In 1973 when the Supreme Court outlawed laws against interracial marriages, the General Social Survey of white Americans showed that 26% of Catholics and 26% of “nones” (those who had no religious affiliation) supported such laws. According to the Survey 39% of Mainline Protestants supported laws against interracial marriages whereas 48% of Evangelicals took such a position. In other words, in 1973 the religious tradition in which I was raised and educated, to my shame, had a strong racist edge to it. Given the underlying values and what was taught within Evangelical churches, that religious stream should have been the least racist instead of having the highest level.
Fortunately since 1973 there has been a change and a convergence. In 2004, only 5% Evangelical Protestants hold such laws are appropriate which is similar to the views of Mainline Protestants (3%), Catholics (2%) and “nones” (2%). No longer does the nature and level of one’s religiosity seem to impact the level of racism.
Though this is a positive change, tinges of more subtle racism occurs. In 1973 only 34% of whites reported favoring outlawing discrimination in home sales (i.e. whites refusing to sell to non-whites or home associations prohibiting to allow non-whites to buy a home in their association). In 2008 while that had risen to 69%, it means that 31% of whites feel that it is legitimate to prohibit non-whites into their neighborhood.
In 1977, 25% of white Americans stated that the reason African Americans had worse jobs, lower income and poorer homes what because they have “less in-born ability to learn.” Today that 25% has dwindled to 9%...which means that nearly 1 out of 10 American whites believe African Americans are inferior.
While racism is diminishing, unfortunately it is not a thing of the past. It remains but with a more subtle face.
Reflective Wanderings - Reflections on various topics that arise out of my personal, life and professional experiences. There are also are some family related news, travels and pictures.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Monday, March 07, 2011
Is A Tipping Point At Hand?
In these past weeks the State of Maryland has been moving closer to passing a bill to permit gay marriage. While some Democrats are opposed, the majority of the opposition is coming from Republicans and the right wing of the Christian church. The Republicans are stanchly set against gay marriage with three out of four Republicans against gay marriage and gay rights in general. This is not surprising given that the heart of their base is made up of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians. Hence, the party has pushed for the establishment of and passed the “Defense of Marriage Act.” Only a token few Republicans on Capitol Hill supported the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Being against gay marriage was also a "winning issue" for Republicans. In 1996 27% of American voters were supportive of same-sex marriage and it seemed that gay marriage would not occur for more than fifty years. But any observer looking at demographics trending could readily foresee that gay marriage would be supported by the majority of Americans sometime around 2019-2023. Back then over 85% of those over 60 years of age opposed gay marriage whereas 75% of those under of 25 years of age were supportive of same-sex marriage. Those who were in their 40s and 50s were against it, but only by about ten points. What was evident was that as the oldest cohort of voters passed way and were replaced by a younger cohort, a rapid shift was only be a matter of time and those who supported it would occur sometime around 2020.
By 2009 support had grown to 37%. This 10% increase was primarily due to passing of older cohorts who are against it and being replaced by a younger generation. The results two years still pointed that the 50-50 point would be reached around the end of this decade.
A week ago the Pew Research Center released survey results that indicate that the opinions are undergoing a more rapid change and that the 50-50 point could happen by 2014. The latest survey indicates that 46% of voters are supportive of gay marriage. Going from 37 to 46% is a dramatic shift over a two year period. It indicates that the debates in the public square are causing those in their mid 40s to early 60s to re-evaluate their opinions. More and more middle aged Americans are coming to the conclusion that they do not agree with the rationale put forth from those who are most vigorous in their opposition to gay marriage. An increasing number of people are concluding that gay marriage will not and does not diminish hetero-sexual marriage any more than interracial marriages (same arguments on interracial marriages were used in the 50s and 60s to defend interracial marriage prohibitions).
With the tipping point rapidly approaching it will be only a matter of four to five years after that that states legislatures will come under growing pressure to change their laws. Once the tipping point is reached it will quickly rise to the 60% marck. No longer will anti-gay marriage support be a "winning issue" for Republicans. The rapid approach of the tipping point also indicates that any other group that relies upon the public’s good will for its strength and who is strongly opposed to gay marriage will find themselves part of diminishing minority and with fewer supporters to their party or cause.
Being against gay marriage was also a "winning issue" for Republicans. In 1996 27% of American voters were supportive of same-sex marriage and it seemed that gay marriage would not occur for more than fifty years. But any observer looking at demographics trending could readily foresee that gay marriage would be supported by the majority of Americans sometime around 2019-2023. Back then over 85% of those over 60 years of age opposed gay marriage whereas 75% of those under of 25 years of age were supportive of same-sex marriage. Those who were in their 40s and 50s were against it, but only by about ten points. What was evident was that as the oldest cohort of voters passed way and were replaced by a younger cohort, a rapid shift was only be a matter of time and those who supported it would occur sometime around 2020.
By 2009 support had grown to 37%. This 10% increase was primarily due to passing of older cohorts who are against it and being replaced by a younger generation. The results two years still pointed that the 50-50 point would be reached around the end of this decade.
A week ago the Pew Research Center released survey results that indicate that the opinions are undergoing a more rapid change and that the 50-50 point could happen by 2014. The latest survey indicates that 46% of voters are supportive of gay marriage. Going from 37 to 46% is a dramatic shift over a two year period. It indicates that the debates in the public square are causing those in their mid 40s to early 60s to re-evaluate their opinions. More and more middle aged Americans are coming to the conclusion that they do not agree with the rationale put forth from those who are most vigorous in their opposition to gay marriage. An increasing number of people are concluding that gay marriage will not and does not diminish hetero-sexual marriage any more than interracial marriages (same arguments on interracial marriages were used in the 50s and 60s to defend interracial marriage prohibitions).
With the tipping point rapidly approaching it will be only a matter of four to five years after that that states legislatures will come under growing pressure to change their laws. Once the tipping point is reached it will quickly rise to the 60% marck. No longer will anti-gay marriage support be a "winning issue" for Republicans. The rapid approach of the tipping point also indicates that any other group that relies upon the public’s good will for its strength and who is strongly opposed to gay marriage will find themselves part of diminishing minority and with fewer supporters to their party or cause.
Sunday, March 06, 2011
American Civil War and States Rights
This year marks the 150th Anniversary of the commencement of the American Civil War (April 11), a war that on numerous levels transformed the United States. These transformations ranged from hundreds of technological advances to military strategy to the elimination of slavery to how the nation would think of itself both internally and internationally.
Why did the Southern States secede? One of the most commonly reason given is that the South seceded over a fight for state’s rights against an overbearing central National government. Over 55 to 70% of respondents today give this as the primary cause with slavery representing about 20 to 25% and the election of Lincoln receiving a slither of responses, 2 to 5%. Some surveys have 10 to 20% of respondents stating the cause was tariffs and taxes.
Was state’s rights the primary issue? Shortly following the Civil War, a growing number of the surviving Confederate civic, corporate and military leaders articulated states rights was the root cause. As the number of leaders articulating that states rights as the reason, it was not long before the general population of the southern states to state the same, and then by the middle of the 20th century a growing number in the northern and western states listing states rights as the dominant cause.
Do the South’s pre-Civil War newspaper reports, letters from leadership and the secession documents speak of state’s right? If this was the primary cause, not slavery, then we would find state’s rights repeatedly articulated in the South’s documents and newspaper reports before and during the Civil War. There is not a hint of state’s rights in South Carolina’s “Ordnance of Secession” or in the passionate rhetoric filling the Palmetto State’s newspapers. Instead they speak of the right to own and trade African Americans. Mimicking the Revolutionary call “give me liberty or give me death,” the cry of the South Carolinian leaders was “Give us slavery or give us death.”
South Carolina’s complaint was that their northern neighbors have “deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof” and to “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery.” What SC were referring to was northern states banning slavery from their soil, allowing slaves to marry and in some cases granting them citizenship and the right to vote in local elections. If anything, with northern states exercising rights to ban slavery, South Carolina was against their northern neighbors exercising states rights and their anger that the national government was not repressing the actions of the north, including prohibiting the formation and meeting of anti-slavery associations.
Mississippi’s and Georgia's Secession documents and newspapers speak of slavery, not state’s right. State after state in the Confederacy echo South Carolina’s documents, letters and newspapers. States right is not found as a triggering cause. Slavery was the primary cause and the election of Lincoln, a man who openly and strongly argued against slavery, was the last straw and the end of a process that started in the 1830s with South Carolina’s nullification crisis that President Jackson put down.
What has occurred is that after the Civil War those who know that they seceded over slavery restating their rationale with a falsehood, and the general population of succeeding generations has accepted a falsehood as truth.
Why did the Southern States secede? One of the most commonly reason given is that the South seceded over a fight for state’s rights against an overbearing central National government. Over 55 to 70% of respondents today give this as the primary cause with slavery representing about 20 to 25% and the election of Lincoln receiving a slither of responses, 2 to 5%. Some surveys have 10 to 20% of respondents stating the cause was tariffs and taxes.
Was state’s rights the primary issue? Shortly following the Civil War, a growing number of the surviving Confederate civic, corporate and military leaders articulated states rights was the root cause. As the number of leaders articulating that states rights as the reason, it was not long before the general population of the southern states to state the same, and then by the middle of the 20th century a growing number in the northern and western states listing states rights as the dominant cause.
Do the South’s pre-Civil War newspaper reports, letters from leadership and the secession documents speak of state’s right? If this was the primary cause, not slavery, then we would find state’s rights repeatedly articulated in the South’s documents and newspaper reports before and during the Civil War. There is not a hint of state’s rights in South Carolina’s “Ordnance of Secession” or in the passionate rhetoric filling the Palmetto State’s newspapers. Instead they speak of the right to own and trade African Americans. Mimicking the Revolutionary call “give me liberty or give me death,” the cry of the South Carolinian leaders was “Give us slavery or give us death.”
South Carolina’s complaint was that their northern neighbors have “deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof” and to “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery.” What SC were referring to was northern states banning slavery from their soil, allowing slaves to marry and in some cases granting them citizenship and the right to vote in local elections. If anything, with northern states exercising rights to ban slavery, South Carolina was against their northern neighbors exercising states rights and their anger that the national government was not repressing the actions of the north, including prohibiting the formation and meeting of anti-slavery associations.
Mississippi’s and Georgia's Secession documents and newspapers speak of slavery, not state’s right. State after state in the Confederacy echo South Carolina’s documents, letters and newspapers. States right is not found as a triggering cause. Slavery was the primary cause and the election of Lincoln, a man who openly and strongly argued against slavery, was the last straw and the end of a process that started in the 1830s with South Carolina’s nullification crisis that President Jackson put down.
What has occurred is that after the Civil War those who know that they seceded over slavery restating their rationale with a falsehood, and the general population of succeeding generations has accepted a falsehood as truth.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Societal Trends
Societal trends over two to four decades can be telling in helping one to understand significant shifts that are taking place. Since 1980 the average personal income in the United States has increased from $24,079 to $40,454, adjusted for inflation. How does that 168% increase compare to other major expenses.
Average gasoline prices have increased from $1.25 to 2.85, at 228% in real dollar terms. While the number of miles driven a year have increased by about 22%, with more efficient engines the amount spend on gasoline when inflation is taken into account has increased only 12%, from $2,015 to 2,269.
First class stamp has increased 193% from 0.15 to 0.44, This increase does not take into account inflation.
Milk has increased from $2.16 per gallon to 3.29, a 52% increase.
The cost of the average new home has risen from $76,400 to $268,800, 251% in real dollar terms. Primarily due to more expensive land, much larger and more well appointed homes, the increase is new home prices has been a greater rate than income increase. When inflation is taken into account, the increase drops below 160%.
Over the last thirty years the amount spent on health care on a per capita basis, and adjusted for inflation, has increased 202%, again at a much higher rate than income. Health care is consuming more and more a person’s budget from 1980 when it consumed about 7.5% of the average person’s income. Today health care consumes almost 14% of a person’s income…and with more than three times the rate of people who uninsured than ever before. An aging population is a factor but it and lawsuits are not as significant a factor as the citizenry believes. The major factor is a growing profit return at all levels.
Suppliers of equipment and medicine profit share on a per dollar of sale prices has increased dramatically. In 1980 most major health care insurance plans and hospitals were run by nonprofits companies who had 3.5 to 5.5% rate of return whereas today the insurance and hospital market is dominated by profit firms who have pushed the rate of return to 18 to 20%. In 1980, 95% of insurance premiums went out to providers whereas today that has dropped to 82 to 80%. This does not take into account that for profit hospitals are retaining a greater share of each payment they receive. Further it does not account for fewer benefits being provided and with co-pays that are rising three to fivefold. Matters are not expected to improve for the better as companies seek to increase the rate of return to 78%.
Healthcare is and will continue to be one of America's greatest challenges, and will become even more so over the coming years. Significant changes are not likely to happen until the system starts to crash. Hopefully it will not take the type of protests and marches that took place during the Viet Nam error or at the level we have just witnessed in Egypt.
Average gasoline prices have increased from $1.25 to 2.85, at 228% in real dollar terms. While the number of miles driven a year have increased by about 22%, with more efficient engines the amount spend on gasoline when inflation is taken into account has increased only 12%, from $2,015 to 2,269.
First class stamp has increased 193% from 0.15 to 0.44, This increase does not take into account inflation.
Milk has increased from $2.16 per gallon to 3.29, a 52% increase.
The cost of the average new home has risen from $76,400 to $268,800, 251% in real dollar terms. Primarily due to more expensive land, much larger and more well appointed homes, the increase is new home prices has been a greater rate than income increase. When inflation is taken into account, the increase drops below 160%.
Over the last thirty years the amount spent on health care on a per capita basis, and adjusted for inflation, has increased 202%, again at a much higher rate than income. Health care is consuming more and more a person’s budget from 1980 when it consumed about 7.5% of the average person’s income. Today health care consumes almost 14% of a person’s income…and with more than three times the rate of people who uninsured than ever before. An aging population is a factor but it and lawsuits are not as significant a factor as the citizenry believes. The major factor is a growing profit return at all levels.
Suppliers of equipment and medicine profit share on a per dollar of sale prices has increased dramatically. In 1980 most major health care insurance plans and hospitals were run by nonprofits companies who had 3.5 to 5.5% rate of return whereas today the insurance and hospital market is dominated by profit firms who have pushed the rate of return to 18 to 20%. In 1980, 95% of insurance premiums went out to providers whereas today that has dropped to 82 to 80%. This does not take into account that for profit hospitals are retaining a greater share of each payment they receive. Further it does not account for fewer benefits being provided and with co-pays that are rising three to fivefold. Matters are not expected to improve for the better as companies seek to increase the rate of return to 78%.
Healthcare is and will continue to be one of America's greatest challenges, and will become even more so over the coming years. Significant changes are not likely to happen until the system starts to crash. Hopefully it will not take the type of protests and marches that took place during the Viet Nam error or at the level we have just witnessed in Egypt.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
America's Commitment to Democracy is Tested
With what has been taking place in Egypt we are seeing played out in the White House and in Congress the depth and nature of the United States’ commitment to democracy and the citizenry choice of government. Politicians of both parties and citizens of the United States repeated proclaim that democracy is one of its core values, yet cracks have appeared in the nature and depth of that commitment when an American friendly despot is being openly challenged by his citizens.
Some have criticized President Obama and his administration from giving mixed signals to Egypt in the first day or two the protests started. One can understand some mixed signals while information is being evaluated. In those early hours we heard statements supporting the citizenry to peacefully express their opinions, for the Egyptian leadership to listen to those voices and not respond with violence. As the days passed the public statements by the Obama administration clearly signaled that the Egyptian despotic government had lost credibility.
There were too many political voices who have insist that the United States government should have stood behind Mubarak as Mubarak had been a good friend. Those voices still continue to insist that it was better for the USA to support a tyrannical regime that is friendly to the USA than risk the people establishing, even via a democratic process, a government that is less friendly or even hostile to America. When it is all boiled down to the essence, those voices, regardless of pontifications otherwise, are stating the democracy, an empowered citizenry, and personal freedom are not the dominant principles as they hold them to be.
Some have criticized President Obama and his administration from giving mixed signals to Egypt in the first day or two the protests started. One can understand some mixed signals while information is being evaluated. In those early hours we heard statements supporting the citizenry to peacefully express their opinions, for the Egyptian leadership to listen to those voices and not respond with violence. As the days passed the public statements by the Obama administration clearly signaled that the Egyptian despotic government had lost credibility.
There were too many political voices who have insist that the United States government should have stood behind Mubarak as Mubarak had been a good friend. Those voices still continue to insist that it was better for the USA to support a tyrannical regime that is friendly to the USA than risk the people establishing, even via a democratic process, a government that is less friendly or even hostile to America. When it is all boiled down to the essence, those voices, regardless of pontifications otherwise, are stating the democracy, an empowered citizenry, and personal freedom are not the dominant principles as they hold them to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)