en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/758923 Comments by Bourbaki https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/letter-from-an-inmate__trashed/#IDComment70088563 Prison has never made much sense to me. The ostensible purpose of the institution is to impose a form of punishment on those who have broken the law, and to remove them from society for a time. One could also argue that prison should also attempt to rehabilitate prisoners and return them to society improved, so that they are less likely to get in trouble in the future. However, I have to question how effectively the system works to accomplish these goals. Let's start first with the purpose of rehabilitation. Rehabilitation efforts should be concerned with changing the behavior of inmates in a way that makes them more acceptable to the prevailing laws and norms of society. So regardless of methodology, a good indicator of success in rehabilitation is recidivism rates: Do inmates come back to prison after their release? Unfortunately, recidivism is extremely high in the U.S., with 44.1% of inmates being incarcerated within a year of their release from prison, and with 67.5% being incarcerated within three years. This suggests that efforts for rehabilitation are limited in effect, and prisons either do not serve this purpose, or serve it poorly. Second, consider the purpose of removing troublemakers from society. Prisons do have the effect of removing from society those individuals who have been arrested by the police and subsequently sentenced to serve time by the court system. Unfortunately, there are two problems with that reality. First of all, the criminal justice system is a blunt instrument. Innocent people are sentenced to serve time in prison every day, because the system is twisted. Layers of incompatible law and ill-defined precedents are heaped haphazardly on top of each other over time, and it gives real criminals an out, and it provides opportunity to convict individuals who are innocent of a crime. Second, the definition of "anti-social behavior" is determined by bureaucrats, politicians and lawyers—who is to say that they represent the prevailing views and the best interests of society. For example, while one could argue the hazard of making use of marijuana, it is rather difficult to effectively argue that it is a scourge on society, or that it is an antisocial or destructive behavior. Some people decided that some years ago, and so it is illegal to possess marijuana in most states—but is the use of jail time in these cases really conducive to the goal of removing the antisocial individuals from general society? Finally, consider the issue of punishment. Certainly prison sentences offer provide punishment to those who disobey the law. I don't want to go to prison, you don't want to go to prison, and most people you know don't want to go to prison. However, you must ask whether it is the most effective fashion of punishment, or whether it is an appropriate punishment in every case. As regards the prior, there are plenty of possibilities to consider in terms of punishment which would involve a more productive term of service—which don't involve leaving inmates sitting around doing nothing. Likewise, forms of punishment could be employed which don't involve incarceration. Concerning the prior, many laws place minimum jail times on certain convictions, and this leads to people being sentenced to terms in jail whose lengths really don't reflect the nature of the crime. In general, I would conclude that there are serious problems with the U.S. prison system. Sat, 24 Apr 2010 03:59:06 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/letter-from-an-inmate__trashed/#IDComment70088563 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/christian-invaders-the-turnaround__trashed/#IDComment68438957 When I look at the world, and when I look at my country in particular, I am often frustrated by what I see. Freedom and democracy are often intertwined inextricably in the prevailing views of the nation, and yet I see that they are not in fact in direct correlation. That is to say, democracy is a means to an end, that end being government which promotes freedom and well-being in a way that represents the will of the people. One would be tempted to say that the more direct the democracy—the more universal the right to vote and the more complete the voter turnout—the more effectively the resulting government achieves this goal. In general, it is correct to say that direct democracy leads to a system of government that is more representative of the views of the citizenry. However, this does not necessarily lead to the stated goal of “promoting freedom and well-being” in a representative manner, for a simple reason: The thoughts and feelings of the masses can be manipulated. The modern studies of sociology, psychology, and political sciences have lead to the use of mass propaganda to sway the hearts and minds of the people, and today, the socioeconomic elite fight a great war on the battlefield of public opinion. Unfortunately, this is a problem which is endemic to democracy in the information age, and there are two possible solutions. First, you could eliminate universal suffrage, limiting the right to vote to those individuals of upright standing and stalwart intellect who can base their voting on the facts of a situation, aiming for the better good of their sectors of society. This could be implemented by a mandatory test of civic understanding and logical reasoning, administered in such a way that success would be independent of resources and social standing. However, such a solution would be widely frowned upon, amidst calls (largely by the elite) for widened voter turnout and increased civic involvement by all, even as the propaganda machines keep churning out their lies. Second, you could aim to educate a larger portion of the population, so that political propaganda has less of an effect on those who would otherwise be swayed by fallacious or rhetorical arguments. Unfortunately, this plan is set back by the fact that a large portion of the population bases their beliefs on just this sort of argument—emotional, unreasonable frippery. So the only way to get through to the larger portion of society is to present a reasonable point in exactly that emotional and unreasonable manner. Enter Sam Richards. I agree with his point—that it is unreasonable to conclude from the current events occurring in the Middle East that Arabs and Muslims are "savages" following a "violent and extreme religion". Sam was fighting the ethnocentrism that pits "us", the good and righteous Americans, against "them", the radical Muslims. Indeed, if you ascribe to that world view, you are playing into the hands of the warmongers who are aiming for excessive economic gain out of the conflict. (Just take a look at Major General Smedley D. Butler's discourse "War is a Racket" to see exactly what the wealthy in our society get out of war.) However, several of Dr. Richards' points were presented in a biased fashion, and a few of his conclusions were rather stretching the facts. So the age-old question of the ends versus the means rises again—and to that question I leave you to conclude. Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:42:42 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/christian-invaders-the-turnaround__trashed/#IDComment68438957 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-if-we-got-rid-of-welfare__trashed/#IDComment65698933 I have a problem with people who look at social welfare systems and complain: About the expense, about freeloaders, about inefficiency—all sorts of things. The reason that I take exception with such complaints is not that they are necessarily invalid, but rather that for most people, they exist within an inconsistent framework of understanding. The thing to understand with social welfare systems is that they are absolutely not necessary in society. Societies have long existed and still do exist where social welfare systems are minimal or non-existent, and for most people, the reality of day-to-day life in such societies is basically comparable to that in our system. The difference between our society and societies with more limited social welfare systems lies in what happens to that minority of the population which falls into hard times. What happens when you get sick? What happens when your house burns down? When your bank goes under? When an earthquake strikes? What happens when the unthinkable occurs? In a society where social welfare systems are limited or non-existent, the answer is obvious: Nothing happens. There's no system in place to protect against catastrophic events, so if it happens to you, you're stuck with it. You lose your home. You go bankrupt. You die of illness. These things can and do happen all over the world, and in many cases, people just have to deal with it. The question that we have to deal with as a society is whether this is what we want to have happen. Some societies have chosen the libertarian route of leaving individuals to their own devices, but the alternate route is to put checks in place which keep the fallen from hitting the sharp rocks of poverty and demise. These are the safety nets, the social welfare systems, which most industrialized nations provide to their citizens. The underlying idea is that we want to protect ourselves from the unlikely possibility of catastrophic events impacting our lives, and in order to do that, we agree to band together as a society to pool our resources to offer that protection. In such an arrangement, every individual must pay into a pool in the hope that they never personally need take advantage of that communal service. Social security. Welfare. Private and public insurance. All of these systems are based on the assumption that people want to avoid catastrophic failure, and are willing to pay into a communal pool, possibly never to take advantage of the resources in order to do so. Certain problems do arise when considering how to implement such a system, and these are the ones often cited by people who propose to remove such systems from society. However, the fundamental fact remains that these are symptoms of implementation, not of underlying function. The question you have to ask yourself is: Do you want to protect yourself and others from unlikely catastrophe, or do you not? If the answer is negative, then that is acceptable. If it's positive, then you need to rethink the thesis of your argument, and stop complaining about how the damn welfare system is ruining our nation's financial future. Sat, 3 Apr 2010 03:57:24 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-if-we-got-rid-of-welfare__trashed/#IDComment65698933 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/flip-the-script-for-a-moment__trashed/#IDComment64292085 Tomorrow, I will be traveling too many miles down to Harrisburg to take part in one of the many rites of passage required to enter the mystical realm of intellectual bliss known as "Academia"--the GRE general examination. In honor of this, I would like to present this comment in the form of a GRE writing examination essay. The prompt for this opinion essay will be as follows: "Sam Richards was way off base when he started talking about his wife's 'bleeding' during class. The topic was entirely irrelevant to the course's focus of race relations, and there is no way to justify this gross breach of societal protocol." My response follows. It is worthwhile to consider the relevance and propriety of Sam's digression on how the topic of menstruation is discussed and handled by our society. On the one hand, the discourse drew interesting parallels between the way society tends to ignore feminine health issues and how society looks at race issues. On the other hand, certain protocols of propriety in a classroom setting were broken by bringing up this taboo topic. However, I believe that it is appropriate to break the usual rules of the "traditional classroom setting" if it is necessary to promote the aims of education and understanding. First, the question of necessity arises: Was it necessary to resort to unconventional methods of education in order to effectively teach the topics at hand? I would argue that it was necessary, based on the lackluster and jittery atmosphere which was prevalent in the past several classes. Sam initially put forward the explanation that the warm weather outside was making students pine for the end of class—however, the fact that the behavior continued when the weather became colder and wetter indicates a different cause. It seems clear that the cause was in fact that the class was not grasping the material being presented, even though the presentation was competent in a traditional sense. This indicates that a change in teaching methodology was needed in order to impress the significance of the material being presented. Second comes the question of response: What alternate teaching method would effectively break the class out of this state of apathy? It is clear that many of the students in the class do not have strong opinions about the subject being presented, the phases of racial awareness and more generally the barriers which lie in the way of meaningful conversation on race relation issues. Ironically the root of this is contained in course material itself. The undergraduate population of Penn State (and also the population of Pennsylvania in general) consists of about 83% white people, with the remaining 17% being split between racial minorities. This suggests a large tendency towards ethnocentrism in perspective, and greatly explains the apathy we have seen concerning race relations. As Sam says, "The fish is the last to understand water." A reasonable teaching suggestion would be to draw an analogy with a topic which is more practically relevant to the demographics being addressed. Third, we must ask about propriety: Given the pedagogical situation, was Sam's method appropriate for his goal of education? Sam chose to relate the issue of race relations with the issue of gender relations, an issue which is quite as much fraught with inequality and societal catches as the topic of our class. And in a sense, the new topic was well-received. Rather than apathy, the students in the class (particularly the women, interestingly enough) were jolted into a state of outrage which is much more conducive to listening (hence learning) than the previous uncaring boredom. Additionally, the choice of topic, the discussion of menstruation in daily interaction, effectively presented the notion that ethnocentrism puts a damper on conversations which could lead to greater understanding between groups in our society. Given that the content of the course was not visually graphic, and was presented in a mature and learned fashion, it seems that the method was an effective tool for increasing individual involvement in the class content. In light of the answers to these questions, it seems clear that Sam's choice of course material was conscious and well thought out. Members of the class were not responding to the usual presentation of the course content, and some measure needed to be taken to break the general apathy. Given that the class and university is predominantly white, the most reasonable measure would be to draw a comparison with a topic which is more generally applicable to the student body, such as gender relations. And despite the fact that Sam's exposition revolved around a topic which is generally considered "taboo" by our society, the lecture got the point across in a way that broke the apathy without being overly graphic or vulgar. Together, it strongly supports my belief that Sam's digression was both relevant and proper in the context of this classroom. Sat, 27 Mar 2010 03:49:39 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/flip-the-script-for-a-moment__trashed/#IDComment64292085 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/what-to-do-about-white-guilt__trashed/#IDComment63085934 I am a mathematician. I spend a majority of my waking hours studying the world of logical ideas, and this flavors my views in a way that probably seems strange to many. I view morality and rightness as a system based on simple rules: People should have equal opportunities and rights, independent of individual characteristics. People should be allowed to pursue their own goals, to the extent that those goals do not interfere with the goals and rights of others. And in the case of a conflict, laws should be designed in a fashion which supports individual choice. There isn't much more to it. Murder is wrong because it means that one individual is impinging on the right of another to reasonably preserve their life. Homicide in self-defense is justified when there would be reasonable expectation of bodily harm. Assisted suicide is not inherently wrong, because it supports the right of a person to pursue his or her own goals. (It may be that society wants to put checks in place that restrict this choice to individuals who are mentally sound, e.g. not depressed or schizophrenic.) Abortion is a gray area, because the question looms as to when in gestation does a person become a person. Unfortunately, this view leads me right into Sam's subtly derisive generalization that "white people … say that they don't feel guilty". I'll be frank: I don't feel guilty. I understand and appreciate the historical racism that led to the current state of society, and I would be the first to express regret over that history. It wasn't right under my view of morality, and the world would be a more reasonable place if the racism hadn't occurred. So I feel something for it. Regret? I regret the wrongs of the past. But guilt? Guilt is remorse for past wrongdoings. I try very hard in my day-to-day life to not commit racial wrongs, so guilt is not something that I feel concerning racial inequality. Concerning the accuracy of history books, I have to note that I am a scientist, and so I espouse the views of a scientist. I believe that there is an objective reality, and that every effort should be made to reflect that reality precisely in academic writing. If there is inaccuracy in history books, a possibility I do not deny, I would fully support revision to more correctly represent the events of the past. And certainly changes in my understanding of the past would impact the regret I feel over the wrongs committed then. However, it would not instill in me a sense of guilt. The fact remains that I make reasonable efforts to live in line with my views of morality, so I do not feel individual responsibility for the inequalities in the world. With that said, I also believe that we should try to address the wrongs of past generations. This is not out of a sense of guilt, but rather out of a sense of wrongness. Racial inequality does not directly contradict my moral system, but the societal racism which is closely associated with racial inequality does. In order to promote a society which comes closer to natural law, it is necessary to reduce the racial inequality around us. Sorry if I fall into your stereotype, Sam. Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:09:25 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/what-to-do-about-white-guilt__trashed/#IDComment63085934 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/this-is-getting-to-be-too-much__trashed/#IDComment59968419 A comment made on Thursday's communal texting class really rang true to me, and I think it's worth following up on. After people put up such insightful comments as, "that hickey was out of control", "i have to poop" and "8===D", a student in the class responded sagely with the words: "This is why we can't have nice things." In many situations, it is an obnoxious minority which gets the attention of the mainstream media, and I believe that it is our responsibility as informed, intelligent people to take away a reasonable message and move on--quickly. I wrote in a previous blog post that psychopaths tend to gravitate towards positions where they can be heard by the masses. Unfortunately, big media plays a big role in this process: Just follow the money. The majority of funding (and profits) for mainstream television networks comes not from consumers, but from other corporations in the form of advertisements. The price of an advertisement is determined primarily by a statistic called the Nielson rating. This statistic measures, using a variety of methods, the number of people watching a particular televised program. In other words, television networks become profitable by drawing in crowds. In particular, this means that television news networks will try to feed you, the viewer, whatever sensationalist crap it takes to keep you coming back to that set. When it's a choice between a new and breaking story about a small-town murder in Arkansas, or a drawn-out debate on the future of science funding, guess which story gets the air time? In 2003, a Florida court of appeals agreed with lawyers for the FOX Broadcasting Company that news networks are not legally obliged to present unbiased or even factual information to viewers. That's right: Television news is allowed to lie to you. Studies have looked at the ability of groups of people to correctly answer facts about current events, based on their preferred source of news, correcting for differences in demographics. Of the major networks, viewers of FOX News Channel were least able to correctly to answer factual questions about current events. People whose main source of news was a newspaper, on the other hand, were more informed as a group than those who turned to any televised news network. Finally, people who got their news from National Public Radio were the most informed of all. I find this interesting, because of all of the studied outlets, NPR is the one which is publicly funded rather than a commercial enterprise. Just follow the money. As regards to this debacle about the theme party in UCSD, I think that it is blown out of proportion by ratings-hungry media. Yes, the party was racist. Yes, some kids should probably get reprimanded for it. No, there's probably not a sudden "outbreak" of racism in the UC schools, and yes, somebody should probably take a look at the environment that lead to that kind of a display. There. Now can we please move on? The health care debate is pretty important... And it seems like we should maybe do something about poverty in urban America... Or the 27 million slaves in the world! Something that doesn't involve obnoxious racist frat boys and publicity-whoring rappers. Sat, 6 Mar 2010 01:28:42 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/this-is-getting-to-be-too-much__trashed/#IDComment59968419 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/who-could-compete-with-this-woman-on-a-level-playing-field__trashed/#IDComment58920240 In an ideal world, hard work and motivation would equate with success in life. When I listen to the story of this Haitian woman, and I can't help but feel that she deserves a measure of prosperity for her efforts. And in a world which was essentially right and good, she would have it. Unfortunately, we live in a crummy, run-down slum of a world, where everyone is trying to screw everyone else and get ahead at all costs. And that means that there's no time to promote prosperity and opportunity amongst the world's poor, no time to look toward the greater good. There's only time to look out for Number One, whomever that may be. Everyone does it, don't get me wrong. You do it. I do it. That's how the world works. We like to believe that we live in a way that promotes the general welfare—a way that helps others, that makes the world a better place for all of us—but when push comes to shove, if you and I both want the same doodad, I'm gonna fight you for it. And if I've got a gun, while you've got only your fists, I'm going to win. In the end, that's how the world is divided, into the haves and the have-nots. If I have a leg-up over you on the socioeconomic ladder, then when push comes to shove, I'm likely to end up on a higher rung, regardless of individual merit. Perhaps I've become cynical since I started looking more closely at the world, but I've come to accept things for what they are. I don't agree that it's "right", per se, but I agree that it is what it is. I believe that the best place to start is to see the world with absolute clarity, so I try to avoid letting my views be obstructed by emotional baggage. And when push comes to shove, as I've noted in posts in the past, there's not much to do about it except to be informed and to work within your limited sphere of influence. Talk to your friends. Talk to your family. Share with them the failures of the world, so that they can share in turn. On a related but separate note, I must comment on the reporter for the NPR report. While he was talking about how Yvrose was deeply in debt to her bank, in an amount on the order of a hundred U.S. dollars, all I could think was "Why don't you write her a check." "Come on, write her a check." "Okay, don't write her a check—I'LL write her a check." It reminded me of the stereotypical reporter, offering live coverage of a brutal car accident, passively reporting as more and more cars pile up. I hope that the follow-up offers some resolution to this looming question. Sat, 27 Feb 2010 04:52:40 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/who-could-compete-with-this-woman-on-a-level-playing-field__trashed/#IDComment58920240 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/another-reason-why-gay-marriage-matters__trashed/#IDComment57722462 I have a difficult time discussing gay rights. It's not that I'm uncomfortable discussing the topic—rather, the topic is so inanely simple within my framework of beliefs that there's nothing to discuss. It's like discussing something like, say, integer addition. You can certainly debate about the philosophical underpinnings of mathematics, or minutia of defining the integers, or even alternate realities in which addition works in different ways. But to what end? Adding two numbers works the way that it works, and practically, there is very little to debate on the subject. Sexual activity serves multiple purposes. In many places across different species, one can observe sex being used to make new life, to form social bonds, to impose social hierarchy, and even to simply pass the time. In particular, homosexual behavior is observed in many, many different species. So to say that homosexuality is unnatural is to crassly ignore evidence to the contrary. Further, twin studies make it apparent that homosexuality is substantially influenced by biology, so to say that it is entirely a personal choice goes against what the real world tells us. So it is clear to see that sexual orientation is a trait which, like race, gender, age, height, or eye color, is determined significantly by heredity, and in particular is mostly outside of an individual's control. A fairly universal principle of enlightened governments in the world today is to treat individuals equally under the law, without regard to such substantially unimportant genetic factors. So under the (perhaps flawed) assumption that we live in an enlightened democracy, it is a pure contradiction of this principle to distinguish between the legal rights of homosexuals and the legal rights of heterosexuals. Another principle of enlightened governments is to allow freedom when it comes to the interactions of consenting adults. That is, there needs to be enough regulation to ensure that no individual can easily dominate the will of another, but beyond that, the government's role in individual interactions should be extremely limited. In particular, the sexual interactions of consenting individuals in private premises should fall entirely outside of the government's domain of control. That is to say, homosexual acts themselves, beyond even the question of choice versus outside factors, should not be regulated. This is not such an issue in the U.S. today, but in many nations (various Muslim nations come to mind in particular), the law is set against homosexual acts. With regards to gay marriage, there are two sides to consider. First, marriage is often considered as a religious institution. Clearly, since religious organizations are independent from the government, there is no justification to force organizations which traditionally do not allow gay marriage to change in this respect. Again, it is a matter of the government's domain of influence being limited to providing equal rights within interpersonal interactions. Second, marriage is considered as a legal institution. In this sense, a marriage is the legal recognition of a certain type of a relationship between consenting individuals, and inasmuch as a legal distinction is not made between black and white marriages or between short and tall marriages, neither should such a distinction be made between heterosexual and homosexual marriages. It is all very straightforward to me, and I have very little to say to individuals who disagree with me on any of these points. It's not that I'm unwilling to debate—I can certainly intellectualize what they have to say on the matter—but rather, it's that their views diverge from reality, from what really exists in the world. There's little to discuss when the discussion concerns not matters of opinion, but matters of fact. Concerning this family's story: When the government offers equal treatment under differences in heredity, this sort of tragic happening will no longer be an issue. One stubborn generation at a time, it seems, we work towards a society which is consistent and straightforward in belief and policy. Sat, 20 Feb 2010 04:57:25 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/another-reason-why-gay-marriage-matters__trashed/#IDComment57722462 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/all-that-is-solid-melts-into-air-including-our-words__trashed/#IDComment56596291 The world is a big place. It always has been, and in some sense, it always will be. Certainly there's more to see and know in the world than any one person could possibly experience. Each country has its wonders, each town its stories. But in another way, the world has become smaller. What once were insurmountable distances have become a day's ride in the family car. A range of mountains once may have been impassable, but a tunnel through the very earth can allow easy passage today. A trip to the opposite side of the globe, while expensive, is within the reach of the middle classes. And beyond transport, communication technology has progressed so that a message can bounce around the world in just seconds. Commerce has become global in scale with transnational corporations marketing to peoples on all continents. Industrialization has changed the scale in which mankind interacts with the world. In a similar way, it has changed the way that culture works in the world. Historically, cultural differences came about as a result of geographic locality. If it is difficult for members of a tribe to walk 20 miles through the jungle to reach a neighboring town, outside cultures will have a smaller impact on the development of language, traditions, beliefs and social norms. On the other hand, if trade brings information and commerce from far-off lands, other cultures will tend to have a larger impact on local cultural development. In other words, the greater the transfer of people, goods and information, the more cultural mixing occurs, and the more homogeneous culture becomes. In today's society, where information transfer is cheap and nearly instantaneous, where the scope of cultural mixing is global rather than regional, it is understandable that world cultures are becoming less distinct, and that many of the smaller cultures are disappearing. It is difficult for distinct cultures which are in close contact to remain in stable equilibrium. In a way, it could be looked at as progress towards a more compatible and streamlined world culture. But in another way, it could be seen as a loss of diversity that cheapens the human experience. I tend to agree with this latter interpretation—more specifically, I feel that mono-culture leads to widespread manipulation of human beliefs by corporate and political interests that are focused on pointed, shallow and near-sighted messages. When people focus on a large scale, the smaller things that are important to creating a livable world tend to be forgotten. Corporations are interested in supporting rampant consumption, when often simplicity is a more satisfying and worthwhile way to live. Political interests aim to emphasize idealogical division, when often it is more important to find common ground between people to work towards mutually agreeable policy. In this environment, it is easy to see why languages are disappearing—why is it profitable to preserve little-spoken languages? Which political ideology does it support? As with most problems with the world today, I have no solution to offer, but to do what you can on a day-to-day basis. Celebrate those cultures which you hold near to you, and be aware that globalization is both connecting our world and diluting our experience. Sat, 13 Feb 2010 04:36:41 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/all-that-is-solid-melts-into-air-including-our-words__trashed/#IDComment56596291 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/the-enlightened-west-knows-best__trashed/#IDComment54462165 It's always interesting to encounter a double-standard in your own thinking. This occurred when I was considering the moral principles surrounding this proposal by the French government. My initial thoughts were that the government's primary role in society should be to provide appropriate services to the people, and to regulate conflicts between individuals. In particular, I thought, the government should not be able to regulate the clothing that people wear. Clothing choice, while visible to the public, does not have a significant impact on a person's interactions with others. Who cares if I wear a T-shirt, a long-sleeved shirt, a vest, a parka, a sweater-vest or a robe? If others don't like it, they can look the other way. Of course there is room for debate on the issue. A shirt with obscene imagery can be seen by children who are unable to consider or cope with it in a healthy fashion. A trench coat can be used to conceal hidden weaponry, which could mean added uncertainty and fear in an area plagued by gang violence. And face coverings such as a ski mask or a burqa can be used to hide one's identity, which could be used to facilitate violent crime. However, it is my opinion that sweeping regulation is not the answer to such cases. Perhaps a shirt with obscene imagery can be seen by children, but what constitutes "obscene"? Nudity? Satanist text? How about fine art with a nude figure? How about a passage from the Quran? A ban on trench coats would stop people from hiding weapons in trench coats, but what about in baggy shorts? Or thick winter coats? Nothing short of a ban on all clothes except form-fitting jumpsuits would be sufficient to achieve that end. And clearly, as our illustrious professor notes, a ban on face coverings steps on the spiritual journey of some, and the cultural choice of many. In general, I hold that the government should play a minimalistic role in regulating personal choices such as this. However, I thought again, and I caught myself. If the government should play a minimalistic role in deciding what people can choose to wear, then why should it have the power to dictate a minimal legal level of dress? Why should it be allowed to dictate that public nudity is a crime, but not public burqa-wearing? It's all the answer to the same question: "What should I take out of my closet to wear this morning?" One answer is, "My traditional Muslim garb," while the other is, "Nothing!" I could come up with no substantive difference between the two. And here's the double standard. I couldn't bring myself to agree that the government should allow public nudity. Call me conservative, but I think that a certain level of propriety is called for in public spaces, in order to promote peace and smooth interpersonal interactions in our society. But then again, that view steps on a group of people, mainly, nudists, and I don't feel too great about it. How can I reconcile the two outlooks? Damned if I don't have an answer for you. Sat, 30 Jan 2010 04:54:48 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/the-enlightened-west-knows-best__trashed/#IDComment54462165 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/last-name-begins-with-g__trashed/#IDComment53879212 Impersonate Tue, 26 Jan 2010 02:44:46 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/last-name-begins-with-g__trashed/#IDComment53879212 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/clubbing-the-bejesus-out-of-rationality__trashed/#IDComment53503744 As we found out from the embedded video clip featuring Mr. Olbermann, there are quite a few things that could be said about Pat Robertson's appalling statements regarding Haiti. Many of the responses of my classmates concur with Olbermann's scathing review, although perhaps in less provocative language--and I can certainly empathize. Taken at face value, Robertson's words are shocking in light of the severity of human suffering that has visited the nation of Haiti. But however natural and rational this reaction is, I believe that it is the wrong one. Professor Richards suggests that Robertson's words are the utterings of a mentally ill person, and that media corporations are responsible for giving him a pulpit (so to speak) from which his rantings can be heard by millions. While reasonable, this outlook is borne of the optimistic sociologist's view that individuals are essentially good, while people, that is, groups of people, are capable of significant evil. People individually, on average, are good and reasonable. However, there are always people on the far edges of the bell curve which most others would classify individually as "evil", and I believe that there are positions in society which attract these individuals, simply for their ability to act without a thought of traditional morality. I believe that Mr. Robertson meant to say exactly the words that he said--not because of mental illness, but rather because of sociopathy. The man did not care for the content of his message (it's possible that he doesn't even believe it himself), nor for the impact on those who heard it. Rather, his aim was to get people talking about him, to get people listening, no matter the cost. And as far as I can tell, he has obtained this goal quite well with his outrageous comment, with coverage on many major news outlets. At the very least, this class of 720 students, plus TAs, plus professor, is talking about him. And in so doing we are playing straight into his hands. The proper response, I agree with professor Richards, is to ignore whatever Mr. Robertson has to say, knowing that it is based out of a desire for visibility, power and wealth. However, there is an additional point to consider, mainly, that most people will react in the predictable and reasonable manner (that is, in outrage), and so give this man the ratings he desires. How can we avoid this as a society, both in the specific case of the "Reverend" Marion Gordon Robertson, and in general for ratings-hungry media characters? To this I do not have a a satisfactory answer, except that everyone should do what they can by reaching out to those within their own sphere of influence to spread awareness of this subtle peril. Sat, 23 Jan 2010 04:18:51 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/clubbing-the-bejesus-out-of-rationality__trashed/#IDComment53503744