Bias and Scholarship - Part 2: Consequenses

There has been some degree of concern about the possibility of academic bias. This concern is well-placed. We look towards scholarship as an important source of knowledge in our society. We make a variety of important decisions about our society, our morality and our lives based on what we learn from academia.
If academic bias exists then this knowledge is compromised and untrustworthy. For example, let's say that biologists have a bias against black people. If that bias effects their research then they will be more likely to focus in on any findings that emphasize the inferiority of blacks. Such an emphasis will make life more difficult for blacks. This is not a hypothetical exercise as historically there has been a bias against blacks. This bias has resulted in the corruption of evolutionary theory and comparative anatomy to stigmatize blacks.
This bias was the result of an overall racism in society. In other words biological scientists stigmatized blacks because others in society stigmatize blacks. As we have become more enlightened such overt racism is much less now among biologists and other individuals in society. But what if there are groups that scientists stigmatize more than other people in society. Is it possible that there are certain people or groups that scientists do not like and they will maintain this bias even if such bias is diminished in the rest of society?
I think there are such groups. The stigma among scientists can have profound consequences for members of these groups. In my next blog I will identify them and discuss why such bias has developed.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Bias and Scholarship - Part 1: What is Tolerance?

This blog begins a series on academia. Many claim that there is bias in scholarship. To tackle this question we first have to think about what is meant by bias. A good way to do that is to define the concept of tolerance.
The first quality of tolerance is that to tolerant something, or someone, you have to have disagreement. The Baptist practices tolerance for the Methodist only if there is disagreement with the Methodist. If the Baptist believes that all Protestants are brothers and sisters in Christ then "tolerating" the Methodist does not mean much. Tolerating the Catholic, Muslim, and Atheist is much more relevant. In fact, the more you disagree with a position or person the more tolerance you need.
I point this out because often the measure we use for tolerance assumes that there is disagreement, when that may not be the case. For example, questions about attitudes towards homosexuality are only measures of tolerance if a person disagrees with that lifestyle. For a political progressive, questions about attitudes towards Christian fundamentalists are more telling.
But does tolerance indicate agreement? For the political progressive to be tolerant of the Christian fundamentalist, he/she does not have to agree with that person's religious beliefs. But he/she can not use those beliefs to discriminate against the fundamentalist in ways that are not warranted. What do I mean by that? A political progressive may decide not to date the fundamentalist because of their different outlooks on life. To make such a decision is not being intolerant since on this issue the religious, and possible political, difference matters. But if the political progressive refuses to hire the fundamentalist as an accountant then I would argue that there is intolerance. A person's religious beliefs does not influence how well he/she can count.
What this means in academia is that sometimes bias, or intolerance, is warranted. But it is only warranted if the intolerance about is relevant to the task at hand. A Marxist may be "intolerant" of the ideas brought by a free-market advocate. That intolerance can legitimately come out in criticism of a book written by the free marketer. However, the religion, sexual preference, race, and sex of the free marketer is irrelevant to how the Marxist should treat him/her. Refusing to promote, hire or accept someone because of religion, sexual preference, race or sex is clearly a sign of intolerance.
The challenge in academia is when to be discerning or even "intolerant" of certain perspectives and individuals and when to learn to accept those ideas and people. Furthermore, this is not just about the intolerance of a single or a few academics. It is also important to think about systematic ways that bias can play itself out in academia. If there is a trend of intolerance in academia, then we have more serious problems than the proclivities of a few scholars. Investigating these potential problems is what I like to do in the next several blogs.



Sincerely,



Trouble-Maker

Political Truce

Like all of our recent Presidents, President Obama has certainly become a lighting rod for the political divide in the United States. But what he did in the lame duck session is quite interesting and insightful. It reminds us that long-term cooperation often is much wiser than short-term gains from demonizing one's opponent.
President Obama signed off on an extension of the tax break for the wealthy after he made these tax breaks such a big deal in his campaign. Let us be clear about this. He got rolled in negotiating with the Republicans. But doing so got the tax deal out of the way. The Republicans were threatening to stop all legislation until the tax deal was done and had the support in the senate to do it.
But once that tax deal was done, the Democrats were able to get medical support for the 9/11 workers, repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and the START treaty. Yes he did not get the Dream Act but he got a lot more than you would expect in such a short session. And he got it because he negotiated with the Republicans rather than just insult them.
This is not even about the merits of this legislation. There is enough that happened in this session to encourage and discourage people from all political persuasions. This is about working with the other side. I tire of the endless mud slinging that come from both sides of the political spectrum. I liked seeing what happened because people worked together than against each other.
Can this be the start of a new trend of cooperation and bipartisanship? Sadly probably not. This is a unique situation where Democrats had incentives to work with Republicans and get stuff done before the Republicans take power next month and Republicans had incentive to work with Democrats to make sure the tax cuts were extended. I fear that come January the normal course of events will take place and people will go back to their full-time job of blaming the other side. No the realist in me knows that this is a circumstance that is not likely to be replicated soon. But a self-proclaim moderate can dream, can't he?

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Class over, time for vacation?

Yep. I finished my grading yesterday. So it is that time of the year when I have time off. Contrary to popular opinion, professors do not take off during the Christmas break. For many of us it is an excellent time to do research and prepare for the coming semester. (Summers often work the same way).
But truth to be told I am going to see my family for a few days during the break. It is a "family" vacation. Family vacations are when one goes to be with family members. It is not the getting away from it all that the idea of vacation tends to denote. Do not get me wrong. I love my family. But if I was to go somewhere just to relax, Arizona is not where I would be going this winter (although that is better than the snow-bound northern states).
Then again I do get the opportunity to do a lot of travel with my job. I have been in most states in this country and generally it is because of business travel. On the one hand, it does afford me the opportunity to see things that I would not normally have seen, like Niagara Falls when I was in Buffalo on business. However, I am not there to truly relax. So that is not really a vacation either.
Makes me think about what is a vacation. Is a vacation something where we just get away and do whatever we want to do? When I do that I find myself thinking a lot about the work I left behind. Consequently it is hard for me to take a vacation for a long period of time where I do not bring work.
I guess it gets back to what is the purpose of a vacation. If it is to get away from work then it is hard for some of us to actually do that. We can leave work behind but it is still in our minds. If it is to see family and friends then family vacations work out well. If it is to build relationships then going with someone else is necessary for it to have meaning.
I have no strong pronouncements on vacations. I admit that this is an evolving concept in my mind. But being a sociologist I constantly have to use my sociological imagination to consider what we often take for granted. Yes being a sociologist is a blessing and a curse. Well anyway, have a good Christmas vacation everybody!!!

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Merry Christmas

I was passing out my tests today. I wanted to greet the students with a "Merry Christmas" to alleviate some of the tension in the room. But I didn't. Why? I figure someone would get offended and who needs that hassle.
Now I first blame myself. I feel a bit like a coward for not mentioning an innocent greeting. So the first culprit has to be myself.
But we are in an atmosphere where even pleasant greeting have become the terrain of the culture war. It seems that we go out of our way to become offended. That is not the way it should be. Even if we disagree with each other can we not accept each others greetings. If someone says "Happy Hanukkah" to me then I can just take it in stride even though I am not Jewish.
So on this holiday season I do wish everyone a Merry Christmas. If that offends you then bah and humbug to you as well. I do have a final on Friday. So I get another chance to greet my class with a hearty Merry Christmas.

Search Logic

Okay. I am not eager to undergo the new enhanced searches anymore than the next person. I do not like the idea that a screener can see the naked image of my body through the machine. Opting out for a search that makes me wonder why I did not also get dinner and a movie is not my idea of fun either. So mark me down as one of those who laments the next procedures we have to undergo to protect ourselves.
But is all the hulabalo about this really necessary? We have to do things we do not like for security purposes. It is not fun holding up my pants because my belt is going through x-ray. Or having to walk in without my shoes. Finding liquids to put in the clear bag is a pain as well. But doing these things allows the powers that be do a better job of keeping me safe. As much as I do not like these things and the new search technology, I like them a whole lot better than getting blown to bits at 20,000 feet in the air. Call me crazy.
But what really gets me is the hypocrisy. The main opponents of these new techniques are on the right. You know. The law and order security hawks. If it was the ACLU doing the complaining then it would be just another "dog bites man" story. They always tend to go overboard on such issues. But the conservatives have been tell us that we have to be aggressive in ferreting out terrorists. Well this is an aggressive apporach and in keeping with that they have said in the past.
We all know that the second a terrorist succeeds in bringing down another plane that the same conservative pundits complaining right now will immediately blame President Obama. They will want to blame him for not protecting the country even as they try to deprive him of the tools to do so. Like I said, it is the hypocrisy of this that gets me.
So I have a deal for the conservatives. If they agree take the blame for any airline attack then we can get rid of the new search technology. No takers huh? I did not think so. You do not want to give up your "blame Obama" approach to life. But if you continue to complain about the new search technology then in my book it will be you, and not Obama, who should get the blame if the terrorist are successful in another attack.
Let's stop hating the TSA agents, the president and homeland security. They do not deserve our hate and hypocrisy. You know who does? The terrorist!!!

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Can't we all just get along: Part 7 - Let's have everybody win.

We need win-win situations as it concern racial issues. We have got to stop thinking about one racial group getting over on other groups. We have to change our mindset. Any solution that does not take into account the interests of everyone has to be rejected. This does not mean everybody will get everything they want. That would be nice but we know it is not realistic. But we can find solutions where all parties gets something. If all parties do not get something out of what we work out then we will not have a stable solution as those who feel ripped off will continue to work against our stated solution.
I wish I could clearly enunciate what the ultimate solutions are. But in fact we all must work together to find those solutions. One person is not going to be able to figure it all out. What I can offer is some suggestions about the sort of atmosphere we have to create if we are going to find those solutions.
First, we have to think about what brings us together. What are our core values that we can all agree on. We all have different ideas about what it means to be a member of our society, but are there not certain values that unite us? Some of my research suggests that notions of freedom may be a unifying value that people have across racial groups. We need to think about that and about other values we have in common. Doing so can help create unity between those of different races so that we begin to care about those who are not in our own racial group. Furthermore, once we have those core values then we can hold people of all races accountable to those values and create a type of equality among us.
Second, we have to be accepting of differences outside of our commonly accepted core values. Our core values will not be so encompassing that we can not differentiate from each other. Appreciating differences that do not violate commonly accepted core values will allow us to express ourselves no matter what group we come from. This will help us have a solidarity that can help us to deal with the tough issues.
Thinking about those tough issues brings up to the third suggestion. We need to develop attitudes where we think about the needs of those of other groups. It is tempting to only focus on solutions that help our group. This is a mistake. We invite our fellow citizens in other racial groups to fight against us. Instead of bringing us together thinking only about what we can get for ourselves will pull us apart. But if we can have a solidarity with those in other racial groups, if we can acknowledge the cultural core we have in common, if we can respect our differences, then we can be in a position to care about working towards solutions where we can all win. Ultimately those are the solutions that are stable and can lead to lasting racial peace.
Of course this is just a summary of some of my ideas. Space does not allow me to fully elaborate on them. However, I am the co-author of a book that just came out entitled "Transcending Racial Barriers." In it we go into more depth about implementing these ideas. So my shameless plug is that if you are interested in pursuing these ideas further then by all means check out that book. Happy Thanksgiving!!!!



Sincerely,



Trouble-Maker

Can't we all just get along?: Part 6 - Working Together

Over the past few weeks I have looked at a variety of different attempts to deal with our racialized society. I contend that all of them have fallen short of what we need. Now I like to think about why they have fallen short and try to think about possible solutions.
I think all of the previous solutions indicate an attempt to meet the needs of certain racial groups at the expense of other racial groups. Colorblindness and Anglo-Conformity address the concerns of people of color. Blaming whites and multiculturalism tend to the needs of people of color. But none of these solutions deal with the issues of both whites and people of color. That is why I think they fail.
Solutions that deal with only the concerns of some of the racial actors will not be supported by the ones who are ignored. Thus attempts to foster a mentality of colorblindness will be resisted by people of color who realize how such a mentality limits their ability to deal with racism. However, efforts to engage in blaming of whites will not go far since whites will fight against this blame. Likewise solutions of Anglo-Conformity and multiculturalism fail to gain widespread acceptance across the racial spectrum. A lasting solution has to be one that can be widely supported by people of all different racial groups.
We need to change our mindset as it concerns racial issues. We need to stop thinking of only solutions that help our group. We have to try to think about the other players in this game as well. Thinking about how to create "win-win" situations is the only way we will find a solution that people from all the different races will buy into. And it is only when a solution has the support of both whites and nonwhites can we hope that people will work together to finally solve this racial thing that has troubled us.
We have to create an atmosphere where we can have solutions that people of all races can buy into. Creating that atmosphere is the goal that we have to strive for. For me it is the key to address the racial disharmony I have been studying for close to two decades now. In my next and final post of this series I will discuss that sort of steps we have to take to create the sort of atmosphere we need to find racial solutions that can be supported by people across the racial spectrum.



Sincerely,



Trouble-Maker

Can't we all just get along?: Part 5 - Just accept all the different cutlures

Now we come to the solution most accepted by educated progressives. That is the solution of multiculturalism, which is the idea that we must learn to accept the different cultures of various racial and ethnic groups. Therefore, we do not judge people of color on the basis of European-American culture. Instead we learn to accept people of color for their own values and cultures. Multiculturalism challenges us to respect people who have traditionally been disrespected by the larger society because they are not acting "white" enough.
Multiculturalism is based upon the well-established fact that we have historically paid homage to European-Americans and European-American culture. Doing so indicates that we value whites more than people of other races. When we practice multiculturalism we are doing more than accepting the cultures of non-whites. We are learning to accept non-whites on their own terms and not on the terms of whites.
In essence, multiculturalism is about learning to accept people different than us. We talk about accepting different cultures, but really it is about accepting different racial/ethnic groups. This is obviously a powerful message and an important one if we are going to deal with our racialized society.
But how far does cultural acceptance go? If a culture normalizes female genital mutilation do I have to accept that as well. What about infanticide, polygamy, euthanasia, or just plain mean behavior? Do I have to accept anything in the name of multiculturalism.
Here is where we begin to run into problems with multiculturalism. The honest truth is that some cultures do have better values than others. We may disagree on which values are better than others, but it is clearly the case that some are better than others. Is the culture of Nazi Germany as good as societies based upon egalitarianism. At the very least am I not allowed to say that the racism and oppression in that culture is bad? What about cultures that creates terrorists or those that motivate street gangs. Multiculturalism encourages us not to judge these cultures but it is so clear that there are better cultures than these ones, that we are foolish not to judge. And once I acknowledge that some cultures are better than others, then I can not completely accept the tolerance preached by multiculturalist. Eventually I have to make value judgements about which cultures are better than others and by their very nature such judgements are subjective.
Even multiculturalists wind up making judgements. The academic movement of "Black Athena" is roughly based on multiculturalism with its arguments that the accomplishments of the Greeks were really the achievements of the Europeans. In that way European based cultures are denigrated all in the name of multicultural "tolerance." And many contemporary multiculturalists can be caught putting down uneducated whites, or people of faith. People who are seen as religious conservatives have been described by Micheal Weisskopf as "largely poor, uneducated and easy to command." Trouble-Maker bets that Weisskopf probably extols the virtues of multiculturalism. But if you are really going to be multiculturalist then you can not just support the cultures you like. You have to accept the cultures you disagree with as well. Trouble-Maker is not convinced that those who claim the label of being multiculturalist really live up to that expectation.
Ironically, multiculturalism can become a tool that allows certain people to elevate their own culture, and like-minded cultures, while they denigrate the cultures of those they do not like. Multiculturalists can look down upon cultures that are not seen as sufficiently "tolerant" and judge them for being judgemental. For this reason multicutluralism is good in theory, but it can not be fully implemented. We must have more than multiculturalism if we are going to have racial peace in our society.
The last few posts have been downers. Like any good social scientist, I have been critical of the current ideas enunciated about racial issues. That is the easy part. The hard part is coming up with solutions myself. It would be great to do just the easy part but it is in proposing solid solutions that there is a chance to make a real difference in society. So in my last couple of posts in this series I will talk about solutions. That way some other good social scientists can come along and poke holes in my solutions as well.



Sincerely,



Trouble-Maker

Can't we all just get along?: Part 4 - Pull them up by their bootstraps

Even with a president of color, it is still the case that whites generally do better economically than people of color. This economic disparity can allow whites to feel superior to people of color. It can spur people of color to feel jealous of whites and to resent them. No wonder research has suggested that racial animosity is less in communities where there is less racially based economic inequality.
Given this reality some people have suggested that the key to racial harmony is to help people of color gain economic and educational success. Helping people of color to create intact families and to gain the training necessary to get good paying jobs should serve to increase their economic opportunities. When racial minorities succeed then we will lower the economic imbalances and create a more harmonious racial situation.
Advocates of this perspective point to the success of Asian-Americans and European ethnic groups that once faced discrimination. The success of these groups indicate that other minority groups can overcome discrimination if they work hard enough. Perhaps there is a need for whites to help teach those groups how to succeed, but in reality racial minorities are seen as having their own fate in their hands.
This sounds good but such an attitude produces serious problems. First, the advocates of this perspective are endorsing a Eurocentric approach suggesting that whites and their culture are superior to other racial groups. The individualistic "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" approach has worked for some groups, but not for all of them. Ironically, the Asian groups that some of these individuals extol as successful often use a more communal approach where everyone works with each other to create success. Whites may not always be the best "teachers" for helping people of color to achieve success.
Second, while the opportunities for people of color has increased over the last several decades there are still barriers that inhibit their opportunity for success. They face stereotypes and expectations whites still do not have to deal with. It is not realistic to believe that the same methods whites used to gain success will work as well for people of color. Furthermore, the implications that they are not succeeding because they are not working hard enough is unfair in light of the extra challenges they face.
Finally, this approach can seem quite paternalistic to people of color. It seems to keep whites in positions of power rather than helping us to find ways to share that power. Any solution to our racialized society must not put one group beneath other groups. This approach does not seem to be a permanent solution. I am confident that we can do better than this.



Sincerely,



Trouble-Maker

Can't we all just get along?: Part 3 - Let's Blame Whitey

In my last post I made the case that we can not just ignore racial issues and hope that they go away. We have to be proactive in our attempts to deal with racism. But we have to be careful to take the right actions.
There is one type of solution that is understandable, but incomplete. That is what I will call the "let's blame whitey" approach. More academic names of it include Anti-Racism, Critical Race Theory etc. They are variations of a way to address racism by looking at the culpability of European-Americans and the culture they created.
Before I point out the shortcomings of this approach, let's see why it developed. Anyone with even a basic understanding of American history knows that we have a history where whites have abused non-whites. As I discussed in the last post the racial disparities we suffer from today is connected to that history and continuing racial problems that have not disappeared. People of color have not benefited from historical racism and contemporary racialization of our society. Whites have. So it makes sense that whites have to give up their racialized advantages if we are going to have true racial equality and peace.
Of course this is correct to a point. We will not achieve what we should in our society unless we change some things that have been advantages to whites. But is that all that we need to do? I think not.
For example, some people with this approach state that blacks can not be racist. They state that blacks can be prejudice, in other words have race-based hate on a personal level, but they do not have institutional power and so can not exhibit racism. Maybe that argument could have been made twenty years ago. But today? Are we to say that President Obama has no institutional power. Or even myself? Can I not impose power over my white students? Whites still have disproportional power in our society but some people of color have power as well. Just looking at whites as the problem is no longer viable.
There is another even more intrinsic problem with this approach. By removing all responsibility from people of color we often allow their worst personal demons to develop. The term "Playing the Race Card" is not without merit. It occurs every time a person of color uses the accusation of racism to escape responsibility. For example when in 1994 the former black congressman, Mel Reynolds, was caught with a 16 year old girl he blamed racism. A clear case of a person of color trying to "play the race card" to escape his own shortcomings. This case is obvious, but I suspect all of us know of cases where a person of color is using the charge of racism in a false and misleading way to either escape responsibility or to gain power. We just may be too scared in our racially charged society to point it out when we see it. I am not but then again I am a trouble-maker.
The character of people of color is just as good and just as bad as the character of whites. People of color can be just as greedy and manipulative as whites can be. But as long as we only look at whites as being the problem, we will be vulnerable to those people of color who will use the sympathy in dysfunctional ways.
Furthermore is not this approach disempowering to those people of color who do not want to play the race card? If whites are the only one with any responsibility for fixing racial problems then all people of color can do is wait for whites to get their act together. That means that whites still have all the power. Some say that people of color can tell whites about the problems of racism. But that still leaves them helpless until whites get their act together. Ultimately this approach leaves people of color powerless.
There is some value in this approach. But ultimately it falls short of creating a complete solution to our racial problems. We will not solve our racial problems by just blaming whites. Doing so energizes the bad characteristics in some people of color even as it disempowers them. We have to find better answers if we are going to overcome our racial problems.



Sincerely,



Trouble-Maker

Can't we all just get along?: Part 2 - Our head in the Sand

Okay. One of the most popular ways to deal with racism is to pretend that it does not exists. Yeah, I am not joking. Basically, some people say something like this: Racism is bad. But it is a thing of the past. Oh there may be a few wayward racist but generally people are not punished because of there race anymore. So let's just treat everyone equally right now and just forget about racism.
This is often called a colorblind approach to racism. Part of me wish that we could do just that. But it is an approach akin to putting our head in the sand. Problems tend to endure. They do not just go away because we choose to ignore them.
The consequences of our centuries of racism linger even in an environment where overt racism is stigmatized. For example, it is well documented that the wealth of blacks is far less than the wealth of whites. Wealth is the property and assets we own. Even when we look at blacks and whites making the same income, the wealth of whites is much higher. This wealth is due to the history of asset accumulation whites have enjoyed over the past few centuries. White parents and grandparents had financial advantages over people of color that allowed them to pass on wealth in the forms of houses and financial accounts to their children and grandchildren? Of course this is not true for all whites, but clearly whites are more likely to enjoy financial advantages from the accumulation of family financial assets than people of color.
Beyond financial assets whites have also gained cultural assets that work to their advantage. It is still within the white community that we are more likely to find the social networks that help us get jobs, appointments etc. The cultural expectations that are valued when we hire somebody or consider them for our educational programs are generally Eurocentric in nature. The white advantage in our society did not disappear during the Civil Rights movement. It merely took different forms.
Space does not allow me to be a bit more nuanced in my description of our current racial reality and this is not mean to be "white bashing." I am merely pointing out that we can not ignore our enduring racial effects. Racial problems, like any serious social problem, requires intentional and sustained efforts to overcome. This is why the colorblind approach simply will not work. It can bring temporary racial peace but at the cost of achieving true racial equality. Because that equality is not achieved, eventually people of color will revolt and enduring racial harmony will be lost.
We have to reject this colorblind approach. If we are going to find lasting racial harmony then we have to proactively engage in efforts to overcome our racial past. But we have to be wise in the actions we take. In the next couple of blogs I will explore some of the efforts that I think are sincere but misguided.



Sincerely,



Trouble-Maker

Can't we all just get along?: Part 1 - Introduction

Okay. Some of you know that much of my work has been in issues of race. A smaller group of those reading the blog know that I am moving away to deal with other issues. I will always be a thinker about racial issues. But those issues will become less important in my life. But before they do I want to use this blog to conceptualize a few thoughts I have on racial issues.
Kind of funny that we still are dealing with racism today. Okay funny is not the best word. Maybe sad is a better word. Fact of the matter is that even with a president of color, race and racism continues to plague our society. We have to continue to struggle to deal with racial issues in our society. However, I will be more of a observer than a player in that struggle in the years to come.
But before I relegate myself to cheerleader status, I will spend the next few blogs outlining some of my ideas on race and racism. In the next few blogs I will look at the major ideas that people have developed for dealing with racism. I will also critique those ideas. If you have strong ideas about how to deal with racism I will probably step on your toes. If not next entry then the entry after that one or a later entry will probably offend you. I do not accept sacred cows very easily. That is why I am a troublemaker.
Then at the end I will offer some of my own ideas. I always believe that it is easier to criticize than to create solutions. So I am certain that the solutions I offer will not perfectly solve all the racial problems. But if I am going to critique other ideas then I have to offer some of my own.
So this may be fun. I look forward to bringing my decades to work on racial issues to bear in the next few blogs. I also hope to spur some discussion and hopefully shed more light than heat.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Hmmmmmm

The U.S. National debt is almost 14 Trillion dollars which is almost as much as our gross domestic product. Okay you got my attention.
So the Democrat solution is to allow the taxes to go up on people who make more than 250k. But this is after passing a huge stimulus spending package and a health care bill that is almost guaranteed to cost megabucks as well.
The Republicans want to cut the spending down drastically but they will not make much of an effort to raise the money though taxes to lower our debt.
It seems to me that we have to bite bullet and cut back on our spending and allow the tax rate to go up. I am not happy about that but then again we have almost $14,000,000,000,000 in debt. Perhaps seeing all those zeros helps us to gain some perspective on this.
Trouble-Maker is hopeful that one of the political parties to do the hard thing and truly do what is necessary to reduce our national debt. But since what needs to be done is unpopular on many fronts, he will not hold his breath waiting for that to happen.



Sincerely,



Trouble-Maker

We are never satisfied

This blog has been making the rounds. It has been re-posted since the original writer took it off due to the reaction to it.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kpzaEp0IVw4J:truthonthemarket.com/2010/09/15/we-are-the-super-rich/+site:truthonthemarket.com/+Xxxx+Xxxxxxxxx&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

I have a little bit different take on it. There is a part of me that has some sympathy for Henderson. He probably does find his money stretched in multiple ways. However look at what he is getting for that money. Someone to mow his lawn, to clean his house, to watch his children. He gets to live close to home, send his kids to a private school and has a secure job. Yes he has to struggle to balance his budget but he is not balancing the budget to survive. He is balancing his budget to thrive.

This is not an attempt to be critical of Professor Henderson. He is probably doing what most of us would do in his situation. You see no matter how much we get it is never enough. We spend it and then want more. We think that if we just get a little more of this or that then everything will be alright. That is never the case.

This is not even limited to money. If we are married then we think if my spouse would only help around the house, or be more sexually available or be more considerate then everything will be perfect. Or if we have kids if they would only clean their room, or stop back talking or get better grades. At work if only the people were nicer, or a bigger office or a longer lunch break then I will be satisfied. The truth is that even if you got all of those things then you still will have unmet desires. You will simply want more.

All of the knowledge that I have access to reinforces this concept. As a scholar I know humans constantly want more and more resources and this desire leads to social contact. As a social observer I am fascinated on how professional athletes who are paid big money for a dream job of playing a game could ever conceive of going on strike. As a Christian I am well aware of the doctrine of human depravity which suggest that we can not contain our greed and always want a little more.

There is nothing wrong with wanting more. It does not have to lead to unending greed. It is a desire that can help us to work to make the world better. We can use it to better our world through innovation or activism. But it can rob us of current happiness since we do not learn to be satisfied with the good things that are already happening in our lives. When we forget what we already have in our desire to accumulate more then the same desire that can lead to a cure or solution for poverty, AIDS, racial hostility, teenage pregnancy, cancer, unemployment can also lead to depression and ingratitude for what we have already accomplished and gained in our lives and our society.

I guess that is what I would tell Henderson. The loss of the tax cuts likely will cause him some financial difficulties. He may have to mow his lawn and put more time into taking care of his kids and cleaning his house. Given the demands of his job these are more significant losses than those of us without such a job may appreciate. But if he looks at what he does have and is grateful for it then he will have a healthier outlook on what is happening. Does not mean that he has to stop striving to better his life and the lives of his kids. But stopping and smelling the roses is also important if we are going to live a full life.

Sincerely,





Trouble-Maker

If that is slavery then sign me up!!!

Okay I want a new law. That law is that if you make at least one million dollars a year then you can not state that you are a slave. Why would I want such a law? Becasue then I would not have to read stupid statements from someone like Haynesworth.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Albert-Haynesworth-I-am-not-a-slave?urn=nfl-272374
I will go out and a limb and say that if I am paid 32 million dollar to play football for a few years then I am not a slave if they want me to come to practice. Even if 300 pound men are tossing my skinny butt around I will still not complain about being a slave. So I need to write my congressman to get that law in place.
On a more serious note, does not Haynesworth know how insulting his statement is for people who really are or were slaves? Has he read his own history to see how badly real black slaves were treated? Does he not understand that the horrors of slavery exists today? Yet he wants to claim that type of victimization to negotiate better working conditions. Hello. You make millions of dollars a year to play a game. I thought I had a dream job as a professor, but how can any job beat that working situation?
If it was just stupid athletes who use such exaggerations then it is easy to just laugh this off. But of course we see this all the time. I put Obama and Hitler into my Google search and come up with 6,180,000 hits. Nice. When I put Bush and Hitler in my Google search I came up with 5,96,000 hits. Stupidity knows no political boundaries. Do these people really know what Hitler did? Why are they not embarrassed by making such stupid comparisons? I am betting that most of them do not have the excuse of being a dumb athlete.
When we use such extreme language we cheapen the real horrors of slavery and Hitler. But that is alright since we get to demonize our opponent. After all pushing our cause is more important than an accurate assessment of reality. I have causes I believe in as well. I hope that truth and honestly will be more important to me than merely getting my way with manipulative accusations and exaggerations.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Can we have it all?

How many of us have everything we want? Not many huh? Even those who are rich in income often find themselves poor in relationships or spiritual comfort or health. Troublemaker has tried to live a holistic life. He has worked on being healthy physically, intellectually, spiritually and socially. I must admit that I do not have always a great social life but am pretty satisfied in the other areas of life. But that forces me to think if I only had a better social life then everything would be great.
But would it? What if I had that great social life? Would I not then start wanting something else. Perhaps even more academic success or a better relationship with God or more knowledge. I think I will never be completely satisfied. I will always want something more than what I currently have.
But that is alright. I do not think that we are on this earth to feel fully satisfied. When we are fully satisfied then we stop struggling to make ourselves or others better. If Troublemaker hits the lottery tomorrow (highly unlikely since I do not play the lottery) and was set for life financially then hopefully other financial goals will develop. Finding ways to channel money to causes I care about or setting up foundations will become important. But then I will need more money than just enough to take care of myself. I will need money to take care of these causes. So ideally even hitting the lottery will not satisfy me financially.
Or what about our social relationship. Ideally a person in a good marriage will not be satisfied. He/She will constantly trying to make the marriage better. He/she will constantly attempt to make life better for any kids in the marriage. Just because something is good does not mean that we can be satisfied that we have arrived in life.
This brings me to an important but troubling point. We are not meant to be satisfied. We are meant to strive. This does not mean that we have to be unhappy in our striving. In fact not trying to better ourselves whether intellectually, spiritually, socially or physically may lead to a laziness that creates a loss of meaning in our lives. As a society we should attempt to make the lives of people better around us and to make our own lives better. But we should not expect to be able to "arrive" at a point where no further improvement is needed. Sometimes it seems that some people have such unrealistic expectations. But would they really be happier if they had all their desires met and no longer st rived to make their lives better?

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Some Free Speech Please

This morning while I watch "Morning Joe" on MSNBC I saw a strange alliance take place. Donny Deutsch, a far-left commentator and Patrick Buchanan, a well-known conservative, both agreed on a solution for Terry Jones - the pastor who wants to burn the Koran. They believed that for the sake of national security that if the pastor insists on going through with the burning that President Obama should use Federal Marshals to arrest Pastor Jones for the sake of national security and the lives that may be saved if Muslim do not riot. President Obama can then use his justice department to create some charge to hold Jones on. To this solution Trouble-Maker has only one word.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
If anyone thinks that I am sympathetic to Pastor Jones then they should read my last post. But such an action would clearly strike at the heart of freedom of religion and free speech. Those are two cornerstones of American democracy. It is not hard to defend freedoms with those we agree with or disagree with but are still acceptable. But where the rubber meets the road is when we have to defend these rights for those who are offensive, such as Pastor Jones. His actions are clearly religious in nature and the expression of a given idea about Islam. We can speak out against his actions all we want. But his actions are covered by constitutional rights and if we do not defend them now we may not defend them in the future.
And what sort of a future may that be. Will we arrest a pastor who speaks out against homosexuality under the guise of ridding our society of "gay bashing"? Will we confine a supporter of Afrocentric theology so that the clergy person does not incite inner city riots? Should we round up religious critics of the Afghanistan war in the name of "protecting the troops"? The type of rash action proposed by Deutsch and Buchanan is a short cut that sets a precedent that can not be easily erased. Religious viewpoints seen as acceptable today may not be seen as acceptable tomorrow. And once those viewpoints are not seen as acceptable then all sorts of governmental abuses become possible.
Trouble-Maker stands squarely on the side of free speech and freedom of religion. If those rights mean anything then they mean that the government does not use its power to squash religious expression and speech it does not want to have. Those of us outside the government can call Pastor Jones whatever name we want or boycott organizations we disagree with. Private citizens can react in whatever way they want to offensive speakers. The government has to stay out. In doing so we do not only protect the rights of Pastor Jones. We also protect our own rights to ridicule and minimize his stupid ideas about burning the Koran. By protecting Pastor Jones I ultimately also protect myself.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Short Term Thinking and Long Term Consequences

Okay. You never know where you are going to find new examples of stupidity. Take this for example.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100907/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

I mean come on folks. What do these good "patriotic" Christians think is going to happen when they get their kicks burning up the Koran. I think that a lot of the claims that what we do fuels Muslim rage is overblown. But this time the General is right. Do they remember the number of deaths that occurred after the Muhammad cartoons. Yes it is their legal right to destroy the Koran but it is just wrong for them to do it (kind of like the 9/11 Mosque situation but I digress).

But when you think about it, this is a good move for this church. They are a church of fifty people. Joel Osteen the pastor is not. This stunt has given them all sorts of national and even international news. I would be surprised if they remain at fifty people. There are plenty of others who hate Muslims who will cheer them on and support them. Some of these people may even join the church. So what is bad for the troops and certain to lead to death is actually a good move if this church wants to gain notoriety. What is it they say. There is no such thing as bad publicity.

This brings out a larger societal issue. Often what aids us, or our group, in the short run hurt a lot more people in the long run. The welfare cheat benefits his/herself in the short run. But in doing so make it harder for us to get the aid people really need in the long run. The factory gains in the short run from exploiting labor. But in the long run this exploitation sets up unions and government regulation that stifles the economy and eventually cuts into the factory's bottom line. We do not always do well with long range thinking.

We have lost some of the will to overlook short-term gain for the higher good of serving our society. There are a lot of reasons for this. But our notion of individualism and entitlement can lead to some horrible consequences if we are not careful. I hope this church reconsiders and does something that expresses their opposition to Islam in a more responsible and less flamboyant way. I also hope that more of us consider the good for the community and society to be at least as important as the good for us and our particular group.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

We are not all Muslims!!

A rather interesting link I found through a friend.

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/allahu-akbar-michael-bloomberg-tells-ramadan-audience-we-are-all-muslims/

Obviously such a controversial comment will lead to a lively discussion. I will save the entire Mosque controversy for another time. But what I find interesting is the assumption by Bloomberg that all religions are the same. He does not mean he is a Muslim in that he prays five times a day and fasts during Ramadan. He is implying that all religions lead to a generalized sense of peace and acceptance. Nice thoughts. But is he on solid ground.
Now I get to be a troublemaker. All religions are not the same. And to imply such is an insult to those religions. It is intellectually dishonest to state that the monotheism of Islam is the same as the atheism in Buddhism. The Jehovah God in Judaism is quite different than the Adam-God advocated by Mormons. When we state that all religions are the same we rob them of the distinctive attributes they can offer to society and generally replace those attributes with our own values. We are in essence using religion to validate our own beliefs. Those of you with some sociological understanding will recognize some of Durkheim's argument about religion as a way to create culture cohesion in my assertion.
Bloomberg is not alone in pushing this notions that all religions are the same. But it is more emotional and political desire than cognitive wisdom that drives this idea. But we need to stop doing this. Let each religion speak for itself. Look at the good and the bad of each faith. Let us not merge all the faiths into some mushy pot of oatmeal. Many who would never tolerate such cultural assimilation as it concerns racial groups freely accept it as it concern religious beliefs. Those who belief want to keep their distinctions and it is an insult to try to take that away.
Of course if we accept the religious distinctiveness of Islam, Judaism, Christianity etc. then we have to recognize the possibility that some of these religions may be more violent than the others. Perhaps another aspect driving this need to merge all religions together is our PC need to avoid such unpleasant realities. We rather pretend that all religions produce the same level of functional and dysfunctional behaviors. But that is once again putting our head in the same for the sake of ideological purity. So it is honest to ask the question of which religions tend to produce the most violence. But I have stirred enough trouble for now. Only can cause so much trouble in a given blog. But maybe soon in future blog I will take an honest look at contrasting propensities for different religions to create violence.


Sincerely,


Trouble-Maker

Why are Christian Colleges so White?

Christianity is suppose to be a religion for everyone. But is it well documented that Sunday morning is one of the most segregated time of the week. If Christianity is suppose to serve everyone then why can not people come together when they worship?
That is a question that more than a few theologians and scholars have been wrestling with. But I have another question that many have not thought about. It is one thing if Christians of different races worship in different places. After all there are many ways Christian worship can be organized and clearly some of these differences are linked to race-based cultural variations. But why are Christian colleges more racially homogeneous than other colleges. Education is needed by people of all races. People who worship a God that is not a "respecter of person" should not segregate themselves when it comes to getting an education should they?
I do not believe that Christians tend to create racially homogeneous colleges because of racism. Rather this is a good example of how our society is racialized in such a way that we reproduce the racial separation that we have seen in the past. We do this by where we live, who we marry and where we go to school. Christians have some cultural barriers that make it worse, but in reality they often just reflect the larger racial values in our society.
This is actually a question that I have studied and now have a book out on the subject. It is called Neither Jew nor Gentile and it has been published by Oxford University Press. In that book I not only look at the dynamics that create this racial segregation but also suggest some possible solutions. (One of my complaints of social scientists is that we are good at documenting problems but lousy at finding innovative solutions). If this is something you are interested in then check out the book. Here is a link where you can find it.

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/SociologyofReligion/?view=usa&ci=9780199735433

Okay so this is a little bit of a shameless plug. Yeah trouble-maker tries to sell his stuff too. But hey it is my blog and you are getting what you paid for. I will try to make the next blog a little less commercial.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

The King

It is official. King James is no more. For those of you who have been living under a rock or have no knowledge of basketball I am of course talking about LeBron James. We have had to suffer the drama of where he is going as a free agent. And we got the answer. He got off his throne (which never really existed since he never won the title).
You see the great ones build their championships where they land. They convince others to come and play with them. That is the legacy of Magic, Jordon, Bird, Duncan and (I hate to admit it because I hate him) Kobe. LeBron decided that he would let Wade build the championship team. It does not matter if the Heat win the next 10 titles. They will be Wade's title and James just came to help. No King is just a helper.
I know it is easy for me to tell James to do since I never had such talent myself and was not faced with such a decision. It seems to me that one title in Cleveland when he is clearly "the man" is better than 3 or 4 with the Miami Heat. I guess I am a traditionalist when it comes to sports. I like athletes to stay put and remain in touch with their city. Oh for the good ol days.
No earth shattering, trouble-making declarations here. Taking a brief break from that. But just wanted to have my say on the whole LeBron situation. Will move on the more "meatier" issues with the next post.

Sincerely,


Trouble-maker

Hitler!!!!

Okay. Some, but not all, of the Tea Party people are just plain stupid. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iowa_obama_billboard.

I mean what are they thinking putting up a billboard comparing Obama to Hitler. Where are the six million Jew Obama has killed? Has Obama tried to invade France lately? These people are getting grief and deserve it. I especially like how some of them state that they are just trying to make an anti-socialism message (Remember that Hitler was head of the National Socialist Party). Come on. If they only had Stalin up there then they at least have a shot of pulling off that fiction. Everyone knows the images that come up when you put that murder with the funny mostache on a billboard.

I was reading the article just waiting for the punchline. You know that the Democrats decided to put up the billboard and then blame the Tea Party. Nope. Some people in the Tea Party actually thought this would help their cause. They probably just swung a bunch of votes towards Obama. If the Democrats are smart they will just get out of the way and let the Republicans form their circular firing squad.

But I can not let the Democrats go without pointing out a bit of hypocrisy on their part. I seem to remember that when Bush was president that Hitler's name came up as well. http://www.bradblog.com/?p=2513. Oh yeah. I really like how all the minions rush to defend the Bush and Hitler comparison that the teacher made. Correct me if I am wrong but I do not remember Bush killing off Jews either.

How about a moratorium on comparisons to Hitler for the next, say, 100,000 years. If someone actually sets up real death camps and tries to exterminate a race then okay maybe we can life that moratorium. Until then we have enough real issues without engaging in this type of hyperbole.



Sincerely,



Trouble-Maker

Happy Birthday America

I confess that I am not the most patriotic person around. It is sometimes hard to celebrate the Fourth when you are an African-American because your people were not freed at that time. Nevertheless, some good things did happen with the Declaration and I should be happy about that.
In a few months I will have a book (co-written with Micheal Emerson) come out that deals with racial issues. In it we argue that Americans of different races have to find common values to rally around, even as we continue to appreciate our cultural differences. The example we gave is the value of freedom that is found among Americans of different races.
Then today I attended a multiracial church. In that church they did some of the normal "Rah-Rah America" that you get on July Fourth. But then the pastor talked about the value of freedom and how we should appreciate it. Since the pastor is preaching to a multiracial congregation he had to find a value that is important to people of different races and still have a unifying message on our country's birthday. Is it a coincidence that he choose the value of freedom? I think not.
Well anyway I will blog more about that book when it is closer to coming out. But it is always nice when you get verification of your ideas from an outside source. Hope everyone enjoys the Holiday!!!!


Sincerely,





Trouble-maker

Consistancy - Part 3

Okay so its a game. Political opponents do not have consistent values but rather they are playing a game with one another. Sort of a one-upsmanship between the two parties. If you are a Republican then the same acts that you consider corruption when it is a Democrat you find a way to justify it when a Republican is guilty. The same is true for Democrats when they catch Republicans and yet protect their own. As long as we know it is a game then we can deal with it right?

Well maybe. The problem is that both sides are concentrating so much on winning instead of supporting their values that they have to demonize each other to win. So now Republicans are all over Obama for his spending. But when they had the government they spend money like crazy. So much for the value of small government. It is about demonizing Democrats. And Democrats were all for going after Clarence Thomas for sexist comments. But when President Clinton is accused of worse actions than we even dreamed about for Thomas they put up the best defence since the Steel Curtain. So much for the value of eliminating sexual harassment. I guess we should only use it to demonize Republicans.

Ultimately this is bad for us as Americans. We learn to hate one half of the country instead of merely disagreeing with them. We can not have rational discussions about issues and we certainly can not compromise with the enemy. We get stuck in our camps and worry more about winning the game rather than doing what is right in our country.

No wonder I have so little faith in our political system. I have given up hoping that they do what is right. I just hope they do not mess things up and make our situation worse.



Sincerely,





Trouble-Maker

Consistency - Part 2

Okay so we know that both conservatives and liberals are inconsistent in their political philosophy. Neither side attach their political positions to a consistent value. If you disagree with this assertion then please read my last posting. So why do conservatives pick their set of political positions and why do liberals pick their set of political positions?Republicans state that they are driven by the value of small government and yet support governmental intrusion on the issue of abortion. Democrats state that they are driven by the value of individual choice, except when it comes to where we send our kids to school. So I do not accept that these political parties are driven by these values. Something else must be driving them instead.



I suggest that political ideology is socially constructed. Since political ideology is not tied to some consistent value then to some degree it is made up and almost accidental. A certain set of political issues arise and one political party takes one side of the issue. This obligates the other side to take the other side of the issue. The reason why conservatives feel the way they do about a political position is because other conservatives have defined it as "conservative." The same thing happens for liberals. In their own political circles conservatives gain prestige by showing others how "conservative" they are. Same for liberals. Then we get entrenched into our harden political positions without even thinking about why we have them.



Here is an example. Remember a few years ago when Democrats were filibustering the judicial nominations of President Bush. The conservative position was that this filibustering is not in keeping with the original intent of the government. The liberal position was that judicial nominations are too important to allow the majority to run over the minority party. Now that Democrats have 59 seats in the Senate the Republicans are talking about filibustering President Obama's Supreme Court nomination if he or she is too liberal. Now the same argument the Republicans were using a few years ago the Democrats are using and vice versa. It is some eternal value each party is using. I think not. It is political opportunism to find a political issue that helps to make the other side looks bad.



So often politics is just a game and not about real values. I guess that would be alright if we just accept it as a game. In games sometimes you win and sometimes you lose (come on Spurs!!) but life goes on. Unfortunately, the stakes are quite higher when we are deciding about politics which effects our laws. Furthermore there is even a more destructive aspect to this process. But this post is getting too long. So I will look at that aspect in my next post.



Sincerely,



Trouble-Maker

Consistency - Part 1

Okay. Everyone knows how controversial abortion is. The two sides of the issue call themselves pro-life or pro-choice. But I am confused.
Those who are pro-life state that they oppose abortion because of their reverence for life. Yet most of them support capital punishment. They may argue that those on death row deserve to be put to death but what about reverence for life? They could argue that we have to put them to death to prevent them from killing again but that is not true. Today with SuperMax prisons very few prisoners ever have a chance of escaping. We can protect society without putting these criminals to death. It actually costs more money to put them to death then to keep them imprison for life so the argument that putting them to death to save money is not right either. Why not err on the side of life. After all it seems reasonable that if we keep putting prisoners to death that eventually we are going to kill someone who is innocent of their stated crime. It seems to me that the pro-lifers are not being consistent to their stated values of reverence for life.
However, most pro-choicers I have met only want choice for certain decisions for women. Most of them do not support school choice plans. So let me understand this. We should trust a woman enough to know whether to have a kid but not enough to know where to send the kid to school once she has him/her. I know many pro-choicers will say that it is about the government paying for her school choice they object to but will they keep the same standard for abortion. In other words do they believe that the government should not financially support a woman so that she can have an abortion. Most of the strong pro-choicers I have met support financial support for a woman's choice for abortion but not for where she sends her kid to school. Once again pro-choicers are not being consistent to their stated values of providing a woman with choice.
Why all of this inconsistency? Is there something beyond the stated values of pro-lifers and pro-choicers to be considered here. I believe that there is. But this post is getting long and I will have to discuss that that is in a later post.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Trouble-Maker got a new car!!!!

After more than 10 years in my Escort it was time for me to move up in the car driving business. So now I will drive in comfort with my new Corrolla. Wanted to start writing stuff to create trouble today. But too happy with my new vehicle. Will try to start some trouble with my next post.

What is a Trouble Maker? Part 2

Okay so I explained last time what I mean by being a trouble maker. So the next question is why do I see myself as a trouble maker and what has helped to make me a trouble maker?
Quite simple I see myself as a trouble maker because I am not afraid to think outside the box. Furthermore, I sometimes enunciates what I am thinking about. That is what gets me into trouble. In the coming posts I will give you some examples of that.
What has created a trouble maker? I think in my case it is a combination of living in the margins and being willing to think my own thoughts. To see what I am saying you have to know a bit about my biography.
When I was 19 I became an evangelical Christian. I will forever be grateful for the brothers and sisters around me who helped me to grow in my faith. When it came to spiritual things they were truly my mentors. However when they discussed political issues I often found myself in disagreement with them. Some of their claims that there were biblical support for things such as tax cuts, death penalty and aggressive war just did not logically jive. I could read the bible too and I thought for myself. To be honest I begin to think that a lot of these good Christian people were pretty narrow-minded in their thinking on certain political issues.
Then I went off to graduate school. I would eventually get my doctorate in sociology. After having been the progressive surrounded by conservatives I should have been in my element. Yet I found much of the same thing. I had a lot to learn about sociological theory, methods, statistics and research. I am incredibly grateful for the professors and graduate students who helped me to learn. But I found a lot of unfounded presuppositions and illogical thinking when topics such as religion and politics came up. I begin to be the conservative surrounded by the progressives. I found myself once again in disagreement quite often and begin to think that many of these people were pretty narrow-minded in their thinking as well. (Of course I have my own beliefs and can be considered narrow-minded myself. But so few people agree with all my beliefs that my ideas constantly get challenged. I find that people in these two groups rarely have their ideas challenged by their good friends. More of that in a future blog.)
Having been deeply exposed to contrasting groups and the way they think I know that there are different ways to consider social, religious and political issues. I value both approaches although I find that members in each group often do not value the perspectives of those in other groups. So I sometimes bring perspectives I have picked up from my Christian friends to my friends in academia. That gets me into trouble. Then at other times I bring ideas from my friends in academia to my Christian friends. That gets me into trouble too. But if I am to be true to myself then I have to admit that sometimes I agree more with one of those groups over the other and at times I disagree with both groups. I could keep my mouth shut but what is the fun of that.
Well that is a little about me and that will tell you a little of my perspective. If you are looking for a liberal blogger who will always agree with the left then keep on looking. If you are looking for a conservative blogger who will always agree with the right then keep on looking. I guarantee you that I will agree and disagree with both. That is what I think gets me into trouble.

Sincerely,

Trouble Maker

What is a Trouble Maker? Part 1

Okay so this is my first attempt at blogging and I will probably stink at it for a while. So bear with me. My name is George and I am a confessed trouble-maker. What do I mean by that. Let me use this blog to explain.
A trouble-maker is the person who thinks outside of the box. Because the trouble-maker does not think like other people, he or she eventually will put forth unpopular, even if well thought out ideas. If the ideas are well thought out then it is all the more trouble. Because it is easy to dismiss obviously dumb ideas. Overt racism or sexism is dumb. People who push those ideas are not trouble-makers. They are just loud idiots.
No a trouble-maker puts forth well thought out ideas but ideas that are not popular. So many times we stick to ideas because of our political ideology or because those are the popular ideas in our social networks. Trouble-makers dare to think outside of those socially constructed boxes to consider new concerns and find novel solutions.
Trouble-makers are not necessarily Republican or Democrat. They are not necessarily liberal or conservative. They can be white, black, Hispanic, Asian or any other race. They can be male or female. They do not agree with each other. The only thing that links trouble-makers is their willingness to think outside the box and vocalize those ideas.
In the next few months I will present some of the ideas that make me a trouble-maker. You may agree with some of the ideas and you may disagree with them. But if I am truly a trouble-maker then these ideas will be controversial and we can have great fun debating them. Who knows. Maybe in time some of these ideas will be accepted and I will be less of a trouble-maker and more of an innovator. But I will not hold my breath waiting for that.
For my next effort I will go into why I think I became a trouble-maker.