Scared yet?

Just the beginning...

After the shocking realization that Donald Trump would become our next President, what appears to be MORE than half of the country became stricken with fear. When we all started imagining the terrifying implications of a Trump White House in conjunction with a Republican majority in Congress, many possibilities began to take hold of our hearts with an icy grip.

Well, already, almost two months before the reality-television star and former Wrestlemania headliner takes office, some of our worst fears have reared their ugly heads. Aside from the obviously, most terrifying appointment of white-supremacist, Steve Bannon as “chief-strategist”, just this week we have seen some more specific examples of what the impending Trump administration will look like.

Trump’s recent preferred choice to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Seema Verma has made her positions known through her work with several state governments in dealing with Obama’s Affordable Care Act. One of her most egregious proposals is in the process of being confirmed and would be confirmed if she were to take on the position Trump plans to bestow upon her. The plan she has put forth in Kentucky would force the poorest citizens looking to receive health insurance through her revision of the ACA to participate in unpaid “work activity.” Those low-income folks who would not be able to pay the fees incurred due to their use of the healthcare system in Kentucky, would be forced to pay off their debt through community service work. While some may see this as a reasonable measure to ensure that fees are paid by those who cannot outright afford to pay off their medical bills, many of us may see it as being terrifyingly reminiscent of the sort of indentured servitude seen after the abolition of slavery. The recently “freed” slaves would work for their “former” owners until such time that they had paid off the “debt” they apparently owed their masters for housing and feeding them and their children while they were slaves. Obviously, the masters were reluctant to give up their workers, so these supposedly temporary periods of indentured servitude lasted indefinitely, probably for the remainder of the “freed’ slaves life. So why would this be any different today under such a “work activity” program?

To apply this kind of standard to health care, which many of us see as a human right, is beyond appalling. 

Some of us may remember the huge step that President Obama took in Criminal Justice reform this past August. Under Obama’s urging, the Department of Justice announced that as the contracts for each of the privately owned prisons reached their end, the DoJ would decline to renew those contracts in an effort to reduce the countries usage of such for-profit institutions. This was a massive win for Criminal Justice reform, as these prisons represented some of the worst examples of our disastrous Criminal Justice system. Immediately after the results of Novembers election became clear, the stock in Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison corporation in the US, rose by forty three percent. This was no coincidence. This was due to Trumps comments on the campaign trail: 

“I do think we can do a lot of privatizations and private prisons. It seems to work a lot better.” 

If by “a lot better” he means that they perpetuate our countries epidemic of mass incarceration and human rights abuses in prisons, then yeah, they’re “a lot better.”

With Trumps incredibly disturbing pick of the famously racist Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, this is only the beginning of the sort of policies we might see in the coming years.

Just today, the almost adorably uninformed, moronic and sleepy Dr. Ben Carson was appointed Housing Secretary, tasked with leading the Department for Housing and Urban Development. This is such a delicate and nuanced position that whoever would be in charge of this department aught to be well versed in the forces that impact poverty and what would be needed to combat such forces. Instead of someone who would fit those qualifications, we get Ben Carson, who has no experience in any government office whatsoever, never mind any sort of ability to grasp nuance or compassion. Trump himself criticized Ben Carson for having a “pathological temper.” 

So, as expected, right off the bat there are quite a few things to worry about... and we’ve only just begun. To quote Ta-Nehisi Coates: 

“This is not despair. These are the preferences of the universe itself: verbs over nouns, actions over states, struggle over hope. The birth of a better world is not ultimately up to you, though I know, each day, there are grown men and women who tell you otherwise. The world needs saving precisely because of the actions of these same men and women.” 

And if these decisions are not enough to get you involved, I don’t know what will be.

White Privilege and ‘Iron Fist’

If you’re reading this hoping for a detailed history of the comic book canon of the baffling Marvel super hero ‘Iron Fist’ you may be disappointed. (Also, that means you’re a really weird kind of nerd, and it takes one to know one.) But the discussion around the casting of a white guy (Finn Jones from ‘Game of Thrones’ fame,) to play ‘Iron Fist’ in the upcoming Netflix series has brought up the concept of white privilege. 

When Marvel and Netflix first announced they would be rounding out ‘The Defenders’ team of Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage (aka Power Man) and Iron Fist, those of us who had read a comic book or two (vicious understatement) were a little concerned about what they were planning on doing about the cringe worthy awkwardness of Iron Fist. 

Basically, in the comics Iron Fist is a rich white guy named Danny Rand who gets totally into asian culture and martial arts with a weird, mystical, fantasy vibe. He and his black girlfriend go to a place in Asia that only exists sometimes and the nice folks there give him magical punching powers. Eventually he meets this super cool black guy (Luke Cage,) they become besties and decide to fight crime together in Harlem. 

Aside from how ridiculous and nerdy the story itself is, perhaps you can already see why people might raise an eyebrow. Immediately after it was announced, many people, myself included, thought it would make more sense to just make Mr. Rand be of asian descent. It seemed like an easy fix to the stickiness of a white guy pretending to be asian and saving black people, while also getting an asian actor on a super hero team.

But apparently it’s more important to stay true to the silly nonsense of the pre-established literary canon. Since that decision seems to already have been made, it seems like it may be important for Netflix to take this opportunity to address the undeniable fact that being a wealthy, straight, white man in America is, without a doubt, the least stressful and most obnoxious type of person to be.

As a straight, white man, I am the problem. I believe that to be true because of, yunno, all of history. We have successfully positioned ourselves as the standard against which any deviation is compared, and we’ve made sure that the comparison always portrays us favorably. Straight, white men have maintained their standing as the de-facto decision makers in government, the media, the economy, entertainment and organized religion for centuries, through oppression, slavery, subjugation, genocide and any other nefarious methods at their disposal. And  yes, this absolutely makes me feel ashamed and guilty about who I am, what I represent, and that I benefit from hate and bigotry on a daily basis. And I think it should. But does that mean I should be complacent and sit by in shame while I watch the people who have disgraced me continue to commit atrocities that are in direct opposition with what I believe? While there is a case to be made for straight, white men just shutting up because our voices have been heard far too much for far too long, I absolutely could not live with myself if I did not use my privileged position to fight for what I know to be right.

I realize that I am not the first straight, white man to be “woke” or aware of his implicit obligation to do everything in his power to attempt to repair the damage that his ancestors have wrought. But nor will I be the last to be embarrassed into complacence for fear of being a part of the problem or offending the very people he stands in solidarity with. 

So, how should someone like myself go about making a difference in a productive way without making people cringe? Essentially, in the same way we learned to care in the first place:

Exposing yourself to the realities around you, getting out of your comfort zone, listening, learning and paying attention with respect and humility.

Humility in this case involves realizing that you are starting from a place of ignorance and being open to changing your opinion when you find out you are wrong. 

Reading and listening to the way people who are Not straight, white or male talk about themselves and discuss the issues that effect their lives allows you to stay informed and aware of how best to contribute to the conversation. Perhaps you could even go and make friends with people who are different than you. And when you do, if they roll their eyes at you, or throw shade or remind you of your priviledge, shut the fuck up because you deserve it. Sorry, you just do, and if you can’t be humble and deal with it, then it turns out you ARE part of the problem. 

My hope for  how Netflix and Marvel go about dealing with the uncomfortable dynamic that Iron Fist creates is this: directness, mockery and condescension. 

When characters like Luke Cage and Jessica Jones are confronted with Iron Fists privileged, ignorant cultural appropriation, I’d like to see them deal with Danny Rand in a similar way that liberals will have to deal with our new President elect when he tweets something like “I love hispanics!” accompanied by an image of a taco bowl: eye-rolling, laughter or flat-out anger.

As long as the unfortunate perpetual hegemony is reminded of their privileged status, perhaps we can all continue to make cultural progress, despite the compounding set-backs we have been subjected to lately. Considering there has been such a massive push-back from white men in America as of late, most obviously with the election of the KKK supported Presidential candidate, it is more important than ever to maintain a level of disgust with the racially imbalanced status-quo that continues to perpetuate itself. While some of us may have grown a bit complacent after eight years of a well-intentioned, liberally-minded black man as President, that is all very much over now and battle lines must be drawn and the fires of passion must once again be stoked against the fast approaching onslaught of bigotry. And while perhaps my suggestions for how a juvenile, super-hero tv-show should be written may seem inconsequential, every little bit counts.

The Second Amendment: Being Necessary to the Security of Bigotry

In the United States of 2016 (still entirely relevant, though gun sales in the US have gone down because we are under a Republican administration[9/17]), there are two issues that elicit some of the most volatile and contentious debate: race and guns. Both of these topics come up in the media and public discussion with remarkable frequency. Both of these topics have distinctive, opposing perspectives with incredibly passionate supporters on both sides and complicated ideologies and rhetoric used to back up each position. In regard to race there are groups such as Black Lives Matter being opposed by various conservative media organizations and police advocates, both with firmly held positions and arguments. As for guns, there are those who position themselves as gun rights advocates in opposition to those in favor of stricter gun control. A year ago I wrote a post  entitled, “A Well Regulated Militia”, in which I made the case that the Constitution is not an immutable document and that perhaps we ought to reconsider the viability of the Second Amendment in today’s society. Since then, there have been over 10,000 deaths caused by guns in the U.S. , including the worst mass shooting in the country’s history (Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida 6/16). At the same time, incidents of police officers killing African-Americans with disproportionate frequency has continued to draw national attention and public outrage. While these two issues are not always related and there are some who would correlate the two from the opposite viewpoint, it is my intention to suggest that the very nature and purpose of the Second Amendment is to at least disadvantage, if not oppress, African-American citizens. 

 The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:
 “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
 The framers of the Constitution had many constituencies to appease during it’s creation. At the time, there were those states in which chattel slavery of blacks was legal and an integral part of their economy, and those states in which it was not. The states in which it was legal relied on groups of armed citizens known as “militias” to control the massive population of slaves. It was their responsibility to keep track of the slave population, search the houses of the slaves for weapons, prevent an organized slave rebellion, and return escaped slaves to their masters for punishment. So when the Constitution was being formed, the slaveholders from the Southern states who were part of the discussion, voiced their concerns about the necessity for a strong militia and their fears that if the Federal government had a say in regard to their slave control militias, the delegates of Northern states would not understand what they saw as a necessity. One of these slaveholders, Patrick Henry, expressed such fears suggesting:
“May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery?...This is a local matter. and I can see no propriety in subjugating it to Congress.” “In this situation, I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquility gone.”
In this impressive display of tyranny, oppression and, unbeknownst to him, prescience, Henry successfully made the case for including a protection of the right of states, not the Federal government, to regulate their armed civilian militias. 

 The argument that is often heard from today’s gun rights advocates that the Second Amendment is more about the ability of the citizens to rebel against a tyrannical Federal government in such a case that their rights were being infringed upon comes into contention with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the Fourteenth Amendment is more important in that it makes anyone born in the United States a citizen with the ability to vote, serve on a jury, and possess all the rights and freedoms of any other citizen as well as further establishing the results of the emancipation of the slaves, there is a less frequently discussed clause. In several places it is mentioned that participation, engagement, or aid in 
“insurrection or rebellion against The United States... shall be held illegal and void.” 
which seems to suggest that any such actions would forego one’s rights as a citizen. This would create a “Catch-22” scenario in which one only maintains the right to bear arms by abstaining from participation in rebellion but one is only given cause to use said arms for the very purpose of insurrection that would render those rights obsolete. So if that is the case, for what reason other than the subjugation of oppressed people, which was clearly made illegal by the Emancipation Proclamation as well as the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments collectively, would there be to have an armed civilian militia? 

 In more recent history, and one might argue to this day, the African Americans population has been relegated to the position of second-class citizenship through the creation of various state laws that have effectively and in many cases, purposefully disenfranchised and curtailed their rights as citizens. There have been innumerable examples of this and even after these laws or practices are dissolved or overturned in each case, they elucidate the deeply ingrained biases, systemic inequalities or simply unconscious racist tendencies that persist in different cohorts of our society. Some of the more blatant examples show just how unabashedly bigoted a large percentage of our population is enthusiastically willing to be. Shortly after the freeing of the slaves, the regulation of state laws was unspecific and given little oversight which led many Southern states to enact what were known as “Black Codes”. The goal of these laws was explicitly to restrict the rights of black people. There are numerous examples of these blatantly oppressive laws including a Mississippi law that stated that any non-white person was prohibited from owning any weapon, including guns and even dogs, for fear that they would be used in a violent fashion. There were restrictions and obstacles in several states that made it impossible for many blacks to vote or participate in government, limiting the ability to assemble in groups, as well as many laws that made it easier for the police to arrest blacks for minor infractions. As the years went by, the form that these laws took became ever so slightly more subtle. “Jim Crow Laws”, which were in place all the way until the civil rights era in 1965, enforced racial segregation with facilities available to blacks being generally of inferior quality and availability. The “War on Drugs” started by Richard Nixon and accentuated by Ronald Reagan, began the ever so slightly more subtle method of mass incarceration of the black population by focusing on inner cities and low income neighborhoods predominantly inhabited by minorities. Further still was the practice of “Stop and Frisk” based on the 1968 Supreme Court ruling of ‘ Terry v. Ohio’, which gave the police the ability to stop civilians based on “reasonable suspicion” as opposed to the usual “probable cause”. This, unsurprisingly, resulted in rampant racial profiling. Even just this year there was an example of Voter ID laws in North Carolina which were clearly enacted to make it more difficult for minorities to vote. In light of the country’s very consistent history of allowing states to create laws targeting black Americans, is it so strange to imagine that the founding documents of our country would be even more unabashedly racist? 

 On the other hand, the Black Panthers made a very good case for the Second Amendment as a tool for the black community to protect themselves against such laws. Beginning in 1966 The Black Panther Party, concerned with the treatment of the black community by the judicial system and the police force, called for an arming of the black community. Very similarly to the idea of a militia to defend against a tyrannical government, armed “to the teeth”, Black Panthers would follow police officers on their patrols, making sure that the rights of the citizens whom the police would stop were enforced and protected. While we see ever present examples of police abusing their power today, which would reasonably lead one to think that this approach might be appropriate now, it sets a dangerous precedent. Having these civilian “police patrols” armed with guns only further ignites fears and galvanizes the already tense relationship the community has with police officers. But considering the outrage today concerning law enforcement and their overwhelmingly discriminatory practices and procedures, there is without doubt something that must be done to reform the police. In order to be confident that a police force can be trusted with an unbiased approach to the equal protection of all members of the community, regardless of who they are, there would need to be a sufficiently diverse and informed system of oversight, bureaucratic checks and balances and a carefully crafted, unanimously agreed upon training process. And to take a page from the Black Panthers, perhaps a more effective approach for our current day society would be to have police watch patrols armed with cameras instead of guns. 

 The primary concern regarding the Second Amendment in today’s America is the indisputable fact of an underlying racial bias inherent in our culture. To suggest that we should all have access to guns undermines the point that there is a clear difference in the perception of racial minorities and how they are viewed by a large portion of the American public. Before there can be equal opportunity for those of all races to carry weapons, so much of the institutionalized biases that are plaguing our country need to be addressed and dealt with accordingly. Until then there is an inherent disadvantage to those citizens who are not viewed as white. Given the racial prejudice inherent in our society, is it reasonable to assume that an armed civilian population can be trusted with making judgements on who they believe elicits the kind of terror or alarm that would make someone draw and fire a weapon? There have been far more than enough examples to suggest otherwise.

Congressional District Map

Gun-toting Progressives

Don't bring a gun to a Democratic Party Primary

Disturbingly, there has been a recent rash of pro-second amendment sentiment coming from a shocking number of usually reasonable liberals. Apparently, being ‘so progressive’ that you plan on voting for the perpetually lovable Mr. Sanders means you are willing to let firearms manufacturers, the gun lobby and the N.R.A. get away with pretending they don’t play a part in our country’s regularly scheduled mass-murders. 

To use an Obam-ism: ‘Let me be clear:’ No, I am not suggesting that Bernie Sanders is at all responsible for anyone’s death. What I am suggesting is that it becomes troublesome to tout his candidacy as being “the most progressive” when discussing his consistent stance on guns. While many may see Bernie Sanders’ unwavering position as proof of his candor and trustworthiness, personally, and I don’t think I’m alone, I’d be much more convinced of his qualifications to be president if he had humbly ‘flip-flopped’ on his stance in regard to gun-laws.

For more than 25 years, as Bernie has bounced around little Vermont’s State and local government, he has of course, being fervently liberal, supported laws that restrict and monitor the distribution of firearms within the state. While this is impressive seeing as how rural and pro-gun most of the state is, he has consistently not gone far enough. He voted against the most important gun legislation our country has ever successfully passed (the Brady Bill, see previous posts,) suggesting that a seven day waiting period is too long to wait for a background check because individuals purchasing guns “would get caught up in a bureaucracy when all they wanted to do was go for target practice or something.” Just last month Sanders was publicly acknowledged by the N.R.A. who praised him saying that he was “spot-on in his comments about gun-manufacturer liability.”

When he first announced his candidacy for the democratic nomination in the 2016 Presidential election, many people  assumed that he would play politics appropriately and retreat from the gun-friendly positions he had to take in order to be elected in a state like Vermont. But as the months have passed us by, there has been no sign that he plans on adopting the proudly anti-gun positions held by most on the Left. The N.R.A., through gun lobbyists, have assumed such incredible influence over such a significant portion of politicians willing to take pay-offs and bend to their will, that passing any kind of “comprehensive” or even “common-sense” gun-control legislation has become impossible. According to the BBC there were 372 mass-shootings in the United States in 2015, resulting in nearly 500 deaths and nearly 2,000 injured (not counting the thousands of incidents that don’t qualify as mass shootings.) One might think that there would be enough attention and outrage to incite some very drastic changes to our gun-laws. But with the N.R.A., gun manufacturers and the gun lobby doing everything in their power to silence opposition and drum up support from the gun-toting members of our “Civilian Militia”, any mention of reform is snuffed from our national consciousness just days after yet another shooting occurs. 

Considering how effective their pro-gun marketing campaign is and how lethal the results have proven to be time and time again, those of us who can no longer see a good reason for ANY civilian to legally own a gun, must use every weapon in our non-lethal arsenal. That means shutting down gun dealers just like the Right has been so successfully shutting down Planned Parenthood clinics. (MY religious beliefs do not condone any distribution of fire-arms whatsoever.) It also means holding the manufacturers, and the organizations responsible for supporting them, accountable for every death caused by their products. Just recently, Sanders has been quoted as saying: 

“If you go to a store and you legally purchase a gun, and three days later you go out and start killing people, is the point to hold the gun shop owner or the manufacturer of that gun liable? If that’s the point, I disagree... If they are selling a product to a person who buys it legally, what you’re talking about is ending gun manufacturing in America.” 

In fact, that’s exactly what we’re talking about, but why isn’t he? Considering his favorite talking-points revolve around breaking down large financial institutions and preventing corporations from having any influence in politics and the government, one might think that he’d be staunchly opposed to anything that would promote the infamous and all-powerful gun-lobby’s agenda. Although, I suppose it wouldn’t be a real “Revolution” without arming the troops.

Brady? Oh, you mean Brady...

A public service announcement for amateur 'legal scholars'

There is an important distinction to make between the “Brady Rule” and the “Brady Act”. I’m sure this is obvious to anyone familiar with legal terminology and precedent, but it has caused me some confusion as I struggle through my independent research. So I thought it would be helpful to others in the future if I clearly distinguish them on the same page. 

The “Brady Rule” is based on ‘Brady v. Maryland’ (1963). This comes up in relation to “Brady Material” which has to do with exculpatory evidence being made accessible to the defense counsel in a court case. The only time this becomes relevant is in a situation where the prosecution withholds evidence from the defense that could have potentially exonerated or at least benefitted the defendant’s case. The burden of proof still lies in the hands of the defense in such cases but this rule is important to a clean and fair justice system. Just to be clear, this “Brady” only ever relates to judicial procedure.

Completely unrelated,

The “Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act” (1993) also known as the “Brady Act” or “Brady Bill” concerns background checks and a waiting period for people attempting to acquire a gun. This bill, passed into law by then President Bill Clinton, establishes a federal precedent ensuring that any exchange of a firearm is subject to a five day waiting period and a background check of the individual potentially receiving the gun. This “Brady” has nothing to do with ‘Brady v. Maryland’ but is rather a reference to a man who was shot during the 1981 assassination attempt on then President Ronald Reagan. So, no relation at all. 

This has caused me such terrible grief that I wanted to make sure no one else will ever suffer as I have. It may be too late for me, but if this unremarkable, unnecessary blog post saves just one person from going through what I have, it was all worth it.

The Electric Slide and Populism

One hop this time! 

Populism has taken center stage in the American political landscape of 2016. Populism is a term that refers to a political movement focusing on the current conceptions (usually related to economics) of the “general population” or, in other words, “the common folk,” “the people.” Historically these movements have either faded into the nether or incited sweeping political revolutions, most extremely resulting in military coups and violent uprisings. Usually cooler- heads or the “status-quo” prevails, but hopefully having heard and listened to the concerns of the disillusioned common people. Today we are getting calls for drastic revolution from both sides of American politics. On the right we’ve watched Donald Trump drudge up outrage based on exclusionary populism suggesting that the jobs of hard-working Americans that were lost ‘due to’ the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) allowed Mexico to “win” by taking our manufacturing jobs out of the country. This is often echoed by those on the left, with different rhetoric, who are staunchly opposed to NAFTA on the grounds that big businesses profit through such trade agreements because of a lack of government oversight and regulation.

So for Trump: ‘Sliiiiiiide to the left!’

But don’t take that too seriously, for Trump supporters it’s less about a lack of government oversight and more just bigotry and xenophobia. He still supports “yuge” tax-cuts for the rich so anyone who would support Trump for his disdain towards NAFTA just doesn’t understand economics at all.

Donald, go ahead and hop, then sliiiide right.

The Populist movement on the left led by Bernie Sanders is at least consistent, but still radical populism. The anger from progressives towards trade agreements like NAFTA and the newer Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are completely logical if their hope is to tear down the concept of American capitalism entirely and start fresh with a socialist model based on protectionism. Protectionism? You mean like isolation and abstinence from global economics? Yep. That’s what I’m saying. 

So to keep this cute:

Bernie,  sliiiiiide to the right.

(I realize this doesn’t make him right-wing but bear with me i’m working within a drunk-wedding-dance format.)

Being against big business certainly does not make you conservative, by any means, but the implications of rejecting foreign trade deals over and over again suggest that you would prefer our country to close our borders to foreign trade and shut us off from participating in the global economy. This might come across as xenophobia, if you’re not careful.

The hatred for any and all foreign trade had it’s loudest protest in the recent upset in Michigan, where Bernie Sanders took home a massive victory over Hillary Clinton. Many have suggested that this upset was largely due to the frustration of un-educated, blue-collar workers flocking to Sanders because of his hard-line opposition of such deals. 

Since this upset, Hillary has also prostrated herself in front of these rustbelt voters in hopes of reminding them how similar the two Democrats really are on the issues. But this is barely worth mentioning in the context of The Electric Slide since Hillary is famous for her political dancing skills. The ‘criss-cross’ is every real politicians best move.

But to get down to the specific reasons that these workers dislike foreign trade as opposed to the reasons Bernie cannot support these particular deals gets sticky. The workers who lost their jobs due to outsourcing are under the impression that it is trade with foreign countries, in general, that is costing them their jobs. It is completely understandable that these folks did not actually look into the specifics of these deals because, let me tell you, as someone who has put a lot of time into trying to make sense of them, they are very hard to read. But, if you try to make sense of bits and pieces of them, or more helpfully, read what people on both sides have written about them, there’s actually nothing in there about moving money and jobs overseas. The reasons that ends up happening, and the reason Bernie Sanders is so fervently opposed to them, is about the unregulated freedoms that big corporations take advantage of when navigating these deals. 

So basically they couldn’t hear the DJ, some slid left, some right, and a lot of people bumped into each other.

The corporations that eventually end up profiting and screwing over hard-working Americans have the best, most-expensive economists on their teams to find the best ways to profit off of these deals. But it’s not foreign trade, or even these deals in particular that is responsible for this, it’s our lack of corporate accountability to the governments involved in these deals. Also, contrary to what we hear from some folks opposed to NAFTA and the TPP, the impact of these deals on the American labor force is actually so incredibly minimal, that sighting that as a reason to oppose trade makes very little sense. The reason for job losses due to out-sourcing is the profit motives of the executives of these companies, and if they want something, they’re going to get it. 

The way to fix this is not shutting ourselves off from participating in the global economy, or scrapping existing international partnerships. Nor is it a realistic option to assume that we could somehow remove corporations from being a part of these deals. I’m sorry, it’s just not possible, the people with money are the people in charge of the money, nobody is going to take it from them. The centrist, arguably reasonable alternative would be to create a dialogue between governments and corporations, insisting on oversight from the U.S. as well as foreign governments involved in these deals and enacting a variety of restrictions on the ways in which we proceed with global trade in the future. 

Some might say that The Electric Slide isn’t really a dance at all, but rather a series of pre-determined checks and balances that ends up with most people in roughly the same place they started, some with bruises, some embarrassed, but overall a sense of community and cooperation. If we all try not to slide too far in either direction, participating in the the global economy could one day inspire a similar sense of disinterest and giggles.

White Junkies Matter

 The Hypocrisy of Our Concern

There’s a drug epidemic in America! Heroin and prescription opioids are killing U.S. citizens left and right!

Across the country, but predominantly in rural areas, we have seen a steady increase in deaths linked to opioid overdoses. While this is, of course, an issue that needs to be addressed and remedied, many have pointed out the hypocrisy of our concern. This is far from the first time we’ve seen a drug epidemic sweep the country. Yet the way we’ve been discussing, and attempting to deal with this crisis is in stark contrast with the way we’ve addressed all of our previous drug epidemics. While in the past we blamed the victims, got ‘tough on crime’, or started a ‘war on drugs,’ this time around, the rhetoric being used is startlingly more forgiving.  Even Republicans, who love nothing more than extolling the Reagan presidency and its infallibility, have been making statements that are in direct contradiction with Ronnie and Nancy’s ‘War on Drugs’. Remember when it was as simple as ‘Just Say No’? Turns out it’s more complicated than that. Now it seems like we’re all ready to have an in-depth discussion about drug use.

But why do we care about the victims of this new epidemic so much more than we have in the past? Well you know how I said “predominantly rural areas” earlier? That means white folks. We care now because the people being affected are white.

Unfortunately, this is far from a revelation to those of us who are all too familiar with institutionalized racism. It comes as little surprise that when there’s a problem that affects mostly minorities, the government, media and the general public turn a blind eye, chalking it up to uncivilized behavior that needs to be stopped and thrown in prison; but when white people are dying it’s a more complicated problem. While I am far from the first to blow the whistle on this glaring discrepancy in the country’s position on drugs, I thought it might be useful to dig a little deeper into our persistent inconsistency when it comes to drug policy in America.

Let’s take a look at how we’ve dealt with drug epidemics in the past.

The most obvious example being, the Crack catastrophe of the 1980s.

As the story goes, (with my own little rosey spin on it,) at some point around 1984-85, there was an enterprising entrepreneur/purveyor of cocaine with a real flair for business. He believed that his product had seen its heyday a decade earlier and that perhaps the white powder had gone the way of disco, as the ‘70s became the ‘80s. But he had a plan. If he could somehow make it appealing and accessible to unrepresented, poor minorities a whole new market would open up. So after some intense scientific exploration, research and testing, (“dissolving powder cocaine in water, adding baking soda, and heating. The cocaine and the baking powder form an airy condensate, that when dried, takes the form of hard, smokeable ‘rocks.’”[i]) this innovative industrialist had invented a sure-fire way to put cocaine back on the top of the drug market. The Harvard study that taught me how to cook crack (cited above) goes on to explain:

“Crack is an important technological innovation in many regards. First, crack can be smoked, which is an extremely effective means of delivering the drug psychopharmacologically. Second, because crack is composed primarily of air and baking soda, it is possible to sell in small units containing fractions of a gram of pure cocaine, opening up the market to consumers wishing to spend $10 at a time. Third, because the drug is extremely addictive and the high that comes from taking the drug is so short-lived, crack quickly generated a large following of users wishing to purchase at high rates of frequency. The profits associated with selling crack quickly eclipsed that of other drugs. Furthermore, unlike most other drugs, crack is often sold in openair, high-volume markets between sellers and buyers who do not know one another.”

Besides the fun image of these Harvard statisticians sitting around smoking crack for research purposes, it seems they did their homework. Crack use spread through vulnerable, under-privileged, inner-city communities like wildfire. The government’s response, under the Reagan administration, was a militaristic law enforcement policy in the areas most greatly affected, changing judicial protocol to make drug offenses easier to prosecute, and establishing mandatory minimum sentences for many crimes but most severely for those that were drug related. The result of these drastic measures was what has only recently been referred to as ‘The Age of Mass Incarceration’. The entire country had been whipped-up into such a frenzied fear by the media’s portrayal of ‘crack-babies’, crack related gang violence and the unforgivable, savage, animalistic crack-head, that the repercussions of this new tough approach seem to have been entirely overlooked. Not only did our prison population continue to skyrocket, quickly surpassing that of any other country in the world in comparison to its aggregate population, but the people being incarcerated and falling victim to our new mandatory minimums were not a representation of the country’s population. To this day, while the total population[ii] of the United States is roughly 77% white and roughly 13% black, the total prison population[iii] is 37% black and 32% white. While there are a variety of overtly oppressive factors that play a part in this[iv], the policies enacted during the Reagan administration’s continuation of Nixon’s war on drugs certainly contributed to this striking disparity.

Today we’ve been hearing about what a disaster our current drug problem is and what we have to do about it. But not once has there been a call for increased policing or a judicial crackdown on sentencing for drug crimes. Only tears and sympathy. The fear of many white Americans that white supremacy is beginning to lose it’s grip on the most advantageous and powerful positions, has led many to realize they are not entitled to certain things that their parents were. And many of these people are now committing suicide, voting for Trump, or turning to drugs rather than face the possibility of eventual racial equality. So while I’m so sorry to hear that they’re upset, I’m having trouble finding sympathy for victims of this epidemic since we as a country have never given a crap before.

---

[i] http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/fhlm_crack_cocaine_0.pdf

[ii] Based on the 2013 US Census

[iii] Based on The US Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2013 male prisoner data

[iv] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/the-black-family-in-the-age-of-mass-incarceration/403246/

The Case for Feminist Reparations

Disclaimers:
-This was written during the 2016 Presidential campaign, but I'd argue, still relevant.

-I am not equating misogyny with racism. They are distinctly different issues

-I do not condone cheating on one’s significant other. It’s not nice.

-I enjoy this idea just as much as the rest of the male population will.

Blame Bill for this, but, unfortunately I think it may be time that we men took a pretty serious hit. 

Thanks to the recent resurgence of discussion about “blow-job-gate” (Bill Clinton’s marital-indiscretion scandal) due to Hillary’s presidential campaign, I’m proposing something rather drastic:

We should give women cheating on their male spouses a pass for a while.

I know, I know, that sounds unfair and ridiculous. Here’s my pitch, (which, trust me, I’m not at all thrilled about making,): thanks to centuries of male dominated societal oppression, philandering and hypocritical reprisal from ‘emotionally-castrated’ husbands, it’s time that women are allowed to be 'pimps'.

Throughout human history, husbands have notoriously cheated on their wives and gotten away with it. And at the same time, whether it’s a government or religion supporting the beheading of cheating wives, or the disturbingly common practice of preemptively mutilating a woman’s genitals at birth so as to remove any sensation and render her un-attainable by any other man, or simply the stigma associated with being a “whore”, we men have effectively protected ourselves from being cheated on.

I’m not suggesting that women never cheat on their husbands, but the difference in the volume of the reprisal in its aftermath is undeniable. The results of this play into the societal acceptance of the ‘fact’ that women are more emotional. This is simply not the case; men just either protect themselves from it better or exhibit it differently.

The usual response by a man being emotionally distraught is violent anger. This idea does have scientific merit since the hormone testosterone, (found in significantly higher levels in men than women,) does, in fact, make a person more prone to violent and confrontational behavior. (Possibly relating to the evolutionary gender roles established by early men being hunters and early women staying closer to home to protect offspring.) But I don’t think I’m making too bold a claim by suggesting that this is not sufficient justification for woman-beating.

Another possible reason that there is more drastic reprisal for a woman’s indiscretion is the resulting implication of that man's impotence or emasculation. Whether this is only his own emotional self-deprecation or actual behind-his-back snickering taking place, men have been taught that anything that might suggest a lack of virility or diminutive genitals (limp dick, tiny penis, respectively) is cause for violent action or masculine posturing (spousal abuse, buying a Hummer, respectively).

While I’m at it, I might as well bring up Britain’s King Henry VIII’s (as well as numerous men throughout history,) weird ‘scientific’ theory that it was his wife’s biological pre-disposition to decide the sex of his child. Using King ‘Hank Numero Ocho’ as an example, he’s become infamous for his frequent decapitation of wives who were implicit in the treasonous crime of failing to produce a male heir.  But while this logic seemed to become common knowledge among men in power throughout the world, and consequently the common-folk who followed their example, it is in fact quite the opposite. 

If I may be so bold as to use scientific fact to back up a claim, “when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much and decide to have a baby,” women have an X chromosome and an X chromosome to contribute, men have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome to contribute. If the woman spins the wheel and contributes an X chromosome (100% of the time,) and the man spins the wheel and contributes a Y chromosome (50% of the time) they get a boy. Conversely, if the man contributes an X chromosome, they get a girl.  Suffice it to say, there have been a few unwarranted beheadings over the years. So there, I’ve just single-handedly put an end to THAT long-standing debate. *Drops the mic…*

I only bring up that nonsense to suggest that men love to create reasons to crucify women, and just using one very antiquated example, maybe some male apologizing is in order.

But back to Bill…

The reason that I, only now, have developed this theory for ‘Feminist Reparations’ is because of the embarrassing way that the Clinton administration dealt with the Lewinsky knob-slobbering allegations. Because Hillary Clinton is now running for president, this subject has come back into public scrutiny and I’d like to close the debate on this with an outrageous suggestion so that Bill’s screw-up doesn’t end up reflecting badly on Hillary. I’ve always thought of the whole fiasco as a way to suggest Hillary’s capacity for forgiveness, reconciliation and compromise, while maintaining an heir of feminist power and political savvy. And I’ll stand by that. But in hindsight, the way the whole ordeal was defended by his administration as a whole only solidifies this as the crux of my argument. Immediately after the embarrassing details came to light, the female members of his cabinet were forced to come forward to defend and make light of his deleterious marital mistake. The media gave too much attention to the affirmations given by female members of his staff, who rightly suggested that this was not really a matter that had anything to do with his tenure as president or even politics at all. While I absolutely agree that a person’s penis should not have any bearing on their ability to lead a nation, unfortunately the argument came out sounding more like a justification for his illicit social behavior. It ended up coming across as if a man can just get away with doing something like that and then be immediately defended by all the women around him. It is my belief that, (while I realize I may be a few years late here,) it was only Hillary’s prerogative, and no one else’s, to defend him in such a way, if she saw fit to do so. It does not reflect badly on her to have forgiven him based on their own private, personal conversations about their marriage and relationship, but I believe his actions and the justification given by his staff and supporters (myself included) were the last straw for female forgiveness of historical male marital indiscretion.

So, reminiscent of the “No Peace, No Pussy” chant from Spike Lee’s recent ‘Joint’: “Chi-Raq,” I think we as men owe women a couple of passes here and there on spousal betrayal. Just to even things out a little. I can see that some men reading this might think I’m putting myself in a precarious position by writing this, but I’d prefer to think that I’ll be exempt from this new movement because I was the one who started it, so just let me keep thinking that. As I said in my disclaimer, I don’t think it’s a very nice way to go about being in a relationship but I feel at least the suggestion has some merit. Plus, if this takes off (oh god, please, don’t) think of the benefits for the next generation of men: male depression will become completely acceptable and understandable, ushering in whole new fields of study focusing on treating depression for everyone, and maybe, just maybe, men crying will no longer be a source of ridicule or shame. So guys, let’s all start crying now, cuz’ it’s gunna’ be all the rage in a few years…

The Importance of Valentine's Day

A call of Hope from a lonely boy

Everyone says it’s a corporate holiday,

Only to sell greeting cards, but Hallmark knew what it was doing. There is a reason corporate America pushes this seemingly silly holiday on us year after year.

We all want love.

We all feel love for someone at some point in our otherwise meaningless lives.

Without love we are only interested in ourselves, so if you think about it, Valentine’s Day is a suggestion to give a crap about someone other than yourself. Some of us don’t need the reminder because we think about it every day. But it’s the chance to force ourselves out of our self-absorbed little bubble, if you use it right.

It ends up feeling like a sad, dark day if you go year after year spending Valentine’s Day alone, like myself for instance. But this turn of events that seems to transpire against me getting anywhere near the amount of snuggling I had planned has not shaken my faith in it’s importance.

While I hope and pray every year that something will change and I will end up spending THIS year with someone special, I think that my being alone has not turned me bitter, but rather has encouraged my hope to grow further, taking the pain and loneliness, as some call it, and turning it into introspective maturation. 

Perhaps this is just a way to make it through, just make myself not be sad, but I’d prefer to see it as a step towards emotional enlightenment. 

I know if this was a holiday that marketed itself as only a day to score some tail, I wouldn’t have had so many disappointing years, and at the same time, no one would care. 

When the day comes where loneliness is no longer what I have to look forward to on Valentine’s Day, I will, without a doubt, appreciate that day all the more.

Love is nothing to shake a stick at, nor turn one’s nose up at. 

Since it’s intangible and indefinable it’s something that we do actually need to be reminded to value, for at least one day a year. 

Since Love really is so important to humans, whether it makes a lot of sense or not I believe Valentine’s Day is not a silly guise for capitalism, 

it’s valuable, it’s hopeful and it’s important.

Feeling the ‘Bern’? There’s a cream for that.

         What a funky election process this has been so far, huh? 

Obviously there’s been all the relentlessly entertaining (and alarmingly terrifying) hoopla over at the Grand Ol’. But suggesting that childish, unsubstantiated hysterics, outspoken bigotry and overt racism are a surprise coming from the Republican Party, would simply mean you’ve never heard of them before. Yes, it’s always interesting to hear what those folks are yelling about from time to time, but basically: “Haters gunna’ hate.” (Once again, #TaylorSwift has already said everything I’m thinking.)

But what’s been more subtly fascinating is what we’ve got going on on the Left. The Democrats have been having their own polite scuffle over who they’d prefer to watch make funny faces across the stage from Trump in a few months. While Martin O’Malley is, without a doubt, a very handsome fellow, and seems like a delightful dinner guest, I’m going to pretend he doesn’t exist, just like everyone else. That leaves us with Hillary Clinton, a woman whom some of us are understandably a little tired of, and Bernie Sanders, a cranky old socialist Jew. While just a few years ago that would have been a perfect recipe for putting a republican in the White House, there does seem to have been a black guy sleeping there for a while. What has turned out to be a really fun, and generally friendly debate to have with other liberals is whether or not you’re “Feeling the Bern.” I mean, let’s be honest, we all felt it a little at first there, didn’t we? Who among us doesn’t want to wrestle that guy into a bear-hug while he squirms and barks curmudgeonly Yiddish clichés in protest? Plus, his feathers were all ruffled about banks and Wall Street and all that stuff those folks in tents at Union Square were pissed about a couple years ago. As a liberal Democrat, how could you not want to jump aboard the Bernie Bus? But perhaps it’s time to hop off.

In conversations I’ve had with Sanders supporters I hear a sense of enthusiasm and starry-eyed wonderment that many have referred to as being reminiscent of Obama supporters in 2008. While this sort of liberal fervor is certainly admirable and well-meaning, there is a lot about the political climate this time around, as well as the players involved, that is very different.

First, Barack Obama was (and continues to be) a black man. That fact, whether we’d like to admit it or not, was a tremendous factor in the legendary voter turnout he inspired in 2008. With good reason too. Considering the undeniable and unspeakable history of racism in our country, the idea that there was a likeable, smart, well respected black person in a position to actually become president, was unbelievably exciting to a lot of us. An entire group of American citizens, and potential voters, many of whom had never bothered to vote before because their only choices were white guys who didn’t care about them, finally had an option that mattered. There are even some white folks that had never once questioned whether or not #blacklivesmatter more than our privileged and protected white lives, because ours are not historically, perpetually and overwhelmingly more likely to be put in jeopardy. But I digress… Which is actually my point: Is there something about Bernie Sanders that has that sort of emotional appeal to a significant enough group of previously unrepresented voters?

Another reason things are different now than they were in 2008 is the wild success of ideological and anti-establishment conservatives. The unprecedented amount of support for Republican presidential candidates like Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz changes the tone of this election drastically. The fact that so many conservatives have flocked so far to the right that this sort of candidate can enjoy the kind of support they have, has alienated a large part of the more centrist members of the Republican Party. If one of these candidates succeeds in becoming the Republican nominee, (which is seeming inevitable at this point,) that leaves a very decent portion of conservatives who would feel so uncomfortable giving any of them their vote, that they might either not vote at all, or even deign to cross party lines. So how could Democrats convince swing voters and this new group of freshly embarrassed, left-leaning conservatives to step up to bat for a Democrat? By using the kind of angry, galvanizing rhetoric that is arguably reminiscent of the candidates that turned them away from the Republicans in the first place? By identifying as socialist? I’ve got a very strong feeling that that word is the reason a lot of these folks usually identify as Republican. If a group of centrist republicans gets scared away by social conservatives, that probably means they’re fiscal conservatives who hate nothing more than socialism. As far as I can see, this sort of voter would be utterly turned off by a Sanders nomination.

‘But Bernie is so great! I support what he stands for.’ Yes, absolutely. His grumpy, un-wavering disgust with big businesses taking advantage of the majority of us ‘hard-working’ middle and working class Americans is, without a doubt, the right attitude. Break up the big banks, look out for the little guy, stick it to the man, basically, that one, admittedly important issue. Yes I agree, it’s a good issue. And it’s wonderful that he has been bringing it to the forefront of political discourse. But aside from the fact that it really does seem to be the ONLY issue he has strong feelings about, what is it that he’s actually suggesting? Does he actually plan to break down Wall Street, our entire capitalist economic system and start from the ground up with a completely socialist approach? Maybe he has a less dramatic approach in mind, but considering his consistent brand of vehemently grumpy stubbornness, it certainly seems like the sort of thing he’d be into. But is that something that Americans or the world economy actually wants? American capitalism, while clearly far from perfect, effects the world’s economy and many countries rely on it to stimulate their own. And honestly, does anyone believe something so drastic is going to fly with Congress? Those incredibly wealthy people who control so much of what happens in politics are influential for a reason: they’re rich and powerful and they’re not about to just disappear because we want them to. Hopefully, there are other ways to chip away at just how much power they have.

But how is he as a politician? (Which, by the way, is not a negative thing to call someone, it’s a profession, and it’s the way government happens.) Well, apparently, it turns out he’s actually kind of a prick as far as negotiating and leadership. In the article entitled “The trouble with Bernie,” Mickey Hirten cites a laundry-list of examples that make Bernie Sanders out to be an incredibly difficult person to work with. My personal favorite (if for no other reason than it made me giggle,) was a conversation the author had with Sanders, ending with: “…At which point he jumped out of his seat, told me to go f***myself and stormed out…” As fun as it sounds to watch our old Jewish president do something like that to, say, Putin, or even Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, it’s not a very presidential, or effective way to go about participating in politics. Plus, it comes across as a bit Trump-y, doesn’t it?

The argument in support of Bernie Sanders that I find least convincing of all is when people say that they ‘just don’t trust Hillary.’ If there’s anything we can be sure of in this topsy-turvy, wild ride of an election process it’s that Hillary Clinton really, really wants to be President, and she will do, and has done everything she can, for decades, to prove to us that she should be. Whether it’s because you give a crap about her emails, or you don’t think a woman should be President, or because she’s too much of a Washington insider, or that she pees for too long, or you’re tired of hearing about her, or you just don’t like her face, you also know that she has no intention of leaving American politics alone until she’s the President or dead. If nothing else, you have to give her credit for persistence and will-power. Also, because she’s been around the inner workings of our political system for so long, she’s probably picked up a thing or two along the way. At this moment in American history, there’s nothing more important than preventing the smug reality television star, former ‘WWE’ participant, and confusingly racist billionaire, Donald Trump, from becoming President. Anyone who isn’t horrible enough to think that would be a good idea, needs to band together to get him away from politics. Let’s say Trump is a fire, how do we fight fire? That’s right, a damp cloth. And where are you going to find a wet blanket more suited to the job  (pants-suited, perhaps?) than Hillary.

A.I.: Terminator or nah?

Robotic Sentience and the Fall of Man

We are all familiar with some example of artificial intelligence from pop-culture. Going as far back as Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’ in 1818, there have been references in literature and entertainment to human-created consciousness. Some, show a hopeful, practical view of A.I., as in the loveable ‘droids’ from ‘Star Wars’, the socially bumbling yet ever-useful Commander Data of “Star Trek: The Next Generation”, and even Disney’s heart-warmingly adorable “Wall-E”. Others, like the ‘Terminator’ film franchise, Isaac Asimov’s ‘I-Robot’, and most recently ‘The Avengers: Age of Ultron,’ (Marvel’s 2015 super hero blockbuster,) make A.I. out to be a danger so terrible, and so out of our control that it would threaten all of existence. Within the last few years, artificial intelligence has become a popular topic for debate among some of the world’s greatest living minds. World-renowned scientists, entrepreneurs and thinkers like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Steve Wozniak, Demis Hassabis and Stephen Hawking have expressed the opinion that the existential threat posed by continued research into A.I. may present far more dire consequences than we as humans are capable of dealing with. At the same time, the scientific and technological communities have been experimenting with, and introducing nascent forms of A.I. into a multitude of applications, such as, military operations, space exploration, national security tactics, field medical devices, data-collection, disability assistance, surgical procedures and language translation programs, with overwhelming success. These are only the beginnings of what can be accomplished with continued exploration and a greater knowledge of what can be done with artificial intelligence. Therefore, despite the growing concerns presented by the foremost scholars of our time, the vast array of beneficial possibilities exhibited by this controversial research undoubtedly outweigh the unsubstantiated, arguably histrionic claims of its risks.

Fictional speculation on the subject of AI has been so prevalent across the entire world that its origins are difficult to pin-point. But the beginnings of, what we would now recognize as practical artificial intelligence, were established by the computer scientist and philosopher, Alan Turing in his 1950 paper, Computing Machinery and Intelligence. He proposed, since we have no scientific proof or knowledge of what consciousness really is or how it came to be, that the only way to effectively measure a machine’s intelligence would be to conclusively declare it indistinguishable from that of a human. The Turing Test exhibits this theory by putting a human into two separate, text only, conversations; one with another person, and one with a computer. The goal of the second person, as well as the computer, is to convince the first person that they are a human. The result of this test, according to Turing, would determine the computer’s intelligence by its ability to convince the person that, it too, is a human. While the merits of this theory have been discussed and argued over for nearly a century now, it continues to be the foundation of our concept of artificial intelligence to this day. Other major moments in the history of AI include: the coining of the term ‘artificial intelligence’ at the 1956 Dartmouth Conference, the victory of IBM’s ‘Deep Blue’ super computer over the reigning grandmaster chess champion in 1997 and the overwhelming defeat of the two best contestants from the quiz show “Jeopordy!”  by the question answering automaton, Watson, in 2001. Although these were all significant milestones in the evolution of AI, the pattern suggested by Moore’s law, (which states that the processing capability of computers continues to double every two years,) leads us to believe that we have only begun to scratch the surface.

While there may be some who fear the possible future implications of AI, no one would argue that it is not undeniably useful. Because of the high profile status and nearly limitless funding available to national military programs, they are nearly always the first to utilize any new technology or scientific breakthrough. Artificial Intelligence has proven to be no different. As stated in the letter that was submitted and signed by such scholars as Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk (among others) during the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Buenos Aires, Argentina just this past July, 2015:

“AI technology has reached a point where the deployment of [autonomous weapons] is- practically if not legally- feasible within years, not decades, and the stakes are high: autonomous weapons have been described as the third revolution in warfare, after gunpowder and nuclear arms.”

Many other members of the scientific and technological communities have presented this very same sentiment multiple times lately. And, while the general tone of the conference in Argentina was one of caution, others have inferred that the same information is evidence of continued progress and evolution just as any advancement in another field would be greeted with encouragement and hopefulness.

Already we have seen the use of unmanned drones and even autonomous ground units being used by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan without incident. When using these types of units as opposed to the traditional enlisted soldiers, we obviously see an immediate drop in the loss of human lives. Instead of a young, healthy, highly trained man or woman being put in harms way, there is a piece of machinery with all the same capabilities and no brothers and sisters or sons and daughters to worry about, completing the same dangerous task. For example, we could have a ‘Pack-bot,’ which weighs 42 pounds and can maneuver through any terrain that a human could, disarm an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) completely autonomously. Or similarly, we could use a ‘raven drone’, which costs a total of one thousand dollars to build and program, to fly over a target and collect information, without any danger of human casualties or even loss of multi-million dollar military aircraft. As one military officer said: “When a robot dies, you don’t have to write a letter to its mother.” This has effectively changed the cost of war. With the continued success of tactics like these, we have the opportunity to re-evaluate what it means to put a soldier’s life at risk. Where as, in the past, we would begrudgingly accept the death of a soldier as merely a sad, yet, inevitable product of our martial objectives, now there is a far more morally palatable alternative. Even further, all of these units are outfitted with video recording capabilities, which, if/when these videos are released to the general public, put a greater level of accountability on the officers making the decisions. (Some videos like these have already made their way on to ‘YouTube’) This changes the dynamic between civilians and our war efforts over seas.

Advancements of AI in fields like factory production have been seen in machines that not only complete tasks efficiently and effectively, as they have since the industrial revolution, but can now be made aware of their surroundings. This allows humans and machines to work together as a more cohesive team by cutting down on worker injuries as well as mechanical malfunctions.

In the field of medicine there have been enormous discoveries and the potential for even greater leaps to be made in the coming years. There are machines that can identify and diagnose disease in a matter of seconds, either in a hospital or out in remote areas of the world where, before the invention of such devices, there would have been no medicine of any kind. In hospitals there are robots that perform menial, time-consuming tasks that would have previously been the responsibility of nurses, allowing them to now spend more time listening and catering to the needs of their patients. Study into the very promising field of nanotechnology (yes, that’s right, we have ‘Borg Nano-probes’) has such varied potential that, not only would it eventually be possible to treat disease or injury on a molecular level, without the need for invasive surgery, but the U.S. government has an entire website (nano.gov) dedicated to its vast array of conceivable applications.

Translation programs that are capable of picking up on the subtleties of a language’s colloquial lexicon and communicating them appropriately; data-collection software that compiles sensitive data without a pre-disposition to social biases and a greater emphasis on discretion; robots with the ability to perform space exploration for periods of time far exceeding a human’s life-span while transmitting their findings back to earth faster; the list goes on. But, this research can only continue to blossom if it is not curtailed by our fear of the unknown.

After learning about all the wonderful things that have and could be made possible by AI, one might think that if these specific people, whom we all know to be incredibly smart and worth listening to, think it’s not worth the risk, what is it they believe AI will do? Stephen Hawking, (world-renowned theoretical physicist and ubiquitously regarded smart guy) who seems to be the most vocal in his opposition, said of AI:

“One can imagine such technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand.”

(He goes on to add that he doesn’t know who started it but that it was, in fact, us that scorched the sky[see ‘The Terminator’])

 While Hawking seems like he may have watched one too many sci-fi movies, his concerns about AI are supported by Elon Musk, founder of Tesla Motors, SpaceX and PayPal (and, as far as I’m concerned, a real life super hero.) They have both been quoted as saying that they believe AI to be our “greatest existential threat.” But Musk, while originally being guilty of expostulating some similarly flagrant conclusions, has begun addressing his apprehensions with an open mind, just this year donating ten million dollars to companies doing research on artificial intelligence. His hope is that by providing such a substantial contribution to this field, Musk would be encouraging researchers to err on the side of caution when developing these technologies, and that himself and others would be afforded a certain level of oversight as these technologies continue to be developed. Not only does Elon Musk seem to be approaching this issue with equanimity, but the concerns he has presented as to why he believes there is a need for regulation are less melodramatic and have a stronger basis in fact than those of some of his colleagues. The hope for this investment is that it would establish a standard of culpability for the questions of morality and ethics that may be raised by this form of intelligence as it develops. For instance, let’s say there is a robot equipped with an advanced form of artificial intelligence, which has been assigned, by the United States government, with the task of defending U.S. soldiers in a war zone. At some point this autonomous robot is presented with a morally ambiguous dilemma: in order to save the lives of the members of the platoon it has been designated to protect, its only remaining course of action would be to destroy an enemy encampment, killing everyone inside including the few civilians, some of them children. What will it do? Who is responsible for it’s actions? By whom, and with what ethical guidelines, was it programmed? What are the repercussions of whichever option it chooses? Clearly these are questions that would need to be broached before a problem such as this arose. Even on a much smaller scale, being faced with a similar crisis of morality would have huge implications. Without a doubt, there would need to be some level of policy in place and an ongoing discussion to determine jurisdiction as further matters of contention emerged.

         While it is apparent that there are certain considerations that must be examined with great care, there is no doubt that research into the blossoming field of artificial intelligence is worth pursuing. Worries about sentient robots taking over the world and enslaving or exterminating the human race are reminiscent of luddites throughout history. Whenever there has been a technological breakthrough there has always been a voice of dissent that attempts to dissuade us from adopting it. And while being afraid of new technology may raise some questions that need to be addressed, it cannot be allowed to deter progress. In this case particularly, it can be easy to succumb to apprehensions about the apocalyptic results depicted in our pop-culture canon. But if we examine the evidence and don’t allow ourselves to get swept up by ideas based solely in fantasy, we have the opportunity to usher in a future of unimaginable knowledge and growth. In his ‘TED Talk,’ Rodney Brooks, a respected researcher in the field of robotics, explains that creating a “bad robot” is extremely unlikely because first we would have to make a “mildly bad robot” and before that, a “sort-of bad robot” and that, basically, “We’re just not gunna’ let it go that way.” Ultimately, it is not the creation of an inherently evil AI that we should be worried about but rather, what will be the standard of ethics and morality that we one day hope to instill in the ‘C-3P0’s and Arnold Schwarzeneggers of our future.

---

A Well Regulated Militia

Why is it so important to such an overwhelmingly large portion of U.S. citizens to “Bear Arms”? Why do we feel safer with a gun in our house? What is it that we believe we achieve by owning them? We know that, in “the wrong hands” they can, and will be used to murder on a massive scale. So, what makes OUR hands so right? Where do we draw that line? 

    There’s been a lot of discussion about these questions lately as the frequency and severity of civilian gun violence has increased at an alarming rate. Many politicians, mostly on the left, have been calling for changes in the U.S.’s policy on gun purchasing and ownership. But they have been met with such strong opposition, so consistently, that no reforms have even come close to being passed. The reasons for this are fairly evident, but we’ll get to that later. For now, let’s get to know a little about how we’ve gotten to our unique position as the country with the highest and most fatal rates of civilian gun violence in the entire world.

     The history of gun control laws in the United States is actually a pretty quick lesson to go over. So obviously, we can begin with the beginning, the birth of the United States Constitution in 1791, including the crowd favorite Second Amendment. 

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

During this period in our country’s history, it was very important to all of us that we could defend ourselves and our families when called upon to do so, be it by our newly formed, and objectively fragile federal and state governments, or as a response to the dangers that lurked around every corner in our vast and mysterious, recently acquired landscape. The next time we hear about gun policy isn’t until nearly a hundred years later, after the most important change our government has ever made: the emancipation of the slaves, marking the first time our country blushed and realized it too can make horrifying, irredeemable mistakes. In 1865 many southern states responded to the freeing of the slaves by displaying their full, unwavering capacity for hate and fear by enacting “black codes” which forbid any black person from possessing firearms. Soon after, in 1871, the National Rifle Association or N.R.A. was formed with the purpose of preparing our civilians for war by improving their marksmanship. Yup, that’s it, no other agenda, pretty good idea at the time, really. Though, I’ll warn you now, they may come up again, with some slight philosophy changes… In 1927 congress realizes it’s probably not a bad idea to ban the mailing of concealable weapons. When 1934 rolls around, the Mafia had become a big problem for law enforcement and their frequent use of ‘Tommy guns’ brought about the very first federal gun control law: The New Deal for Crime. This levied a two hundred dollar tax on the manufacture and sale of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. In 1938, the National Firearms Act prohibits the sale of firearms to any criminals, convicted or accused. Thirty years later, in 1968, after the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the aptly named ‘Gun Control Act’ and the more long-winded ‘Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act’ are established, together prohibiting the sale of guns to felons, drug users, the mentally ill, raising the purchasing age to twenty one, as well as requiring vendors to keep, ever so slightly more detailed records of their sales. 1972 brings us the formation of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Commission (A.T.F.) and thus the issuing of gun licenses begins. In 1986 we start to see the influence that our civilian marksmanship teachers  (the N.R.A.) have developed with the creation of the ‘Firearm Owners Protection Act.” This protects our rights as proud gun-toting Americans by forbidding the federal government from establishing a national registry of gun owners, while also limiting the A.T.F.’s gun dealer inspections to only once a year and follow up inspections only for multiple violations. Displaying their irrefutably benevolent capacity for compromise, civilian ownership of machine guns made after 1986 was also banned in this act. In 1993 the ‘Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act’ is passed allowing the FBI to make background checks for buyers before a sale. But don’t worry, this is definitely NOT a registry of gun owners. This is followed closely by the 1994  ‘Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act’ tentatively setting a federal ban on the manufacture of assault rifles, sort of… for a bit. The ‘Tiahrt Amendment’, which prohibits law enforcement from releasing information regarding where criminals purchased the guns they used in crimes is enacted in 2003. In 2004 that thing about assault rifles from 1994 gets thrown out, so we can go ahead and make those again. 2005 brings us the ‘Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act’ ensuring that gun manufacturers cannot be held responsible for what folks end up doing with their products. And finally in 2008 ‘The Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller” solidifies an individual’s right to possess firearms in order to defend our homes. But that’s pretty much it.  And if the N.R.A. has anything to say about it, (and they do,) the background checks from 1993 will be the last time the Second Amendment gets messed with. But… why is that? What makes this such a particularly difficult amendment to change, even in light of what is becoming a tradition of mass shootings in America? We change our thoughts and policies on other laws all the time. But what makes this one so special?

     In order to take a closer look at the second Amendment to our famously well constructed Constitution and Bill of Rights, perhaps we should take a look at its brother, Amendment III. As we all know, (right?) the third amendment states:

    

     “No soldier shall, in times of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in times of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

     The quartering of soldiers was of particular importance to the English. The ‘totally unfair’ parents of our teenaged nation, and former overlords from across the pond, who, because of various dubious experiences from their own infamously illustrious tenure, were strongly opposed to the concept of a government maintaining a ‘standing army.’ The British solution to this taboo was to sprinkle their guys with guns, in uniforms, among the general populace. In proper English fashion, they politely requested that folks graciously allow small groups of these armed, well-dressed blokes to take up residence in their homes. This way, there was not one large building housing a complete squadron of military personnel, (which would constitute a standing army,) but rather a loosely scattered collection of alarmingly well-prepared gentlemen. While perhaps a possible solution to our current gun control debate, (Eh? Think about it, we wouldn’t need guns to protect ourselves if there were a well-trained, even-tempered Brit in our kitchen,) Americans were not keen on even that compromise. Thus, The Third Amendment was born.

     As the U.S. matured and began to grow into the self-reliant, (self-obsessed?) nation we are today, the concept of being the proprietor of a military ‘B&B’ faded from our collective national consciousness. We spread our borders so wide that they eventually reached “from sea to shining sea,” equipped with a sturdy pair of cheap-labor trousers and a maple-flavored, beaver pelt hat. In every state we established a carefully constructed and incorruptible judicial system and a trustworthy, unbiased, police force (note to self: check for accuracy). We became so confident as a country that we even found ourselves getting involved in the quarrels of other countries, sending our casually seated army (don’t worry England,) around the world to meddle in their affairs.

With our motivations and overall demeanor having developed into an entirely different entity than it was when the Constitution and these early Amendments were established, it comes as no surprise that some of the issues that we felt so strongly about began to feel outdated. If we have lost interest in our concern about the quartering of soldiers, then perhaps there might be other Amendments we ought to take a look at.

Maybe the first one? No, that seems to check out, basically just the right to party and complain.

How about the Fourth Amendment?

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Or, in other words, as the English like to put it:

“Every man’s house is his castle.”

Although, I suppose that also sounds like support for Florida’s “Stand-your-Ground” laws, (which legally justify the use of firearms on one’s own property, even if it leads to death;) the British, and our Founding Fathers were thinking more about the government, (not your unlucky, prankster cousin.) The idea behind the Fourth Amendment is to protect our right to the privacy of our personal property against the government’s prying eyes. It describes the necessity for ‘probable cause’ to be determined before any government organization’s inspection of our bodies while in public, our legally procured property, and even our private documents. What “probable cause” actually means gets a bit dense and murky, and is subject to change based on the given circumstances, but the Amendment itself seems very clear in it’s wording in regard to the basic procedure. Doesn’t it? Well apparently, over the years, even that has become subject to interpretation. For instance, the New York Police Department developed a policy known as “Stop and Frisk.” This policy, based on ‘Terry v. Ohio,’ a Supreme Court ruling from 1968, allowed police officers to perform searches on civilians without pre-determined, court approved, probable cause, under the assumption that this would prevent crimes from being committed.  Under “Stop and Frisk” only “Reasonable Suspicion” is required to perform a search of a suspect. The idea behind the policy was that the process of obtaining a legally sanctioned warrant was hindering law enforcement from identifying criminals who were carrying concealed weapons. They hoped that by giving police officers more freedom to make judgment-calls based on their training and experience, without the lengthy process of proving the necessity for a warrant, violent crime would decrease. While the intention was noble and seemingly justifiable, this is clearly in blatant contradiction with our ‘search and seizure’ rights under the Fourth Amendment. Recently this practice has been brought into question based on the fact that it has been largely ineffectual in actually preventing violent crimes as well as being used more frequently to target black and latino citizens and arresting them for minor drug offenses.

Similarly, you might remember “The Patriot Act” enacted by, then President George W. Bush, after the September 11^th terrorist attack in 2001.  As expressed in an official statement from justice.gov entitled “What is the Patriot Act?” the federal government defends it’s amendment of the Fourth Amendment thusly:

“The Patriot Act updated the law to reflect new technologies and new threats. The Act brought the law up to date with current technology, so we no longer have to fight a digital-age battle with antique weapons-legal authorities leftover from the era of rotary telephones. “

See? Sometimes the world changes and our government policies have to stay updated with those changes. When something horrifying like the events of September 11^th scares us so much that we feel like we are willing to forego our basic constitutional right to privacy, maybe that should alarm us enough to consider other outdated policies and laws that perhaps we should take a look at.  Although, you’d think that the new American tradition of regular mass shootings by members of our ‘well regulated militia’ might cause similar alarm, any mention of our beloved Second Amendment is met with outrage and is immediately shot down and swept under the rug. There is a reason for this, but, well, to be honest, I’m too afraid to mention the name of the organization responsible for this…

Um, yeah, so anyway, (*gulp*), do you remember the whole Edward Snowden/N.S.A. hoopla? Yet again, we have an example of the federal government feeling very comfortable with adjusting our Fourth Amendment rights to suit their needs, this time without even feeling the need to rile up support by playing to our fears. In this case, one very secretive branch of the government (the National Security Agency) made the call, all on it’s own, with a suspiciously unclear amount of oversight, to monitor citizens’ activities. While the N.S.A. very quickly turned the attention back on Snowden, pointing out that some of the information he released may have caused security concerns, it was more of a distraction method. By calling the attention away from what they had been doing to U.S. citizens and blaming Snowden for revealing their unsupervised, unregulated practices, many Americans were too confused to pay attention to what they had been up to anymore. While it is certainly unfortunate that some of the methods the government used to combat terrorism were put out in the open because of Snowden’s revelations, that should not change public opinion about the fact that one of our government agencies had been undermining our constitutional right to privacy. Whether or not our privacy is actually more important than our safety is a matter of some contention and may be another one of the rights that we need to debate in the future. But, again, as it stands now, this is a clear example of how easy it can be to flat out ignore or change one of our original, constitutional rights. So there’s no doubt that the Fourth Amendment is open for interpretation and change.

Many conservative politicians, who regularly defend the second amendment on the basis that our founding fathers were infallible and that we must uphold their values and regard their policies as irrefutable, have recently been bringing up the idea of completely altering our structure for taxation. The U.S. has been using an income based taxation structure since the beginning, but there has been a lot of talk about making the monumental switch to a tax program based, instead, on ‘consumption’. To put it in simpler terms: currently, and throughout our country’s history, the amount of taxes a citizen pays relate to how much money they make. That’s an income based taxation system. What many conservatives have been proposing is changing the way our government collects money from its citizens to a system based on spending. So basically we would no longer pay taxes based on how much money we make, but rather on how much money we spend. Essentially, if you get a big ol’ paycheck every month, the government doesn’t get to touch a cent of it until you buy something; And if you live paycheck to paycheck, spending every dollar you make just to keep up with your basic expenses, you would have to pay taxes to the federal government on every trip to the store or bill you pay. So with a ‘consumption’ based tax system, our poorer citizens would grow poorer and poorer every time they bought anything, and our richest citizens would be more likely to save their money and only buy things when necessary, effectively making those of us with less money pay considerably higher taxes than those of us with more money. Besides the fact that this does not take into account that we are currently experiencing the widest income gap in our country’s history, (so why would we do something to compound that problem, especially now,) it is also completely contradictory to the usual rhetoric that we hear from the very same politicians who generally extol a strict constructionist view. Kind of hypocritical to say that ‘we shouldn’t change our policies because it’s worked so far’ when it comes to things like gay marriage or gun control, but throw the book out the window when we’re talking about taxes, doncha’ think? There are many other examples of our government changing it’s mind or updating it’s beliefs to reflect the popular ideals of the day (Slavery, Prohibition, Jim Crowe laws, etc.) therefore, clearly, the Bill of Rights are not immutable.

     I’ve mentioned how there may be a reason for the persistent stubbornness of the Second Amendment, and while I’m probably putting myself in danger by bringing it up, it’s because of the National Rifle Association. Yeah, those guys, the ones who were teaching us how to aim better so that we could defend ourselves if we were attacked way back in the day. Over the years, since those days that we were worried about attacks from the ‘savage natives’ or whomever else we might have been afraid of, the mission statement of the N.R.A has changed drastically. Since nowadays we’re pretty confident in our safety within the secure borders of our beautiful country, the N.R.A.’s purpose as a civilian training program has become ostensibly obsolete. So instead of going the way of, say, home-soldier-checker-uppers, they made some changes to their agenda. Somehow, this organization has gained untold wealth and immeasurable influence in government.  It has become a well-established fact that the N.R.A. lobbyists have been slipping money into the pockets of politicians who are willing to play nice, for decades. It is in their best interest to prevent any policy changes on gun control because, well, they’re the gun guys. And they’re really good at what they do. Through intimidation, money and influence, the N.R.A. has their paws in every aspect of our political system. Those politicians who choose to play their game, are forever indebted to them due to the constant flow of funding and support that they receive from the powerful organization. After accepting this assistance, (most likely the primary reason for their successful election,) this politician now has no choice but to submit to their generous benefactor’s every whim. Thus, the N.R.A. has ensured that all of it’s positions have enough support to get voted on by a wide majority of elected officials, however they are told to do so. Recently, their lust for power has grown so vast that we have even begun to see evidence of their agenda outside of the United States. In countries such as South Africa, Mexico, Germany, Italy, and most notably in 2005, during an attempt by the Brazilian government to establish new restrictions on gun ownership, due to their own, famously high rates of gun violence. When the National Rifle Association heard about the possibility that Brazil might be enacting tighter restrictions on its citizen’s ability to bear arms, naturally, they sprung into action. They began running advertisements in Brazil proclaiming the importance and benefits of gun ownership and presumably, with even greater ease, buying politicians, in order to ensure their interests are represented just as overwhelmingly as they are at home. The N.R.A.’s fear was that, were gun control regulations passed in a place like Brazil, U.S. citizens might realize that it’s possible to stay safe without our own personal arsenal, and maybe we would fall out of love with our favorite amendment.

But, unfortunately, as far as I can see, we’re basically stuck with them for the foreseeable future… *sigh* So, let’s get back to the real purpose of the Second Amendment: that “ A well regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State…” Well, I mean, yeah, right, of course… a civilian militia… hmm… Can we think about that for a second? So that would mean a group of your untrained, not necessarily educated, probably politically uninformed, possibly incredibly bigoted neighbors, getting together, arming themselves with guns and taking to the streets… Uhh… Yunno, I’m not sure I like that idea… I mean, I guess that WAS something we needed at a certain point. Like, when there were attacks from natives. Or when there was a criminal on the loose and the police force was stretched too thin to go out and look for him. What we know a civilian militia was used for most often was returning escaped slaves to their masters, because, of course, they were property and belonged to their master; It’s just that, they could escape. So the community would band together to retrieve their neighbor’s expensive tool. So yeah, I see why they needed an armed civilian militia… for that awful reason. But, what would be a modern day equivalent of that? Maybe there isn’t? Perhaps, and I know I’m going out on a limb here, we don’t need a “well regulated Militia” anymore. This concept does not apply to the way our community and political system works anymore. The world has changed and continues to change and we need to change with it.