Politics – Page 4 – Renaissance Guy

History Has its Eyes on You

In case it isn’t obvious from some of my recent writings, I’ve been thinking a lot about history. This has been mostly the fault of John Green, who decided in a recent step of his ongoing scavenger hunt, to pitch the age old question: “[I]s it enough to behold the universe of which we are part, or must we leave a footprint in the moondust for it all to have been worthwhile?” It’s a question that I have personally struggled with a great deal, more so recently as my health and circumstances have made it clear that trying to follow the usual school > college > career > marriage > 2.5 children > retirement and in that order thank you very much life path is a losing proposition.

The current political climate also has me thinking about the larger historical context of the present moment. Most people, regardless of their political affiliation, agree that our present drama is unprecedented, and the manner in which it plays out will certainly be significant to future generations. There seems to be a feeling in the air, a zeitgeist, if you will, that we are living in a critical time.

I recognize that this kind of talk isn’t new. Nearly a millennium ago, the participants of the first crusade, on both sides, believed they were living in the end times. The fall of Rome was acknowledged by most contemporary European scholars to be the end of history. Both world wars were regarded as the war to end all wars, and for many, including the famed George Orwell, the postwar destruction was regarded as the insurmountable beginning of the end for human progress and civilization. Every generation has believed that their problems were of such magnitude that they would irreparably change the course of the species.

Yet for every one of these times when a group has mistakenly believed that radical change is imminent, there has been another revolution that has arrived virtually unannounced because people assumed that life would always go on as it always had gone on. Until the 20th century, imperial rule was the way of the world, and European empires were expected to last for hundreds or even thousands of years. In the space of a single century, Marxism-Leninism went from being viewed as a fringe phenomenon, to a global threat expected to last well into the time when mankind was colonizing other worlds, to a discredited historical footnote. Computers could never replace humans in thinking jobs, until they suddenly began to do so in large numbers.

It is easy to look at history with perfect hindsight, and be led to believe that this is the way that things would always have gone regardless. This is especially true for anyone born in the past twenty five years, in an age after superpowers, where the biggest threat to the current world order has always been fringe radicals living in caves. I mean, really, am I just supposed to believe that there were two Germanies that both hated each other, and that everyone thought this was perfectly normal and would go on forever? Sure, there are still two Koreas, but no one really takes that division much seriously anymore, except maybe for the Koreans.

I’ve never been quite sure where I personally fit into history, and I’m sure a large part of that is because nothing of real capital-H Historical Importance has happened close to me in my lifetime. With the exception of the September 11th attacks, which happened so early in my life, and while I was living overseas, that they may as well have happened a decade earlier during the Cold War, and the rise of smartphones and social media, which happened only just as I turned old enough to never have known an adolescence without Facebook, things have, for the most part, been the same historical setting for my whole life.

The old people in my life have told me about watching or hearing about the moon landing, or the fall of the Berlin Wall, and about how it was a special moment because everyone knew that this was history unfolding in front of them. Until quite recently, the closest experiences I had in that vein were New Year’s celebrations, which always carry with them a certain air of historicity, and getting to stay up late (in Australian time) to watch a shuttle launch on television. Lately, though, this has changed, and I feel more and more that the news I am seeing today may well turn out to be a turning point in the historical narrative that I will tell my children and grandchildren.

Moreover, I increasingly feel a sensation that I can only describe as historical pressure; the feeling that this turmoil and chaos may well be the moment that leaves my footprint in the moondust, depending on how I act. The feeling that the world is in crisis, and it is up to me to cast my lot in with one cause or another.

One of my friends encapsulated this feeling with a quote, often attributed to Vladimir Lenin, but which it appears is quite likely from some later scholar or translator.
“There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.”
Although I’m not sure I entirely agree with this sentiment (I can’t, to my mind, think of a single decade where absolutely nothing happened), I think this illustrates the point that I am trying to make quite well. We seem to be living in a time where change is moving quickly, in many cases too quickly to properly contextualize and adjust, and we are being asked to pick a position and hold it. There is no time for rational middle ground because there is no time for rational contemplation.

Or, to put it another way: It is the best of times, it is the worst of times, it is the age of wisdom, it is the age of foolishness, it is the epoch of belief, it is the epoch of incredulity, it is the season of Light, it is the season of Darkness, it is the spring of hope, it is the winter of despair, we have everything before us, we have nothing before us, we are all going direct to Heaven, we are all going direct the other way – in short, the period is so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insist on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

How, then, will this period be remembered? How will my actions, and the actions of my peers, go down in the larger historical story? Perhaps in future media, the year 2017 will be thought of as “just before that terrible thing happened, when everyone knew something bad was happening but none yet had the courage to face it”, the way we think of the early 1930s. Or will 2017 be remembered like the 1950s, as the beginning of a brave new era which saw humanity in general and the west in particular reach new heights?

It seems to be a recurring theme in these sorts of posts that I finish with something to the effect of “I don’t know, but maybe I’m fine not knowing in this instance”. This remains true, but I also certainly wish to avoid encouraging complacency. Not knowing the answers is okay, it’s human, even. But not continuing to question in the first place is how we wind up with a far worse future.

Me vs. Ghost Me

My recent attempts to be a bit more proactive in planning my life have yielded an interesting unexpected result. It appears that trying to use my own My Disney Experience account in planning my part of our family vacation has unleashed a ghost version of myself that is now threatening to undo all of my carefully laid plans, steal my reservations, and wreck my family relationships.

Context: Last summer, I was at Disney World for a conference, which included a day at the park. Rather than go through the huff and puff of getting a disability pass to avoid getting trapped in lines and the medical havoc that could wreak, I opted instead to simply navigate the park with fastpasses. Doing this effectively required that I have a My Disney Experience account in order to link my conference-provided ticket and book fastpasses from my phone. So I created one. For the record, the system worked well over the course of that trip.

Fast forward to the planning for this trip. Given my historical track record with long term planning, and the notable chaos of my family’s collective schedule, it is generally my mother who takes point on the strategic end (I like to believe that I pick up the slack in tactical initiative, but that’s neither here nor there). Booking our room and acquiring our Magic Bands naturally required to put names down for each of our family members, which, evidently, spawned “ghost” accounts in the My Disney Experience system.

This is not a particularly large concern for my brother or father, both of whom are broadly nonplussed with such provincial concerns as being in the right place at the right time, at least while on vacation. For me, however, as one who has to carefully judge medication doses based on expected activity levels over the next several hours, and more generally, a perpetual worrier, being able to access and, if necessary, change my plans on the fly is rather crucial. In the case of Disney, this means having my own account rather than my “ghost” be listed for all pertinent reservations and such.

The solution is clear: I must hunt down my ghostly doppelgänger and eliminate him. The problem is that doing so would cancel all of the current reservations. So before killing my ghost, I first have to steal his reservations. As a side note: It occurs to me belatedly that this dilemma would make an interesting and worthwhile premise for a sci-fi thriller set in a dystopia where the government uses digital wearable technology to track and control its population.

All of this has served as an amusing distraction from the latest sources of distress in my life, namely: Having to sequester myself in my home and attend meetings with the school administrators by telephone because of a whooping cough outbreak, the escalating raids against immigrant groups in my community, neo-fascist graffiti at my school, and having to see people I despise be successful in ways that I never could. Obviously, not all of these are equal. But they all contribute to a general feeling that I have been under siege of late.

While reasonable people can disagree over whether the current problems I face are truly new, they certainly seem to have taken on a new urgency. Certainly this is the first time since I arrived back in the United States that immigrant communities in my local community have been subject to ICE raids. Although this is not the first time that my school has experienced fascist graffiti, it is the largest such incident. The political situation, which was previously an abstract thing which was occasionally remarked upon during conversation has become far more tangible. I can see the results in the streets and in my communications with my friends as clearly as I can see the weather.

I might have been able to move past these incidents and focus on other areas of my life, except that other areas of my life have also come under pressure, albeit for different reasons. The school nurse’s office recently disclosed that there has been at least one confirmed case of Whooping Cough. As I have written about previously, this kind of outbreak is a major concern for me, and means in practice that I cannot put myself at risk by going into school until this is resolved. Inconveniently, this announcement came only days before I was due to have an important meeting with school administrators (something which is nerve wracking at the best of times, and day-ruining at others). The nature of the meeting meant that it could not be postponed, and so had to be conducted by telephone.

At the same time, events in my personal life have conspired to force me to confront an uncomfortable truth: People I despise on a personal level are currently more successful and happier than me. I have a strong sense of justice, and so seeing people whom I know have put me and others down in the past be rewarded, while I myself yet struggle to achieve my goals, is quite painful. I recognize that this is petty, but it feels like a very personal example of what seems, from where I stand, to be an acutely distressing trend: The people I consider my adversaries are ahead and in control. Policies I abhor and regard as destructive to the ideals and people I hold dear are advancing. Fear and anger are beating out hope and friendship, and allowing evil and darkness to rise.

Ghost me is winning. He has wreaked havoc in all areas of my life, so that I feel surrounded and horrifically outmatched. He has led me to believe that I am hated and unwanted by all. He has caused fissures in my self-image, making me question whether I can really claim to stand for the weak if I’m not willing to throw myself into every skirmish. He has made me doubt whether, if these people whom I consider misguided and immoral are being so successful and happy, that perhaps it is I who is the immoral one.

These are, of course, traps. Ghost me, like real me, is familiar with the Art of War, and knows that the best way to win a fight is to do so without actual physical combat. And because he knows me; because he is me, and because I am my own worst enemy, he knows how best to set up a trap that I can hardly resist walking into. He tries to convince me to squander my resources and my endurance fighting battles that are already lost. He tries to poke me everywhere at once to disorient me and make me doubt my own senses. Worst of all, he tries to set me up to question myself, making me doubt myself and why I fight, and making me want to simply capitulate.

Not likely.

What ghost me seems to forget is that I am among the most relentlessly stubborn people either of us know. I have fought continuously for a majority of my life now to survive against the odds, and against the wishes of certain aspects of my biology. And I will continue fighting, if necessary for years, if necessary, alone. I am, however, not alone. And if I feel surrounded, then ghost me is not only surrounded, but outnumbered.

Reflections on International Women’s Day

I stated previously that I intended to bring this blog offline once again in solidarity with the Day Without Women Strike for International Women’s Day on March 8th. Two things have convinced me to alter my plans slightly. First, the strike organizers seem to be calling for only women to actually strike today, and are encouraging men to participate in other ways. This is fair enough. After all, it’s not my voice being put down, and I would have a hard time coming up with a tangible example of a time that gender discrimination has impacted me directly (It impacts me indirectly all the time, by holding back scientific progress by the selective suppression of certain groups’ advancement, but I digress).

Second, and arguably more important, is the point that, while striking and industrial action may be effective means of grabbing headlines, the point of these exercises is not to elicit silence, but conversation. Given that people seem to have this notion that I am a moderately talented communicator, and have chosen to listen to me, it stands to reason that a more appropriate response might be to attempt to add to the conversation myself.

It’s easy not to notice something that doesn’t affect oneself directly. Humans, it seems, possess an extraordinary talent for ignoring things that they feel do not concern them, particularly where knowledge of those things would make their lives and understanding of how the world works more complicated. This is probably a good thing on the whole, as it allows us to get through the day without having an existential crisis over the impending heat death of the universe, and feeling continually depressed about the state of affairs for our fellow humans in the developing world. On the other hand, it also makes it distressingly easy for us to overlook challenges to others when they do not have a direct impact on us.

Recently, I was invited to attend an event regarding the ongoing development and implementation of the Women’s Empowerment Principles at the United Nations. Now, as much as I like to believe that I am a progressive person capable of and inclined to provide and advocate for equal opportunity, it is impossible to deny the simple fact that I am male. And while I can name all kinds of discrimination that I have myself encountered, none of them relate to my sexual and gender identity. And so when it comes to suggesting ways to remedy present injustices, I do not really have a solid background to draw from.

I probably could have gotten away with what I already know. After all, with my limited experience in educating others on specific issues, and with my commitment to the principles of equality in general, surely I have enough context to be able to, if not contribute on my own, then at least, to pay homage to the general notion of women’s struggles?

Perhaps. But, I know enough people whom I respect, for whom this is a serious issue worthy of dedicating entire careers to. Additionally, I like to make a point to be an informed interlocutor. It is my firm position that all opinions worthy of serious discussion ought to have a firm factual and logical backing. And given that, in this case unlike most others, I do not have a personal background experience to draw upon, it seems only correct that I do my due diligence research so that I may make responsible and informed conclusions.

Thus, it transpired that I set myself the goal of becoming, if not an expert, then at least competent, in the field of gender relations and sexual inequality around the world in the space of just over two weeks. A lofty goal, to be sure, but a worthy one. My reading list included an assortment of United Nations, governmental and NGO reports, various statistical analyses, news stories, and a few proper books. Actually, calling it a reading list is a tad misleading, as, in order to cram as much information into as short a time as possible, most of the material in question was consumed in audio format, played at double or triple speed. This is a very effective way of gleaning the key facts without having to waste time on wasteful frivolities like enjoying the plot.

Most of my initial digging started in various UN organizations, chiefly the media center of the World Health Organization. While not always as in depth as respective national organizations, the WHO is useful inasmuch as it provides decent cursory summaries for the global perspective. What was most fascinating to me was that there were surprisingly few hard statistics. The biggest problem listed, particularly in the developing world, was not that women received a necessarily lower quality of healthcare, but that most did not receive health care at all, and therefore properly compiled statistics on gender discrepancies in health were notoriously hard to come by. Rather than telling a story, the data simply does not exist.

In a bitter irony, the more likely data was to exist for a specific region, the less likely significant gender discrepancies were to be shown to exist, at least in healthcare. That is to say that by the time that rigorous evidence could be compiled, the worst elements of inequality had been subdued. This makes a kind of sense. After all, if the problem is that women aren’t being allowed to participate in public, how exactly are you going to survey them? This also hinted at a theme that would continue to crop up: different regions and cultures are starting at tackling gender inequality from radically different starting points, and face accordingly different challenges.

My second major revelation came while listening to I Am Malala. For those who may have been living under a rock during that timeframe, here is the background: In 2012, Malala Yousefzai, a human rights and women’s education activist in rural Pakistan was shot by the taliban, sparking international outrage and renewed interest in the plight of women in the Middle East. Malala survived after being airlifted to the United Kingdom, and has since garnered celebrity status, becoming a goodwill ambassador for the United Nations’ women’s empowerment initiatives.

I have still not yet made up my mind on whether I will go so far as to say that I liked the book. I do not know that is the sort of book that is meant to be liked. I did, however, find it quite enlightening. The book is a first person biography; a kind of story that I have never been quite as interested in as the classic anecdote. If I am completely honest, I found most of the beginning rather dry. The story felt to me as though it had grown rather repetitive: Malala would have some dream or ambition that would seem fairly modest to those of us living in the developed world, which would naturally be made extremely contentious and difficult because she was a girl living in her particular culture.

It got a the point where I could practically narrate alongside the audiobook. And then, halfway through the twelfth or so incident where Malala came up short owing to her gender and her culture, it hit me: that’s the whole point. Yes, it is tedious, to the point of being frustrating to the narrative. That’s the point here. No part of this book would have happened, if not for the constant, grating frustration of sexist attitudes and policies. The story couldn’t progress because of those obstacles, and every time it seemed like one hurdle had been surmounted, another one cropped up. Because that’s what it’s like. And if I, the reader, was frustrated trying to hear the story, just imagine what it would be like to deal with the real deal.

A second revelation also occurred to me. In trying to tell of my tribulations in living with physical disabilities, I have often been accused of overstating the scope of their impact, to the point of copping blame for stirring up unnecessary trouble. People believed, or at least, suspected, that while life might be more difficult in a few select areas, surely it couldn’t effect absolutely everything in the way that I suggested it did. Perhaps, then, the problem lay not with the actual task at hand, but in the fact that my perception had been tainted. Perhaps I was not truly as disabled as I claimed, but merely suffered from a sort of persecution complex. I realized that I had unintentionally, unconsciously, made the same mistake in my reading of Malala’s story.

This also helped to answer another important question: In the developed world, we often hear bickering over to what degree we still “need” the women’s empowerment movement. After all, we have full suffrage, and equality before the law. Discrimination on the matter of sex is illegal, if it can be proven. Given how much better life is for women in the developed world than the developing, is it reasonable to expect more? Are these western advocates simply suffering from a persecution complex? Certainly there are those whose concerns are more immediately applicable and actionable than others, and certainly there are those who will insist no matter how much is done, that it isn’t enough. Such is the nature of politics, and on this the women’s empowerment movement in the developed world is not any different from any other political movement. But on the general question over whether genuine, actionable, inequities exist, it seems now far less unreasonable to me to accept that there may yet be more work to be done than I might have initially been led to believe.

I expect that even this conclusion will be contentious. I expect that I shall be told in short order that I have drawn conclusions from the data which I have aggregated which are faulty, or else that the data itself is biased or misleading. On this point I concede that I am still quite young in my in-depth study of this particular field, and, as mentioned previously, far better minds than mine have devoted entire careers to ironing out the finer points. Reasonable minds may, and indeed do, disagree about specifics. However, if there is one thing which my cursory research and analysis thereof has confirmed in my mind, it is that, on matters of general policy, I would rather err on the side of empathy, choosing rather to be too trusting in the good faith of others, than to ignore and unintentionally oppress.

It follows, then, that I should find myself wholeheartedly endorsing and supporting the observation and celebration of today, International Women’s Day, and reaffirming my support for continuation and expansion of the UN’s Women’s Empowerment Principles.

Open Letter: Betsy DeVos

Today at school there was an informational session regarding the policies of the new department of education, and a letter-writing session to the new secretary of education. Unfortunately, in a bitter and illuminating irony, I was prevented from attending and participating owing to a flare-up of my disability. I have therefore resolved to make my point via online open letter.

Madam Secretary,

If I am completely honest, I hold reservations that you are qualified to hold your current post. Your lack of experience with public schools at all is disturbing; and your characterization of education as an industry rather than the duty of the government in protecting the inalienable right of the citizens in accordance with both international law and domestic precedent, is alarming.

With that said, I shall invite you to prove me wrong. I remain open to the possibility that I have underestimated your abilities and convictions, and those of your cabinet colleagues. In particular, your short-lived, halfhearted attempt to prevent the rollback of existing protections for transgender students is quite heartening, despite its failure. However, I should have to inform you that merely paying lip service to the idea of equal protection is not nearly enough, particularly for one who has sworn an oath to uphold it.

Because I do not expect much in the way of expanded services from your office, the main point of your tenure will be to ensure that existing protections for minorities and those such as myself with disabilities are enforced. Your job is to stand up for those who cannot stand for themselves. This is an enormous responsibility, and one that is arguably more critical to the continuing function of our democratic society than the jobs of your other colleagues.

I will hasten to point out, since the papers have brought it to my attention, that the primary motivation for your backing down during the standoff over transgender protections owed to your job security, that your position is most likely more secure than you may be led to believe. Yours is a senate-confirmed position. You, who were evidently the most qualified candidate the president could muster, only barely made it through senate approval. I do not expect the same senators would take kindly to you being asked to resign over adhering to your legally-mandated duty. I urge you to point out this matter to your colleagues the next time you feel pressured to compromise on principles.

In closing, I urge you, Madam Secretary, to prove me wrong; to demonstrate that you are qualified to uphold your constitutional and legal obligations. Prove that you are willing to put moral principles before money and politics. Give me reason to believe, as you put it during your confirmation hearings, that you “fully embrace equality [and] believe in the innate value of every single human being, and that all students, no matter their age, should be able to attend a school and feel safe and be free from discrimination.” Prove that you will stand by your words and enforce the civil rights legislation that ensures that our society can yet function.

Sincerely,
The Renaissance Guy
Registered independent voter, Blogger, and Student

Strike!

Update: Scroll to the bottom of the post for the latest.

This blog ~~is currently participating~~ successfully participated in the nationwide general strike in protest of the United States government’s actions against refugees and immigrants. Access to our archives ~~has been~~ was temporarily suspended and has since been restored.

We do not apologize for this inconvenience.

All complaints should be directed to the United States government.

Update:

The day is over, and access to our archives has been restored. The Day Without Immigrants strike made headlines nationwide, and shut down a good portion of my local area. It is heartening to see people participating in collective action in meatspace in addition to online action.

Perhpas surprisingly, the hit counter actually reached a record since launch over the past 24 hours. I’m not quite sure what to make of this. We received a great deal of positive feedback during this time, which is much appreciated.

The biggest complaint of this strike, aside from those disagreeing with the cause, and the idea of collective action in general, was that it was poorly organized, poorly publicized, and done on short notice. In a sense, this is good news. It demonstrated the ability for quick reaction, and provides feedback for future action; most notably, the planned general strike for International Women’s Day on March 8th.

There have been talks of further strike action on Friday and continuing into the weekend. I applaud this effort, although I fear that attempting to extend this largely spontaneous effort will overtax the limited economic resources and political will of those who are perhaps sympathetic, but not necessarily committed enough to risk their livelihoods. Better in this case, I believe, to play the long game.

One more thing; amid all the demonstrations and media coverage, the super-PAC behind the presidential administrations quietly released a “Media Accountability Survey”. The questions are, of course, horribly biased, and it seems reasonable to assume that this will result in an accordingly biased result. Therefore, there has been an effort by some social media circles to spread publicity of the survey to ensure that it receives a wide sample size. For those interested, the link is below.

https://action.donaldjtrump.com/mainstream-media-accountability-survey/

You Have The Right To An Education

I am not sold on the going assumption seemingly embraced by the new US presidential administration which characterizes education as an industry, at least, not in the sense that the United States government has traditionally approached other industries. While I can appreciate that there may be a great deal which market competition can improve in the field, I feel it is dangerous to categorize education as merely an economic service rather than an essential civil service and government duty. Because if it is an industry, then it ceases to be a government duty.
The idea that education is a human right is not new, nor is it particularly contentious as human rights go. Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads in part as follows:

Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free […] Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible […] Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

The United States lobbied strongly for the adoption and promotion of this declaration, and for many years touted it as one of the great distinctions which separated the “free world” from the Soviet Union and its allies. Americans were proud that their country could uphold the promise of free education. The United States remains bound to these promises under international law, but more importantly, is bound by the promise to its own citizens.

Of course, there are other, more nationalist grounds for opposing the erosion of the government’s responsibility to its citizens in this regard. Within the United States, it has long been established that, upon arrest, in order for due process to be observed, that a certain exchange must take place between the accused and the authorities. This exchange, known as the Miranda Warning, is well-documented in American crime shows.

The ubiquity of the Miranda Warning is not merely a coincidental procedure, but is in fact an enforced safeguard designed to protect the constitutional rights of the accused. Established in 1966 in the US Supreme Court Case Miranda vs. Arizona, the actual wording is less important than the notion that the accused must be made aware, and must indicate their understanding of, their constitutional rights regarding due process. Failure to do so, even for the most trivial of offenses, is a failure of the government to uphold those rights, and can constitute grounds for a mistrial.

The decision, then, establishes an important premise: Citizens who are not educated about their rights cannot reliably exercise them, and this failure of education represents sufficient legal grounds as to permit reasonable doubt on the execution of justice. It also establishes that this education is the duty of the government, and that a failure here represents an existential failure of that government. It follows, then, that the government and the government alone holds a duty to ensure that each citizen is at least so educated as to reasonably ensure that they can reliably exercise their constitutional rights.

What then, should we make about talk of turning education into a free-for-all “industry”? Can the government still claim that it is fulfilling its constitutional obligations if it is outsourcing them to third parties? Can that government still claim to be of and by the people if it’s essential functions are being overseen and administered by publicly unaccountable individuals? And what happens when one of these organizations fails to educate its students to a reasonable standard? Can the government be held accountable for the subsequent miscarriage of justice if the necessary measures to prevent it were undertaken in such a convolutedly outsourced manner as to make direct culpability meaningless?

As usual, I don’t know the answer, although I fear at our present rate, we may need to look at a newer, more comprehensive Miranda Warning.

Keeping Promises

I have just been informed of a setback to one of the research programs which I have had my eye on as a possible answer to my disability. The setback is not a natural discovery of some scientific obstacle, but rather a political hurdle put in place by the new American presidential administration.

A researcher who had been tapped to work in the United States on curing several deadly disease, including tuberculosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and Type 1 Diabetes, was denied boarding in Frankfurt on the grounds that she was an Iranian national [1][2].

What ever happened to “a big, fat beautiful door right in the middle of the wall” for the “good people” who “have recommendations from people”? This is, after all, the alleged basis for the new executive orders [3]. The researcher in question held a doctorate from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, and was slated to work at Harvard on the personal recommendation of Dr. Soumya Raychaudhuri. Does this not sound like a good person wth recommendations?

This isn’t a question of how to process those who have come to the US illegally. This is someone whose visa was approved, who had even traveled to the US previously [1][2]. This is about America keeping its promises. Because if the United States government decides it can get away with breaking its word whenever it feels like it, how are foreign governments supposed to trust that the US will uphold its end of the bargain when, say, negotiating trade deals, or even security treaties? How are foreign leaders supposed to trust our dealmaker in chief when he decides to renegotiate all of current treaties? This is already in the minds of our European allies, who see this kind of promise-breaking as a destabilizing move [4].

Moreover, if the US government decides it can break its own rules when dealing with foreigners, what is to stop it from deciding it has to keep its promises to its own citizens? We don’t have to imagine an answer, because the State Department has already given us one, saying the dual citizens will be subject to the ban [5].

That is to say that American citizens who are of certain ancestry will not be permitted reentry to the country. This is, frankly, horrifying, and, perhaps ironically, makes me glad I have a second passport. Although I do not plan to leave the country over this latest debacle, I can now say with confidence which I would pick if forced to choose.

Works consulted:

1) Kliff, Sarah. ““But I have a valid visa:” An Iranian researcher barred from flying to US for new job.” Vox 28 Jan. 2017: n. pag. Web.

2) Gans, Felicia. “‘I told him I do have a valid visa, but he told me that it doesn’t matter.’.” Boston Globe. N.p., 29 Jan. 2017. Web. 29 Jan. 2017.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/01/28/told-him-have-valid-visa-but-told-that-doesn-matter/yttREc10s5cc7yjX3d48hJ/story.html

3) Johnson, Kevin R. “Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Door’ Is a Big, Beautiful Step in the Right Direction.” Time. N.p., 29 Oct. 2015. Web. 29 Jan. 2017. <http://time.com/4092571/republican-debate-immigration/>.

4) Smale, Alison. “European Leaders Reject Trump’s Refugee Ban as Violating Principle.” The New York Times. N.p., 29 Jan. 2017. Web. 29 Jan. 2017. <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/world/europe/trump-executive-order-europe-merkel.html?_r=0>.

5) Jordan, Miriam, Ian Lovett, and Alejandro Lazo. “Donald Trump’s Immigration Order Sparks Confusion, Despair at Airports.” The Wall Street Journal. N.p., 29 Jan. 2017. Web. 29 Jan. 2017. <http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-immigration-order-sparks-confusion-despair-at-airports-1485709114>.

Sovereignty Revisited

How do you define a nation? How do you define a state? Does a nation necessitate a state, and vice versa?

The answer to the final question is most likely the simplest of the lot to answer. The existence of such governments-in-exile during World War II, as the Free French government, the Belgian and Dutch governments in London and Canada, and related, prove that a state can exist without distinctly sovereign territory or citizens to govern. Relatedly, the claims of states are not inherently mutually exclusive. The Republic of Korea and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (South and North Korea, respectively), both claim full sovereignty of the entire peninsula. During the Cold War, both the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany claimed to be the sole German nation, claiming all of German territory, and its citizens. This point became important during reunification, as it meant that former East German citizens were automatically entitled to western social services.

But perhaps the most fascinating study is the case of the two Chinas – that is, the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China. Unlike previous examples, this particular division is not the result of joint Soviet/American occupation, but rather the direct result of the end of the Chinese Civil War. The Republic of China, better known to westerners as Taiwan, maintains its claim over the entire Chinese mainland and, critically, claims to be the legitimate successor to China’s millennia of history. This is particularly interesting, as it helps provide an answer to the first question.

A nation, therefore, has as its basic characteristics, a geographic area, a citizenry, and a distinct historical identity. Yet, while a nation may encompass a specific geographical area, it will be seen that a nation need not be restricted to a single sovereign state. Like the case of the two Germanies, the two Chinas, and the governments in exile, a single nation can quite easily have multiple states and governments, even when said states are at odds or even at war.

Of course, this is not news. In Europe, the notion of Europe as a single nation that merely happens to have multiple states is well ingrained, if not universally applauded, with many states going so far as to functionally abolish borders. In the Middle East, the formerly-popular Ba’ath ideology supports the notion of a pan-Arab state. Pan-Africanism remains a strong political force in Africa. The United States of America was originally intended to support this idea, acting as an open federation of American states.

With such historical context, it seems difficult to believe that a nation cannot exist without closed borders. Few will contend that Germany is not a “real” nation because it dismantled the death strips on its borders. Fewer still will maintain that the state of New York has destroyed its economy by allowing open borders and free trade with its neighbor, New Jersey. Yet some still continue to insist that a nation cannot be a nation without fortified borders and rigid immigration restrictions.

To be clear, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for maintaining border security. There are reasons why a state may wish to prevent illegal immigration. But national sovereignty is not among them.

For reference, here is the US-Canada border in Alaska. It’s worth noting here for the record that more illegal immigrants come through this border than the US-Mexico one. And yet, there is no talk of building a wall.

And here is the monument just beside the checkpoint, celebrating the fact that we as a nation do not require fortified borders to feel secure.

The monument calls the friendship between the US and Canada, and the resulting open borders, “a lesson of peace to all nations”. The new administration would do well to remember this lesson.

Engineering Equality

If you didn’t know already, I occasionally advocate for causes I believe in. More rarely, I go so far as to actually volunteer to go meet with people. I am not exactly a people person, so I take these kinds of engagements quite seriously. One particular role I have played is acting as an effective salesperson for the Nightscout Foundation. Amid other things, one of the activities I do is show people how to build little battery powered LED lights from off-the-shelf hardware components. It’s meant to be a proof of concept, as our foundation is a maker-movement DIY group. The notion is that if you can assemble a simple LED with a little instruction, you have all the qualifications to go on and build anything. If you can build this, you can engineer your own solutions to your chronic illness.

For the adults and those who are interested in our foundation, it provides a great segue into talking about building your own treatment setups. For the kids and the casual observers, it’s a great feel-good moment and a pleasant memento. But being a DIY engineering project, even if a relatively simple and small scale one, has inspired a great variety of reactions in a great variety of people.

Some you might expect. For example, kids tend to be more enthralled with the idea of a fun project than the adults, who are by and large more interested in free stuff. These are trade shows where we’re presenting, after all. Some are a bit less expected though.

For one thing, I’ve distinctly noticed that some of our oldest visitors also seem to be the most interested in building something themselves. I had one elderly lady at the American Diabetes Association conference. She had a walker and wore an eyepatch on one eye, a pair of thick glasses over both. Her hands shook as she tried to grip the components. In her place, I might have well given up. Yet she persisted in doing it herself. Seeing the LED bulb light up, she herself lit up to match.

At the same conference was a man in a wheelchair. His hat proclaimed he was a Veteran of several different conflicts. He did not seem awfully happy to be at that particular conference on that day. Yet he was overjoyed to be able to build a simple little gadget, which he used to decorate his own wheelchair. After completing his first one, a red bulb, my mother pointed out that he ought to build a green bulb one as well, for port and starboard on his wheelchair. He agreed wholeheartedly. I don’t think I have ever seen a man more proud of his wheelchair.

Another demographic trend which I have noticed recently, which I would not have expected but perhaps should not be so surprised at: I have noticed that while children of both sexes participate in roughly equal numbers, on the whole, the girls have seemed more interested. It’s hard to quantify and difficult to explain, but I see more of that familiar gleam – that hope – when I give my whole spiel about being able to build anything.

This is of particular interest to me, because this anecdotal experience seems to be in line with some of the larger picture about STEM-related skills in American students. The data, which admittedly is still quite limited, has suggested that young girls may actually be better equipped in terms of scientific than their male counterparts, at least at a young age. This, despite overwhelmingly male-dominated workplaces in STEM fields.

There are of course other possibilities. Perhaps girls at trade shows are simply more interested because it is an arts and crafts project as much as an engineering one. Perhaps they see other people wearing their LEDs and don’t want to miss out on the latest fashion. But I don’t think so. Also, it’s worth nothing, none of these scenarios are mutually exclusive.

If this pattern is true, then it points to some very dark truths about our society and culture. It suggests that not only are we shortchanging women, and likely also many other traditionally marginalized groups, but from a technological development standpoint, we are robbing the world of their opportunity to improve life for everyone. Still, I remain hopeful. We can’t undo the past, and we can’t change our social order and culture overnight, but we can set a positive example and improve outreach. For my part, I intend to continue my work promoting DIY engineering solutions. Do It Yourself is, after all, completely gender neutral and inclusive.

The truth is that the solution to achieving genuine equality- between genders, ages, races, and all the other things that divide us – lies in enabling those that are interested and able to access the necessary resources to advance both themselves, and humanity as a whole. The solution to equality lies not in legislation, but in education. Only by encouraging self-motivated DIY engineers can we expect to achieve the egalitarian dream that we have for so long been promised.

On the Affordable Care Act

“Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.” – Book of Matthew 10:8

“Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world” – Thomas Paine, Common Sense

I do not particularly like the Affordable Care Act. It is unwieldy, needlessly complex, and yes, it costs more than it probably needs to. But at the same time, and this is crucial, it is a vast improvement over the previous state of affairs. Not only this, but the continued coverage of our most vulnerable citizens by the Affordable Care Act is not only a moral necessity, but is critical to maintaining our democratic way of life.

While there is no law that states that a republic need aim to suppress inequality, there is a basic rule in economics and sociology that states that those who are truly impoverished; that is, those who cannot meet their basic needs, also cannot reasonably participate, in an informed way, at least, in a democratic process [6][7]. After all, if one needs to work continuously in order to continue to pay for life support, when exactly is one expected to register to vote, research candidates, call representatives, and actually vote?

It follows, then, that if the function and duty of the democratic-republican government is foremost to safeguard our inalienable natural rights against tyranny, as the founding documents and rhetoric of the United States seem to maintain [8], then the same government also has a mandate and a duty to ensure that citizens are at least not so crushed by poverty and circumstance as to effectively impugn upon those rights.

Such is the moral and constitutional basis for the Affordable Care Act. And while it may be argued that the program is not necessarily as efficient as we feel it perhaps ought to be, these are problems to be solved with a scalpel rather than a hatchet. The simple fact remains that without any sort of similar protection, millions of Americans afflicted with chronic conditions would not be in a state to exercise their rights to self-determination. Given that all but the most ardent anarchists maintain that it is the duty of the government to defend the rights of its vulnerable citizens, it follows that it is also the responsibility of the government to, if not provide healthcare outright, then to at least ensure that it does not become so much of a crushing burden as to prevent the free exercise of citizens’ rights.

To the patriotic, there is also the matter of showing that the United States is a civilized, developed nation capable of taking care of its citizens. It is no secret that the American healthcare system ranks extremely unfavorably with its fellow developed nations, and has often become the butt of jokes in such countries [9]. While the Affordable Care Act will in no way solve this discrepancy singlehandedly, it does go a ways towards closing the gap.

There are, of course, other benefits to a robust and accessible medical system more enticing to the self-interested. For starters, ensuring widespread, if not universal, coverage, will help mitigate the effects of the next major disease outbreak [5]. Given the distinct possibility that the next major outbreak will also be the pandemic that brings human civilization to the brink of collapse, a la the bubonic plague, having a healthcare system which allows for the timely containment and treatment of infected individuals is probably a worthwhile investment [1][5]. Given this, it is not unreasonable to equate the funding of the Affordable Care Act to that of Civil Defense, now under the auspices of Homeland Security. Notably, very few seem eager to defund the DHS.

It is also worth reiterating that the additional government investment in healthcare subsequent to the Affordable Care Act, has in fact brought in net savings. It is estimated that each dollar invested yields a return of approximately $1.35 [2],either in direct savings, fewer welfare payments, or increased tax revenues from newly enabled workers. Money spent on preventative care, such as vaccinations, well-visits, and related, which are notably the things least likely to be purchased by those who are not covered, yield returns of $5 for every $1 invested [3]. Spending on care for those with chronic preexisting conditions, who are only covered in the first place because of the Affordable Care Act, yield an ROI of approximately $3 for every $1 invested, not including additional benefits gained from the prevention of such conditions in vulnerable populations [1][2][4].

But all of this pales in comparison to the moral imperative to help one’s neighbor. Fascinatingly, many of the same figures who now exalt the Bible as the ultimate source of governmental direction seem to also be selectively ignoring the biblical mandate to help the poor and vulnerable. The Bible, for its part, is quite clear on the responsibility for all Christians; indeed, for all moral people, to provide for the humane treatment of the sick.

When I lived in Australia, healthcare was provided by the government as a matter of course. After all, how could a government provide freedom to a citizenry that was crippled by disease? How could anyone support a government which had the means to save the lives of its citizens, but chose not to for political reasons? How could anyone be proud of, or be expected to serve that country? Providing healthcare was viewed as part of what it meant to be a functional, first-world government.

As stated previously, I do not particularly like the Affordable Care Act. I think it was a lily-livered compromise. I am in agreement with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that health, like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are inalienable human rights, and that anything short of a full guarantee to protect these rights is a failure of our government and society at a fundamental level. However, given the choice between the Affordable Care Act and what existed before it, I feel compelled to defend the ACA. If is a stopgap, to be sure, and an unwieldy one at that, but until such time as a reasonable replacement emerges, it is in the best interests of all involved to ensure that it remains in effect.

Works Cited:

1. “How Americans can get a better return on their health care investments.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2017.

2. Abrams, Melinda Abrams, Stuart Guterman Guterman, Rachel Nuzum Nuzum, Jamie Ryan Ryan, Mark Zezza Zezza, and Jordan Kiszla Kiszla. “The Affordable Care Act’s Payment and Delivery System Reforms: A Progress Report at Five Years.” (2015): n. pag. Web.

3. Armstrong, Edward P. “Economic Benefits and Costs Associated With Target Vaccinations.” Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy 13.7 Supp B (2007): 12-15. Web.

4. “Sustained Benefit of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on A1C, Glucose Profiles, and Hypoglycemia in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.” American Diabetes Association. ADA, n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2017.

5. “Infection prevention and control in health care for preparedness and response to outbreaks.” WHO. World Health Organization, n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2017.

6. “Poverty Traps.” Research – Knowledge in Development Note: Poverty Traps. World Bank, n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2017.

7. Whitley, E., D. Gunnell, D. Dorling, and G. D. Smith. “Ecological study of social fragmentation, poverty, and suicide.” Bmj 319.7216 (1999): 1034-037. Web.

8. United States of America. Continental Congress. The Declaration of Independence. By Thomas Jefferson. Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration, 1992. Print.

9. Munro, Dan. “U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 03 Feb. 2015. Web. 13 Jan. 2017.