On AZ HB 2281 (restricting ethnic studies classes), and discrimination

A friend asked me what I thought about AZ HB 2281, which "bans" ethnic studies. Following is my response! (She told me that if it was too personal that I didn't have to respond, BTW.)

-----

Oh, I don't think that politics is ever too personal. It's our future that we're discussing! Politics engenders policy, which has an enormous influence over our future! So, no worries! I'm always up for discussing politics : D.

I have to admit that I'm not overly familiar with AZ HB 2281. I looked it up, along with some of the commentary. I had to say that I found it pretty amusing — the commentary on both sides was so reactionary as to be bordering on absurd. From my brief exposure to the topic, I'd say that both sides are wrong, and that's one of the largest problems with politics today. Both sides are racing to the opposite ends of arguments so that achieving middle ground is impossible. On the one hand you have minority groups claiming that the program was intended to prepare students for college with college level texts, so the law is an obstacle to preparing minorities for college. Haha! Right, because the best way to prepare minorities for college is to read college level left-wing ideology. Haha! On the other side, you have people claiming that minorities are trying to set up the equivalent of a madrasah. Such polarizing rhetoric makes rational discussion impossible.

Ethnic studies classes make a lot of sense. EVERY historical perspective is biased. The history told in American schools will be predominately (if not almost exclusively) white European centric. That's just a fact of life. It makes sense that minorities would want classes that tell history from their own perspective. Where the classes went wrong was allowing teachers with an axe to grind (and an agenda to push), who would hijack the curriculum and turn it into an equally unfair retelling. The purpose should be to provide balance, not to espouse damaging views.

Does it help any of those students to believe that "Republicans hate Latinos?" NO! That belief is far more damaging to them than it will be to any white, racist Republican. Latinos who harbor this belief will mistakenly exclude themselves from a portion of society, and thereby exclude themselves from "Republican" associations, careers, opportunities, and successes that they would already have. The vast majority of Republicans do not hate Latinos. Do some? Sure! But, so do lots of Democrats! Heck, there are even Latinos who act in racist ways towards other Latinos! Harboring ill will towards Republicans will injure Latinos far more than it will ever hurt anyone else. It's similar to the segregation that African Americans impose on themselves by despising "white" (which is really just American) culture, and trying to carve out their own distinct culture. By ostracizing African Americans who act "too white", African Americans self-segregate — nullifying much of the equality work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. Their peer pressure imposes an environment where success is looked down on, discouraged, and even punished. How does that help them? It doesn't. Having and preserving a distinct culture can be a wonderful thing, as long as it's not done with the purposes of denigrating another culture, of setting yourselves apart, and of holding your own selves back. Every culture can have traditions that do us a disservice. We can and should integrate with the society around us without abandoning who we are and our own cultural uniqueness.

So, does that make the law right? Haha! NO! It's impossible to legislate correct behavior. Two wrongs do not make a right. No amount of laws will create a "good", and especially not a law abiding people. You can write BILLIONS of pages of laws, and you're still going to have improper behavior. Creating more laws accomplishes the opposite. It makes it harder to actually be in compliance with the law. (Do any of us know all of the laws, so that we can actually be law abiding? Yeah, didn't think so.) It decreases respect for the rule of law and engenders resentment. (Anyone else think that ridiculous, stupid laws get passed way too often?) If you can view the law as a type of sword or other type of suffering (I find excessive laws insufferable), I think that Alma 31:5 applies well. The proper course of action is not to inflict more laws, it's to teach people (the instructors of the ethnic studies class in this instance) how their behavior is harmful to themselves and others. If you don't improve peoples' understanding, then they'll just find a new way to make the same mistake. We should be engaging in dialogue, not legislating one another.

Fortunately, it looks like the law doesn't have much teeth. It won't actually ban ethnic studies. And, it's almost impossible to enforce. Again, that just means that another stupid law was passed that does a disservice to the respect for the rule of law, and the justice system. It's more of a threat to clean up their act (or else) than anything else.

As far as what the Libertarian philosophy would be, Libertarians are VERY PRO immigration. However, they also believe that programs like affirmative action (see Libertarian platform: 2.0 "Economic Liberty", 2.1 "Property and Contract", and 3.5 "Rights and Discrimination"), while well meaning, only prolong the problems and divisions. The solution is to just treat everyone as equal under the law, and leave it at that. Don't give preference to underprivileged groups, as this just makes them more dependent (and therefore less free) on government. If they figure out how to induce the market to equalize their situation (for instance, if handicapped people and all of their friends give preference to facilities that are handicap accessible, and boycott those that aren't — rather than getting the ADA passed), then they're empowered. When people believe that they're reliant on the government to establish equality, then they've already given up some of their liberties.

Bringin' back the green (CTR ring)

Well, I didn't intend to include arts and crafts when I started this blog, but I couldn't help myself ; D. 

In tribute to this:

I took this:

And created this! (Well, not the crayons. I just added the green tinting of the ring to the lower left ; )

Here's the "How to" that I used for reference.

I learned that cheap crayons don't work as well as Crayola crayons. When the wax of cheap crayons cools, it's sort of porous, instead of being smooth.

Since the face of my ring is smooth (well, other than the recessed area for the wax) instead of being raised like a normal CTR ring, I found it easier to just rub it clean with a paper towel once the wax had cooled; rather than keeping it warm so that I could detail it with the paper towel or q-tip.

I tried a darker green that's closer to the CTR ring green first, but it ended up being too dark so I re-did it with the lighter "yellow-green". It's a little light, so I may end up trying mixing colors next time if I get motivated enough to try again.

Yeah, sort of silly, but I've always wanted my CTR ring to be green, and yet at the same time preferred this ring design. Pretty cool, huh?

On foreign policy and intervention (blow back)

[A response to a video online]

If America didn't have nuclear weapons, but China did, would you find it acceptable that China continued to obstruct our ability to obtain nuclear weapons? China spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year spying on us, and trying to influence our political system. Do you resent that, and find it inappropriate? That's what America is doing in the Middle East, and really most of the world.

The position of Libertarian-leaning Republicans (like Governor Gary Johnson and Representative Ron Paul) is that the biggest reason that these groups hate us is because we don't represent liberty and freedom to them. We represent meddling, intrusive, empire-building imperialists. We are invaders to them, trying to IMPOSE a political system on them. Would you stand idly by while another nation imposed anything on us?

Governor Johnson and Representative Paul believe, and I agree, that if we treat these groups like equals, and with respect and dignity, that they will no longer be a threat. They'll spend their money, time, and resources on more constructive things. If we trade with them freely, then democracy will naturally take root and become a part of their culture. On the other hand, if we invade their lands, set up bases, and bomb them, then they'll naturally hate us and our political and economic systems. They'll resist them. Wouldn't you?

Governor Johnson and Representative Paul don't see a need to research these relatively obscure topics, because their political worldview and treatment of the other nations and peoples of the world would eliminate problems like these. Muslims would stop sending money to America to destroy and kill Americans, if America stopped sending money and troops to the Middle East to occupy and destroy them. It's the concept of "blow back" that Representative Paul has pointed out on so many occasions. It's real (the CIA acknowledges it), and yet, somehow, we believe that our actions will not have natural consequences.

Our problem is that we've grown arrogant as a nation. We believe that it's our right to dictate to the rest of the world how it should be. We believe that we're right, so we have the right to make unilateral decisions. That's not true. The rest of the world has every right to their political systems and cultures, regardless of how backward they may seem to us. Once we figure that out and treat them like equals, then they'll stop trying to kill us.

For all of our supposed "Christian values", we as a nation tend to forget the golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If we treat them like undeserving inferiors, then they'll prove us tragically wrong. If we treat them like friends, then they'll be friends.