Battles with Integrity

I agree.

There's another thing to think about in the idea of not equalizing the playing field: who really benefits from keeping people down? Becuae that's what's happening if you don't do things like affirmative action - you know that the playing field is unequal and yet you persist? I have no words.

But let's look at who realy benefits. Ostensibly people in power benefit from keeping things as they are - they get nearly all the seats on the government, own tons of stuff, don't get so harrassed by the police.

But they still have to live in a world where poverty exists and their cars still get broken into and they still have to see protesters on teevee - there's still crime, and prisons and so on. On an emotional level, it does not benefit them.

But the societal competetive attitudes that if someone else gets something it has to be taken away from you and then you'll *starve* OMG!!! That's just not true. With the current tax structure everyone in the US could easily have enough to eat and places to live. It's how those resources are allocated.

For that matter it's a policy decision that people around the world are starving. There is no reason for it except this same attitude of scarcity. (see food first, for example)

I'm taking yet another economics class and this one makes it even more clear: there is what we assume is going on and then what is actually going on. And never the twain shall meet.

So while it's fine to say "but if they get x, it'll hurt MEEEEEE!" it just ain't true. And ther's no reason it should be. I could go on for days about this (read some George Lakoff - cognitive linguist - to get an idea of the differences in the way people think about this stuff). It's a choice. And I think that choosing to keep people down is a horrific choice. And I refuse.

Once you know, you're complicit. It's on your shoulders too.