Book Review: Dissident Gardens by Jonathan Lethem ☭

Dissident Gardens is the tragedy of Eden played out in Sunnyside New York. "The Gardens" refers to the neighborhood in which Rose - no doubt aptly named according to her role in the garden and narrative - the central character in Lethem's novel, resides. Rose is an elderly jewish woman (though her relationship to her faith is complicated) who, in her prime, was a deeply connected member of the American communist party. She tempts all manner of characters with her radicalism, the Apple of Knowledge if an apple could have crippling expectations. We watch her daughter, her husband, her daughter's husband, her nephew, the son of her black cop lover, and her grandson, having fallen from the garden, navigate their doomed existence; doomed to dedicate their lives to bringing communism to the world of mere mortals. Dissident Gardens explores the heart of American identity one failed radical ideal at a time.

 And it is a refreshing exploration. Lethem possesses a seemingly endless depth of critical knowledge about the age in which he writes. Each sentence explodes with allusions to pop culture, politics of the time, and historic events. As he hops around from generation to generation almost arbitrarily, this is even more impressive. It allows him to be witty and fun, but also poetic or genuinely engaging in dialogue at the drop of a dime. The result is an incredibly fun read; engaging, funny, and critical. The only issue I take with this is that Lethem seems to strike only one tone and some of the musings from characters he writes about at a younger age are downright implausible. Which is easily forgivable seeing as nothing Lethem has to say in this novel is anything short of stunning. Each characters tragic life is being driven forward from fear of Rose's ferocity, though the plot isn't linear, time is the only thing more ravaging than Rose. That Lethem can navigate each time period his characters are present in is an essential skill. The history of major league baseball, popular television shows, folk musicians known and unknown, all delivered with an expertise that provides a backdrop of historical realism. Each character makes a pathetic attempt at some actual event in time, whether the modern occupy movement or an episode of the Who, What, Where television game show, to springboard their communist ideology. One character releases a working man's folk record that is dwarfed by Dylan's of a similar style, another tries to start a minor baseball league called the proletariats who are dwarfed with baseball's revival on the east coast. Each artfully crafted event adds scope and context to each character, the idea being it is impossible to forge a unique identity in the midst of an American identity that is inescapable and immutable.

 Historic realism in the 60's, 70's and beyond, complete with real major events, might have some people thinking Forrest Gump. Which is a good start, but instead of a bumbling single guy getting up to pee in the middle of the night and changing the course of history by accidentally discovering Watergate, you have a whole ensemble of characters dedicating their lives to what seem like painful exercises in futility, history moves without them. That's the other thing, Dissident Gardens can be incredibly sad, but not without a certain amount of didacticism. While each character tries to burst onto the American frontier waving a hammer and sicle banner big enough to make Rose proud, they ultimately fail. With the exception of Rose herself, who, though kicked out of the party officially, seems to instill this radicalism everyone is striving for into her own personal Garden of Eden; Sunnyside. It is almost as if Lethem wants his reader to walk away believing that one's politics are best lived out in their communities than debated as a lofty pillar of idealism for the nation to raise. In fact the characters who embody communism as a discourse only, are the ones who fail the hardest, it could be argued they don't even get off the ground. The others, who try to live out communism but in a rapidly anti-communist world - say Meriam (Roses daughter) and her Husband Tommy - are only marginally successful in the moment and are soon washed away by time, not even a blip on the historic radar. But this failure shouldn't sound flippant or humorous, it is truly heartbreaking. You feel excited for Tommy Gogan's record release as he and Meriam rush around making the necessary sacrifices for getting the poor man's ballads onto the music scene and you're right there with him feeling the enormous defeat in the form of Bob Dylan's raging success in doing exactly what Tommy's is doing but first....and better. Each character has this moment where, the reader with them, they are on the brink of something great and instead fall very hard and very short.

It is also important to point out that Dissident Gardens is in no way an endorsement of communism. Though that is an ideal the characters strive for, it is no reason to avoid this book. Lethem is far from pushing even the most benign liberal agenda. He likely chose communism because it really was the doomed American identity, but it is also considered adversarial to God and indeed seems to take God's place with regards to worship for many of the characters. Dissident Gardens is a very cunning novel that ties together themes like 'community over identity' with heartfelt tragic characters. Communism will be the least of your worries as you navigate the complex range of emotions Lethem will evoke. It can be as painful as watching the doomed inhabitants of the Garden of Eden try to clamber back in after their fall from grace, not realizing the garden has moved far along without them.

Book Review: End This Depression Now! by Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman is a polarizing figure in both politics and economics. Look at the comments section on any one of his many New York Times editorials and you'll see whorls of comments from ordinary conservative Americans fuming that he is "always wrong" or "a communist f***" (actual comments). Which is to say nothing of what politicians and reporters and professional political commentators say of him. And what is so wonderful about Krugman, and more importantly this book, is that what he has to say isn't incendiary or fear mongering; it isn't liberal elitism or an attack on conservatism. All Krugman is doing is rehashing Keynesian economics in our modern world, which, more simply, is just making the case for more government spending as a viable way out of the depression the US economy is currently in.

The simplicity is definitely part of what makes this book so great, but I found myself disappointed at almost every corner. ETDN is a short book, Krugman is candid and avoids getting technical, but as a result, the book avoids big conversations about economic inequality and bad economic policy. I found myself asking questions like "if there are policies (or lack thereof) that allow massive amounts of money to be pumped to the top without ever touching the bottom, will government spending really help?!"; questions I never thought were addressed, but were perfectly natural to ask. And despite his simple, almost redundant, speculations on government spending and only government spending, what he has to say is still despised. This is undoubtedly because people, not just conservatives but mostly them, have been taught to fear government spending. They are under the impression that it is fraudulent, that it isn't efficient, that inflation will raze our dollar to worthlessness and that our ever impending debt will be bought by China, who will eventually own us as a result. It is these fears that allow me to understand Krugman's tactics in writing this book and leaving out the larger, more progressive points. 

Krugman attempts to gently allay all of the aforementioned fears, from inflation to excessive debt, without irony or sarcasm, and, more importantly, without a call for an onslaught of liberal policies. He is quick to point out that military spending and social security are conservative advocated government expenditures that can help stimulate the economy. He even makes a convincing case for meaningful corporate subsidies. ETDN is safe, calculating, and inclusive in what seems to be Krugman's genuine stab at talking to people who don't already listen to him. It might be hard to get your more conservative friends to read this book, but once (if ever) they do, there are an abundance of points they can take with them. 

Found this little gem looking for a picture of Krugman.
The webpage it was found on suggests he is a Jewish Supremacist...

Book Review: The Short and Tragic Life of Robert Peace

At its core, The Short and Tragic Life of Robert Peace by Jeff Hobbs is an important story. A brilliant young man struggling to find his place after graduating from one of the top universities in the nation. Robert Peace runs the gauntlet of contemporary barriers for the American black man; cyclical poverty, father imprisoned for murder, plagues of gang and drug violence, racism, the education gap, and the ever-present need to "Newark proof" yourself. This last obstacle, the need to fit in within the neighborhood, is arguably what brought Peace's demise (no spoilers here, read the title). It seems to be the only thing he can't transcend as he makes his way through Yale and life thereafter. Rob Peace and the struggle he faces through this book makes it an essential read for any college student in the twenty-first century, unfortunately this takes a back seat to the author's poor attempt to play biographer for his friend he seems to know far too little about. 

Outside of book clubs for moms, any adept reader might feel uncomfortable with Jeff Hobbs' attempts at describing Peace's early life. Hobbs is very evidently a stranger to the kind of neighborhood Peace grew up in. Despite his omniscient and objective narration his descriptions are amateur; referring to criminals as "dark figures in the night" or the "stupefied drug addicts" at the park. Hobbs' clear unfamiliarity with these places coupled with his impersonal and authoritative style of narration comes off as awkward, almost offensively so. There is a simple fix, Hobbs could have inserted himself in the narrative, he could have explained his unfamiliarity with these places and it would have allowed him more liberty in the way he writes. His journey to these places, his interactions with important characters in Rob's life, his visiting key locations, these all could have made the work more relatable and quite frankly, better.

This is an unfortunate major trend in the book. Hobbs' wannabe omniscient narration style that mistakenly includes things like his political views or misconceptions about life in the ghetto, dominates two narratives; that of Rob Peace and that of Hobbs himself. The book would otherwise have been able to get across important themes; that higher education is not the solution to systemic problems of poverty or the fear of how we will look when we leave where we are from and its effects on our lives. Any college student or aspiring college student could learn a lot from the struggles both Rob and Hobbs (who does insert himself fleeting in the narrative at times) face before and after Yale. The problem is that Hobbs isn't present enough for us to glean any lasting meaning from his journey in writing this book and the lack of authority he writes about Rob prevents any journey of our own in reading it.

Ultimately I think in writing this piece Jeff Hobbs demonstrates the same weaknesses as Rob, but without the lethal consequences. He is a writer posturing himself as an authority on something he clearly knows nothing about in attempt to seem almost better than the rest of his contemporaries at Yale; the stuffy and uppity students who think they are better than people like Rob. Where Rob constantly fronts himself as hard and adaptable to the streets in a way that becomes too believable, but Hobbs who offers himself as a Yalie who has seen the other side of the wealth gap and bringing it back to the rest of us privileged enough not to know it, is not believable enough. The tragedy of this book is that any importance it offers is reserved for those who have never read about or experienced that which Hobbs tries, and fails, to convey.

TV Review: American Crime

5 Episodes Deep:

Earlier this week President Obama sat down with David Simon who created the evocative show The Wire. Obama praised Simon for his work, saying that humanizing the drug war is an integral part of ending it. This is poignant and genuine commentary coming from the president. Regardless of how you feel about him he's right on two counts; the Wire was a great work of art and the conversation it was having could seriously help the way we talk about criminal justice reform. In the five episodes of the ABC show American Crime that I've seen, it is not quite the great work of art that could sit down at the same table with the Wire, but what it brings to the conversation is immensely important.

The plot revolves around several characters all linked to the brutal murder of Matthew Skokie and the subsequent assault on his wife, who at the show's start is deep in a coma. Every character introduced has a role in confusing the narrative; what starts out as "good old boy Matthew Skokie, U.S. Army Veteran (joined after 911 his mom adamantly pronounces whenever she can) and his faithful bride are senselessly gunned down by minority thugs" shortly turns into a mess of racial tension and complicated back-story. There is a lot of family melodrama the show could do without, but it adds useful context as well as some pretty powerful acting.

The archetypal roles that each character plays are, for the most part, representative of new American identities. There is a conservative hispanic father ("I came to this country the right way"), a forgotten veteran, a bi-racial couple. These crash with more classic archetypes like the white racist/delusional mother, the perfect older sibling, the rebellious teen, or the criminal illegal immigrant. This is what the show is at its core; cultures and narratives, both new and old, clashing and complicating the larger story. If at any point the viewer doubts or believes it is only because of their own preconceived notions that they bring to the show, which does a genuine job challenging them. It is constantly casting  those who seek to simplify the story in a negative light. The viewer will despise the press, the prosecution and the defense, Matt Skokie's mother, but at the same time will have to constantly question if they, the viewers, are any better. There is no underlying politics to the show and it's larger point defies progressives, neo liberals, and conservatives alike; it has something to challenge everyone.

This is all delivered with same delicacy that writer John Ridley delivered in 12 Years a Slave. Nothing is shouted, everything is subtle.  But what the show has in writing it severely lacks in style. Some of the younger actors have yet to come into their own; they can be painful to watch at times. Some elements are obviously added for dramatic effect; choppy scene sequencing got old after the first episode. Some characters and plot points seem to be hysterically two dimensional; that the black man accused of Matt's murder has close relatives in the Nation Of Islam comes to mind. Yet despite all of this American Crime remains an important piece of work that humanizes racial tensions in a way I have yet to see another show tackle. Anyone interested in challenging their perspective should at least give first episode a chance.

Book Review: Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace

The Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace was a challenging book to read; it was wordy and messy; disturbing at times and nearly non-sensical at its worst. If you accept the challenge reading this book offers it will yield some truly amazing things to you, but you have to work hard. You can't just passively read this book, glazing over sections could make the entire thing not worth it. This might sound kind of snobby, in fact it will, but this is probably for the best; we should not be able to access the kind of truth DFW is offering without having to dig deep in our abilities to read, to suffer through the insufferable parts. This adds a third dimension to merging form and content that only a deeply personal author like Wallace can get away with.

One major challenge is that this book is absolutely packed with content not directly related to the main plot, picture Moby Dick with way more human element and characterization (as opposed to, you know, nautical trivia). The plot itself revolves around a staggering amount of characters. At the nucleus of this ensemble is the Incandenza family, comprised of a mother, a father and 3 sons. In true Shakespearean style, the novel picks up after the father, film maker and tennis academy founder/headmaster James Incandenza, has died after a grotesque suicide. If you are the kind of reader who reads for plot, this book definitely has a good one. James, in a distant future that sees an end to TV and a rise of film cartridges as entertainment as we know it, has created a film cartridge the content of which is irresistible to anyone who watches it. It becomes so addictive that after watching it only once, the viewer desires nothing more out of life than to watch it again and again. This cartridge is sought after by some pretty dubious crowds. 

The plot, though very interesting and good, is not exactly the easiest thing to follow. It is also crowded by characters whose lives are magnified so much they become stand-ins for very dense philosophical themes. These themes are what make it all worth it. They are usually classically powerful literary themes like Shakespearean family dynamics or dystopian futures; big questions like whether free will exists or if there is such a phenomenon as too much freedom; it is all there. I mean you can find anything you want. But the themes themselves are explored genuinely and are made to seem almost vulnerable. Everything has this slight tinge of ridiculousness to it, but not ironic ridiculousness. The book, despite having almost every heavy literary theme present, focuses more on humanizing theme itself rather than lampooning it (though, some of that is there too). Wallace's cast of drug addicts, snobby teenagers, cross dressing secret agents, legitimately wheelchair bound assassins, professional athletes, disabled people, freakishly tall people, beyond logic bureaucratic bureaucrats, crazy Canadian anarchic separatists, and many more; are the various vehicles of these themes, each character with a respective back story or important tie in to the plot or setting, or just sometimes a character with seemingly no purpose at all. These are the imperfect faces of embodied literary themes.

Infinite Jest is truly unlike any book I have ever read. David Foster Wallace has such a personal style. He knows the conventions of writing so well that when he breaks them to get closer to you as a reader, maybe throwing "like" into the middle of a sentence, you can't help but be further engaged. This draws you into his acute observations about our everyday world that ring so true it can have you really feeling something, Wallace will riff on your empathy just by bringing to light something you probably have always seen but never noticed. It is these moments that truly pay off. That said, I have never been more challenged as a reader. It is too easy to see some of this riffing as Wallace jerking it to himself; the wordiness can get old; the constant tangents can lose you; there are some parts that are bound to offend you (incest is a motif in this novel). If you can get through this, if you accept the challenge, if the meaning of all of these flaws doesn't lose you; it is certainly possible to find yourself in this book.

Book Review: The Autobiography of Malcolm X

The Autobiography of Malcolm X is a collaboration between Malcolm X himself and Alex Haley. The book details his entire life and is easily one of the most powerful things I have ever read. The first thing you have to know is that Malcolm X was an ever changing and dynamic character. Any criticism you read of the man might be true depending on what stage of his life you are looking at. This seems pretty unextraordinairy, you could say that about anyone. The difference between Malcolm X's auto biography though, is how many times he went through a complete overhaul of his identity. He changes his names 3 times alone, each reflecting a new life, a new ideology, and a new kind of leader.

Malcolm X's most consistent quality is his "fire". It really defined him as a leader of the struggle, probably more so than his often confused ideology. This fire manifests itself in a variety of ways that make Malcolm so facisinating. Sometimes it is aimed at the collective action of the white man in the form of pure, unabashed truth telling. Despite the fact that he was never formally educated, his mastery of knowledge over the history of his people can indict even the most progressive whites of his time or any. No one is safe. He takes on the given racist institutions like prisons or the government, but he also takes down education and the media. He went after them in ways the more peaceful leaders did not. Every word is deliberate, every message is clear. It is almost hard to describe how blunt and truthful this man could be, the conviction he gave to his words made everything he said hammer home. No other word but "powerful" can convey this mans presence, even his literary one.

For the same reasons it was the most powerful book I ever read, it was also the most challenging. It challenged everything I previously thought about race and everything that ever taught me about it. The power behind Malcolm's accusations that welfare tore up his family or that the integrated school systems were used to ensure the demise of his education, had me seriously questioning these systems. Obviously I believe in integration and government assistance to the poor still, but this is why reading Malcolm was so challenging. He shook the foundation of what I know to be true. One line captures this perfectly for me. Alex Haley is telling Malcolm that whatever he says, the white publishers are contractually obligated to publish. X says he doesn't trust the white man, Haley assures him he can, and Malcolm responds: "You trust them and I don't. You learned about him in schools where he taught what he wanted you to know about him and I learned about him locked in the ghetto streets and in prisons - I will tell you about trust". This had me thinking about how in public school I never learned about Malcolm X, or Angela Davis, or Stokely Carmichael or any movement that was outside the most famous, non violent, civil rights  movements. I did learn about Christopher Columbus' heroic discovery of America, our heroic founding fathers, our historic sense of justice as a nation. Of course I knew all these things were just pretty pictures of our past that were painted to hide the real ugliness of it. What I never really suspected was that other movements and conditions were left out by design, in order to write off their importance, their reality, or even their existence. The most challenging and powerful part of this book was reading Malcolm lay these truths out in front of me and making me aware of how little I know about my own education.

But despite its power and challenge, there are some serious flaws in Malcolm, his ideology, and his book. Malcolm I believe was deeply sexist, which is a hard thing to admit, but ultimately true. It is hard to admit because he has so many speeches that really empower African American women, but he expresses too many times his belief in their fundamental weaknesses and toxicity to men. This duality made me uncomfortable and didn't seem all that useful to the narrative. I'll grant that it was at least honest. I've also mentioned before that his ideology was confused, but people often cite how his discovery of true Islam (away from the Elijah Muhammad Islam of Black America) and his pilgrimage to Mecca helped change his personal philosophy into one of brotherhood. Yet I find his understanding of Islam to be surprisingly flat. He points out that Muslims don't often care about color, that white muslims and black muslims work together sincerely, this leads him to believe that Islam is the only true religion of brotherhood and he doesn't hesitate to tell this to everyone. While I think he is right about the muslim community's regard toward race, he seems to completely ignore the history of violence within the religion as he uses it to assail christianity. This shows an unprecedented ignorance of history - it is fairly disappointing to see. Finally, the book glorifies his criminal past far too much. In its first chapter and a half, we are met with vivid and powerful memories of racism unlike anything I've ever read. Yet when Malcolm falls into the life of crime, it reads like a crime novel; drug runs, shoot outs, showdowns, the works. As destitute as he wants you to believe it was, it is hard to believe it when he treats his criminal self as a hero of the underworld. The re-birth into Islam then seemed insincere and caricatured. It made his transition away from this phase all too unbelievable. It set kind of an off pace for the rest of the book.

Overall though, reading the autobiography of Malcolm X is worth it. It is bound to inspire and challenge, but it is not guaranteed you will like it. After reading this book I think it is upsetting to hear Malcolm's constant comparison to Martin Luther King Jr. It is true they often criticized one another, but Malcolm was the fire under America's ass - his goals were not the same. This devotion to the struggle of his people, his willingness to burn himself to extinction in order to incite change...or else, makes for a very riveting and mind altering read. This book offers you something very deep; I think whether you walk away with it like Spike Lee did, or you walk away from it - you will not be the same after you've seen it.

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.