That Angry and Exhausted Feller

     It has been awhile since I posted any new articles.  There is a reason for this lack of content.  The reason why I have not posted any new content is because I was becoming angry.  I could not handle the divisiveness and the pettiness that seemed to be consuming people in the news and on social media.  That hate was starting to flourish within side of me.   All of the negativity that is spewed in the media and on social platforms like Facebook and Twitter was becoming too much and I did not want to be consumed by the hate.  I am someone who takes pride in making sure that I do not make grand generalizations about people.  People are more complex than what our media (and many of our citizens) realize.  We rush to pigeonhole people into groups.  As an example, I am big champion of gay-rights (for obvious reasons).  I also live in Utah where the Mormon Church controls a good amount of the culture.  I became angry with the Church because of their continued fight against my rights.  The Church has continued to sign onto court briefs arguing for the protection of “traditional marriage.”  My anger with the Church led me to start being angry with all people of faith.  I began to believe in the propaganda that all religious people wanted to squash my right in marrying the man that I love.  I believed it, even though I am surrounded by many faithful Mormons that love me for who I am and want me to marry the man I love.  My soon-to-be mother-in-law is an example.  She loves me and has accepted me into the family.  She is a devout Mormon who can love her church and can also love and accept her son and his partner.  Many people of faith do want to see marriage equality happen.  I lost sight in that.  I began to believe that Mormons and many other religious people were all against marriage equality.  I began to generalize people and that is dangerous.  It is dangerous because over-generalizations will make people weary of one another.  That weariness becomes distrust.  That distrust then leads to anger and resentment.  If we become angry with one another then we will not be able to get along.  We will not be able to solve our problems because we will be too busy calling each other names and accusing our political opponents of being liars and thieves. 

     Over the past few years, more and more of us are falling into the trap that the media lays out for us.  They lay out this trap that is well disguised.  They dress up their arguments in a slick broadcast with colorful anchors and pundits.  Then they top it all off with a heavy helping of patriotism.  They argue their biased point of view, which I have no problem with, we are all biased and we all have our opinions.  What I have a problem with is that they argue and call their opponents names and never try to examine the other side.  The key word in that last sentence is try.  They do not have to agree with the other side, I never want people just to lie down and agree with everything someone says.   My problem is that they do not try to understand where their opponents are coming from; they generalize and make accusations.  They do not try to flesh out the serious problems that face this country and this world.  They take three to five minutes on a story and have some talking heads fight each other for an additional few minutes.  They try to tell the public that if you listen to the other guy then we are damned but if listen to me and my point of view then the problem is solved.  Do not listen to the opposing side.  They are wrong.  They do not discuss the complexities of our problems.  They believe that the Ferguson riots were just about an African-American kid being shot by police, as tragic as that is.  They don’t discuss the fact that problems have been brewing between the police and its citizens in Ferguson for years.  They believe that shutting down our borders in an effort to stop Ebola from spreading further in this country will solve the problem.  They do not discuss the fact the world is so inter-connected that shutting down our borders won’t really stop the spread of any disease, including Ebola.  They believe that the LGBT’s fight for equal rights is being hijacked by big business.  They feel like symbols like the pride flag are being used for commercial gain by big business.  They do not discuss the fact that this means that LGBT citizens are becoming more and more accepted.   They do not discuss the fact that many companies from Target to Levi Strauss to Google are helping the LGBT community win acceptance and equal rights.  The media and their presentations are a trap; there is no discussion, just quick and easy answers to our complex problems.  The other side is wrong, dangerous, and un-American.  End of story.

     That is not the end of the story.  We might not agree with one another but, for god sake, can we at least sit down, have a discussion, and acknowledge that most people (on any side of an issue) are sincere people that just want to help solve a problem?  Must we continue to call people names and continue to believe that the other side has nefarious intentions?  Are we going to allow this elementary school-level style of discourse to continue in our media and online?  I say no.  I may become exhausted and disillusioned at times but I do not want to give up the fight.  I will not give up the fight.  We must bring the level of discourse up to a more mature level.  I say this because we are polarized.  Nothing is getting solved at the federal level.  We are too busy arguing and being angry at one another and that has influenced our politicians.  Our current Congress is one of the least productive ever.  I believe we all share fault in that.  I do believe it is because of our current level of discourse in this country.  We must change course.  We must try to make progress.  We must compromise.  If we do not change course, we’re screwed.  That is why I will be trying my damnedest to get us back on track.  Even if I must take a break for my own sanity from time to time.

Sins of thy Brethren

In October 2015, a group called The World Congress of Families (WCF) is hosting their conference in Salt Lake City, UT.  The World Congress of Families promotes the “natural family” and opposes gay-rights, including same-sex marriage.  Groups like this are not a new phenomenon.  The National Organization of Marriage is another anti-gay rights organization that has been around for a while (and is more well-known).  What makes the WCF stand-out is that they are so anti-gay that they make the National Organization of Marriage look pro-gay in comparison.  What is even more troubling is that many prominent Mormon, Catholic, and Jewish leaders have leant their names and their time to this far-right organization.

The World Congress of Families

The WCF has been labeled a “hate-group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  They have been given that label with good reason.  According to Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the WCF and its allies have promoted anti-gay rhetoric on a consistent basis:

Scott Lively, a featured speaker for the WCF, has “proclaimed that LGBT people are responsible for the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide and the spread of HIV/AIDS.”

Larry Jacobs, managing director of the WCF, thought that Russia’s new (and horrifying) anti-gay law was “a great idea.”  He even went further, and according to Griffin, released a public letter supporting the law.

Sharon Slater, another WCF ally and featured speaker, said in 2010 that "Iran is one of the strongest nations in standing up for family values at the UN."

You heard it right.  Prominent WCF speakers believe that gays caused the Holocaust and that Iran is wonderful because they support the family.  Iran is the same country that will execute gays, but yet, Ms. Slater is fan of their tremendous work in preserving the family.

And not to be out-done is WCF’s communications director, Don Feder.  Feder runs a paranoid, right-wing blog where he declares:

“You just trust Obama, and you go right on trusting him – until they shove you in a cattle car.”  (The insinuation is that Americans will find themselves locked-up in concentration camps because of President Obama).

In another posting, Feder writes:

“Pardon my hate-filled rhetoric, but when exactly did homosexuals become a division of humanity instead of a sorry collection of individuals (connected only by their carnal appetites) caught up in a perverted lifestyle?”

The Spin from Supporters

This organization that supports hate is coming to Salt Lake City.  But, it is coming to Salt Lake with open arms by the conservative think-tank, The Sutherland Institute, which insists that the WCF is a very benign organization.  The Sutherland Institute is trying to spin the WCF into a group that has family-values.  They released a list of participants on their website and wrote:

“...you can decide whether the WCF will be a gathering of ‘extremists’ and ‘very dangerous’ people, or simply will draw extraordinary people of faith and secular accomplishment who are similar in belief and thinking to the majority of Utahns.”

• Sheri Dew, Former second counselor in the General Relief Society Presidency, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Elder Russell M. Nelson, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 
• Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Honorary Member, Board of Directors of the World Congress of Families 
• Elder Erich Kopischke, First Quorum of the Seventy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Cardinal George Pell, Australian cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church
• Rabbi Binyomin Jacobs, Chief Rabbi of the Inter-Provincial Rabbinate in Holland 

According to the Sutherland Institute, WCF cannot be an “extremist” organization because of all the nice religious people that are associated with the group.  I actually think this is quite disturbing.  Sutherland does not dispute what critics like Chad Griffin has accused the organization of doing, trafficking in hate.  In a recent op-ed in the Salt Lake Tribune, Paul Mero, president of the Sutherland Institute, just re-iterates the point that the WCF is an “inclusive” organization.  He does not deal with the actual record of the WCF.  He just spins the group into a lovely gathering of people who are concerned about the family structure.

The Sins of thy Brethren

It is actually quite disgusting that religious leaders would take part in such a dangerous organization.  In fact, some religions relish in the idea of being connected with this group.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church) released this statement when Salt Lake City was chosen for the site of the WCF conference:

"Although the church wasn’t involved in the decision of the World Congress of Families to come to Salt Lake City we appreciate the efforts of organizations working to strengthen the family and society."

After the public relations nightmare that the Mormon Church found itself in with its support (and funding) of Proposition 8 in California, I am surprised that they would want to encourage a group with such a nefarious history.  Any religion should be ashamed of themselves for doing business with this group.  I say this because do they “appreciate the efforts of organizations” that try to harm an individual’s right to be with the person they love?  Do they “appreciate the efforts of organizations” that helped Russia enact laws that have led to an increase in violence and harassment against Russian LGBT individuals, as Human Rights Watch reports?  Do they “appreciate the efforts” of an organization that has been labeled as a “hate-group?”  Do they “appreciate the efforts of organizations” that have employees that call LGBT people “perverted” and being “a sorry collection of individuals?”   I guess the WCF is doing God’s work in the eyes of the Mormon Church?

I respect any person’s or organization’s right to free speech.  No one’s speech should ever be shut down.  However, the First Amendment does not give a person or organization immunity from their speech.  A person or group must deal with the consequences of their speech.  The consequence in this case is criticism.

Peace-loving religious leaders getting into a partnership with the WCF is exactly the opposite of what religions preach.  I thought religions preached peace, harmony, loving thy neighbors, etc.?  This group seems like the lowest common denominator when it comes to “protecting” the family.  Any religious person or group should be criticized for promoting this organization.  Fine, “protect” the family and children from those gays but to support a group that helped shape anti-gay legislation that has led to violence and harassment makes you just as guilty as the actual perpetrators.  A religious organization can oppose same-sex marriage by not recognizing a same-sex marriage and by not allowing same-sex wedding ceremonies to take place in their places of worship.  Many supporters of same-sex marriage, myself included, want religions to practice their religious freedom.  They have the right to reject same-sex marriage.  I want their rights to be respected, as they should respect my right to marry my partner.  We should respect each other's rights.  Once same-sex marriage is legalized in all 50 states, I will expose any person or group that tries to force religions to perform or recognize same-sex marriages.  There will be no hypocrisy on my part.  The only hypocrisy here lies in the religions and religious leaders that are aligning themselves with such a hateful group.

In my opinion, it is sinful behavior to partner up with such a hateful organization.  Am I wrong?  The WCF is the antithesis of peace, harmony, loving thy enemy, loving thy neighbor.  There should not be any doubt to what the WCF preaches.  For any religion or religious leader to be a part of it is disappointing and downright disgusting.

Some of you may disagree with this analysis.  The Sutherland Institute may disagree with this analysis.  The Mormon Church may disagree with this analysis.  The many other religious leaders and academics that ally with the WCF may disagree with this analysis.  I’d just ask them in regards to the WCF and their support:  What would Jesus do?

An Illegal People Yearning to be Free

52,000.  That is number of migrant children that have been apprehended at the United States-Mexican border since October, the BBC reports.  52,000 children, whom are not being accompanied by their parents, have made the long trek from Central America to the United States in order to escape the economic difficulties and violent atmospheres that have permeated their lives.  It has created an unprecedented humanitarian crisis at many of the border cities within the United States.  There are many Americans, including Senator John McCain, that suggest that these children should immediately be deported back to their home countries.  I tend to believe that action would not be in their best interest.  I believe we should be a compassionate country and try to help as many of these children as possible.  52,000 children is a large number of children to try and take care of, however, we can do it.  The logistical support we need to take care of all of them will take a lot of work and effort, but again, we can do it.  It is only a matter of “if” we want to do it.

I used to be one of those people that would agree with Sen. McCain.  I would have suggested that they should all be deported.  We are a country of laws and our laws must be upheld.  Over the years, I have had a change of heart when it comes to illegal immigration.  I believe we should be as compassionate as possible.  We should try and accept all of the people that need help.  I also believe we must be smart about it.  I would agree that criminal undocumented immigrants should be deported.  However, if someone is working their ass off and trying to support a family.  If they are trying to make a better life then they should be allowed to stay.  I know many will disagree with me, however, I want to share with you what made me change my tune on illegal immigration.

What made me change my mind on undocumented immigrants was the book Illegal People.  The author, David Bacon, explores the world of the undocumented worker.  More specifically, Mr. Bacon explores the idea that “a globalized political and economic system creates illegality by displacing people and then denying them rights and equality as they do what they have to do to survive – move to find work.”  His main thesis is that the problems the United States and other countries have when it comes to undocumented immigrants are of their own doing.  The economic policies of the United States and other countries have created a world where they have forced many people to pick up from where they live and move to another country to find work.  Once they come into the United States or other countries then the political system subjugates them and drives them into the shadows of society, denying these migrant workers their basic human rights.

David Bacon discusses many different policies that have contributed to increasing the flow of undocumented workers into the United States and other countries.  One of the major contributing factors in the rise of undocumented immigrants migrating to other countries was because of “the explosive growth of export processing zones (EPZs), where maquiladora factories produce for export, depends on migrant labor.”  The creation of the EPZs, where Mexico allowed U.S companies to come into Mexico and create these factory-based towns and areas (mostly around the Mexican-United States border), meant that migrants had to pick up and move from their hometowns in order to find work (and survive).  These policies of the EPZs created the atmosphere where migrants in Mexico decided it was more advantageous to come into the United States because there were many more possibilities to find better work and better living conditions.  Economic and political policies created the problem of illegal immigration.  To combat the problems that the United States faces with undocumented workers (partly because of its own policies), the solution has been to exploit these poor people and treat them as second-class citizens.

We should not treat undocumented immigrants as second-class citizens.  Natural-born and naturalized Americans needs to realize that undocumented workers contribute to the national economy.  However, there are citizens and people in the media that feed on our fears that illegal immigration is causing major problems like an increase in crime.  Many media outlets also believe that undocumented immigrants are taking the jobs of natural-born Americans and that they are draining the taxpayer because they are reaping the benefits of being on American soil.  These supposed facts are totally false.  As Bacon cites, “the National Immigration Forum’s Guide to Immigration Facts and Issues estimated that undocumented immigrants paid about $7 billion annually in taxes.”  Bacon also notes that undocumented workers pay sales tax when they purchase goods and that they pay rent to landlords.  He also notes that in California “undocumented workers pumped tens of billions of dollars into the economy - $45,000 per person.”  Even though undocumented workers contribute immensely to local and state governments, and to the federal government, we continue to threaten undocumented workers with deportation (but do little to punish the companies that exploit undocumented immigrants).  We do not allow them to draw on benefits like Social Security (even though they are paying their taxes).  We do not allow children of undocumented workers to gain citizenship even though some of these children are earning college degrees and fighting in our military.  Even though they never made the decision to come into the United States illegally, that was their family’s decision, we still belittle them.  Undocumented workers contribute so much to our country but we want to continue to force them into the shadows and force them to be exploited.

David Bacon wrote a compelling account of how undocumented immigrants are exploited and condemned, even though they are a major benefit of our country.  He shows how we must reform our immigration system so we can bring undocumented immigrants out of the shadows.  Bring them out of that shadow so they can be treated with the same dignity and equality that we all demand.  There are 52,000 children waiting to be treated with dignity and respect right now.  They must be scared and confused.  These children are waiting for stability and love.  We should not disappoint them.

Blinded by the Fourth of July

"Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion." – Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism (1891)

On the morning of July 4th, I decided to check my Facebook.  As I was reading through my feed, I stumbled upon this status by Governor Gary Herbert (R-UT):

Post by Gary R. Herbert.

On face value, it seems like a very nice post that celebrates the spirit of the county on our Independence Day.  However, I was taken aback by this sentence in Herbert’s status:  “We are a beacon of freedom in a world that is clouded with too much tyranny and oppression.”  The reason why I was taken aback by this sentence is because Governor Herbert, along with Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes, has been fighting same-sex marriage in the state ever since U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby declared Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage as being unconstitutional.  Governor Herbert probably does not think he is being tyrannical or that he is oppressing the homosexual community, but let’s be frank, denying a person’s right to marriage is oppressing their freedom and liberty.

Governor Herbert received quite a bit of blow-back due to his July 4th statement.  Out of the 80 comments he received on his status, approximately 70 of them were critical of his stance on same-sex marriage.  Many of the commentators took him to task on his comments about “freedom,” “tyranny,” and “oppression.”  To sum up the commentators, Governor Herbert was being hypocritical.  He touts the freedom that this country gives its citizens but then fights against marriage equality.  Many people, including myself, see Governor Herbert as an oppressor.  His statement is quite tone deaf.

Within the small group of support that Governor Herbert received, one comment stood out:

This supporter was upset that people were using the Independence Day holiday to criticize the governor.  This person wanted people to “find another time to be critical.”  However, this supporter was not the only person who suggested that Americans should not criticize the government or politicians on Independence Day.  I saw comments from stories linking from the Drudge Report, Fox News, CNN, Facebook, and other sites that suggested that Americans should celebrate the 4th and leave criticisms for another day.   People that were protesting, criticizing, or complaining about America and its policies were being "unpatriotic" and "un-American."  This is blind patriotism.  Blind patriotism is where people cheer on everything American, not wanting to discuss any of the country’s faults.  They tell people not to criticize anything or anyone, even if it is only for one day.

I consider it blind patriotism because this is a level of ignorance that does a great disservice to this country because we are taking the proverbial broom and sweeping our problems under the rug.  America is wonderful!  Praise America!  Never criticize it or its policies.  Blind patriots assume that if you criticize government policy (which happens to be policies they support) then you are un-American.  You Occupy Wall Street protesters, you protest capitalism, you must hate America.  People in the Tea Party, you protest government spending, you must hate America.  Just because people complain about or criticize the government does not mean they are un-American and they hate America.  You can be critical of the country you reside in and still love and appreciate it.   If anything, these people who protest, complain, and criticize the government are the people whom truly care about this nation.  Which leads to the other head-scratcher in the above comment, "the greatest threat to our nation lies with citizens who no longer care; who can only criticize."  Ummmm....I guess if you do not praise America then you "no longer care" about the state of the country?  I would say any citizen that takes the time to discuss (and complain) about the country would mean that they do care.  They love this country so much that it kills them to see the direction we are headed in.  They have to step in and do (or say) something to make sure America is living up to its potential.  This seems to be something that blind patriots do not get.  

Blind love of country actually undermines the entire reason why America celebrates Independence Day.  Independence Day is America’s birthday.  It is America’s birthday because the American colonialists stood up against the tyranny and the oppression of the British monarchy.  Our nation was founded on dissent, protest, and disobedience.  For any one American to tell another American to shut up and not complain on Independence Day is appalling.  The blind patriot has no clue what the holiday is all about.  

Independence Day has a history of being contentious.  If blind patriots do not want to hear or see any dissent, protests, or any other thing that would constitute as being critical of America on Independence Day then they should not look into our history any further.  A blind patriot would have hated this speech that Frederick Douglass gave in 1852, entitled The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro: 

“My subject, then, fellow-citizens, is American slavery. I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. Standing there identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this 4th of July! Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future.” 

Douglass’ speech was passionate and quite critical of the United States, which it should have been.  My God!  Slavery is a huge and disgusting blemish on America’s past.  But, I guess, as our blind patriot above mentioned, Douglass should have had “humble gratitude” in regards to Independence Day and should have not exercised his “vain ego.”  How dare Douglass take a sacred holiday like Independence Day and complain about America.  He should have been grateful that he was here in America and should have not talked about slavery.  It was time to celebrate America.  Petty personal matters (that affected the entire African-American community) should not have been brought up on such a special day.  

That sounds insane, right?  Of course it is.  If any individual or group is feeling oppressed, they have every right to sound off on their oppression, no matter the day.  Governor Herbert made a tone-deaf statement about freedom and oppression on a day that celebrates our ancestors rising up against oppression and tyranny.  He made that statement while he is currently denying the rights of loving LGBT couples from forming a family.  He is oppressing his people in his state.  The government of Utah knows better!  Consenting adults have no business deciding on what legal union they want to form.  Herbert has decided that he wants to tell people how to live, so it is only natural that some of his citizens would rise up and criticize him for making such blanket statements on a day that promotes liberty and freedom.  

Even if you do not agree with the marriage equality movement, you should at least acknowledge the rights that people are afforded under the First Amendment.  Do not shoot people down on a day that was founded on dissent, disobedience, and protest.  That action is downright un-American.  If you want to thank Governor Herbert or any other politician on Independence Day for the rights that you have, please go right ahead.  But to suggest that other people should shut up because it ruins your holiday is in direct conflict with the spirit of Independence Day.  You need to reassess what you know about the holiday.  Independence Day has nothing to do with obedience.

America was born out of contention and dissent.  I want to encourage as many people as possible, that have a legitimate issue with American or state policy (even the people with whom I disagree), to go out on the 4th of July and protest.  I want them to make their voices heard.  There is nothing more American than protest and dissent.  That is something that would truly fit the meaning of our Independence Day holiday.  

A Drought of Acceptance: Climate Change

I want to preface this article with the fact that I do not seek to change the minds of people who do not believe in climate change.  What I am trying to do in this article is to make sure people at least become mindful with the ecological and environmental challenges that our country faces.

"I don't think there's any doubt that we've had climate change over the last 100 years. What has initiated it, though, has sparked a debate that's gone on now for the last 10 years.  I don't think we're any closer to the answer than we were 10 years ago." – Speaker of the House, John Boehner

Huh?  John Boehner believes that climate change is real but he then states that we are not closer to an answer on how and why climate change exists.  I am guessing that John Boehner never reads or watches the news.  I say this because a study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that 97 percent of the 1,372 scientists questioned agreed that climate change is "very likely" caused mainly by us humans.

In a story composed for USA Today, it was found that “nearly all the experts agreed that it is ‘very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth's average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century.’”

I used to be a climate change denier.  I do not know why I was a denier, especially since I always championed at getting to the truth, no matter the ideology.  However, I was using my ideology to deny climate change.  I always thought that it was presumptuous of us humans to say that we could explain and predict the cycles and habits of a planet that has been around for billions of years.  The Earth has gone through times of higher temperatures and it has gone through times of lower temperatures.  It is all about the cycles of the Earth.  It has nothing to do with a man-made shift caused by pollutants.  That was my reasoning and logic to deny climate change.  I look back at that reasoning and I become embarrassed.  Someone needed to smack me in the head.  I needed that smack because I am not an expert in the field of sciences.  I have a degree in Political Science and Sociology.  I have very little training within the physical and natural sciences (like most Americans).  If I am looking for the answers to scientific questions then I believe it is my duty, as someone who wants to seek the truth, to defer to the experts.  This does not mean that I cannot be skeptical or critical of any scientist or scientific field.  If I believe that something I am reading is junk science then I will investigate further.  However, when 97% of scientists believe that it is “very likely” that humanity is the cause of climate change then I must accept that.  It is hard for me to disagree with that number.  I am also not saying that science is ever wrong, in fact, most scientists would probably never say that science is always right.  That is why science works with theories.  Theories explain nature and science, but it is just a theory (based upon evidence and facts).  A theory can be proven wrong.  If new evidence comes to light on a specific theory then scientists are pretty willing to say they got it wrong and they adjust their theories within the constraints that the new evidence provides.  They work within the confines of the scientific method to confirm (or deny) the validity of their theories.  Most scientists (there are some unethical, bad apples) are passionate about their subject matter and they want to provide the American people with the most accurate information as possible.  Some people might accuse scientists of having an agenda, and maybe they do, but it is because they have the knowledge and the evidence to back up that agenda, like climate change.  That is why I believe in climate change and in all science, in general.

Even if I cannot persuade you on accepting climate change as fact, why not accept the notion that you would want to live on a cleaner planet?  I think all humans would enjoy and thrive in a cleaner world.  I would think that all of us would want cleaner air to breathe and cleaner water to drink?  Or hell, I’d just like to have water to drink and bathe in, period.  In other words, we need to plan out where and how our cities will grow so we can know if the environment can sustain us humans.  Climate change or not, we still have some serious natural and environmental problems that will pose great challenges to this country and to this world.
I would implore you to read and become familiar with some of the pressing natural and environmental problems we face as a nation.

As an example, look at the water crisis that is hitting the city of Las Vegas.  Las Vegas (a city of two million residents) depends solely on Lake Mead for their water.  Lake Mead is running dry due to a drought that has been devastating the area for the past 14 years, as the Telegraph reports.  If the drought continues and Las Vegas does not find alternative water sources then they could run out of water by the year 2036.  This might be one of those situations that could have been thought out better before Las Vegas grew to be the size that is today.  Maybe the early Mormon settlers should have thought twice about establishing a city in the middle of the desert?  (On a side note, is it not ironic that Mormons settled the area and funded many of the casinos in the area?)  Maybe there should be greater strides at conserving water in Las Vegas?  Surprisingly, as the Telegraph points out, the mega-resorts and casinos have done an excellent job at conservation.  The Las Vegas Strip only accounts for 7% of the total water usage in the area.  This fact surprised me because I assumed those casinos used up a greater share.  But, the casinos should be applauded for their conservation efforts which include the recycling of water used in those massive structures and removing live grass and installing artificial turf.  I am sure more can be done; maybe all businesses and homeowners in the area should be required or incentivized to install artificial turf instead of grass?  Something has to be done; the desert cannot support a city the size of Las Vegas for an infinite amount of time.  Even though it seems pretty ignorant to establish a city in the middle of a desert, let’s not forget that Las Vegas is not the only city suffering crippling drought.  The majority of the western region within the United States is suffering from drought too.  If this situation continues year after year then life cannot be sustained.  If the climate continues on this path, there will be no way that people will be able to live in this part of the country.  This may not too far off from happening, remember, Lake Mead could be dry by 2036.  In twenty years, Vegas may look a lot like the ghost-town of Detroit.  I’m not trying to sound alarmist but we must deal with the facts and the facts look quite bleak for Las Vegas and the rest of the western part of the country.

In my humble opinion, climate change is real.  Climate change seems to be causing a great drought that is plaguing a sizable chunk of this country.  But climate change or not, even if you refuse to believe that it is real, please at least realize that we have a lot of environmental issues facing us.  Ignoring these issues is of great detriment to us and to our future generations.  Just because you believe that climate change is fiction does not mean that you should ignore or deny individual environmental crises.  The human race has not conquered mother nature.  I would say, "let's ask the Mayans" about conquering mother nature.  Sadly, however, their civilization was wiped out, along with many others, because they did not heed that warning of possible environmental catastrophes.  We should not let history repeat itself again.

The March Towards Equality Continues

What a wild year it has been for marriage equality!  It has been one year since the Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Since that ruling last June, we have seen that marriage equality has taken this country by storm.  This graphic from Utah Unites for Marriage sums up the major advances that have taken place:

It has been a pretty amazing ride.  States that people never dreamed about opening up for marriage equality like Utah, Oklahoma, Idaho, and Indiana have seen their same-sex marriage bans fall like dominoes.  This week we saw the first appellate court decision in regards to same-sex marriage since DOMA fell last year.  The decision of Judge Shelby declaring Utah’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional was affirmed by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.  Marriage equality is marching forward.

A few years ago, I would not have dreamed that marriage equality would have taken such a hold in this country.  I knew (and I still know) that marriage equality is inevitable.

To mark the success of marriage equality, I wanted to look back at a post I made to Facebook in June 2012.  It was a post entitled, “It's Not the Chicken I Smell, It's the Red Herring:”

I whipped several people into a frenzy the other day when I suggested that I don't care what Chick-Fil-A and Dan Cathy believes. There were people saying that I was being passive and that I was telling people how to think. With all due respect to my friends, who I love very much, they are falling into the trap that stops debate. Debate needs to continue and debate does need to be loud at times, but I will call out a red herring when I see one. I will continue to fight for pragmatism. 

I know many people think that I am being a wimp when I try to be a pragmatist. I don't consider myself a wimp; in fact, I'm just trying to bring solutions to problems in a different way.  It is because, as you are all aware, the past 12 years of Bush and Obama have just brought about divisiveness and has stopped any sort of progress that our country could have been making. I am sick of it and I am going to try and tackle problems in a logical, methodical way while trying to bring opposing sides together. There are times that I will piss off people on the right and I will piss off people on the left, but so be it. That is how I will know that I am being fair-and-balanced (my apologies to the Fox News Channels for stealing their line, but I am really trying to be fair-and-balanced). It is my opinion that Chick-fil-A is a red herring because it brought nothing new to the debate over gay marriage. It just showed that we are still divided on this issue. It caused Christians to believe that liberals and gay-marriage activists were shoving gay marriage down their throats and vice-versa. This fight brought nothing new to the national dialogue except that it has divided us further. I am sick of the divisiveness, and listen, I am a realist and divisions will always exist but when I see major divisions being caused over a mid-sized restaurant chain then I feel like I need to step in and try to calm the atmosphere. We are talking about a man, whom I do not respect.  However, I do respect his constitutional rights.  Besides, his words will not shape policy in this country.  Why the all firestorm for a man who has no (and will never have) impact on actual policy in this country?

You know what we should be talking about (and debating)?  We should be discussing how the Democrats will be introducing gay marriage into their party platform at this year's Democratic National Convention that will take place in Charlotte in September. This is actual news that will impact actual policy.  This is the first party to introduce the acceptance of gay marriage unto its official party platform. That step the democrats are taking is something that will make a difference, that platform will move more policy than a Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A. It is a step that pro-gay marriage supporters should cheer. Even the director of the Human Rights Campaign noted that this was a very positive step and that he also believes that the Republicans will have that same policy position someday. I am in agreement with the director of the Human Rights Campaign. I will be positive and I will not be divisive. I do know that gay marriage will be a reality.....soon. The debate will continue and I will stand-up and continue to speak out on this and other issues that I believe are important. However, I will follow the example of a Martin Luther King, JR. and Abraham Lincoln who promoted peace and healing. Both of these great men wanted real change and they started real change, they fought monstrous battles, but they stayed positive and tried to send out a message of peace and tolerance. These men wanted real change and that ended in their assassinations but I will continue to try and fight like these men did, even though I shouldn't even try and compare myself to these two giants in American history, but I will try to follow their lead and fight the battles the need to be fought and leave the red herrings and phony, hate-filled rhetoric behind me.

Amazing progress.  Two years ago we were fighting about Chick-fil-A and Dan Cathy while not concentrating on the fact that a major party was adopting a platform that supported marriage equality.  We got lost in the divisiveness of the debate.  One year ago, we saw DOMA decapitated.  This year we saw marriage equality win court case after court case.  We saw happy same-sex couples being married in Utah, Oregon, Indiana, Michigan, among the other 19 states where same-sex marriage is legal.  We have made amazing progress and we should all feel blessed for what we have accomplished.

I am not saying the rest of the journey will be easy, we could still see some disappointments.  That disappointment could come from the Supreme Court next summer.  That is if they decided to take Utah’s same-sex marriage case up on appeal.  However, I believe that the Supreme Court will eventually validate same-sex marriage.  They will discard the bigotry into the dustbin of the past.  However, if there are legal disappointments to be had, just remember that same-sex marriage is inevitable.  If the marriage equality movement fails in the courts we must stand steadfast and confident.  I can say this without hesitation because 68% of people aged 18-33 (Millennials) support same-sex marriage.  Even if the courts disappoint us, we will be able to count on the younger generation.  This might sound cold, but as the older generations leave this world, the Millennials will take over and they will help bring marriage equality to all 50 states.

So get ready my friends, it will not be long until I can look the man that I love, in the eyes, and say “I do!”  That moment will not come soon enough, but it will come, that is a guarantee!

Further reading:  If you are interested in hearing about me and my partner's marriage journey, I urge you to read this article written by Nancy Leong, Associate Professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.

"Corporations are People, my Friends"

“Corporations are people, my friend,” Mitt Romney declared during the 2012 presidential election.  Governor Romney is correct; corporations are people, people with too much power.  Corporations have a greater amount of free speech and influence than the average American.  The debate over corporate personhood should not be if a corporation is a person or not.  That decision has been made; the debate should be whether or not this is acceptable.  Corporations are people, but they have greater rights than an average person.  That should be where the conversation is at in this country, because that is what really matters.

Before we get into the debate of whether it should be acceptable or not acceptable for corporations to have greater rights than the average American.  It should be noted how corporation became “people” in the first place.  This will be demonstrated through Supreme Court decisions that date back to 1819.

Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (17 U.S. 518, 1819).  This case was one of the first times that a corporation was referred to as being an individual person because a corporation was holding “the power to sue, being amendable to suit, and existing independently of the lives of their shareholders” (Michalski, 2013, p. 134).  Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (118 U.S. 394, 1886).  In this case, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations could be recognized as persons under the Fourteenth Amendment and that entitled them to be treated equally under the law.  This case, in essence, was a breakthrough in corporate personhood.  Labeling a corporation as a kind of person allowed corporations to “have legal standing to hold property, to enter into contracts, to conduct business, and ultimately, to sue and be sued” (Michalski, 2013, p. 131). Noble v. Union River Logging R.R. (147 U.S. 165, 176, 1893) continued to establish a corporation’s personhood and granted corporations more rights.  The case established that a company has a right to due process under the Fifth Amendment (Michalski, 2013).  Hale v. Henkel (201 U.S. 43, 76, 1906) conferred additional Bill of Rights protections on corporations.  This court case established that companies had protection under the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unwarranted searches, seizures, and self-incrimination (Michalski, 2013).  This was established after a federal grand jury tried to force tobacco corporations to turn over specific documents.  Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (558 U.S. 310, 2010).  The Supreme Court found that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment.  It also found that the government could not restrict the rights that corporations or unions have in regards to spending money on political campaigns or individual candidates. The Supreme Court did establish that corporations or unions could not give money directly to political campaigns; they could, however, try to influence individual citizens through other means, like through the use of ad campaigns.

Corporate Impacts on Policy

One of the reasons corporations will impact policy areas is that since corporations are people; corporations now have to be a good citizen that tries to help with matters of social concern.  Michalski argues that corporations have now entered into a new type of personhood.  A modern corporation is not only a person but they are citizen.  Since they are a citizen they should be classified as having “corporate citizenship” (Michalski, 2013, p. 141).  “On the other hand, if corporations as artificial persons are like real persons, then they must also bear the same responsibilities.  Just as individuals may not simply pursue their own selfish ends without regard to others, so too should corporations consider factors beyond profit maximization” (Michalski, 2013, p. 141).  Michalski uses what he calls, the Natural Entity theory.  Since we are labeling corporations as being a person (a natural entity) then these corporations must have social obligations to the citizens of this country (Michalski, 2013).  This is the notion that corporations should be good citizens.  They should not just be looking at their profits, but the effects that their business practices have on the community they inhabit.  Corporations are leaders that should help in making their community or country a better place to live.  In this day in age, corporations are expected to help out in areas such as breast cancer research; supporting the gay and lesbian community; supporting military members and family members;   helping reduce human trafficking and human slavery.  Corporations have a responsibility to give back to the community, so they are expected to sponsor events through money and other forms of support.

Being a socially responsible corporate citizen is not only voluntary in some aspects, but it is enforced by laws, rules, and regulations.  There have been several developments within the past few years in regards to corporate responsibility in a legal sense.  “President Barack Obama's Executive Order, aimed at combating human trafficking by making all federal contractors comply with regulations once applicable only in defense-related settings; and new rules adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding conflict minerals” (Reider-Gordon, Funk, Ewelukwa, Feldman, & Wagner, 2013).  Corporations, like people, have legal responsibilities to their communities.  Corporations will not only be held accountable in a court of public opinion, but they could be liable in a court of law if their actions are deemed unethical and legally abhorrent.

Since corporations are now in the business of supporting social causes and are now being held to the same standards of an individual living in a society, in regards to being a good citizen.  Corporations will impact public organizational structure because corporations are now partially in the same business as public organizations.  As Scott & Davis notes, “corporations have come to look more like states in the range of their activities, while states have come to look more like business corporations, as both compete for each others’ business” (2007, p. 367).  The distinction of what a corporation is and what a public organization is has become muddled.  The reason for that is because not much separates how a public organization is structured vs. a corporation.  It has already been concluded that the only thing that really separates a public organization and a corporation is profit and revenue.  Public organizations are not allowed to make huge profits, but they can bring in revenue and make some profits, but the goal of the public organization is to support society and programs that the government has enacted.  Public organizations are trying to administer programs for the greater good of society, while a corporation is out for profit.  However, now that corporations are partially in the business of trying to be a good citizen and promote the greater good of society, which means that, their interests can intersect with a public organization.  The only real difference, which is not a minor difference, is in terms of profits.

The Negative Impacts of Corporate Personhood

The notion that corporations are persons with the rights and responsibilities of an actual, living person is clear, legally.  However, there should be skepticism and concern about this status being bestowed upon corporations.  It makes sense that corporations should be protected under the Constitution.  They should enjoy the same rights because corporations are made up by people that are looking to make a profit.  They are administered and organized by people.  They should enjoy some of the same rights that we all do.  However, the Citizens United case seems a step to far in regards to using their money to support political candidates or causes.  This is argued because of the money factor.  Money allows corporations to have more power than the average person.  Corporations have millions, sometimes billions of dollars at their disposal so that means that their freedom of speech has more weight than an average voter.  Money is what concerns me, corporate rights, not so much.  In my opinion, the Supreme Court should have allowed the government to regulate spending in regards to campaign ads and donations to political actions committees.  The money corporations have allows them to have a bigger, more influential voice.  Again, no one should begrudge them their First Amendment rights, but there should have been a way to cap the money they could spend because that money is an unfair advantage to the millions of other people in this country.  Corporations have a bigger voice so they will be able to get a better return on their investment because they have the power.  Money is power in this country and the Supreme Court gave corporations an unfair advantage when it comes to the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Citizens United was only the beginning of this concerning journey in regards to corporate personhood and money being used as a tool for political persuasion and influence.  On October 3, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Shaun McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.  The case revolves around a conservative businessman from Alabama named Shaun McCutcheon.  McCutcheon is a man that loves to donate money to political candidates and committees.  However, McCutcheon is unhappy with the currently limits on donations to political campaigns and candidates.  The Washington Post discussed those limits, “For the 2013-2014 cycle, individuals can give a total of $123,200 to candidates, national party committees and certain political committees, including a $48,600 limit on what individuals can give to candidates."  McCutcheon wants to donate even more money than he is allowed to by law.  He believes the law is a violation of his rights’ under the First Amendment.  McCutcheon decided to sue the Federal Election Committee.

This case, which was decided on April 2, 2014, has eliminated donation limits to political campaigns and committees.  In theory, we could start seeing rich individuals and corporations (because they are people) donating as much money as they wish to any political cause or individual.  This could allow for the total access and total manipulation of campaigns because there is no limit on donation amounts.  This has the potential for truly allowing money to win over our political process.  If a politician can get any amount donated to his or her campaign that means that they are for sale.  They could be easily influenced to change positions on any policy because a person or corporation will have an open checkbook that will allow that politician to be bought.  There will be no limits and that is a scary proposition because, like Citizens United, that gives access to people with money.  Money buys a person or a corporation access, that seems like a violation of free speech because if money can buy influence then that means millions of Americans will not (and do not) have the same amount of free speech because the more money a person has, the more free speech they will be given.  If someone has no money then that means they have zero influence and free speech.  This is a scary proposition.

Conclusion

The facts are undeniable.  Corporations are people.  Since the early 1800’s, corporations have evolved from entities that were tools of the state to entities that have the same rights and responsibilities of living, breathing persons.  This transformation took about 200 years.  Every case that was listed in this article, slowly transformed the corporate entity into the corporate person.  It was a step-by-step growth in rights for corporations that began with the Supreme Court Case of Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward that ended with the latest Supreme Court Case of Shaun McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.  Corporations have been given their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights (and others that were not listed in this article).  Slowly but surely, corporations were given their basic human rights.  Since they were labeled a person they were given the exact same rights as everyone else in this country.  The outcome seems logical because you cannot bestow the label of personhood to an entity and not expect it to have the same rights as an American citizen or as a human being, in general.

Since corporations are people, the thesis that corporate personhood is a legitimate concern for our country is quite true.  Some of the impacts on society will be positive.  Since corporations are designated as people, it also makes logical sense that they have to be good productive citizens that are not just looking at their bottom line.  A corporation must sacrifice some of their profits for the good of the community and of the country.  The idea of the Natural Entity theory is a sound theory because corporations have been labeled as a natural entity then they should be held to the same obligations that all other citizens in this country are held to.  Corporations and citizens both have expectations of working in an ethical manner that helps promote the social stability of the country.  The modern corporation is now a corporate citizen.  A corporate citizen will now be involved with the community.  They will help sponsor individuals, groups, and organizations across this country and across the globe in order to promote social responsibility.  A corporation may sponsor a non-profit organization that helps research Autism or a corporation could sponsor a church-group in their mission to provide aid to people in distress.  A corporation has a responsibility to give back to the community that they make a profit from.  Corporations not only have a voluntary obligation to its fellow citizens, but there are also legal obligations that they must abide by so they can bring about social justice.  This makes the corporations take on qualities of state and a public organization because they are administering programs that the state or federal government would be in business of doing.  That changes public organizations because they will have to have structures that resemble private enterprises and corporations because they will have to work in tandem with businesses.

These evolutionary changes that have taken place within corporations and in public administration is concerning because corporations now have the same rights as a person when it comes to political influence.  The Citizens United case and the Shaun McCutcheon case, have allowed corporations even greater access into the world of politics.  Corporations have millions, if not billions of dollars, at their disposal.  They can use that money to fight any political cause, policy, or candidate they may wish.  This decision allows corporations to have more rights than an average American.  An average American does not have the money to influence politics, but a corporation does, and that allows them to have a greater voice and more free speech than this average American.  It is concerning because money will be the key in influencing policy and politicians.

“Corporations are people, my friend,” the debate over corporate personhood should not be if a corporation is a person or not.  That decision has been made; the debate should be whether or not this is acceptable.  Corporations are people, but they have greater rights than an average person.  That should be where the conversation is at in this country, because that is what really matters.


Michalski, R. (2013). Rights come with responsibilities: Personal jurisdiction in the age of corporate personhood. San Diego Law Review, 50(1), 125-189.

Reider-Gordon, M., Funk, M., Ewelukwa, U., Feldman, I., & Wagner, C. (2013). Corporate social responsibility. International Lawyer, 47(1).

Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: rational, natural, and open system perspectives. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Yes Virgina, The United States Does Negotiate with Terrorists

The recent controversy surrounding the release of Taliban captive, Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdhal, has brought an issue that needs to be addressed in this country.  This issue is one that the United States “does not negotiate with terrorists.”    This issue has been brought up because President Barack Obama signed off on a deal with the Taliban, mediated through the government of Qatar, where the United States would trade five Guantanamo Bay prisoners for Sgt. Bergdhal.  Many citizens, pundits, and politicians are upset with President Obama because the United States “does not negotiate with terrorists.”

Many people believe that if the United States negotiates with terrorists then our country will be in a more difficult position down the line.  If terrorists and/or rogue regimes know that you are willing to negotiate with them for the release of soldiers or any American citizen, for that matter, then you will see more instances of hostage taking around the globe.  It is a legitimate concern; however, the hypocrisy of politicians running around telling the nation that the United States does not negotiate with terrorists is laughable.  Politicians like Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) have been appearing on media outlets detailing their concerns with this deal.  One of the points these men keep making is that the United States is going down a slippery-slope in that the United States is negotiating with terrorists:

Rep. Chaffetz – “It’s [negotiating with terrorists] a massive chance in public policy.”
Sen. Cruz – “Yes, U.S. policy has changed. Now we make deals with terrorists.”

The concerns are understandable.  There should be a serious debate on the merits of negotiating with terrorists and/or rogue regimes.  What is not helpful in the debate is the insinuation that the United States does not or has never negotiated with terrorists.  The truth is quite the opposite.  In reporting on Sen. Cruz’s remarks, PolitiFact found that the United States has negotiated with terrorists and rogue regimes in these instances:

• After the North Koreans captured the U.S.S. Pueblo in 1968, President Lyndon Johnson apologized for spying as part of negotiations to secure the release of 83 American prisoners.
• In 1970, President Richard Nixon pressured Israel, Switzerland, West Germany and Britain to release Palestinian prisoners after two airlines were hijacked by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
• During the Iran hostage crisis of 1979 to 1981, President Jimmy Carter agreed to unfreeze $8 billion in frozen Iranian assets after more than a year of negotiations with the Iranian revolutionaries.
• In perhaps the most famous swap, after seven Americans were captured in Beirut, Lebanon, President Ronald Reagan agreed to send missiles to Iran in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal.
• President Bill Clinton’s administration sat down with Hamas in attempts to negotiate peace with Israel. His administration also worked directly with the Taliban nearly two decades ago on several occasions to see if the group would hand over Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders.

Those examples were located in one short article.  After doing some more research, I found that the Bush administration made deals with Sunni insurgents during the Iraq War.  President Bill Clinton also met with Gerry Adams, leader of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) when the IRA was on the State Department’s terror list.

The United States has a rich history of negotiating with terrorists and rogue regimes.  This outrage that has been playing out on the right is disingenuous to say the least.  Again, if we want to discuss and debate the merits of negotiation tactics, fine, let’s do it.  But, I believe anyone in the government (and that goes for Republicans and Democrats) that claim that the United States does not negotiate with terrorists are being blatantly misleading.

Enough of this partisan garbage!  As I hope you have gathered from me, I am trying to bring the truth to light because politicians (and the media) are out there trying to divide and conquer the American public.  They are not worried about the truth; they are worried about their power and their agenda.  We need to call out anyone that is being untruthful because they are the ones in control, setting the agenda.  If we do not call out these people then they will continue to deceive us and we will never get to the heart of the matter.  We do not get to the heart of matter because we are arguing over “we do” or “we do not” negotiate with terrorists.  The people in power want to keep us distracted so they can go about their business how they want to.  Enough of the phoniness that comes out of Washington and the news media, our government will and has always negotiated with terrorists.

The questions that we should be discussing are:  Should negotiating with groups deemed terrorist organizations by the government be banned?  If we do ban negotiation tactics, how will that impact future hostage situations?

We need to focus on the issue at hand, and not fall for cheap bling words that are meant to get a rise out of the American people and distract us from the more pressing issues we face, which is a dysfunctional Washington that does not have our best interests at heart.   They are playing a game of chess with our lives and they are getting ready to say the word “checkmate” while we fight like little kids in the playground far from where the chess game is taking place.

The Modesty Hypocrisy

Yes, “TTan,” women should not be treated as equals because they might wear clothing that shows off their shoulders.  Brilliant!

The above comment is in reference to a story about Wasatch High School, located in Heber, Utah.  A controversy erupted this week after the Salt Lake Tribune reported that school administrators had yearbook photos edited for “modesty.”  The school had multiple photos edited to cover-up shoulders, tattoos, and cleavage.  In the schools defense, they did warn the students that edits of the photos could happen.  However, the students report that they wore the same outfits during the year and were never sent home to change.  If the outfits were fine during school then why would those same outfits need editing in a yearbook?  Another problem the school has is that it seems like they randomly selected photos to edit.  They did not uniformly edit the photos of all students deemed immodest.  They did not uniformly edit the photos of all students.  The school has garnered national attention, but they are not backing down in their decision in editing these yearbook photos.

Wasatch High School is only part of the story.  The larger story has to deal with how society sexualizes women and shames them for their choices when men mostly get a free pass.  As we can see from the above comment in that “boys are dressed more respectfully than girls most of the time,” there is still much work to be done in the realm of treating men and women as equals.  To insist that men and women cannot be equals because women show a little shoulder is outrageous and patently false.

I did not know that men dress more respectfully than women?  I've never seen a man in a tank-top revealing their shoulders.  I've never seen a man flopping his genitals around when he wears sweatpants or gym shorts.  I've never seen a man wear Speedo swimsuits, again, revealing the outline of their genitals.  I've never seen a man wearing skinny jeans (or any tight jeans) that could reveal the outline of their package or their ass.  I've never seen a man go topless at a beach (or anywhere out in public).  Like women, men should never be topless because their bare chest will give women impure thoughts.  Men are modest and women are not.  That is why they cannot be equal.  What world does “TTan,” or anyone else that believes the thesis that men are more modest, living in?

That fact is that many men believe that women need more modesty.  In a poll of 1,600 Christian men, conducted by a Christian website, it was found that 95% of these men say that their future wife should display “modesty.”  What is modesty to these men?  The website “The Society Pages” breaks it down like this (these are actual survey responses):

Something that is immodest is something that is designed to arouse lust within me (male, age 24).
Something that is immodest is something that is unnaturally revealing (male, age 20).
Something immodest draws attention to a girl’s body (male, age 28).

Immodesty, according to this poll, is quite vaguely defined.  But, it looks like anything could be considered immodest if it arouses “lust in me.”  With that definition, I guess we all should be dressed in a big, black plastic bag, however, someone might find that lustful so that might not be a good idea.  Any clothing, worn by men or women, can be deemed lustful.

To be perfectly honest, all human beings will check out other human beings, our eyes like to wander on others whom we deem attractive.  We are all guilty of that.  But, what separates us from the animals is that we have impulse control.  I am a gay man and I have friends that are straight males.  Some of my friends are quite attractive; however, they are my friends.  I have no sexual desire for them.  I don’t sit there and dream about them ripping off their clothes.  Or I don’t sit there and get upset with them because their clothes are revealing at times.  I don’t think of them as whores if they aren't wearing their shirts because that might “arouse lust within me.”  My friends are my friends and I can clearly hang out with them without having sexual feelings for them.

Men and women should be treated as equals in society.  Men and woman should dress how they want, but there should not be any hypocrisy.  I am sure it has not occurred to many men, especially “TTan,” that men dress immodestly.  But, they do.  However, it’s not really discussed in society.  The only time I've heard of men’s immodesty is when people discuss the guys that wear jeans below their butt and reveal their underwear.  However, even that is discussed differently in society.  I've never heard anyone suggest that these guys are “arousing lust” within women because their underwear is being reveled, the discussion about this clothing trend is built upon “having respect” for places of business or for the public.  I also know that some would argue that this is why they believe women should dress modestly.  I am sure some people feel that way, but don’t lose focus on the larger issue.  That larger issue is that women are shamed more often than men because their “immodesty” is about inciting lust within men and not out of respect for society.  When men dress immodestly, it’s disrespect.  With women it’s all about sex and lust.  That’s the difference and it is a difference that must be dealt with in our country.

It seems like our country’s maturity when it comes to women, women’s rights, and women’s clothing, is stuck at the elementary school level.  We are like little kids that giggle if the word “erection” or “breasts” is used in a conversation.  I say this because I see comment after comment saying that if a girl or a woman did not want to be raped or assaulted then they should have dressed more modestly.   Our country’s mentality of “well they asked for it” by dressing a certain way reeks of immaturity.  Women should be allowed to dress how they like without being labeled a “slut,” “whore,” or as being “easy.”  Men aren't labeled that way when they are dressed immodestly.  Women should not be labeled that way either.

The Nostalgia Delusion: Romanticizing a False Past

"There is a concern with politics of memory, namely, the means and the ways in which memory—especially collective memory—is shaped and manipulated by political agencies, for political gains. The politics of memory is also the politics of forgetting; creating and maintaining social amnesia by political agencies. Memory, like any other form of knowledge, is power. Whoever controls memory and forgetting, gains in power."  (Margalit, p. 275)

The preceding quote came from the article entitled “Nostalgia” from the academic journal, Psychoanalytic Dialogues (May/Jun 2011), written by Dr. Avishai Margalit.  Nostalgia is this week’s topic because, as Dr. Margalit writes:

"Nostalgia, like its cousin sentimentally, tends to distort reality in a particular way.  The difference between sentimentality and nostalgia is that nostalgia distorts the reality of time past.  Nostalgia idealizes its object . . . and locates it in a time of great purity and innocence."  (Margalit, p. 273)

Romanticizing the past and remembering the “good ole’ days” drives political behavior in many Americans.  Pundits like Bill O’Reilly opine that “it’s not a traditional America anymore.”   (I suggest that you click here to view O’Reilly talking about traditional America, just to see his point of view).  Pundits, politicians, and political think-tanks use nostalgia against us so we will vote for the person or cause that they want.  O’Reilly talks about “traditional America” in the terms that America is not the prosperous, moral country it once was, back in the 1940’s and 1950’s.  O’Reilly talks about how the entitlement culture of Americans who want “free stuff” has taken hold.  He opines about the pro-choice movement wanting abortions on demand.  He also opines about how marijuana legalization will harm this country.  Pundits like O’Reilly believe that this country is not as great as it once was.  There are millions of Americans that agree with him.

These Americans vote for politicians because they want the glory days of America back.  The conservative right constantly talks about their heroes, Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln, and how they want to find a presidents like these men again.  Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln are the standard-bearers for the Republican Party.  In fairness, the liberal left uses Franklin Roosevelt and Bill Clinton as their standard-bearers when they romanticize about the past.  Left-leaning Americans would love to find another FDR or Clinton to put into the White House again.  However, let’s be realistic, presidents like these men are few and far between.  For every Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt we have as president, we have several Warren G. Hardings, Andrew Johnsons, or Herbert Hoovers.  Not every president can have a grand legacy.

Besides, we all distort the past.  We romanticize the past.  We remember the good times and we think how wonderful a certain time in our life was and how we would like things to be that way again.  We do that with this country’s history.  We think of how prosperous the 1950’s or the 1990’s were and we dream about going back there.  We want to have those “good ole’ days” again.  We want to go back to the days of Ozzie, Harriet, and the Beaver.  We want traditional families with a sense of morality, honesty, and hard work.  Life was simple and so wholesome back in those days.

It is true that times are tough.  The economy is sluggish, we have a crippling national debt, the wage gap between the poor and the rich is widening, polarization is at its height.  However, our past, that so many people seem to be clamoring for, is not as pristine as we remember.

Look at the 1950’s, which Bill O’Reilly and other Americans seem to idolize.  They have visions of Wally and the Beaver in their head.  American life was so wholesome back then.  The loving husband was hard at work while the doting wife was hard at work being a good mother that cooked, cleaned, and made sure that the household was running well.  However, that was television.  Life was not so simple, especially for women in the 1950’s.  I took a sociology class a few years ago that highlighted the roles of women back during the 50’s.  The professor pulled out a home economic school book from that time period and read it to us.  Women in the 50’s were expected to stay home all day and cook and clean.  They were suppose to take care of the children, as well.  However, when the man of the house got home, the woman was told to wait at the door with her husband’s slippers and favorite drink so she could greet him properly at the door.  The woman had to make sure that the children were playing quietly in their rooms before dad got home from work.  This is because the man had been working so hard during the day that he did not need to deal with that noise.  The woman was also told to not complain about her day.  Only the man could do that.  The woman should never upset her man.  He needs to be calm and relaxed from his long day.  Does that scenario seem ideal?  Does our society really want to go back to the 1950’s where a woman’s thoughts or hard work were not recognized?  The man was the only hard working person in the family.  I thought marriage was a partnership and not a dictatorship.  Taking care of a house and the children is hard work.  The thought process of our society in the 1950’s that the man was the only hard working person in the relationship was degrading and disgusting.  The wife must cater to her husband’s every whim while she denies her own person-hood.  To prove this point, look at these print ads from the 1950’s:

Those ads are a good representation of how women were treated back in the “good ole’ days.”  But that’s not the only negative attribute of our country during the 1950’s.  One could also look at the Jim Crow laws that were still in place at that time.  African-Americans had that “separate but equal” status branded on their foreheads.  The United States, especially the southern U.S., had laws that segregated the African-American community from whites.  African-Americans had separate schools, separate sections on public transportation, separate restrooms, separate drinking fountains, separate dining sections in restaurants, etc.   Again, do we want to go back to that time in America?

On an international scale, the 50’s were a turbulent time.  We saw the Korean War (1950-1953), the start of the Vietnam War (1959), the Cuban Revolution (1953-1959), the Arab-Israel conflict continuing in the Suez Crisis (1956).  The United States was also deeply in the middle of the Cold War with the Soviet Union.  The war was referred as “cold” because there were never any large battles between the United States and the Soviet Union.  The Cold War was mostly fought through rhetoric and military tension.  However, Americans were in constant fear that the Soviet Union and the United States would enter into a nuclear war.  Nuclear annihilation was a constant fear during that time.

After reviewing the history during that time, are you (if you ever were) clamoring for those “good ole’ days” to come back?  I know I am not.

I am not trying to be the purveyor of doom and gloom.  Nostalgia is a powerful thought process that helps us through the tough times.  Sweet memories of our childhood or early years can bring about great happiness.  I think back to great memories of childhood, vacations, and moments of achievement and that makes me happy.  Those grand memories help me strive for a better life.  There is nothing wrong with being nostalgic.  There is nothing wrong with a yearning for those happy times in our life.  However, we must be careful.  Nostalgia can distort our past, especially in the realm of politics.  Nostalgia is just another tool politicians use to get them to divide and conquer us.  They will use the images of Ronald Reagan or Franklin Roosevelt as a call to the American people.  They will try to use the fond memories we have of our favorite presidents and favorite time periods in order for us to vote for them.  If a politician has such great ideas, then why don’t they run on those positions?  Why do they always try to use the nostalgia card?  They do this because they know we will get emotional.  We get emotional because we think about the fond memories that we have and we attach them to society at large.  We think about those happy times and we automatically assume that everything, including our country, was in a grand state, even though the reality was different.  We are human; we are prone to attaching great sentiment to the past.  It brings us happiness.

Just remember that politicians will try to manipulate our memories by telling us grand stories about the past.  They are manipulating our basic human emotions so they can get a vote.  Again, nothing wrong with being nostalgic, just don’t let those thoughts distort the past because:

“Remembrance of things past is not necessarily the remembrance of things as they were.” – Marcel Proust

Coexistence in the Realm of Policy-Making

Last week, the proposition of co-existence was discussed.  If you have not read last week’s post, please check it out now before you move on with this week’s post.

This week I want to continue the discussion.  I want to take the theory of co-existence and apply it to policy-making.  This is a tough proposition because this country is so diverse, but I do believe we can accomplish this if we use that dirty “c” word:  compromise.  I want to look at two areas of policy.  These two areas of policy will be same-sex adoptions and school prayer.  I wanted to look at two policy areas where solutions can be found (and have been found) so that greatest amount of good can be found between conservatives and liberals alike.

Same-Sex Adoptions

This is an area where I am shocked that there is so much disagreement.  I should not be shocked because I do realize that not everyone will believe in the same principles, but I am shocked that we are not looking at the truth of the matter.  The truth of the matter is that state child welfare systems are chaotic.  They hurt the children that they are supposedly protecting.  As discussed in the scholarly article, “Cumulative Risks of Foster Care Placement by Age 18 for U.S. Children, 2000-2011:”

"Though clearly helpful to some children, foster care placement frequently introduces additional instability to their already-chaotic lives, potentially further harming them. This combination of maltreatment and instability means that children who have experienced foster care suffer not only from elevated rates of mortality in childhood, but also from a host of other problems ranging from asthma to behavioral problems to suicidal ideation. Children in foster care are five times more likely to be diagnosed with depression, four times more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD, and ten times more likely to be diagnosed with bipolar disorder than other children, for instance" (Wildeman & Emanuel, 2014).

Foster children are at higher risks of developing anti-social behavior, physical health problems, and even death.  However, some people believe that a gay person or couple should not have the right to adopt children because having two daddies or two mommies will be harmful to the child.   It should be noted that the majority of Americans support same-sex adoptions.  According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken from February 27 to March 2, 2014, 61% of Americans support same-sex adoptions while only 34% oppose.   However, knowing that a third of Americans oppose same-sex couple from adopting is quite troubling.  It is troubling because these Americans are hurting the children that they claim that they are protecting.  They fear that children of same-sex parents will be damaged because children need a mom and a dad.  Opponents say these things even though the American Sociological Association states, in their amicus brief to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in regards to same-sex marriage:

“The clear and consistent consensus in the social science research is that across a wide range of indicators, children fare just as well when raised by same-sex parents as children raised by different-sex parents.”

I believe these detractors are missing the point.  A child does not need a mom and a dad.  They need two loving parents.  They need stability.  Stability is more important than the sex of the parents raising them.  Opponents are obsessed with the fact that “no matter how loving, two fathers can never replace a mother.”  They are so obsessed with the fact that a child needs a mother and a father that they are hurting the children they want to protect.

I would ask opponents of same-sex adoption to think about the thousands upon thousands of children in foster care and orphanages that just want loving parents.  They do not care about the sex of their parents.  They just want someone to love them.  I will respect (but disagree) with the fact that same-sex adoption opponents believe that a child needs a mother and a father, but I would just want to know if they would prefer children to be locked away into the foster care system?  They would rather have a child waste-away in foster care (and I am not saying that all foster parents are not loving and caring people) than be adopted by two people (of the same-sex) who will love them and take care of them.

Who cares what you believe.  In the end, we want children to be in loving homes.  Does it matter if is a traditional family where there is a mother and a father?  Is it not better for a child to have two fathers or two mothers then being stuck in the child welfare system?  Can’t we agree that getting children out of the foster care system is better than leaving them in a system where children can be harmed?  I believe we can agree on this because we need to put our personal, petty feelings aside so we can help the most vulnerable people in our society:  our children.

Prayer in School

"When a kid in school is cussing away like any character in any Tarantino movie, nobody bats an eye.  Ooh, but a kid saying a prayer in school, those hypocrites lose their minds." – Sarah Palin

There are many traditionalists like former Alaskan governor, Sarah Palin, who believe that prayer is missing from school.  They believe that our country has taken a dangerous turn because children are not allowed to pray in school.  There are people that believe that allowing prayer in school would help our children learn, grow, and behave like the outstanding citizens we want them to be.  No one can argue with that thought process.  It is a fruitless endeavor in trying to argue with someone of faith and tell them that their beliefs are not true.  I know many people are sincere in their faith and they believe that prayer in school would help out their children.

However, this notion that a child cannot pray in school is false.  Charles Haynes, director of the Religious Freedom Education Project told the Washington Post that:

“Students of all faiths are actually free to pray alone or in groups during the school day, as long as they don’t disrupt the school or interfere with the rights of others. Of course, the right to engage in voluntary prayer or religious discussion does not necessarily include the right to preach to a captive audience, like an assembly, or to compel other students to participate.”

Haynes goes on tells the Washington Post that some public school officials are ignorant of this fact and when they don’t allow kids to pray, they lose in court.

Prayer in school is allowed in school, as long as they don’t disrupt class, meaning that they can’t vocally pray during an English lesson.  If they want to have a silent prayer at their desk, that is acceptable.  If they want to pray in a group at recess, that is acceptable.  They cannot have a group prayer when class is in session.  In my estimation, this is where people who want prayer in school have a problem.  I believe they want to have a morning or afternoon prayer that involves the whole class.  I would ask these proponents of school prayer, “why is that fair?”

Most school classrooms are going to have an eclectic mix of students.  Some students may be Christian, others may be Jewish, others may be Muslim, and others may be agnostic or atheist.  Is it fair that all students in a public school must listen to a prayer that they may be uncomfortable or disagree with?  Would it be fair for a Christian in a predominately Islamic populated public school to be forced to participate in a Muslim prayer?  No one should be forced into anything as sacred as a prayer.

Some people may argue that any student who did not want to participate in the prayer could leave the room, as argued in the Supreme Court case, Town of Greece v. Galloway, where the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5 to 4 decision, that prayer in public meetings does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause.  The Supreme Court found that no one is coerced into participating in the prayer.  People do not have to bow their heads.  A meeting participant can just leave the room while the prayer is being administered.  The problem with doing this with school children is that children are impressionable beings.  They may feel pressure (coercion) into saying the prayer because they are afraid to speak up and say that they do not want to participate.  They may not want to be singled out for leaving the classroom during the prayer.  Besides, that leaves school administrators with another dilemma.  Children in school need constant supervision.  Even if you want the child to stand outside the classroom while a prayer is being said, that creates a safety concern because children have been known to wonder off.  Children need to be accounted for at all times when they are at school, so you would need adults supervising the children who are not part of the prayer (and who are in the classroom having the prayer).

The next problem would be how many prayers are going to be said?  If you have a classroom with Jewish, Muslim, and Catholic students, does this mean you have three separate prayers?  In all fairness, you must allow all students to participate in the prayer that they want said.  During the Catholic prayer, do you allow Muslim and Jewish students to leave the room?  There are many reasons why group school prayer during class would not work.  The logistics of trying to accommodate every religion becomes too complicated and it takes away from the valuable instruction time that our students desperately need.

As a compromise, maybe a block of religious time could be set aside before the official start of school.  If students wanted to pray in the classroom setting with their peers, maybe they could gather into different classrooms, each separated into different religions, 15 minutes before the start of class.  They can say their prayer and then get to class before school starts for the day.   This way the students are not infringing on school time and/or the religious rights of others.  But, this compromise brings up logistical issues as well; the children would still need to be supervised while they are in prayer.  Do you ask for parent or teacher volunteers to watch over the students?  Again more issues are raised, but in good faith, I am sure many people would want to try and find a solution that would benefit everyone.

The solution I just proposed sounds a lot like what is already available to students.  If a group of students want to meet before class and have a prayer together, they can already do that.  I believe many Americans would like to try and accommodate students who want to pray at school.  We can compromise, but to insist that every child should sit and participate in prayer every day at school is an un-American principle.  We are an individualistic people who want to follow our own path.  One of those paths might include following the path of Christ, through religion, while others may want to follow a secular path.  There is no wrong or right path, but forcing someone on to that path is fascism at its finest.  Many people believe that prayer is a powerful tool in their life and I am happy for them for feeling that way, but many people believe the opposite.

It’s not political correctness in finding alternative arrangements for the faithful or the secularists; it’s just the fair thing to do.