Thoughts on God

What makes something real? Does God exist? Does the fact that people believe in God mean that he's real?

Claiming God exerts no influence in the world is an indefensible position, even for those who don't believe such a being exists. Appeals to God have been justification for both altruistic and self-interested behaviors and attitudes. People have done both much good and much evil in God's name (loaded terms, I know). God has been the topic of much philosophical and artistic expression throughout human history and across cultures.

So if in no other way than in our own minds, certainly God exists, and God's influence is felt around the world. I'd like to think a belief in God inspires more altruism than self-interest, more love than hate, more good than bad--but all that would be hard to quantify.

Science and Religion

I'm always a little annoyed whenever people try to pit a religious person against a scientist. For some reason, certain people have concluded the two are mutually exclusive. "How could anyone who believes in God possibly be a good scientist?" vs. "How could anyone who believes science possibly believe in God?"

For me, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I feel like each seeks to answer different questions of life. Science may be able to provide good answers to the hows and whats of human existence, but it doesn't even attempt to address whether our life has a purpose. Conversely, religion has not historically done a good job answering the hows and whats of existence, but it has a lot more to offer in answering the why-we're-here and who-we-are questions.

From science we gain a reasoned explanation of how the world came to be as well as a good description of what the world around us is like. We learn what to expect when objects interact. We learn what items in nature might benefit us and which to avoid. And we learn about the expanse of the universe and the microscopic nature of elements. All this knowledge is constantly evolving as we increase our capacity to dig deeper and see further into our past. Science also offers us a glimpse of what we might expect in the future if humanity pursues given paths.

In religion we explore the questions of our abstract existence. The fact that we are sentient beings, capable of abstract thought, leaves us asking questions such as, "Why do I exist?" or "Who am I?" Science is incapable of answering these questions in any meaningful way. Science might be able to explain how species have evolved over time and that it makes perfect sense that humans have evolved as a result, but it fails to answer--again, at least in any type of meaningful way--why (the purpose for which) any of this has happened, why the big bang occurred in the first place, or who we are.

To be fair, this discussion is based on the assumption that we do in fact exist for a purpose. It could be argued that each person is free to determine his/her own purpose (and may choose a purpose outside the purview of religious thought). Such reasoning could even explain the existence of religion to begin with: that, as a consequence of our improved cognitive abilities, humans began to grapple with existential questions and thus created religion to help answer them. (Even if this is indeed the case, this is not a reason to abandon religion. Humans also invented science to help answer questions.)

Religion also used to answer a lot of other questions. Wherever science fell short, religion stepped in to provide explanations. As scientific knowledge has developed and improved, religious explanations for seemingly supernatural phenomena have fallen out of style (read: have been debunked). In certain radical circles, however, religion continues to provide the definitive (and demonstrably erroneous) explanation to a host of questions science has much more thoroughly and convincingly answered.

It's hard to imagine, however, that science will ever be able to provide satisfactory answers to the whys and whos. Those aren't questions that lend themselves to the scientific method, and scientific instruments have a hard time measuring them. And so we're left to use our spiritual instruments to work out answers (or we can simply choose not to ask ourselves such existential questions, but I don't foresee this happening anytime soon).

Moreover, I think we do ourselves a disservice as a society when we discount what religion has to offer. To be certain, many horrible acts have been perpetrated in the name of religion. But much good has come of religion also. What strikes me most is religion's ability to motivate people to selfless acts contrary to their self-interest. This flies in the face of what economists would predict. After all, humans are supposed to be selfish, look out for themselves, and always act rationally. (That's what makes the market work!) Religion, however, often promotes acts of selflessness and looking out for others. It appeals to a deeper sense of who we are and has the power to inspire us to transcend our selfish, natural tendencies.

Such power as religion wields is important in creating a successful society's social fabric. It's the stuff good people are made of, and it can serve as a foundation for trust. I acknowledge competing arguments, including the Ayn Rands of the world who might argue that even when people act altruistically, they're doing so for selfish reasons. They're hoping to cash in on the social capital they've contributed at a later time when they need a favor from society. But there's also something to be said for crowding-in and crowding-out effects: if you provide an economic incentive for every good deed done, people stop doing good for the sake of doing good. This has the potential to effect all kinds of negative consequences.

I'm perfectly aware I'm not the first person to have these thoughts, or to have wondered what the purpose of my existence is (or even whether my existence has a purpose), or even to have been annoyed by the science vs. religion antagonists. These questions of why and who have faced humanity since we became clever enough to ponder them. Science may continue to offer increasingly detailed and accurate explanations of how and what, but I'm struggling to see it ever answering the why and who.

In my personal experience, the tools of religious exploration and spiritual epistemology have offered meaningful answers to the why and who. And until that's no longer the case, I see nothing to be gained from abandoning religion in favor of a science-only worldview. I'll leave both to science and to religion the questions they answer best and strive for both an empirically and spiritually enlightened existence.

Minimum Wage

A Scandinavian friend recently asked me, following a discussion with some of her Scandinavian friends, “As an American, would you leave the market forces to decide on the level of wages?”

What follows is my reply.

As with so many issues, particularly in economics, there is good reasoning to support both sides of the argument. If everyone earns the same in the end, then there is no incentive to work hard, to strive to achieve one's full potential. So on the one hand, the extreme of completely equal income regardless of effort or contribution could prove disastrous, with an economy that doesn't produce enough GNI to support people's basic needs, and also fails to innovate.

On the other extreme of the issue, where an unchecked market is left to set wages at any level, power quickly becomes concentrated in the hands of a few at the top, who can then collude to keep wages low. This was the case early on in the industrial revolution, and it's the reason labor unions were formed and collective bargaining became an effective tactic for negotiating higher wages.

People may initially be willing to work for incomes that don't provide for a subsistence living, but this is not a tenable scenario over the long term. Eventually, people will band together, and you've set yourself up for political upheaval and/or revolution.

The problem with many conservatives' and libertarians' arguments about labor conditions is that they're advocating for both the removal of minimum wage AND the abolition of organized labor. This is a recipe for disaster.

The problem with many liberals' and socialists’ arguments about labor conditions is that they advocate for wages and benefits that are unrealistic and want to see unions strengthened in industries where unions can actually cause more harm than good.

A couple examples come to mind. For example, the collapse of the auto industry in Detroit might in part be attributed to labor unions' unrealistic demands. Some US auto workers' total compensation packages were significantly higher than the going market would have predicted to work on assembly lines in relatively low-skilled labor because the unions had badgered car manufacturers into paying such high salaries. This was untenable and has been corrected in new hires, but now the wage gap between the newer hires and experienced workers is a problem plaguing the industry.

Another example is teachers' unions in the US, which have lobbied for and succeeded in creating a system where teachers are compensated based on tenure rather than classroom performance. This is hugely problematic, as US schools are falling well behind those of other nations around the world, with no reversing trend in site. We're failing the next generation of youth, and the incentive structure in compensating public school teachers is arguably a major contributing factor. (Another is that teachers at all levels of tenure and skill generally are WAY underpaid given their contribution to society.)

On the other hand, however (and this is certainly the more pressing issue facing society) is the destructive, poisonous nature of inequality in society. In the US, this has reached a fever pitch, with Fortune 500 CEOs making an average 380 times (and in some cases much more) their companies' average workers' salaries. Income inequality is running rampant in the US, with a tax code and political system that both favor and entrench the ultra rich in society. Social mobility (one's ability to achieve the ironically titled "American Dream") is way down in the US, but our perception of one's ability to succeed in climbing the social ladder remains unchanged. We think we're as socially mobile as Scandinavians, we think we should be even more socially mobile than we are, and we're actually much worse off than we could imagine.

An excellent book I read last year called "The Spirit Level" (kind of a strange title, I know) talks about how income inequality is linked to a host of social ills, everything from incarceration rates to public health issues to trust issues to teenage pregnancy to education problems. I highly recommend the book. The authors conclude that it doesn't matter how inequality exists (whether through institutionalized inequality with a permanent elite rich and a permanent poor or simply as a result of free market forces) and it also doesn't matter how you relieve inequality (whether through redistributive taxes or just a culture that frowns on accepting excessive pay). The main message is inequality is bad and needs to be addressed, for the good of society. Their conclusions are based on the results of some 30+ years of social science research from a variety of disciplines.

Additional research suggests that happiness/wellbeing scores are uncorrelated to increases in income beyond a middle-class to upper middle-class income, pointing instead to all the societal ills associated with increasing inequality. In other words, more money doesn't make you happier. There will always be someone richer than you, you will make new friends who have more money and whose lives and possessions you will always envy, there will always be a nicer car to drive, a nicer vacation to take, a bigger house to buy...but none of it will make you any happier. That's what the research suggests, at least for those who have already hit the middle or upper-middle classes. However, income up to the point of achieving middle or upper-middle class status is correlated with improved wellbeing, suggesting the high incomes of some people, while they provide no wellbeing benefit to those earning them, could provide improved wellbeing to those not achieving the middle or upper-middle class incomes. Interestingly, inequality is associated with decreased wellbeing at all income levels, both rich and poor, although the poor are affected more dramatically. Accepting improving wellbeing as a normative goal, then, suggests we should figure out a way to achieve greater equality. Experience has proven donations to charity are insufficient, thus making the case for redistributive tax schemes or other government "nudges" that encourage a relative leveling of income. The other alternative is broad cultural change away from consumerism and materialism, but such a change would likely be very slow. (And besides - how do you change a culture?)

In a final interesting example, the State of Utah found it was cheaper to provide free housing and a social worker to homeless people than it was to pay to incarcerate and provide healthcare associated with their homelessness. In other words, in some cases, it makes sense just to give the poor benefits because it's cheaper than paying to put them in jail and pay their hospital bills, even if the homeless are unable or unwilling to work.

And so, to summarize and conclude - in light of the overwhelming amount of research condemning inequality, as well as the example of the formation of labor unions as a response to the unregulated, free-market set wages during the industrial revolution, as well as industries where labor unions might actually hurt society, I must advocate for a minimum wage. It should be set high enough to be a living wage (one that provides at least subsistence/paycheck-to-paycheck living), but not so high as to encourage people to stay at that income level. I also think social benefits should be tied to one's efforts to contribute, meaning unemployment benefits should be granted to those actively looking for work. However, as stated above, it might make sense just to take care of the poor, even if they don't want to or aren't mentally or physically able to work.

Making the case for religion

In our increasingly secularized society, science is replacing religion. Economics is replacing religion. Reason, law, it seems everything is a plausible replacement for religion in today's society. Religion is being crowded out of public and private life, replaced with capitalism and the cult of consumerism.

A few thoughts on the changing role of religion in society:

• Religion used to explain natural phenomena we couldn't explain. Now we have science.
• Religion used to explain our responsibility to care for others. Now we have the welfare state.
• Religion used to prescribe the social and governmental structures. In some cases, it still does. But for the West, now we have secularism and the separation of church and state.
• Religion used to provide the legal code. Now we have the rule of law, and typically, the law is secular.
• Religion used to provide a culture's guiding principles, morals, and ethics. In some cases, it still does. Today, logic and reason reign, and one's ability to fundraise often determines the fate and reach of one's ideas.

These points are not necessarily negative, they're just observations. I'll leave it to you to attach value judgments.

One difficult intersection is between religion and economics. Christianity teaches we should care for the poor and that the rich will have a hard time making it to heaven. With the selling of indulgences in the Middle Ages, however, money and religion formed a relationship they hadn't previously participated in. The role of money in Christianity was further twisted when the Puritans preached material success was a sign of God's approval. Eventually, the God part was removed altogether, and becoming wealthy was associated simply with the desired state of existence.

The problem is, once we're no longer concerned with pleasing God, our pursuit of wealth is unchecked. We are free to pursue it at all costs.

When there's no longer a moral code based on a higher power or authority, we have to start legislating morality.

Religion is important precisely because it has the power to inspire people to act against what economists would call their own self-interest for the betterment of themselves and society. When people believe they are in the service of a higher power, they're willing to do all kinds of "irrational" things. Historically, this has made for some very serious mistakes, all the way from the crusades to the Spanish Inquisition. However, religion has succeeded in inspiring people to do extraordinary things. Just wander down the main street of any European town, and you'll see some impressive architecture and art dedicated to religious figures.

We need religion precisely because there are no economic incentives to fight climate change. It's going to be hard, it's going to reduce GDP, it's going to change the way people live and work. So who would voluntarily sign up for that, when the status quo is so much easier? What we need is something that can inspire people to make economically irrational decisions, to say "We care about nature enough that we don't want to damage it, even if that means I have to take a pay cut or pay a tax." We need religion because white men in power need to be inspired to relinquish the stranglehold the Western patriarchal system is causing society. We need religion because we need to convince nations' leaders to make decisions that are for the benefit of the whole world, not just their own citizens. Reason, logic - these are of little use when free market economics rules the day.

Religion & Politics - Part 1

A religious leader once told me God was a conservative. I think what he might have meant was that he's a libertarian. From his study of the Scriptures, he concluded the teachings on self-reliance and individual liberty were clear: the government doesn't belong in our lives because we must be free to choose for ourselves and to succeed or fail based on the merits of our own decisions and work ethic. A government's role, therefore, need not extend beyond securing these basic rights for the governed.

In my personal study of Christ's teachings, I have been most struck by his example of blessing the lives of the sick and poor. I am also struck by his reaching out to people of underprivileged classes, as well as by his teachings on economic and social justice. If we're all equal in the eyes of God, how would God have us treat others? The golden rule comes to mind.

So to me, Christ teaches a responsibility to our neighbor. This goes beyond simply succeeding or failing on our own merits. (After all, am I not my neighbor's neighbor?) Moreover, if the government is truly providing an opportunity for us to succeed or fail based on our merits, it needs to provide us the opportunity to do so. What does that mean? Well, it means children are entitled to a fair shot, which includes sufficient education to take that shot, health care, food, and the other necessities of life, whether their parents provide them or not. It means they need an opportunity to actually succeed or fail based on their merits, which implies an equality of opportunity. In other words, it means they need a real equality of opportunity, not just the platitude-version we profess but don't even bother trying to achieve.

At least that's my take. To my Christian friends out there, or to anyone else familiar with Christ's teachings, what do you see as the government's role in society? Is it merely to provide protection and liberty, or does it extend to providing a safety net and true equality of opportunity to all people where we have historically failed to do so voluntarily?

Life and Death

Since humans became capable of abstract thought, we've been grappling with the questions of life, death, and finding some sort of meaning to our existence. We need look no further than the existence of religion for evidence. I've often ponder the fragility of life. A human's sustained living is contingent on many factors. The environment in which we live can be suddenly altered by both individual and collective choices to such an extent as to end human life. We are dependent on food, shelter, and other necessities, without which we couldn't sustain our lives. We are also dependent on the continued stability of our physical environment. All things considered, it's amazing human life has survived as long as it has largely uninhibited.

Despite such tenuous conditions, humans are now routinely passing 80, 90, and sometimes 100 years of age before succumbing to the frailties of mortality. It's a miracle that such longevity is possible given our circumstances. Truly this is a testimony of human resilience. And yet it would take so little to end it all....

Which has always brought me back to my own mortality. I'll try to avoid morbidity, but the fact remains that none of us knows how many years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes or seconds we have to live. We just have to live each moment we have like it could be our last. Could we say that we're ready to die at any time?

Existentially, I've often wondered why life has to come to an end. While I won't claim to have all the answers, I've concluded that, without a terminus, our lives might lack the meaning they have. Or perhaps we'd just assign meaning differently. But if you never had to worry about leaving this existence, you might not value your time much.

Anyway, now I'm just waxing philosophical.

The Hollywood-blockbuster machine

Admittedly, the label of #WorstMovieEver is probably an excessive description of the recently released film, the Avengers. In fairness to the new flick, it should be noted that my concerns noted below might more accurately be directed at the Hollywood-blockbuster machine more than at any one film in particular.

However, that admission does not exonerate this film of its grievances. Here are a few of the things I found troubling:

1. The roles of women in the film. In a list of the film's 11 stars, there's only one woman, and she isn't even a real super hero. As a society, are we comfortable admitting that for every 10 important men, there's one important woman?

Moreover, what role does she play? She's eye-candy for the film's predominantly male viewership. I'm not sure I heard a single word of dialogue between two female characters in this film. The female characters' importance is only evident in their interactions/relationships with male characters, who are in every case in this film their superiors. 

While I'm grateful this film spared us the proverbial cheesy romance between the one female lead and any/all of the film's many male protagonists, and while I acknowledge some strides made in casting women in prominent positions in society ("Pepper" (Gwyneth Paltrow) heads Stark's empire, the woman XO on the flying super-carrier), Hollywood has a long way to go before it treats men's and women's roles fairly. 

2. The lack of minorities. Outside "Nick Fury" (Samuel L. Jackson), the 11-person leading cast contains no minorities. And while I'm glad to see him portrayed as the team's leader, a single minority star in a cast of 11 is not representative of American demographics, and particularly not of the demographics of the city where it takes place. (According to some rankings, New York City is the most-diverse city on Earth.) This cast only further promulgates a society of predominantly white, predominantly male role models and leaders.

While I realize this film is an adaptation of a series of comics from a bygone era where white male supremacy and chauvinism were the norm, given the artistic license already taken in the screenplay, what would it have hurt to re-imagine some of the characters as minorities?

3. The "us-vs.-them" rhetoric and shameless pro-America propaganda. Hollywood has this funny way of serially portraying the fate of the world as resting completely in the hands of a few benevolent Americans. Are we really so egocentric as to believe America alone is capable of saving the world from impending doom, or that it would be wise for us to attempt such a task without the cooperation and participation of the remaining 95.7% of the world’s population? Moreover, where are the mediation and negotiation? Is armed conflict the only means of problem resolution?

When the Avengers discover that Nick Fury is planning to harness the power of the Tesseract to create new weapons for the American arsenal, they’re incensed. This is particularly troubling for Stark/Ironman, given his mission of disarmament. Fury argues, however, that greater weapons are needed, just to be prepared in the case of foreign/alien invasion.

This arms-race foreign policy is something we’ve seen before. Did we learn nothing from the Cold War or post-WWI Germany about the perils of weapons proliferation? Moreover, Joseph F. Smith taught:

“One thing is certain, the doctrine of peace by armed force, held to so long and tenaciously by czars, kings, and emperors, is a failure, and should without question forever be abandoned. It has been wrong from the beginning. That we get what we prepare for is literally true in this case. For years it has been held that peace comes only by preparation for war; the present conflict [World War I] should prove that peace comes only by preparing for peace” (The Improvement Era, Vol. 17, p. 1074, 1914).

The message is clear: if we want peace, we have to prepare for it and live like we want it. Arming ourselves to the teeth is a backwards approach to the issue and will only require more complicated disarmament negotiations in the end.

(Coincidentally, these historical observations and prophetic counsel on weapons proliferation and making preparations for war also form a compelling argument against gun ownership and the current interpretation of the 2^nd Amendment, but that discussion is for another post.)

And I suppose it shouldn’t have come as any surprise that Thor serendipitously landed somewhere in the United States  (1.9% of Earth’s surface area) instead of the 98.1% chance he’d land anywhere else. (Superman, I suppose, had the same luck?)

Disappointingly, this film's record-shattering box-office debut only confirms that as a society, Americans (and ostensibly, humans everywhere) not only accept these Hollywood-bestowed values as our culture, we’re willing to subsidize an industry that will continue to perpetuate all this egocentric backward American propaganda thinking. For as liberal as many actors and filmmakers are, the Hollywood-propaganda machine continues to do what it always has done best: give the people what they want. 

Before We Prescribe Health Care

A few weeks ago, Republican Scott Brown won Massachusetts's midterm US Senate election to fill the seat vacated at late Senator Ted Kennedy's passing. Many considered the race a referendum on the Obama administration and the Democratic Party in general.

Assuming all the hype about what the outcome of this race means is true, I'm not surprised a Republican won it. Whether Democrats and their liberal-biased media are willing to admit it or not, Obama's approval rating has been plummeting. Obama's perceived lack of action on issues that matter most on Main Street (as the political rhetoric goes), particularly on the economy and health care, has translated into understandable dissatisfaction about his administration. For someone who made so many campaign promises, he might rightly be accused of over-promising and under-delivering.

Truly, Scott Brown's victory in a state as blue as Massachusetts is something for Republicans everywhere to celebrate. Senator-elect Brown has promised, among other things, to be the 41st vote against the proposed Health Care Reform bill, thus subjecting it to filibuster and likely mitigating Democrats' ambitions to deliver their much-anticipated and highly-scrutinized government-option and coverage-for-all legislation. The conservative right has successfully persuaded Americans they stand to lose quality of care by providing basic care to the uncovered and under-insured.

In fact, the conservative right has successfully persuaded many Americans that Obama's change-bandwagon on which the whole country so enthusiastically hopped 14 months ago might be leading us down the wrong path yet. Moreover, they've been so successful in their moral crusade against all forms of lascivious Obamanation that siding with the president on anything... well, they might as well be siding with the devil in their conservative base's eyes.

The president pointed this out to Republicans at a retreat that House GOP leaders held the day after the recent State of the Union address. This tendency to oppose everything that could be perceived as coming from any source outside the Republican Party has paralyzed the political process. To be fair, Democrats haven't exactly been earnestly seeking Republican support for their ideas in recent months. Perhaps Senator Brown's election will open their eyes. But the notion that "if we can bring down the president on health care reform, we can defeat him" or that "this will be his Waterloo" isn't helping the situation. More recently, Republicans' continued obstinacy in the face of President Obama's outreach for discussion and compromise on health care is further evidence of their unwillingness to work with anything from outside their camp. The ensuing political gridlock isn't serving anyone, especially not the people we elect our officials to represent. Shouldn't we (and they) all be rooting for the Patriots rather than the Elephants or the Donkeys?

Our Declaration of Independence states that "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" are "unalienable Rights" "endowed by [our] Creator," and that "Governments are instituted among Men" "to secure [them]." These words are planted carefully in the hearts of children and rooted firmly in the minds of adults across our country. It's what we stand for.

Ironically, despite our nation's status as the birthplace of modern democracy, we are alone among our first-world peers in not understanding that it's hard to experience any of the three aforementioned unalienable rights when plagued by a chronic but curable disease or when worrying about how to pay for a desperately-needed but unaffordable life-saving medical procedure.

Our first-world counterparts in nations around the globe have made a choice we Americans have not yet been willing to make. To paraphrase a British friend of mine, Brits decided years ago that no one would die because he couldn't afford medical coverage. Not on their watch. There, citizens have decided that health care is a question of dignity, not one of dollars and cents or pounds and pence.

Is it really that far of a stretch to expand our understanding of unalienable, God-given rights to expecting that in the richest country in the world, no one should die or suffer unnecessarily when the technology and trained professionals are available to save and to heal? Are we so depraved?

How introducing the public sector into a previously private market will affect the competition in providing health care remains to be seen. This competition, after all, is what ensures options and second opinions as well as the research that develops the cutting edge treatments for which America has become renowned.

Or is it?

In looking around us, other countries, including Mexico, have successful public and private options for health care. In the UK, despite a fully-developed public option, many employers also offer successful private insurance plans. Furthermore, medical research and discovery continue at a healthy rate in the UK, despite public-sector health care coverage. In America, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have neither destroyed nor crippled private-sector health care, despite the sentiment and arguments to the contrary at the time of their approval. These same arguments against a public option in today's debate are without precedent in this country or abroad.

The statistics on the issue of the uninsured are staggering. If 15% of America's population is uninsured, that's 45,000,000 of us. Even if you take the conservative estimate of 10% (which is the current unemployment rate, so it's hard to imagine an uninsured rate less than that), that's 30,000,000 Americans.

According to these conservative estimates, on average, between one in seven and one in ten of our friends and family members does not have health insurance. In certain parts of the country, the numbers are much worse. To which of our friends or family members would we choose to deny coverage? Which of our children does not deserve health care?

While we might not be aware of it, many of our immediate connections are uninsured. It's surprising how many of us fit the description. As a child of successful, self-employed parents, my family and I were members of this demographic all throughout my childhood. More obviously uninsured are the unemployed, but in these woeful economic times, who among us hasn't either been without a job or had an immediate family member lose a job? Will we choose to deny our families coverage?

Many of the uninsured are the very people who are trying to pursue the American dream. Their creativity and entrepreneurial spirit drive our economy. For them, this dream is just out of reach. With nearly 50% of American households involved in home-based business opportunities, we all know someone who works from home. When both parents work from home or for a small business, there's no affordable solution for health insurance.

Even university graduates can't afford health insurance. It is only now that I have found a job with a large employer that I am beginning to understand what it seems the insured 255,000,000 - 270,000,000 citizens of our country take for granted: the peace of mind that comes from knowing that if something terrible happens, I'm covered. For the last 6 months since graduation, however, I've been uninsured.

So why are so many Americans not insured? Is there any reason health insurance can't be purchased like car or homeowner's insurance? I don't have to work for a large corporation to purchase either of these latter forms of insurance at affordable rates, so why not health insurance?

The truth is, the only thing standing between the uninsured and affordable insurance is a corrupt health insurance industry and perverse incentives governing the health care delivery system.

But before we simply insure everyone in this country, let's consider the incentives involved and how their consequences will impact us taxpayers who are footing the bill and supposedly benefiting from it.

In our country, private firms have historically delivered health care as a business service. Like all businesses, health insurers and doctors' offices respond to economic incentives to maximize profits. To this end, these businesses must either increase their net income or decrease their expenses. And so in this, America's current health care delivery system, we shouldn't be surprised to see both health insurers and doctors' offices extracting every penny possible from us and each other to compete and get ahead. Moreover, we should expect insurers to raise premiums (increasing net income) and find loopholes in coverage policies to avoid paying out (decreasing expenses) to the extent they can get away with it. As covered as we feel as insured Americans, our private health care providers are still more motivated by maximizing profits than by paying out benefits.

In addition to insurance companies' incentive not to pay out, doctors and their practices bill--either through reimbursement from insurance companies or out of the uninsured's pocket--based on the number and types of procedures and tests they perform. What incentive do they have not to perform the most expensive procedures as frequently as possible, even when they're unnecessary and repetitive? What incentive do they have not to up-sell us on procedures we don't need?

Unfortunately, America's health care delivery system has reduced health care to responding to such economic incentives as these. If we are to demand the best, most-appropriate care for our medical condition, we must remove money from the decision equation. We need doctors who provide what is needed, not what costs the least or earns the most. When doctors' decisions regarding procedures and care are tainted by financial incentives, that is when we lose quality of care. Likewise, we need patients who aren't worried about price tags when they enter doctors' offices and ask about available treatments. Should we not exhaust all resources in a reasonable attempt to preserve human life? Doctors and their offices need the freedom to do what is appropriate and decent rather than what is fiscally prudent. Only then will we experience true quality of care.

And so we stand at a crossroads in our history: will America, the birthplace of modern democracy, continue to be the only first-world nation not to offer health care to its citizens? Will health care in this country continue to be a question of money and status, or will we finally grant to all our citizens the human dignity and unalienable rights our Declaration of Independence claims we endear?

The suspense is killing me.

The attainability of true happiness in Gospel-centered living

As you might have noticed over the past few months, in an attempt to better understand my own motivations for living the way I do, I have addressed several topics relating to the practice—or perhaps, malpractice—of religion. I’d like to try to address an issue that I feel greatly impeded my understanding of both the Gospel and what some would deem “true happiness.” And so before we get started, I’d like to attempt to define a few terms. “Gospel-centered living” is a term I’ve developed to try to explain my lifestyle. It’s a life where I’m trying to do what I feel is right, but where that right is defined or at least guided by what the religious school of thought to which I subscribe proclaims. In this discussion, “true happiness” refers to a happiness devoid of feelings of culpability and regret, uninhibited by what might be if we do or had done more.


Some of the faithful would suggest that by leading a Gospel-centered life we will be happy, as though there were some formula for creating happiness. For many, there is a series of hoops which, if jumped through in the proper order and with the right frequency, will ultimately lead to happiness.

I hear comments like the following so often I’m growing weary of them: “And I know that living this Gospel is the only way we can find happiness in this life.” If this statement is true, then why is it that the same faithful individuals claiming Gospel-centered living to be the key to happiness are so unhappy in living what they’re preaching? Depression runs rampant among the faithful, and yet the Gospel-centered life is supposed to bring happiness.

I think in some cases, people are sincerely trying to convince themselves that the way they’re living and thinking about themselves and the world will one day lead to happiness, at the expense of feeling there’s something wrong with them if they’re not happy living what they think is the Gospel’s proscribed way. Somehow, by repeating what they’ve heard other unhappy individuals say about what they believed would lead them to happiness, they’re one step closer to believing it for themselves.

Evidently, there’s a disconnect here. These faithful are mislead (which many atheists and agnostics will argue), they’re misinformed (as many faithful from the world’s religions aside from your own will tell you), or they’re misunderstanding the truth they profess to believe in. As a man who believes to have found truth, I am inclined to believe the third among my fellow faithful.

We will only ever be as happy as we allow ourselves to be. If we impose upon ourselves an unattainable goal, our never attaining it will ultimately lead to our unhappiness. Just as we avoid disappointment by managing our expectations, we must avoid unhappiness by managing our reality. It is here I feel so many faithful err. Somehow we think we’ll be happy by following some nonexistent or inefficacious formula to a t, while there’s really no formula to follow. When I share an experience that promoted my faith, my hope is that it will edify others. However, I cannot expect a personal experience to play out in the life of anyone who seeks to repeat it. Rather, I would hope that those listening would apply the principles surrounding the events that lead to my faith-promoting experience.

Just as an artist will not succeed by recreating someone else’s masterpiece, we must paint the canvas of our own lives with our own colors and in our own way. Only then will the experiences that promote our faith also lead to our happiness.

"...waiting on the world to change."

Admittedly, I'm a bit perturbed.

Or perhaps disappointed is a better word. When considering the political atmosphere, there's plenty of cause for disappointment. As politicians continue to make promises they evidently aren't keeping, I'm disappointed. When politics becomes a game where parties and players are more concerned with keeping score and jockeying for position than they are with representing people, I'm disappointed. But we aren't doing much to encourage good behavior.

It seems almost all political commentary, whether via mass media, Facebook note, or blog, is centered on what candidates aren't doing for us. Now, don't get me wrong, we need to hold our politicians to as many of their promises as possible, but why do we not hear about the promises politicians are keeping? Surely they're keeping some of them, and probably as many as they realistically can. It's so easy to focus on the negative, especially when we're searching for ammunition against the opposing team.

As the result of a process I still don't understand, I was selected to represent my high school to go to Boys' State in my home State. The experience was more than just informative, it was enlightening. I was disgusted by the amount of backbiting, lying, maneuvering, and manipulation used to gain support for a candidate or cause in such inconsequential policy-making. Based on this experience with high school juniors, I can only imagine what's going on in Washington with PhDs, JDs, MAs, MSs, and MBAs.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to see an honest politician? I hesitate to put those two words next to each other. I guess that's why I'm still, in the words of John Mayer, "waiting on the world to change." I know how ideological it sounds to think there's such a thing as an honest politician, but it sure would be a breath of fresh air.

Why can't we focus on the good? Should politics be as intrinsically pessimistic as we make it out to be? If we ever want to get anything done, we need to stop pointing fingers.

Gandhi said we need to be the change we want to see in the world. Maybe we could start by encouraging politicians when they're doing things right, rather than criticizing them (as we're so wont to do) when they're doing things wrong. "One day my generation is going to rule the population" (thanks again, JM). I just hope we'll be better about all this than the current critics. Unfortunately, I guess I have my doubts.

Qualifying the goodness of others

One of my least favorite expressions, which I hear at church all the time, goes something like this: "He/She's not a member [of our church], but...." The commentator then goes on to say what a wonderful or Christlike person the individual is or what a good example he/she is, and the comment is usually pronounced in a tone implying, "I was surprised to find a good example of any Gospel principle outside the membership of our church, and you should be as surprised too!" So why do we always have to qualify or justify people outside our church?

The word "but" is a loaded word, charged with more meaning than its measly three letters might suggest. Essentially, when we say "but," we are emphasizing an implied contradiction between what we said in the first clause and in the second clause of the sentence. For example, "He's not a doctor, but he knows a lot about micro pathogens." Or even sarcastically, "I'm no rocket scientist, but that looks like it should work." So when we say, "He/She's not a member [of our church], but..." we imply that our friends of other faiths should not be expected to be good people. Am I truly to believe that? I won't!

It only makes sense that each faith believes it is teaching the truth. (If it weren't, why not belong to the faith that was?) A belief system is based on the belief that it is correct. So we should expect our friends to believe they believe the truth, regardless of whether we believe what they believe. It shouldn't come as a surprise, then, that I feel I really have found a great source of truth in my church. In fact, I haven't found a better one anywhere.

Accepting this belief, however, I accept that others likely feel the same way about their faith. They believe they're doing what's right, and quite frankly, many of them are likely doing as good a job or better of living right as I am. To assume less would be presumptuous. So why should I be surprised when I hear an inspiring story about a friend or prominent figure of another faith?

In addition, asking whether someone "is a member [of the Church]" creates several unwanted consequences. Are we to have our friends of other faiths feel alienated every time we refer to them as "non-members?" Not members of what? Is the Church some kind of exclusive club, where you're either in or out, or should the Church be a place where all feel welcome? Besides, if a visiting member of another faith is questioned about his membership, will he even know to which membership we're referring? "Of the health club? The yacht club? Sure, sure, I'm a member."

Another undesirable consequence of such thoughtless language is the alienation and distance it creates. Many faiths--including the majority of Christian faiths, I would argue--are openly evangelical. Recruiting the new faithful is essential. If it is our goal to increase our church's membership, should we not be referring to visitors inclusively rather than exclusively?

Moreover, our church activities should be designed in such a way that those of all faiths feel comfortable attending and participating. Now don't get me wrong: I'm not arguing for Unitarianism, just an open exchange of ideas. Should church not be a forum where our questions are answered? If we want to be better at answering people's questions, some practice might not hurt. Why not host such practice in our church meetings?

When I look at the violence around the world, much of which many attribute to religious differences, I see this exclusionary attitude on both sides of the arguments. If we want to put an end to religious discrimination and violence, crusades and jihad, we might start by including and inviting others in our speech about them rather than self-segregating and alienating ourselves. These attitudes lead to isolationism, a key ingredient to ignorance.

How ironic that it is perhaps in our places of worship, where we preach tolerance and love, that the root of our divisiveness lies!

Sacred Art

In ancient times, only the socially privileged, highly educated, or specially trained knew how to read. In ancient Egyptian and American societies, among others, writing forms were based on pictures that evolved to carry certain meanings. Art, especially in sacred settings, was used to convey messages to the illiterate. It was rich in symbolism, scripturally and doctrinally accurate, and naturally inspiring.

(In fact, many of this world's artistic masterpieces are inspired by religious themes. Some nations focused entirely on sacred art for many generations. Only in more recent history have secular pieces become historically significant and respected.)

That said, I have to admit, at the risk of sounding like an art snob, that I much prefer religious art that depicts actual events or prophecy from holy writ. I'm not as concerned about things religious figures might have done, could be imagined to have done, might possibly be doing now, or could potentially do.

To me, these imaginative forms of sacred art are similar to "quoted" statements from scripture, such as the Savior's reportedly teaching, "I never said it would be easy, I only said it would be worth it." While this statement does not necessarily contradict the Savior's teachings, and while it is possible the Savior actually taught this principle, these words are not contained in any revelation of which I am aware. And yet, they are some of the Savior's most oft-cited words by members of my faith.

There is another intrinsic problem with both invented religious art and imagined sacred citations: while they might be a reflection of the creativity of their authors, to the scripturally illiterate--whether by choice, inexperience, or incapacity--representing imagined situations as real or accurate can be deceptive, misleading, and the source of, for lack of a better term, our religious urban legends.

Furthermore, people will accept, remember, and believe what they see. The human mind is a powerful tool with a great capacity to recall words and images. Once an erroneous piece of information enters our mind, not only must we learn the truth when we encounter it, but we must also forget the wrong information we once learned.

Allow me to illustrate with a couple acute examples. First, this week's Church bulletin had a pencil drawing of the Savior tossing a child above Him in the air. While the image does not contradict the Savior's teachings, it also has no reference to an actual occurrence in the Scriptures.

Second, while the Scriptures teach Christ was baptized by immersion, I have seen art depicting John the Baptist and Christ in the river Jordan with John baptizing Christ by aspersion. I encountered this art as a missionary while attempting to teach about baptism by immersion and following Christ's example, and, needless to say, it had a detrimental effect on my teaching efforts.

Moreover, people have a hard enough time getting the facts straight in so many instances of Scriptural reporting. With different accounts recording slightly different information, the questions surrounding certain stories are understandable and justified. This is even more reason for artists who choose to represent sacred scenes to pay special attention to what they're producing.

This same principle has implications in music that teaches incorrect principles, or anything that does, for that matter.

What are your thoughts?

Fous au volant

A couple weeks ago, I was crossing a busy intersection on my daily route to school. As I was a few minutes late, I looked both ways and began running across the street. I didn't have the right-of-way, but the intersection was clear in the directions of traffic as far away as I could see and our turn to cross the street was next. What's more, another student was just a few steps ahead of me.

As I was almost across the street, a car crested the hill opposite the intersection from where I was crossing at a speed greatly exceeding the steeet's residential speed limit. Floating lightly on its suspension, the car cruised through the intersection, swerving to avoid me. The driver angrily laid on the horn as the light changed in the intersection.

As I reflect on the experience, I realize how close I came to suffering serious bodily injury or death. I recently married, and I couldn't help but think about the heartache such an accident would have caused my dear wife. Should I have run into the road without the right-of-way? In retrospect, it seems more than just foolish or even reckless. But another question has occupied my attention even more the last few weeks:

What's up with the dangerous combination of absent-minded pedestrians and angry drivers in Provo?

I am convinced that Provo has the worst drivers and the most thoughtless pedestrians of any city in America. Pedestrians all over the city cross the street without looking either way. A couple days ago, a girl used a crosswalk at an intersection I was driving through. Staring at her iPod, with her headphones in, she sauntered into the street, ignorant she didn't have the right-of-way. What was she thinking? Cars slowed for her, but she's lucky she didn't get hit. At least in my case I had looked both ways before crossing the street and tried to determine it was safe to do so. This girl didn't even acknowledge the existence of the cars in the street she was crossing.

I'm not sure what causes such absent-mindedness in a city so full of college students. My university is a respectable school with a difficult application and admissions process; how is it we have such a high concentration of thoughtless, selfish individuals?

Before you judge me too judgmental, let me expound. I am of the belief that, despite everything we've been taught and the fact that we should know better, students at this university are essentially selfish individuals. This explains apathy to common-sense safety practices, like looking before crossing a street, as well as the reason my neighbors think it's okay, in their perceived haste, to occupy two spaces in our apartment complex's crowded parking lot. I guess staying between the lines is too much to ask.

Thoughtless interaction between pedestrians and drivers is only exacerbated by police attitudes toward j-walking. In a recent report in my university's newspaper, the local police department was quoted as saying its officers are more prone to ticket drivers not stopping for pedestrians, even when they aren't using crosswalks, than they are to ticket pedestrians for j-walking.

This "carte blanche" the police department has effectively granted pedestrians might be to blame for such deplorable public behavior as crossing (at a crosswalk or otherwise) a street without looking, but what explains other inexcusable lacks of driver etiquette, like never letting anyone in, crossing into the right-hand lane when turning left, turning left well after the arrow has expired, and the ever-unsafe "I'm-letting-you-turn" maneuver? What about all the other directions and lanes of traffic, are they all letting you in?

Has anyone else experienced this, or do I just expect too much from the drivers around me?

From Dating to Marriage

My good friend Eric made an interesting statement recently after breaking up with his then girlfriend. This was around the same time I was getting engaged. Said he: "I'm convinced dating does not lead to marriage."

This comment flew in the face of a lot of advice I've received from a lot of people I respect, people whose advice I value for a multiplicity of reasons. Over the last few weeks, however, as I have thought about my own experience in the world of dating and relationships and as I have heard more than ever about the romantic lives of my single and married friends, I have come to agree more and more with Eric: the act of dating, especially dating in the micro-culture in which I live, does not lead to marriage.

As a student at a private religious university and an active member of my faith, I am subjected--often on a weekly basis--to comments about dating, courtship, and marriage from professors and religious leaders alike. They seem to have one common goal: marry off as many single students as possible before they leave school. Historically, my school's extracurricular and on-campus activities have been calculated to the same end. Dating (going out on dates) is not only encouraged, it's expected.

As a single male student here, I was expected to invite girls out to eat, to see a movie, to go rock climbing, to go mini-golfing, (this list is endless), .... Furthermore, it was socially expected that I would be ready to report on my weekend's activities at Church on Sunday to any one of my ecclesiastical leaders who might inquire.

And so, for three years after my two-year Church service, I asked girls out seemingly every weekend. I'm the kind of guy who does what's expected of him most of the time, unless I have some reason to believe that by so doing I would violate my personal standards. Since the social expectation seemed to be coming from my religious leaders and mentors, I subconsciously filed away dating under practices "ordained of God."

"The Family: A Proclamation to the World," issued by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued in 1995, clearly states that "marriage...is ordained of God" (see opening paragraph of the proclamation). On a local level (and seemingly more particularly at my university), local Church leaders have sought to interpret this statement to mean that, by extension, dating is ordained of God.

Dating, in and of itself, does not lead to marriage any more than eating Cheerios for breakfast every day for a year leads to marriage. In fact, "dating" in the way the word is thrown around so nonchalantly in our culture is not acceptable in other cultures. And yet, marriage is a part of virtually every society and culture around the world. So how is it others get married if they don't date the way we do?

Before I continue, I would like to concede that I do feel dating can have a place in developing social skills potentially important in a marriage relationship. Moreover, when we date, we learn much about ourselves.

This should not, however, be construed to mean that these social skills and personal revelations cannot be obtained through any other means. Dating might even be the most effective way to develop these skills in our culture, but I know a lot of antisocial boys and girls that wind up married, even before their gregarious, adventurous counterparts.

The way we use the word "dating" often refers to a series of excursions, often on weekend evenings, almost exclusively with one person at a time. (That is, after all, what makes it a date, right?) These serial encounters force us to step out of our comfort zone, which might include not spending time with members of the opposite sex, especially not one on one time. To these ends, dating can build important social skills required in courtship and eventually marriage.

But it seems like the more couples I meet and the more stories I hear, even and especially from my married and engaged friends at my highly fruitful, marriage-producing university, the less I believe that just going on dates will get people married.

Perhaps the reason for encouraging us to date so much is that in our culture, this seems to be an effective way to help us cultivate these social skills. As for the dating itself leading to marriage, however, I'm not convinced.

While I cannot speak for everyone, in my own personal experience, it wasn't until I gave up on dating the way I felt I was being instructed to that I met and married my wife. During our entire courtship, we only went on a couple "dates." What we did spend time doing, however, was being with each other. We spent hours together just sitting and talking on a blanket on the grass outside our apartment complex. It was completely unplanned and natural. It just happened.

In fact, our first (and only, we joke) real date was one day last summer in the late afternoon when Kaela paid me a somewhat unanticipated visit to give me a CD she had made for me. I popped the CD into my computer and we listened to some great music together, then I informed her I was in the mood for Italian food and wondered whether she might be interested in accompanying me to a favorite restaurant in town. We went and had a great time, but again, it was not planned at all.

It was over the course of a couple weeks, but especially that first evening at the restaurant, that I realized how easy it was to talk to Kaela and how comfortable I was around her. I suppose the rest is history, but there's an important lesson to be learned here, and I suppose it's the reason for all this thought: we will not get married, at least certainly not happily married, until we put aside all the angst of the dating game that so many well-intentioned leaders heap upon us and learn to just be ourselves. It sounds simple, but it's the truth. If you are capable of truly being yourself on a first date you're excited about, all the power to you, but I highly doubt that is the case for most of us. Things just have to happen naturally, and until they do, no one will get what he/she really wants out of a marriage relationship.

And so, dating, as we call it, does not lead to marriage. In fact, I submit it's only when we disarm ourselves and the people we might be interested in "dating" and get down to getting to know each other--really know each other, not just some puppy love kind of know each other--that anything will turn out the way we want it to.

As a matter of fact, if you had approached me a year ago and introduced Kaela to me as a girl I might be interested in dating, I would have politely introduced myself to her, made some small talk, and politely excused myself. In so many ways she wasn't what I was looking for, but getting to know her in the way I did made it clear she was everything I never knew I needed and always wanted and more. She completes me, she understands me, she is patient with me; in other words, she just gets me. Being married to her is better than anything I could have imagined or hoped for out of marriage and yet, I think I could count the "dates" we've been on, both during and after courtship, on one hand.

My own worst enemy

Does anyone else find it curious how some people are always happy, despite what would seem to be a relatively high level of adversity, while others, living supposedly cushy lives, are completely dissatisfied with life?

I think it might have something to do with a recent observation I've made, at least in the case of myself. I am becoming increasingly convinced that while humans come in all different packages, one common thread among us is the need for adversity and struggle in our lives. If we don't have any, we'll make some, even if it means making some up.

I don't mean to downplay the importance of people who are living truly difficult lives. Certain circumstances are completely out of our control. I'm not sure children starving to death in Africa or Asia (or in any part of the world) would choose to be where they are without the prospect of improving their situation. Now, starving children are an extreme example, but others much closer to home deal with the loss of loved ones, serious illness, or otherwise difficult circumstances beyond their control that most would agree make for a difficult life.

That said, let's take the example of some of the people we might consider living the dream life. Born into wealth and fame, they are the movie stars of the world. Everything seems to be going their way, and where do they end up? Drug addiction, the least-stable romantic relationships in recorded history, and high rates of suicide?

With these extremes in mind, let's consider my own life's experience. I'm a senior at a good university in the United States studying what I want to, and I've even changed my mind a few times. I'm living in a wonderful apartment with awesome roommates and neighbors, and I'm just up the street from my friends' place. I have a car, a computer, and I didn't have to work last term because I didn't want to. Last night, I sat out on the lawn with friends eating dessert and talking until midnight because none of us had anything better to do. All that was after going out to dinner and watching a movie and a friend of a friend's apartment.

And somehow, I feel I'm just getting over what has proven to be one of the more difficult moments of life to date. But when I consider what I've gone through, it's hard to complain about my circumstances. I just completed a 3 month dream job in Europe with excellent compensation, I'm on scholarship at my university, and the possibilities for my future are endless. It's just up to me to decide what I want to do.

Now, I suppose there's a lot I'm not saying about my personal life that factors into the mix, but that's just my point. I feel responsible for my personal life. While there are factors of it I can't change, the way I react to my circumstances is entirely up to me. (I suppose that's true for starving children in Africa too, but I wouldn't dare equate the two.) But rather than focusing on the good things in my life, I focus on the negatives. I expend so much energy trying to make everything just right, rather than sitting back and admiring and enjoying all the good things in life.

I've always tried to convince myself that my perspective was skewed, but I observe people all around me doing exactly the same thing I am; that is, taking the good for granted and focusing on the negative. What if we were to devote our time and energy to the good and just let the bad take care of itself? That sounds idealistic, but the good has no problem taking care of itself while I wallow in the negative. I'm not suggesting civic, personal, or family irresponsibility, but I think we could all do with a little less adversity (or at least what we perceive as adversity) in our lives. Why do we create it for ourselves? Or if we're not creating it, why do seemingly minor negative aspects of life dominate our time and energy?

I think it has to do with what is at our core as human beings. Deep inside each of us is a longing to be something better. Whether that translates to being a saint or just improving our situation, we're all always striving for something better.

What are your thoughts?

Affirmative Action and Reverse Discrimination

To my readers:

Alright. I'm back in the States. My latest European adventure was inspirational, but, just like the rest, has come to an end.

Upon my return to the States, I came across a note a friend posted. The following is a paper a couple of classmates (names withheld for privacy--contact me and I'll ask them for permission to share their names if you're interested) and I prepared on affirmative action and reverse discrimination. I post it in response to my friend's comments to the contrary. Please let me know what you think, whether you agree or disagree.

For further reading, I particularly recommend Stanley Fish's article.


Affirmative Action and Reverse Discrimination

For the first time ever, the US Justice Department is suing blacks for discriminating against whites at the polls. According to an ABC News report, the US Justice Department is using the 1965 Voting Rights Act—a law originally passed to ensure fairness to blacks in voters’ rights—to sue Ike Brown, a prominent African American politician accused of “disenfranchis[ing] whites—challenging their voting status, rejecting their absentee ballots and telling voters to choose candidates according to race” (Tapper & Miller, 2005, para. 5).

While voting rights and affirmative action are not directly related, they deal with the same issue: racism. “Reverse discrimination,” as illustrated by the example above, is one of the byproducts of racial tension in America. Many Americans find this troubling: how is it that while struggling for racial equality we have now looked beyond the mark? The same discomfort arises when considering affirmative action policies currently in place in many job markets and school admissions boards across America.

Stanley Fish (1993), an accomplished literary critic and professor at Florida International University, writes of an experience where he was the victim of reverse discrimination: “I was recently nominated for an administrative post at a large university. Early signs were encouraging, but after an interval I received official notice that I would not be included at the next level of consideration, and subsequently I was told unofficially that at some point a decision had been made to look only in the direction of women and minorities.” He continues, “Although I was disappointed, I did not conclude that the situation was ‘unfair,’ because the policy was obviously not directed at me” (p. 4). Early in the article, Fish argues that

blacks have not simply been treated unfairly; they have been subjected first to decades of slavery, and then to decades of second-class citizenship, widespread legalized discrimination, economic persecution, educational deprivation, and cultural stigmatization…. When the deck is stacked against you in more ways than you can even count, it is small consolation to hear that you are now free to enter the game and take your chances (p. 1).

For Fish, there is more than one way to respond to reverse discrimination.

Racism has long been a part of American culture, and black citizens have been dealing with its repercussions from the foundation of our nation, through the Civil War, on through the Civil Rights movement, and even up until today. For a real life example, let us consider a television news special by Diane Sawyer in 1991, where two similar 28-year-old men, Glenn Brewer, who is black, and John Kuhnen, who is white, were followed around St. Louis, Missouri for a day. The men were assigned to shop in the same stores, try to rent the same apartment and apply for the same job, and hidden cameras taped them throughout the process:

At several stores, Mr. Kuhnen gets instant service; Mr. Brewer is ignored except at a record store, where a salesman keeps a close eye on him without offering any assistance. When they go for a walk, separately on the same street, a police car passes Mr. Kuhnen but slows down to give Mr. Brewer a once-over. At a car dealership, Mr. Kuhnen is offered a lower price and better financing terms than Mr. Brewer. Inquiring about a job at a dry cleaner that has advertised for help, Mr. Kuhnen is told jobs are still available; Mr. Brewer is told, "The positions are taken." Following up a for-rent sign, Mr. Kuhnen is promptly offered an apartment, which he does not take; 10 minutes later, Mr. Brewer is told it has been rented for hours. (Goodman, 1991, para. 1-5)

Racism is alive and well in America, but not necessarily in the ways we might think.

Although institutional racism, or segregation, officially ended in the U.S. in 1968, racism still exists in our society, and blacks are still struggling to get ahead. The National Urban League (2005) released a report stating, “Black unemployment remained stagnant at 10.8 percent while white unemployment dropped to 4.7 percent, making black unemployment more than twice that of whites” (para. 4). It also found that "blacks are three times more likely to become prisoners once arrested and a Black person's average jail sentence is six months longer than a white's for the same crime; 39 months versus 33 months" (para. 7). Sharon Smith (2004), a writer for an online socialist magazine, found that in 2004 African Americans made up 13 percent of drug users, "Yet [accounted] for 35 percent of drug arrests and 53 percent of drug convictions. Blacks [were] also 43 percent of those on death row” (para. 7). The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (n.d.) says that an estimated 32% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, far more than will attend college.

Recent studies show that blacks are also at a disadvantage when it comes to education. In 1995 “only 1,455 African Americans received PhDs in the United States. During the same year, 24,608 whites were awarded PhDs” (Ogletree Jr., 1996, para. 4). In 2005, “Thirty percent of white adults had at least a bachelor's degree…while 17 percent of black adults…had degrees” (Ohlemacher, 2006, p A03). In that same year, blacks received the lowest scores on AP examinations compared to all other racial groups.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who spoke clearly to a white world about racism, understood that the country could not just grant blacks their freedom, and then go on with life as if nothing had happened. And most would not consider him to be racist. He once said, “It’s all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is a cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps….We must come to see that the roots of racism are very deep in our country, and there must be something positive and massive in order to get rid of all the effects of racism and the tragedies of racial injustice (King, 1968, para. 25-26).”

Affirmative action is an attempt to provide the boots. President Clinton (1995) defined affirmative action as “an effort to develop systematic approach to open the doors of education, employment, and business development opportunities to qualified individuals who happen to be members of groups that have experienced long-standing and persistent discrimination” (para. 8).

According to this definition, affirmative action is intended to provide opportunities. The Department of Labor (2000) further explains that “placement goals may not be rigid and inflexible quotas” and that “quotas are expressly forbidden.” In other words, if a black man receives a job to fill a rigid placement goal or a quota, the employer is violating the law (para. 6).

Certain critics of affirmative action propose society help those who are in a poor economic state as opposed to granting opportunities based on race or ethnicity. Statistics show, however, that race and ethnicity are strong indicators of poor economic status. In 1992, 46.3% of black children lived below the poverty line compared to only 12.3% of white children. Moreover, blacks make up 10.2% of the workforce but are underrepresented in skilled professions. They make up 3.7% of engineers, 2.7% of dentists, 3.1% of architects, and hold 4.8% of university faculty jobs. Of almost 28,000 degrees awarded in 1992, only 4% were awarded to blacks. (Jenkins, 2001, para. 15)

Furthermore, what is produced by racism and is the consequence of racism cannot be blamed on the group that has been prejudiced. Racism cannot beget racism in that sense. The second term racism must have a different name because it is a different thing. Stanley Fish (1993) likened that idea to assigning the same moral guilt to the Jews that wanted to establish their own nation based on Jewish history and culture after centuries of persecution as to the Nazi’s who killed six million of them during the Holocaust. Fish points out that “only if racism is thought of as something that occurs principally in the mind…can the desire of a victimized and terrorized people to band together be declared morally identical to the actions of their would-be executioners” (p. 1). In the same way that Jews were not racist for seeking their own state as reparations for centuries of injustice, the black man is not racist for taking advantage of affirmative action programs that have been ruled legal and intended temporary, and neither are any who approve of such programs.

The situation immigrants are now facing is similar to what African American’s experienced for a long time. Substandard education, an inferior skill set, and unequal employment opportunities based on citizenship status (illegal, second class) show us what would happen if we stopped affirmative action now without giving it the opportunity to succeed. A recent study showed that immigrant families are worse off than native families and that poverty is getting worse for immigrant families, regardless of race or ethnic lines. Improvements have been made, but we have not gone far enough. The study further showed that the difference is due to native families’ employment and parental education (Van Hook, Brown, Kwenda, 2004, pp. 649-670).

In a 1965 address at Howard University, President Lyndon Johnson described the situation through an analogy where two men—one white and one black—are running a race. Before the whistle blows, the white man kicks the black man, who falls over, hurt and bleeding. The whistle blows, and the white man takes off. The referee calls the race, brings the white man back to the starting line, puts a bandage on the black man’s leg, and then blows the whistle again. Does the black man really have a chance (Kennedy & Jeffrey, 1997, para. 30)?

Every day we deal with race. We can choose how we deal, but we must deal nonetheless. African Americans do not have the opportunities that whites do every time they go into a bank, a car dealership, or even a store in the mall. Affirmative action is meant to give them an equal opportunity to show they can do as well as whites. Any kind of discrimination is wrong, but affirmative action is not discrimination. It is not aimed at whites, nor at men, nor at any other group to try to disadvantage them. It is aimed at granting African Americans the opportunity to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Should affirmative action end? Yes. Should it end now, before it has had the chance to help equalize African Americans in the eyes of the rest of the nation? Not when white men are 33% of the population are 48% of the college educated work force. Not while they are 80% of tenured professors and 99% of the Senate. And certainly not while they are 99.9% of professional athletic team owners and 100% of U.S. Presidents (Jackson, 1998, para. 19). We must allow affirmative action the most time possible to try in some way to make up for creating a nation where to be black more often than not means time served with the Department of Corrections, a disadvantaged life in the pursuit of happiness, and relegation to poverty.

 
Works Cited

“Criminal Offenders Statistics.” US Department of Justice. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm)

Fish, Stanley. “Reverse Racism, or How the Pot Got to Call the Kettle Black.” theatlantic.com. Nov. 1993. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199311/reverse-racism)

Goodman, Walter. “Review/Television; Looking Racism in the Face in St. Louis.” 26 Sept. 1991. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE5DD163DF935A1575AC0A967958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print)

Jackson, Jesse L. “Affirmative Action Is Beneficial.” Current Controversies: Minorities. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Brigham Young University - Utah. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://find.galegroup.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010055221&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=byu_main&version=1.0)

Jenkins, Wilbert “Affirmative Action Has Furthered Civil Rights.” Opposing Viewpoints: Interracial America. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego Greenhaven Press, 2001. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Brigham Young University- Utah. 30 Oct. 2007. (http://find.galegroup.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodID=OVRC&docId=EJ3010148221&source=galegale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=byu_main&version=1.0)

Kennedy, Brian T., and Douglas A. Jeffrey. “A Citizen's Guide to the Affirmative Action Debate.” The Claremont Institute. 1 Jan. 1997. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.491/pub_detail.asp)

King, Jr., Martin L. “Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution.” National Cathedral, Washington DC. 31 Mar. 1968. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/sermons/680331.000_Remaining_Awake.html).

National Urban League. 2005. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.nul.org/PressReleases/2005/2005PR185.html). Ogletree, Jr., Charles J.

Ohlemacher, Stephen (2006, Nov 14). Persistent race disparities found: Minorities still lag in income, education, census data show. The Washington Post, p. A03.

“Placement Goals.” Department of Labor Online. 13 Nov. 2000. United States Department of Labor. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/Title_41/Part_60-2/41CFR60-2.16.htm)

Smith, Sharon (2004). The terrible toll of racism in the U.S. socialistworker.org, Retrieved Nov 15 2007, from http://www.socialistworker.org/2004-1/491/491_07_RacismUSA.shtml

Tapper, Jake, and Avery Miller. “ABC News: Reverse Racism?” ABC News.Com. 28 Dec. 2005. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1449254)

“The Case for Affirmative Action.” Stanford Magazine. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1996/sepoct/articles/for.html)

Van Hook, Jennifer, Susan L. Brown, Maxwell Ndigume Kwenda. Demography, Vol. 41, No. 4. (Nov., 2004), pp. 649-670.