Political: 5 Reasons Michigan Should NOT Allow Businesses to Discriminate

On December 2nd, Michigan's House approved the Michigan Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The MRFRA simply stated bans the government from impeding on religious freedoms. This sounds like a nice, I don't want the government telling me what to do piece of legislation. However, the MRFRA will be used to justify discriminatory practices against members of the LGBT community. Businesses will no longer be required to offer goods or services to members of the LGBT community and there is strong evidence that many won't, this means many businesses would also be able to discriminate in hiring practices too. All on the basis that by not being allowed to discriminate, their religious freedoms are being inhibited. Many small government Republicans and Libertarians believe that legislation such as the MRFRA promotes freedom, some even go so far as to say all government regulations banning discrimination should be cut. To call this freedom is flagrantly inaccurate as it does nothing but limit the freedoms of American citizens. Furthering the effects of legislation like this so all businesses have the right to discriminate against whomever they want, will harm large swaths of the American people who used to be protected under the law. Libertarians and many Republicans believe that government intervention is no longer needed to stop discriminatory practices and so allowing these freedoms will mean less government oversight and depend on consumer awareness and activism to bring down discriminatory businesses. This is one of their basis for a free society. Here is why this is shamelessly incorrect: and why legislation seeking to limit government regulation against discrimination, like the MRFRA, should be stopped at all costs:

1. Government intervention has more power than consumer boycott to end discriminatory practices

Let the record show that corporations and businesses fear government regulations for a very good reason. That reason is that it causes a slew of consequences that hit them in their pockets. There are very few examples of consumer awareness and activism bringing down a corporation or a business with absolutely no government support. There are even times where, even with big government support, consumers were unable to stop businesses from unethical practices. Lets get into how governments can be powerful tools for the people and how, without government support, consumer awareness and activism would do little good against unethical businesses. The government can make businesses disclose unethical practices that they may wish to keep hidden from consumers, they can levy hefty fines, they can wield heavy taxes, they can even go so far as to seize incredibly unethical companies or firms and/or their CEO's or owners. Even the strongest consumer bases cannot stop unethical businesses in as swift a way as governments can. It may take several years before a company "goes under" because of unethical practices and this doesn't stop the owner or majority share holders from making money and doing the damage to communities that comes with discrimination.

For an example, take Mike Jeffries at Ambercrombie and Fitch. He was accused of discriminating against plus sized women causing consumer activism, a lot of people boycott Ambercrombie and Fitch clothing including big name celebrities. Despite a slight drop in sales, the company did not stop its discriminatory messages and Jeffries kept making $1.5 Billion dollars. What really began to hit the stock price, was the lawsuits that were coming out over his discriminatory hiring practices. The company had been sued at least 5 different times for a variety of discriminant cases including ethnic discrimination and ageism. Because these lawsuits were being won, consumers decided to shop there less. The government also imposed fines on the company for discrimination and kept a heavy watch on any future cases. Through a combined effort of government legal battles and consumer pressure, Mike Jeffries had stepped down. This does not mean that the company is going to stop being discriminatory, so the battle is far from over. The point though, is to demonstrate that government intervention is a tool that can help stop discrimination in ways that consumers cannot, as well as help consumers in their own endeavors.

2. Consumer awareness and action are not always enough

This segues into the next point which is similar to the first. While the last point demonstrated government capability, this point demonstrates the shortcomings of average consumers in their attempts to stop unethical and discriminatory practices. There are many ways that companies can be discriminatory without bringing attention to themselves as being so. Michigan is an At Will state and therefore does not have to provide you with a reason for why you get fired, if they fired you because you were gay you may have no idea that was the reason. It may take a long time for people to know enough to "out" companies as being racist, homophobic, or sexist. Or say you live in a small town in the Midwest. Often times these towns have a corporate headquarters, or a mine, a factory, a mill, a corporate farm etc... that runs the monopoly of employment in that area. If they decide to discriminate against members of the community, it can have economically devastating effects. Not to mention a boycott may cost others their livelihood and is consistently unlikely in these situations. Lawsuits though, call in the government or the power of the law, to safeguard against any harm caused by employment discrimination. Many Libertarians and Republicans would argue that another company would resurface in the area creating economic opportunity, but this is an unsubstantiated theory and we will discuss this later. They might also argue that the discriminated against may move, but this limits their freedom to live where they would like to live because of economic ostracism  - this does not sound like a free society to me. So given the lack of power employees and consumers have in certain situations, the government can be an effective tool for change.

To demonstrate that a boycott or consumer activism falls short without government support, the Chick - Fil - A case offers good insight. Chick - Fil - A engages in discrimination covertly by donating money to organizations that discriminate against members of the LGBT community and regularly violate gay rights. It took some serious digging to find this out. When consumers did find this out, there were widespread boycotts and condemnation of the restaurant. The restaurant continued to blunder through what many thought was a PR nightmare. It turns out though, that Chick - Fil - A is thriving, potentially doing better even. Of course, it isn't illegal to give your money to organizations that actively discriminate (I don't believe it should be, that isn't the point of this) and so there is no government intervention that turns up the pressure on this company to do the right thing. This is only one demonstration of how consumer activism can fall short without government action.

3. Free Market principles are only theories and may or may not come true

As stated before, Libertarians and Republicans believe that discrimination is wrong, but that it will be rooted out without government intervention. They think that by allowing the right to discriminate, through volunteerism and other free market theories, the problem will solve itself. Say you have a company that discriminates against black members of the surrounding community, here are some things that could happen according to free market theoretical situations: the company stops discriminating because it becomes less profitable to do so (either consumers make it less profitable via boycott or economic exclusion becomes nonsustaining), a rival business surfaces and offers business to everyone/just the discriminated against communities, internal company pressure forces new leadership (and I'm sure there are more). This is all possible, but this is also only a theory. There is no proof that these things would happen and allowing safety net regulations to be cut based on a theory with no proof is reckless and could cause greater overall harm. This is not to mention the historic examples of these theories not happening, making government intervention necessary (see the race riots Detroit). And even with government regulations and protections, there were over 93,000 charges of employment discrimination filed last year (2013), which says nothing of the unreported cases.

In the Economics of Discrimination by Gary Becker, trends of discrimination in companies are studied and labeled Taste-based discrimination. His studies show that unless drastic efforts are made to make all people as near equal as possible in the public eye and in qualification (and they are not in 2014, see section 5) then companies will continue to discriminate. He acknowledges that diverse companies have the likelihood of  being more profitable, but he does not believe they have that in mind when they do their hiring or performance reviews. When the perception of a whole group of people is of a low status, companies will hire and pay that group of people less. In part 5 I will go over exactly why the perception of certain groups is of low value, but assuming they are - according to Becker hiring and paying these groups competitively is not seen as an economically profitable decision. Further, these employees, because of the societal view of them, must work harder to justify their hire and rate of pay. This means it isn't just overt forces of racism that cause discrimination to occur, it is a more subtle racism that free market theories don't even begin to acknowledge in their solutions (again, refer to section 5).

4. Religious freedoms and freedom from the government should not be manifested in discrimination

This section is short and to the point. Religious freedom is important, so is living without the tyranny of law. However protecting citizens against discrimination is not an over reach of government power. Seeking to justify discrimination because certain religions don't wish to offer goods and services to certain groups of people is cultural relativism. This means we are acknowledging that discriminating against LGBT, though wrong, is morally right for that religion/culture and therefore they should have the freedom to do it. Yet our laws should not be dictated by cultural relativism because what is right for one culture or religion is not right for everyone. If we deem discrimination as a harmful act, as we all should because it is harmful, then we should not let any religion or culture do harm to any citizen only on the grounds that their religion says it is morally admissible to do so. We would not let men stone women because their religion dictates they do this in certain instances, so too should we not allow discrimination on the grounds of religion. Put simply, the freedom of one should not inhibit the freedom of another as much as can be legally controlled. If my religious practices are forcing you to move out of the community you live in or forcing you to be serviced/provided goods at a separate and potentially unequal business, then my religious practices should not be protected under the law.

5. There are large systemic problems in America that play a role in taste based discrimination

As stated before, the Libertarian/Republican theories of free market tend to ignore the problems of a more subtle and systemic problem. This means that the problems are more a result of a broken system and the subsequent perceptions than people's overt hatred of others. Many Americans may feel uncomfortable around gay people, they may feel women in power are bitchy, they may perceive black people as lazy. The largely constructed inequality among those in power and those without it is very black and white...literally. With inherent and constructed inequalities in this system it is easy for those in positions of power to look down on the societal status of those in need (even just in need of a job) by examining their marriage status, their education, their every day economic decisions. Yet gays cannot get married in many states, minorities generally have less access to education, and those in need often make poor economic decisions. It is true that not every minority is in need, not every gay person is without a partner, not every economically disadvantaged person is economically irresponsible - however the perception exists and this feeds a subconscious, taste based discrimination when it comes to selective employment and pay grades (see section 3) as well as who you offer your products to. These subconscious tendencies can ensure that discrimination will exist until these large systemic problems are fixed and they are far from being fixed.

For example look at the inequality between blacks and whites. Humanitarian and New York Times editorial author Nicholas Kristoff points to data that shows:

The net worth of the average black household in the United States is $6,314, compared with $110,500 for the average white household, according to 2011 census data. The gap has worsened in the last decade, and the United States now has a greater wealth gap by race than South Africa did during apartheid. (Whites in America on average own almost 18 times as much as blacks; in South Africa in 1970, the ratio was about 15 times.)

The income gap is 40 percent greater today than it was in 1967, black boys have a 5 year shorter life expectancy of white boys, Black students are significantly less likely to attend schools offering advanced math and science courses than white students, they are three times as likely to be suspended and expelled, and because of massive incarceration and inequalities in the justice system, black men are 70% more likely to go to jail (making it harder to get a job). Whatever is going through your head while you read those statistics could be going through the head of recruiters, hiring managers, CEOs, small Business owners etc...These problems are deep seeded and will remain because of government action and government inaction, as well as action on the behalf of American citizens. Until these problems are widespread addressed, discrimination will be a very real institution in our nation, despite what year it is.

So...

Obviously the government is far from perfect and obviously there are exceptions to everything that was said. Obviously not every company given the right to discriminate will. Obviously there are companies run by gay men, women, minorities. The larger point is that we should not be relying on theories to protect us from unethical business practices, but rather aggressively protective legislation. Discrimination is just one unethical practice, many Libertarians and Republicans would like to do away with environmental regulations and regulations protecting against consumer fraud. Yet, with employment discrimination it is a particularly vile plot. With employment comes empowerment and to legally protect businesses who discriminate against anyone on any unethical ground, is to encourage the dismantling of the economic empowerment belonging to those who are discriminated against. It makes matters worse. If it is true that young people are forward thinking and progressive, if it is true that we value diversity, then we would send any politician cutting protections for our already oppressed fellow citizens a clear message: we will not stand for discrimination of any kind, we demand legal protection for those being discriminating against, and we demand that the government stop this insidious plan to render itself obsolete in order pad its own bank account.

Essay: Peter Pan 1, Washington Redskins 0

I have seen a live production of Peter Pan the Musical on 3 separate occasions, I have seen the animated movie hundreds of times, I've read the book, I've even been on the themed ride in Disney World. This may lead you to believe that I am in some way a fan of Peter Pan. I'm not. I think the musicals are terrible (which is not to bash the brilliant young actors who star in them), the animated movie is probably the worst Disney film, the book is incredibly creepy, and the theme park ride is no Wicked Twister. Of course my feelings for Peter Pan are irrelevant, the Pan legacy is for children to enjoy and from what I understand they do. Here are where my feelings become less irrelevant: I'm concerned that kids are watching Peter Pan and enjoying it...because Peter Pan is really racist. This isn't a secret either, there is a strong history of racism towards Native Americans in Peter Pan stories. In fact the only reason I wanted to watch NBC's live production of Peter Pan the Musical was because I wanted to see how NBC would handle the racist depictions of Native Americans.

But let me back up. I think it is important to note that there are still plenty of racist depictions of Native Americans in 2014 America. I would say the worst perpetrator of this cultural appropriation is Sports. You have the Cleveland Indians, the Washington Redskins, the Atlanta Braves, the Chicago Blackhawks, the Kansas City Chiefs, and probably any number of smaller teams with similar names. The reason I believe sports are the most guilty is because it seems the most institutionalized. I'm unaware of any restaurant chains, or company names, or chocolate bars, or major brands that borrow (read: steal) from Native American culture. Which isn't to say those things don't exist, I'm sure you can find them, but none are more well known and vigorously defended as American sports teams. Which got me thinking about why Peter Pan hasn't changed over the years. Our sports teams cite reasons like tradition, and branding, and endearment toward a culture (all of which are terrible arguments, I'll get to that later), but what reason does Peter Pan have for not editing its racist content, especially since it is specifically designed for children. Put simply; why do we think it is O.K. to keep depicting these stereotypes when it is clear we have the capacity to change them?

But let me back up even further. I need to reiterate that this is not O.K.Cultural appropriation is hurtful. I think this is a hard thing for people to grasp because their culture is not as painfully distributed as that of the Native Americans. Redskin, for example. After the trauma (read: genocide) the Native American people have suffered throughout history, for white people to tell them that they have changed the meaning of the word redskin to simply a benign nickname is outrageous. We should not get to decide how a certain word, a word with historically painful connotations to a group of people, should come across to those people. But isn't it enough that Native Americans are saying they don't want to be depicted like this any more? This should be enough to make you stop dressing like them for Halloween, it should make you not want to get Native American Tattoos, or Native American themed clothing, and it should certainly make mainstream brands change their image. Why not? I've never understood why we should just go on offending people, especially people who have endured unfathomable offenses for many, many years. I'm not asking for laws that force the name change or organizational oversight, though that would be nice, I'm asking why the team doesn't change it when it is clearly hurtful to a group of people. I'm asking why fans don't feel the need to pressure their team to change the brand. I'm genuinely curious if it is because the pride and money and brand behind the word Redskin is, and Americans will admit this, more important than the pride and feelings and brand behind actual people. We are telling Native Americans that our symbol for them is more important to us than they are.

Back to Peter Pan. If you know the movie you know the brilliantly racist song "Why is the Red Man Red". The Musical has a song called "Ugg - A - Wugg", which has Native Americans singing utter gibberish in what can only be described as a parody of their language. Not to mention the Native Americans are prancing around in red face, doing stereotypical and, in all probability inaccurate, Native American things. However you can't just take them out altogether, they provide key plot points! I wanted to see how the NBC production would handle this dilemma and I truly believe they did not receive enough credit for what they did; they went over the top in an effort to make this less offensive. For one, they cast the actress who plays Tiger Lilly (the fictional tribes matriarch, which is actually pretty cool) with a girl who has distant ties to the Cherokee nation. This to me always seems like a cop out, like the "I'm not racist I have a black friend" argument. Yet it wasn't the only thing; they changed the lyrics in "Ugg - A - Wugg" to include actual Native American phrases, so it is less of an outright joke. The characters are not dressed like stereotypical Native Americans, they are referred to as islanders or simply Natives, and they aren't caricatured (saying things like, "me like Peter"). They seem to belong to no specific culture, if anything they might even be considered pacific islander. Which, don't get me wrong, is still far from perfect. The point I'm trying to make is every one was so busy bashing Christopher Walken's acting and talking about how boring it was, that they didn't give credit to the production for really trying.

Notice the sea shells? Eh?

That isn't entirely true. The New York Times had made mention of it, so did some other major arts and entertainment commentators. They pointed out that NBC tried to make Peter Pan less racist, but kind of as an after thought. No one though, at least in my opinion, has given them enough credit. The production team at NBC responsible for putting this together acknowledged that the cultural appropriation was offensive and they made a concerted effort to change it. They changed the establishment of Peter Pan. They changed Peter Pan because it was the right thing to do. Not because hundreds of Native Americans would be tuning in, not because they would make money on the deal, but because they found a reason to change it. There is no way to know why for sure, it could have been disingenuous, they may have just feared the backlash from the PC crowd. Even then, that means this major network felt accountable. I believe that is more than you can say for sports teams. They may never change their branding. While I agree that a team brand is different than a depiction of real people in fiction, it stands that both these depictions have real world pain associated with them. As passive fans and consumers, we have not created the backlash that NBC would have gotten for running a racist production. We are too afraid that allowing the Politically Correct movement to make significant changes in sports branding we are allowing our masculinity to be be challenged. Well I'm here to assure you that there is nothing weak about asking a brand to reconsider its approach, there is value in standing up for those being made fun of. Native Americans have truly endured, they are still here, we shouldn't be treating them like they aren't. It's time to grow up...

Book Review: The Price of Inequality by Joseph Stiglitz

Joseph Stiglitz is the proud owner of a Nobel Peace Prize in Economics, which is great, but his work in The Price of Inequality is far from peaceful. The book is a non-stop assault on austerity and the politics of the 1%. Stiglitz uses vast amounts of data, ranging from social experiments to primary economic studies, to explain exactly what is wrong with our economy, the politics surrounding it, and how to fix it. The amount I learned from this book will have me running back to it again and again. Why? Why read this book more than once or reference it on a weekly basis? Because it will help you understand who is to blame for the mess we find ourselves in, and no one is safe.

Stiglitz rips up NeoLiberals like Clinton, Libertarians, Democrats, Republicans, Progressives. This is because Stiglitz has no time for partisan name calling, he has an economy to save. His agenda is simple: point out that wealth inequality and poverty are gaining momentum and harming a vast majority of the American People. Check. Point out that this massive amount of inequality and poverty is deliberately caused by the wealthy, as it is in their best interest. Check. Demonstrate that both government action and inaction are just as much to blame for this inequality and poverty as the wealthy are. Check. Dispel any myth that the impoverished and less fortunate are a necessity in America. Check. Outline a series of comprehensive political moves that would balance the budget, lessen the amount of poverty and inequality, and protect the US consumer/economy. Check. If these issues interest you, regardless of political affiliation, you should read this book. Even if these issues don't interest you, you should own this book. That way, when you're sitting around and wondering why your four year degree was so expensive, you can look up that education funding was cut - raising the cost of tuition - and then that same money was given to students in the form of loans so that the schools could still get paid, but banks can make money off people going to college! Boom! Now you know.

Not impressed yet? In the age of the internet where people explore and express their feelings about economic policy via memes it is frustrating that there isn't a lot of substance behind them. This is what I love about Stiglitz. He has a level of ferocity that makes his work exciting and dynamic, his lack of political affiliation helps him stick to principles, and he explains the motivations behind major political policy that things like a meme or a fancy youtube video cannot. So if you're left leaning, you're not just making the empty claim that the minimum wage should be raised, but instead you're explaining to a crowd of adoring fans that the reason it hasn't been raised is because it cuts into profits in a way that can't be avoided...unlike taxes. Or maybe you're right leaning, but instead of complaining that our jobs went over seas or into Mexico, you're tucking your kids in at night with a bedtime story all about how free trade agreements allow doing business in deregulated markets incredibly cheap and now kids just like them are being worked literally to death because we don't have protective tariffs that deter businesses from going elsewhere for cheap labor.

Stiglitz turns policies of any party inside out so you can see the lobby at work, what government action or inaction lined whose pockets. He analyzes how our billionaires and millionaires are plaguing the entire planet, with a process called rent seeking. It is where a few vastly rich people own everything, every single thing, and allow you to use it for a price. Monopolistic cable and utility companies, dominating telecommunication companies, bullying corporate farms, tech giants, Too Big to Fail banks that owns everything you think you own, etc etc...I can almost guarantee you are frustrated by rent seeking in some capacity and if you want to know why, I cannot recommend this book enough.

Book Review: The Stars of the Sky by Jim Arapostathis

The Stars of the Sky is a science fiction young adult novel by Michigan native author Jim Arapostathis. Although the book is clearly geared toward a younger crowd of readers, the young adult side of science fiction often uses the fantastic to provide simple and open understanding of the real world we live in. This makes Stars of the Sky an excellent read for any age group, it constantly reminds us to stay curious, adventurous, and honorable.

The story follows Krown, a young cave man coming of age. He wants to partake in his tribe's mammoth hunt, a ritual reserved for the brave men of the tribe. Essentially Krown gets separated and decides to help a crash landed alien named Gothis get the necessary supplies for his ship. Thus, Krown, Gothis, and Star (a young girl from Krown's tribe) set off on a journey where they meet impossible odds. Literally, there is absolutely no end to the danger and it seems to get worse and worse with each page. Extreme cold, giant animals, space alien pirates, etc etc... And the moral of all this danger isn't something as banally thrown around as "be brave" or "never give up" - though those are there too - I like it because it teaches you to think critically about your doubt. Krown is constantly doubting his own ability, his relationship with start, his own reality. And Arapostathis doesn't just invite his readers to reject it, but rather treats it as it is; reality. We all doubt, Harry Potter doubted, but the way Krown doubts is so refreshingly realistic and anyone who has been through 9th grade can relate. Krown reconciles with his doubt the only way we ever can; by pushing on and doing the right thing. Helping Gothis is impossibly dangerous and risky, there is no reason to trust him, but Krown does because it is the right thing to do. He doesn't just think of himself, he doesn't just think of Star, he thinks of and takes action on behalf of the least well off in any situation.

This is why it is important for any young adult to read The Stars of the Sky. When one is 14, they are literally coming of age. They began to think critically of themselves, they become self conscious and aware, they began to doubt their own abilities. To Arapostathis, this is a critical time to think, not of oneself, but of what we can do for others. We know our own limitations; Krown is smaller than the creatures he faces, he isn't as technologically advanced as space pirates, he isn't smooth talking, and he isn't especially wise. Yet despite all this, by doing the right thing, by helping others, Krown proves his ability to himself. Stars of the Sky invites us all to be curious, to be doubtful, to be brave, to do the right thing, and above all; to take action. Any person, of any age, can be inspired by such an invitation.

Capital in the Twenty First Century by Thomas Piketty

"Yet it seems to me that all social scientists, all journalists and commentators, all activists, and especially all citizens should take a serious interest in money, its measurement, the facts surrounding it, and its history. Those who have a lot of it never fail to defend their interests. Refusing to deal with numbers rarely serves the interests of the least well-off"

This is the last statement of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the TwentyFirst Century. It is a comprehensive look at the history of wealth and income inequality through the past two and a half centuries. The amount of research and accuracy is staggering, they are largely irrefutable, and they are almost all primary (this book exists as documentation of his study, not a fragmented compilation of other studies followed by a political conclusion). Piketty's piece proves that America, and the whole rest of the world, is at the same level of wealth/income inequality that it was at before WWII and posits that this is a problem.

I led with the last quote of the book for two reasons. The first is that it is totally true. Piketty's book may not be the most riveting read; there are no sparkling vampires, there is no humor, it isn't laden with references to hip things that will make the younger readers say "I know that one!". We, my generation in particular, are not interested in numbers as a political phenomenon and maybe we should be. Many young voters are quoted saying things like "I don't know much about fiscal policies, but I really care about social issues". I find this unacceptable. I care about social issues too, but social and fiscal issues are not separate spheres. The problems of today have a lot to do with economy, many people protecting their money appear to be protecting their morals or their rights for example. Citizens and journalists and activists need to watch were the money is going, where it has been, and why. Only then can any political opinion, even one of pure ideological social justice, be fully formed.

Off my high horse; the second reason I led with this quote is because it is one of the only demands the author makes of his reader. Basically I thought that as someone who advocates responsible government intervention in capitalism, this book would be a silver bullet against opinions differing than mine. This is incredibly egotistical of me and if I had held this expectation for long I would have been disappointed in the book. This is because Piketty does not write rhetorically, he is not flashy, he doesn't need to call for reader action. Although he points out that no research can be perfect, his book stands as the closest thing we have. And despite little gems like, showing that levels of inequality have been at their starkest before 1930 and 2008 in the past two centuries, does not really argue much. This is because he doesn't have to. If his statistics are largely irrefutable, so too, is his conclusion; it should be taken not as a demand, but a fact as plain as the sky is blue.

Oh right. His conclusion. Here you go; "The overall conclusion of this study is that a market economy based on private property, if left to itself, contains powerful forces of convergence, associated n particular with the diffusion of knowledge and skills; but it also contains powerful forces of divergence, which are potentially threatening to democratic societies and to the values of social justice on which they are based". He essentially proves that though the market economy based on private property creates great equalizers, its inevitable outcome will be that the return on capital will outpace the rate of growth (represented by the equation r > g). This creates a society of rentiers (or people who own everything and simply rent it out) who become more and more dominant over those who own nothing but their labor. And his numbers back it up: the global inequality of wealth is currently increasing at a rate that cannot be sustained.

Piketty has many suggestions; a global progressive annual tax on capital being the best, followed by a heavy handed use of inflation, and even some simple taxes like the estate tax and a wealth tax. However after each suggestion follows; "but this should be left up to democratic debate". This means that Piketty is simply calling for us to do...something...even if it is give tax breaks to the largest corporations because you think that is what is going to improve the quality of life and justice. This brings me back to the beginning. The men and women voting, or revolting, or even just complaining need to take a vested interest in numbers and money. Piketty's book is a great start, but you have to be willing to suffer through the immeasurable historic context to find what you ultimately believe is the right solution to our century's greatest problem.

Book Review: Karen Joy Fowler's We Are All Completely Beside Ourselves

We are All Completely Beside Ourselves is a novel about the Cooke Family. A father, a Mother, a Brother (Lowell), a Sister (Fern) and our protagonist Rosemary. Spoiler alert: Fern is a chimpanzee. I thought at great lengths whether or not to say this fact seeing as the first few chapters hide it from you. However I think you're supposed to know that Fern is a Chimp, I think Fowler anticipates you knowing because you read the back of the book, or you read about the book in the NY Times, or your friend told you. Anyway I think it is part of Fowler's craft, keeping the reader in the dark even though they already know what is coming. That seems to be the structure of the entire narrative. The protagonist Rosemary tells us straight up that she's starting in the middle of the story. From there she takes us on a wild ride; jumping from memory to memory, decoding them, adding details, taking parts out that were made up, pulling some details (even some memories) out of her deep subconscious, all while dealing with the harsh realities these memories have caused for her. I have never been on such a realistic and deeply personal journey with a fictional character before.

And Rosemary's journey is a pretty fantastic one. Fern was a chimpanzee that her father, a prominent psychology professor and scientist, was studying in conjunction to Rosemary herself. That means these two children were both experiments on language, understanding, and psychology. They grew up in a house full of grad students and observations on their games, conversations, and interactions. Obviously man has a lot to learn from chimps, Because they are so closely related to humans a study performed on chimps is a study performed on The Self. Much like Fowler's novel is a study of the self. Each memory that Rosemary recalls is initially foggy, she has repressed a lot. Having a chimp for a sister and the trauma that follows has clearly left her with guilt, emotional damage, self loathing, etc... But mostly it has left her with a lot of questions. We meet Rosemary right at the moment in her life when she wishes to finally face these questions, naturally when she is in college. Her parents are too Midwestern and guilt laden to provide her with the answers and she won't get anything from her missing fanatic brother; so she looks into her self. Fowler's protagonist is so genuine and so real in her guilt that you can't help but become infatuated with her inner journey.

This is because we are so used to totally omniscient narrators and suspense coming from plot points. But Rosemary's journey through her memory is different. For one it is incredibly difficult because she was so young. Each memory has to be carefully reconstructed physically to make sure it is real. For example she has a memory that pops into her head from time to time, of her father purposefully running over a cat, but she knows this cannot be a real memory as she would not be able to see over the dash in her car seat. It was a memory that she fabricated as a young child. And this has obviously been done before, in college we all learned about narrators that couldn't be trusted  and our professors used to think it blew our minds. However Rosemary's "unreliability" isn't tricky, she's trying to bring the audience with her to the truth, not hide the truth. In this way we are watching a character face facts and be honest with themselves, our narrator has to be willing to say "I've repressed that memory because...", which makes you absolutely love her. Because we have these sorts of moments where we are fighting to be honest with ourselves, especially in the context of where and who we are now, being a result of where we came from. The feelings evoked in this journey are so potent, if only because they are invariably true of all people.

And speaking of truth, it seems like Fowler had to have actually had this happen to her (obviously it did't). She writes so vividly, not because every action performed by her character is a deliberate one, wrought with detail, but rather because every single one of her characters messes up, or says something stupid, or that they regret, or they do something stupid or incomplete, arbitrary. As I said before, Fowler's novel is a study of the self and we won't necessary like what we see. It makes us ask if everything we hate about ourselves, if every mistake we ever made, was totally preventable. This is the type of question that makes us hate novelists like Fowler, we want to believe that our past did not create us, but the only way to be free of the mistakes we made in the past is to face them in the present. Fowler's study is to show us a mirror, via a chimp, where we see the very worst of ourselves. The results of the study? When the subject looks in the mirror and sees their self, they are proven to be a more intelligent, rational, and free human being. They lead a much more honest life, if not a happier one.

"The world runs on the fuel of this endless, fathomless misery. People know it, but they don't mind what they don't see. Make them look and they mind, but you're the one they hate, because you're the one that made them look" - Lowell on the seemingly impossible task of stopping animal cruelty. A point that rings so painfully true in my life and the lives of anyone who wishes the best for all creatures.

Americanah by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

We've all heard that our identity is not a matter of choice. We don't choose our race, we don't choose our gender, we don't choose our sexual orientation. But in Americanah by Nigerian author Chimamanda Adichie, this claim is wrapped in the poetry of a love story. Which sounds really cheesy; we don't choose our identity like we don't choose our soul mate...sounds stupid. However when Adichie does this, in the way she writes her novel, it is far from stupid, it is just the truth.

The novel's protagonist Ifemelu, is a Nigerian immigrant to America. Though, she is also so much more than that. Ifemelu, is beautiful, she's smart, she's hard working, she has values. Which are things you expect out of every literary character, but in Americanah, attributes like these play a tremendous role in the lives of the characters, more so than other novels. For example Ifemelu, due to her attractiveness, finds a rich white boyfriend in the states who uses his money/power to get her a green card and an eventual path to citizenship. Something she may not have gotten had she not been very pretty, smart, or an immigrant (the white fellow would not have dated an American Black). Privilege in this book comes across as more idiosyncratic, every little aspect of our identity can manifest into privilege (or the opposite), and to Ifemelu, it is impossible to fight, the only way to combat it is to merely notice it.

And reading Americanah it hits you how true that is. How the aspects of our identity, including our privilege, carry us through life. We are simply along for the ride. So what is Ifemelu's response? To write a blog. Ifemelu is a young blogger who starts the prolific race blog; Various Observations About American Blacks by a Non American Black. The novel is peppered with posts from this blog; posts about Barack Obama, about questions one will get as a black woman, a very kick ass post on hair. But they are never argumentative, only observations. Ifemelu is acutely aware that being pragmatic will not change your identity, but demonstrating how ones identity might effect their living conditions, leaves the reader with the irrefutable message of love and understanding. This way no one feels the need to escape their identity, or try to become something else.

Which is all anyone is ever trying to do in this novel. In Nigeria, all of the character's were trying to become European; putting their kid's in European schools, structuring their families the way Europeans do, going to Europe on vacation, moving to Europe.  In America everyone is trying to become rich, many who are black are trying to become white (or less black). Some American's are trying to become non-American (while laughably trying to hold on to the privileges that being American comes with). Everyone is living this single track story of someone other than who they really are. There is a painful lack of honesty. Which is why Ifemelu's blogs (she starts one in both America and Nigeria) are so important. More importantly though, is Obinze.

As I said, the novel is, at its heart, a love story. Obinze is Ifemelu's love in Nigeria, she moves, loses touch, he moves on, she comes back etc...(no spoilers). Though they both have other partners, they both have other lives, we as the reader get the feeling they are not fulfilled with anyone but each other. One is constantly present in the other's life, no matter how hard they try, they cannot choose to stop loving one another. In this way, one is part of the other's identity. The love they share is not something that even the most traumatic of drama can shake. Loving who we are truly meant to love is the most beautifully metaphoric way to tell those struggling with their identity to be who they were meant to be. The language of Aichie's love is so somatic that it cannot be interpreted as love that one decides to walk towards or away from, but the love that one falls into, the way one falls into their body, or their situation, or their sexual preferences.  And if we can love someone else with no choice in the matter, then there is no reason we can't love ourselves and who we are.