21stcenturywire--2019-09-14--The Turkish Rap Attack Fighting the Status Quo with Loaded Words

The Turkish Rap Attack: Fighting the Status Quo with Loaded Words

It’s been said that art has the power to change the world, but does it have the power to reverse Turkey’s current Islamist trajectory?  The New Turkey is all but an Islamic state in the making, a modern country caught between a seductive yet escapist modernity and a strict yet prayerful authoritarianism, caught between pleasure and duty, as it were.  And somewhere in the middle is Turkey’s youth, busily participating in the digital world like their peers elsewhere while listening to Rap music and partaking of other licit and illicit pleasures . . . And, lest we forget, the majority of Turkey’s population of nearly 84 million at present is young, with the “median age . . . at 30.9 years . . . [and with] 27% ranging from 0 to 14 years of age,” and “12.97 million people aged 15-24,” according to the TÜİK (or the Turkish Statistical Institute) – that means that young Turks (aged between 0 and 24) make up about 40% of the country’s total population. And these young people are basically no different from young people elsewhere.  Last April, the unemployment figure in Turkey was at a staggering 14.7%, with the “youth unemployment rate [at] 20.3%,” or one fifth of Turkey’s youngsters are experiencing joblessness.  The TÜİK research furthermore indicated that “[m]ore than half of young people in the country (55.4%) said [nevertheless that] they were happy last year,” which also means that nearly half of Turkey’s young population last year experienced some kind of discomfort and felt that they were not reaching their full potential in the country. Arguably, prospects of impending joblessness, and resultant hopelessness leading to escapist stratagems involving video games, drug abuse, and other harmless and less innocent pastimes – factors that could very well transform these young Turks (arguably about 20% of the population) into rebels with a cause, particularly if we keep in mind that “[o]fficial figures . . .  showed that 93% of [the] young population had internet access in 2018,” opening the prospect of the nowadays much-vaunted and -feared ‘internet radicalisation.’  In contrast. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (or the Prez), the Islamist politician who has been leading his party (the Development and Justice Party or AKP) and the country into the current post-Kemalist century, seems happily oblivious of these young people and their proclivities. After all, Erdoğan belongs to a very different demographic – born in 1954, at present 65 years of age. Rather than thinking about integrating his country’s younger generations into a global network of young people and their hopes and cares, since 2012, he has been adamant about his desire to rear pious generations that will work and pray for the benefit their home country and their god (Allah). For that reason, the 19th National Education Council (or Şura), held in December 2013, issued a momentous 179 “recommendatory decisions,” in line with the Prez’s desire for future generations of pious Turks. These recommendations “included the introduction of religious courses into the curriculum of primary schools. Whereas, middle school pupils undergoing training to memorize the Quran (known as hafızlık in Turkish) would be able to leave school for the duration of two years but will still be allowed to sit exams. At the same time religious instruction in high schools will be doubled, while the teaching of the history of Turkey’s reforms and the principles of Kemalism in middle and high schools will be subjected to a critical revision more in line with a contemporary understanding and current needs. But the most spectacular ‘recommendation’ or decision was arguably to turn the instruction of the Ottoman language (Osmanlıca, in Turkish) into a compulsory course for vocational religious high schools as well as social science high schools.”  In January 2015, I put forward the notion that “these classes in the Ottoman language are more like a backdoor to learning the Arabic alphabet, which is a prerequisite for reading the Quran.” And that is indicative of the new Turkish status quo that has replaced the Kemalist version of secularism that kept Islam hidden from view yet alive and well behind the scenes.  In reality, these recommendations were all but following the facts on the ground, as already in 2012 religious or “Imam Hatip education was extended to middle schools for pupils aged 10 to 14,” as noted by Reuters‘ Daren Butler. The Turkish state had originally founded İmam Hatip Lyceums or High Schools to educate young men to be imams (or prayer leaders) and preachers. And according to statistics recently released by the Ministry of National Education (or Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, commonly acronymsed as MEB), a grand total of 3, 286 İmam Hatip Middle School are at present active in the country, of which 427 are İmam Hatip Lyceums or High Schools (İHL). In time, the Prez and his henchmen would arguably like to turn all educational establishments in the land into religious establishments. These educational policies are in stark contrast to those originally espoused during the Kemalist years, when “religion was banned altogether from the schools for fourteen years between 1935 and 1949,” as remarked by Marmara University’s Dr Aylin Akpınar.  On the other hand, the social scientist Turan Bilge Kuşcu conducted some research of his own into the matter of İmam Hatip Lyceums; and, his “results . . . show that 50% of parents indicated that they had chosen to send their children to “İHL” because of their desire for their children to receive a “religious education,” as published in the periodical Derin Maarif (or ‘Deep Education, ‘a name and word choice suggestive of the conservative and Islamic nature of its editorial line).  Around the world, today’s youth culture seems centred around the phenomenon known as Hip-hop.  As explained by National Geographic‘s Tom Pryor: “hip-hop culture has [currently] metastasized from its urban American roots into the global juggernaut it is today, [and]  that’s largely thanks to the insistent, irresistible appeal of rap.”  Nowadays, artists rap in English, in French, in Filipino, in any possible language, including Turkish. And last Friday, 6 September 2019, the Turkish public was exposed to a veritable rap attack targeting the nation’s youth (in the form of the rapper Ezhel‘s song/clip ‘Olay,’ released on YouTube), a musical assault on the status quo with the potential to rival the Friday Prayer (a weekly event that embodies and reinforces the status quo with governemnt-approved sermons).  Ezhel’s  ‘Olay’ is a musical release that caused a real storm in a tea cup (or maybe not) across Turkey’s computers and virtual landscapes. The Turkish writer and music critic Barış Akpolat queries whether the day will go down in history as the day a “revolution in Turkish Rap music” occurred . . . On Twitter, the University of California, Santa Cruz-PhD Candidate Kenan Sharpe stated that the “newest song by #Ezhel & crew is out. This bold music video features news clips/footage from the last 10-ish years of traumatic events in Turkish/world history. However you read the use of these images from our collective past, this video is certain to stir up discussion” (11:19 pm, 5 Sep 2019). The clip accompanying Ezhel’s track ‘Olay’ shows a wide variety of scenes of social unrest and protests in Turkey and across the wider world – visuals of the Ankara Massacre (10 October 2015), as well as of the 2013 Gezi protests and 2016‘s Coup-that-was-no-Coup, and many other instances of national and international outrage and unrest. Watch:  .   In fact, the previous day (Thursday, 5 September 2019), a collective of 17 Turkish rappers, under the wing of Şanışer, “one of the best rappers of the last years,” according to the ekşi sözlük user breuer, had released their own rap attack: “Rapper #Şanışer is causing a sensation in #Turkey with an epic video, #Susamam – “I can’t stay silent” – featuring more than a dozen other artists decrying injustices, environmental destruction, violence against women, inhumanity, and apolitical inaction,” as tweeted by the Istanbul-based journalist Jennifer Hattam (10:47 am. 6 Sep 2019). This nearly 15-minute epic rapfest includes a grand variety of words dealing with things and situations that are going wrong in the New Turkey. For instance, the female rapper Deniz Tekin deals with the issue of violence against women and sexual harassment, while Şanışer himself tackles the issue of street animals and animal rights, while others deal with topics like nature, the rule of law and justice (or the lack thereof in the country), education … All in all, #Susamam purports to be a real critique of the state of affairs in AKP-led Turkey, though never explicitly and definitely not openly referring to anything or anyone specific. And, as pointed out by Akpolat, conspicuous in its absence are LGBTİ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender/Transsexual and Intersexed) concerns and matters – asking rightfully, “[w]hich non-homosexual rapper could do justice to this topic with his/her words?” Watch:  The timing of both releases seems very deliberate, or maybe it is just the result of fortuitous marketting. Ezhel’s song was released on a Friday, and as is probably well-known by now, the last day of the West’s working week carries a exceptional status in the Muslim world: “On Fridays, Muslims gather for a special congregational prayer in the early afternoon, which is required of all Muslim men . . . It replaces the dhuhr prayer at noon [one of the five prayer sessions Muslims are meant to observe]. Directly before this prayer, worshipers listen to a lecture delivered by the Imam or another religious leader from the community,” as can be read on the educational website Learn Religions.  In Turkey, the Directorate of Religious Affairs (also known simply as Diyanet, in Turkish) has been taking care of these sermons since 1924, when Mustafa Kemal (later known as Atatürk, 1881-1938) abolished the Caliphate in conjunction with the Office of the Sheikh-ul-Islam (or Meşihat/Şeyhülislamlık, in Turkish), which also included Ministry of Pious Endowments. The Sheikh-ul-Islam had been responsible for all aspects of religious life in the Ottoman lands, given that Islam had been the official religion of the state. And following the establishment of the Republic of Turkey (1923), the Office of the Sheikh-ul-Islam was simply replaced by the Diyanet or Directorate of Religious Affairs (1924), as a branch of government attached to the office of the prime minister.  During the Kemalist period (1923-2002), the influence of the Diyanet was limited at best, and Friday Prayers were only sparsely attended. Particularly, as the day had become the end of the working week in 1935, with the “weekly holiday [commencing] from 1 p.m. Saturday until Monday morning,” centred around Sunday, as expressed by the eminent (yet Arab-hating) Islamic studies specialist Bernard Lewis (1916-2018). In January 2016, the official Turkish news agency Anadolu Ajansı released the following statement: in Ottoman times, “there was no defined weekend for officials living in the Ottoman Empire. The overall tendency was to have a day off on Fridays for Muslims, on Saturday for Jews and on Sunday for Christians — holy days for each religion.” In Kemalist Turkey, by contrast, and particularly, during the years of One-Party Rule (1923-59), “Islam was literally crowded out of the public sphere,” as worded by E. S. Çarmıklı. But in the New Turkey, led by the Prez and his AKP henchmen, Islam has made a not-so sudden comeback to the public sphere and private as well as political life, and “on 8 Jan 2016, to be precise, [then-Prime Minster Ahmed Davutoğlu] issued the Friday Prayer circular that allows male public servants to attend the obligatory Friday prayers (Salatul Jumu’ah) without interrupting their office hours (female believers are obviously exempt from fulfilling this religious duty, as it would lead to a mixing of the sexes at the mosque),” as I related in March 2016. Hence, Friday has again acquired sacred and sacrosanct properties amongst many Turks, with men now regularly and fastidiously attending Friday Prayers to listen to AKP-sanctioned sermons, delivered by their local Imams emanating from the Diyanet‘s Ankara offices.  As a result, public displays of personal piety have now become rather commonplace. And, many pious people thus tend to regard Thursday night equally sacred and sacrosanct, as it is but the preamble to Friday. As wordsmiths, clearly cognizant of what is happening all around, Ezhel and Şanışer released their visual and verbal assaults on the new status quo on symbolically charged days of the week  The reaction was not slow in coming: in the Islamist propaganda rag Yeni Şafak, the columnist Ali Saydam published his response to these sounds ostensibly challenging the nation’s faith and political system. Saydam starts off his piece by indicating that “this type of music,” referring to Rap and Hip hop, “emerged as a product of black subculture in the western world.”  And he continues that as a result, “characteristics of ‘protest’ constitute a large part of its identity.” He even utilises the term ‘counterculture’ in his argument, stating that in Scandinavian countries where the GNP is “high” and the “distribution of income balanced,” musical products of this nature do not find the same amount of “consumers” (or “buyers”) as in the United States, where “income injustice” is rife and social protests widespread. These insights lead Saydam to declare that Rap (and Hip hop music) is an “imported cultural artifact,” with its roots in “America’s Lumpenproletariat,” that as a natural consequence cannot fulfill an “oppositional function” in Turkey. Saydam literally declares that the “words used,” oftentimes “in broken Turkish, [and] sometimes in need of subtitles,” display a “mechanical understanding of protest,” and that, “in a way,” these songs therefore constitute “the most primitive dimension of protest.”  In contrast, nowadays Rap music and culture is highly popular in Turkey, particularly among young and younger Turks. In other words, as a whole the country appears to possess a large potential audience for Rap and Hip hop music. And as a result, Şanışer and Ezhel do have a large market for their message. In fact, various members of the opposition CHP (or Republican People’s Party), recently on a high as a result of Ekrem İmamoğlu’s entry to the offices of the İBB (or İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality) in İstanbul’s Saraçhane district, quickly realised the explosive potential harboured by the Rap songs: the social media account of the Şişli Municipality in İstanbul, as well as those handled by the municipalities of Datça, Borçka, and the city of Eskişehir shared the “epic video, #Susamam” with their followers. Even Eskişehir’s Mayor Yılmaz Büyükerşen and İstanbul district Maltepe’s mayor Ali Kılıç shared the track on their personal social media accounts. In contrast, the lawyer and AKP member Hamza Dağ took to Twitter to criticise the rappers and their songs, saying that “[a]rt should not be [used] as a vehicle for provocation and political manipulation,” adding that “we know very well how those who say #Susamam [“I can’t stay silent”] remained voiceless during Turkey’s most critical eras,” insinuating that opponents of AKP rule are people who have in the past welcomed military interventions, a slur oftentimes used in connection with the CHP and its members. As such, Dağ also posted a link to a video on the YouTube channel Gayri Resmi Hesap, showing an anonymous man vocally criticising the Rap song, its singers and listeners. In addition, the speaker on the YouTube video easily manages to insert the PKK into his monologue, insinuating that the Kurdish terror group is responsible for most of the violence and unrest in Turkey. On Sunday, 8 September, the propaganda rag Yeni Şafak directly targeted the rapper Şanışer, calling his track #Susamam a “joint PKK/FETÖ production,” using the two favourite slurs used by AKP henchmen to slander enemies and malign malcontents.  And now, Turkey’s television channels and internet broadcasters are busily discussing the songs and its contents, while the underlying message seems all but lost. Though the tracks are invigorating and stirring, the likelihood that these rappers will have an actual impact on the wider population of the New Turkey seems distant . . . Ezhel and Şanışer are all but preaching to the converted, Turkey’s voiceless urban youth mired in video games and 24-hour internet access – “this nation’s hopeless youth.”  The one-time Baywatch star Pamela Anderson, now famously infamous for supporting the guardian angel of the free press, Julian Assange, joined in the mood, tweeting Şanışer’s track to a much wider and non-Turkish audience.  The journalist Burak Abatay seems optimistic: “[i]n a place like Turkey, where the youth’s life has been taken out of its hands for the past 17 [AKP-led] years, such a young ‘thing’ like Rap’s flag of rebellion should be flying very high.” Abatay sees Rap as a “raised first” moving into the future “with hope.”  And, while it is true that the songs communicate a spirit of rebellion and youthful revolt, Ezhel and Şanışer hardly are the New Turkey’s Johnny Rotten and Sid Vicious. Their words may be loaded with a strong message, but will these heavy words manage to penetrate the intolerable wall of silence surrounding the Prez and his AKP henchmen.  Still, as tweeted by Pamela Anderson, “[a]rtists can change the world – artists are #freedomfighters.”  Then justice died, and until it touched me,  I just shut up, became complicit  Now I think twice before I tweet  Find myself fearing my own country’s police  I’m sorry, your legacy is this nation’s hopeless youth  ***   21WIRE special contributor Dr. Can Erimtan is an independent historian and geo-political analyst who used to live in Istanbul. At present, he is in self-imposed exile from Turkey. He has  a wide interest in the politics, history and culture of the Balkans, the greater Middle East, and the world beyond. He attended the VUB in Brussels and did his graduate work at the universities of Essex and Oxford. In Oxford, Erimtan was a member of Lady Margaret Hall and he obtained his doctorate in Modern History in 2002. His publications include the revisionist monograph “Ottomans Looking West?” as well as numerous scholarly articles. In Istanbul, Erimtan started publishing in Today’s Zaman and in Hürriyet Daily News. In the next instance, he became the Turkey Editor of the İstanbul Gazette. Subsequently, he commenced writing for RT Op-Edge, NEO, and finally, the 21st Century Wire. You can find him on Twitter at @theerimtanangle


activistpost--2019-07-23--Americans Dont Trust the Govt the Media or Each Other Fading Trust is Sign of Cultural Sickness

Americans Don’t Trust the Govt, the Media, or Each Other: Fading Trust is “Sign of Cultural Sickness and National Decline”

Americans are losing trust in each other, in the government, and in the media, according to a concerning new survey.  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that conducts public opinion polls and social science research and informs the public about issues, attitudes, and trends shaping the world. The organization recently published a new report called Trust and Distrust in America, which reveals that Americans think declining trust in the government and in each other is making it harder to solve important problems.  “Two-thirds of adults think other Americans have little or no confidence in the federal government. Majorities believe the public’s confidence in the U.S. government and in each other is shrinking, and most believe a shortage of trust in government and in other citizens makes it harder to solve some of the nation’s key problems,” the report states.  Many Americans think it is necessary to clean up the “trust environment”: 68% say it is very important to repair the public’s level of confidence in the federal government, and 58% say the same about improving confidence in fellow Americans.  Diminishing trust is viewed by some as a sign of cultural sickness and national decline. Others believe it is linked to what they perceive to be increased loneliness and excessive individualism.  Overall, 49% of adults think interpersonal trust has been tailing off because people are less reliable than they used to be.  Levels of personal trust tend to be linked with people’s broader views on institutions and civic life. Those who are less trusting in the interpersonal sphere also tend to be less trusting of institutions, less sure their fellow citizens will act in ways that are good for civic life, and less confident that trust levels can rise in the future:  Trust in government has been declining for decades, and for good reasons, according to the report:  Long-running surveys show that public confidence in the government fell precipitously in the 1960s and ’70s, recovered somewhat in the ’80s and early 2000s, and is near historic lows today. By and large, Americans think the current low level of trust in government is justified. Just one-in-four (24%) say the federal government deserves more public confidence than it gets, while 75% say that it does not deserve any more public confidence than it gets. Similarly, among U.S. adults who perceive that confidence in each other has dropped, many think there is good reason for it: More than twice as many say Americans have lost confidence in each other “because people are not as reliable as they used to be” (49% support that statement) than take the opposite view, saying Americans have lost confidence in each other “even though people are as reliable as they have always been” (21% say that). (source)  The rise of independent news sources like WikiLeaks that are not afraid to dump truth out there for all to see – exposing widespread government corruption in the process – has no doubt led to the diminishing trust in government.  Confidence in institutions is associated with how those institutions handle and share important information with the public. People’s confidence in key institutions is associated with their views about the transparency of institutions.  Those who hold those skeptical views are more likely than others to have greater concerns about the state of trust.  About two-thirds (69%) of Americans say the federal government intentionally withholds important information from the public that it could safely release, and 61% say the news media intentionally ignores stories that are important to the public.  In addition, many say it is becoming more difficult to tell fact from fiction:  In this era of rampant mainstream media “fake news” and the government’s long history of orchestrating false flags, it is no surprise many Americans do not trust either institution. Attempts to censor alternative media outlets are not exactly helping to build trust, either. Mainstream news outlets are often quick to report on events, often sensationalizing them, facts be damned. Remember when the MSM twisted the Covington Catholic story, essentially putting a target on the back of a teenaged boy? The MSM also has a tendency to sugar-coat important events, including glossing over details surrounding extremist attacks. There are countless examples of the media’s manipulation of details in order to fit a certain narrative. Often, it seems that the media is deliberately trying to incite civil war (that would be great for their ratings, right?).  The report explains that while social trust “is seen as a virtue and a societal bonding agent, too much trust can be a serious liability. Indiscriminate trusters can be victimized in any number of ways, so wariness and doubt have their place in a well-functioning community.”  As preppers know, the risk of widespread civil unrest becoming reality in the near future is increasing. “Uncivil behavior isn’t just widely accepted – it’s praised and cheered on. Hatred of one another is becoming the norm and this is how civil wars begin,” Daisy Luther warned us last year.  While it is wise to be careful about who you allow in your circle, distrust can be taken to the extreme. Finding a small group of like-minded people to collaborate with isn’t a bad idea. But because it can be difficult to know whom you can really trust these days, becoming as self-reliant as possible is crucial.  On a grand scale of national issues, trust-related issues are not near the top of the list of Americans’ concerns. However, people do link declining trust as a factor that impacts other issues they do consider important:  For example, in their open-ended written answers to questions, numbers of Americans say they think there are direct connections between rising distrust and other trends they perceived as major problems, such as partisan paralysis in government, the outsize influence of lobbyists and moneyed interests, confusion arising from made-up news and information, declining ethics in government, the intractability of immigration and climate debates, rising health care costs and a widening gap between the rich and the poor. Many of the answers in the open-ended written responses reflect judgments similar to this one from a 38-year-old man: “Trust is the glue that binds humans together. Without it, we cooperate with one another less, and variables in our overall quality of life are affected (e.g., health and life satisfaction).” (source)  The majority of Americans think that trust can be restored and that it is possible to improve the level of confidence people have in the government and each other:


aljazeera--2019-10-11--Poles at the polls: Five things to know

Poles at the polls: Five things to know

Warsaw, Poland - Sunday's vote here is widely considered a landmark poll; one of the most significant in the country since its first semi-free elections were held 30 years ago.  1. Why is this election so important?  "This is the most important election since 1989," said political scientist Anna Materska-Sosnowska, during a debate in Warsaw, echoing the voices of other analysts.  Since coming to power in 2015, the Law and Justice (PiS) party has ridden roughshod over a number of democratic checks and balances in Poland. It has recast the role of the state as a champion of conservative social values and a guarantor of economic welfare.  Sunday's vote is seen as the first referendum on the sweeping changes of the past four years.  "In this election, we will decide the role of the state, the role of citizens, the role of the church, the media and non-governmental organisations," said Materska-Sosnowska.  The election matters to voters and turnout may reach 60 percent. The highest turnout on record in Poland was 62.7 percent, in 1989, as the first non-Communists since the early postwar years came to power.  Beata Roguska, who is head of socio-political polling at the Centre for Public Opinion Research, told Al Jazeera that the level of political alienation was at its lowest since 1996, when measurements began.  "That means that people, more so than in the past two decades, feel like they are subjects in politics, that they have influence over affairs," said Roguska.  After eight years in opposition, PiS re-took power in 2015. A combination of nationalist rhetoric and generous welfare promises proved intoxicating to voters. It won the first absolute majority since Poland's return to democracy.  Aided by a booming economy and a clampdown on VAT fraud, the party boosted social spending. Its flagship programme of monthly financial handouts for families with children, known as 500+, has a 95 percent take-up in some cities.  Many of its policies have gone against economic orthodoxy, but have been warmly received by supporters. The party also lowered the retirement age from 67 years to 60 for women and 65 for men, despite Poland's ageing population. If re-elected, it has pledged to almost double the minimum wage.  "Poles are quite egalitarian. Many look back fondly on the good old days of the state providing social protection, even if cack-handedly," Mikolaj Czesnik, director of the Institute of Social Sciences at SWPS University in Warsaw, told Al Jazeera.  "They want a return to a welfare state, and PiS gives them that illusion."  PiS has also introduced an annual bonus retirement pension payment and a law which will exempt most workers under the age of 26 from paying income tax. While many voters were initially sceptical of PiS keeping its welfare pledges, they have come to accept higher levels of spending as the norm.  Moreover, PiS has challenged Poland's convergence to Western liberal values, appealing to those who felt that the country's identity and traditions had been endangered by European integration.  While many Poles watched aghast as PiS spearheaded what many saw as an unconstitutional overhaul of the judiciary, it has not turned away the party's core voters.  "A share of citizens may think that more power concentrated in a single pair of hands will make politics more efficient," Czesnik noted.  To cement support, PiS has refashioned publicly funded television and radio channels into a government mouthpiece. Airtime is used to boast about the government's achievements and to discredit opposition efforts.  3. What happened to the liberal opposition?  The ineptness of Poland's main liberal opposition, the Civic Platform (PO), has paved the way for PiS' re-election.  After PO leader Donald Tusk left to become president of the European Council, the party went on to lose the 2015 election - and has since struggled to reinvent itself.  While PO frames itself as the ruling party's main rival, most voters have trouble defining exactly what it stands for, especially as a member of the KO electoral alliance, and much of its support comes merely as resistance to PiS.  The opposition calls out the nationalism of PiS, but has offered little in the way of an alternative liberal narrative. "Lack of leadership and a lack of ideas," Czesnik told Al Jazeera. "PiS sets the agenda, and the opposition merely reacts to it."  Compared with the well-oiled campaign machine of PiS, PO's efforts appear uninspiring, unprofessional and prone to gaffes. The party suffers from a lack of credibility, and its leader, Grzegorz Schetyna, remains the most distrusted of Polish politicians.  4. What are the big unknowns ahead of the vote?  The ruling Law and Justice party is set to win a sweeping majority. An average of polls over the past month give it 46 percent of votes, far outdoing its 2015 victory of 37.6 percent.  The main liberal opposition is expected to receive around 27 percent of votes. The left's electoral alliance, currently absent from the parliamentary fray, is expected to return as the third-largest group with a projected 13 percent of the vote.  "Big cities have been mobilised like never before, which works in favour of PO and the left," said Roguska of the Centre for Public Opinion Research.  In the current set-up, PiS is estimated to win 249 seats, comfortably more than the 231 it needs to rule with an absolute majority. However, the final tally will depend on how well it mobilises supporters and whether smaller parties make it over the five percent electoral threshold.  The agrarian PSL is currently expected to rake in seven percent, and the right-wing Confederation has been wavering around five percent. If they fail to clear the bar, Poland's vote-counting system will distribute their votes; a major bonus for large parties such as PiS.  However, if PiS fails to gain an outright majority, the three main opposition groups have hinted at a coalition government to overtake what they see as creeping authoritarianism.  5. Will Poland's relations with the EU improve after the vote?  Since joining the EU in 2004, Poland was held up by other bloc members as the Eastern European example of head-spinning economic growth and social progress.  Yet, over the past four years, relations have soured, mainly over judicial reforms which the European Commission has called a threat to the rule of law in Poland.  On October 10, the commission launched another proceeding into a proposed disciplinary system for judges, saying it puts them under political control.  Tensions are unlikely to subside, as Jarosław Kaczynski, the ruling party's leader, has this week pledged deeper changes to the judicial system.  But some commentators suggest that the prospect of another four years of dealing with PiS may push European leaders towards a practical arrangement.  "There is growing awareness that PiS is not an oddity of Polish politics, but rather an important aspect of it. It may even represent something typically Polish," said Czesnik.  Yet Poles remain as pro-European as ever, with a record-high 91 percent of Poles in support of the country's EU membership. Among PiS voters the figure is 90 percent.  "The new government will have to take note of that to not lose supporters," concluded Roguska.


aljazeera--2019-10-12--Is 'love and desire in Iran' a threat to US national security?

The United States Department of Education has recently been incensed by a Middle East studies programme run by two major American universities. Why? Let us explore.  "The Education Department", according to the New York Times, "has ordered Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to remake the Middle East studies program run jointly by the two schools after concluding that it was offering students a biased curriculum that, among other complaints, did not present enough 'positive' imagery of Judaism and Christianity in the region."  You will have to read a bit further down the report to discover that what the US Department of Education, led by Betsy DeVos, is really concerned about is the programme's supposed "anti-Israeli bias".  President Donald Trump's civil rights chief in the Department of Education, Kenneth L Marcus, it seems, is now leading a campaign to make all US universities Israel-friendly. Marcus is a Zionist crusader who, as the New York Times puts it, "has made a career of pro-Israel advocacy and has waged a years long campaign to delegitimize and defund Middle East studies programs that he has criticized as rife with anti-Israel bias".  We learn from the report that two courses offered as part of the programme, titled "Love and Desire in Modern Iran" and "Middle East film criticism", particularly angered the Evangelical Zionists led by Marcus and DeVos who are currently in charge at the Department of Education.  Imagine the chutzpah, the nerve, to convene a conference, or offer courses, that include discussions of "Love and Desire in Modern Iran", or even worse "Middle East film criticism" - with taxpayers' money that could be put to far better use building bombs and fighter jets to gift to Israel and sell to the Saudis so that they might slaughter Palestinians and Yemenis. Love and desire in Iran? The cinema of Abbas Kiarostami or Elia Suleiman, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, or Moufida Tlatli? You must be out of your "Eye-Rain-an" mind!  "We do not see how these activities support the development of foreign language and international expertise for the benefit of US national security and economic stability," US Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education Robert King has declared.  Wise up and do as we say and start training spies and other intelligence officers for the benefits of the US and Israel or else we will shut you down - to put it in the plain English these fanatical prudes understand and want to parrot in Arabic and Persian and Turkish too.  The delusional functionaries who believe they can control the critical thinking of an entire nation are of course the usual suspects. According to another report published by the Daily Mail, DeVos ordered an investigation into the programme back in June, after North Carolina Rep George Holding, a Republican, complained that "it hosted a taxpayer-funded conference with 'severe anti-Israeli bias and anti-Semitic rhetoric'".  The conference, the report adds, was titled "Conflict Over Gaza: People, Politics and Possibilities". Of course. These are all Pavlovian signals. You just utter the word "Palestine" or "Gaza" or "settler colonialism", and all the dog-whistles are out jamming the airways.  What the platoon of Zionists nestled and tucked away in various branches of the US government dislike is what they call "taxpayer dollars" being spent on academic gatherings investigating any aspect of their favourite settler colony. What they want to do with those "taxpayer dollars" is to enable the garrison state to kill more Palestinians or anyone else who dares to say "no" to the armed robbery of their homeland.  Those are the kind of taxpayer dollars they enjoy spending. But "love and desire" in Iran - or film, fiction, poetry, truth, reality, rebellion in words and deeds against the colonial thieves? You must be kidding. That is a threat to US and Israeli national security.  The bogus charge is loud and clear: "The Trump administration has threatened to withdraw federal funding for a Middle East studies course jointly taught by Duke University and the University of North Carolina because it believes the course is too positive in its depiction of Islam in comparison with its portrayal of Judaism and Christianity."  It is imperative for the world to know, as they indeed do, by "Judaism and Christianity" they mean Zionism and particularly the irredeemably anti-Semitic Evangelical Zionism to which the ruling oligarchy gathered at the Trump administration, beginning with US Vice President Mike Pence, belong.  The fields of Jewish or Christian studies are thriving or suffering alongside Islamic studies all at the mercy of the meagre budgets allocated to social sciences and humanities across US campuses. Anyone who has studied or taught or chaired any relevant department in any major or even minor US campus knows this charge is a Zionist subterfuge for prevalent Islamophobia that begins with their commander-in-chief, Donald Trump, and extends all the way to the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.  For close to 40 years now, my colleagues and I have been fighting to secure funding for Jewish, Christian, Islamic, and other religious studies disciplines within the shrinking budgetary allocations in social sciences and the humanities in American universities. That fact is entirely blindsided by these fanatical stormtroopers tucked away in the US Department of Education.  Legal observers who know the machinations of the Israeli Fifth Column in US governmental agencies inform us: "While the department's micromanagement of the Duke-UNC program in response to the demands of Israel advocates is unprecedented, this attack is a continuation of nearly two decades of right-wing targeting of area studies programs, and Middle East studies programs in particular."     At stake is the academic and intellectual freedom that the Zionist paratroopers and Hasbara-apparatchik see as the culprit in cultivating the critical judgement of the responsible citizenry in the US that will in and of itself dismantle the decades of propaganda with which they have fooled Americans.  As the ACLU put it: "In a move that would make even Senator McCarthy blush, the Trump administration is threatening to pull federal funding from a Middle East Studies program for failing to toe the government's line on Islam and Muslims."  This, however, is a lost cause. As a group of concerned UNC-Duke graduate students put it: "This is the first time in a decade that the state has intervened to make an academic department more amenable to its politics. Title VI extortions in the mid-2000s attempted to force Middle East Studies programs to churn out tools for the state through programs that focused on linguistic skills, security frameworks, and hostility to the Middle East and Muslims during the War on Iraq."  The battle these bureaucratic functionaries are waging against the critical thinking of an entire nation is, of course, entirely futile. The cat of their thievery of Palestine is out of the bag and their bete noire, the mighty and magnificent Edward Said, even or particularly after his death has enabled and let loose an entire generation of bold and brilliant critical thinkers around the globe who have flooded university presses and commercial publishers with an avalanche of books exposing their corrupt and crooked colonialism in Palestine.  We on the other side of their fence are the real defenders of US national security. They are in fact defaming, maligning, and endangering the very idea of being American. They had their heyday and they did the best they could to keep this nation stupid and ignorant. But they lost the game. We won. We sneeze on our campuses here in the US and the whole world says gesundheit.  We are redefining the very terms of "American national security" away from bombs and fighter jets and tanks and bullets and spies and gaudy propaganda precisely towards love and desire and life and hope and beauty and truth and justice in Iran, in Palestine, in the Arab world, in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. And there is nothing they can do to stop us. We love and desire. They hate and disgust. The world is on our side. History is on our side.  The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.


bbc--2019-01-05--Chinas population to peak in 2029 at 144 billion

China's population 'to peak' in 2029 at 1.44 billion

China's population will peak in 2029 at 1.44 billion before beginning a period of "unstoppable" decline, a government report says.  The China Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) study says the country must implement policies to handle a smaller workforce and an older population.  Both changes combined could cause "very unfavourable social and economic consequences", the report says.  Latest UN estimates say China has a population of 1.41 billion.  In 2015 the world's most populous country ended its one-child policy in a bid to tackle the problems.  The study appears in CASS's Green Book of Population and Labour.  Working population numbers were now stagnating, it said, with a low fertility rate set to cause further issues.  By the middle of the century, China's population is expected to drop to 1.36 billion - a fall in the labour force of close to 200 million.  If fertility rates stay low, the population could drop as low as 1.17 billion by 2065.  The study also predicted a rise in the dependency rate, meaning the proportion of non-working people like the elderly and children.  While relaxing the one-child policy will help long-term, in the short term it will create more dependents, according to the report.  Previous forecasts reportedly suggest China's elderly population could hit 400 million by 2035, up from 240 million in 2017.


bbc--2019-02-19--Gilets jaunes How much anti-Semitism is beneath the yellow vests

Gilets jaunes: How much anti-Semitism is beneath the yellow vests?

The French far-right leader, Marine Le Pen, has said she won't join other political parties in a march against anti-Semitism on Tuesday, accusing France's leaders of doing nothing to tackle Islamist networks in France and saying she will mark the occasion separately.  It comes days after a prominent French philosopher, Alain Finkielkraut, was verbally attacked for being Jewish as he walked past the weekly "gilets jaunes" (yellow-vest) protests in Paris.  A small group of protesters shouted a barrage of abuse at him as he passed by the demonstration on his way home from lunch on Saturday, calling him a "dirty Zionist" and telling him to "go back to Tel Aviv".  "I felt an absolute hatred," Mr Finkielkraut told one French newspaper later that night. "If the police hadn't been there, I would have been frightened."  A few days before that, official data suggested there had been a 74% rise in anti-Semitic attacks in France last year.  Now, many here are questioning whether the gilets jaunes movement is providing a new kind of forum for these extremist views, and how central those attitudes are to the movement.  "It's very serious," says Vincent Duclert, a specialist in anti-Semitism in France at the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences - one of France's most prestigious colleges.  "The gilets jaunes are not an anti-Semitic movement, but alongside the demonstration each Saturday there's a lot of anti-Semitic expression by groups of the extreme right or extreme left."  "You can be on the streets demonstrating every Saturday, shouting your slogans against the Jews," says Jean-Yves Camus, an expert in French political extremism.  "And as there's no leadership in the movement and no stewarding of the demonstrations, you can be free to do it. I'm afraid there will be more attacks, because the self-proclaimed leaders simply do not seem to care that much."  Jason Herbert, a spokesman for the movement, says the incident on Saturday is a scandal, but not representative of the gilets jaunes as a whole.  "It's the inherent weakness of a movement that lets the people speak," he explained. "Everyone can come and give his opinion - and some opinions are despicable and illegal. To think someone is inferior because of his or her origins is just not acceptable, and it's completely unrelated to our demands. Amongst our demands, I've never heard 'we want fewer Jews'."  The gilets jaunes began life as a protest against fuel tax rises, but have broadened into a loose confederation of different interest groups with no official hierarchy or leadership. Over the past three months, as the movement has appeared more radical, its wider support has dipped.  Vincent Duclert believes that the movement does bear some responsibility for the extremist abuse in its midst, because the violence of the protests - towards the police, state institutions and public property - encourages anti-Semitism by encouraging "transgression".  And, he says, it's possible that the gilets jaunes are also offering "a new space for different kinds of anti-Semitism to come together: from the extreme right and extreme left, but also from radical Islamist or anti-Zionist groups, and some types of social conservatives".  There are signs over the past year, he says, that levels of anti-Semitism have risen within these different groups, because of changes at home, across Europe and in the Middle East, and that French public opinion has been too tolerant.  Politicians here have been quick to condemn Saturday's attack on Alain Finkielkraut. President Macron tweeted that it was "the absolute negation of what we are and what makes us a great nation".  Others tried to blame it on their political rivals.  A member of France's centre-right opposition, Geoffrey Didier, told reporters that anti-Semitism was growing "because radical Islamism is growing in France", while Marine Le Pen said it illustrated "how the anti-Semite far-left is trying to infiltrate the gilets jaunes movement".  Both Ms Le Pen's party and that of her far-left rival, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, have been trying to win the support of the gilets jaunes ahead of European elections in May.  Jean-Yves Camus believes last week's attack will help turn public opinion against the movement, saying it has become "a hotbed of radical activity from both sides of the political spectrum and the French do not want that".


bbc--2019-11-11--Why being kind could help you live longer

What can kindness do for you? Give you a warm glow perhaps, or a feeling of well-being? While that may be true, scientists and academics at a new research centre say it can do much more - it can extend your life.  The staff at UCLA's Bedari Kindness institute are ready for the jokes.  "We look at the scientific point of view. We aren't sitting around in circles, holding hands. We're talking about the psychology, the biology, of positive social interactions," says Daniel Fessler, the institute's inaugural director.  The notion of kindness has made headlines recently.  It was a key part of former president Barack Obama's eulogy of veteran US Democrat Elijah Cummings, following his death last month.  "Being a strong man includes being kind. There's nothing weak about kindness and compassion," he said. "There's nothing weak about looking out for others. You're not a sucker to have integrity and to treat others with respect."  And then there was Ellen DeGeneres calling for kindness when speaking about her surprising to some friendship with George W Bush: "When I say, 'Be kind to one another,' I don't mean only the people that think the same way that you do. I mean be kind to everyone. It doesn't matter.'"  Ahead of World Kindness Day this week, what does it actually mean to be kind - and why is it important?  This is what the experts want to examine. And they are deadly serious about it. After all, it could be a matter of life and death, they say.  Mr Fessler's work has looked at how people can be motivated to be kind simply by witnessing acts of kindness - and working out who is affected by this "contagious kindness".  "I think it's fair to say we live in an unkind age right now," he says. "Both domestically in the United States and around the world, what we are seeing is increasing conflict between individuals who hold different political views or belong to different religions."  Kindness, he says, is "the thoughts, feelings and beliefs associated with actions intending to benefit others, where benefiting others is an end in itself, not a means to an end".  And unkindness, on the other hand, is "intolerant beliefs, the lack of valuation of others' welfare".  It's something familiar to anyone who's experienced trolling on social media.  While the practice is "nothing new", Mr Fessler says "people are more likely to be aggressive, less likely to value others' concerns and welfare, the more anonymous they are".  The institute was founded thanks to a $20m (£16m) grant from the Bedari Foundation, set up by philanthropists Jennifer and Matthew Harris.  Based in UCLA's social sciences department, it aims to help both members of the public and also to inspire leaders.  Mr Harris says research was needed "to understand why kindness can be so scarce in this modern world" and to "bridge the divide between science and spirituality".  Some of the projects at the institute include: • Sociologists analysing how those who behave unkindly could be persuaded to be kind • Psychologists researching how kindness can improve mood and reduce depression symptoms  It is also providing students with mindfulness training, and those in underserved Los Angeles communities.  Mr Fessler says that it's known that bad stress - the kind where you can't do anything about a challenging situation, as opposed to the "good" stress from challenging but satisfying activities, like rock climbing - is bad for you.  "Living with people who treat you, at best, with disregard or a lack of concern, and at worst with open hostility, is bad for you. It shortens your life, quite literally," he says.  "Conversely, both receiving kindness from others, and providing kindness, both of those things are the antithesis of this toxic stress situation. And they're good for you."  Even seemingly trivial interactions, like a barista at a coffee shop smiling and asking how you are, can improve people's wellbeing.  "Engaging in kindness, contemplating how you can be kind to others, lowers blood pressure. It has therapeutic benefits," he says. "There are benefits for treating depression and anxiety."  Columbia University doctor Kelli Harding has been examining the phenomenon in her recent book, The Rabbit Effect.  She says: "It helps the immune system, blood pressure, it helps people to live longer and better. It's pretty amazing because there's an ample supply and you can't overdose on it. There's a free supply. It's right there."  Explaining the title of her book, she says: "I heard about this study of rabbits, back in the 1970s. One set had better outcomes and they wanted to find out what was going on. It turned out the rabbits doing better were under the care of one really kind researcher.  "As a doctor, I was absolutely shocked. It felt like there was an urgent message."  Kindness, she says, can "turn a lot around and help people navigate things in their world".  It's often easier to be kind to others than to ourselves, she says.  "There are so many ways to foster kindness to ourselves and to others. In the workplace, at school and at home, being compassionate leads to better outcomes," she says. "In medicine, the technology may be getting better but you can never replicate the kindness of a supportive caregiver. The connection between mental health and physical health is so critical." • Truly start listening to others (instead of already formulating the answer in your head) • Answer rudeness with kindness (think of someone being extremely snippy to you, then say in a friendly tone "did you have a hard day?". You will have already diffused the moment) • Include someone who is on the sidelines. By doing this, you have valued them - it's dehumanising to go through life unnoticed, unwanted and unloved • Action/reaction. Understand when there is unkindness, it is not about you. When you are triggered, take a deep breath and step back  Darnell Hunt, dean of the UCLA social sciences division, said he wanted the institute to be an antidote "in the midst of current world politics, violence and strife", that is "rooted in serious academic work".  "I think we're living in a time where there's a direct need to step back and explore the things that make us human and that have the potential to lead to more humane societies," he says. "We are living in a moment of political polarisation in the United States and elsewhere, with increased urbanisation leading to less direct interactions between people."  When people see kind acts, they are inspired to replicate those acts, he says - but we are still trying to understand the mechanisms of kindness.  "It's not a case of us being here in an ivory tower. We want to translate this research into how people in the real world can use this to create policy and make a difference."  This "historical moment is the right time to do this", he says.  "We are in one of the most diverse states in a diverse country. A lot of problems in LA echo problems elsewhere in the world. If you can solve them here, we can see what can be done around the world."


bbcuk--2019-02-03--Rent control Does it work

Rent control: Does it work?

The claim: The arguments for rent control are overwhelming.  Reality Check verdict: It has been helpful for existing tenants in areas with particularly fast-rising rent, but it can be at the expense of new renters. In some places, it has also led to a shortage of supply. While the arguments for rent control are not overwhelming, it is possible that a well-designed policy combined with significant new homebuilding could be effective.  Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has called for a range of measures to help renters in the capital, including rent control.  He conceded that as mayor he does not have powers to regulate the rental sector, but said that he would lobby the government to implement rent control.  Rent control refers to a variety of ways in which the amount that landlords are allowed to charge may be limited.  Deputy Mayor James Murray told Reality Check that he and Westminster North MP Karen Buck would be taking time to look at a package of measures and said, that in addition to rent control, London needs to build a lot of affordable housing.  He added that there are already plans to build 11,000 council homes at social rent over the next four years.  Standard economic theory is that rent control does not work, because if you force rents down, landlords may decide not to rent out their properties, which reduces the amount of rental property available. So, what has happened in cities that have introduced it?  Research conducted at Stanford University looked at the impact of the expansion of rent controls in San Francisco in 1994.  The city had originally introduced controls in 1979, which covered buildings with five or more apartments but excluded new-build properties.  In 1994, this was expanded to cover any building with more than one household, but still excluded new-builds.  The researchers, led by Prof Rebecca Diamond, found that between 1994 and 2010, people who were living in rent-controlled properties had benefited from lower rents by about $2.9bn (£2.2bn) between them.  But they found that, coincidentally, renters who came to the city later paid an extra $2.9bn in higher rent over the same period, largely because of a shortage of available housing.  So the expansion of rent control had, in effect, been a transfer of money from newer (generally younger) renters to ones who had been living in the city for longer (and were generally older).  Researchers also found that the controls helped accelerate gentrification, because some landlords demolished their older properties in favour of new-builds, which were exempt from the limits.  Prof Diamond concluded that what is needed is a form of rent control that means the landlords do not have to pay for all of it, such as government subsidies or tax credits, to help renters absorb price increases.  Another example of rent control often cited is Germany, which has one of the lowest home ownership rates in Europe at 51%.  In Berlin there are about 1.9 million homes, of which about 1.6 million or 85% are rented.  Under the rules introduced in 2015, landlords in 313 of the 11,000 towns and cities in Germany (home to about one-quarter of the population including Berlin and Munich) cannot set rent for new tenants any higher than 10% above the local average from the previous four years. Existing tenants benefit from similar limits.  But, again, there are exemptions for newly-refurbished properties and those being rented out for the first time.  Research from the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) found that the measure had worked in areas of Germany, such as parts of Berlin, that had experienced the biggest increases in rental prices, with rises of at least 4% in each of the previous four years.  But, in other areas subject to rent controls, it had not had the same effect.  Susanne Marquardt, from the Berlin Social Science Centre, told the BBC that rent control and stronger rights for tenants had balanced the needs of landlords and tenants for decades and helped encourage long-term thinking by both landlords and renters.  But she warned that "things have changed now as international investors come to the country and see real estate investment opportunities".  This problem involved the loopholes in the system. For example, a landlord may decide to do renovation work on a property and require the existing tenant to pay increased rent of up to 11% of the total cost of the work each year. This can be done without the consent of the renter and has been used to get rid of tenants who could not afford it.  The researchers from DIW suggested that the solution would be only to impose rent controls in the areas with the fastest-growing rents.  So what does this tell us about London?  Rent is high in London, although it has not been rising as fast as house prices and average private rent has barely changed in the last two years.  The chart above shows how much rent and house prices in London have risen from a starting point in 2005.  Gemma Burgess from Cambridge University's Centre for Housing & Planning Research, points out that the example of cities such as Berlin, where landlords tend to be institutions that own lots of properties, may not be applicable to London.  "The overwhelming majority of landlords in England own one property," she says.  Her department conducted research for the London Assembly in 2015, which found that minor rent control measures such as a three-year freeze on existing private rents, would not make much difference to affordability.  However, it said that more radical measures, such as a cap on private rents set at two-thirds of their current market value, could lead many landlords to sell their properties.  She concludes that it will be difficult to find a policy that works. "I'm very dubious that rent control could help tenants and not reduce the stock of rental properties," she says.  "You need to significantly increase supply before you look at rent control."  What do you want BBC Reality Check to investigate? Get in touch


birminghammail--2019-11-05--Top 20 smartest kid's names for boys and girls revealed - is yours on the list?

Choosing a name for your new baby is one of the hardest decisions a parent will have to make but maybe this will help a little.  The top smartest children's names for boys and girls have been revealed and it's great news if your child is called George or Emma.  Online tutoring platform Tutor House used its data to compile a list of its most academically gifted students to find the names commonly associated with achieving high grades in school, college and university.  George, Tom and Mohammed complete the top three for the boys, and for girls Emma, Fatima and Eva were the highest performers, reports the Mirror.  In a bid to help parents choose a name that will give their bundle of joy a chance at academic success, here are the top 20 smartest names.  Tutor House, which offers private home tuition, analysed ten thousand names from the last five years and cross-referenced them with exam grades to find the brainy bunch.  Alex Dyer, founder of Tutor House, said: "Parents often spend a great deal of time deliberating on what name to give their child, and rightly so.  "It forms part of your child’s identity, with social science studies finding that a name can influence careers, personality traits and even physicality.  "With that in mind, and considering the wealth of data we have, we thought it would be interesting to see what names are most commonly associated with being academically gifted.  "While obviously your name has no reflection on your potential, the results are still interesting and might prove useful for parents who are struggling to settle on a name."

newsdesk@birminghamlive.co.uk (Luke Matthews, Katie Brooks)


breitbart--2019-11-18--Professor: Academia Increasing Efforts to 'Eliminate Conservatives'

Professor Richard Vatz of Towson University in Towson, Maryland, says that despite academic world priding itself on “supporting the marketplace of ideas and academic freedom,” there has been “an increasing and unremitting effort to eliminate conservatives” in areas of higher education. The professor added that when he brought up his concerns with the National Communication Association, “they couldn’t care less.”  “There has been an increasing and unremitting effort to eliminate conservatives and conservative thought in the humanities and social sciences in the American academy,” wrote professor Vatz in his recent Baltimore Sun op-ed, entitled, “Towson professor: Higher ed discriminates against conservatives.”  “Higher education prides itself on two overarching values: supporting the marketplace of ideas and academic freedom,” said Vatz. “Channeling the late civil rights advocate President John F. Kennedy, who said ‘Are we to say to the world — and much more importantly, to each other — that this is the land of the free, except for the Negro?'”  “Today, he would have said of colleges and universities, ‘Are we to say to the world — and much more importantly, to each other — higher education today is for diversity and equity except for conservatives?'” he added.  Professor Vatz, who has taught at Towson University for the past 45 years, said that he is also familiar with universities around the country, as he has been invited to speak at many of them, and has been on the Legislative Assembly at the National Communication Association (NCA), as well as involved with the Eastern Communication Association.  “The anti-conservatism is increasing at most national education venues,” said Vatz.  “To be fair,” he added, “there is an undercurrent of guilt or self-awareness among some, if not many, relating to the hypocrisy of ostensible support for supporting the free flow of differing ideas while perpetrating overt discrimination in hiring, promotion, tenure, college campus and convention participation and publishing of those on the right.”  The professor noted that “despite the continuing and increasing bigotry” in the NCA against conservatives, he has “long been a conspicuous advocate of fairness” to those who are not on the left.  “I have had lengthy exchanges with the current president, the immediately former president and the executive director of the NCA concerning their need to rectify the current situation which led to more than a score of their limited number of open conservatives leaving the organization,” said Vatz.  You can follow Alana Mastrangelo on Twitter at @ARmastrangelo, and on Instagram.


businessinsider--2019-03-05--A book about the bizarre QAnon theory which claims Democrats eat babies is now an Amazon best-se

A book about the bizarre QAnon theory — which claims Democrats eat babies — is now an Amazon best-seller and being boosted by the site's algorithms

A new book promoting a bizarre pro-Trump conspiracy theory alleging that Democrats murder children and the government engineers diseases has soared up the Amazon's sales charts, NBC News reported Monday.  "QAnon: An Invitation to the Great Awakening" is listed as the number one bestseller on the site under the Censorship and Politics category, beating back classics including Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451," William Golding's "Lord of the Flies," and Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale," which lie in second, third, and fourth place respectively.  As of early Tuesday, the book is also listed at number 44 in Amazon's overall bestseller chart, and at number 20 in the Politics and Social Sciences list.  Sales of the book have also propelled it to number 12 in the list of hot new releases, which is generated algorithmically and pushed to shoppers browsing the site.  Read more: The mysterious pro-Trump conspiracy theory known as 'QAnon' is moving from the fringes of the internet to Trump rallies  A man holding a Q sign waits to enter President Donald Trump's campaign rally with then-Senate candidate Lou Barletta in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, in August 2018. ASSOCIATED PRESS Matt Rourke  The book's author or authors go under the name WWG1WGA, apparently a reference to the QAnon adherent's slogan: "Where We Go One We Go All."  They claim in the description of the title that the book "reveals an extraordinary movement underway, a battle of epic proportions."  "Whether you know it or not, you're involved because the result of this battle will determine the fate of your children and future generations both in America and around the world," they add.  According to NBC, the book contains a series of outlandish and unsubstantiated claims, including that Democrats murder and eat children, and that the US government engineered the AIDS virus and a series of natural disasters.  A screenshot from Amazon showing "QAnon: An Invitation to the Great Awakening" for sale, and recommending other QAnon-related products. screen shot  Amazon also suggests a range of QAnon-related products for those who click to view the book title, including stickers, cellphone covers, and baseball caps.  Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The site refused to answer questions from NBC about its placement of the title on its algorithmic recommendations charts.  The QAnon conspiracy theory emerged on the anonymous 4Chan postings board in late 2017, when a poster going under the name "Q" and claiming to be a top government official started to leave a trail of cryptic messages that quickly drew a large and obsessive following.  Followers claimed that the clues exposed an elaborate conspiracy involving top Democrats and Hollywood stars running human trafficking networks. According to the adherents, President Donald Trump and allies in the military are poised to take down the network.  Men wear the Trump campaign's "Make America Great Again" hats and "Q" shirts at a rally where Trump was speaking. Scott Olson/Getty Images  In summer 2018 adherents of the theory began attending the president's rallies, wearing clothing and carrying banners emblazoned with QAnon slogans.  The theory has allegedly inspired some to commit crimes — with a man arrested near Arizona's Hoover dam in June in a self-made armoured car carrying several firearms and claiming to be guided by "Q," according to police.  Another man arrested in May for refusing to leave an abandoned Tucson cement plant, who was convinced he was being used as a trafficking hub, was also allegedly inspired by the movement, prosecutors said.  Trump speaks during CPAC 2019 in National Harbor, Maryland, on March 2, 2019. QAnon adherents believe that Trump and military allies can save America from an elaborate conspiracy involving top Democrats and Hollywood stars. Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images  Social media companies have faced questions from lawmakers in recent months about the spread of conspiracy theories on their platforms, with Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff warning in a letter to Facebook and Google in February of the danger of allowing anti-vaccination conspiracies to be propogated on the site.  Google-owned YouTube announced last month that it would ban advertising on channels that ran anti-vaccination videos so posters could not monetize the content.  Jason Kint, CEO of the trade association Digital Content Next, told NBC News that those pushing fringe political material on Amazon were able to game the site's algorithms, with devotees flooding to buy products soon after their release and flooding comment boxes with adulatory reviews.  "To be clear, they absolutely shouldn't be censoring the availability of books like this," Kint said. "But the fact we're left only with the publisher's own description of the book and a clearly gamed set of 5-star reviews — how is the average shopper supposed to know this is toxic garbage?"


cnsnews--2019-01-02--Walter Williams The Worst Enemy of Black People

Walter Williams: The Worst Enemy of Black People

Malcolm X was a Muslim minister and human rights activist. Born in 1925, he met his death at the hands of an assassin in 1965. Malcolm X was a courageous advocate for black civil rights, but unlike Martin Luther King, he was not that forgiving of whites for their crimes against black Americans. He did not eschew violence as a tool to achieve civil and human rights. His black and white detractors accused him of preaching racism and violence. Despite the controversy, he has been called one of the greatest and most influential black Americans.  Many black Americans have great respect for Malcolm X. Many schools bear his name, and many streets have been renamed in honor of him, both at home and abroad. But while black Americans honor Malcolm X, one of his basic teachings goes largely ignored. I think it's an important lesson, so I will quote a large part of it.  Malcolm X said: "The worst enemy that the Negro have is this white man that runs around here drooling at the mouth professing to love Negros and calling himself a liberal, and it is following these white liberals that has perpetuated problems that Negros have. If the Negro wasn't taken, tricked or deceived by the white liberal, then Negros would get together and solve our own problems. I only cite these things to show you that in America, the history of the white liberal has been nothing but a series of trickery designed to make Negros think that the white liberal was going to solve our problems. Our problems will never be solved by the white man."  There's a historical tidbit that those much younger than I (almost 83 years old) are ignorant of. In black history, we have been called — and called ourselves — several different names. Among the more respectable have been "colored," "Negro," "black," "Afro-American" and "African-American." I recall when Mrs. Viola Meekins, when I was a student at Stoddart-Fleisher Junior High School in the late 1940s, had our class go page by page through a textbook and correct each instance in which Negro was printed with a lowercase "n." In Malcolm X's day, and mine, Negro was a proud name and not used derisively by blacks as it is today.  Malcolm X was absolutely right about our finding solutions to our own problems. The most devastating problems that black people face today have absolutely nothing to do with our history of slavery and discrimination. Chief among them is the breakdown of the black family, wherein 75 percent of blacks are born to single, often young, mothers. In some cities and neighborhoods, the percentage of out-of-wedlock births is over 80. Actually, "breakdown" is the wrong term; the black family doesn't form in the first place. This is entirely new among blacks.  According to the 1938 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, that year only 11 percent of black children were born to unwed mothers. As late as 1950, female-headed households constituted only 18 percent of the black population. Today it's close to 70 percent. In much earlier times, during the late 1800s, there were only slight differences between the black family structure and those of other ethnic groups. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households were two-parent households. Welfare has encouraged young women to have children out of wedlock. The social stigma once associated with unwed pregnancy is all but gone. Plus, "shotgun" weddings are a thing of the past. That was when male members of a girl's family made the boy who got her pregnant live up to his responsibilities.  The high crime rates in so many black communities impose huge personal costs and have turned once-thriving communities into economic wastelands. The Ku Klux Klan couldn't sabotage chances for black academic excellence more effectively than the public school system in most cities. Politics and white liberals will not solve these and other problems. As Malcolm X said, "our problems will never be solved by the white man."  Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.


cnsnews--2019-01-10--Ben Shapiro The Scientific Experts Who Hate Science

Ben Shapiro: The Scientific Experts Who Hate Science

This week, the American Psychological Association proved once again that it is a political body rather than a scientific one. This isn't the first time a major mental health organization has favored politics over science — in 2013, the American Psychiatric Association famously reclassified "gender identity disorder" in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, calling it "gender dysphoria" and then explaining that living with the delusion that you are a member of the opposite sex is not actually a mental disorder at all. That ruling was based on zero scientific evidence — much like the original DSM-5 classification of pedophilia as a "sexual orientation" before it was renamed "pedophilic disorder" under public pressure.  The latest example of the American Psychological Association's political hackery concerns the topic of "traditional masculinity." In the APA journal, it announced that it had released new guidelines to "help psychologists work with men and boys." Those guidelines suggest that "40 years of research" show that "traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly." The APA explains that "traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful. Men socialized in this way are less likely to engage in healthy behaviors."  Never mind that traditional masculinity — a masculinity geared toward channeling masculine instincts of building and protecting, rather than tearing down — built Western civilization and protected it from the brutalities of other civilizational forces. Never mind that traditional masculinity protected femininity and elevated women to equal status in public policy. Traditional masculinity is actually just men sitting around and eating burgers while grunting at one another about football, all the while crying on the inside because they have been prohibited by society from showing their feelings.  And it's worse than that. According to the APA, traditional masculinity bumps up "against issues of race, class and sexuality," maximizing both interior and exterior conflict. Dr. Ryon McDermott, a psychologist from the University of South Alabama who helped draft the new APA guidelines, suggested that gender is "no longer just this male-female binary." Rather, gender is a mere social construct that can be destroyed without consequence. Here's the APA making the extraordinarily dishonest statement that gender differences aren't biological at all , in contravention of all known social science research: "Indeed, when researchers strip away stereotypes and expectations, there isn't much difference in the basic behaviors of men and women."  Destroy masculinity in order to destroy discrimination and depression. Feminize men, and indoctrinate boys.  In order to reach this conclusion, the APA has to define traditional masculinity in the narrowest, most negative terms possible — and then other those who disagree as part of the patriarchy. But as a political body, the APA has little problem doing this.  All of this is not only nonsense; it's wildly counterproductive nonsense. Buried beneath the reams of nonsense in the APA report is this rather telling gem: "It's also important to encourage pro-social aspects of masculinity. ... In certain circumstances, traits like stoicism and self-sacrifice can be absolutely crucial." But we must never suggest that such traits ought to be included as part of a "traditional masculinity," because that would make some people feel excluded.  Here's the truth: Men are looking for meaning in a world that tells them they are perpetuators of discrimination and rape culture; that they are beneficiaries of an overarching, nasty patriarchy; that they are, at best, disposable partners to women, rather than protectors of them. Giving men purpose requires us to give them purpose as men , not merely as genderless beings. There's a lot to be said for the idea that our culture has ignored the necessity for men to become gentlemen. But that's a result of a left-wing culture that denigrates men, not a traditional masculinity built on the idea that men were born to defend, protect and build.  One thing is certainly true, though: The APA has destroyed itself on the shoals of politics. And there's no reason for honest-thinking people to take its anti-scientific pronouncements seriously simply because it masquerades as scientists while ignoring facts in favor of political correctness.  Ben Shapiro, 34, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of "The Ben Shapiro Show" and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is The New York Times best-selling author of "Bullies." He lives with his wife and two children in Los Angeles.


cnsnews--2019-03-19--Democrats 100 Trillion Agenda Could Easily Tilt Nation

Democrats' $100 Trillion Agenda Could Easily Tilt Nation

Remember when Democrats complained that $5.7 billion for a border wall was too expensive? Well, that's chump change compared to what many of the congressional Democrats and nearly all of those 15 declared Democrats in the presidential race are now rallying behind.  The price tag isn't in the billions but in the tens of trillions. President Trump was attacked earlier this month by Democrats for a budget blueprint that would run fiscal deficits of 5 percent of GDP. That's too high, for sure, but count up the spending plans of Democrats and deficits could easily hit 20 to 30 percent of GDP and tilt the nation toward Greek and Puerto Rican-style bankruptcy.  Let's start to add it all up.  Start with "Medicare for All," the new health care anthem of the left. It is touted as a way to make medical services "free" for everyone. The cost to taxpayers? By some estimates, $32 trillion over the next decade, according to a study by the Mercatus Center. Medicare, just for the seniors it was designed to cover, is already projected to run deficits in the tens of trillions of dollars over the next four decades, according to the program's own Trustees.  Then there is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal," which is supposed to turn America into an eco-friendly paradise and avert the apocalypse that Ocasio-Cortez claims will occur in just over a decade. At least four presidential candidates have endorsed some or all of that agenda.  Of course, the politicians pushing these plans remain suspiciously quiet whenever they're asked to explain exactly how much their pet projects will cost U.S. taxpayers and whether they're worth the investment. But thanks to public-policy watchdog groups, we have some preliminary estimates. According to one recent study by the American Action Forum, the "Low-carbon Electricity Grid" proposed in the Green New Deal will cost taxpayers $5.4 trillion over 10 years or $39,000 per household.  Similarly, a "Net Zero Emissions Transportation System," another part of the environmental proposal, could require as much as to $2.7 trillion or $20,000 per household, while "Guaranteed Green Housing" could cost an additional $4.2 trillion.  The Democrat-backed welfare programs in the Green New Deal are even more daunting. According to the study, "guaranteed jobs" and "universal health care" would together cost each American family as much as $582,000 or $80.6 trillion in total.  Then there is the loss of as many as 10 million jobs in the oil, gas and coal industries, which would add to welfare and unemployment benefit costs, let alone the severe financial hardship this would impose on millions of middle-class families whom Democrats once said they cared about.  Added together, these preliminary Democratic proposals are projected to cost about $92 trillion over 10 years.  But wait, there's more.  Another hot proposal on the left gaining momentum is called "universal basic income." Everybody gets a free check from the government. A key sponsor of this is U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California, a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination. This would give families making less than $100,000 a check of up to $6,000 from the government every year. "Americans are working harder than ever but stagnant wages mean they can't keep up with cost of living increases," Harris says.  Then there is the cost of "free" college tuition, another federal freebie supported by Democrats. That would add trillions more to the taxpayer tab over the next decade while further inflating the outrageous tuitions that universities already charge.  The $15-an-hour minimum wage would also impose new costs on government at every level.  Now the latest craze on the left is for "reparations" payments for slavery. Julian Castro and other presidential wannabes have endorsed this radical income redistribution scheme. A 2015 study by a professor at the University of Connecticut estimates that the cost of reparations would be between $5.9 and $14.2 trillion. These results were published in the Social Sciences Quarterly journal.  Add it all up and the estimated 10-year cost of creating the Democratic-socialist utopia envisioned by the likes of Ocasio-Cortez, Sen. Bernie Sanders and other leaders of the Democratic Party reaches well north of $100 trillion.  Who will be left to pay for the Democrats' America when everything is "free"? To the extent that any of the Democrats currently running for president has offered an answer to this question, they've invariably claimed that they would finance their schemes by levying punitive taxes on "the wealthy." But even if you took every penny of income from every millionaire and billionaire in America, it wouldn't even pay half the cost. Some say we will just put it on the federal credit card. President Obama took our national debt from $10 trillion to nearly $20 trillion, but that might be loose change compared to the new spending spree.  Ultimately, the burden of paying for this radical transformation of America would fall predominantly on the middle class, as usual. Just one example: Many Europeans pay gas taxes that are double what we pay in the United States. That's part of the tab for their green energy policies that Democrats are eager to bring here. Anyone want to pay $5 a gallon to fill up?  The Democrats balked at spending $5.7 billion to protect American communities by securing the border, but they're perfectly happy to mortgage our future by spending nearly 20,000 times that amount on their own utopian fantasies. We will all have everything we want, and our country will be bankrupt.  Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and an economic consultant with FreedomWorks. He is the co-author of "Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive the American Economy."


cnsnews--2019-04-24--Latina Mama Warns Pete Buttigieg Dont Force Your Sexual Ideology on Me and My Children

'Latina Mama' Warns Pete Buttigieg: 'Don't Force Your Sexual Ideology on Me and My Children'

Ana Samuel, Ph.D., a research scholar at the Witherspoon Institute and founder of the marriage movement CanaVox, warned 2020 Democratic presidential contender Pete Buttigieg that his homosexual ideology is dangerous to the nation and that she and millions of other Latina mothers with traditional family values will "be polite" towards gay activists but will also resist "policies that assault our values, harm our families, and hurt our children."  Ana Samuel is the daughter of Mexican immigrants and her husband is an Argentine immigrant; they have six children. She is a graduate of Princeton University and her Ph.D. in politics is from the University of Notre Dame. Pete Buttigieg, 37, is the mayor South Bend, Ind., and running for the Democratic presidential nomination. He is openly gay and "married" to a man, Chastan Glezman. Buttigieg is a graduate of Harvard University and Pembroke College, Oxford.  In a commentary for Public Discourse, The Journal of the Witherspoon Institute, Samuel wrote "A Message to Mayor Pete From a Latina Mama: Don't Force Your Sexual Ideology on Me and My Children.'"  Samuel noted that Buttigieg has tweeted that some people are often "polite to you in person" but then support policies that are contrary to the LGBT agenda -- that "harm you and your family." This tweet's "sub-text," according to Samuel, "is that anyone who refuses to cheer for same-sex marriage or support the Left’s sexual ideology is a bigot—someone who is out to harm Mayor Pete and his family."  But this "cuts both ways," wrote Samuel, specifically naming "policies that undermine our parental rights and duties by seeking to indoctrinate our children in progressive sexual ideology without our consent and sometimes in spite of our explicit protest."  These policies, she said, include reading assignments in the public schools that are explicitly designed "to normalize LGBT lifestyles"; sex education classes that promote abortion, masturbation, condom use, sex toys, and rectal intercourse; "[p]ediatricians who ask to see our teenagers alone and then push to prescribe them contraceptives or ask them about sexual behaviors that we find offensive"; "public library programming where unicorns, rainbows, gingerbread persons, drag-queen story hours, and other symbols of progressive sexual ideology make an appearance, so that we must regularly steer our toddlers clear of the propaganda"; and promotion of transgender propaganda in the schools.  "Mr. Mayor, it is hypocritical for you to cry foul about policies that 'harm you and your family' while your side pushes for government intrusions into the parent-child relationship at the most fundamental levels," said Samuel.  She then said that many Americans are "prepared to co-exist peacefully" with the LGBT community but do not want to be re-instructed on "what sexual values to cherish and uphold."  As for the gay lifestyle itself, Samuel said, "It is not a good idea to tell society that you don’t need a member of the opposite sex to have a baby or that kids don’t need a mom and a dad because they will do fine in any kind of arrangement. That’s not true, and there’s plenty of empirical data to prove it."  "[I]t takes a lot of money to circumvent nature," said Samuel. "It takes upscale health insurance to pay for those doctor’s visits to the urologist, OBGYN, and additional medical care linked to sex outside of marriage, rectal intercourse, or cross-sex hormones. It takes a lot of money to pay for that surrogate rent-a-womb so that two men can have a baby. Even if she’s from a third world country—and easily exploitable—it’s still expensive (and the ethics don’t look good). It also takes a lot of money to go through IVF, usually requiring dual-income households."  She continued, "The fact is, permanent, monogamous, exclusive marriage between husband and wife is the cheapest and highest quality deal on the market. It’s the most financially accessible way to have a child and the safest way to experience sexual pleasure."  "Ask yourself: is the lifestyle you are setting up as a pattern for others to follow replicable and sustainable?" said Samuel. "Or does it further destabilize the family form that has provided the greatest financial and social stability to women, children, and the poor? The evidence consistently points to the latter."  "The weight of the past 50 years of social science evidence is virtually unanimous in its conclusion: children—and societies—do best when kids are raised by their married, stable, biological parents," said Samuel.  "Separate a child from his or her biological mother or father, and you’ve made that child much more likely to experience internal conflict, significant pain and suffering, relational struggles, and a host of other issues."  "So yes, be polite to us, and we will be polite to you," said Samuel. "But we know that we are in an intense battle for the hearts and minds of our children" and as "long as we still enjoy the freedom of association in this country, we will continue to meet and organize, to speak and teach."  In conclusion, Samuel said, "Speak up! Do not let the gender ideology of the Left destroy our family values! Do not stop exercising your rights as mothers! Mamas of the world, unite!"


cnsnews--2019-09-05--Polyamory Normalizing Relationship Limitlessness Will in the End Be Limiting

Polyamory: Normalizing Relationship Limitlessness Will in the End Be Limiting

The Gottman Institute is one of the premiere organizations promoting evidence-based approaches to couple/marital relationships. The institute notes that it has“developed an approach that not only supports and repairs troubled marriages and committed relationships but strengthens happy ones.” The approach has been used with both opposite sex and same-sex couples, but the focus has always been on couples.  The institute has published a series of guest blog posts titled Real Relationships. The goal is to “understand and paint a more realistic, inclusive picture of relationships in the world today.” A recent post, titled, “I’m the Polyamorist Next Door,” presents the experiences of a woman, Ms. Winston, who longs for society to see polyamory in a new light: as “people caring for other people, people creating the family that they need, people being human, people being normal.”  There is the appropriate caveat that the guest blog posts do not necessarily reflect the views of the Gottman Institute. Still, the suggestion that polyamory be considered normal portends a seismic cultural shift.  There is little debate in the social sciences about the existing data on married households. On average, marriage achieves better outcomes than alternative family arrangements. There are exceptions; not all marriages function well. Many people in less than ideal situations are doing heroic work, particularly single parents who have found themselves in difficult situations, sometimes with no fault of their own.  And yet, married households as the ideal is now being called into question. The latest debate is about whether it should be that marriage produces better outcomes. The argument is that with the right government policies, any conceivable family structure could be at least as good as marriage.  Some social scientists go so far as to argue that traditional marriage is immoral. Sociologist Judith Stacey has written that is impossible for women to have a role equal to men in marriage given the “present conditions of political, economic, social, and sexual inequality.” Government policy should support cultural change that eliminates oppressive marriage.  In that light, some would argue, polyamorous relationships empower women. Women are free to have several romantic relationships simultaneously, to terminate romantic relationships, and begin new ones as they see fit. But is polyamory likely to be empowering for women over the long haul? Would it be best for households with children?  Ms. Winston was initially insecure with polyamory: “More than once my insecurities ran the show … I spent several years clawing at different romantic partners, insisting that they tell me I was their number one, the primary, the queen bee.”  After practicing polyamory for more than 10 years, she feels more secure and writes about feeling loved by the people in her complex social network: “It’s a web of other partners, family members, old flames, new crushes, exes, and close-knit friends. It’s never about just the person alone, but the interconnected network of other people that help to shape them. And that network interacts with my own, making a hodge-podge chosen family.”  Is the insecurity banished for good, or might it return?  Studies show that men prefer women who are youthful and attractive. While women value men’s physical appearance, research shows that they are attracted to men who have money and prestige. Thus, to new potential romantic interests, women become less attractive to men as they age. Men compensate for the effects of aging with higher salaries and wealth. As they grow older then, polyamorous men will have more options than their female ex-partners. Polyamory’s promise of simultaneous desirable romantic partners is likely to be a lie for aging women.  How will the complex web-like family handle children? I suppose DNA tests to determine paternity will be routine. Will the non-fathers want to be tied down by another man’s children, or will they move on to other women with no children? Hint: research shows that men typically resist being constrained by, or providing for, other men’s children.  Alternatively, can you imagine the confusing situations if multiple men are granted father status over the same child? Mom would be playing referee over all the details of a child’s life with two or more men. It is hard to imagine polyamorous women being better off than their married peers.  What happens to polyamorous men’s assets when they die? Perhaps the modern woman should not need the assets of a deceased partner, but married women know they inherit the assets with no tax consequences.  Commitment has been described as the choice to give up other choices. On average, married people are happier, healthier, and wealthier than their non-married peers (obviously, there are exceptions to the average). The foundation of these benefits is an exclusive relationship that is intended to last decades. Knowing that a spouse has promised to remain faithful frees people to face an uncertain future with confidence.  Could government possibly regulate such that those who eschew relationship limits have equivalent outcomes with those who freely limit themselves to one spouse? Polyamorous relationships are too complex to regulate into marital equivalence. The simple inclusiveness solution will be to reduce the status and advantages of marriage. Normalizing relationship limitlessness will in the end be limiting.  Dr. Joseph J. Horton is professor of psychology at Grove City College and the Working Group Coordinator for Marriage and Family with the Institute for Faith and Freedom. He is also a researcher on Positive Youth Development.  : This piece was originally published by The Institute for Faith & Freedom at Grove City College.