We have a Culture Problem

Part of the problem with sexual harassment in this country comes from the fact that we have a culture problem.  Our culture tends to glorify, or at least condone, the sexual mistreatment of women.  In the case of Al Franken, grabbing and kissing a woman without her permission, we have very iconic examples.  Take for instance, the famous picture of the sailor kissing the nurse in Times Square at the end of WWII. This was not his girlfriend or even someone he knew.  He was half drunk and happy that the war was over and celebrated by kissing "the first nurse he saw" even though he was on a date with a completely different woman. 

So on this joyous and unbelievable afternoon, George ran from Rita — the most beautiful girl he’d ever seen — grabbed the first nurse he saw, spun her around, dipped her and kissed her. Rita was just steps behind them, and in the photo she’s beaming.

This picture is celebrated as culturally significant and romantic, but the woman being kissed was not too happy about it at the time.

The kiss did kind of bother someone else, though: the woman in the nurse’s uniform, Greta Zimmer, who wasn’t even a nurse. She was a 21-year-old dental assistant from Queens, who, having heard rumors about the end of the war, walked over to Times Square from her office on Lexington Avenue. George says he was so drunk, he doesn’t even remember the kiss. Greta says she’ll never forget it. [...] She isn’t sure how long she was standing there; maybe minutes. “And then I was grabbed,” she says. “That man was very strong. I wasn’t kissing him. He was kissing me.”

And, of course, the movies are filled with scenes where a man grabs a woman and kisses her, she slaps him, then she kisses him back, which gives the impression that it was really okay all along and that being forcibly kissed without permission is what all woman secretly want.  This is a problem and sends a bad message.

Now Senator Franken has said that his actions, including the photo of him groping the accusers breasts while she sleeps, was done in the name of comedy, but that is no excuse.  Whether done for celebratory, comedic, or sexual reasons, it is wrong to kiss or touch a woman sexually without her permission. Period.

And, of course, there is the man who will probably soon be the newest Senator from my home state, the great state of Alabama, Roy Moore.  Now I can't think of any good examples of Hollywood glorifying a sexual relationship between a man in his 30s and a girl of 14, but there is probably one out there somewhere.  But there are examples of people defending his behavior as not really a problem. Oh wrong, maybe, but not really a problem. 

A reporter defending Roy Moore appeared to compare the sexual misconduct allegations against the GOP Senate candidate to stealing a lawnmower.

During a CNN interview on Monday, Brandon Moseley, a reporter at the Alabama Political Reporter, argued that allegations such as the ones being leveled at Moore shouldn't disqualify the candidate. He noted that the accusation detailed in a recent The Washington Post report, in which a woman claimed Moore made sexual advances on her in 1979 when she was 14 and he was 32, would count as a misdemeanor in Alabama at the time.
"Does that make it OK?" anchor Brooke Baldwin asked.
“No. But again, if, you know, Roy Moore had stolen a lawn mower when he was 21, that’s bad, but that’s not a reason, 50 years later, to all of a sudden, you know, throw him off the ballot or let Mitch McConnell pick the next senator of Alabama," Moseley said.

Now I grew up in Alabama, so I was once a 14 year old girl in Alabama. It was the 80s not the 70s, but I doubt attitudes were much different between the two time frames.  The legal age of consent was 16, but 14 year-olds were sexually active.  There were older guys that hung out at high school football games and high school dances trolling for younger girls, and many didn't care if they were underage or not (just as people have said Moore did).  And the problem is, many of the girls parents didn't seem to mind either.  In fact, when my older sister was 15 she met a guy who was 21 at a high school dance and started dating him.  My parents allowed it.  When I was 14 years old I dated a guy who was 19 years old and my parents allowed it.  In both cases, I know for a fact that they were looking for someone that was young and malleable so that they could make them into what they wanted as a wife or girlfriend.  In the case of my older boyfriend, his girlfriend before me was 14 and his girlfriend after me was 14.  It is that age where the girls have all the look of an adult woman, but often lack the maturity or strength of mind that comes with adulthood.  That makes it perfect for the unscrupulous male predator, and don't get me wrong, that is exactly what they are - predators.  Just like Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame.

A video on YouTube shows Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson, in 2009, urging adult men to marry 15 and 16 year old girls who will “pick their ducks” and not their pockets.

 And the problem is, even though Alabama law technically recognizes this as a crime, our culture tells us that it is really okay, that there is really no harm done.  That is wrong.  There is harm done.  And in fact, back in the 80s (I don't know about now) it was legal for a 14 year old to get married with parental consent.  So it wasn't okay for a 14 year old to consent to sex, but it was okay for her parents to consent to it for her.  I'm sorry (okay I'm not really sorry), but that is WRONG! In fact, apparently in Louisiana, marrying the underage girl was a way to get out of statutory rape charges. Again, see Phil Robertson as an example:

Robertson has a history of messing around with underage girls.  At age 20, he was having sex with a 14-year-old girl who got pregnant and was forced to marry her at 16 to avoid going to prison for statutory rape in Louisiana.

 So, if we are going to do something about sexual harassment in our country, we need to address our cultural issues with the topic, not just our laws.  We need to socialize our young males to realize that forced affection is not true affection and a woman's (or girl's) body is her own to make her own decisions about.  And if she is not of legal age to make those decisions, then they shouldn't ask her to make them, they should keep their hands to themselves!  And, in fact, it goes both ways.  Women should not be forcing themselves on men or boys either.  Remember, your body is your own, and your rights end where someone else's nose (or lips, or breast, or vagina, or penis, etc) begins.  It's not funny, it's not romantic, and it's not okay.

My challenge to everyone

The election is over and about half the voters are happy with the outcome and about half are not.  In reality, that is to be expected.  This is, however, something of a historic election.  For the first time, as far as I know, the United States has elected a president with no previous political or military experience.  This leads to a great deal of uncertainty.  We really have no way of knowing what to expect.  Some people are excited about the idea of change and shaking up Washington.  Others are fearful of what someone with no experience will do in a position often touted as "the leader of the free world."

So here is my challenge to everyone - the Trump supporters and the ones who oppose Trump - take a moment to think about what you expect to happen as a result of this election.

To the Trump supporter - During his campaign, Donald Trump used the slogan "Make America Great Again."  Take a few minutes to think about what that means to you, in measurable terms.  Will that mean a lower unemployment rate than what it is today?  Will it mean you personally have a high income than you have now?  Great is generic term, so what does it mean to you?  Think about it, and WRITE IT DOWN.  When it is time for the midterm elections in 2018, look back at your list and see if Trump and the Republican Congress have accomplished what you thought they would do.  There should be very little to stand in their way.  See if the policies they enact produce the result you were expecting.  If they do not, HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE!

Now, to the ones who opposed Trump in this election - What do you fear about a Trump presidency and Republican controlled Congress?  Do you fear higher unemployment rates?  Do you fear losing your own job (as one of my friends has apparently already been let go due to his employer's economic fears)?  Do you fear another economic recession (or worse)?  Do you fear WWIII?  Think about it and WRITE IT DOWN.  Two years from now, look back at your list and see if any of your fears have come true.  Remember, many who voted against Obama had many of the same fears and they did not come true.  In the midterm elections, vote according to what has actually happened.

Do I think a Trump presidency and Republican controlled congress is a good thing?  No, I don't.  I do fear another recession like we had under President G.W. Bush.  I think that Republican policies have negative effects on the economy and especially on the poorer segments of the population.  Those are my fears.  However, the political rhetoric in this country has become so driven by fear mongering that a realistic discussion of issues and potential outcomes has become almost impossible.  My friend who just lost his job did so because of his employer's fear, not because of anything that Trump himself or the Republicans have actually done. 

Many of my family members voted for Trump out of fear of what Hillary Clinton might do, when they were things that were not even a part of her plan or platform.  The lies that the candidates and media tell, and the fear that they intentionally evoke, verge on being criminal in my opinion.  People have a right to their own opinions, but they don't have a right to their own version of "the facts."  The truth should always be to told, even when it is unpopular or difficult to tell.  But outright lies should be stopped.  And lies masquerading as opinions shouldn't be given a free pass no matter which side is telling them.

Now let's all take a deep breathe, don't over-react, and see what happens.  Keep calm and carry on.

I'd like to propose an amendment

I'd like to propose an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I propose that we should consider banning the immediate members of a former president's family from seeking that same office. I think this should include the children of former presidents, the siblings of former presidents and the spouses of former presidents.

It seem to me that if the fact that FDR managed to get himself elected to 4 consecutive terms as president was potentially threatening enough to democracy to merit a constitutional amendment, then a Bush presidency, followed by a Clinton presidency, followed by another Bush presidency, potentially followed by another Clinton presidency, is even scarier. We have only had one other case of a father and son presidency (John Adams and John Q. Adams) and no other related presidencies that would have been affected by my proposed amendment (although it would have stopped Bobby Kennedy from running), but one event was enough to ban a three term president.

It just seems to me that political families are bad enough as it is. We do not need to develop some kind of dynasty mentality in this country when it comes to electing presidents.

Six things to remember

On the last day of my world politics class, I told my class that there were some things that I hoped I would remember and take with them from the class (because I knew they wouldn't remember the specifics of the class). I thought they were some good things to keep in mind when dealing with politics in general and with world politics in particular. So here they are, for what it's worth:

1. Be willing to doubt - that includes the things that your government tells you, other governments say about themselves and others, and especially the things that we are so willing to believe with little or no proof. The things that we want to believe are often the things we should analyze the most closely.

2. Don't let emotion rule your mind - human beings are always going to have emotional responses to stimuli, but we do not always have to act on those emotions. Especially in the realm of politics, it is best if we can take a step back and look at the possible ramifications of our actions before we proceed. In particular, a state has certain responsibilities and core objectives that have to be considered, and emotional responses can often be work against these objectives.

3. There are few absolutes in life - most things in life and all the people you will encounter, either personally or in the political arena, are neither all good nor all bad. Sometimes good people do bad things and sometimes bad people do good things. We can't always disregard something just because it doesn't fit our ready made mold and not everything fits neatly into our preconceived categories.

4. The whole world is not just like your home town (or home country) - it is so easy to develop a provincial attitude. We must always consider that other people in other countries are not always going to see things the way that we do, and that does not necessarily make them wrong, stupid or backwards.

5. It's easy to criticize from an easy chair - an armchair warrior is no different from an armchair quarterback. It's easy to second guess the actions of other people when you are not in their position. I know that it is cliche at this point, but it is still true: you shouldn't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. And, it is much easier to tell someone what to do than to do it yourself.

6. Justice does not equal revenge - so often when we say we want justice what we really want is revenge, but they are not the same thing.

Now if nobody has any questions, class is dismissed.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. . .unless they are at Guantanamo

NYT - New to Job, Gates Argued for Closing Guantánamo

In his first weeks as defense secretary, Robert M. Gates repeatedly argued that the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had become so tainted abroad that legal proceedings at Guantánamo would be viewed as illegitimate, according to senior administration officials. He told President Bush and others that it should be shut down as quickly as possible.

This idea was shot down, however, because some members of the administration wanted to make sure that the detainees didn't gain any Constitutional rights.

There is widespread agreement, however, that moving any detainees or legal proceedings to American territory could bring significant complications.

Some administration lawyers are deeply reluctant to move terrorism suspects to American soil because it could increase their constitutional and statutory rights — and invite an explosion of civil litigation. Guantánamo was chosen because it was an American military facility but not on American soil.

It is funny (ironic) to me that the United States was founded with the grand notion that all men are created equal, but when it comes down to it, we don't seem to think that all men (human beings) are entitled to the same rights or considerations. If they are not American citizens or housed on American soil, we don't have to treat them in the way that we claim to believe all of human-kind should be treated.

If we truly believe that our justice system is the best possible (although not perfect) form of determining guilt or innocence and doling out judgments while preserving the inalienable rights of the individual, why are we so bound and determined not to use it in the case of terror suspects. The short answer, of course, is that we think they don't have any rights. They are guilty until proven innocent. Actually they are guilty. Period. Or maybe even exclamation point. They are guilty, we know it, we shouldn't have to prove it. We should just be able to torture them and execute them. End of story.

I'm sorry, but that is just not the moral foundation that my country was founded on. It seems to me that if we can't try and convict them according to our stated standard of justice, the same standard we hold our own citizens to, then we have no business being the ones to punish them.

Who can you trust?

NYT - U.S. Concedes Uncertainty on North Korean Uranium Effort

For nearly five years, though, the Bush administration, based on intelligence estimates, has accused North Korea of also pursuing a secret, parallel path to a bomb, using enriched uranium. That accusation, first leveled in the fall of 2002, resulted in the rupture of an already tense relationship: The United States cut off oil supplies, and the North Koreans responded by throwing out international inspectors, building up their plutonium arsenal and, ultimately, producing that first plutonium bomb.

But now, American intelligence officials are publicly softening their position, admitting to doubts about how much progress the uranium enrichment program has actually made. The result has been new questions about the Bush administration’s decision to confront North Korea in 2002.

This just further illustrates why we should not take the government at it word. And really not just this administration, but any administration. When anyone says anything, it is always necessary to determine whether that person might have some ulterior motive for saying it. Often times they do.

It doesn't seem to matter whether it is the CIA overstepping the bounds of logical reasoning (as many argue was the case here) or if it is someone like James Cameron making a documentary full of speculation and faulty logic, or whether it is Al Gore making an Academy Award-winning documentary on global warming, one has to be willing to ask one's self if the source might have some reason to lie or distort the truth. The answer is often yes they do. It is true that we can never have all the information necessary to make the absolute right decision all the time, but we should avoid blind faith in any particular authority. We should always be willing to question. I'm reminded of something I read at Snopes.com one time, it's good advice:

This section [the Lost Legends section] graphically demonstrates the pitfalls of falling into the lazy habit of taking as gospel any one information outlet's unsupported word. We could have put up a page saying "Don't believe everything you read, no matter how trustworthy the source," but that wouldn't have conveyed the message half as well as showing through direct example just how easy it is to fall into the "I got it from so-and-so, therefore it must be true" mindset. That's the same mindset that powers urban legends, the same basic mistake that impels countless well-meaning folks to confidently assert "True story; my aunt (husband, best friend, co-worker, boss, teacher, minister) told me so."

No single truth purveyor, no matter how reliable, should be considered an infallible font of accurate information. Folks make mistakes. Or they get duped. Or they have a bad day at the fact-checking bureau. Or some days they're just being silly. To not allow for any of this is to risk stepping into a pothole the size of Lake Superior.

With Iraq, we stepped into a pothole the size of Lake Superior, there is little doubt at this point. The article above indicates that we probably made the situation in N. Korea worse by making our accusations in 2002. It is not always best to assume the worst case scenario and it is important to realize when you are dealing with a source that likes to deal in worst case scenario, i.e. the CIA.

That leads me back to my title question, who can you trust? I don't really have an answer to that, unfortunately. In each situation you have to judge for yourself. There are, however, two question you should probably ask yourself before you decide:
1. Does this person/group have something to gain from making me believe this?
2. Do I have some ulterior motive for wanting it to be true or false?
Answer these questions honestly and you are probably off to a good start.

Okay, I'll stop ranting now.

A note on the importance of education

Earlier today in the comment section of a post over at Poliblog I was part of a conversation dealing with the importance of students actually learning information instead of simply having access to the knowledge via some external source. In the original post, Dr. Taylor laments the inability of his students to locate Iraq on an unlabeled map.

Another reader ended his comment by saying:

Apologies for the simple rhetorical arguments, but frankly, map skills–though indeed fundamental–met their obsolescence some time ago with the marketing of affordable and clearly labeled globes.

I in turn responded with this comment:

I don’t know about you, but I’m getting really tired of the argument that people no longer need to actually learn anything, because all information is now so readily available. It is just a crutch, in my opinion. Should elementary schools stop teaching addition and multiplication because calculators are readily available? Should we not teach spelling because of dictionaries and spell-check?

I wish these people would give it a rest already!

The commenter in question then decided to continue the conversation in a comment to this post here at Irrational Woman. Since the comment was really only tangentially related to that post, I thought I would address the issue in depth in a post of its own. So here goes.

My comments about calculator and spell check were to some extent hyperbole, but they do have some relevance. The reference to spell check in particular. I'm not a good speller and I am overjoyed to have access to spell check, and a dictionary for that matter, on a regular basis. But you have to know at least generally how to spell the word before either resource can be of any assistance to you. I have been know to misspell words so badly that even spell check had no idea what I was talking about. This is relevant to the map question because if you don't have at least some idea where Iraq is, you won't even know what area of the globe to look on. Some knowledge is necessary before references can be used effectively.

In addition, my comment was not only directed at Jimmy's comment. Previously on Poliblog a reader had made a comment about the ready availability of information devaluing the study of history:

Now it’s too easy to find lots of stuff available about any historical subject. If I chose to, I could know more about the Christian Emperors of Constantinople than 99% of the population with only a single day’s study.

These kinds of statements irritate me. It is like saying education doesn't matter anymore. Or that the subjects that I have spent many long years studying and attempting to understand in depth can be mastered in a day. It just is not the same. The readily available information does not always tell the whole story or in some cases may not even be accurate. In the case of maps, they are probably accurate, but it was the overall attitude I was objecting to as much as anything else.

And just for the record, I did use spell check during the writing of this post, and will use it again many times in the future.

Nation-States

Today in the World Politics class I have been observing this semester, the professor talked about the difference between nations and states and what makes a nation-state. I was already familiar with the differentiation, and it reminded me of a discussion I had with my sister last week after Governor Schwarzenegger's inauguration speech. In the speech Schwarzenegger says:

And yet here in this nation-state of California, people from all over the world live in harmony. I call California a nation-state because of the diversity of our people, the power of our economy and the reach of our dream. Every race, every culture, every religion has been drawn to California.

When my sister told me what he said in the speech I responded with "that's ridiculous! It is obvious that the governor of California has no idea what a nation-state really is." (I then had to explain the difference to my sister.) Anyway, a state is a legally defined territory that has a government that is recognized by and can enter into diplomatic agreements with other states (there are other legal criteria, but I won't bore you with all the details.) A nation is defined by a homogeneous culture not a diversity of cultures as Schwarzenegger posits. A nation-state is when a state is made up of citizens that are all part of the same nation (as defined above). So technically speaking, California is neither a nation nor a state (in the international sense that the governor was alluding to) and is certainly not a nation-state. His argument simply illustrates his ignorance of terminology on the subject.

I would have mentioned that in class today if I were allowed to comment in class, but I'm not so I didn't.

I also would have said "not if it is held in place by art". I'll let the professor decide where that comment would have been interjected. :)

Healthcare for all in California?

NYT - California Plan for Health Care Would Cover All

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday proposed extending health care coverage to all of California’s 36 million residents as part of a sweeping package of changes to the state’s huge, troubled health care system.
. . .
Under Mr. Schwarzenegger’s plan, which requires the approval of the Legislature, California would become the fourth and by far the largest state to attempt near universal health coverage for its citizens. The other three states are Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont.

This seems like an odd move for a Republican governor. Now universal health care could mesh with Republican interests if it took the burden of providing health care off of employers, but this is not what Schwarzenegger's plan does.

The plan, which Mr. Schwarzenegger estimated would cost $12 billion, calls for many employers that do not offer health insurance to contribute to a fund that would help pay for coverage of the working uninsured. It would also require doctors to pay 2 percent and hospitals 4 percent of their revenues to help cover higher reimbursements for those who treat patients enrolled in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program.

This does not sound like a Republican plan. And the article points out that Republicans in the California legislature are not pleased with the idea.

Mr. Schwarzenegger’s plan includes elements that quickly provoked opposition from many powerful interests, including doctors and the governor’s Republican colleagues in the Legislature.

What this says to me is that Democrats and Republican are not necessarily as diametrically opposed on all issues as some people like to think. A Democratic in one part of the country is not necessarily the same a Democratic in another part of the country, and the same is true of Republicans. (Or I guess it could say that Arnold is really a closet Democrat and Maria is rubbing off on him. )

The article also suggests that this move could put health care firmly in the 2008 Presidential debate. I hope it does. In 2008 we need to remember that while the war in Iraq is important, we still have a country here at home and what happens here matters too. There is more than one type of security to be had in the world. It is true that no one wants another 9-11 to happen, but no one wants to see their children or their other loved-ones sick and not be able to afford medical care. Health care matters. Domestic social issues matter. I hope we all can remember that, Democrats and Republicans alike.

Why are women irrational?

Finally, my answer to the question that you have all been searching for. (I have noticed that since I started this blog, many people who find it do so by searching for an answer to that very question.) Now, I'm not a psychologist or anything, so I'm not really trained to answer the question, but I'll give my take on the situation, none the less. So here it goes.

First issue: If someone is asking "why are women irrational?" it is probably safe to assume the person asking is male, so I'll begin there. The real question at hand is "why do men view women as irrational?" I'm sure that not all men do, but for the purpose of this blog post, I'll be working from that assumption.

Second issue: What do you mean by rational/irrational? Not everyone means the same thing when they use the term. I'll give my understanding of the term and go from there. And yes, I know that at least one reader out there will disagree with me, but that is okay, too.

There are two main sources of my understanding of rationality/irrationality.
1) Notes from one of my professors in graduate school:
The four steps of rational action:
a) state an objective
b) look at options
c) evaluate the likelihood of success
d) evaluate the cost of pursuing options
(Rinehart, class notes, Intro. to Int'l Relations, Sept. 8, 2004)

2) Plato's Republic (I couldn't find a complete copy on line to link to but this site has a decent overview of the part I'm talking about).
Plato suggests that there are three parts to the human soul (or three souls) that guide human behavior. These are the rational, the spirited and the appetitive souls. For Plato, the rational soul is the logical decision-making part of human beings, the linked site equates it with the mind or the intellect. The appetitive soul equates to emotions or desires. Plato sees these forces as constantly in conflict with the rational soul. These attributes are often equated with irrational behavior.

So, to bring the two sources together, rationality is using reason and intellect to weigh options on the path to achieving a stated goal. When emotions and desires (often carnal) cloud an individual's ability to think logically and intellectually weigh options, that individual can be understood as acting irrationally. This can include emotions such as jealousy or love and desires like lust or greed. Also included in irrational motivations would be superstition or blind faith. These are beliefs that cannot be verified using empirical data.

Finally, my answer: Both men and women are irrational at times. We allow ourselves to be distracted from our goals by emotions, desires and non-rational motivations. I believe, however, that men are inclined to view women as irrational, and believe themselves to be wholly rational, because they tend to be distracted from rational pursuits by different irrational forces. Men understand the irrational forces that distract them, like jealousy and lust, but they tend not to understand the irrational factors that affect women. (And of course, there is always the hormone issue, but I'm not gonna go there right now.)

I repeat, I am not saying this is true of all men, I'm just addressing the many men who ask that particular question on a regular basis. Stop and think for a minute, "Is everything I do rational?" The answer is, probably not. Don't use the term to label women, try to understand that it affects all of us, just in different ways.

And although I'm not a trained psychiatrist/psychologist, here is a quote from someone who is.

Chiming in on the Pinochet debate

But only sort of.

In reading all the many, many, many post and comments on Pinochet over at Poliblog these last few days, I'm reminded of a quote from Abraham Lincoln during the Lincoln-Douglas debate (quoted in The Open Space of Democracy). Lincoln says:

What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not our crowning battlements, our bristling sea coasts, our army and our navy. These are not our reliance against tyranny. All of these may be turned against us without making us weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in the spirit which prized liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism at your own doors. Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage and you prepare your own limbs to wear them. Accustom to trample on the rights of others, you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you.

Those who would praise Pinochet are obviously forgetting these words of wisdom. Now Lincoln was certainly no saint, but his words still ring true. (Turning the military against the liberty and independence of Chile's people is exactly what Pinochet did.) When we forget to prize liberty, we forget who we are and what we stand for as a nation.

Something to ponder

Since Sept. 11, 2001, I've heard a lot of people say that Islam can't really be a religion of peace if terrorist are blowing people up in the name of Islam.

I've also heard a lot of people saying that the United States is a Christian nation whose laws are based on the Ten Commandment (Roy Moore is the obvious example, but certainly not the only one saying it). I've even heard claims that our President is a Christian man who was put in the White House to do God's will (I don't believe it, but I've heard it said).

That said, I have to ask, are we really a Christian nation, at least in majority terms? Is this President really a Christian President?

My Bible encourages people to turn the other cheek. -Matthew 5:39

Even in the Old Testament Isaiah 50:6 tells us "I gave my back to those who struck me, and my cheek to those who pulled out the beard; I did not hide my face from insult and spitting.

Now I'm not saying that from a national political or international view point the United States could have just set back and done nothing after September 11th, but I am saying that our actions have been far from Christian.

I think that we should take some advice from Matthew 7:1-2. "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. For as you judge others, so you will yourselves be judged, and whatever measure you deal out to others will be dealt to you."

That bit of wisdom could take us a long way on so many issues.

Just something to think about.

Where is the American Spirit?

I was reading the "perspectives" section today in this weeks Trop (the university newspaper) and I was so annoyed that I'm considering writing a letter to the editor. I know that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but this person just seems to be living on a different planet than I am or something. He suggests that our country has fallen "into a rabbit hole of moral decay and global danger" due to our "ultra-tolerance policy" because we don't want to "offend any group of Muslims." He thinks that we worry too much about the opinions of other nations and I quote, "When did America turn into a bunch of pansies, scared of what someone thinks?" He ends his article by saying "With the government cowering behind its ultra-tolerant views and political correctness, it is only a matter of time before we are attacked again."

As to our "ultra-tolerance policy" I have to ask, are we not humiliating and most likely torturing Muslim prisoners of war as we speak? Why yes, I think we are. Our government my give lip service to not offending Muslim groups, but in reality they do it everyday. I'm sure our actions toward Muslims have increased the enrollment in Al Qaida more than it has ebbed it.

Also, we are supposed to be a liberal society in the classical meaning of the term. We are supposed to believe in freedom of religion. We are supposed to believe in the rights of the individual and the limitation of government control over people's lives. If this guy doesn't want to live in a liberal society, maybe he needs to go live in a dictatorship for a while to see what an illiberal society is really like (preferably a dictatorship that is intolerant to his religion and/or ethnic group).

As to our worrying about world opinion I have to ask, does he forget that the United States attacked Iraq against international law and against the objections of most of the civilized world? I personally think we need to pay more attention to world opinion. Just as "no man is an island," no state acts in a void. Even if we are the "only remaining superpower," we have to consider that the world is not our playground.

To his last comment I offer these quotes from some fine American's who knew what it was like to live in a less than liberal society and in less than safe times:

Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.
-American Revolutionary War General John Stark

Give me liberty or give me death.
-Patrick Henry

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
-Benjamin Franklin

My own opinion is that liberties freely given up are not likely to be freely returned. Okay, I'll stop ranting now.

montgomeryadvertiser.com - Bush may hurt GOP with Southern women

montgomeryadvertiser.com - Bush may hurt GOP with Southern women

President Bush's once-solid relationship with Southern women might be on the rocks.

"I think history will show him to be the worst president since Ulysses S. Grant," said Barbara Knight, a self-described Republican since birth and the mother of three. "He's been an embarrassment."

In the heart of Dixie, comparisons to Grant, a symbol of the Union, is the worst sort of insult, especially from a Macon, Ga., woman who voted for Bush in 2000 but turned away in 2004.

This part of the story gives a little hope in the days ahead.

This part, however, doesn't:

Still, some Southern women remain stalwart supporters of Bush and the Republican Party. At a watermelon festival in Chickamauga, in the mountains of northwest Georgia, substitute teacher Clydeen Tomanio said she remains committed to the party she's called home for 43 years.

"There are some people, and I'm one of them, that believe George Bush was placed where he is by the Lord," Tomanio said. "I don't care how he governs, I will support him. I'm a Republican through and through."

Statements like that are the scariest possible thing in a democracy. It's that "yella dawg" mentality that just seems to linger in the South, whether it be Democrat or Republican. It's a terrible thing.

It reminds me of something that a famous man once said:

What luck for rulers, that men do not think.
-Adolf Hilter

Apparently it applies to some women equally well. When people don't think for themselves, terrible things can happen.

I don't necessarily believe that the Lord put Bush in his current position. But I do believe that he gave each and every one of us a brain for a reason.

On politics and sports

Over at Poliblog and OTB there is talk of how politics is being treated like a sporting event and I feel the need to chime as I have some strong opinions on both.

James says:

Aside from following the occasional link during a blogstorm here and there, I quit reading the most virulent blogs on both sides years ago. What’s the point, really? Unfortunately, most blog readers, like talk radio listeners, gravitate to those sites where the host’s views mirror their own. This actually encourages over-the-top language, villification of the other side, and shoddy reasoning. Echo chambers tend not to reward nuance.

And then adds:

Yay us! Boo them!” is not particularly helpful in framing a public policy debate.

And I couldn't agree more. I've gone to some blogs that were way far left or way far right, but I quickly determined they were not worth my time. When it is all just regurgitated rhetoric from the party line (either party) with no original thought or analysis, what is the point.

Steven makes the original comparison to sports:

The notion that politics is a sporting event, and not a serious discourse that affects the lives of actual people, contributes to such attitudes, clearly.

I have often felt the same way and made a similar comparison. My feelings about sports and my feelings about politics are actually very similar. As previously noted, I do watch sporting events on occasion, but I'm not an avid sports fan, largely because of what "sports" have become. It is a game but so much of the sportsmanship has been lost. During the recent basketball games, I think Alabama was playing UCLA, and everytime Alabama got the ball, the fans started booing or making some distracting noise. It just really annoyed me. Why can't they just watch the game and let the teams play, but that is not what "sports" is about. Politics, unfortunately is the same way.

Political affiliation, for so many individuals has become as irrational as football in Alabama. There are so many people who are Auburn fans or Alabama fans who have no real affiliation with the school, but they practically bleed either orange and blue or crimson and white. The same is true of political affiliation for many people these days (or maybe always) it seems. The new addition of "red state"/"blue state" terminology only proves to accentuate the comparison. People support a political party that has no practical benefit for them personally and actually give very little thought to all the things that the party actually stands for. Consequently, political "debate" turns into name calling and political campaigns are like sporting events with the home crowd booing the visiting team. I just can't stand to watch.

The actual games of sport, like baseball and basketball, actually interest me. "Sporting events" do not. The actual study of politics and political theory interest me. "Politics" does not. It's rather sad actually.

Is Impeachment a Good Idea?

‘Impeach Bush’ chorus grows - Times online

With Dubya's approval rating at a record low, the talk of impeachment has begun to heat up.

THE movement to impeach President George W Bush over the war on terror began with a few tatty bumper stickers on the back of battered old Volvos and slogans such as “Bush lied, people died” on far-left websites. But as Democrat hopes rise of gaining control of Congress this autumn, dreams of impeaching Bush are no longer confined to the political fringe.

The question arises, is it a good idea to impeach President Bush or not?

Republicans are practically begging them to “bring it on” in the hope that the chatter will tar their opponents as loony leftists who care nothing for national security. “This is such a gift,” said Rush Limbaugh, the right-wing radio chat show host.

And the limited record seems to indicate that impeachment can have a negative impact on the opposition party

Some seasoned Democrat counsellors are warning party activists that voters are rarely interested in vengeful politics. In the 1998 mid-term elections, for example, the Republicans’ often mean-spirited efforts to impeach Clinton cost them seats that they had been expected to win.

However, when one considers the rediculous charges the Republicans were willing to use to impeach Pres. Clinton, it seems to me that what Pres. Bush has done is far more deserving.

The problem remains, however, that this is likely to be seen by many as a simple revenge tactic. I remember hearing last year, that people were only saying that Bush lied because the Republicans had said that Clinton lied. It's almost like the Republicans now have a free pass on anything they do, because of what they did to the Democrats during Clinton's terms. The article ever says:

The urge to impeach is partly payback for the Bill Clinton era when Republicans dragged the president through the mud over his dalliance with the intern Monica Lewinksy.

Anything that the Democrats try to do is just seen as petty retaliation.

Judged on it's own merits, what the Bush administration has done, misleading us into a war that we will likely never win and throwing the Constitution out the window whenever they feel like it, may be grounds for impeachment. It certainly deserves a closer look. And judged in the light of what Clinton was impeached over, it certainly merits impeachment.

However, judged in the light of all of US history, it's really just politics as usual. Is the Patriot Act or the wire taping issue any worse than Adams's Alien and Sedition Act? Is the intellegence used to mislead us into the war in Iraq that much different than the Maine incident that led us into the Spanish American War or the Gulf of Tonkin incident that got us full scale into the war in Vietnam?

Maybe those acts were impeachable too. But I don't believe the American people are ready for impeachment to become the norm of every administration. I don't believe the American system of government could survive if it did.

The Congress needs to take back its powers and stop abdicating to the Executive Branch. The executive branch has gained too much power in general, this administration is simply exploiting those powers. The checks and balances are there for a reason, USE THEM! Don't wait and use the last resort of impeachment.

In sum, does Bush deserve it? Yeah, probably so. Is it a good idea? Ultimately, probably not.

I just don't understand. . .

why this falls to the government.
WSFA - Montgomery Water Park Not a Done Deal
If developers want to build a water park in Montgomery (or anywhere for that matter) let them, but why should the local government pay for construction? I really don't understand. The article says:

Four developers have expressed interest in operating a water park at Gateway. But in order to make a profit, they need the city to pay the up-front costs.

What I don't get is why they should be able to make a profit off of something the city builds. I know that cities often build stadiums for pro sports teams, and some are comparing it to the building of the baseball stadium,

"When you look at baseball in Montgomery, there were a lot of nay-says who didn't see the vision," said council member C.C. Calhoun. "Now look at the development downtown behind baseball."

Maybe there is some room for government spending it stimulate the economy; I am familiar with Keynesian economics, but I just don't understand things like this. I really don't even get why the city should pay for stadiums and equating a water park to a baseball stadium is quite a stretch in my opinion.

It is my understanding that the city doesn't even pay for new roads in a new subdivision, nor do they even maintain them for the first 6 months to a year, but these developers think they should have millions paid for them, up front, so that they can make a profit on a water park? Do we believe in liberal capitalism or not? I think if the government is building it, it should be like a public park, either free or usable at minimal cost, not something that private owners make a profit from.

At least it seem that at this point it not going to happen.

The mayor and some city council members say they feel obligated to finish Gateway as planned.

"A vast majority of people in the neighborhood had input on the way this plan was put together," the mayor said.

Ok, I'm done ranting . . . for now.

Should teachers teach kids to think?

Chron.com - Teacher suspended for Bush remark
Stories like this one really bother me, especially considering the fact that I hope to teach political science and history courses someday. Of course I haven't heard the actual tape recording of what the teacher said, but the excerpts don't sound that unreasonable.

"Sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler used to say," Bennish told students at the suburban high school. "We're the only ones who are right, everyone else is backward, and our job is to conquer the world."

If what Bush said sounded similar to what Hitler said, the teacher has a right, and in my opinion a duty, to say it. The article goes on to say:

The teacher quickly made clear that he wasn't equating the president with Hitler, but the damage was done.

and then adds:

According to the transcript, Bennish concluded by saying: "I'm not implying in any way you should agree with me. ... What I'm trying to do is to get you to ... think about these issues more in depth."

It's possible that this teacher went over the line in what he had to say, but trying to get students to think is an intergral part of a teacher's job. I had a teacher in high school that often played devil's advocate just to make us think about our beliefs.

In my opinion, one of the main reasons to study history is to learn from the mistakes of the past. People did listen to Hitler and he led them down a terrible path, but it seemed reasonable to many of the German people at the time. Heck, eugenics was even popular in the United States at that time too. We, the United States of America, are not immune to falling prey to evil ideas. One of the reasoning for educating the populace is to make them better citizens, one capible of carrying on democracy. We need people who can think for themselves.

I know, from being in the schools, that children can be easily led. I agree that teachers should not try to indoctrinate their students into their own political beliefs or punish them for holding beliefs different from theirs. But teachers have the responsibility to encourage their students to think about things. I think everyone should challenge their own beliefs. Think about the things you believe and why you believe it. Think about the things you do and why you do them. Are they really right? Is there really a good reason to believe it or do it?

Think about the days in the United States when slavery was the common accepted practice for agricultural production. Everybody did it, but it didn't make it right. It was wrong and it took people challenging the norm and rethinking old ideas to finally make it right. Think about it, rethink about it and never stop thinking. That's what I want to teach my kids.

Dangerous Jobs and Retirement Age

I was reading an article at MSN this morning about the Top 10 Most Dangerous Jobs and I was reminded of a post I read a while back at Poliblog. I had intended to make this comment on the post at the time, but never managed to get around to it.

The subject of the post was that GOP Senators wanted to raise the retirement age to 69 and Dr. Taylor seemed to imply that he was okay with the idea. In a comment to the post, Mark Griffith, of PoliticalMan, suggested that people who do blue collar/hard labor jobs are less able to continue to work as they reach their late 60's. Dr. Taylor replies:

This is true, and the normal objection. However, is there really that radical a
difference, on average, between 67 and 69 in terms of physical ability? (or even
between 65 and 69?)
And while there is no doubt that being a blue collar
worker is harder on the body than being a white collar worker, I am guessing
that most people in the 60s, even in blue collar jobs, have advanced beyond
working as a basic-level dock loader.

It is this statement that gives me pause.

First of all, what statistics back up this argument? There could be quite a bit of difference between one's physical capabilities at 65 and 69. Do Dr. Taylor or the GOP Senators have statistics to back up their point of view that their is little appreciable difference?

Furthermore, Dr. Taylor goes on to suggest (he guesses) that even those who work in blue collar jobs progress beyond the more strenuous tasks as they advance in age. This suggestion brings me to the article I was reading at MSN about the dangerous jobs. I do not claim to have statistics to refute the argument in general; however, I do have first hand knowledge that refutes his blanket "guess" about blue collar workers.

If you look at the list of dangerous jobs provided at MSN, you will see that the 8th most dangerous job is working with powerlines. For almost my whole life, my father has been employed in this field of work (He got the job when I was 2 years old and he retired last year). He was an actual lineman who climbed poles and repaired electrical lines. He did get promoted over time and was the foreman of his crew when he retired. However, his job was still quite physically demanding. At least one week out of every month, right up until he retired, he was "on call" to "catch trouble" any hour of the day or night. If there was a storm that knocked out power, he was expected to go out in the storm and repair the lines. He would sometimes work through the night with no sleep at all, doing a very dangerous job under less than optimal conditions. Therefore, age and advanced position does not always mean less physically demanding labor.

Just something to consider.

Human Arrogance

After the recent events in the Gulf Coast and after watching this PBS special, I am especially reminded of the arrogance of human beigns.

The PBS Special about the flood of 1927, relates the story of the flooding of Greenville, and how African American men were forced into service to fortify the levee on the Mississippi River. The white elite were convinced that if enough men worked to sandbag the levee, they could hold back the raging flood waters of the Mighty Mississippi.

In New Orleans, many believed that human engineering could save the city from the disaster than has now wrecked the city. Meteorologists knew it was only a matter of time, but many believed that time would never come, or that, with time, the levees could be made to withstand a storm like Katrina.

Why do we believe that we can control nature or at least out smart it? If humans are so intelligent, why won't we realize that we are a part of nature and that we must learn to live within its cycles and not always try to do battle against it? Humans are arrogant and arrogance is a dangerous thing. People die from it, but we do not seem to learn from it. . . not the ultimate lesson anyway.