While I was at UCLA, I took a course entitled “History of Affirmative Action” to fulfill one of my major requirements.  I thoroughly enjoyed the course.  It taught me everything I already believed in and it gave me talking points to argue with anyone who disagreed with me.  The professor encouraged us to fight for affirmative action because it was right.  Looking back on it after five years, I realized, “Oh Em Gee, this is what the conservatives are complaining about when they say colleges are the breeding ground for liberalism.”

There is a value in the course – I think it is important for people to understand the inner workings of affirmative action in order to fully support or combat it.  You need to know what you’re up against.  But, there was a problem.  We all knew the professor’s stance on affirmative action.  You can bet that no one really disagreed with her when they were writing up their assignments or taking the final.  In fact, you probably didn’t take the course unless you already supported affirmative action.  Why give up the easy ‘A’ by challenging the system?

I’ll admit, I cringed when I read my responses – five years later – to the weekly questions the professor handed out as assignments.  I did the reading, but the reading was skewed.  I never truly and honestly looked at the counter arguments.  I was spoon-fed what I wanted to hear and thought that was truth.  Regardless of my stance on affirmative action now (which isn’t favorable), what really bothers me is how closed-minded I was when I was in college.

And now for your perusal:
(by the way, for those who are looking at this as a way to cheat on their own assignments: your professors and teachers can use Google too)

Continued…

All I know about secular humanism and the Zinn Education Project, I’ve read in blogs.  Thus, not knowing much about the content of ZEP or other works/statements/anything made by Howard Zinn, I have no opinion as to the accuracy of the blogs.  If you’re interested, then I would suggest researching more into it.  My interest in this topic was sparked by a Twitter conversation I had between a few intelligent people, spurred by Ben Shapiro’s blog entitled, “Religious Fanaticism and Illegal Indoctrination of Your Children.”  It mentioned the Establishment Clause and the Lemon test, so obviously, I was instantly drawn in by the promise of discussing Constitutional law.

Continued…

You ever find yourself stumped as to what word to use when describing someone? Is it African American or black? Is it Oriental or Asian or Asian American?  Can I call this person short or is it ‘vertically challenged’ now?

In situations like these, you find yourself between a rock and a hard place – you don’t want to offend (and you certainly don’t want to get your ass kicked for pissing off the wrong person) but you can’t accurately describe someone without using racial or gendered modifiers.  You can’t tell that joke you that made you laugh because it’s not “PC”.*  You can’t speak your mind because you’re straight-jacketed by this social contract.

I dislike “political correctness” because it reaffirms the assumption that if it is racial then it is racist.  If it is gendered, it is sexist.  It doesn’t matter that someone is just using an adjective to describe a characteristic; the mere acknowledgment of the characteristic, the pointing out of “difference”, is racism/sexism/homophobia/whatever-ism.

& – - – // – - -

For certain crimes, there is an element called mens rea which looks into the state of mind of the actor.  Was the act intentional or negligent?  Was it planned and malicious or was it just an accident?  Mens rea is important as it can decide whether someone is convicted of first degree murder or involuntary manslaughter.

I mention mens rea because it provides the best analogy of how I approach racism.  It helps me distinguish between a fight worth fighting from one that is merely cosmetic.  I look at a situation and ask myself, essentially, “Is this something I should be concerned about?”

Take for example last month’s uproar about Senator Harry Reid’s comment that Obama has “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” After reading a few articles about it, I brushed it off as negligent (well, actually stupid).  I did not see a malicious intent in Reid’s comment.  I didn’t read it as Reid purposely being racist against blacks or then-candidate Obama.  I realize there is an interpretation of the comment that leads to the conclusion that Reid implicitly believes that the “Negro dialect” is uncouth and would hinder a Presidential candidate from winning the Presidency.  But hey – I believe it’s true that not all manners of speech are treated equal.  I do not expect a candidate that only speaks in Hawaiian pidgin to win many votes.   But I digress.  I didn’t see a racial intent behind Reid’s words, I just saw him saying “Obama appeals to all audiences”, much like news anchors.

The problem with political correctness is that it treats this kind of negligent statement the same as fire-hosing Civil Rights protesters.  The former makes me face-palm at the inanity, the latter makes me want to actually do something to change it.  Doling out the death penalty for a two-buck crime just takes away from actual progress.  Keep your cosmetic hang-ups to yourself, I rather work towards a real solution, kthxbai.

& – - – // – - -

What really gets to me about political correctness is the hypocrisy of it all.  You don’t want people to be racist?  Stop being racist yourself.  Do not hide behind your “protected” status when you say seriously say “nigger” every third word.  Do not tell me how you assume every white guy that dates an Asian girl has an “Asian fetish” and then proceed to hiss and boo at them, loud enough for them to hear your displeasure.**

I make politically incorrect jokes at the expense of my race and sex.  I am fully aware that I am allowed to make these types of jokes because of my race and my sex; I am given a free pass.  But why am I given this free pass?  I have never felt that I, personally, was denied something because of my race or sex.  Why is it not questioned more by the politically correct as to the existence of this double standard?

“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”
~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

I make politically incorrect jokes ironically, to point out this hypocrisy that I see in it all.***  I don’t make jokes (or say anything) with the purpose to belittle someone.  I don’t judge someone based on their skin color, but based on their merits, the “content of their character” as it were.  I admit that I hold certain stereotypes in my head, especially those concerning Asian mothers, because there is some truth to it.  But I know it’s not applicable to every individual and I don’t write off everyone I meet based on stereotypes.  This is where the mens rea requirement for racism comes in for me, and I believe it’s an important distinction when looking at racism.

Continued…

When I was in high school, my friends and I had a joke that we had to avoid the following topics in order to remain friends: race, religion, and politics. What I did not realize then that this is not a joke for some people – this is an active (or is it passive?) way of dealing with others in the world. Rather than it being a joke, it really is a rule. Up until five years ago, I would have been more than compliant of this implicit standard of social relationships. I liked having friends; it seemed antithetical to be able to talk about “race, religion or politics” and still have friends.

But after five years of talking politics with people much smarter than me, I am curious as to why the stakes are so high. Why was it assumed that relationships would be better off not discussing certain topics? Is it because we knew it would only end in a fight?

What I have learned that it is possible to get into these high stakes discussions without fighting, even end in a way where both parties have higher respect for their “adversaries”.  Mind you, I have had my fair share of heated discussions, but nothing to the point where I wanted to end the friendship (or acquaintanceship if that was the case).  Of course, to be truly honest, some of those discussions have resulted in me losing some respect; not because I disagreed with the other person but because of the manner in which the discussion took place.

I am a glutton for intellectual stimulation. I like learning new things and seeing if it fits into the vision of how I see the world. I like seeing things from both sides (or all sides because nothing is that black and white). I like to be confronted with facts and logical arguments. I like seeing things from different perspectives because it just one more way of figuring out this big puzzle that I call life.  But most of all, I just like being able to discuss issues without it getting personal.

What I don’t like or appreciate is the feeling of being attacked for what I believe. Or the feeling that the other person thinks I’m just a lost soul wandering around without a clue as to what is going on. Or the feeling like they are trying to convert me to the “right” (or “left”) way of thinking. Most of all, I absolutely abhor being talked down to or being disrespected.

Continued…

http://twitter.com/Camerus/status/8209307418
Though a couple is not required to have kids in order to get married or be married, procreation is still a big deal in marriage.  You can get an entire marriage annuled (as if it never happened legally), even after 30 years if you find out that your spouse lied about their ability to have children and you married them thinking that you’ll have kids eventually.  Furthermore, if procreation was NOT a big deal when it comes to marriage, then why do we prohibit brothers and sisters from marrying each other?

http://twitter.com/Camerus/status/8208540360
From a legal standpoint, interracial marriage is completely different from gay marriage.  There is something called strict scrutiny applied to constitutional issues of laws that discriminate or treat differently by race.  The government has to have a compelling reason for the law and the law must be narrowly tailored.  It’s a high bar to meet.  However, issues of discrimination against sexual orientation are given the rational basis test; if the government has a rational basis for the law and the law is designed to support that, then usually the law passes constitutional muster. It’s the lowest bar to meet.  This is the same test given to bigamy, and we all know how that turned out.  The first hurdle that the lawyers in the Prop 8 federal trial are going to have to do is either (1) say there is NO rational basis or (2) say that a higher scrutiny should govern discrimination against sexual orientation.  IMO, either is a tough sell.

[BTW, a line from Lawerence v. Texas which invalidate criminal laws against sodomy: "That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage."  So, in essence, the Court is implying that protecting the institution of marriage IS a rational basis.  ]

Also, I understand that a lot of people quote to Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court decision that banned prohibition against interracial marriages.  Yes, there are many instances in that case where you can just substitute in a gay couple.  BUT, the history going into that case is also important to keep in mind.  By the time Loving was decided, only 16 states had laws like this, and most of those laws were dormant.  That means that the majority of the states had already decided that the prohibition was asinine.  Currently, only FIVE states recognize gay marriage and less than 20 have civil unions/domestic partnerships.  This is definitely not the track record you want to confront the Supreme Court with, IMO.

http://twitter.com/Camerus/status/8213622086
I completely agree that the state should get out of the marriage business and only enforce what are, essentially, contracts between people.  BUT, that’s not going to happen any time soon.  If people are having this many issues just letting go of the word “marriage”, I don’t think they’re going to give it up completely.

—

My thoughts on the current Prop 8 trial is that it’s going to fail in the end run.  The California federal court and probably the Ninth Circuit court of appeals will say that it unconstitutional to ban gay marriage.  But, the Supreme Court is known for overruling the 9th Circuit AND it doesn’t like being backed into a corner like this.  Heck, the federal government didn’t want to touch the issue back in the day (remember the time Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act?).

I understand what the proponents are trying to do, but I think they’re trying for too much too soon.  I would rather see them go state by state and get equal rights and obligations. Call it whatever but just not marriage; get most of the states on board to actually treating same-sex couples the same. THEN start going for the word “marriage” or, maybe by that time, the word doesn’t mean anything. [I don't get why people want to buy into an institution that discriminates against you, why not just get another institution established? I have a far more eloquent explanation of that, but I just woke up from a nap.]

http://bit.ly/6Ew12R

I somewhat agree with the assertion that the First Amendment does limit the government’s ability to regulate free speech. However, a completely textual argument would suggest that government can only be limited when it “abridges” (deprive, diminish, reduce in scope – http://m-w.com/dictionary/abridge) rather than expands free speech.  If the net neutrality regulations are promulgated under the FCC authority in order to protect free speech/access to information, then I don’t think that the ISP companies would have much of a chance by challenging the constitutionality of it on 1st amendment grounds. There is precedent for this type of regulation.  Turner Broadcasting v. FCC.  I doubt that a regulation on how much ISP companies charge its customers will fall under strict scrutiny because the law isn’t directly regulating speech per say.

Essentially, it would come down to whether the net neutrality rules actually do have a chilling effect on free speech/access to information.  So, how do you measure the chilling effect other than less users of the internet?  Would net neutrality cause less users?  Also – the United States isn’t the only one using the Internet, so how will anyone be able to show less speech without doing a headcount (on the internet?!).

On the flip side, do we have the right to FAST Internet access or access?  I remember a time when I was suffering through 56k modems, when it took me 1 hour to download a 3MB song (even when it was legal).  Do we even have the right to access the Internet at all?  Not everyone has free internet. We pay for services provided by a company.  If IPS companies wanted to charge me more based on how much bandwidth I used, I wouldn’t have a 1st Amendment complaint against the cable company (since the 1st Amendment only applies against the government).

HOWEVER, I think it’s unfair how I have to pay the same amount of money for my use of the internet (mostly Twitter, Hulu, and various message boards) while my neighbor can download seasons upon seasons of television shows.  Maybe a tiered system would give me more control of how much bandwidth I use and I can end up spending less money in the long run.   BUT, I like having the choice of using more bandwidth if I want to. So, really, it’s all just trade-offs.

Of course, I wouldn’t mind regulations on charging me more money for Internet use regardless, mostly because ISPs/cable companies/phone companies have easements on my property and they probably didn’t have to pay much for it.  [And believe me, I doubt those companies were complaining when those easements were taken under some kind of statute.]