asecondspinonpolitics - Tumblr blog

[asecondspinonpolitics]

On same-sex adoption

For adoption, arguments for or against certain types of adoption often have to do with family structure.

In the case of same sex adoption, what are the arguments against it? Why is it argued that same gender coupled families do not provide the same environment for children that opposite gender coupled families do?

Is there any other family structure that is arguably fairly similar in structure and has well-documented outcomes?

Single parent households.

Yes, it could be argued that single parent households have one big (and obvious) difference from same sex coupled households: they have one parent instead of two.

Yes, of course two parents are better than one. Just like two employees are better than one. You have twice the brainpower, two viewpoints rather than one, two people doing the household work rather than one, which yes, does leave more time for the children and makes for happier and less stressed parents. It allows to people who are able to emotionally support each other and able to better provide for their children financially, which also helps avoid the unfortunate case of children growing up in poverty. Also, they are demographically sometimes older, as some single mothers are young when they give birth, in the case of unplanned pregnancies.

Yet, here’s why I argue that same sex adopted couples are more similar to single parent households than opposite gendered households, and why we can still apply the same arguments used.

When we talk about the effects of single parenting, what do we do talk about? More than any other factor, the factor discussed is fatherless. We discuss poverty too, and other associated factors, but more than any other related factor we talk about fatherlessness.

So then, wouldn’t the same apply to same sex coupled households? Simply put, wouldn’t a lack of a father, or mother figure, be the first factor before any other?

Same sex couples may be very loving parents just as many single parents are. Yet it’s not enough to have the intention to be a good parent, we have to have effective methods as parents. We have to choose the best available means. In the case of single parents, they often don’t have a choice if the father (or mother) is not interested in being their partner (which would be necessary to be a full-time parent to their child), or, in the cases where it happens, cannot be a good parent, in the cases of abuse or neglect.

Children need both a father and a mother because men and women are different from each other and teach children different things. Fathers are stern, driving, and, when necessary, strict disciplinary parents. Mothers are patient, nurturing, kind parents and good listeners. Children need both to develop in the most healthy way possible.

[asecondspinonpolitics]

Why we should not have single payer health care, and why expanding Medicare to everyone is different from our current Medicare

Why shouldn’t our government expand Medicare to everyone if our people have long used and relied this program?

Well, Medicare is not currently the main healthcare insurance provider to our nation. If we were to expand it to everyone, it would become the main provider of payments for health care services.

Monopolies are always considered something to be avoided so much that we have strict anti-trust laws in place to stop them. Why no monopolies? Well of course since once anyone has a monopoly on something, they lose much of their accountability and the possibility of many consequences for failure to perform.

Take a look at the DMV. The lines are longer than any I’ve seen at almost any business, and people who work there can be gruff or even sometimes rude. Also, in New York State, I was charged when caught speeding simply for not telling the DMV that I changed addresses. I was charged because the address on my driver’s license was different from the one on my NYS registration. I’m sorry, DMV, that when I moved I didn’t think to call you. Also, in New York City, when my charge for a monthly subway pass-about $130 -didn’t get put on my card, it took about a month for my refund to process with the MTA.

Now, that’s only for our transportation. What if we apply that to our health care system which is infinitely more complex?

It’s true we’ve been using Medicare for quite a while. However, it’s never had a monopoly on anything, which means the free market has still been at work to control prices and allow for more options in healthcare.

It’s true that health care companies are motivated by profit. Yet they are also motivated by our legal system which frankly is much better at accountability for the private sector than the government sector when it has to do with finances. If the government is sued for failure to pay something they owe, they won’t have to announce that to their stockholders in their annual financial statements, and they can raise more revenue through taxes, fees, or fines.

Lastly, its true that our system still has high costs, which is unfortunate, but there are many things that cause that. The biggest driver is catastrophic health care coverage, which is to cover services that are for certain incidents, which are ones that tend to be very costly. For more information read Dr Ben Carson’s America the beautiful: rediscovering what made this nation great. There are other drivers as well though this is the largest one. The causes of the incredible rise in health care costs haven’t really been talked about, which we need to.

[asecondspinonpolitics]

Why we need voter ID laws even if it’s a hard decision

I’m going to talk about some difficult truths.

The laws in some states are that a photo ID is required, in some states it’s that you need an ID but not a photo ID, in some IDs are requested but not required. The argument against laws requiring IDs is that they are burdensome for people who do not have such identification.

Yes, it’s true there are people who don’t. It’s quite unfortunate but it’s true (as I read from someone who worked at a bank, a political commentator I respect, that people would try to open bank accounts and would have no ID or only one ID. Mind you that this is only for the people with only one ID, not none). This is in Mother Jones magazine, Are Voter ID Laws a Form of Racism? by Jeremiah Goulka

“All this held until one night in 2006. At the time, my roommate worked at a local bank branch, and that evening when we got into a conversation, he mentioned to me that the bank required two forms of identification to open an account. Of course, who wouldn’t? But then he told me this crazy thing: customers would show up with only one ID or none at all—and it wasn’t like they had left them at home.

“Really?” I said, blown away by the thought of it.

“Yeah, really.”

And here was the kicker: every single one of them was black and poor. As I’ve written elsewhere, this was one of the moments that opened my eyes to a broader reality which, in the end, caused me to quit the Republican Party.

I had no idea. I had naturally assumed—to the extent that I even gave it a thought—that every adult had to have at least one ID. Like most everyone in my world, I’ve had two or three at any given time since the day I turned 16 and begged my parents to take me to the DMV.”

So yes, it happens. However the question becomes whether this is unfair.

IDs are required to set up bank accounts and even to find jobs. These days there’s very few things you can do with a photo ID. Even if you don’t drive a car, there are other forms of state IDs you can get. How can a person not carry one form of ID? (Perhaps it’s unfair that banks require to forms of ID, but just one is not unreasonable).

It’s unfortunate that there are people who do not have identification cards but why don’t they? It is after all a great disadvantage to not have an ID. You cannot open a bank account without one. It’s true that they cost fees, perhaps even high fees. Yet the only alternative to cashing checks, including paychecks from work, in a bank account is to go to a place that offers to cash checks, and those services are expensive. The money spent on those services can instead go to paying for an ID.

Having a photo ID is a matter of personal responsibility. If an ID is required to open a bank account, get many jobs, and even to get government assistance benefits, why shouldn’t it be required to vote, which is really our most important process?

Also, have we considered that not having an ID can sometimes be a partial cause of poverty, rather than poverty causing a lack of having an ID? After all, if a person has been able to spend money on check cashing services if they don’t have a bank account (see above), couldn’t cause financial hardship for them? What if that person saved the money spent on those services to instead get a state ID? I suspect it has to do with instant payout: for someone on a low wage, it might cost a lot upfront to pay for a state ID. Yet the savings are worth it in the long run, to be able to open a bank account and not have to pay for check cashing services, and also possibly not have to buy VISA or Mastercard gift cards to use, or other types of payment cards if someone doesn’t have a bank account to open a debit card. Frankly, to also not lose spare cash in your pocket too and to not have to keep track of extra cash. Frankly I’m of the opinion no person should not have a bank account.

Frankly, I believe it’s just about every person’s responsibility to get a personal ID.

[asecondspinonpolitics]

Why don’t we hear more scientific arguments for allowing abortion?

You will know the strength of a position in a debate by seeing the strength of its argument.

On the issue of abortion, the arguments put forth by the side in favor of allowing it generally have to do with the rights of the mother, allowing women to make choices, and the difficulty that having an unplanned pregnancy would cause. I have heard a few stating that the fetus isn’t a fully developed person, but overall those have not been the main or frequent arguments used.

Yet, what the abortion issue should ultimately come down to is whether or not the fetus, scientifically, is a person and is developed enough for the abortion to constitute a killing (and the fetus at various stages, as some people support first and second trimester abortions while wanting restrictions for late term abortions). This should also be true even in the case of rape or incest, since the same action is being done to the fetus. Saying that exceptions should be allowed for rape and incest due to the burden caused to the mother and lack of control the mother had in the pregnancy happening is to use the logic of the ends justifying the means.

Yet those are generally (with some exceptions, like when I’ve heard the fetus referred to as a “bunch of cells”) not the arguments I’ve heard in favor of allowing abortion. Why not? It would definitely be a good political tactic, since proving all of your opponent’s arguments wrong would end the debate. It also addresses directly what an abortion itself does. Yet you rarely hear these arguments.

If you hear one side arguing based on the scientific facts of what an abortion is and does, and the other not doing so, which arguments have the facts?

[asecondspinonpolitics]

Transgenderism-what is the most compassionate response?

When we look at something we owe ourselves the truth. We owe everyone what is best for them.

This is especially true on the subject of transgenderism. We need to view the issue honestly and objectively and put aside any feelings we may have about it.

When we see someone making irreversible and profound changes to their body, don’t we need to ask ourselves questions?

Is this healthy? Are transitioning changes good for anyone? What will come of changing someone’s makeup in a way your body isn’t designed to? Also, what of someone being dependent on hormones for the rest of their life-what if one day an emergency happened and they temporarily ran out?

Also, are these people really in a good state of mind? After all, a classic sign of mental illness is believing something that isn’t true. Someone transgender is saying they are not what their body biologically is. Isn’t that a false belief? Also, what of the psychologists who consider it a mental illness? What of the fact that these people have a shockingly high suicide rate-one that can’t be explained by prejudice and bullying alone?

What also is the most optimistic answer to this? Is it really optimistic to say that transitioning is usually the answer? Or that feelings of discomfort with one’s gender at birth can be overcome through therapy, treatment for depression and related conditions (which I believe many of these people have as the suicide rate for people with gender disphoria is alarmingly high), and the belief that anything is possible.

Lastly what is the most self-accepting thing to do? Attempting to change one’s gender as given by biology, or trying to change one’s gender and therefore change a large part of oneself?

Compassion means thinking about what is really best for people. It can sometimes mean telling people they are wrong.

[asecondspinonpolitics]

Conservative minimum wage arguments

Conservative:

1) It will save a lot of taxpayer money. The Earned Income Tax Credit is given to supplement the annual income of low wage earners, as well as assistance benefits such as SNAP. Taxpayers money would be saved if low-income Americans received less of these due to being paid higher wages.

2) For reasons above, it would lessen the administrative burden of federal and state agencies, and make it easier to determine actual abuse of benefits.

1+2) Lean and efficient government! The Republican Party line!

Also, in general:

1) Having income supplemented by higher wages is also better for the poor. It is much easier and simpler for them to receive money directly than to need to apply for government benefits. Also, cash benefits can be spent on anything, not just food, etc.

2) I am sympathetic to arguments about small businesses ability to pay these wages. I see a supplement being possible to help pay for these.

3) It will boost the economy. Low-income people spend money more quickly than businesses and higher earners do. This creates demand, which businesses need to have an incentive to hire as hiring happens when businesses see a reason to grow.

An annual tax credit per number of employees not just making minimum wage but a number of other amounts, being gradated as wage amounts increased and phased out.

[asecondspinonpolitics]

When feminists didn’t stand up for women’s equality!

Yes, that title was supposed to be ironic. ;)

This post will reflect on arguments made in the 2012 election and that are still often made.

It was argued that a War on Women was being staged for a few reasons. For this I will focus on the issue of restrictions on abortion.

Laws attempting to be made restricting abortion were said to be one part of the war being waged on women.

It was said that men were making decisions for women about their own bodies.

So much so that Bill Nye the Science Guy got into the debate! He released a statement on the issue. His statement said, among others things, that “a lot of men of European descent (are) passing these extraordinary laws based on ignorance”.

Here is my joke, which will bring me to a serious point. Feminists, why were you saying that it was men making all the decisions?

I am trying to bring up a serious point about this. A few, actually:

1) Who said that men were making these decisions?

Support for, and opposition to, abortion in the United States is split pretty evenly by gender. About the same proportion of women as men are both in support of, but also in opposition to, abortion, with a few percentage points being given or taken.

This means that there were women who supported laws restricting abortion, women who elected leaders in favor of these laws, even women among our elected leaders voting in favor of these bills!

I am being serious about sexism, all joking aside. Why should it have been framed in terms of men being the ones who were passing these laws? Opposition to abortion is pretty evenly split by gender. I only wonder if it can even be a form of unintentional bias to say that it was men deciding on the issue of abortion. It may be possible, it’s always good for anyone to be aware of this, as everyone is suspectible to it.

*I understand that this was argued due to it being mostly male lawmakers passing these bills, due to men comprising an overwhelming majority of most of our legislative bodies. However, it is not only men who do so, and women voters make up half of everyone who voted for them! I did feel we need to listed to their voices as well, and remember that some women are always opposed to abortion.

2) It was often asked how a man can tell a woman what to do with her body. While abortion supporters may not agree with it, men should equally be allowed to be opposed to abortion.

Yes, a man will never have to face the choice of how to handle an unwanted pregnancy. Yes, he is deciding to have a law passed that can never impact him directly. It is also a very personal matter difficult for one to fully appreciate.

However, this is not something that he can control. Asking how a man can decide this for a woman, or even saying that men should not make this decision for women, almost seems to imply that only women can have a voice on this issue or should be involved on the issue of abortion. I cannot speak to whether those who say this really mean that men should not become involved in the issue of abortion. However, the question “How can a man make that decision for women?” would seem to logically follow that a man really shouldn’t be making this decision. Perhaps this isn’t meant to imply this, but this statement taken literally would seem to imply this.

The important point is that men should and do have equal importance in this debate.

Something important to realize is that someone saying this may be approaching the situation using their own logic. A common argument is that a decision on what to do in the case of a pregnancy can’t be made by anyone not directly involved because of how personal it is. Based on this logic, a man -but also no one else, for that matter anyway-should not be allowed to make this decision.

However those against abortion see it differently. While understanding the personal nature of a pregnancy, they see what they would consider a life to be what ultimately decides whether abortion should be allowed.

3) Framing opposition to abortion as being against women seems to leave out room for both women to be opposed to abortion while still being pro-woman, as well as not hearing the voices of women.

It is possible to be a feminist and be against abortion.

anewpoliticalspin

[asecondspinonpolitics]

Why support for abortion is regressive and not progressive

One argument I’ve heard in support of abortion is that change is usually good, and that strict opposition to abortion is outdated and regressive.

I would invite us to step back and look at the big picture.

Unfortunately, we, and especially as Americans with our history, have become conditioned to see all social change as progressive and positive. Human history has generally, though not always, through time continually evolved to becoming more enlightened, humane, and tolerant. Slavery was outlawed, segregation ended, and women gained the right to vote. Thus, with abortion having previously been illegal and looked down upon by society, social change has now caused it to become legalized and more widely accepted.

It is also tempting to view restriction on abortion as strict or narrow-minded. Becoming more allowing or tolerant of certain things is generally seen as a positive.

Change is not always good, however.

Think of all of history, and think of a continuing, logical, sliding scale.

We know that in ancient Rome and other ancient societies, newborn babies, if they were deformed or a burden, were often left to die.

We of course see this as the depravity of the period, and see how much more enlightened as society we are.

As we progress, shouldn’t we progressively end more forms of the ending of life?

First we put an end to the ending of life after birth, shouldn’t we put an end to the ending of life in the third trimester, then the second trimester, and then the first trimester? Until the ending of life is not allowed?

Think of it this way too, if support for abortion is progressive, wouldn’t it be more progressive to be more permissive with it? Wouldn’t it be increasingly more progressive to allow it at even later stages of pregnancy, up until almost before birth?

Yet we balk at the idea of allowing very late-term abortions. While some on the pro-choice side support abortion at all stages, most generally consider there to be some point at which it should no longer be allowed.

A few more arguments:

1) It is often said, “yes, abortion is a terrible thing to do, but (it is a burden upon a mother, the child will live in poverty, etc)”.

Before many moral transgressions, we will often say to ourselves, “I know this may not be a perfect thing to do, but….(it fits some purpose)”. We will often justify or rationalize our actions.

This has become a way of making the ends justify the means.

2) To put it honestly, it is considerably easier to be in support of abortion than in opposition to.

It is burdensome to have to decide what to do with an unexpected child. Will the child be given for adoption? Will the mother have to care for it?

For me personally, it is one of the most difficult issues I’ve ever had to think about. I wish no one ever had to face the dilemma of how to handle an unexpected pregnancy.

Abortion seems like an easier answer.

3) The right answer, morally, is always the harder one.

“We must all face the choice between what is right and what is easy.”

[asecondspinonpolitics]

Criticism is not a denigrater, but a great equalizer of cultures

Ayaan Hirsi Ali spent her life in much of North Africa and the Middle East before seeking asylum in the Netherlands and experiencing Western culture. After living in Holland, she was able to compare her newfound experiences to the culture she experienced, which she believes was shaped by Islam and had practices which could be reasonably traced to its religious texts. She explained how an unwillingness to criticize cultures other than ones one can at times can be a subtle form of the same bigotry it seeks to avoid:

“I cannot emphasize enough how wrongheaded this is. Withholding criticism and ignoring differences are racism in its purest form. Yet these cultural experts fail to notice that, through their anxious avoidance of criticizing non-Western countries, they trap the people who represent these cultures in a state of backwardness. The experts may have the best of intentions, but as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

“People accuse me of having interiorized a feeling of racial inferiority, so that I attack my own culture out of self-hatred, because I want to be white. This is a tiresome argument. Tell me, is freedom then only for white people? Is it self-love to adhere to my ancestors’ traditions and mutilate my daughters? To agree to be humiliated and powerless? To watch passively as my countrymen abuse women and slaughter each other in pointless disputes? When I came to a new culture, where I saw for the first time that human relations could be different, would it have been self-love to see that as a foreign cult, which Muslims are forbidden to practice?”

Let me first say that I do not believe this is always applicable. I can see a few reasons why some can be hesitant to criticize cultures with traditions heavily rooted in Islam.

First, Islamophobia is actually somewhat real, in certain situations. While not all criticism of Islam is bigotry, there has been some in clear forms. Why else was an adamant ban on allowing Syrian refugees into the United States a central tenet of Donald Trump’s platform? Why were these immigrants called “Muslim immigrants”? (By the way, they aren’t even Muslim immigrants. Only some of them are Muslim. That’s not being politically correct, that’s factual correctness).

Criticism of Islam has, at times, been a way of disguising actual denigration of a certain people.

Second, even with the best of our intentions, calling a culture completely inferior to our own can lead us to a point of looking down on its people and seeing them as fundamentally different from us.

Despite these objections, however, criticism of other cultures does not have to be a denigrater and can actually become a great equalizer of cultures.

One, when we are afraid to criticize another culture for fear of prejudice, it can really be a fear of reminding or reinforcement of our own prejudice. This is not conscious, however, generally. How this happens is that we intuitively think of our own ways of thinking, and the criticism can sound similar to our own prejudices, even if this not what the criticism really is.

Think of that fact that we generally possess a willingness to criticize other Western cultures, cultures similar to ours. In our present day, there can be a sentiment against people of Arab descent in the nation of Israel. This is discussed as a problem. Within the last century, apartheid by Afrikaans was not only a flawed governmental system but showed the beliefs often found in that nation in that time period.

When we discuss these problems, we do not see our criticism of problems in those culture as indicative of our prejudice against that culture. This is, truthfully, because it is rare that we possess prejudice against cultures similar to ours-it is cultures different from ours that we often have prejudices against. Therefore, our own prejudices do not unconsciously come to mind when we criticize these cultures. It is when we criticize other cultures, ones with practices more likely to be different from our own, that we have thoughts of prejudice.

Therefore, if we have a willingness to criticize another culture, this can actually show that we are not afraid of entanglement with our own prejudices, and understand that criticism is possible without prejudice existing.

Second, unwillingness to criticize cultures different from ours can be rooted in unconscious prejudice that sees that culture as too different for us to compare to ours/ 

Thirdly, it means we are holding all cultures to equal standards.

To employ a parallel. Criticism of our own culture means that we hold it to ethical standards, and an expectation that our culture values human dignity and is capable of reforming itself when unethical beliefs or practices gain support.

So criticism of another culture can means the same. That we believe it’s people have the ability be able to recognize an unethical belief of practice within their own culture, and more importantly be able to reform it.

p.s. Another thing worth noting is that some of our grandparents may supported what we now understand to be segregation. Despite this, we have the understanding that they were people like us, and with moral beliefs. We also believed they had the ability to overcome the misguided beliefs they had, which many did. It may be possible to employ this as somewhat of a parallel to the treatment of women in many non-Western cultures.

[asecondspinonpolitics]

Why has there been silence on the persecution of Christians in the Middle East and North Africa?

There is one issue on which conservatives have largely won on the side of recognizing and addressing injustice. Which injustice? The persecution of Christians in the Middle East and North Africa.

I think this addresses what, I think, can at times be three of some of the common Achilles’ heels of modern progressivism:

1) Viewing groups from the angle of oppressed vs non-oppressed, even when an “oppressed” class actually does not have the moral high ground in terms of actions. Or viewing issues in terms of where it is easier to feel sympathy. A few ways this has manifested before:

a) In the shooting of Michael Brown, in all likelihood the officer seemed to have taken justifiable action in self-defense. Liberals seemed to largely ignore the fact that Michael Brown grabbed a weapon from a police officer…largely a threat on his own life. What other reason would there be for taking such an action? Such an action is clearly grounds for someone’s life to be in jeopardy.

While the officers actions may not have been perfect (and I will leave that open for debate), in terms of moral high ground, Michael Brown arguably committed a much worse offense.

However, Michael Brown was an African-American (a group that truthfully, is often targeted if not intentionally by law enforcement), and unarmed. Darren Wilson was armed, Caucasian, and an officer. It was a situation of police confrontation in which African-Americans are often the victims of unfair bias at a critical time.

Not in this case, though.

The facts were often overlooked because one party to the situation appeared to belong to a group often oppressed or appeared to have less power in the situation.

b) The aftermath of this and many other confrontations. After rioting happened, the reaction was often “we shouldn’t be concerned that riots happened, we should be asking why these people feel pushed to commit the acts they did (rioters)”. Specifically, that African-Americans have felt pushed to commit acts of vandalism due to their oppressed treatment. I even saw one article entitled “Why I don’t condemn rioting, burning, and looting: I understand black rage”.

Frankly, I think it’s insulting to people to suggest they can’t be held accountable to their actions. It’s basically saying, “they didn’t know any better”.

It was seeing this through the lens of oppression, even when the rioters were actually the oppressors in that case.

c) The 2014 conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. With the exception of Fox News, most news media would show footage of Palestinians deaths by Israeli airstrikes but with limited, or no, discussion of either the reason why Israel was instigating airstrikes at all - the initial threats against Israel-or the tactics often used by Hamas, that of the use of human shields, which was much more to blame for the deaths of Palestinians themselves than actions by Israel.

Rarely was Hamas’ attempts at indiscriminate slaughter of civilians brought up (as opposed to Israeli’s attempts to avoid civilians), or the facts that it uses its own citizens as human shields to both gather support and make attacking their targets more difficult for Israel with civilians in the way.

When footage was shown of a school, or hospital, being hit, yes, it was heart-breaking. However, should it be asked why Israel was striking schools and hospitals?

Hamas purposely stores weapons near civilian schools, hospitals, etc, so that Israel will either hit these places, killing civilians and garnering bad press, or avoid hitting them. Either way, it clearly places civilians in harms way, unnecessarily.

Israel’s actions were also in the defensive.

Why was this so? It may have been because of the fact that Israel was the successor in the attack, that that those actually killed were generally Palestinians. Palestine is also a largely poor, and (truthfully) oft-discriminated against territory.

It became easier to focus on which side had had more damage done to it, than which side had committed a higher moral transgression. Even though there were many Palestinian victims by Israeli strikes, it was worth nothing that Hamas was the truly culpable party

Having compassion is important, but moral discernment and correct analysis and verdict of the situation was necessary as well.

2) An sometimes unwillingness to discuss difficult topics to avoid offense.

3) An unconscious prejudice revealed through having a lower expectation of certain people

Think of it this way. When we are not critical of drop-out rates in an inner city high school, is it possible that subtly, and often unconsciously, we may be saying we don’t expect better of the poor? That they don’t know any better?

The Israeli-Palestinian standoff of 2014 may have also shown this too. Could it be that we don’t expect better of people from developing countries, so we don’t react when we see them committing terrorist acts? We hold a developed, Western country, to higher standards because as such we expect of it.

How does this apply to persecution of Christians in the Middle East?

1) When we think of Christians, we think of wealthy, Western people, that constitute a majority. When we think of Muslims, we tend to think of a poor, oppressed, minority group. This is really unintentional, but our intuition is powerful. Thus, we become accustomed to thinking of Muslims as belonging to an oppressed class (which we should not anyway, as people should not be placed n groups anyway). Due to our unconscious categorizations, we generally think of one group as the traditionally oppressed group, and one as the group that is less oppressed, or even sometimes oppresses themselves. When we view a group as the oppressed on, we do not criticize it as much or see it as capable of being the oppressors themselves.

We’re also used to associating the religion of Christianity with persecution and intolerance itself, be it the Crusades, burnings at the stake, or the Salem Witch Trials. This is the intuitive thinking we have, and so when it is reversed, when Christians are instead being persecuted, it seems counterintuitive.

2) In order to state that it is specifically Christians being killed, it has to be argued that there is a reason having to do with their Christian belief that they are being killed. Why is Christian belief being opposed? What motivates opposition to it?

In order to be able to identify exactly what is happening, the motives of those doing the persecution have to be identified. What are their motives?

Aside from whether it is justifiable based on the texts of the Quran or the rationalization of a few, this is what the motives of those attacking Christians are.

Christians are, by those seeking to persecute them, being labelled as unbelievers, or apostates, those who have left the faith, if they were once practitioners of Islam. In fact, it is not only Christians experiencing this, but other religious minorities as well, such as those of the Bahá'í faith. Christians happen to be the largest group experiencing this in that part of the world.

The appearance (even if not actually stating so) of implying Islam as being an inspiration towards violence, opening the door to speaking about Muslims as a group or anti-Muslim prejudice, is something progressives want to avoid. Yet it is necessary to state that, if not necessarily correct Islamic belief, that the interpretation of Islam used by those committing these actions is the reason why this is occurring, and would not be occurring to Christians specifically otherwise.

It is true that the Bible was used to justify the Salem Witch Trials, whether or not this could be considered accurate interpretation of the faith. For a history book to not include this would left out a basic explanation of why those executed were accused of witchcraft.

As a side note, only to mention this in context, I consider myself to be a Christian, and would still want the Salem Witch Trials to be fully explained by history books.

3) Do we have a subtle prejudice against people of poorer, non-Western, less educated nations? That we don’t see them being as advanced as us, so we don’t expect advanced behavior of them (even though we should)?

If we see people as being like us, we told them to the same standards we do. We would expect them to act the way we would act, and hold them accountable when they don’t.

Do we not see peoples of developing nations as being like us? As such, do we not have as high expectations of their behavior?

Is this a failure for us to hold the Middle Eastern, and North African world, accountable? Is this a result of our own prejudices? That we expect incivility from these nations, and so don’t react when it occurs there?

We should expect the same civility we would expect of other Western nations.

It’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what motivates our behavior, when its based largely on intuitive and unconscious thinking. These are helpful places to start, however.

[asecondspinonpolitics]

Criticism of culture is not evidence of prejudice, it’s discussion of fact

When discussing any particular problem, it is important to identify it accurately and discover its root.

Is it possible that certain problems are specific and contextual to one culture.

Consider the 1960′s Civil Rights Movement. The anti-black prejudice was somewhat unique to American culture as well as Western cultures, and generally did not exist outside of Western culture. Western cultures had long adopted a racialized system of supremacy. It would not have been accurate to say that it was a problem that generally existed in all cultures, as it happened to be a problem unique to one culture.

There are problems that could be said to be unique to, or at least pronounced in, American culture. The same can be true in other Western cultures. In the nation of Israel there exists a problem of prejudice towards people of Arab ethnicity. It is unique to that part of the world, that particular conflict and issue. Is there discussion of the peoples of Europe, or African, having opposition to Palestinians? There isn’t because that is not where the problem exists, and it does not need to be addressed in other parts of the world. It becomes a part of how the problem is defined.

Some problems are unique to cultures.

In the past, foot-binding of women was a problem in medieval China. That one particular problem existed in Chinese culture, and while other cultures had their own particular problems, foot-binding was an issue that did not need to be addressed.

In the past, much of present day India had sati, the burning of widows, and the Hindu caste system. While other cultures had their own particular problems, those practices just did not exist in that specific form in other cultures.

Restrictions of women’s rights, as well as honor culture, presents itself in a unique form in much of the Middle Eastern world. While it may be difficult to discuss in those terms, an accurate and specific discussion of certain practices such as the necessity of a male relative granting permission for a woman to leave a household, or honor killings, or other restrictions upon some women, would explain that these specific practices exist in certain regions of the world, although other practices against women exist in other parts of the world in other forms.

In describing problems, it is necessary for us to be factual and accurate to be able to have an effective approach to them.

anewpoliticalspin

[asecondspinonpolitics]

“Separation of church and state”-when defined the way it sometimes is, can’t exist

“Separation of church and state”, as it is often defined, not necessarily as it was originally intended, has become an assumed fabric of our public debates. It is assumed that the Constitution supports what is called “separation of church and state”, and so therefore laws with any basis in any religious teaching or belief must be unconstitutional. (I use quotes for a reason. This is because I will explain the terms common usage. The original term originated from a late 18th-century treaty, and was a first attempt at usage of the establishment clause).

Mike Huckabee said it best when he said that “Politics are totally directed by worldview. That’s why when people say, ‘We ought to separate politics from religion,’ I say to separate the two is absolutely impossible.”

I’m not saying we should disregard the Constitution. The establishment clause was added to the U.S. Constitution for very good reasons. Our ancestors came here to escape being persecuted and even killed for belonging to the wrong church. Before the Constitution was written, members of certain religious sects were not allowed to practice their faith or hold public office. This was active discrimination, and the First Amendment was a very progressive step taken to end it. Now, in the 21st century, however, and the establishment clause is often taken too far away from its intended purpose. It was added to guarantee all citizens basic civil rights regardless of their religious beliefs, as well as freedom of religion. In recent times, however, the First Amendment is being distorted to try to take away one form of freedom of religion that should never be taken away.

What is this freedom? The freedom to vote based on faith. The establishment clause often it is used out of context to promote what many refer to as “separation of church and state”. This separation is defined as keeping religious beliefs from having any influence in political debates or lawmaking. The Supreme Court has also used the phrase in certain cases, but using a more Constitutional definition. The implied definition of common usage attempts to completely separate religion from politics and is something else entirely.

What does the establishment clause actually say, anyway? The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. How would a law “respect an establishment of religion”? When originally written, it was clear that the clause was not added to keep religion entirely out of politics, but to ensure that organized religious institutions or sects did not have official federal power and were not able to deny citizens basic rights based on religious affiliation. The clause specifically stated “an establishment of religion”, not religion in general. In fact, many of the Founding Fathers actually wanted religious beliefs to play an active role in the political atmosphere of the new nation!

I find it unlikely it would be their intention, as it is entirely impracticable. It expects a significant portion of our country to separate something that shapes their perspective on every other aspect of their lives from their political perspective. It is almost impossible to do: if someone’s entire worldview is shaped by religious belief, how can that person completely alter their view and filter out their belief from their political view? Think of it this way: Imagine that you believe in justice as a philosophical tenet fundamental to all human interaction? Would you be able to filter that out in a debate about the death penalty, or criminal justice reform?

The counter argument arising from this seems to be obvious, however. Even if not un-Constitutional, doesn’t such a separation seem necessary and self-evident for a functioning democracy? America is a very pluralistic society, so the argument does, and so a democracy for all people should contain laws applicable to all people. Americans have a wide variety of religious beliefs, and some do not have any at all, so citizens should keep their beliefs private and not bring them into the public arena. Based upon this, it is argued that no laws should be passed that have a basis in religious belief, as it will never be shared by all. Instead, for general practicality, reasoning and argument that would be evident to all should be used as underpinning for policy.

Let us challenge the assumption underpinning this, namely that there is one framework of belief upon which we would otherwise be able to base debate on. At the heart of many issues is both personal and moral or ethical belief. The practice of law applied universally has it its foundation the premise that ethics are universal. Yet not only are our religious beliefs pluralistic, so are moral beliefs! Democracy is not based upon finding unanimous and uncontroversial consensus. Voters have different personal and moral beliefs surrounding abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty, war, drug legalization, and a variety of other issues for both religious and non-religious reasons. Politics by nature is controversial, and many laws are an imposition of personal or moral belief not shared by all.

Many recent debates have involved differing beliefs on ethics or values. Some do not consider it immoral for a business to deny performance of a service at a same-sex marriage ceremony. Some do not consider it immoral for Catholic organizations, or businesses in general, to not provide birth control as a part of their health care packages to employees. Some do not consider it immoral for drug stores to not provide Plan B morning-after pills (as they may be required to by law, despite their personal beliefs). These have all been recent debates. Curiously, also, in these particular examples, a secular morality is actually imposed on the religious! It is the religious arguing that beliefs they do not share are being imposed on their lives!

Those who promote that separation approach it from their own perspective, that religious belief is not necessary or binding, or at least not seen as objective truth. The examples that probably come to mind of why “separation of church and state” should apply would probably be laws such as: It being deemed illegal to purchase non-Kosher goods. Laws requiring businesses to remain closed on Sunday. Illegality of the depiction of the prophet Mohammad. These laws may not seem applicable to us, primarily because they are (often) beliefs that we don’t personally see reason for, even if we grant others the option to follow them.

However, someone could argue for laws that do not seem to make sense on entirely different grounds. It could be argued that the color blue should be outlawed! This could be argued for entirely non-religious reasons. Yet it shows how we see some religious beliefs, and one reason why it is argued that religion cannot have place in politics. If we were honest, is it because we may see religious belief, as opposed to other belief systems, as not making sense to us or as sometimes containing arbitrary rules?

Another way of challenging this view would be if we changed the image we have of religious belief. What about the belief that God cares for the poor, and so we should have a social safety net because of it? Or that God is a god of mercy, and so suspected terrorists should be granted Constitutional rights and given trial? Would those beliefs have merit for public policy? Can we see how religious belief can be universally applicable?

If someone were to argue to me that kosher goods should be made illegal, I would argue against that. I would not argue that the ideas espoused by these movements should not be heard. The argument of “separation of church and statement” often is a means of silence. It intends to silence any mention of religion in politics (which is actually an imposition in many ways). I would argue against the imposition of the law, again, based on my own moral beliefs that it is acceptable to eat non-Kosher food, or at least a practice that should be allowed. As I would with a law I disagreed with that had purely secular reasoning behind it. I would not argue against it, however, purely on the basis that it had a basis in religious belief.

Lastly, if someone with a political stance that has at least some basis in religion wishes to convince a secular audience, it makes sense to also use secular arguments. This may for practical purposes be the best approach. However, it is impossible for many in our nation to have solely secular reasons behind their arguments.

[asecondspinonpolitics]

We send far too many people to college-here’s why we do it and how to fix it

When people say that someone “didn’t go to college”, it can sometimes, actually have a stigma attached to it. Yes, really.

“That’s what happens when you don’t go to college”

“Well, he never went to college”

“Well, she never went to college”

It’s practically become a right of passage in our society, to be honest.

JP Sears, a popular YouTube comedian, did a brilliant satirical video on Why You’re an Absolute Idiot if You Don’t Go to College.

A few paraphrased gems:

“Most people don’t go to college, everyone goes to college”

“There is no chance you will be a success if you don’t go to college.”

“You will end up broke and homeless if you don’t go to college.” (Extreme, I know)

“30 years ago, a college degree set you apart, so it must still be true today”

https://youtu.be/8utmmWoBSBY

As with all satire, it might sound ridiculous, but it’s essential truth is taken from real life.

This video loosely echoed exactly what I was told, explicitly or implicitly, by high school teachers, parents, and role models.

These days, most people at least go to community college and many get four year degrees. Yet so many are in deep debt and find jobs after that you don’t need a college degree for.

Why is this? You’re expected to go to college. It’s ingrained and often a spoken or unspoken expectation.

When I visited one college, I we were showed an article that showed the supposed difference between what a college graduate makes vs a high school graduate. “How can you afford not to go to college?”

The message: college wasn’t optional. You had to go. You would not be successful financially without college.

We were showed by our high school teacher how much more college graduates ostensibly made (I’ll get to ostensibly), and told “make sure you get a college education”. Mind you, he did not say, “you might want to”. He stated “you must get a college education.”

Yet, is college really that promising when everyone goes to college? After all, if everyone in our class followed his advice and all high school students followed what a lot of their teachers tell them, they would all go to college. How would that work out?

We’ve seen it already. People going to college and coming back home from school working as bank tellers or store cashiers, jobs very unrelated to your classes. Students with mountains of debt not worth the price because it doesn’t yield the type of high paying job that pays off that level of debt.

So why do we do it? We’re told to. Why are we told to?

Evidence says it’s partially rooted in taking what was true in one past scenario and assuming it will be true in another. One-size-fits-all thinking. In years past, a college degree usually led to success as the degree itself was of some benefit, if someone chose a major of practical usage such as science, engineering, law, or education, then it was used in good’s career, and the credentials also gave you access to a good entry-level position to start out with. It also led to success because a minority of people went, and those who went were often the most driven of their peer group. However now that most people go that benefit is in some ways lost, as people with less degree-related career ambitions go and as the people going tend to be less distinguished-sometimes much less so-because more of our population goes.

My experience also gives me a very strong belief that it’s actually partially rooted classism and prejudice as well. We are taught that college education makes someone an educated person. It was meant to show intelligence. Frankly, I think there is a certain stigma against many working class jobs.

People who get certain low-paying jobs did so because they “didn’t go to college”. I heard this so many times growing up, referring to people working certain jobs, “that’s what happens when don’t go to college”. The implication: you should go to college, and will probably be judged if you don’t. My high school English teacher told us our summer jobs would be great for some of us as they would encourage us to go to college to avoid working some of those jobs. Oh really, what about people stuck working those jobs? They need to be filled too.

We place a subtle but powerful judgment on people who don’t have degrees.

Anyone should be deserving of respect even if they didn’t go to college.

By the way, what decides if someone should go to college? I believe practicality. Some majors have a very practical purpose. Or, some are greatly of interest to people (if you love creative writing, or philosophy, by all means go ahead even if it won’t be your job). I am an accountant. The work I do is impossible without college classes in accounting. I would never know whether a liability paid off should be debited or credited.

Majors like accounting, engineering, science, nursing, and computer science are clearly practical. Graduate degrees like education, law and medicine are clearly practical. If you want to be a teacher, you’d better be a math, science, history, or English major so you know what to tell your students. If none of this applies to you, if you want to be a bank teller or store manager, go get some practical business experience. If you want to be a plumber, go to trade school.

Be practical, don’t do it because you’re told to do it.

So what should our society at large do?

I would strongly urge employers to remove four-year degree requirements from jobs that do not require the expertise gained from college classes. If college itself, apart from the actual knowledge in the field, doesn’t prepare you for a job (frankly I don’t think it generally does if unrelated to the field), why do you need people who went college? Be ready also to hire eighteen-year-olds right out of high school. They will gain four years of practical experience that they would have made a trade off for at college.

I want a cultural upheaval.

P.s. Another aspect is that time spent in college translates to lost earnings from not working (about $80,000 actually, on the salary a typical entry level person makes. This is my own reckoning, I didn’t look this up), and to fewer years of practical experience. That only means the costs, besides tuition and maybe room and board, have to be seriously weighed with benefits. Don’t take that decision lightly.

[asecondspinonpolitics]

#freefromthejockstrap

Read this and you’ll understand what I’m really saying (it’s a joke).

Want to know a serious injustice faced by men everyday in our culture, and required by non-consenting minors in public schools? The jockstrap is required by all public schools for boys, mostly under the age of 18, too old to even consent, and then also required for those 18 year olds who are legally adults and should be allowed to make their own decisions! Once you graduate high school, it’s expected of you to play any sport with, save for bowling. Try going without one, and you’ll be humiliated to the point of no return. Plus, they have hard plastic and even metal cups for your manly parts, how is that comfortable?

Oh, yet women don’t have to. Pre-adult girls aren’t forced to by government schools either. Oh, the gross inequality! Oh, wait, isn’t there some reason why? Our society wouldn’t really give people different treatment without reason to-would it?

It’s done because men have body parts that are severely harmed if hit too hard, and women don’t. Oh, yes, it’s natural biology.

Yet there are people campaigning for something that ignores basic biology. The free the nipple campaign, which even had parades (some topless, where legal already!) in New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington, DC,  Denver, CO, and Minneapolis, MN, (not just happening in the coastal cities with the strongest left leanings, huh?).

Yes. this has to do with a body part being sexualized (cultural) rather than biologically prone to harm if not careful. However women have one additional body part that causes sexual arousal in our culture. Yes, a few culturals (and these cultures are in hot climates by the way) do not see breasts as sexual and allow women to be topless. Yet that takes years upon years of programming. What would we have to do to achieve that in our culture? Have every woman in the United States decide to go topless for about 6 months straight (which is only my wild guess), even in the cold weather.

So, yes, the reason for this “inequality” is a fact of human biology coupled with hard-wiring that is impossible to remove unless we were to live under inhuman conditions. Just like the “inequality” males face having to where jockstraps, and by law for boys in public schools who need gym class to graduate.

If you want to complain about having to wear a bra and shirt, then I dare you to complain about having to wear jockstraps. Then maybe you’ll say, “wait, it’s because they have different anatomies”.

Well, yes they do.

Also, men’s bodies are sexualized just as women’s are. Men cannot go in public without bottoms, and they’ll be criminally charged for it too. The only difference is that women have one additional body part that has to be covered. Just like men have one body part that has to be covered with a jockstrap that women don’t have.

These protests also sexualize women’s bodies, the opposite of what the purported aim is, which is to end the sexualization of them. What is parading shirtless, really doing? We can’t change our culture as regards to what sexually stimulates men, so all this is doing is making men see women in an arousing way even more and more, and calling attention to breasts. Is that what we really want?

Lastly this will draw attention away from true women’s issues (like differential treatment that still exists today), and demeans the true difficulty and unequal treatment women sometimes face because of their gender.

Since this was the question....

I saw a rally photo showing a topless woman and topless man asking, what’s the difference?

That’s your answer....simple anatomy.

If you wondered, yes this has still had traction. If it wasn’t for COVID-19 then I’m sure they would have had the parade again this year.

P.S. You know why I can’t stand this above all things? It trivializes the real hardships and mistreatment women still face, like being less credited in the workplace, not being listen to, mansplained, domestic violence victims, and others. It’s insulting to any real hardship to complain about having to be clothed in public.

#freethenipple #freefromthejockstrap

[asecondspinonpolitics]

Allegations of cultural appropriation are divisive-and stem from prejudice, instead of opposing it

Adele caused controversy for being “dressed in a Jamaican bikini top, yellow feathers and tie-dye leggings, with her hair in Bantu knots- a popular African hairstyle, also known as ‘chiney bumps’ in Jamaica.” 

Justin Timberlake is controversial with some (as was noted in a Cosmopolitan article-a very mainstream, far reaching magazine!) for wearing cornrows, bandanas, and large diamond earrings. Some think it’s cultural appropriation-I guys we’re allowed to ban white guys from wearing certain things, huh?

In 2017 a UN committee met after being prompted by indigenous groups in order to discuss making cultural appropriation illegal (well, I guess let’s say goodbye to freedom of expression)! It was not successful.

I used to think that borrowing the another of another person or group was always a compliment!

Exactly why should an idea, a fashion, a way of talking, a way of acting, a custom, only belong to one group? If it’s something that’s a good idea, why not use it? Isn’t imitation the sincerest form of flattery? I thought that melting pots were a great thing-didn’t our nation pride itself on being the largest melting pot in history?

By the way, Elvis Presley is credited by historians for helping bridge a black-white divide in music by dancing in singing in a lot of ways that African-Americans back then did in a way other musicians weren’t willing to. I wonder if it was seen as a compliment back then-I bet it was. Nowadays, some take it as an insult.

When we see people as our brothers and sisters then we want to share with and even sometimes imitate them instead of-well, frankly, distancing ourselves by saying we should not do the things they do, when we believe those things pertain to us and not them.

Quoting from an article: “But, says the EverydayFeminism website, that’s not the whole story. Unlike cultural exchange, in which there is a mutual interchange, appropriation refers to a ‘particular power dynamic in which members of a dominant culture take elements from a culture of people who have been systematically oppressed by that dominant group’.” (Source: https://www.theweek.co.uk/cultural-appropriation?amp)

This is group-identity politics at work. There is lack of a sense of personal accountability too, and a victim mentality as well. Why am I, if I have no responsibility for what either my ancestors, or, in modern day, people of my race, country, culture, or whatever other sociological group it might be, have done, restricted in my choices for something I have no responsibility for personally? Why am I labeled into a group instead of being allowed to be an individual?

As for the members of a dominant culture taking elements from a culture of people who have been systematically oppressed by that dominant group,  why would that be a bad thing? So be it if one group was the traditionally-or even currently- dominant group-why should anyone from that group have less right to imitate another culture because of a group status? I’m not personally responsible for what my ancestors-or certain people from my culture-have done. In fact, these things can help alleviate these tensions that exist, since we usually only imitate things we respect.

These accusations of cultural appropriation divide people into groups. Even worse, they are actually rooted in something sinister-yes I think so. It’s seeing something as belonging to another group instead of your own. Frankly, sadly, it comes from our unconscious prejudice of seeing ourselves as either different from or even “too good” to follow something another group does. Remember that this is deep unconscious thinking that is at play-we are not aware this is why we think that way but it is.

Also at play is our assumption that people are often enough doing this to mock or show ignorance of another culture. Yes people can use cultural appreciation to mock or ridicule another culture but that’s rare-usually we try to present a good public image in the way we act and dress, and are rarely going to mock another culture or act or dress in poor taste. So then, we have a fear that when people culturally appropriate items from other cultures. Either way, we must try to see the world less cynically.

In fact it shows a lack of trust. A lack of trust that someone engaging in culture borrowing likely has good intentions and can be trusted to do culture borrowing appropriately. When we have faith in people, we allow them do things freely without making automatic associations about the appropriateness of what they’re doing-or even assumptions about their intentions. This all strongly hints at a sense of unforgiven historical or current grievances of groups against classes of people who have downtrodden them. We cannot project what some people have done onto what all people of that group have done-even if it was based on discrimination based on group characteristics (race, nationality, gender, etc). This creates a victim mindset, instead of building trust and perseverance in horrible circumstances. 

A good example of this is the grievance certain members of the black community can carry against white people. We saw this when Kanye West claimed that “Bush doesn’t care about black people” was the reason for the government’s lack of action on Hurricane Katrina. We see this in the #stopwhitepeople movement. We see this in frequent claims of “white privilege”-while true that it exists, repeating it too often creates a sense of grievance. I saw this personally in NYC, when the announcer at a rally against high rent and property management told us that the high rent was “an attack on black and brown”, as it was not a coincidence that the people hurt by this were disproportionately black and brown. (No, it’s not, because high rent affects everyone, and those groups are not being targeted by anyone. Economic means, not race, is the key issue).

The way to end racism and prejudice is to stop speaking about things in terms of belonging to races and groups. The more people hear an idea the more they think in terms of it.