Political Games and Media Twisting

As someone who firmly values liberty and justice, I am quite excited to see how well Rand Paul fared in the Kentucky primaries earlier this week. Given that our senate is quite out of control, and is currently filled with corrupt individuals who cater to corporate whims and seek to expand government intervention, I strongly believe that if there is to be any hope for America, we must elect officials who take firm stances against more unjust government intervention into people's lives. As such, I wholeheartedly support and endorse Rand Paul's senate campaign.

Of course, the corrupt liberal media is opposed to anything related to freedom or integrity. As such, they are more than happy to twist his words and write headlines that are blatantly and knowingly false. Here in the news, Rand Paul is reported as drawing fire for stating his views on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. While he does oppose discrimination in the public realm and in politics, he also believes that privately-owned businesses should have every right to choose whom they wish to hire. Discrimination laws, in his opinion, should not extend to private businesses. Now, the media posted a new article with the headline, "Paul changes course, now supports Civil Rights Act in full." Of course, this most certainly isn't what Rand Paul himself said in any interview or public statement.

As usual, the media has no qualms with directly twisting peoples' words and stances to fit the media's own institutional agendas, no matter how much deception and blatant dishonestly is used in the process. Rand Paul's stance is concerned with the laws that impact the liberties of business owners, while the politically-correct media seeks to frame the issue in terms of racism. At first, when I read that second headline, I felt disappointed that Rand Paul would backpedal on his stance on the issue. Then, in researching it more, I discovered that he hadn't backpedaled at all. The lies that are daily fed to us require a skeptical mind and willingness to search for the truth in order to overcome. Especially when they are the covering issues of any importance, the media is more likely to lie and twist the facts than not. Be wary!

Tyrannical Housing Act

As my roommate will be moving out at the end of January, I have begun the hunt for a new roommate. Ordinarily I would try to find a close friend to live with, but at the moment I don't really have that luxury since all of my closest friends either don't earn enough money to afford living on their own, or don't want to pay for a place when they can live at home for free. Given the present condition of the economy and the housing costs in my little part of the world, I really don't blame them. In addition to letting several of my social groups know of the available room, I also thought it would be prudent to post a few online ads. I was just about to start posting a little ad on Craigslist, which I've had much success with in the past, when I was confronted with the pleasant little warning:

Fair Housing is Everyone's Right!

Stating a discriminatory preference in a housing post is illegal.

When making any posting on craigslist, you must comply with section 3604(c) of the Federal Fair Housing Act. This law generally prohibits stating, in any notice or ad for the sale or rental of a dwelling, a discriminatory preference based on any of the following protected categories:

Race or Color
National Origin
Religion
Sex
Familial Status
Handicap / Disability

--You can be fined more than $10,000 for each discriminatory ad, plus damages in court, plus loss of license if you are a professional

--Avoid phrases which could be interpreted as discriminating by race/color/origin (e.g. 'hispanic area'), religion (e.g. 'christian home'), age / familial status (e.g. 'no kids'), disability, sexual orientation, or source of income

As bad as that is, for my state they have even stricter restrictions. Even stating a preference for age is illegal, such that I could be fined $10,000. Of course, this all completely goes against anything remotely akin to common sense! Not only can I not state what sort of roommates I will and won't allow to live with me, I am not even permitted to state ANY preferences about what sort of person I would like to live with. Now, perhaps if I were a business owner renting my properties to the masses, I can possibly grasp what possessed our egalitarian politicians to create such a law. But, as an individual who does not even own my own property, and will necessarily be sharing my domain with another human being for at least a few months, this "Fair Housing Act" cannot possibly be seen as anything but tyrannical.

Given that one's home is such a sacred and vital place, it is essential that one's roommate be someone who is easy to get along with, who communicates well and who treats the apartment with respect. Beyond those basic essentials, it's a nice bonus if you have a roommate whose presence you actually enjoy. It goes without question that one must be selective in process of choosing a roommate. As such, I really don't see the point in making such selectiveness illegal. It makes no sense! Not only does it not prevent any discrimination from occurring (since I'll choose whoever I damn want to, thank you very much!), but it also makes the entire roommate-finding process needlessly more cumbersome. Since I cannot state any preferences regarding age or lifestyle, I'll have to filter more people out than I would if I could clearly state my criteria in my ad.

Thank you, oh gloriously tyrannical legislatures, for stripping me of my freedom and wasting the time of both my prospective future roommates and myself! Keep writing such marvelous laws that herald the ceaseless progression of our nation towards its new egalitarian utopian form!

Discrimination Is Necessary For Social Reform

Today I just read an interesting and controversial article by Laura Wood, entitled Why We Must Discriminate. In it, she argues that for gender roles to be restored, for families to begin heading towards healing rather than towards the increasing dysfunction that is rampant in America, and for the resultant good of our nation, the legal environment must be changed in order to allow businesses to utilize customary discrimination and favor hiring men. In her own words:

First and foremost, we must restore customary economic discrimination in favor of men. America’s businesses and institutions must be free once again to favor men over women in hiring. If they are not, family life will never return to a reasonable state of health; the happiness of women and children will continue to decline; and men will fail to flourish and prosper.

Customary discrimination, in relation to the sexes, is the voluntary and informal practice of favoring men over women in hiring. It is not encoded in law or enforced by regulation. It exists as a result of a common understanding that men must support families and cannot adequately do so if they compete with large numbers of women, a form of competition that lowers their wages and reduces their marketability. The relative stagnation of men’s wages in the last 50 years proves the point.

I haven't read many articles specifically advocating discrimination, and I happen to agree with her argument. The truth is, feminism has been economically and socially detrimental to individuals, families and communities. Having gender-focused anti-discrimination laws does benefit businesses, but at the expense of everyone else. Personally, I believe that anti-discrimination laws of all sorts distort incentives, reduce liberty and encourage a flawed understanding of the concept of legal equality.

Specifically regarding women in the workforce, feminism may have initially appeared to be liberating. By allowing women to choose whether they pursue a family or choose a career, the apparent effect is that women have more freedom. When women first began entering the work force, it was economically advantageous for a family to earn a second income. The male provider already earned enough money to provide for his family and so adding a secondary income substantially boosted discretionary income. However, by nearly doubling the supply of labor, the equilibrium price of labor dropped dramatically. Because of the artificially low market value of labor, men and women both earn less money than if the labor market were limited to just men or just women. This decline in real income almost necessitates two incomes. Since men earn substantially less than they did before women entered the market, the amount of money needed to adequately provide for a family living in modern America is nearly equal to two full-time incomes. This means that with the rare exception of men who are wealthy, for most families, neither parent can afford to be jobless. While previously women had the option of having a job or staying at home and raising a family, now they are required to work, just to make ends meet. The resultant effect of feminism is that while previously most women didn't work, now most don't have the option of not working. Nearly twice as much work is required to earn the same amount of real income.

As bad as the economic aspect of women working is, the social effects of this are where the real harm lies. Since most women must work, they have significantly less time to spend raising children, making a difference in the world, and savoring life. There is less time for familial relationships, less time for being involved in the local community, less time to spend teaching children how to life virtuous lives, and less time for relaxation and personal hobbies. The lack of all these things serves to increase stress, decrease family unity, decrease enjoyment of life, decrease non-business related social development, and decrease the quality of childrens' education. Women's loss of social freedom and social influence is a major loss for them, directly, and for men and children, indirectly. Presently, there is a culture bias against women remaining at home and raising their families full-time. Educational instutitions and businesses profit from women in the workforce.

Why would women ever accept a return to discrimination?

The end of customary discrimination was never in the interests of women. It has forced the majority to help support their families while raising their children and managing a home. The experiment was tried. The apple was eaten. Women now see that careers come with personal costs and that many jobs are not as thrilling as feminists claim. They are ready to embrace discrimination again.

I think Laura is absolutely right. Right now, for the sake of individuals and families, America desperately needs to revoke anti-discrimination hiring laws and businesses need to intentionally choose to hire men over women. Gender discrimination is 100% necessary for America to begin true social reform. The health of our nation, the happiness of our people, the morality of our citizens, and the cohesion of our families depend on it. Let us discriminate intentionally and assertively, without apology!

Mixed Messages

As I read about the Supreme Court's ruling regarding some firefighters suing for reverse-discrimination, I couldn't help but think how ridiculous many of our modern racial ideas and policies are. In this particular case, I believe that Supreme Court made the right decision. However, the current civil rights environment makes even ordinaryily simple employment and promotion practices quite complex.

Here is a brief summary of the origins of the lawsuit:

Monday's decision has its origins in New Haven's need to fill vacancies for lieutenants and captains in its fire department. It hired an outside firm to design a test, which was given to 77 candidates for lieutenant and 41 candidates for captain.

Fifty-six firefighters passed the exams, including 41 whites, nine blacks and six Hispanics. But of those, only 17 whites and two Hispanics could expect promotion.

The city eventually decided not to use the exam to determine promotions. It said it acted because it might have been vulnerable to claims that the exam had a "disparate impact" on minorities in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The white firefighters said the decision violated the same law's prohibition on intentional discrimination. The lawsuit was filed by 20 white plaintiffs, including one man who is both white and Hispanic.

In some ways, the city was truly caught between a rock and a hard place. Ironically, their decision to not use the exam, which was made as an intentional effort to avoid any sort of discrimination lawsuits, resulted in being sued for discrimination. If they had used the exam, they were afraid of being sued by those minorities who wouldn't have received promotions, and since they didn't use the exam, they were sued by those who non-minorities who felt unfairly treated simply because they were white. Between the flurry of frivilous litigation and the catch-22 nature of modern laws, life is needlessly complicated for everyone; rather than eliminating racially-oriented motivations, the public awareness and touchniess has been heightened.

In my opinion, anti-discrimination laws are quite unreasonable and unjust to begin with. And, even if they were reasonable, they often serve to cause the opposite of the desired effect. The goal of anti-discrimination laws is to result in a nation where all people are treated with equal dignity and respect, regardless of their unchangable differences. Therefore, a person should be treated differently if he has black skin than if he has white skin. A woman should not be treated differently simply because she is a woman. It's a great goal. People should be viewed as individuals and not merely as members of their racial group.

However, all of the various anti-discrimination laws that are passed force employers and businesses to very intentionally recognize and view each individual not simply as a person, but as a member of their racial group. Businesses have to bend over backwards to ensure their hiring choices present an image of being racially accepting and to ensure that there is sufficient racial diversity among employees. These laws accomplish the opposite of what they are intended to do. While trying to squelch unequal treatment and ensure that people are seen simply as individuals, the effects of such laws are that a different sort of unequal treatment takes place and all individuals are seen not as individuals but, specifically, as members of their racial group. You see this sort of thing in surveys, on standardized tests, in college admission practices and in the workplace. People are forced (or at least strongly encouraged) to report their racial origins. This reporting which is supposed to eliminate artificial distinctions only serves to further establish and propagate such backwards thinking.

I'm happy that some people are standing up and complaining about it. And, I'm happy that our Supreme Court affirmed that even people who are in majority racial groups should not be mistreated solely based on their race.


UPDATE - I can't say I'm too surprised to see this article today. Of course employers are going to be confused about our nation's odd double standards. Real shocker!

"Employers will now face a convoluted minefield when attempting to protect workers from discrimination," Henderson said. "Employers are looking for bright lines ... they're looking for clear directives to help them better understand how they can engage in nondiscriminatory decisions."

"In the meantime, we're scratching our heads," she said. "We're concerned about the impact on employers who want to comply with the law and do not want to discriminate ... and it's not clear how to do that."