it; deal with other issues involving the cost of living that would make it possible to work fewer than three jobs that you can take time away from when you're sick to make ends meet; do away with employer exemptions that allow them to determine what they will cover (why should religious nuts be exempted from covering contraception? There is no reason - they're just cunts).
None of these issues have, or likely will be, addressed in this nation, and frankly, doing so might very well required a violent and bloody revolution (with the Republicans and the rich on the losing side - we can address weight loss by chopping off 10 lbs. of "head weight").
As that's unlikely to occur, we're stuck with Obamacare.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Shh...I'm About to Divulge a Deep, Dark Secret
(Disclaimer - I wrote much of this after missing a dose of one of my medications, so if it seems a bit out of sorts, for me, please excuse.)
I'm certain that I will be taken to task for this revelation, but I have to get something off of my chest. Promise me that you won't tell anybody?
Okay...
<hr>
I shop at Wal*Mart.
<hr>
That's right - I shop at the Empire of American department stores; the Death Star whose lasers are trained on every Ma & Pa store in the nation, intent upon destroying their quaint, mid-20th Century planet
...and I don't feel one bit guilty about it.
Guess what, America - with rare exception, those "Ma & Pa Stores" everyone's so concerned about Wal*Mart driving out of their quaint American town were going out of business long before Wal*Mart started making its way into every city in the U.S.
I spent a lot of time growing up in "Small Town, U.S.A." (also known as Eleanor, WV), so I can speak with some authority on this matter. Granted, West Virginia isn't the "Real America" that is the Mid-West. God knows, for some reason they're more fucking important than the rest of us (despite fewer of them living in concentration, there).
Growing up, Eleanor had one shopping center, in which there was an IGA, a Rite Aid, a Benjamin Franklin's, and a Family Dollar. That was it, insofar as commerce was concerned. Next to that, there was a Tudor's Biscuit World, a Gino's Pizza, and a Dairy Queen.
In fact, the only "Mom & Pop" store in the area was Stoker's Grocery Store, owned by the family of one of my father's students. It was one of the only actual "Mom & Pop" stores I've ever had the pleasure of entering.
The store was connected to the family's house, with the storefront being accessible from a doorway just off the hallway from the living room to the bedrooms. My father once left me with the family for some reason or another, and their daughter took me into the store after closing to grab snacks, one evening.
It was to this store that I used to take whole Halloween buckets full of pennies and assorted other coins into the store (much to their employees' chagrin), to purchase the same products I would have purchased at the IGA, except Stoker's was closer.
<hr>
This really is one of the reasons why not only Wal*Mart, but every other large grocery chain, auto parts chain, electronics store, department store in America, has successfully overthrown the "Mom & Pop" structure - people want convenience, they want uniformity, and they want it cheaply.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news - but, those "Mom & Pop" businesses that Liberals swear are going out of business because of Wal*Mart actually did so because they just couldn't keep up with the times, consumer demands, and failed to update their business model.
After the 1960s in small towns all across America, kids stopped staying in their hometowns, and began branching out across the nation in search of better (or simply different) opportunities. As they did so, they took with them their particular regional food preferences, and as such, started expecting local grocers to carry produce and other foodstuffs that were not regionally viable. Since their local grocers didn't have consistent access to those foods, they started patronizing the chain grocery stores who could get access to those foods on a regular and consistent basis, and could do so for far less than their local grocer.
This, my friends, is how "Mom & Pop" businesses get run out of...well, business. People want things, they want them cheaply, and they want things that aren't locally made, grown, or produced. It's the sad truth about migrating populations - things aren't going to stay the same when new people move into town.
<hr>
Beyond simply food, Wal*Mart sells consumer electronics (when was the last time you, or anyone else you know, purchased a television or any other electronic device from a locally owned electronics store?), they sell auto parts, they sell cosmetics, they sell clothing, they sell pharmaceutical products, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...
But, it's not just Wal*Mart.
When my Liberal friends attempt to brandish their Left-Wing Bona Fides at me by lampooning me for shopping at Wal*Mart, I tend not to point out the fact that they're sitting in their IKEA chair, at their IKEA desk, sipping their Starbucks Mocha, wearing their Lens Crafters hipster glasses, while ordering something off of Amazon on their MacBook.
How can we, as Liberal Americans, lambast others for shopping at Wal*Mart and destroying small businesses when we gladly shop on Amazon and drink our Starbucks coffee?
<hr>
When I first began working at Barney's Beaner in Westwood, Los Angeles, there was a Mystery Book Store across the street that I used to wander into on occasion to see if anything was interesting. About six months later, as I was walking to work from the parking garage, I noticed several printed sheets taped to the front windows stating that they were closing because they could "no longer compete with the Borders, Barnes & Nobels, and Amazons of the world!"
Basically, the owners of this bookstore were chastising their customer base for purchasing books from those retailers instead of them, expecting some sort of community guilt to be felt for the closure of such a local treasure.
I call bullshit.
I'd been in that store a number of times, and when I inquired about a few gay mystery novels I'd recently become interested in reading, I was told that they were a "family establishment," and couldn't be expected to carry such titles.
Well...excuse me, you cunt.
Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't the bases of many mystery novels grissly murders? I guess that's a family value you're more than willing to support. Perhaps you lost customers because you charged an arm and a leg for not just used, but virtually destroyed books, refused to carry specific genres of mystery books, and were a self-righteous cunt?
<hr>
The truth is that I enjoy shopping at Wal*Mart. It always provides me with fantastically trashy stories, and I enjoy nothing more than reveling in human misery. But, honestly - what's the big fucking deal? We all have been to blame for small businesses closing down in one respect or another, and to simply focus on Wal*Mart as the Devil is simply stupid.
I'm certain that I will be taken to task for this revelation, but I have to get something off of my chest. Promise me that you won't tell anybody?
Okay...
<hr>
I shop at Wal*Mart.
<hr>
That's right - I shop at the Empire of American department stores; the Death Star whose lasers are trained on every Ma & Pa store in the nation, intent upon destroying their quaint, mid-20th Century planet
...and I don't feel one bit guilty about it.
Guess what, America - with rare exception, those "Ma & Pa Stores" everyone's so concerned about Wal*Mart driving out of their quaint American town were going out of business long before Wal*Mart started making its way into every city in the U.S.
I spent a lot of time growing up in "Small Town, U.S.A." (also known as Eleanor, WV), so I can speak with some authority on this matter. Granted, West Virginia isn't the "Real America" that is the Mid-West. God knows, for some reason they're more fucking important than the rest of us (despite fewer of them living in concentration, there).
Growing up, Eleanor had one shopping center, in which there was an IGA, a Rite Aid, a Benjamin Franklin's, and a Family Dollar. That was it, insofar as commerce was concerned. Next to that, there was a Tudor's Biscuit World, a Gino's Pizza, and a Dairy Queen.
In fact, the only "Mom & Pop" store in the area was Stoker's Grocery Store, owned by the family of one of my father's students. It was one of the only actual "Mom & Pop" stores I've ever had the pleasure of entering.
The store was connected to the family's house, with the storefront being accessible from a doorway just off the hallway from the living room to the bedrooms. My father once left me with the family for some reason or another, and their daughter took me into the store after closing to grab snacks, one evening.
It was to this store that I used to take whole Halloween buckets full of pennies and assorted other coins into the store (much to their employees' chagrin), to purchase the same products I would have purchased at the IGA, except Stoker's was closer.
<hr>
This really is one of the reasons why not only Wal*Mart, but every other large grocery chain, auto parts chain, electronics store, department store in America, has successfully overthrown the "Mom & Pop" structure - people want convenience, they want uniformity, and they want it cheaply.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news - but, those "Mom & Pop" businesses that Liberals swear are going out of business because of Wal*Mart actually did so because they just couldn't keep up with the times, consumer demands, and failed to update their business model.
After the 1960s in small towns all across America, kids stopped staying in their hometowns, and began branching out across the nation in search of better (or simply different) opportunities. As they did so, they took with them their particular regional food preferences, and as such, started expecting local grocers to carry produce and other foodstuffs that were not regionally viable. Since their local grocers didn't have consistent access to those foods, they started patronizing the chain grocery stores who could get access to those foods on a regular and consistent basis, and could do so for far less than their local grocer.
This, my friends, is how "Mom & Pop" businesses get run out of...well, business. People want things, they want them cheaply, and they want things that aren't locally made, grown, or produced. It's the sad truth about migrating populations - things aren't going to stay the same when new people move into town.
<hr>
Beyond simply food, Wal*Mart sells consumer electronics (when was the last time you, or anyone else you know, purchased a television or any other electronic device from a locally owned electronics store?), they sell auto parts, they sell cosmetics, they sell clothing, they sell pharmaceutical products, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...
But, it's not just Wal*Mart.
When my Liberal friends attempt to brandish their Left-Wing Bona Fides at me by lampooning me for shopping at Wal*Mart, I tend not to point out the fact that they're sitting in their IKEA chair, at their IKEA desk, sipping their Starbucks Mocha, wearing their Lens Crafters hipster glasses, while ordering something off of Amazon on their MacBook.
How can we, as Liberal Americans, lambast others for shopping at Wal*Mart and destroying small businesses when we gladly shop on Amazon and drink our Starbucks coffee?
<hr>
When I first began working at Barney's Beaner in Westwood, Los Angeles, there was a Mystery Book Store across the street that I used to wander into on occasion to see if anything was interesting. About six months later, as I was walking to work from the parking garage, I noticed several printed sheets taped to the front windows stating that they were closing because they could "no longer compete with the Borders, Barnes & Nobels, and Amazons of the world!"
Basically, the owners of this bookstore were chastising their customer base for purchasing books from those retailers instead of them, expecting some sort of community guilt to be felt for the closure of such a local treasure.
I call bullshit.
I'd been in that store a number of times, and when I inquired about a few gay mystery novels I'd recently become interested in reading, I was told that they were a "family establishment," and couldn't be expected to carry such titles.
Well...excuse me, you cunt.
Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't the bases of many mystery novels grissly murders? I guess that's a family value you're more than willing to support. Perhaps you lost customers because you charged an arm and a leg for not just used, but virtually destroyed books, refused to carry specific genres of mystery books, and were a self-righteous cunt?
<hr>
The truth is that I enjoy shopping at Wal*Mart. It always provides me with fantastically trashy stories, and I enjoy nothing more than reveling in human misery. But, honestly - what's the big fucking deal? We all have been to blame for small businesses closing down in one respect or another, and to simply focus on Wal*Mart as the Devil is simply stupid.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Religious Exceptionalism
This past week, something of a furor was kicked up over The Atlantic's placement of a paid advertorial - a paid advertisement in the form of an editorial - on the front page of its online edition. The advertorial in question sang the praises of the Church of Scientology's "Ecclesiastical Leader," David Miscavige, crediting him for the record expansion of the religion's foothold in modern society.
Now, advertorials are nothing new; they've been around for quite a while, now, and almost every time someone realizes they've been reading a paid advertisement presented as an authentic piece of news or opinion, they get pissed.
Why? Primarily because the basic premise of the advertorial is deception. Knowing that readers enjoy opinion pieces or stories that speak of fantastical claims, they create an advertisement that specifically plays upon readers' desire to learn more about the headline. To some degree, then, isn't all advertising duplicitous and subversive?
Well, yes and no. Advertising is really about making your product as appealing as possible to as many people as possible while spending as little money as possible.
But, the anger directed towards this advertorial had less to do with the content of the ad, and more to do with the timing and intent behind its placement. The ad was specifically timed to coincide with the release of an exposé by Pulitzer Prize winner, Lawrence Wright, Going Clear - Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief.
For those of you unfamiliar with the Church of Scientology, I apologize that I simply don't have enough time, effort, space, or patience to explain the tenets of their belief system to you - South Park did a rather fine job of attempting to explain their beliefs several years ago, which led to Isaac Hayes, the singer and actor who voiced the character Chef leaving the show in a huff about their portrayal of his religion (though not a peep was heard when they lampooned other religions).
Regardless of their beliefs, Scientology is known for one thing: vigorously defending themselves when faced with any sort of opposition or whistleblowing.
Anyone who leaves Scientology is branded an "apostate" - someone who abandons their religion or political cause - which is interesting, given the title's long history with the Roman Catholic Church. Those who have been branded apostates are, according to Scientology, not capable of telling the truth about the religion. They are liars, manipulators of the truth, and are simply attempting to besmirch the reputation of this fine religion.
In the case of Lawrence Wright, they insisted that a handful of minute factual mistakes are indicative of a large conspiracy of lies designed to take down the church.
<hr>
But honestly, how does this make Scientology different from any other religion? The answer is simple - most Americans believe Scientology to be a cult.
From my view, however, there is little daylight between a "religion" and a "cult." For the most part, they function in very much the same ways:
Both claim to provide answers to people looking for them;
Both claim to be the one great truth;
Both expect their adherents to believe their ideology;
Both set forth lists of rules and guidelines dictating the behavior of their followers;
Both require some suspension of disbelief in regards to their belief systems ("faith").
When you break it down into what defines both structures, there really is very little difference between the two, save for a cultural acceptance of one over the other.
Take, for example, the unspoken criticism of the 2012 Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. On the front page and in the media, both Romney and party officials went to painstaking lengths to avoid any mention of the fact that he was a Mormon. Any time the issue of religion was brought up, they were very quick to dismiss any talk of the subject, making certain to redirect the questioner down a path that was more acceptable to the voter base of the Republican party.
Why? Because many Evangelical Christians consider Mormonism to be a cult.
<hr>
What does hold true in America is that, when asked if they felt religious freedoms are being taken away, and that the free exercise thereof is at risk, many Evangelicals respond with a resounding, "YES!"
...Until that question applies to religions other than Christianity.
In the past four years, we have seen a significant rise in proposed legislation to outlaw "Sharia Law" from being implemented in the States, despite no evidence that such encroachment is even threatening to occur. The irony of this is that the same people who find Sharia Law to be the greatest threat to America's Freedom of Religion are the very same people who find it perfectly acceptable to author bills enshrining Biblical law into their state constitutions.
One may ask if this smacks of hypocrisy; do the people who so greatly fear the religious tenets of Islam being pushed upon them not recognize that they are foisting their beliefs onto everyone else?
No, they do not.
<hr>
Most religious (just shy of all, really) practice what I like to call "Religious Exceptionalism." Much like American Exceptionalism, most religious believe that it is they are different from every other religion in that they have a specific holy world mission to spread the faith to everyone who is not a follower of their doctrines. They all believe that their beliefs are correct, that no others stand up to scrutiny, and that historical documentation and research have proven beyond reproach that their religion is the only real truth.
But why do we, as Americans whose nation was founded upon religious liberty, have the need to fund their crusade by allowing them exemption from paying taxes on income and property? What makes them so special that they should be bankrolled on the backs of the American tax payers?
Well......nothing.
Many believe that churches have always been exempt from Federal taxes in America, when in fact, that has only been the case since the passage of the Wilson Tariff Act of 1894, nearly 120 years after the establishment of our nation. In 1954, after enjoying 60 years of tax exemption, religions were specifically prohibited from backing a specific candidate in an election from the pulpit.
However, since 2009, the IRS has halted all auditing of religious organizations to suspend or revoke their tax exempt status.
As someone who is an Atheist, gay, and who falls well below the poverty line, I frequently wonder why I am expected to allow my tax dollars to support religious organizations who advocate for positions, propositions, and candidates who have nothing but the worst of intentions in mind for my sort of people.
As someone who advocates for sexual and reproductive health causes, why is my money being spent to support religious organizations who actively attempt to force scientifically incorrect (and often entirely false) information about reproductive health and contraceptives into our schools and public health systems?
As someone who believes in science, why should my money be spend supporting religious organizations who believe that an invisible, unprovable God magically created the universe, and that all people should believe that he did so, and that scientific evidence to the contrary should be dismissed out of hand because, well, it's their faith, and faith trumps science and reality?
It is high time we reexamine our priorities, in this country, and begin to ask ourselves, "What do these organizations really do that makes them worthy of bankrolling their operations," and demand of our government that the moratorium on IRS audits be lifted, and allow the government to rightfully demand that these scofflaws pony up the tax dollars they've been improperly hoarding while specifically breaking the law to do so.
And if they don't like it, they can find somewhere else to live.
Now, advertorials are nothing new; they've been around for quite a while, now, and almost every time someone realizes they've been reading a paid advertisement presented as an authentic piece of news or opinion, they get pissed.
Why? Primarily because the basic premise of the advertorial is deception. Knowing that readers enjoy opinion pieces or stories that speak of fantastical claims, they create an advertisement that specifically plays upon readers' desire to learn more about the headline. To some degree, then, isn't all advertising duplicitous and subversive?
Well, yes and no. Advertising is really about making your product as appealing as possible to as many people as possible while spending as little money as possible.
But, the anger directed towards this advertorial had less to do with the content of the ad, and more to do with the timing and intent behind its placement. The ad was specifically timed to coincide with the release of an exposé by Pulitzer Prize winner, Lawrence Wright, Going Clear - Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief.
For those of you unfamiliar with the Church of Scientology, I apologize that I simply don't have enough time, effort, space, or patience to explain the tenets of their belief system to you - South Park did a rather fine job of attempting to explain their beliefs several years ago, which led to Isaac Hayes, the singer and actor who voiced the character Chef leaving the show in a huff about their portrayal of his religion (though not a peep was heard when they lampooned other religions).
Regardless of their beliefs, Scientology is known for one thing: vigorously defending themselves when faced with any sort of opposition or whistleblowing.
Anyone who leaves Scientology is branded an "apostate" - someone who abandons their religion or political cause - which is interesting, given the title's long history with the Roman Catholic Church. Those who have been branded apostates are, according to Scientology, not capable of telling the truth about the religion. They are liars, manipulators of the truth, and are simply attempting to besmirch the reputation of this fine religion.
In the case of Lawrence Wright, they insisted that a handful of minute factual mistakes are indicative of a large conspiracy of lies designed to take down the church.
<hr>
But honestly, how does this make Scientology different from any other religion? The answer is simple - most Americans believe Scientology to be a cult.
From my view, however, there is little daylight between a "religion" and a "cult." For the most part, they function in very much the same ways:
Both claim to provide answers to people looking for them;
Both claim to be the one great truth;
Both expect their adherents to believe their ideology;
Both set forth lists of rules and guidelines dictating the behavior of their followers;
Both require some suspension of disbelief in regards to their belief systems ("faith").
When you break it down into what defines both structures, there really is very little difference between the two, save for a cultural acceptance of one over the other.
Take, for example, the unspoken criticism of the 2012 Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. On the front page and in the media, both Romney and party officials went to painstaking lengths to avoid any mention of the fact that he was a Mormon. Any time the issue of religion was brought up, they were very quick to dismiss any talk of the subject, making certain to redirect the questioner down a path that was more acceptable to the voter base of the Republican party.
Why? Because many Evangelical Christians consider Mormonism to be a cult.
<hr>
What does hold true in America is that, when asked if they felt religious freedoms are being taken away, and that the free exercise thereof is at risk, many Evangelicals respond with a resounding, "YES!"
...Until that question applies to religions other than Christianity.
In the past four years, we have seen a significant rise in proposed legislation to outlaw "Sharia Law" from being implemented in the States, despite no evidence that such encroachment is even threatening to occur. The irony of this is that the same people who find Sharia Law to be the greatest threat to America's Freedom of Religion are the very same people who find it perfectly acceptable to author bills enshrining Biblical law into their state constitutions.
One may ask if this smacks of hypocrisy; do the people who so greatly fear the religious tenets of Islam being pushed upon them not recognize that they are foisting their beliefs onto everyone else?
No, they do not.
<hr>
Most religious (just shy of all, really) practice what I like to call "Religious Exceptionalism." Much like American Exceptionalism, most religious believe that it is they are different from every other religion in that they have a specific holy world mission to spread the faith to everyone who is not a follower of their doctrines. They all believe that their beliefs are correct, that no others stand up to scrutiny, and that historical documentation and research have proven beyond reproach that their religion is the only real truth.
But why do we, as Americans whose nation was founded upon religious liberty, have the need to fund their crusade by allowing them exemption from paying taxes on income and property? What makes them so special that they should be bankrolled on the backs of the American tax payers?
Well......nothing.
Many believe that churches have always been exempt from Federal taxes in America, when in fact, that has only been the case since the passage of the Wilson Tariff Act of 1894, nearly 120 years after the establishment of our nation. In 1954, after enjoying 60 years of tax exemption, religions were specifically prohibited from backing a specific candidate in an election from the pulpit.
However, since 2009, the IRS has halted all auditing of religious organizations to suspend or revoke their tax exempt status.
As someone who is an Atheist, gay, and who falls well below the poverty line, I frequently wonder why I am expected to allow my tax dollars to support religious organizations who advocate for positions, propositions, and candidates who have nothing but the worst of intentions in mind for my sort of people.
As someone who advocates for sexual and reproductive health causes, why is my money being spent to support religious organizations who actively attempt to force scientifically incorrect (and often entirely false) information about reproductive health and contraceptives into our schools and public health systems?
As someone who believes in science, why should my money be spend supporting religious organizations who believe that an invisible, unprovable God magically created the universe, and that all people should believe that he did so, and that scientific evidence to the contrary should be dismissed out of hand because, well, it's their faith, and faith trumps science and reality?
It is high time we reexamine our priorities, in this country, and begin to ask ourselves, "What do these organizations really do that makes them worthy of bankrolling their operations," and demand of our government that the moratorium on IRS audits be lifted, and allow the government to rightfully demand that these scofflaws pony up the tax dollars they've been improperly hoarding while specifically breaking the law to do so.
And if they don't like it, they can find somewhere else to live.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
The Sad Legacy [of People Who Hate] Roe v. Wade
Representative Diane Black (R-TN, 6th District) penned an opinion piece for Politico, in which she lies.
I won't even bother to mince words - she straight up lied her ass off for a 1.5 pages, citing dubious statistics (at best), and making ridiculously false claims about abortion, in general, and Planned Parenthood, specifically.
But realistically, no one will call her out for being a liar, because both the media and Planned Parenthood are afraid to actually call crazy liars what they are - "crazy liars."
Aside from providing statistics so outlandish that only an intellectually incurious pro-lifer could believe (e.g. - "In total, abortion services accounted for more than 92 percent of its pregnancy services"), Diane Black has no real interest in the children that would be produced from unwanted pregnancies.
The Republican party has, since being overrun by theGrand Arbiters of Moral Authority religious conservatives in the 1980s, waged a war not only on abortion, but on the impoverished.
That's right - they're not fighting a war on poverty, they're fighting a war against the impoverished, insuring through their legislative efforts on both the State and Federal levels that the poor stay poor, the under- and uneducated remain un- and misinformed, and that, by God, those women are going to give birth to those unwanted bastard babies, come hell or high water.
They are not, however, willing to pony up the money that it will require to raise these unwanted bastard children. The GOTea, insisting that the purse strings need to be tightened and that necessary cuts need to be made, have gone out of their way to ensure that the children that are the result of unwanted pregnancies are almost certain to lead miserable lives fraught with hunger (by cutting TANF funds), illness (by cutting Medicaid funds), and lovelessness (by cutting funds for state-run adoption facilities and services).
But, remember - "Choose Life!" "Life begins at conception!"
Well, that may well be, but that "Life" they make such a big goddamned deal about when it's still in the womb apparently stops being sacred after its mother ejects it from her vessel.
Once it's out in the world, it becomes an "anchor baby," "welfare baby," "a taker, not a maker," and an "entitlement baby." What was once sacrosanct, quickly becomes a millstone around the taxpayers' collective neck, draining our precious resources. Why should we fit the bill for these moochers?
Because the Republican party makes every effort to outlaw a practice that's been around since at least 2700 BC (or BCE in the modern nomenclature).
<hr>
Here's my proposal, Republicans:
You can't have it both ways. You can either
(A.) Outlaw abortion and start to pony up the cash to provide funds for Medicaid, TANF, and state-run adoption facilities and providers, as well as foster programs,
I won't even bother to mince words - she straight up lied her ass off for a 1.5 pages, citing dubious statistics (at best), and making ridiculously false claims about abortion, in general, and Planned Parenthood, specifically.
But realistically, no one will call her out for being a liar, because both the media and Planned Parenthood are afraid to actually call crazy liars what they are - "crazy liars."
Aside from providing statistics so outlandish that only an intellectually incurious pro-lifer could believe (e.g. - "In total, abortion services accounted for more than 92 percent of its pregnancy services"), Diane Black has no real interest in the children that would be produced from unwanted pregnancies.
The Republican party has, since being overrun by the
That's right - they're not fighting a war on poverty, they're fighting a war against the impoverished, insuring through their legislative efforts on both the State and Federal levels that the poor stay poor, the under- and uneducated remain un- and misinformed, and that, by God, those women are going to give birth to those unwanted bastard babies, come hell or high water.
They are not, however, willing to pony up the money that it will require to raise these unwanted bastard children. The GOTea, insisting that the purse strings need to be tightened and that necessary cuts need to be made, have gone out of their way to ensure that the children that are the result of unwanted pregnancies are almost certain to lead miserable lives fraught with hunger (by cutting TANF funds), illness (by cutting Medicaid funds), and lovelessness (by cutting funds for state-run adoption facilities and services).
But, remember - "Choose Life!" "Life begins at conception!"
Well, that may well be, but that "Life" they make such a big goddamned deal about when it's still in the womb apparently stops being sacred after its mother ejects it from her vessel.
Once it's out in the world, it becomes an "anchor baby," "welfare baby," "a taker, not a maker," and an "entitlement baby." What was once sacrosanct, quickly becomes a millstone around the taxpayers' collective neck, draining our precious resources. Why should we fit the bill for these moochers?
Because the Republican party makes every effort to outlaw a practice that's been around since at least 2700 BC (or BCE in the modern nomenclature).
<hr>
Here's my proposal, Republicans:
You can't have it both ways. You can either
(A.) Outlaw abortion and start to pony up the cash to provide funds for Medicaid, TANF, and state-run adoption facilities and providers, as well as foster programs,
OR
(B.) You can choose not to have an abortion in your own life, disagree with the practice in your own life, and kindly shut the fuck up and keep your nose out of other people's goddamned business.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Right-eous Indignation
I didn't pay much attention, yesterday, when a Republican friend of mine posted something about West Point Academy publishing a paper concerning the risks posed by Right Wing extremism in America.
"What a productive use of time, West Point," my friend exclaimed, and rather than just agree with him on what an effective and productive use of time and resources the paper represents, I just let his sarcasm stand until I could better address it on my own.
This isn't the first time a study or paper has been issued on this subject; in 2009 a similar report was released by the Department of Homeland Security, and the author, Daryl Johnson, was pilloried by the GOTea and the right-wing media (Faux News, right-wing websites, and conservative talk radio), and eventually left his post at the DHS.
The DHS report, which was coordinated with the FBI, suggests that the current political and economic climates have historically led to an increase in violent rhetoric and action from right-wing extremist groups. This information was gathered using the vast resources at the FBI, and was based on well documented and publicized examples over the previous thirty plus years, and yet, to almost no one's surprise, the GOTea fought against Johnson and the DHS (for the first time, ever), despite factual information being presented as evidence in support of the argument.
The West Point Academy paper seems to vindicate the 2009 DHS report in every way, and strays very little from the path blazed by the Federal government.
And yet, very few of its detractors will likely ever read the paper and analyze the findings put forth by a well-respected academy of the U.S. military. My friend, for example, likely spent little time actually reading the document before dismissing it out of hand.
For example, an "unnamed Republican congressional staffer who served in the military" told the Washington Times (the birdcage liner of "legitimate" newspapers):
“If [the Defense Department] is looking for places to cut spending, this junk study is ground zero. Shouldn’t the Combating Terrorism Center be combating radical Islam around the globe instead of perpetuating the left’s myth that right-wingers are terrorists?”
Well...isn't that the job of the deployed military and ambassadors? As far as I knew, international diplomacy and counterinsurgency wasn't traditionally under the purview of the U.S. Military Academy.
And, on another note, exactly on which side of the political spectrum does this man believe Islamic radicals stand? Does he believe them to be secretly fighting for marriage equality and covertly pursuing degrees in Women's Studies?
The Republican congressional former-military staffer continues, “The $64,000 dollar question is when will the Combating Terrorism Center publish their study on real left-wing terrorists like the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, and the Weather Underground?”
And with fewer than thirty-five words, this man exemplifies what is wrong with the Republican party: they're living in another decade. This guy's problem is that he can't decide which decade he wants to live in - is it the 1950s, with his reference to the short-lived game show, or the 1970s with his reference to the Weather Underground, best known for their evacuating government buildings before bombing them in protest of various issues?
There is something to be said of paying heed to history so as not to repeat it; there is little merit in reliving history while learning nothing from it.
<hr>
Part of the problem that most on the Right have with studies like these is that they feel that equal coverage isn't given to similar groups on the Left. Much to their dismay, there just aren't as many Far-Left radical groups whose actions result in violence and death to balance out the scales.
That isn't to say there are no such examples - there are always outliers. Unfortunately, there just hasn't been much compelling evidence to suggest that the members of Occupy Wall Street are going to do much more than shut down ports, block bank entrances, destroy the grass, and reek of patchouli, and we now know that the FBI made efforts to infiltrate their ranks in order to see if they posed a terrorist threat. I do wonder if any of the TeaTard rallies received similar treatment; if they did, would the GOTea stand for it?
What I suspect the real problem is for most Republicans is that these studies highlight elements of the GOTea voter base that they would really rather disappear. Mind you, they certainly have no qualms about pandering to those elements during the primary season, serving up the rarest red meat they can muster to "fire up the base," only to throw their base's chosen candidates onto the grill and leave them there to char. Todd Akin...Joe "Deadbeat Dad" Walsh...lest we forget...
The trouble with establishing a reliable base for one's party holds true across all political ideologies - once you've got them securely in your pocket, they won't ever go away and they'll hold your feet to the fire.
The Democratic party learned this lesson with the LGBT community over the last four years. After eight years of broken promises during the Clinton Administration, resulting in the now-defunct Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and the soon-to-be-defunct Defense of Marriage Act, the LGBT community finally got the balls to hold the President and the Democrats to their word, and deliver what they promised.
The Republicans, along with the Conservative movement as it stands, both seem destined to die a sad, slow, and painful (albeit hilarious) death, as they have very firmly established who their voting base is: the highly religious, the elderly, the white, the highly paranoid, and the poorly educated. For anyone who's keeping track, only two of these demographics are growing in America, and they aren't the first three. Still worse is their apparent lack of any sort of game plan to get out of their quagmire of their own making.
Honestly, it's a bit sad to see the Republican party thrash about in the throes of self-immolation. What started as a progressive movement in the 1860s spent the latter half of the 20th century doing a total about face, and opt for pandering to the craziest of the fringe elements who had money. They went from the party of big ideas to the party of big ideology; from the party of "No Slavery," to the party of "Hell, No!"
They failed to heed the words of Barry Goldwater:
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
<hr>
So, is my friend correct in his tongue-in-cheek accusation that studies warning against the rise of Right-Wing Extremism in the U.S. are a waste of time? I guess we'll find out when the next Left-Wing Extremist walks into a church and shoots and kills an abortion doctor at point-blank range.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
How Far We've Come
As some of you know, I work in a sports bar/restaurant named "Barney's Beanery," at the location in Westwood near the UCLA campus. Back in the late 70s, the original location in West Hollywood caused quite a stir within the gay community over a sign in the men's restroom that said something (no one can seem to quite pin it down) to the effect of, "No Fags Allowed."
Of course, being located in the Gay Mecca of the 90s, the West Hollywood community didn't take that lying down (which was a first......*ba-dum-dum*). A giant fuss was made, the owner took down the sign, and there was a ceremonial bowl of Barney's Famous All Meat Chili.
But, as time will tell, the LGBT community has a long memory, and once they feel scorned, they never forgive and never forget.
When I first got the job at the Westwood location, several of my gay friends expressed horror that I would work there.
"How could you work there? They're anti-gay!"
I was accused of all manner of treachery, which I found rather ironic, given the fact that I had been jobless since the beginning of April, and desperately needed the job, and after several failed interviews, I would've gladly worked in a porn store in Compton.
The accusations against Barney's felt even more ridiculous after I viewed their three-hour training video, in which there was a section that very specifically addressed discriminatory behavior, and that it would be in no way tolerated.
Throughout most of my 2.5 years at Barney's, I have been the lone openly gay employee (though there have been speculations about the proclivities of a few others, here and there), but never have I felt discriminated against, primarily because I make it a very serious point to not cross the line and come on to any of the male employees. Unwanted advances from any coworker always make things awkward, regardless of the genders involved.
In fact, for the most part, everyone has been nothing but über supportive of me, whether it involves my relationship troubles or my health condition. They've even spurred me on when I had a customer come on to me after my shift was over, one evening.
All things considered, working at Barney's has always been a pleasant experience.
Last night, my faith in the establishment was once again reaffirmed when a cute gay couple in their mid-twenties came into the bar on a minor UFC fight night, sat in a prominent location on the Rail on the second floor, and proceeded to be openly affectionate with one another without fear of being the victims of discrimination.
They held hands, whispered sweet nothings, basically sat on top of one another, and even exchanged a few chaste kisses. Basically, they behaved like every other couple in the restaurant, and low and behold, no one bothered them. No employees expressed disgust, no managers got involved, and better yet, none of the other customers in my section made even the slightest mention of them.
It was a display of something that I've always tried to practice in my own life - being comfortable with being gay, regardless of where I am.
Unlike several of my gay friends who are a few years older than I, I've never had a problem with people being straight in gay establishments, primarily because I have no problem being gay in so-called straight establishments.
There is something of a "Reclaim the Gay" movement building within the gay male community, where gay men feel the need to reestablish their dominance of gay establishments and events. Children and straight families at gay pride events; straight couples coming out to gay bars and restaurants; women coming into gay leather bars; West Hollywood sponsoring more events for children than for gay men; women having bachelorette parties at gay bars - each of these represents an encroachment upon our "safe spaces," and are an insult to our culture and make a mockery of our struggle for equal rights, according to several prominent gay men and publications.
While I can (occasionally) understand where they're coming from, the whole movement leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Having come out of the closet during my Junior year of high school in northeastern TN, my experience with being gay was one of extreme caution. I was openly gay, and was unashamed of that fact, but there was always the threat of violence lingering in the background. I was incredibly paranoid when walking by myself in public places or parking lots for fear of being attacked by some God-fearing mouth breather from the holler.
There's still a small place inside of me where this fear and paranoia resides - but that part of me is the violent part. Truth be told, I wouldn't WANT to be the person who fucks with me for being gay, because they will likely be on the receiving end of retaliatory actions that may result in their untimely death.
For the most part, however, I long ago reached the point where I felt comfortable with being gay to be gay wherever I go, regardless of the orientation of the venue. I've been on dates at Hooters restaurants, casual dining establishments, and fine dining establishments, along with gay restaurants (which can often either be gay or good, but rarely both); I've been on dates in gay bars, sports bars, and dive bars, never caring what people thought of me, and never once experiencing poor service as a result of being gay.
As for straight people "encroaching upon my safe spaces," I think that's a bunch of bullshit. If the LGBT community is going to live up to our decades old rallying cry, "We're here; we're queer; get used to it," expect to be accepted everywhere, and fight for the equality we say we so fervently desire, we need to get over ourselves and accept that with that push for equal access comes some amount of homogenization. How can expect the rest of the world to accept us in their spaces if we do not welcome them into ours? What have we to hide that is so great that they should not be welcomed with open arms into our establishments?
Last night, my faith in humanity was renewed, if only a little. Seeing that couple being openly affectionate without fear of recrimination lifted my spirits. They weren't making a big spectacle of themselves; they were just being who they were, without apologies.
There was no demonstration; there were no protest signs; there was no en masse kiss-in - there were two people on date, connecting with one another like everyone else who was on a date, and not making a big deal about it.
Of course, being located in the Gay Mecca of the 90s, the West Hollywood community didn't take that lying down (which was a first......*ba-dum-dum*). A giant fuss was made, the owner took down the sign, and there was a ceremonial bowl of Barney's Famous All Meat Chili.
But, as time will tell, the LGBT community has a long memory, and once they feel scorned, they never forgive and never forget.
When I first got the job at the Westwood location, several of my gay friends expressed horror that I would work there.
"How could you work there? They're anti-gay!"
I was accused of all manner of treachery, which I found rather ironic, given the fact that I had been jobless since the beginning of April, and desperately needed the job, and after several failed interviews, I would've gladly worked in a porn store in Compton.
The accusations against Barney's felt even more ridiculous after I viewed their three-hour training video, in which there was a section that very specifically addressed discriminatory behavior, and that it would be in no way tolerated.
Throughout most of my 2.5 years at Barney's, I have been the lone openly gay employee (though there have been speculations about the proclivities of a few others, here and there), but never have I felt discriminated against, primarily because I make it a very serious point to not cross the line and come on to any of the male employees. Unwanted advances from any coworker always make things awkward, regardless of the genders involved.
In fact, for the most part, everyone has been nothing but über supportive of me, whether it involves my relationship troubles or my health condition. They've even spurred me on when I had a customer come on to me after my shift was over, one evening.
All things considered, working at Barney's has always been a pleasant experience.
Last night, my faith in the establishment was once again reaffirmed when a cute gay couple in their mid-twenties came into the bar on a minor UFC fight night, sat in a prominent location on the Rail on the second floor, and proceeded to be openly affectionate with one another without fear of being the victims of discrimination.
They held hands, whispered sweet nothings, basically sat on top of one another, and even exchanged a few chaste kisses. Basically, they behaved like every other couple in the restaurant, and low and behold, no one bothered them. No employees expressed disgust, no managers got involved, and better yet, none of the other customers in my section made even the slightest mention of them.
It was a display of something that I've always tried to practice in my own life - being comfortable with being gay, regardless of where I am.
Unlike several of my gay friends who are a few years older than I, I've never had a problem with people being straight in gay establishments, primarily because I have no problem being gay in so-called straight establishments.
There is something of a "Reclaim the Gay" movement building within the gay male community, where gay men feel the need to reestablish their dominance of gay establishments and events. Children and straight families at gay pride events; straight couples coming out to gay bars and restaurants; women coming into gay leather bars; West Hollywood sponsoring more events for children than for gay men; women having bachelorette parties at gay bars - each of these represents an encroachment upon our "safe spaces," and are an insult to our culture and make a mockery of our struggle for equal rights, according to several prominent gay men and publications.
While I can (occasionally) understand where they're coming from, the whole movement leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Having come out of the closet during my Junior year of high school in northeastern TN, my experience with being gay was one of extreme caution. I was openly gay, and was unashamed of that fact, but there was always the threat of violence lingering in the background. I was incredibly paranoid when walking by myself in public places or parking lots for fear of being attacked by some God-fearing mouth breather from the holler.
There's still a small place inside of me where this fear and paranoia resides - but that part of me is the violent part. Truth be told, I wouldn't WANT to be the person who fucks with me for being gay, because they will likely be on the receiving end of retaliatory actions that may result in their untimely death.
For the most part, however, I long ago reached the point where I felt comfortable with being gay to be gay wherever I go, regardless of the orientation of the venue. I've been on dates at Hooters restaurants, casual dining establishments, and fine dining establishments, along with gay restaurants (which can often either be gay or good, but rarely both); I've been on dates in gay bars, sports bars, and dive bars, never caring what people thought of me, and never once experiencing poor service as a result of being gay.
As for straight people "encroaching upon my safe spaces," I think that's a bunch of bullshit. If the LGBT community is going to live up to our decades old rallying cry, "We're here; we're queer; get used to it," expect to be accepted everywhere, and fight for the equality we say we so fervently desire, we need to get over ourselves and accept that with that push for equal access comes some amount of homogenization. How can expect the rest of the world to accept us in their spaces if we do not welcome them into ours? What have we to hide that is so great that they should not be welcomed with open arms into our establishments?
Last night, my faith in humanity was renewed, if only a little. Seeing that couple being openly affectionate without fear of recrimination lifted my spirits. They weren't making a big spectacle of themselves; they were just being who they were, without apologies.
There was no demonstration; there were no protest signs; there was no en masse kiss-in - there were two people on date, connecting with one another like everyone else who was on a date, and not making a big deal about it.
Friday, January 18, 2013
The Art of False Comparison
Every time the issue of gun control shoots its way in the public forum, 2nd Amendment extremists - those who insist that every weapon falls under its purview - trot out hypothetical arguments involving knives, motor vehicles, alcohol, marijuana, and cigarettes.
"Why not," they so smugly query, "simply ban automobiles? Tens of thousands of people die from car crashes, every year!"
If it's not cars, it's cutlery; if it's not pot, it's prohibition. Gun enthusiasts will go to any lengths to equate gun violence with any other type of death or homicide statistic in order to make what are reasonable propositions seem outlandish.
The problem with these straw man arguments is that it is an entirely false comparison.
There is nothing comparable about the roughly 66.3% of homicides attributed to gun violence and the 13.2% attributed to cutting or stabbing (2008 figures). Except for the fact that people died, little about those two percentages is easily aligned, in terms of magnitude.
<hr>
Now, some arguments are valid:
1.) Criminals aren't likely to follow gun control laws - they're criminals.
Well...valid, up to a point. I counter that argument with the following - if we had effective gun legislation (like that passed by Australia in the late 90s), requiring the destruction of existing and cessation of production of new assault weapons, their access to these weapons would be greatly lessened.
2.) If they can't get it, here, they'll get the guns from other criminals.
I guess that's true. It happened with prohibition and the outlawing of drugs, and it's likely to happen with any piece of legislation. But, really, is this any reason why laws, in general, should be done away with? Isn't this the very beginning of the concept of anarchy?
Imagine if we approached every law with this sort of thinking - I could just go get gay married where and whenever I want! I could file joint Federal taxes with my new husband. And you know, I feel confident enough in my driving abilities to do so at any speed I damn well please, regardless of the weather conditions; and why should I have to use windshield wipers when it rains?
3.) Prohibition didn't work, and the war on drugs has been useless, so why should gun control work?
This is another good place for a thought to start that ends up in the hall of nincompoopery. Unlike drugs and alcohol, which have the potential to be brewed at home, few people have the wherewithal to create makeshift assault weapons.
And, forgive me for being glib, but unless I'm greatly mistaken, but I haven't seen too many machine guns (by which I mean fully automatic weapons) making the rounds in the violent crime scene, so clearly something's working.
4.) We should be focusing on mental health issues! Guns don't kill people; crazy people kill people!
Well, this is another valid point. We should be focusing more on mental health issues, and since you brought it up, let's talk about which President basically did away with funding for mental healthcare in the U.S.
That's right! It was the GOP Patron Saint, St. Ronnie the Forgetful, who cut funding exponentially for mental health services.
At any rate, if we were to adequately address the issue, we'd have to start having people involuntarily committed, again - and I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but several of those people would likely come from the paranoid ranks of the TeaTards, gun nuts, and probably Wayne LaPierre, truth be told.
Now, let's just imagine the outcry from the Right if the paranoid ranks of their base suddenly found themselves locked up for their (obvious) mental illness and failure to live in reality.
<hr>
Look, I get it - you want to argue about things that are almost entirely unrelated. But, if you're going to make empty arguments, at least make intelligent ones.
"Why not," they so smugly query, "simply ban automobiles? Tens of thousands of people die from car crashes, every year!"
If it's not cars, it's cutlery; if it's not pot, it's prohibition. Gun enthusiasts will go to any lengths to equate gun violence with any other type of death or homicide statistic in order to make what are reasonable propositions seem outlandish.
The problem with these straw man arguments is that it is an entirely false comparison.
There is nothing comparable about the roughly 66.3% of homicides attributed to gun violence and the 13.2% attributed to cutting or stabbing (2008 figures). Except for the fact that people died, little about those two percentages is easily aligned, in terms of magnitude.
<hr>
Now, some arguments are valid:
1.) Criminals aren't likely to follow gun control laws - they're criminals.
Well...valid, up to a point. I counter that argument with the following - if we had effective gun legislation (like that passed by Australia in the late 90s), requiring the destruction of existing and cessation of production of new assault weapons, their access to these weapons would be greatly lessened.
2.) If they can't get it, here, they'll get the guns from other criminals.
I guess that's true. It happened with prohibition and the outlawing of drugs, and it's likely to happen with any piece of legislation. But, really, is this any reason why laws, in general, should be done away with? Isn't this the very beginning of the concept of anarchy?
Imagine if we approached every law with this sort of thinking - I could just go get gay married where and whenever I want! I could file joint Federal taxes with my new husband. And you know, I feel confident enough in my driving abilities to do so at any speed I damn well please, regardless of the weather conditions; and why should I have to use windshield wipers when it rains?
3.) Prohibition didn't work, and the war on drugs has been useless, so why should gun control work?
This is another good place for a thought to start that ends up in the hall of nincompoopery. Unlike drugs and alcohol, which have the potential to be brewed at home, few people have the wherewithal to create makeshift assault weapons.
And, forgive me for being glib, but unless I'm greatly mistaken, but I haven't seen too many machine guns (by which I mean fully automatic weapons) making the rounds in the violent crime scene, so clearly something's working.
4.) We should be focusing on mental health issues! Guns don't kill people; crazy people kill people!
Well, this is another valid point. We should be focusing more on mental health issues, and since you brought it up, let's talk about which President basically did away with funding for mental healthcare in the U.S.
That's right! It was the GOP Patron Saint, St. Ronnie the Forgetful, who cut funding exponentially for mental health services.
At any rate, if we were to adequately address the issue, we'd have to start having people involuntarily committed, again - and I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but several of those people would likely come from the paranoid ranks of the TeaTards, gun nuts, and probably Wayne LaPierre, truth be told.
Now, let's just imagine the outcry from the Right if the paranoid ranks of their base suddenly found themselves locked up for their (obvious) mental illness and failure to live in reality.
<hr>
Look, I get it - you want to argue about things that are almost entirely unrelated. But, if you're going to make empty arguments, at least make intelligent ones.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
How Do We Measure "Freedom"
I decided to continue, this morning, with my commentary on applying Cultural Relativism in our assessment of other nations in comparison to our own, when I saw the usual bevy of idiotic Conservative posts on Facebook, this morning.
"Oregon Sheriff Refuses to Enforce Any 'Overreaching and Unconstitutional Firearms Restrictions."
Really? I suppose that the same person who posts this agrees, also, that clerks who refuse to marry gays and lesbians because it violates their constitutional right to Freedom of Religion, or pharmacists who use the same argument to justify refusing to supply women with contraceptives?
Likely, no.
How we measure "freedom" is something that irks me on a near-daily basis.
When gun advocates harp on about their rights being trampled upon, I have to wonder what the hell they're talking about. The 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms - what it does not do is define "arms" in terms of weaponry.
It does not say that Americans are free to own and wield (which is one definition of "bear," as is "tolerate") whatever weapons they damn well please, regardless of whether or not it's safe for the general public.
In fact, a favorite argument of any gun enthusiast is "Why not ban knives and cutlery?" Well, the Switchblade Knife Act of 1958 (amended 1986, codified at 15 U.S.C. §§1241-1245) DOES in fact ban certain knives.
Several states have bans on crossbows, including Texas, the bastion of idiot separatists everywhere.
Try getting a machine gun, lately? You likely haven't been able to since 1986, and you know what? The NRA Vice-Dune, Wayne LaPierre, even was in favor of letting it stand if it meant that a larger bill undoing much of Kennedy's Gun Control Act would pass.
So, what, you may ask, is the point of all this random weapon fact-checking?
Why is it that we measure one of our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms in terms of product ownership?
The Constitution has always come with limits attached.
You can, for example, say anything you want; you cannot, however, make shit up and besmirch someone's credibility (libel/slander). Luckily, the government cannot punish speech...unless it is "directed to inciting, or is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.
You can't commit perjury, which if anyone has ever seen a large corporation get up on the witness stand and, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, lie their asses off and get away with it, you know only applies to people without enough money to fight the charge.
Eminent Domain (6th Amendment, for those who don't know their Bill of Rights) is most certainly one that several people who scream about the 2nd Amendment will say is taken advantage of on a regular basis. How do we define the "Speedy Trial" portion of the 6th Amendment? By whose measure?
So really, what is the big fuss all about?
It's about a handful of conspiracy theorists who believe that their safety is ensured by owning whatever weapons they damn well please, to hell with the safety of other people.
Banning specific classes of firearms is NOT "shredding the 2nd Amendment" or "shitting on the Constitution." The Right's "Dear Leader" meme certain is funny, given the far more dictatorial Republican regimes which they wholeheartedly supported and fought to bring to fruition.
If people really want to see "disarming," perhaps they should go live in a nation like Australia, which legislated a mandatory buyback and wholesale destruction of assault weapons in the late 90s...and which hasn't seen a mass shooting, since.
I'm sorry that you believe your 2nd Amendment right to own weapons designed to kill as many people as possible in the least amount of time is being infringed upon, but frankly, my life, the lives of my friends, and the lives of the other people around you take precedence over your right to shoot your gun into the air and scream "AHHHHHHH!!!"
We, as Americans, need to stop measuring our "freedom" by what we can and cannot own, and start measuring it by more important things -
that we are able to vote (unless we're a felon);
that we can choose our leaders;
that we have our children can receive a free education (which is historically a pretty fucking novel development, regardless of the quality of education);
that we can organize and fight for better wages and benefits;
that we can work in a safe environment and be recompensed when our safety is taken for granted;
that we have police and firefighters who, for the large part, actually protect us instead of arrest us for being dissidents;
that we have a press that allows us to basically say whatever the hell we want (regardless of whether or not it's true - Faux News, Rush Limbaugh);
that we can have dozens of different denominations of a single religion in one small town, and they can coexist without killing each other;
that no one has to openly profess their nationality or allegiances;
that we are not forced into military service;
that we can opt out of going to war;
that if injustice exists in our nation, we have a way to redress our grievances.
If you believe that your "freedom" is being taken away just because you can't purchase a Bushmaster .223 Assault Rifle, you're not only a gun nut; you're an idiot.
"Oregon Sheriff Refuses to Enforce Any 'Overreaching and Unconstitutional Firearms Restrictions."
Really? I suppose that the same person who posts this agrees, also, that clerks who refuse to marry gays and lesbians because it violates their constitutional right to Freedom of Religion, or pharmacists who use the same argument to justify refusing to supply women with contraceptives?
Likely, no.
How we measure "freedom" is something that irks me on a near-daily basis.
When gun advocates harp on about their rights being trampled upon, I have to wonder what the hell they're talking about. The 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms - what it does not do is define "arms" in terms of weaponry.
It does not say that Americans are free to own and wield (which is one definition of "bear," as is "tolerate") whatever weapons they damn well please, regardless of whether or not it's safe for the general public.
In fact, a favorite argument of any gun enthusiast is "Why not ban knives and cutlery?" Well, the Switchblade Knife Act of 1958 (amended 1986, codified at 15 U.S.C. §§1241-1245) DOES in fact ban certain knives.
Several states have bans on crossbows, including Texas, the bastion of idiot separatists everywhere.
Try getting a machine gun, lately? You likely haven't been able to since 1986, and you know what? The NRA Vice-Dune, Wayne LaPierre, even was in favor of letting it stand if it meant that a larger bill undoing much of Kennedy's Gun Control Act would pass.
So, what, you may ask, is the point of all this random weapon fact-checking?
Why is it that we measure one of our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms in terms of product ownership?
The Constitution has always come with limits attached.
You can, for example, say anything you want; you cannot, however, make shit up and besmirch someone's credibility (libel/slander). Luckily, the government cannot punish speech...unless it is "directed to inciting, or is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.
You can't commit perjury, which if anyone has ever seen a large corporation get up on the witness stand and, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, lie their asses off and get away with it, you know only applies to people without enough money to fight the charge.
Eminent Domain (6th Amendment, for those who don't know their Bill of Rights) is most certainly one that several people who scream about the 2nd Amendment will say is taken advantage of on a regular basis. How do we define the "Speedy Trial" portion of the 6th Amendment? By whose measure?
So really, what is the big fuss all about?
It's about a handful of conspiracy theorists who believe that their safety is ensured by owning whatever weapons they damn well please, to hell with the safety of other people.
Banning specific classes of firearms is NOT "shredding the 2nd Amendment" or "shitting on the Constitution." The Right's "Dear Leader" meme certain is funny, given the far more dictatorial Republican regimes which they wholeheartedly supported and fought to bring to fruition.
If people really want to see "disarming," perhaps they should go live in a nation like Australia, which legislated a mandatory buyback and wholesale destruction of assault weapons in the late 90s...and which hasn't seen a mass shooting, since.
I'm sorry that you believe your 2nd Amendment right to own weapons designed to kill as many people as possible in the least amount of time is being infringed upon, but frankly, my life, the lives of my friends, and the lives of the other people around you take precedence over your right to shoot your gun into the air and scream "AHHHHHHH!!!"
We, as Americans, need to stop measuring our "freedom" by what we can and cannot own, and start measuring it by more important things -
that we are able to vote (unless we're a felon);
that we can choose our leaders;
that we have our children can receive a free education (which is historically a pretty fucking novel development, regardless of the quality of education);
that we can organize and fight for better wages and benefits;
that we can work in a safe environment and be recompensed when our safety is taken for granted;
that we have police and firefighters who, for the large part, actually protect us instead of arrest us for being dissidents;
that we have a press that allows us to basically say whatever the hell we want (regardless of whether or not it's true - Faux News, Rush Limbaugh);
that we can have dozens of different denominations of a single religion in one small town, and they can coexist without killing each other;
that no one has to openly profess their nationality or allegiances;
that we are not forced into military service;
that we can opt out of going to war;
that if injustice exists in our nation, we have a way to redress our grievances.
If you believe that your "freedom" is being taken away just because you can't purchase a Bushmaster .223 Assault Rifle, you're not only a gun nut; you're an idiot.
The Gayest Argument of All
Every year or so, another gay magazine/website/blog/Facebook group releases a guide to the "Gayest"/"Best Gay"/"Proudest" cities in America, and every year I hear the same question be shouted at the top of several lungs:
"What about San Francisco/New York?"
Now, being an East Coaster, I am of course prejudiced in my belief that New York is where it all began, primarily because...well, it was there before either Los Angeles or San Francisco. L.A. can argue that they have the oldest gay pride celebration, Christopher Street West - a pride festival which they conveniently had to name after a street located, where else? New York.
I am also frequently reminded that, in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, gays and lesbians flocked to California after the War was over, seeking sexual freedom in the land of plenty, and Harvey Milk, and the gay motorcycle clubs, and the et cetera ad nauseum.
Well, it's 2013 - things change.
People who live in these long ago self-anointed "Gay Meccas" are often aghast to learn that Salt Lake City, UT, Grand Rapids, MI, Knoxville, TN, or Atlanta, GA are considered "Gayer" than San Francisco.
"BLASPHEMY!" they shout (read: type) on the message boards, comment threads, and Facebook status updates. "No city is more associated with the LGBT community than San Francisco!"
I mean...I guess so, yeah, in the long run. Frankly, it's really kind of a hole. A very overpriced hole that has fallen prey to the same sort of gentrification the LGBT community consistently brings to shithole areas that drives up property values, gets listed as the "It" place to live, and then prices the community out of the market.
Instead of recognizing that progress is being made across the country, the gay community can do nothing but grouse about the fact that not everyone in who identifies as LGBT faces the Bay Area during the call to prayer.
Don't get me wrong; I understand the furor - New York has fallen prey to the same social blight - the gays moved in, cleaned up the place, and the next thing you know, no one can afford to live there, and really why would they want to?
But, as I said, the bigger story here is that people are comfortable being gay in Salt Lake City, Grand Rapids, Knoxville, and Atlanta, and are able to stay in these areas and make lives for themselves. The point that is often overlooked is that it's okay to be gay in these places, now, whereas before, people had to escape to the big three - L.A., New York, and San Francisco - in order to find acceptance. This is a monumental change, and is also one that deserves more attention.
Rather than balk at the fact that other people don't find these cities all that great, we should be celebrating the fact that gay people can now start to lead "normal" lives in areas of the country where before, this was all but impossible.
Sure, they may not have a dozen or more gay bars to choose from, or a bevy of overpriced brunch spots for Sunday morning, and they may not have the street fairs, giant (corporatized) pride festivals, or black/red/white/purple/pink/beige/blue/yellow parties, but maybe not everyone has to measure what makes a cities the "gayest" by what makes it the most exhausting.
As I write this from Los Angeles, I am pondering a return to Kingsport, TN - a place I would never before have considered "home" - primarily because I have nearly run out of steam at 31 to try and struggle to afford an overpriced hovel in one of L.A.'s 88 ghettos. As I do so, I weigh in my mind the relative pros and cons of living in these areas, and keep coming back to the same argument - "Why do I want to fight to live somewhere that just doesn't provide me with something I couldn't get cheaper and with less hassle elsewhere?"
My ex puts it nicely: "Where you live, there you are."
I used to scoff at this notion, saying that he'd never lived in Kingsport. As he sleeps next to me, I can't help but think that maybe he's been right, all along. I'm a pretty boring person, at 31; I prefer to spend my time at home, playing video games, reading books, and watching television - all things I could do for far less money in almost any other place in America. Sure, I would miss the nightlife, and a lot of the locals can be downright terrifying, but if it means that I don't have to fight just to survive and stay happy, am I willing to sacrifice the relative benefits in order to attain some level of affordability?
Maybe so. But, maybe my slight increase in age has lent me some sort of wisdom that I failed to possess, before - maybe I stopped measuring what it meant to be gay by how many bars I could go to, and started measuring it by where I could start to build a long-term life for myself.
Things to ponder.
"What about San Francisco/New York?"
Now, being an East Coaster, I am of course prejudiced in my belief that New York is where it all began, primarily because...well, it was there before either Los Angeles or San Francisco. L.A. can argue that they have the oldest gay pride celebration, Christopher Street West - a pride festival which they conveniently had to name after a street located, where else? New York.
I am also frequently reminded that, in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, gays and lesbians flocked to California after the War was over, seeking sexual freedom in the land of plenty, and Harvey Milk, and the gay motorcycle clubs, and the et cetera ad nauseum.
Well, it's 2013 - things change.
People who live in these long ago self-anointed "Gay Meccas" are often aghast to learn that Salt Lake City, UT, Grand Rapids, MI, Knoxville, TN, or Atlanta, GA are considered "Gayer" than San Francisco.
"BLASPHEMY!" they shout (read: type) on the message boards, comment threads, and Facebook status updates. "No city is more associated with the LGBT community than San Francisco!"
I mean...I guess so, yeah, in the long run. Frankly, it's really kind of a hole. A very overpriced hole that has fallen prey to the same sort of gentrification the LGBT community consistently brings to shithole areas that drives up property values, gets listed as the "It" place to live, and then prices the community out of the market.
Instead of recognizing that progress is being made across the country, the gay community can do nothing but grouse about the fact that not everyone in who identifies as LGBT faces the Bay Area during the call to prayer.
Don't get me wrong; I understand the furor - New York has fallen prey to the same social blight - the gays moved in, cleaned up the place, and the next thing you know, no one can afford to live there, and really why would they want to?
But, as I said, the bigger story here is that people are comfortable being gay in Salt Lake City, Grand Rapids, Knoxville, and Atlanta, and are able to stay in these areas and make lives for themselves. The point that is often overlooked is that it's okay to be gay in these places, now, whereas before, people had to escape to the big three - L.A., New York, and San Francisco - in order to find acceptance. This is a monumental change, and is also one that deserves more attention.
Rather than balk at the fact that other people don't find these cities all that great, we should be celebrating the fact that gay people can now start to lead "normal" lives in areas of the country where before, this was all but impossible.
Sure, they may not have a dozen or more gay bars to choose from, or a bevy of overpriced brunch spots for Sunday morning, and they may not have the street fairs, giant (corporatized) pride festivals, or black/red/white/purple/pink/beige/blue/yellow parties, but maybe not everyone has to measure what makes a cities the "gayest" by what makes it the most exhausting.
As I write this from Los Angeles, I am pondering a return to Kingsport, TN - a place I would never before have considered "home" - primarily because I have nearly run out of steam at 31 to try and struggle to afford an overpriced hovel in one of L.A.'s 88 ghettos. As I do so, I weigh in my mind the relative pros and cons of living in these areas, and keep coming back to the same argument - "Why do I want to fight to live somewhere that just doesn't provide me with something I couldn't get cheaper and with less hassle elsewhere?"
My ex puts it nicely: "Where you live, there you are."
I used to scoff at this notion, saying that he'd never lived in Kingsport. As he sleeps next to me, I can't help but think that maybe he's been right, all along. I'm a pretty boring person, at 31; I prefer to spend my time at home, playing video games, reading books, and watching television - all things I could do for far less money in almost any other place in America. Sure, I would miss the nightlife, and a lot of the locals can be downright terrifying, but if it means that I don't have to fight just to survive and stay happy, am I willing to sacrifice the relative benefits in order to attain some level of affordability?
Maybe so. But, maybe my slight increase in age has lent me some sort of wisdom that I failed to possess, before - maybe I stopped measuring what it meant to be gay by how many bars I could go to, and started measuring it by where I could start to build a long-term life for myself.
Things to ponder.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Cultural Relativism and Why Americans Avoid It At All Costs
A frequent theme in my political arguments on Out of Body Politics is that Americans are not, in fact, the greatest society in the history of mankind, or even on earth at the present time. My reasoning behind this statement stems from my belief (and the results of several published studies on the matter) that, while you can compare certain circumstances and determine which culture is best for your own personal wellbeing, you cannot simply dismiss out of hand the successes of other cultures simply because you disagree with the findings.
It is difficult for me to put into words how frustrating it can be to explain this concept to people who insist that America is the best nation in the world, regardless of whether or not someone somewhere is doing something better. It is even more difficult for me to not blow my top whenever those very same people talk about how specific aspects of American culture are failing in comparison to other nations.
Take for example the following examples:
A friend of mine consistently argues that America is the greatest nation in the world, and how certain actions (conveniently always 'perpetrated' by Democratic officials) lessen our nation's prestige and image across the globe.
He also argues that America's school system is failing, and we should be taking a page out of other nations' handbooks in approaching education. Additionally, he argues that we have the highest corporate tax rate out of any country, and we should model our tax structure on other countries whose systems better favor "job creators."
Apparently, he doesn't see the disconnect between espousing our cultural supremacy while simultaneously arguing that we should model our culture after other nations whom he has just classified as being inferior to America.
<hr>
This isn't something that is isolated to Conservatives, however; Liberals often pine for the greener pastures of societies where the culture has bred specific policies and social norms into their societies and laws, without first acknowledging that America is unlikely to ever become their ideal nation. I am, of course, guilty of this, myself.
I personally don't think America's all that great - in fact, I think it's a pretty shitty country filled with idiots. But then, while I believe that to be the truth (and certain educational studies and results tend to point me in that direction), I fail to take into account that every nation is filled with idiots. It doesn't make them any better or worse than any other country, and it certainly doesn't make America the worst country in the world.
What is terrifying, for me, is how blissfully unaware Americans tend to be about situations outside of this country. Almost every educated nation in the world teaches their students to have even the most cursory knowledge about other countries - citizens in Iran, when asked "On the Street" questions by reporters about American government and current events, frequently provide more correct answers than their American counterparts. The same holds true for nearly every major nation, perhaps with the exception of China thanks to the strict controls placed on their media.
In our insistence that we are the best at everything, we continually make the same global mistake that we've always made - assuming everyone else agrees with us. It comes as a shock to many Americans that other nations consider us to be a laughing stock, in terms of politics; tell those same people that, despite Faux News' and the GOP's assurances that the world thinks less of the U.S. because of Barrack Obama, the vast majority of the world prefers having a Democrat in the White House and has a higher opinion thanks in large part to Obama's efforts in foreign relations (drone attacks notwithstanding), and they're likely to say you're lying.
My fears would be assuaged if, when presented with actual information based on facts, Americans would reexamine their positions; but, by and large, we do not.
I fall victim to this, myself, when it comes to gun violence. Despite all evidence to the contrary (in America), I believe that gun control, if implemented properly, can reduce gun violence; realistically, American politicians don't have the gumption or the backbone to author gun legislation that can actually affect change because American cultural simply won't tolerate it.
And so, here, I have fallen prey to my own failure to use Cultural Relativism in my estimation of America. While I frequently acknowledge that I don't think America's all that great, I mistakenly assume that American culture is willing or able to anything to stem violent behavior, crime, or gun violence in this nation.
My bad.
Friday, January 11, 2013
Race to the Bottom - Lowering the Bar on Educational Stadards
On my way home from work, this evening, I listened to a replay of today's "Talk of the Nation" on NPR, and listened in horror to the third segment about Virginia and Florida public schools lowering the standards for passing specific portions of their standardized tests based on race and disabilities.
That's right - according to the guests and the host, the states of Virginia and Florida have adjusted the percentages required for passing portions of their respective standardized tests based on the students' race.
According to the host and panelists, in order to pass the math portion on Virginia's standardized test, students must achieve the following scores:
Disabled - 33%
Black - 45%
Hispanic - 52%
White - 68%
Asian - 82%
So, just to be clear, in order to qualify for an exemption from the feckless and worthless No Child Left Behind legislation pushed by the Bush Jr. Administration, Virginia implemented an educational plan that revised the standards for kids based on race and background downwards...to boost their "success" rate.
Forgive me for being blunt, but, what the fuck is wrong with these people?
I can hardly be considered a conservative - I basically piss Socialism - but, we really need to go back to the standards we held even thirty years ago; further back would be better.
At the risk of sounding curmudgeonly, back when I was going to school, there was a policy of holding kids back when they failed to learn the requisite knowledge needed to move from one grade to the next. Today, kids are basically guaranteed a diploma at the age of 18, regardless of whether or not they have managed to retain even the most basic information about math, science, history, or language arts.
I understand that holding kids back almost always results in students getting frustrated with their educational experience and increases their risk of dropping out, but let's be honest - why cut them slack at the front end? As soon as they enter the world outside the hallowed halls of education, they enter onto a level playing field, and simply passing them along without ensuring they know at least the cursory bits of knowledge they will need to function as a member of adult society does them no favors. Furthermore, the threat of being held back and not graduating with one's peers and friends seemed to serve as a strong deterrent and at least some incentive to get their shit together, and work a little harder.
I get it - people learn in different ways, at different speeds, and may not retain information as easily as other students; this does not, however, mean that we should be lowering our standards of excellence just so they can feel good about themselves.
Pardon my cynicism, but there is simply too much "positive reinforcement" in the current educational experience. I don't care about their fragile self-images, their bruised egos, or their diminished feelings of self-worth, and frankly, neither will their future employees. In the real world, people don't give you pats of the back every time you put out the minimum amount of effort for mediocre results. If you put out a subpar product, you're likely to get your ass fired, and if you've never experience failure or been taught that mediocrity is not acceptable, you're going to be pretty fucking surprised when your boss hands you a pink slip.
Frequently blamed for our students' failure is that we don't have our educational system set up so that students receive a hands-on, one-to-one learning experience. Well, not for nothin', but shut the fuck up. That's why there are tutors. What is often needed is a good kick in the ass and the will to fail students.
Prior to the disaster that was and always has been Block Scheduling, students in high school took seven to eight courses a year for an entire year in order to give them enough time to learn and retain the information. Colleges and universities complained that incoming students weren't prepared for the longer class periods that higher education present them, and so the concept of Block Scheduling was plunked into the laps of America's public schools, leaving arts programs devastated, and students scrambling to learn the same amount of information in half the time.
Some will argue that the longer class periods gives students more time each day to retain information; in reality, it just means you spend longer period teaching the same skill set that you would in a shorter period, and eventually end up learning only 3/4 of the information once taught in a year-long course. If teachers spent the actual amount of time it took for their students to absorb the information, it naturally requires more time than a single semester provides.
Virginia's race-based test requirements is not a result of Affirmative Action; it's a result of race-based preferential treatment. So, black and Hispanic students are only required to learn half of the math as white and Asian students? White students should expect to learn only 68% of the information taught in a class?
Let's expand that to other aspects of life: if someone is a civil engineer, and they've only been required to score an 82% on their math exams in order to get their degree, would you trust them to design and build bridges? If a bridge was only 82% successful at getting travelers across, would you drive on it?
If we want to adequately address our educational shortcomings, we need to stop applauding mediocrity, rewarding tepid learning outcomes, and start spending however long it takes in order to make sure every student gets the information, even if that means holding students back until they learn the goddamned information. We need to stop doing our children a disservice by allowing them to progress to the next grade without learning the skills and information they should have acquired during the prior year.
That's right - according to the guests and the host, the states of Virginia and Florida have adjusted the percentages required for passing portions of their respective standardized tests based on the students' race.
According to the host and panelists, in order to pass the math portion on Virginia's standardized test, students must achieve the following scores:
Disabled - 33%
Black - 45%
Hispanic - 52%
White - 68%
Asian - 82%
So, just to be clear, in order to qualify for an exemption from the feckless and worthless No Child Left Behind legislation pushed by the Bush Jr. Administration, Virginia implemented an educational plan that revised the standards for kids based on race and background downwards...to boost their "success" rate.
Forgive me for being blunt, but, what the fuck is wrong with these people?
I can hardly be considered a conservative - I basically piss Socialism - but, we really need to go back to the standards we held even thirty years ago; further back would be better.
At the risk of sounding curmudgeonly, back when I was going to school, there was a policy of holding kids back when they failed to learn the requisite knowledge needed to move from one grade to the next. Today, kids are basically guaranteed a diploma at the age of 18, regardless of whether or not they have managed to retain even the most basic information about math, science, history, or language arts.
I understand that holding kids back almost always results in students getting frustrated with their educational experience and increases their risk of dropping out, but let's be honest - why cut them slack at the front end? As soon as they enter the world outside the hallowed halls of education, they enter onto a level playing field, and simply passing them along without ensuring they know at least the cursory bits of knowledge they will need to function as a member of adult society does them no favors. Furthermore, the threat of being held back and not graduating with one's peers and friends seemed to serve as a strong deterrent and at least some incentive to get their shit together, and work a little harder.
I get it - people learn in different ways, at different speeds, and may not retain information as easily as other students; this does not, however, mean that we should be lowering our standards of excellence just so they can feel good about themselves.
Pardon my cynicism, but there is simply too much "positive reinforcement" in the current educational experience. I don't care about their fragile self-images, their bruised egos, or their diminished feelings of self-worth, and frankly, neither will their future employees. In the real world, people don't give you pats of the back every time you put out the minimum amount of effort for mediocre results. If you put out a subpar product, you're likely to get your ass fired, and if you've never experience failure or been taught that mediocrity is not acceptable, you're going to be pretty fucking surprised when your boss hands you a pink slip.
Frequently blamed for our students' failure is that we don't have our educational system set up so that students receive a hands-on, one-to-one learning experience. Well, not for nothin', but shut the fuck up. That's why there are tutors. What is often needed is a good kick in the ass and the will to fail students.
Prior to the disaster that was and always has been Block Scheduling, students in high school took seven to eight courses a year for an entire year in order to give them enough time to learn and retain the information. Colleges and universities complained that incoming students weren't prepared for the longer class periods that higher education present them, and so the concept of Block Scheduling was plunked into the laps of America's public schools, leaving arts programs devastated, and students scrambling to learn the same amount of information in half the time.
Some will argue that the longer class periods gives students more time each day to retain information; in reality, it just means you spend longer period teaching the same skill set that you would in a shorter period, and eventually end up learning only 3/4 of the information once taught in a year-long course. If teachers spent the actual amount of time it took for their students to absorb the information, it naturally requires more time than a single semester provides.
Virginia's race-based test requirements is not a result of Affirmative Action; it's a result of race-based preferential treatment. So, black and Hispanic students are only required to learn half of the math as white and Asian students? White students should expect to learn only 68% of the information taught in a class?
Let's expand that to other aspects of life: if someone is a civil engineer, and they've only been required to score an 82% on their math exams in order to get their degree, would you trust them to design and build bridges? If a bridge was only 82% successful at getting travelers across, would you drive on it?
If we want to adequately address our educational shortcomings, we need to stop applauding mediocrity, rewarding tepid learning outcomes, and start spending however long it takes in order to make sure every student gets the information, even if that means holding students back until they learn the goddamned information. We need to stop doing our children a disservice by allowing them to progress to the next grade without learning the skills and information they should have acquired during the prior year.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Taking a Hard Line on Vaccination
In the past decade, we have seen several things - two un-winnable wars, the rise and fall of The Jersey Shore, a decrease in overall gun violence accompanied by a curious increase in mass-killing incidents involving firearms - the list is virtually neverending. We have also seen two curious and entirely unrelated increases that have somehow become related in the minds of the American public - the number of children being diagnosed with some form of autism and an increase in parents unwilling to vaccinate their children against disease.
I'm going to be honest, here, and say at the beginning of this piece that I believe the people who think their children are going to be stricken with autism as the result of vaccination are absolute morons; they're the modern day equivalent of the Catholic Church insisting that the world was both the center of the universe and was also flat.
I'll go even further to say that there's a part of me that hopes some sort of virulent plague is visited upon their families so that they learn their goddamned lessons.
I know, I know...that's harsh. But, as someone living with a compromised immune system who occasionally works with teens and young adults, I am watching out for me, first and foremost. Some will say, "But, Marcus, I believe that children are our future, and if God wanted them to get sick, who are we to stand in his way?" And to those people, I say, "Well, why don't you just go stick your children in a leper colony, and let me get on with staying alive?"
Like most diseases, Leprosy is entirely preventable, and in this instance, actually curable. In fact, there are a whole handful of preventable illnesses that have, for the most part, been largely eradicated on a global scale thanks to the modern medicine of the past fifty years. However, several diseases are no making a fantastic comeback in the U.S., and while that cannot be entirely blamed upon these idiot parents and their paranoia, they're certainly not doing anything to prevent the spreading of these diseases.
I get it - having a child with autism can be frustrating; but, a more realistic view of the situation actually reveals that how we define autism has broadened along with our understanding of the condition, leading to an increase in recognition, awareness, and diagnoses among children. Whether or not we're just starting to lump various behavioral patterns and previously overused diagnoses (such as ADD and ADHD) under the autism umbrella is not the point of this article; but, I digress.
Here's the truth - if you refuse to have your child vaccinated before they attend public school, that's your choice; it is not, however, the choice of other parents who live in the real world and don't want their children to get various childhood illnesses from your disease carrying human vermin.
The American school system is beleaguered enough by idiot parents who insist that teachers rear their children for them, so why should they be further burdened by even stupider parents who send their home brewed germ warfare into the classroom?
The time is nigh for the U.S. Department of Education to take a stand, and begin demanding that all children be immunized and vaccinated before being allowed to step foot into the school, even if that means footing the bill for it. The relative costs involved with paying for those vaccinations pales in comparison to the potential costs involved with caring for the blameless plague carriers when they end up in the hospital emergency rooms.
Yes, I'm aware that every child is guaranteed a K-12 education, and in many places is required to receive some form of education until the age of 16; but, that comes with strings attached, and should come with syringes in the social contract, as well.
I'm going to be honest, here, and say at the beginning of this piece that I believe the people who think their children are going to be stricken with autism as the result of vaccination are absolute morons; they're the modern day equivalent of the Catholic Church insisting that the world was both the center of the universe and was also flat.
I'll go even further to say that there's a part of me that hopes some sort of virulent plague is visited upon their families so that they learn their goddamned lessons.
I know, I know...that's harsh. But, as someone living with a compromised immune system who occasionally works with teens and young adults, I am watching out for me, first and foremost. Some will say, "But, Marcus, I believe that children are our future, and if God wanted them to get sick, who are we to stand in his way?" And to those people, I say, "Well, why don't you just go stick your children in a leper colony, and let me get on with staying alive?"
Like most diseases, Leprosy is entirely preventable, and in this instance, actually curable. In fact, there are a whole handful of preventable illnesses that have, for the most part, been largely eradicated on a global scale thanks to the modern medicine of the past fifty years. However, several diseases are no making a fantastic comeback in the U.S., and while that cannot be entirely blamed upon these idiot parents and their paranoia, they're certainly not doing anything to prevent the spreading of these diseases.
I get it - having a child with autism can be frustrating; but, a more realistic view of the situation actually reveals that how we define autism has broadened along with our understanding of the condition, leading to an increase in recognition, awareness, and diagnoses among children. Whether or not we're just starting to lump various behavioral patterns and previously overused diagnoses (such as ADD and ADHD) under the autism umbrella is not the point of this article; but, I digress.
Here's the truth - if you refuse to have your child vaccinated before they attend public school, that's your choice; it is not, however, the choice of other parents who live in the real world and don't want their children to get various childhood illnesses from your disease carrying human vermin.
The American school system is beleaguered enough by idiot parents who insist that teachers rear their children for them, so why should they be further burdened by even stupider parents who send their home brewed germ warfare into the classroom?
The time is nigh for the U.S. Department of Education to take a stand, and begin demanding that all children be immunized and vaccinated before being allowed to step foot into the school, even if that means footing the bill for it. The relative costs involved with paying for those vaccinations pales in comparison to the potential costs involved with caring for the blameless plague carriers when they end up in the hospital emergency rooms.
Yes, I'm aware that every child is guaranteed a K-12 education, and in many places is required to receive some form of education until the age of 16; but, that comes with strings attached, and should come with syringes in the social contract, as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)