A week later, I finally will finish covering the Eagle Forum. After Mark Krikorian, Dr. Benjamin Wiker spoke on "The Darwin Myth." I went into this session very wary of what he would say -- and he surprised me by speaking of how Darwin wrote his Origin of Species to exclude God, while other scientists of the time saw evolution as demonstrative of God's hand. Dr. Wiker spent most of his time pointing out the ways in which the philosophical idea of Darwinism has taken over the scientific theory of evolution. He compared it to the way Marxism could have taken over economics.
I admired not only his presentation of the facts, but also the careful way he skirted around the divisive issue: whether or not evolution happened. From a couple remarks, I garnered that he gave credence to the theory, but he did not focus on it. Unfortunately, during the Q&A, rather than focusing on the main point of his lecture, the conflation of atheism and science, his questioners zeroed in on evolution. As we had with global warming, we ended up a number of non-scientists feeling qualified to make a definitive judgment on science.
Next, Kristan Hawkins, executive director of Students for Life of America, and my summer boss, spoke about pro-life issues. As enthusiast as ever and speaking faster than her words could come out, she gave the crowd a talking-to about their own apathy. She's my boss, so no critique coming here. My favorite thing that she said: "For $300 I could've never been here. And the same goes for everyone in this room." A very chilling thought.
Next, we had a variety speakers, none of which caught me quite as much as the first three. How to use the internet for networking, the specifics on Cap and Trade (based on someone's "evolving feelings on global warming"), missile defense ("it's probably the only system the Pentagon makes that doesn't kill life forms"), grassroots activism.
Robert Rector spoke on marriage as a "remedy for poverty." Long and short of it, 39% of children are born out of wedlock and most of these to uneducated, minority women. If single mothers married the fathers of their children (one per single mother!) the rate of poverty would drop by 60%. In answer to a question from yours truly, Rector added that this decrease is not simply due to dual income: men earn more when they are married with children. We need to teach young women the value of having children within marriage. Again, I learned that liberals hate marriage and so enforce policies to break it down. My problem: as a sociological phenomenon, it interests me and certainly shows how the morally upright path can be best for society (imagine that!); however, to make policy based on these facts seems similar to saying, "Marry for money." Also, if we're placing such high value on the male income, it supports homosexual marriage between two men, something Rector would not advocate.
Finally, we had another student panel. It consisted of three students, two of whom were good speakers, but all of whom spoke to a crowd that did not include me, mocking liberal policy (allowable) and the underlying values (the bit that irked me).
However, one of the students gave me the best quote from the weekend. Yes, even better that liberals are "exquisitely selfish." One of the young ladies stated, in reference to the "Vote for Jesus" posters:
"I love Jesus. He's King of the world. But He's never going to be president of the United States."
Friday, July 17, 2009
Colorblind
In the same week that one of Bill's regulars admitted on The O'Reilly Factor that a race-based double standard does exist, Stephen Colbert gave a brilliant and punny summary of whiteness in our society.
Do I really need to add anything? I will just say that I get my news, in order throughout the day from: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (yesterday's), The Colbert Report (yesterday's), The Washington Post, WMZQ and WTOP, Google Alerts on select issues, the full-time staff and fellow interns, and The O'Reilly Factor. A healthy, balanced, bipolar diet.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| The Colbert Report: The Word - Neutral Man's Burden | ||||
| ||||
Do I really need to add anything? I will just say that I get my news, in order throughout the day from: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (yesterday's), The Colbert Report (yesterday's), The Washington Post, WMZQ and WTOP, Google Alerts on select issues, the full-time staff and fellow interns, and The O'Reilly Factor. A healthy, balanced, bipolar diet.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Transnationalism Appears Again!
We next heard from Mark Krikorian, from the Center for Immigration Policy, author of The New Case Against Immigration. Of all the speakers, he presented the most academic sounding case, although I may only believe this because he cited my favorite sociologist, Peggy Levitt, and her book that I've used in several projects, The Transnational Villagers. In general, he seemed to pull from a data bank with which I am familiar, which gave him credibility in my mind. Even though we interpreted the facts differently, we seemed more or less to agree on the facts about immigration.
Most of the attendees who had trouble with his speech disliked his first point: as far as impact on society goes, documented or undocumented status. (Well, he used the terms "legal" and "illegal," but the "illegal" comes from the manner of entry: a person cannot be illegal. Only an action can.) According to Krikorian, low-skilled immigration provides the real threat. Low-skilled immigrants come into a modern society and they are farther behind this society than their 19th and 20th century counterparts. On a federal level at least, documented immigrants "cost" the government 3x as much as undocumented, because of taxes withheld and services not available.
At this point, I felt like cheering. I was sitting with people who thought that pressing 1 on the phone for English was a hardship imposed by illegal immigration -- something I had thought was a joke made only by Stephen Colbert, funny due to hyperbole.
Next, Krikorian explained why mass immigration proves a problem. Our society can no longer absorb immigrants the way it used to. He did not make a distinction between the types of people or their attitudes in modern versus historical immigration -- also points in his favor. The first reason he gave for an immigration problem was my favorite concept in immigration: transnationalism! He transported me momentarily back to some of my favorite sociology classes as he explained how modern technology provides the opportunity for immigrants to live in two worlds. The idea behind transnationalism is that immigrants, or rather migrants, belong to both the sending and the receiving communities and are shaped and shape both. Krikorian argued that modern technology which allows transnationalism to happen changes the experience of immigration.
Next, he claimed that our society as changed towards "multiculturalism," and thus it is "unsuited" to assimilate people. We have lost our self-confidence as an American people. We no longer say the Pledge in school. We celebrate cultures, but no Americana. This means immigrants will, as far as I could tell, make our culture fall apart.
Here, I found nativism couched in the clothes of modern understandings of immigration. He sounded good, but he made the mistake of assuming that we have an ideal "American" culture, which is by default good and worthy of protection. Who can define this culture? If you can, explain to me why immigrants threaten it.
Finally, Krikorian advocated against "comprehensive immigration reform." We do not need to grant amnesty, nor do we need to increase legal routes for immigration. Instead we should ask "who should we allow into America?" what he called "zero-based budgeting." And he told us who: families (spouses and children of citizens only), a certain number of high-skill immigrants, and humanitarian refugees who have no other location to go and no chance of resettlement in their home. These groups would bring 400,000 immigrants a year to the United States.
Most of the attendees who had trouble with his speech disliked his first point: as far as impact on society goes, documented or undocumented status. (Well, he used the terms "legal" and "illegal," but the "illegal" comes from the manner of entry: a person cannot be illegal. Only an action can.) According to Krikorian, low-skilled immigration provides the real threat. Low-skilled immigrants come into a modern society and they are farther behind this society than their 19th and 20th century counterparts. On a federal level at least, documented immigrants "cost" the government 3x as much as undocumented, because of taxes withheld and services not available.
At this point, I felt like cheering. I was sitting with people who thought that pressing 1 on the phone for English was a hardship imposed by illegal immigration -- something I had thought was a joke made only by Stephen Colbert, funny due to hyperbole.
Next, Krikorian explained why mass immigration proves a problem. Our society can no longer absorb immigrants the way it used to. He did not make a distinction between the types of people or their attitudes in modern versus historical immigration -- also points in his favor. The first reason he gave for an immigration problem was my favorite concept in immigration: transnationalism! He transported me momentarily back to some of my favorite sociology classes as he explained how modern technology provides the opportunity for immigrants to live in two worlds. The idea behind transnationalism is that immigrants, or rather migrants, belong to both the sending and the receiving communities and are shaped and shape both. Krikorian argued that modern technology which allows transnationalism to happen changes the experience of immigration.
Next, he claimed that our society as changed towards "multiculturalism," and thus it is "unsuited" to assimilate people. We have lost our self-confidence as an American people. We no longer say the Pledge in school. We celebrate cultures, but no Americana. This means immigrants will, as far as I could tell, make our culture fall apart.
Here, I found nativism couched in the clothes of modern understandings of immigration. He sounded good, but he made the mistake of assuming that we have an ideal "American" culture, which is by default good and worthy of protection. Who can define this culture? If you can, explain to me why immigrants threaten it.
Finally, Krikorian advocated against "comprehensive immigration reform." We do not need to grant amnesty, nor do we need to increase legal routes for immigration. Instead we should ask "who should we allow into America?" what he called "zero-based budgeting." And he told us who: families (spouses and children of citizens only), a certain number of high-skill immigrants, and humanitarian refugees who have no other location to go and no chance of resettlement in their home. These groups would bring 400,000 immigrants a year to the United States.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Eagle Forum, Day 2
Day Two, Phyllis finally brought out the intellectuals. After a brief speaker from Clare Boothe Luce, who emphasized the bias of institutions of higher education with the confidence of a person who knows her audience supports her, we had a host of speakers who, while supporting different views and agendas than me, at least engaged us intellectually. I would have enjoyed sitting down with each of them of a conversation, which unfortunately, was not possible, because I always wanted to hear the next speaker.
First, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (Ph. D Econ.) spoke about traditional marriage. I agreed with and respected the first part of her speech, other than a slip up where she implied that the "alternative to marriage" is worse than an abusive relationship. (It was just a misphrasing. She clearly meant that there is a greater chance of being abused in cohabitation than marriage.) She explained that marriage has an "integrative function": it joins men to women and children; it joins the functions of biological, emotion, social, and legal parenthood; and it joins love, sex, and child-rearing. The man and woman come together naturally to make babies. Once there is a baby, the woman is "naturally" bonded and "the father is the problem." Essentially, marriage makes men stick around.
Okay, I'm following you thus far, Dr. Morse. She touched briefly on two "organic" functions of sexuality, the unitive and procreative aspects, and explained how contraception and IVF each separate these functions. In a bit of humor, she added that in her opinion, IVF is "a bit like skipping dessert and going straight for the brussel sprouts." I'm not sure how pro-life it is to compare children to brussel sprouts, but it got a laugh.
Next, she tackled "their" point of view. The left apparently wants to take over private lives. Marxism, in its creation myth, harkens back to primitive communism and communal marriage, and the left wants to bring us into a socialist age by bringing about the downfall of marriage.
At the center of this evil, she narrowed in on two threats: no-fault divorce and same-sex marriage. No fault divorce, Dr. Morse explained, gives the government control of our lives. It functions to separate someone from their family, and, since 75% of no fault divorces are unilateral, this separation occurs against someone's will, often the father. Furthermore, the state becomes involved in minute decisions: instead of being in the bedroom, as feminists feared, it sits "at the kitchen table."
If no fault divorce starts the alienation of men from their families, "same sex marriage completes the project of separating men from their families." She lost me here -- she never made a clear connection about how two men who adopt a child might find same-sex marriage an impediment to connecting to their family.
The next bit enraged me. She compared no fault divorce, same sex marriage, and Roe. Regardless of the relative moral and legal bases for each of these issues, only one of them authorized the murder of millions of people.
In the Q&A two interesting points came up. First, someone asked more about same sex marriage and she pointed towards her lecture series, "Same Sex Marriage Affects Everyone." I, of course, thought of the commercial and my ever-beloved Colbert. She pointed out that same sex marriage changes the motivation for marriage. Women will one day be having children via IVF without needing men. People marry people of the same gender for immigration purposes. And this is only the chip of the iceberg.
As the polite, under the radar liberal that I was, I did not tell Dr. Morse that people marry people of the opposite gender for immigration purposes. Not to mention political, financial, and lustful marriages. Heterosexual marriages have their fair share of problems.
I did ask how adoption of orphans, divorce due to abuse, widowhood, etc. affect her idea of the supremacy of a biological basis for bonding. She replied that these cases are exceptions, but should not prove the rule. I should have asked why she assumed the supremacy of biology for bonding. I don't necessarily disagree -- but I don't necessarily agree and definitely do not know the rationale behind it.
First, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (Ph. D Econ.) spoke about traditional marriage. I agreed with and respected the first part of her speech, other than a slip up where she implied that the "alternative to marriage" is worse than an abusive relationship. (It was just a misphrasing. She clearly meant that there is a greater chance of being abused in cohabitation than marriage.) She explained that marriage has an "integrative function": it joins men to women and children; it joins the functions of biological, emotion, social, and legal parenthood; and it joins love, sex, and child-rearing. The man and woman come together naturally to make babies. Once there is a baby, the woman is "naturally" bonded and "the father is the problem." Essentially, marriage makes men stick around.
Okay, I'm following you thus far, Dr. Morse. She touched briefly on two "organic" functions of sexuality, the unitive and procreative aspects, and explained how contraception and IVF each separate these functions. In a bit of humor, she added that in her opinion, IVF is "a bit like skipping dessert and going straight for the brussel sprouts." I'm not sure how pro-life it is to compare children to brussel sprouts, but it got a laugh.
Next, she tackled "their" point of view. The left apparently wants to take over private lives. Marxism, in its creation myth, harkens back to primitive communism and communal marriage, and the left wants to bring us into a socialist age by bringing about the downfall of marriage.
At the center of this evil, she narrowed in on two threats: no-fault divorce and same-sex marriage. No fault divorce, Dr. Morse explained, gives the government control of our lives. It functions to separate someone from their family, and, since 75% of no fault divorces are unilateral, this separation occurs against someone's will, often the father. Furthermore, the state becomes involved in minute decisions: instead of being in the bedroom, as feminists feared, it sits "at the kitchen table."
If no fault divorce starts the alienation of men from their families, "same sex marriage completes the project of separating men from their families." She lost me here -- she never made a clear connection about how two men who adopt a child might find same-sex marriage an impediment to connecting to their family.
The next bit enraged me. She compared no fault divorce, same sex marriage, and Roe. Regardless of the relative moral and legal bases for each of these issues, only one of them authorized the murder of millions of people.
In the Q&A two interesting points came up. First, someone asked more about same sex marriage and she pointed towards her lecture series, "Same Sex Marriage Affects Everyone." I, of course, thought of the commercial and my ever-beloved Colbert. She pointed out that same sex marriage changes the motivation for marriage. Women will one day be having children via IVF without needing men. People marry people of the same gender for immigration purposes. And this is only the chip of the iceberg.
As the polite, under the radar liberal that I was, I did not tell Dr. Morse that people marry people of the opposite gender for immigration purposes. Not to mention political, financial, and lustful marriages. Heterosexual marriages have their fair share of problems.
I did ask how adoption of orphans, divorce due to abuse, widowhood, etc. affect her idea of the supremacy of a biological basis for bonding. She replied that these cases are exceptions, but should not prove the rule. I should have asked why she assumed the supremacy of biology for bonding. I don't necessarily disagree -- but I don't necessarily agree and definitely do not know the rationale behind it.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
The Leftist Agenda of Our Schools
During Day 1 of the Eagle Forum, we watched a screening of Indoctrinate U, a short film about the leftist agenda of our public institutions of higher education. It covered the bias found in the classroom regardless of subject, although Women's Studies and Sociology departments were among the worst offenders. Next, a group of men searched various campuses for a "men's studies" department and examined the ways in which Title IX hurts men. Finally, students spoke out about the banning of the American flag at schools.
The creators of the video used mostly anecdotal and subjective "evidence" to back up these claims. It resonated with people who had had experiences similar to those documented in the film, but not with me. As a good sociologist, I recognize it as the beginning of a case study on some universities, but deny the generalizability of the results.
I wish it had done a better job covering the effect of Title IX on male athletics, and non-mainstream athletics in general. They did not mention the word "football" at all, which factors into the funding of athletics under Title IX.
I also wanted to hear more about the claims that schools do not allow the US flag to be displayed. The film focused on post-9/11, which gets a nice visceral reaction from people, but the whole idea that at any point in time, students at a public school are told that they cannot display the flag of their country, there is something terribly twisted. Conservatives do not get the monopoly on patriotism.
The creators of the video used mostly anecdotal and subjective "evidence" to back up these claims. It resonated with people who had had experiences similar to those documented in the film, but not with me. As a good sociologist, I recognize it as the beginning of a case study on some universities, but deny the generalizability of the results.
I wish it had done a better job covering the effect of Title IX on male athletics, and non-mainstream athletics in general. They did not mention the word "football" at all, which factors into the funding of athletics under Title IX.
I also wanted to hear more about the claims that schools do not allow the US flag to be displayed. The film focused on post-9/11, which gets a nice visceral reaction from people, but the whole idea that at any point in time, students at a public school are told that they cannot display the flag of their country, there is something terribly twisted. Conservatives do not get the monopoly on patriotism.
Eagle Forum
This past Thursday and Friday, I learned that liberals 1) are destroying America; 2) hate marriage -- except between 2 men; and 3) are "exquisitely selfish." I also learned that "I'm not a scientist, but..." qualifies anyone with a microphone and a business suit to offer their opinion on global warming.
After the Conservative love-fest of Wednesday, when my boss set up a meeting with smorgasbord of organizations and Congresspeople, I had pretty much figured out that I'm not a Republican. But I had more lessons to learn on the front: the next two days, I attended the Eagle Forum annual collegian conference. It meant another bout of Congresspeople and conservative leaders, and this time instead of smiling and shaking hands with them as they walked in, I had to listen politely as they spoke.
Phyllis Schlafly ran the whole thing, since Eagle Forum is her brainchild. Among many contributions to the "conservative movement," she gave the impression of having single-handedly killed the Equal Rights Amendment. While I am leery of the implications of the ERA for abortion and enjoy the privilege of being undraftable, I do not understand why she considers it as evil as Democrats. Much as I disagreed with her political philosophy and her scorn for political, scientific, and philosophical facts to which I subscribe, I admired her energy, vivacity, and dedication to her beliefs. I hope to be that intense when I am her age.
Day One, she brought in mostly politicians: Michele Bachmann from Minnesota, Steve King from Iowa, Jason Chaffetz from Utah, Jim DeMint from South Carolina, and Tom Price from Georgia before my migraine sent me home. I enjoyed the personal stories and anecdotes from most of the politicians, but the alarmist rhetoric overshone the reasonable points they made about the shortcomings of the current administration. I am perfectly willing to believe that Cap and Trade will have a negative effect on our economy if you give me details as to why; I'm less willing to believe it if you tell me that if CO2 in the atmosphere causes the planet to heat, we will have more rain equally distributed across the planet to allow desert regions to bloom.
Tom Price impressed me the most and I don't think it's simply because I had a migraine and didn't listen as closely as I would have liked. Not only did he offer hard numbers to back up his anecdotes about the negative impact of government health care, but he offered an alternative. I need to learn more about both the current plan and his proposed patient-owned, tax incentive-based system before I judge if it is a good alternative, but at least he had a suggestion.
We also discussed the liberal agenda of higher education and the differences between conservatism and libertarianism, but those shall be separate topics for separate posts.
After the Conservative love-fest of Wednesday, when my boss set up a meeting with smorgasbord of organizations and Congresspeople, I had pretty much figured out that I'm not a Republican. But I had more lessons to learn on the front: the next two days, I attended the Eagle Forum annual collegian conference. It meant another bout of Congresspeople and conservative leaders, and this time instead of smiling and shaking hands with them as they walked in, I had to listen politely as they spoke.
Phyllis Schlafly ran the whole thing, since Eagle Forum is her brainchild. Among many contributions to the "conservative movement," she gave the impression of having single-handedly killed the Equal Rights Amendment. While I am leery of the implications of the ERA for abortion and enjoy the privilege of being undraftable, I do not understand why she considers it as evil as Democrats. Much as I disagreed with her political philosophy and her scorn for political, scientific, and philosophical facts to which I subscribe, I admired her energy, vivacity, and dedication to her beliefs. I hope to be that intense when I am her age.
Day One, she brought in mostly politicians: Michele Bachmann from Minnesota, Steve King from Iowa, Jason Chaffetz from Utah, Jim DeMint from South Carolina, and Tom Price from Georgia before my migraine sent me home. I enjoyed the personal stories and anecdotes from most of the politicians, but the alarmist rhetoric overshone the reasonable points they made about the shortcomings of the current administration. I am perfectly willing to believe that Cap and Trade will have a negative effect on our economy if you give me details as to why; I'm less willing to believe it if you tell me that if CO2 in the atmosphere causes the planet to heat, we will have more rain equally distributed across the planet to allow desert regions to bloom.
Tom Price impressed me the most and I don't think it's simply because I had a migraine and didn't listen as closely as I would have liked. Not only did he offer hard numbers to back up his anecdotes about the negative impact of government health care, but he offered an alternative. I need to learn more about both the current plan and his proposed patient-owned, tax incentive-based system before I judge if it is a good alternative, but at least he had a suggestion.
We also discussed the liberal agenda of higher education and the differences between conservatism and libertarianism, but those shall be separate topics for separate posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)