Sometimes I have little epiphanies about fairly broad subjects. Today, I had one about the increasing volume regarding the rhetoric that the poor and unemployed citizens are "lazy". Not worth going into details why this rhetoric is so overwhelming right now (see: recession and trying to get rid of foodstamps or something) but needless to say, it exists.
However, while I can only speak about my own experiences, I feel like pointing out that not all unemployed people are lazy (this goes without saying, right?) but that furthermore, being unemployed does not automatically mean that one is not actually a productive member of society.
Since graduating from SUNY Oneonta back in 2009, I have yet to find full time employment. So you'll excuse me while I go into Sir BragsALot mode, but I'd like to use myself as an example to start out:
-While I was a student at SUNY Oneonta, I was credited with completing 750.25 volunteer hours of community service. My volunteer work included working on the SUNY Oneonta Undergraduate Philosophy Conference, the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center (which I also served on the Advisory Committee of after I graduated), and the Student Association Supreme Court, among other organizations.
-While I was still living in Oneonta, I also volunteered at a local emergency room and as an EMT for a volunteer fire department.
-Currently, while I am also doing coursework towards a possible Criminology degree at Wilkes-University, I am also doing an unpaid internship with a local law enforcement agency in Wilkes-Barre. While most of the time I am observing court cases, I have also done clerical work as well.
-For the past three years, I have been writing reviews of LGBTQ related films and now have an archive with more than 100 film reviews that I can call my own. While this arguably has little objective value, I do like to think that these reviews have added to a general understanding of queer cinema.
-On top of all of this, I also work out on regularly on a daily basis in the hopes of pursueing a career in either law enforcement or emergency medicine.
-Most recently, I am now volunteering as a researcher for the Quist, an iOS/Android LGBTQ/Queer history app.
Perhaps this is the height of arrogance, but I would like to think that thanks to my history of volunteering and educational pursuits, that I am not only the opposite of lazy, but that I just might be able to call myself a productive member of society. I just happen to not have been able to turn my productivity into a steady paycheck, yet. I cannot imagine that I am the only person who is unemployed and has spent many hours volunteering in an effort to make the kinds of connections that will lead to a paid position.
Of course there is the possibility that I am some kind of special case and the ranks of the unemployed are filled to the brimming with the lazy and unmotivated. Perhaps, but consider the fact that historically speaking, military veterans have generally faced unemployment rates much higher than the non-veteran population.
Call me perverse, but I look forward to the day when the same politicians who argue that the unemployed are the unmotivated scourge of society, go on national TV and argue that members of the U.S. Military have a poor work ethic.
This is all before we get into how privilege and minority status affects how readily one can find employment. One of the most frustrating aspects of an economics class I took this summer, was the circular reasoning that was taken by one of the required texts regarding this phenomenon. People of color are more like to be unemployed because they are less "productive" workers and the reason they are less productive is because they are less educated then white folks. Do I need to point out the not so minor issue with that argument, even if we accept as true? Like oh I dunno, that racism just might create a barrier to higher education for people of color?
Then there was the argument from the same text about the reason a pay gap exists between men and women. Which is apparently because women are also less productive. Now one reason for the productivity disparity was because women are less likely to pursue higher paying careers in traditionally male dominated fields. The possibility that women were less likely to pursue careers in male dominated fields because of sexist social conditioning never crossed the authors minds. They also attempted to use the "mommie factor" (that is women taking time off of work to raise kids) as another reason women are less productive than men. I will simply point out that this is a sexist argument in of itself, as it immediately dismisses the bearing and raising of kids as not being a form of productivity.
Continueing in this vain but did you know that sending out a "gay resume" means you're less likely to get called by an interested employer? Oddly enough, the same holds true for resumes with "African-American sounding" names. If this is true, we must assume then that your name or sexual orientation must be a reliable indicator to an employer of ones work ethic. Because otherwise things like racism and homophobia actually exist and admitting they exist is so very, very hard.
I do not wish to promote the idea here that one's ultimate worth as a human being is somehow tied up in ones employment status or any such nonsense. I just want to say that ultimately, what's really truly lazy is painting an entire population with the same brush. There is no effort required when it comes to promoting stereotypes.
Further Reading:
National Statistics on Transgender Unemployment - Transgender Workplace Diversity
My Name Is Jason, I’m A 35-Yr-Old White Male Combat Veteran…And I’m On Food Stamps
Homeless Veterans, By The Numbers - Thinkprogress
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
September 21, 2013
December 16, 2012
The Common Right of Toads and Men
Carl Sagen once made the following analogy with regards to the nuclear arms race in an interview with ABC News Viewpoint:
The gun control debate has been rekindled in the U.S. thanks to the murder of 20 schoolchildren and 6 teachers in one go. Pro-gun rights individuals are once again on the defensive and throwing up all kinds of arguments about why the intrinsic right to own a tool that fires bits of metal at high velocities should exist.
Furthermore, the claim goes, if everyone had such a tool to that allowed them to fire bits of metal at high velocities, then mass shootings would be ended overnight. This is akin to arguing that if we give everyone a box of matches and a tin of gasoline, then there will no more fires.
When Columbine first occurred, I was still in high-school. I can remember that feeling of fear and confusion everyone else exhibited. Shortly afterwards, after having stayed home sick for a few days, I showed up to the Otego Elementary School parking lot, where I would then take the bus to my high-school. That was when I noticed that I was the only student in the entire parking lot wearing a back-pack. Everyone else was carrying their school supplies in their hands and looking at me as if I might have a bomb strapped to my chest. It turned out that the day before their had been an in school announcement that in an attempt to promote school safety, back-packs were now forbidden on school premises.
I have no idea how this was supposed to make us safer, nor were any of the other drills, and rules that the school board came up with after this. Perhaps this is what makes the whole situation so utterly terrifying, there are no easy solutions. I won't even pretend that there are. Not all tragedies can be eliminated.
However, the fact remains that countries that do have strict gun control laws have less homicides and violent crime per capita then countries that do. Guns do not commit crimes or kill people. However, committing crimes or homicide do become much easier when a criminal has a gun then then when they don't. Also, if you claim Hitler and the NAZI's supported strict gun control, you are completely and utterly wrong. Go and study some non-propaganda history books now.
What I also feel I have to point out is that people who argue that "if we arm everybody then there will be less crime" are essentially arguing that violence is the best solution to this problem. How different is this from the mentality that leads to mass shootings in the first place? Aren't those who perpetuate mass shootings using violence to solve their problems too?
As a country this is an issue. We tell kids who are bullied that they need to stand up for themselves and fight back against those who torment them. We advocate the use of violence in lieu of diplomacy at every turn. Don't like the government? Then start a revolution! A revolution that will obviously be violent because we will need our guns to fight it. We invaded Iraq, not because they attacked us or were even planning to attack us, but simply because there existed intelligence that indicated that they might have had the means to attack us.
Is there any reason to think that those who engage in mass shootings are not the ones who have best absorbed the lesson that violence is a viable solution to one's problems? Are mass shooters not fighting back and standing up to those schools or institutions that they perceive as oppressing them?
Then there is the whole issue of how, as a country, we have declared the right to own a gun sacred above all else, but access to affordable healthcare is a privilege. As it is with all this talks of rights, I cannot help but think of the verse Emily Dickinson once wrote which went:
This is what has been argued, that death is our common right, the same one that we share with toads. We have no right to life, only to enough lighter fluid and matches so that we may burn ourselves all to ash.
Imagine, a room, awash in gasoline. And there are two implacable enemies in that room. One of them has 9,000 matches. The other has 7,000 matches. Each of them is concerned about who’s ahead, who’s stronger. Well, that's the kind of situation we are actually in. The amount of weapons that are available to the United States and the Soviet Union are so bloated, so grossly in excess of what's needed to dissuade the other that if it weren't so tragic, it would be laughable.
The gun control debate has been rekindled in the U.S. thanks to the murder of 20 schoolchildren and 6 teachers in one go. Pro-gun rights individuals are once again on the defensive and throwing up all kinds of arguments about why the intrinsic right to own a tool that fires bits of metal at high velocities should exist.
Furthermore, the claim goes, if everyone had such a tool to that allowed them to fire bits of metal at high velocities, then mass shootings would be ended overnight. This is akin to arguing that if we give everyone a box of matches and a tin of gasoline, then there will no more fires.
When Columbine first occurred, I was still in high-school. I can remember that feeling of fear and confusion everyone else exhibited. Shortly afterwards, after having stayed home sick for a few days, I showed up to the Otego Elementary School parking lot, where I would then take the bus to my high-school. That was when I noticed that I was the only student in the entire parking lot wearing a back-pack. Everyone else was carrying their school supplies in their hands and looking at me as if I might have a bomb strapped to my chest. It turned out that the day before their had been an in school announcement that in an attempt to promote school safety, back-packs were now forbidden on school premises.
I have no idea how this was supposed to make us safer, nor were any of the other drills, and rules that the school board came up with after this. Perhaps this is what makes the whole situation so utterly terrifying, there are no easy solutions. I won't even pretend that there are. Not all tragedies can be eliminated.
However, the fact remains that countries that do have strict gun control laws have less homicides and violent crime per capita then countries that do. Guns do not commit crimes or kill people. However, committing crimes or homicide do become much easier when a criminal has a gun then then when they don't. Also, if you claim Hitler and the NAZI's supported strict gun control, you are completely and utterly wrong. Go and study some non-propaganda history books now.
What I also feel I have to point out is that people who argue that "if we arm everybody then there will be less crime" are essentially arguing that violence is the best solution to this problem. How different is this from the mentality that leads to mass shootings in the first place? Aren't those who perpetuate mass shootings using violence to solve their problems too?
As a country this is an issue. We tell kids who are bullied that they need to stand up for themselves and fight back against those who torment them. We advocate the use of violence in lieu of diplomacy at every turn. Don't like the government? Then start a revolution! A revolution that will obviously be violent because we will need our guns to fight it. We invaded Iraq, not because they attacked us or were even planning to attack us, but simply because there existed intelligence that indicated that they might have had the means to attack us.
Is there any reason to think that those who engage in mass shootings are not the ones who have best absorbed the lesson that violence is a viable solution to one's problems? Are mass shooters not fighting back and standing up to those schools or institutions that they perceive as oppressing them?
Then there is the whole issue of how, as a country, we have declared the right to own a gun sacred above all else, but access to affordable healthcare is a privilege. As it is with all this talks of rights, I cannot help but think of the verse Emily Dickinson once wrote which went:
A toad can die of light!
Death is the common right
Of toads and men,--
Of earl and midge
The privilege.
Why swagger then?
The gnat's supremacy
Is large as thine.
This is what has been argued, that death is our common right, the same one that we share with toads. We have no right to life, only to enough lighter fluid and matches so that we may burn ourselves all to ash.
November 6, 2012
May 15, 2012
Off Topic: Mickey Mouse For President!
From any reasonable perspective, modern politics leaves much to be desired for those, such as myself, who favor pragmatism over idealogy. When it comes to political activist a myriad of choices are presented, each with their own set of problems and compromises. While participating in protests, using social media to raise awareness of social injustice, letter writing campaigns, petitions, and so on are all legitimate means of political activism, there is really only one way in a democratic society to achieve real social change, namely voting.
But then the question becomes, which candidate should one vote for? Should one even vote for any candidate? In the upcoming Presidential election, voters will have the option to choose between Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama. However, I think it's worth comparing the differnt optionns and considering the pragmatic value of each compared to voting for either mainstream candidates.
Option 1: Not voting
A totally non-pragmatic option as there is no chance of affecting social change by not voting. By staying home and not voting as a means of protest, all one will accomplish is to make oneself totally irrelevant to the political process.
Option 2: Voting third party or supporting a candidate doing a write in campaign.
This has pragmatic merit and therefore worth considering, due to the fact that having a viable third party has a shot at breaking through the dysfunctional mess that is modern politics. True, the chances of the candidate winning the election may be slim, but the fact is that every political party has to get it's start somewhere, but if a political party or politician gets enough votes, it may garner them enough attention to allow them win the proceeding election or at least get airtime on future debates.
Option 3: Abstaining but still casting a ballot or by writing in your favorite cartoon character.
Different from Option 1 in the sense that it requires the political activist to actually go to polling station and make aproximately the same effort as any other voter. While in the short term you will not be affecting the immediate election, the advantage comes from the message it sends to whoever wins. Consider how much more seriously an elected politician will take constituents concerns if their main compitition was from Mickey Mouse.
Granted this applies less when the politician who wins becomes a second term President, but I think it's worth considering, even if the chances of this having the desired affect are slightly less than number 2.
Also, I would like to point out that I have done this myself in one local election, when the candidate in question was running unapposed and had taken on positions that I found untenable.
Option 4: Voting For Either Democrate or Republican
For the pragmatic political activist, there is no longer any reason to consider voting for Republican candidates at the national level. I can't comment on local or state politicans too much (particularly as there is one local Republcan candidate currently holding office that I like) but when it comes to the GOP, idealogy now trumps any and all reason. What makes the situation worse is that the GOP's idealogy is horrifically inconsistent due to the crossing of Ayn Rands' Libertarianism (Screw the poor! Big Business Rocks!) while picking and choosing bits and pieces of Old Testament Law (Death to the Homosexual!) to shove down citizens' throats. "Uttely nonsensical" is a phrase unable to come anywhere near summing up my feelings for the current GOP.
From a pragmatice perspective when it comes to Romeney and Obama, there is no contest. Based upon everything I have read about Romeny's economic policies and positions, I see no reason to believe that that they will do anything besides benefit the rich while screwing over the middle and working classes. Toss in Romney's laughing off the fact that he once assaulted a fellow student who demonstrated non-conforming behavior and combined with his waffling/etch-a-sketching on every issue, and there is nothing to indicate that Romney has any leadership qualities worth mentioning.
Yes, I have very serious concerns about the positions and prioritites that many Democratic politicians, paticularly Obama have taken, as well as some of the legislation that they have supported and passed.
I get why many people are fed up with the democrates. To me, modern politics often feels like the following scenario.
You've just been in a serious car wreck, are experiencing severe arterial bleeding, your arms are bent at angles you didn't know were possible, and you can't move or feel anything below your waist. Along come the Democrates and offer you only a single band-aid and maybe spread a little salt in the wounds "to prevent infection". When the Republicans show up, they simply offer a length of rope tied into a noose, "to make the pain go away quicker".
At the same time, liberal political pundits stand around the smoking hulk that was once your car, hyping the undervalued healing properties of salt when combined with band-aids. All the while, conservative commentators argue that the rope in question is too expensive and because all of the money spent by the government on the noose, the salt, and the band-aids has now all been added to the national debt, we can soon be expecting the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Furthermore, the conservatives argue, the EPA really sucks because of how much envirnmental regulations will cost to remove and properly dispose of your car.
As you start to draw your final breaths, the liberals jump back in argueing that the EPA is good damnit (how dare the conservatives suggest otherwise) becuase of how much it will be helping to save all the species that are now endangered by the toxic fumes your burning vehicle is giving off.
Conclusion
Getting back the issue at hand, as a pragmatist, I believe in choosing the options before me, not in giving in to idealogy. That means even if I disagree with the President's stance in favor of LGB assimilation via marriage, I will still consider voting for him over the guy who assaulted a fellow student for demonstrating effeminate behavior.
To me, the choice a pragmatic activist has comes down to voting for a third party or write in candidate vs. voting for Obama. Those options are legitimate means of creating political change, while voting for Romney in the presidential election means chossing the worst of all the possible options. The worst option is not voting at all, which means giving up all chance of achieving political change and social justice.
But then the question becomes, which candidate should one vote for? Should one even vote for any candidate? In the upcoming Presidential election, voters will have the option to choose between Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama. However, I think it's worth comparing the differnt optionns and considering the pragmatic value of each compared to voting for either mainstream candidates.
Option 1: Not voting
A totally non-pragmatic option as there is no chance of affecting social change by not voting. By staying home and not voting as a means of protest, all one will accomplish is to make oneself totally irrelevant to the political process.
Option 2: Voting third party or supporting a candidate doing a write in campaign.
This has pragmatic merit and therefore worth considering, due to the fact that having a viable third party has a shot at breaking through the dysfunctional mess that is modern politics. True, the chances of the candidate winning the election may be slim, but the fact is that every political party has to get it's start somewhere, but if a political party or politician gets enough votes, it may garner them enough attention to allow them win the proceeding election or at least get airtime on future debates.
Option 3: Abstaining but still casting a ballot or by writing in your favorite cartoon character.
Different from Option 1 in the sense that it requires the political activist to actually go to polling station and make aproximately the same effort as any other voter. While in the short term you will not be affecting the immediate election, the advantage comes from the message it sends to whoever wins. Consider how much more seriously an elected politician will take constituents concerns if their main compitition was from Mickey Mouse.
Granted this applies less when the politician who wins becomes a second term President, but I think it's worth considering, even if the chances of this having the desired affect are slightly less than number 2.
Also, I would like to point out that I have done this myself in one local election, when the candidate in question was running unapposed and had taken on positions that I found untenable.
Option 4: Voting For Either Democrate or Republican
For the pragmatic political activist, there is no longer any reason to consider voting for Republican candidates at the national level. I can't comment on local or state politicans too much (particularly as there is one local Republcan candidate currently holding office that I like) but when it comes to the GOP, idealogy now trumps any and all reason. What makes the situation worse is that the GOP's idealogy is horrifically inconsistent due to the crossing of Ayn Rands' Libertarianism (Screw the poor! Big Business Rocks!) while picking and choosing bits and pieces of Old Testament Law (Death to the Homosexual!) to shove down citizens' throats. "Uttely nonsensical" is a phrase unable to come anywhere near summing up my feelings for the current GOP.
From a pragmatice perspective when it comes to Romeney and Obama, there is no contest. Based upon everything I have read about Romeny's economic policies and positions, I see no reason to believe that that they will do anything besides benefit the rich while screwing over the middle and working classes. Toss in Romney's laughing off the fact that he once assaulted a fellow student who demonstrated non-conforming behavior and combined with his waffling/etch-a-sketching on every issue, and there is nothing to indicate that Romney has any leadership qualities worth mentioning.
Yes, I have very serious concerns about the positions and prioritites that many Democratic politicians, paticularly Obama have taken, as well as some of the legislation that they have supported and passed.
I get why many people are fed up with the democrates. To me, modern politics often feels like the following scenario.
You've just been in a serious car wreck, are experiencing severe arterial bleeding, your arms are bent at angles you didn't know were possible, and you can't move or feel anything below your waist. Along come the Democrates and offer you only a single band-aid and maybe spread a little salt in the wounds "to prevent infection". When the Republicans show up, they simply offer a length of rope tied into a noose, "to make the pain go away quicker".
At the same time, liberal political pundits stand around the smoking hulk that was once your car, hyping the undervalued healing properties of salt when combined with band-aids. All the while, conservative commentators argue that the rope in question is too expensive and because all of the money spent by the government on the noose, the salt, and the band-aids has now all been added to the national debt, we can soon be expecting the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Furthermore, the conservatives argue, the EPA really sucks because of how much envirnmental regulations will cost to remove and properly dispose of your car.
As you start to draw your final breaths, the liberals jump back in argueing that the EPA is good damnit (how dare the conservatives suggest otherwise) becuase of how much it will be helping to save all the species that are now endangered by the toxic fumes your burning vehicle is giving off.
Conclusion
Getting back the issue at hand, as a pragmatist, I believe in choosing the options before me, not in giving in to idealogy. That means even if I disagree with the President's stance in favor of LGB assimilation via marriage, I will still consider voting for him over the guy who assaulted a fellow student for demonstrating effeminate behavior.
To me, the choice a pragmatic activist has comes down to voting for a third party or write in candidate vs. voting for Obama. Those options are legitimate means of creating political change, while voting for Romney in the presidential election means chossing the worst of all the possible options. The worst option is not voting at all, which means giving up all chance of achieving political change and social justice.
May 9, 2012
Queer Issue: What is Marriage For?
With the recent announcement from President Obama, in which he endorsed marriage equality for same sex couples, the LGBTQ social networking scene just exploded with a the sort of rainbow collective joy that one might assume signalled the second coming of Christ.
However, I think this is as good a time as any to ask a question that rarely gets brought up: What purpose does state sanctioned marriage serve? That is, why should the state sanction specific types of relationships?
Consider the following possible reasons why the state might wish to sanction marriage:
Religion
In the united states, the first ammendment would appear to prevent the government from sanctioning *any* religious form of marriage whatsoever. If the state were to sanction marriage, it would have to do so with reasons that would be unrelated to religion.
Promote Sexual Monogamy
The government needs to stay the hell out of peoples' bedrooms. There is no bloody reason the state should care about the sexual activities that occur between consenting adults. Any questions?
Economics
Two (or more) people living together in the same dwelling and sharing resources, would (logically speaking) use fewer resources than if they lived separately. Therefore, it could be argued that it would benefit society on the whole, if more people lived together. Therefore, it would benefit society on the whole to promote relationships that encourage people living together.
Several problems with this. One is that it does not matter if the people involved are lovers or merely room-mates, they are still going to be using less resources regardless. The second is that, well what's the point of the government providing economic advantages to a situation that already comes with it's own economic incentives?
Parenting
We often think that marriage means a better environment to raise kids in. I mean, obviously two people in a committed to raising a child(ren) are going to have an advantage over a single parent. Furthermore, given the whole "kids are the future of society" thing, it makes sense for society to provide benefits (such as tax breaks) to individuals who are raising kids.
But since single parents need more support over parents who are in committed relationships, it makes more sense for the government to provide more benefits to single parents, not less.
Conclusion
In short, it is difficult to find a reason for the state to sanction *any* marriage. In fact, it makes more sense for the state to provide additional benefits in some cases to adults who are single (if they are raising kids) than it does providing benefits to those who are in committed relationships.
While LGB advocates celebrate Obama's endorsement, they fail to ask what exactly is the purpose of even having state sanctioned marriage. I say leave marriage to the religious communities that wish to sanction it, leave the state out of it.
Ultimately, the queer community has bigger issues to pursue, such as seeking to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, dealing with homelessness (a problem which disproportionally affects lgbtq youth), or doing something as simple as passing GENDA in NY State. Marriage equality will benefit the wealthiest of the LGBTQ community, but will do little for those who need it the most.
Is this true equality?
However, I think this is as good a time as any to ask a question that rarely gets brought up: What purpose does state sanctioned marriage serve? That is, why should the state sanction specific types of relationships?
Consider the following possible reasons why the state might wish to sanction marriage:
Religion
In the united states, the first ammendment would appear to prevent the government from sanctioning *any* religious form of marriage whatsoever. If the state were to sanction marriage, it would have to do so with reasons that would be unrelated to religion.
Promote Sexual Monogamy
The government needs to stay the hell out of peoples' bedrooms. There is no bloody reason the state should care about the sexual activities that occur between consenting adults. Any questions?
Economics
Two (or more) people living together in the same dwelling and sharing resources, would (logically speaking) use fewer resources than if they lived separately. Therefore, it could be argued that it would benefit society on the whole, if more people lived together. Therefore, it would benefit society on the whole to promote relationships that encourage people living together.
Several problems with this. One is that it does not matter if the people involved are lovers or merely room-mates, they are still going to be using less resources regardless. The second is that, well what's the point of the government providing economic advantages to a situation that already comes with it's own economic incentives?
Parenting
We often think that marriage means a better environment to raise kids in. I mean, obviously two people in a committed to raising a child(ren) are going to have an advantage over a single parent. Furthermore, given the whole "kids are the future of society" thing, it makes sense for society to provide benefits (such as tax breaks) to individuals who are raising kids.
But since single parents need more support over parents who are in committed relationships, it makes more sense for the government to provide more benefits to single parents, not less.
Conclusion
In short, it is difficult to find a reason for the state to sanction *any* marriage. In fact, it makes more sense for the state to provide additional benefits in some cases to adults who are single (if they are raising kids) than it does providing benefits to those who are in committed relationships.
While LGB advocates celebrate Obama's endorsement, they fail to ask what exactly is the purpose of even having state sanctioned marriage. I say leave marriage to the religious communities that wish to sanction it, leave the state out of it.
Ultimately, the queer community has bigger issues to pursue, such as seeking to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, dealing with homelessness (a problem which disproportionally affects lgbtq youth), or doing something as simple as passing GENDA in NY State. Marriage equality will benefit the wealthiest of the LGBTQ community, but will do little for those who need it the most.
Is this true equality?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)