OPINION: Anti-Intellectualism in the Trumpian Era

  By , ,

OPINION:

Anti-Intellectualism in Trump Era

By Amaya Oswald

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti- intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’” — Isaac Asimov

A Cult Of Ignorance

In this country, we have free speech and the common belief that we are all entitled to our own opinions — a phrase I am sure you have heard many times. We use free speech as a defensive rebuttal when someone poses the question, “Why do you think America is the best country in the world?” and we voice our uneducated opinions because we have the right to. Free speech and embracing opinions is undoubtedly what makes America great, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t something about how we are conditioned to believe all opinions are valid that has also made room for “a cult of ignorance.”

Fake News

Anti-intellectualism is most prominently bred into present day American politics through Fake News. Donald Trump coined the term to reference factual news reporting that he doesn’t agree with, and as the term became more popular, the concept has been normalized. It is more commonplace than ever to disengage with opinion pieces or news stories that you don’t like, claim all kinds of facts, statistics, and journalism as incorrect, and disregard factual information when forming opinions. In this way, Donald Trump has popularized anti-intellectualism.

Arrogant Beliefs vs. Democratic Behavior

The idea that my opinion is always valid, even when I have few facts to back it up is what spurs America’s embrace of anti-intellectualism, and it’s embarrassing. According to Issac Asimov, we’ve falsely notarized democracy to mean my ignorant vote is just as good as your fact-based vote, and he’s right: that is simply arrogant, not democratic. In America, we protect anti-intellectuals and people who spread real falsehoods through opinions by saying, it’s just what he believes. Some Trump Lovers have even committed hate crimes (such as, The Pittsburg Synagogue Massacre) bred from anti-intellectualism. Trump supporters hold the arrogant position of what I think is the absolute answer and no one else’s opinion is worth considering. The President displays the same behavior — even though you made a smart point, you are wrong because I am right, and what I believe is always right.

Selective Anti-Intellectualism

Of course, wanting to win an argument is not the same as anti-intellectualism, ignorance, or arrogance. It is important to be confident and persuasive; but to never actively consider someone else’s viewpoint is a problem. For example, Trump constantly rejects statistical evidence that doesn’t fit into his ideas. One statistic he quotes often is the economy’s improvement since he took office, which is true — at least it was before the shut down. However, if someone mentions his approval rating, he will attempt to degrade its legitimacy, despite the rating being factually true in the closest way that statistics provides. This is a key example of how our president has selective anti-intellectualism, which could be even worse than typical anti-intellectualism. By being selective, Trump pushes his own agenda more forcefully, rejecting the truths of the opposing party and comforting those who follow him.

Normalizing Extreme Beliefs

For two decades, we as a country were moving to cautious speech when in public. We had become increasingly politically correct in our language. Over the last two years that trend has taken a reverse course. People with more extreme beliefs have been increasingly vocal about their beliefs as anti-intellectualism strengthens its roots in this country. Alt-right extremists have felt protected by the President’s beliefs. In Jamali Maddix’s docuseries Hate Thy Neighbor, a “national socialist” in the film remarked that he felt Trump had made him feel as though he could be more open about his anti-Semitic views.

Democracy is Considering Other Viewpoints

Stuck in their own beliefs and belief systems, these white neo-nazis sport swastikas, burn Jewish books, and report that “there should be another genocide.” (“America’s Far White,” Hate Thy Neighbor. Viceland. January 23, 2017. Television.) If the national socialists showed in Jamali Maddix’s docuseries had considered a different viewpoint or wanted to openly learn about other perspectives, their beliefs would certainly have changed at least a little. When Maddix asks a father of two white children if he would have loved his children if he had had them with his previous half-Indian wife, a woman he had loved before he became invested in “white nationalism,” this is clear. “I’m not speechless over that… I’m just trying to digest it,” he said. “I’d like to think no matter what color, what origin of a child, I’d have their back.” (“America’s Far White,” Hate Thy Neighbor. Viceland. January 23, 2017. Television.)

Stop For A Moment

A racist, xenophobic white nationalist who salutes Hitler every day had actually considered for a moment what Maddix was asking, subsequently changing his thought process slightly. By talking to another person with a different viewpoint, he let himself think openly enough to perceive something in a different way than he had before — through a lens of love, rather than hatred.

Political Intellectualism

So, what is intellectualism? Being open to learn and think in a different way; being more empathetic to other people’s situations and lives; considering ideas outside your realms.

Regression Is A Part of Progression

Over the past few years, it may have seemed as though America is regressing more than we are progressing. However, I don’t think I believe this. Instead, I believe in what President Obama said in a speech a few years ago: sometimes things progress a lot and then go back a little just before progressing a lot more. The regression we see today is necessary for growth, and while it is clear that we have had a spike in anti-intellectualism these past few years, there has always been a strain of anti-intellectualism throughout America’s history. Fake news and the rejection of both facts and opinions against our own viewpoints have always been here. It is only 2016 that brought it to the surface.

COMMENT and OPINION: It Was NOT A Crosshairs

  By ,

Not A Crosshairs

By Trevor K. McNeil

Roger Gets Slammed

I saw Roger Stone was slammed by federal judge Amy Jackson today. Stone now is under a very restrictive gag order in regards to his criminal case. I saw, like the rest of the world the text and the photo Stone posted. Totally inappropriate and as usual, pushing the envelope. His post referred to the Mueller probe as a “deep state” war against president Donald J. Trump. Roger Stone obviously relishes the razor’s edge. However with that said, I am getting really f-ing sick of people in the media referring to the images behind and beside judge Amy Berman Jackson’s head in the Instagram image sent by Roger Stone as a “crosshairs”.

Wiccan Symbol

For starters the positioning of the “crosshairs” would mean the shooter would miss; but mostly because it is a Wiccan symbol [see graph: top right]. I am not speaking to the Stone case or to Stone himself or his motives, he probably thought it was a cross-hairs and was too ignorant to know the difference but the fact is that it is not. Context matters and while cross-hairs could be construed as a threat a symbol that are not cross-hairs, even if they look like them, set well aside from a potential target is not threatening in any way. CNN wants it to be a threat so they are acting like it is. Just had to say it. Trevor K. McNeil 2/21/19

 

 

TRANSGENDER TEENS REMAIN UNPROTECTED

  By , ,

Transgender Teens Remain Unprotected

By Quinton Reed

Wait Until After Class

Current and former high school students can probably agree on one thing: it’s hard to get a restroom break during class. For transgender teens, however, that difficulty is amplified. Choosing a restroom that aligns with a transgender person’s identity is preferable to many trans teens as it can affirm their sense of self and – particularly for transgender girls – a sense of safety. When a school restroom choice is denied to the student, the basic and universal need to relieve one’s self becomes not only complex, but also heartbreaking and potentially dangerous.

Failure to Provide

In 2016, Donald Trump said that transgender students should “use the bathroom they feel is appropriate.” His administration has thus far fallen short on supporting that statement. School restroom choice has, in fact, been dismissed by the Department of Education . Transgender teens asking for help from the department now have their cases indefinitely on hold or dismissed altogether. What is the justification for yet another denial of protection toward transgender teens and younger children? According to a Buzzfeed news interview with Department of Education spokesperson Liz Hill, the 1972 federal civil rights law Title IX does not include transgender students. The law, Hill says, “prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, not gender identity.”

What is Biological Sex, Anyway?

The 1972 amendment to Title IX does, in fact, fail to specify protection on the basis of gender identity, instead providing protection on the basis of “race, color, or national origin” as well as “on the basis of disability”. However, one must consider the definitions of “sex” when navigating the amendment. Time magazine’s article addresses the Trump administration’s relationship with the definition of sex; the concept of sex as binary is not only oversimplified but it is also wrong. If transgender students are not given their choice of restroom usage at school on the basis of Title IX’s exclusion, intersex people are also excluded because these individuals fail to fall within the commonly understood binary of sex.

Ignoring the DSM-5

Even if the definition of sex were to exclude transgender teens from protection under Title IX, the protection on the basis of disability is another angle to consider. Whether one considers a transgender person to have a mental disability or a physical disability, gender dysphoria is listed as a condition in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Again, the nature of transgenderism as a disability is a matter of debate. However, from a legal standpoint, gender dysphoria is considered a disability. According to the American Psychiatric Association, “treatment may focus primarily on affirming psychological support, understanding feelings and coping with distress, and giving children a safe space to articulate their feelings”. Affirmation can be given by granting school restroom choice; to deny treatment to those suffering with gender dysphoria can therefore be considered to be discrimination on the basis of disability.

Self-sabotage

The Education Department released a statement, saying it is “committed to defending the civil rights of all students and ensuring all students have an equal opportunity to learn in an environment free from harassment and discrimination”. Considering the amendments to Title IX, the agency has failed to protect transgender teens not only on the legal level but also on a personal one. As a result of feeling forced into using a school restroom of their assigned sex, transgender teens often suffer from emotional and physical discomfort. Faced with no choice, trans teens may fast in order to prevent the need to use the restroom, or simply wait to relieve themselves which can result in urinary tract infections and other complications.

Forceful Erasure

Speaking of the “commitment” of the Education Department, the 2017 election of Trump saw the removal of resources for transgender people, including information intended to help transgender teens and children fight for their right to choose their restrooms at school. Specifically, the resources deleted were to seven civil rights complaints and three federal court filings, including the court documents written under the Obama Administration in support of Gavin Grimm, whom – by no small coincidence – won his court case.

Moving Backwards

If the true intention of the Education Department was to give transgender students protection and assurance of equality of access opportunity, why remove resources that educate the transgender  community or their supporters? Is the Department afraid knowledge may stimulate activism? Furthermore, when the Trump administration rescinded Obama’s transgender rights directive, the rescission was based on the pressure of “significant litigation” from numerous states opposing the Obama directive.

Identification and Assignment

If true choice in bathroom access is to be achieved perhaps we should do some research on the effects of having people use the bathroom based on birth identification and assignment rather than identity choice. Research should be a priority. In order to accurately research the matter of transgender rights, it would make sense to pool research from the party affected most: transgender people. Yet, the removal of resources on the Education Department website suggests there is little concern with transgender rights; and such conduct by the department shows little interest in providing protection to a group in great need.

Slaps on the Wrist

Even with the removal of resources, the few transgender students that have managed to make their cases known to the Department of Education have steadily had their cases dismissed. During an investigation conducted by Politico, five of the six complaints regarding trans students’ bathroom rights were dismissed; that’s over 80 percent. Furthermore, the language of one dismissal letter, given to Texas high school student Alex Howe by the Title IX compliance officer for his school’s district, is not only insensitive but also incorrect. The school district’s “investigation” concluded Howe was “provided with equal access to all school facilities as there was a plan in place for (him) to use a particular restroom which was gender neutral,” according to compliance officer Valerie Little.

Separate But Not Equal

Which is by its nature not equal. Alex Howe identifies as male, not as “gender neutral”. No other students were required to use the gender neutral bathroom. This designation of a “gender neutral” bathroom versus the binaric “male/female” restrooms used by Howe’s peers is the problem. The “gender neutral” designation invalidates Howe’s identity as male, reducing him to “none of the above”. Quite simply unless all bathrooms are gender neutral, such designation is an act of segregation.  The policy designates a space where a transgender student is “expected” to be and where a transgender student is “not allowed”.

Federal Courts Know Better

While the Department of Education continues to attest to a lack of clarity in Title IX as being grounds for exclusion, federal appeals courts in the 6th and 7th circuit have already ruled that Title IX does indeed allow transgender students the right to choose the restroom matching their gender identity. As highlighted in the 7th circuit court case Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District, a three-judge panel came to the conclusion that “policy that requires an individual to use a bathroom that does not conform with his or her gender identity punishes that individual for his or her gender non‐conformance, which in turn violates Title IX.”

It’s Even Worse

The fact that the Education Department under DeVos ignores this ruling is bad enough, but to then dismiss all possibility of further ruling, after such a ruling, is wrong.  Refusal to accept the court mandate is to act in favor of prejudice. The agency presents itself as the protector of children, but under the Trump administration, it has not only under performed but intentionally regressed. To refuse a child’s right to feel comfortable when they are extremely vulnerable is cruel and unconscionable. These kids are human beings and our human physiology requires defecation and elimination. Such actions by both federal and local school authorities is inexcusable and indefensible, regardless of the “definition” of “biological sex”.

 

“ROGER STONE DID NOTHING WRONG”

  By ,

“ROGER STONE DID NOTHING WRONG”

By Ross Turner

Roger Stone Did Nothing Wrong

January 25th, 2019.  Fort Lauderdale, Florida.  Pre-dawn.  Heavily armed men file out of a caravan of black SUVs.  Swarming the Mediterranean-style home, a bearded man pounds on the door: “FBI.  Open the door.”  Within moments, a grey-haired, shoeless figure emerges.  He appears briefly confused, but, given the circumstances, unfazed.  He puts his hands in the air as he turns around, submitting to his arrest with perfunctory calm.  Twenty minutes later, being led back into his home by federal agents, security footage captures the text of the suspect’s t-shirt, one that perfectly encapsulates the man in question.  It reads: “Roger Stone Did Nothing Wrong.”

What’s In A Shirt?

We may never know whether Stone put on that shirt deliberately for the occasion, but anybody familiar with him knows he probably would have.  It’s very existence speaks volumes of his sordid career, a winking reference to his infamous reputation.  It is, let’s say, not the fashion statement typical of an innocent man.  Robert Mueller, Special Counsel to the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, would tend to agree.  Stone has been indicted on seven criminal charges, including one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, one count of witness tampering, and five counts of false statements.  Stone himself is probably disappointed to be arraigned on such lame charges, given how many juicier bits of wrongdoing there are to choose from.

Continue reading

REBEL GIRLS: Women In Combat

  By , ,

REBEL GIRLS: Women in Combat 

By Trevor K. McNeil

Unfair Exclusion

Women in combat comes across like a complex issue. Particularly in the United States with its military culture. As demonstrated by the fact that it had compulsory service longer than most other comparable Western democracies. Not stopping it entirely until 1973. There is still a Selective Service System that requires all male born US citizens to register for potential conscription by their 18th birthday. Which has raised questions as to whether the draft should be brought back and force women as well as men to serve. Raising and rehashing questions as to whether women are physically and mentally capable of combat.

Not An Enemy In the World

Generally speaking, bringing the draft back to America is unnecessary. America already has one of he largest military’s in the world and no viable enemies in terms of conventional warfare. Are there rogue states who could launch a nuclear weapon? Possibly but direct invasion by land, sea or air is essentially impossible. And almost always has been. The United States has not been directly attacked by an official government actor since WWII. And even that was not the mainland United States, in fact at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, Hawaii was not even a state.

Continue reading

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND: Saint or Scammer

  By ,

Kirsten Gillibrand:

Saint or Scammer

By D.S. Mitchell & Trevor K. McNeil

The Pendulum Swings

It seems like each new each day brings us a new candidate for the job of president of the United States. At the beginning of Trump’s third year, anyone able to walk and talk at the same time, thinks they can do a better job than Trump. In fact, not to bring peels of laughter from the audience, I am sure that I could do a better job. Being able to do a better job than Trump however could probably be accomplished by any of the last six Westminster champions.

Blinded By Desperation

There are those who say there is no way Trump can win in 2020.  Didn’t everyone say that about Trump in 2016? The prognosticators also said George W. Bush couldn’t win in his second term in 2004. Single term presidents do occur, although not often. In every case such losses occurred it was due to a compelling opponent. The most recent instance, when relatively unknown Arkansas governor Bill Clinton ran against, and beat George H.W.Bush. Who was, by all accounts, in line for a second term.

A Champion Shall Rise?

If the Republicans stick with tradition and name Donald Trump their nominee for 2020. The key to victory for the Democrats will be selecting the right candidate. Someone with a specific set of attributes that appeal to the base, as well as making them impervious to Trump’s already proven attacks and tactics. One of a bevy of Democrats to recently throw their hat into the ring is second-term New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.

Continue reading

WE CAN STOP THE KILLING.

  By ,

Adding Up The Dead

We at www.calamitypolitics just keep adding up the numbers of lives lost to gun violence in America on a near daily basis. We can’t be the only ones horrified and appalled. At some point it will sink in; we need gun control. We cannot continue wasting these beautiful young lives. Let’s have some common sense conversation–D. S. Mitchell

 

Mental Illness “I.M. PRISM” by Jack Babcock

  By ,

Jack Babcock “I.M. Prism” 

By D. S. Mitchell

Hospitalized

A friend of www.calamitypolitics.com is in the hospital. Jack Babcock has schizophrenia, but right now he is fighting another battle. He has been diagnosed with kidney failure. Hopefully, his doctors will get him back on his feet soon. Dialysis has offered many years of life to people who are unable to have a kidney transplant. At this point we are not sure what the way forward will bring, but I thought it would be an appropriate time to share several of Jack’s poems from his book, I.M. Prism. Jack graduated from U of O with a degree in English and he went on to Lewis and Clark law school. Although passing his courses, he became too sick to practice law. Please enjoy Jack’s quirky take on life, and the deep pain of his mental illness.

Sometimes being smart and doing all the right things doesn't make your life easy

Being smart and doing all the right things doesn’t protect you from mental illness.

Brown Door

the brown door is shut……

I’m mentally ill. I smash the door, howl and scream.

Let me out of this madhouse quoth I.

and behind the brown door are lunatics.

drooling, sneezing, coughing, playing

with themselves.

what do they need?

just not to be put behind the brown door.

they need sunshine and music, laughter.

but, the brown door is shut.

********

Sweet Julia

i compared you

to a movie star

you balked

said you weren’t that attractive

is it possible

you don’t know how pretty you are

Julia

i told someone

i write you letters, poems

they thought that was sweet and kind

nothing of the sort

i do what i have to do

i feel i must write to you

looking at things

my aunt left me

an utrillo print

a few rings

a spode china set

all so pretty

so real, i love them, i loved my aunt

and there is you

my dear

i think i love you too.

*******

Well

yotta yotta yata

so it goes

pornography or poetry

yadda yadda ya

whats the diff

it seems important to smile

death has no

yadda yatta

freedom and obscurity

yotta yotta ya

what now my love?

yotta ya.

The Efforts to Curtail Voting Rights

  By ,
Voting in America is far from guaranteed

Voting in America is far from guaranteed

The Efforts to Curtail Voting Rights 

By Jones William & D.S. Mitchell

Fundamentals

Voting is fundamental to our democracy. The right to vote however has been the target for disenfranchisement since the founding of the country. Our Constitution (before amendments) does not clearly stipulate who can vote. In the early years state legislators voted for the president.

Another Amendment

From the beginning many of the states used every means available to limit voting. At the origin of the United States, many groups, including slaves, landless white men, women and free blacks could not vote. But many  amendments to the Constitution (XV, XVII, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, XXVI) significantly expanded voting rights and other political freedoms to previously unprotected groups.

Voting Rights Act of 1965

The passage of multiple constitutional amendments was geared towards enhancing voting rights for all citizens. The federal government was spearheading the expansion of voting rights throughout the United States. Numerous states, particularly the states of the old confederacy, habitually passed laws that did not specifically bar black citizens from voting but placed unrealistic burdens on them. Poll taxes and “guess how many beans are in the jar” kinds of absurdities. For that reason, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was introduced and President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it into law.

Continue reading