I work for Uncle Sam as a contractor. So I have ample opportunities to walk the halls of government. No doubt, many will be happy to know how their tax dollars are spent keeping me well informed. Today, as I a glance up, I see that the fabulous, busy-little, government-salaried, diversity bees have taken the time to inform me of a wondrous celebration, Gay Pride Month. WOW! How sweet, I thought. Don’t we have such a wonderful government? It pays people nice salaries to shape my values and instill correct thoughts in me.
Yes! Under the enthusiastic direction of our honorable and dedicated politicians, armies of fabulous, busy-little, government-salaried, diversity bees lurk everywhere you find your government. Let’s look at some of the wonderful examples of their busy-buzz-buzz-work.
- Celebrating at the front page of the State Department, you will find a link to GLIFAA, the officially-recognized organization representing the concerns of gay and lesbian personnel and their families.
- To make certain its employees fully and completely understand gay work place issues, Los Alamos National Laboratory has scheduled speakers for Gay Pride Month (see here). Even better, because Los Alamos is about science, those fabulous, busy-little, government-salaried, diversity bees have a link that tells us about the Science of Diversity.
- Even the dedicated souls who work in the wilds taking care of our fish and wildlife are not forgotten by those fabulous, busy-little, government-salaried, diversity bees. Brought to you by its Division of Diversity and Civil Rights, here is the Gay Pride Month web page for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – Pacific Region.
Of course, since I am approaching my senior years, I am a bit hopeless now. My terrible prejudices, values, and religious beliefs are too deepseated to eradicate. Even those fabulous, busy-little, government-salaried, diversity bees can do little to change my mind. How sad? Nonetheless, perhaps with a new administration in Washington D. C. we can count upon those fabulous, busy-little, government-salaried, diversity bees making redoubled efforts in the Department of Education. What if they are truly allowed to promote their fabulous values in the public schools? Given time, decade after decade, there is no telling what results they might achieve. Is that not change you can believe in? Or what?
Leave no Gay behind?
CK—LMAO!
Tom, some of my best friends are gay. That said, I sometimes think the “gay pride” thing is meant to serve two purposes: to raise awareness and to educate.
The negative side of this is it represents yet one more pendulum swing: gay people have been harassed for so long, some of the “coming out” has been a bit “in your face,” just as it is with any group that has been discriminated against. For example, some people perceive and call vocal, staunch feminists as “femi-nazis.” (Forgive the term. That’s what they are called, though.) Why are they called this? They are “in your face” with feminism because they are tired of discrimination. You see this in minority groups, in certain religious groups, and even in plain old rebellious groups. People want to be left alone to do as they please (and I don’t mean this in the criminal sense).
The State Department and government agencies cannot afford discrimination suits. Therefore, they take the time to educate and bring awareness. For some people, this way is too public–mostly these “some people” are moderate live-and-let- live folks who just think this stuff should be private. Others who are the actual haters/discriminators are the ones who need to get the “BACK OFF!” message. Education and a big sign saying, “Hey! We know you are here!” should send that message. I truly believe if we didn’t have overt haters in the world, we wouldn’t need all this “diversity stuff.”
That said, I love a diverse world. Who the heck wants everyone the same? How utterly boring.
kgotthardt – My concern is keeping the government out of the business of telling us what to believe. I care little about race or sexual diversity. I don’t pretend to entirely understand why some people get so confused about their gender identity. What I do know is the diversity that is important is a diversity of beliefs.
When people are allowed to keep their own opinions and practice their own beliefs, race and sexual diversity become small matters. So long as we respect the rights of others, all of us can find someone who will accept us.
Unfortunately, most of us find conformity comfortable. We find a diversity of ideas, not mere appearances, is unsettling. Inevitably, the differing beliefs of others cause us to question our own beliefs. Worse still, when we hear differing beliefs, we find within them accusations. We each can find others who will condemn as sinful beliefs and practices we hold dear. Then we are tempted to hate.
Freedom of religion is our most fundamental right. So we should be wary of people so full of self-pride they cannot bare to tolerate the mere statement that what they are doing is wrong.
Hmmm…..lots of interesting ideas here, Tom.
“When people are allowed to keep their own opinions and practice their own beliefs, race and sexual diversity become small matters.” YES! That makes you the moderate “live-and-let-live” type I mentioned before.
“Worse still, when we hear differing beliefs, we find within them accusations. We each can find others who will condemn as sinful beliefs and practices we hold dear. Then we are tempted to hate.” This is very true. There’s nothing worse than being told we are deserving of condemnation. It brings out reactions most of us would prefer never to have.
I will listen to anyone’s beliefs, but if you start telling me I am going to hell because of…(insert perceived sin here), I automatically turn off the hearing aid. These statements don’t make me hate, but they do irritate me. It’s a turn off for sure!
Do you think government is trying to tell you what is right and what is wrong? I’ve never been in an environment like that. (I’ve worked mostly in education where open and free inquiry is encouraged.)
I think too many people don’t recognize or consider the implications of recent changes. Consider the effect of federal funding in education. When an educational institution accepts federal funds, don’t a whole slew of government regs related to diversity kick in? The more minorities we define, the more regulations.
This benefits no one but lawyers. If we maintain a competitive environment, people do not need this nonsense. Who in his or her right mind insults people and turns away business? What is the point of substituting ordinary good manners with the threat of lawsuits?
Will people sometimes segregate themselves? Yes. If somebody sets up a religious school, I doubt they will hire too many atheists to teacher. So? Businesses form market niches to satisfy the needs of customers. Atheists will undoubted find their own market niche.
If our government insists on schools that all look alike and follow the same practices, then how will we have this diversity that gets so much airplay.
Yeah, this, like you last post, poses a balance problem. It’s the same problem we see in society at large, the one that harkens back to the colonial American state of mind: how do we maintain individuality yet work as a society? Remember the Puritans and the Calvinists and all the other groups that split, one from another, in an attempt to maintain their separateness but still stay together? The Civil War? The immigration debate? It is the same theme running through our culture again and again, and there is no definitive answer.
As for lawyers, they have become the only means of ensuring individuals maintain their right to be so. We can’t trust corporations or any group to respect the rights of individuals because personal prejudice sometimes gets so in the way, there is discrimination. I’m not talking about petty lawsuits (those are a plague in society) but I am talking about serious grievances that never get resolved the way they should. That’s when the lawyers have to move in.
What you call “ordinary good manners” are culturally and personally subjective. It’s ridiculous to assume one person will act the same as another. We in cities and suburbs no longer are subjugated by tight codes of conduct as we once did. (I just watched “Becoming Jane” last night, so this idea is particularly in the forefront in my mind this morning.) The likelihood of SOMEONE being offended is pretty high.
I’ve seen this dramatically in my own area where people from New York, New Jersey, and New England move into more traditionally southern neighborhoods. Boy, are we ever offensive to some of those people! We talk differently, we act differently, and some people think we are just down right rude. More than once I’ve been told, “You would be fine if you lived in New York.” Well, I’m probably too small town and still a bit of a hick for that. Besides, I j-walk too often.
If we went by rules of “common sense and common courtesies,” we would ALL be fired or expelled. And the lawyers wouldn’t be able to keep up with it all.
kgotthardt — I agree that balance is an issue. We must refrain from imposing our “rights” upon each other. However, I would be careful about overrating the importance of lawyers in protecting our rights.
Consider this paragraph again. “As for lawyers, they have become the only means of ensuring individuals maintain their right to be so. We can’t trust corporations or any group to respect the rights of individuals because personal prejudice sometimes gets so in the way, there is discrimination. I’m not talking about petty lawsuits (those are a plague in society) but I am talking about serious grievances that never get resolved the way they should. That’s when the lawyers have to move in.”
What makes corporations dangerous? The problem is their sheer size. So long as we have choices, any particular corporation does not pose a threat. When one corporation will not give you a job or sell you its services, you can go to a competitor. Unfortunately, corporations easily become huge and monopolistic. Corporations can also exercise a great influence with government officials, and when that happens, lawyers are not particularly useful. In fact, bringing in the lawyers is like having surgery to remove an organ. It is an act of desperation to overcome a serious failure. As you said yourself, we are “talking about serious grievances that never get resolved the way they should.”
How should the grievances be resolved? I think our best defense from persecution is the availability of alternative choices. In our society we provide such choices in the free market. Our problem is figuring out what it takes to maintain markets free from monopoly.
I guess this particular post really did not explain what I think it takes to prevent persecution. I was more interested in being sarcastic. I think I will do a post that explains my opinion. If nothing else, it may stimulate some interesting discussion.
I’m sure it will! But as you point out, your best defense is another choice. But what if the damage has already been done and the corporation will not fix it even after you have requested it again and again (I’m talking about cases like fraud, mismanagement, etc.)? What if those damages follow you for life making choices impossible? What other options does the consumer have except a lawyer (or writing to consumer agencies and the like which often proves futile)?
For example, in the student loan industry, students do not have standard consumer protections. They cannot dispute their fees, get put into default when they have not defaulted, and often have their interest rates raised without notice. (See “studentloanjustice.org for some real horror stories. Mine is in there.) What are students and their families to do when they run into a behemoth like Sallie Mae? What happens if they run into an unethical school? These folks have no accountability, no checks and balances, and once the damage has been done, it is virtually un-doable. Places like these don’t want to rectify the situation. They want to get your money, period.
That’s why the lawyers have to come in….otherwise, I agree. Just go some place else that will give you a better deal and better customer service.
But what if there are no competitors? We see this in corporations like the telecom industry where one company is permitted to be the sole provider in an area (because they are huge and have clout like little businesses do not have). We do not have choices in that case, and we are subjected to their whims. And since there are few regulatory controls and they often have “bought off” the government through large lobbying efforts and campaign contributions, we, the consumer, effectively have no rights.
I hope you propose specific solutions for these issues in your next post. Will be interesting for sure.