What Does Nonbinary People's Day Celebrate If Anyone Can Be Nonbinary?

July 14 is not only Bastille Day in France, but it is also International Nonbinary People's Day, which takes place tomorrow. It was chosen as July 14 because it's the exact midpoint between International Women's Day and International Men's Day. It was created to raise global awareness about nonbinary people, but it begs an essential question: what in the world is nonbinary?

Every commemorative day celebrates an identifiable group of people. Veterans Day celebrates veterans. International Women's Day celebrates women. Before celebrating a category, it is reasonable to ask what distinguishes its members from everyone else. That is a surprisingly difficult question to answer when it comes to nonbinary people. 

Nonbinary: The Identity That Means Everything and Nothing

Most organizations and nonbinary individuals define nonbinary in roughly the same way: someone whose gender identity is not exclusively male or exclusively female. At first glance, that sounds straightforward enough. But after further examination, it doesn't answer the question because then there is the follow-up question of "What does that look like?"

Depending on who you ask, being nonbinary can be a range of things, whether that is identifying as both male and female, neither male nor female, something in between, outside the gender binary altogether, gender-fluid, or possessing multiple genders. These descriptions point in dramatically different directions. Instead of identifying a single, distinguishable category, "nonbinary" appears to function as an umbrella term for a wide variety of subjective experiences. 

That in itself presents a conceptual problem. Categories exist to distinguish one thing from another. The category of "veteran" distinguishes those who have served in the military from those who have not. The category of "citizen" distinguishes between those who possess a particular legal status from those who do not. 

But what distinguishes a nonbinary person from a man or woman who simply rejects traditional gender stereotypes? If the answer comes down to subjective self-identification, then the category has no ascertainable membership criteria. It tells us only what someone calls themselves, not what distinguishes them from everyone else. That "definition" offers no independent criteria by which anyone can distinguish between a nonbinary person from an ordinary variation between men and women. As such, the category of "nonbinary" has no meaningful limiting principle. 

The "Because I Say So" Problem: A Definition That Defines Itself

The problem becomes even more obvious when one asks a self-identifying nonbinary individual how they know they are nonbinary. The answer is usually with some form of "Because that's how I identify." But identify with what? Again, the most common definition is someone whose gender identity is neither exclusively male nor female. It is not descriptive because it does not answer the question of what gender is in this framework. 

If a man is defined as someone who identifies as a man, if a woman is someone who identifies as a woman, and a nonbinary person is defined as someone who identifies as nonbinary, the explanation becomes circular. If gender is not biological sex, personality, clothing, interests, or gender stereotypes, then what positive characteristics remain? The definition tells us who identifies, but it provides zero insight into what they are identifying with. Instead of pointing to an independently recognizable characteristic, the label appears to refer only to itself. 

At this point, I can see someone objecting to this description of nonbinary by saying that many identities involve self-identification. After all, no one can peer into another person's mind to determine whether they are truly a Christian, a Democrat, or homosexual. But those identities refer to something beyond the declaration itself. 

Biological sex refers to observable biological characteristics. Sexual orientation describes enduring patters of romantic or sexual attraction. Religion encompasses identifiable belief and practices that exist independently of merely claiming the label. While each of these identities contains subjective elements, they also refer to concepts that can be understood apart from self-identification. 

Nonbinary is different. Since the only criterion for membership is declaring oneself to be nonbinary, then the declaration is not merely evidence of the identity; it is the identity. The category then becomes self-referential, which makes it impossible to distinguish between the label and the thing the label is supposed to describe. That may suffice for personal self-expression, but it does not provide a foundation for a category, certainly one that is supposed to have an international day of recognition and observance. 

Everyone Is Different, and....?

Even if we wanted to set aside the definitional problems with nonbinary, there is another problem: the characteristics often associated with nonbinary identity are not unique to nonbinary people. Human beings have always varied in personality, interests, appearance, and behavior. Some men are more traditionally masculine, while others are more traditionally feminine. 

This is especially true when looking at gay men and lesbians. For gay men, there is everything from the muscle gays and jocks to the fem boy, and everything in between. Lesbians range on the femininity spectrum from lipstick lesbian to being butch. One of the contributions of the gay rights movement was challenging the idea that a man must conform to a narrow definition of masculinity or that  a woman must conform to a narrow definition of femininity. 

Men who are less masculine are still men, and women who are less feminine are still women. That does not mean that they are this third category. If nonbinary identity is based on not fitting neatly into traditional gender norms, then it risks treating ordinary human diversity as evidence of a separate identity category. A category that encompasses anyone who does perfectly conform to gender stereotypes, which is basically everybody, ultimately ceases to distinguish between anything meaningful. 

The vast majority of people experience themselves differently from some idealized form of gender norms and expectations. Since there are no criteria that separate nonbinary people from men and women who share those same traits, the category has no clear boundary. Without clear boundaries, the category of nonbinary is meaningless because virtually anyone can qualify simply by interpreting their own relationship with gender in a particular way. A description that includes just about everyone who feels different in some way ceases to be a category at all. 

So What Is Being Celebrated?

A meaningful category should tell us who belongs, what members have in common, and how they differ from everyone else. Yet nonbinary lacks a clear definition, objective membership criteria, and distinguishing characteristics beyond self-identification. If a category can include almost anyone who feels different from traditional gender expectations, then it is not a distinct group of people. Since there is no clear defined group of people to celebrate, what does Nonbinary Day celebrate exactly? 

It seems like it is one of the first awareness days in human history for a group of people who cannot explain who is in the group. In short, it is the culmination of coddling every subjective experience simply because someone says "it's my lived experience" and of the Participation Trophy mindset. When words no longer describe anything beyond what someone says they describe, categories themselves lose their purpose. It is a death knell of words having any meaning. 

Ranked-Choice Voting Has the Potential to Partially Help Fix the U.S. Electoral System

A couple of weeks ago, there were two state governors that banned ranked choice voting (RCV) for their state: West Virginia and Wyoming. This has brought up the total of U.S. states that have banned RCV to 13 states. RCV is an electoral system that allows voters to elect candidates by ranking them in order of preference on their ballots. There are typically two forms of RCV. One is instant runoff voting (IRV), in which there are multi-round eliminations use in a series of runoff elections. The second is single transferable vote (STV), which allows a vote to be transferred to alternative preferences if their preferred candidate is eliminated or elected with surplus votes. Maine and Alaska, the two states that have RCV for statewide elections, both use IRV. IRV is primarily used in single-winner races, whereas STV is mainly used in multi-winner races (e.g., electing members in a council).

What is so bad about RCV that 13 states ban its usage? For RCV opponents, it comes down to election integrity. They view RCV as a needlessly complicated process that makes it harder for voters to navigate and get timely election results released, especially when it comes to ensuring accuracy of the tabulation of votes in RCV. I can appreciate the argument for complexity; it is one I have used in favor for federal tax code simplification. The increased complexity of RCV diminishes my support of RCV. 

At the same time, it does not eliminate my support for RCV. One of the things that frustrates me about how the two-party system has evolved in U.S. politics is that it does not leave space for third parties to have influence. RCV is a fairer representation of what the American people want, instead of it simply being "Republican, Democrat, Independent, supposedly 'wasting your vote' on a third party candidate, or the increasingly prevalent apathetic voter." RCV means a more accurate depiction of the electorate because it shows who has the strongest support across the electorate, not solely the most passionate base of a given party. It would make sense that those devoted to either majority party would be most opposed since they have the most to lose in an electoral system that has been favorable to preserving this electoral status quo. 

I can point out that Australia has been using RCV for over a century (e.g., Reilly, 2009; Bean, 2007; Graham, 1962). I also remember what I learned from taking Comparative Politics in college: what might work in one political system may or may not work in the other one, especially when it comes to electoral systems. That is why I prefer to keep my analysis here focused on evidence in the United States. That also proves challenging since most states in the United States do not use RCV, although there are municipalities that do. As such, it makes the evidence base limited. Nevertheless, I tried looking.  

Alaska provides an insightful case study on RCV. Right-leaning think tank R Street Institute found that RCV in Alaska gave greater voter choice while improving representation (Williamson, 2023). This research also showed that it did not damper the Republicans' "ability to translate their support into seats in the state legislature." 

According to Patinkin Research Strategies, 85 percent of Alaskans found RCV to be simple when Alaska began using RCV. Another study by a political scientist at the University of Iowa found that 68 percent of voters believed RCV was easy (Coll, 2021). The voters having more difficulties were older voters. This finding helps to neutralize the argument that RCV is too complicated for voters. And while there additional steps to counting votes in an RCV system, that is a logistical obstacle that could be overcome. 

In its research on RCV (Eggers and Bouton, 2024), the University of Chicago's Center for Effective Government concluded that RCV across the United States could end up "leading to more candidates, less polarization, and less incentive to vote strategically." The polarization argument is interesting because it is one of the most often used by RCV proponents. 

As for less polarization, the research on RCV's effects is limited. There is a study about RCV in Maine showing that RCV can reduce polarization, but modestly so (Ceronne and McClintock, 2021).One other U.S.-based study asking about this question, but their caveated conclusion was that RCV only works if it increases the number of political parties in play. Otherwise, it would more likely increase animosity (Fischer et al., 2021). Using a sample size of 50,000 people, another study indicates that because RCV is more representative, RCV is better positioned to combat political extremism and polarization (Atkinson et al., 2023).

I like the idea of a system that does a better job of appealing to the median voter instead of what exists in the United States. I think it would be an improvement over the status quo. Based on theory and preliminary research, it seems to do well. At the same time, I would like to see more research that better establishes RCV's efficacy. In the interim, I will say this: As a series of RCV bans implemented last year illustrates, whether by ballot or legislation, it is easier said than done to make the transition from something that has been so engrained in the U.S. electoral system. 

Top "Libertarian Jew" Blog Entries of 2024 and Reflecting on the Politics of 2024

No matter how many years pass, I can say that there has never been a dull moment in the wonderful world of politics. That is especially true during a presidential election as crazy as this one. Upon it being apparent to the entire nation during a presidential debate that President Biden was not mentally fit to run for a second term, Vice President Kamala Harris stepped in at the eleventh hour to run for office. Rather than showing she could appease the center, she decided to go to the Left of Biden with such policy recommendations as price controls on groceries, a corporate tax hike, Medicare expansion to long-term care, a tax on unrealized capital gains, and payment assistance for first-time homebuyers. 

Barring the criminal court cases that Trump was fighting this year, Trump did not fare much better in recommending crazy policy ideas: mass deportation, a credit card interest rate cap, excessive tariffs, a tax exemption on overtime, removing the SALT deduction cap, and subsidizing in-vitro fertilization. Since Trump won the election, how Trump wants to direct public policy matters way more than how Harris would have ran the White House. 

Although economy tends to dominate in an election cycle, I found myself covering the culture war a fair bit this year. Social conservatives were on the warpath about online pornography (see here and here). Another disappointment for social conservatives is that same-sex marriage did not harm the fabric of society. If anything, a meta-study from the RAND Corporation shows that allowing for same-sex marriage strengthened the institution of marriage. 

It was not only the social conservatives I scrutinized, but also the Woke Left. Abandoning free speech and opining that exercise is fascism was shocking and blog-worthy. Covering a meta-study showing that "systemic racism" does not exist in U.S. criminal sentencing was also a great day because it shows we are getting closer to a more perfect union, in spite of woke people going on about the unfalsifiable concept of "systemic racism."  I also had a blast covering Matt Walsh's documentary Am I Racist because his documentary hilariously exposed the pernicious and divisive practice of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, or DEI (see here and here). In that vein, a study from Rutgers University showed how mainstream, modern-day DEI initiatives increase hostility, racial tensions, and Left-leaning authoritarianism. 

Another election topic was covered on my blog: transgender activist extremism. It was not only male-to-female transgender individuals competing in women's sports that got people riled up during the election cycle. There were studies about gender affirming "care," whether it was the Cass Review that showed it is nowhere near as safe as proponents purported or a Dutch study showing that most adolescents grow out of gender dysphoria by adulthood without any medical or psychological intervention. This bad news could explain why England rightfully banned puberty blockers for minors. And then there was a two-part series I wrote about why the lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) community should divorce from the transgender activists (see here and here). One thing I can say with cautious optimism is that the American people are fed up with woke ideology. While there is still a ways to go in reversing the woke damage done to American culture, I would surmise that we already reached peak wokeness. 

Israel has not only been fighting a military battle in Gaza, but a public relations battle across the world. I would have thought that Hamas attacking Israel on October 7, 2023 would have garnered global sympathy for Israel being attacked in such a brutal matter. At least that is what would have happened if it were almost any other country. Instead, October 7 ushered a spike in anti-Semitism we have not witnessed since shortly before World War II. I have written on Israel more times that I would care to, if nothing else to refute the slander slung at Israel. Gaza is not an open-air prison (see here and here). Fatality numbers coming out of Gaza were false and exaggerated. I ended up writing a three-parter about how Palestine needs to stop playing the victim and take responsibility for the mess in the Middle East (see here, here, and here). I illustrated how the pro-Palestine side would like to become the horrific things they falsely accuse Israel of doing. I specifically had to detail the accusations of settler colonizer (see here and here) and genocide (see here and here).

Not all was bad news. I enjoyed covering Argentinean President Javier Milei completing his first year in office. Given the Peronist protectionism, economic repression, and government largesse he had to face, he has had quite the successful first year by reducing inflation and poverty, removing regulations, lowering housing prices, and ending a recession. If Milei is allowed to successfully implement his liberalization of the Argentinean market, Argentina's economy can experience the prowess it once had before Peronism got its claws on the economy and suffocated it with regulations, taxes, and government bureaucracy. The optimism I have with Milei is that he will be successful and that success will inspire other world leaders to choose freedom over coercion and a market-based economy over government largesse. If Milei could have that spillover effect for 2025, I would say that would be a great improvement over 2024. Regardless of what happens, I look forward to see what 2025 has in store for all of us. 

10 Life Lessons I Took Away from the Movie "Everything, Everywhere, All at Once"

Generally, when I go to the movie theater, my main goal is to be entertained. Rarely does a movie inspire me. Even more rare is when a movie gets me to think profoundly about life, but that is what happened when I watched Everything, Everywhere, All at Once last June. The multifaceted movie has been so impactful that I am still thinking about it now. 

Everything, Everywhere, All at Once is an absurdist sci-fi comedy-drama that was produced by the Russo Brothers. The protagonist, Evelyn Wong, is played by Michelle Yeoh of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon fame. Yeoh plays a Chinese-American who is running a failing laundromat and dealing with a marriage nearing divorce and a constantly disapproving father. An inter-dimensional rupture unravels reality, and Yeoh's character has to use her newly founded powers to save the multiverse. The blend between dark humor and light humor led into an overall absurdism that did quite the job clarifying life for me. To be sure, this piece will make more sense if you have seen the film. Even if you have not, I part onto you ten lessons that I learned or had reinforced from watching the film Everything, Everywhere, All at Once. 

Warning: the following takeaways contain spoilers.

1. Nihilism is not the answer; kindness is. Yes, the world is a dark and cruel place. There is no shortage of injustice, unfairness, or inequality. While some aspects of our world have order and structure, other parts simply do not make sense. Why do good people suffer while there are evil people who thrive? Why do some people die and others live to see another day? I have come to accept a level of absurdism in this world, an absurdism that this embraces in full. The movie presents nihilism as an option vis-à-vis the Everything Bagel. While despair and hopelessness are tempting options, the movie steers us away from that. Even when we do not understand the seeming randomness of the world, kindness can be an anchor of light in a dark world. It is Buddhist thought, amongst other philosophies and religions, that teaches us that kindness and compassion are what make us human. 

2. Go with the flow. This is not some hippy-dippy advice; it is a great lesson from the movie. Opening your mind and your heart does wonders. Change is one of the only constants in this world, yet humans have a tendency towards fearing change. Think of a flowing river. Does it make sense to paddle against the current or to go with the current? I cannot begin to tell you the number of times in my personal life where I fought what was going on in my life. It was stressful, it was emotionally exhausting, and it did nothing to improve my situation. You do not have to condone or agree with what is going on, but you can recognize it for what it is and to do so with as few judgments or self-criticisms as possible. That is the idea behind radical acceptance. It means we fight it or get angry less. I am not arguing for passivity, but working with what is. If we want to go in a certain direction in life, we need to know where we are at before we know where we are going. Going with the way the world is (i.e., go with the flow) makes it easier to instill change instead of wishing what was not the case (also see Point #9).

3. We are small and insignificant in the grand scheme of things. This is an extension of the first point.  The movie makes references to people as "specks of time." Even if seventy or eighty years seems like a long time to us, it is a blink of an eye in a universe that is millions of years old. We are all going to die one day. The universe is going to exist long after we are gone. This also does not factor into whether other planets have life on them or not. We very well might be one planet with sentient life amongst millions. We are small in the grand schemes of the size of the universe and of the existence of time. The only possibility for ultimate reality exists in an infinite being, as is depicted in such monotheistic religions as Judaism and Islam. 

I would argue that this was King Solomon's existential angst in the Book of Ecclesiastes. What is commonly translated as vanity in "All is vanity" (Ecclesiastes 1:2) is the Hebrew word הבל. The word הבל literally means "breath." Life is all too short, much like a breath. King Solomon's gripe was not that there was no meaning, but that life is too short and we do not get to experience ultimate meaning. 

4. Do not despair because we can still find personal meaning. King Solomon struggled throughout the Book, but ultimately found meaning in fear of G-d and His commandments (Ecclesiastes 12:13). Even as we go through our own struggles, we need to find our own personal meaning in life. To quote French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre:

La vie n'a pas de sense, a priori. Avant que vous ne viviez, la vie, elle, n'est rien, mais c'est à vous de lui donner un sens, et la valeur n'est pas autre chose que ce sens que vous choisissez. (Translation: Life has no meaning a priori. It is up to you to give it a meaning, and value is nothing but the meaning that you choose.)

Existentialism teaches the importance of the human experience. Sartre teaches that we are responsible for our own meaning. We can try to find meaning in religion, our jobs, our relationships, our travels and other experiences, but it is up to us to find what is meaningful to us in the time allotted to us. We should treasure what we do have for the time we have it since we do not know when the end is. 

5. Our decisions are not as small as they seem. Per the previous point, it might seem like our decisions are insignificant in light of the inevitability of death. However, as we see throughout the movie, what seems like a small decision can have a ripple effect over multiple universes. Our decisions do not have that magnitude of an effect, or at least as far as we are aware. What the movie illustrates is that our decisions have more of an impact that we can imagine. 

6. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. Oftentimes on a societal level, love is treated as something corny or schmaltzy to be a part of movies or fairy tales. But Burt Bacharach was right when he said that love is the thing that there is too little of in this world. This movie plays with the idea of conditional acceptance and what relationships would look like if love were less and less conditional. Towards the end, Evelyn says to Deidre that she is not unlovable because "there is always something to love." The movie does not argue that blindly loving everyone will solve everything. That might be because love is complicated and can be messy. It can mean giving the other person space, de-emphasizing yourself, or needing to let go. Nevertheless, there needs to be more love in this world, not less. 

7. The role of silliness and optimism.  Evelyn Wong's husband, Waymond, put googly eyes on everything he could find. Evelyn found them to be an annoyance, but this was Waymond's small way to encourage humor and happiness in life. Life is far from being sunshine and rainbows. There are plenty of difficult and arduous moments. Waymond's usage of googly eyes is his way of putting amor fati into practice (see Point #9). Waymond's variant in another universe describes his optimism as a way to fight in a world that does not present a bright side. While optimism amplifies joy in good times, it is a strength and coping mechanism in bad times. 

8. Do not forget how important relationships are. What is clear at the beginning is that Evelyn has a lot bogging her down. She is so preoccupied that she forgets two of her most important relationships: with her husband and her daughter. Nurturing strong bonds with loved ones is important. The people we share our lives with can enhance our experiences. Also, there is a famous study from Brigham Young University that shows that those who have strong relationships improve their odds of survival by 50 percent at any given time (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010).

9. Do not dwell on the past. There is a scene where Evelyn is looking at her alternate selves in other universes...versions that seemed "more successful" than her. She sees rich celebrities in comparison to her life of "laundry and taxes." It is tempting to think the grass is greener on the other side. It is easy to play the game of "coulda, woulda, shoulda." I have been guilty of thinking of what could have been or what "should" have been. As alluring as it is, the past is prologue. We cannot go back and alter the choices we made. 

This is where the idea of amor fati comes into play. This Latin phrase meaning "love of fate" conceptually came about the Stoics, but the term itself is associated with philosopher Frederich Nietzsche. The idea of amor fati is not simply to "grin and bear" bad moments, but to love them. It is not about wanting anything to be different, either now or in our past. It is simply loving life for what it is, and that is the movie's advice in response to Evelyn's verse-jumping. We have to make do with what we have and ideally love it for what it is. We do need to reckon with our past and overcome whatever emotional baggage arises, but we are not meant to wallow and ruminate in our past. 

10. Who you are or what you did does not automatically determine your future. Evelyn starts off the movie as a woman disgruntled with her work life and her marriage. She ends up developing superpowers and fighting with the goal of saving the multiverse. Our decisions or circumstances can put us on an unhappy path. Nevertheless, we are not determined to stay on that course. 

I will end with a classic from Deuteronomy (30:19): "I [G-d] have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life so that you...may live." We do not get to choose all of our circumstances. There are things that happen that are not our fault, but they are our responsibility if we want to be happy. We are not puppets of fate. We do not have to dwell in the past (see previous point). We have the ability and agency to change our course to create a better, happier future for ourselves.

Some Health and Spiritual Benefits of Fasting

Food and drink play vital roles in shaping culture. More to the point, they are essential components of living. Without them, we would end up dying. It would explain why the practice of fasting seems like such an arduous task. At first glance, it seems to border on the masochistic to not eat and/or drink for a relatively extended period of time, especially if done on a regular basis. We need food and drink to survive. They can also make life more enjoyable. Why would anyone deprive themselves of something so necessary or pleasurable? This is a question I was asking myself after the minor Jewish Fast of Esther (תענית אסתר) last week. Fasting certainly is countercultural in a society that emphasizes instant gratification and convenience. In spite of fasting being counterintuitive, the practice comes with a number of benefits. 

Health Benefits

While fasting deprives us of necessities on a short-term basis, such a break from caloric intake can provide multiple benefits to our health. When one fasts, the body cleanses itself of toxins and forces cells into processes it would not otherwise undergo. Granted, there are those with legitimate health issues that would prevent them from fasting. If anyone has questions, they should ask their doctor first. However, generally, I believe people could benefit from such a practice. Here a few of the health benefits of fasting:

1. Weight loss. This benefit should be the most obvious. If you eat fewer calories than the amount of calories expend, you will run a calorie deficit. If you run enough of a calorie deficit, you lose pounds. Fasting has been shown to reduce body weight and body fat (e.g., Tinsley and La Bounty, 2015). Short-term fasting can also increase metabolism (Zauner et al., 2000), another component that contributes to weight loss.
2. Improved blood sugar control. Fasting can reduce resistance to insulin (Baronsky et al., 2014). Combined with lowering blood sugar sensitivity, it can help with keeping blood sugar steady. This is especially useful for those with risk to diabetes. 
3. Inflammation and cardiovascular disease. Fasting has been shown to reduce inflammatory markers, as well as body mass index, body weight, fat percentage, and blood pressure (Samudera et al., 2020; Aksungar et al., 2007). This effect in turn allows for a lower likelihood of cardiovascular disease. The lower inflammation can help with arthritis and diabetes (Pahwa et al., 2021).
4. Improved brain function. Fasting has the potential to reduce anxiety and depression (Zhang et al., 2015), as well as better social connections (Nair and Khawale, 2016), because it makes such hormones as serotonin more available to the brain.
5. Fasting can improve hunger. Another function of fasting is helping regulate hormones, ghrelin in particular (Muller et al,. 2002). Being able to fast longer and experience true hunger means that your body can better signal when you are full and thus better regulate caloric intake.

Spiritual Benefits

1. Self-discipline. Fasting gives us an ability to control ourselves, especially our passions and appetites. By strengthening our muscle of self-discipline, we are better able to choose our own reaction to external situations instead of becoming victim to forces beyond our control. 
2. Compassion and empathy. Many in the Western world have more than plenty from a material standpoint. Some people have never gone to bed hungry in their lives, myself included. By depriving oneself of food and/or drink, one can truly understand the feeling of true hunger, a feeling that too many in this world sadly have felt. It can create a sense of solidarity with other. However, the fasting would need to go beyond pity and translate into action if it is to mean anything. In the Book of Isaiah (58:3-7), G-d ask us to have a fast that inspires us to become better people, to help free the oppressed, and to share food with the poor. 
3. Gratitude. Not only can fasting transform us in compassion, it can also be helpful with gratitude. After fasting, you are less likely to take your food for granted. Especially if you accept the theory of the hedonic treadmill, it can help reset your sense of satiation, which could help make you more grateful for your culinary experiences. Fasting can also give us an opportunity to appreciate how well the body functions and processes food. 
4. Humility. Fasting reminds us just how frail the body is. While the body can theoretically last without food for three weeks, it can only last without water for three to four days. We are mortal beings that constantly need nourishment to keep our bodies going. We are not all-powerful or completely independent. Fasting is a practice that can remind us of our limits and our mortality. 
5. Better spiritual reflection and introspection. This is one of the main reasons I fast, particularly when it comes to the Jewish fast of Yom Kippur. I make sure I have enough food and drink before the fast starts beforehand. Once it begins, eating and drinking are too less things I need to worry about. I can focus on the loftier things in life and get my spiritual house in order.  
6. Being comfortable with the uncomfortable. I wrote on this in October 2020, but we can learn a lot about learning from being uncomfortable. One of those main lessons is that discomfort is not automatically bad. Fullness is not automatically good since "the constant craving for pleasure can be detrimental, and occasional discomfort can be exactly what we need." The paradox is that emptiness can sometimes lead to us being filled. 

Let's Dismiss the Case for Court-Packing

The death of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg could very well reverberate and affect our democracy for years to come. This would not be because of the Justice's death per se, but the implications of how and when to fill the vacancy. President Trump is looking to fill that seat with another conservative justice. If the Republicans are successful, that would result in a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court. It's interesting to see both sides react. The Left thinks that a conservative grip on the judicial branch would harm the country for decades. The Right thinks that the Left is acting like a bunch of sore losers and that "it's our turn to be at the helm." Since the Democrats are unlikely to block a nomination (either before or after the presidential election), they are looking at another solution: court-packing.

The term court-packing dates back to Franklin D. Roosevelt. FDR tried passing various legislative initiatives (most notably the New Deal), but the Supreme Court struck down a number of these initiatives as unconstitutional. To deal with the frustration of his vision of government largesse, he attempted to increase the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to fifteen justices. This has rightfully been portrayed as a political ploy and a power grab to gain influence over the judicial branch. 

Since the Democrats do not want to acquiesce power to the Right, they are looking to "pull an FDR" by packing the Court if they gain a majority in the Senate. The last Judiciary Act, passed in 1869, set the number of justices at nine. The number of justices has been adjusted on more than one occasion, so it is not as if there is not any historical precedent for changing the number of justices. Constitutionally speaking, all the Democrats would need to do is pass another Judiciary Act to modify the number of justices. The question is not so much whether the Democrats could gain enough power after the 2020 elections, but rather whether they should go down this path.

For one, the Supreme Court's popularity is at an all-time high (Gallup). If the Democrats opt for court packing, the political costs for the Democrats would be high. It could help to bolster the Republican's narrative on the Supreme Court. 

But let's think of this in terms of political calculus. After all, the call for court-packing is a political process and it would be foolish to think that the call for court-packing is about restoring "good governance." To quote the late Justice Ginsburg, "If anything, it [court-packing] would make the court look partisan. It would be that--one side saying, 'When we're in power, we're going to enlarge the number of justices, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to." 

As the Brennan Center for Justice, which is not exactly a conservative institution, brings up, it would be dangerous to "tamper with the mechanisms of democracy to thwart a single political figure." Since the impetus for court-packing is political in nature, you better believe that if the Democrats strike the first blow, the Republicans will retaliate with even more court-packing once they regain power. Since the Court would appear more partisan as a result of court-packing, it would end up eroding the legitimacy of the judiciary branch. 

If the Supreme Court cannot be seen as or act as a check on the other two branches, that erodes separation of powers, and ultimately the constitutional republic that was envisioned by the Founding Fathers over two centuries ago. Since the Left is concerned about such causes célèbres as the right to an abortion or the right to same-sex marriage, it seems peculiar that you would undermine the very judicial protection that has held those rights in place.

To be sure, both parties feel justified in retaliating when it comes to court nominees. The Democrats feel like they were robbed when it came to nominating Merrick Garland in 2016. The Republicans feel like they have been robbed of multiple federal court nominees, including Miguel Estrada. Let's be for real. Both parties have chucked procedural decency out the window when it was politically convenient.  Partisan politics can be summarized by saying "it's okay when we do it, but not when they do it." Harry Reid created the "nuclear option" in 2013. Senator Mitch McConnell extended the "nuclear option" to Supreme Court justices in 2017. 

Even so, court-packing is a whole different animal. At least with filibustering or holding up nominees, the judicial system was held intact. If we throw the norm against court-packing out the window, we also through our capacity at judicial review out of the window. As the Left-leaning Vox illustrates, multiple political scientists have pointed out that there have been multiple examples of court-packing by would-be or eventual autocratic countries: Hungary, Honduras, Poland, Venezuela, Argentina, Turkey. 

For those who complain about Trump bringing down the country, it seems hypocritical for various anti-Trumpers to advocate for a policy that would most likely erode democratic institutions. Those on the Left might want to retaliate in response to their animus towards Trump, but if successful, it would be one of the more myopic things to come from the Left, which is saying something given a look at the economic policies so many of them cherish.

         

Should States Be Encouraging Voting By Mail During the Pandemic?

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden announced that his running mate for this election is to be Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA). With the presidential elections less than 100 days away, the American people are gearing up for Election Day. A question still remains: what is the best way to hold an election during a pandemic? One of the possibilities is to encourage voting-by-mail efforts, which many states are examining as an option. According to Pew Research, 65 percent of Americans support "no-excuse" absentee voting. Nevertheless, there is a partisan divide: Democrats are nearly twice as likely to support voting-by-mail. What I would like to do here is get past the partisan clamoring and examine whether we should push for more voting by mail or not.

1. How many states allow for mail balloting? Those who are against the proposal act as if voting by mail were unprecedented or untested. That's simply not the case. We have allowed for absentee voting for civilians since the late 1800s. There are five states in which voting by mail is the default: Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. Another 29 states allow for "no-excuse" voting by mail. According to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), 31 million Americans (or 25.8 percent of ballots) were casted by mail in 2018.

2. Would allowing for more voting by mail give one party an advantage over the other? Given the partisan divide, I have to ask this question. On the one hand, greater access to voting could increase turnout for young adults, minorities, low-income individuals, all of whom are more likely to vote Democrat. On the other hand, this could provide greater access to voting for senior citizens, who skew Republican. It really could go either way. What do historical data have to say? Four political scientists from Stanford University answered this question. They looked at voting data from 1998 to 2016. Their conclusion is that although there is a mild increase in turnout, it does not favor either party when it comes to election outcome (Thompson et al., 2020). The statisticians over at FiveThirtyEight also explain how the net effects are negligible.

3. Is voting in-person during a pandemic unsafe to the point where everyone should vote by mail? This is the main impetus for those to be in favor for voting by mail. Waiting in long lines, being in tiny voting booths, and using pens shared by hundreds of voters could spread COVID-19. This is certainly plausible.

On the other hand, I remember how liberal media outlets were freaking out in April because the Republican assemblymen were pushing for the in-person voting, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Wisconsin should hold their primaries without delay. A piece in the Atlantic said that voting in public during a pandemic is not compatible with safety. There was sure to be an uptick in COVID-19 cases in Wisconsin as a result, right? Not really. Researchers at Stanford University and the World Health Organization found no detectable surge as a result (Leung et al., 2020). The CDC came to a similar conclusion in July (Paradis et al., 2020).

Granted, Wisconsin is one case study. At the same time, if it were impossible to keep safe with in-person voting, the outcome from the Wisconsin primaries would have been different. As long as we keep the same protocols that we do while going grocery shopping or to a retail store (e.g., face masks, social distancing), the odds of an outbreak of COVID-19 would be low. Plus, if Liberia can conduct elections during the Ebola pandemic, I think the United States could handle this pandemic.

4. Does voting by mail increase the likelihood of fraud? This is a concern commonly held by those on the Right who oppose voting by mail. Theoretically, by-mail voting makes it easier for someone to falsely vote on behalf of someone else or tamper with ballots. The MIT Election Data and Science Lab points out that while it is more likely for fraud to occur for by-mail voting than in-person voting, voter fraud is still an overall rare occurence. How rare? Based on an investigative reporting project funded by the Carnegie Foundation, there were 491 reported cases of absentee ballot fraud between 2000 and 2012. As Snopes illustrates, the methods for tracking in-mail ballots (e.g., Electronic Registration Information Center [ERIC]) have gotten more sophisticated since then.

As the Brennan Center brings up in its analysis on by-mail voting fraud, one is more likely to get struck by lighting than commit mail voting fraud. In short, while it is more likely, the risk of widespread fraud is minimal, even if we reverted the entire system to in-mail voting.

5. How much less likely ballots by mail less likely to be counted? Let's forget for a moment that there are those on the Left accusing Trump of hampering USPS operations in hopes of undermining the election. As I brought up in May, the United States Postal Service (USPS) was having issues before the pandemic began.  Can the USPS honestly handle such an uptick in delivery both in ballots from election officials and back to them? Also, how many ballots will get lost in the mail?

Postal delivery could have a great impact on whether mail-in ballots are counted. For one, there is the issue of undeliverable ballots, i.e., the ballots that were returned the registered voter did not live at the address on file. Of those that were transmitted to voters (as opposed to returned to election officials), 1.4 percent were counted as undeliverable in 2016 (EAC).

Second, the 2020 primaries could give us a glimpse into what that could look like. According to the Associated Press, 1.5 percent of mail-in ballots for California's 2020 primaries received were ultimately rejected, the most common reason being that the ballot was not mailed and delivered on time. Another reason for ballot rejection could be in filling out the ballot. For thousands of Americans, this will be the first time voting by mail. As MIT political scientist Charles Stewart points out, first-time mail-in voters are more likely to have ballots rejected.

How bad is the rejection rate for returned ballots? According to the Election Assistance Committee (EAC), the national rejection rate for 2016 was 0.77 percent (Overview Table 2) and 0.9 percent for 2012 (Table 32). NPR highlights how multiple states, including Virginia, Arkansas, Minnesota and Oklahoma, had rates above 1.0 percent during their 2020 primary elections. And if you want a scary outlier, New York City is rejecting one out of five of its in-mail ballots. But we don't have to use an outlier to make a salient point: If in-mail ballots are done on a large scale, a 1-2 percent rejection rate could make the difference between a win and a loss for a candidate.

Conclusion
My take on the whole debate is this. Both sides of the debate are stoking fear to gain support for their side, whether that is the fear of the pandemic, of voter fraud, or of the erosion of democracy. My main concern is that of delivering the ballots. Absentee ballot rejections rates are high enough during normal election years. Combine that with the disheveled nature of the USPS along with perturbing rejection rates that were high in the 2020 primaries, I am skeptical of the ballot delivery system to be adequate.

Does this mean I want to force everyone to go to the voting booth in-person? No. Does this mean I want mandated by-mail voting? Again, no. Some people will feel more comfortable going to the voting booth because it helps better guarantee that their vote gets counted (plus, it takes pressure off the USPS). Others will feel more comfortable with an absentee ballot because they do not want to risk contracting COVID-19. Each individual should be allowed to assess their own personal risk and make the choice that best fits that situation. State government and election officials should do their utmost to make sure voters have the ability to exercise whichever method of voting works best for them.

Citizens United at 10: Did The Supreme Court Screw With Campaign Finance Reform?

While there have been a number of controversial Supreme Court cases over the years, few have caused such controversy in modern times as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), or simply "Citizens United." This ordeal started when a non-profit, Citizens United, wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 elections. Before airing the movie, Citizens United approached the FEC. The FEC denied the request, arguing that such a film would be in violation of §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform, better known as the McCain-Feingold Act. This Section prohibited an "electioneering communication" 60 days prior to a general election of 30 days prior to a primary election. The U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the FEC. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, at which point the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on January 21, 2010 that the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the restriction of independent expenditures allocated towards political communications by corporations (including non-profit ones), labor unions, and other associations. Since then, Citizens United has become a symbol on the Left for everything that is wrong with political campaigning in the United States.

Before jumping into the impact of Citizens United, it's worth noting that Citizens United did not allow for corporate donations to campaigns. The Tillman Act of 1907 still bans those donations. Citizens United reversed a ban on independent expenditures from corporations that was ruled on in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. Also, individuals also can spend an unlimited amount of money on political campaigns (Buckley v. Valeo). Citizens United did not impact laws regarding individual or corporate contributions to political campaigns.

That being said, I have to wonder whether Citizens United truly messed with political campaigning in the United States. This is a tricky question to answer not only because there have not been enough election cycles to make more conclusive statements, but also because of the nature of these political action committees [PAC], which are known as Super PACs. This is why I look at the influence money has on politics more generally.

Yes, it is true that with the cap removed, the independent expenditures from these Super PACs has increased notably. I also understand that campaigns are won with media, and media requires money. Without money, you de facto could not run for office. The average cost of winning a seat in the House of Representatives in 2016 was $1.6 million, and it's a safe assumption that the vast majority of U.S. citizens do not have that sort of cash lying around. It is also true that as of the 2016 election, more than 90 percent of candidates that outspent their opponents won.

However, correlation is not the same thing as causation. It is generally found that "political expenditures are rarely pivotal in determining election outcomes (Barutt and Schoenfeld, 2016)." Incumbents tend not to benefit from spending more money (ibid.). When it comes to challengers, the historical evidence has been less clear (Levitt, 1994) because incumbents already have name recognition and free media. Whether a challenger can upend that incumbency can be tricky, but if successfully done, the challenger gets a greater bang for their buck. Television advertisements are shown to have a strong, but short-lived and easily forgotten effect on voting preferences (Gerber et al., 2011). Advertising seems to have its best effects when the candidate is not already well-known and if it is less predetermined by partisan lines. In short, that spending works if voters are not previously aware of a candidate, after which the campaign spending has significant marginal rates of return.

It is not simply the limited influence that money has on an election that has me skeptical about Citizens United being a poor ruling for a few reasons.

1. According to Stanford political scientist Adam Bonica, money has less of an effect in our increasingly partisan society because people are more likely to vote along party lines. 
2. It makes more sense for a corporation to spend money on lobbyists to influence politicians already in office than it does to contribute money indirectly towards political communications during elections. 
3. Removing limits on independent political speech is a good thing, not just from a First Amendment standpoint. It has allowed for a greater diversity of candidates that we would not have otherwise been aware of, as can be observed both from the 2016 Republican primary and the 2020 Democratic primary. 
4. The desire for political power is strong enough that even if there were a reversal of Citizens United, those with money would simply find other means to channel the political funds. After all, that is how the CIO-PAC, which is the first political action committee started up by the labor union AFL-CIO, was founded as a workaround in light of the Tillman Act. 
5. If the issue is with corporations in election media and political campaigning, removing Citizens United as an ultimate solution is odd. Who owns MSNBC? Comcast. Who owns Fox News? Fox Corporation. Who owns the Washington Post? Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon. Going back to the previous point, if a corporation wants to spend in an election, they will find a way. But to reiterate, money only has so much influence in an election.
6. While corporations are more than happy to lobby, they are unwilling to be particularly partisan. Why? Self-preservation. No good ever came from alienating large swathes of your customer base. 
7. If money were that large of an influence in elections, candidates such as Ross Perot and Michael Bloomberg would have won by now (I don't count Donald Trump into that consideration since Hillary Clinton outspent him in the 2016 elections), but most probably have not because that sort of blatant spending by an individual is not alluring. Self-funded candidates do not have a great track record. 
8. There has been a modest decline in House incumbents that get re-elected since Citizens United.  

There has definitely been a shift in political campaigning since Citizens United. Whether it has been good or bad for politics in the United States is still not clear to me, especially given the limited influence of money on election campaigning. It is not as if there were some heyday in the past where elections were completely free of corruption. I also am not prepared to say that Citizens United has been a boon to elections either. In any case, it won't stop partisans from making the usual arguments about Citizens United. 

Comparing Refugee Detention Centers to Concentration Camps Is Inappropriate, Regardless of Stance on Trump's Immigration Policy

If I had told you a few years ago that the semantics of the phrase "concentration camp" would become part of a major political debate, you would probably think I was pulling something from science fiction. And yet, that is exactly where we have ended up in U.S. politics. Earlier this week, freshman Congresswoman Alexia Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), or AOC for short, released a video expressing her rancor towards the detainment of Central American refugees crossing the U.S.-Mexico border and how they are being treated. During this video, AOC said that "the U.S. is running concentration camps on our Southern border." After receiving backlash for her comments, she doubled down by citing Andrea Pitzer, an author who has written on the history of concentration camps.

As a Jew that is aware of the history of anti-Semitism, I can confidently say I don't want the disenfranchised, marginalized people, or minorities to be oppressed by a government, certainly to the extent to which Nazi Germany carried out their atrocities. We should hold governments accountable to human rights abuses. At the same time, when we are evaluating a problem or issue, we should do so with a clear perspective in order to make accurate comparisons and assess the situation. As such, I would like to do two main things here. One, answer the technical question of "What is a concentration camp?" Two, determine whether using the term "concentration camp" is appropriate for the current refugee situation on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Technical Definition of "Concentration Camp"

What is a concentration camp? You would think that it would be an agreed upon, unambiguous term. Not so much. To illustrate that point, here are some definitions:

U.S. Holocaust Museum: A camp in which people are detained or confined, usually under harsh conditions and without regard to legal norms of arrest and imprisonment that are acceptable in a constitutional democracy.

This definition is broad enough to arguably include the detention centers near the U.S.-Mexico border. Let's look at another definition.

Webster's Dictionary: A place where large numbers of people (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or members of an ethnic or religious minority) are detained or confined under armed guard, used especially in reference to camps created by the Nazis in World War II for the internment and persecution and other prisoners

This definition could also cover AOC's assertion, although I will cover the latter clause in the next section. Here is a definition that does not make it so clear.

Encyclopedia Britannica: Internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order. Persons are placed in such camps often on the basis of identification with a particular ethnic or political group rather than as individuals and without benefit either of indictment or fair trial...They are also to be distinguished from refugee camps or detention and relocation centers for the temporary accommodation of large numbers of displaced persons (own emphasis added).

Two things with Encyclopedia Britannica's definition. One is that such a center would need to violate due process, a point that is also made in the U.S. Holocaust Museum definition. Two, and more importantly, Encyclopedia Britannica is exercising some nuance by distinguishing between concentration camps and camps temporarily holding refugees or asylum seekers (more on that momentarily). This gives some leeway to argue that the detention centers on the U.S.-Mexican border are not necessarily concentration camps.

Is It Appropriate to Call the Detention Centers "Concentration Camps?"

We can get into a debate about the technicalities of what is or is not a concentration camp. As illustrated above, one could select and finesse a definition for or against the claim. But here's the thing with that. AOC's words do not exist in a vacuum or stay in an ivory tower. It doesn't matter that the term "concentration camp" predates the Second World War or that concentration camps were used during the Boers War. Words have meaning outside of a technical sense, and even if you want to argue that the detention centers on the U.S.-Mexico border are technically concentration camps, it's irrelevant. AOC made her statement in a political context.

The truth is that for many Americans post-WWII, the phrase "concentration camp" evokes images of Nazi death camps. This isn't the first time in language in which a word can technically mean one thing but colloquially mean another. AOC is perfectly cognizant of that reality. She knew that because in her video, she said that "'Never again' means something." The phrase "Never Again" was used after World War II as a slogan conveying the message that we do not want a repeat of the Holocaust, which took the lives of 6 million Jews and over 5 million non-Jews in state-sponsored genocide. This is not the first time that AOC has pulled such a stunt. Last November, AOC compared the migrant caravan scenario to Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. AOC has no qualms invoking Holocaust imagery and making analogies to the Holocaust to advance a political agenda.

If you are going to evoke the Holocaust out of sincerity instead of trying to score political points by exploiting Jewish trauma, you better be damn sure that your comparison is more like the Holocaust than not. Yes, these detention centers have some similarities from the Nazi concentration camps. They are both government-operated camps in which the detainees are not free to leave. Both the detention policies target specific groups of people. In both cases, children are being separated from their parents. One could argue that in both cases, the living conditions are absolute squalor.

Yes, there are similarities between the detention centers on the U.S.-Mexican border and the Nazi concentration camps. However, the reality is that the differences between the two are much more pronounced than the similarities. Nazi concentration camps existed for the purpose of cleansing the world of what the Nazis deemed undesirables, including Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, and the physically disabled. There was a clear genocidal intent with the Nazi concentration camps. In Nazi concentration camps, the Nazis were actively murdering its detainees, either through gas chambers, mass executions, or starving and working the prisoners to death. There were those in Nazi concentration camps were experimented on by doctors. The ones who weren't killed right away or being experimented on were forced into slave labor. There is a reason why the Holocaust is used as the prime example of human rights atrocities: because it was that despicable and deplorable.

Say what you want about Trump's immigration policy or his detention centers, but none of the aforementioned features in the previous paragraph can be attributed to the situation on the U.S.-Mexican border. The migrants crossing the border are apprehended and detained. As CNN points out, the detainees stay until HHS can find someone with whom to stay. After their stay, the average of which is 48 days, they stay with someone else until their case could be processed. These refugees are not being detained because of a lack of due process, but due to a backlog in processing their cases. This last bit is important because it would arguably not make the detention centers concentration centers by the previously mentioned definitions. If you want to make a more accurate analogy, compare them to the Japanese-American internment camps run by the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration (Yes, that is the same FDR that inspired AOC so much that she created the Green New Deal).

When using Holocaust imagery, AOC is minimizing the evils of the Holocaust. The world has unfortunately seen similar atrocities to the Holocaust since World War II that could be accurately analogized. Joseph Stalin killed 20 million or more. Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward killed as many as 50 million people in China. Pol Pot killed nearly two million in Cambodia. There are also the genocides of Rwanda and Darfur.

"Never Again" should not only be reserved for the Holocaust. Conversely, if "Never Again" simply becomes shorthand for "I don't agree politically, therefore I am going to evoke Hitler," not only do you diminish atrocities (when looking at it from the overall arc of history), but it becomes a lot more difficult to take your argument (in this case, reforming the detention centers) seriously. I want to elaborate on this point a little more. When I wrote about the #MeToo movement two years ago, one of my criticisms was lumping together sexual assault/rape and sexual harassment. Yes, rape and sexual harassment are both morally wrong. However, one is more morally problematic and reprehensible than the other. It becomes a question of magnitude.

Let's apply that concept to the detention centers. You can argue that the way that Trump is going about detaining Central American refugees is morally wrong. Last year, I scrutinized Trump's family separation policy, and went as far as calling it a part of his fear-mongering immigration policy. As recent as earlier this month, I criticized Trump for stupidly trying to use tariffs to solve the refugee issue. I can and do criticize Trump's usage of detention centers and his seeming lack of desire to help out refugees without evoking the Holocaust to make a false equivalence. That being said, let's ask ourselves some questions:

• Is the treatment of the Central American refugees in these detention centers a human rights abuse? Yes. After all, government policy doesn't need to be at the level of the Holocaust to be morally wrong. The United States should have learned its lesson from the Japanese-American internment camps from World War II. 
• Is being placed in an imperfectly managed detention center while waiting for asylum applications to be processed anything like the horrors of such concentration camps as Auschwitz or Dachau? Not even close. Again, there is a reason why Nazi Germany is infamously in the history books. 
• Does this mean that we should do nothing? No. Something should be done to speed up the applications and provide the asylum seekers with better conditions while they wait, and to make sure their dignity is preserved in the process.

Some people say that we are spending needless time on the semantics. Yes, I believe we should be spending energy reversing an exceptionally misinformed refugee detention policy. At the same time, the fact that we even need to be discussing these semantics is indicative of how out of whack U.S. civil society is. Forget for a moment that Obama also had detention centers during his administration. It is becoming more difficult in U.S. society to have a discussion about policy without evoking Holocaust imagery, and thusly implying that the "side you don't agree with" is a literal Nazi. If political discourse has reached a point where one side literally views the other as Hitler for simply disagreeing, thereby using the logical fallacy of reductio ad Hitlerum, then it is no wonder the U.S. has this level of political polarization.

I'm not going to pretend as if there were some magical time in which everyone respectfully disagreed because no such time existed. Politicians have used such discourse since the beginning of time. Using hyperbole or antagonistic, divisive rhetoric is done by all those in power, regardless of ideological inclination. I ask that we learn how to talk with those with whom we disagree and work across the aisle in the hopes of making discourse civil again.

The Gillette Commercial: Having a More Nuanced Discussion on Masculinity

Last week, one of the largest razor manufacturing companies, Gillette, decided to air a commercial called "We Believe: The Best Men Can Be." The commercial came with a whirlwind of criticism. James Woods and Piers Morgan thought is was an overgeneralization of the male species. Michelle Malkin called it "sacrificing a massive consumer base at the altar of progressivism." Conservative political activist Candace Owens called the commercial "a product of radicalized feminism and cultural Marxism." On the other hand, the commercial received praise, including from conservative commentator Mona Charen. Before formally forming your own opinion on the matter, I ask that you view the commercial yourself (see below).

I viewed the commercial multiple times myself to see if there was anything problematic. One of the bigger criticisms is that the commercial presents an overgeneralized stereotype of men as brutish, that "masculinity has got to go." The commercial starts with depicting instances of bullying, lewdness towards women, and sexual harassment. It explicitly harps on the cliché of "boys will be boys." The commercial says that "we believe in the best of men," and cuts away to former NFL player Terry Crews saying that "men need to hold other men accountable."

The commercial then shifts direction. One young male chides his friend by calling a woman "sweetie." The commercial cuts over to another young man asking his male friend to not ogle a female walking down the street. A father then holds his daughter in front of a mirror and tells her "to be strong." Another father breaks up a fight between boys saying "that's not how we treat each other." After showing these examples, the commercial ends by saying that "the boys of today will be the men of tomorrow."

In terms of its social message, the commercial was pretty tame. Yes, the commercial uses the phrase "toxic masculinity," cites the #MeToo movement (see my 2017 analysis on #MeToo here), and uses the cliché "boys will be boys." Yes, the commercial doesn't mention that there are women who bully and harass, although it's equally true that "men commit a lot more violence than women, sexual harassment is undeniably a problem in many workplaces, and boys should be raised not to attack each other." However, there was no call to bring down the patriarchy or to reassess traditional gender roles. There was no message that "all men are bad." As a matter of fact, the people who were correcting the undesirable behavior in the commercial were other males. There were men in the commercial exhibiting bad behavior, but there were also men in the commercial exhibiting positive behavior. The commercial is not condemning masculinity, but rather certain forms of behavior conducted under the guise of masculinity. The solution is not the feminization of masculinity or men, but men taking initiative towards better behavior. In the Gillette commercial, more masculinity is the solution to the problem.

In 2014, I wrote a detailed piece differentiating hypermasculinity from a healthier form of masculinity. Masculinity is more complex than a simplistic form of machismo. It allows room for men to care, express emotions, show emotions, and yes, even cry once in a while. Going more to the heart of the commercial, the commercial shows that masculinity is not about forcing yourself onto others or causing others harm. In the late 19th century to early 20th century, masculinity was not only about exuding personal strength and resilience, but being strong enough to hold up others and to hold others to a higher standard. As Ernest Hemingway said, "there is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self." When examining this definition of masculinity in context of the Gillette commercial, it actually portrays a more traditional definition of masculinity. The commercial is a portrayal of honesty, self-reliance, and virtue, one in which men can be their best and in which male toughness is the solution to the problem, which makes the Right's criticism of the commercial even more perplexing.

Ben Shapiro is right in that boys need strong male role models so they could become strong men. Interestingly enough, that is exactly what the end of the Gillette commercial was getting at: the need for men to be strong role models for boys and other men. As Mona Charen stated, the commercial should not be viewed "as reproof of masculinity per se, but rather as a critique of bullying, boorishness, and sexual misconduct." Values of honesty, moral rectitude, or respect for one's fellow are not "leftist or socialist priorities." Men treating others with respect instead of harming them is part of civil society, regardless of gender or political identity. It's called being a mensch, and it's something we should encourage.

Is this an attempt for Gillette to make more money? Perhaps. Is it possible that it is an attempt to start a dialogue on healthy masculinity? I would say so. What I would say is that while the commercial did not capture every last nuance in the debate, it did get us talking about the issue.

My Top 2018 Blog Entries

The end of a year seems like an appropriate time to look back and reflect on the year that has passed. Much like 2017, 2018 was another crazy year in the world of politics and public policy. There was everything from the Brazilian presidential elections and Brexit politics to the Brett Kavanaugh hearings and the Democrats regaining the House. In terms of my blog, I want to end the year with some of the 2018 highlights from my blog entries.

1. Trump and Immigration. Trump took multiple attacks on immigration this year, including his views on chain migration, his unprecedented family separation policy, and his expressed desire to remove birthright citizenship. With the United States ending the year with the partial government shutdown surrounding the border wall (which is a bad idea to begin with) and Trump turning his back on asylum seekers, it doesn't look like immigrants are going to have a good year in 2019.
2. Trump and Tariffs. International trade is another topic about which Trump has expressed woeful ignorance this year. He started off the year with tariffs on solar panels, proceeded with tariffs on steel and aluminum, and decided to escalate to an all-out trade war with China. Comedian John Oliver understands the price of this stupidity, and covered it quite well this past July.
3. Trump and NAFTA. Trump had a campaign promise of overhauling NAFTA. I'm sure he'll make a bigger deal out of it than it actually is. Rather than a major overhaul, it was only a tweaking that made it slightly worse. Given how protectionist Trump is, I felt that it was the least worst scenario.
4. Having Children Can Be As Selfish As Not Having Children. This blog entry is not related to public policy, but it was one of my more controversial pieces of the year. The title speaks for itself.
5. International Economy. A lot of economies have made the news in terms of having problems, including Argentina, Greece, Italy, and Turkey. If the global markets are as crazy as this past year (or even crazier), the global economy is going to be on quite the roller coaster for 2019. 
6. Causes of Wage Growth Stagnation. An economic question on many minds this year is why has wage growth been stagnant. I come up with a list of 10 possible explanations, ranging from retiring Baby Boomers and automation to unions and monopolies. 

Happy New Year!

Should We Still Celebrate Columbus Day?

"In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue." I recall singing that popular rhyme in school to teach us about Columbus' arrival to North America. Columbus' initial goal was to sail from the Atlantic to the Indies in China in order to bypass the Mongol Empire. Instead of finding Asia, Columbus came across another continent that was in between Europe and Asia. Columbus' "discovery" is important because it initiated a major European presence in the Americas ever since. When I was in grade school and high school, I remember getting the second Monday of October off for Columbus Day. Honestly, I enjoyed it for a day away from school, not because I got to celebrate Columbus' achievement. While I enjoyed the extra time off as a child, some people are less than enthused about Columbus.

Criticism about Columbus Day dates back to the 19th-century, either from anti-immigrant nativists who did not like the association with immigrants from Catholic countries or from anti-Catholics (most notably the Ku Klux Klan) who wanted to keep the United States of America a Protestant country. That was then, this is now. The opposition to Columbus Day is not based on anti-immigrant or anti-Catholic sentiment, but on Columbus himself. There are two main reasons for such opposition that are interrelated. The first is that indigenous populations were treated horribly after Columbus' arrival to North America, which explains why a modern-day response to Columbus Day has been Indigenous People's Day. The second explanation has to do with Columbus himself. According to his compendium, author and UCLA professor Geoffrey Symcox pointed out that Columbus was a self-promoter so obsessed with success that he was willing to use slavery and distort biblical text to get the job done.

I have three other reasons to oppose Columbus Day. One is that Columbus was not the first European to discover America: that would be Leif Erikson. The second is that Columbus did not discover continental North America, much less the United States. Columbus never set foot on what is now called the United States. The third is that it is a relatively minor celebration in the United States, and as such, I personally do not find a need to close down stock markets, banks, or other businesses for a minor observance. Part of Columbus Day's staying power is that Columbus Day celebration dates back to 1792. Since 1792, Columbus Day has been a national myth to symbolize patriotism, loyalty to the nation, and social progress (Kubal, 2008), as well as a way to distinguish the U.S.A. from Europe (i.e., the Old World). It is part of American civic religion, whether we like it or not. With a resurgence of patriotism and the notion of heritage in this polarized country, I see certain political appeal for the holiday. Although I personally do not understand the need for Columbus Day, I would be hard-pressed to see Columbus Day be removed from the American calendar anytime soon.