Distorted History

Did you know:

Towards the end of his rule, Winston Churchill would often punish unruly subordinates by making them wax his balding head. That’s why his scalp was so irresistibly shiny.

_

Ronald Reagan had a dark hobby: scaring small children. Reagan took great pleasure in visiting elementary schools; he was known to hide in playgrounds, popping out to frighten children with scary faces. His Secret Service agents would often join in on the fun as well. Reagan used similar tactics to bring the Iranian hostage crisis to a quick end.

_

Al Gore also liked to scare children; unlike Reagan, however, he got his kicks from terrifying starving kids in the Third World. Shame on you Gore…. shame on you.

_

Abraham Lincoln was a chronic binge drinker. After getting drunk, Lincoln had a horrible habit of going to the local barber shop and insisting on the most ridiculous haircuts offered during the mid 1800s. This habit was believed to be a major source of his wife’s insanity.

_

Teddy Roosevelt was proud of his Big Stick. It was one of the reasons he made such a good Rough Rider.

_

Secretary of State Henry Kissinger would nourish himself with his own boogers during grueling conferences with foreign leaders. This habit allowed him to secure favorable agreements from his underfed colleagues from different countries in bouts of “diplomatic attrition”.

_

Larry King has several illegitimate children. We won’t tell you who the mother is, but we will say that the kids aren’t entirely white.

_

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. admitted to close friends that he did not really remember his dreams at night.

California Supreme Court Strikes Gay Marriage Ban

One of the most monumental events in gay rights occurred on the afternoon of May 15, 2008. The state Supreme Court of California struck down the state’s ban on gay marriage, paving the way for legalization. Governor Schwarzenegger has stated that he will comply with the ruling. The governor has also voiced his opposition to amending the state constitution to restrict marriage to a man and a woman.

Needless to say, this event will have huge implications. California is the nation’s most populous state, and conservative groups have already submitted a petition to bring the issue of gay marriage to a referendum. Powerful interests from outside of Califronia will undoubtedly intervene, donating large sums of money to finance a vicious campaign. The ruling could even have an impact on the presidential campaign, resurrecting a heated social issue for the 2008 presidential race. This would probably work to the advantage of McCain, giving him an opportunity to win over the “Reagan Democrats” that Obama has such a hard time securing.

The long term impact of this ruling will be even more profound, provided that the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage fails. With a population of nearly 38 million, California is a far less obscure state than Massachusetts (the only other state where gay marriage is legal). This means that the Golden State will provide a better laboratory for testing the predictions of social conservatives about the negative effects gay marriage has on society. What happens in California often blows east. I would not be surprised if other liberal states (ex. New Jersey, Maryland, even Oregon) follow in California’s footsteps in the near futute. Furthermore, California does not have a provision in its lawbooks prohibiting same sex marriages consummated in California from being recognized in other states (like Massachusetts). This means that the issue of whether or not states must recognizes gay marriages from other states will be brought to the forefront.

Whether or not it was right for the California Supreme Court to exercise “judicial activism” in this instance will be debated for years to come. Considering that school integration and interracial marriage rights were also products of judicial activism, I am inclined to support the Supreme Court. Either way, this ruling was monumental.

The Welfare State- Good or Bad?

Since the end of the Second World War, most western nations have adopted an economic policy known as the welfare state. Frequently criticized by fiscal conservatives, the welfare state endeavors to create a strong safety net that provides for all of its citizen’s basic needs. Welfare states also attempt at some leveling of society, with the end result being a lower rate of income disparity. Conservatives argue that welfare states are decadent monstrosities that lead to stunted productivity and large budget deficits. But what’s the truth about the welfare state?

I must confess that this is an issue that I am divided on. On the one hand, I can see the logic of fiscal conservatives and libertarians- let people keep the money they make. On the other hand, tremendous gaps exist in the opportunities of poor and rich people. To understand this gap and how to solve it, we must first understand two terms: equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. They are fairly self-explanatory; equality of opportunity means that the government provides its citizens with equal opportunities. Equality of outcome means that the government ensures that all people have the same amount of money or material goods (ie the same outcome) no matter what. The fall of communism demonstrated that equality of outcome doesn’t work. The best form of government is one which is able to guarantee equality of opportunity.

So the question remains; does the welfare state do a better job at providing equality of opportunity to its citizens? The simple answer is yes. In the welfare states of western Europe, universal healthcare is the norm. In the United States, the quality of healthcare that a child receives still depends upon the income of his parents. Access to higher education in the US is denied to most poor individuals. Our nation’s top colleges are so prohibitively expensive that only the upper class can afford to pay tuition. Contrast that to many other western nations, where college is free. It is reasonable to conclude that the system we have in the US does not provide equality of opportunity as well as welfare states.

It’s definitely true that taxes are higher in welfare states. In Denmark, the lowest income tax bracket is 42%. In Finland, the average income tax rate is about 50%. Still, citizens of these countries consistently report being happier than Americans. Yes, I know that happiness is a subjective term. Still, a study performed by Leicester University in Britain has the US being outpaced by most western European nations in terms of happiness. This could be due to a number of factors, but prevalent among them is surely the issue of income disparity. In western Europe, income disparity between the rich and the poor is quite a bit lower than in the US. If my psychology textbook is accurate, then income disparity is a good predictor of how happy a particular country or region is. Therefore, it is in the interest of the state to reduce income inequality as much as it reasonably can without stifling economic growth.

So what about the high taxes found in all welfare states? Don’t they inhibit economic growth? Not necessarily; economic growth in Denmark is comparable to growth in America. Sweden’s economic growth is roughly a percent or two higher than America’s. It is true that welfare states are particularly susceptible to deficit spending. However, this is largely because Europe (where most welfare states are located) has an aging population. Immigration, as well as technological advances, have the ability to generate enough wealth to support any modern welfare state.

The last issue I will address regarding the welfare state is that of income redistribution. Is it right to punish those who work hard and become wealthy by redistributing a large share of their wealth by giving it to those who are poor? The truth is that there are millions of people in America who work hard but are unable to fully support themselves and their families. When we ignore these people (as laissez faire would), then we deny them and their children equality of opportunity. All welfare states have to be careful that they do not overtax their wealthiest citizens; doing so would have profoundly negative consequences on economic growth. Again, the welfare state should not strive to ensure equality of outcome. But it should provide for the most basic needs of its citizens (ex. education, healthcare, adequate food). Failure to do so will lead to an inability to exploit the valuable human resources that are our nation’s poor. Plus, as studies have shown, we’d all be happier in a welfare state. And that’s the bottom line.

 

Affirmative Action is Unreasonable

Affirmative action is undoubtedly one of the touchiest subjects in modern American politics. Inextricably linked to the issue of race, discussions of it are often tense and are sometimes heated. Proponents of it claim that it is a necessary step toward achieving racial (and, in some other countries, gender) equality. But should the government be promoting it? Is it the same thing as reverse discrimination? Read on, and be enlightened.

Affirmative action refers to the practice of giving a non- dominant or minority group preferential treatment in employment or access to educational institutions. In addition to this preferential treatment, governments using an affirmative action program will reach out to minority groups through advertising campaigns or propaganda to entice them into to bettering their situations. Affirmative action in the United States began in 1961, when President Kennedy issued an executive order requiring that federal works projects “take affirmative action” to ensure non-discrimination in employment. Since then, it has evolved into the practice of giving preferential treatment to minority groups, particularly African Americans.

Those who support affirmative action in the US point to large wealth disparities between white and black Americans. They point to the long history of racial prejudice, beginning with slavery. Many advocates will point to studies which show that implicit racism is rampant in America (a Harvard study estimated that 80% of whites and 50% of blacks held implicit prejudices against African Americans). Therefore, they conclude, it is necessary to level the playing field.

There are a few problems with these arguments, however. Though it is true that large wealth disparities exist in America and that blacks have been subjected to horrible oppression in the past, we must ask ourselves this question: Who will decide when African Americans have truly achieved equality under this measure? If the purpose of it is to achieve racial equality, who will be the one to decide when it has accomplished its goals? Before you answer this question, keep in mind that the most stalwart advocates are not poor black people, but rather middle and upper class African Americans. If racial parity were magically achieved in this country tomorrow, odds are that these advocates would not disappear, but would only lobby all the harder to maintain affirmative action policies.

There is a second, far more profound reason to oppose affirmative action. This reason stems from the fact that affirmative action programs in the US inevitably discriminate against other minority groups. The most striking example of this is the “Asian Fail”, a term which refers to Asians who score higher on standardized tests and get better grades in school, but who are denied admission to colleges over less qualified candidates due to affirmative action policies. A 2005 study by the Center for Equal Opportunity found that Asian Americans were admitted to the University of Michigan at a rate of 54%, compared to admission rates for Hispanics and African Americans that exceeded 70%. Yet, the study also revealed that the Asian applicants had scored a median of 140 points higher on the SAT than Hispanics, and 240 points higher than African Americans. Far from promoting equality, affirmative action programs in our nation’s colleges clearly proliferate discrimination and unfairness.

Another reason to be skeptical of affirmative action is that it harms race relations. Neo-Nazi groups routinely use affirmative action to demonize African Americans and appeal to poor white youth (ex. by suggesting that all of the good jobs available to poor youth will be given to African Americans via affirmative action). Less extreme examples can be found among non- black students and job-seekers who feel they are the subjects of reverse discrimination in college and job applications. Affirmative action is even used by some conservatives to suggest that prominent African Americans owe their career successes to preferential treatment. (See the second paragraph of Conservapedia’s entry on Barack Obama, for an example: “He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action.”) In terms of race relations, affirmative action harms everyone involved.

A final reason to oppose affirmative action comes in the form of a question: Who should be included in affirmative action programs? Simple, right? Wrong! Virtually every minority group in the US can claim a history of discrimination. This includes not only African Americans and Hispanics, but also Asians, the Irish, Jewish Americans, gays and lesbians, and even short people (discrimination of the short trumps discrimination against blacks in the business world). It would be impossible to fit every group that has been discriminated against due to immutable characteristics into an affirmative action program, even if we limited the program to those groups with significant income disparities. In fact, it is inevitable that some of these minority groups will end up being the objects of further discrimination due to affirmative action (ex. the Asian Fail, as mentioned above). There is simply too much discrimination against too many minority groups in US history to make an equitable affirmative action program feasible.

I sincerely hope that I have not offended anyone by making this article. I would like to point out that though I am a white male, I would stand to benefit if affirmative action were implemented in some of the colleges I will be applying to (white undergraduates make up only 31% of the population at UC Berkeley, my top college choice). Yet, there are too many flaws bound to affirmative action programs for me to be able to support them. Perhaps affirmative action programs could be revised by making socioeconomic status the factor that determines who benefits from them. Or perhaps affirmative action should simply be abolished, to be remembered only as a sordid program in America’s long history of racial blunders. Either way, the status quo is unfair and untenable, and must be changed.

No Reason to Ban Gay Marriage

Gay marriage is a unique issue in that it is immensely contentious and in that it directly affects very few Americans. Yet, election after election, politicians are grilled on the question of whether or not two people of the same gender should be allowed to marry. In country after country, conservative religious institutions pour millions of dollars of their precious resources into organizing rallies to protest gay marriage and civil unions. What would happen if gay marriage became legal in the US? Could there really be immense social consequences to broadening the definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians? To find out, we will examine evidence from some of the 5 countries that have already legalized same sex marriage (the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, and South Africa).

Social conservatives use a buffet of scrumptious arguments to try to discredit the idea of gay marriage. The first of these, favored by many Catholic institutions, is that gay marriage would lead to higher divorce rates. This argument is blatantly false; in fact, Massachusetts (the only state in the US where gays are allowed to marry) has the lowest divorce rate of any state in the union. Contrast that to the divorce rates in states like Texas and Mississippi, where gay marriage is banned, and you will find that states with the highest divorce rates are almost unanimously the reddest states in the USA. Furthermore, there has been no spike in divorce rates in European countries after the legalization of gay marriage. Indeed, evidence strongly suggests that the advent of no-fault divorces in the 1900s has been the main cause for higher divorce rates in the western world. So much for Argument #1.

The Pandora’s Box argument goes as follows: “If you expand the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, how can you deny marriage to polygamists, incestuous relationships, and bestiality?” This argument is becoming slightly less popular, although commentators like Bill O’Reilly still use it. The simple fact is that none of the countries that have legalized gay marriage have gone on to expand marriage to include the groups above. There is no evidence whatsoever that giving gays the right to marry will lead to a larger expansion of marriage eligibility. Furthermore, the state has a vested interest in keeping many of the groups above from marrying; just look at the terrible abuse of women that goes on in many polygamist communities. It is also worth pointing out that animals cannot sign a marriage license.

The third and final argument against gay marriage that I will present (there are several other arguments that are even more foolish) is that legalizing gay marriage will harm children, as married gay couples would be able to adopt more easily. Though the idea of gay adoption makes many heterosexuals queasy, it is worth pointing out that the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and many other reputable organizations all hold that gays are just as good at parenting as heterosexuals. Indeed, the single most important factor in deciding which households are fit to adopt is whether or not the household is a loving one.

So… if there are no valid arguments for banning same-sex marriage, what are the arguments for legalizing it? Simply put, marriage is a fundamental right. It is not a privilege- privileges are earned, and I defy anyone to tell me how heterosexuals like Britney Spears earned the privilege to marry people they barely know. Though it is true that there are limitations on the right to marry, there is no reason why these limitations should be applied to gays and lesbians (ie. the state has no interest in banning gay marriage). The Constitution guarantees that all citizens shall be treated equally under the law- this includes marriage law.

Although only 25% of Americans voice support for gay marriage in most polls, a plurality of the nation’s youth support giving gays the right to wed over civil unions or no recognition. Gay marriage is probably inevitable in the US; the only way for social conservatives to stop it is with a Constitutional Amendent (very unlikely). Heterosexuals continue to use gays and lesbians as scapegoats for social ills like high divorce rates and dropping marriage rates. This is pure foolishness- the decriminalization of adultery, the end of restrictions on contraceptives, no-fault divorces, and the legalization of cohabitation are the real culprits of the decline of marriage. Heterosexuals, not homosexuals, passed these laws. Marriage will not be harmed by including new, eager participants- it will only be strengthened.

Ron Paul’s Ideology: Brilliant or Hideous?

In the 2008 Republican primaries, Ron Paul was one of the most interesting, dynamic candidates in the race. Full of passion and unique ideas, he was able to raise millions from the Internet while enticing a small horde of young voters to his campaign. Anyone who watched the Republican debates knows that Ron Paul added flavor and entertainment to an otherwise bland occasion. As amusing as Ron Paul often was, however, his ideology presents an inescapable danger to the US.

It has been said by Howard Dean that Republicans want to take the US back to the 1950’s. Ron Paul, however, has no interest in taking America back to those “good old days”. Instead, Ron Paul is the ultimate reactionary; he wants to take America’s foreign and fiscal policy back to the 1930’s. In addition to the withdrawal of troops from Iraq (a good thing), Ron Paul would yank US troops out of every corner of the world. This not only means withdrawing from places where we are no longer needed (e.g. Eastern Europe), but also places where US troops are crucial to maintaining regional security (e.g. Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, and possibly South Korea). Ron Paul would withdraw the US from NATO, severing our long-standing alliance with western Europe. In effect, Ron Paul advocates a return to the foreign policy of the isolationists and the America First crowd that got us into so much trouble before WWII (many historians speculate that WWII could have been prevented if the US hadn’t been so isolationist).

If Ron Paul’s foreign policy is unsettling, his fiscal policy is downright frightening. Not content to take our fiscal policy back to the 1930’s, Paul would instead take it back to pre-WWI days. He has advocated for the implementation of the gold standard and the abolition of the Federal Reserve. He would like to abolish the income tax – the tax by which the US government raises most of its revenue (this is an example of one of the attractive but unrealistic views held by Paul). Ron Paul would effectively end FICA by allowing young people to opt out of the program. He would withdraw from NAFTA and implement a trade policy similar to that of the laissez faire era. Ron Paul’s fiscal policies would exacerbate income disparity and leave the US economy wide open for devastating recessions.

If there is one issue that I agree with libertarians on, it is that of personal liberty. But Ron Paul is no advocate of personal liberty. Ron Paul describes himself as an “unshakable foe” of abortion rights. Ron Paul spoke out strongly against the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence vs Texas (2003), in which it was ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. Paul justified his criticism of the court by saying that the individual states should have the right to decide whether or not to have such laws. In essence, Paul puts the rights of the states to pass discriminatory laws above individual liberty. Ron Paul refused to take a stand against Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a Republican debate, when asked about it. He has even said that he would not vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if it were reintroduced today, arguing that the courts can’t read people’s minds to tell if they are discriminating against minorities in employment or access to services. Lastly, Ron Paul has stated that he does not believe in evolution, though he claims that such a belief is irrelevant (in my view, it most definitely is not).

Ron Paul derives his views on everything from economics to foreign and social policy from a strict interpretation of the Constitution. He is notorious for citing the “original intent” of the Constitution in justifying his views (e.g. the Founder’s sought to avoid entangling alliances; therefore, we must withdraw from NATO). While there is absolutely nothing wrong with idolizing our nation’s Founders, it is wholeheartedly foolish to allow the dead hand of generations long past to dictate our nation’s policies. The world has changed so much since the Constitution’s birth; only a flexible interpretation of the founding document will allow it to stand the test of time.

To answer the question posed by this article’s title, Ron Paul’s ideology is thoroughly hideous. Because Paul is so earnest and because his ideas are so unique, there is a deep temptation for those wanting change to support him. But the only change that Ron Paul plans to deliver would be grossly reactionary. His ideas would stifle progress by decentralizing political power and by taking this country back to the pre-WWII era. That, needless to say, would be most hideous.

Should Prostitution Be Legal?

Prostitutes have been around about as long civilization has existed. In ancient Greece, residents of the city of Corinth carved penises into their roads to direct travelers to the local temple, where sacred prostitutes awaited them. In modern times, prostitutes have had to become more subtle, as many nations and states have made the practice illegal. But should it be illegal? Does our society do itself more harm than good by trying to enforce anti-prostitution laws?

I would like to point out before going any further that this post does not support prostitution. I personally believe the practice degrades women and harms society. However, it is inescapable that society is harmed far more when prostitution subsists illegally and secretly than when it is performed openly. Opponents of legalizing prostitution believe that such an action would constitute a government endorsement of the practice. Yet, when we consider that smoking and drinking are both legal (and that neither is encouraged or endorsed by the government), the logic of such an argument becomes quite shaky.

Opponents also contend that prostitution is immoral, and that the government is obligated to restrict it. Maybe this is true, but consider the fact that most Americans consider polyamory and adultery to be immoral. Does this mean that the government has an obligation to forcibly restrict these practices as well? What if a majority of Americans woke up tomorrow and decided that they found interracial relationships to be morally distasteful? Is it really the place of government to legislate morality?

The benefits of legalizing prostitution could be quite substantial. By making the practice lawful, the government would be able to regulate the prostitution industry, levying taxes on “pimps” and requiring prostitutes themselves to be regularly tested for STD’s. In essence, the government would be able to clean up some of the filth of our nation’s whorehouses. The aspects of prostitution that demean young women and leave them living in poverty could be tempered by requiring a minimum wage for prostitutes and basic “workplace” standards. Pimps who refuse to comply with these laws would become the sole targets of the police (instead of all pimps everywhere), and would be subject to harsh penalties if caught. In addition to fines and jail times, the pictures of illegal pimps could be placed on government websites and bulletin boards around the city of their capture in order to humiliate them. They could even be subjected to corporal punishment (the subject of a future article) for repeat offenses.

I hope it is clear to most who read this short article that the harm done to society by prostitution could be greatly mitigated if the practice were legalized. The demand for cheap, easily-accessible sex is not going to go away anytime soon, and the best way to deal with this demand is to regulate and control it. I know this post will offend the sensibilities of feminists and religious conservatives alike (which is hard to do at the same time…), but I hope that open minded individuals will be able to put aside their contempt for prostitution to see the greater good.