A Skewed Perspective

Unlocking the Asylum – Round One

Posted on August 10, 2015 by hbreck

St. Petersburg Psychiatric Hospital – sadly not the site of the GOP debate

Thoughts on the first Republican debate for Election 2016

This past Thursday, the seventeen candidates for the Republican presidential nomination met for a debate. Well, more accurately, FOX News deemed 17 candidates to be too unwieldy, and using a small selection of polls, ranked the candidates by poll numbers, and put on two debates. The first was for the bottom seven, widely derided as “the kids table.” It felt kind of arbitrary, as the margin of error for the combined polls was around 3.5 percent, and the difference between the 10^th and 11^th candidates was much less than that. But Rick Perry didn’t quite make it, falling to number 11, and John Kasich edged him for the coveted 10^th spot.

FOX shenanigans aside, the candidates each had some opportunities to demonstrate their worthiness for the highest office in the land. And it wasn’t pretty.

Different people will all have a different opinion on who “won” the debate. A lot of it depends on one’s personal preferences, ideology, and so on. Most of the candidates had at least a number of boosters claiming they did well, or even won. There was no official consensus, though Marco Rubio seemed to get more credit than most. Indeed, he came across as prepared, polished, and reasonably intelligent. Ted Cruz and Scott Walker were fairly quiet, which was a bit of a surprise considering their usual bluster. Chris Christie managed to get into a quasi-shouting match with Rand Paul, and a bit of a tiff with Mike Huckabee as well. John Kasich was the only one not bending over backwards to show just how extreme right he has veered, so in that regard, he didn’t do too badly. Ben Carson clearly doesn’t know much about politics, especially world affairs, though to be fair, he wasn’t addressed much throughout the night. Donald Trump certainly dominated the debate, in that he spoke loudest and longest, and had a few interesting moments of honesty. Oh, and he’s a also a collossal asshole, especially to women. But we’ll get to that.

The moderators and whoever wrote (and decided on) the questions deserves much of the blame for the mess that was Thursday night. Many of the questions were merely asking the candidates about themselves. There were no questions on climate change, income/wealth inequality, or campaign finance reform. Some candidates were practically ignored (Carson), while others (Trump) pretty much hogged the spotlight.

I’m going to give a few quick observations of each candidate one-by-one, in no particular order.

Jeb Bush
Was Jeb even there? It was strange that the man who answered the most questions from the moderators said the least. Some pundits applauded his composure and his professionalism. I saw a guy who didn’t seem very comfortable, and was more than willing to brag about accomplishments that he didn’t earn. He twice claimed to cut 19 billion dollars worth of taxes as governor. However, much of those numbers came from other revenue alterations (fee changes, lottery proceeds, sales tax holidays, etc), and the real number of actual tax cuts over 8 years came to around 13 billion. On top of that, much of that lower number is attributed to estate tax cuts that were implemented nationwide – thanks to his brother. Jeb also took credit for a 50% bump in graduation rates in Florida, however only about 13% was on his watch. The majority of the improvement occurred over the next 7 years after he left office.

Beyond that, Jeb was a surprising non-factor in a debate where he could have dominated.

Scott Walker
The Wisconsin governor, currently running around third in most polls, was, like his fellow front-runner Jeb, pretty subdued. Walker did spend some time spinning job growth in his state, but in actuality, job growth for him has been average at best. Wisconsin has ranked 34^th during his time in office in job growth rate, and has lagged far behind his Minnesota neighbors. Minnesota, I might add, has experienced much stronger overall economic growth, while implementing pretty much the opposite of Walker’s policies.

He did brag about defunding Planned Parenthood in his home state, apparently not understanding that 97% of their services have nothing to do with abortion. He also repeated some long-debunked myths about abortion never being necessary to save a mother’s life.

At least we know he doesn’t care much for women or their reproductive and health rights. That makes this easier.

Chris Christie
Chris brought a little New Jersey with him to the debate. But not the good parts. Wait, are there good parts? Joking, I swear. Anyway.

He got into heated exchanges with both Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee, and didn’t particularly distinguish himself either time. He invoked the old 9/11 trope when arguing over domestic spying and data collection, though Paul mostly just jabbed at him for once hugging President Obama.

Christie was energetic, belligerent, and not very pleasant. So, par for the course. He didn’t do all that well, but at least he was memorable. It’s not like his myriad corruption issues are going away, so at least he’s keeping himself relevant until those issues finally sink him. Hopefully.

Donald Trump
Yeah, I might as well get this over with. Trump is simply not fit to be a city councilman, much less President of the United States. His grasp of pretty much any and all policy is nil. He’s crude, mean-spirited, and reckless. Right off the bat, moderator Megyn Kelly asked him to explain some of his more misogynistic statements over the years, and he responded with contrition. No, just kidding. He got defensive, told Kelly she was being a big meanie to him, and that “political correctness” is the problem. And, sadly, the audience cheered, making me that sadder for the human race. In fact, he then doubled down, throwing out a pointless insult toward Rosie O’Donnell. Naturally.

Trump also took credit for bringing immigration to the forefront of the debate, which is ridiculous to the point of pain. My head actually hurt hearing him say that. He did, in a moment of surprising candor, pretty much admit to gaming the political system for his benefit. He happily confessed to giving money to both parties over the years for future favors, which is not exactly a secret, but was refreshing to hear him admit it. He also had no problem arguing that he gamed the system when he declared bankruptcy four times. He seemed to be drifting toward an argument that his behavior was proof of a “broken system,” but that part was barely more than an afterthought, and not subsequently touched on.

Basically, Trump’s performance was a lot like the man himself. Dominant, loud, bullying, kind of interesting, and forcibly center-stage. At the same time, mostly substance-free.

Ben Carson
Carson didn’t get much time, and what he did get was spent it delivering pithy quips about removing brains, and even throwing in a Saul Alinsky crack. He also indicated that he’s pro-waterboarding, so there’s that.

Mike Huckabee
The former Arkansas governor’s fire-and-brimstone act isn’t dull, but as someone who wants to be President, it’s pretty scary. Like Walker (and several others), he doesn’t particularly care for women’s rights. He stated that as President, he would invoke the 5^th and 14^th amendments to outlaw abortion for good and grant all fetuses at every stage of development full rights. This of course, assumes that adult women aren’t deserving of those same rights.

Huckabee also threw around the tired “Fair tax” consumption tax proposal as a replacement for income taxes. This is a fringe idea which generally only gets traction among Tea Partiers and libertarians, but Huckabee was giving it a shot.

Huckabee also outright lied, when he repeated the incredibly old and looooong demolished myth that the Affordable Care Act “stole $700 billion from Medicare.” It was one of the biggest lies of the 2012 campaign, and should have been shelved back then, but for some reason, Mike can’t help but bring it back.

Finally, he made some nasty comments equating trans individuals as “a social experiment,” while describing the military as good for only destruction (a positive point, in his eyes).

Marco Rubio
The closest thing to a consensus winner of the debate, Senator Rubio certainly sounded like he knew what he was talking about. He got in some good zingers contrasting his relatively modest economic background to that of Hillary Clinton. He was far more detailed with his responses than most of his opponents.

But… Yes, of course there’s a ‘but.’

In 2013, Rubio was cosponser of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. It was a very restrictive anti-abortion bill that attempted to limit abortions to 20 weeks or less into the pregnancy. It did, however, include an exception for rape and incest victims. So when Megyn Kelly asked about him supporting that exception, he just flatly denied it. Rubio lied (or possibly forgot) about supporting the rape and incest exception, and instead lurched even farther to the extremist right, joining the chorus of candidates who believe that a fetus deserves greater rights than adult women.

Ted Cruz
Ted didn’t say all that much that really stood out, which was odd. He has been one of the more obnoxiously pugnacious candidates since he first announced his candidacy. His policy seems to be one of “threaten and bluster first, think later.” However, the bombast largely vanished. The only really reprehensible thing that stood out to me was his pledge in his closing statement to “prosecute Planned Parenthood on his first day in office.” Yeah, all those women getting contraceptives and STD testing are really dangerous to the nation, Ted.

Rand Paul
The cult of Paul is strong. His supporters are not legion, but they are extremely vocal and passionate. His semi-libertarian stances garner a lot of support from younger people who have a knee-jerk dislike for government, but also don’t want to get yelled at for smoking weed. Otherwise, he’s been polling mid-pack, and gradually fading. A recent corruption scandal involving his aides isn’t helping. His supporters seem to have mostly agreed that he didn’t do all that well in the debate. He got the most attention when Chris Christie went after him, and the two men had an entertaining shouting match, arguing over intelligence service overreach. Paul seemed to make better points, but didn’t help himself by invoking the name of that boogeyman of Obama as if it made for a legitimate point.

John Kasich
The hometown boy did pretty well for himself. There was clearly a large contingent of supporters in the crowd cheering him on, and he presented himself as maybe the only candidate not diving headfirst as far to the right as possible. He appeared to not hate gay people and women, which gives him a huge edge over his rivals in that regard. On the other hand, he’s still not particularly friendly to reproductive rights, and while he doesn’t deny climate change, he is only willing to take half-measures to resolve it. He’s also pretty strongly anti-union.

In years past, he would be considered very conservative. In this year, he’s the most moderate candidate the GOP has. He’s definitely able to compromise. It could help in the general election, but will likely keep him from the top spot in the primaries. Still, his strong performance may move him up a bit from the 10th spot.

The Republican party also put forward the “bottom seven” in the opening debate, watched live by about 11 people, half of which were apparently asleep. Nontheless, it did highlight Carly Fiorina as the only candidate of those seven apparently willing to actually push toward the top. She was clear, consistent, detailed, and a little crazy, but not insane. She had a better grasp of the issues than her other non-politician rivals (Trump and Carson), and she didn’t seem to be embarrassed at being there like Graham and Santorum clearly were.

Meanwhile, at the “grown up table,” there were few signs that the party is actually comprised of adults. Most of them apparently want to restrict women’s healthcare rights, go to war with half the Middle East, and kowtow to religious influence. FOX News appears complicit in keeping the narrative bent toward the ideology of the party. The lack of questions on major issues of the day is strong proof of that.

In addition, the candidates themselves are quite suspect. We have multiple religious extremists (Huckabee, Santorum, Jindal, Carson, Cruz), three candidates with no electoral experience (Trump, Fiorina, Carson), several that wish to dismantle large parts of the government they’re running to serve (Paul, Cruz, Carson), warmongers (Cruz, Huckabee, Graham, Rubio), and criminals (Walker, Paul, Perry, Christie, Trump).

“Clown Car” gets thrown around a lot when describing the field. Clowns usually aren’t dangerous, unless they’re in Derry, Maine, or Gotham. “Asylum” might be a better description for this group.

As always, here are some good resources on the first GOP debate, and coverage in general of the 2016 election:

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/08/factchecking-the-gop-debate-late-edition/

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/08/factchecking-the-gop-debate-early-edition/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/the-republican-rivals-gather-in-cleveland/400712/

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/gop-debate-highlights-donald-trump-megyn-kelly

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/08/gop_debate_a_lot_of_hype_but_little_change_127711.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-republican-field-is-a-clown-car/2015/05/18/e8234a9e-fd81-11e4-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/2016-election/384828/

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/08/upshot/bush-and-trump-arent-among-the-gop-debate-winners.html?referrer=

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/debate-literally-and-figuratively-centered-around-donald-trump?cid=sm_fb_maddow

http://time.com/3988276/republican-debate-primetime-transcript-full-text/

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/who-won-gop-debate-night-social-media-it-depends

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/heres-why-it-was-so-frustrating-to-watch-the-gop-debate-as-a-woman_55c4bb3be4b0923c12bc7cd8

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/08/06/the-first-debate/

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/10-times-hillary-clinton-won-the-first-gop-debate-20150807

http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/08/heres-what-presidential-candidates-had-say-about-abortion-first-gop-debate

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/07/no-contest-why-rubio-is-clear-winner-of-debate.html

Posted in Elected yet unelectable, Governance, Media, Politics | Tagged 2016 Presidential Election, awful people, Ben Carson, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, Christianity, civil rights, climate change, Congress, Constitution, controversy, corruption, culture, Donald Trump, Elected yet unelectable, GOP, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee, politics, Presidential Debate, Rand Paul, Republican, republicans, Rick Santorum, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz | Leave a comment

What’s at Stake in the 2016 Presidential Race

Posted on August 5, 2015 by hbreck

I just have a quick one for today. I’m going to dwell much further on this topic in upcoming months, but for now I will just start with this brief note.

Three governmental bodies, the EPA, NOAA, and NASA, are tasked (among others) with researching and combating the effects of global warming. This is serious stuff. Global warming caused by man-made climate change could impact the lives of billions of human beings. In reality, it will impact all of us. And yet, the Senators in charge of appropriating funds to these organizations each deny the existence of climate change. If one looks at their campaign contributions, one will see hundreds of thousands of dollars paid by the fossil fuel industry. All of this is a matter of public record. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and James Inhofe, are all bought and paid for by those who are among the most responsible for global warming. And they are the ones indirectly tasked with preventing this (very near) future calamity. Two of these guys want to be our next president.

In fact, a majority of the 17 current Republican presidential candidates claim that global warming either does not exist, or is not a serious problem. Almost every single one of those candidates has received money from the fossil fuel industry. The dots are not difficult to connect here. I know a lot of people want to tune this out. But we can’t any longer. Carbon emissions (and other pollutants) – pumped out by humans – are increasing the temperature of the planet. This creates a huge number of problems.

Rising sea levels, more frequent and more powerful tornadoes, hurricanes, and other storms, more floods, more droughts, massive extinctions of plant and animal life. To quote Ghostbusters, this would be a disaster of Biblical proportions.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=O3ZOKDmorj0

You tell ’em, Dr. Venkman.

Levity aside, many of these disasters can no longer be reversed. Some of it can, but it will require massive effort, a great deal of sacrifice, open minds, and courage. People like Cruz and Rubio aren’t likely to develop that courage or character. So why do some people think they should lead the one nation on Earth best suited to leading the reversal of the effects of climate change?

As I mentioned above, I’ll talk more about this over the next few months. For now, I have to say the most important issue facing our world is basically the effects our lifestyles have on our world. Jimmy Carter was laughed at in the ’70s when he discussed this. Al Gore was as well, in the ’90s. Now, in 2015, the effects of increasing temperatures are making themselves demonstrably apparent. Are we still planning to laugh at Carter and Gore? Or at anyone else who is willing to acknowledge that we need to make some substantial changes?

For more information on the control Big Oil (and associates) have on our government, take a look at this post from a few months ago. And please consider who you want to see in charge of our environmental future.

Foxes Guarding the Henhouse: Science Denial and Congress

Posted in Elected yet unelectable, Governance, Politics, Quick post, Science | Tagged 2016 Presidential Race, climate change, corruption, environment, EPA, global warming, GOP, government, James Inhofe, Marco Rubio, NASA, science denial, Ted Cruz | Leave a comment

Lions, and Events, and News…

Posted on July 31, 2015 by hbreck

A common pattern emerges with many news stories. If something occurs that is not necessarily a matter of life and death for humans, but involves an emotional topic, then after a day or two we start to see an interesting backlash against the coverage of the news piece.

This happens with regularity. In recent months, it occurred with news regarding celebrities, with the New Horizons flyby of Pluto, and with innumerable other “frivolous stories.” Notably for this little rant, it has recently occurred with the story of the dentist who killed the lion in Zimbabwe.

Shortly after that story came to public attention, I observed several individuals through various social media outlets posting comments and memes questioning why anybody would be concerned about a lion, when there are many more important issues happening in the world. I’ve counted a dozen such posts in my Facebook feed, and countless articles around the Internet saying much the same thing.

On the surface, this is quite reasonable. No sane person would argue that police brutality or mass starvation is less important then the fate of a single lion. However, this argument misses a key point.

There’s room for both.

Just because one topic happens to be “more important” than another, it doesn’t invalidate the “lesser” one. There are still many good reasons to discuss this topic. Not the least of which is that there’s nuance here beyond simple poaching.

Sometimes, there’s more to a particular issue then what one initially sees on the surface. Poaching a lion is not necessarily strictly a discussion of the legalities and/or morality of hunting. This issue highlights related issues such as trophy hunting, animal conservation, wealthy Americans exploiting African resources, and the Earth’s rapidly diminishing biodiversity. Discussing these issues doesn’t mean the world forgot about everything else.

It’s common to see someone post an impassioned argument on Facebook commenting that people care more about a lion than they do other, more pressing issues. Then, often in the same day, that same person will post commentary on sports, or entertainment, or something else not related to said important topic.

Nobody (who I know) that has complained about the Cecil media coverage, posts important issues 100% of the time. And of course, they shouldn’t have to.

Yes, for a few days, Cecil the Lion has received significant media coverage. It’s legitimate news. Rich tourists poaching apex predators is actually a serious issue, and contributes to a significant long-term ecological impact on the world. Is it as immediately impactful on the day-to-day lives of average Americans as the serious issue of racial discrimination? No, of course not! The heinous murders, harrassment, and overall persecution of unarmed civilians by overzealous (at best) police is an enormous problem facing American society.

Is the death of a charismatic animal is important as misery, starvation, and economic malaise within Zimbabwe itself? Again, obviously not.

A single lion half a world away can feel like a distraction. I completely understand that.

The problem is, shaming people into ignoring any news but the one that feels most important is counterproductive.

To those who are upset Cecil the Lion has received significant media exposure, I say this:
Just because you happen to see news stories and commentary on a topic that you don’t personally care about does not mean that your topic has suddenly vanished into the ether. Global warming, crime, human trafficking, war in Ukraine, Syria, and Sudan, intelligence service overreach, government oppression, corporate oppression, personal oppression…. it’s all still there. And yes, it all still matters.

Guess what, though? So does Cecil the Lion.

If it’s not an issue you care about, cool. I get that. Some people don’t care much about the effects on prey species when apex predators are suddenly diminished in number. Many could care less if a sudden surge in zebra and antelope population leads to overgrazing, sudden erosion, mass starvation, and a local ecological collapse.

No big deal. Doesn’t affect me, one might think.

Your cat videos and movie trailers are cool, too.

While I admit to being somewhat snide here, I acknowledge that priorities differ from person to person. Which is kind of the point.

I understand the concept of triaging news stories. People will pay the most attention to that which impacts them politically, socially, and emotionally. However, that’s very much a personal decision.

“Why does everyone care more about a lion than… insert “serious” problem…?”

Good question. Do they? Or is it that it happens to be a topic that concerns some people? And maybe that’s it.

Scanning the major news sites this week, I’ve seen numerous reports on the conviction of a cop who shot an unarmed man during a traffic stop. I’ve seen discussions of nuclear talks with Iran. I read a fascinating piece on the crash of a private space plane from last year. More data pours in from New Horizons. Approximately 728 serious candidates, and Donald Trump, have announced they’re running for President.

Oh yeah, and a Minnesota dentist with a history of legal trouble was caught luring an extremely endangered animal out of a nature preserve, killing it, and attempting to cover up the crime.

Is it the most important thing out there? Nah.

But to complain that people seem to care more about that than starving children is short-sighted and generally wrong. This was a single (albeit frequently repeating) event. Starvation and police brutality are ongoing issues. Interest in a topic will ebb and flow, but people don’t forget about it just because a lion is popular for a couple days.

In the interest of full disclosure, I must mention that I am working on a blog post going over big game hunting, and Cecil the Lion is certainly a highlight of that.

I also have written about innumerable other topics, including war, crime, and the economy.

And it all has value.

Just like Cecil.

Posted in Media, Quick post | Tagged Cecil the Lion, Current events, distraction, media, news, priorities, Zimbabwe | Leave a comment

Speaking Before Thinking – Reactions to the Obergefell Decision

Posted on June 30, 2015 by hbreck

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the case of Obergefell v. Hodges. It was actually a merging of several cases across multiple states, but was spearheaded by one Jim Obergefell of Ohio. He had married his partner, John Arthur, in Maryland in 2013. Mr. Arthur was, at that point, dying of ALS. Three months and eleven days later, John died of his illness. At that point, back in Ohio, Obergefell simply wanted the state to allow him to place his name on John’s death certificate as “spouse.” After all, they had been in a committed relationship for 20 years, and were legally married at the time of John’s death. Jim wanted Ohio to recognize his marriage to John, the same way they would recognize a straight couple. The fact that he married in another state was a matter of convenience, as Ohio officially banned marriage between same-sex couples in 2004.

Jim Obergefell simply wanted recognition as the surviving spouse. So he filed a lawsuit against the state. A federal judge, somewhat surprisingly, ruled in his favor. Ohio subsequently appealed to a higher court, stating they wished to reissue the death certificate without Jim’s name. This time, the state won. So Jim went higher still, to the Supreme Court. And, last Friday, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled in favor of Jim Obergefell.

The eventual question in the decision was:

Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kennedy agreed that the Fourteenth Amendment does apply to same sex couples, in that they are due equal protection under the law. Since the law allows for marriage benefits and privileges for heterosexual couples, consensual homosexual couples should not be denied the same rights.

The uproar was predictable, as well as vitriolic. The reaction among leaders in the GOP, especially current Presidential candidates, was particularly angry. Quite often, it appeared that the reaction from certain public figures was primarily intended to show the base they were upset by the decision, without actually responding to the merits of it.

I have collected some of the more ridiculous public statements issued by American political personalities since the decision, and a brief response to the statement. I’m starting with the current crop of 2016 Presidential candidates.

Ted Cruz, Senator from Texas:

Friday was “some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history,” that the decision was “very definition of lawlessness,” and it amounted to “naked and unadulterated judicial activism.”

Really Ted? Some of the darkest 24 hours in our history? So that means Ted Cruz believes that equal rights for LGBT citizens is somehow equivalent to Washington DC burning in 1812, the attack on Fort Sumter, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11. Gay people getting married is now akin to thousands of innocent civilians being murdered. And this man wants to be President.

He’s also wrong when he refers to the decision as “the very definition of lawlessness.” Ted, do you know the meaning of the word ‘lawless?’ Or for that matter, ‘definition?’ The Supreme Court ruled on a case that came to them through the normal channels. The original complaint was that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendement should cover marriage laws for same-sex couples in every state. A majority of the Court agreed. They did their job. Quite legally, too. It just happened to acknowledge that gay people are due the same rights and privileges as straight people. Not exactly ‘lawless,’ Ted.

Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas Governor:

“The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do — redefine marriage. I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. … The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature’s God on marriage than it can the laws of gravity.”

My initial response is that it’s amusing that Mike is willing to reference “the laws of gravity” when he doesn’t believe in evolution. But I digress…

First off, the “divided voice” part is supposed to invalidate or weaken the decision? Who cares? Most of the contentious issues the Court sees tend to be close decisions. 5-4 is pretty typical for these cases. If it had been 5-4 the other way, it’s not hard to imagine phrases like ‘clear majority” and “judicial mandate” bandied about.

Second… well, second, third and fourth… Mike’s just got so much wrong in such a short quote. I’m not completely sure where to begin.

Supreme Being? Not relevant in a Supreme Court decision. First Amendment, and all that. Plus, the government actually can “redefine marriage,” since sanctioning marriage, and providing benefits for it, is something government has done since the founding of the country. Religious marriage ceremonies are different from state marriage licenses. If one’s religion has specific rules about marriage, one is free to engage in (almost) any ceremony to follow those rules. First Amendment once again. If one wants government recognition for their marriage, that’s a different story. And that is what the Supreme Court covered, and what people like Huckabee clearly don’t understand.

Finally, what’s this about “acquiescing to an imperial court?” Mike, do you think SCOTUS is going to force you to marry a man? Do you think you’re going to resist marriage equality by… by what, exactly? Plan to try to deny gay people marriage licenses? Good luck. Last I checked, you’re not a governor anymore.

Bobby Jindal, current governor of Louisiana:

“Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that. This decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision.”

Now, some of this is terrifying. Terrifying, in that he may actually believe the second part of this. Why the fearmongering, Bobby? What do people disagreeing have to do with “assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians?” Say Louisiana grants marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In what way does that affect Christians? Not once did SCOTUS indicate that churches and religious organizations will be forced to perform ceremonies against their will. They don’t have to perform ceremonies for straight couples if they don’t want to. All the ruling said was that same-sex couples are entitled to the same government-provided benefits that heterosexual couples get. Nothing more. It doesn’t impact religious freedom, Bobby. I really can’t stress that enough.

As far as marriage being established by God – well, that’s not for the government to rule on. This is now my third reference to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Marriage as a public institution is a different concept from marriage in a religious setting. That’s why you have to get state licenses separately from the actual church (if that’s where one has the ceremony).

Doom, gloom, and fear from Bobby Jindal. I thought weddings were supposed to be happy occasions.

Oh yes, and Bobby also wants to get rid of the Supreme Court. Yep, the entire Court should be abolished.

“The Supreme Court is completely out of control, making laws on their own, and has become a public opinion poll instead of a judicial body. If we want to save some money, let’s just get rid of the court.”

Yep, that’s right. The Supreme Court happened to make a decision that Bobby disagreed with, so he just wants to take his ball and go home. Clearly we don’t need an entire branch of government, because they happened to do their job and check the power of another branch. You know like the Constitution intended… Ah. Yes.

Moving on…

Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania:

“Today, five unelected justices decided to redefine the foundational unit that binds together our society without public debate or input. Now is the people’s opportunity to respond because the future of the institution of marriage is too important to not have a public debate. … Marriage, the family and our children are too central to a healthy society to not fight for what is best. I realized that fact early on and that is why I lead the charge against some in my own party in 2004 to ensure the Federal Marriage Amendment received a vote and I continue to stand for marriage, for families, for freedom.”

Damn, what a miserable human being. It’s impossible not to editorialize here. Such an idiot. Santorum has such a poor grasp of marriage and how marriage equality impacts straight couples (it doesn’t) that a Christian minister recently took him to task and explained how that marriage thing works.

First off, the whole, ”unelected judges” bit is just stupid. The Supreme Court is unelected for good reasons. There are major disadvantages to making the judicial branch susceptible to political forces. On local levels, elected judges tend toward corruption and pandering. Judges shouldn’t be involved in the same games as politicians. Santorum used this line specifically to make the Court appear scary and undemocratic. Thing is, Santorum didn’t complain when they ruled on the Citizens United decision, or Bush v. Gore – two decisions with openly partisan and political motivations.

Twice in the above statement, Santorum mentions public debates. Here’s the thing; Issues like this generally don’t come up to the Supreme Court until public opinion reaches a near-consensus. The public debate has largely been decided since 2010. If majorities still opposed marriage equality, the Supreme Court would likely not have accepted the case in the first place.

Scott Walker, current Governor of Wisconsin:

“I believe this Supreme Court decision is a grave mistake. … As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage.”

The GOP pushed for an anti-marriage equality amendment a little over a decade ago and it went nowhere. Considering popular support for marriage equality is now well over 50%, such an attempt would likely fizzle faster than 10 years ago. This is a non-starter and a waste of time.

Rick Perry, former Governor of Texas:

“I am disappointed the Supreme Court today chose to change the centuries old definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. I’m a firm believer in traditional marriage, and I also believe the 10th Amendment leaves it to each state to decide this issue. I fundamentally disagree with the court rewriting the law and assaulting the 10th amendment.

So Rick, are you saying the 14^th Amendment doesn’t apply? What about the Equal Protection clause? That was the whole point of this case. Are you going to ignore that part?

Also, once again, the Supreme Court did not change the definition of marriage. They acknowledged that millions of gay Americans should be allowed to receive the same benefits of laws that millions of others already had. Any specific religious ceremonies would be unaffected.

Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett Packard:

“I do not agree that the Court can or should redefine marriage. … Moving forward, however, all of our effort should be focused on protecting the religious liberties and freedom of conscience for those Americans that profoundly disagree with today’s decision.”

Again, the Court has not “redefined marriage.” That phrase is purely political propaganda.

As far as protecting religious liberties – well, sure. Religious liberties are protected by the Constitution. Nobody has stated people have to agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling. Individuals have the right to think that gay people aren’t people, and therefore deserving of the same rights and privileges as everyone else. They can do more than think that. They can say it, too. But that’s where it ends. Individual citizens cannot restrict LGBT individuals from the same marriage licenses that same-sex couples enjoy. But if that’s a requirement of one’s religion, than that brings up many far tougher questions.

Moving beyond current Presidential contenders, other prominent figures made some interesting comments about the decision.

Antonin Scalia, current Justice of the Supreme Court, stated in his dissent:

“When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases.”

“This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.”

“The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.”

“Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means) were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.”

“If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”

Okay, Antonin. The first statement quoted above actually is an argument, albeit an easily punctured one. The second is just a rehash of the stuff that people like Cruz and Huckabee blurted out after the decision. The other statements, like most of his dissent, just appear to be a long, angry diatribe. I’m somewhat surprised it didn’t end with him yelling at those damn kids to get off his lawn.

Let’s address the first one, though. Scalia seems to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to slavery alone, and does not allow for further expansion of equal protection under the law. Since marriage equality didn’t exist in 1868, it shouldn’t exist in 2015. Yeah. Well, the holes here are pretty obvious, even to someone who isn’t a great Constitutional scholar.

Let’s take Loving v, Virginia, from 1967. In 1958, the newly married couple were arrested in Virginia under anti-miscegenation laws. After years of appeals, protests, and conflict, the aptly-named Loving couple fought their way to the Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision, the Court voted 9-0 that the Fourteenth Amendment did indeed apply to interracial marriage.

Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing the opinion for the court, noted:

“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”.

By this rather unassailable logic, everything he stated works perfectly for same-sex couples. Now, we in America are beginning to recognize that sexual orientation has faced discrimination and marginalization as well. The history has been different from racial injustice, and certainly not on the same scale, but many of the implications of law are similar. Justice Scalia fails to recognize this.

Just as universal marriage equality didn’t exist in 1868, universal recognition of interracial marriage didn’t exist until 1967. Is Scalia going to argue that the Loving decision was incorrect as well?

He also fails to recognize that the Fourteenth Amendment – like every other one, for that matter – has been reassessed over the years as our culture shifts, and new understanding of humanity appears. The strict “originalist” has been observed making assumptions about the original intent that seemed to fit in with his personal ideology more than actual history. His rather imaginative retelling of the 2^nd Amendment in the much lambasted Heller decision of 2008 is a great example of this.

Scalia seems to be mostly motivated by bitterness over a changing political, cultural, and social landscape. His refusal to admit that the Fourteenth Amendment can apply to more issues than simply slavery is just one of many examples of this.

Whew! Scalia was likely the most energetic of the dissenters. His fellow conservatives on the Court – Justices Alito and Thomas, and Chief Justice Roberts – all concurred with his opinion, though none exhibited as much frustration as the Hon. Justice Scalia.

It wasn’t just individuals in on the dumb reactions. Several state-run institutions all declared their intent to defy the SCOTUS ruling.

The Alabama and Louisiana Supreme Courts both advocated forms of nullification. The stated they would block attempts to enforce marriage equality within their state. This of course, is illegal and unconstitutional.

A county clerk in Texas has outright refused to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, has backed up the clerk.

Several clerks in Kentucky have also done the same.

Counties in Kentucky, Mississippi and Alabama have stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether.

Back to some of the Presidential contenders, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, John Kasich, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and Lindsey Graham all pretty much said variations of the same theme. They acted as the “moderate voices” when they stated they disagreed with the decision, but they wouldn’t fight it.

Then they made sure to emphasize their support for religious freedom. As if religious freedom was threatened by one group of marginalized people gaining a measure of equality.

Sigh.

Okay kids, let me explain this. I’ll try to keep it clear and concise. Religious freedom in this country means that the government cannot restrict, aid, or interfere with religious practices. In addition, the government is obligated to protect the rights of those who engage in religious practices, including from each other, if necessary.

However, like every other right, there are obvious limits. In this case, the freedom of religion stops when it interferes with the rights and lives of others. If your religion compels you to restrict someone else’s life – for example, fighting against consenting adults marrying each other – than your freedom is limited at that point. You’re also not allowed to murder, rob or rape other people. There are no absolute freedoms, especially when they come to inhibiting the freedoms of others.

In the case of Obergefell v. Hodges. the Supreme Court acknowledged that same sex couples are afforded the same access to marriage that straight couples enjoy, validated by the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling did not reduce or limit any rights of heterosexual couples. It also did not reduce or limit the rights of Christians to worship as they choose.

It is possible, even likely, that conflicts will come up over time. Some churches are concerned that they will be forced to provide marriage services for same-sex couples. So far, this fear seems unfounded. The First Amendment provides some protection in this situation. As noted above, churches aren’t required to perform any ceremonies if they don’t want to. They aren’t government institutions providing public services.

Other disputes may arise over time. Use of church facilities, associations with church-affiliated groups and non-profits, and so on. Most likely, like the religious opposition to the Loving decision, these disputes will gradually fade with time as our culture shifts. But in the meantime, there will probably be messy battles, acrimony, and really stupid statements by political figures. Basically, life will continue as normal. The only difference is that gay people are legally a little closer to being treated as, you know, actual people. It’s just a shame that so many people are still bothered by this.

I’ve noted this several times in the above paragraphs, so forgive the repetition. This is vital, though. The Obergefell decision means that gay people can now apply for marriage licenses in all 50 states. That’s it. It’s a function of the government, not of religious institutions. The only people freaking out about this are those who don’t like the idea of the separation of church and state. And those are the people who have no business running the government.

Those who are religious should not fear this decision. Neither should heterosexual couples. For them, nothing has changed. Another group gets to join the club. That’s it. The only “threat to liberty” are those who hide behind religious extremism to try to deny rights and privileges to consensual gay couples.

This really is simple. It’s a shame people are making it more complicated than it needs to be. Some of the opposition is due to fear, some to insecurity, some to mere political pandering. But none of it so far has been valid, either ethically, morally, legally, or historically.

The world is changing. In this case, for the better.

As always here are additional links to more eloquent writing on this topic:

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8851381/gay-marriage-republican-responses

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/28/8854557/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2015/06/mike-huckabee-just-set-bar-really-high-worst-reaction-same-sex-marriage

http://motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/gay-marriage-supreme-court-scalia-dissent

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2015/06/10-years-ago-we-had-bob-hope-johnny-cash-and-steve-jobs-now-were-gay

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/who-will-fight-supreme-court-on-marriage

http://jezebel.com/a-glorious-treasury-of-the-conservative-gay-marriage-fr-1714142516

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/far-right-flee-america-god-destroys-us-gay-marriage

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8852739/gay-marriage-supreme-court-alabama

Posted in Civil Rights, Governance, History, Politics, Social Justice | Tagged Antonin Scalia, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Christianity, civil rights, civil unions, Constitution, Constitutional law, Earl Warren, Equal Protection Clause, Establishment Clause, First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, gay marriage, GOP, history, hyperbole, Jim Obergefell, John Arthur, LGBT issues, Loving v. Virginia, marriage equality, Mike Huckabee, nullification, Obergefell v. Hodges, precedent, reactionaries, religion, religious liberty, Republican, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Scott Walker, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, Ted Cruz | Leave a comment

Media Multitasking

Posted on June 29, 2015 by hbreck

Social media is a wonderful tool. Anyone can use it. That, sadly, is also its biggest drawback.

I tend to accumulate pet peeves using sites like Facebook and Twitter. Mostly, it’s just opinions and posts that irritate me. Not really a big deal. I’m sure my posts irritate some people, too. Free speech includes the right to offend and be offended.

However, one in particular has been vexing me lately.

“We should be talking about blah blah issue instead of this other issue.”

“I’m sick of hearing about such and such, because what’s really important is blah blah!”

Hate to say this, but that’s (usually) a lazy argument. It also lacks empathy.

Yes, some issues can be underreported. And it’s good to point out when they are. But people don’t always say that. It becomes personal. Sometimes what people are really saying is, “Issue A is actually more important (to me), so stop talking about Issue B.”

News and issues aren’t so complex that we can only focus on one at a time. Should we prioritize? Sure. But complaining that one issue should stop being discussed in favor of another is the wrong tact. There is – or should be – room enough in our minds to think about, and address more than one topic at once.

How about saying, “It’s great that we’re talking about this, but remember that this other issue is also important.”

No? Sound corny?

Well…

I don’t debate that some issues are more dire than others. However, in many cases, that’s still really subjective.

There are multiple problems in our world that deserve both media attention, and public focus. Global warming, racial injustice, extreme income/wealth inequality, the increasing threat of nuclear hostility from Vladimir Putin, deteriorating national infrastructure, marginalization of LGBT people, and the rise of the national security state, to name but a few.

Each one is important. Can we rank them in order of importance? Maybe.

Surely Putin’s saber-rattling could potentially lead to global annihilation. But wait – he’s really not suicidal. Global warming is going to be catastrophic to our economy, our enviroment, our coastal cities. Surely that’s what’s most important.

Ehhh… that’s all still decades off. Right now, LGBT citizens are only beginning to see the same sort of rights that straight people have. Certainly, that’s an immediate issue.

Well, don’t forget, people of color have spent centuries in the Unites States being marginalized, abused, and enslaved. Racial discrimination is the biggest problem we face.

And so on.

The order of importance varies from person to person. And that makes sense. What one chooses to concentrate on is a personal choice, and impossible for others to dispute.

There are some who don’t think some or even all of the above issues are problems (they would be wrong). And that’s their right to think that way.

But, saying that we need to drop one in favor of another is insulting and unnecessary. We all can focus, as people, on more than one task. Racism and LGBT rights are both significant (and sometimes overlapping) issues. Economic policy, trade policy, and global warming all affect each other. Very little exists in a vacuum.

We’re are all stuck on this same rock, all 7 billion of us. Perhaps we need to come to an understanding that the issues which affect some of us, will either directly or indirectly, affect all of us. And while triage makes sense, completely shutting off attention in favor of others is short-sighted at best.

Our media coverage of these issues is flawed, certainly. It’s also large and varied. There are outlets for almost every interest. There are issues being covered that 99% of the world doesn’t know anything about. There’s enough media diversity that one can find almost anything they want. If something truly isn’t being reported, then it behooves one to get the word out. Again, social media can be a wonderful tool.

I would just caution against chastising others for caring about their issues. Your issue is indeed important and worthy of attention. But so is theirs. Just because an issue isn’t seemingly important to you doesn’t invalidate its importance to someone else.

And keep your eyes, ears, and mind open.

Posted in Media, Quick post | Tagged civil liberties, civil rights, gay rights, global warming, human rights, issues, LGBT rights, media, national security, news, nuclear threat, racial equality, rights, Social Justice, Vladimir Putin | Leave a comment

Stars and Scars – The Real Meaning of the Confederate Battle Flag

Posted on June 24, 2015 by hbreck

It’s interesting how one issue triggers another. The tragic and disgusting murders of 9 people at a South Carolina church last week have jump-started the recurring debate over the Confederate flag. Specifically, where and when it’s flown, and the meaning behind it. The Confederate battle flag (it was not actually the primary flag of the CSA) currently flies in front of the South Carolina Capitol Building. It has flown in front of other government institutions over the years, though many have gradually taken it down, including Alabama’s Capitol, just today.

My initial knee-jerk reaction to the Confederate flag issue is essentially; why are we taking up so much time with this? Surely there are better things for us to worry about these days. But, further, more measured reflection brings me to believe that while it is not the most important of issues, we certainly have the time to address it. And it does have a long and sad history behind it, one that is impactful to people, especially minorities.

Symbols are important to people. They can be powerful tools. And the rebel flag is certainly a symbol of a deep and ingrained cultural schism within our country. People fear being marginalized. That goes for both people of color, and whites who defend the flag. Many whites, especially in the South, feel like their very whiteness is being challenged. They are afraid of equality, because that eliminates the position of social dominance they have enjoyed for centuries. And of course, many are just simple racists. But the difference is that blacks and other people of color actually have been marginalized. While lower class whites don’t always have things easy, they still have certain inherent structural and social advantages that people of color can only dream of, rich or poor.

First and foremost, the flag in question was actually the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. It comprised only the upper left-hand section of the second official CSA flag, the iconic blue X with white stars on a red background. The simplified battle flag is what most people now think of when they think of the Confederate Flag. In any event, the Confederate Flag that we think of is specifically a symbol of the Civil War.

It is historical revisionism to claim the Civil War was primarily about anything other than slavery, or at the very least, the spread of slavery beyond the then-current confines of the United States. Sure, it was about state’s rights. It was about the right of states to operate on a slave economy. Everything else was just window dressing.

The slogan “heritage not hate” pops up a lot in these discussions. What heritage is that, exactly? What great examples of Southern culture are best represented by the Confederate battle flag? Even the most ardent defenders of the flag acknowledge that it is a reference to the southern side of the Civil War. Well, what was the Civil War really about? Was it about “tyrannical government?” Taxation? Sovereignty?

None of the above. It was slavery, plain and simple. The words of the founders of the Confederacy confirm this. South Carolina convened a Secession Convention in December 1860, in which they adopted an official declaration. The declaration stated, among other things, “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery.” They also noted during the convention that Northern states like New York no longer allowed Southern slave owners to travel through their states with slaves. They also refused to return escaped slaves (at least officially), which cause great consternation among the wealthy landowners in South Carolina.

Mississippi’s secession declaration was similar: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world… Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”

From Louisiana: “As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.”

Florida secessionists: “At the South, and with our People of course, slavery is the element of all value, and a destruction of that destroys all that is property. This party, now soon to take possession of the powers of the Government, is sectional, irresponsible to us, and driven on by an infuriated fanatical madness that defies all opposition, must inevitably destroy every vestige or right growing out of property in slaves. Gentlemen, the State of Florida is now a member of the Union under the power of the Government, so to go into the hands of this party. As we stand our doom is decreed.”

Texas was clear as well: “…in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states….”

These were the official state positions of the time. All the other rebellious states made similar statements. Beyond the states, individual leaders within the Confederate ranks such as Jefferson Davis, James Henry Hammond, Joseph E. Brown, Albert Gallatin Brown, and John S. Mosby all made statements regarding the importance of slavery to the Confederate cause. Every major Southern and Southern-sympathizing newspaper of the day also made similar proclamations.

Issues like tariffs and federal oversight rarely entered the conversation. When they did, they were side-notes only. Indeed, the nullification controversies of 30 years prior were about tariffs, and subsequently, tax rates had ebbed to the point that they were at historic lows leading up to the Civil War. Taxes were not an issue. Federal overreach wasn’t either. Lincoln made clear that he would not abolish slavery within the Southern states as long as the Union could be preserved. While personally anti-slavery, Lincoln was also pragmatic by nature. Preventing secession was more important than abolishing slavery in his eyes. And yet, his Presidency meant a direct threat to slavery in the eyes of the Southern states.

It wasn’t purely about slavery within the confines of the individual states. The spread of slavery westward was important. The aforementioned Mississippi Senator, Albert Gallatin Brown, admitted that the ultimate goal was to spread slavery south as well as west. Cuba, Mexico, and Central America were all new potential frontiers for slavery. Manifest Destiny to the Confederacy meant not just expansion for free citizens, but for their slaves.

At the risk of triggering Godwin’s law, I must say the best comparison is to the Nazis. What would most Americans say to a significant percentage of the German electorate openly embracing and endorsing the Nazi flag? Even people who support the display of the Confederate flag would blanch at the notion. As well they should. The Nazi swastika is a symbol of the worst that humanity has to offer. The Confederate battle flag is simply an older version of those same dark impulses and hateful thoughts. Despite the lofty rhetoric of its defenders, the Confederate battle flag has not, since the Civil War, been used in any way other than as a symbol of racial intolerance, oppression, and domestic terrorism. What “culture” is being celebrated by a symbol of slavery? What heritage?

There are, of course, non-racists who support the continued flying of the Confederate flag. And to those I say they are fighting a losing fight, just like the South was a hundred and fifty years ago. Instead of wasting time digging in and attempting to preserve a symbol of hatred and division, we should address real issues, including the reasons why the symbolism of the Civil War is so potent a century and a half later. There are still deep racial divisions in this country, and that flag is a visible demonstration of all that is wrong with race relations. We should be better than this.

It would be arrogant of me to presume that my little diatribe here is in any way a conclusive stamp on this debate. But I would like to point out that while we argue about a flag flying over state capital, we’re still shooting each other at rates vastly exceeding than every other Western country. We still struggle to provide decent or affordable health care to a significant percentage of our citizens. We still have a mediocre education system, and enormous inequality of wealth and income. And of course let’s not forget, the deep racial divide that still exists in America between people of color, whites, and everyone in between. So, by all means let’s have this conversation, but I suggest we make it a quick one.

And then, the argument becomes very quick indeed, when we take into account the actual history behind the symbol. I have provided some links below that expound further on the history I hinted at above.

Why is it so important for some to defend this flag based on what we know of it? Neither hatred nor ignorance is a legitimate enough reason to keep this symbol flying above any state capital, or for that matter, any government institution within the United States of America. It is beneath the dignity of all citizens of this country, and it is a slap in the face to those who have suffered racial oppression and persecution. Of course it is a symbol of heritage. It’s the heritage of fear, oppression, cowardice, and treason. And I don’t believe that’s something to celebrate.

It makes sense to display the flag, along with other memorabilia of the war in museums, as an example of our often terrible history. It doesn’t make sense as a symbol of our current government.

Now can we get back to discussing income inequality, please?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482

http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html

http://www.cracked.com/article_19223_6-civil-war-myths-everyone-believes-that-are-total-b.s..html

http://www.livescience.com/13673-civil-war-anniversary-myths.html

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/the_south_still_lies_about_the_civil_war/

http://blogs.britannica.com/2011/04/myth-secession-states-rights-civil-wa/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/opinion/19Ball.html?_r=0

Posted in Civil Rights, Governance, History, Myths and misconceptions, Politics | Tagged abolitionists, Abraham Lincoln, Alabama, Albert Gallatin Brown, anger, bigotry, civil rights, Confederacy, Confederate flag, CSA, culture, Dylann Roof, Florida, hatred, heritage, history, Jefferson Davis, Manifest Destiny, Nikki Haley, oppression, politics, race, racism, secession, slavery, South Carolina, symbolism, Texas, The Civil War, treason, war | Leave a comment

A brief thought on Caitlyn Jenner and the media

Posted on June 2, 2015 by hbreck

Facebook, one of my guilty pleasures, has been dominated this week by discussions on Caitlyn Jenner and her transition from a man to a woman. Naturally, opinions have been mixed, but one very common opinion has been perplexing to me. I have seen several people complain that they are basically being forced to read/hear about Jenner. “Shoved down our throats” is being commonly expressed. This refrain is pretty ridiculous.

I’m a bit perplexed by people who think anything in the news is being “shoved down their throat.” That’s usually code for, “I’m not comfortable with the content of the story and don’t want to hear it.” It generally has a deeper meaning, because no news story is mandatory in our (mostly) free society.

Media is entirely optional. Seriously, if you don’t want to read stories about Caitlyn Jenner, don’t click the links. Hit “mute” on your television. Quit acting like you’re somehow being coerced to read about it. You’re not. If you would prefer to see news about ISIS, global warming, Elon Musk, President Obama, or any other possible topic, take 2 seconds to look for it. I encourage it! It’s all out there!

As for those who lament that coverage is being wasted on a celebrity when there’s “more important news” out there – that’s just laziness. Sure, celebrity news is vapid and pointless. But it’s not new, and it hasn’t replaced more substantive stuff. Media coverage of famous people has existed as long as there have been famous people. And it’s never been the only available news. Sometimes it feels that way, but if one is willing to put forth the effort, they can find whatever information they want. There really isn’t a finite amount of news, with one new bit pushing out another. Even implying that is insulting.

One benefit of the internet is the sheer scale of information available to us. If Jenner isn’t your thing, then ignore it and move on. Quit acting like you’re Alex from A Clockwork Orange, and you’re being restrained, with your eyes forced open. Nothing close to that is happening, although that thought does inspire some amusing imagery.

There are plenty of alternatives to celebrity gossip. Go find the news that you care about.

Of course, Jenner’s story is a bit bigger than mere “celebrity news.” In recent years, the western world has begun publicly acknowledging the existence and rights of transgendered people. It’s created awkward conversations, confusion, and anger. So, it’s just like any time we as people expand our definition of humanity. In America, we’ve often tended to think of straight white males as “the norm,” and everyone else as “different.” That’s gradually (and thankfully) changing. Well, now, we’re starting to acknowledge that cisgender may not be the default setting of humanity. There’s enough variety out there that “default” doesn’t really exist. And again, this is a positive social change.

If you’re just not happy that transgender issues are becoming socially normalized, well, sorry, but welcome to the 21st century. And feel free to change the channel.

Posted in Civil Rights, Entertainment, Media, Quick post | Tagged Bruce Jenner, Caitlyn Jenner, celebrity gossip, civil rights, media, social acceptance, transgender | 2 Comments

A few thoughts on Baltimore

Posted on April 28, 2015 by hbreck

According to the media, Baltimore, Maryland is burning. According to a handful of people who are actually there, the ratio of peaceful demonstrations to violence and mayhem is actually skewed in favor of peace.

No matter the specifics, it is clear there is anger, fear, frustration, and a general feeling of unrest. While I personally can’t condone or advocate looting or violence, I would recommend that people consider WHY it’s occurring.

Here is what we know:

On April 19, 2015, Baltimore police arrested one Freddie Gray, a Baltimore resident. During his arrest, he ended up with a mostly severed spine, three fractured vertebrae, and an injured larynx. He died of his injuries. Unrest took hold after Freddie Gray’s death, especially without clear answers as to why Freddie, a small, young, unarmed (he possibly had a switchblade, but was fleeing, not fighting) man was so brutalized during what should have been an easy and routine arrest. After his funeral on the 27th, massive protests occurred in Baltimore, and eventually riots broke out. As of midday on the 28th, violence was still occurring.

It’s not just Baltimore, as we all know. There has been increasing attention to excessive force used by police (especially against minorities) within the last year. Incidents in Oklahoma, Washington state, Missouri, and New York punctuate a much larger list. In fact, for the history of the United States (indeed, the world), police have been used as tools of oppression as much, if not more than, as peacekeepers. It’s only been in the last couple centuries that civilian police forces are even routinely thought of as a force for good by many people. And certainly, much good has occurred thanks to police work. The 19th and 20th centuries revolutionized what police can do to investigate and even prevent crime. Many positive acts have happened thanks to police.

But…

Yes, there’s always a “but.”

There is a long and ignoble history, even in this century, of police violence and malicious tactics. Targeting of minorities is sadly commonplace. And, the reactions to both police oppression and systemic oppression, has always been mixed. But, it has always included violence. This is an unfortunate truth. Sometimes collective anger boils over and is released in unpleasant ways. Within just the last 50 years, the list of riots and unrest in the US is enormous. Thanks to both police brutality as well as general dissatisfaction with the American racial and social status quo, almost every large city (as well as plenty of smaller ones) has dealt with some form of mass civil unrest.

The killing of high school student James Howell in 1964 triggered multiple race riots throughout the country, especially in New York and New Jersey. The Watts riots in 1965 were massive, and spurred on by multiple factors, including police treatment. Riots throughout the nation erupted in the summer of 1967 including in Buffalo, Atlanta, Boston, Cincinnati, Tampa, Milwaukee, and Chicago. The assassination of Martin Luther King spurred on even worse riots in 1968, including in Baltimore, Kansas City, Chicago, and Washington DC. Large-scale riots were somewhat reduced after the turbulent Sixties, but every few years something big popped up, including Kent State in 1970, the LA Riots in 1992, and now, the riots in Ferguson and in Baltimore.

So, none of this is new. We actually have an understanding of why the anger appears and explodes. The story is the same in Baltimore as it was in Ferguson, as it was in parts of New York and Los Angeles over the years. Areas with sizeable minority populations (often “majority minority” populations) are frequently policed by majority white cops. A sense of paranoia on the part of police can develop over time. Frequently, police mostly deal with the worst a community has to offer, and their overall measure of that community suffers for it. Tensions mount. A crime happens, an officer overreacts. Someone is hurt or killed. And then, the people react. When a large group of people feel marginalized and singled-out by the organization that is tasked with their safety, massive problems are all but guaranteed. Very often the police forces don’t (from a demographic standpoint) look a thing like the communities they watch over.

People feel like there’s a boot on their neck. Eventually, they’re going to fight to remove that boot.

Thanks to social media, mass spewing of opinions are now so prevalent, it’s almost become a joke: Facebook has become a great tool for figuring out which of your friends is racist and/or just ignorant. Opinions are flying, and I am a bit hesitant to include mine. I am not a resident of Baltimore, nor am I black (or Hispanic, Asian, gay, transgender, or any other minority with a history of abuse and oppression in America). I am a straight, white, relatively middle-class, American male. I already have all the advantages in life in America. So, I need to be careful in lecturing to others about topics like these.

However, I do have the ability to observe and comment. I also live in a city with a sizeable black population, and a long history of racial tensions. And I have to say, that from my somewhat (but not entirely) outside perspective, what is really lacking is an effort to understand the origins of the problem. People (mostly, but not entirely, white people) see a riot reported on television. They say, “Look, there’s angry black people breaking windows and burning cars! They’re just thugs destroying their own community! Why aren’t the police stopping this?”

Yeah, because an armed police response is just the thing to quell animosity toward police.

Not that I’m suggesting police should do nothing. But the whole point is that the people on Facebook complaining about “lawless behavior” and “thugs” are missing the point. They’re being reactionary. What I believe should happen is that police forces need to re-evaluate why these incidents happen in the first place. If thousands of people take to the streets, and cause hundreds of injuries, and millions in property damage – there’s a reason for it.

We know that many communities feel oppressed by police. Many police react to citizens by adopting a “guilty until proven innocent” attitude. Many police become hardened by years of dealing with the worst of a community to the point where they see everyone in the same light.

Perhaps more effort needs to be made toward neighborhood foot patrols.
Frequent community meetings with police representatives.
Efforts to recruit new police from within the community.
More non-lethal deterrence training.
More verbal communication training.

These are all preemptive measures. The root of the problem isn’t going to go away simply by reacting to a riot after it starts. We need to make an effort to understand why people become angry enough to riot.

Condemning rioters and civil disobedience is easy. It also isn’t productive. To all the social media pundits and commentators out there… If you’re disgusted by reports of violence and property damage, of rock throwing teenagers, and police barricades… then quit reacting. Get to the root of the problem. It takes effort, it takes research, it takes – most importantly – listening. Go find out what’s pissing communities off. You may discover the reasons are more valid than what appears on the surface.

Condemn violence, certainly. But understand why it happens. Maybe the problem isn’t the reaction, but something much deeper. I don’t have a specific answer to these problems. But I know we have them, and we need to listen to each other more before they’re going to get better.

A few more links to check out regarding this incident: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-mysterious-death-of-freddie-gray/391119/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/28/402739255/on-the-streets-of-baltimore-trying-to-understand-the-anger
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/5-things-everyone-needs-know-about-baltimore

Posted in Civil Rights, Law Enforcement, Media, Quick post | Tagged anger, Antonio Zambrano-Montes, Baltimore, Baltimore riots, civil rights, Eric Garner, Ferguson, Freddie Gray, Michael Brown, Police, police abuse, police brutality, police overreach, race relations, racism, Social Justice, violence | 1 Comment

Want to get rid of the IRS? Okay, this is what you need to also get rid of…

Posted on April 20, 2015 by hbreck

Ted Cruz was the first major party candidate to announce a run for the 2016 Presidential election. One of his primary talking points is a hatred of taxes and a proposal to eliminate the IRS. The GOP has already done a very good job slashing the IRS budget, and making it much more difficult for them to collect revenue, prevent fraud, and keep the nation funded. Pretty much every issue the IRS has had lately with preventing fraud and collecting revenue has been due to massive Republican opposition to its very existence. A Cruz presidency would only go further to cripple the finances of the United States.

To his supporters, I humbly suggest this proposal. It’s a not an original suggestion, but I think it should be reiterated.

If you absolutely hate taxes, and despise the IRS, then I advise you to stop using any service or product that’s financed, inspected, or was originally created by the government. It’s only fair.

Ah, but you say you aren’t against taxes, you just want a flat tax, or a consumption tax. Better hope you’re in one of the top two income quintiles. If you are, then with a flat tax, you’ll probably see a hefty tax cut. If you’re middle class or lower, be prepared for a massive tax hike. An increase would be especially necessary if you want to maintain current funding levels. Also be aware that switching to a flat tax would not significantly reduce the complexity of individual tax returns. Nor would it eliminate the need for a revenue collecting organization. Unless you are willing to completely eliminate all taxes whatsoever, there will be a need for the IRS or some sort of equivalent.

If you don’t like a social safety net, however, and don’t think anyone deserves economic, social, health, or physical protections, then sure, we can get you lower taxes. Just don’t think you should do or access any of the following:

Stop using and drinking municipal water.
Regulations on water cleanliness and purity exist thanks to the government. Water treatment is heavily subsidized (and usually run) by local and state governments. But that’s okay, because private enterprise does such a good job making sure food and drink are safe for consumption.

Don’t eat any inspected food.
If you get a chance, read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. It’s a harrowing look at the conditions faced by immigrants at the turn of the 20th century. The most disturbing parts focused on the state of meatpacking plants. While officially written as a novel, Sinclair spent years researching labor and industry, and for seven weeks, he actually worked in the meatpacking industry, documenting the conditions and misery involved with food production in 1904-06 America. And it was bad. Disturbingly bad. The changes inspired by his work have saved possibly millions of lives and prevented billions of illnesses. The quality of food in America and the safety that we enjoy today is only possible thanks to the contributions of regulatory bodies like the FDA. Want to slash or eliminate the FDA? Hope you like listeria, salmonella, mad cow, and so on. Also hope you don’t like knowing when outbreaks do happen until you actually catch something.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/prescription/defending/

Don’t drive on any public roads or bridges.
The Federal Highway system exists because of Republican President Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s. Ostensibly a way to transport military supplies and troops swiftly across the massive landmass that is the continental United States, it now allows millions of Americans the freedom to drive pretty much anywhere in the nation in just a couple days. Every road and bridge is inspected and maintained thanks to government funds.

Sadly, the current state of American transportation infrastructure is deplorable, and that’s entirely thanks to Republican funding cuts and holds. The anti-government wing of the government isn’t willing to pay to keep the roads, bridges, dams, and levees intact. And we all suffer as a result.

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
https://askewedperspective.net/2014/04/20/repost-facebook-october-20-2012-a-case-for-a-new-new-deal/

Don’t even walk on them.
You think the sidewalks build themselves, too?

Don’t bother visiting parks or zoos.
Same goes for parks – national, state, and municipal. It’s governments that maintain, monitor, police, and care for these public places. Do you care about Yosemite, Yellowstone, and so on? Do you want your kids to be able to visit the playground down the street? It would help to support governments and taxes. If you don’t support taxes, keep off the grass!

Don’t send your kids to public schools.
American public primary and secondary schools are hit and miss these days. Many districts suffer from major funding shortfalls. However, the state of American public schools is strong enough to ensure 95% plus literacy rates, and many students still make it into some truly excellent colleges. As John Green pointed out, even if you don’t have kids, it’s still important to support schools if you don’t want to live in a nation with a bunch of stupid people. Education is important for international competitiveness, crime reduction, and overall economic and social progress. If you need convincing on the value of a strong public education system, then you’re probably hopeless. And pretty dumb.

Don’t accept grants for college.
Billions of dollars of loans, scholarships, and grants exist each year for students attending college. The current system is flawed and increasingly expensive. However, without federal assistance, the overall rate of college degrees would be drastically reduced. An uneducated population is inherently a negative thing, no matter what Rand Paul tells you.

Don’t call the police.
This one is a no-brainer. Police forces are funded with taxes. There has been more attention called in recent years to police abuses, and that certainly is a problem. However, if you’ve ever had to call a cop… well, if you hate taxes, you can’t anymore. I guess that will just make you feel like you need to load up on guns even more now. Yay.

Make sure to avoid vaccinating your kids.
Most research into eliminating and controlling disease in the last hundred years has been funded by the government. Several formerly fatal diseases have been all but eradicated thanks to federally-mandated vaccination programs. Millions of lives have been saved, paid for by your tax dollars.

Don’t use a bank insured by the FDIC.
You think the big banks are bad now? At least they have the backing of the federal government. Before FDR, and the programs of the New Deal, major depressions as dire as the Great Depression occurred like clockwork every 20 or so years. Since the elimination of the gold standard, the creation of the Federal Reserve, and regulation of the banking industry, bank runs, massive crashes, and actual depressions simply don’t happen anymore. And just recently, the worst recession since the Great Depression was mostly caused by loosening of the regulatory framework that helped keep the financial industry (somewhat) in check over the last 70 years.

Don’t use paper money.
Individuals and businesses don’t print their own money anymore. And that’s a good thing.

http://critiques.us/index.php?title=Currency

Don’t flush a toilet.
Sewage treatment is certainly not sexy, but it’s immensely important to the running of not just cities, but a successful civilization. One of the biggest improvements in the quality of life in the industrialized world is the creation of a modern and well-maintained waste removal and treatment system. Thus far, projects on that scale work better and cheaper through public action. Governments clean up your shit, and for that, you should be grateful.

Don’t live in a red state.
The states that receive the most federal benefits (both at the state and personal levels) tend to be Republican-leaning states. The states that pay the most in federal taxes and receive the fewest benefits in return are all Democratic supporting states.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/09/18/obama-supporters-subsidize-romney-supporters-with-their-taxes-

Don’t check the weather report.
Most weather satellites and radar systems were either installed by, or developed by government funds. Most televised and online weather reports get their data from the National Weather Service, and receive additional data thanks to the NOAA and NASA.

Don’t use cell phones or the Internet.
Jokes about Al Gore aside, the research that led to the creation and development of what we now know as the internet was mostly thanks to tax-funded government work. And yes, actually Al Gore does deserve some credit, and no he didn’t actually claim to “invent the internet.”

This is from Vinton Cerf, who is arguably more responsible for the “invention of the internet” than anybody else. And even he admitted the government (and Al Gore) contributions:

http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~fessler/misc/funny/gore,net.txt

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/11/04/a-cautionary-tale-for-politicians-al-gore-and-the-invention-of-the-internet

Don’t flip a light switch in a rural area.
Rural electrification only happened thanks to huge government investments in the 1930s. Before then, any power going to farms and remote houses had to occur from windmills and other low-tech means.

Don’t watch television or listen to the radio.
The FCC does more than just censor Janet Jackson. The massive network of radio stations, television channels, and other communications requires quite a bit of organization and regulation run properly. The FCC makes so much of what we watch and listen to possible.

Don’t take any medicine.
A lot of dangerous drugs get pulled from the shelves thanks to governments. Much research into disease prevention and cures is paid for via taxes. Get sick? You take medicine. Wait, you don’t want to pay for the regulation and inspection of those drugs? Well, you’d get along with Ron Paul. But you are also risking your health.

Please don’t mail a letter.
The GOP is trying hard to kill the Postal Service. Yet, despite its ten year project to gut the agency, it’s still the most successful delivery service in the world.

https://askewedperspective.net/2014/12/16/who-is-killing-the-postal-service/

Don’t get on a plane.
Imagine taking a flight across the country. It’s not hard to do. Millions take flights every year. It’s the safest and fastest way to travel. Thousands of planes are in the air at all times. These complex machines are the work of brilliant minds, over a hundred years of research and development, and yes, government funding. Now imagine taking a flight with no inspection of these planes. Imagine taking a flight with no air-traffic control. If that sounds good to you, then you’re braver than I am.

Don’t bother spending time with elderly friends and relatives.
American life expectancy, as well as overall quality of life for the elderly, has greatly improved since the implementation of the New Deal. Social Security in the ’30s and Medicare in the ’60s contributed to a huge drop in poverty for the elderly. In 1960, more than 1/3 of elderly Americans were below the poverty line. By the mid 1990s, that number had dropped to around 10 percent. Social Security, Medicare, and other anti-poverty programs within the social safety net are the biggest contributors to this trend.

http://www.nber.org/bah/summer04/w10466.html

Don’t accept overtime pay.
Organized labor, combined with government regulation are largely responsible for the 40 hour workweek and modern overtime laws. If you don’t want to pay taxes, then you shouldn’t accept overtime laws. Feel free to work 50 or 60 hours without time-and-a-half pay.

NASA spinoff technologies.
Any technology that exists because of NASA research… you’ll have to stop using. Estimates have pegged the return on investment as very impressive. For every dollar spent on research, total economic revenue from the research and spinoff products is more than 7 dollars. Meaning, when NASA spends a billion dollars on R&D, 7 billion eventually makes it into the economy.

The list of spinoff inventions is pretty long, and includes…

LEDs
Memory foam mattresses
Freeze dried food
Implantable insulin pumps
Portable cordless vacuums
Solar cells
Remote controlled ovens
Modern water filtration systems
Cell phone digital cameras
Baby formula
Ear thermometers
Invisible braces
MRI and CAT scans
Artificial limbs

If you hate taxes, and believe the IRS should be abolished, then I propose you give up using all of the above items. Just to be sure, consult the below links and search for the 1800 plus items developed through NASA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies
http://spinoff.nasa.gov/
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/nasa-inventions/nasa-high-tech-products1.htm
http://ipp.nasa.gov/pdf/spinoff_top_20a.pdf
http://www.businessinsider.com/everyday-items-developed-by-nasa-2012-8

This post could actually be quite a bit longer. There are so many everyday services and products that exist thanks to our tax dollars. Could some of it be privatized? Probably. Would it be better? In many cases, no.

A democratic government is a tool. Like any tool, it can certainly be used to destroy rather than create. There are plenty of examples of government failures and overreach. The more responsive and responsible the electorate is, however, the more likely government will work for the people. Demonizing government has been a unique feature of the American political system in recent decades, primarily (though not exclusively) on the right. This counterintuitive approach guarantees that the party that claims government never works, proves this point by running government as poorly as possible. And yet, even as the competence in our American government erodes, it still successfully provides an enormous number of services that most Americans literally couldn’t live without. The only way to not use at least a few of the aforementioned products and services would be to completely live off the grid, far from any town or city. This is a difficult and extremely rare option. For everyone else, the collective action of governments does quite a bit of good. Taxes are how we make sure the collective action is possible. It’s not always fun, but it’s the intelligent way to run a society. The current government could use a dose of intelligence. The Ted Cruzes of the world are not the way to boost our collective IQ. Perhaps we should look elsewhere for our leadership.

Here are some other good links regarding the good that comes from taxes and governments:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/04/the_top_dozen_federal_government_programs_in_history.html
http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-effects-of-deregulation.htm
http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=7&p=1
http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=1
http://critiques.us/index.php?title=Government
http://critiques.us/index.php?title=Taxes

Posted in Budgets, Economics, Governance, Infrastructure, Politics, Science | Tagged consumption tax, democracy, drugs, economics, FCC, FDA, FDIC, Federal government, flat tax, government, head tax, infrastructure, internet, IRS, Medicare, medicine, NASA, National Weather Service, NOAA, progressive income tax, regulations, Republican, republicans, Social Security, taxes, technology, Ted Cruz, unions | Leave a comment

Does Congress deserve a pay cut?

Posted on February 19, 2015 by hbreck

The topic of Congressional pay has been a rare area where the American left and right often agrees. Both the House and the Senate “enjoy” some of the lowest aggregate approval ratings the American government has seen in decades. Even unsuccessful (or perceived to be so) Presidents generally polled over 30% at their worst. Congress has been routinely polling over the last few years in the single digits. No matter one’s party or ideological lean, the consensus among the American electorate is that Congress just sucks.

Frequently, individuals representing both parties bring up the topic of Congressional pay. The argument usually refers to gridlock and the lack of accomplishments by the last few years of Congress. “Why should Congress get paid if they aren’t getting anything done?”

Someone on the left will mention the lack of willingness by Congress to raise the federal minimum wage. “Let’s pay Congress minimum wage. Then they’ll be willing to raise it,” says someone on the left. On the right you might hear, “Why should Congress keep getting raises when they won’t cut taxes?”

Despite the differing starting points, the refrain is identical. Congress isn’t doing what either party wants, so why do they deserve their wage? It is, after all, essentially a part-time job.

Well, that’s not exactly true. Even though they only spend about half the year actually legislating, the nature of the job requires many hours of campaigning and fundraising, especially for Representatives who have to run for re-election every two years, should they wish to keep their jobs. They definitely put in long hours.

The current annual salary for a member of Congress is $174,000. The Senate and House majority and minority leaders get $193,400, and the Speaker of the House makes $223,500. These are all very healthy numbers. In a city such as mine (Kansas City), that would make one quite affluent, maybe even “wealthy.” In Washington DC, $174,000 doesn’t go quite as far. It’s not bad by any means, but it’s less impressive than one might think.

Most Congresspersons actually live half the year in their home district, which usually requires two homes, effectively doubling housing costs. And since rent is so high in DC, depending on the home region of the individual legislator, it may be closer to tripling their housing costs. Many Congresspersons actually share apartments while in Washington.

There’s no doubt, though, that the job attracts people who are already wealthy. The incoming freshman class in January 2013 (from the 2012 elections) was worth an average of $1,066,500. Of the current Congress, 188 had a net worth of over 1 million dollars. That’s 35% of the total of both chambers. By comparison, about 3% of individual Americans and 4% of households are worth that much. The median net worth of a Congressperson in 2014 was $456,522, far above the American household average. To break the top 50 (around the 90th percentile), a Congressman would have to be worth over 7.5 million dollars.

Yep, it’s a rich person’s club.

To be certain, there are plenty of Congresspersons with substantial debt or minimal income, many of whom do live on their Congressional salary. But national politics increasingly have become a game for the wealthy. Massive campaign donations and huge advertising expenditures don’t require personal wealth on the part of the politician. However, rich people are often far more comfortable schmoozing with large businesses and wealthy donors. The elite tend to work with each other more willingly. The elite also tend to have the time and the resources necessary for long campaigns.

For those who decry the pay of Congress, I would argue they’re missing the point. As I mentioned above, many Senators and Representatives don’t get most of their wealth from their Congressional pay. And that might be the problem. More than 150 of the 535 reported earning more money from investments than their Congressional salary. Many were heirs and born into wealth, allowing them the time and funding to run for public office. Yet these are the same people we often mock for being out of touch with the 99%. Mitt Romney lost the last Presidential election in part because he was frequently portrayed as an incredibly rich and comfortable man without an understanding of the struggles of middle and lower-class Americans. His own comments didn’t always help out that perception. Some people were born with a silver foot in their mouth.

So, if $174,000 a year is actually a useful wage for some, but meaningless to others, then that begs a question; what would be the point of cutting or withholding it? Would punishing the poorer legislators necessarily bring about change in Congress? Would it even be punishment to those who are already wealthy? Is there a better solution?

I have a modest suggestion. It’s one that I’m sure would not be popular, and would likely never be passed into law. I nonetheless feel that it would help encourage “common people” to run for office, thereby making Representatives actually somewhat representative of their constituents.

Keep the current wages where they’re at. Make sure to pass regular raises to match the current rate of inflation and keep up with the DC cost-of-living. $174,000 is a nice wage, but compared to many private-sector leadership positions, it’s a pittance. Any private company CEO that has 700,000 employees (approximately the population of most House districts) would be making far more than low 6 digits. The job of making the nation’s laws should be well-paid. A better paid position generally attracts higher-quality applicants.

My suggestion, though, is to ban all other income after one wins an election. Any board memberships should be dropped, any investments must be sold or frozen, any sort of extra income must be banned. In short, Senators and Representatives have to live on their Congressional salary. If Senator Example makes 500 grand in a year from book royalties, 1.5 million from stock sales, and 3 million from profits from his cat herding business, then he must forfeit, hold, or give away all of it. No additional income can go to the Senator while he holds public office. He is being paid a handsome six figure salary by the American people to represent their wishes and build their roads. He doesn’t need to be distracted by his wealth or cat herding.

Ideally, this would discourage the superrich from running. Why would they sacrifice years of potential income for a busy life of underpaid public service? It would be multiple years in which the very nature of their job means that nearly half of the electorate truly despises them. Democracy would be better served by people serving in Congress who actually resemble those they represent.

Of course, this is just a small step. The issue of Congress being out-of-touch and unresponsive to the electorate wouldn’t disappear with just this measure. The modern campaign financing situation is corrupt, and lobbyists have far too much influence over our legislature. Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC still needs to be overturned to make a dent on the influence of money in politics.

However, this proposal would be a step in the right direction. Discouraging millionaires and career businessmen from running for office would be a good start. Paying Congress fairly, and well, is perfectly reasonable. But requiring them to concentrate on lawmaking, and no other job, would also be reasonable.

I am absolutely certain many people would say this is a terrible idea.
“What about the Senators’ freedom?!”
“Why do you hate capitalism?!”
“Why do you hate America?!”
“You must be a Democrat!”

Yes, I am already used to hearing the above insults. And that’s okay. I simply would like to know why we keep voting for entitled, spoiled millionaires to represent the 97% of America that don’t have that much money. Why do we collectively shrug when we hear about how much money is spent on elections, and how much influence businesses and wealthy individuals have on said elections? “Bloated plutocrat wins election funded by rich friends.” would be the honest headline every two years. But most people seem content to hand over their democracy to the wealthy.

I say screw that. We may not clean up national campaigns overnight, or even over the next decade. We likely won’t reduce the influence of lobbyists and big business in our electoral system anytime soon. And obviously, this proposal would never get off the ground. After all, it would be those gazillionaire Congresspersons who would get to vote on it. But I can dream, can’t I? My ideal scenario would be few less rich people representing their fellow Americans, and a few actual “normal” Americans doing it. That would be the real point of representative democracy.

So when you hear someone say that Congress is overpaid, and should take a pay cut, tell them what they make in regular wages is fine. It’s the fact that they’re mostly millionaires making laws as a hobby that’s the problem.

As always, here are some good links with useful information on the topic of Congressional pay:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/does-congress-deserve-a-pay-cut

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/04/04/299078253/congressmans-lament-174-000-isnt-enough-to-make-ends-meet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress

http://media.cq.com/50Richest/

http://blogs.rollcall.com/hill-blotter/wealth-of-congress-jumps-150-million-50-richest/?dcz=

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/12/news/economy/congress-wealth/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/how-did-members-of-congress-get-so-wealthy/379848/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/capitol-assets/congressional-wealth-risk-matrix/

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/18/the-five-poorest-us-senators

Posted in Governance, Humor, Politics | Tagged 1 percent, campaign finance, compensation, Congress, Congressional pay, corruption, House of Representatives, minimum wage, money, quid pro quo, salary, Senate, wages, wealth | Leave a comment

	Kamala Harris For Pr… on The Stakes
	Kamala Harris For Pr… on Sticks and Stones
	Kamala Harris For Pr… on A Scary Time for Young Me…
	Kamala Harris For Pr… on Acting Guilty
	Kamala Harris For Pr… on Political Hostages in Tex…

A Skewed Perspective

Unlocking the Asylum – Round One

What’s at Stake in the 2016 Presidential Race

Lions, and Events, and News…

Stars and Scars – The Real Meaning of the Confederate Battle Flag

Does Congress deserve a pay cut?

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta