Refugees Ain’t Peanuts

Republican Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee recently offered the following analogy to the issue of taking in Syrian refugees: “If you bought a five-pound bag of peanuts and there were about ten peanuts that were deadly poisonous, would you feed them to your kids?" he said. "The answer is no.”

This is, in a nutshell, the basic Republican approach to the refugee crisis, and by examining the many ways in which the analogy fails you can see the flaws in their thought process and understand what they’re really trying to do.

First off, the lives of human beings are not peanuts. Refugees are people. Bakers, plumbers, taxi drivers. Mothers, daughters, grandparents. A wide slice of everyday humanity whose existence is just as valuable as our own, regardless of the color of their skin or who they pray to. But the Republican view is only focused on us. We are the consumer and everything else is simply a commodity. Our lives matter. Other’s don’t. It puts fear before compassion and takes no account of the level of risk. If there’s any chance of any harm coming to a single one of ‘us’, then there’s absolutely no reason to help out any of ‘them’. Safety comes first.

But even that is a lie. Let’s grant that there are some poisonous peanuts out there. They want to withhold the five pound bag, but we’re at a picnic with many other foods. There’s some peanut butter cookies over on the dessert table, some Chinese chicken salad in the dinner line, and peanut butter sandwiches with the crust cut off everywhere. The Republicans either ignore all these other food dangers (like tourist visas, legal immigration, American-born Muslims) or they call for a complete ban on any type of nut whatsoever (Trump is really one step away of saying we should ban Islam from our country). The one approach does nothing to safeguard those worried about peanuts because peanuts are everywhere, and if we ban everyone from having any type of nut we’re getting rid of a lot of good food – and more accurately a lot of good and decent people who contribute to our society. It goes against the very nature our country was founded on of religious tolerance and diversity. But once again, religious freedom is important for ‘us’, not them.

Yet banning nuts still wouldn’t make us safe. There are lots of food allergies out there, lots of dangerous meals. They don’t really want to get rid of all the dangers, just the ones they know they didn’t bring. They don’t like peanuts so no one else can have them. Never mind the truth that right-wing Christian fanatics have killed more Americans than Muslims. Never mind that Americans have killed far more innocent civilian Muslims since 9/11 than the victims of that tragic day. Never mind that more American soldiers will die fighting the war on Islam they’re starting. Their rhetoric does not lead to safety.

Finally, the analogy assumes that our kids are eating peanuts at random. The truth is far different. That bag of peanuts Huckabee is talking about will get inspected. Each individual peanut will undergo a thorough review by a peanut expert. It’s past, from the day it was planted to the day it arrived in that bag, will be studied and questioned. It’s not a perfect process, but the chances of finding and separating out the poisonous legumes are pretty good. The same can’t be said for the chicken salad. The Republicans want to ban the one group of Muslims who are most rigorously vetted before they enter this country. French citizens pulled off the attack in Paris. Saudis perpetrated 9/11. The San Bernadino shootings involved an American and a Pakistani here on a visa. Refugees are not the danger.

It was never about safety, though. It’s about fear. They want us to be afraid of the peanuts. They want us focused on the foreign threat because it gives them an easy way to lay down the rules and prove that they are in charge. No peanuts. Listen to your parents. It’s easier to control your kid when they’re afraid. If you have to exaggerate a little and say that peanuts are going to kill them, well, it’s for their own good. You see, the Republicans think we’re children who turn to them for guidance. That they know best and we’ll like them more if we think they know everything and are protecting us. They want to be the good parent because we'll listen to them and let them remain in charge. Perhaps that’s also why they’re always promising us candy – lower taxes for everyone, no decrease in government spending, and magical four percent economy growth.

The saddest thing about the entire analogy is the fact that it works. That so many people who espouse a faith that specifically calls for welcoming the less fortunate are more concerned about minuscule threats to their own easy lifestyle than they are about helping others. That our fear of the radical Islamic terrorists half a world away out-trumps the true horror suffered by those who lived under their regime. It’s an appeal to our own weaknesses, the worst part of human nature that fears the other and responds to hatred with more hatred. Our country was founded to be better than that. We’ve had dark moments in the past - when we turned away Jewish immigrants fleeing Nazi Germany, when we placed Japanese Americans in internment camps – so it’s nothing new. We are all imperfect beings who suffer fear and react instinctively instead of intelligently.

But we can be better. What defines a person is not the mistakes they’ve made in the past but what they’ve learned from their actions and how they behave in the future. We have a chance to show our character. We can be that beacon on a hill and light the way for a better world. Or we can toss peanuts on the ground.

Of Xenophobia and Instinct

In the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris, the social media world, the media world in general, and the general world in general, have all erupted in mourning, debate, accusations and incriminations. The responses are neither surprising or new. But their very consistency lends itself to self-analysis and potential learning. Though neither seems likely.

The first response of many is one of fear and fight. The attack in Paris is seen as a threat to all Western life in a way that the similar bombings in Beirut a few days earlier were not. In a way we can understand and, more importantly, imagine happening to us, the way death and destruction caused by war on a country's own soil is not. Paris is a proxy for all the West and demands a response because it is us. We cannot so simply turn away.

The world is too large to grasp and appreciate, so we reduce it to similarities and the familiar. In so doing we deny its truth, we miss the universalities disguised by surface differences. We look for ourselves in everything and miss it everywhere.

So we vow revenge. We demand action. We send in the planes and drop the bombs and trust that we kill for noble reasons, out of self-defense, and our actions are in no way comparable to the enemy's. That we have killed more civilians on their side than they have on ours is irrelevant. That the extremists have killed more of their own kind than ours is irrelevant. They are all the same if we lack the ability to tell them apart. If we kill them all we will surely get the right ones among them.

At the same time, we flight as well as fight. We call to close our borders. To expunge those who might be the enemy simply because they belong to the same general group of people. We do this only when the attack comes from a minority, a segment of society that is easy for the majority to disparage and eliminate. When white men commit atrocities, when Christians commit disgraceful acts in the name of their god, we cannot run away. Because we are them.

The other is the greatest threat to the self. It challenges everything held dear; it weakens every belief and threatens every foundation. It brings us together in defense of the common good and unites individuals into a community. And in so doing, we lose our selves to the masses and the war is already lost.

We look for a simple answer and the obvious truths. Bad people exist. They are a threat to us. If we eliminate them we will be safe. But people are merely the pawns of movements, ideas brought into action. We make no attempt to find the root cause or change the thought process. If people hate us for our militarization and interference, we will send our military to interfere some more. We believe those who tell us it will work this time, in spite of so recent memory that they've said that before. We'd rather believe the obvious lie that comforts us than an inconvenient truth that scares us more. We need satisfaction now - justice is swifter through violence than education.

The grand gesture is rarely a lasting sentiment. The immediate response seldom a solution. If we have any hope to make change, to improve life, it will only come piecemeal, over generations. What is done long after the fact will decide what comes next.

There is naked evil in the world, and Islamic extremists represent one face of it. But there are many forms of hate, many ways in which we deny what's noble about humanity and reduce ourselves to an instinctive drive to survive at all costs. When we vilify those of with different beliefs because a tiny percentage have wronged us, when we show compassion for those who look like us but turn our back to those of a different color, when we respond to hatred in kind, we lessen ourselves.

We can resist. We can pause to consider and use our higher principles and rational brains to seek understanding and learn a new approach. We don't need to cower in fear or strike out in anger. We can fight back and show strength through character instead of belligerence. Doing so would take a bravery I fear we lack. It would value the long-term result instead of immediate satisfaction. It would value all people equally and improve the world for more than just ourselves. It could work. It won't happen. It's why I mourn for Paris - not because of the immediate tragedy, but because it belongs to a world where it will inevitably happen again.

Empathy, or lack thereof, appears to be the core problem of human relations. We misunderstand, miscommunicate, and misrepresent each other in a constant struggle to declare our own truths to be universal and undeniable. We simply lack the ability to think in a way other than how we’ve learned to think. If we are forever limited by our own experiences we will never come to understand the other until we experience more than ourselves.

Securing the high ground

I wrote earlier about the second amendment and why I feel it has no place in the current debate over how to handle guns in America. But since then there’s been another mass shooting (several, really, like there are every month in this country, but one in particular that’s captured the media’s attention), and I feel the need to address the fundamental arguments I hear from those who support (demand) the right to own guns, I’m writing again to make my position more clear. Gun-right advocates do have a case to make, but it’s one without morality.

The first thing they’ll say is that the constitution guarantees them the right to bear arms. I took  this apart in detail, but let’s just stick to the fact that no reference to a conclusion drawn by others represents an argument on it’s own merits. Just because some people thought it was a good idea a long time ago does not make it a good idea today. You have to at least state what their argument was and why it’s still valid. That’s hard to do because we don’t really have their argument – merely a lot of conjecture on what their reasoning was. And the words they used suggest it was based on a need for a militia which holds much less sway in a world where standing armies with nuclear weapons are the norm. So let’s move on.

Gun rights advocates argue against any restrictions because they say criminals wouldn’t follow any new laws anyway. Laws don’t prevent bad people from getting guns so we shouldn’t pass any more. There are so many logical problems here. First, if laws don’t stop anyone from getting guns, why are they worried about them? Why don’t they just let the rest of us pass laws restricting guns and they can ignore them like they say they will. Let’s at least give it a try.

But let’s follow their logic a little further. If laws don’t stop criminals or crime, why do we need any? Criminals break the law by definition. So, of course, criminals will continue to break the law if you add more to them. But the reason we have laws is to indicate what is allowed and considered right and what is wrong. And we back up our laws with punishment for those who break them. Laws reduce certain acts by making them criminal. Maybe not eliminate them, but certainly reduces them. I take this to be self-evident. If you want to live in a lawless society and see how that works out, go right ahead.

But on a more important note, why do you think criminals have such easy access to guns? The answer is simply because there are so many damn guns around. The U.S. has half the private guns in the world, one for every single person (including children) in this country. Of course it’s easy for criminals to get them. And it’s the fault of all the people over all the years who have argued that we all need the right to own guns. It’s those people who want to make sure the good guys have guns who have created a system whereby it’s easy for bad guys to obtain guns. The blame lies with their culture.

But maybe it is too late. The criminals are armed and the only way to stop them is to make sure the good guys have guns too. But I really wonder about how many good guys are really good. The truth is, it’s those good guys who accidentally shoot themselves while cleaning their weapons. It’s the good guys who leave the weapon unsecure so a child finds it and hurts themselves or others. It’s the people we thought were good guys who get angry and use the weapon against their wife or partner. It’s especially the good ones who get sad at all the badness in the world and put their gun to their own head to end the pain. And even the best among us will eventually pass away and leave their stockpiles of deadly weapons to the next generation who may not be nearly as worthy. Statistically speaking, good law-abiding citizens are far more likely to hurt themselves or innocent people with their guns than they are to stop a bad guy, and eventually their weapons will find their way into the wrong hands.

But they still want their guns. Their right to have a toy, to make themselves feel safer in spite of the evidence that proves it isn’t so, is far more important to them than the lives of the innocent people who will die in a system that grants them their right. It’s incredibly selfish. It should not be the basis for how a rational society decides what is best for the population as a whole.

I do agree that it’s too late. It will take generations to get rid of the ridiculous amount of guns in the country. But I’ll still argue for a sane course of action and an end goal that makes sense. It’s not laws or regulation that will make this country safer, but a change in the mindset that weapons are the basis for peace, that everyone needs the power to kill quickly and efficiently in order to survive. There are too many models out there that prove it isn’t so. In the meantime, it would be good to know what incremental steps we can take to make things better. To start us on a path towards a society where more guns are not the solution to a problem of too many guns. The truth is, it’s really hard to know what to do. But that’s their fault as well.

The reason we don’t have much solid academic study of the problems of gun violence is that gun proponents have fought tooth and nail to prevent it. The NRA has used all its power, every politician on its payroll, to stop the government from researching how guns impact public safety. To me, the only reason they would do that is because they know all too well what the answer will be. Those who fear to face the truth are the ones who already know what it is.

And that’s the truth of it. We all really do know that guns are bad. They’re designed to kill. Their purpose is evil. While it may be necessary to have such evil weapons in the world, we should never forget that it’s an evil necessity. We should take no pride in facing that necessity. We should look to eliminate it or reduce it at every turn. If we have any morality in us, we should all strive for a world without guns. The argument that it isn’t possible is proven wrong by many of the most developed and civilized countries in the world – it would be nice if the U.S. could be part of that group.

Where lies our nobility?

“I don't think people are inherently racist in this country. In fact, I think that we have a pretty noble tradition of the opposite.” Jeb Bush, Sep. 25, 2015

When I first read the above quote from Jeb I thought it was the same level of ignorance that made him say his brother kept us safe (except for that whole 9/11 thing, right?). That he simply didn’t think it through or possibly was so eager to stick to his positive ‘Rise Up’ message that he couldn’t acknowledge the obvious: our history is hardly noble. It is one of slavery and discrimination. Of subjugation and displacement. White people in this country came to power through disenfranchising, marginalizing, ignoring, or outright killing every other race that crossed their path. The more I thought about it, the more I wondered what ‘noble tradition’ he could be referring to, the more I realized he truly believed what he said. And I think I can understand why.

Jeb grew up a rich white kid in the south. He learned his history the way many of us did in school – through a prism that included the truth but really distorted the facts into a world-view that fed into our own beliefs and desires. You see, everyone wants to be great. We want to be a part of something great and to know our ancestors, whether genetic or cultural, were great. We look at history not to see what happened, but to reassure ourselves that our greatness is deserved. We idealize our past so we can assure ourselves of our future. It’s why Donald wants to make American great again – because so many people think that it was.

In school I was taught that the United States was the greatest country in the world. We were the first true democracy. We expanded across a (nearly) empty land and rose through hard work and industrialization to dominate the world economy. We ended slavery, saved Europe in World War I and saved the world in World War 2. And it was white men like me who did it. How proud was I to be the inheritor of all that greatness.

To be fair, I was taught that we decimated the native Americans when we arrived. We treated them poorly, infected them with disease, robbed them of their lands, rounded them up to reservations, and promptly ignored their existence. But that was the past.

We also had slavery – or, more accurately, those Southerners had slavery. I had the privilege of living in a section of the North that could easily toss off any association with the institution. More importantly, we ended slavery. We, as a nation, fought and sacrificed to free the slaves. Sure, it was ourselves we were fighting. We had lived with slavery for centuries. Grown rich and powerful on the backs of slaves. But the point was we ended the practice because we were good white men.

And even if some prejudice remained, it was in the past, before the Civil Rights Act. Once again, we ended segregation and Jim Crow laws. Good for us.

The facts were there. Our terrible history of discrimination. Against blacks, Asians, women, the Irish, Catholics, etc., etc. Our terrible acts of corporate greed – slave labor followed by child labor. Our terrible treatment of the rest of the world, from supporting dictators to ignoring human rights abuses. Yes, we did lots of terrible things. But look how much we accomplished.

The overall narrative always reinforced that the bad things were done in the past, and that we had changed and improved since then. We took the good things and built on them. There is some truth to this – I believe we have improved as a people and a society. But it also feeds into the self-congratulatory concept that we come from good people. People who ended the bad things. We take pride in our history of achievements but leave our guilt over the costs of our success behind, much like a Vegas buffet.  All prime rib, all the time. No broccoli for us.

So in Jeb’s mind, in the minds of most white people in this country, we are good folk. We come from good folk who were noble and righteous. We desperately want to believe that and it’s so easy to do. Just listen to what you’ve been told since childhood.

It takes much more self-awareness and strength of character to accept the grayness that stains our souls. Our country was built on the bodies of the disadvantaged. Since our very start, we have raped the land, killed those who were here before us, dragged our labor here in chains, repressed the voices and rights of those who looked different or were born the wrong gender. Our true greatness lies not in what we accomplished in the past but how much we have grown and changed from those times. We are not perfect but we are better. That is something rare and worth celebrating.

But we do not have a noble history as a nation. None do. Any current claim of nobility rests not only on our actions today but in honestly admitting the mistakes of our past. Our willingness to sweep the dark spots of our history under the rug is an inherently racist action. It hurts those who have already been hurt, it denies their truth and perpetuates a system that exists to placate those who have the power and gained it so dishonestly. The fact that so many of us choose to willfully ignore our past, that we seek praise for ceasing to perpetrate evil, that we blithely dismiss anyone who dares to suggest we are not the rightful heirs of manifest destiny  – that’s what reveals who we really are. It’s not the second line of the quote that is the big lie. It’s the first.

Race of Racism in America

Life is a race. A multi-generational race. Where you start depends on where your parents were in the race; the obstacles in your path depend upon how you grow up, the education your receive, the support you have behind you. And the color of your skin.

In America, the white man (and it was only men who were allowed to run) started with an open path. He ran hard and fast. The black man was in chains – he couldn’t run at all. At some point the white man stopped and turned around. He realized it wasn’t a race at all and called for the black man to be cut free. The black man began to run and the white man continued on his way, comfortable with his large lead.

The black man found many hurdles in his path. Voting obstructions, Jim Crow laws, lynchings. Not surprisingly, he couldn’t catch up. Eventually the white man paused once again. He looked far behind him and dictated the hurdles be removed. He continued on his way.

Some of the hurdles were gone, but the path of the black man was still a rough road. Racism hadn’t been removed by decree. The white man was far out front and still running hard. The black man couldn’t catch up.

Today the white man is still out front. Some look back and don’t see the hurdles. They know the history, they hear stories of the rough ground, are shown the statistics that prove the black man faces more challenges. But their lane has some bumps too. They didn’t personally create any obstacles for anyone. They weren’t around for the days of high hurdles. They decreed it was to be a fair race, so it must be true. A very small percentage of black men have even caught up – doesn’t that prove it? Never mind they never stopped to let all the black men catch up. Never mind the contest was unfair for so long. It’s fair now – what else can we do? We’ve got a race to run. The white man wants to win.

The hurdles aren’t gone. They never will be. The evidence they exist is all around us, but not everyone experiences them. When you’re in the lead it’s hard to see what’s happening behind you. But it’s impossible to deny that the white man had a head start. No way to argue that generation after generation began out in front and did very little to help the black man catch up. How long does the race have to be before we can ignore the start? How much harder does the black man have to run to pull even? How can anyone claim themselves a deserving winner in such an unfair competition?

Everyone runs a different race and some will always have more obstacles than others. There will always be some unfairness in the race. We could argue about who has the hardest course, which hurdles are higher and how many still exist. Or we could spend our time clearing the path. We could work together to remove as many obstacles as possible and let everyone run on the same ground. We could help everyone get to the same starting line. Then we can all race as hard as we want and feel good about our accomplishments. Or maybe we could get on the same team and find a way for everyone to win. Either way, this race needs a start-over.

[I wrote my post before reading this article, but I knew it was out there. It lays out the case in a more concrete manner: The Case for Reparations in The Atlantic]

An Open Letter to #AllLivesMatter

All Lives DO Matter

I believe when most people say that #AllLivesMatter they are expressing a good thought. They truly believe that all lives do matter and as a society we should be outraged and saddened when someone, anyone, is killed. It’s true. It’s right. It also misses the point.

Because there’s something more in #AllLivesMatter. It’s not just an idea unto itself but a response to #BlackLivesMatter. In order to be understood, it needs to be placed in context and that requires a little more understanding and awareness of what the #BlackLivesMatter movement represents beyond a hashtag slogan.

First, when people use the expression #BlackLivesMatter, what they’re saying is that Black lives matter too. Because here’s the thing: society very clearly says that white lives matter. When a white police officer is killed in the line of duty everyone says it’s a tragedy. The system (the criminal justice system and society in general) swings into action and no expense is spared to find the killer and bring them to justice. People who kill cops, people who kill white people in general, are the subject of large police manhunts, prosecuted vigilantly by the largely white district attorneys, and punished harshly by the court system. That’s as it should be. It’s already happening and we don’t need any large social movement to make it happen or to improve the system in that regard. You don’t need to say #AllLivesMatter when talking about white police officers because everyone already agrees with that.

On the other hand, when a black person is killed, especially at the hands of a white police officer, the system often treats it as if it doesn’t really matter. It doesn’t get wide coverage in the media. It doesn’t create any outrage or upset in the majority population. The assumption is that the black person deserved it. The system doesn’t investigate it as thoroughly – the police officer isn’t treated as a suspect, they don’t have to give a statement right away, the people who do the investigation are the officer’s coworkers, often their friends, the district attorney who decides if any crime has been committed is a regular partner of the police and is hardly impartial. So while it may be true that the police officer was justified, the system is not a fair and impartial determiner of that fact. That’s what people are complaining about.

And make no doubt, the system is flawed and it takes herculean efforts to prove that white police are in the wrong and that black people have been victimized. There are many cases where the truth is in question and normally nothing comes of it. But it does happen. It happened in South Carolina. It happened in Cincinnati. It happened New York. So we know that sometimes police officers are not justified in their killing of unarmed black men. But what about here, and here, and here, and there’s a list of more here. That’s just this past year. And just the deaths. It goes to reason that there are many more cases where bad cops injured, unjustly detained, or simply harassed Black people without killing them so it was never noticed by the media.

And if you wonder why so many Black suspects resist arrest or try to flee, it’s because they know the system is rigged against them. White people can simply take a ride down to the station and get it sorted out. That doesn’t work so well for minorities. They might not make it to the station, like Freddie Gray. Once in custody they’re still not safe, like Tyree Woodson. And then they face our criminal justice system, has a clear statistical bias against them.

This isn’t to say that all police shootings are wrong or that all police are racist and corrupt. There are lots of fine people working in law enforcement and most are simply trying to do their job to the best of their abilities. But some police officers are bad. Just like some kindergarten teachers are bad. Some cooks are bad, some carpenters, some auto dealers, some doctors and even some politicians are bad. It would be perverse and irrational to assume all police officers are good and decent and perfectly scrupulous and fair when doing their job. No large group of people is perfect. History has many documented cases of bad, racist law enforcement, like the Rampart Scandal and the Chicago Corruption and many, many more. So let’s admit that there are bad cops and instead of arguing about exactly how many we should be trying to find ways to weed out and eliminate as many as we can.

The evidence is very clear that policing in this country is not the same for White people when compared to Black people. If you’re white, you may not have experienced it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. You can’t look at the statistics, read case after case of racist policing, hear story after story of the daily lives of Black people (including those in law enforcement) and still say our system is fair and equal. The system is broken.

That’s what #BlackLivesMatter is protesting. No one is saying that white lives don’t matter. They’re saying we need to recognize the bias in the system - not just pass it off as a few random, racist people - and make a change. All those fine law enforcement officers who are trying to do the right thing would be better served if the right thing were made a little clearer and the bad apples were removed. The movement is not trying to divide – the divisions already exist. They’re saying that Black lives matter too.

What #BlackLivesMatters wants are a series of policy changes and criminal system reforms that have been suggested before by academics and experts - but without anyone listening because there was no public outcry (at least among the majority). They want less militarization of the police, more community involvement, and more accountability. They want what most of us want: fair and equal treatment with systems in place to better train police and someone outside to oversee their activities. You can read more about it here: Campaign Zero. Don’t read into it what you think it means. Don’t respond to some random quote that was passed around on Facebook. Don’t get offended and reply before thinking. Actually listen their position and understand what #BlackLivesMatter means.

How should you respond to #BlackLivesMatter? That’s up to you. If you have issues with any of the points of Campaign Zero, go ahead and argue them. Tell us about the specific problems with having police wear body cameras or why for-profit policing is actually a good idea. Explain how having an independent body reviewing police actions is bad even though our country is built on the idea of checks and balances in government. Try to defend the fact that many minority neighborhoods are policed by mostly white forces and how that’s a good thing. At least that would be a productive discussion.

But if you say #AllLivesMatter, you’re saying the system is just fine as it is and we don’t need to address any issues regarding race in America. You’re discounting the lives and experiences of millions of minorities. You’re trying to silence the disadvantaged who are crying out for justice. I don’t think that’s what most people want to be saying, but it is. If you really believe that all lives matter, then you should realize Black lives matter too.

Shout 'em down!

One of the most important questions in any movement, idea, philosophy is: how do we win people over? It's a question that seems lost in much of today's world, thrown away like so other reasonable things in the quest for attention. Exposure is everything. Get the word out whatever way you can. Go viral. Blow up Twitter. If enough people are made aware the correct answer to the problem with obviously be chosen.

I disagree. Moreover, I hope it doesn't work that way. The loudest voice should not rule the day. I don't think our society is best served by choosing which issues to face and which to ignore by who mount the slickest ad campaign and who is most media-savvy. We shouldn't decide to tackle only those ideas which fit comfortably into a slogan and only try to save that which is photogenic.

The counter-argument I hear and see is that it's a two-step process. First you garner the attention; then you provide the solution. While that could work, and sometimes it has, it also poses a great risk in that by the time an idea is well-known it's already divided the populace and driven away those it needs to reach with its angry rhetoric. People's minds get made up early and it's much harder to change that which is already set.

I see this most in movements attacking the status quo and pointing out the privilege of another group of people. The attack often comes before the argument and thus it's already lost. If you want the system to change, those most able to accomplish it are the people in power. Sure, if you get enough of the masses on your side you might be able to upend the power structure and affect change. But what if you could convince those who have the power now to relinquish some of it? What if you could influence to gate-keepers and visionaries to begin dismantling the privilege from the ground up? Where would that lead?

Recently the Black Lives Matter movement shouted down the most progressive presidential candidate, preventing him from giving a speech to people who had come to hear him. The point seemed to be that he wasn't progressive enough, hadn't given enough to the cause and shown his solidarity. The answer was to drown out his voice, show antagonism to the group's best ally and his supporters, and further entrench the other side's opinion that the cause was about unjust anger and unnecessary complaining. It brings attention but advances nothing.

I do understand the urge when it seems like measured discussion leads nowhere. When the powers that be ignore the message. But there has to be a better way.

The greatest success I've seen lately has come from the LGBT movement. They've largely won over the hearts and minds a great many of their previous opponents. They've won in the court of public opinion and in the laws of the land. The struggle is not over and a great many opponents are still fighting against equality, but it does feel like a tide has turned and people are moving in the right direction. How was this accomplished?

While there may have been some yelling and arguing, most of that was in the past. It seems like things changed on two fronts. One, people changed on an individual level. It became about LGBT members and allies talking to their friends and families. Having discussions, simply existing. Politicians being swayed by conversations instead of petitions. Instead of fighting for a specific action or changing of society it was about expanding understanding and acceptance on a human level.

And perhaps more importantly it was about educating the next generation. While it's normally the old guard that holds the reins, it's the young who set the agenda. Those in power become very adept and reading the winds of change and enough of them will realize when a shift is coming and get out ahead of it - the better to stay in power. Instead of telling them their days are numbered, point out their chance to keep their crown by leading the people where they already want to go.

I wish it were about logic, fairness, an honest appraisal of history and unbiased look at the future. But that's not what wins the day. Nor does the squeaky wheel always get the grease - sometimes it gets replaced and thrown away. If you want to change the world, stop yelling about it. Especially stop shouting down those who are in position to help you. Instead, make friends with the enemy. They'll find it much harder to fight against their allies.

The Republican Problem

The colloquial definition of insanity is to repeat the same behavior and expect a different result. That’s the fundamental problem I have with the Republican Party. Their ideas are reasonable and their goals laudable, but a few simple facts and a quick look at history show that their plan doesn’t work.

They are generally considered the party of the free market. They espouse a belief that capitalism will solve many of society’s ailments by unlimited growth – if we make everyone rich then we won’t have to deal with the problems of poverty. That opportunity exists and if you work hard, make good decisions and follow the rules, you will succeed. It’s a worldview based upon their own lives. It’s true for middle-class white people so it must be true for all. It’s not.

A quick look at the facts shows that our country does not have a lot of social mobility, especially among disadvantaged groups. You can debate the reasons, you can argue that opportunity still exists, but it’s impossible to say the playing field is level and the result is optimum. The truth of the matter is the system doesn’t work for many people in this country. People who start out poor, those who lack any connections to the well-to-do in society, or merely possess the wrong skin color, face a much harder path to middle class. Their access to a decent education is limited. They are treated differently by society (more likely to be suspended for the same infractions, more likely to be denied with the same application, more likely to be judged negatively in any interaction). To start a race in the lead and say those behind simply have to try harder is not only morally bankrupt, it’s self-delusional. They will never catch up, and in the end that drags down the entire team.

It's also logically inconsistent to blame the disadvantaged for their own position while at the same time expect them to be the ones to change. They disregard the poor, deny the effects of discrimination and disenfranchisement, and generally lay the blame for the ills of society on those who suffer from them the most. Then they turn around and suggest the solution is for those same people to spontaneous stop making poor decisions (like voting for the other party) and lift themselves up by their own bootstraps.  Any program that redistributes money from the 'successful' to those who didn't earn it is a travesty because only the rich know how to use money effectively. If you show no respect for 47% of the population how do you expect them to fix their own mess? Is it not obvious that they will need more education, more support and guidance to make better decisions? Isn't that how we should be spending our resources?

Even if we could grow the pie for everyone it wouldn’t create the result Republicans seem to expect. Many of them already argue that America’s poor are actually well off when compared to the rest of the world. They have phones and indoor plumbing, for heaven’s sake! But if the goal is to make everyone rich it will fail on two accounts. The first being rich is a relative term. It doesn’t matter how many luxuries our poor have - if they have less than the rest of society they will still be poor. They will rightly realize that other people not only have more stuff but they have more opportunities. They will feel poor. It’s human nature. And that’s why the second point is more important: our goal is not wealth but happiness. While some people equate wealth with success and success with happiness, on a societal level that doesn’t hold. It’s true that a growing economy does lead to more people feeling good about their lives, but it doesn’t reach everyone and it never will. It becomes a question of whether we want a world that is good for most people or do we want to help everyone.

The kicker is that if Republicans do believe the answer lies in the economy, they should vote Democratic. It’s very hard to look back at our history since WWII and not see that our economy has consistently and measurable done much better under Democratic presidents. Our debt has grown because of Republican presidents. We all do better when the wealthy are taxed higher and income inequality is lower. Expanding social welfare (Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Affordable Care Act) has succeeded where the free market has failed. The things that have made people’s lives better are, for the most part, more socialist than capitalist.

On foreign policy, the Republican approach starts with a similar prejudice that what is good for us is good for everyone else. That if the world could be converted into a democratic, capitalistic society everyone would be happy. They truly believe bombing bad regimes into submission and destroying corrupt governments will create a void into which Judeo-Christian beliefs will spring and free markets will arise. Once again it ignores the reality of the world that now exists and the history of such actions which have failed time and time again. We can’t create democracies. We can’t expect everyone else to share our values. We can’t destroy without the ability to rebuild and expect people to be thankful for our efforts.

On an individual front, Republicans are simply self-contradictory. They argue against government interference and for individual rights, yet they want our laws to be based upon their religious beliefs. They say everyone should be treated equally but ignore all the data which shows it isn’t happening. They advocate for choice when it comes to owning guns and running a business but not when it comes to who to marry or what to put in your own body. The overarching theme is that as long as people are similar to them, believe what they believe and act in a way they approve, we can let them be. If not, we should try to change them for the better. It’s for their own good and the good of society. It’s hubris.

I believe that most Republicans approach these questions looking for an honest way to help everyone. Their hearts are good and their intentions honorable. They are doing what they think is best and a lot of what they say sounds like it should be true. But it’s only truthy. The world isn’t homogeneous and because of that it doesn’t operate the way they would like it to. What works for them won’t work for everyone else and we have decades of evidence to show the failings of such an approach. It’s hard to admit you’re wrong. Life is complicated and it takes a lot of work to study reality and accept solutions that don’t fit your personal beliefs. Republican ideals - creating a better world for everyone where people have freedom and opportunity and a fair chance to succeed – are worthy goals. But we haven’t gotten there following their policies. That’s not the world we live in or what their positions lead to. Instead of expecting the result to change, perhaps they need to change the approach.

The Insanity of Religious Exemptions

With the recent decision from the Supreme Court that the right to marriage is fundamental and cannot be denied to same-sex couple, the fight has moved on to one of ‘religious liberty’ and the right people think they have to act as their faith dictates. Except here’s the thing: you don’t have that right. You have the right to believe whatever you wish. The government cannot force you to act against your beliefs (to a reasonable extent). But your actions are governed by the rules of society and you cannot pick and choose which ones you will follow. Such a path leads to chaos and is antithetical to civilized behavior.

The way to see this is to understand the principles being argued and look at what they actually mean and where they would lead. What many are now saying (perhaps even a majority, for what that’s worth) is that people shouldn’t have to provide services to others if doing so violates their deeply held religious beliefs. It comes in two main forms for this particular case: government officials shouldn’t have to issue same-sex marriage licenses if they don’t want to and private companies should be able to refuse service to people who are having gay weddings. But what does it mean in general?

First, why does it have to a religious belief? What if someone just has a very strong moral feeling not based upon faith but something else? What if, on a scientific basis, someone believes people shouldn’t be driving cars that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which is altering the world’s climate? Do they have a right to turn away those who drive big trucks from their gas station? And does anyone determine if these ‘beliefs’ are real? If I don’t like a regular customer because he seems smug and condescending, can I claim a firm belief that khakis are evil and deny him service? Who gets to test these beliefs for validity and decide which ones rise to the level protected by law? Because if you have to defend religious beliefs as rational you’re going to have a very hard time doing it.

And who gets to decide what is a deeply held religious belief? Does the church? Does each individual? Most Christian religions list gluttony as one of the seven deadly sins. Does that mean a county clerk can deny a business license to McDonalds? Can the 7-Eleven worker turn overweight people away from the Slurpee machine? Do hotels have the right to turn away unmarried couples? And how about all those divorced people looking to get married? The bible clearly says that divorce is not allowed, the Catholic Church still doesn’t recognize it – shouldn’t any decent Catholic practitioner have a moral obligation to refuse to participate in any way in a second (or third or fourth) marriage? Where does it end?

Apparently people are allowed to pick and choose what actually offends them and what they claim religious liberty on. But without any official guidelines, that means people can simply choose whether or not they have to serve others in society. Does anyone really want to live in a world where any person, any government official, can turn away anyone they want for completely arbitrary reasons?

The answer is no. For a society to function we all have to abide by certain rules. One of those is that if you choose to work for the government you agree to follow the laws that our government has enacted. The government isn’t forcing you to do anything. If you do not desire to serve people who your religion considers sinners (which equates to 100% of the population), then you can simply find a job where you don’t have to serve anyone else.

The same goes for commerce. Many of the people arguing for their religious liberty are also big proponents of the free market. If you know anything about the market, you should realize that if some groups of people can exclude others from the marketplace then it isn’t free. We’ve gone through this in the past and I thought by now people realized that you can’t be allowed to treat people differently regardless of the excuse. Religion was used to justify slavery and then discrimination against blacks; it was used to argue against equality for women. We have a long history of people coming up with convenient reasons why they shouldn’t have to treat everyone the same. Thankfully we’ve overcome such self-serving myopia and time has shown the benefit of such advances. It’s very hard to look at the situation now, forecast the future, and not come to the conclusion that those arguing for the right to treat others unequally will once again be shown wrong by the passage of time.

Religious liberty is actually already well protected by our government. You can indeed believe whatever you want. Yet actions based upon those beliefs must always be governed by the rules of society that demand fair and equal treatment for all of its members. If you can discriminate against homosexuals – and make no mistake, if you want the right to not serve gay people, that, by definition, is asking for the right to discriminate – you can discriminate against anything. It’s very easy to find justification in the Bible, Torah, Koran, (or any other old book you find laying around). But diverse societies don’t function by the laws of religion. That’s what a caliphate does.

In spite of many protests to the contrary from the religious right, the U.S. Constitution clearly separates the laws of our government from any religious doctrine. They set up fundamental rights that didn’t depend upon the particulars of your faith and worked hard to establish the principle that everyone must be treated equally. Now that our government has recognized that fact, it’s sad to see people are so determined to limit what others are allowed to do. They want to take back that equality by moving the discrimination from the body of the beast to the prerogative of the individual. Either way it’s wrong.

I’m not entirely sure what it is about the sin of homosexuality that makes it so much worse than all the others. People haven’t been clamoring for religious exemptions on the many other sinful behaviors that we all participate in on a daily basis. These very same Christians who want the laws of their faith brought into the realm of commerce speak out loudly against other groups trying to do the same (Sharia-law phobia, anyone?). It seems people do recognize that other groups should not have the right to ignore society’s laws, but somehow they still want that right for themselves. Our society needs to be bigger and better than that.

Majority ≠ Right

One of the founding principle of our country, and a defining characteristic of any just society, is that the minority must be protected from the tyranny of the majority. I would go further to say that we should be judged not in how we treat most people, not in how well we provide for those who already have the advantage of numbers on their side, but in how we treat the few, the disadvantaged. We don’t decide right and wrong by popular vote. Those of us in the majority should not seek out that which pleases us at any cost to others. We have a deeper responsibility to use our power to care for those who lack power of their own.

Which brings us to the Confederate Flag. A recent poll states that the majority of Americans view the flag as a symbol of southern pride and heritage. It doesn’t matter. At all. The simple truth is that the descendants of slave owners have no right to decide the moral correctness of a symbol which sprung, clearly and unequivocally, from the fight to keep a group of people enslaved, judging them to be lesser beings simply because of the color of their skin. It’s those who face the symbol as a reminder of their past, the fact they were brought to this country in chains, traded like livestock with no rights as human beings – they are the ones who get to decide what that flag means and whether it should be flown freely as a symbol of our current government. By a decided majority they find the symbol to be one of hatred and bigotry.

Our debate should not be about what the flag represents. We should be asking how we wish to treat each other. Is it important for us to hold onto something which so obviously is rooted in a time when we were deeply divided? We don’t need to erase the symbol or its history from all accounts. We don’t need to ban private expressions or dictate what any people should think or feel. But as a just and free society we need to separate our official institutions from a symbol that holds nothing but past horrors and continued hurt for a large group of our people. These are our brothers and sisters who are hurting. These are our children who must be raised under the flag’s shadow. How can we justify the pain it causes? How can we expect them to have any faith in or devotion to a government that claims pride in a past that was built on a practice we all agree was an abomination? Let us take down the flag. It’s the least we can do.

F*ck the Second Amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Let me make clear right up front that this is not an argument for gun control. Or against it. It’s simply an attempt to frame the discussion in the proper light. Because there really isn’t much discussion going on. Any conversation on the topic is quickly cut short by someone shouting: Second Amendment! My rights! What about my rights? Here’s what I think about that:

What’s in the Constitution is not Sacrosanct.

The Constitution is a great document and has been an amazing blueprint for running an incredibly complex and diverse country, one that’s grown beyond the expectations anyone could have had at the time. Well done Founders!

But they didn’t get everything right. Slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person – but only in so much as their white, male owners were allowed to vote for representation. Senators were chosen by legislatures, not popular election. And that doesn’t even mention all the things that are NOT in the original Constitution (or first ten amendments). Big things like women and black people aren’t property; they should be able to vote. Smaller things, like term limits for presidents and Congress shouldn’t be allowed to give themselves raises. The point is that simply being in the Constitution, or not being in there, does not equate to being right. An idea has to stand on its own merits.

You can certainly argue that our country has too many rules and regulations. You’d be very hard-pressed to argue that the Constitution alone provides enough detail for our society to function. You can argue that our Founders were very wise men who set up a framework based on very important concepts and ideas. But they were a bunch of white, male slave-owners who lived in a very different time and wrote a document centered on their own needs and desires without much regard for what truly amounted to the majority of people in the country. Human knowledge, human understanding, and I believe human society has expanded and grown and is getting better. I want the world to change because that’s the only way it can improve.

Every Right is subject to Infringement

Every right mentioned in the constitution has limits placed on it. Free speech doesn’t let you say anything you want: you can’t yell fire in the crowded theater. Your religious freedom doesn't allow human sacrifices. One person’s liberty often infringes on another’s and there has to be rules to balance the needs of each individual against the needs of society. Even our very right to exist can be taken from us by the state – and I kind of expect a fair number of those who support gun ownership as a personal right also support the death penalty as an appropriate punishment.

The whole basis of society is to find common rules that protect individual rights while still protecting us from each other. If you want to claim a right as something you need, you have to be able to explain and defend why it’s in society’s interest to allow you that right when it impacts other people. It’s certainly possible to do that, but once again the fact that a right is spelled out in the constitution, even if it foolishly says it cannot be infringed, MUST be infringed. Otherwise we can have no rules that say parents can’t leave loaded guns lying around the house, we can’t prevent known violent criminals or those with serious mental illness from possessing guns. I believe all rational people understand the need for some rules. Let’s discuss what those rules should be instead of pretending that any additional rules are completely unacceptable on the grounds that there should be no rules at all.

We’ve already Fucked Over the Second Amendment

While you can argue over the interpretation of the Second Amendment, it’s actually pretty clear what the main idea behind it was. Look at it again:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

First, it’s about the militia. It’s not talking about private citizens in their everyday lives. And the purpose of the amendment is stated right there: to secure a free state. That means to both help repel aggressions from other countries (something the Founders expected any moment) as well as to protect the people against the over-reach of their own government (something the Founders had just experienced). You can say there are other aspects to the amendment, and other benefits and motives can rightly be ascribed to it, but it’s main focus is military.

So let’s look at it on that front. It doesn’t mention guns. It says Arms. Arms are the weapon of war. At the time that meant muskets. Today, if our militia has any hope of repelling even the weakest attempt at invasions, it’s going to take a lot more than guns (the farcical plot of Red Dawn notwithstanding). Weapons today include rocket launchers, missile-carrying jet fighters, even nuclear bombs. Yet no one has any problem with laws that infringe upon the right of the people to bear such arms. It’s obviously crazy to let people own tanks and walk around carrying plastique explosives. Times have changed and we all seem fine with it.

And for those who still argue that guns are necessary to protect ourselves from an overbearing state, who think that allowing a bunch of right-wing extremists to own semi-automatic rifles (hell, let them have full auto with 30-clip rounds) would actually keep them safe from an assault by the government – seriously? Have you any idea what our military is capable of? Even our standard law enforcement has the weaponry to easily overrun a few citizens with guns. If our government ordered our armed forces to take out the state of Nebraska (I’m just assuming here that lots of Nebraskans own guns – correct me if I’m wrong), it would take half a day to do it. Our gun ownership is not what keeps our democracy functioning, and there are many, many nations in the world that prove this is so.

Which brings me back to the fact that we have already taken a great big dump on the literal words of the Second Amendment, and for the most part evolved beyond the primary spirit of the law as well. Arguing that we can’t touch it, that it’s the holy shrine of the Bill of Rights, is not just putting the toothpaste back in the tube, it’s trying to unbrush out teeth and regurgitate the swallowed particles of sorbitol and fluoride.

So come on, let’s have a discussion of gun rights, gun ownership, personal liberty, and what is best for our society in this day and age. Bring your historical arguments. Appeal to the sentiment of the Founders. But don’t for a second try to claim that the Second Amendment is the end all be all of the story. It’s a footnote at this point. It’s time for real thought and real debate. We deserve it.