Holy Shit, A Post (about Muslims)

It’s been a while. So thank God it’s just me that has any expectation to write something. For this post I want to jump on the Juan Williams v. NPR discussion bandwagon. I’m going to do something shocking (maybe) off the bat: Defend NPR. The reason is that NPR asks its news analysts to not express their political (or in this case social) opinions, just as The Office producers have asked their writers to find any possible way to drive the show into the ground.

The reason why is not because NPR wants to stifle free speech, but because they want news analysts who seem to be relatively fair minded.

Not that that’s necessary.

The question turns into this: Was what Juan Williams said so bad? This is what he said: “Look Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country, but when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

This comment is along the same line of thinking as: “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage of my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery—then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved” (Rev. Jesse Jackson, speaking at the PUSH convention in 1993) or “I have to say that every time I walk into a frat party and see copious amounts of Vineyard Vines shirts, pants with whales on them, and white frat boys I get nervous that I will be Iced” (Someone is bound to have said it). 

So racist.

Juan Williams is clearly no bigot, just as Jesse Jackson clearly doesn’t hate black people. Both admitted to a feeling that neither of them had any control over. Nothing in their upbringings imparted onto them a feeling that Muslims or blacks could not be trusted. Instead, they learned this feeling through experience and how Muslims and blacks are represented in the media.

That’s where the Juan Williams episode highlights a serious problem in America.

Not this serious problem. 

Put it in simple terms: You can’t talk shit about Muslims. Not here. Not anywhere. There are potential side effects: Losing your job or life. And Muslims do not come off as the most rational of groups in the daily news. Let’s do a quick sociological experiment. I say, “Voice of Catholicism?” Who do you think of? Pope. I say “Voice of the Yankees?” Who do you think of? Bob Sheppard. And when I say, “Voice of Islam?” Who do you think of? I dare you to say that Osama bin Laden didn’t cross your mind. But suppose he didn’t, suppose another major spokesman of Islam came to mind: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (the 9/11 Mosque cleric), or maybe Louis Farrakhan? Each of those names does not scream “rational”. And when Muslims do make the news…well…you know how that sentence will end.

American-Islamic relations aren’t exactly peachy right now. What makes it worse is that it is impossible to have a legitimate discussion about it. What happened to Juan Williams demonstrates that Muslims carry a considerable amount of clout in American political talk despite the small number of Muslims that live in America. Also, there seems to be a real movement among Muslim organizations to stifle the first amendment rights of others. What’s worse—we allow it. A part of me wonders if some of the reluctance to accept or make anti-Muslim comments comes from fear. Muslims throughout the world have made it abundantly clear what the plan is for people who disparage Islam.

We can’t just talk about this?

I’ve got no real way to finish this because I’m too carried away with the Phillies hopefully destroying the Giants in the first inning. Just for clarification, I am not a Phillies fan; I just really hate the Giants. 

Tanning, Illegals, Crack. A Study.

I’ve been away for a while, hence my neglect. It wasn’t out of (complete) laziness; I was out in nature for a bit, away from technology. Out in nature for a bit, away from technology, I was able to take some to think, think my thoughts. I ran the gamut: Japanese economic policies, what type of facial hair I wish I could grow (handlebar mustache), the etiquette of waving to a no-armed person, tax cuts for the wealthy, and food. But for some reason I’ve become more interested in race in America. I think it has to do with the amount of air time race (and racism) seem to get in the news lately:

Two black congress members being charged for ethics violation?

=Race

Barack Obama’s approval rating plummeting?

=Race

Revamping crack laws?

=Race

And of course, as we have always known, George Bush hates black people.

Of course treason has been in the news too (more than once), but that's for another post. 

Whites Conservatives are labeled as racists for one reason or another, more often than not it is because they disagree with some policy that coincidentally involves some other race either directly or indirectly. Sadly the core of an issue is often muddled and lost amid talks of potential “racism” and “racial profiling.” But despite all claims that white conservatives are the bigoted ones, I think I’ve found some proof that many liberals don’t abide by the same standard when an issue concerns whites.

The main topic of this post is this: What do crack, tanning, and illegal immigrants have in common?

According to Google Image search the answer is this. 

On the surface, these seem to be disparate issues, but they reveal a deep hypocrisy amongst liberals and within the Obama administration. The way to demonstrate this is to show how liberals and Obama have handled each. 

SB 1070:

Arizona’s immigration law. Just in case you haven’t read it, I should just point out there is no mention of Mexicans in it. It does not once mention the words “Brown-skinned” “Hispanic” or any other Hispanic-identifying phrase. In fact, it is more or less a replica of what is on the federal books. It allows police officers to question people if they have reason to suspect they’re in the country illegally. (Can someone please tell me if illegals are able to get a driver’s license? What happens when a cop pulls over someone without a driver’s license? Is that a big red flag?) I don’t know if you, the person reading this, have ever been to Arizona or Southern California (I’ve lived in both), but suspecting that someone is in the country illegally does not require a Ph.d.

If you thought these people are illegal, then you are a racist. 

Obama’s initial criticism of the bill was that it threatened “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans…” 

That claim was clearly not derived from reading the text of the bill, as the bill does not set out to pursue a particular racial group. The claim comes off the notion that the bill will de facto affect, primarily, Hispanics. The bill also could affect Canadians, Phillipinos, Polish, Jamaicans, Pakistanis, Indians, Irish, Koreans, or Portuguese to name a few. (The peoples I just listed belong to the top-20 countries of origin for illegal immigrants.) Of course, however, the writers of this bill MUST have intended it to affect Hispanics, as I have yet to hear of a major backlash in Vancouver against the bill.

The backlash against the bill concerns the bill's perceived racial overtones—that was Obama’s first argument against it. But when it came time to file a lawsuit against the state of Arizona, that racial argument strangely vanished, it became a matter of whether Arizona developed an immigration law that preempted federal law, which is a big no no, because according to the Supremacy Clause it should be the other way around.

So, for Obama, the intrinsic unfairness of SB 1070 proved to be the catalyst for the suit against it. The law said nothing of race, but he (and liberals) believed it would lead to racial profiling, thus justifying their suit.

The Fair Sentencing Act:

Crack and cocaine are two pharmaceutically identical substances. That’s the fancy way of saying they are exactly the same thing. Saying crack and cocaine are identical substances is, of course, like saying rape and consensual sex are identical biological acts, or even saying that poached eggs and fried eggs are identical organic substances. But we all know they aren’t really the same. Fried eggs are far superior with hash browns and toast than are poached eggs, and I won’t even get into the rape/consensual sex comparison. Crack and cocaine are vastly different, especially in the way they affect people. This is the reason why Harlem and other areas of heavy crack (poor man’s cocaine) use went to the dump and why investment bankers cocaine users are not as violent. This differential is what led Congress to create the bill that Obama and Congress overturned at the beginning of August. If you look at the legislative history of the original bill, the main issue is which drug causes more violence in its users. Hence the reason why someone caught with half a rock gets screwed and why someone using left over cocaine to decorate his lawn for the holidays gets a slap on the wrist. The argument against this bill, and the reason why Obama and Congress overturned it, is because it de facto targeted blacks and Hispanics.

...and Tyrone

 Nothing in the original law mentioned blacks or Hispanics, but again, Obama’s demand for fairness among all Americans led to his decision.

Tan Tax:

And finally, we come to the tan tax, where we see an abrupt about-face by Obama and his hope for “fairness among all Americans.”

Just some quick background: The Obama White House plans to slap a 10% surcharge for the use of ultraviolet tanning beds. In case you are not aware, artificial tanning beds, besides being the bedrock of the New Jersey economy, cater to white people (and some orange people). In fact, they cater almost exclusively to white people, as most blacks and Hispanics go no further than standing in front of tanning salons holding out their hands and screaming, “Oh my God! What happened?”

All racially insensitive quips aside, this is a 10% tax on a white segment of the population. Is that fair? Well, clearly the White House doesn’t mind the tax since they enacted it. Is it legal? Of course it is. As Randall Kennedy, a professor at Harvard Law School points out: “There is no constitutional problem at all, because a plaintiff would have to show that the government intended to disadvantage a particular group, not simply that the group is disadvantaged in effect.” In fact, this fact is the reason why the cocaine vs. crack law stayed on the books for so long (over 20 years), and why the Arizona law would not be overturned on racial grounds. In all three issues I’ve examined, it would be hard to prove that lawmakers intended to disadvantage a particular group. In the first two, the Obama administration and liberals took to the offensive against laws that affected a particular group in reality, but in the final issue, they took to the offensive, ignoring the same doctrine of fairness that they used to guide previous decisions, to single out a particular group of people that are all of the same race.

A note: You might be reading this and say, “How the hell can he compare these? SB 1070 results in people being deported and families being split, the Fair Sentencing Act affects people going to prison, and the tan tax affects a white person’s life style choice. That’s comparing apples and oranges.”

Well, you’re right. The consequences of each are different. However the core question remains the same: Do liberals and does Obama care about fairness when it comes to whites? The consequences do not have much role to play. Fairness is fairness when it comes to any law that results in a lopsided penalty or benefit for one group of people, and if you talk about fairness being an issue for one, then you should strive to make sure you apply the same standard to all the issues.

 

 

Just a Case of Traditional Discrimination

Prop 8 will be in the news again. (For those who don’t remember, Prop 8 is the constitutional amendment that Californians passed in November 2008 that says: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”) Why will it be in the news? Because tomorrow lawyers representing a gay couple will argue against the amendment in a federal courthouse in San Francisco. Arguing against the amendment (remember I said "against" the amendment) is a staunch conservative who is best known for doing a little handy work for Bush in a little court case called Bush v. Gore. Arguing for the amendment is another staunch conservative, and hearing the arguments is a judge who was nominated by Reagan and confirmed under Bush the Elder. Interesting. 

A constitutional ban on gay marriage would be a feather in the hat (or cap?) of most conservatives. Whether it is in a state constitution or the federal one, polls make Americans’ attitudes on same-sex marriage clear. 53% are against it, 46% are for it; although to be fair, in 1996, 68% of people were against it and 27% of people were for it. Just as a little point of comparison to show how enlightened these same people are, 54% of people think it is “morally acceptable” to have a baby outside of marriage. Keep that in mind when I talk about “traditional marriage” in a few moments.

Here is the interesting thing about a constitutional amendment on gay marriage: It would be one of two active amendments that withholds a particular right from one group of people that is given to the remaining people. Do you know what the other amendment is? It is the 26th Amendment, the amendment that prohibits the federal government or state governments from forbidding anyone over the age of 18 from voting. Bonus points if you can name the group of people whose right to vote is being withheld.

Oh and there was one amendment that we got rid of that doesn’t give a particular group of people their full rights. Does the phrase “three-fifths” bring anyone back to high school American history class?
As a conservative, I have heard all of the arguments against allowing gay marriage: “We need to support traditional marriage;" “marriage is a privilege, not a right;” and, perhaps the worst one, “The voters have spoken: No on gay marriage.”

The traditional marriage argument is the hardest to argue against. Who gets to define traditional marriage? Rush Limbaugh? Or, better yet, why don’t we take a page out of history and let actual traditions define what “traditional marriage” means. Should this include not allowing mixed race marriages...again? Perhaps chastity belts will come back into vogue?

Coming to a rack near you. (Courtesy Manya Scheps) 

I heard the worst argument against gay marriage come from the mouth of Newt Gingrich. He spoke at my university about one year ago, and a lesbian student asked about gay marriage. Newt Gingrich’s argument went something along the lines of “Americans have voted, and a majority of Americans can’t be wrong.” 

Kunta Kinte begs to differ

The fact is arguments against gay marriage inevitably stem from discomfort with gays, not with a willingness to defend traditional marriage. If the latter is truly the case, why have opponents of gay marriage been married so many times? Why not prosecute adulterers? And why won’t anyone do something about drive thru-marriages?

"We'll have two burgers, a large fry, and a lifetime of headaches."

One final problem is I believe that conservatives are infusing the debate with their own religious beliefs. What the Bible or Quran or Book of Mormon says regarding gays is unimportant. Having the federal government recognize marriage and the rights conferred by it does not mean a religion needs to recognize the marriage as well. Having your marriage recognized by the government is a right, but having that marriage recognized by your church is a privilege. And, as we should know by now, church and state do not mean the same thing.

In high school, when I was against the idea of gay marriage, a friend said to me, “Gay rights are the civil rights of our generation.” As the years go by and the debate becomes more heated, I could not agree more. The fact is opponents of gay marriage cannot get around that annoying little fact that a constitutional ban will withhold rights from a particular group of people. That is grossly un-American. Sadly, the current fight for gay (civil) rights is very, very American. 

 

Census 2010: Forcing You to Make Informed Decisions

I was in the news all day yesterday. Not me specifically, but me as a statistic. I am (was) one of the temporary census workers hired. I worked for a month. It was a job I actually enjoyed. The work was interesting; the people I had to talk to were a healthy mix of nice and borderline psychotic.

In America, a form of the census has been around since the 1600s when the (then) British Colonies conducted head counts. The idea of the American Census was actually introduced in 1775 as a “basis of taxation, and to replenish the armies, from time to time.” In typical American fashion, it took a casual 15 years to implement the idea. The idea of counting the population is not a new one. A form of the census has existed in most (if not all) advanced civilizations. If you’ve ever sat through an Old Testament class you might not have been spared your teacher's wrath and been forced to read Numbers. That was an enumeration. With that knowledge alone, you might think that the people whose doors I knock on would not be able to use the, “This is one giant government conspiracy” excuse to shut the door in my face.

Nope.

I can easily divide the people I talk to into simple categories, in no particular order:

1. Young adults, between the ages of 18 and 25, who simply did not turn in the Census form. These people have yet to be disenchanted with life and would give you their social security number if you asked for it.
2. Canadians on vacation. Always super nice. These are the people who ask how you are; invite you in to enjoy air conditioning and probably a cup of water. I love Canadians (blog goal #3=fail).
3. Old people who were too senile to turn in a Census form. “What? I didn’t understand you” is a common phrase.
4. Lonely people who didn’t turn the form in so as to get an enumerator to knock on their door. These people are usually ready with their life story, a glass of tea, and a few photo albums out on the table so that they can show you pictures of cakes that they’ve taken over the years.
5. And finally, there are the right-wingers. The people who hate the government, think I am stealing their information for the sole purpose of selling it on the black market of information, who don’t trust Obama, and whose time I am wasting even though the conversation is happening at 3 pm on a weekday. These are the people I’m concerned with, because they are most likely the people who would vote the same way as me in any national election.

I obviously cannot give any particular examples of group number five. Doing so would essentially ruin my life since the government could (and probably would) throw me into jail for a few years and fine me $250,000. 

"No Touching!"

Hence I opted for the grouping. But these people are more often than not those lovely Tea Party and Birther people. Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity can usually be heard in the background. They tell me they don’t trust Obama, that Obama is spitting on the Constitution, that Obama will use the Census information to come after them, and that the government is constantly invading their privacy.

The irony of their complaints is lost on them. The people so concerned with “individual rights” and “Obama’s trampling of the Constitution” are refusing to participate in the one Constitutional duty that they have (if you think that voting is a duty mandated by the Constitution you would be incorrect, participating in the Census is your only duty).  Article I Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution mandates that a headcount be made every ten years, and, believe it or not, there is a penalty for refusing to answer the Census. 

And the people so worried about their information being stolen seem ignorant of the fact that all of the information they give is confidential (and that I could get more information on the internet about them than I could by asking). 

"Could you give me your debit card pin again?"

Despite what people might think, the IRS cannot get its hands on their census information. Granted that doesn't mean government agencies haven't tried. There is a famous 1980 case of FBI agents showing up to a Census office to seize Census documents. The Census workers refused, and a court upheld the workers’ refusal.  In 1950 President Truman had to move out of the White House while it was being remodeled. The Secret Service tried to obtain Census data to determine a safe place to live. The Census Bureau refused to give the information. 

My only wish was that the power heads (Beck, Rush, Hannity, Levin) would have been a bit more helpful in rounding up their followers to answer the Census. Perhaps by giving them a few facts every now and again?

Intro to Banality

I figured it’s time for me to put my thoughts into cyber space. Part of it has to do with what my girlfriend said the other day: “I think you like to hear yourself talk.” I gave her a five-minute point-by-point run down of why her statement was more or less incorrect. So this blog is an attempt to talk myself out before I see (annoy) her.

Why a political blog, then? Part of it stems from the lack of anything interesting about my daily life. Part of it stems from a long-standing interest in politics. A lot of it stems from the fact that I am really sick of conservatives spouting nonsense, giving other conservatives a bad name.

 (That having been said, I think that is true of both parties.)

I read the first post on a number of other blogs to get an idea of what I should be doing here. Each had at least an introduction, and some listed a number of goals the authors hoped to accomplish. With that template in mind, I will do the same:

Goal 1: Avoid a lawsuit 

Goal 2: Continue the blog past five days

Goal 3: Make at least one disparaging remark about Canada

I would never go so far as to say I am writing for a particular demographic. The reason is not because I don’t know what demographic I would write for, but rather because I am realistic enough to know that it will be hard to find any demographic within my anticipated readership (my estimate—somewhere in the area of 6, but that’s just a ballpark figure).

That is all I have to say for the moment.