Dovetail

Every 4 years about Inauguration time I start to think about what we need to move forward in the country we love, America. I’m not a political person, I’m about as middle of the road as a person can be. As far as joining any one political party, I can’t because I understand the objectives and support both sides of an issue. My personality and nature has a name, and it’s  called the “Peacemaker”.  True.  Primarily this means supporting my own inner peace but living in this world, I’d like to see peace among people, America, and the nations across our planet. If there is anyone who doesn’t, it’s time they do some serious soul searching. And maybe some counseling, too.

But this isn’t about me or the world. Right now it’s about America and it’s division. It drives me crazy. These last 4 years have been exhausting to me because you know what I’m all about. So, is there anything I can do to help this divisive relationship? Because that’s what our political style is basically two parties trying and vying to best manage and run one country, one state, or one city.  It’s not unlike a marriage. Two parties with their own unique personalities, their own backgrounds and upbringing, their own race, religion, goals, and dreams united to live in a harmonious relationship. Some are successful and some aren’t. So what makes a relationship of two entities grow and transform into a blissful union?

With Valentines Day looming I thought what a better time to seek advice to help answer this question. What I found is food for thought. If every American would contemplate, choose the mean,  and strive to improve this complicated political relationship, we might be able to work toward a peaceful union in America, the tie that binds us. 

In no particular order, this is what I found concerning behaviors that promote a good relationship:• Have honest and open communication- both parties involved in this communication needs to feel safe to allow this conversation to happen.• Show respect instead of overstepping boundaries- no attacking, no name calling, no laughing at each other’s expense (I include sarcasm here as sarcasm beyond a certain point in a relationship is a terminating act). Remember your manners within your discourse.• Be open to new ideas instead of always closed. LISTEN very carefully to each other and understand a different perspective.• Avoid accumulating negative emotions. These emotions lead to nothing but difficulty in communicating with each other. This causes angry reactions as opposed to a fruitful building of the relationship.• Treat each other as equals no matter what you may not like about the other. • Use integrity and honesty instead of deception, supremacy, manipulation, aggression, oppression, bossiness, or submissiveness. However honesty and integrity do not trump tactfulness.  Do watch your manner of expression. Manipulation by the media is a cause of our division. We have to realize it is there and must filter it out. This is a skill all responsible  citizens need and should have.  Just look at Germany in the 30’s and 40’s when one point of view was forced upon the general population. • Appreciate each other and their perspective. • Avoid being overly critical, holding grudges, criticizing every little thing or taking everything personally. • Avoid blaming. Take the blame when you’re wrong, be able to apologize, and don’t be afraid to change your mind if you’re wrong. However most issues don’t have a right or wrong, just a continuum of perspectives from left to right. In my own judgement the only wrongs are moral offenses and injustices against humanity. • Embrace your differences, understand each other’s expectations, don’t consistently put yourself and your needs first or last. Don’t try to change each other. Make the time to hear, ponder, and try to understand each other. Do not put forth unrealistic expectations of each other, accept each other as you are. • Don’t create unnecessary drama. Inflating the consequences of day to day differences should not be used as a tool because it only divides. • Do not stand in constant judgement• You must not have an us versus them mentality. • Do not betray others confidences. In other words no gossip, talking behind the other’s back, no name calling, slander or other forms of a betrayal of the relationship. • Never beat the other into a corner with ultimatives or other forms of manipulation. A good example from this last 4 years is “unfriending, ghosting, and ignoring” on social media and society. 

These seem to me as good guidelines. I think we all know these things or have heard them before.  However, do we as citizens practice them in our political relationships?  Do we practice these between friends, colleagues, and neighbors of a different political persuasion or party? Do we follow these suggestions in our social media? Maybe even more importantly do our politicians recognize and use these in their interpersonal relationships between members of the two parties as they try to do the best for our country?  They represent us, so if you see them abusing these requirements for a healthy relationship, It behooves you to let them know. It’s easy to contact our government officials so make sure you are. Furthermore call for the media, celebrities, friends, and families to discuss using these guidelines.   Instead of only focusing only on the ends, let’s focus more on the means. 

I challenge every person who reads this to strive to take the high road in this relationship between our two parties and hold others accountable too.

Wow, this is an interesting economics concept.  No wall, no immigration enforcement except to prevent terrorism and disease spread, and no immigration restriction worldwide.  Borders across the world would be open free to emigration and immigration.  Before you dismiss this concept as silly, know that there are a group of economists who think it’s a great idea.  Their reasoning is purely economics even though, in reality, there would certainly be other considerations.

The premise goes back to the era of the Statue of Liberty’s erection in 1886.  Lately there has been much spin using the quote about the tired and the poor, it’s the American way, and the statue itself.  So in that spirit, by taking a look at that time period, immigration was quite free and open.  Any restrictions were lightly enforced.  Those who chose to, were free to leave and enter anywhere in the world if they had the means.  This open border concept would return to that same practice, back to our roots so to speak.  The current systems of border control were instituted about 100 years ago after WWI for several reasons: including racism, security, and protection of citizens in wages and the welfare state.

An estimate of how much immigration would take place uses the number 640 million people who want emigrate.  Economists feel the number to be much larger in the long run so we’re talking several billion people over a couple of generations who would emigrate and settle in the West.  America and other countries in the West would look much different. It  would stimulate increases in the global economy through productivity and perhaps even double the economy.  This boost would benefit the world’s poorest people basically eliminating poverty worldwide.  Are you still doubting this concept?

This is where it turns from economics to ethics. Today’s most accepted moral and ethical philosophy is universalism and egalitarian, in other words, every human has the same value as any other.  That belief fosters open borders.  Another, called Utilitarianism, or happiness of the individual also would promote open borders.  A hypothetical argument is: behind a veil of ignorance would any one of us design a world where everyone had an 80% chance of being born into poverty and trapped there or 20% of being born into a rich country?  That would not be likely.

The argument against open borders rejects the idealistic moral framework, describing it as a pipe-dream.  It protest that countries have existence value (losing their populations would eliminate the fabric of the culture and country itself), and most importantly, the world would lose the global goods supplied by developed countries.  It fears that mankind would be all the worse.

Knowing these two approaches you have to ask, what makes one country rich and another poor?  More importantly, how would mass movement affect global well-being?  Geographers would argue that it’s the physical place itself. If so the movement would not have much effect on productivity.  If it’s human potential then movement from one country to another would do little good.  Or it may be the presence of high quality institutions and therefore a large influx could dilute and damage the strong institutes of the West.  Consider two types of strong institutes for which the West is known: the financial and legal systems and social safety nets.  In a world with open borders the government social safety nets would have be eliminated or pared down drastically to prevent the bankruptcy of the welfare state.  Poverty would be more evident in the West where currently those in poverty are kept “comfortably” out of sight. However what the West considers poverty would be much better than what the new immigrants experienced in their old home.  It seems that the wealth-fostering institutions would be able to operate at the same or greater levels.  There are arguments for and against that premise, especially considering the sheer amount of mass movement expected.  There is no proof in history of the effect of that amount.  “So caution is reasonable.”

How much caution?  Considering the messy, harsh situation in border security on the southern border now where families are separated, lives are in peril, deportation can lead to violence, government seems to have undue power over people’s lives, and outright mistakes made in deportation all seem to contradict caution. None of it keeps immigration from stopping.  Also seeing what is expended to control immigration but does not stop it, shows the importance of coming into the country in humanitarian terms.  Amnesty to illegals also promotes the desire to immigrate illegally making illegals hopeful for amnesty in the future. Politicians lean toward a middle ground but amnesty and illegal immigration seems to be “a slippery slope” to open borders.   Economists either disdain the open border idea or love it and they disdain the idea of strict border enforcement or love it.

Arguments are made that citizens should have a right to control who comes into the country with border legislation and enforcement.  On the other hand, open border advocates want to limit the power of government to regulate who enters.  In their thoughts freedom is more important than democracy. And open borders is the expression of freedom, limited government powers, and strengthens rights.

This is an interesting concept and my thought as of now is border enforcement can’t continue as it is.  We either need to go one way or the other: a wall or open borders.  Both are extreme and opposite of each other. One protects life as we have it and the other proposes a drastic change.  One is the ethical high road but leaves us unsure of the consequences. The other is less ethical in terms of universalism but the consequences are sure.  I leave this dilemma as food for thought.  I have no answer.

I would love to sit in on a discussion of this topic with other input beyond economics.  What would politicians, religious leaders, business owners, bankers, law enforcement, ordinary citizens, etc. say about this?  It would be an interesting discussion.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2017-02-28/world-without-borders?cid=int-now&pgtype=hpg&region=br1

Wow, this is an interesting economics concept.  No wall, no immigration enforcement except to prevent terrorism, smuggling, and disease spread.  No immigration restriction worldwide.  Borders across the world would be open to free emigration and immigration.  Before you dismiss this concept as silly, know that there are a group of economists who think it’s a great idea.  The reasoning is purely economics even though, in reality, there would certainly be other considerations.

The premise goes back to the era of the Statue of Liberty’s erection in 1886.  Lately there has been much talk using the quote about the tired and the poor, it’s the American way, and the statue’s intent.  So in that spirit, after taking a look at that time period, immigration was quite free and open.  Any restrictions were lightly enforced.  Those who chose to, were free to leave and enter anywhere in the world if they had the means.  The concept of open borders would return to that same practice, back to our roots so to speak.  The current systems of border control were instituted about 100 years ago after WWI for several reasons: including racism, security, and protection of citizens in their wages and in the welfare state.

An estimate of how much immigration would take place uses an estimated number of 640 million people who desire to emigrate.  Economists feel the number to be much larger in the long run, so we’re talking several billion people over a couple of generations who would emigrate and settle in the West.  This would stimulate increases in the global economy through productivity and perhaps even double the economy.  This boost would benefit the world’s poorest people basically eliminating poverty worldwide.  Are you still doubting this concept?

This is where it turns from economics to ethics. Today’s most accepted moral and ethical philosophy is universalism and egalitarian, in other words, every human has the same value as any other.  That belief fosters open borders.  Another, called Utilitarianism, or happiness of the individual also would promote open borders.  A hypothetical argument is: behind a veil of ignorance would anyone design a world where everyone had an 80% chance of being born into poverty and trapped there or 20% of being born into a rich country?  That would not be likely.

The argument against open borders rejects the idealistic moral framework, describing it as a pipe dream.  They protest that countries have existence value (losing their populations would eliminate the fabric of the culture and country itself), and most importantly, the world would lose the global goods supplied by developed countries.  They fear mankind would be all the worse.

Knowing these two opposing beliefs you have to ask, what makes one country rich and another poor?  More importantly, how would mass movement affect global well-being?  Geographers would argue that it’s the physical place itself. If so the movement would not have much effect on productivity.  If it’s human potential then movement from one country to another would do little good.  Or it may be the presence of high quality institutions and therefore a large influx could dilute and damage the strong institutes of the West.  Consider two types of strong institutes for which the West is known: the financial and legal systems and social safety nets.  In a world with open borders the government social safety nets would have be eliminated or pared down drastically to prevent the bankruptcy of the welfare state.  Poverty would be more evident in the West where currently those in poverty are kept “comfortably” out of sight. However what the West considers poverty would be much better than the new immigrants experienced in their old home.  It seems that the wealth-fostering institutions would be able to operate at the same or greater levels.  There are arguments for and against that premise, especially considering the sheer amount of mass movement expected.  There is no proof in history of the effect of that amount.  “So caution is reasonable.”

So how much caution?  Considering the messy, harsh situation in border security on the southern border now where families are separated, lives are in peril, deportation can lead to violence, government seems to have undue power over people’s lives, and outright mistakes made in deportation all seem to contradict caution. None of it keeps immigration from stopping.  Also seeing what is expended to control immigration but does not stop it, shows the importance of coming into the country in humanitarian terms.  Amnesty to illegals also promotes the desire to immigrate illegally making illegals hopeful for amnesty in the future. Politicians lean toward a middle ground but amnesty and illegal immigration seems to be “a slippery slope” to open borders.   Economists either distain the open border idea or love it and they distain the idea of strict border enforcement or love it.

Arguments are made that citizens should have a right to control who comes into the country with border legislation and enforcement.  On the other hand, open border advocates want to limit the power of government to regulate who enters.  In their thoughts freedom is more important than democracy. And open borders is the expression of freedom, limited government powers, and strengthens rights.

This is an interesting concept and my thought as of now is border enforcement can’t continue as it is.  We either need to go one way or the other: a wall or open borders.  Both are extreme and opposite of each other. One protects life as we have it and the other proposes a drastic change.  One is the ethical high road but leaves us unsure of the consequences. The other is less ethical in terms of universalism but the consequences are sure.  I leave this dilemma as food for thought.  I have no answer.

I would love to sit in on a discussion of this topic with other input beyond economics.  What would politicians, religious leaders, business owners, bankers, law enforcement, etc. say about this?  It would be an interesting discussion.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2017-02-28/world-without-borders

I woke up this morning after dreaming about roaming through my hometown of Johnson City, New York.  I often dream about it, sometimes I’m on Main Street or, like this morning, I was by the  Endicott Johnson Shoe Company factories.  Sometimes I dream it was like it used to be.  A relatively small, vibrant community whose peoples were supported by two large industries, the shoe factory and IBM.  But more often, like today, the dream is about the present.  The dream is of empty shells of factories, boarded up businesses, abandoned buildings, decaying neighborhoods where beautiful big Victorian mansions were divided to make tenement type housing for those left in the aftermath of economic downfall.  The depressing ruin of what I once knew as my almost perfect hometown has lain heavy on my heart.  I saw the effects after returning there 10 years ago after leaving 40 years earlier for the hope of a better opportunity in life.

You know, I never really knew what my focus was in the political realm.  I voted across party lines my whole life.  I looked at an issue or a candidate and voted for whatever or whoever I thought the best without much feeling.  I was missing the passion.  I didn’t understand the passion felt by the Trump electorate in “Make America Great Again” or that of the outraged, angry party that lost the election.  I just didn’t feel the passion.  I tried to fight against it all.   I’m sorry to whoever I have shocked or offended by voicing my thoughts as I looked for meaning and feeling.

As I lay in bed this morning, the passion rose in me like a heat from an internal fire that I never felt before.  It was amazing!  It was my truth at last.  It was good, it was positive, it was empathetic, it had just made so much sense to me after my dream.  I am for people.  I am for people and their jobs.  Not just the peoples that are most commonly the issue in identity politics.  Not just the blacks, the women, the LGBT, the migrant, the illegals, the refugees, the immigrants, the uninsured or about to be uninsured etc.   Yes, I care about them.   But my passion is for a segment of society that has lost their identity.  I always intuitively felt like there was a more fundamental, yet overlooked portion of society that was missing.  Something America had discarded just like the neighborhoods, factories, and town of my youth.

These are the people who have lost their way through a decline in economic growth, they are there by the hundreds of thousands through no fault of their own.  They have been there for 50+ years.  They are unemployed, living on the government and social programs, but have no real purpose or hope in life anymore.  They are Trump voters.  Frankly, it looks like he was their last hope for economic upturn and return to dignity.  That doesn’t necessarily make me an enthusiastic Trump supporter by any means but my hope for them is that some things can change.  That they can get a job and a life back.

I didn’t just wake up and realize this.  I’ve been searching for something.  I didn’t even know what it was that I needed.  I realized that answers weren’t going to come from the media.  The media is, well, the media.  Not a source of necessarily comprehensive information.  Just spin is all it is.  Entertainment, reaffirming biases, opinions, and it mainly just touches the surface of issues.  I turned to the works of experts such as political scientists, think tank members, professors, and non-partisan political policy publications.  I learned that our politicians can’t know everything about every issue, much less journalists, or our lay population that seems to know-it-all.  You have to go to the experts.  I’m so glad I did because it gave me the deeper insights that helped me figure myself out.

I can share some of the sources that helped me figure myself out and to which I am so grateful, but that’s a blog for another day.  Good night and “Let’s Talk”.

I like to look at issues from a different perspective, especially regarding the political arena in 2017.   I’m concerned with biased information and with the Fair and/or Equal concept that I wrote about in my blog last week.  I am trying not to lean in one direction or another, in fact, I’m still trying to find my way through the backlash of liberal protests and the cringe worthy rhetoric of President Trump and his conservative supporters.  I am not sure but I don’t think it’s fair at all to the American people.  When I looked at the issue of the press briefing of Friday, Feb 24, 2017, I found certain news agencies were uninvited to the news briefing or “gaggle” and others were invited in.  So I decided to try and figure out what was fair and what was equal instead of reacting emotionally. I searched for all the press that are normally and newly involved.  I have listed those that I could find and their biases below:

The Huffington Post-Left

New York Daily News-Left Center

The Hill – Left Center

Politico-Left Center

CNN-Left Center

Washington Post-Left Center

NY Times-Left Center

LA Times-Left Center

NY Daily News- Left Center

Buzz Feed-Left Center

Time Magazine-Left Center

BBC- Left Center

Bloomberg-Left Center

CBS-Left Center

NBC-Left Center

ABC-Left Center

Reuters-Least Biased

AP-Least Biased

Hearst-??

Wall Street Journal-Right Center

Breitbart-Right

Fox-Right

Washington Times-Right

One America-Right

Daily Mail-Right

I found 25 news agencies mentioned in concern with this White House gaggle.  16 of these were left of centered biased. 2 were least biased and I’m not sure about Hearst but I’m thinking they may be least biased.  6 were right biased and they were generally more biased than those to the left.  So, looking at numbers and numbers only, from left bias to least biased to right biased, they are 16 to 2(or maybe 3) to 6.  So my question is “Is the press and media coverage fair and/or equal?  Well it’s definitely not been equal, but is it fair?

This is just a hypothesis (of course I’m going to propose something in the more math/science realm) but maybe the White House was looking for more equal coverage.  An article in the left biased NY Times stated “We invited the pool, so everyone was equally represented” as said by the Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Those uninvited to the briefing were The Hill, Politico, CNN, NY Times, LA Times, Buzz Feed, BBC, The Daily Mail and The Huffington Post. The AP and Time media chose not to attend after hearing of the uninvited.  The Washington Post did not send a reporter to the gaggle. This left the ratios of press represented at 5 Left Biased to 2 or 3 Least Biased to 5 Right Biased.  So equal, but fair?  Considering that Hearst Newspaper gave full details to the entire press core and other media shared their whole audio, what do you think?

By the way, I read the Reuters report first, then I read FOX News report (right bias), then I read the New York Post (left bias).  The biases were easy to see.  Fox left out a good portion of the report, possibly to try to downplay the event.  The New York Post used language to cause outrage like barred, war, unprecedented, selective invite to conservatives (as if to say the liberal press was not there), assailed, breach, slammed, exclusion, unfair coverage, and attacks.  The word “response” was replaced with “protest”.  I recommend reading the least biased first, then the biased information on both sides.  It allows for critical reading skills and using thinking skills.  It’s only then we, as Americans, can talk in a civil way.

In addition, the most comprehensive article of those I read was:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/us/politics/white-house-sean-spicer-briefing.

It is a left biased newspaper but it had support for both views.  Very good coverage and I commend them.

A month ago we saw two major events, the inauguration of President Trump and the Women’s March in Washington.  The complete antithesis of sentiments confused me because I felt, by intuition, that everything I was watching and hearing and reading was at the surface of greater issues that ran deep and strong.  I hated to see the division of Americans who were previously friends, neighbors, and family.  Yes, it happened to me, a family member no longer is communicating with me.  As a result, I decided to do everything in my ability to understand the true core of the division in America.

I realized that the news and media were a huge part of the problem because of bias in their reporting.  A few words missing or inciting can change a story from news to “fake news”.  I’m sorry to use those words but I couldn’t help myself.  So, I went on a search for true news and it’s there but not in the mainstream.   For the time being, be selective on how you receive your information.

Knowing this, I became choosy on what I was reading.   I refused to read the opinion page of the newspaper.  I went to Reuters and the AP to get my news online.  It helped so much!  Because I could read the real story it helped me in discerning the biased news and if a story was biased to the right or left, I dropped it like a hot potato.  I refused to buy into the brainwashing, to be blunt.  The mainstream media have continued to focus on Trump did this and Trump did that, further fueling the major dislike and lack of confidence in our president.  In truth, he makes me cringe at some of the things that come out of his mouth.  I didn’t vote for him because of that. So, I searched and found information that helped me understand his approach to “Making America Great Again” (there I go again, I’m helpless) but it did not help with what comes out of his mouth.  But this is an aside.  There’s more important concepts to address.  We can’t control him but we can control our own practices.

I was not satisfied with news reports because they did not focus on what I intuitively felt was a deeper, unmentioned, core issue that has divided our nation particularly in the election of 2016. Something more important than the rhetoric, Clinton or Trump, the White House, or the government.  I inclined to believe it was dealing with unemployment, jobs, and the economy but I’m no expert.   So I started reading and ultimately stumbling into amazing websites that analyze the issues of today with great, scholarly expertise.  Yes, I need to have a dictionary beside me to understand some terms but that’s OK, I’m building my vocabulary.

Speaking of scholarly expertise, I must relay a synopsis of an article I read Sunday night, How America Lost Faith in Expertise and Why That’s a Giant Problem by Tom Nichols.   The main thesis of the article is that Americans have fell into some dangerous behaviors, I will call them habits.  To be concise:

1. Americans are dismissing and showing disdain for the information that is studied and presented by experts, scholars, and intellectuals. None of which are represented by the rhetoric of the media, celebrities, news people, or even politicians. In other words, take anything they say with a grain of salt.  Rejecting expert advice has become the norm and in the political arena at this point in time there is nothing left but butting heads, name calling, and anger.  Whereas, and I quote, “Principled, informed arguments (and debate) are a sign of intellectual health and vitality in a democracy.”  Knowledge and discussion makes an intelligent electorate. I believe we as Americans need a way to return to this condition. But how?  Well, we could try to return to expertise.
2. Americans consider themselves experts on issues when they are not.  In fact, the issues are so complex that no one person is capable of understanding them. Our presidents do not completely understand each issue, that’s why they have professional advisers. As Americans we must return to those who are informed and knowledgeable, and I reiterate, not the media, celebrities, news people, or politicians.
3. Americans are not willing to accept the fact that there is a division of labor between lay people and experts. Expert information is rejected.   Ignorance is actually seen as a virtue. (Look at the childhood immunization scare for one example)  Opinions are spouted and valued whether or not they are based on truth.  We need to redevelop trust in the smart, specialized, informed practices of the experts.  Without that trust we continue to move toward an illiterate electorate and will fall further into the grasp of factions and whoever pays the bills.  On the other hand, “Experts are the people that know considerably more about a given subject that any of us.”
4. The most prominent problem with the American electorate of today is called “confirmation bias.” This happens when the tendency of getting information leans toward seeking information that simply confirms what is already believed. I see this all the time on Facebook when people share news, articles, cartoons, videos, etc. that reiterates their particular political stance.  It is a dangerous practice.  Intellectual progress requires much more.  Those who are experts have to completely reject any such tendency in their search for truth, arguments and debates are based on findings that have extensive peer review and accountability.  Unfortunately, this is not true of  lay people who rely primarily on confirmation bias.
5. As a lay person stay away from any and all conspiracy theories.   I could go on and on but I won’t in this particular blog.
6. The communication age with the ease of the internet is accelerating the intellectual demise of an intelligent electorate. Facts are out there all over the place, but facts are not knowledge or expertise.  Facts are a dime a dozen and lead to fake intelligence.  In reality, seek out those with an expertise rather than facts.

Are there solutions to these issue?  Is there a greater underlying problem in America right now?  Well, that’s a discussion for another day.  In the meantime, I am hopeful we can each make a difference.

Thank you for reading and understand that the above is my interpretation of an article referred to below:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-02-13/how-america-lost-faith-expertise?cid=int-now&pgtype=hpg&region=br1

by Tom Nichols, Professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College and taken from his book, The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters

In speaking with friends yesterday I brought up a statement that I learned as a teacher many years ago, “Fair is not always equal.”  I believe it is truth.  I have no idea how it would stand up to a logic argument, but because of my experience it is truth.  It came during negotiations between the teacher’s union and the school board.

The issue was health insurance.  The board deducted an equal percentage rate from each teacher’s salary which, in turn was placed into an insurance pool.  That pool was used to pay health insurance premiums for either a single, a single plus spouse, or for whole families.  Some lucky people were covered by a spouses insurance so they did not have to pay for health insurance through the pool.  Some people’s premiums were for a single, some for a couple, and some for a family.  The premiums were different for each employee but everyone had the coverage they required.  Not equal!  But definitely fair.  Each employee had the peace of mind in knowing that whatever medical issue arose, they were covered.   To understand and accept this each teacher had to agree to the greater good, and they did!  “Fair is not always equal.”

Several years later in a different school we faced the same issue.  The school board ended up negotiating each person the same equal amount of money to cover their insurance premiums.  Some lucky people, covered by a spouses insurance, got the equal withdrawal amount added to their paycheck.  Single premiums were usually covered completely but those with a spouse or family had additional amounts withdrawn from their paycheck.    A small vocal minority covered by spouse’s insurance had succeeded in taking advantage of this system, looking out for only themselves with no regard for their colleagues.  I contend that it is not equal or fair.

Another time that I mistook “fair and equal” was a bit more personal.  We had 3 daughters and 2 bedrooms for them.  Every year I rotated 1 girl into their own personal bedroom.  I was trying to be equal.  But when my oldest daughter was a senior in high school, I forced her to share the double bedroom because it was her turn.  She tried to make her point that she deserved her own room, but I did not listen.  She has never forgiven me.  I’m still so sorry about that, honey.  After my oldest left for a year of nannying, then college, then work; both my middle daughter and her younger sister had their own room for 2 or more years.  My decision was based on equality but it was not fair.

Now, how does this apply to society today?  I have an example from Desert Trip, the 3 day rock concert I attended in Coachella this past fall.  The concert featured The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney, Neil Young, Roger Waters, and The Who.  It was dubbed “Oldchella” because it did appeal to  Baby Boomers.  In actuality there were people of all ages enjoying the concert.  People came from all over the US to attend.  One group obviously missing were black people.  In 3 days at the concert and roaming the grounds, I did not see any blacks.  So, my thought about this is:  “Was the concert fair, equal, none or both?  I am now assuming that the genre of music did not appeal to blacks.  Should the lineup have included artists of all races and nationalities?  That would be equal.  Was this a racist concert?  Well, I didn’t see or hear protesters, I didn’t read about it in any of the news reports, it didn’t get spin on any talk shows so I guess it couldn’t have been racist.  So, it wasn’t equal, but was it fair?  Of course it was fair.  It simply represented a musical era of rock and roll with artists who had set the bar.

So fair is not always equal.  Equal is not always fair.

I would encourage all people to ask this fundamental question when faced with choices.  In addition, be sure that you have the unbiased facts before you choose.  And it seems to me that fair is more important than equal.

These thoughts are my own.

Why is the French study important?   After the authors were able to look at France’s S “File”, the terrorism watch list, they found some interesting patterns.  For the most part the terrorists were either second-generation French citizens, children of non-religious parent immigrants or young native French converts to Islam. Western recruits to ISIS have a high number of Islamic converts.  Many of the terrorists had degrees in engineering.  It seems the connecting factor was “generational revolt”.   Looking for bonding, they come from secular families and then join small “clubs” called Salafist where the real terrorist is formed.  The threat then being coined as “Islamification of radicalism”.

Terrorists are not the unemployed and uneducated Muslim immigrants but instead seem to come from educated and well-off families.  Why does this radicalization occur?  That was the purpose of the study related in Muslims, Terrorists and the Job.  Namely, the fact that discrimination in France occurs on the job and in society therefore increasing the isolation tendency of Muslims in their new country. This vicious cycle being repeated is the reason proposed by these scholars.

It is clear that discrimination in obtaining middle-class jobs and living a middle-class life leads to distrust of French institutions. Muslims have reasonable but unreachable goals, fail to integrate, and keep strong ties to their native land.  Some join Salafist clubs.

So what can be done?  I’m sure that in reading this, you can determine what you can do on a personal level.  But what about the institutions and Muslims?  The authors suggest:

• Studying and releasing discrimination rates to increase awareness.
• Employers need to study and change their hiring practices.
• Employers need to hire consultants that can deal with cultural tensions in the workplace.
• Muslim communities must ensure gender equality and shame members who refuse to take orders from women.
• Better integration within the host society.

Based solely on their study they do make one important conjecture:  banning immigration is counterproductive, it does not address discrimination and discourages integration into a new society.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2016-04-26/dont-fear-muslim-immigrants

Almost a week ago we witnessed an executive order that was called “extreme vetting”.  In practice, it temporarily stopped the Muslim immigration to the US from 7 nation-states. You know the results of that act.  Say what you will, I’m not stating yea or nay or trying to influence. You will need to come to your own conclusion.  I’m just trying to add information which helps understand the issue of terrorism.  I’m hoping to be able to talk civilly with my fellow Americans

Would you like some facts about the fundamental issue causing terrorism as studied in France?  3 professors of Political Science and Economics in the US and France and another professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton have attempted to explain the fundamental issue in their writings, “Don’t Fear Muslim Immigrants” and “The Flawed Logic of Trump’s Executive Order, How Not to Fight Terrorism”.

All 4 have come to the same conclusions based on actual experiments in France.  To put one of their conclusions in the very simplest terms,  Muslim immigrants experience middle class employment discrimination that are 2 ½ times greater than Christian immigrants and even more so than native French.   Muslims in the study earned 15% less than the average French income for the same job. The employers express concerns about two cultural differences; religious and gender roles.  First, the secular employers are worried, thinking there will be religious demands by the Muslims. Second, there may be conflict between male and female employees considering the view of gender roles in the Muslim culture.

So, two values that the west holds very dear, the separation of church and state and women’s rights, bring about discrimination by employers.  A chain reaction begins.  This discrimination transfers to the non-immigrant French.  They are less-cooperative with Muslims even when no hostility is evident in the interaction. Muslims, perceiving this, cling to their culture which further separates them from their host society.  The differences widen and deepen from one generation to the next, which further increases the discrimination.  Unrest is created.

I think it’s interesting that, in France, this issue starts on the job.  I wonder if the same is true in the US?  Will the “extreme vetting” add to the problem? I wonder if, in America, a lack of middle class jobs for Americans, Muslims, other immigrants, men, and women would only exacerbate this type of discrimination?

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2017-02-01/wrong-way-stop-terrorism

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2017-01-30/flawed-logic-trumps-executive-order

US foreign policy has been operating based on a singular objective “achieving a stable international system with the US at the center” ever since WWII.  There have been two schools of thought as to how to do that.   Hamiltonians have believed in a “financial and security” framework for world order, containing communist Russia, and promoting US interests, ergo, sort of economics based is my interpretation.   Wilsonians believed in the “creation of a liberal global order conceived in values rather than economics”.  The advancement of “human rights, democratic governance, and the rule of law” hence establishing unilateral partnerships and global integration.  The debates between the schools have been contentious ever since.  But, there was always that one objective.

Now, the tide has turned.  That one objective is less clear.  The proposal of one scholar is that we are now experiencing the effects of the downfall of the Soviet Union.  Our goal has been reached, so to speak, so what now?  We are seeing the rise of China as the   “want to be” world leader.  What has been perceived as the failure of global order building is challenging the one objective.

So what happens?  Two different schools of thought come flowing in to fill the void, Jeffersonian and Jacksonian.  What’s interesting is that most of us, unless you are in your eighties or older, have never witnessed these two types of thinking in practice but we are in the midst of it.  These two views are just as contentious, or more so, than the previous.  Remember, we had that one objective.  No wonder the populace is confused, upset, emotional, grasping at straws, and clinging to individual beliefs so dearly.

Food for thought:  Is this era of chaos really the fault of President Trump or are we witnessing and living the emergence of new world view paradigms?

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-01-20/jacksonian-revolt