History Will Not Look Kindly Upon Us : The Refugee Children

The reaction of anti-immigration "activists" along the United States/Mexico border during the past few weeks has been, to put it bluntly, disgusting and shameful.  Of course, I am completely in favor of people within our country being able to voice their opinions publicly through protest.  However, it appears to me that these so-called protesters are attempting to do little but inspire terror in the women and children who have been flooding across the borders from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.  If they were truly protesting to make their opinions known in the interest of changing our policies, would they not be protesting in Washington DC or in the capitals of their respective states (California, Texas, etc.)?  Because those are the locations where individuals with the power to pass legislation that would impact this situation (one way or another) reside.  Would it not then make sense to take your message there?  Except inspiring change in a civil manner, through our legislative process, does not appear to be their true intent.  No, their goal, as demonstrated by the words they've spoken, the signs they carry, their clear hostility, and the location of their protestations, is to harass and intimidate the immigrants themselves...to "put them in their place," and let them know that they are unwanted.

Yes...clearly a thoughtful movement for change. 

The embarrassing actions of the protesters themselves is, of course, only part of a much larger problem surrounding this issue.  It is clear to anyone who has conducted even a rudimentary inquiry into the crisis at the border that many of the people who are currently entering the country, including a large number of unaccompanied minors, are doing so because they are in danger of being killed, persecuted, or forcibly recruited into violent drug gangs if they remain in their home countries.  This is a tragic situation.  Even those who are opposed to the immigrants being allowed to remain within the United States (well, those who attempt to appear civilized, not the protesters themselves) profess sympathy for what they have gone through and argue that "something" must be done.

Quite frankly, in this particular instance, sympathy is not sufficient.  Partially because of the fact that, as was so succinctly explained in this recent article on the Huffington Post  policies enacted within the United States are largely responsible for the current situation in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.  Our attempts to control the internal politics of these countries, going back to the Cold War, coupled with the failed policies of the "war on drugs" that have also destroyed any semblance of "justice" within our own legal system, has completely destabilized much of Latin America.  Perhaps even more shockingly (for most Americans who have no clue about what happens beyond our borders) these very gangs are being run by individuals who honed their skills within gangs in US cities!  Given our strong complicity in creating the conditions that these suffering women and children are fleeing from, it seems only fair to argue that we are (at least partially) responsible for ensuring that they are protected in some manner.

Furthermore, there is no justification for the United States - the wealthiest country in the world - claiming that we cannot afford to offer asylum to refugees who have turned up on our doorstep.  Especially given that we have a history of putting pressure on other nations to not only welcome refugees into their countries, but to provide those refugees with assistance in the forms of food, shelter, and medical treatment.  How can we petition countries like Pakistan, Turkey, and Jordan to support refugees when we are seemingly unwilling to do so ourselves?

This is, of course, sadly, not the only time the United States has found itself in this type of situation.  We (should) all remember the failure of the United States during the late 1930s and 1940s to provide refuge to Jewish men, women, and children fleeing repression, persecution, and eventually execution, in both Nazi Germany and the occupied territories of Europe.  President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's silence in reaction to the petition of the passengers on the St. Louis for asylum has long been viewed as a stain on the reputation of one of the great leaders of the war years.  Much like today, the US pressured neighboring and allied countries, particularly Cuba, to welcome Jewish refugees in large numbers, while refusing to do so themselves, due to "economic hardship" and a lack of jobs and housing.  Hmmm....sounds familiar doesn't it? Of course, Cuba saw no reason to accept refugees when so wealthy and massive a country as the United States would not.  Similarly, today, it seems unlikely that other nations will look at our actions and think anything other than "well, if the US, such a wealthy and powerful country, refuses to protect people fleeing oppression, why should we"?

Unfortunately, the consequences to the real people in these situations is all too predictable. 

History will certainly judge us by our actions at this moment in time.  Will we rise to the challenge, and prove to the world that we do indeed believe in the values we claim to hold, and that we demand the rest of the world live up to?  Or will we refuse to protect those whose lives are at risk, largely because of actions taken by people within this country over the past fifty years?  How do we want to be viewed by the world?  By future generations?  As the kind of people who will take action in support of those in need?  Or as xenophobic, racist, selfish, ignorant people, too concerned with maintaining our own power to feel any sense of empathy for those who are merely searching for the kind of life we all currently enjoy?  Because I assure you, if we do not act quickly and decisively to help these refugees, history will not look kindly upon us.

Which side of history do you want to be on?

Weekend? What is a Weekend?

Starting on Monday, July 7th, I will be teaching three two-hour block sessions a day at a local high school. That's right.  Two hours of US History, followed by two hours of Participation in Government, followed by two hours of Economics...with no breaks.  For those of you who have never taught or worked in a capacity that involves a lot of public speaking, and are thinking "so, I always work for MORE than six hours straight...harrumph," just imagine managing a group of twenty-five teenagers for six hours straight.  (My voice!  My poor voice!)  Then come and speak to me.  But I digress.

I am very excited to be teaching these courses, as I am (obviously) highly invested in the youth of America becoming engaged and informed citizens.  However, while I have taught a number of content areas in the past (global studies, general social studies, cultural anthropology, sociology, archaeology, etc.) this is my first time teaching US, Econ, and P.I.G.  What this means, again for the non teachers out there, is that I was going to have to do a hell of a lot of preparation prior to the beginning of summer school!  I had absolutely no materials six weeks ago - no notes, no pictures, no primary source readings, no assignments, no maps, no videos...you get the idea.  The past month and a half has been a roller coaster ride for me.  Almost every free moment has been devoted to planning.  I am pretty sure I had a birthday in there somewhere back at the beginning of June, and I consciously am aware that I attended my father's wedding a couple of weeks ago, but it is all a blur, because I was even thinking about a particular lesson during the reception itself.  It has gotten to the point where I have only been sleeping about four hours a night (if I am lucky) because I stay awake until two a.m. working, and then cannot relax because of the guilt I feel over the fact that I did not accomplish as much as I thought that I should.  Obscene, I know.

All of this culminated in a moment of horrified clarity for me today when I took an hour off from planning to head down to the school and go over some of the materials that I had sent out to the school's print shop for copying.  When I arrived, I was very displeased to discover that some of my materials that I had requested be available by June 28th had still not been delivered, nor had an entire box worth of copies I had requested be available by Monday, July 7th.  I began to feel extremely stressed, worrying about whether or not my materials would be delivered in time for the class meetings in which they were intended to be utilized.  I was irritated and wanted to know why this had happened (although I tried to remain calm and collected).  That is when the Assistant Principle, who is in charge of operations this summer, informed me that the employees who work at the print center left for vacation after the end of the regular school year and would not be returning until Monday.

My immediate reaction was one of confusion.  Vacation?  Who has a vacation?  That was quickly followed by as a pathetic round of self-pity coupled with a dose of what I can only describe as some form of martyr complex.  I was furious.  Here I was working around the clock to prepare for summer school - not having time for sleep, being unable to go out with my husband for my birthday, missing family gatherings - and all of my work might be for nothing?  My goal of being prepared might be thwarted, I might be stuck scrambling, because other people decided to take a vacation the week before summer school started?!  All of this after I spent the last semester working 60-70 hour weeks without a vacation myself?  I am embarrassed to admit that I felt angry at the print shop workers.  Why couldn't they wait until after summer school had begun to take a vacation?  Why could they not stagger their vacations so that at least one person was working all year long, ensuring that copies were available?  What kind of insanity is this???

It was not until I had calmed down enough to think rationally again that I realized the only insanity in this situation was coming from me.  How warped has my way of thinking become that instead of lamenting my own sad lack of leisure time - the consequence of a society that pushes us to work until we drop, lest we risk being labeled as lazy or unworthy of our precious jobs - that I was allowing myself to think that other people did not deserve theirs?  This form of thinking comes out of the same type of "divide and conquer" ideology that convinces private sector employees to hate unions because they have pensions and benefits, rather than their employers, who refuse to provide the same basic, fair services to them.

Of course, this mind-set did not appear overnight.  It is the culmination of years of Americans being pushed to work harder and harder for less and less, all with the knowledge that their superiors are looking over their shoulders, implying that those who seem less committed to the job are expendable.  Certainly we are all aware (or at least have been told) that there are plenty of people out there who would LOVE the chance to take our place - that would kill for the opportunity to work 60 hours a week and go years without a real vacation, if that meant they had access to a job with prestige and a reliable income.  For me, this was the result of years of graduate school - perhaps the most competitive, time consuming, soul sucking form of "employment" that exists, followed by a couple of years in the field of secondary and higher education.  That sort of environment, one that is similar to the environments lived in by Americans in many other areas of work (medicine, law, media, corporate, etc.) has imbued in me a set of values and norms that are hard to shake.  These norms include:

1) Never refuse an opportunity for advancement.  And I mean NEVER - even if it means giving up the little free time you already have.  Last semester I enrolled in four on-line courses and attended weekend professional development seminars, despite being so exhausted that I was suffering from a string of migraine headaches, because I thought it would make me look committed to my current institution, and that commitment might provide me with opportunities for advancement.  Which, of course, it did!  Did that justify the time I lost and the cost to my health?  I am still conflicted over this.

2) Do not let anyone think you are replaceable.  Taking time off for illness or family problems can be dangerous, let alone going on vacation, because when you do such a thing, someone has to fill in for you.  What happens if that person proves to be equally capable?  Or worse, they're nowhere near as capable as you, but their confidence and charm convinces your boss that they are?

3) You should always be "on the job."  I do not remember what it is like to really have a "weekend."  For me, the "weekend" is little more than an opportunity to do more research, planning, and grading from the comfort of my home, instead of at school.  The best part of the "weekend" is that I do not have to waste time commuting!  The very idea that I could leave work on Friday and not work or, perish the thought, do something else with my time - like visit long suffering friends and family members, who must think I have become some sort of crazed hermit, only reachable through my fifth appendage, my laptop - is so unthinkable that I am becoming anxious right now while I am typing!

And then of course...there is this...

All of these norms are the consequences of larger societal trends in identity formation.  Our society, quite frankly, pushes us to identify with our work.  Don't believe me?  Try this little experiment next time you have the opportunity.  When you are in a group of people meeting for the first time, ask them all to "tell me something about yourself."  Or, if you do not want to deal with collecting people in "groups," (understandably) then just listen to what people generally say upon introducing themselves to you.  Think about how you would describe yourself.  Heck, even think about how people are introduced on nightly news programs, or game shows like Jeopardy!  The first way we present ourselves to others is through what we do for work.  Not our family structure, not our religious beliefs or systems of morality, certainly not what we enjoy doing for "fun" or leisure - our career is our number one identifying marker.

This may seem insignificant but it does have larger implications.  If we see ourselves as our job, well then we are going to be very protective of that job aren't we?  We are going to feel not just external, but also internal pressure, to excel in our work, in order to prove that we are worthwhile as human beings and members of our society. We are going to give all of ourselves to our work at the expense of other arenas of life that surely are of at least equal, if not vastly more, importance. Most problematically, we are going to be more likely to judge others based upon their work.  This leads to a lack of compassion for people who we feel work less hard than we do, but appear to have an easier life (I say appear because, of course, this assumption is often incredibly invalid and based on little more than our own unhappiness with our personal situation).

On the one hand, awesome.  On the other, should I be taking advice from a fictional figment of someone's imagination? Oh the dilemma.

Does this mean that we should not take pride in working hard?  Of course not.  I legitimately love what I do. Whether I am working with college or high school students, teaching anthropology or history (maybe not economics...), writing or lecturing, I do feel as though I am in my element.  I get a thrill from taking on interesting challenges and succeeding.  I obtain pleasure from working with young people and seeing them engage with new ideas and perspectives.  Still, should my entire existence be wrapped up in the constant quest to "do more" in order to prove myself worthy of keeping that job? I don't think so. Would I not be happier if I was a living being with passions first (teaching just happening to be one of them) and an employee second?  Absolutely.  At the very least, I wouldn't be begrudging other people their well deserved vacation simply because I do not have the luxury of taking time off.  And I know that would make me feel better about myself.      

Why Are People So Opposed To Women Having Sex?

Today was a difficult day for those of us who support gender equality.  The much anticipated decision in the Hobby Lobby case, over whether or not the corporate owners have the right to demand that the healthcare coverage provided to employees does not include particular forms of birth control, was handed down.  For many of us, the 5-4 decision in favor of the owners was, sadly, not a surprise.  Never-the-less, the ideologies and conflicting systems of cultural value that we are forced to contend with in light of the ruling, are troubling.

The outcome of the Hobby Lobby case is problematic for a number of reasons.  Many of them have been discussed at length throughout the day across social and traditional media platforms. The one I would like to focus on however, is not explicitly mentioned in the decision, nor is it immediately obvious when analyzing the arguments.  However, it is significant because it seems to be hiding beneath all of the other issues.  It is the larger societal assumption and cultural values that have led us down this path in the first place.  Before we get there, I would like to briefly summarize some of the troubling issues that have gotten the majority of the attention of commentators today (at least those on the "left").

1) The implications for how we interpret the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.  Since when did the freedom to practice your religion without restriction become the "freedom" to impose your particular beliefs onto others? Particularly, those who you already hold a position of power over? Perhaps I missed something but I was under the (apparently misguided) impression that in the United States, one person's Constitutional rights stop when they threaten to infringe upon those of others.  No?

2) Are there any limits on corporate power left?  The entire purpose of creating a corporation, rather than merely running your business as an independent owner, is to detach the business from your personhood. You are essentially choosing to create a legal entity that stands in for you (and your partners) and serves as a shield or a barrier between business practices and personal behavior.  This is beneficial to both the corporation itself and to the founders/owners/investors.  The owners cannot lose their personal resources if the corporation goes bankrupt or is sued.  Likewise, the corporation does not necessarily have to fall apart (or risk being sued) if one of the owners commits an illegal act.  The result of this is that corporations themselves do not have to follow the same standards as human beings.  However, the trade-off was supposed to be, that corporations were not entitled to the same rights as human beings either!  Why not?  Because the corporate owners had themselves declared that they were NOT the corporation by incorporating their business!!!!!  Given this, the notion that a corporation can have "religious beliefs" someone magically transferred to it by the owners is absurd and insulting.  The owners should not be able to exempt themselves from certain laws by creating a corporation while simultaneously saying as "part of the corporation" they have the right to freedoms designated for human beings.

3) The potential for future rulings along similar lines is frightening to contemplate.  Despite Justice Alito's protestations, it is difficult to believe that other corporations will not attempt to follow in Hobby Lobby's footsteps.  What is to stop them from claiming their religious convictions prevent them from serving the LGBT community?  Or that their religion is opposed to vaccinations or blood transfusions?  Alito claims that those cases would be different because of their potential consequences on a societal scale.  But who among us truly believes that will stop corporations from taking the opportunity to destroy more governmental mandates and regulations, now that they've tasted success?  Furthermore, even Alito's colleague, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is unconvinced that her conservative colleagues on the court would refuse to listen to further cases along these lines.

4) At least five justices of the Supreme Court have demonstrated that they lack a basic understanding of the science surrounding reproduction.  A substantial portion of the argument on the side of the owners was that they believe these particular forms of contraception serve as abortifacients.  This is simply untrue.  Scientifically, factually, untrue.  What does this mean?  Quite simply, that the Supreme Court has decided that religious beliefs can trump scientific fact...but only under certain circumstances.  After all, in a number of state and federal cases in the past, judges have ruled that people do not have the right to refuse medical treatment for their children, or even for themselves, unless they are scientifically and medically informed, and are not at risk for injuring others with their choices, regardless of religious beliefs.  Essentially, this ruling suggests that Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas either do not understand the science behind contraception, or they think that this particular form of "unscientific religious belief" is more worthy of protection and consideration than other forms. Hmmm....I wonder why that would be the case?

This brings me to the larger issue - the one lying just beneath the surface of all of the, admittedly very significant, problems with the decision that have been getting so much attention.  What is that issue, you may ask?  In the United States, despite the apparent gains in gender equality and opportunity, the concerns of Women are still seen as fringe issues, less worthy of respect.  Yes, yes, yes.  I can hear you protesting and groaning.  "Not another overly sensitive feminist blogger making everything about misogyny!"  Well, first of all, feminists do not MAKE anything about misogyny.  We're just aware of its' existence and not afraid to point it out when we see it.

Not convinced?  Lets take a look at today's ruling, shall we?  What exactly is the "sincere" religious belief that is being debated in the Hobby Lobby case?  That it is wrong to have an "abortion"?  Well, as previously mentioned, these particular forms of contraception do NOT act as abortifacients.  I suppose we could simply accept that the owners of Hobby Lobby, their attorneys, the individuals supporting them, and five members of the U.S. Supreme Court are completely and entirely scientifically illiterate.  That is of course, a terrifying thought - but one that is hard to truly believe.

What makes greater sense is the idea that these individuals are obviously aware that contraception does not abort fetuses.  However, what it DOES do, and what many religious groups are opposed to, is prevent women engaging in sexual intercourse from becoming pregnant.  Why would they object to preventing pregnancy?  Quite simply, because their religion teaches them that sex exists solely for the purpose of procreation.  Meaning that if you are using contraception you are obviously a sex crazed harlot who is "sinning."  You are unworthy of the money the Green family pays (ignoring that you yourself pay a substantial employee contribution) for your healthcare! You must change your ways - meaning give up your need for these forms of contraception - meaning stop having so much sex, seriously! - or go pay for your IUDs yourself.  This perspective has been laid out repeatedly throughout the day by conservative pundits and bloggers, reacting with jubilation to the decision.  Erick Erickson immediately tweeted that his religion "...trumps your 'right' to employer subsidized consequence free sex."  His sentiment was replicated a number of times.

Oh Erick Erickson...if you were only in my court room!

How about Alito's claim that the issue of birth control is "different" than that of vaccinations?  This is, yet again, indicative of certain members of the Supreme Court's inability to understand perspectives beyond their own experience.  Are there really, any women out there who would argue that contraceptive care is NOT a human health issue, one with larger societal implications?  Sure, a lack of access to birth control will not lead to an epidemic, like we could experience if enough people choose to stop vaccinating for measles, for example.  However, numerous studies have demonstrated that lack of access to affordable contraceptive care has immediate and significant consequences for women.

The ability of a woman to choose her spouse, her career options, and make economic decisions, is directly tied to her ability to control her fertility. Options for women with children are severely limited, particularly women working full time at an organization like Hobby Lobby, who are often paid little more than minimum wage.  Still, Alito's decision does not appear to take these issues seriously.  It, in point of fact, argues that the reproductive and economic freedom of women, or the "gender issue" is less critical than the right of a corporation to believe in scientifically unsound principles!  He truly seems to believe that society would be more severely undermined by a corporation being "forced" to provide contraceptive coverage than by restricting the choices of women.  The ideology behind such a statement is profoundly troubling.

Finally, one could argue that this decision is more indicative of a tendency among the conservative judges to support religious freedoms or corporate power.  It is certainly true that the court has proven to be very friendly to business and religious groups.  However, as previously mentioned, the court has ruled in favor of restricting the actions of religious groups and even corporate groups in the past.  In fact, the Hobby Lobby decision blatantly states (despite the doubts of many people) that the court does not want to give businesses or religious groups the right to deny ALL treatments that they do not believe in...just this one.  The larger pattern that the Hobby Lobby decision does neatly fit in with is one of not taking the needs and rights of women in the United States seriously.  Particularly in relation to sexuality.  The recent decision in McCullen v. Coakley demonstrated all too well that the court is not concerned with protecting women - at least not when there is a competing interest group claiming their rights are being trampled on.  ANY competing interest group will do.  For this Court, corporations, religious groups, and protesters are all worthy of serious consideration and respect....Women....not so much.

John Roberts - I Wish I Lived in Your Utopian America

Back in April when the Supreme Court issued yet another ruling relaxing restrictions on campaign financing in McCutcheon v. FEC, many people were...shall we say...displeased with the justifications for the ruling as presented by Chief Justice John Roberts.  Roberts made a number of statements that came across as shockingly uninformed to anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of our political system.

For instance, in discussing the potential for increasing amounts of money in politics to create unfair class divisions in terms of political power, Roberts stated that "the possibility that an individual who spends large sums of money may garner 'influence over or even access to' elected officials or political parties," was not something that should be the concern of the federal government.  And why does Roberts seem to think this is not the job of the federal government?  Why, because it would be limiting the freedom of speech of individuals who wish to express themselves monetarily, of course!

Ok, lets put aside the far from settled debate over whether money should constitute speech for a second.  I know, I know, I don't want to put that aside either, but just bear with me!  Assume that we accept this idea. The question then obviously becomes, why should freedom of speech automatically take precedent over the right of all citizens to have an equal amount of influence in our political system?  Speech trumps equality? Many people, myself included, felt that Roberts ought to explain why he apparently felt this was an easy decision to make.

Unfortunately, what we were given (instead of a thoughtful argument - which I am perfectly willing to concede may be possible to make) was Roberts' disbelief in the very idea that denying the government the ability to regulate certain campaign contributions could possibly result in inequality or political corruption! That is because, according to Roberts and the conservative wing of the court, there cannot possibly be corruption unless their is a quid pro quo exchange, and clearly campaign contributions are not that.

I just...I don't even...ugh.

Of course, this is ridiculous on many levels.  First of all, many states (and indeed the federal government) have repeatedly ruled that corruption and bribery can be found in instances of undue influence, not just direct, overt exchanges of items of equal value.  Perhaps more importantly, it implies that people cannot be corrupted on a personal level (psychologically, emotionally) unless someone blatantly comes out and says to them "I want to buy your votes!"  One would assume that any human being with a sense of self and emotional intelligence, which we would hope the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has, would be able to recognize that people do not usually buckle under the pressure of influence merely because of the possibility of overt monetary rewards.  It is a subtle process of wooing people - of convincing them that they are doing the right thing; that by throwing a few votes someone's way they can stay in Congress and continue to "do good;" of befriending them and stroking their ego - that corrupts.  Finally, Roberts' statements suggest he thinks that US politicians are too good to be corrupted by campaign contributions.

Unable to understand how someone could rise to the position of Chief Justice and yet be unable to grasp these basic ideas prompted Bill Maher to (notoriously) state about Roberts that "either he is a liar or he is too naive to hold any important job including, and especially, this one."  Other rulings seem to support Maher's idea.  Who can forget the ridiculous justification for the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act? Apparently the South has changed!  Racism is no longer a major problem!  In fact, the larger concern is that the equal rights of Southern states are being violated by demanding that they ask for permission to change their voting laws,when other states do not have to.  Considering that those same states immediately moved to enact prejudicial Voter ID laws mere hours after the decision was handed down, one wonders what world Roberts is living in!

Source: John Cole, CagelCartoons.com

Which brings us to the most recent Supreme Court decision to send shock waves through the social justice and civil rights communities - McCullen v. Coakley.  In McCullen, the Court ruled that the First Amendment rights of anti-abortion protesters (oh excuse me, I mean, "advisers") were being violated by a law in Massachusetts that restricted protesting to 35 feet outside of clinics providing abortion services.  Of course, there are,once again, legitimate arguments to be made for not restricting free speech in any instance of protestation.  If that was the position consistently taken by the Roberts Court, well then, whatever your political leanings, you would have to respect it to some degree.  However, the Supreme Court has in the past agreed with the idea that speech can and should be limited, including protest speech, particularly if that "speech" devolves into harassment or intimidation.  Furthermore, as Rachel Maddow pointed out, it is currently impossible for citizens to protest in front of the Supreme Court!  Apparently, in the case of the Court itself, free speech is less important than order.

How is it that the Roberts Court could not see the blatant hypocrisy behind this position?  Is it simply that, as Maher stated, the Court is full of idealists or liars?  I think it is a little more complicated than that.  Lets look at Roberts' justification for the decision in McCullen.  According to Roberts, the people whose speech they are protecting here are "petitioners, not protesters," who merely want to have the right to converse compassionately with women about their options.  They do not want to shame them, merely to help them! Oh ok!  Sorry, I guess all of those posters of dead fetuses and the cries of "slut" and "murderer" hurled at women as they walked into Planned Parenthood had me confused....

On the surface, this would, again, appear to support the notion that Roberts is simple naive.  That he lives in a happy little utopian America in his head.  One where anti-abortion activists are all sweet, helpful old ladies, women seeking out abortions are doing so only because they do not know they have other choices, Southern states have no interest in restricting voting rights, racism is dead, and money in politics does not corrupt!  It is a lovely dream - one that clearly has no basis reality for most Americans.

However, and this is the crucial point, for Roberts and many others like him, this is reality.  Their reality.  This IS the world as they know it.

Quite simply, Roberts is not a liar.  Perhaps you would be justified in calling him naive, but that suggests a problem with him personally, and hides the systemic problem that leads to this lack of understanding.  That problem is a disconnect between different social and cultural groups within the United States.  As has been pointed out recently in a number of academic and media outlets, Americans are increasingly self-segregating. As a result, we have little ability to understand and empathize with the struggles and experiences of people whose lives do not mirror our own.

Anthropologists and other social scientists have struggled for years to push people outside of their comfort zones, and help them see that, just because something someone says does not reflect your personal experiences, does not mean that they are "making it up" or "exaggerating."  That struggle must continue.  Until a wealthy, powerful, middle aged, white man, like Chief Justice John Roberts, can look past his own experiences and empathize with people whose lives are not as rosy as his (an elderly black man in North Carolina who suddenly cannot vote; a young women with three children and no job, who simply cannot afford to be pregnant yet again), there will be little chance of achieving legal equality in our society.  

Conflicting Values : Loss of Democracy in Detroit

I have always been fascinated by situations where conflicts within value systems and policies of institutions, societies, and cultural groups get negotiated.  Sometimes the conflicts are necessary for the organization in question to even exist.  Case in point - the United Nations.  The emphasis placed on the sovereignty of nations states, the desire to promote universal human rights, and the ability of cultures to live according to their own systems of belief, are constant sources of friction.  This has particularly been the case when you investigate human rights violations and disastrous peacekeeping missions.  And yet, without the principle of sovereignty being enshrined in the Charter, the UN would certainly cease to exist and would be incapable of doing anything to uphold more humanistic values!

Similar conflicts seem to lie beneath the surface of our own political system.  One of the most troubling of those conflicts is, of course, that between federalism and civil rights.  These two seemingly fundamental ideals have been battling it out since the founding of our nation-state.  Federalism has, problematically, often won this battle.  The idea that the Federal Government does not have the right to step in and "police" the actions of States when they are dealing with traditionally reserved or non-designated powers, has allowed politicians (and increasingly, corporations) to get away with a range of disgusting activities.

Protests in the Streets for Civil Rights - Because Federalism Can Be Used to Justify the Unjustifiable

Most recently, we have seen the complete loss of representative government within the city of Detroit. When Michigan Governor Rick Snyder appointed an "emergency manager" to control Detroit unilaterally, despite never being elected to office by the city's population the people of  Detroit effectively lost all ability to have a say in the way their city operates.  You heard that right.  A supposedly "democratic" American city - in point of fact one of the cities that laid the foundations for American prosperity and power in the world - became an authoritarian state.  The authority in question set about dismantling Detroit's pension and school systems, and privatizing areas that had traditionally belonged to the people as a whole.  Free spaces and public utilities were also up for grabs.  All in the name of "fiscal responsibility."

Lately, the situation in Detroit has taken an even more disturbing turn, as the emergency manager's office and the wealthy corporate interests behind that office, have taken an interest in Detroit's public water system. Suddenly citizens of Detroit have found their water bills skyrocketing.  Having difficulty making the unreasonable payments, more and more people are having their water turned off.  The city is full of homes with no running water.  In the middle of summer people are finding themselves stuck with no clean drinking water, an inability to shower, and the unsanitary situation of not being able to use the toilets.

So what are the people doing about this, you might ask?  Well, in MOST American cities the people would put pressure on their local representatives - councilmen and women, the mayor, etc. to negotiate re-payment plans that locals could live with.  Or to ensure that those water bills are accurately priced and the people are not being taken advantage of.  Oh but that's right!  Thanks to the "emergency manager" being imposed on Detroit, the people have no representatives to turn to.  They have no recourse at the city and state level.

Let me re-state this clearly and concisely - American citizens are having their water taken away and they have no ability to democratically prevent this because their rights to choose their representatives have been stripped from them.

I know what you're thinking.  You're thinking that there must be more to it or that it cannot be as bad as I, (and Rachel Maddow, and the guardian ) am making it out to be!  Of course, if something like this was actually happening in a major American city, the Federal Government would do something to protect the needs and rights of the people.  Except...here's where that pesky Federalism comes into play.  States have the rights to create their own Constitutions and pass their own laws.  They have the right to decide the formats of State and local governments.  In Michigan today, that means, all of this is technically legal.  Of course, this ignores the brutal and possibly rule-breaking techniques used to get these laws passed through the Michigan legislature.  But none the less, if the Federal Government were to step in, they'd be faced with the backlash of supposedly "small government" conservatives screaming that this was tyranny!

Yet surely these actions violate the Civil Rights of Detroit's citizens.  According to the United Nations, the situation is even worse than that.  The take over of the water supply, and the holding it over the heads of Detroit's population like some Somali warlord controlling the food stores demanding exorbitant fees, is the violation of a basic human right.  After the UN made that declaration, the media exploded and Americans across the country called out for action.

Oh wait, no, that's right!  The move was ignored by most national media organizations, with the exception of certain MSNBC nightly anchors (Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes), and international outlets, like Al Jazeera.  After all, there's no time to discuss the decline of a great American city into a wasteland of despair along the lines of a poverty stricken, failed state, when Hillary said she was broke!

I know Hillary...I know

The bitter irony behind my whole rant is that the very notion that Detroit's citizens should have a say in how Detroit operates locally is based on, you guessed it, Federalism.   Because of course, the principle is not the problem.  Just like the conflicts in the UN Charter, the principle is necessary for the success of the United States as a whole.  However, we need to re-think its application.  Federalism is there to protect the people from government tyranny, NOT to protect smaller state-level tyrants from Federal interference!  As such, Federalism should never come before Civil Rights, just as sovereignty should not be placed above human rights.  To do so, is to miss the point entirely.