Happy New Year!

I'll be back online next week. In the meantime, check out this article from Salon.com:

Salon: How feminism caused Sandy Hook, according to the right. http://goo.gl/mag/V5BhqaQ

Out Sick

Thanks to everyone who is reading this blog. Due to illness and the coming holidays, I won't be posting my own thoughts for the next couple of weeks, but I did want to leave you with some food for thought: 

Chief Justice Antonin Scalia on Homosexuality:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/11/nation/la-na-scalia-gays-20121212

Soledad O'Brien on "Black in America":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxkDfcFcvOo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/category/documentaries/

Lame Duck Sprinting

Stop me if you’ve heard this one: A lame duck walks into an abortion clinic and says, “Your door frames aren’t wide enough. You need to shut down this clinic.” The doctor on staff says, “Is this a joke?” The duck replies, “No, this is religious freedom.”

Michigan House Bill 5711 is just one of a series of bills passing through the Michigan legislature in the name of religious freedom. How does the size of a doorway relate to the ability to practice one’s religion? Well, it depends on the location of the doorway: If it’s in an abortion clinic, then, apparently, it has everything to do with religious freedom. HB5711 will:

Regulate abortion clinics as surgical centers by imposing strict physical building requirements on them, such as minimum doorway sizes and minimum square footage. The regulations could effectively shut down some clinics in the state (Bassett).

The bill also, “includes a provision that ends telemedicine abortions, which are commonly used by women in rural and medically under-served areas of the state” (Bassett). Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan claims that 21 of 83 Michigan counties have no local obstetrician-gynecologists, “so telemedicine allows doctors to prescribe medication abortions to women in early stages of pregnancies through a phone or internet consultation” (Bassett). Most startling about this legislation is that, just last July, a bill expanding telehealth services easily passed through both houses and was signed by the governor (Bassett, Perna). So, it’s not that telehealth services are bad overall; they’re just bad when it comes to women’s reproductive rights.

If HB5711 wasn’t so funny, maybe this one will be: A doctor informs a rape victim that the rape resulted in a pregnancy. The woman wants an abortion, but is informed that her insurance (in fact, no insurance plan in the state) will cover the surgery. The woman cries, “But abortion is legal!” The insurance company responds, “Yes, and so is religious freedom.”

Senate Bills 612, 613, and 614 will:

Prevent all insurance plans in Michigan from covering abortion unless a woman would die without the procedure. The measures do not include exceptions for rape, incest or pregnancy complications that would jeopardize the mother’s health. Private insurance companies will be given the option to carry a separate abortion coverage policy that the woman would have to pay for in addition to her regular coverage (Bassett).

Never mind who gets nominated to the Supreme Court; abortion doesn’t need to be outlawed outright. In Michigan, piece by piece, access to abortion can simply be stripped away: Strapping clinics with unnecessary regulations, banning telemedicine abortions in areas where face-to-face medical access is logistically hampered, preventing insurance companies from covering abortion. In the end, it doesn’t matter if it’s legal because if there are enough hurdles, abortion will, in effect, be illegal.

Okay, let’s try one more: A gay man walks into a public university counseling office seeking counsel on his relationship with his boyfriend. The counselor says, “Sorry, I can’t help you with that. I’ll refer you to someone who approves of your lifestyle.” The gay man says, “Is this a joke?” The counselor says, “No, this is religious freedom.”

If you’re asking yourself why anyone would work at a public university as a counselor and be unwilling to work with clients with different lifestyles, then you’re on the right track. Yet, back in 2009, Democrat Tupac Hunter introduced legislation that would allow college students in psychology, social work, and counseling degree programs to deny counseling services to clients if such services conflicted with their religious or moral views (Ford, “SB 518”). Michigan House Bill 5040, the “Julea Ward Freedom of Conscience Act” passed through the House, then stalled in the Senate (SB 518) (Maynard “Republican Endgame”).

Yet, far from shying away from the Julea Ward bill, just a few days ago, the Senate passed SB 975, the “Religious Liberty and Conscience Protection Act” which allows all persons in the health care field, employers, doctors, nurses, and pharmacists, to deny services based on conscience objections. Most intriguing about this bill is that Michigan already allows health care professionals to opt out of providing abortions. Under this new bill, in cases of life threatening emergencies, health care professionals could not deny service, and, in all cases, they could not deny service based on “individual status” which apparently means sexual preference and race (Gray).

Hmm, so what would this law be allowing providers to opt out of? According to Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan, the law uses such broad definition that any service, such as blood transfusions or vaccines, could be denied. Making the law even more threatening is the fact that it applies to whole institutions, not simply individuals: “For example: Some areas of the state only have Catholic hospitals. If they are allowed to refuse certain services, individuals that live in the area will have no other source of care” (Planned Parenthood).

Supporters of this legislation think the opposition is “ridiculous” for suggesting that a doctor might not provide service to an AIDS patient (Gray). After all, all doctors take the Hippocratic Oath. If that’s the case, then why do we need the legislation at all? If doctors are above the pettiness of making lifestyle judgments, what do we need this legislation for? Right, I forgot, this is about protecting religious freedom.

The conscience objection law not only adds another hurdle to abortion and contraception access but also to health care access generally. With this legislation, patients will have to shop for doctors based not only on their geographic location, years in the field, and reputation, but also on their religious and moral preferences, and all of this presumes that they can actually locate a doctor within their area.

What other business gets to record all of your most personal information (disease, pregnancy, drug use, allergies, traumatic events, etc.), then say, “Hmm, my religious beliefs prohibit me from helping you with your problem. Why don’t you try this other doctor?” There is something inherently wrong with this model. Health care is a business designed to serve all consumers because good health is important not only for the individual patient but for society as a whole.

With the pace at which these laws are getting passed through Michigan’s legislature, it is clear that even lame ducks can sprint. They just can’t learn new tricks.

Sources:

“2011 Senate Bill 518.” Michigan Votes. Mackinac Center for Public Policy, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2012. http://www.michiganvotes.org/2011-SB-518

Bassett, Laura. “Michigan Abortion Legislation Package Moves Forward.” Huffington Post. Huffington Post, 6 Dec. 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/michigan-abortion-bills_n_2253380.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Ford, Zack. “Michigan House Passes Anti-Gay ‘License to Condemn’ Counseling Bill.” Think Progress. Think Progress, 15 Jun. 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2012. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/06/15/500434/michigan-house-passes-anti-gay-license-to-condemn-counseling-bill/?mobile=nc

Gray, Kathleen. “State Senate Approves ‘Moral Objection’ Bill that Would Allow Providers to Deny Health Care.” Detroit Free Press. Detroit Free Press, 6 Dec. 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2012. http://www.freep.com/article/20121206/NEWS06/121206072

Maynard, Mark. “For those of you who were wondering what the Republican Endgame Would Look Like….” MarkMaynard.com. MarkMaynard.com, 7 Dec. 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2012. http://markmaynard.com/2012/12/this-is-what-the-republican-endgame-looks-like-womens-rights-gay-rights-public-education-all-being-systematically-dismantled-this-week-in-michigan/comment-page-1/

Maynard, Mark. “New Legislation in Michigan Senate would empower health care workers to discriminate….” MarkMaynard.com. MarkMaynard.com, 4 Dec. 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2012. http://markmaynard.com/2012/12/new-legislation-in-the-michigan-senate-would-empower-health-care-workers-to-discriminate-on-the-basis-of-sexual-orientation-and-religion/

Perna, Gabriel. “Michigan Governor Signs Telemedicine Bill.” Health Care Informatics. Health Care Informatics, 6 Jul. 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2012.  http://www.healthcare-informatics.com/news-item/michigan-governor-signs-telemedicine-bill

“Reproductive Legislation in Michigan.” Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan. PPAM, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2012. http://miplannedparenthood.org/page/reproductive-legislation-michigan

“Rights of Conscience vs. Civil Rights.” Pew Research Center Publications. Pew Research Center, 3 Jun. 2010. Web. 9 Dec. 2012. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1612/legal-conflict-between-religious-beliefs-and-antidiscrimination-protections-in-health-care

Sands, David. “’Julea Ward’ Bill Passed in Michigan House Allows Religious Counseling Students to Deny Gay Clients.” Huffington Post. Huffington Post, 14 Jun. 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/14/julea-ward-bill-freedom-of-conscience-act-in-michigan-house-allows-discrimination-against-gay-clients_n_1597658.html

“SB 518. The ‘Julea Ward Freedom of Conscience’ Bill.” MPIPP 3.8. MPIPP, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2012. http://www.mpipp.org/Newsletters/newsletter-volume3-number8.htm

The New Minority: US-Born Techies

Last week, as I reviewed the Global Detroit Study, I was impressed with all of the statistics on immigrant contributions to the American economy. But what the study indirectly conveyed was that US-born residents are lacking in entrepreneurial spirit and technological ingenuity and education. And that was the side of the issue that most caught my attention. 

In fact, the US is ranked 17^th in the percentage of its college graduates earning degrees in science and engineering, and this ranking is lower than decades ago (Comm on Science, Rising). According to the 2005 National Assessment of Education Progress, 40% and 50% of American students are testing below minimum levels in math and science, respectively (“STEM Facts and Figures”).

The picture for minorities is worse. In math, 60% of Latinos and 70% of blacks tested below math level. In science, 70% of Latinos and 80% of blacks tested below level (“STEM Facts and Figures”):

Today, 43 percent of school-age children are of African-American, Latino, or Native American descent. Yet of more than 70,000 U.S. engineering bachelor’s degrees in 2009, less than 13% were awarded to under-represented minorities (Adkins).

Of the national class of high school freshman in 2001, only about 70% graduated (which means our nation is bleeding 30% of its teenagers before college even starts). Of that 70%, only about 68% went on for degrees. Of those degree seekers, only about 15% pursued a STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) degree. Only just over half (55%) of STEM degree seekers were projected to actually graduate with a STEM degree. That’s just 4% of the original high school freshman class (“STEM Facts and Figures”)!

The picture painted by these statistics is hardly reassuring, and it is not one that can be wholly corrected by immigration. Nor should it be. Immigration is a piece of the puzzle, but, if America is going to maintain its status as a technological leader, it will have to attract foreign-born workers as well as develop US-born workers. Big business, government, and education will all play critical roles in paving the way for US-born techies, especially through initiatives like Educate to Innovate and Project Lead the Way. Locally, individuals can mentor at a local school or donate to the local education foundation. Businesses can communicate with schools and colleges to help grow the curriculum that will produce students they want to hire.

Along the way to full fruition of these initiatives, though, Americans will have to reinvent how we relate to our nation’s low-income families and minorities. The continuing drain on public school spending and the often insurmountable cost of college are high hurdles for America’s underprivileged (and middle class). By 2050, minorities will be the majority, yet the economic and academic disparities between them and their white counterparts remain a lead weight around America’s neck—not to mention those suffering with the disparities.

Sources:

Adkins, Rodney C. “To Keep America Great, Students Must Be Taught to Innovate.” US News and World Report. US News and World Report, 16 Jun. 2011. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/06/16/to-keep-america-great-students-must-be-taught-to-innovate

Bennett, William J. “U.S. Lag in Science, Math a Disaster in the Making.” CNN. CNN, 9 Feb. 2012. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/09/opinion/bennett-stem-education/index.html

Bertram, Vince. “Industry, Educators Build In-roads to STEM Success.” US News and World Report. US News and World Report, 15 Aug. 2012. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/stem-education/2012/08/15/industry-educators-build-in-roads-to-stem-success

Charette, Robert N. “STEM Education Funding in the U.S.—Is More or Less Needed?” IEEE Spectrum. IEEE Spectrum, 8 Jun. 2012. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/at-work/education/stem-education-in-the-us-is-more-or-less-needed

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: America’s Science and Technology Talent at the Crossroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2011. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12984&page=R1

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11463&page=R1

Dyssegaard Kallick, David. Immigrant Small Business Owners: A Significant and Growing Part of the Economy. New York: Fiscal Policy Institute, 2012. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. http://www.immigrationresearch-info.org/report/fiscal-policy-institute/immigrant-small-business-owners-significant-and-growing-part-economy

“Global Detroit Study.” Global Detroit. Global Detroit, 11 Aug. 2010. Web. 21 Nov. 2012.

http://www.globaldetroit.com/resources/publications/

Gyawali, Pratistha. “Absurd U.S. Immigration Policies Amount to Economy Sapping Talent Drain.” Forbes. Forbes, 30 Jul. 2012. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/07/30/absurd-u-s-immigration-policies-amount-to-economy-sapping-talent-drain/

Johnson, Randy. “STEM Jobs Act is a Start on Needed Immigration Reform.” Free Enterprise. Free Enterprise, 29 Nov. 2012. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. http://www.freeenterprise.com/immigration/stem-jobs-act-start-needed-immigration-reform

Kurtzleben, Danielle. “Census: Foreign Born Getting STEM Degrees at Higher Rates than Native-Born.” US News and World Report. US News and World Report, 17 Nov. 2011. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/11/17/census-foreign-born-getting-stem-degrees-at-higher-rates-than-native-born

Mackie, Calvin. “State of Emergency: The Ominous U.S. Crisis in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education and Training.” Teachers of Color. Teachers of Color, 16 Nov. 2009. Web. 2 Dec. 2012.  http://www.teachersofcolor.com/2009/11/state-of-emergencythe-ominous-us-crisis-in-science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem-education-and-training/

National School Foundation Association. National School Foundation Association, n.d. Web. 2 Dec 2012. http://www.schoolfoundations.org/

Office of the Press Secretary. “President Obama Launches ‘Educate to Innovate’ Campaign for Excellence in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (Stem) Education”. White House. White House, 23 Nov. 2009. Web. 2 Dec 2012.  http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-launches-educate-innovate-campaign-excellence-science-technology-en

“Open for Business: How Immigrants Are Driving Small Business Creation in the United States.” Partnership for a New American Economy. Partnership for a New American Economy, Aug. 2012. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. http://www.renewoureconomy.org/open-for-business

Partnership for a New American Economy. “On Passage of the STEM Jobs Act in the U.S. House of Representatives.” Mike Bloomberg. Mike Bloomberg, 30 Nov. 2012. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. http://www.mikebloomberg.com/index.cfm?objectid=5276B698-C29C-7CA2-F34E18030A20A23D

Project Lead the Way. Project Lead the Way, n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. http://www.pltw.org/

“Skills Gap in U.S. Manufacturing Is Less Pervasive Than Many Believe.” The Boston Consulting Group. The Boston Consulting Group, 15 Oct. 2012. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. http://www.bcg.com/media/PressReleaseDetails.aspx?id=tcm:12-118945

“STEM: Facts and Figures about the State of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education.” WRAL Tech Wire. WRAL Tech Wire, 26 Apr. 2010. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. http://wraltechwire.com/business/tech_wire/news/blogpost/7485144/

From"The Christian Science Moniter": Fiscal Cliff 101

'Fiscal cliff' 101: 5 basic questions answered - That seems like a lot of things to happen at once. Where did it all come from? - CSMonitor.com

Welcoming Michigan Initiative: Immigrant Impact

Published in August 2010, the Global Detroit Study provides evidence on the significant impact immigrants have on Michigan’s economy and how we can keep growing our immigrant population. Reviewing the study on the heels of the presidential election, I couldn’t help but be reminded of the popular catchphrase that I heard so much during the campaigns: “We are a nation of immigrants”. In the case of our chugging national economic situation, “we are a nation of immigrants that needs immigrants”—especially in southeast Michigan.

The study’s “Michigan Immigrants Fact Sheet” is a great set of talking points for anyone looking to make the case for immigrants on an economic, rather than altruistic, basis:

• Between ’96 and ’07, Michigan’s foreign-born were more than three times as likely as US-born residents to start new businesses.
• Between ’90 and ’05, Michigan’s foreign-born were six times as likely as US-born residents to start a high-tech firm.
• If all illegal immigrants were removed from Michigan, the state would lose $3.8 billion in economic activity, $1.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 20,339 jobs.
• In ’05, Arab-American employment accounted for $7.7 billion in total earnings in the four counties of the Detroit metropolitan area, generating an estimated $554 million in state tax revenue.
• In Michigan, as of 2009, 86.6% of children with immigrant parents were considered “English proficient”.

But, sadly, despite these well foot-noted, factual figures, I can hear the responses of those who are at least quasi anti-immigrant, “Yeah, they create businesses, and now Dearborn looks like the Middle East. The Mexicans are taking our jobs. Immigrants come here, and now forms have to be written in three languages.” In some cases, the triggers are easy to spot: different dress, different language, different alphabet, and different religion. It’s not enough that a once empty storefront is now an active business or a vacant house is now owned. The business or the house is foreign-owned because the American who owns it looks and speaks…differently. Some will say it’s about losing our national identity, but that’s a red herring. Is an American any less American if his skin color is brown or her birthplace is another country? Remember, “We’re a country of immigrants”—mostly. (American Indians have the market on being original residents).

The end result of this kind of mistrust is a divided community: US-born residents, as I’ve previously written, tend to isolate or move away. Of course, immigrant residents tend to insulate within their immigrant communities. There is some logic to this: Veteran immigrants assist new immigrants to navigate the new country. Veteran immigrants speak the same language. Immigrant communities insure the continuation of cultural traditions from the home country, and, no doubt, there is significantly less judgment. (Ah, yes, those last two items, the preservation of cultural traditions and the fear of judgment, are common ground in both the US-born and immigrant communities).

In an effort to integrate divided communities and create a more welcoming state for immigrants, the Global Detroit Study recommended and is implementing the Welcoming Michigan initiative, a part of the Welcoming America initiative. Piloted in four communities, Sterling Heights, Hamtramck, the Chadsey-Condon neighborhood in southwest Detroit, and Hartford in west Michigan, the idea is pretty simple: conduct outreach events that bring immigrants and US-born together. The events range from roundtable conversations to ethnic festivals to neighborhood clean up events to cooking classes. All events have the same goal: get US-born and foreign-born together, in the same space, so that they can develop new perceptions based on first person interactions, rather than on fear-generated rumors and stereotypes.

While I support this grassroots approach, I’m also skeptical. The attitudes I encounter seem intractable. There is a willingness to believe lies if they support what one already believes and a willingness to dismiss truth if it is contrary to what one already believes. (Case in point: Birthers). Yet, I see no other way of moving our communities forward. Those who are open-minded will be the first to attend the Welcoming Michigan events. For those who have no interest in changing their minds about immigrants, cultural exchanges will not be enticing. Yet, those first participants will, hopefully, recruit others, and those others will recruit others and so on. The process of integrating mindsets is a marathon, not a sprint. 

Though, after 200 years, one would think we could have crawled past the finish line by now.

  

(On a side note: In addition to its focus on cultural exchanges of food, music, and dialogue, the Welcoming Michigan initiative might consider entrepreneurial events in which successful foreign-born entrepreneurs are partnered with would-be US-born entrepreneurs to provide insight and coaching. If a US-born resident is feeling shut out of his own community, one potential way for him to reconnect is through business ownership).

  

Sources:

“Global Detroit Study.” Global Detroit. Global Detroit, 11 Aug. 2010. Web. 21 Nov. 2012.

http://www.globaldetroit.com/resources/publications/

Mathis, Jo. “Plan for Detroit: Immigrants Bring Money.” The Bridge. The Center for Michigan, 11 Oct. 2011. Web. 24 Nov. 2012.

http://bridgemi.com/2011/10/plan-for-detroit-immigrants-bring-money/

“Michigan Immigrants Fact Sheet.” Welcoming Michigan. Welcoming Michigan, n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2012.

http://welcomingmichigan.org/sites/default/files/WelcomingMichiganImmigrantFactSheet.pdf

Takers

If the information coming out of the Census Bureau isn’t convincing, the racial voting statistics from the presidential election make the issue unavoidable: If the GOP is going to win the presidency in the future, it needs to attract more minority voters—especially Hispanics. The question is how does a party which benefits from exclusionary principles become inclusive without losing its exclusivity?

The GOP as an exclusive party may be easier to understand if it is contrasted against its main rivalry, the Democratic Party. The Democrats believe in government leveling the playing field, so they support programs that benefit low-income people and minorities. It's the principle of inclusion: If one does well, all do well. I know that can sound a bit Pollyanna-ish, but, for the sake of brevity, I think it works. On the other hand, Republicans believe that the playing field starts out level for everyone--whether white, poor, minority, or rich. Therefore, everyone should succeed solely on their own merits. Republicans see themselves as, in a word, earners. The Democrats are takers or supporters of takers. It’s the exclusionary principle of zero-sum: If others win, it’s at our expense.

Nowhere is this idea better illustrated than in Mitt Romney's own words: 

There are 47%...who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims…who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing…And they will vote for this president no matter what….I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives (Romney).

He is describing the antithesis of the Republican Party: "victims", "entitled", lack of "personal responsibility". Though he never says "low-income" or "poor", there is no doubt that those are the people he is describing: Takers are low-income people who receive government benefits. (Side note: The 47% is more like 50%, and, for the most part, they are low-income working families and seniors who are benefiting from the tax code just as the 1% do (Pugh)).

It's not only the poor who are takers; minorities are takers as well. During election night coverage, Bill O’Reilly, host of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, elaborated on Romney’s point about the 47%:

It’s a changing country. The demographics are changing. It’s not a traditional America anymore. And there are 50% of the voting public who want stuff. They want things, and who’s going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it, and he ran on it. And, whereby, 20 years ago, President Obama would’ve been roundly defeated by an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney, the white establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that this economic system is stacked against them, and they want stuff. You’re gonna see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama, overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way. People feel that they are entitled to things, and which candidate between the two is going to give them things (O’Reilly)?

O’Reilly doesn’t exactly make clear what things women, blacks, and Hispanics will want, but he doesn’t have to. Anyone watching the Republican Party knows: abortions, government benefits, and green cards. The words may be harsh, but they are honest and generally believed by Republicans: Minorities are takers.

In another example of this minorities-as-takers thinking, right-wing news outlets have reported with disdain on the United States Department of Agriculture's "Reaching Low-Income Hispanics with Nutrition Assistance" program which is an offshoot of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Started under President George W. Bush, the program is designed to educate legal Mexican immigrants to the United States about food benefits for which they qualify. Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama is spearheading an effort to overhaul SNAP and says, "An immigration policy should seek to bring people to the United States who will be able to function independently without government subsidies" (May).

Disturbing as it is, the Republican view that 50% of the American populace is made up of low-income people and minorities who suck off the teat of society and contribute nothing back is exactly what makes the party exclusive…and losing. (Never mind that some of those 50% count themselves as Republicans). The party will have to disentangle “the taker” from minorities which means distancing itself from a tool which, in recent years, has worked well: white fear. 

Recently, Chris Hayes, MSNBC host of Up with Chris Hayes claimed that racism is a Republican, not a Democratic, characteristic, and he was proven wrong. Results from the 2008 American National Election Study show that the percentage of racists in both parties is about the same (Sides and Tabarrok). Yet, Hayes’ comment is not without a kernel of truth: “Appealing to white resentment of minorities is an important part of the Republican brand in a way it’s not for Democrats, even if plenty of racists still inhabit the Democratic Party” (Drum “No, Republicans”). Even inside the Republican Party, this bigotry is acknowledged. Journalist and conservative Bernie Goldberg told Bill O'Reilly, "There is a strain of bigotry...running through conservative America" (Drum “Bernie”). 

White fear is no longer useful, though. Mitt Romney took 59% of the white vote to little effect (“Race”). It’s time for the Grand Old Party to highlight its sameness with the Other. Texas’ first Latino senator, Ted Cruz, believes the Republican Party can win over Hispanics by appealing to them as a hard-working, prideful lot who are intimately tied to their religions: “[Hispanics] have conservative values. Hispanics don’t want to be on the dole” (Lizza 55). Generally, the GOP’s traditional social values (anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage) align with those of black and Hispanic ethnic groups. Indeed, if the 2008 California referendum on gay marriage is any indication, this approach could work quite well.

While it would be refreshing to see minorities far more evenly distributed among the parties, the idea of the rise of another “moral majority” (remember the explanations for Bush’s reelection in 2004?) is frightening. Yet, with this last election’s overwhelming support for gay marriage and ousting of Republican men saying ridiculous things about rape, it’s not clear that gays and pro-choicers are scary enough “takers”. But, then, there are always low-income people: Those who would seek to manipulate the tax system just so they can pay for groceries and rent.  

Sources:

 “2008 Time Series Study.” The American National Election Studies (ANES). ANES. ANES, 11 May 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.  http://www.electionstudies.org/studypages/2008prepost/2008prepost.htm

Drum, Kevin. “Bernie Goldberg on Conservative Bigotry.” Mother Jones. Mother Jones, 08 Feb. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/bernie-goldberg-conservative-bigotry

Drum, Kevin. “No, Republicans Don’t Have a Lock on Racism, but…” Mother Jones. Mother Jones, 22 Aug. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/no-republicans-dont-have-lock-racism

Joe. “A Racially Polarized Country: White Men Lose One.” Racism Review. Racism Review, 08 Nov. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2012/11/08/a-racially-polarized-country-white-men-lose-one/

Joe. “White Voters Overwhelmingly for Romney: No Post-Racial America.” Racism Review. Racism Review, 04 Nov. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2012/11/04/white-voters-overwhelmingly-for-romney-no-post-racial-america/

Lizza, Ryan. “The Party Next Time.” The New Yorker. 19 Nov. 2012: 50-57. Print.

May, Caroline. “USDA Partnering with Mexico to Boost Food Stamp Participation.” The Daily Caller. The Daily Caller, 19 Jul 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/19/usda-partnering-with-mexico-to-boost-food-stamp-participation/

O’Reilly, Bill. “It’s Not a Traditional America Anymore.” YouTube. YouTube, 6 Nov. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFJH8mY-UyI

Pugh, Tony. “Romney’s ’47 Percent’—Here’s Who’s Actually Not Paying Federal Taxes and Why.” McClatchy. McClatchy. 18 Sept. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/18/168914/romneys-47-percent-heres-whos.html

“Race and Results.” CNN. CNN, 15 Nov. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

Roberts, Sam. “Projections Put Whites in Minority in US by 2050.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 Dec. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/us/18census.html?_r=0

Romney, Mitt. “Mitt Romney’s ‘47 Percent’ Comments.” YouTube. YouTube. 18 Sept. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2gvY2wqI7M

Sides, John. “Are Racists Only in One Political Party?” The Monkey Cage. The MonkeyCage, 19 Aug. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/08/19/are-racists-only-in-one-political-party/

Tabarrok, Alex. “Racism by Political Party.” Marginal Revolution. Marginal Revolution, 19 Aug. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/08/racism-by-political-party.html

Vick, Karl and Ashley Surdin. “Most of California’s Black Voters Backed Gay Marriage Ban.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 07 Nov. 2008. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html

Shopping for an Identity: Color Options

Last weekend, I went birthday gift shopping for a four year old girl. I had decided that this was the perfect opportunity for me to purchase those cool, pink Legos. Yes, until writing this post, I liked those pink Legos. It was refreshing to add pinks and purples to the existing primary color landscape. I especially liked the set titled “Olivia’s Invention Workshop” which prominently displays a chalkboard with mathematical calculations scribbled on it. It screamed: Smart and feminine in what is still very much a man’s world.

As I re-read my first draft of this post, though, I got stuck on the word “feminine” in the statement above. Everything else I had written in the post was supposed to suggest that pink did not have to be a girl’s color, but, clearly, I had bought into it as such. “Olivia’s Invention Workshop” was feminine because the color of the packaging was pink.

In 2007, a study concluded that adult women seemed to favor pink. It was theorized that this preference might be genetically built in, so our women gatherer ancestors could easily spot colorful fruits (Choi). In 2011, other researchers studied babies and found that girls’ preference for pink and boys’ dislike of it do not begin until about age 2 ½ (Jarrett). Whether nature, nurture, or both, there is no doubt that in 2012 America, a boy swinging a purple bat will be teased. Boys come to know, almost instinctually, that pink is a “girl’s” color because they only ever see it in two places: the Crayola box and girls clothing (Ralph Lauren notwithstanding).

Why can’t we open up the entire color palette to both boys and girls? Why is it that Lego decided whole sets of pink and purple bricks marketed in pink boxes were better than just adding some pink and purple bricks to existing sets? Do we need the so-called girls’ version of a baseball bat? Why can’t baseball bats just have some colorful designs in a variety of colors—where pink and blue co-exist on the same bat? For toy manufacturers, dividing the genders along color lines is more lucrative (Maglaty). After all, the family with a boy and a girl will need a blue bat and a pink bat, instead of one colorful bat. But, as a society, we are limiting our boys’ imaginations when we put everything that is supposed to be interesting to them in black, brown, green, and blue. And, so long as we are separating gender by color, then girls are limited by perception. After all, when you head into a business meeting do you put on the pink suit or the blue one?

Of course, color combinations extend beyond gender. As I perused the Legos, thinking I had it right with the boyish toy in the girlish color, I realized that I’d have to select an ethnicity! At first I only saw the brown-black skin-hair combination. But the birthday girl is not visually African-American. Was it racist to think that I shouldn’t purchase the brown-black option for a girl who appears white?

Ah, but, then I saw the white-blonde skin-hair option and quickly realized that my thoughts about the brown-black option were not racist. It was just that neither of these skin-hair combinations looked like the birthday girl. In truth, I don’t know what the four year old’s ethnicity is, but her mom appeared, possibly, Hispanic.

Probably, at this point, I should have moved on to a different gift idea. But isn’t the purpose of these ethnic options not only to see our own image represented and thus know we belong, but also to see the other images as belonging as well? If that was true, then it would make sense to select one of these two options. But is this too much of a social statement to make at a four-year old’s birthday party? Ugh!

What’s this? I missed one: white-brown! There she was; the four-year old’s image on a box of pink Legos! Mission accomplished…sort of.

In all my analysis over gender and ethnicity, I barely considered price and fit. Was this Lego set worth the cost? Were Legos a good gift for this little girl that I knew almost nothing about? How fun is it, really, to build a Lego room—invention workshop or not? It’s so hard for little, four-year old hands to snap the invention tools into those clips that Lego passes for hands! This mental debate went quickly: I left the Lego aisle and headed for that mostly gender- and ethnicity-neutral safety zone: board games.

Sources:

Choi, Charles Q. “Women Hardwired to Like Pink, Study Suggests.” LiveScience. LiveScience, 20 Aug. 2007. Web. 11 Nov. 2012.  http://www.livescience.com/1820-women-hardwired-pink-study-suggests.html

Jarrett, Christian. “At What Age Do Girls Prefer Pink?” The British Psychological Society Research Digest. BPS Research Digest, 5 Sept. 2011. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2011/09/at-what-age-do-girls-prefer-pink.html

Maglaty, Jeanne. “When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?” Smithsonian. Smithsonian, 8 Apr. 2011. Web. 10 Nov. 2012. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/When-Did-Girls-Start-Wearing-Pink.html?c=y&page=2

Fair Play

In my area, when houses go up for sale, there are those neighbors who are pretty honest about wanting whites to move in. And there are those who say skin color doesn’t matter, so long as they keep up the lawn. But, “keeping up the lawn” is just another way of saying, “we’ve seen the blighted, inner-city, and we don’t want that or the people who represent it in our neighborhood”. This is the racism that is so much a part of our suburbanite composition that we don’t notice it for what it is—institutionalized, through decades of zoning codes, codes of ethics, racial covenants, redlining and later, after the Fair Housing Act of 1968, through the cowardice of people in power and the machine of bureaucracy (Hannah-Jones).

These racist attitudes are not unique. Across the country, decades of institutionalized racism have perpetuated the myth of the white bastion. In her article “Living Apart: How the Government Betrayed a Landmark Civil Rights Law”, Nikole Hannah-Jones asserts that the Fair Housing Act was supposed to roll back the instruments of institutionalization and “affirmatively further” housing integration, but, as anyone anywhere in the country can see, this did not happen. Cities are geographically divided along racial/ethnic and income lines. And in many white neighborhoods, a battle exists in the hearts and minds of residents who want to keep their neighborhoods white at the expense of insuring equal opportunities for the Other.

In a related article, “Soft on Segregation: How the Feds Failed to Integrate Westchester County”, Hannah-Jones analyzes the case and history of Westchester County, NY where this battle is playing out in the legal system. Sued in 2006 for falsely claiming on their HUD funding applications that they had complied with the Fair Housing Act, the county fought back and lost. According to the provisions of the 2009 settlement, the county is required, over seven years, to build 750 affordable housing units in its “whitest jurisdictions” and to market that housing to blacks and Latinos. So unpopular was this settlement that the County Executive who agreed to it lost his re-election bid to his competitor, Rob Astorino, whose campaign rested primarily on residents’ anger over the settlement. Nearly four years after the settlement, Westchester remains non-compliant with its provisions.

Astorino argued that “the issue is about class, not race. ‘I would love to live in Chappaqua next to the Clintons or Governor Cuomo, but I don’t have the economic means to do it’” (Hannah-Jones, “Soft on Segregation”). While his county remains in violation of the Fair Housing Act, Astorino cannot admit that its housing development strategies are racist. However, his assertion that classism is more defensible than racism is ludicrous. As Hannah-Jones notes, “the connection between race and class can be nearly inextricable, particularly when certain zoning requirements—called ‘exclusionary zoning’ by fair-housing advocates—are present.”

Over the years, the white, homogenous-leaning suburbanites I have spoken with think that success is a matter of perseverance. They think that, were they themselves born into similar circumstances as those in poor, black neighborhoods, they would work hard and climb out of poverty to the position they are in today. They want to continue reaping the benefits of institutionalized racism, but they don’t want to admit that it is what has allowed them to live in the safe and well-tended neighborhoods they don’t want to share with the Other: “More than 20 years of research has implicated residential segregation in virtually every aspect of racial inequality, from higher unemployment rates for African Americans, to poorer health care, to elevated infant mortality rates and, most of all, to inferior schools” (Hannah-Jones, "Living Apart").

Westchester and my own neighborhood, these are the norm, but there is always an exception: Montgomery County, Maryland. In 1974, against much resistance and after years of hurdles, Montgomery initiated its own affirmative housing integration plan. Today, “it remains one of the nation’s richest counties, yet segregation has fallen well below the national average” (Hannah-Jones, “Living Apart”). Why did they do this when no other county would? Joyce Siegel, the county housing commissioner at that time, said, “’We saw the segregation. It was a fairness issue—that one part of the county wasn’t going to have more affordable housing than another. We had to be fair’” (Hannah-Jones, “Living Apart”).

Fair. It’s the rule we learn from the time we’re old enough to grab the other kid’s toy. Don’t cheat. Everybody gets a turn, then we all win.

Sources

Hannah-Jones, Nikole. “Living Apart: How the Government Betrayed a Landmark Civil Rights Law.” ProPublica. ProPublica, 29 Oct. 2012. Web. 3 Nov. 2012. http://www.propublica.org/article/living-apart-how-the-government-betrayed-a-landmark-civil-rights-law

Hannah-Jones, Nikole. “Soft on Segregation: How the Feds Failed to Integrate Westchester County.” ProPublica. ProPublica, 2 Nov. 2012. Web. 3 Nov. 2012. http://www.propublica.org/article/soft-on-segregation-how-the-feds-failed-to-integrate-westchester-county

Sugrue, Thomas J. The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1996. Print.

Symbols of Multiculturalism: Pork, Mosques, and Fear

Last month, journalist Daniel Denvir wrote a thoughtful analysis of the city of Dearborn, Michigan as a symbol of multiculturalism, a place where Arabs and Muslims have found acceptance; where different cultural traditions share the same space; and where, through entrepreneurship, Arab-Americans have revitalized decaying parts of the city. As a response to those extremists whose celebrity was built on the myth that Dearborn is under Sharia law, his article is a priceless rebuke: "The neon signage on the enormous buildings housing the Pantheon Club and BT's Executive Club [strip clubs] are among the city's most conspicuous landmarks....Then there's the matter of the Dearborn Sausage Company, churning out its famous pork products across the street from a Southend mosque".

Dearborn’s image as a multicultural city is a point of pride for many of its residents. Yet, for others, that multiculturalism feels like an encroachment, not a gift. Like most residents, I have come to understand the coded, and not-so-coded, language of neighbors who prefer to insulate from, rather than associate with, Arab-Americans and Muslims. They won’t visit the neighborhood park or swim at the local pool; some want to relocate to cities that symbolize white homogeneity. For these residents, cultural differences mean values differences. As it stands, extremists, the Debbie Schlussels and Terry Joneses of the world, are the only ones reflecting these fears, so it is their self-affirming vitriol that stands-in for thoughtful discourse (Denvir).

But, thoughtful discourse isn't really what we need—yet—talking only works if someone opens the proverbial door. What we need right now is to get people opening their doors. So, those who embrace multiculturalism will need to reach out to those who do not. Not in a formal, I-love-multiculturalism button-wearing kind of way. No, this is an organic process. It’s asking that friend to dine in East Dearborn, to visit the Arab American National Museum, to cycle around Levagood Park, or to tour the city’s Art in Public Spaces. It's taking the opportunity and accepting the invitation. This is how residents re-engage with their city; this is how we grow a sense of belonging and association and develop an appreciation for the contributions of all residents. This is how our city becomes more than a symbol of multiculturalism. It becomes a model for multiculturalism.  

Sources:

“About Debbie.” Debbie Schlussel. Debbie Schlussel, n.d. Web. 28 Oct. 2012. http://www.debbieschlussel.com/bio/

Denvir, Daniel. “Dearborn: Where Americans Come to Hate Muslims.” The Atlantic Cities. The AtlanticCities, 25 Sept. 2012. Web. 27 Oct. 2012. http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/09/dearborn-where-americans-come-hate-muslims/3360/

Warikoo, Niraj. “Quran-Burning Florida Pastor Terry Jones Speaks Near a Dearborn High School about What He Says Is Bullying by Muslim Students.” Detroit Free Press. Detroit Free Press, 11 Oct. 2012. Web. 28 Oct. 2012. http://www.freep.com/article/20121011/NEWS02/310110180/Quran-burning-Florida-pastor-Terry-Jones-speaks-near-a-Dearborn-high-school-about-what-he-says-is-bullying-by-Muslim-students

Shell Game: Women’s Health at the Expense of Religious Freedom?

On Saturday, October 20^th, across the country, the Nationwide Rally for Religious Freedom (a.k.a. Stand Up for Religious Freedom) organized another round of rallies protesting Obamacare (a.k.a. the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) as an infringement on a religious institution’s right to practice its religion.

Per a recommendation by the Institute of Medicine, Obamacare requires employers, including religious institutions, to provide contraception services on their insurance plans. For churches and other houses of worship, the law provides an accommodation which requires the insurance company, rather than the employer, to pay for contraception (Sonfield). According to the Stand Up for Religious Freedom movement, this accommodation is just a “shell-game” whereby insurance companies will pay for such contraceptives with the money paid to them by religious institutions.

But if the accommodation is a shell game, so is the conviction that Obamacare represents an assault on religious freedom. The conflict over contraception is not a case of the government imposing some secular ideology on religion. Rather it is the offshoot of the involvement of religion in the secular economy. To fulfill its mission, religion has opted to take part in secular society through the establishment of hospitals, schools, churches, and other businesses. Through these businesses, religion pursues its mission of proselytizing, healing, serving those in need, and delivering its doctrine to the masses. Both secular society and religions benefit from these businesses, but these institutions are businesses. As such, they must follow applicable tax, finance, and employment laws and regulations. Despite an anti-contraceptive doctrine, religious institutions are bound to an economic reality that ties employment to health care and individual health care to the whole society.

Entirely exempting religious institutions would ignore the many societal and economic benefits of making contraception accessible, including minimizing the risk of unintended pregnancies, appropriately spacing pregnancies, timely pre-natal and infant care, and promoting women’s educational and financial success (Sonfield). All of these benefits have broader implications for American society as a whole.

If the shells are taken off the table, the legitimate issues are revealed: Women’s health and women’s impact on society and the economy. It is women who must shoulder the emotional and economic responsibilities of an unintended pregnancy, and, if they falter, society must pick up the slack. Despite these realities, religionists speak only of the value of the embryo, the sanctity of marriage, and the freedom of religion (Tollefsen). All the while, beneath these shells, lies the tangible life of the woman.

Sources

“About the Institute.” Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Institute of Medicine, n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. http://www.iom.edu/About-IOM.aspx

“About President Obama’s HHS Mandate.” Stand Up for Religious Freedom. Stand Up for Religious Freedom, n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2012.  http://standupforreligiousfreedom.com/mandate/

Draper, Electa. “Catholic Church Defends Birth-Control Stance Amid Strong Opposition.” Denver Post. Denver Post, 20 May 2012. Web. 20 Oct. 2012. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_20664414

“Health Care Law Gives Women Control Over Their Care, Offers Free Preventive Services to 47 Million Women.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 31 Jul. 2012. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/07/20120731a.html

Sonfield, Adam. “The Religious Exemption to Mandated Insurance Coverage of Contraception.” American Medical Association Journal of Ethics Virtual Mentor. American Medical Association, 14.2 (Feb. 2012). Web. 21 Oct. 2012. http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2012/02/pfor1-1202.html

Tollefsen, Christopher. “Contraception and Catholicism.” National Review Online. National Review, 16 Feb. 2012. Web. 20 Oct. 2012. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291220/contraception-and-catholicism-christopher-tollefsen

Reframing the Fear Narrative

A few weeks ago, in response to the "Innocence of Muslims" movie trailer, several world leaders called on the United Nations to enact anti-blasphemy laws. These leaders had an opportunity to deflate the extremist narrative, but, instead, they became a party to it.

In asking for such laws, these leaders (Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, Yemeni President Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, and Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, to name a few) justified the extremist belief that Muslims need others to behave or they themselves will not (a.k.a. Muslims are innately violent). These leaders missed the opportunity to highlight the fact that, of the 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet, only tens of thousands demonstrated. Even one million Muslims demonstrating is only .000625 or 0% of the total, global Muslim population. Put another way: Instead of protesting, almost every Muslim on the planet stayed home, went to work, took the kids to school, went to dinner, read a book, went to Mosque, met friends for coffee, grocery shopped, cleaned the house, prayed, or did some other activity that was not demonstrating against this movie.

Instead of suggesting that Muslims need protection from hate speech, world leaders should have pointed out that radical speech begets radical responses. Those who preach hate are counting on radicals to act. As Steve Coll wrote in the October 1 issue of The New Yorker, some of these protests were organized by “fringe political parties and radical activists”. Such protests “do not typically attract even a large minority of the local faithful”. These protesters were “shock troops, comparable to Europe’s skinheads or anarchists”.

Even in their call to temper freedom of expression through social responsibility, world leaders only helped emphasize the polarizing West-versus-Islam narrative. Freedom of expression is not the problem, and social responsibility is not the answer. Extremists do not respond to laws, logic, or social responsibility. These things are the antithesis of their mission. Mark Basseley Youssef (a.k.a. Sam Bacile) is a US citizen who made a movie and put it on YouTube, but he is not representative of Western ideals. He’s an anti-Muslim radical.

Then there is the video itself. World leaders and the media repeatedly and primarily describe the video as portraying the Prophet Muhammad as a war-mongering pedophile, womanizer, and fraud. While that description of the video’s message is accurate, the video should be just as repeatedly and primarily described as haphazard, unintelligible, low-budget, and soft-porn. Rather than a call to arms, this video is an embarrassment, a joke, not on Muslims or supporters of tolerance but on anti-Muslim radicals. Is this the best propaganda they could produce? (Will those actors ever find work outside of the porn industry?) Considering nearly 100% of Muslims did not protest the video, why can’t world leaders and the media acknowledge that this video is a message by extremists, for extremists. The rest of the world is too busy living to take this thing seriously.

All too often, radicals control the narrative. Whatever is the most shocking grabs the most headlines. Whoever screams the loudest gets heard. The rest of the world barely has time to view a movie trailer on YouTube, much less stop their lives to go protest about it. It is for world leaders, those with a built-in pulpit, to create an alternative narrative from that of the radicals. They have to present, repeatedly, and in many forums, the narrative of reason and logic. Doing so does not minimize the impact of radical violence and hate speech, but it puts it in the proper perspective. Rather than such actions consuming the entire frame, they should be viewed for what they are: one small part of the entire picture.

Sources:
“Algeria at UN: Limit Free Speech, Protect Islam.” NPR. National Public Radio, 29 Sept. 2012. Web. 9 Oct. 2012. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=162013363
Bacile, Sam. “Muhammad Movie Trailer.” YouTube. YouTube, 2 Jul. 2012. Web. 13 Oct. 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM
Coll, Steve. “Days of Rage.” The New Yorker 1 Oct. 2012: 21-22. Print.
Craig, Iona and Sara Lynch. “Violence Tied to Anti-Islam Film Rises Across the Middle East.” Detroit Free Press. Detroit Free Press, 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 13 Oct. 2012. http://www.freep.com/article/20120914/NEWS07/309140093
Kaleem, Jaweed. “At the United Nations, Organization of Islamic Cooperation Calls for Ban on Insulting Prophet Muhammad.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 30 Sept. 2012. Web. 9 Oct. 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/30/united-nations-organization-of-islamic-cooperation_n_1927166.html
 “Man Behind Anti-Muslim Film to Appear in Court.” Associated Press. Associated Press, 10 Oct. 2012. Web. 11 Oct. 2012. http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=dzNLdSbg
“Pakistanis Protest Against Anti-Islam Film.” NPR. National Public Radio, 29 Sept. 2012. Web. 11 Oct. 2012. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=162003958
“The Future of the Global Muslim Population: Projects for 2010 – 2030.” Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Pew Research Center, 27 Jan. 2011. Web. 9 Oct. 2012. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1872/muslim-population-projections-worldwide-fast-growth
“The Worldwide Protests Against Anti-Islam film Innocence of Muslims: By the Numbers.” The Week. The Week, 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 13 Oct. 2012. http://theweek.com/article/index/233439/the-worldwide-protests-against-anti-islam-film-innocence-of-muslims-by-the-numbers