Before I started writing this, I wanted to see what was already available online, and I found this excellent article by Stephen Walt in Foreign Policy magazine: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/the_myth_of_american_exceptionalism . He makes the main points clearly and forcefully, and you should read it (after you finish this post, of course). I should mention that Walt is a prominent theorist in International Relations, falling into the Realist camp, which, in terms of foreign policy, tends to take what would be considered a very conservative approach. I think that his obliteration of the myth that “The United States behaves better than other nations do” is particularly poignant and relevant, as he spells out the many times that the US has caused wanton destruction. He also clearly shows how common it is for great powers to think of themselves as exceptional or especially blessed of God. The US is exceptional right now, but only in terms of the amount of power it wields, and that, of course, has not always been the case.

Walt clearly depicts how the US is unexceptional in its use of power for its own ends, often ignoring morality. However, he does not discuss another important facet of the case against American Exceptionalism, namely, what the US has failed to do, despite the obligations of morality, in order to further its own interests (at least, that has always been the excuse). The clearest example of this is the US’s repeated failure to act during genocide. During and after World War I, Ottoman Turks killed an estimated 1 million Armenians, occurrences which were widely reported upon and clearly known to the US, but the US did nothing, saying Turkey’s internal affairs were their own business.[1] Just a few days ago Hillary Clinton reaffirmed the American stance, a century later, that governments have no business deciding if the events were indeed genocide, despite her previous support as a candidate for the recognition of the Armenian genocide.[2] It’s funny that the US has so much to say about the internal affairs of nearly every country on the planet but pulls out the “it’s none of our business” card if sticking up for morality means a possible loss of face (with, in this case, Turkey).

In fact the systematic observation and inaction during genocide is a recurring theme in modern American politics. After World War II there was Cambodia under Pol Pot (2 million dead), the Kurds under Saddam (100,000 dead), Rwanda (800,000 dead), Bosnia (200,000 dead),[3] and most recently, Darfur (300,000 dead).[4] And that’s not even considering the many millions who were uprooted from their homes and fled during all of these crises. The US government was aware of all of these atrocities early enough to intervene and chose not to (with the exception of Bosnia, where intervention came much too late). Why? Because like all the other countries that did not act, the US was guided by self-interest, not morality. Most of the time, morality affects action only when self-interest happens to align with morality. (This is especially true of international relations – intra-state politics may be more directly affected by morality, though there are often still good explanations for domestic events based on the self-interest of various competing factions.) Many would argue that intervention in these cases would not have been effective and might have even led to greater bloodshed in a larger war had the US intervened, but, as Samantha Power clearly elucidates in her excellent book, A Problem From Hell, the US hardly even used diplomatic pressure in these instances. Whether or not military action was merited, the US clearly wanted nothing to do with the plight of the helpless in all of these cases. Self-interest ruled the day. Linda Polman summarizes the situation nicely in her book The Crisis Caravan by defining the phrase “never again” as follows:

“never again” should be interpreted to mean not “never again genocide” but “never again an attempt to exterminate the Jewish people by Nazis.”[5]

Scathing but true.

The fact of the matter is, the US is no more exceptional than any other country. It certainly has its strengths, such as the protection of civil liberties, the encouragement of innovation, and many others, but all states have their strengths. What is clearly false is that the US is exceptionally moral or good. Like most states, it generally acts, or fails to act, according to what it sees as its own interests, not what is manifestly just or good. In fact, the use of the idea of American Exceptionalism as a tool of populist motivation is perhaps the best example of how similar the US is to other countries. All people want to feel like they are better than everyone else, so of course, all politicians will claim it is true. Too bad for them, most people are about the same: generally wrapped up in themselves (ourselves), very occasionally rising above their self-interested inclinations.

One thing that became ridiculously apparent to me through this semester was how much my reading skills had deteriorated. Or, more likely, my reading skills had just never been up to par in the first place. I have been a fairly avid reader since about halfway through college, but I have always been terrible about focusing on my reading. Particularly since I got a smartphone, distraction is ever-present, and it is all too easy to avert the eyes from the book at hand for a little dabble in email, Facebook, or Angry Birds. True, most of my emails are unimportant (Ashley likes to say “someone loves you” when my phone beeps to indicate a new email – I often respond, “yes, financial institutions,” as the bulk of my emails seem to be from banks, brokerages, or credit card companies), but I must get a little squirt of endorphins every time that beep sounds.

Obviously, this tendency to distraction (or multitasking) is widespread today, and its effects are often lauded by prophets of social media and technology, often cursed by traditionalists and skeptics. As anyone actually reading this should know, I am a skeptic—important aside: my phone just beeped; I immediately stopped writing and checked my email; it was a credit card company alerting me that my payment was due in 10 days, even though the bill is paid automatically every month; financial institutions love me; endorphins!—so I tend to fall moderately on the side of those cursing technology, though I do recognize it brings many benefits (if you were able to follow that sentence without rereading the portion before the hyphen, I am wildly impressed). David Ulin wrote a fantastic little book on this topic which I read just before starting school: The Lost Art of Reading: Why Books are So Important in a Distracted Time. Essentially his point is that getting lost in a book, in this case fiction, improves our ability to think deeply and critically. The distractions that hinder our mind’s immersion in books then have greater implications beyond the book at hand.

I have no problem believing that people in generally do not think deeply most of the time. Take a look at the absolutely ridiculous political claims that people swallow hook, line, and sinker from their favorite news outlet (on both sides of the political aisle) without the smallest doubt of its veracity – we are all dupes. And I do not claim to be above this fray; I too have had my share if idiotically naïve moments. So, as a believer—email; this time a legit one from my wife—in Ulin’s thesis connecting reading and critical thinking skills, I have a personal goal to try to focus more when reading, emerging myself in the topic at hand.

This semester, I believe, has proven to be an essential step in the right direction. At the beginning of the semester, I began reading grotesque amounts of often dense, difficult nonfiction. This, of course, was expected, as I was beginning a graduate program. One of my classes in particular, Human Security, had a textbook that I found to be extraordinarily boring, often theoretical beyond its needs, to the point of absolute nonsense (and I LOVE theory, seriously). I remember thinking a month or two into the semester that I had learned absolutely nothing from that textbook; it was one of those books that I thought I might be able to just ignore and be no worse off in class than if I had actually read it (though, being who I am, I read it anyway). Most of the reading in my other classes was not quite so outrageous, and I did not find it so difficult.

Then the second half of the semester arrived and, again, Human Security proved to be problematic. This portion of the course included two books: False Dawn, by John Gray, a political economist who essentially argues that global capitalism (in the American style) is inherently unstable and, unfettered, will lead to crisis, though he is not necessarily arguing for communism or other such alternatives. He instead argues for sensible regulation on capitalism that will focus on individual and community well-being, rather than on profits. I approached the book skeptically, as ever, because I was expecting an emotionally-laden polemic, but instead I found a measured and thoughtful, though provocative, view of the world (John Gray used to be a member of the conservative New Right in England, which advocates for policy along the lines of Thatcher and Reagan). While I do not intend to argue his specific points, the important thing here is that the book was rather difficult for me. There were many sections of the book that I was forced to reread to make sure I was understanding what he was saying. Discussing the book with my classmates, I found that many others were in the same boat.

But False Dawn was nothing, as I was about to discover. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity by David Campbell was my first foray into postmodernism. I had the preconceived notion that all postmodernists were crazy, arguing for the dissolution of truth and fact. I thought of postmodernists as the people who would sit down and tell me there was no way I could be sure that I existed, that I was typing this blog right now, or that any event that has ever occurred actually occurred. And it’s true that some postmodernists might argue with me over such things. So when I started encountering “epistemic realism,” “narrativizing historiography,” and a multitude of foreign ideas just in the introduction, I knew I was in for a tough time. And indeed, the book was much more difficult than False Dawn, but it also showed me that not all postmodernists are crazy and can actually provide quite revealing and important arguments (Campbell discusses how the politics of identity has affected US foreign policy throughout American history, but especially during the Cold War). Furthermore, as I looked back on False Dawn having read Writing Security, I found that much of False Dawn was suddenly more explicable. And as I wrote my final paper for that class, I discovered that my textbook, so opaque and pointless to me at the beginning of the semester, was actually falling into place intelligibly. Indeed, I ended up using my textbook quite a bit for the final paper and some other activities at the end of the semester. In general, having struggled first through False Dawn and then the even more difficult Writing Security, I had a completely different perspective when I reviewed prior readings in all my classes. These later readings required much more of me than the earlier readings, both in terms of the intensity of my focus and the general machinations of my brain, and I found that having conquered them, the earlier readings all appeared much easier to handle.

And thus my conclusion: challenging yourself to read difficult material is essential for developing greater focus and better critical thinking ability. This probably should have been obvious to me; after all, I love music, and tackling a challenging piece for the piano has always led to greater appreciation for music (even styles of music that I may have previously disliked) and greater ability. Reading is much the same. A difficult book challenges preconceived notions and requires a much deeper level of focus to comprehend what is going on. Not only does the difficult book itself often prove rewarding, it also renders previous books more rewarding and makes it easier to focus on and think critically about other works.

Prior to this semester, I realized, I had not read a truly challenging book in a long time. I tended to read material that fell into my current framework for understanding the world, and I seldom approached a book whose language was intrinsically difficult. But having reaped the rewards of such books this semester, I think I will try to do so more often—oh! Another email!…A bank survey? Geez.

It was the most exquisite sauce pan I had ever encountered, and I was not about to let something so beautiful be thrown away like mere detritus.  All our others pans are great; I love them dearly too, and they are most functional.  But none of them compares to the fine craftsmanship of this particular saucepan, the precisely considered ergonomics of the handle, the high-raising lid for superior cooking prowess.  Yes, it had been in our closet during the entirety of our stay in Atlanta, but unlike most things that reside in closets, this one clearly deserved the light of day, and I would have rescued it earlier had I known it was there.  (Here is a link to a picture of the pan on Amazon, which, though it is not nearly as captivating online, nonetheless provides a hint of its exceptional nature.  And I do like the endive or whatever it is beside the pot.)

I had my cause, and I battled it out with my wife for two days before she conceded, finally agreeing that we could bring said pot with us to Washington.  I was most pleased, and most relieved, that I could continue to marvel at its beauty into the future.

That was around July 27.  Now it is August 28 and the pot is safely here in Washington, though, I admit, I have not yet used it.  But I shall!  I shall make some delicious sauce for a piece of chicken, and then its redemption shall be complete (both the pan and the chicken – occasionally, ambiguous pronouns are very useful).

Needless to say, the battle-royale over this pan comprised the largest dispute between my wife and me during our move.  It is said that husbands should pick their fights wisely, so I cite this as evidence that I am in compliance with that standard.  Perhaps a higher standard should be: never let beautiful pots languish in a closet.

Well, now that the antics of the move have passed and been thoroughly mocked through hindsight, I have had a bit of explanation for my strange ways.  As is often the case, the convergence of ideas was entirely unexpected.  This week I have spent a few days at orientation and various other events related to the beginning of school at American University, which promises to be marvelous.  During these events, I have attended a number of career-related talks and workshops.  In one, a supposedly heavily introverted professor discussed his techniques for networking (which, though daunting, were exceptional), and he was obviously very successful at it despite his personality.  At another, a particular fellowship was discussed that depends almost entirely on psychological evaluations.

After all the discussion of personalities and the like (and other similar talk with friends), I decided to take one of the free Myers-Briggs personality profiles online.  They aren’t the real thing, which actually costs money, but I took more than one test to see if they came up with similar results, and they did.  I have taken other personality profiles in the past and been mostly unimpressed with the results.  But in this case, the results were exceptionally accurate.

I am apparently an INFJ, but just barely the J (so with small changes in one or two answers, I could be INFP).  What struck me was the information that related to the pan dispute. INFJs are “often seen as the most poetical of all the types, and … use a lot of poetic imagery in their everyday language,” as one site said, or “with a natural affinity for art, INFJs tend to be creative and easily inspired,” as another said.  So that seems to explain why I was so enraptured by the beauty of a piece of cooking apparatus, and also goes along with the strong emotional responses I often have to music.  Another site mentioned that “usually self-expression comes more easily to INFJs on paper, as they tend to have strong writing skills.”  And whether I have strong writing skills or not, I certainly am better at expressing myself on paper than through speaking (but I may just have exceptionally bad speaking skills so that writing is merely the least bad option).  The profiles also discussed how INFJs often make friends easier with women than men, which has always been the case for me, and many other small but significant qualities that precisely describe me (some of the sites I looked at are these, which include not only the INFJ profile, but also all the others: here, here, and here).

So now I can blame all of my weirdness on genetics.  Just last night I was listening to a piece of music that I particularly love (Brahms Op. 118 – late piano pieces) and waxing philosophical about it to my wife, which I know can be bothersome, especially in my frequency of doing so, but I had my personality excuse at hand: “I can’t help it, after all; it’s just who I am.”  How could my wife respond negatively to that?  (This, of course, is the worst excuse in the history of mankind, and has been used to justify all sorts of vices, but in this innocuous case, as all humanity is wont to do, I have exempted myself from the rules.)

Does any of this matter?  Not really, but hey, this is a blog; I don’t pretend that it matters.  But it does feel nice to belong to some sort of group of people around the world who may have the same bizarre quirks that I have.  And being an INFJ, I couldn’t help but have “the desire to express [my] wealth of feelings.”

Note: that last quote is taken completely out of context from one of the sites linked above – but it made a nice ending, and I just couldn’t help myself.

There have been plenty of articles and TV spots poking fun at the current end-of-the-world crew headed by Harold Camping, and while I agree that the group’s beliefs are ridiculous, I think the general mockery has been adequately explored.  But I think two other important items have been largely neglected.  First, it has been pointed out that while this group is only the latest in a long series of doomsday prophets, their beliefs are not very dissimilar from most Christians’ views on the end times.  Such has been the damage of the Left Behind books and other apocalyptic commerce.  So in the defense of Christianity, I must point out that while the eventual return of Christ to Earth is a fairly essential element of Christian theology, many Christians do not believe either in a “rapture” of Christians into the skies or a literal apocalyptic destruction of the earth, myself included.  To many of us, these more dramatic views are simply misunderstandings of the Bible.  I believe the “end times” will be much more about the fact that God’s kingdom will come, “on earth as it is in heaven,” meaning peace and justice.  It is about the re-creation of everything, the triumph of good and the dispelling of evil.  Rather than delve into it very deeply, I would recommend reading from the very wise NT Wright, who sums it up nicely in the following article, including many of the misconceptions of verses talking about believers being “caught up in the air” and other commonly cited verses: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_BR_Farewell_Rapture.htm .

The other item that has been largely neglected is what all this hubbub reveals to us about religious pluralism.  We live in an age when the most common view on the street, in America at least, is that all religions are equal; they all bring you to God, or peace, or nirvana, or some other amorphous good.  What’s good for you is good for you, though it may not be good for me, but regardless, every point of view is equal.  I have discussed before how this perspective does not hold up logically, but I will quickly reiterate.  If someone who believes all religious beliefs are equally valid meets another who says only his way is valid, the pluralist is in trouble.  The pluralist cannot hold to his own belief that all views are equal without saying the religious person is wrong (because that person says the pluralist’s own beliefs are incorrect).  So to stay a bona fide pluralist, he must deny his own views and say that at least one other individual has incorrect beliefs.  I don’t see how any logical person could continue holding this perspective unless he is only surrounded by other pluralists; it is utterly ridiculous.

To my delight, the current end-of-the-world events show that, at heart, no one is really a pluralist.  There are very clearly two groups of people out there.  One group, albeit a very small one, adheres to the belief that the world really is ending today.  At least they are honest about not thinking everyone else’s religion is valid, even to the point of openly telling other family members that they will not be seeing them in heaven later today (see NY Times article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/us/20rapture.html?ref=us).  Then there is everyone else who thinks these people are crazy (including me) – we also openly say that these people do not have valid religious beliefs.  So for once, everyone is being honest and logical – there are two sides, neither accepts the views of the other, and guess what, it hasn’t destroyed our society!  The views are incompatible, and no one is trying to pretend otherwise.

The problem with the type of pluralism discussed above, other than being illogical, is that it assumes disagreement is bad for us.  On this count, I emphatically disagree.  Disagreement is inherent in our lives, and we have to learn to live with it, not defer it.  Pretending that everyone gets along does not solve conflict, and it never will.  But disagreement will lead to conflict if mutual respect is not present.   Respect for those with different opinions is essential, but that does not mean we have to pretend that our views are compatible.

Most people realize that many life principles elucidated in one religion are similar to those preached in another.  In those areas, we are all united by religion, and these common themes should be the foundation of our mutual respect.  But there are significant elements of theology that differ among religions, which is why they are different religions in the first place, and not a single world-wide religion.  If we cannot discuss those differences with respect, we are no better than the bickering politicians in Washington.  It’s time we realized that all religions cannot be equally correct but that violence and conflict do not have to be the result of acknowledging our differences.  So tell me – is the world ending today or isn’t it?

It is right to want to glean some sort of lesson from the shootings, and I am glad that such an introspective atmosphere seems to have appeared as a result.  But the media, in its thirst for headlines, has gleaned too many lessons too quickly.  David Brooks, in his column for the NY Times, stood out as one reasonable voice among the crowd.  He pointed out that the media were far too quick to say that political rhetoric played a role in the killings.  When such assumptions are made before the evidence is even gathered, much less available for widespread scrutiny, we will often make erroneous conclusions.

I am not saying that the hyped-up political rhetoric of our day is good.  In fact, I rather dislike all the belligerent talk currently coming from Sarah Palin and the right (which will undoubtedly come from the left soon enough, as the political pendulum swings).  But just because I dislike such rhetoric does not mean it inspired the Tucson killer.  And indeed, as more information has become available, it becomes clearer that the killer had severe mental problems, claiming all sorts of bizarre conspiracies and building up a repertoire of classmates, teachers, and former friends who worried about his mental health.  In this case, the media was writing a history that was not there – Sarah Palin’s crosshairs on Giffords’s Congressional district seems to have been merely coincidental, playing little or no role in inciting the killings.

Perhaps as time passes and information accrues, the crosshairs will prove to be important, but I doubt it.  The point, though, is that the media’s depiction of political rhetoric as inspiration to killers was premature.  We should still combat the air of incivility, because it is often hateful and serves to mask reality or divert attention from real issues.  But the media took the words of a few (namely, the Tucson sheriff), and ran with them before there was any cause to do so.  As a result, large numbers of people now seem to think that political rhetoric caused the shootings.  America needs to take a step back and learn to cast blame only when there is adequate evidence to do so, and that is almost never the case in the immediate wake of a tragedy, including this one.  Moderating political rhetoric would be great, but what we really need is more people to take on moderation as a lifestyle, learning to make judgments in all facets of life based on information, not conjecture, and only after sufficient delay for reflection (for more on reflection and related topics, check out my wife’s blog, which currently features an article on this topic).

Along with political rhetoric, the other topic that has arisen for discussion once again is the Second Amendment and gun rights.  I am no gun enthusiast, but I have enjoyed shooting guns on many occasions in my life at various shooting ranges or country farms.  I do not have a problem with responsible citizens owning guns and I think that right needs to be protected.  But the gun rights debate has spiraled out of control, especially the arguments coming from the NRA.

When passed, the 2^nd Amendment was intended to guarantee the freedom of each state through the maintenance of a militia, and I also accept the view that the amendment was intended to protect the ability of a citizenry to rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government.  You can’t very easily have a coup without weaponry.  But gun rights advocates tend to ignore one very important difference between then and now.  War is no longer fought the way our Revolution was fought.  In the late 18^th Century, wars were still predominantly fought by men on foot, the primary weapon being the rifle.  Without men and rifles, wars simply could not be won.  And when rebellions were squashed, the government required men and rifles too.  So as long as you could overwhelm an armory here or there and get some cannons, a group of citizens trying to overthrow a tyrannical government would be fairly evenly matched with the government in terms of weaponry.

Today, the same is not true.  The primary weapons of war are no longer guns – they are missiles, jets, bombs, tanks, helicopters, etc.  Sure, guns are still important, but when it comes to overthrowing tyranny, guns are not going to do much against nuclear weapons.  Military technology has come so far since the Revolution that the 2^nd Amendment provides much less protection from tyranny today than it once did.  And since we are not about to let people start buying jets, nukes, and other weapons of war, we need to recognize that the argument that more guns help protect against tyranny may not be tenable today.

But more important than the fact that the 2^nd Amendment is a bit out of date for fulfilling one of its intended purposes, our current gun laws in some ways promote tyranny, contrary to what the NRA and friends say.  Tyranny is the “arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power.”  Is that not precisely the description of what happened in Tucson?  One man, Jared Loughner, exercised the power given him through his weapon arbitrarily and without restraint.  If we are serious about keeping ourselves free from tyranny, as so many gun rights advocates preach, we ought to consider the tyranny imposed upon members of society when those outside of the government who want to exercise power get their hands on guns.  It is far too easy for those with malicious intent to purchase a gun; regulation must step in to make it more difficult.  Otherwise we would be ignoring the 2^nd Amendment, just in a different way.  Regulation does not have to be dichotomous, with the only options being no guns for anyone or many guns for all.  Nicholas Kristof, in his NY Times column today, has some good policy suggestions to begin the process of protecting innocents from the tyranny imposed by fellow citizens like Loughner.

Of course the debate about guns comes back to moderation as well.  Guns are an ire-infused topic, especially here in the South, and the gun lobbies are very good at getting their word out.  Will we believe whoever has the loudest and most common TV ad (and thus, the most money) or will we take all the information available, much of it only quietly on the internet or in books, consider it, and make a decision based on reason?  Both in the debate over rhetoric and the constant fight over guns, moderation would help us all.

“Parents, the next time you fret that your child is wasting too much time playing video games, consider new research suggesting that video gaming may have real-world benefits for your child’s developing brain.”

It is currently in vogue to make claims about the beneficial nature of TV and video games (there is even a book my wife recently read for school called Everything Bad is Good For You), but typically NPR stays above these fads.  Sadly, not this time.  I read on to learn that a recent study shows that video games help develop such hugely important skills as contrast sensitivity, attention/focus, multitasking, and spatial cognition.  Among other things, this leads to better driving in foggy conditions and a wider field of vision.  Amazing!  After discussing the results in more detail, the article reiterates its point:

“So the next time you despair that your child is immersed, yet again, in an action video game, remember: Gaming can improve some important skills.”

Especially if you live in foggy London-town.  Fortunately, the article did end by saying that “all the researchers suggest that parents should limit their kids’ time on video games. Moderation, they say, is the key.”  This final caveat, however, is not sufficient to remedy the misleading nature of the article.

The problem with this story is that it ignores the larger truth in preference to the minute truth.  This practice is all too common in America today, when data can be found to support just about any statement.  That does not change the fact that some statements are truer than others.  In this case, the touting of video games as helpful in developing “important skills” obscures more important truth.

I have no problem in believing that video games help certain brain functions.  I also have no problem with playing video games, in moderation, as the story suggests.  But I have a very big problem with accepting that video games are good for anyone, especially kids, in the truest sense of the word “good.”  NPR would have done well to consider a simple idea from economics – opportunity cost.  Opportunity cost captures the idea that in opting to purchase one item, one foregoes the opportunity to buy a different item.  So the opportunity cost of a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger is a small Frosty.  The idea works well with how we spend our time as well, which is how I think video games should be considered.  The problem with video games is not that they are entirely without merit; it is that they displace much more important activities like reading.  Recent studies on this front confirm that children who are allowed to play video games see a corresponding decrease in academic performance, especially in the fields of reading and writing (quick summary and link to the study available here).

Reading, in turn, is linked to very significant outcomes in life.  For instance, good readers often make more money in their careers, have more opportunity for growth in their careers, and are much more likely to have a job in the first place.  Employers also note that employees with deficient reading and writing skills are a significant and common problem.  Additionally, skilled readers are more likely to be civically engaged, through volunteering and charity work as well as through the ballot box.  And those with weaker reading skills are more likely to end up in prison.  (Study with preceding information available here.)  Since one goal of education is to turn out productive citizens, it would seem that schools’ focus on reading is justified.

So, while video games may help your vision and multitasking skills, those benefits are negligible compared to the benefits provided by reading.  Just because some activity has benefits does not mean it is the best activity to be doing.  In fact, it is almost irrelevant whether some activity has benefits because almost any activity could be construed as offering some benefit.  Arson on a cold night may reduce the heating bills of the neighboring buildings; a murderer may be improving his hand-eye coordination when he commits a murder with gun or knife; cheating on your taxes provides untold financial benefit to the cheater along with the improvement of strategic thinking abilities, dissembling skills, and economic benefits to the cheater’s vendor of choice.  Nonetheless, we ought not commit any of these crimes.

As I mentioned before, I personally enjoy video games from time to time and enjoyed them as a child as well.  But news agencies and scientists are doing us all a disservice when they obscure the reality of video games and TV (or any other topic) through such discussions.  The question should never be “does this activity have any merits?”  The question should always be “what activity is best?”

So say a growing number of Americans.  I could not disagree more.  There are six reasons why I believe the growing distaste for immigrants, legal or illegal, is ill-conceived, especially among Christians.

1) By and large, immigrants do not displace American jobs. Though the main rallying cry of the anti-immigration lobby is to save jobs for Americans, there is gratuitous evidence that immigrants provide complimentary not substitute labor in America.  That is, they do jobs that many Americans would not do anyway (e.g., fruit picking), and often the industries they work in support other industries in which Americans are heavily employed (e.g., the trucking industry – in relation to fruit picking).  The low cost of immigrant labor also lowers the prices we all pay for our goods.  Additionally, immigrants, illegal or not, add to demand in America, allowing other businesses to sell more, which of course translates into more jobs.  Furthermore, economic studies show that immigration over the past two decades has actually led to an average increase in wages for those born in the US.  And there is broad consensus that immigrants help grow the economy in general – even President George W. Bush recognized this:

“The foreign-born are associated with much of the employment growth in recent years. Between 1996 and 2003, when total employment grew by 11 million, 58 percent of the net increase was among foreign-born workers…. [E]mployment of natives as operators, fabricators, and laborers fell by 1.4 million between 1996 and 2002, while employment in such occupations grew by 930,000 among the foreign-born. This should not be taken as evidence that the foreign-born displace native workers; rather, it reflects the fact that immigrants have made up all of the growth in the low-skilled workforce.”

So what is all the fuss about?  Unfortunately, we as Americans are all too willing to believe what we please, regardless of the evidence, only marshaling research or data when it suits our purposes.  Here is an article with multiple linked sources on the economics for your perusal: evidence.

2) We were all immigrants once. Unless you are of Native American descent, we are all of immigrant stock.  And every previous mass migration to America led to similar reactions to what we are seeing today.  Xenophobia is unfortunately extremely common, and it has shown no chronological bias.  Because of this ugly tendency, I have little hope for the improvement in immigration issues, but an iota remains.  One of the biggest problems here is that we are mostly far removed from our immigrant ancestry.  I don’t think of myself as an immigrant because my ancestors came to America centuries ago.  But it is nonetheless true that they came and were integrated and that’s why I am here.   I’m certainly glad that xenophobic backlash did not get them deported.  There is little else to say here except to go look in a mirror.

3) Poverty is a real human issue. But most Americans are far removed from this reality.  Thus, we have little compassion on those who come to America because they have little other choice.  When it comes to breaking some laws or letting your family die of hunger, there is no choice to make – you break the law.  Not all immigrants are that desperate, but many of them are, which is why so many die just trying to get into America.  Talk to someone who lived through the Depression and I bet you will find that they understand this side of the issue (I know this from a conversation I had myself).  We must consider the fact of poverty when we consider the immigration debate.

4) Sometimes laws are wrong. The rule of law is important – very important.  A respect for the law allows republics like our own to work within a framework that is only established or changed when a majority of the people want it to (for the most part), not merely when a powerful individual has a whim to change the rules.  This helps keep us all safe, allows business to flourish under a sense of stability, and generally prevents chaos.  But while working within the legal framework is very important, that does not mean that the legal framework as it currently exists is entirely just and correct.

Some of the most vehement opponents of illegal immigrants will carry on about how morally wrong it is for illegal immigrants to be in America (ignoring my last point) just because “it’s against the law.”  Consider children who come to America when they are 2 years old with their desperate families, looking for food or safety – children who then grow up in the American system and know nothing else, all because of some decisions their parents made when they could not yet write their own names – it is illegal for these (former) children to continue living in this country.  But just because it is illegal does not mean it is right.  And when the law is not just, it ought to be changed.  Simply saying “it’s against the law” is not reason enough to end this debate.  That is one reason why something similar to the DREAM act should be passed.

5) (For those of you who are Christians) What happened to loving your neighbor? I have to include this because so many of the loudest voices against immigrants are also Christians.  If you truly believe what Jesus taught, considering point (3) is imperative, and a desire to help the immigrants, rather than just deporting all of them, should be the focus.  The Bible has something specifically to say about this issue in Leviticus 19:33-34:

“When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.”

I think that is rather self-explanatory.

6) Crime is often a red herring. I almost forgot this one, and I will just touch on it briefly.  Especially in Arizona when it was passing its new immigration law, the claim was made that illegal immigrants increase crime, probably because it sounds plausible and diverts attention from the facts.  And the facts are unequivocally against this, especially in Arizona.  Crime has been steadily falling over the last several years in Arizona, and studies also show that states with high immigrant populations have lower crime rates than states with lower immigrant populations.  Odd (details here).

For all these reasons, I think America needs to be more open to immigration reform – and by that I mean some plan to give citizenship to illegal immigrants currently in the country and to make it easier for immigrants to come to America legally.  You are free to disagree, but at least have a reason why.

“The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.”

“All Americans must recognize that the face of terror is not the true faith — face of Islam. Islam is a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. It’s a faith that has made brothers and sisters of every race. It’s a faith based upon love, not hate.”

“Some of the comments that have been uttered about Islam do not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most Americans. Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others. Ours is a country based upon tolerance and we welcome people of all faiths in America.”

(Quotes available here)

Of late it has been obvious that many Americans do not agree with our president, especially the final quote.  Indeed, the vitriol has been spewing forth for a couple of months now over the Muslim center being built a few blocks from Ground Zero in New York.  But the anti-Islamic fervor has spread far beyond the confines of New York City.  Mosque construction in Tennessee and California is also leading to large protests and the American population is generally riled up.  A church in Florida calls for September 11 to be “burn the Quran” day.  Campaigning politicians in Tennessee say that Islam is a cult and is therefore not protected under the First Amendment.  Protesters bring dogs to intimidate Muslims at a protest in California.  (See articles here, here, and here.)

The protests over mosques are no longer focused on their nearness to emotionally charged sites like Ground Zero.  Rather, they are based in an irrational fear of a religion that, as our president said, is peaceful.  I have to agree with him – the Quran, like the Bible, has a number of violent verses and texts, but just as most Christians do not feel like we should be slaughtering the inhabitants of a particular region for religious reasons (or any other), so the majority of Muslims do not want to kill non-Muslims.  In both religions there are extremists who do want to do these things, and they are grossly distorting the general messages of both the Quran and the Bible.

There are three points I would like to make concerning this issue.  First of all, as a Christian, I cannot tell you how many Christian leaders I have heard say that Islam is a fundamentally violent religion.  Well, from a technical perspective, some actually think that the Bible is much more violent than the Quran (see this article).  Even if the Quran is violent, Christians must realize that the Bible is also quite violent at times.  We have gotten beyond this as a religion; so have Muslims.  There will always be hold-out extremists, and Christians are certainly responsible for similar if not greater amounts of violence in the name of religion than Muslims (cf. the Crusades, the Inquisition, African and Asian colonization, etc.).  We should not be preaching the violence of another religion without recognizing that our own religion has similar verses that can just as easily be misapplied.

Secondly, anti-Islamic rhetoric plays right into the hands of the extremists we are trying to defeat in Afghanistan and elsewhere.  The NY Times had an interesting article discussing how Anwar al-Awlaki, an extremist Muslim cleric living in Yemen (but American born), has been trying to convince Western Muslims that America is not truly tolerant of Islam.  Here is how al-Awlaki sees it:

“Don’t be deceived by the promises of preserving your rights from a government that is right now killing your own brothers and sisters,” he wrote. “Today, with the war between Muslims and the West escalating, you cannot count on the message of solidarity you may get from a civic group or a political party, or the word of support you hear from a kind neighbor or a nice co-worker. The West will eventually turn against its Muslim citizens!”   - NY Times, available here

Now, as the protests ratchet up and the ad hominem mounts with it, al-Awlaki and his extremist buddies will have much more convincing evidence.  This is no way to win our “War On Terror.”

Lastly, and most importantly, the First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, and that includes Islam.  I can understand that many who lost loved ones in the September 11 attacks had visceral responses to the Muslim Center in New York.  But, frankly, just as emotion often leads to the wrong decision in other instances, so it does in this one as well.  To equate all Muslims with the terrorists who brought down the World Trade Center would be like equating all Christians with the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda, who have also killed thousands and are known for using child soldiers to help carry out their atrocities.  Just as Muslim terrorists may recite verses from the Quran before killing, so LRA soldiers recite Bible verses before going into battle.

But more than just erroneously equating Islam with terrorism, protests over mosques are now simply attacking the freedom of religion that our country holds so dear.  How can we laud America as the religious refuge for the Pilgrims if we act this way towards people of another faith?  Even from a completely selfish perspective, Christians must think that as America’s demography inevitably shifts away from its Caucasian base that one day Christianity might find itself in a similar situation – that is, as a minority.  Would we then want to be so harassed and maligned for our faith?  We seem to be ignoring both common sense and what Jesus once said: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Muslims have every right to practice their faith.  That will certainly involve building new mosques, expanding old ones, and other various projects.  I would think that those people protesting the mosques, who have previously shown themselves to be such strong defenders of the Constitution against the political heresy of Obama and his chums, would recognize that their protests are attacking that same document they profess to love so much.

In parting, may I just remind you of the wisdom of our president’s words that I quoted above.  I always did have a soft spot for George W. Bush.

At this point it all comes rushing back to me:

This feels strange.  For a moment just now I felt as if I had been here before, like this entire argument has happened in the past.  I would say ‘déjà vu,’ but I hate how often that phrase is used, so I will insist that this is ‘jamais vu.’  But now I’m just trying to show off, because no one uses that phrase in conversation except pompous fools.  So am I a pompous fool?  Most likely.  Maybe that’s why this situation feels so strange.  Why is my wife laughing at me?  I know I am correct – or do I?  Maybe this really is déjà vu.  In fact, I know this is déjà vu.  Crap.

Then I snap back to reality, having remembered that every other time I have been “100% sure,” I have been incorrect.  It’s not just a 50-50 chance.  No – every single time I have said that, no exceptions, I have been completely wrong.  It’s a good thing I don’t have this record at work.

Recently, I finally accepted my past and decided to start saying I am merely 99% sure.  This has worked out for me much better.  The problem was not so much in the words I used, but rather in the thought process that accompanied them.  I am almost never compelled to use such confident language in a normal conversation, even if I am truly 100% sure about the fact in question – say, the fact that my name is Jonathan (which, sadly, I once had to defend from the vituperative and sincere denial of an acquaintance).  I only use the phrase when the adrenaline is flowing, all the stops are out, my competitive side has taken over and I feel like I must win in this most significant field of battle: truth.  I just plow on through, letting my mind take me where it will, from one false conclusion to the next until I have deceived myself into oblivion.  Then, and only then, am I 100% sure.

But if I am merely 99% sure, it is because I have started going through the facts in my mind and looking for the insecure ‘thus’ or ‘therefore.’  And, undoubtedly, I find one, two, even seven.  Then, regardless of how sure I had been a moment before, I must admit that I could be wrong, and I am back where I should be.

I’m sure you all know someone like me, some other self-assured coworker or classmate who is incapable of being wrong.  In fact, I’ll bet you know a whole lot of people like this, if not in all realms of life, in certain ones.  Most of the people I know are not as obstinate as I am about unimportant things, but most people are extraordinarily assured when it comes to certain topics: politics, religion, education, science.  But we all know that these various outlets are simply portions of what we might call one’s worldview or perspective.

Our individual perspectives are remarkably intransigent because we use them to sort out and interpret all the information we consume.  Over time we learn to trust our perspectives because, after all, they have helped us survive so far, so they must be helping us reach the right conclusions.  So it becomes difficult to hear a speech by Obama and not immediately put it through all the rigors of your unique perspective.  Most on the Right will inherently doubt every word coming from his mouth while those on the Left will inherently accept it.  Unfortunately, overturning this initial response is impossible for many, even when confronted with strong opposing evidence.  In an age when it is so easy to immerse yourself in views with which you agree and ignore the views that are in discord with your own, we are all becoming more often 100% sure than 99% sure.  When our friends, our chosen “news” source, our religious leaders, and our favorite politicians continuously spit our own ideas back at us, they become so firmly set in our minds that they become truth to us, whether they are true or not.

Doubting yourself is not so much about thinking you are stupid as it is about realizing that there are rarely new ideas, so whatever you are thinking had a source, and it, like all of us, was biased.  On the rare occasion that there is a new idea, it generally comes from some wise sage who was willing to doubt the established wisdom of the day, which, no doubt, he too had believed at one point.  In this world where new ideas are indeed so rare and slanted facts permeate the airwaves, TVs, and our own minds, we could all use a bigger dose of self-doubt.  If we are lucky, someone will stumble upon a wonderful new method for helping us all realize our own bias.

And just a head’s up – I’m 99% sure that the next chain email you receive will be completely false.  Please don’t pass it on.