The conservative media isn't a big fan of discussing racism. They are however very eager to discuss all of the reasons people shouldn't be talking about racism. The diversionary tactics include such classics as "playing the race card", "black on black crime", "White guilt", "I have a black friend" as well as more recent incarnations like "all lives matter", "reverse racism", and "racism doesn't exist anymore". The purpose of these talking points is not to have a substantive discussion on how to improve race relations in America. No, the purpose of these talking points is to specifically avoid such discussions by dismissing racially based discrimination and hate as the imaginary rantings of politically correct crybabies.
Unfortunately the recent events at Missouri University offer yet another example of conservative media's deride and disparage tactics when it comes to the uncomfortable conversation of racism. Rather than talk about the overt racism experienced by some black students, the conservative media is dissecting video of a student that may or may not have been struck by the University President's car. Rather than debate the need for greater diversity among the staff and faculty, the conservative media has obsessed over a false story that the bathroom swastika might be a hoax. Rather than consider how some minority students might feel marginalized at a predominately white school, the conservative media is more concerned about the criticism they have received for their reporting.
Maybe the incidents described by students are completely accurate or maybe they aren't, but all of this hand wringing about needing extensive proof of racism rings hollow coming from the conservative media, given their penchant for making a mountain out of a molehill. For example, one of the top viewed stories on Fox News the past few days is an article by Christian huckster Todd Starnes titled Teen runner disqualified from state meet -- Was it the Bible verse?. Despite providing zero evidence that the runner was disqualified for his religious views, Starnes had no problem publishing the concern of Republican lawmakers over "Religious expression being squashed right here in the Ninth District".
The reality is that when it comes to the concerns of conservatives, the mere appearance of discrimination is all the proof that is required. So while the conservative media chides a group of people they tend to label as entitled and lazy for organizing and bringing about change with terms like "disgusting" and "infantile", their concern for this kind of change via protest seems to be limited to black students and liberals. In fact, when it comes to protests outside of medical clinics by anti-abortion zealots who bully women into conforming to their way of thinking, the conservative media is rather supportive. The same is true of instances like the Christians at Duke University that protested the use of the school's chapel bell tower for the Islamic call to prayer and the protest over the lack of Christmas symbols on the cups at Starbucks. If trying to change minds through protest is disgusting and infantile, then these acts by conservatives deserve as much if not more scrutiny than the Missouri students.
Perhaps the problem here is that the conservative media doesn't like the idea of someone demanding change. After all, the conservative media response to the list of demands submitted by Concerned Student 1950 was to cry fascism. This rhetoric is, however, surprisingly absent in the conservative media when conservative Christians like Mike Huckabee, Franklin Graham, and Bryan Fischer demanded change because their feelings were hurt.
The conservative media was also largely silent when Republican politicians made outlandish demands as part of the debt ceiling deal, payroll tax cut negotiations, as well as the recent Republican presidential debate.
But possibly the biggest hypocrisy of the conservative media when it comes to the Missouri University protests has to do with how they have reacted to Jonathan Butler who went on a hunger strike in response to what he saw as systemic racism at the University. The bulk of the conservative media coverage of Butler has focused on the fact that he comes from a wealthy family, because in their minds this exposes a hypocrisy by Butler regarding his organization’s statements on white privilege. The problem is that his wealth has no bearing on the color of his skin. Perhaps he is a spoiled rich kid, but that doesn't mean he hasn't also experienced racism or discrimination associated with being an African American.
Even if it were the case that privilege and white privilege are synonymous, does that somehow make Butler unqualified to comment on the topic? Republicans in Congress routinely complain about how the system they are a part of is broken, yet the conservative media never suggests that their job as a Congressman makes them ineligible to critique Congress. After every terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslims, the conservative media is the first to ask other Muslims to denounce these acts. And you can bet anytime a Democrat disagrees with President Obama, the conservative media will be the first ones to hold that person up as proof of the president's failure.
The idea that being rich precludes Butler from the bigotry and intolerance experienced by black students is idiotic. but compounding the issue by also suggesting his critique is invalid simply because he grew up privileged is completely embarrassing.
The reality is, if there is anything that should be dismissed out of hand, it is the conservative media's coverage of racism. Not only is their narrative so uniformly biased as to be detrimental to a rational discussion, it is also absurdly hypocritical. There is plenty of worthwhile issues to debate regarding racism in America; unfortunately, the conservative media has decided to bury their heads in the sand and cover none of them.
Monday, November 23, 2015
Monday, November 9, 2015
Christians persecution peddlers want special treatment - not religious freedom
Christian persecution has become a new religion for many. These people take it on faith that a war on Christianity is being waged in America. The reality is, the only war being waged right now is one to define the religious freedoms afforded to Americans by the constitution. Despite this fact, the Christian crusaders in the conservative media are still out in full force trying to convince their viewers that any limitations to how and when they can practice their religion are tantamount to outlawing Christianity.
For example, conservative Christian zealot Todd Starnes has spent the past few weeks trying to convince people that "public schools are shoving Christians in the closet" because a Washington state football coach was told he could not pray at the 50 yard line after games. The problem is that in order to claim Christian persecution Starnes must willfully ignore the legal limits of religious freedom.
It's possible that this coach is well within his rights to pray after games. It's also possible that since the coach prays on school property in a place where students are present his actions represent state sponsored religion. Luckily, the decision on what this coach is legally allowed to do is not one that will be decided by the media; but when you have an agenda to push, concerning yourself with factual legalese becomes secondary to generating spurious outrage.
Regardless of how this case turns out, the biggest problem it exposes is not some conspiracy theory where a small minority of Americans are repressing the rights of the Christian majority, but rather just how self-serving the application of religious freedom is for these Christian activists.
It seems likely that if this were a Muslim coach it would be conservative Christians demanding that this coach keep his religious views to himself. After all, despite arguing that Christian children should be allowed to pray in public schools, it is Christians that are most upset with schools that make accommodations to protect Muslim students’ rights to practice their religion.
The problem for many is that in spite of the fact that these rights apply to all religions equally, the practices of Muslims fall outside of our Judeo-Christian traditions, so the accommodations being offered have the appearance of special treatment. The truth is, American schools were designed to facilitate Christian religious customs. For instance, while schools are closed for Christian holidays like Christmas and Good Friday, Islamic holidays are largely ignored by the public school system. Schools have also structured their weekly schedule around the Christian day of rest while the Islamic day of prayer, Friday, is considered just another day for most public schools. And while schools have made sure that wearing skirts, as required by some Christian religions, is acceptable for any dress code, some schools have banned traditional Muslim attire.
Where are the media's conservative Christian raconteurs demanding the protection of religious freedom for those who are being forced to conform to Christian customs?
Of course school accommodations are hardly the only instance of conservative Christian religious freedom hypocrisy.
After hearing of a legal case involving two Muslim truck drivers who refused to transport alcohol because doing so was against their beliefs, many Christians suggested that if these drivers couldn't do the job then they should do something else. Yet these are some of the same people who argue that Military chaplains should have the religious freedom to shame gay service men and women because of their firmly held religious beliefs. Given that the federal courts ruled that discriminating against gays, lesbians and bisexuals is unconstitutional, ending this restriction, it seems that the chaplains’ views now make them unable to properly execute the duties required by their position. Following conservative Christian logic, these chaplains need to find another occupation where their religious convictions don't interfere with the job they were hired to do.
Another example of the duplicity of the conservative Christian media can be seen in how they handle racism. For many in this group, racism is something that only exists in the minds of race baiters, yet somehow they are oblivious to their own position as instigators of the manufactured war on Christianity. When a racially motivated situation arises, the conservative media is the first to whine about Al Sharpton showing up to shine a light on the discrimination being perpetrated. They call him "racial ambulance chaser" and insist that if Al Sharpton is there "you can safely assume you’re being taken for a ride". But when the issue is Christian religious freedom they feel they are doing God's work by highlighting a potential injustice and they praise groups like the Liberty Institute that vigorously pursue and publicize situations involving possible religious discrimination.
Are these people altruistic fighters for freedom or repugnant profiteers of ignorance? Unfortunately, how these people and organizations are viewed tends to have little to do with their actions and far more to do with the beliefs of the person judging those actions.
Having said that, if the persecution peddlers are serious about solving this issue, they should follow the advice the conservative media has for liberals and stop playing the victim in an attempt to get people to cater to their needs. The reality is that the vast majority of instances that these Christian propagandists claim are Christian persecution are just situations where there is some uncertainty regarding the interpretation of the constitution. Claiming otherwise is great if you want to sell ads space, but it's pretty stupid if you really care about religious freedom.
For example, conservative Christian zealot Todd Starnes has spent the past few weeks trying to convince people that "public schools are shoving Christians in the closet" because a Washington state football coach was told he could not pray at the 50 yard line after games. The problem is that in order to claim Christian persecution Starnes must willfully ignore the legal limits of religious freedom.
It's possible that this coach is well within his rights to pray after games. It's also possible that since the coach prays on school property in a place where students are present his actions represent state sponsored religion. Luckily, the decision on what this coach is legally allowed to do is not one that will be decided by the media; but when you have an agenda to push, concerning yourself with factual legalese becomes secondary to generating spurious outrage.
Regardless of how this case turns out, the biggest problem it exposes is not some conspiracy theory where a small minority of Americans are repressing the rights of the Christian majority, but rather just how self-serving the application of religious freedom is for these Christian activists.
It seems likely that if this were a Muslim coach it would be conservative Christians demanding that this coach keep his religious views to himself. After all, despite arguing that Christian children should be allowed to pray in public schools, it is Christians that are most upset with schools that make accommodations to protect Muslim students’ rights to practice their religion.
The problem for many is that in spite of the fact that these rights apply to all religions equally, the practices of Muslims fall outside of our Judeo-Christian traditions, so the accommodations being offered have the appearance of special treatment. The truth is, American schools were designed to facilitate Christian religious customs. For instance, while schools are closed for Christian holidays like Christmas and Good Friday, Islamic holidays are largely ignored by the public school system. Schools have also structured their weekly schedule around the Christian day of rest while the Islamic day of prayer, Friday, is considered just another day for most public schools. And while schools have made sure that wearing skirts, as required by some Christian religions, is acceptable for any dress code, some schools have banned traditional Muslim attire.
Where are the media's conservative Christian raconteurs demanding the protection of religious freedom for those who are being forced to conform to Christian customs?
Of course school accommodations are hardly the only instance of conservative Christian religious freedom hypocrisy.
After hearing of a legal case involving two Muslim truck drivers who refused to transport alcohol because doing so was against their beliefs, many Christians suggested that if these drivers couldn't do the job then they should do something else. Yet these are some of the same people who argue that Military chaplains should have the religious freedom to shame gay service men and women because of their firmly held religious beliefs. Given that the federal courts ruled that discriminating against gays, lesbians and bisexuals is unconstitutional, ending this restriction, it seems that the chaplains’ views now make them unable to properly execute the duties required by their position. Following conservative Christian logic, these chaplains need to find another occupation where their religious convictions don't interfere with the job they were hired to do.
Another example of the duplicity of the conservative Christian media can be seen in how they handle racism. For many in this group, racism is something that only exists in the minds of race baiters, yet somehow they are oblivious to their own position as instigators of the manufactured war on Christianity. When a racially motivated situation arises, the conservative media is the first to whine about Al Sharpton showing up to shine a light on the discrimination being perpetrated. They call him "racial ambulance chaser" and insist that if Al Sharpton is there "you can safely assume you’re being taken for a ride". But when the issue is Christian religious freedom they feel they are doing God's work by highlighting a potential injustice and they praise groups like the Liberty Institute that vigorously pursue and publicize situations involving possible religious discrimination.
Are these people altruistic fighters for freedom or repugnant profiteers of ignorance? Unfortunately, how these people and organizations are viewed tends to have little to do with their actions and far more to do with the beliefs of the person judging those actions.
Having said that, if the persecution peddlers are serious about solving this issue, they should follow the advice the conservative media has for liberals and stop playing the victim in an attempt to get people to cater to their needs. The reality is that the vast majority of instances that these Christian propagandists claim are Christian persecution are just situations where there is some uncertainty regarding the interpretation of the constitution. Claiming otherwise is great if you want to sell ads space, but it's pretty stupid if you really care about religious freedom.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Christians still fail to understand religious freedom
The conservative media is always looking for a reason to be outraged. Unfortunately, the origin of the outrage is often a lack of information. For example, Megyn Kelly of Fox News took to the air earlier this week to discuss a court case that she feels proves President Obama and liberals are waging a war on Christianity.
"A jury has awarded a big pay out to a pair of Muslim truck drivers who were fired after refusing to deliver alcoholic beverages; citing their religious convictions. The Obama administration actually represented the two Muslims in this case, but has sometimes taken a very different position in the case of Christians".
The conversation that follows between Kelly and Judge Andrew Napolitano would have you believe that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was going out of their way to help establish religious freedom for Muslims while ignoring or actively fighting against these same freedoms for those of Christian faith.
A quick look at the cases at the EEOC exposes just how uninformed Kelly is since their press releases show the EEOC has been involved in a number of cases defending Christians.
On 7-17-15 the EEOC won $22,000 for a Seventh-Day Adventist who was refused a job because his religious belief did not allow him to work on the Sabbath.
On 8-27-15 the EEOC won a $586,860 award for an Evangelical Christian who refused to use a bio-metric time clock due to his religious beliefs.
On 8-21-15 the EEOC sued the National Federation of the Blind for terminating a Hebrew Pentecostal employee who refused to work on the Sabbath.
On 8-20-14 the EEOC sued for a Jehovah's Witness who was fired because his religious beliefs required him to attend church on Thursday and Sunday evenings.
On 12-23-13 the EEOC won a $40,000 settlement for a Pentecostal employee who was fired for refusing to wear pants since it was against her religious beliefs.
On 11-4-13 the EEOC won a $70,000 settlement for a Jehovah's Witness who was fired shortly after requesting a schedule change to attend an annual religious service.
On 1-23-13 the EEOC won a $25,000 settlement for a Pentecostal employee who was refused a job because her religious beliefs call for her to wear a dress instead of the pants required by the company dress code.
Demonizing the president and liberals is par for the course when it comes to conservative media, but the idea that the EEOC has some anti-Christian agenda is insulting and ignorant.
Of course, rather than cite any of these cases and rationally discuss what the law does and does not allow for when it comes to religious freedom, zealots like Kelly errantly compare the religious freedom of these Muslim drivers to the Colorado cake baker who was found in violation of the law for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
While it may look like these cases are similar, the reality is they are quite different in one important aspect - discrimination. The job of the cake baker is to bake cakes. When he refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple he is not doing so because his religious beliefs say he can't bake a cake - he would likely have no issues baking this exact same cake for a heterosexual wedding. He is doing so because his religious beliefs suggest there is something wrong with this couple. In the end, he is not refusing to bake a cake, he is refusing service to someone based on who they are. That is discrimination.
The job of the Muslim truck driver is to drive a truck. Neither operator refused to drive a truck that day. What they refused to do was transport alcohol, since doing so was against their religious beliefs. If conservatives want to compare this decision to the Colorado cake baker the apt comparison would be that the cake baker has the right to refuse to include words on a cake that are against his beliefs. The baker could also refuse to provide a cake on Sunday or use alcohol in a cake based on his religious freedom. They are free to object to the specifics of the service if it falls outside of their religious convictions. They are not allowed to discriminate against a person for who they are.
Clearly this is a topic that the general public needs more information on as religious freedom is one of the most important rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately the conservative media continues to leave their viewers less informed by constantly misrepresenting the legal definition of this right.
"A jury has awarded a big pay out to a pair of Muslim truck drivers who were fired after refusing to deliver alcoholic beverages; citing their religious convictions. The Obama administration actually represented the two Muslims in this case, but has sometimes taken a very different position in the case of Christians".
The conversation that follows between Kelly and Judge Andrew Napolitano would have you believe that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was going out of their way to help establish religious freedom for Muslims while ignoring or actively fighting against these same freedoms for those of Christian faith.
A quick look at the cases at the EEOC exposes just how uninformed Kelly is since their press releases show the EEOC has been involved in a number of cases defending Christians.
On 7-17-15 the EEOC won $22,000 for a Seventh-Day Adventist who was refused a job because his religious belief did not allow him to work on the Sabbath.
On 8-27-15 the EEOC won a $586,860 award for an Evangelical Christian who refused to use a bio-metric time clock due to his religious beliefs.
On 8-21-15 the EEOC sued the National Federation of the Blind for terminating a Hebrew Pentecostal employee who refused to work on the Sabbath.
On 8-20-14 the EEOC sued for a Jehovah's Witness who was fired because his religious beliefs required him to attend church on Thursday and Sunday evenings.
On 12-23-13 the EEOC won a $40,000 settlement for a Pentecostal employee who was fired for refusing to wear pants since it was against her religious beliefs.
On 11-4-13 the EEOC won a $70,000 settlement for a Jehovah's Witness who was fired shortly after requesting a schedule change to attend an annual religious service.
On 1-23-13 the EEOC won a $25,000 settlement for a Pentecostal employee who was refused a job because her religious beliefs call for her to wear a dress instead of the pants required by the company dress code.
Demonizing the president and liberals is par for the course when it comes to conservative media, but the idea that the EEOC has some anti-Christian agenda is insulting and ignorant.
Of course, rather than cite any of these cases and rationally discuss what the law does and does not allow for when it comes to religious freedom, zealots like Kelly errantly compare the religious freedom of these Muslim drivers to the Colorado cake baker who was found in violation of the law for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
While it may look like these cases are similar, the reality is they are quite different in one important aspect - discrimination. The job of the cake baker is to bake cakes. When he refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple he is not doing so because his religious beliefs say he can't bake a cake - he would likely have no issues baking this exact same cake for a heterosexual wedding. He is doing so because his religious beliefs suggest there is something wrong with this couple. In the end, he is not refusing to bake a cake, he is refusing service to someone based on who they are. That is discrimination.
The job of the Muslim truck driver is to drive a truck. Neither operator refused to drive a truck that day. What they refused to do was transport alcohol, since doing so was against their religious beliefs. If conservatives want to compare this decision to the Colorado cake baker the apt comparison would be that the cake baker has the right to refuse to include words on a cake that are against his beliefs. The baker could also refuse to provide a cake on Sunday or use alcohol in a cake based on his religious freedom. They are free to object to the specifics of the service if it falls outside of their religious convictions. They are not allowed to discriminate against a person for who they are.
Clearly this is a topic that the general public needs more information on as religious freedom is one of the most important rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately the conservative media continues to leave their viewers less informed by constantly misrepresenting the legal definition of this right.
Monday, October 26, 2015
Republican hypocrisy helps criminals get guns
When it comes to gun regulations Republicans have a lot of concerns. While having your rights restricted is obviously an issue for most Americans, nearly every proposal aimed at reducing gun violence has corresponding Republican-backed legislation that should ease the concerns of the "they're coming to take my guns" crowd.
For example, while Republicans are adamant that requiring an ID to vote will prevent the illegal use of an election ballot while also providing a public record of who voted, they are opposed to forcing every gun sale to meet these same standards. Given that a survey of Chicago prisoners showed that the vast majority of criminals obtained their gun from a friend or family member, the objection to making privates sales subject to the rules followed by licensed dealers looks a lot like the NRA is protecting bad guys. Imagine how outraged many of these same people would be if a registered voter were allowed to take a few ballots home for their family and friends and drop them off later without providing any proof that the ballot was filled out by a legal voter.
Many will argue that the law already makes it illegal to sell guns to anyone that isn't allowed to own a firearm. Of course voting twice or stealing someone's identity to cast a vote is also illegal, yet that doesn't stop Republicans from advocating for additional voter ID laws. In fact, those in support of voter ID will argue that statistics showing that voter fraud is nearly non-existent are inaccurate since there is no system for tracking voters. Using this logic it seems that, unless we have a way of tracking private gun sales, the statistics on the number of people knowingly selling guns to individuals that wouldn't pass a background check is likely vastly under reported as well.
Voter ID laws are hardly the only legislation that exposes the hypocrisy of Republicans. Many of the people that argue they need a gun for defensive purposes are some of the same people that support tort reform to prevent doctors from practicing defensive medicine. Much like the gun advocate argument which says that people use their guns to prevent crime, data show that removing defensive medicine by placing caps on damages for doctors "leads to higher rates of preventable adverse patient safety events in hospitals." If defensive medicine and defensive gun use both save lives why are they viewed so differently by some gun advocates?
Another classic gun rights argument is that guns don't kill people - people kill people. To prove this point they have created a cute little meme that says "left my gun home today; it didn't kill anyone." Given that there are hundreds of accidental gun deaths every year, you could just as easily say "I left my family home without a gun today and no one got shot". But the really odd argument from gun advocates is that violent television and video games are somehow to blame for gun deaths. If this were the case then shouldn't we hear about the mass shootings committed by a Grand Theft Auto disc or a high definition flat screen TV?
Of course the idea is that violent video games desensitize people, making it easier for them to become killers. If this is the case, it should be noted that one of the core methods of desensitizing soldiers is to convince them they are a good guy with a gun and the other guy is a bad guy with a gun. Sound familiar? There is also information available that suggests hunting and killing animals might desensitize people making it easier for them to take a human life. If desensitization is an issue for television and video games then perhaps we should also consider the harm done by some NRA catch phrases, hunting, and shooting ranges on certain individuals.
Those who hold video games accountable for gun violence in the U.S. might also want to consider data that show a small group of gun dealers account for 90% of the guns that are used in a crime and recovered by police. Despite this issue, the NRA pushed through legislation that makes it nearly impossible for a victim of a gun crime to sue the crooked dealer that sold the weapon. Holding dealers accountable for the actions of their customers could be considered a slippery slope that might unfairly burden dealers who follow all the rules; however, Republican legislation suggests their concern for gun dealers is somewhat unique.
For example, one of the main thrusts of Republican education reform is to hold teachers responsible for the actions of their students. Despite data that show only 1.5% of teachers fit the "bad teachers" meme, Republicans have used this as an excuse to label the entire public education system as a failure. If we applied this logic to gun dealers it would be clear that we need a complete overhaul of how guns are sold in this country.
Republicans also support legislation that holds parents accountable for the actions of their children regardless of whether the parent was present during their child's offense. Additionally, Republicans have done little to offer similar protections for establishments that serve alcohol that are held accountable for the actions of their patrons after they leave.
But perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of Republican legislators regarding restrictions to guns is how they have handled abortions. First, while gun advocates argue against certain gun laws as infringing on privacy, the decision of Roe vs. Wade, which established a woman's right to an abortion, was based on this very same idea of privacy. Second, in spite of the fact that this Supreme Court decision makes an abortion a constitutionally guaranteed right, Republicans have no qualms with adding restrictions on Planned Parenthood and their patients with the goal of eliminating this right. Finally, rather than addressing the root causes of why abortions are necessary, Republicans have focused nearly all of their attention on the people that preform the abortions. If concerns over criminalizing actions of law abiding citizens is justification for preventing additional protections on gun sales, then it should be the same justification for protecting the doctors who are performing this legal procedure.
The record indicates that the rationale many Republicans use when they object to legislation that could keep guns out of the hands of criminals exposes a Jekyll and Hyde mentality that is embarrassingly partisan. If Republicans supported the kinds of restrictions for guns that they do for other people and programs we might be able to prevent some of the 32,000 gun deaths that occur in the U.S. every year.
For example, while Republicans are adamant that requiring an ID to vote will prevent the illegal use of an election ballot while also providing a public record of who voted, they are opposed to forcing every gun sale to meet these same standards. Given that a survey of Chicago prisoners showed that the vast majority of criminals obtained their gun from a friend or family member, the objection to making privates sales subject to the rules followed by licensed dealers looks a lot like the NRA is protecting bad guys. Imagine how outraged many of these same people would be if a registered voter were allowed to take a few ballots home for their family and friends and drop them off later without providing any proof that the ballot was filled out by a legal voter.
Many will argue that the law already makes it illegal to sell guns to anyone that isn't allowed to own a firearm. Of course voting twice or stealing someone's identity to cast a vote is also illegal, yet that doesn't stop Republicans from advocating for additional voter ID laws. In fact, those in support of voter ID will argue that statistics showing that voter fraud is nearly non-existent are inaccurate since there is no system for tracking voters. Using this logic it seems that, unless we have a way of tracking private gun sales, the statistics on the number of people knowingly selling guns to individuals that wouldn't pass a background check is likely vastly under reported as well.
Voter ID laws are hardly the only legislation that exposes the hypocrisy of Republicans. Many of the people that argue they need a gun for defensive purposes are some of the same people that support tort reform to prevent doctors from practicing defensive medicine. Much like the gun advocate argument which says that people use their guns to prevent crime, data show that removing defensive medicine by placing caps on damages for doctors "leads to higher rates of preventable adverse patient safety events in hospitals." If defensive medicine and defensive gun use both save lives why are they viewed so differently by some gun advocates?
Another classic gun rights argument is that guns don't kill people - people kill people. To prove this point they have created a cute little meme that says "left my gun home today; it didn't kill anyone." Given that there are hundreds of accidental gun deaths every year, you could just as easily say "I left my family home without a gun today and no one got shot". But the really odd argument from gun advocates is that violent television and video games are somehow to blame for gun deaths. If this were the case then shouldn't we hear about the mass shootings committed by a Grand Theft Auto disc or a high definition flat screen TV?
Of course the idea is that violent video games desensitize people, making it easier for them to become killers. If this is the case, it should be noted that one of the core methods of desensitizing soldiers is to convince them they are a good guy with a gun and the other guy is a bad guy with a gun. Sound familiar? There is also information available that suggests hunting and killing animals might desensitize people making it easier for them to take a human life. If desensitization is an issue for television and video games then perhaps we should also consider the harm done by some NRA catch phrases, hunting, and shooting ranges on certain individuals.
Those who hold video games accountable for gun violence in the U.S. might also want to consider data that show a small group of gun dealers account for 90% of the guns that are used in a crime and recovered by police. Despite this issue, the NRA pushed through legislation that makes it nearly impossible for a victim of a gun crime to sue the crooked dealer that sold the weapon. Holding dealers accountable for the actions of their customers could be considered a slippery slope that might unfairly burden dealers who follow all the rules; however, Republican legislation suggests their concern for gun dealers is somewhat unique.
For example, one of the main thrusts of Republican education reform is to hold teachers responsible for the actions of their students. Despite data that show only 1.5% of teachers fit the "bad teachers" meme, Republicans have used this as an excuse to label the entire public education system as a failure. If we applied this logic to gun dealers it would be clear that we need a complete overhaul of how guns are sold in this country.
Republicans also support legislation that holds parents accountable for the actions of their children regardless of whether the parent was present during their child's offense. Additionally, Republicans have done little to offer similar protections for establishments that serve alcohol that are held accountable for the actions of their patrons after they leave.
But perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of Republican legislators regarding restrictions to guns is how they have handled abortions. First, while gun advocates argue against certain gun laws as infringing on privacy, the decision of Roe vs. Wade, which established a woman's right to an abortion, was based on this very same idea of privacy. Second, in spite of the fact that this Supreme Court decision makes an abortion a constitutionally guaranteed right, Republicans have no qualms with adding restrictions on Planned Parenthood and their patients with the goal of eliminating this right. Finally, rather than addressing the root causes of why abortions are necessary, Republicans have focused nearly all of their attention on the people that preform the abortions. If concerns over criminalizing actions of law abiding citizens is justification for preventing additional protections on gun sales, then it should be the same justification for protecting the doctors who are performing this legal procedure.
The record indicates that the rationale many Republicans use when they object to legislation that could keep guns out of the hands of criminals exposes a Jekyll and Hyde mentality that is embarrassingly partisan. If Republicans supported the kinds of restrictions for guns that they do for other people and programs we might be able to prevent some of the 32,000 gun deaths that occur in the U.S. every year.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
NRA isn't serious about stopping gun violence
The senseless shootings at Umpqua Community College in Oregon has left Americans with many questions. The biggest of which is how can we prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future. Despite this shared goal, the resulting discussions have exposed just how deep the divide is when it comes to mass shootings. For instance, while the President spoke about improving gun control, many gun advocates lamented the politicization of this tragedy. Instead they wanted to talk about how this might be the work of Islamist terrorist or how it could be an example ofChristians persecution. How dare the President politicize this shooting!
Of course the hypocrisy doesn't end there. While being outraged by the president's belief that guns are somehow tied to the high level of gun violence in America, gun advocates were quick to trot out their standard list of memes which include "guns don't kill people, people kill people.", "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.", and "Nearly all mass murders occur in gun free zones."
Unfortunately none of these diversionary tactics actually does anything to stop gun violence; so in order to pretend that they are serious about addressing the extraordinary number of mass shootings in the U.S., gun advocates have turned their attention to the crisis in mental health. Oddly, their concern for mental health only really extends to American mass shooters. If a Muslim kills people, gun advocates are some of the first people to condemn Islam because, while guns don't kill people, apparently Islam does. If an African American kills people, they are quick to insinuate that black people are inherently more violent, using terms like "black on black crime" and "thugs". If a cop unjustifiably kills people, gun advocates see it as a very black and white issue where the cops were just doing their job, yet as many as 1 in 8 police officers suffer from PTSD while every year around 150 cops commit suicide.
Their concern over mental health is justified; however, the application of their concern seems very self-serving. The U.S. is hardly unique when it comes to metal health issues, yet statistics show that in an analysis of mass murders in 13 nations, the U.S. accounts for 133 of the 166 mass shootings that have occurred since the turn of the century despite having 1/6th as many people as the other 12 nations in the study.
The problem is, that for far too many gun advocates there is no difference between government programs aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and a full repeal of the second amendment. In fact, this NRA sponsored fear mongering of portraying any new gun laws as an excuse to confiscate "some or all guns" seems to have been part of the reason why the Oregon shooter had easy access to such an extensive arsenal given that his mother told colleagues she "wanted to get all the guns she could before someone outlawed them."
So rather than discuss laws to close any of the loopholes that allow criminals or the mentally ill to obtain guns such as limits to straw purchases, regulations to track gun inventories, or expanding background checks to private sales, gun advocates pretend that all gun control measures fail.
They'll point to Chicago as proof that gun control doesn't work, but ignore data that show states and countries with stricter gun controls have less gun related deaths. They'll claim gun regulations some support in America are akin to the gun control of Nazi Germany, but avoid talking about the astounding low rates of gun deaths in Japan which has arguably some of the strictest gun control in the world. In response to countries with successful gun control, they'll assert that you can't compare the U.S. to other countries; yet, in the same breath they'll hold up Switzerland as an example of how increased gun ownership leads to lower death rates. They'll make this case in spite of the fact that Swiss gun laws contain a number of restrictions that gun advocates in the U.S. oppose.
The problem is, that while Americans continue to talk about preventing mass shootings and gun deaths, the solution coming from gun advocates is to do nothing. Despite the fact that the U.S. has more guns per capita than any other country, by a wide margin, the NRA continues to insist that more guns equal less violence.
The NRA has thrown its support behind legislation that is supposed to improve the reporting of mental health issues; however, analysis of the bill’s language shows that it actually makes it easier for unstable individuals to purchase a gun.
But by far the biggest indication of how serious groups like the NRA are about preventing gun violence is their stance that video games and television are to blame. Outside of the fact that evidence doesn't support this claim, if video games and television have this sort of corrosive power, then the NRA should take a quick look at the sort of things gun advocates are telling their children. Because if this is your idea of a rational response to gun laws, then perhaps you are not mentally fit to own a gun.
Of course the hypocrisy doesn't end there. While being outraged by the president's belief that guns are somehow tied to the high level of gun violence in America, gun advocates were quick to trot out their standard list of memes which include "guns don't kill people, people kill people.", "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.", and "Nearly all mass murders occur in gun free zones."
Unfortunately none of these diversionary tactics actually does anything to stop gun violence; so in order to pretend that they are serious about addressing the extraordinary number of mass shootings in the U.S., gun advocates have turned their attention to the crisis in mental health. Oddly, their concern for mental health only really extends to American mass shooters. If a Muslim kills people, gun advocates are some of the first people to condemn Islam because, while guns don't kill people, apparently Islam does. If an African American kills people, they are quick to insinuate that black people are inherently more violent, using terms like "black on black crime" and "thugs". If a cop unjustifiably kills people, gun advocates see it as a very black and white issue where the cops were just doing their job, yet as many as 1 in 8 police officers suffer from PTSD while every year around 150 cops commit suicide.
Their concern over mental health is justified; however, the application of their concern seems very self-serving. The U.S. is hardly unique when it comes to metal health issues, yet statistics show that in an analysis of mass murders in 13 nations, the U.S. accounts for 133 of the 166 mass shootings that have occurred since the turn of the century despite having 1/6th as many people as the other 12 nations in the study.
The problem is, that for far too many gun advocates there is no difference between government programs aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and a full repeal of the second amendment. In fact, this NRA sponsored fear mongering of portraying any new gun laws as an excuse to confiscate "some or all guns" seems to have been part of the reason why the Oregon shooter had easy access to such an extensive arsenal given that his mother told colleagues she "wanted to get all the guns she could before someone outlawed them."
So rather than discuss laws to close any of the loopholes that allow criminals or the mentally ill to obtain guns such as limits to straw purchases, regulations to track gun inventories, or expanding background checks to private sales, gun advocates pretend that all gun control measures fail.
They'll point to Chicago as proof that gun control doesn't work, but ignore data that show states and countries with stricter gun controls have less gun related deaths. They'll claim gun regulations some support in America are akin to the gun control of Nazi Germany, but avoid talking about the astounding low rates of gun deaths in Japan which has arguably some of the strictest gun control in the world. In response to countries with successful gun control, they'll assert that you can't compare the U.S. to other countries; yet, in the same breath they'll hold up Switzerland as an example of how increased gun ownership leads to lower death rates. They'll make this case in spite of the fact that Swiss gun laws contain a number of restrictions that gun advocates in the U.S. oppose.
The problem is, that while Americans continue to talk about preventing mass shootings and gun deaths, the solution coming from gun advocates is to do nothing. Despite the fact that the U.S. has more guns per capita than any other country, by a wide margin, the NRA continues to insist that more guns equal less violence.
The NRA has thrown its support behind legislation that is supposed to improve the reporting of mental health issues; however, analysis of the bill’s language shows that it actually makes it easier for unstable individuals to purchase a gun.
But by far the biggest indication of how serious groups like the NRA are about preventing gun violence is their stance that video games and television are to blame. Outside of the fact that evidence doesn't support this claim, if video games and television have this sort of corrosive power, then the NRA should take a quick look at the sort of things gun advocates are telling their children. Because if this is your idea of a rational response to gun laws, then perhaps you are not mentally fit to own a gun.
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
For Republicans killing unions is more important than improving education
If you care about the future of education in the U.S. then the Republican Presidential debates have been a massive disappointment. The problem is that the candidates all believe the same thing, so there is nothing to debate. In fact, through two debates, education has only come up once. Unfortunately, even when education was mentioned it was used to attack the few candidates that support Common Core instead of any sort of substantive discussion.
Despite being generally uninformed on the topic, Campbell Brown, is one of the few people asking presidential candidates to define their positions. To no one's surprise, when the six leading Republican candidates were put on the spot they all coalesced around the same tired "solutions" the Republican Party has been pushing for decades - more charter schools, vouchers, merit pay, ending tenure and killing unions.
But perhaps the biggest reason these candidates have been so hesitant to make education reform the core of their candidacy is that they are aware that each of these ideas has been a failure when put into practice.
For example, Chris Christie recently said that teachers unions "are the single most destructive force in public education in America". The reality is, the issue here is not that teachers unions are bad for education but rather that teachers’ unions are bad for Republican education reform ideas. So instead of falsely claiming data exists to support their errant positions, Republicans have resorted to attacking the unions that stand in the way of the Republican plan to turn America's children into widgets that their corporate sugar daddies can profit from. For Republicans, education represents the next great opportunity to bilk the federal government out of billions of dollars while pretending to have American's best interests in mind, much like they have done for decades with the military industrial complex that has the U.S. spending more on defense than the next ten countries combined.
If these politicians were being honest they would acknowledge that multiple studies show teachers’ unions have a positive impact on educational outcomes, while another study showed that in areas where union membership was greater, children in low income families were more likely to achieve higher incomes. Since when did increasing test scores and lifting kids out of poverty become destructive?
Beyond that, if unions were the biggest obstacle to improving education, then why do so many countries that outperform the U.S. have higher rates of unionization among their teachers?
Rather than offer any specifics as to how unions are hurting results, Republicans tend to provide intentionally vague critiques like the suggestion that teachers’ unions have too much influence. While it is true that teachers’ unions spent upwards of $31 million on lobbying since 2010, the group that every Republican candidate would like to see expand - for profit education - spent more than $41 million on lobbying over that same time frame.
If influence is the excuse for attacking teachers’ unions, then Republican's should be prepared to take aim at the for-profit education sector since their political influence has already eclipsed that of the Republican educational boogeyman.
Of course, if these presidential candidates truly cared about improving educational outcomes they would recognize how much damage their actions are doing. While Republicans continue to act as bullies towards the nations educators by blaming them for everything that is wrong with the American educational system, they also create a culture of disrespect with comments like "the national teachers’ union (deserves a punch in the face)" that negatively impacts educational outcomes.
In fact, an OECD report on improving education points out that, "the higher a country is on the world’s education league tables, the more likely that country is working constructively with its unions and treating its teachers as trusted professional." For a group that blames hip-hop lyrics for a decline in values and video games for gun violence, ignoring the destructive nature of their own pernicious hyperbole is remarkably hypocritical. After all, would anyone classify a punch in the face as constructively working with teachers or treating educators as professionals?
Even if these Republicans did find a way to reign in their toxic rhetoric, their disdain for educators is so ingrained it clouds their judgment. For instance, nearly all Republican politicians seem to agree that firing bad teachers is one of the best ways to improve educational outcomes, which would be a fine idea if there were a plethora of highly effective teachers waiting in the wings; but the reality is that not only is there a teacher shortage, but Republican legislatures across the country, through their attacks on protections, lowered wages and restricted benefits have further reduced the pool of qualified candidates.
A better approach than the slash and burn policy of Republicans would be to find ways to improve the skills of those who stick with the job, or as the Brookings Institution suggests, shift the focus from firing bad teachers to retaining good teachers since only 40% of top new teachers stay in their job more than five years.
The fact that Republicans put so much effort into rooting out ineffective teachers which account for 1.5% of educators rather than working to retain the 60% of good teachers that are likely to leave after a few years tells you all you need to know about the Republican education reform plan. It is clearly more important to portray the hard working men and women of the public education system as the enemy than it is to improve education because, while valuing educators and working with teachers unions has an international track record of success, the Republican educational priorities routinely receive a failing grade. If only these politicians felt as strongly about accountability when it came to their jobs as they do for teachers.
Despite being generally uninformed on the topic, Campbell Brown, is one of the few people asking presidential candidates to define their positions. To no one's surprise, when the six leading Republican candidates were put on the spot they all coalesced around the same tired "solutions" the Republican Party has been pushing for decades - more charter schools, vouchers, merit pay, ending tenure and killing unions.
But perhaps the biggest reason these candidates have been so hesitant to make education reform the core of their candidacy is that they are aware that each of these ideas has been a failure when put into practice.
For example, Chris Christie recently said that teachers unions "are the single most destructive force in public education in America". The reality is, the issue here is not that teachers unions are bad for education but rather that teachers’ unions are bad for Republican education reform ideas. So instead of falsely claiming data exists to support their errant positions, Republicans have resorted to attacking the unions that stand in the way of the Republican plan to turn America's children into widgets that their corporate sugar daddies can profit from. For Republicans, education represents the next great opportunity to bilk the federal government out of billions of dollars while pretending to have American's best interests in mind, much like they have done for decades with the military industrial complex that has the U.S. spending more on defense than the next ten countries combined.
If these politicians were being honest they would acknowledge that multiple studies show teachers’ unions have a positive impact on educational outcomes, while another study showed that in areas where union membership was greater, children in low income families were more likely to achieve higher incomes. Since when did increasing test scores and lifting kids out of poverty become destructive?
Beyond that, if unions were the biggest obstacle to improving education, then why do so many countries that outperform the U.S. have higher rates of unionization among their teachers?
Rather than offer any specifics as to how unions are hurting results, Republicans tend to provide intentionally vague critiques like the suggestion that teachers’ unions have too much influence. While it is true that teachers’ unions spent upwards of $31 million on lobbying since 2010, the group that every Republican candidate would like to see expand - for profit education - spent more than $41 million on lobbying over that same time frame.
If influence is the excuse for attacking teachers’ unions, then Republican's should be prepared to take aim at the for-profit education sector since their political influence has already eclipsed that of the Republican educational boogeyman.
Of course, if these presidential candidates truly cared about improving educational outcomes they would recognize how much damage their actions are doing. While Republicans continue to act as bullies towards the nations educators by blaming them for everything that is wrong with the American educational system, they also create a culture of disrespect with comments like "the national teachers’ union (deserves a punch in the face)" that negatively impacts educational outcomes.
In fact, an OECD report on improving education points out that, "the higher a country is on the world’s education league tables, the more likely that country is working constructively with its unions and treating its teachers as trusted professional." For a group that blames hip-hop lyrics for a decline in values and video games for gun violence, ignoring the destructive nature of their own pernicious hyperbole is remarkably hypocritical. After all, would anyone classify a punch in the face as constructively working with teachers or treating educators as professionals?
Even if these Republicans did find a way to reign in their toxic rhetoric, their disdain for educators is so ingrained it clouds their judgment. For instance, nearly all Republican politicians seem to agree that firing bad teachers is one of the best ways to improve educational outcomes, which would be a fine idea if there were a plethora of highly effective teachers waiting in the wings; but the reality is that not only is there a teacher shortage, but Republican legislatures across the country, through their attacks on protections, lowered wages and restricted benefits have further reduced the pool of qualified candidates.
A better approach than the slash and burn policy of Republicans would be to find ways to improve the skills of those who stick with the job, or as the Brookings Institution suggests, shift the focus from firing bad teachers to retaining good teachers since only 40% of top new teachers stay in their job more than five years.
The fact that Republicans put so much effort into rooting out ineffective teachers which account for 1.5% of educators rather than working to retain the 60% of good teachers that are likely to leave after a few years tells you all you need to know about the Republican education reform plan. It is clearly more important to portray the hard working men and women of the public education system as the enemy than it is to improve education because, while valuing educators and working with teachers unions has an international track record of success, the Republican educational priorities routinely receive a failing grade. If only these politicians felt as strongly about accountability when it came to their jobs as they do for teachers.
Monday, September 21, 2015
Yes there is a Constitutional Separation of Church and State
Perhaps nothing is more important to American politics than a well-reasoned debate. Unfortunately, far too many people are ill-informed to make such discussions possible.
An excellent example of this comes from the responses to an article I wrote examining the concerns of conservative Christians over Tennessee schools’ teaching the five pillars of Islam. While there were a number of topics that readers could have discussed, by far the most outrage centered on my statements regarding the separation of church and state. Comments included "Clearly, someone hasn't read the Constitution, because there is no such thing as "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution.", "Where exactly in the U.S. Constitution does it address "separation of church and state"?", and "Simply put, nowhere in the First Amendment does the phrase "separation of church and state" exist."
It seems that to some people, if the words don't explicitly appear in the constitution then the idea they refer to isn't constitutionally guaranteed. Viewing it in these simplistic terms is meant to dismiss the entire argument; as if every decision based on the separation of church and state is somehow invalid because the term separation of church and state doesn't appear in the constitution.
Of course the problems with this assertion are many. First and most basic is the fact that the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of federal constitutional law. This means that while the term "separation of Church and State" may never appear in the constitution itself, the Court ruling in the case of Everson v. Board of Education stated "the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"
A quarter century later, the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman further defined this separation when it established the Lemon Test to determine if a law violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Every ruling since has confirmed that, in the view of the highest court in the land the Constitution created a separation of church and state.
Having said that, the separation of church and state is hardly the first unwritten concept that is protected by the constitution. In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court established a women's constitutional right to have an abortion despite the word abortion never appearing in the constitution. In the 2015 case of Obergefell v. Hodges the Supreme Court established that laws against same sex marriage were unconstitutional despite the word marriage never appearing in the constitution. In the 1963 case of Gideon v. Wainwright the Supreme Court established that the constitution guarantees the right to an attorney despite the words public defender never appearing in the constitution. In the 2010 case of McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court established that the second amendment right to bear arms included the right to bear arms for self-defense despite the words self-defense never appearing in the constitution.
It should also be noted that of the 112 Supreme Court Justices, none of them has been an atheist. In fact 92% of them were Christian. What rationale would these justices have for making laws that would create a legal prejudice towards their system of beliefs, especially if the separation of Church and State is a misinterpretation?
The reality is that the constitution was never meant to be a stagnant document that was rigidly adherent to the words on the page. As Thomas Jefferson said "The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please." Over the past 200 years the Supreme Court has shaped the constitution to contain a clear separation of church and state that protects every religion equally. If only those who argue against this separation could see how they benefit from it instead of inappropriately interpreting it as an attack on Christianity.
An excellent example of this comes from the responses to an article I wrote examining the concerns of conservative Christians over Tennessee schools’ teaching the five pillars of Islam. While there were a number of topics that readers could have discussed, by far the most outrage centered on my statements regarding the separation of church and state. Comments included "Clearly, someone hasn't read the Constitution, because there is no such thing as "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution.", "Where exactly in the U.S. Constitution does it address "separation of church and state"?", and "Simply put, nowhere in the First Amendment does the phrase "separation of church and state" exist."
It seems that to some people, if the words don't explicitly appear in the constitution then the idea they refer to isn't constitutionally guaranteed. Viewing it in these simplistic terms is meant to dismiss the entire argument; as if every decision based on the separation of church and state is somehow invalid because the term separation of church and state doesn't appear in the constitution.
Of course the problems with this assertion are many. First and most basic is the fact that the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of federal constitutional law. This means that while the term "separation of Church and State" may never appear in the constitution itself, the Court ruling in the case of Everson v. Board of Education stated "the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"
A quarter century later, the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman further defined this separation when it established the Lemon Test to determine if a law violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Every ruling since has confirmed that, in the view of the highest court in the land the Constitution created a separation of church and state.
Having said that, the separation of church and state is hardly the first unwritten concept that is protected by the constitution. In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court established a women's constitutional right to have an abortion despite the word abortion never appearing in the constitution. In the 2015 case of Obergefell v. Hodges the Supreme Court established that laws against same sex marriage were unconstitutional despite the word marriage never appearing in the constitution. In the 1963 case of Gideon v. Wainwright the Supreme Court established that the constitution guarantees the right to an attorney despite the words public defender never appearing in the constitution. In the 2010 case of McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court established that the second amendment right to bear arms included the right to bear arms for self-defense despite the words self-defense never appearing in the constitution.
It should also be noted that of the 112 Supreme Court Justices, none of them has been an atheist. In fact 92% of them were Christian. What rationale would these justices have for making laws that would create a legal prejudice towards their system of beliefs, especially if the separation of Church and State is a misinterpretation?
The reality is that the constitution was never meant to be a stagnant document that was rigidly adherent to the words on the page. As Thomas Jefferson said "The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please." Over the past 200 years the Supreme Court has shaped the constitution to contain a clear separation of church and state that protects every religion equally. If only those who argue against this separation could see how they benefit from it instead of inappropriately interpreting it as an attack on Christianity.
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Fox News explains the dangers of Christianity in public schools
Liberals have spent a lot of time over the past few decades trying to explain to Conservative Christians the importance of the separation of church and state. Unfortunately, either from obstinance or ignorance, many Christians believe that not only should this constitutionally mandated separation not exist but that it is an attack on Christianity.
Luckily Fox News contributor, Todd Starnes, who has become the de facto standard bearer of Christian oppression with countless articles documenting the purported atrocities, recently published a piece that unwittingly acts as the quintessential argument for keeping Christianity out of public schools.
At issue is an assignment given to seventh grade students at Spring Hill Middle School in Maury County, Tennessee that involved writing out the five pillars of Islam. Despite the fact that this was part of a "World History and Geography: The Middle Ages to the Exploration of the Americas" covering the "Islamic World, 400 A.D/C.E. – 1500s" with the purpose of having "Students analyze the geographic, political, economic, social, and religious structures of the civilizations", some parents believe this is a blatant attempt to indoctrinate their children and convert them to Islam.
The biggest complaint from parents seems to be that the first pillar of Islam, known as “Shahada”, which states "There is no god but God (and) Muhammad is the messenger of God." runs counter to their Christian beliefs. Having said that, this is a history course and the five pillars is as much a part of the history of Islam as the Ten Commandments is a part of the history of Christianity. Forcing students to write or remember religious doctrine that is in opposition to their beliefs is either acceptable or it isn't. The fact that we are a majority Christian country is immaterial to the students’ First Amendment rights.
Of course the situation is hardly unique to Islam. Students across the country learn a lot of history that doesn't line up with their religious beliefs. When children learn about Greek Mythology are the being indoctrinated? When kids are taught about the history of slavery it's not meant as an endorsement. The events leading up to WWII are clearly something every child should understand, but learning about Nazi's is never confused for approval of their actions.
The reality is that studying about other cultures and religions gives children a greater appreciation for what makes people different. Portraying such an education as brainwashing is embarrassingly phobic and closed minded.
Being forced to conform to someone else's religious norms has been an issue in public schools for a long time. While Christians have been more than happy to conflate the separation of church and state with oppression when Christian symbols are removed, this is one of the few times these same Christians have had to endure something even remotely close to what many non-Christians have experienced for decades.
For example, one parent complained that Christianity wasn't being given equal time stating “[The teacher] said they would not be covering it because Christianity is not in the school standards.” The truth is, the Tennessee Department of Education course outline lists 9 different bullet points that discuss some aspect of Islam and 8 that include Christianity. Not only is Christianity in the state standards but it is covered at length in a number of different areas of the curriculum.
Beyond that it should be mentioned that the Tennessee state standards for 6th grade has zero references to Islam but devotes a section to describing "the origins and central features of Christianity" which include "the belief in Jesus as the Messiah and God’s Son, the concept of resurrection, the concept of salvation, belief in the Old and New Testaments," and "the lives, teachings and contributions of Jesus and Paul". Not only is Christianity given more than its fair share of time in Tennessee's public education system, but students are required to acknowledge that Jesus is the son of God.
While trusting the word of a couple irate parents to argue that Christianity is under attack is obviously an embarrassing mistake by Starnes, it is hardly the worst part of his article. No, that distinction lies with his assertion that the cases of a public schools removing a photo of Jesus Christ and disallowing Christian hymns to be played by the school band are equivalent to learning about the history of Islam.
It's possible that Starnes isn't unaware that forcing students to learn about different cultures and religions is legal while forcing students to endure religious symbols or traditions that fall outside of the curriculum isn't. But it's far more likely that he wants to conflate the two so he can again claim persecution. Because if Starnes was being honest he would admit that many of the concerns from these Christian parents regarding the inclusion of Islamic tenants in public education are inconsequential compared to what many non-Christians have been fighting for years.
The fact that Starnes and many of his devotees are completely oblivious to the hypocrisy of demanding the inclusion of non-educational Christian images and rituals while simultaneously being outraged at the slightest presence of Islam tells you all you need to know about how honest they are about protecting religious freedom.
Luckily Fox News contributor, Todd Starnes, who has become the de facto standard bearer of Christian oppression with countless articles documenting the purported atrocities, recently published a piece that unwittingly acts as the quintessential argument for keeping Christianity out of public schools.
At issue is an assignment given to seventh grade students at Spring Hill Middle School in Maury County, Tennessee that involved writing out the five pillars of Islam. Despite the fact that this was part of a "World History and Geography: The Middle Ages to the Exploration of the Americas" covering the "Islamic World, 400 A.D/C.E. – 1500s" with the purpose of having "Students analyze the geographic, political, economic, social, and religious structures of the civilizations", some parents believe this is a blatant attempt to indoctrinate their children and convert them to Islam.
The biggest complaint from parents seems to be that the first pillar of Islam, known as “Shahada”, which states "There is no god but God (and) Muhammad is the messenger of God." runs counter to their Christian beliefs. Having said that, this is a history course and the five pillars is as much a part of the history of Islam as the Ten Commandments is a part of the history of Christianity. Forcing students to write or remember religious doctrine that is in opposition to their beliefs is either acceptable or it isn't. The fact that we are a majority Christian country is immaterial to the students’ First Amendment rights.
Of course the situation is hardly unique to Islam. Students across the country learn a lot of history that doesn't line up with their religious beliefs. When children learn about Greek Mythology are the being indoctrinated? When kids are taught about the history of slavery it's not meant as an endorsement. The events leading up to WWII are clearly something every child should understand, but learning about Nazi's is never confused for approval of their actions.
The reality is that studying about other cultures and religions gives children a greater appreciation for what makes people different. Portraying such an education as brainwashing is embarrassingly phobic and closed minded.
Being forced to conform to someone else's religious norms has been an issue in public schools for a long time. While Christians have been more than happy to conflate the separation of church and state with oppression when Christian symbols are removed, this is one of the few times these same Christians have had to endure something even remotely close to what many non-Christians have experienced for decades.
For example, one parent complained that Christianity wasn't being given equal time stating “[The teacher] said they would not be covering it because Christianity is not in the school standards.” The truth is, the Tennessee Department of Education course outline lists 9 different bullet points that discuss some aspect of Islam and 8 that include Christianity. Not only is Christianity in the state standards but it is covered at length in a number of different areas of the curriculum.
Beyond that it should be mentioned that the Tennessee state standards for 6th grade has zero references to Islam but devotes a section to describing "the origins and central features of Christianity" which include "the belief in Jesus as the Messiah and God’s Son, the concept of resurrection, the concept of salvation, belief in the Old and New Testaments," and "the lives, teachings and contributions of Jesus and Paul". Not only is Christianity given more than its fair share of time in Tennessee's public education system, but students are required to acknowledge that Jesus is the son of God.
While trusting the word of a couple irate parents to argue that Christianity is under attack is obviously an embarrassing mistake by Starnes, it is hardly the worst part of his article. No, that distinction lies with his assertion that the cases of a public schools removing a photo of Jesus Christ and disallowing Christian hymns to be played by the school band are equivalent to learning about the history of Islam.
It's possible that Starnes isn't unaware that forcing students to learn about different cultures and religions is legal while forcing students to endure religious symbols or traditions that fall outside of the curriculum isn't. But it's far more likely that he wants to conflate the two so he can again claim persecution. Because if Starnes was being honest he would admit that many of the concerns from these Christian parents regarding the inclusion of Islamic tenants in public education are inconsequential compared to what many non-Christians have been fighting for years.
The fact that Starnes and many of his devotees are completely oblivious to the hypocrisy of demanding the inclusion of non-educational Christian images and rituals while simultaneously being outraged at the slightest presence of Islam tells you all you need to know about how honest they are about protecting religious freedom.
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Conservatives don't understand Black Lives Matter
The conservative media seems to have a distorted understanding of what the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement stands for. Despite having a clearly defined list of goals, talking heads like Bill O'Reilly are attempting to blame BLM for the recent police officer deaths.
While the vile "fry em like bacon" chants from one BLM group do nothing to help the situation, the reality is that there is no evidence linking BLM to these shootings. Beyond that, the data shows that police officer deaths are down this year while ambush killings, like the one in Texas, existed long before BLM - having accounted for 8 deaths in 2014, 4 deaths in 2013 and 19 deaths in 2011.
Oddly the conservative media were not nearly as eager to saddle the entire Tea Party movement with the shooting deaths of two Las Vegas police officers that saw the assailants drape the bodies with the Gadsden "Don't tread on me" flag used by some Tea Party groups.
It should also be noted that the conservative media defended those who took up arms against federal and local law enforcement in the Cliven Bundy standoff just two years ago. If support for these individuals was based on the belief that the second amendment is meant to "deter a tyrannical government" then these same conservatives should be out in droves backing BLM, since African Americans experience systemic inequality in the U.S. justice system that sees them punished more often, for longer terms, and with harsher sentences.
Of course O'Reilly is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to misrepresenting the BLM movement. Others, like the president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, Ron Hosko,, believe that BLM "too often drift into the rhetoric of ignorance and hate" while somehow managing to use the same article to blame the broader spike in violent crimes across the country on "the anti-cop themes from such protesters (BLM), liberal politicians and the mainstream media". Apparently drifting into the rhetoric of ignorance isn't exclusive to the BLM movement.
Hosko also suggests that police reform is "much needed", yet instead of discussing any of the solutions offered by BLM or proposing his own ideas, he resorts to the uniformed meme of black-on-black crime in an attempt to discredit the BLM movement. Data show that socioeconomic status, not race, is the greatest predictor of murder rates. But even if black-on-black crime were anything more than a conservative media myth, the suggestion that a group created in response to the shooting deaths of unarmed African Americans by police officers is somehow fraudulent because some white law enforcement official doesn't understand the organization’s stated goals is astoundingly ignorant.
This would be like castigating the "Pro-Life" movement for only advocating for the "lives" of the unborn when their name implies they care about all life. The BLM and "Pro-Life" movements are both single issue entities. Insisting that your interpretation of their name defines their mission is idiotic. There are legitimate reasons to oppose the goals of BLM, but unfortunately the conservative media has concentrated nearly all of their efforts on vilifying BLM rather than participating in solving the real and persistent problems they are discussing.
There are also those like Chicago Tribune columnist, John Kass, who believes "our hashtag mentality oversimplifies most everything" then manages to oversimplify the BLM movement by stating "all lives matter. All of them. And that means police lives matter too".
The problem is, this suggests that those who support BLM somehow think black lives matter more than the lives of everyone else. This isn't the case. They've looked at data that show blacks are disproportionately killed by law enforcement and are asking the police departments or politicians to do something to change this fact.
Of course part of the issue with something like "Police Lives Matter" is the reality that being a cop is a job that one can chose to do. If a police officer feels the job is too dangerous they are free to quit. That option doesn't exist for African Americans. They are subject to a different set of rules simply because of who they are.
But perhaps the bigger problem with the "Police Lives Matter" is how differently the murder of a cop is handled than other murders. Photos of the crime scenes for the recent police homicides in Texas and Chicago show a considerable response from law enforcement that include federal involvement in a massive manhunt. While murders of police officers are typically some of the most difficult to solve, given their random nature, this sort of commitment to finding the killer also makes them some of the most likely murders to be solved.
From the outside this sort of over-sized response makes it look like perhaps to those tasked with protecting and serving, "Police Lives Matter" a little bit more than all other lives. Imagine if law enforcement dedicated the same time and resources to capturing every murderer. Imagine if the shooting of an unarmed black man ended with a trial instead of the typical quid pro quo failure to indict. Imagine if skin color played no part in how you were treated by cops.
Black Lives Matter is far from a perfect organization, but contrary to what the conservative media would have you believe, the only special treatment BLM is asking for is to not be treated special.
While the vile "fry em like bacon" chants from one BLM group do nothing to help the situation, the reality is that there is no evidence linking BLM to these shootings. Beyond that, the data shows that police officer deaths are down this year while ambush killings, like the one in Texas, existed long before BLM - having accounted for 8 deaths in 2014, 4 deaths in 2013 and 19 deaths in 2011.
Oddly the conservative media were not nearly as eager to saddle the entire Tea Party movement with the shooting deaths of two Las Vegas police officers that saw the assailants drape the bodies with the Gadsden "Don't tread on me" flag used by some Tea Party groups.
It should also be noted that the conservative media defended those who took up arms against federal and local law enforcement in the Cliven Bundy standoff just two years ago. If support for these individuals was based on the belief that the second amendment is meant to "deter a tyrannical government" then these same conservatives should be out in droves backing BLM, since African Americans experience systemic inequality in the U.S. justice system that sees them punished more often, for longer terms, and with harsher sentences.
Of course O'Reilly is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to misrepresenting the BLM movement. Others, like the president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, Ron Hosko,, believe that BLM "too often drift into the rhetoric of ignorance and hate" while somehow managing to use the same article to blame the broader spike in violent crimes across the country on "the anti-cop themes from such protesters (BLM), liberal politicians and the mainstream media". Apparently drifting into the rhetoric of ignorance isn't exclusive to the BLM movement.
Hosko also suggests that police reform is "much needed", yet instead of discussing any of the solutions offered by BLM or proposing his own ideas, he resorts to the uniformed meme of black-on-black crime in an attempt to discredit the BLM movement. Data show that socioeconomic status, not race, is the greatest predictor of murder rates. But even if black-on-black crime were anything more than a conservative media myth, the suggestion that a group created in response to the shooting deaths of unarmed African Americans by police officers is somehow fraudulent because some white law enforcement official doesn't understand the organization’s stated goals is astoundingly ignorant.
This would be like castigating the "Pro-Life" movement for only advocating for the "lives" of the unborn when their name implies they care about all life. The BLM and "Pro-Life" movements are both single issue entities. Insisting that your interpretation of their name defines their mission is idiotic. There are legitimate reasons to oppose the goals of BLM, but unfortunately the conservative media has concentrated nearly all of their efforts on vilifying BLM rather than participating in solving the real and persistent problems they are discussing.
There are also those like Chicago Tribune columnist, John Kass, who believes "our hashtag mentality oversimplifies most everything" then manages to oversimplify the BLM movement by stating "all lives matter. All of them. And that means police lives matter too".
The problem is, this suggests that those who support BLM somehow think black lives matter more than the lives of everyone else. This isn't the case. They've looked at data that show blacks are disproportionately killed by law enforcement and are asking the police departments or politicians to do something to change this fact.
Of course part of the issue with something like "Police Lives Matter" is the reality that being a cop is a job that one can chose to do. If a police officer feels the job is too dangerous they are free to quit. That option doesn't exist for African Americans. They are subject to a different set of rules simply because of who they are.
But perhaps the bigger problem with the "Police Lives Matter" is how differently the murder of a cop is handled than other murders. Photos of the crime scenes for the recent police homicides in Texas and Chicago show a considerable response from law enforcement that include federal involvement in a massive manhunt. While murders of police officers are typically some of the most difficult to solve, given their random nature, this sort of commitment to finding the killer also makes them some of the most likely murders to be solved.
From the outside this sort of over-sized response makes it look like perhaps to those tasked with protecting and serving, "Police Lives Matter" a little bit more than all other lives. Imagine if law enforcement dedicated the same time and resources to capturing every murderer. Imagine if the shooting of an unarmed black man ended with a trial instead of the typical quid pro quo failure to indict. Imagine if skin color played no part in how you were treated by cops.
Black Lives Matter is far from a perfect organization, but contrary to what the conservative media would have you believe, the only special treatment BLM is asking for is to not be treated special.
Thursday, August 20, 2015
This is the dumbest argument supporting Chick-fil-A’s stance against marriage equality
Sometimes conservative talking heads promote a story without taking any time to see if the moral of the story fits their narrative. An excellent example of this comes from Allen West website editor-in-chief, Michele Hickford, who recently penned an article titled 'Liberals start screaming: Chick-fil-A restaurant owner does the unimaginable to his employees'.
Apparently Hickford believes that all liberals think Chick-fil-A is "AWFUL" and wants to know how liberals can explain the actions of one franchise owner who, instead of laying off his employees during a 5 month renovation, kept paying them.
The first explanation for this action is money. If the owner, Jeff Glover, had laid off his entire staff he would have seen a significant jump in his unemployment rate. It should also be noted that if his 50 workers had found other employment before the renovations were complete, Glover would have had to train a new staff, which is costly and has a negative impact on service. The resulting loss of customers would be felt by the location for months. In fact, some experts suggest laying off staff costs more in the long run. Perhaps Glover did the math and determined it would be cost effective to pay his employees not to work.
But when did conservatives start celebrating organizations that pay people to sit around? They certainly don't think welfare is something to cheer about despite the value it adds. Even when the entity paying people not to work was another private company, like the auto workers jobs bank, the conservative reaction was anything but reverence.
Of course it should be noted that what drew the ire of "liberals" regarding Chick-fil-A was not that they are a Christia- based organization or that they closed their doors on Sundays, but rather their position towards same sex marriage, which not only runs counter to the majority of Americans, but also doesn't match with the views of 61% of young Republicans.
Back when the discussion was about minimum wages at fast food restaurants, conservatives were the first to point out that the franchisee was an independent business; yet for some reason, this logic has been tossed out the window to imply that Jeff Glover and his staff and the corporate heads of Chick-fil-A are somehow one in the same. Did anyone ever ask Glover his position on same sex marriage? Given that his facility is located in Austin, which is not only the most liberal city in Texas but one of the most liberal cities in the U.S., it's certainly possible that Glover doesn't agree with his corporate bosses.
Having said that, if Glover does represent the best of what Chick-fil-A has to offer, conservatives may be disappointed to know that while a typical Chick-fil-A employee earns $7.96 per hour, Glover pays new employees $11 per hour with full time staff earning approximately $3,600 per month. According to the conservative media, these sort of wages were supposed to ruin the fast food industry as the price of a sandwich would quintuple overnight. Yet somehow Glover manages to run a successful operation using the Chick-fil-A price structure and pay his employees something in the neighborhood of a living wage without having to live in a cardboard box himself.
Perhaps the question Hickford really should be asking is, how can conservatives explain why they believe a guy who gives people money not to work, isn't outspoken against the LGBT community, and pays well above industry standards represents an organization they apparently love that does none of these things?
Apparently Hickford believes that all liberals think Chick-fil-A is "AWFUL" and wants to know how liberals can explain the actions of one franchise owner who, instead of laying off his employees during a 5 month renovation, kept paying them.
The first explanation for this action is money. If the owner, Jeff Glover, had laid off his entire staff he would have seen a significant jump in his unemployment rate. It should also be noted that if his 50 workers had found other employment before the renovations were complete, Glover would have had to train a new staff, which is costly and has a negative impact on service. The resulting loss of customers would be felt by the location for months. In fact, some experts suggest laying off staff costs more in the long run. Perhaps Glover did the math and determined it would be cost effective to pay his employees not to work.
But when did conservatives start celebrating organizations that pay people to sit around? They certainly don't think welfare is something to cheer about despite the value it adds. Even when the entity paying people not to work was another private company, like the auto workers jobs bank, the conservative reaction was anything but reverence.
Of course it should be noted that what drew the ire of "liberals" regarding Chick-fil-A was not that they are a Christia- based organization or that they closed their doors on Sundays, but rather their position towards same sex marriage, which not only runs counter to the majority of Americans, but also doesn't match with the views of 61% of young Republicans.
Back when the discussion was about minimum wages at fast food restaurants, conservatives were the first to point out that the franchisee was an independent business; yet for some reason, this logic has been tossed out the window to imply that Jeff Glover and his staff and the corporate heads of Chick-fil-A are somehow one in the same. Did anyone ever ask Glover his position on same sex marriage? Given that his facility is located in Austin, which is not only the most liberal city in Texas but one of the most liberal cities in the U.S., it's certainly possible that Glover doesn't agree with his corporate bosses.
Having said that, if Glover does represent the best of what Chick-fil-A has to offer, conservatives may be disappointed to know that while a typical Chick-fil-A employee earns $7.96 per hour, Glover pays new employees $11 per hour with full time staff earning approximately $3,600 per month. According to the conservative media, these sort of wages were supposed to ruin the fast food industry as the price of a sandwich would quintuple overnight. Yet somehow Glover manages to run a successful operation using the Chick-fil-A price structure and pay his employees something in the neighborhood of a living wage without having to live in a cardboard box himself.
Perhaps the question Hickford really should be asking is, how can conservatives explain why they believe a guy who gives people money not to work, isn't outspoken against the LGBT community, and pays well above industry standards represents an organization they apparently love that does none of these things?
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Republican education policy is idiotic
Titan of industry, Henry Ford, once said “The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing.” For an example of a group that has proven to ironically learn nothing from their past mistakes one need look no further than the race for the Republican Presidential nomination.
For instance, many of the candidates believe that fixing the public education system starts with eliminating teachers’ unions. The problem is that not only does eliminating unions not lead to better outcomes, data show that the states with the most union teachers actually preform better than those with the lowest rates of union educators. Despite this reality, some still complain that unions have too much power; yet if you follow the money you will see that corporations, not unions, are the ones with burgeoning influence having outspent unions 15 to 1 in the last election cycle.
This sort of spending gap is why, despite not improving educational outcomes, corporate charter schools continue to expand. It's why, in spite of worse results, the number of "virtual schools" is increasing. And it's why, even though studies have found that "there seem to be few apparent benefits of school of choice", nearly every Republican Presidential candidate supports it. The reality is that you'd be hard pressed to find a battle over the past decade between rich corporations and teacher unions where the unions won.
Of course attacking teachers’ unions is hardly the only tool in the Republican education reformers bags of "mistakes". They also strongly believe in tying teacher’s wages to the test scores of their students. The idea being that money will motivate all of the good-for-nothing lazy teachers to put in a little effort. For a group of people who claim to support capitalism, this is an embarrassingly antiquated position.
Years of studies have shown that, not only is money not a good motivator, but that the sort of tactics Republicans support can actually have "devastating motivational effects" on most teachers. The reality is that merit pay for teachers has been tried and failed numerous times and the research done by psychologists, economists, and sociologisst has found over and over again that in professions like teaching this idea is a colossal waste of resources.
In fact the science on what not to do when attempting to motivate employees like teachers reads like a check list of Republican education reform ideas. Despite the fallacy of schools full of ineffective teachers, reformers have made firing bad teachers a core policy for improving education. Data show that this fear of losing their job leads to "less energy and drive to complete daily tasks".
Even though reports suggest that there is already a teacher shortage and that nearly 50% of educators leave the profession in the first five years, Republicans continue to look for ways to pay teachers less, which has been proven to "hinder motivation and performance".
In spite of studies that show "unleashing (an employees) imagination, ingenuity and creativity resulted in their contributions to the organization being multiplied many times over", Republican legislatures across the country continue to give educators less and less freedom in the classroom.
Regardless of studies that show the value of organizational and communal collaboration to student achievement, Republicans continue to push a rudimentary corporate-based competition model.
But even if the Republican carrot and stick reform ideas did motivate teachers, the gains would be minimal at best since all of these plans address the symptoms while ignoring the root cause of the purported "broken" education system. The one thing Republican education reform proposals never include is a way to boost teachers’ skills. Professional athletes have reached the pinnacle of their profession, yet every day they meet with a coach that evaluates their performance and works with them to get better.
Imagine the results a school could get if it employed "coaches" that could help teachers implement new curriculum, coordinate with staff to develop and distribute highly effective lesson plans, review teacher performance and provide feedback for improvement, and interact with other coaches to identify and integrate the latest ideas.
If the objective is to increase student achievement then asking teachers to independently add this sort of research and personal development to a work week that already consumes 53 hours of their time is an awful idea. Expecting results without providing any resources or training is only a good plan if your goal is to make your staff look incompetent.
Unfortunately it seems that the people who are the most outspoken about how to improve education are also the least educated on the best methods of eliciting improvement. The good news is that, come next year when most of these Republican Presidential candidates are unemployed, there will still be plenty of jobs available in education. While this will likely mean a big drop in pay and an increase in days on the job, the way reformers tell it any idiot can be a teacher, which is great since the ideas these candidates have presented to "fix" education can only be described as idiotic.
For instance, many of the candidates believe that fixing the public education system starts with eliminating teachers’ unions. The problem is that not only does eliminating unions not lead to better outcomes, data show that the states with the most union teachers actually preform better than those with the lowest rates of union educators. Despite this reality, some still complain that unions have too much power; yet if you follow the money you will see that corporations, not unions, are the ones with burgeoning influence having outspent unions 15 to 1 in the last election cycle.
This sort of spending gap is why, despite not improving educational outcomes, corporate charter schools continue to expand. It's why, in spite of worse results, the number of "virtual schools" is increasing. And it's why, even though studies have found that "there seem to be few apparent benefits of school of choice", nearly every Republican Presidential candidate supports it. The reality is that you'd be hard pressed to find a battle over the past decade between rich corporations and teacher unions where the unions won.
Of course attacking teachers’ unions is hardly the only tool in the Republican education reformers bags of "mistakes". They also strongly believe in tying teacher’s wages to the test scores of their students. The idea being that money will motivate all of the good-for-nothing lazy teachers to put in a little effort. For a group of people who claim to support capitalism, this is an embarrassingly antiquated position.
Years of studies have shown that, not only is money not a good motivator, but that the sort of tactics Republicans support can actually have "devastating motivational effects" on most teachers. The reality is that merit pay for teachers has been tried and failed numerous times and the research done by psychologists, economists, and sociologisst has found over and over again that in professions like teaching this idea is a colossal waste of resources.
In fact the science on what not to do when attempting to motivate employees like teachers reads like a check list of Republican education reform ideas. Despite the fallacy of schools full of ineffective teachers, reformers have made firing bad teachers a core policy for improving education. Data show that this fear of losing their job leads to "less energy and drive to complete daily tasks".
Even though reports suggest that there is already a teacher shortage and that nearly 50% of educators leave the profession in the first five years, Republicans continue to look for ways to pay teachers less, which has been proven to "hinder motivation and performance".
In spite of studies that show "unleashing (an employees) imagination, ingenuity and creativity resulted in their contributions to the organization being multiplied many times over", Republican legislatures across the country continue to give educators less and less freedom in the classroom.
Regardless of studies that show the value of organizational and communal collaboration to student achievement, Republicans continue to push a rudimentary corporate-based competition model.
But even if the Republican carrot and stick reform ideas did motivate teachers, the gains would be minimal at best since all of these plans address the symptoms while ignoring the root cause of the purported "broken" education system. The one thing Republican education reform proposals never include is a way to boost teachers’ skills. Professional athletes have reached the pinnacle of their profession, yet every day they meet with a coach that evaluates their performance and works with them to get better.
Imagine the results a school could get if it employed "coaches" that could help teachers implement new curriculum, coordinate with staff to develop and distribute highly effective lesson plans, review teacher performance and provide feedback for improvement, and interact with other coaches to identify and integrate the latest ideas.
If the objective is to increase student achievement then asking teachers to independently add this sort of research and personal development to a work week that already consumes 53 hours of their time is an awful idea. Expecting results without providing any resources or training is only a good plan if your goal is to make your staff look incompetent.
Unfortunately it seems that the people who are the most outspoken about how to improve education are also the least educated on the best methods of eliciting improvement. The good news is that, come next year when most of these Republican Presidential candidates are unemployed, there will still be plenty of jobs available in education. While this will likely mean a big drop in pay and an increase in days on the job, the way reformers tell it any idiot can be a teacher, which is great since the ideas these candidates have presented to "fix" education can only be described as idiotic.
Friday, August 14, 2015
Planned Parenthood might not exist if not for archaic conservative policies
Looking for any opportunity to make abortions illegal, conservative politicians and media outlets are seizing on a recent series of videos of Planned Parenthood staff discussing the sale of fetal tissue and organs. While the conversations certainly come across as callous and disturbing, at this point there is no proof of any illegal activity. The reality is that the business of donated organs and tissue is a gruesome endeavor, and those tasked with harvesting these items are doing difficult yet important work that saves lives.
If the investigations prove that Planned Parenthood illegally sold fetal organs or tissue, then the organization should be fined and those in charge should be punished. Removing all federal funding for an organization whose main business provides the less fortunate valuable assistance is perhaps more callous than anything Planned Parenthood has done and certainly not in line with penalties doled out to other organizations that receive federal tax dollars. For example Duke Energy which receives over $898 million in subsidies (nearly twice the federal funds allocated for Planned Parenthood) is not only the second largest polluter in the U.S. but they also illegally dumped tens of millions of gallons of polluted waste water into a tributary that provides some North Carolina residents’ drinking water. All told, they pled guilty to nine violations yet no action was taken on Capitol Hill to limit their corporate welfare.
Medicare fraud steals tens of billions of tax payer dollars per year, yet one of the largest cases of fraud ever perpetrated didn't lead to a removal of federal funds for the company. In fact, conservatives cared so little about these unlawful acts that they elected the company’s CEO, Rick Scott, as governor of Florida.
This hypocrisy suggests the concern over potentially illegal activities at Planned Parenthood is just another attempt by anti-abortion advocates to chip away at a woman's constitutional rights.
Of course if the goal is simply to reduce the number of abortions in the U.S., congress should consider removing funds for another program that has been proven to increase both teen pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases - abstinence-only education. U.S. taxpayers have spent over $1.7 billion since 1982 on this program that actually promotes the very behaviors it is meant to prevent. Despite this failure, the majority of Republican presidential candidates would expand the program while congress recently expanded abstinence-only education spending by 50%.
Imagine if we used this conservative logic on something like gun rights. Does anyone think it would be a good idea to issue all 13 year olds a loaded gun with an unlimited supply of ammunition then refuse to show them how to properly use it? Would it really make any sense to tell these same kids that they can't use this gun they've been given until they get married to someone who has also never been educated in how to use a gun? Would the U.S. be a better place if these kids were taught that they are only allowed to use their gun for self-defense because using the gun for pleasure is immoral? It's pretty easy to see why abstinence-only education is so awful once you consider just how important being educated is when it comes to something like owning a firearm.
Or consider the argument that gun advocates make when anyone suggests restrictions to gun ownership. They'll point to the failure of government restrictions on alcohol and drugs. They'll also claim that no matter how many rules you put in place preventing people from owning a gun, those who want to get a gun will find a way to get a gun. History shows us that this is also the case with outlawing abortion as many who claim to be "pro-life" are trying to do.
Rather than preventing abortions, making it illegal just moves the practice underground. Fetuses will still be aborted, except now the rate of death increases significantly for the women involved. Additionally all of the organs and tissue that were being legally used to save lives will now be disposed of or sold on the black market. Such opportunities to make money off of aborted fetuses might actually lead to more abortions. The reality is that just like prohibition and the war on drugs, criminalizing abortion will have a negative impact on all Americans.
In the end the biggest problem is that conservatives don't understand the goal of Planned Parenthood and its supporters. No one wants more abortions. The goal is to give people the tools they need to "promote family planning and healthy, responsible reproductive and sexual behavior". For as much attention as is given to abortions, the reality is preventing unplanned pregnancies accounts for more than ten times as many of the services provided at Planned Parenthood as preforming abortions.
The decision to engage in sexual activity or have an abortion is not a decision women take lightly. The least we can do as a country is make sure that women get all the information possible to make this an educated decision. Unfortunately, the policies that conservatives support subjugate women's rights and make the dissemination of this information exponentially more difficult. If only conservatives realized how their actions ironically increase the need for institutions like Planned Parenthood.
If the investigations prove that Planned Parenthood illegally sold fetal organs or tissue, then the organization should be fined and those in charge should be punished. Removing all federal funding for an organization whose main business provides the less fortunate valuable assistance is perhaps more callous than anything Planned Parenthood has done and certainly not in line with penalties doled out to other organizations that receive federal tax dollars. For example Duke Energy which receives over $898 million in subsidies (nearly twice the federal funds allocated for Planned Parenthood) is not only the second largest polluter in the U.S. but they also illegally dumped tens of millions of gallons of polluted waste water into a tributary that provides some North Carolina residents’ drinking water. All told, they pled guilty to nine violations yet no action was taken on Capitol Hill to limit their corporate welfare.
Medicare fraud steals tens of billions of tax payer dollars per year, yet one of the largest cases of fraud ever perpetrated didn't lead to a removal of federal funds for the company. In fact, conservatives cared so little about these unlawful acts that they elected the company’s CEO, Rick Scott, as governor of Florida.
This hypocrisy suggests the concern over potentially illegal activities at Planned Parenthood is just another attempt by anti-abortion advocates to chip away at a woman's constitutional rights.
Of course if the goal is simply to reduce the number of abortions in the U.S., congress should consider removing funds for another program that has been proven to increase both teen pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases - abstinence-only education. U.S. taxpayers have spent over $1.7 billion since 1982 on this program that actually promotes the very behaviors it is meant to prevent. Despite this failure, the majority of Republican presidential candidates would expand the program while congress recently expanded abstinence-only education spending by 50%.
Imagine if we used this conservative logic on something like gun rights. Does anyone think it would be a good idea to issue all 13 year olds a loaded gun with an unlimited supply of ammunition then refuse to show them how to properly use it? Would it really make any sense to tell these same kids that they can't use this gun they've been given until they get married to someone who has also never been educated in how to use a gun? Would the U.S. be a better place if these kids were taught that they are only allowed to use their gun for self-defense because using the gun for pleasure is immoral? It's pretty easy to see why abstinence-only education is so awful once you consider just how important being educated is when it comes to something like owning a firearm.
Or consider the argument that gun advocates make when anyone suggests restrictions to gun ownership. They'll point to the failure of government restrictions on alcohol and drugs. They'll also claim that no matter how many rules you put in place preventing people from owning a gun, those who want to get a gun will find a way to get a gun. History shows us that this is also the case with outlawing abortion as many who claim to be "pro-life" are trying to do.
Rather than preventing abortions, making it illegal just moves the practice underground. Fetuses will still be aborted, except now the rate of death increases significantly for the women involved. Additionally all of the organs and tissue that were being legally used to save lives will now be disposed of or sold on the black market. Such opportunities to make money off of aborted fetuses might actually lead to more abortions. The reality is that just like prohibition and the war on drugs, criminalizing abortion will have a negative impact on all Americans.
In the end the biggest problem is that conservatives don't understand the goal of Planned Parenthood and its supporters. No one wants more abortions. The goal is to give people the tools they need to "promote family planning and healthy, responsible reproductive and sexual behavior". For as much attention as is given to abortions, the reality is preventing unplanned pregnancies accounts for more than ten times as many of the services provided at Planned Parenthood as preforming abortions.
The decision to engage in sexual activity or have an abortion is not a decision women take lightly. The least we can do as a country is make sure that women get all the information possible to make this an educated decision. Unfortunately, the policies that conservatives support subjugate women's rights and make the dissemination of this information exponentially more difficult. If only conservatives realized how their actions ironically increase the need for institutions like Planned Parenthood.
Monday, July 27, 2015
Being Christian doesn't give you the right to discriminate
Conservatives have spent a lot of time recently asserting their right to illegally discriminate, which they like to call "religious freedom". The problem is that these conservatives seem to have different standards depending on whose rights are being discussed.
A perfect example of this issue comes from an article titled "How the far left's legal goals put everyone's freedoms at risk" recently penned by the director of the Freedom of Conscience Initiative for Alliance Defending Freedom, Jeremy Tedesco. The basis for this opinion piece is a lawsuit where Tedesco's client, Masterpiece Cakeshop, was determined to have discriminated against a same sex couple for refusing to bake them a cake for their wedding.
Tedesco believes that his clients should be able to discriminate based on their biblical belief that homosexuality is a sin despite the fact that such actions are against the law. The reality is that Masterpiece Cakeshop has the right to refuse service. They just don't have the right to do so based on who the person is. To counter this, Tedesco argues that his client is an artist and that "Like many cake artists and individuals in other artistic professions, Jack objects to artistically designing and creating cakes that celebrate things that violate his beliefs".
Unfortunately, like many other defenders of biblical bigotry, Tedesco doesn't seem to fully grasp the difference between the company’s first amendment rights and discrimination. Artist or not, the cake is the product or service that his client provides. Jack and the staff at Masterpiece Cakeshop are free to refuse to make any cake they see fit. No customer can force them to make a cake they don't offer. For example, if Masterpiece Cakeshop only makes vanilla cakes, they cannot be sued for refusing to bake a chocolate cake. Having said that, if a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple entered Masterpiece Cakeshop and requested the same cake it would be discrimination to bake that cake for the heterosexual couple but refuse to make that same cake for the homosexual couple.
This is also true of wording for the cake. Masterpiece Cakeshop has the first amendment right to refuse to write anything supporting gay marriage, just as they have the right to refuse to write bible verses or the confederate flag. The reality is that denying service based on the service is not the same thing as denying service based on the person.
Of course beyond that, Tedesco makes no mention of the hypocrisy his client is displaying. Being gluttonous is also a sin according to the bible. Would Tedesco be willing to defend Masterpiece Cakeshop if their sincerely held religious belief was that they won't serve fat people? Beyond that it should be noted that the bible never says gay marriage is a sin. If Masterpiece Cakeshop was following their religious tenets, they would inquire about the sexuality of all patrons before providing service. Not doing so compromises their religious beliefs and exposes how fraudulent their religious convictions really are.
Not surprisingly, like most biblical discrimination advocates, Tedesco thinks he has a situation that exposes the hypocrisy of those demanding equal treatment for all. Tedesco writes "Suppose a fine art painter advertises to the public that he or she will make oil paintings on commission, and then a patron contacts the artist and requests that the artist paint a commissioned picture that celebrates gay marriages, and the artist refuses, saying, 'I won't do that. I don't believe that." - is that discrimination? The answer again is no.
The artist can deny service based on the content of the service. In this case the "celebrating gay marriage" is the content and is therefore protected by the first amendment. What the painter can't refuse to do is paint a picture for a homosexual couple simply because they are homosexual. That is discrimination and that is what his client, Masterpiece Cakeshop, did and why they lost their case.
Perhaps the best way for people like Tedesco to understand the implications of the position is to ask them if they would support a bakery that refused to provide a cake for a Christian wedding that didn't include any wording, despite making that same cake for an atheist couple. If Tedesco got his way, this sort of discrimination would be perfectly legal.
In the end, the fight here is not about religious freedom. The courts have already determined what is an isn't covered, and arguments like the one presented by Jeremy Tedesco show an ignorance to the facts in order to feign oppression. The real fight is over who is protected by discrimination laws. So while Tedesco can lament adding "sexual orientation" to the protected classes of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, his concern over "protecting only those with "acceptable" views and permitting the government to present dissidents with a terrible choice: coerced agreement or forced silence" should fall on deaf ears since nearly every law on the books does this exact same thing.
A perfect example of this issue comes from an article titled "How the far left's legal goals put everyone's freedoms at risk" recently penned by the director of the Freedom of Conscience Initiative for Alliance Defending Freedom, Jeremy Tedesco. The basis for this opinion piece is a lawsuit where Tedesco's client, Masterpiece Cakeshop, was determined to have discriminated against a same sex couple for refusing to bake them a cake for their wedding.
Tedesco believes that his clients should be able to discriminate based on their biblical belief that homosexuality is a sin despite the fact that such actions are against the law. The reality is that Masterpiece Cakeshop has the right to refuse service. They just don't have the right to do so based on who the person is. To counter this, Tedesco argues that his client is an artist and that "Like many cake artists and individuals in other artistic professions, Jack objects to artistically designing and creating cakes that celebrate things that violate his beliefs".
Unfortunately, like many other defenders of biblical bigotry, Tedesco doesn't seem to fully grasp the difference between the company’s first amendment rights and discrimination. Artist or not, the cake is the product or service that his client provides. Jack and the staff at Masterpiece Cakeshop are free to refuse to make any cake they see fit. No customer can force them to make a cake they don't offer. For example, if Masterpiece Cakeshop only makes vanilla cakes, they cannot be sued for refusing to bake a chocolate cake. Having said that, if a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple entered Masterpiece Cakeshop and requested the same cake it would be discrimination to bake that cake for the heterosexual couple but refuse to make that same cake for the homosexual couple.
This is also true of wording for the cake. Masterpiece Cakeshop has the first amendment right to refuse to write anything supporting gay marriage, just as they have the right to refuse to write bible verses or the confederate flag. The reality is that denying service based on the service is not the same thing as denying service based on the person.
Of course beyond that, Tedesco makes no mention of the hypocrisy his client is displaying. Being gluttonous is also a sin according to the bible. Would Tedesco be willing to defend Masterpiece Cakeshop if their sincerely held religious belief was that they won't serve fat people? Beyond that it should be noted that the bible never says gay marriage is a sin. If Masterpiece Cakeshop was following their religious tenets, they would inquire about the sexuality of all patrons before providing service. Not doing so compromises their religious beliefs and exposes how fraudulent their religious convictions really are.
Not surprisingly, like most biblical discrimination advocates, Tedesco thinks he has a situation that exposes the hypocrisy of those demanding equal treatment for all. Tedesco writes "Suppose a fine art painter advertises to the public that he or she will make oil paintings on commission, and then a patron contacts the artist and requests that the artist paint a commissioned picture that celebrates gay marriages, and the artist refuses, saying, 'I won't do that. I don't believe that." - is that discrimination? The answer again is no.
The artist can deny service based on the content of the service. In this case the "celebrating gay marriage" is the content and is therefore protected by the first amendment. What the painter can't refuse to do is paint a picture for a homosexual couple simply because they are homosexual. That is discrimination and that is what his client, Masterpiece Cakeshop, did and why they lost their case.
Perhaps the best way for people like Tedesco to understand the implications of the position is to ask them if they would support a bakery that refused to provide a cake for a Christian wedding that didn't include any wording, despite making that same cake for an atheist couple. If Tedesco got his way, this sort of discrimination would be perfectly legal.
In the end, the fight here is not about religious freedom. The courts have already determined what is an isn't covered, and arguments like the one presented by Jeremy Tedesco show an ignorance to the facts in order to feign oppression. The real fight is over who is protected by discrimination laws. So while Tedesco can lament adding "sexual orientation" to the protected classes of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, his concern over "protecting only those with "acceptable" views and permitting the government to present dissidents with a terrible choice: coerced agreement or forced silence" should fall on deaf ears since nearly every law on the books does this exact same thing.
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
The false hope of more guns
Never wanting to let a tragedy go to waste, the conservative media were quick to pounce on the recent murder of four marines in Tennessee. Breitbart News put up one article titled "‘PRACTICING MUSLIM’ WHO KILLED 4 MARINES WORKED AT SUPERIOR ESSEX IN FRANKLIN, TENNESSEE" while Fox News quoted Charles Krauthammer as saying this attack is "in all probability an example of radical Islam at work".
At this point the motives are unknown so it is possible that the killer is an Islamic terrorist. It's also possible that his yearbook quote “My name causes national security alerts. What does yours do?” showed he was tired of being treated like a terrorist despite being an American citizen. Of course it's also possible that neither his faith nor U.S. Islamophobia played any part, but peddling fear is really the goal of today's entertainment- based news.
Ironically, many of the media outlets that are quick to play up the possible connection between a Muslim killer’s faith and their actions are the same that downplay race in murders perpetrated by white assailants such as the case of Dylann Roof who killed nine people at an historically black church in South Carolina last month.
Regardless of the motives one thing is clear, the killer used a gun to perpetrate the murders, which means gun rights advocates needed to move swiftly to not only defend the right to bear arms to but insist that the only way to stop events like this in the future is to have more guns. The usual raconteurs like John R. Lott and Todd Starnes posted articles titled "Chattanooga shootings: Why should we make it easy for killers to attack our military?" and "Chattanooga shooting proves it's time to arm our Armed Forces".
The problem is that even if these marines had guns on their person the shots were fired from outside their facility without any warning. It's likely that by the time they took cover and got a good vantage point to return fire the shooter would have been gone. Such a policy might have been more effective in other military base shootings such as Fort Hood or the Washington Naval Yard, but there are plenty of other locations across the U.S. that are just as "gun free" as a military base that don't experience these types of mass killings. Airport terminals for example do not allow any weapons, yet they are not havens for mass shootings.
The reason seems to be that airports have stricter security for entering the facility than most military bases. Perhaps rather than having every federal employee armed to the teeth to prevent what is a rare occurrence, we should just provide better security that would deter or prevent shooters from reaching unarmed staff; because, while it is likely that having more armed personnel would limit the number of people who die during a mass shooting, it is also likely that the increased presence of firearms would lead to a rise in shootings.
Data show that carrying a gun increases aggressive behaviors which means having armed employees could turn heated or violent workplace incidents into homicides. Given that this sort of escalation has occurred on military bases in war zones before, it seems the military is not immune to workplace shootings.
The problem is that simply having a firearm isn't a silver bullet for preventing shootings. Data show that from 1994 to 2003, of the 616 police officers killed by criminals while on duty 52 of them were shot with their own weapon while in the military "insider attacks" accounted for 96 deaths in Afghanistan between 2011 and 2012. Obviously the presence of guns did not deter the attackers in these situations.
This narrative that more guns equals less crime is a common one in the conservative media, but the data used to make this assertion has been roundly disputed. While its certainly possible that crime goes down as more people carry firearms, the Statistics also indicate a trend towards more firearm deaths with an increased number of concealed carry permits.
If the solution for preventing gun deaths results in more gun deaths is it really a solution?
The reality is that outside of eliminating all guns, the best way to reduce gun violence is to give the authorities the tools necessary to restrict who can purchase firearms, to track the sale of guns, and to seize weapons that were obtained illegally. Unfortunately, gun advocates’ devotion to putting a firearm in the hand of every good guy also makes getting a gun easier for bad guys. Changing that fact doesn't require the repeal of the second amendment.
At this point the motives are unknown so it is possible that the killer is an Islamic terrorist. It's also possible that his yearbook quote “My name causes national security alerts. What does yours do?” showed he was tired of being treated like a terrorist despite being an American citizen. Of course it's also possible that neither his faith nor U.S. Islamophobia played any part, but peddling fear is really the goal of today's entertainment- based news.
Ironically, many of the media outlets that are quick to play up the possible connection between a Muslim killer’s faith and their actions are the same that downplay race in murders perpetrated by white assailants such as the case of Dylann Roof who killed nine people at an historically black church in South Carolina last month.
Regardless of the motives one thing is clear, the killer used a gun to perpetrate the murders, which means gun rights advocates needed to move swiftly to not only defend the right to bear arms to but insist that the only way to stop events like this in the future is to have more guns. The usual raconteurs like John R. Lott and Todd Starnes posted articles titled "Chattanooga shootings: Why should we make it easy for killers to attack our military?" and "Chattanooga shooting proves it's time to arm our Armed Forces".
The problem is that even if these marines had guns on their person the shots were fired from outside their facility without any warning. It's likely that by the time they took cover and got a good vantage point to return fire the shooter would have been gone. Such a policy might have been more effective in other military base shootings such as Fort Hood or the Washington Naval Yard, but there are plenty of other locations across the U.S. that are just as "gun free" as a military base that don't experience these types of mass killings. Airport terminals for example do not allow any weapons, yet they are not havens for mass shootings.
The reason seems to be that airports have stricter security for entering the facility than most military bases. Perhaps rather than having every federal employee armed to the teeth to prevent what is a rare occurrence, we should just provide better security that would deter or prevent shooters from reaching unarmed staff; because, while it is likely that having more armed personnel would limit the number of people who die during a mass shooting, it is also likely that the increased presence of firearms would lead to a rise in shootings.
Data show that carrying a gun increases aggressive behaviors which means having armed employees could turn heated or violent workplace incidents into homicides. Given that this sort of escalation has occurred on military bases in war zones before, it seems the military is not immune to workplace shootings.
The problem is that simply having a firearm isn't a silver bullet for preventing shootings. Data show that from 1994 to 2003, of the 616 police officers killed by criminals while on duty 52 of them were shot with their own weapon while in the military "insider attacks" accounted for 96 deaths in Afghanistan between 2011 and 2012. Obviously the presence of guns did not deter the attackers in these situations.
This narrative that more guns equals less crime is a common one in the conservative media, but the data used to make this assertion has been roundly disputed. While its certainly possible that crime goes down as more people carry firearms, the Statistics also indicate a trend towards more firearm deaths with an increased number of concealed carry permits.
If the solution for preventing gun deaths results in more gun deaths is it really a solution?
The reality is that outside of eliminating all guns, the best way to reduce gun violence is to give the authorities the tools necessary to restrict who can purchase firearms, to track the sale of guns, and to seize weapons that were obtained illegally. Unfortunately, gun advocates’ devotion to putting a firearm in the hand of every good guy also makes getting a gun easier for bad guys. Changing that fact doesn't require the repeal of the second amendment.
Friday, July 17, 2015
Conservatives hate America too
Looking to fill time during a slow news week the good folks at 'Fox and Friends' devoted multiple segments of their July 9th show to Ariana Grande's "I hate America" comments. The conversation fit nicely into the Fox News narrative that conservatives devotion to America is greater than that of liberals and especially that of Hollywood liberals.
To prove their moral superiority Fox News offered up data from a Gallup poll which Steve Doocy said suggests Grande "might not be alone about hating America" because "just 43% of 18 to 29 year olds say they are extremely proud to be an American". The problem is not being "extremely proud" to be American is not the same as "hating America". The only people who could really be associated with "hating America" are the 1% of Americans who responded they were "not proud at all". It should also be pointed out that there is no data in poll to show that kids today are any more or less patriotic than their predecessors.
Curiously there was no mention of the Fox News poll from 2011 that found that Democrats were the most likely to say they were proud to be American while Tea Party voters were the least likely. Using the Fox and Friends logic their own poll seems to indicate that Tea Party members might hate America.
Having said that the real problem for conservatives in these "proud to be American" polls is their cognitive dissonance. While a Gallup poll from 2013 shows conservatives are the most likely to say they are proud to be American it also lists them as the most likely, by a wide margin, to believe the signers of the Declaration of Independence would be disappointed in how the U.S. turned out. They somehow hate how the country has turned out simultaneously loving it more than anyone else.
The irony is that this seems to be the same argument Grande is making. She hates certain things about America but is still proud to be American.
Of course Grande's comments are simply a pretext for Fox News to blame Obama for how awful the country is. The guest for this segment, Miss Kansas 2013 Theresa Vail, said she "can speculate" that the problem with Grande and other millennials is the fact that "for the past 6 or 7 years...we've had a president who doesn't believe in American exceptionalism; he doesn't speak up for American values...so can you blame millennials for their modicum of patriotism".
The hypocrisy of this a statement is outstanding since there is no better source for criticism of the U.S. than conservative media. Certainly having people like Rush Limbaugh say they hope Obama fails or rooting against the success of policies like the stimulus package, the Affordable Care Act, or renewable energy don't seem very patriotic but if you want to see why people have a negative view of America just check out the conservative media conversations on immigration, gay marriage, free speech, religious freedom, or gun rights. These people honestly believe they are slowly losing their rights and America is going to hell. Perhaps this pervasive attitude not the presidents words is the reason for the current perceived lack of patriotism.
Perhaps more troubling was the segment of the Fox and Friends broadcast where Laura Ingraham put in her two cents on Grande's comments. Despite being 30 years her senior Ingraham displayed all the class of a 15 year old girl when she calls Grande, who came from middle class background and worked her way up from cruise ship karaoke lounge act to Broadway to television, a "spoiled, entitled pop princess". Making matters worse, Ingraham calls Grande "estupida" in spite of the fact that her heritage is Italian not Hispanic.
Ingraham's comments are a microcosm of the problems with the love of country argument. In spite of being completely uninformed on the topic Ingraham acts like a bully by publicly shaming a 22 year old girl. She smugly pretends that her positions represent that of a true patriot and uses racially charged language to imply outsiders should appreciate America like she does. She ironically offers up a perfect example of why some people might hate certain parts of America.
Clearly Grande made an error in judgment but one wonders if the holier than thou pitchfork mob remember what it was like to be young. Did they never do or say anything that they later regretted? Did they never act out when with a group of friends? Did they never tell their parents or anyone they loved "I hate you" but didn't actually mean they hated the person but rather the situation?
One also wonders if there would be such vitriol from the right if a celebrity baker was forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding or an celebrity gun owner was refused the right to carry his gun to his kids school then came on Fox News and said for those reasons they hated America. Odds are they would happily accept the excuse offered up by these "patriotic" celebrities and rationalize the comments in context.
Regardless of the disingenuous nature of these attacks the reality is to a large extent patriotism is a subjective idea which means who the conservative media deems patriotic is completely irrelevant. In the end if what defines a true patriot is determined by the folks in the conservative media you can bet that a majority of Americans would wear the label of unpatriotic as a badge of honor.
To prove their moral superiority Fox News offered up data from a Gallup poll which Steve Doocy said suggests Grande "might not be alone about hating America" because "just 43% of 18 to 29 year olds say they are extremely proud to be an American". The problem is not being "extremely proud" to be American is not the same as "hating America". The only people who could really be associated with "hating America" are the 1% of Americans who responded they were "not proud at all". It should also be pointed out that there is no data in poll to show that kids today are any more or less patriotic than their predecessors.
Curiously there was no mention of the Fox News poll from 2011 that found that Democrats were the most likely to say they were proud to be American while Tea Party voters were the least likely. Using the Fox and Friends logic their own poll seems to indicate that Tea Party members might hate America.
Having said that the real problem for conservatives in these "proud to be American" polls is their cognitive dissonance. While a Gallup poll from 2013 shows conservatives are the most likely to say they are proud to be American it also lists them as the most likely, by a wide margin, to believe the signers of the Declaration of Independence would be disappointed in how the U.S. turned out. They somehow hate how the country has turned out simultaneously loving it more than anyone else.
The irony is that this seems to be the same argument Grande is making. She hates certain things about America but is still proud to be American.
Of course Grande's comments are simply a pretext for Fox News to blame Obama for how awful the country is. The guest for this segment, Miss Kansas 2013 Theresa Vail, said she "can speculate" that the problem with Grande and other millennials is the fact that "for the past 6 or 7 years...we've had a president who doesn't believe in American exceptionalism; he doesn't speak up for American values...so can you blame millennials for their modicum of patriotism".
The hypocrisy of this a statement is outstanding since there is no better source for criticism of the U.S. than conservative media. Certainly having people like Rush Limbaugh say they hope Obama fails or rooting against the success of policies like the stimulus package, the Affordable Care Act, or renewable energy don't seem very patriotic but if you want to see why people have a negative view of America just check out the conservative media conversations on immigration, gay marriage, free speech, religious freedom, or gun rights. These people honestly believe they are slowly losing their rights and America is going to hell. Perhaps this pervasive attitude not the presidents words is the reason for the current perceived lack of patriotism.
Perhaps more troubling was the segment of the Fox and Friends broadcast where Laura Ingraham put in her two cents on Grande's comments. Despite being 30 years her senior Ingraham displayed all the class of a 15 year old girl when she calls Grande, who came from middle class background and worked her way up from cruise ship karaoke lounge act to Broadway to television, a "spoiled, entitled pop princess". Making matters worse, Ingraham calls Grande "estupida" in spite of the fact that her heritage is Italian not Hispanic.
Ingraham's comments are a microcosm of the problems with the love of country argument. In spite of being completely uninformed on the topic Ingraham acts like a bully by publicly shaming a 22 year old girl. She smugly pretends that her positions represent that of a true patriot and uses racially charged language to imply outsiders should appreciate America like she does. She ironically offers up a perfect example of why some people might hate certain parts of America.
Clearly Grande made an error in judgment but one wonders if the holier than thou pitchfork mob remember what it was like to be young. Did they never do or say anything that they later regretted? Did they never act out when with a group of friends? Did they never tell their parents or anyone they loved "I hate you" but didn't actually mean they hated the person but rather the situation?
One also wonders if there would be such vitriol from the right if a celebrity baker was forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding or an celebrity gun owner was refused the right to carry his gun to his kids school then came on Fox News and said for those reasons they hated America. Odds are they would happily accept the excuse offered up by these "patriotic" celebrities and rationalize the comments in context.
Regardless of the disingenuous nature of these attacks the reality is to a large extent patriotism is a subjective idea which means who the conservative media deems patriotic is completely irrelevant. In the end if what defines a true patriot is determined by the folks in the conservative media you can bet that a majority of Americans would wear the label of unpatriotic as a badge of honor.
Monday, July 6, 2015
Fox News doesn't understand religious freedom
Given the amount of time Fox News spends peddling Christian persecution, you might expect them to have a better understanding of the subject. With the Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage the conservative fear monger machine has been cranked up to DEFCON 5. Trending in the opinion section on Fox News are ill-informed articles titled 'Tolerance vs. Pride? Spat on by parade-goers, Catholic priest has this message', 'City Threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to preform same-sex weddings', 'You've been warned, America, gay marriage is just the beginning', and 'Ten Commandments: Madness Strikes in Oklahoma'.
Topping the list however is 'Fox News anchor: I didn't know it was criminal to be a Christian' which is an excerpt from Gretchen Carlson's new book where she discusses the manufactured "War on Christmas". The incident that sparked her outrage was a group that requested the state erect a Festivus pole - a fictitious religious symbol from the Seinfeld sitcom - in the same public area as a Nativity scene. Carlson says "I thought it was an outrage that my kids would have to grow up in a culture that forced them to grope their way past a Festivus pole to see a Nativity scene—on Christmas!”
Outside of the fact that this anecdote in no way shows that Christianity has been even remotely criminalized, it should be noted that no one is forcing the Carlson family to drive by government property to view a Nativity scene. If they would like to see Jesus in the manger, there are no shortage of Churches and private establishments that offer such displays free of anything Christians might find offensive. Having said that, if forcing people to "grope their way past" made-up holiday exhibits is a problem, then Carlson needs to recognize that there are certainly American citizens that believe the Nativity scene represents a book of fairy tales. Like Carlson, these people are genuinely outraged that such religious representations are allowed on publicly owned property. The reality is, the courts have long decided that either all made-up symbols are welcome in the public square or none are.
The problem seems to be that some Christians can't understand how anyone would be offended by Christianity. Perhaps the best illustration of this point is when Bill O'Reilly referred to an Atheist group that put up billboards attempting to convince people that there is no god as a "bullying group". If converting people to your way of thinking is bullying, then it should be pointed out that there are far more Christian groups across the globe attempting to convince others to take Jesus Christ as their lord and savior than there are atheist groups hounding people to accept the possibility that God doesn't exist.
Unfortunately people like O'Reilly can't put themselves in the shoes of non-Christians to see how their proselytization could be considered bullying. In their mind these people are preaching goodwill toward men - how could anyone be offended? While the Christians of today certainly aren't as forceful as their Crusades-era predecessors, there is little doubt that some believers push the boundaries. Would Christians feel they were being bullied if Atheists showed up at their door to talk about the fallacy of God? Would they find an atheist on a loud speaker outside of their local sports arena offensive? If schools forced children to recite verses that said God wasn't real, wouldn't Christians demand this sort of speech be removed from the public sphere?
But when you insist that your local court building be adorned with the Ten Commandments because it represents Judeo-Christian values while disallowing other religious-based text, you become the bully. When you want only religions you accept as "real" to be represented in the public square, you exhibit the very intolerance you claim others are showing towards your faith. When you say, as Gretchen Carlson did, that "I'm all for free speech and free rights, just not on December 25th" you lose the right to be taken seriously.
The reality is that despite the outrage the courts have clearly defined religious freedom in a way that protects all Americans. So when Cal Thomas of Fox News says "gay activists are likely to go after the tax-exempt status of Christian colleges that prohibit cohabitation of unmarried students, or openly homosexual ones, as well as churches that refuse to marry them" he is exposing his ignorance. The Supreme Court has ruled that churches are free to refuse to perform a wedding for any reason they see fit. Any lawsuits attempting to remove this protection will only further enshrine it.
The tax exempt status of Christian Colleges however is likely to be challenged. The basis for the challenge will come from Bob Jones University vs. the United States in which the Supreme Court decided that religious universities could not retain their exemption and discriminate against interracial couples regardless of their First Amendment rights. The court also made clear that this decision did not apply to churches or other purely religious institutions.
Despite what Thomas would prefer, the court is not bound by Christian doctrine. The court is bound by the constitution and nowhere in the constitution is there an unmitigated right to tax exempt status for every endeavor associated with the church. Of course, it seems likely that Thomas appreciates that these same laws protect Christians from being discriminated against by secular schools, wedding chapels and cake bakers.
What these Christian activists don't seem to understand is that when people oppose Christian pervasion they aren't declaring war on Christianity - they are simply fighting for equal treatment. Christian religious freedom is bordered on all sides by the religious freedom of everyone else. By crossing those borders you infringe the rights of others. This means one person’s religious freedom is another person’s discrimination. If only we lived in a world where faith was used to lift up all Americans instead of being used to ostracize thy neighbor.
Topping the list however is 'Fox News anchor: I didn't know it was criminal to be a Christian' which is an excerpt from Gretchen Carlson's new book where she discusses the manufactured "War on Christmas". The incident that sparked her outrage was a group that requested the state erect a Festivus pole - a fictitious religious symbol from the Seinfeld sitcom - in the same public area as a Nativity scene. Carlson says "I thought it was an outrage that my kids would have to grow up in a culture that forced them to grope their way past a Festivus pole to see a Nativity scene—on Christmas!”
Outside of the fact that this anecdote in no way shows that Christianity has been even remotely criminalized, it should be noted that no one is forcing the Carlson family to drive by government property to view a Nativity scene. If they would like to see Jesus in the manger, there are no shortage of Churches and private establishments that offer such displays free of anything Christians might find offensive. Having said that, if forcing people to "grope their way past" made-up holiday exhibits is a problem, then Carlson needs to recognize that there are certainly American citizens that believe the Nativity scene represents a book of fairy tales. Like Carlson, these people are genuinely outraged that such religious representations are allowed on publicly owned property. The reality is, the courts have long decided that either all made-up symbols are welcome in the public square or none are.
The problem seems to be that some Christians can't understand how anyone would be offended by Christianity. Perhaps the best illustration of this point is when Bill O'Reilly referred to an Atheist group that put up billboards attempting to convince people that there is no god as a "bullying group". If converting people to your way of thinking is bullying, then it should be pointed out that there are far more Christian groups across the globe attempting to convince others to take Jesus Christ as their lord and savior than there are atheist groups hounding people to accept the possibility that God doesn't exist.
Unfortunately people like O'Reilly can't put themselves in the shoes of non-Christians to see how their proselytization could be considered bullying. In their mind these people are preaching goodwill toward men - how could anyone be offended? While the Christians of today certainly aren't as forceful as their Crusades-era predecessors, there is little doubt that some believers push the boundaries. Would Christians feel they were being bullied if Atheists showed up at their door to talk about the fallacy of God? Would they find an atheist on a loud speaker outside of their local sports arena offensive? If schools forced children to recite verses that said God wasn't real, wouldn't Christians demand this sort of speech be removed from the public sphere?
But when you insist that your local court building be adorned with the Ten Commandments because it represents Judeo-Christian values while disallowing other religious-based text, you become the bully. When you want only religions you accept as "real" to be represented in the public square, you exhibit the very intolerance you claim others are showing towards your faith. When you say, as Gretchen Carlson did, that "I'm all for free speech and free rights, just not on December 25th" you lose the right to be taken seriously.
The reality is that despite the outrage the courts have clearly defined religious freedom in a way that protects all Americans. So when Cal Thomas of Fox News says "gay activists are likely to go after the tax-exempt status of Christian colleges that prohibit cohabitation of unmarried students, or openly homosexual ones, as well as churches that refuse to marry them" he is exposing his ignorance. The Supreme Court has ruled that churches are free to refuse to perform a wedding for any reason they see fit. Any lawsuits attempting to remove this protection will only further enshrine it.
The tax exempt status of Christian Colleges however is likely to be challenged. The basis for the challenge will come from Bob Jones University vs. the United States in which the Supreme Court decided that religious universities could not retain their exemption and discriminate against interracial couples regardless of their First Amendment rights. The court also made clear that this decision did not apply to churches or other purely religious institutions.
Despite what Thomas would prefer, the court is not bound by Christian doctrine. The court is bound by the constitution and nowhere in the constitution is there an unmitigated right to tax exempt status for every endeavor associated with the church. Of course, it seems likely that Thomas appreciates that these same laws protect Christians from being discriminated against by secular schools, wedding chapels and cake bakers.
What these Christian activists don't seem to understand is that when people oppose Christian pervasion they aren't declaring war on Christianity - they are simply fighting for equal treatment. Christian religious freedom is bordered on all sides by the religious freedom of everyone else. By crossing those borders you infringe the rights of others. This means one person’s religious freedom is another person’s discrimination. If only we lived in a world where faith was used to lift up all Americans instead of being used to ostracize thy neighbor.
Thursday, June 25, 2015
Conservative legislation provides support for gun control
After the murder of 9 black Americans in Charleston, South Carolina by Dylann Roof, conservatives have had their hands full deflecting. For example, Fox and Friends had a guest who whitewashed the racial aspect of the shooting and instead painted this as part of an ever widening "War on Christianity".
While the possible Christian component of this attack is highly suspect, the fact that the man who committed the murders used a gun is not. So it comes as no surprise that gun advocates are out in full force defending their second amendment rights. Some will say "now is not the time to talk about more gun control measures", though there seems to be no such limit for gun advocates to throw out questionable statistics to show why gun control doesn't work. Others are mad that anyone would politicize this tragedy, when what everyone should be talking about is how liberals are to blame for this and other mass murders.
Regardless of the angle, what conservatives really want everyone to know is that guns are in no way, shape or form responsible for this attack...outside of being the weapon Roof used to shoot 9 people to death.
When it comes to guns, advocates have their own set of facts. I discovered this last week when I wrote an article discussing Vince Vaughn's comments on guns and the support he received from Fox News.
Vaughn stated that "All these gun shootings that have gone down in America since 1950, only one, or maybe two have happened in non-gun-free zones." Of the 24 deadliest mass murders over the last 50 years only 6 of them happened at schools or "gun free zones" as described by 'Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990'. The rest happened at homes, restaurants, places of employment, the street, a mall, and two at Military bases.
The response from gun advocates over this data suggests the problem is an uncertain definition of what constitutes a gun free zone. For example, some gun advocates seem to believe that despite the presence of armed guards, the fact that military personnel are not allowed to carry their weapon on the base makes this a gun free zone. Suggesting otherwise is insulting and moronic. Yet it should be noted that after the shootings at Sandy Hook, the solution to defend America's schools offered by NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre was "armed security". This is the same solution LaPierre offered five years prior, after the Virginia Tech shooting.
Why would an organization that thinks the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, champion an idea that still rendered schools "gun free zones"? The fact that gun enthusiasts can't even agree on what makes a location gun free tells you all you need to know about how tenuous the mass shootings at gun free zones "fact" is.
Another idea that seemed to have gun advocates up in arms is New York's stop and frisk policy that Greg Gutfeld of Fox News defended when he said "it is a fairly obvious point -- stop and frisk gets guns -- that prevents gun crime." Gun control supporters clearly agree with this idea - less guns, less crime. The problem is, many people suggested the value of stop and frisk is solely that it removes guns from those who shouldn't have them (aka bad guys).
Despite making this claim in support of less gun control, it is really the best argument for more gun control. If gun advocates believe that removing guns from those who shouldn't have them is a good idea, then just imagine what we could do if we expanded stop and frisk to all citizens. Even more guns would be removed and even less crime would occur. Obviously there would be some question of constitutionality, but gun control laws are in many ways very similar to laws that Republican legislatures have been pushing for the last few years, despite potentially being unconstitutional.
For instance, the NRA and many gun advocates argue that background checks and registering guns won't work because criminals will still get their guns. Yet it is many of these same conservatives that support voter ID laws despite the fact that criminals will still find ways to commit voter fraud.
This reality outrages conservatives because they believe voter fraud runs rampant across the country and voter ID will stop it. They argue that since there is no good method for tracking voter fraud, we don't realize how big of an issue it really is. Using this logic it could be said that we don't know how many guns could be kept out of the hands of criminals with tracking tools like universal background checks and gun registration. Like Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said about his state’s voter ID laws "It doesn't matter if there's one, 100, or 1,000," voter fraud is too important not to at least do something. Similarly, using every option at our disposal to prevent even one criminal from getting a gun should be a goal of everyone.
Of course the biggest fallacy that gun advocate like to claim as fact is that the government is plotting to take away their guns. Polls show that 73% of American's believe the second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to own guns. Given that congress rejected a bill on universal background checks that was favored by 90% of Americans, it seems very unlikely that a full repeal of the second amendment is anything more than fear mongering.
What many Americans are looking for are laws that would make it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns. Like laws conservative support on abortion, voter ID, stop and frisk, and religious freedom, additional gun laws might be annoying for law abiding Americans; but if the ends justify the means for laws that inconvenience women, the poor, African and Hispanic Americans, and the LGBT community, it seems unpatriotic for gun owners to refuse to do their part in making America a safer place to live.
While the possible Christian component of this attack is highly suspect, the fact that the man who committed the murders used a gun is not. So it comes as no surprise that gun advocates are out in full force defending their second amendment rights. Some will say "now is not the time to talk about more gun control measures", though there seems to be no such limit for gun advocates to throw out questionable statistics to show why gun control doesn't work. Others are mad that anyone would politicize this tragedy, when what everyone should be talking about is how liberals are to blame for this and other mass murders.
Regardless of the angle, what conservatives really want everyone to know is that guns are in no way, shape or form responsible for this attack...outside of being the weapon Roof used to shoot 9 people to death.
When it comes to guns, advocates have their own set of facts. I discovered this last week when I wrote an article discussing Vince Vaughn's comments on guns and the support he received from Fox News.
Vaughn stated that "All these gun shootings that have gone down in America since 1950, only one, or maybe two have happened in non-gun-free zones." Of the 24 deadliest mass murders over the last 50 years only 6 of them happened at schools or "gun free zones" as described by 'Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990'. The rest happened at homes, restaurants, places of employment, the street, a mall, and two at Military bases.
The response from gun advocates over this data suggests the problem is an uncertain definition of what constitutes a gun free zone. For example, some gun advocates seem to believe that despite the presence of armed guards, the fact that military personnel are not allowed to carry their weapon on the base makes this a gun free zone. Suggesting otherwise is insulting and moronic. Yet it should be noted that after the shootings at Sandy Hook, the solution to defend America's schools offered by NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre was "armed security". This is the same solution LaPierre offered five years prior, after the Virginia Tech shooting.
Why would an organization that thinks the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, champion an idea that still rendered schools "gun free zones"? The fact that gun enthusiasts can't even agree on what makes a location gun free tells you all you need to know about how tenuous the mass shootings at gun free zones "fact" is.
Another idea that seemed to have gun advocates up in arms is New York's stop and frisk policy that Greg Gutfeld of Fox News defended when he said "it is a fairly obvious point -- stop and frisk gets guns -- that prevents gun crime." Gun control supporters clearly agree with this idea - less guns, less crime. The problem is, many people suggested the value of stop and frisk is solely that it removes guns from those who shouldn't have them (aka bad guys).
Despite making this claim in support of less gun control, it is really the best argument for more gun control. If gun advocates believe that removing guns from those who shouldn't have them is a good idea, then just imagine what we could do if we expanded stop and frisk to all citizens. Even more guns would be removed and even less crime would occur. Obviously there would be some question of constitutionality, but gun control laws are in many ways very similar to laws that Republican legislatures have been pushing for the last few years, despite potentially being unconstitutional.
For instance, the NRA and many gun advocates argue that background checks and registering guns won't work because criminals will still get their guns. Yet it is many of these same conservatives that support voter ID laws despite the fact that criminals will still find ways to commit voter fraud.
This reality outrages conservatives because they believe voter fraud runs rampant across the country and voter ID will stop it. They argue that since there is no good method for tracking voter fraud, we don't realize how big of an issue it really is. Using this logic it could be said that we don't know how many guns could be kept out of the hands of criminals with tracking tools like universal background checks and gun registration. Like Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said about his state’s voter ID laws "It doesn't matter if there's one, 100, or 1,000," voter fraud is too important not to at least do something. Similarly, using every option at our disposal to prevent even one criminal from getting a gun should be a goal of everyone.
Of course the biggest fallacy that gun advocate like to claim as fact is that the government is plotting to take away their guns. Polls show that 73% of American's believe the second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to own guns. Given that congress rejected a bill on universal background checks that was favored by 90% of Americans, it seems very unlikely that a full repeal of the second amendment is anything more than fear mongering.
What many Americans are looking for are laws that would make it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns. Like laws conservative support on abortion, voter ID, stop and frisk, and religious freedom, additional gun laws might be annoying for law abiding Americans; but if the ends justify the means for laws that inconvenience women, the poor, African and Hispanic Americans, and the LGBT community, it seems unpatriotic for gun owners to refuse to do their part in making America a safer place to live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
