Defining Socialism

Alec Dea

Professor Datcher

Blog

31 January 2016

            “Socialism” is one of those words that strikes fear deep into the hearts of the American people.  Ironically enough, the average American cannot even define accurately the term “socialism”.  How can Americans be scared by something of which they know nothing about?  One of the many mind-blowing talking points of the 2016 presidential election is the credibility, or the lack there of, of the self-described democratic socialist, Bernie Sanders.  He is one of the most polarizing presidential candidates in my lifetime.  He proposes many foreign ideas that the typical American politician would not even consider.  Consequently, instead of breaking down Bernie Sanders’ proposals and plans, people often dismiss his credibility because he is a “socialist.”  Personally, I did not know much about the concept of socialism until I started following Bernie Sanders.  We tend to think of socialism as an oppressive force akin to communism, even though it is much more conservative than communism.  Socialism focuses on the economic and social arenas of public life.  However, it tends to be conflated with a dictatorial style of big government.  Obama often found himself attached to the label of socialism by critics who disagreed with Obamacare.  In fact, socialism states that the means of production in a country are to be publicly owned, and under Obamacare, private health insurance companies still hold a substantial amount of power.  Another common misrepresentation of socialism is that it entails a literal redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor via taxes.  Even if this were true, we still must distinguish between socialism and Bernie’s idea of  “democratic socialism”, which he states is a quasi form of socialism where the state enacts socialist policies in conjunction with free market capitalism in an attempt to balance power.  The goal of democratic socialism is to see that big corporate bureaucracies do not run our country, hence the term “democratic”. 

            What’s ironic about our country’s disdain for socialism is that the two most successful government programs in the history of our country are socialist programs: Social security and Medicare.  In addition, Medicaid, the construction and upkeep of roads, clean water, the VA, and even the military are all socialist practices.  Realizing these facts shows how paradoxical it is when Americans continuously demonize socialism.  We would not be where we are as a country if it weren’t for these socialist practices.  Consequently, it becomes evident that Bernie Sanders’ ideas for our country can be simply seen as a step in the right direction, building on the successes from our current policies.  He wants to advance Medicare to a single payer health system that includes a Medicare for all system where Americans don’t go bankrupt trying to pay their medical bills.  He wants to expand the safety net for social security.  He wants to rebuild our infrastructure and improve the efficiency of our VA system.  I see this as an attempt to improve our current system, not an evil, revolutionary overhaul of the United States.  In addition, Bernie has incessantly stated that a simple overview of his plan dictates that we want the private sector to do what it does best, and the government to do what it does best.  If we look back at history, Bernie’s plans would complete the vision FDR had for our country.   FDR’s brilliant New Deal plan focused on relieving the economic hardships of the poor and reforming the financial system to avoid potential depressions.  The New Deal became the staple of “Progressivism”, but now, these ideas seen through a Bernie Sanders lens elicit fearful responses of a socialist takeover.  The GOP’s beloved Dwight Eisenhower had a 92% marginal tax rate under his administration.   Our country’s history shows that we have implemented socialist ideas, even under some of our most famous leaders.  If the American people take the time to look into the facts, we will see that Bernie’s idea of “democratic socialism” is not so foreign and dangerous as his opponents would like us to think.  But rather, it is our political equilibrium, which has shifted so far to the right, that distorts our ability to determine what would be beneficial and detrimental for the country.   

An avoidable crisis: Flint, MI

LeeAnne Walters, “the 37-year-old mother of four began to notice that her hair was thinning, she had erratic blood pressure and her children started to get rashes over their body soon after she gave them baths,” Caitlin Keating of People Magazine reported. “One of her kids got so sick that he missed a month of school, and ‘at one point, they told us he had cancer because they didn’t know what was going on.’”

This is just one example of a growing crisis. In a city with an estimated population of 99,000 about 60 miles northwest of Detroit, many Americans have this similar story.

The Flint water crisis began in April 2014 when the city switched from using water from the Detroit municipal system and instead began using water from the Flint River in order to save the city money. Families started complaining to the city immediately. Brown, smelly water was coming out of their taps, not the clean water they once knew. In “Face of water crisis: Flint residents describe health, fears” by Katrease Stafford of the Detroit Free Press, residents share photos of their bodies covered in marks from bathing in contaminated water. Residents have lost hair, are becoming sick from the water they drink and are fearful of their own taps. Yet, this all could have been avoided.

Simple chemistry tests could have been performed -- chemistry tests that we as students even could have administered. Water from the Flint River was different than the previous source because it has high levels of chloride in it. According to “The Guardian” Marc Edwards, an expert on water treatment and corrosion at Virginia Tech, found the high levels of chloride and explained that chloride reacts with the “plumbing structure, causing lead particles to separate from the pipe and leach into the water.”

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) accepted blame at the annual State of the State address on Tuesday. While he undeniably did play a role in the situation, Snyder is not the only one to blame. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) failed to make sure the city complies with environmental regulations, and now a city is suffering. Children are being exposed to dangerous levels of lead, and their detrimental effects will not be known for years. People can’t bathe, can’t drink and can’t live their lives to the fullest in this town.

Instead of living in a world in which we only react when we get caught in a bad situation, living a life of being proactive would avoid these detrimental costs. Many of us will be stepping off of campus for the last time in May, degrees in our hands, and this will exactly be our challenge -- create a world of proactiveness, and a way we can start is by being aware of the interconnectedness between all of our degrees. While we may be separated into different fields and colleges, each and every one of our degrees relate to one another. Whether you are communication studies, business, environmental studies or English, it comes down to we need to have a knowledge of everyone else’s degrees and not just our own.

For if Gov. Snyder looked beyond his business background and remembered his Bachelor of General Studies, he may have remembered basic chemistry facts, basic environmental facts, basic facts of being one man for another, and maybe this all could have been avoided.

Sarah Litz

Dress Codes: Rules Or Forced Modesty?

“On your knees,” Mrs. Gerber was both demanding and ruthless as she spoke. I was 10-years-old, in 5^th grade, and my skirt was too short. I was excited about my transition from 4^th grade to 5^th grade because this change meant a new uniform. The younger girls were forced to wear checkered jumper dresses, but my time had come, I was finally allowed to wear a skirt. Of course, my big girl skirt did not come without drama. After almost a week of wearing my new uniform, my 5^th grade teacher took me aside and told me that my skirt was too short. I was embarrassed. I was a goody two-shoes kind of student and never got into trouble. Mrs. Gerber forced me to kneel so she could measure the distance between my skirt and the ground. To this day, 11 years later, I vividly remember the embarrassment I felt as my peers walked past me. As I shamefully knelt on the ground, Mrs. Gerber stood over me, her ruler in her hand.

However, my incident with Mrs. Gerber is not an isolated case. Just last week, Amanda Durbin, a senior at Edmonson County High School in Kentucky, was forced to kneel so that a male principle could measure an outfit that her school’s dress code deemed inappropriate. In order to check if she was actually violating the dress code, the 17-year-old was told that she had to get onto her knees in order measure the distance between her dress and the ground. Her sweater dress fell 5 inches above her knees—a length deemed acceptable by the dress code. She was then told to raise her arms causing her dress to rise 3 more inches. With her arms raised, her dress fell 8 inches above the ground—a clear violation of Edmonson’s dress code. However, Durbin donned leggings underneath her sweater dress to ensure that her legs would not be exposed. Despite this, the teenager was still sent home because her dress was too short. Likewise, when told that she had to kneel, Durbin refused to do so until her parents could be present. Rather than allowing her to continue her school day until her parents arrived, she was forced to wait in the principle’s office during multiple class periods. Not only was Durbin shamed for the already modest dress she was wearing, but she was also forced to miss almost an entire day of school just to be told that she had to go home.

Amanda Durbin’s dress code violation is much more than a teenager simply wearing a short dress. Situations like this have become much more frequent, and they are attracting necessary attention due to this frequency. But why? Why does a school’s dress code even matter? Of course it is easy to tell a teenager, “Follow the rules, and you will be fine.” However, these rules create a dichotomy of what is expected of female and male students. The rules enforced by many dress codes across the nation are much different for males than the rules enforced upon females. Male students are expected to look groomed while female students are expected to look modest. While one gender is expected to simply look presentable, another is expected to avoid ostentation in hopes of preventing sexual arousal. In Amanda Durbin’s situation, the 17-year-old was forced into both a literal and figurative position of submission. On a literal level, she was forced to get onto her knees—an allusion to a sexual act in which one partner remains in a power position over another. Of course, there was no sexual encounter in this case, but the implication of Durbin’s position is still cause for concern. Likewise, before being sent home, the teenager missed multiple classes while waiting for her parents. Although at school, Durbin was unable to learn for that school day—a clear indication that the school’s administration prioritizes forced modesty over a student’s education.

For female students, a dress code serves as a guide to prevent unnecessary sexual attention. It is the possibility that a female student’s cleavage or legs could distract her peers, or it is the possibility that she may raise her arms and her dress will rise. However, it is the certain presumption that a female’s anatomy will be so distracting to her peers that keeping her covered up takes precedence over her education. In the case of female students, too often are they viewed as objects rather than students. Students are sent to school to learn, and while dressing appropriately is important, what and how the students learn should be top priority.

By Celine Aguilar

Fear and The Media

During the time of the November attacks in Paris, I was living just an hour by plane from the French capital city where 130 innocent civilians had just been killed, and I had just landed to spend a weekend exploring Morocco. This experience made me more aware of how fear not only has to be founded, but that the media does a tremendous job of creating panic among American citizens, that is often unnecessary. Many supposedly reputable news sources and programs referred to the terrorist actions, as they have to many others throughout history as ‘Islamic’ attacks. As soon as the news had reached my friends and I in Tangier about what had occurred in France, I could not help but worry. I was an American citizen, a target of ISIS, and I was closer to their native countries, in the Islamic nation of Morocco, than I had ever been before. 

However, my time in the country proved to be eye opening and well timed, as my fears subsided and they proved to be a result of the inaccurate perceptions and generalizations that the American media promotes. As I walked through the markets of Morocco, I watched as the men and women of Tangier engaged in prayer, were devoted to work, and the people that I encountered were so compassionate and hospitable. I walked into a shop in the market where a small TV with antennas displayed local news coverage of the Paris events in the Arabic language. The owner of the shop expressed in broken English that the people that committed the acts were “terrible,” and he did not understand the reasoning for it all. I recall another person that led our tourism group was from Morocco, and he explained that these violent actions are not practices of Islam, or nearly indicative of what Allah would want them to do.

This experience was so valuable to me because it made me realize more than ever, how much power and influence the media has on the mindsets of so many Americans. There are more than one billion Muslims in the world, however the news does not discuss this figure. The American news also does not shed nearly as much light on the positive societal contributions of Muslims globally.

Similar to how Orson Welles falsely led thousands of radio listeners to believe that an alien invasion was in progress in 1938, audiences fall victim to false panics created by the media more often than many would think. There are many ways in which people are often misled by the media, even in current events.

One of so many examples of misconceptions and worries that have been instilled in the minds of many by the media, are that sharks are creatures to fear more than most others. This is validated by the fact that there are movies such as Jaws, Sharknado, and even Finding Nemo which play upon the idea that sharks are deadly and malicious creatures that go as far as to often bite and kill humans. According to the National Safety Council however, about one single person in the United States dies from such an attack every year. Meanwhile, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that about 22 people are killed each year by cows. Nonetheless, there is not nearly as much mention of cows as deadly creatures, and the general perspective of the common public is that cows are friendlier than they are not.

In fact, during the summer of 2001, when a boy and a man on the outer banks of Florida both fell victim to shark attacks, and one died, there was a nationwide panic over what Time Magazine was referred to on their cover to as “The Summer of The Shark.” Following these stories also, cities around the United States such as Avon, North Carolina decided to officially advise swimmers to be cautious, “especially near dusk and dawn, when sharks seek food near shore,” according to a September, 2001 New York Times article. Nonetheless, only five people died from shark attacks that year, which shows just how much power the media has, and how capable they are of instilling fear in citizens nationwide, or even internationally.

Perhaps some might disagree, and find that sharks and cows are not the best example of how the media makes a spectacle of the headlines that they know will instill enough fear and interest in viewers to keep them watching. I can list many other examples of how the media creates fear in the lives of many, such as how the number of kidnappings that occur annually are not proportionate to how often they are reported and the irrational fear so have of their ability to potentially happen. Aside from the fact that it totally goes against the principles of equality that our country is founded upon, I think that when we consider how many Americans are voting to ban Muslims as a result of such intense fears in this country, we are shown that the media has too much power over how we function. It is important that we do not let anyone but ourselves, and what we know as fact determine what is the best for our lives. We cannot stereotype and generalize based on what the images that the media sells us. The fact is that Christian, Muslim, and otherwise, there are violent and extremist individuals that belong to any religion, and they are typically a rather small population of the much, much larger religious groups.

by Alexander Hammond

How to Profile Without Profiling

Katie Mandell

Blog #1

Over the past decade, it has become increasingly difficult to protect oneself without being bombarded with accusations of being racist. So when is it justifiable to profile? These days, in fear of public scrutiny, no one feels comfortable suggesting someone may be a terrorist or a threat to their community based on their appearance or their religious beliefs.

 

Donald Trump’s immigration plan, proposing the prohibition of all Muslims entering into the United States is extreme and radical, but his ideas have sprouted from fear. I do not agree with Trump’s plan in the least, but it serves as a desperate example of “last resort” measures to protect American citizens’ way of life.

While it is true that not all Muslims are terrorists, the problem we have found, is that the majority of the acts of terror in the last decade, have been committed by radical Muslims. So what can we do? If we profile a Muslim or someone of any other group for that matter, it is assumed we are racially profiling.  But by not profiling, do we take the risk of allowing more acts of terror to occur? 

 

Profiling is one of the most complicated issues because our safety and freedom are at risk. Racial profiling has become such a common occurrence in today’s society, that even hearing about a police officer shooting an unarmed African-American youth is not surprising. The goal of law enforcement is to prevent illegal acts. Although it is a fact that many low-income neighborhoods are made up of predominantly African-Americans and Latinos, unfortunately, this is where a lot of crime occurs.

There is no doubt that racial profiling is a part of today’s society. To assume otherwise is simply naive. According to a 2008 study on LAPD racial profiling, the majority of individuals subjected to stops, frisks, searches and arrests were African-Americans and Latinos, regardless of social standing. The LAPD study reveals the disproportionately lower number of whites that were subject to these acts.

I would never condone this abuse of power without just cause.  But the problem lies in the fact that there is no sound, “politically correct” way to justify whether someone is a threat unless they have a track record that precedes them. Trump’s plan to prevent all Muslims from entering into our country is on the far end of the ridiculous spectrum, but it does bring to light the issues of stereotyping and racial profiling and what measures we should take to protect ourselves as a nation without discriminating against any entire group of people when only a few members of the group are to blame.

#OscarsSoWhite...For the Second Year in a Row

Who would have thought that a Hollywood awards show would ever become more than just a moment of pride for the famed stars and pure entertainment for the rest of us? Perhaps with ignorance about what these awards actually mean to each celebrity, or perhaps with a simple lack of knowledge about Hollywood history, one month ago I would have never imagined such controversy. However, with the #OscarsSoWhite comeback on social media, I assume this issue hard, if not impossible, for anybody to ignore and even weigh in on--whether it be publicly or in the comfort of their own private conversations. 

For the second year in a row, only white celebrities have been nominated for the 2016 Oscars. Beneath the layer of racial ignorance that has clouded our country for too many years, it’s no wonder celebrities and common people alike have taken it upon themselves to make a statement about this issue. Amongst the many statements that have been publicly made about this problem, there are few that share solutions. This is not because there is no solution, but rather because there are too many different pieces of this problem that yield various actions that it seems not everybody in Hollywood and the rest of our nation can agree on. Depending on where each of us who hold a position on this conflict believe the root of this problem is held, the solutions are all over the place and even contradicting at times. 

Presumably like many, I was surprised, yet attentive to Stacey Dash’s comments about and solutions to the ongoing segregation in Hollywood. As a black actress who has worked for the BET network in the past, Stacey’s solution of getting rid of the BET and BET awards show was not something many people were expecting to hear. Like many arguments that have been made recently, there are both pros and cons to Dash’s position. Arguing that the elimination of this network, as well as Black History Month, will eventually lead to integration rather than segregation, Dash’s solution at glance seems possible and effective. However, thinking beyond surface level, there are further problems that arise from this solution-- one of the most important being the elimination of the recognition of one of the most important stories of American history. We have to understand that there are reasons that the BET and its awards show were created, and to disregard those reasons by simply nixing the results of segregation in Hollywood and across the nation seems as ignorant as it does disrespectful. Again, Dash’s argument does raise valid points, but it may have been smarter for her to have elaborated her thought process further on live television.

Despite the opposition from many, including Stacy’s cousin, Damon Dash, various people can agree on one thing: much of the time that black people have won Oscars have been for roles that have depicted stereotypes. Black actors and actresses receive the most positive feedback and acknowledgment when they have played characters that the people expect them to play, such as slaves. In response to this general lack of recognition and the resulting boycotting of the Oscars, Ice Cube, in an interview on the Graham Norton Show, commented, “You can’t boycott something you never went to anyway.” Though he is speaking for himself on account of his personal experience, Ice Cube’s comment highlights the level of comfort that he and presumably many others have developed with not being properly recognized when deserved.

As a white citizen, I must admit that it is difficult to discuss this controversy, feeling the validity of my statement may be of lesser value. However, just like many citizens of all races and ethnicities, I have taken into consideration the many different root problems and solutions that have been publicized and cannot point my finger at which of these is right, wrong, effective, ineffective, etc. Regardless of whether Hollywood takes action on Dash’s (or anybody else’s) solution, it is important to recognize the opposing sides to each argument and solution and approach them with deep thought, as well as a sense of practicality. 

Kristen Brennand