I'm halfway through Reflections on the Causes of Human Misery and Upon Certain Proposals to Eliminate Them, which was written by Barrington Moore Jr. almost 50 years ago, and in a quick brush he mentions the term "technocratic absolutism." In the 70s, he was dubious of a "technological elite" arising to control society, though he respects the possibility enough to acknowledge it in passing. This is why I love old books; we in the future have all the dramatic irony of hindsight. We are, in fact, seeing technology increasingly being used as a control mechanism in our justice system.
​
Moore is trying to get to the bottom of how social systems cause human suffering, observing that the bulk of human conflict over the course of history has been over (1) maintaining social structures by which we establish norms, taboos, and rules of conduct, which imposes natural restrictions on everyday existence; (2) attempting to control those who threaten that social structure, from the individual to opposing foreign powers; and (3) imposing a new social order. People have always existed somewhere between accepting a certain amount of suffering or powerlessness in their social system, and accepting the short and long term costs and benefits of revolution. Moore generally refers to revolution as a bloody and oppressive sacrifice -- which is historically true -- but he also acknowledges that change can also happen peacefully, only if a citizen is able to cut the strands of his "web of beliefs, expectations, and sanctions that tie him to the existing regime" one by one.

Given my line of work, my mind is contextualizing Moore's theories through the lens of our incarceration system. The justice system is an extension of the state, by which our reigning social structure is enforced, and which has its own tyranny that we don't observe from outside its barbed walls.

The current system is dehumanizing
Before talking about technology in justice, I first want to point out the human element of cruelty within our justice system. I read an article recently on Cook County Jail, which houses thousands of prisoners from the Chicago area. The article details the process of how detainees are released every day, either pre-trial on bond or after serving their sentence. Families attempting to get their loved ones out on bond are made to wait without communication to the outside world, with their questions brazenly ignored by jail staff, without knowing when or how their wait will end. Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve writes: "Waiting can be a weapon. Or at the least, waiting is a way for the state to tell you that your time, and thus your life, is neither yours to control nor worth very much." Prisoners are given one phone call, and one phone call means they are unable to call their jobs, or the sitter, or whatever other obligation they need to tend to. 

Prisoners without family waiting are released directly to the streets of Southside Chicago with a single bus ticket and two transfers, no cash. They are spit out, coatless in the cold, at the exposure of gangs waiting to jump them, without directions for where to go next. Apparently they end up at Popeyes and Walgreens.

"The temperature is below freezing," Van Cleve writes, "but the men running from the jail are dressed for a different season, frozen in time, wearing the same clothes they were arrested in during the summer." She compares it to a scene from the Hunger Games. She describes the sheriff's officers smoking cigars on their shift, casually passing the time as the prisoners and families wait.

What stuck in my mind was Van Cleve's personal anecdote: When I worked as a law clerk in the Cook County prosecutor's office, the deputy sheriff assigned to our courtroom would brag about how she would torment families of defendants. When families called the courtroom and tried to locate their loved ones and their cases, she answered the phone with a jovial, "County morgue." She would then pause as though she were checking on the defendant's name and say, "Oh, they're dead," and then hang up the phone.

To me, Van Cleve's article is ultimately a stream of examples of how cruelty inks into a system. Small acts of oppression bloom into behavioral patterns, and they become a culture, and thus, the modus operandi.

What does it take to change this? Is it possible to slowly "cut the strings" of this web on corrections -- the belief that prisoners and their families are not human or worthy of being treated with dignity; the expectation that the system is there to make people suffer rather than to make possible -- affirm, even -- a sense of citizenship to our so-called social structure?

But is technology the solution?
Enter technology. Could technology be that mechanism cutting those strings? It replaces, to an extent, the human element that may be prone to perpetuating a culture of oppression. Of course, there is a massive hole to climb down in debating the consequences of technological control. Human error will always exist in technology, and our moral standards which keep it in check are culturally relative.

Now that term Moore passively mentioned is echoing back: "technocratic absolutism" -- a post-human form of governance using surveillance and artificial intelligence as a means of running human affairs. Like Moore, I feel eccentric considering the possibility. But there is evidence that our market, separate from and quite often contrary to the efforts of criminal justice reformers, is moving toward technology as a solution to an overcrowded and ineffectual corrections system. In Minnesota, a family business went from controlling prison commissaries with savvy vending machines, to developing implanted microchips that will be used for probation surveillance and at-home monitoring. In Baltimore, computerized risk assessments calculate whether you are suited for pre-trial release and how much bail you should pay. In New York, state prisoners have been granted tablets where they can make video calls to loved ones, download books, and access free educational material -- but the cost? Unrestricted surveillance and hidden fees. And, Amazon is selling facial recognition technology to law enforcement. 

To be clear, I'm pointing out these developments without analyzing the costs versus benefits here, nor insinuating my position. But I will say reformers are vigilant over changes that may expose an already-vulnerable population to further profiteering and methods of state oppression. 

Moore states: "Mankind can expect to oscillate between the cruelties of law and order and the cruelties of changing it for as long as it leaves the globe fit for human habitation."

Bleak.

At least we have an indefinite "heads up" from Moore: change will come, but change does not inherently guarantee that the system improves. In pushing for change, it is vital that we don't overhaul one system of violence or oppression and accidentally substitute in another.

Three sleepless nights later, I guess I'll write a blog post. The media has already hammered out analyses on Trump's reluctant, two-day approach to denouncing white supremacists, so I won't get into that. If that ignoramus can call a female talkshow host a "fat pig," you'd think worse words could roll off his fingertips when responding to a domestic terror incident by Neo-Nazis. Of course, Trump does not want to anger a fan base that subsequently praised his tepid response. But let's not beat a dead horse; instead, let's look at the jujitsu of Conservative media outlets in response to all this. I was curious to see how Fox News and Breitbart would react to everything, so I watched closely and was not surprised to see that they were more concerned about President Obama's track record and Black Lives Matter than the fact that, well, three people died this weekend and America doesn't feel so safe for a lot of people.

First, here's where I stand: The Unite the Right rally was itself an act of terrorism.  If US citizens who support ISIS wanted to hold a rally, waving its flags and openly carrying weapons, declaring, "It's time to take this country back," do you think we'd all step back with a shrug and say, "Oh, that's just first amendment stuff"? Interestingly, the ACLU defended the white nationalists' right to rally in support of the Robert E. Lee statue on first amendment grounds, of course without foreseeing the violence that would ensue. But I argue that we should hold our first amendment to a higher standard than that. The march itself was an act of terrorism because it involved the congregation of hundreds of ideologues and members of cults that have a not-so-distant history of lynching, burning, assaulting people of color, and enforcing racist legislation. They congregated and marched through a university campus carrying torches (not expecting the fodder that tiki torches would rain on Twitter) and Confederate flags representing the lowest point in American history, in order to instill terror in their opponents and in minority groups. As former KKK-leader David Duke put it, they were out to "fulfill the promises of Donald Trump" to "take our country back." They showed up with weapons and militia gear. There was no indication that they wanted a peaceful protest. Beyond the bloody skirmishes between protesters and counter-protestors, a young man rammed his car through a crowd of counter-protestors, and a black teenager was beaten with poles by rally participants in a parking garage.

While there was a heartening scramble throughout the political spectrum to denounce all forms of Nazism and white supremacy (even Sessions called the car attack a terrorist incident, surprisingly), something disturbing bubbled through it. In the right-wing media response, I witnessed a nauseating emergence of this comparison -- made by some Republicans and Trump in his "many sides" statement -- of white supremacist movements to Black Lives Matter. This is a trend of Conservative media outlets seeking to deflect the topic at hand: when they get caught in a rut, they try the "Democrats should look in the mirror" argument, which is juvenile. If you look back at how white opponents smeared the Civil Rights Movement, they used the same tactics that Conservatives do now with Black Lives Matter: First, minimize the messaging of the movement as redundant and unnecessary (i.e. "Racism doesn't exist"). Second, brand the movement as dangerous and erratic, so that the general public will be fearful of its entire mission. Third, use that fear as leverage to continue excusing your own bigotry and bolster your personal brand.

Fox News brought forth some gems this weekend:
​
Hannity used this opportunity to emphasize that hatred and violence are "not exclusive to one party." After the rally, he spent the first minute of his show strongly denouncing white supremacy. This allowed him the flexibility for the next thirteen minutes to focus on what he really wanted to talk about: a defense of Conservatives and Trump and an attack on the left. Not to mention, he seized the opportunity to plug Trump's words -- "on both sides" -- as much as possible, and to play a long clip of Reverend White in order to brand President Obama as a black liberationist. I give this a 9 out of 10 as far as being a clever way to leverage news of a Neo-Nazi rally into a left-bashing, feel-good segment for viewers who are apathetic to civil rights!

Watters Words also plugged Trump's "both sides" statement as subliminally as possible (was I witnessing brainwashing in action?). He also followed the model of: White supremacy is bad, but let's talk about how bad the left is. Take a look:

When Jesse Watters' viewers see this, they will feel emboldened and grateful that he has given them a reason to pat themselves on the backs and continue ignoring difficult questions. Oh, this is just a fringe incident? Oh, Obama didn't denounce Black Lives Matter or ISIS? Oh, liberals are making all this racism stuff up? I guess I'll go back to watching that rerun of Lip Sync Battle now.

I can dismantle Watters' presentation in four points:

1) He purposefully neglects drawing the connection between this rally and Trump. Notice how he excluded all details of how rally leaders were quoting Trump and claiming that their white nationalist agenda can be fulfilled through his campaign promises. Many of the protestors were wearing Trump gear and chanting his own words. Remember how Watters ends his rant with: "If hundreds of thousands of Islamic terrorists have nothing to do with Islam, then what does one white supremacist have anything to do with Donald Trump?" Notice how his argument, like many arguments made by Fox News pundits, makes sense only by the omission of facts. From David Duke's own mouth, it is a fact that Trump's words have inspired confidence in these so-called fringe movements and bolstered their sense of security in marching openly in the streets. There is something to be said for that, and that is a major reason why people are so concerned about Trump's response to all this.

2) ​Watters makes the bulk of his argument on the presumption that Black Lives Matter is an extremist hate group. The Southern Poverty Law Center does not recognize it as such, because it is not. Fox News does this often; without supporting this position with facts, it frequently tosses BLM into a conversation with a knowing nod and expectation that viewers will understand the negative connotation.

Watters also manipulates the assassination of Rep. Steve Scalise by a former Sanders campaign volunteer as evidence; he says the left didn't take responsibility but deflected it to say that "both sides" are to blame. His viewers, after all, will relish an unsupported story if it throws liberal words back in their faces. To support his point, Watters shows a handful of disjointed, out-of-context clips that were not actually in response to the Scalise shooting, but rather just commentary about rhetoric, of all things. He consciously chose not to show Sanders' actual reaction to the shooting, where he condemned such violence in the strongest possible terms, and said true progress can only come through nonviolent action. At no point did Sanders attempt to cast blame for the senseless violence. Again, Watters makes his arguments by carefully omitting detail and stringing together convenient information that only superficially appears to support his point. This is a practice of media bias at its core, and as soon as people learn to recognize it, the better informed they can be.

3) Watters draws an odd comparison between the tragic 2016 police officer assassinations and Alex Fields Jr. This comparison is illogical and misleading. First off, the Baton Rouge and Dallas police shooters did not self-identify with Black Lives Matter in any way, and vice versa -- so where is this connection Watters is trying to make? Contrastingly, Alex Fields was pictured with insignia from the neo-Nazi group Vanguard America, formed in 2005, whose mission is explicitly to make America an "exclusively white nation." They are self-described fascists, who state in their "Blood and Soil" manifesto that "the time of the Republic has passed" (ironic that they lean on their first amendment rights so heavily, isn't it?). Vanguard has distanced itself from Fields and was not behind the attack, but the messaging (let alone the very history of the Nazist movement) of white supremacists remains a siren to its followers.

The mission of Black Lives Matter, on the other hand, is this: "Rooted in the experiences of Black people in this country who actively resist our dehumanization, #BlackLivesMatter is a call to action and a response to the virulent anti-Black racism that permeates our society...Black Lives Matter is an ideological and political intervention in a world where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise.  It is an affirmation of Black folks’ contributions to this society, our humanity, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.​"

At no point does BLM start talking about a superior race or creating a one-race America. Instead, it talks about systemic oppression rooted in this nation's violent history. You should look no further than this past weekend for an explanation for its stance on "virulent anti-Black racism." Its message is not one of destruction, but of building up. It is also an inclusive movement that values all lives, "regardless of actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity, gender expression, economic status, ability, disability, religious beliefs or disbeliefs, immigration status or location." BLM is explicit in its messaging that "all lives matter," because that is the foundation of the equality they fight for. To make them out as some doppleganger to a white-led ethnic cleansing movement is just absurd.

4) Watters criticizes the left's demand for Trump to call out white supremacism, calling it hypocritical because the Democratic party itself won't say "Islamic extremism" to describe jihadist groups. Here, Watters is capitalizing on this weekend's tragedy to politicize an entirely different issue. These two groups are so fundamentally and historically different that I am seriously concerned about Watters' I.Q.

So, what is my takeaway from all this nonsense from Conservative media? You can always count on them to use tragedy to further their agenda. 

Hey there! Want to listen to my podcast that I created while interning with the Justice Policy Institute? Click the document below to download. The topic is on approaches to young adults in the criminal justice system, following JPI's report released earlier this year. Thanks for listening!

Is the world in such turmoil? I thought this as I opened my news at 5am to read more of what's happening from Qatar to the Hart Senate Office Building.

In the past several months, it seems so. Last week we read of fatal stabbings on a Portland train as people stood up to defend two Muslim teenagers against a white nationalist. Trump feebly tweeted in response, but nothing can justify his efforts to block funding for anti-extremist programs and re-route support to solely combatting "Radical Islamic Extremism." This effort was a big gesture of solidarity to the proclaimed "Alt-right"; domestic terrorism, to them, is not a problem unless it involves a distorted form of Islam. (This only further piles on the evidence, amidst Trump's cabinet selections of white supremacists, of Trump's indifference -- or dare I say, support -- of right-wing extremists and the populist movement). Since Trump, there has been a stark rise in domestic terrorism by white supremacists and nationalists.

Trump refuses to acknowledge Pride Month or denounce regular attacks against the LGBTQA community by his supporters. And what of his promised efforts to "drain the swamp"? They have resulted in nepotism (Jared Kushner is now responsible for every aspect of the country's problems; what better way to dismantle what's left of governmental efficacy than to put it in the hands of one man who knows nothing of the issues?); creation of ethics oversight loopholes; firing an FBI director who refuses to pledge "loyalty"; the appointment of lobbyists to federal positions; and blurring separation of church and state with an executive order allowing churches more political power. Private prisons -- and naturally following, legislation to maintain mass incarceration to keep prisons full and profitable -- are bolstered with ample support from the current DOJ.

Of course, to pile on, filling center-left news are reports of Russian collusion, which Conservatives wave off as media hype, despite the fact that Sessions recused himself of the Flynn investigations, or the current investigations into Kushner's secret meetings, or the fact that the CIA, FBI, and NSA, among 14 other intelligence agencies, issued a statement that Russia interfered with the elections. While Conservative Republicans and Libertarians bury their heads in the sand, the rest of the world reads on in the face of eroded trust in reality and the perpetuation of disinformation from a shambled 45th Administration.

And, healthcare debate aside, those I know who voted in Trump will shrug at the fact that Scott Pruitt (whose conflicts of interest in his position are no secret) has delayed an EPA rule that would have improved air quality and lower smog levels. This invites more difficult days of breathing for me and others with cystic fibrosis and asthma as summer approaches. But no matter, my family is happy with this; every day I wrestle with disappointment in their callous political beliefs that conflict starkly with their caring affect toward my sister's and my chronic illness. And alongside it, their admiration of Trump signals their opposition to everything for which I fight. They are happy to see criminal justice reform sputter (which under President Obama was for a brief, splendid moment a bi-partisan issue); drug overdose and public health efforts become disorganized; our National Parks are now available for oil drilling...thank you for your service, Yosemite. This is what my family voted for. This is what my country wanted. Does my country belong to me anymore -- do I belong to it?

Abroad, Trump is a disaster. The U.S. has lost the respect of its allies, more so now that it has withdrawn from a global climate agreement that even North Korea was willing to sign onto. The U.S. Ambassador to China has resigned in protest. Iran finds Trump's "condolences" quote "repugnant" after tragic Tehran attacks. Hundreds of vacancies in Trump's national security appointments, the state department, and justice staff remain (he complains of Democrat stonewalling, yet he hasn't even put forth names for the majority of positions), despite his campaign rhetoric to keep America safe -- but of course, he keeps pressing the Muslim ban.

Between his golf outings and vacations, Trump is on track to spend more on travel in his first year than President Obama did in eight years. But remember when Trump tweeted about the Harvard lawyer, Columbia graduate, and 44th-president's lack of work ethic?

And, there are issues beyond the toxic atmosphere perpetuated by Trump and his supporters. Attacks in London. High death tolls in Mosul. Boats carrying Syrian refugees capsizing. North Korea testing missiles. Is another Cold War on the horizon? This week marks 50 years of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. South Sudan is facing mass hunger by the millions, the largest famine since WWII.

What problems can the clear-headed solve, here and now? By "clear-headed," I do not mean those who have picked a side, but those who are examining the evidence apolitically and trying to find plausible solutions that cause more repair than harm. While I obviously lean left, what has stood out prominently to me in recent months is that Neoliberalism is self-defeatism. The messaging is disrupted. Liberals are sidetracked and powerless in a conflicted movement. As Amber Frost put it eloquently in "All Worked Up and Nowhere to Go": Whether it takes the form of insular campus activism, reactionary internet sermonizing, or impotent calls for general action, what passes for “the left” today is both parochial and completely disconnected from power. To put it bluntly, we have lost; we are decimated and we are feeble. What’s worse, we refuse to admit our failures, repeating them over and over and over again, castigating anyone who might question this pattern. In “Exiting the Vampire Castle,” Fisher alerted us to a “witch-hunting moralism”—in this case, against anyone who might try to raise class consciousness—that inevitably devolves into guilt and ineffectuality. In the wake of the election, it’s a lesson that seems to have gone largely unlearned by a self-sabotaging left.

But, some bright spots. Bob Whitaker, the infamous segregationist, died yesterday. O'Reilly was booted a couple months ago. Artists continue to deliver and keep the world awake, reporters push onward in the face of public doubt, Denmark maintains its sense of humor. And today, former FBI director James Comey will deliver an incriminating testimony proving Trump's deliberate obstruction of justice. Despite the self-destruction of the Left, what it can rely on at least is the ability of the Right Wing to implode. Trump was elected to be a failure. What comes after Comey? What stench will rise from the rubble? Perhaps the underpinnings of Trump's Administration consist of that partially-visible nationalist infrastructure I described above, which will fully reveal itself, naked and untethered, in his downfall, and the fight will merely continue. Or, perhaps a lesson from nature, a peek into my ever-trying optimism in front of every loss I've ever felt: even flowers can grow out of shit.

In February, Ted Cruz said, “The Democrats are the party of the Ku Klux Klan.”

Of course, I know right-wing readers loved stumbling across this tidbit on Breitbart; it stoked the red flames broiling against political correctness and the moral sanctimony of the Left. It was ammunition on their tongue, ready to spit.

This, of course, was an underhanded move by Cruz. Maybe his supporters slept through history class, or maybe they have lost sight of the ebbs and flows of political history; more likely, they prefer to cherry-pick facts that make them feel reinforced and safe. I see danger in that comfort. But no matter; if Ted Cruz and people who think like him are what we are up against, perhaps the rest of the world needs to press pause on real matters and give out a free history lesson. You know, the same way the news media has had to lower itself to pretend to seriously analyze the U.S. President’s feckless tweets.

First off, let’s acknowledge the obvious. Ted Cruz’s statement is but a diversion, the same way a magician moves your attention to the smoke and lights during his slight of hand. If he can manipulate history to his advantage, it distracts us from the present reality. What actually matters in this debate are the policies of today and whether they are working to address systemic racism. At the end of the day, race relations should not be viewed as a partisan issue. They are a human issue. Attempting to prescribe racism to one party or the other causes us to overlook the fact that we are an inherently racialized nation. Our history is one of violence and oppression; our present is one where de facto segregation still exists in our neighborhoods, where trauma is generational in urban communities, where our criminal profit system is perpetuating injustice, and racial and gender equity are still not a reality. People of color in our country grow up in communities that are over-policed, over-incarcerated, impoverished, and pushed into ghettos with troubled school systems, whether they are in blue states or red states.

The Democratic party has been able to brand itself as attuned to ending these systemic problems because it is proactive in proposing legislative solutions to them, albeit imperfect; by contrast, the Republican party leans toward a belief that a freer market and trickle-down economics will correct all social ills. The debate between “what works” rages on, both sides arguing a different form of proactivity. Programmatic responses versus bootstraps. Social responsibility versus personal responsibility.

The debate is ostensibly less about race than creating a more equitable America, but the truth rumbles low and angry beneath the surface. Racism intersects with most of the socio-economic issues we debate. But instead of inclusion in the conversation, communities most affected by systemic racism are used as tokens and tools for obtaining power. African Americans are reduced to a demographic referred to by politicians as “the black vote,” so that even their Constitutional right becomes racialized. Politicians from both parties continue to see "the black vote" as separate, all the while failing to recognize the broad range of diversity in opinions and values existing throughout black communities. Beyond that, many predominantly black communities, particularly ones in poverty, are not even represented to their fullest potential. 1 in 13 black adults – or 2.2 million in the U.S. – are currently disenfranchised from voting.

Racism transcends party lines. It transcends gender. It transcends geography. But between the Democratic Party’s clever marketing against racist sentiment and the rise of Right-wing extremism, it has become easier to align this (albeit prejudicial) dichotomy: Republicans = racist; Democrats = fighters for social justice. Calling ‘racism’ before having a dialogue is not a productive way to open one with someone who doesn’t share your worldview; yet both parties are guilty of it.

But there is a reason this polarized generalization has formed, and I'm interested in exploring that. So let’s talk history.

Republicans have pushed back at their bad branding by calling themselves “Lincoln’s Party,” which has always elicited a good laugh from everyone. I do appreciate their effort. It’s kind of like watching someone put duct tape on a flat tire. I’m sorry, but the Republicans claiming credit for freeing slaves is like me saying I deserve credit for education reforms because my great great great grandfather was the president of DePau University. It’s like giving yourself a pat on the back because your second aunt twice removed marched at Selma. It would be similar to the Democratic party calling itself Jefferson’s Party; while he was the party founder, he advocated "wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another but which would otherwise leave them alone to regulate their own affairs.” That’s because Democrats were once considered the conservative party. Find me ONE Republican who agrees that Jefferson is an emblem of the modern Democratic Party, which is currently advocating for single-payer health care and environmental regulation, not “leave them alone to regulate their own affairs.”

Are you seeing yet how this branding doesn’t make sense? Tell me, does “Lincoln’s Party” still agree with our 16th President’s support of the progressive income tax, giving free land to the poor, or creating the regulatory Department of Agriculture? NO! So why do Republicans think that Lincoln would align himself with them in modern times? It would be one thing if Republicans maintained a brand as champions for racial equality, but the beginning of the Civil Rights Era was when the Republican and Democratic parties began to flip their agendas.

Tagging along with the "Lincoln's Party" defense is the flimsy claim that Democrats are the "party of the KKK." Yes, the Ku Klux Klan was a terrorist group formed and fostered in the predominantly-Democratic South during Reconstruction. It was founded by people who voted as Democrats, but it is more accurate to understand them as a post-war Confederate insurgent group. The Democratic party did not “found” or endorse the KKK. But if you REALLY want to use Ted Cruz’s logic that the KKK belongs to whatever party it endorses, just ask yourself who they endorsed last election.

I reject that way of thinking, which is why I reject Ted Cruz’s comments and this faulty notion of “Lincoln’s Party.” Conservative writer Kevin Williamson puts it well: "This is a childish approach, a high-school debater’s trick at best: 'WFB was a conservative, WFB favored segregation in 1957, ergo conservatism is the philosophy of segregation.'" It's illogical.

The Democratic Party was a different party in 1865; it ran on very different issues in that time. It was split between Northern and Southern Democrats - the former, supporting abolition and Reconstruction, and the latter opposing it. As I mentioned, Democrats were considered the conservative party, so naturally it attracted people opposed to sweeping changes like abolition, and Republicans were considered liberal (this eventually switches, as we know). Today, the KKK is considered a right-wing terrorist group. Since Goldwater, the organization has endorsed Conservative candidates because, even if the candidate disavows them, their agenda is complementary to the KKK’s. This is possibly because Republicanism has aligned itself with Christians, and the KKK has called itself a Christian group (though they are denounced by Christians). It may also be due to Republican focus on defunding support services that benefit a proportion of African Americans, or the focus on limiting immigration from non-Western areas of the world, or the rejection of Black Lives Matter. Certain Republicans also found a niche fueling their campaigns on racial resentment, as we witnessed in the Trump campaign. These agenda items of course would be attractive to a white supremacist, even if unintentional by the party.

In 1948, Truman (a Democrat) issued two executive orders banning segregation in the armed forces and guaranteeing fair employment practices. In response to Truman’s liberal stances on civil rights, the pro-segregation fragment of the Democratic party split off into “Dixiecrats,” which followed a more conservative-leaning ideology. This was the beginning of the end for Liberal Republicanism and Conservative Democrats. Today, we have a cleaner cut of Conservative Republicans and Liberal Democrats. 

In other words, political identities were changing. As the Democratic Party began voting on civil rights issues, it seemed to purge its conservatives and segregationists. People like Strom Thurmond, a Democrat and segregationist, migrated to the Republican party, where he found he would garner more support. Still, Republicans were no enemy to civil rights legislation. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 had bipartisan support led by Republicans. But by the time we had the Civil Rights Act of 1960, it was passed by a House and Senate with a Democratic majority. Later, Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, both Democrats, worked for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act. But take caution: isn't this a shallow way to examine history, as Williamson points out? Can we really define Democrat or Republican roles in Civil Rights based on these little pieces of evidence? LBJ also voted against anti-lynching legislation and was unsupportive of Republican-backed civil rights legislation. The more you examine, the more you will fall back to my initial point, that racism transcends party lines, undiscerning of affiliation.

During these years, though, states like North Carolina switched from blue to red. Some argue that this change was unrelated to matters of racial equality and related to other economic issues at hand; however, the timing is questionable. The KKK also shifted its support, albeit denounced or ignored by the endorsed Conservative candidates. Each party’s stance toward civil rights advocacy was turned on its head. That is why Democrats brand themselves the way they do now, and it is why Republicans may find themselves on the defensive more often than not. This has led to today, as each party attracts people who identify with the values set forth and support the policies that may further those values. For Republicans, that has included those who actively denounce social justice work, or those who feel indifferent toward it and are more concerned with economic matters. The "dichotomy" of racist vs. advocate has made room not for moderation but for the continued polarization of our politics, and the inability of each party toward introspection.

Contrary to common belief, I find more and more that Conservatives present an emotion-based argument, rather than a logical one. From my experience, ideas that are considered "progressive" -- reducing mass incarceration, using needle exchanges, preserving the environment, allowing birth control options -- are supported by evidence-based research on public health, prevention, and outcome studies. Meanwhile, the counterargument is one of fear; fear of regulation, of people with addiction, of overreaching government, of crime run amok, of women run amok, of the proletariat run amok.

It is why they will argue for guns in schools based on grizzly attacks, even though studies show that the risk of children dying from accidental gun deaths is much higher than the risk of bears. It is why they will argue a "pro-life" stance, but the mortality of women under pro-life legislation is far higher than when abortion is legal, and there is little to no change in abortion rates when it is illegal.

And this ofttimes illogical fear is why they have now instituted a ban of refugees and asylum-seekers from seven Muslim nations, even though since 1975 there have been ZERO Americans killed in terrorist activities on US soil by refugees from the banned areas: Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, or Sudan. The chances every year in the US of being killed in a terrorist attack by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 BILLION (Cato Institute). Let's take a look at all the things we are more likely to die from in a year (I'm getting the following stats from Insurance Information Institute, because they have financial incentive to tell the truth):
Assault by firearm (1 in 28,208)
Drowning in a swimming pool (1 in 485,605) #banswimmingpools
Fall off a ladder or scaffolding (1 in 752,688) #banladders
Earthquakes (1 in 9,297,907) #banearthquakes!!
Dog attack (1 in 9,032,253) #banpuppies

The irrational fear of immigrants, refugees, and asylum-seekers is driven by xenophobia as well as natural human biases. Recency bias, for instance, makes us believe small threats are a bigger threat than they actually are. When we hear about a plane crash on the news, it stands out in our minds as a threat, even though the probability of it happening is no different than before. Moreover, it is more dangerous for us to drive our cars than fly in a plane, but the trauma of a mass death by plane looms larger and more fearsome in our minds. Proximity can also cause bias. For instance, I once had a friend tell me, "You shouldn't use birth control X because my cousin got pregnant on it." However, the fact that her cousin became pregnant on birth control X does not change its rate of effectiveness; it only seems less effective to my friend because she happens to know someone who fell into the 1% of error.

It is irrational to weigh our risks based on anecdotal evidence alone, so it is important to temper such biases in order to make rational decisions. This is something we continuously lose sight of as a country and as people.

When we feel our rights are threatened, we become afraid. We cling to bias. We become less rational. And this is a human characteristic, not a Liberal or Conservative characteristic. Please let's not give up data, empiricism, and logic in the midst of this. I can only hope that the backlash against Trump and fake news can be the start of people paying more attention to data-driven action planning.

One last note: I heard an interesting thing on the radio today. Casting doubt on logic and data is a control tactic, one that is well-exercised by the current administration. If we feel confusion and ambiguity, we are more likely to make an irrational decision because our brains don't know what information to trust. False information then makes it more time-consuming for us to dig for truth, to discern reality, and we only have so much time in a day. We therefore are more likely to make decisions with our guts and intuition rather than by weighing hard-to-access data.

When Heirlooms arrived in my mail, I shirked all responsibilities to get into it, even though I was knee-deep in The Goldfinch and some clunky literature on criminal psychology. The stories in Heirlooms dive deep, but for me they offered a welcomed pause for reflection on family and identity, how our histories intersect, and American culture as it interacts with people who emigrate from their homes to be here. First, a sidenote: I'm not biased, I promise; though I consider Rachel one of the best writing teachers I've ever had and an all around great human being, I would not be writing this review if I didn't so highly regard this book.

Heirlooms begins in Saint-Malo, in 1940: a focal character, Lise, becomes guardian to her baby niece after her sister-in-law dies. From here, Rachel zooms into the lives that constellate around Lise and the baby Eugenie. Everyone is influenced by the War; all are insulated and also connected by their losses. Even for the people who betray Lise in some way, Rachel slips in the most subtle details to illustrate parallels. One woman who appears briefly, Sylvie, at first seems antithetical to conscientious Lise when she refuses to help Lise's hungry family, but the reader will soon see their parallels, right down to their knitting projects.

Rachel's care for details is something I appreciate most. They culminate into these beautiful moments of significance that have stuck with me -- which is what writing is supposed to do, keep coming back to you. I'm restraining my desire to analyze this too much here because I don't want to spoil anything for readers, but I will point out one example: later in the book, we learn Eugenie is a breast cancer survivor. Though Rachel does not belabor this episode, I believe she includes this detail for a sincere reason. While traveling in Paris decades after the War, a friendly German couple at a restaurant invites Eugenie to pull up a chair and offers her a glass of wine. Eugenie sizes them up, as we often do with new people, determining that they are "Younger than she, too young to have known the war in which she was the enemy, but what of their parents and grandparents?" Though Eugenie quickly moves on from this thought, it shook me. What explosive irony! How humans betray each other, delivering the greatest havoc and torment imaginable, and future generations can sit next to each other, sharing wine. The German woman is also a breast cancer survivor, and Eugenie, who is usually so guarded about her pain like everyone around her, connects with her on that profound level.

Many of the people in these stories hold their pain so secretively, as if it is theirs and theirs alone, as if pain were not a common thread in humanity. This truth makes it all the more poignant when they take care of each other, lift each other with the deepest sense of empathy, albeit silently. This theme comes full circle in the last few stories and with stark contrast: readers are introduced to a group of people from a younger generation, mourning very publicly on Eugenie's front lawn, to her discontent. Heirlooms is rich with these nuances.

From Europe to the United States, the stories trace the generations of a family fragmented by war -- struggling, after leaving everything behind, to maintain parts of themselves, of who they were. Within this, there are wonderful, uplifting tales of success and triumph. While there are a lot of books out there that reflect on the damage of World War II and the Holocaust, Heirlooms stands out because it examines the ripple effect on future generations. It is not simply an earnest, well-researched narrative; it breathes. It's immersive. It is careful yet honest, and therefore it does not force meaning on the reader. It is beautiful.

My choice to leave Wells Fargo was solely based on principle. Wells Fargo Bank Corp and its entities -- such as Wells Fargo Advisors -- invest mutual funds in private prisons, namely Corrections Corporation of America (rebranded "CoreCivic") and GEO Groups (click here for a financial breakdown from 2012). My reasons for divesting (though I'm behind the 8-ball a bit) are mentioned in the letter below, but first a few comments:

-Consumers have power! Your choices in consumption can direct social change. If you plan to divest and move to an ethical bank, be sure to send a letter to the bank explaining why you plan to switch. A principled stand is one thing, but you should do your best to notify the bank about your dissatisfaction with their practices. Who knows, maybe they will make a change.

-It isn't easy to find an entirely "ethical" bank, but I did my research on local banks and credit unions in order to find a place that gives back to the community, does not invest in unethical businesses, and adheres to ethical, nondiscriminatory lending practices. Once I found a bank that met these criteria, and also had the amenities I wanted such as mobile banking, it was easy to make the switch. All told, it only took about an hour to go to the bank and open new accounts and five minutes to switch my e-pay information on my autobilling to the new account.

-Please take a minute to educate yourself on the role of Wells Fargo and other banks in the private prison industry, and why it is important to urge them to either stop backing it or demand changes.

• Report on Wells Fargo's ties to the prison industry
• What other banks support private prisons?
• Prison Divestment Campaign

 Please feel free to use this letter or portions of it for advocacy:

To Whom It May Concern:
 
After much consideration, I have decided it is unethical for me to continue banking with Wells Fargo until it changes its practices. I am morally and professionally opposed to the investment in the private prison industry and cannot justify a relationship with a bank that invests in the Corrections Corporation of America and GEO Group, which run private prisons and immigrant detention facilities.
 
Wells Fargo claims it has an interest in the wellbeing of its community members, yet privately run prisons and detention facilities violate that interest in myriad ways.

• Poor outcomes: Studies show that private prisons perform worse than public ones. Since the private prison’s primary goal is to profit, it does not have an interest in making communities safer, preparing inmates for their release, or rehabilitating. Recidivism rates and instances of violence are higher for private prison inmates than public prison inmates.
• Mass incarceration culture: Private prisons contribute to mass incarceration by driving an imprisonment-for-profit model where profiting parties lobby for legislation that will keep prison and detention beds full. Private prisons sign agreements with states to maintain high occupancy rates, which incentivizes legislation that will boost incarceration and disproportionately lengthen sentences even for nonviolent crimes. This mentality is counter-productive to society and perpetuates detrimental, illogical practices. Mass incarceration legislation has jeopardized our communities, breaking up families and disparately impacting people of color.
• Corruption: CCA has continuously lobbied against transparency, bullied its way into contracts, fostered scandals such as “kids for cash,” brought policing into schools in order to increase juvenile incarceration rates, and has turned a blind eye to conditions that lead to prisoner deaths and dangerous situations for its underpaid employees. CCA and GEO Groups have been mired in scandal since inception.
• Human rights violations: In order to protect profits, CCA underfeeds its prisoners; overcrowds its facilities; denies medical care to prisoners in dire need, such as people with mental illness/disorders (who comprise 50% of prison populations) and disabilities; violates wage contracts with its employees; excuses record-high reports of physical and sexual abuse against prisoners rather than addressing the conditions that lead to them; and engages in slave labor (for instance, military gear is produced in private prisons, with workers paid ten cents per hour). Similarly, GEO Group, Inc. has been caught violating human rights under U.S. and International law, providing unsafe conditions in its facilities, fostering environments of abuse, and embracing methods of torture such as solitary confinement. In 2013, the ACLU submitted a report on EMCF, a corrections facility for special needs and psychiatric prisoners, which was denying medications and basic medical care to prisoners and exhibited serious public health issues such as rat infestations and non-working toilets. This is just one example among hundreds of lawsuits that have come forth against GEO. Still, neither CCA nor GEO has amended its practices.
• Failure to protect youth: In a 2012 investigation, GEO juvenile facilities in Mississippi were cited for the following: “sexual misconduct between guards and inmates; use of excessive force by guards; excessive use of chemical agents; poor use-of-force policies, reporting, training and investigations; youth-on-youth violence and sexual assault; and seriously inadequate medical and mental health care.” This is merely one example of GEO and CCA’s continuing inability to serve youths, most of whom will be released from prison and need proper attention in order to develop intellectual and social maturity.
• Inability to save taxpayer money: Private prisons may operate slightly more cheaply than public by employing the above deplorable practices, but they have higher collateral consequences on society. One cannot estimate the exact costs on victims and society for an offender “recidivating” after release from prison, but this notion of not caring about such outcomes -- and what's more, profiting off them -- is disgusting on insurmountable levels. Other collateral consequences include: families may lose a primary breadwinner to incarceration and have to rely on social services; taxpayers and Social Security lose payers who would otherwise be working instead of serving years in prison; governments have begun pouring money into over-policing communities rather than repairing them; bolstering the school-to-prison pipeline has jeopardized the next generation’s chance at an education and becoming productive citizens; and inadequate medical care poses both a public health risk and a systemic issue in handling released prisoners.

 
Prison and detention are meant to keep our communities safer, rehabilitate inmates, and promote justice for victims, not fill our coffers. As long as the private prison industrial complex thrives, we have an impossible battle in reforming our system of mass incarceration into a system that is effective, efficient, unbiased, logical, humane, and on par with American standards. I strongly urge you to reconsider your investment strategy, especially as you attempt to recover from your recent phony accounts scandal. Until then, you remain complicit in this abhorrent system.
 
 
Sincerely,
 
 
 
Katherine Russell
​

With Facebook and other social media outlets finally getting some heat for allowing the perpetuation of false facts, poorly-researched articles, and, well, blatant propaganda, at least some people have taken a moment to reflect on the power of words to shape our thoughts and actions. And the reflection comes with the question of whether we are surrounding ourselves with the right kinds of words. Are we basing our ideas on facts rather than fiction? Are we being swayed by others around us rather than standing with our individual principles? Are we allowing emotion to dictate what we want to believe?

I've noticed that even when people are called out for endorsing fiction, they refuse to admit they are wrong. With the advent of social media and biased blogs and "opinion news," we can easily build ourselves into a bubble of information that only further affirms our worldviews.

Here's my take on several things that are driving the way we think and communicate with each other, for better or for worse...

Social media: In 2006, Facebook only had 12 million monthly users, and it was only 2 years old; the concept of social media was still being molded. No Instagram or Snapchat yet -- no iPhones yet, either. No #blacklivesmatter and #bluelivesmatter and #alllivesmatter duking it out over Twitter. Our main source of news was still the paper and television. Today, Facebook has 1.23 billion monthly users. Think of your last family reunion; have you ever made it through without someone butting heads with someone, or someone feeling annoyed at the brush of a shoulder or getting snubbed in ways inscrutable to the snubber, or Aunty Betty saying something off color, or a circle of cousins interjecting while Uncle Jack inaccurately tells a story? Now amplify that daily by the millions or monthly by the billions. Amplify that on every possible social media platform out there. Amplify that with every questionable news site that has sprouted up like poison ivy, and every meme that spouts unchecked facts and has a 500-thread argument between strangers raging beneath it. Social media is still a way we share pictures and good stories and positive messages, but it is also now a place where we exchange news (credible or not) and opinion, especially on issues we care deeply about.

Do you think this might make everyone a little tense? Do you think it might cause people to feel existential angst? Insecure about who they are and what they believe, so that when others contradict it, they become inflamed and offended, and they quickly surf their favorite news source to find an article that reaffirms their worldview?

Conversation has become physically easier but theoretically more difficult. 

The advent of the smartphone: The first generation iPhone came out in 2007. Today, nearly 68% of American adults have smartphones, which means the majority of us has access to video cameras, partnered with the ability to instantly publish any footage -- from our cell phones or surveillance videos, etc -- on youtube, blogs, and social media. The white-dominated media used to edit clips and frame each story to make sense of it for its majority audiences, but today, the average person has access to raw materials and thousands of different ways to frame each story. In return, people have learned to shop for their favorite interpretation.

Take a look at how the mass public handled the stories of Eric Garner. John Crawford. Tamir Rice. Terence Crutcher. Do you think that type of injustice wasn't happening before? If so, what a magical unicorn cloud you must have been living on. Those who don't want to admit there is a problem grasp for a satisfactory way to make sense of it all. Suddenly, clear evidence is up for debate; we are a jury of 242 million. People find a news sources that frame things to their liking, or they come up with stories like It wasn't this bad before we had a black president or This is just Liberal America fanning the flames. But it's right there in front of us, a tragedy playing on loop but each time with a different victim. I’ve heard people point to "black on black crime” as if this is some context that makes police brutality and poor police training excusable; as if being the same color makes murder less tragic; as if civilian violence is the same problem as a police officer abusing power; as if it insults them that we now must talk about this.

In summary, there is a dueling nature to having such access to the raw story: while it is good to have more "frames" to our news stories, it can also be dangerous when news sites are not reporting the full story in order to perpetuate a comforting narrative for its audiences.

What's more, with smartphones it has not only become easier to access evidence, but it is also easier to share our opinions almost as quickly as they pop in our heads. This means spreading information quickly without necessarily thinking deeply about it.

The addition of more news sources is a good and bad thing. The big news media is notorious for creating panic, slanting its reporting to influence policy or agenda, and so on. It's good that there is more competition now. But it's truly a negative thing that so much of the competition has become unchecked. So much of what I have investigated, from BreitBart to Jezebel, is simply atrocious journalism.

Controversy for profit: Let's not forget that our news industry, which is ever-growing and increasingly more competitive in the Internet age, thrives on controversy. When we are angry and afraid and at each other's throats, the bait is ripe for the clicking. Isn't that evident already? So when the shooting of an unarmed black man is straightforwardly unethical and devastating, it is better for those profiting if we argue about it.

Humans are stubborn in their arguments. When we feel we are being attacked, we are unwilling to hear our attacker's point of view. That is why, currently, an "attack" narrative is fueling our discourse, if you could call it that.

Today there is a lot of dysfunctional dialogue, but there is also meaningful momentum. On a more positive note, these changes have also allowed (1) a platform for a multitude of voices that can speak to what is life in America, and those uncensored voices can be amplified when they are determined; (2) the ability to produce evidence of injustice, lay it out for all to see, so that there is no logical denial of what happened to Tamir Rice and Terence Crutcher, and we can demand accountability or changes in procedure and policy where it once was overlooked; (3) a more competitive news world to challenge our former framing and one-sided narratives -- a sea of information that can push our country forward if we figure out how to use it better.

​But that's the key: we must figure out how to use it better. In the name of a better, more informed society, I ask that you challenge yourself more. Read opinion pieces that challenge your worldview, and not for the sake of posting an angry comment in response. Read balanced, nonpartisan studies about evidence-based practices that will contribute to a better world (ALWAYS question who is funding each study, what the objectives might be, and whether it was a reliable method of collecting data). Stay off of Facebook for your news. If you find that something you are reading is making you angry, ask yourself why -- is it because you feel challenged, that the truth is difficult to hear, or that it is not factual (if so, check those facts!)? Steer clear of opinion pieces regarding policy, and read straight-forward articles about what is going on in the world. Push yourself to think for yourself. Get into arguments for the sake of understanding others and with the hope that others are willing to try to understand you. Let's stop the foolish commotion that has overtaken us in this information age, everybody.

My long-winded argument aside, it's not a bad idea to take a moment to root for love. Play a game of cards with your family, go somewhere you can dance to loud music that drowns out the politics; sing with your mother in the car and ask your cousins about their health and happiness. Go on living out and internally checking your convictions despite many people who might loathe them. Remember that all humans suffer from myopia and egocentrism, including me, myself, and I. Learn that you can be friends with someone who contradicts so much of who you are or aspire to be, yet still makes you laugh and see beautiful things in the world. Appreciate that there is more to being human than being right.

In recent days, we have witnessed vengeful burning. Sobbing. Sopping. People shaking their fists and people shaking them right back. The list of names - bigot, racist, sexist, xenophobe, xylophone, hammer, what? - dictated to deaf ears, no dialogue to ensue. The new information splurged, like who are his top picks for Cabinet, and the collective groan. The hysteria and the understandable worrying. The tactful idiot and the sloppy arguer who attempts to deconstruct ideas through grammar correction. The rant and the one-word posts like "Revolution" and "Done."

And finally, there are the ones essentially saying: Go down with grace, Liberals!! We sure wouldn't have (not with a rigged election, of course!), but we just don't want the same behavior from you, the crazy, emotional Left!

I don't know which fight to pick: the blatant hypocrisy, or the fact that the Right has long ruled solely on emotion-based politics (see: Trump's fear-laden campaign. For further reference, see: War on Drugs. McCarthyism. Barry Goldwater. Ho!).

Instead, to distract from the real issues at hand, I shall pick a fight about this meme, which someone I know gleaned from The Conservative Post:

2016 might have been the year of realizing that people you love have morbidly different opinions than you. 2016 was also the year that you didn't want to come to terms with that. It was the year of shutting your eyes and throwing punches, hoping they impact the right place -- or, in other words, it was the year of pontificating on social media through ill-researched memes, pretending we had answers and that those answers were going to land on the correct ears and somehow transform the world. 

It was, and still is, a shit show.

Maybe what makes me angry about this meme, or whatever you'd call it, is that it is inaccurately hitting close to a truth. We have become a little soppy about how things make us feel -- something Conservatives flail around and cry about constantly. Our soppiness is also known as political correctness. College campuses are at the forefront of teaching people how to talk about sexual assault, substance use disorder, race, gender versus sex, and so on, as well as promoting awareness of the marginalized perspective. I do realize that the language that has emerged (for instance, cisgender or binary) is threatening to people who are new to it. No one wants to feel stupid. And it can be marginalizing for those who have not undergone the elite training in how to be politically correct. But come on, we also live in an age where it is pretty easy to learn more if you are so compelled. Learning new things is just like masturbation: you only need the Internet and an open mind. Okay now, only kidding. We politically-correct people like to make a joke once in a while.

For those who feel marginalized by an approach that is specifically meant to de-marginalize the marginalized, I'll break it down in two paragraphs. Political correctness begins with understanding that a certain voice (particularly white and male and heterosexual and cisgender, but not always. Please, just for a moment be rational and think about our history) has dominated the conversation for a long, long time, and other voices that have been talked over are asking for respect and space to be heard equally. I know this is an uncomfortable conversation for people who possess a so-called dominant voice. You must recognize that the "dominant" voice has long failed to consider that marginalized people have more authoritative knowledge about certain issues -- such as racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. We know we can't coddle everyone or always say the right thing, but it is not a negative thing to teach people how to communicate effectively cross-culturally. It is not to say that words are more important than action, or that honest and open dialogue is forbidden; it is to teach us that certain assumptions we make can further marginalize those who deserve to be equals at the table. And sometimes - no, often - our opinion IS unnecessary, because so often we speak without really asking ourselves, "Am I really an authority on this? How would I know? Why am I not listening to other people who have first-hand experience?" Politically incorrect is a white person mockingly shouting "ALL LIVES MATTER" to a scared African American mother who fears for her son's life whenever he leaves the house because STATISTICALLY he is more likely to be killed by police than his white peers. Statistics aside, you should recognize her personal experience is valid.

In sum: It's difficult yet possible to learn how to be less of an idiot about others' feelings. I didn't like it when people used to tell me I was "gross" because I have cystic fibrosis. Such experiences did not make me identify as a victim, but I will say that I found it helpful when the age of political correctness kept coworkers from prying into my private life with questions like, "Do you always breath so heavy? Are you going to die? Isn't CF that disease with all the PHLEGM!!??" That is because political correctness is not about celebrating victimhood, as many people have construed it to be. Bottom line, it is about learning how to communicate better with people who didn't grow up in the same silo. I don't see the harm in that, as long as it is not obstructing productive dialogue. And certainly, there are people who can get over-analytical or extreme about this all. But don't miss the forest for the trees.

Speaking of productive: Rather than griping about the "sore losers" in this election, it might be more productive to consider why this particular election was so substantial, resulting in the "whiny" uproar. I don't think it is whiny for my friend to voice worry over the fact that her entire family will likely be deported. How would you feel if you were in her position? There are thousands of American children of immigrants who will end up in foster care. We have a privately-run internment system that is already violating human rights, and Trump's plan to overload the system will only make it worse. How whiny we are! I don't think it is whiny that women are sharing their experiences of sexual assault that they have encountered since the president-elect set the tone that men can "grab pussy" without permission. I don't think it is whiny that Muslims are afraid that their basic Constitutional rights may be stripped because Trump and much of his electorate have never educated themselves on Islam, or ISIS for that matter -- two very different things, everybody. I don't think it is whiny for people with disabilities to fear they may lose their medical coverage. For me, I may have to watch as a new administration undoes all the evidence-based progress we have made in criminal justice reforms, while they operate in the name of Fear and Tough on Crime Politics (these approaches, by the way, have already been tried and empirically proven ineffective and an expensive burden on taxpayers. Ironic that Conservatives are in support, isn't it?). I shouldn't go on, because I am sure that anyone who disagrees has stopped reading by now, and anyone who agrees and decided they can't help but keep reading this rant & ramble already knows what I am talking about.

I think we sound "whiny" to Conservatives because they are sick and tired of not listening. It takes a lot of energy to block people out, especially as they become more vocal in this age of political correctness. We must be exhausting.

Back on track. The meme above. What bothers me most about this Conservative Post post is the fact that 18 year olds ARE still dying at war. They are, in fact, VOLUNTARILY enlisting to fight for your freedom while you fart around on the Internet all day. They are dying in Mosul right now, as we sit and flap our mouths. 

Finally, we are faced with the utterly illogical argument in the meme above. Just because a college student hasn't gone to war doesn't mean his or her opinion isn't valid; nor does it mean he or she does not know suffering. When I was in college, everyone appeared casual and carefree on the outside, but that didn't mean they lacked wisdom. I had friends who had endured cancer and serious personal loss. I knew many who had fled civil war and genocide, witnessed neighbors blown up in front of them. Others had served the US, or were in the reserves. Others had admirable compassion for the people around them, and they knew how to respect others who were different from them. They committed their time tirelessly to public service and improving their communities.

Besides, don't we wish less suffering on the generations that follow us? Don't we want better things for our children and grandchildren? Why does it make sense, then, to disregard their voice if they haven't experienced the mind-shattering sacrifice of combat? This only makes sense if one believes that nothing a college kid says is valid to begin with, which is irritatingly circular and myopic if you ask me.