The Myth of North Korean Aggression

China just offered United States a fig leaf by making it clear that if North Korea strikes the first blow, China will not interfere with plans for retaliation. However, China did draw a line at invasion, saying through a state-run newspaper, that if America ever tried to invade to change the geopolitical landscape of that region, it would step in to prevent it.

This, as we would say, is not our first rodeo. In fact, this has happened many, many, many times before. North Korea issues a threat, the United States counters. So how is the new threat by the rogue nation to strike Guam in August any different?

For one, they now have the capability to actually do it.

Since the signing of the 1953 armistice and the cementing of the Kim regime, North Korea has threatened destruction for the United States. A laughable proposition that became less funny as time went on. And although North Korea possesses nowhere near the amount of fire-power it would need to match the U.S. in a fair fight, the attempt would cause an international crisis, as Trump would say, “the likes of which we haven’t seen before,” or at least since WWII.

Secondly, China’s dual strategy, as far as I know, has never been revealed before. For decades the United States assumed that if a fight ever broke out with North Korea, China would remain neutral in that conflict to an expected degree. The details of that strategy of course remain classified. But basically what China just asserted, is, in effect, the best option the U.S. has at the moment. The chance to obliterate the small totalitarian regime, while China referees the conflict, only as long as N.K. attacks first.  We are certain the alternate scenario, one in which the U.S. makes the first move, would have been untenable. Something the United States has considered in every single conflict-scheme ever conceived.

The third reason why the North Korean threat is different this time is simply Donald Trump. In Trump we find a predictably unpredictable character. Predictable in the way any president would act faced with the same threat. Unpredictable in that he’s a wild card, an unreliable actor who’s reliably uninformed about what his options are.

Critics of that assessment would make three proposals to counter. One is that crisis-time Trump is sly, an adaptable animal who knows which strategies to use to win. Two, that in this case unreliability is an asset. And three, that at the very least, we should take comfort in knowing that he’s surrounded by military professionals, by far one of his most competent decisions. To an extent, I would agree with all of that. Whether Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Trump are strategically disagreeing (as Trump publicly often does with his own staff), or whether they’re playing good cop-bad cop, there is a plan in place.

However, it’s been public knowledge that Trump cannot be trusted to keep a lid on the details. And embarrassingly, as reported, doesn’t have the attention span required to even learn them. Which makes whatever approach already in place vulnerable.

For years we’ve talked about North Korean aggression as a destabilizing force in the world. As it turns out, North Korea is just one more country in a short list of lost battles who’s found in nuclear power the only deterrent to an American invasion. The key differences between North Korea and all other American contenders to date, excluding Russia, are that unlike Iran or Libya, the North Koreans are not only backed by very powerful entities (China and Russia) but they have also never abandoned their nuclear plans in favor of concessions.

This myth is propagated by the frustration of an unbalanced Asian continent where the American doctrine–one which accepts Chinese and Russian spheres of influence to flourish due in part by their nuclear deterrents and in part by free-market Capitalism–cannot fully penetrate. It’s a historical thorn that the United States has not been able to pry out. The only solution so far has been to decry North Korean aggression, which is real, and act with a strange combination of soft-diplomacy and less-than-hard diplomacy.

The reality is that there were never good options on the table regarding North Korea. As a Chinese, and to a lesser degree Russian, protectorate, North Korea is a key player in that corner of the world. As a reckless partner, China has found the plausible deniability it needs to keep American militarism in check by way of South Korea and Japan. But by imposing the sanctions recommended by the rest of the security council, of which China has extraordinary veto power, China is telling the world that it will remain centered and neutral by not letting its dog off its leash.

This approach gives the impression that China can be pressured to comply with American wishes while having the added advantage of pushing back against the U.S. for the South China Sea dispute, by being willing to bring nuclear deterrence back on the table. It’s a way to maintain a leveled American influence while cooperating with its biggest trading partner. This strategy works in multiple levels until it doesn’t, for North Korea is now outside of China’s reach. Or eventually will be.

But even that is an illusion.

China’s significant trading partnership with North Korea is all that the small country has outside its few nuclear devices, the majority of which haven’t been adapted to their newly donned ICBMs, for protection. Besides that, it can only rely on the destruction of South Korea, and perhaps Guam, before it’s relegated to the stone age should it decide to provoke a war. That is something that even Russia could understand. The truth is that if China truly decided to rein in North Korea, it would have done so by decimating their partnership.

As for the options the U.S. has in dealing with N.K., that time has passed–if there was ever a time. Risking a war with China, and possibly Russia, the optimal time to attack North Korea would’ve been before they produced nuclear weapons. Something that past presidents, both Republicans and Democrats never seriously contemplated.

So why is this worrisome?

Well it isn’t. The myth of North Korean aggression follows a very standard pattern. Its trajectory starts when the regime is starved (quite literally) and usually ends with some kind of arrangement where the U.S. promises aid in exchange for a reduction, or discontinuance, of nuclear proliferation. The fact that the triumvirate (U.S., South Korea and Japan) are constantly conducting military exercises just outside North Korean waters, and the addition of the newly-developed THAAD system (which even South Korea doesn’t want), doesn’t help.

In Kim Jong Un we find someone who is much more despicable than Trump. The man has followed in his father’s and grandfather’s footsteps in turning his entire country into a gulag through terror and starvation, an Orwellian dystopia where the state reigns supreme over everything and everyone. But the young dictator isn’t stupid. He’s well aware of the consequences of angering the United States to the point of war. He knows that if there is a confrontation, he would loose every time. So how much is Kim Jong Un willing to sacrifice to stay in power?

It’s certain that he would sacrifice his own population if it meant the continuation of his regime. But the real question is, would Trump sacrifice Seoul for the continuation of his government?

I’ve spoken before about how war (with anyone) would be advantageous to Trump. Not only would it provide him all the political capital he’s lost since the election by consolidating his power among all the different factions, but it would also force America’s allies to fulfill their duties should the conflict get out of hand. Not something overly reassuring since it would most certainly unleash a third world war.

To be sure, a conflict with North Korea would be a decisive, albeit difficult project. It would claim hundreds of thousands of lives–none of which are highly important to Trump–and it would detract enough attention to indefinitely postpone the, comparatively minor, crisis that is the Russian investigation.

But the question is, would a war with North Korea that threatens the instability of an entire region and a consequential one to the balance of world security between the world’s most powerful nations, be worth the political capital? The answer will tell us what kind of man Donald Trump really is– is he a showboat, a grandstander, a fraud or will he follow in the footsteps of previous presidents and do nothing; will he seek to advance his own agenda as previous presidents have also done or will he remain rational?

For the foreseeable future the only peaceful resolution is diplomacy. There’s no other way about it. Just as the world has done, it seems the United States will have to grapple with the uncomfortable reality that we have our hands tied and accept a nuclearized North Korea. The upside is that China has agreed to remain neutral in a conflict, which is good to say the least. As a nation, we must learn to have a more nuanced view of this particular situation and recognize the motivations of the players, and not their rhetoric. What do they intend to do given the opportunities afforded? In this case, if Trump can be persuaded by the professional opinions of the men he’s hired, then I’m confident the status quo is the best we can hope for. But if we are to rely on Trump’s decision-making alone, then I’m afraid the answer to those questions are very grim and worrisome indeed.

 

 

School Me: America’s War On and For Education Pt. 2

Back again for more huh!

Okay so this is part two of last week’s post when we started talking about our education system and about the challenges our kids face with homework and standardized testing. I also talked about technology and outdated methods, and even religion got an (dis)honorable mention in there. No one was safe from it, parents, teachers, politicians… since we are all part of the pie, we all got a slice of it.

Today I’ll talk about the challenges college students face (provided they made it all the way to college) in the classroom, but mainly outside of it. On this post the blame will be almost completely shifted to our policy-makers, corporations, and the universities and colleges themselves so I will not go in-depth about fraternities or the “college experience”, but rather focus more on the financial aspect of higher education and the ripple effect they cause. But, while distancing myself from too much math, I’ll mainly be talking about student debt and we’ll analyze a risk-versus-reward type situation. So if you’re one of these people suffering from studentdebtitis (don’t try to pronounce that), then you will read some facts here that perhaps you didn’t know. Hopefully I can help in some way or another.

Let’s get into it!

 

All In the Numbers

 

Assuming you passed all that required testing we talked about before- SATs, college admission tests, etc.- college is a new and exciting time that is about to begin! No more lectures about being late to class, no more bullshit about cleaning your room, in fact, if you choose to live in a dorm, no more parents for a while. Man is life great! Well for you. For your parents it’s a different story.

For those putting themselves or their kids through college, it’s important to know where they are in terms of payment if they stand a chance. Forget for a second the very confusing college-application lingo, first you have to know if you can even afford it. The pressure of not knowing whether it will be possible to send your kids to college (or put yourself through college) is only part of a reality we live in today’s America where it’s becoming increasingly difficult to find a good job, and even harder without a college education, an education that while beautiful and necessary is not free.

So with that in mind, let’s check out some important numbers and see how it all ties in with this higher education I talk about.

College Tuition- Since the 1970s, college tuition has been increasing steadily over the years to an unimaginable 1120% (yikes!), and even without inflation we are paying more for higher education now than we have in the past 40 years, or ever actually.

Student debt- American students have an outstanding $1.2 trillion dollars (that’s 1,200,000,000,000) in student loan debt which is significantly more than American credit-card debt which stands at a little under $700 billion. To put it into context, our national GDP is $17 trillion, which means that student debt is roughly 7% of that. Insane!

Number of Americans with college debt- 40 million. For comparison that is roughly the entire population of Argentina.

Average debt per student- Today college graduates are entering the job market with an average of $26,000 in debt.

Interest rate for college loans It floats between 3% and 6% depending on the type of loan you get.

National median income- As of February of this year the median income was roughly $41,000.

Now comes the hard part trying to make sense of it all.

We all pretty much know the ritual. Students go to college, they get jobs, get married, have kids, and they pay for kids’ college. Well, that’s not happening so much anymore. Less parents are now paying for their kids’ education, which means that now more than ever American students are financing their own educations. This is just a side-effect to the increasing college tuition. But it is also due to other causes one of which is the disparity between what parents make and what college tuition amounts to.

According to a report by the Washington Post from March, adjusted for inflation take-home pay only increased by a measly 0.1% in 2014 for middle-class people, and although the unemployment rate is at a little under 6%- the lowest it’s been since the middle of 2008- and 2.6% for college graduates, job outsourcing to other countries has left the middle-class worker with little or no leverage to negotiate higher wages. This leaves college students in a bind. They can either choose to pay for college themselves, take out a bank loan, try their luck with financial aid, or, if they’re not agile enough to get a scholarship, opt out of college altogether. But wait there’s more bad news.

As of last year, interest rates rose again for college students, mind you it’s not an outrageous amount, but it’s not a negligible amount either. I’m sure that there are a thousand fiscal details to work out that have endless ramifications, but the fact of the matter is that middle-class parents cannot afford inflating college costs, especially when interest rates on college loans usually float around between 3% and 6%. And I’m not even including bank loans, credit cards, or any other alternative means of paying for college, simply what the federal government loans out.

Now this is where you might get a little pissed off, the Federal Discount Rate, which is the interest rate at which the Fed loans money out to banks is .75%. True, this is only for very short-term loans, but even regular loans to huge multi-billion dollar banks are disproportionate to what the regular American student borrows. In other words if the regular American student were a corporate bank (with the current interest rate on college loans), it would’ve either dissolved a long time ago, collapsing under its own debt, or it would’ve gone overseas for a better deal. The reason for that is that a bank would never agree to such high borrowing rate as American students now graduate with. The fact is that the interest rate for students is disproportionate to what they and their parents make, and still a heck of a lot more than what the government loans out to banks. And while the whole comparison between students and banks is an apples-and-oranges scenario, it’s actually more of a gala-apples-and-golden-apples situation.

So it seems that pay-raise is not proportionate to the inflating college bubble, so just as we feared, there is no sustainability between what middle-class people make and the college debt accrued by those same people. And if I told you what investor and shareholder pay, corporate assets, and golden parachutes is, you might just go into a passive-aggressive fit of rage and throw your puppy out the window.

Ironically, for a lot of these students- younger and older- the problem is not acquiring the money they need to start their careers (although that is a problem too), rather the problem is actually getting it. And in a cruel twist of fate what many of these students end up in a “beware what you wish for” situation as soon as the first loan clears. And since a college loan is the only financial instrument that allows you to borrow more and more while your interest balloons up, it makes it a very dangerous tool to resort to.

Obviously the details are varied and extensive but this is pretty much a summary of what’s going on.But that’s still leaves us wondering why college tuition keeps going up despite a slow economic growth.

This is a difficult question to answer since it depends on more than one factor including: rising costs for room and board, slower graduation rates [1], budgetary limitations (whatever that means), skyrocketing costs for research institutions (which actually makes sense), government subsidies for grants and loans, and even the rate at which universities recruit can have an impact on these rising costs. There’s no way I can list all the reasons and the figures for each point, but this comprehensive article by the Washington Post from 2013 lists more exact figures for why tuition has been increasing, especially in smaller colleges and universities around the country.

What this all means is that it costs the state and the students more money and energy to pay tuition and to pay off that debt than to actually use the skills they went to school for in the first place. It’s a psychologically discouraging thing to graduate from college with upwards of $50,000 in debt without being ever comfortable in a job that you love, only to work in a job that you need. That is a debt that most likely will take someone the rest of their lives to pay. The true American dream is to accrue an insurmountable amount of debt after you start working, not before.

Some students and alumni are worse off and some are better off, but the harsh reality is that for of those who do owe, most of their financial decisions for the next few years to come (hopefully just a few) will be based around that debt.

 

Where Does It Go?

 

So where does the money go? Let me ask a simpler question, do you sit back with a beer and relax to watch college chemistry competitions; or college advanced math lectures? Unless you’re Ross from Friends, then I’m guessing the answer is no. College football, that’s the thing you watch.

Turns out that in some universities- those whose intercollegiate athletics programs are not self-supporting- a large chunk of what students pay goes to athletics programs that many of those students will never even attend. This also includes the salary for coaches and their assistants which is an obsene amount of money (in the millions) compared to what a regular college professor makes- less than 200K for the most experienced, much less for the majority. According to research by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, not only is the cost for these athletic programs increasing- which of course has an impact in rising tuition costs- but also almost 20% of Ohio University students wish there was less funding for these programs.[2] I can’t speak for any other colleges, but I’ll leave it to your discretion to assume what other sutdents around the country think about their own athletics programs.

In no way am I suggesting that we scrap athletics programs, but it seems that colleges are more known for how well their football teams and their glorified players performed than for how academically competent they are. Now it would make a big difference if the money the games brought in were evenly distributed across the board (meaning to cover other university costs other than the athletic departments) or even to compensate the players OR their families, but I am pretty sure that’s not the way it is.

Fortunately, most of the money a university receives from tuition, grants, government and private entities, and other sources, is efficiently utilized to pay mainly for instruction and research, and also for other services that the university provides. And a big part of that money goes towards financial aid which is mainly aimed at working-class students in an effort to get them in school.

But the less that states spend on college-level education, the more that public and private universities will need to make up the shortfall by increasing tuition and making cuts in how much it is spent per student. It’s simple economics and as much as I hate to admit it, colleges and universities are a business (even if educaiton isn’t), and as such it also governed by the same laws of economics as any other business.

 

Noble vs. Practical

 

Today everyone and their grandmothers know that going to college is part of an evolving society and by-and-large a great asset to possess if you want to make it in the real world comfortably. While in college you’ll form a relationship with blah, blah, blah.

The truth is that while there are many reasons why people go to college, they all boil down to two main ones: the noble, either because they find some discipline or art truly intriguing and they want to learn everything about it; or the practical, because they want to make money. These two people are not too different from one another, because they both know that whatever the reason, whatever the motivation, having an accredited higher education stamped on a diploma opens a lot of doors in the real world that are becoming increasingly hard to open without it.

This is a mantra that has been drilled for generations into the minds of children. Not a bad one to have drilled actually, but we’ll get to that. The point is that when people finally realize that everything we have now, from the laptop sitting on their desks to the crowns on their teeth, are the product of an incredible amount of study, perhaps a college education is not a bad thing to back you up.

But this constant reminder, like an alarm clock going off at all hours of the day, that they need to go to college right after high school, that they need to graduate and that they need to start making money right away becomes a tedious affair, one that undoubtedly bores some people. They get it from every angle, their parents, their teachers, their employers, even from banks themselves. Again, not a bad piece of wisdom to be given, but for what purpose?d

The message is clear: make money before you die!

It might sound a bit cynical to say something like that, but it’s a truth crudely reflected in numbers. In a survey taken in 2012 by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) in collaboration with UCLA’s Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, found that 87.9% of first year college students go to college to “get a better job.” [3] This pretty much translates to “because I want more money.”

That answer comes to no surprise to anyone since we are still recovering from a very nasty recession and the housing-bubble burst. And even though that survey was taken three years ago, an article by the Washington Post included data from a more recent survey by the same collaboration that echoes the data from 2012. So basically, yes, most people go to college to make money. Can you blame them?

From the 2014 survey, the second most important reason why people go to college is “to learn things that interest me” at 82.2% as opposed to 86.1% for “…a better job.”

What does this mean for college students?

In the first part of this blog-post I mentioned that schools should do away with unnecessary subjects or at least increase school-time in subjects that will be productive and necessary, like technology and the sciences. But I also mentioned that it is our responsibility to make them think and wonder, and not merely become slaves to themselves.

In this second part, it may seem as if I’m changing my views, but I’m not. The point is quite pragmatic in itself: those skills acquired in more elementary education is partly to prepare them for the college life and/or a life that is more technologically centered. I’m not suggesting we get rid of the sciences, or art, or sports, but rather that while elementary education is important in awakening the mind, college education is supposed to refine it, shape it, and prepare it to send it out productively into the world. It’s not really a change of mind, merely just an evolution of ideas.

There’ no doubt in my mind that there are lawyers who simply love law, or doctors who are passionate about human anatomy, or architects who are drawn to numbers and design, otherwise how could they live with themselves for all their lives doing something they hate just to make money? However there are those who view college as a business decision rather than an intellectual one. Which brings me to my next point.

You know how most children when asked what they want to be when they grow up choose the most selfless, most noble careers, e.g. firefighters, cops, doctors; but when they do grow up the smartest ones end up being stockbrokers and politicians? Well there’s a reason why that happens.

Every single day we read in the news words like “golden parachute”, “billion-dollar deals,” “Fortune 500 company,” and if you’re like me, you think to yourself, “man, I’m in the wrong business.”

The fact is that the rest of the arts and sciences are being out-competed by the money and the behavior that making money is more important than anything else is being reinforced in practically every aspect of American life. Fortunately, the STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) sciences are on the rise, but we need to build more of that momentum and reward those who make our lives easier (scientists) instead of those who merely make life easier for themselves. That’s where college culture comes into play.

Astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson said it best when he remarked:

 

I’m not here to convince you that money doesn’t get you happiness, believe me it does. However, I’m here to tell you that there’s no need to sacrifice something that you really like for something that makes you money. So in choosing a career, it is better to choose something that satisfies your curiosity, and a career that you’re drawn to (or a variation of it that will get you a bit more money), rather than something you hate that will leave you more money.

Case in point, when I was younger my grandfather knew the benefits of going to college and he urged me to choose a career in medicine or law. I have nothing against doctors or lawyers, but I immediately hated the idea of becoming either one, and I knew that if I ever succeeded at it, it would not only be half-assed, but I would be risking more than my own life in the process. I am now 27 and I finally have an idea of what I want to do with my life, and not one second goes by that I regret that decision. I am perfectly happy with who I am and what I do, and I know that I would have been miserable otherwise.

Life is about happiness, your happiness. Not anyone else’s. And it’s not a race, nobody wins at life, in fact the only way to win is to be the happiest that you can be without hurting anyone else or the world around you.

The issue with student debt has been an efficient political tool for both parties in “the Hill” for quite some time now, and a hot-button issue in Main Street; many even point out that student debt not only affects things here at home, but abroad as well. In this competitive world where countries like Russia, India, and China are fast risers in the global economic food-chain, it is more important than ever for America to invest in the best resource and asset it has to outcompete these nations and become once again a leading nation in education, technology, etc: an army of high-skilled and educated people. But is it possible- or have we lagged too far behind?

Today we discuss the education business in America and the next generation waiting to take the torch.

 

A Solution?

 

Often we read cases about graduates living frugally or doing economically-savvy things to pay off their loan so, and we rejoice when we hear one or two people did extraordinary things and got rid of their debt in a few short years. Honestly, yay for those people. But personally, I find it depressing that we have come to glorify the exceptions to the rule, as if it were a heroic thing to live on instant soup so for years on end just to not live with that debt until the day they die. That’s not how the American dream was sold to our generation. Debt wasn’t supposed to happen until later on in life.

The issue that we have is that with college debt, it’s not only the students and parents are paying the bill, but also you, the taxpayer. And it’s an expensive bill.

President Obama’s loan forgiveness program which he passed in 2013 aims at giving college graduates the opportunity to pay only 10% of what they earn towards their premiums for a period of 10 years, after which time their college debt will have been forgiven. But what happens to the rest of that money? Put simply, we pay for it, college graduate or not, we’re all paying for all 1.3 trillion dollars of student debt. As Jeffrey Dorfman of Forbes appropriately writes in this article, “If government wants to subsidize college education it could simply directly subsidize it rather than making loans that are designed to be forgiven.”

He’s completely right. Why do we keep beating around the bush when it comes to college tuition and loans that hurt financially not just the students and their parents, but also universities, financial institutions, and ultimately the government by loaning money we don’t have to people we know will have a hard time paying? A direct subsidy will save us billions in the long run.

But President Obama has his eye on two fronts, this one and also in his plan to make all two-year community colleges completely free to all students who wish to go- rich and poor. The move is not exactly a novel idea as it has already been implemented in Chicago and Tennessee for high school graduates. But his plan, formulated to cover all students regardless of previous education, is intended to be available across the nation.

By making it possible for students to go to college for free, at least for the first two years, the government would be giving those students a break to save up for their continuing education or to make it easier for them to obtain one, once already in college, basically providing a foothold.

But the program intends to do much more than that. By making it easier for all students to start college, its intent rests also in more socioeconomic integration by raising the number of minorities, and economically disadvantaged students and mixing them with students of higher means. The psychology behind it is very promising as it will undoubtedly boost campus and individual morale, something which can have a good effect in the future of those communities.

But what does that matter?

According to a report by Christina Ciocca and Thomas A. DiPrette of Columbia University- using various statistics and surveys- they found that minorities and economically disadvantaged students are at a higher risk of dropping out of public universities and two-year colleges than white students and middle-class students by several percentage points. Following is an excerpt of their findings:

“The National Center for Education Statistics (Snyder and Dillow 2012: Table 379) reports that while 63 percent of white first-time beginners in four-year institutions receive bachelor’s degrees six years after college entry, only 41 percent of Black students achieve the same. Gaps also exist at the two-year level, with 17 percent of white students and 11 percent of Black students receiving associate’s degrees, and 13 and 5 percent of each group transferring to four-year schools and achieving a bachelor’s degree, respectively.” [4]

The report (which I recommend you read) is very interesting and lists possible reasons as to why that happens not just for black students for also for other minorities.

So it makes sense that anything that can be done to help those drop-out rates, should be in place already. This idea (modeled after a Republican plan) has already been met with skepticism from liberals and conservatives alike, both demanding to know just how exactly are we going to pay for the $60 billion that it will cost over a decade. But fret not, my friends, there’s already a plan in motion for that as well. The government will pay for three quarters of the cost while the states chip in with the rest, obviously the tax-payer will get some of that bill.

But why the hell should we get to pay for college even if we’re not attending? Well, why pay taxes at all unless it’s for my own benefit? That’s basically what you’re saying. And since we’re on that question, why don’t you ask the same about elementary and secondary education, it is basically the same argument.

There is something fundamentally flawed about the education system in America. In my personal opinion, it has been commercialized and treated too much like a business rather than a necessity. Obviously we cannot dismiss certain businesslike aspects of it, especially when it comes to big research universities that depend on grants and also tuition money to continue important research. But if we’re admitting things, then we also have to admit that at its most basic level, higher education in the U.S. is becoming much too expensive to afford, and almost not worth the job that most students will get upon graduating- if they’re lucky enough to get one.

And although admirable, even Ivy League schools like Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, and Yale- which provide free education for students and families making less than a certain amount ($125K/yr, $120k/yr, $65k/yr, and $65-$150k/yr respectively) [5]– are the exception, not the rule.

Which brings me to my next question. What, if anything, could take from our European neighbors?

 

Brain-Drain

 

You might have heard that in other industrialized nations, higher education is incredibly more accessible than in the U.S. and in many cases entirely subsidized by the government- I use “subsidized” to not use free, because as it happens, there really isn’t such a thing as a free lunch. These are the countries we’ll use as a model of what an outdated system should turn into and I will try- in my limited knowledge- to explain how they do it (although it’s obvious enough).

Nordic countries, as well as some historically socialist Western European nations, have taken up the noble course of lowering college tuition to- wait for it- NOTHING. I can already feel the seething anger at the mention of “socialist”. But if you can get over it for a second, I will have you know that the word “socialist” here is not strictly implying a socialist political system- at least not in the way that those European nations conduct business. What I mean by socialist rather is the implementation of social programs for the benefit of a society modeled after a socialist framework. This means that the government controls these programs and not private entities.

If you, as a red-white-and-blue blooded American, staunch opponent of Big Brother politics and faithful defender of all things free, believe that America hasn’t been touched by the evil wand of socialism (the political system now) then I’m sorry to tell you that you have not only been fooled, but you have been the recipient of this socialism.

Long story short, these socialist programs created and enforced by the government have in fact made America a better country for it. Among these that have benefited all citizens of this great nation are: emergency services, postal service, transportation, the military, some forms of health care, even ones that you wouldn’t expect like sewer systems and trash collection. And education. All of these programs and many more have been introduced to the American public administration after administration, sometimes with opposition. Can you imagine any of these in the hands of private companies? It’d be disaster. Even without the hand of privately owned enterprise, education in the United States is costing trillions of dollars and not getting much better. Surely some European countries are doing something right if they beat us in: record numbers of college graduates, higher test scores, more productivity, etc.

So where in the world is college education cheaper than in the U.S.? Trick question: everywhere!

Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Slovenia, and France are among very few European countries that offer free or low-tuition college education, all in their respective populations’ dime. For the first three countries mentioned, foreign students are also welcome to enjoy the same educational benefits as their own citizens- higher education free of charge! In the case of Sweden that law has been rescinded to ban foreign students to study there completely tuition-free; but nevertheless the country has allowed many organizations to help cover the tuition of non-EU students, or other students who wish to study there, which still makes higher education in Sweden an inexpensive option.

But what about the rest of the world?

While many universities around the globe might not offer cheap or free tuition to foreign students, they do still offer those same privileges (incentives rather) to their own students. Some of the countries with the cheapest college education include: Australia, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, Netherlands, and Brazil.

While these are just some of the countries with low-cost college education, they are by no means the only ones. This site has an interesting composite of information about the aforementioned nations on college costs, as well as other ones around the globe that also offer low-cost higher education. It’s important to note that for some of these countries (as in the case of my native Mexico) low-cost education is only available for state universities and colleges, while private universities will be more expensive.

But where do we rank in terms of higher education in comparison to other countries?

Well, we’re drawing from a different bag there.

According to this independent research judged by top academics from all over the planet, eight of the top ten universities in the world are in the U.S. of A. In fact, the website offers information on the rankings of more than 300 academic institutions and more in-depth information about them.

So being that American universities hold the top positions for education among the most respected in the world, why is it so difficult for Americans to obtain a college education… in America?

While this question is significant, I believe the better question to ask is: why do some of these other countries allow others to come and study- sometimes for free- only to leave, taking the skills they obtained to another country?

Perhaps they believe in the real value of higher education, or maybe they understand that not everyone can afford to go to college. Maybe it just makes good economic sense to allow students to take advantage of a good thing and offer them the opportunity to stay in their country and exploit those newly acquired skills there. It’s not only ethical, it’s practical. Not to mention that making education free makes good political sense.

Let’s form a comparison. In Germany, the state pays for college education for everyone who wants it, even for foreign students. Parents and students do not need to worry about tuition debts and high interest rates that will slow down their education and therefore increase drop-out rates. The snowball effect of leaving college in the middle of a degree is detrimental in large numbers. Therefore, by using pure mathematical logic, we can see that the cost of sending a whole generation of students to acquire high-level skills is minimal compared to the debt accrued if they don’t pay. The latter is essentially betting on the failure of students. And a debt that governments and financial institutions will be forever trying to collect.

On the other hand, if the education budget can be restructured properly, the gain from creating generations of high-skilled workers is nothing compared to the subsidizing of education in large scales.

We could bring up monopolistic sentiments about why the American education system is fairly inadequate in comparison to the mysticism that the United States has in the world: a powerful country unrivaled in mostly everything. But the simplest answer is usually the right one- our politicians simply prioritize other things over education.

 

Alternative Education

 

In this day and age there are still plenty of people- even here in America- who still don’t have access to education in their own countries and communities. For that reason, charitable organizations and public and private universities, who believe in the power of education have decided to get together and collaborate on massive projects that aim to change just that.

MOOCs- or Massive Open Online Courses- are exactly that, online courses available to anyone with a computer and internet connection in virtually any part of the world, and completely free or of very low cost to those who wish to take them.  These courses, or rather crash-courses, vary in length and can last anywhere from a few days to a few weeks and some can even last for months at a time, like a regular college class would. They are taught in many languages and you can find just about any subject you want, anything from cooking, to advanced trig, to film critique, to computer programming. Not only are these courses taught by accredited professors from some of the best universities in the world, but they also follow the rigorous online-college course model.

Most universities though do not certify credits accrued from MOOCs however, although there are some that do. But at least those interested in learning something new or in using MOOC services as aid to their actual schoolwork can have the opportunity to do so free and with virtually no restrictions.

MOOCs and other alternative forms of education are a great way to get started on a path for higher education. I, myself, have taken several MOOC courses and am a very big fan of them and I recommend them. So if you’re interested, here‘s a list of several MOOC providers that are for-profit and non-profit. Honestly, I have only used Coursera, but I can tell you that all the courses I’ve ever taken have been free. So feel free to sign up for something interesting to get your mind tickling.

 

Graduation

 

To conclude this, let me tell you that although I believe in the immense power of education, college is not for everyone. Don’t mistake that for “education is not for everyone”, because that would ring false and counter to my beliefs, not to mention detrimental to our society. But employers, teachers, parents, and most of all you, need to understand that true education, true knowledge can only be the product of true curiosity, unhindered by rules and social norms, by restrictions and roadblocks. Forced desire to learn will always yield negative, or at least lukewarm, results. We have to encourage our kids and ourselves to learn, but we also have to provide them with the means to do so.

In the first part of this blog I wrote that America is waging a war against our youth, against education. Let me tell you that it is a false war, an illusion of sorts. Because education transcends all barriers and ideologies, it is one of the few non-partisan issues that we can all make better. But only if we really want to. It is of no consequence what political party you belong to, or nationality, or religion (or lack thereof), or socioeconomic bracket you’re part of- I think we can all appreciate the huge benefits that a well-educated, well-informed generation can bring. And we can make it happen if we work together to make it so.

 

“There are many problems, but I think there is a solution to all these problems; it’s just one, and it’s education.” -Malala Yousafzai

“The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character- that is the goal of true education.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.

“An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.” -Benjamin Franklin

“He who opens a school door closes a prison.” -Victor Hugo

“The highest result of education is tolerance.” -Helen Keller

.

.

.

Citations

[1] http://www.bankrate.com/finance/college-finance/6-reasons-college-costs-are-soaring-3.aspx

[2] http://www.centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/Funding_the_Arms_Race.pdf

[3] http://heri.ucla.edu/briefs/TheAmericanFreshman2012-Brief.pdf

[4] http://paa2015.princeton.edu/uploads/152299

[5] http://thinkprogress.org/education/2015/04/02/3642085/stanford-free-tuition/

.

Interesting Reads

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/07/college-tuition-is-getting-more-expensive-heres-whos-actually-to-blame/

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/corinthian-college-graduates-protest-student-loans-175051741.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2014/09/04/fed-data-show-college-isnt-a-good-investment-for-all/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-13/college-tuition-in-the-u-s-again-rises-faster-than-inflation

http://college.usatoday.com/2014/08/26/how-much-student-loan-debt-is-too-much-2/

http://useconomy.about.com/od/monetarypolicy/a/fed_funds_rate.htm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/keithweiner/2014/12/22/can-the-fed-raise-interest-rates-2/2/

http://consumerist.com/2015/03/19/legislators-once-again-introduce-bill-that-would-allow-student-loan-refinancing/

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/2015/03/25/take-4-steps-to-understand-student-loan-interest-rates

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-salaries-dont-rise/2015/03/11/38c08cea-c81d-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-12/world-ranking

Government Expenditures

https://www.usaspending.gov/Pages/default.aspx

http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/us_deficit/us_deficit.html

https://www.usaspending.gov/Pages/default.aspx

Pew Data

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/10/07/the-changing-profile-of-student-borrowers/st-2014-10-07-student-debtors-03/

Old Hot Tensions or New Cold War: How World War 3 With Russia Will (Probably) Never Happen

Every now and then my dad and I engage in lively, and sometimes fierce, debate regarding the state of affairs in the world. We discuss our ideas and points of view as if by talking about it we could somehow dissolve the animosity that seems to be so commonplace nowadays. My father not only very knowledgeable but also one of the most interesting people I know, makes those little conversations quite fun and challenging. Most often than not we agree on many things, but every now and then there are inevitable crossroads where neither will make it easy for the other to get his point across. Just as he does, I too try to inform myself about what’s happening in the world when it comes to politics and things of that nature and just like him I am happy to learn new things that I didn’t know before. Some of these talks will stretch on for hours and even continue on in other phone conversations and unfortunately sometimes we will not concede to each other’s points no matter what the other person says. But when we do, we both agree that the other had the better argument.

One of those highly polarizing subjects that we often touch on is U.S.-Russia relations where I will usually side with the U.S. in mostly every aspect and where he always sides with Russia. It comes as no surprise to either one when during the natural course of a phone call the subject will “casually” come up with one or the other asking, “Hey, did you hear about what’s going on in ____?” And that’s when we both know it’s game on.

While the conversations might seem redundant at times, the news (and the growing divide between countries) will always provide new material for us to toss back and forth. My father’s view is usually that America’s “imperialism” and meddling is growing out of control and will eventually start a war that we will not be able to contain- among other things. In calm contrast, mine is that while the U.S. has committed barbaric acts of violence and does meddle in world affairs to a degree, that in many cases Russia is no better, at in most cases is worse. I typically refrain from using the phrase “the better of two evils” because I have such a loathing for it, but I wouldn’t be completely wrong in saying it.

During our exchanges we will both accuse each other of blind allegiance and of only considering information from biased sources; as if a third party was completely impartial and objective- something which is becoming increasingly difficult to find. Among the other charges, he will usually accuse me of either blowing up the subject out of proportion and I of him undermining it, or vice-versa. He will usually say that China and Korea are still Russia’s allies and that in the inevitable war that is to come they will side with the Russians. I, on the other hand, will usually concede the point that while China is still Russia’s biggest ally, before a war breaks out they will do everything earthly possible to avoid one. But our biggest disagreement lies in the assumption that a war between the U.S. and Russia (which is starting to look more and more like the old Soviet state it once was) is not only near but inevitable.

While these debates are lighthearted and many “facts” will be tossed around in the heat of the moment, at times I am left thinking of the very real possibility that it might actually happen. I analyze as many factual things as my limited knowledge permits me and I come to conclusions. Of course I am not 100% sure of my prognosis, and should a war ever break out between the U.S. and Russia, I’ll be the first to apologize provided I’m not ash by that time- not that it would matter any.

But while a war with Russia seems unlikely, it’s worth going into detail about why that is. And more importantly, why the peculiar behavior from Russia’s side if they don’t intend to start a war with the West. China, which would also be a serious contender in a war and a country that has been racking up its military over these past several decades, is even less likely to enter into a war with the U.S., although tensions still run high in that front too. This is not to say that a third world war still couldn’t happen. But I believe our priorities need to match our reality. Before the conflict in Ukraine, there was a considerably higher possibility to enter into a direct armed conflict with North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia than there was with Russia. Things change quickly, I know, and although none of these countries possess anywhere near the military power that China and Russia have, some of them do enjoy their support which complicates things a bit. However, I have come up with five reasons of why I believe that a direct war with Russia is nothing more than a dangerous dick-measuring contest between two countries with a historical tendency to fuck with each other.

 

1. The Semblance of Democracy

 

I heard somewhere that even the semblance of democracy is important because that means that a country is ready to embrace it, even if it’s in its most basic form. I really wish I could remember where I heard or read that particular quote because I’m sure the person who said it probably had something else interesting to say, so again I apologize. But it is true that the semblance of democracy is the first step towards a stable community run by the desires of those governed and not who govern.

In the most recent survey by Transparency.org, an organization which measures the index of transparency in countries around the world reported that Russia currently occupies number 136 out of 175 countries in the index of corruption. That’s really bad considering that only 175 countries were surveyed. The United States comes in at 17, Germany at number 12, France at 26, with Ukraine being the most corrupt country in Europe with a rating of 142.  At this, there is still a fundamental disparity between the styles of government between the West and the East, something that no doubt causes waves in geopolitics. It almost seems as if shifting from the reigns of a Communist vanguard, Putin has found in a democratic Russia the room he needed to implement his desired policies with little or no opposition. Whether his aim is to defy the west and reposition Russia to a top place in world politics or to completely turn back to Soviet-style politics is speculation, but there is no doubt that his defiance put us at a very uncomfortable position, that of knowing what we’ve always known, that we’re not the only players around.

I could go into detail about Putin’s puppet government, but in this section we’re just trying to see why even the semblance of democracy in an obviously not-so-democratic nation can help thwart a war between the East and the West.

It makes you wonder what would happen if Putin blatantly announced that Russia would be going back to Communism. Surely a lot of partnerships would collapse, economically, militarily, politically, and even its closest-trading partners in that side of the world would start to get nervous at the prospect, China for one. Having that kind regressive sentiment still carries a lot of stigma. The question then is not how many partners is Russia willing to lose to go head-to-head with the West in a war, but rather who of the partners it’s loosing. There’s no doubt that Putin would be applauded by leftist nations all over the world. The man is already popular with Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro and Bolivia’s Evo Morales, but now he’s also warming up to other South American nations that have historically or currently politically have gripes with the United States. Could these nations, plus some Asian and African nations, garner enough support for another Cold War siding with Russia? There is no coincidence here, most of these nations, including some factions in Mexico that were quickly disbanded due to Mexico’s proximity to the U.S., were openly Marxist Socialist or otherwise Communist and sided with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. But could we go as far as saying that a new Cold War would begin? This is an interesting but fearful answer to contemplate.

My honest answer is I don’t know, but I also believe that it would be highly unlikely seeing how the prosperity of this country, and this one and this other one, not to mention Russia’s economy– countries where the Soviet Union had a strong grip- has dramatically improved since the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is highly unlikely that any of those now-sovereign independent states, many of which now enjoy the protection of NATO, would ever support a regression. Let’s go so far as to say that only Russia becomes openly Communist again without invading countries or meddling in the affairs of other nations, it’s possible even its closest allies like China- which whom Russia enjoys a privileged position- would be wary of doing business with them due to the complexity of Communism in politics in today’s world.

This is good for the rest of the world, because even if Russia doesn’t truly belong in the circles that the West has created for itself, it belongs to that trading partnership and is welcome to receive its benefits. A war with Russia will never start as long as it enjoys the strong concessions provided by democracy, or by Brittish-American-style Capitalism. Does that mean that trying to improve its influential position, especially in the case of Ukraine, will not lead it to start a war? No, it doesn’t mean that, but again, Soviet-style imperialism is hard to hide nowadays.

 

2. Economics: China’s Growing Influence

 

Today, Russia and China enjoy a cozy relationship that was almost non-existent in the last years of Communism in Russia during the Sino-Soviet split. However, it seems that through calculated partnerships and strategic alliances, China’s sphere of influence has spread to cover now much of Asia and even the Latin American world as well. Here in the United States the insatiable craze for  Chinese trade that we have- which is also starting to wear thin- has allowed our country as well as theirs to prosper through mutual agreements and indeed also disagreements.

At the beginning of last century and during the start of the Cold War, Russian-style Communism was the perfect blend of social, political and economic elements to create the perfect alternative to the capitalistic democracy of the United States and similar sociopolitical systems of Europe. But as the years and leaders came and went and that romantic spirit of revolution waned, an almost antagonistic sentiment began to settle not just within the Politburo but also in the population of the Soviet Union itself. It was then that China took the torch and became the new model to follow. Chairman Mao Zedong and his “Cultural Revolution“, which was a brutal revival of the Chinese revolutionary sentiment that rebranded Communism and begun a new era of industrialism in the Eastern world. China quickly changed from being just a satellite state for the Soviet Union to becoming a top player in its own right.

Of course we know now that China is not the Communist nation that a young- or even an old- Mao aspired to build, but that in essence it is sort of like a hermit crab, a Capitalist hermit crab wearing a Communist shell. During the massive economic expansion that China went through in the 70s and 80s by opening up more to the West (something that Russia missed out on for obvious reasons), the Chinese grew their economy exponentially by more than 20% in some cases, quickly turning the country into a military and economic power.

USA and China.

Obvious disparities between the U.S. and China still exist, many based on culture differences, historical events, current alliances, economic models and, indeed, show of force; but overall, the business partnership that has allowed China to quickly become the second largest economy in the world after the U.S. while keeping the stability of the region fairly calm, has allowed both countries (China and us) to assert a major influence in that side of the world. This complex business partnership that begun some decades ago allowed a somewhat disenfranchised Asia to gravitate more towards China’s sphere of influence rather than Russia’s. And while the Western world seemed, for the most part, united against Eastern Communism, the East began to appear fractured as many Communist factions started to implement their own versions of the socio-economic and political system. In a word, China became somewhat of a good friend to the U.S., which was of course what the United States wanted and needed.

By the 1980s it was becoming more and more apparent that the partnership between China and the West would give the U.S. an important foothold in the East. Today, although tensions grow and diminish in Asia, China is still a good mediator between Western powers and hostile states such as North Korea and at times even between Russia and the United States. Even though the American dollar still dominates world markets, something that China’s powerful economy is working hard to change, with trillions of dollars at stake, it seems both countries would rather trade money than bullets. It’s also important to note that the massive purchase of American debt by China binds them in a strange way to us- if we can only hope they don’t ask for all their money all at once. There are problems that arise from this sort of mildly dangerous trade, one of those being that China might see the rift between U.S.-Russia relations as an opportunity for economic supremacy in a vie of military conquest towards eradicating the West. This is a real possibility, but until now it hasn’t had significant gravity to warrant hostile action on our part.

But to be honest, it is hard to imagine which side China would take if a war between the U.S. and Russia were to break out, after all China has been Russia’s trading partner for much longer than it has been America’s and what’s more, they share a border. We should also consider the recent developments in geopolitical events mainly the island disputes between China and Japan, of which the U.S. is a staunch ally. But I believe that if tensions start becoming unmanageable, China will use every resource available to resolve whatever differences diplomatically rather than militarily.

 

3. Isolationism

 

Think of the world as it is today. With the invention, or rather commercialization, of the internet, the world is now more connected than it has ever been before. I wouldn’t be surprised if a study produced results pointing out that the world is a little bit more peaceful, in part, to this collective thing that humanity has invented for itself. Today the power to speak to any human being on the planet (or even outside of it) in real time can be handled by any six year old with a mobile device and connection to the internet. The planet is quickly and willingly becoming more connected in mostly every aspect and the old policies of self-isolationism can no longer protect countries from the influence of the outside world. Take for example self-isolated countries such as Cuba and North Korea. These countries probably have the natural resources to survive independently of any other nation, unfortunately for them they only posses these resources and none other. In times of distress they can only depend on their own ingenuity to resolve their own problems and when those natural resources they depend on diminish, they have no outside help.

This wouldn’t be so bad of course if the leadership guiding these nations was disinterested in power and wealth. Unfortunately that’s not the case and as a result, their populations suffer immensely, in most cases lacking even basic human resources. It’s evident then that in this modern age we live in, isolationism for any country, whether self-imposed or as punishment by the conglomerate of nations that surround it (speaking in a political context), is in effect the kiss of death. In fact, no country in the world can now survive without the help of another. At this moment, Cuba is aided by many nations around the world and with the policy change under President Obama, the old embargo is expected to be fully lifted and a new partnership will begin between Cuba and the United States. But even North Korea, also known as the “Hermit Kingdom” for its aggressive self-imposed isolation, enjoys a military and economic alliance from one of its biggest sponsors- China.

Berlin Wall Credit: "Berlinermauer" by Noir at the German language Wikipedia. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Berlinermauer.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Berlinermauer.jpg

Berlin Wall
Credit: “Berlinermauer” by Noir at the German language Wikipedia. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Berlinermauer.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Berlinermauer.jpg

During the years of the Cold War when no trade agreements were allowed between Western countries (mostly Capitalist) and Eastern countries (mostly Communist), even isolated Russia traded with its satellite states and other neutral countries. There are many here in the United States that call for the self-isolation of our country and to stop meddling in other nations’ affairs. While I partially agree with the second part, I don’t think the first is a realistic goal at all.

According to our Republican politicians, and Conservatives throughout, Putin has made all the right moves in this political chess game being played at the global level. But as near-history has proven, Obama’s bloodless policy has not only worked better than military action, but it has repaired the somewhat damaged relationship between the U.S. and Germany over allegations that the N.S.A. had tapped German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone. This is a very good thing since Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande are some of our closer allies in that side of the world, and the people who are willing to stick our their necks so close to the Middle East and to Russia for us.

This strengthening relationship with the Europeans means that we are united against Putin’s shenanigans where it pertains to Ukraine and Georgia. It almost seems like deja vu what’s happening in Ukraine after the events of 2008 when Russia invaded another sovereign country in its backyard, Georgia. But the NATO alliance of which the U.S. and several European countries are members of, will not allow another invasion to go unresolved. But rather than fighting the Russians with conventional wars in their own turf (of which even a united Europe is incapable of doing), instead they turn to economics as way of fighting the Russians.

Last year, the meeting of the G7, formerly the G8, rejected to be held in Russia as a protest for the blatant act of invasion on Ukraine. And just a month ago Angela Merkel said with confidence that if Russia continues on this path with Ukraine, it will not be invited to the next G7 summit hosted by the German chancellor.  Take into account that the G8, now the G7, is not your typical college club. The G7 is a group of the seven most powerful nations in the world in terms of economy, military, and influence, and being shunned by the group can not only cost a country a lot of money, but also influence. When all G7 countries forcibly removed Russia from membership, that act sent a message that they will not tolerate one of their industrialized partners to behave like bullies.

With an already shrinking economy, the combination of sanctions imposed on Russia by Europe and the U.S. and the low price of oil will further drive down their economy, and with no way for foreign investors to take a stake in Russian goods, the Russians are quickly being isolated from the world stage. There’s only so much a country can do by itself. Even the very charitable IMF (International Monetary Fund) could not rescue Russian banks from the economic crisis of last year. These effects are being felt by the Russian people who, while at first supported the campaign in Crimea, now support instead a balance in Russian economics, and more importantly a drop in food prices.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Russia has retreated into a capitalism-style economy that is self supporting. But this strategy is not free. There is already an ongoing effort that’s gaining momentum to curb Russia’s energy supplies on Eastern Europe. The natural gas demands are to be supplanted by American natural gas reserves as a counter-measure to Russia’s Gazprom, the company that supplies Ukraine at steep prices that the current government is unable to pay up front.

By reading this you might think that it is a dangerous thing to bully Russia into isolation, but an isolated Russia, although still powerful and influential, is less likely to start a war with the United States- and NATO for that matter- without first having the support of more powerful allies. Agreed, economics alone perhaps will not stop Russia from starting a war, but it certainly does help. Hopefully, Russia will choose to go the diplomatic route instead of going to blows with the world.

 

4. Global Terrorism

 

After the Cold War ended, conventional wars quickly become obsolete in light that there were very few worthy contenders to fight with. Even the American military campaigns of Iraq and Afghanistan were little more than invasions. While one could make the case that these military campaigns were nothing more than an oil-grab or legitimate defensible invasions to depose a dictator, is up for individual debate. What we can be sure of is that global terrorism has changed the way the world conducts military operations, and the renewed involvement of intelligence services is reminiscent to the age of espionage during the Cold War.

Aided by one side or another (the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan to fight the Russians, or the North Vietnamese to fight the Americans), these groups, some of which are now players in today’s conflicts, mainly in the Middle East, now wage a different type of war against the West; this is not a war of allegiances or for territory, it is a war of ideas- holy war. Jihad, or holy war, against the “West”- a term not indicative of a region of the globe but an umbrella word to cover all of the oppressors of the Middle East and basically anyone who is an infidel, or an enemy of Islam- is indiscriminate of anyone. Even Muslims fall prey to the brutal tactics now in full effect by terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS. And unlike the conventional enemies of before, up until a couple of years ago the enemy was invisible.

If we remember Russian imperialism during the Cold War, there is no way we can dismiss the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the 80s. Could it be that the freedom fighters of yesterday (or the terrorists of today) realized that Soviet Russia was just America’s counterpart in the East? Perhaps. What we know for sure is that in this fight no one is safe, least of all civilians.

A few weeks ago, Haruna Yukawa and Kenji Goto, a pair of Japanese journalists were captured by the Islamic State (a.k.a. ISIS, ISIL) and were executed after the group failed to collect a hefty ransom that in all probability they knew they wouldn’t get. Now, Japan is considering amending their constitution, which expressly forbids Japan from building an offensive military, to aid in the “war against terror.” In similar situations other civilians of different nationalities have also been captured by the terrorist group and executed violently.

It is, to a certain degree, understandable why IS would have a deep hatred for the U.S., but to vow the destruction of Japan is something that falls a bit off the realm of reason. Not only is Japan a peaceful nation, but it doesn’t even have an offensive military. This just comes to show that the irrationality of these terrorist factions, not just Islamic but all terrorist factions around the world, is causing the world to unite against them. The effectiveness of these groups is rooted in three things: one is that they are totally and completely devoted to their beliefs and they are incredibly organized to carry them out; the second reason of why they are effective at what they do is that they take advantage of the goodwill of democratic nations and their tolerance; and the third thing is that they take advantage of the disagreements between these nations.

Russia must be united in this goal to eradicate global terrorism so that conventional wars with serious adversaries can resume. I obviously joke in that last part. But what is true is that it is easier to divide and conquer than to conquer. Of this I am obviously speaking of the visible divide that exists between industrialized nations such as the U.S. and Russia which makes it easier for these other players to take advantage of the situation and benefit from it for their own purposes. A divided world is exactly what they want.

The political games played for the supremacy of the region could be an indication as to what sort of plans one country or another has for that region of the world. I speak of the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, the arming of Syria and the support to Iraq by Russia, the thousand alliances that are made and broken in the region and the million of details that go with them. Let’s not forget that although the Middle East is a patch of desert in the middle of nowhere, it’s also a gold mine with  seemingly inexhaustible oil reserves that the world wants a part of. Again, nothing in this life is free. With that oil comes something even more polluting, a slew of complications that are born out of the interests of all these different groups vying for what little natural resources this tiny part of the world has.

These tensions arising from warnings between the two powers exacerbate the dire situation that we find ourselves in. Where Russia doesn’t belong, perhaps the U.S. doesn’t belong either. But in protecting the interests of the United States (I will not say “protecting democracy or the free peoples or the Middle East” or any other such nonsense), it is unlikely that the U.S. will leave the region alone anytime soon. Let’s not make the mistake of thinking that just because U.S. boots are on the ground close to Russia that the Russians will just walk away. It’s not gonna happen. But is that enough to spark a war between the two countries? I am very skeptical that it will. Russia, like the United States, will protect its interests wherever it sees fit, interests that everyday are threatened more and more with the looming shadow of the Islamic State. If Russia vows to drive away these terrorists, you can be sure that its actions will also turn it into a target for ISIS, just like anyone else.

Although the situation that we find ourselves in is infinitely more complex than it was during the Cold War, I believe that through cooperation the enemy can be defeated. I do not forget that Russian authorities warned the F.B.I. about Tamerlan Tsarnaev (one of the Boston Marathon bombers) before he entered the U.S.- and the United States and its allies shouldn’t forget either. Admittedly, we dropped the ball on that one and civilians were murdered. But the cooperation was there.

If there’s anything that we should be thankful for now is that ISIS has grown to be big enough to spot. However, as big and mighty as the U.S. military is, if we want to deal effectively with global terrorism we will need all the help we can get. That’s a little hard to do when you are fighting wars all over with the people having the same problem as you. Not only must we appear united against terrorism but we must actually be united.

 

5. Common Sense: The Worst Is Over

 

Back in the 60s, the Cuban Missile Crisis brought the U.S. and Russia to the brink of destruction. The world watched nail-bitingly as President Kennedy and Soviet Premier Khrushchev faced off in the highest tensions the world had seen since the Iron Curtain came down over Europe.

Before the United States unveiled humanity’s deadliest weapon by dropping it on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and thus evaporating more than 200,000 people, the world was a bit more ballsy, going in and out of conflicts without much care for the people that fought them. But when the mushroom cloud rose high in the sky, it was obvious that this new weapon was a game changer in many ways. The Russians feared that the delicate balance of power had shifted dramatically and they worked arduously to produce an atom bomb of their own to counter the threat that they faced from the West.

By the time the Cuban Missile Crisis came around nearly 20 years after the invention of the atom bomb, both the United States and the U.S.S.R. were siting on a pile of about 20,000 nuclear and hydrogen bombs (an even more powerful weapon) and ICBMs*. [1] Although more than 18,000 of those were owned by the U.S., the other 2,000 that Soviet Russia owned was still a large enough stockpile to pulverize everything on the planet.

Fortunately for mankind none of those nukes were ever launched. It was then that humanity realized that the huge boulder hanging over their heads was held by nothing more than a thin thread with two men holding the scissors. During these early years of the Cold War, there was a very serious probability that by the end of the decade the world would be in ashes. Even after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the proliferation of nuclear weapons continued to massive levels peaking at 62,000 nuclear weapons, enough to destroy the entire planet many times over.

The scary thing is that while the C.M.C. was probably the closest we ever came to annihilation, it was not the only close call. There are at least five others, not one but two of them involving serious computer malfunctions that nearly caused us to bomb the shit out of each other, situations only averted by the good reasoning of soldiers from both sides that no doubt did not wish their two countries go to war. This mutual sentiment of coexistence surely contributed to the dismantling of nuclear weapons and the beginning of cooperation between the two countries with programs like SALT, after a tired and scared world counted the days until one leader or the other decided to end countless lives and kill every living thing at the push of a button.

To many it might seem like an ironic and dark twist of fate that during the Cold War the world was probably due to the very delicate balance of power protected by nuclear deterrence from both sides. However, this illusion of balance was maintained solely through fear. The M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) protocol dictated as much, and both countries were well aware of the kind of mayhem that they would be causing should a real war between them would ever happen. Although proxy wars of more conventional fare were fought and many people did die, at the very least we can say that the world did not disappear in the blink of an eye.

Even before the end of the Cold War, both the Americans and the Soviets began making progress to reduce the amount of W.M.D.s each possessed and continued working together well after it. One of the strongest indications that peace between the two countries will remain, at least at the non-nuclear level, is that we’ve been through it before and both nations know of each other’s capabilities to wage a war with the capacity to destroy everything and everyone on the planet.

Today many protocols and organizations exist solely to avoid the doomsday clock from ever reaching midnight. For fear that the 20,000 nuclear weapons that the U.S. and Russia still have might spark a nuclear war that most likely will drag most other countries in, these organizations and even the leaderships of our countries, I believe will work to eliminate every option before going to blows with each other.

 

The Importance of ‘Probably’

 

Although the Ruso-Ukrainian situation is severely hindering any effort for Russia to regain its seat as part of the G8, and exacerbating a terrible situation that is starting to turn our worst nightmares into realities, I believe there is still hope that a war can be averted.

This past Sunday a ceasefire devised by Germany’s Merkel and France’s Hollande and agreed upon by Russia’s Putin and Ukraine’s Poroshenko began between the Russian separatists and the Ukrainian military. Until now the truce has held sporadically, and some fighting still continues, some say at the behest of Putin who doesn’t seem to be all that serious about keeping the truce. Where the West is concerned, most of Ukraine would rather belong to the European union rather than form part of the Russian bloc that seems to be resurging. The Russians are well aware of this, but fearing that Ukraine will join NATO, Putin seems to be utterly prepared to hold the country at ransom to prevent that from ever happening. Crimea and now other parts of Ukraine under the control of the separatists are that leverage.

ukraine russia and europe

 

This all sounds very grave, but it seems that neither side is 100% ready to officially christen the follow-up to the first Cold War by starting a proxy war. If my dad were to tell me that he believes that another Cold War already broke out, to a certain degree I would feel inclined to agree with him, all the symptoms are there after all. But just as the United States feels that arming Kiev, secretly or openly, is the first step to a war, Russia also knows the consequences of arming the rebels. And each knows that what both are doing is just pushing that clock closer and closer to midnight.

While I base my opinion on what I observe, my entire argument also rests on something that is completely beyond my control, on the hope that both countries maintain some sort of civility and clear headedness through every step that as nations of power have to forcibly and inevitably engage in to resolve this.

To bet against this is stupid to the point of irrationality. People need to remember just how incredibly frail is this relative peace we have today, and how much we have to work to improve it. You must make the effort to see the reasons I’ve listed as the only barriers against global war and be alarmed at the fact that these things are what’s keeping the world “safe”, as if we had nothing else to base peace on but threats. It’s shameful that it is a sad reality to consider the new normal. Again.

Reality proves that there are those who are more right than others, but the United States as well as Russia need to engage in honest, purposeful diplomatic conversation to avert another major political and military disaster a mere 15 years into this new century.

Hopefully, the next time I talk with my dad, this reality I speak of will not be so grim.  Hopefully the talk will remain hypothetical and nothing else. Hopefully neither one will ever have to find out which side would win because make no mistake, no one will win, least of all the people who have little or no say in their country’s policy. Hopefully “probably” is enough to stop the world from tearing itself apart. Hopefully.

 

Bibliography

 

[1] “Historical Nuclear Weapons Stockpiles and Nuclear Tests By Country.” Wikipedia.com. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Last modified 8 January 2015, at 11:26. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_stockpiles_and_nuclear_tests_by_country. Accessed 18 February, 2015.

 

Definitions

 

*Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles allows for a cross-continent payload delivery, which is a missile with several warheads that has the capacity to reach targets across the world.

**G7- The group of seven allied economic powers which include the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the United States, Canada, and Japan.

*** North Korea’s official name is DPRK or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

 

Interesting Articles to Read

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/16/falling-rouble-all-you-need-to-know

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/world/europe/imf-approves-17-5-billion-bailout-for-ukraine.html?_r=0

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/71413/s-walter-washington/mexican-resistance-to-communism

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/peace-agreement-proves-putin-lying-221700335.html

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2014/03/21/will-china-choose-russia-or-america-in-the-coming-war/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race

http://www.historytoday.com/vladimir-batyuk/end-cold-war-russian-view

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/timeline-ukraine-political-crisis-201431143722854652.html

http://news.yahoo.com/cold-war-us-russia-fight-191709484.html

http://news.yahoo.com/rebels-ukrainian-forces-agree-humanitarian-corridor-082121426.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2014/03/05/7-reasons-why-america-will-never-go-to-war-over-ukraine/

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/16/ukraines-military-is-stronger-than-believed-heres-what-it-needs-to-win/?utm_source=Facebook

The Gays, the Atheists, and the Government

Gay Marriage Concept with Rainbow Rings.

 

As the fight for marriage equality among same-sex couples rages on in the battle-ground of America, and more states join the 35 that already made marriage for the LGBT community legal, there are still those that hold on to old stigmas and refuse to join the progressive consensus that yes, after much deliberation, gay people are still humans and as such they also have the right to marry whomever they please.

As of now, six Southern states are waiting for a “pro” ruling on continuing litigation, while another four await the decision from appellate courts for an “against” ruling. While this is going on, five other states have a strict marriage ban that is expected to be challenged in court soon as more lawsuits pour in. [1] But while these numbers seem optimistic for the LGBT community as the long fight for marriage-equality begins to wind down, the real fight that few talk about is being waged against our own family and our own friends in schoolrooms and in the living rooms of America, and one can’t help but wonder, why is there so much hatred towards homosexuals?

 

LGBT

 

Have you ever heard of the Russian punk band Pussy Riot? No? Well the Russians have, and Putin never did like punk music.

The band, a group of seven raging feminists, came under severe government scrutiny after they staged a series of unauthorized concerts with strong anti-government, anti-religion, anti-anti-sexism, and anti-establishment messages that, no doubt, infuriated Putin and his government. Two of the members were arrested and following several protests and other arrests, high profile human rights organizations became involved claiming that the government had crossed a line by imposing anti-gay laws.

On  December 29, 2014, Dmitry Medvedev, the Prime Minister of Russia (Pretty much Putin’s puppet), signed into law a proposal that bans homosexuals in the country from driving on the grounds that they are “sexual deviants” with “mental problems”. Now, that of course sounds absolutely ridiculous and, if it could even be possible, makes our bigots sound like liberals, but it’s true. [2]

photo credit: Rasande Tyskar via photopin cc Feminist protestors demanding the release of incarcerated Pussy Riot members

photo credit: Rasande Tyskar via photopin cc
Feminist protestors demanding the release of incarcerated Pussy Riot members

That kind of stuff is not so rare in Russia as it is in Europe. But Russia is also not the worst place to be if you’re a homosexual. For example in most countries in Africa and the Middle-East, being gay is not only illegal, it is life-threatening. Most (or should I say all?) theocratic Muslim countries make it punishable by death to be a homosexual, and most people netted under these laws are not only killed, but many are tortured and imprisoned for several years beforehand. This Wikipedia page has a very good graphic on the legality of homosexuality around the world- don’t get your hopes up, humanity is still pretty fucked up.

Here in the United States though, with marches and demonstrations and letters to policy-makers and celebrities coming out of the closet, there’s plenty of attention being focused on this issue of sex-equality and same-sex marriage. The movement is beginning to see light at the end of a very long tunnel that for many will remain dark and stretch on indefinitely simply because it is a fight they do not want to be a part of and would rather remain silent.

Right now, there is still a large number of people that do not and will never identify themselves as LGBT, whether it is to conserve “family values”, because of societal pressure, fear from recrimination from their parents and friends, due to the current state of the law, religious affiliation, etc- for any of these reasons and many more there are people who are not willing to speak up for their own rights, or those of others and wish to remain anonymous; and truly who could blame them? The horrible torture that is having to live with that type of discrimination is something that should be considered psychological abuse, and something which not a lot of us can relate to.

Last month transgender teen Leelah Alcorn killed herself after feeling like there was absolutely no way out of her struggle. I will not elaborate further on that story which you can find here. But I will say that if brave people like Leelah are still discriminated to the point of suicide in such a “progressive” society as many claim the United States to be, then there is something inherently wrong with us as a country that we have to mend immediately.

The struggle for marriage equality and gay rights goes beyond politics, it is at its core a debilitating struggle in the search of human dignity and compassion between those who are right and those who are wrong. When the question begins to explore human suffering/well-being in this particular subject, there is hardly ever an in-between gray area where conformists and opportunists go to hide, there is just a plain black-or-white field between those who wish to subjugate humans and those who fight for equality.

Copyright © (insert year of original publication) Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. The content is used with permission; however, Gallup retains all rights of republication.

Copyright © (2014) Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. The content is used with permission; however, Gallup retains all rights of republication.

Copyright © (insert year of original publication) Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. The content is used with permission; however, Gallup retains all rights of republication.

Copyright © (2014) Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. The content is used with permission; however, Gallup retains all rights of republication.

 

But when the last gavel eventually allows same-sex marriage in all fifty states, not only will it be a huge victory for the LGBT community, but it will be a victory for everyone.

It is hardly a secret that the fight for and against gay marriage is built on two platforms that basically wind down to secularism versus religious ideology. After all, there is not a significant portion of the secular majority who are against marriage-equality; all fingers seem to point then to a Christian-based bunch who see gay marriage, and gay rights in general, as an abomination dead-set on defying god’s law and the word of the Bible. And while a large portion of the gay community is also religious, the type of religion that they interpret and the kind that the other half practices is very different. But this religious defiance goes beyond the shortened-reach of organized religion in an increasingly secular America, it affects politics to the core.

 

The Atheists

 

As more and more regions of America wage a war of ideologies to put the final dot in the last chapter of the separation of church and state, it seems that that religious defiance will boost yet another platform that is gaining ground all over the world and especially here in the United States. That is the new-atheist movement.

The differences between homosexuals and atheists are wide, but there are also many similarities that tie both groups together. For example, gays are born gay and the only thing they can choose to do is to either come out or stay closeted. Atheists have a similar problem, however their ideas are based entirely on logical conclusions and they can choose to either voice their disconetent or not. Although as an atheist I could make the case that we, too, are born atheist and are only indoctrinated by force.

Just like homosexuals, atheists are also fighting a battle for their rights, and it is hard to know which group is more hated in the U.S. right now, homosexuals or atheists. Although I think it’s safe to say that both are undesirable here and abroad. To this day, atheists in some states are not allowed to hold public office. And in many countries atheists run an equal risk of being detained, tortured, and murdered for their beliefs, or rather lack thereof as homosexuals.

All of this does not mean that the atheist movement is hijacking the noble purpose that the LGBT community is fighting for- the recognition of human rights for all humans- but it also doesn’t mean that the atheist movement is devoid of content, it just means that without adding too much emphasis on one or the other, both issues are civil rights issues and in many ways also human rights issues.

In the political world however, the way these things unfold will determine just how much power the government has at its disposal to interfere in the lives of ordinary citizens, and where it sees itself in the future as more people seem to juggle between the need for the government to protect their individual rights and liberties, and the claim to want a smaller government.

Republican elephant over bright background

In the United States, the bloc that wants to keep marriage “pure and traditional (one man one woman)”, is represented by none other than the Republican party, which is religiously composed of mainstream Protestant Christians who see no shame in denouncing homosexuality as “an abomination” to defend the views of their constituents in public forum. These are also the same people who claim to be the defenders of small government and who ideologically despise government intrusion while at the same time they seek better ways to expand government watch over citizens and expand influence quite callously. This hypocrisy is exacerbated by the PR arm of the Republican Party which is of course- and you guessed it right- Fox “news”. We all know this. What we don’t communally realize is that every time there is an attack on this establishment, we move forward towards a state of prosperity that has nothing to do with religious rule (which is to say religious bigotry) that shouldn’t be there in the first place. This opens the door to discuss other issues of great importance and impact: the right for women to control their bodies, drug legalization, the environment, etc.

 

The Government 

 

But the question remains burning in our minds: how is it that in this day and age, we are still fighting for civil rights when not fighting for them only benefits a minority- to the detriment of the rest of us? What does the government gain in all this?

At first, the question seems a bit offensive. Indeed it’s a disappointing question to ask for two reasons. First, what we are implying is that not everyone’s wishes or opinions count in a democratic society, merely the majority’s. And second, we are admitting that that there is something fundamentally flawed in our society that the national conversation has to remain fixated on a fight that should have been settled long ago, and that is only still alive by means of societal discrimination. As for the government gaining anything, well anyone that poses the question of “What does the government want?” is sure to lose that fight, even with himself.

photo credit: theslowlane via photopin cc LGBT Rights around the world in protest

photo credit: theslowlane via photopin cc
LGBT Rights around the world in protest

In most non-Muslim countries, the institution of marriage goes beyond that of a religious ritual. Legally speaking, it’s a way for a two people to be represented equally as an entity. It gives people the legal right to represent each other or to conduct each other’s affairs should one of the parties ever becomes incapacitated. It’s a way to recognize your legal right to choose your life partner based on your own decision as an adult. And it is a way to designate a legal guardian of all your assets and possessions. And of course, one of the most important reasons, to have the ability to adopt and raise children with the full backing and knowledge of the government. Whether you choose to get married by the church or not, in the eyes of the law those who marry by civil court only, are afforded these privileges. However, in America and many other Western countries, where the separation of church and state is not a complete process, or doesn’t appear to be fully implemented, it seems that religious bigotry affects the legal status of millions and the right for those law-abiding citizens to exercise the same rights everyone else is not afforded to them.

It is an insult that there is an uproar when two consenting and conscious adults of any sex want to marry because they violated the rules of “traditional marriage” when Utah’s libidinous Mormon pastors can fool congregations of men and women into thinking that they are entitled by divine ordainment to have more than one wife or to sleep with the wives of their congregations. It is a disgrace that soldiers coming back from whatever duty their country required them to perform are met with hostility and have to fight for their rights when they already fought for ours. It is a applauded that the military (a very conservative organization) has openly welcomed homosexuals into their ranks and we still can’t stand to see two men or two women get married.

And for the government to have any role whatsoever in how these consenting adults conduct their private business is the epitome of big government.

My question is, what seems to motivate politicians to take the uncomfortable position of “defenders of morality” and stand in front of the proverbial entrance of equality to block the way for homosexuals to claim their full rights under the law? If we think about it, holding this type of bold position would seem to be political suicide, so why aren’t they all rushing to join the ranks of the other type of politicians who support marriage equality even if they don’t agree with it themselves? Could they hope to sway public opinion of their own constituents, even if the majority of constituents calls for change, merely to satisfy their religious leanings; or are the church’s political contributions just way too juicy to pass up?

According to this Pew Research (which I will invoke again in other blog posts), 151 members of the House of Representatives in Congress (87 Democrats and 164 Republicans) identify as Protestants, 138(68 Democrats and 70 Republicans) denominate themselves as Catholic, while the remaining 41 memebers of the House claim other denominations of Christianity and other religions. In the Senate 55 are Protestant (17 Democrats and 38 Republicans) and 26 members are Catholic (15 Democrats and 11 Republicans), while the rest identify themselves as Mormon (7), Jewish (9), and Buddhist (1). By showing you these facts, I am not in any way indicating that religious affiliation has anything to do bigotry, but I’m merely pointing out that those who are heavily influenced by their religions tend to make irrational decisions that otherwise would be logical conclussions to very simple issues: homosexuals are human beings and they deserve to have the same rights as everyone else. Period.

 

Reformation

 

I am not oblivious to the fact that all over America there are still pockets of discrimination towards certain groups of people (i.e. homophobia, xenophobia, classism, anti-semitism, all-out racism, etc.), and I understand that bad habits die hard, but I would imagine that as a fairly young nation- both in terms of the age of people and historically- we would be fairly more progressive and open-minded. But it seems that we are falling behind Europe in this issue. I would imagine it’s because the religions that migrated from Europe took a strong foothold here in America, while the Europeans started to see what a sham they all were and progressed faster towards equality, but that’s just my opinion.

But let’s also not take away the successes of homosexuals in bringing about change in policy all by themselves. They have fought hard battles in and outside of the political arena to get people to identify themselves (not that they should) so that we can truly know their numbers and where they stand as a slice of the population. Harvey Milk himself was hailed as a hero in this fight, and to be completely honest, had it not been for the movie, a lot of people including myself wouldn’t have known about him and his work.

But the fact is that now a younger and increasingly left-leaning population is taking account of the situation and wanting to do something about it. These are the progressive youth that spearhead a movement of equality and change in all arenas of national conversation. More and more we are seeing change happen all over the United States and in many other parts of the world as the fights for equality rage on. Even the Catholic Church under Pope Francis (a rather amiable Pope if I may) has brought about a sudden reformation in its ranks that it hasn’t seen for many years; whether it is to appear amiable and reformed in light of all the recent church scandals (child-abusing priests, money laundering, etc), or to counteract dwindling church attendance, it is clear that they are being forced to adapt to a world less and less dependent on organized religion. Will we see the same type of reformation in other denominations of Christianity here in the U.S.?

But even though I am against marriage as a whole, let’s look at the arguments posed forth against same-sex marriage:

1. The traditional family is threatened with same-sex parents

First of all, that’s a stupid positon to take since there is no evidence that a “traditional family” model even exists. The traditional American family is an illusion created by the media in the 1950s and 60s. But if the people taking this position mean a traditional family where you find a mother, a father and kids, then it is still a vacuous place to start.

There is extensive evidence to show that homosexual marriages are just as effective at raising competent, law-abiding citizens as heterosexual marriages (which half of them end in divorce), perhaps even more so due to the fact that they voluntarily decided to be parents. Although there are studies out there that contradict these findings, most of the science is correct in this issue.

Oh and then there’s this…

If it’s good enough for god to weigh in on, then it’s good enough for me!

2. Gay marriage will hurt children and turn them homosexual

This is perhaps the most backwards argument that people have against gay marriage. Even if homosexuality was something you could choose, what business is it of people to decide what they do with their own bodies provided they are not hurting anyone else?

But besides this stupidly-held position, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the children of gay couples will grow up to be gay (provided that it isn’t in their genes to begin with). Besides, children are already extensively bullied by other children, why would they voluntarily give bullies just one more reason to get picked on, and no it’s not a learned behavior.

According to Dr. Michael Bailey, professor of the Psychology Department in Northwestern University in Chicago, and his study on the genetics associated with homosexuals, have confirmed, or at least re-confirmed, that “Genetic factors account for between 30% and 40% of what decides whether a man is gay or straight…” while other factors such as chemicals in the womb and prenatal care can affect the sexual orientation of a person. Choice, it seems, is not a part of any process of a man or a woman’s sexual orientation.

3. The Bible clearly….

I stopped right there simply because anything that points to anything religious is bound to fail. I can, and will, provide several rules also observed in the bible and in the Koran that point to crimes much more severe perpetuated in the name of religion that null the entire argument altogether.

I find it interesting how people usually rush to quote the bible but many don’t even know the ten commandments, let alone any other rules.

Just for fun, let’s go over some of these. Oh and if you truly observe the Bible as the unerring word of god then the women reading this can never teach or have authority over a man (Timothy 2:11), and you as a man cannot go into church if you have a wounded penis, no testicles, or erectile dysfunction for that matter (Deuteronomy 23:1)). Just saying. Okay here we go:

“Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” (Luke 16:18)

Better not get divorced or you’re sure to land in hell after death.

“A bitched shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.” (Deuteronomy 23:2)

A bitched in this context refers to someone born outside of wedlock, what they used to call bastards in the good ol’ days. So if you or anyone within ten generations was born out of wedlock, you’re fucked. Oh and if your kids were born outside of marriage, your family will be doomed until your great great great great great great great great-grandson or grand-daughter are born. Unless they get divorced or have malfunctioning genitals or have a vagina.

“If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, 28 then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. 29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters.”(Leviticus 26:27-30)

This one I actually agree with and plan to exercise as soon as I have kids. Basically if your kids are unruly… eat them.

And with that I rest my case.

4. It is unnatural

What exactly is unnatural? Because if we are talking about homosexuality, then simply by being something that we do as humans and creatures that are part of the natural world, then it is natural. Same sex unions are found in every species throughout the animal kingdom. And I know what a defender is going to say next, “But we should know better!” Why exactly? Aside from the religious bullshit that they are going to diarrhea out of their mouths then I have no intention on listening. I am more interested in the scientific reasons of why it happens. This is a completely normal behavior to engage in and in no way does it affect or degrade the human body.

This is a very common position to take when the minority does not act the way the majority does. Yes it has happened throughout the ages with people that are not part of the majority, with people of dark complexion, homosexuals, women, even left-handed people- they all suffer from the discrimination of the masses around them. Left handed people are even fewer in numbers than homosexuals, would you say that’s unnatural? “No because they can’t help it.” Good thing you admit that. Neither can homosexuals.

5. They will turn everyone gay

How exactly? Again there’s no evidence to show that people who aren’t born already gay will magically turn gay. Obviously gays aren’t allowed to multiply so that’s ruled out. However, if you start feeling a little gay, go on and act on it, just to make sure. But please, for the sake of being a human, leave people alone.

Next time you encounter a homosexual please be decent to them, just like they have no idea about the struggles you have been through, you also don’t know about theirs. If you disagree with the ugly parts of your religion, then please adhere to the good messages of the Bible or the Koran or whatever holy book you choose to follow. We all have opinions of people, but unless you are asked or harmed, keep those opinions to yourself, after all we are all human and we all want the same things for ourselves and for ours: respect, love, opportunity. It doesn’t mean that you have to be friends with them, or even like them, just stay out of their way.

Decency to others is nothing less than our highest most admirable trait, the very thing that makes us human, it is the essence of it expressed through peace.

And now I leave you with one of my favorite bits by the great philosopher-comic Louis C.K. Enjoy!

.

.

.

Bibliography

[1] http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/

[2] http://auto.ndtv.com/news/transgenders-and-homosexuals-can-t-drive-in-russia-725614

.

For more info check out these links:

https://gaycenter.org/

http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org/

http://news.yahoo.com/idaho-governor-appeals-gay-marriage-case-us-supreme-202150225.html;_ylt=A0SO80r8m6lUnKgAmDJXNyoA?_sm_au_=iVV65bRF4QrkknHH

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/10/06/legal-argument-over-gay-marriage-is-all-but-over/

1 (800) 273-8255- NATIONAL SUICIDE PREVENTION LIFELINE