The Two-Party/Class System: Jefferson Unintentionally Got it Right

When the US was in its seminal political stage, it had to deal with the idea of the two party system. George Washington famously warned against partisan politics forming after he left office. Yet, Washington was basically a Federalist on the side of Hamilton and Adams who believed in a strong central government to help the nation grow through the promotion of the banking and merchant class. Thomas Jefferson was the leader in opposition and thereby became the champion of the Democrat-Republican party. Many founding fathers, especially on the Federalist side worried about the idea of political parties because it would divide and stagnate the country. Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists were initially opposed to political factions as well, but they saw no other way to gain political power than to organize as a cohesive party and attack the staunch federalists. In a letter to Henry Lee in 1824 Jefferson wrote:

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, liberals and serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, whigs and tories, republicans and federalists, aristocrats and democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last appellation of aristocrats and democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all."

Although Jefferson may have struggled with his own aristocratic desire for power and moral inconsistencies, what he wrote to Henry Lee is inspiring to those who wish to oppose the consolidation of power by the few. In modern American politics nearly all tend to agree that authority in the hands of the few is the antithesis to democracy and liberty, but the questions that arise next is where the schism occurs. To be clear, I do not mean the schism between modern American politicians, which is mostly just a distraction. Nearly every member of our federal and state governments are in one political party, the business and corporate party. The menial arguments over the "role of government" taken up by these people is merely a facade to gather more political power and wealth for their own benefit. The issues they debate are of little consequence to those who fund their campaigns and actually write legislation. These are mostly social issues and the "culture war" that has the mainstream media in a frenzy.

There is a real divide among the people without power. In modern American politics, the working class American appears to be in two ideological camps, one that thinks government has too much control and should allow free enterprise to guide the economy, and the other camp blames corporate power which funds our elected officials causing them to represent corporate interests above the people's interests. These camps are referred to as right and left respectively in American political semantics. I think most people on the right will concede that corporations have too much power over politicians, but the divide comes when the ideology of the right says that government should absolutely leave businesses alone. They should not support business nor limit business. Sounds like a reasonable argument up front. The issue I take is that the nature of capitalism in a democratic society in an ostensible fashion inevitably leads to monopoly, consolidation of power, and money thrown into the political system in such an obscene way that it becomes virtual Fascism. That is where we are now. Our system was designed with checks and balances that mean absolutely nothing when a small amount of very wealthy people lobby and throw money at every check and balance. Corporations send lobbyists to write the laws for legislatures, they contribute money to elect judges to benefit corporate interests, and they offer regulators jobs with huge salaries at their companies after they deregulate for them. (see Meredith Attwell Baker joining the Comcast lobbying team after she led the approval of the Comcast/NBC merger as FCC commissioner. http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/f-c-c-commissioner-to-join-comcast/)

Once deconstructed, the divide in American political thought among the masses is only symptomatic. The true divide is between the people who on large think they live in a democracy with mild corruption, and the people who actually have a voice who are the corporate leaders of GE, Exxon-Mobile, Haliburton, Bank of America, Walmart, Lockheed and Martin, etc. The working class may get scraps from the table on issues that no corporation has an interest in, but on policies that would favor the American public that come into conflict with corporate interests you can be certain that the policies will either be counter to the public's interests and desires, or an extremely diluted version of what the public wants (i.e last year's federal healthcare reform). Thomas Jefferson was absolutely right. To use his words to reiterate my point there are really two parties that matter in America right now, "1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests." Most politicians today, Democrat and Republican, are in the former party. Whereas the public is overwhelmingly in the latter, but with very little power/wealth. Whether Jefferson knew it or not, he was talking about a bourgeois and a proletariat party. anti-federalist southerners at the time were surprisingly egalitarian in their economic theories (equality for white men at least). The capitalist ventures of merchants and bankers were despised as perverting liberty by consolidating political power by means of economic dominance.

It doesn't matter if it is a government holding all political and economic power like that of the anxious Middle Eastern dictators, or if a select few corporations control all power, the results are devastating for the people.

Sexual Equality and American Foreign Policy

Why has the gay rights movement taken so long to provide the LGBT community with equal rights? I believe there are many reasons for this, but one that is often unnoticed is US foreign policy. It is true that homosexual acceptance in this country faces the obstacle of the religious right, aggressive masculinity, and the American tradition of sexual repression. Yet, other groups seeking political rights and the freedom of state repression throughout our history did not encounter such a long and arduous movement. In comparison to ethnic minorities, there is a huge difference, which is the physical aspect. You can clearly tell if someone is a racial minority, but aside from openly deviant people in the LGBT community, it is impossible to point out someone's sexuality just by looking at them. Certainly that is a huge difference because if you're a racial minority you cannot hide that and you will may face harsh discrimination. For many sexual minorities, they can hide the fact that they are a sexual minority from their family, peers, and community, and even more tragically from themselves. This creates psychological results that can be just as damaging as being open and physically discriminated against. The surge in suicides for sexual minorities demonstrates this idea.

Sexual minorities have always been with us, and in America they are now more out in the open than ever. They recently won the right to serve openly in the military. African Americans won equal military rights in the 1940s (This is of course merely legal equality because there are still institutional forces that discriminate against homosexuals and blacks in the military. For one, the percentage of minorities serving the military as opposed to whites really highlights how we are not even close to economic equality in terms of race, but I'm strictly talking legal equality). The next step in many LBGT minds is marriage equality. There have been big strides in the last ten years, but the process is still very slow compared to other civil rights movements.

A contributing factor is that there is no foreign policy incentive for the American government to grant equality for the LBGT community. The Civil Rights Act was in part adopted by our government as a Cold War policy. The pressure African Americans were putting on the US government was an embarrassment to America in the international community. Especially with African and Asian leaders. In 1954 when Nixon was Vice President and on a tour of Asia he described an incident where an Indian legislator “derived an unfavorable impression of America because he visited a city in which he got on a bus and the bus driver made him move to the back of the bus because his skin was not white.” This was an utter embarrassment to American officials, and there are many cases like that. Although, not the sole reason for black civil rights, it certainly played a role in the US government's push forward for civil rights. Lyndon Johnson, who signed the civil rights act as President, was against the act while he was in congress. He was not a benevolent sympathizer for civil rights. It was politically a good move domestically as well as foreign for support of the US Cold War agenda.

Is there any foreign policy reason why the US government should give equal rights for the LGBT community? There is no homosexual country (although, many ignorant Americans would say France, or some other European country without a stick its ass is a “homosexual country.” Irony not intended.) Further, the parts of the world that the US is trying to grab into its sphere of influence is not very tolerant of sexual minorities either. A few years ago the Iranian president assured us that there were no homosexuals in his country, to which a friend of mine retorted “because you stoned all of them to death.” Any cursory look at current US foreign policy would show that we are in somewhat of a cold war with Iran over the influence in the Middle East. Iran is not alone in the stoning of homosexuals. Saudi Arabia, our biggest financial ally in the region not only holds contempt for sexual minorities, but has the worst track record for its treatment of women. There is no international embarrassment for our treatment of homosexuals because the battle for gender and sexual equality is international. I'm not saying the US government will only grant equality for the LGBT community if it tries to take resources from a country that is completely accepting of all sexualities, but I do think without that incentive the battle in the US for equal rights will be long and arduous still. The bright side is that on the state level over the last several years sexuality rights are leaving the bigots behind. The problem here is for LGBT people living in the bible belt. That is why we need to continue to push, not only our governments, but our communities, and schools to accept and welcome all types of people into our lives. The Civil Rights Act in itself did not end discrimination and prejudice in our country, it still haunts us, but despite some of the rhetoric going around we are much less hateful than we were in the 1950s, and as long as we communicate with one another and work LGBT issues into our national consciousness we will continue to grow as a species and be able to transform hate into love while we continue the struggle for economic and political equality for all.

Join me in Humanity

The truth about the uprisings in the Middle East is that no one knows what is going to happen. That is the most exciting part of it all. We can all have out hopes and dreams or cynical comments of what might happen, but the fact is we are living in a time that no one could have predicted, and no one should predict. Let the pieces fall into place, support love and struggle over violence and oppression, and wait. I know it feels like something must be done now, but we should understand that those in power wish to be “careful” about this because they have a lot of economic interests. Now I know that sounds economically determinist, but I defend it by looking at the facts. There is an enormous amount of money to be made on the addiction we so aggressively consume called oil. Those in political position are in debt to those in economic power to protect that interest, regardless of humanity. Sure, there may be a few oil execs that have a sliver of humanity and want the brutality to end in Libya. Yet, their main priority is to keep oil prices stable for them to manipulate, not a bunch of Muslim peasants. I had NPR on last night on my way home from work. NPR is supposedly a liberal radio station. They are moderate at best. The program I listened to outlined the effects these uprisings will have on the oil industry and the US economy. It was a disgusting discussion that sanitized a genocide into economic terms. Do I blame NPR? Partly. But I blame every American, every human being, that watches this and does not do anything. It is not hard to stand in front of a capitol building in the US and demand that your government takes action against a brutal dictator. We will not get shot at from helicopters. We actually have that right and we need to express it at least to force our government to give stern warnings and make statements to condemn our oil addiction and its leading to supporting disgusting dictators in the world.

Our “leaders” will not do it unless we demand they do it. That is really all we can do, but it is something we can easily do. I was at a rally for Libya yesterday and it was disheartening how small the turnout was. Especially since Austin has a sizable Arab community. But that shouldn't even matter. If you are human you should be outraged at what is going on. Everyone I speak to IS outraged, but why don't they rally? It's not like when people don't vote. I get why people don't vote. They see they have two choices that are both rich coccksuckers who do not give a shit about them. But to join a rally is so much easier. You come you speak your mind and you get to voice your anger. It's a lovely and therapeutic experience, especially if you are deeply disturbed by what is happening. No more living in fear and apathy. We need to rise up and demand an end to violence, an end to propaganda, an end to exploiting people for profit, an end to anti-intelligence , and an end to injustice and inequality. Please join me. I will be there no matter what. I will shout and rally and protest until humanity is cherished for what it is.

Egypt: An Inspiration for my Generation

As the Egyptian revolution enters its 17^th day, I'd like to take a moment and reflect on how big of a deal this will be to my generation. So far, this is the most inspirational global event that I have been around to experience. Although I struggle with the double edged sword of modern technology and getting lost in social networks, I see the internet here as absolutely good. It's well documented that the scope of this revolution has its roots in the internet. Many following the events may be familiar with the name Asmaa Mahfouz. On January 18^th she posted a video that inspired many young Egyptians to come out on the 25^th: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgjIgMdsEuk

Yet, Asmaa Mahfouz was not the sole source of the inspiration. In fact these protests were being organized for over a year on the internet, which was the safest place to conduct any ani-government plans in the Mubarak police state. Yes, this was in large part organized by the youth, but if you look at videos from the ground at Tahrir Square you see people of all ages, men, women, labor movements, Muslims and Christians united. Even today over 1,000 lawyers and doctors came out in support of the strikes and protests. (http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/10/headlines#1) It is not just a bunch of angry young people who cannot find jobs. Many ignorant westerners are portraying this historic moment to be that way. Fortunately, they are wrong.

Mubarak's announcement that he will not resign, and the regime will be defiant against democracy seems to have ignited more anger among protests as well as more attention from the west. It seemed that the media was getting tired of this story as our oscillating government focused its attention on business interests in America. The Obama administration/Corporate owners of America need to face the fact that the Middle East is starting to embrace democracy and peacefully fight western dominance of their resources and propped up dictators. Main point here is that they are doing it in a rather sophisticated and peaceful fashion. This poses a threat to American power interests who use anti-American religious extremists as a convenient excuse to dominate middle eastern politics for our corporate and strategic purposes. But if the voice of Islamic extremism is drowned out by a more rational and inspirational youth movement, it will be increasingly more difficult for our government to justify our brutal foreign policies. That is why you see all of this talk of the Muslim Brotherhood, even though they are a small player in what is really happening in Egypt.

What I fear more than religious groups taking over Egypt (which I don't think will happen) is the prospect of the US installing another oppressive regime and ignoring the democratic energy that has fueled this unprecedented revolution. There is talk that Mubarak and Sueliman need to stay in power until September to keep the country stable. I don't understand that logic. First of all, how can we believe that these brutal torturers need to stay for stability, while they are the ones causing all of the violence and instability during these protests. Secondly, it is degrading to the people protesting who have kept Tahrir Square in good shape, cleaning up after Mubarak backed thugs tried to trash the place. It's insulting to the courageous people in Egypt, and it's insulting to the rest of our intelligence to claim that Egypt needs Mubarak's regime to stay a little while longer to maintain “stability.”

In Line with US Foreign Policy Joe Biden Says Mubarak is not a Dictator

Yesterday Joe Biden stated that he did not think that President Mubarak of Egypt was a dictator. He proceeded to explain how Mubarak has been a good ally to US interests in the region:

Look, Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things that he’s been very responsible on relative to geopolitical interests in the region, Middle East peace efforts, the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with Israel. And I think that it would be—I would not refer to him as a dictator.

Based on this, the Vice President's definition of a dictator is predicated on compliance with US interests. The US government backing true dictators that consent to helping US business and strategic concerns is not a new revelation. You can go back throughout US history to find this sort of thing. For instance, it is common knowledge by historians now that the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile by Augusto Pinochet was backed and some even argue led by the US. Pinochet turned out to be a brutal dictator. Pinochet's government killed at least 3,197 people and tortured about 29,000. Two-thirds of the cases listed in the report happened in 1973. The list of support for dictatorships is long. Here is a website I found that posts a good portion of these dictators:

http://www.bluebloggin.com/2008/01/11/history-of-us-backed-dictators-redux/

Most infamous and infuriating of these in many people's minds is Saddam Hussein. Wikileaks cables that were released recently suggest that the US encouraged Saddam to invade Kuwait only to turn our back on the dictator using it as a catalyst to micromanage the region for the next 20 years. We see the results today.

Ron Paul actually had the courage to bring this up in congress this week:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JANYT8FCik&feature=player_embedded

Although I disagree with Paul on most domestic issues, he is a champion of exposing US atrocities abroad. Representative Kucinich is more to my liking as an overall politician, and these are the two eccentric US politicians that come to mind. Now, Joe Biden may be notorious for saying stupid things, but what he said here is exactly in line with the US foreign policy stance for decades. Paul and Kucinic are marked as loonies or radicals for their dissidence. Meanwhile, the President has sidestepped his way with much prowess to encourage dissidence, but to not upset his ally Mubarak who also happens to be a brutal dictator that is being challenged by a wave of protests in Egypt. My hope is that Egypt and the other Middle East countries that are going through revolution right now do not get trapped by US style imperialism. That imperialism shows up as privitization of resources, backing dictators that systematically kill dissidents, and horrid sectionalism. That imperialism is what creates terrorists. Not religion. Not a hate for freedom. It is the western stranglehold on that region that has produced the terrorist ideology we see today. As long as a few people profit from this we cannot rely on our government to do anything to stop it.

Investing in Education in Corporate Owned America

Last night the President spoke of investing in America's future. As an American I don't care. As a global citizen I am terrified. For politicians, investing in our future means that they are investing in the growth and consolidation of the giant corporations that have our elected leaders in their pockets. This means more foreign conflict, aggressive economic sanctions against third world people that do not comply with American privatization, and more unregulated destruction to the environment. That last one is caused by the industry that profited the most last year, big oil. I will address that in a moment, but first one thing Mr. Obama said really stood out to everyone was his sputnik reference. He stated:

"Half a century ago, the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik. We had no idea how we'd beat them to the moon. The science wasn't there yet. NASA didn't exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs. This is our generation's Sputnik moment."

This is quite true. The Cold War brought tons of money to the universities in order to beat Soviet technology and create more advanced weapons. Our university’s and likewise our economy flourished. Investing in higher education and government projects like NASA certainly played a large role. My issue with the President's reference here is that this will not happen again. Not only because it is impossible to get any significant change through our inept political process, but also because using artless patterns in history for making important policies today is frustratingly short sighted. Indeed the Cold War competition motivated the government to invest in these programs, which in turn created jobs and a new class of intelligent Americans, but this is not 1957. This is 2011, and corporate America has its grip on every decision of the government especially in education and scientific innovation.

The most promising new industry that we should invest in is green energy. I cringe when I say “new” because green energy has been trying to make a revolution in America since the 1970s. To give you an idea of how much progress we have made take a look at this clip:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy-independent-future

(Note: I know it's a comedy show and all that, but honestly who doesn't agree that the Daily Show is a better source of news than anything else on cable?)

The most striking point is at the end of the clip. Richard Nixon set a goal of getting America off foreign oil by 1980, and since then each administration has set more timid goals when it comes to energy. Why? Because the oil companies make more money than any other industry in the world (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2010/).

We can't invest in America in the same way we invested in the 1950s and 1960s when more and more money is thrown at our politicians by greedy companies seeking less rules and more profits by any means necessary. Those means include starving third world countries, assassinating foreign leaders that get in the way (see CIA assassinations in Latin America and overthrow of the Shah of Iran). They also include destroying the air, forests, and oceans.

The investment in education starting in 1957 was a major success at creating the critical thinkers and mass student movements of the 1960s and 70s. Since then, as colleges privatized and demanded more and more money from students and focused their resources in financial and business arenas, straying from social sciences, we have become an apathetic and politically unaware nation. My generation fails to question any of this treachery by corporate America, and our universities backed by our corporately owned government have played a major role. This is outlined wonderfully in an article by Terence Ball entitled The Politics of Social Science. He states:

“Survey researchers discovered that most Americans are politically ill informed, inactive, and apathetic. By “traditional” democratic lights, this was cause for considerable alarm. Yet, according to the newly emergent “elite theory” of democracy, it is widespread political participation that poses the greatest danger to democracy. Fortunately, an antidote is readily available. That antidote is apathy. Widespread apathy allows well educated and affluent “democratic elites” to have a disproportionate say in the shaping of political possibilities.”

In other words, a government controlled by corporate money (which many define as fascism) is not interested in critical thinkers capable of changing the world. It wants universities to produce obedient workers in the financial and service sectors, not innovators that will challenge the energy giants. They don't want critical thinkers that criticize the way our economic system works. The corporate owners that control the politicians (less than 1% of the population) are the ones that benefit enormously from that system, while the rest of us are given less education, lower paying jobs, pathetic benefits, and longer hours of work. Meanwhile, we are told by the mainstream media that we should feel bad for complaining, and that if we are not rich then we have no one to blame but ourselves. The president's sputnik reference was a nice poetic display, something Mr. Obama is great at, but it is nothing more than theater. It is the false idea that our government has our interests in mind and that it is not motivated by the pistols to their heads held by big oil, the banks, insurance companies, and all the rest.

The Business Puppet President We Can Believe In

Every time President Obama makes a new appointment to his staff, particularly the economic staff, the left is outraged and puzzled at this clear breach of his campaign promise to change how Washington works and to punish those responsible for the financial disaster. The newest array of such appointments are as follows: William Daley from JP Morgan Chase as White House Chief of Staff. Gene Sperling from the Goldman Sachs payroll to be director of the National Economic Council. Eileen Rominger from Goldman Sachs named director of the SEC's Investment Management division. General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt is going to be chair of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Immelt’s appointment has come under scrutiny just as many of the others. He’ll retain his position at the helm of GE, creating a potential conflict of interest. As one of the nation’s largest corporations, GE has a variety of business and issues before the federal government, including media mergers, military sales, environmental cleanup, and a $16.1 billion bailout in 2008. While Immelt is being introduced to us by Obama as someone who can create jobs, the United Electrical Workers Union says GE has closed 29 plants in the United States in the past two years, laying off around 3,000 workers.

This is not surprising to me at all. His business friendly appointees were never surprising to me. It seems to me that the people that voted for Obama fall into these categories: Group A thought he would create a magical world of love, peace and flowers. Group B voted for him because he was a democrat and they compulsively vote for that party no matter what. Group C did not want someone as dumb and out of her mind batshit crazy one heartattack away from the Presidency. And group D, which is the group I fall under was the group that thought maybe this guy will actually enact some of the change he promises. Group D really got the bare minimum of what we expected. An eventual and painful repeal of DADT, the most watered down, nearly insulting piece of health care reform, watered down financial reform, a timid stimulus that was almost half tax cuts and didn't help to create sustained growth, and the list of mediocre achievements goes on.

The Obama supporters say give him a break he's done a lot with the Republicans saying no to everything. I agree, the right made it hard for him to accomplish anything meaningful. But this is not an excuse for his staff appointments. His business oriented staff is a slap in the face to all that voted for him, and there is no excuse. There is only explanation: Both parties are made up of businessmen and lawyers, or puppets of such men. No one represents the working class, that is the overwhelming majority of the people. Whether you are a republican or a democrat, if you belive in public services or not, you are NOT being represented by anyone that has your interests in mind. Democrats ally with businesses to make regulation rig the game for whichever lobbyists spend more money. Republicans do the same, but then try to lower taxes for the wealthy too. It is a giant club of businessmen that 99% of the people are not in. We have corporate owners, and for us to be shocked by Obama's appointees is unbelievable. We shouldn't be shocked or surprised, we should be outraged that this is still going on. Outraged that we are still accepting these chains, even willfully putting them on and locking them, while our corporate icons drag us from one side of the town to the other, stealing back any of the scraps they gave us that we desperately clasp. I believe that the disparity of wealth in our world is a perfect example of this. I welcome argument and calls for hyperbole.

The Death of Postmodernism?

http://www.philosophynow.org/issue58/The_Death_of_Postmodernism_And_Beyond

Fascinating article that has a lot of truth about our culture, but I disagree with its premise. Here is my terse response:

I don't think postmodernism is in any way dead. I think there is truth in the idea that our culture is constantly engulfed in activity that ultimately creates banality and conformist consumers, but this doesn't signal a new philosophical movement. In fact, I think this is rather the result of postmodernism, not a rejection of it. If we live in a world where the pervading philosophy is one of individual perception and subjective understanding superseding any cohesive reality, then it makes sense that it would lead to a society of bland artistic consumption, narcissism, and political apathy. A bright spot in postmodernism (one of few that I see) is that since it has teamed up with technology, we now more than ever are able to connect and feel empathy with human beings on the other side of the world. That inclusive attitude has the potential to bring us together and eliminate mass violence and conflict more than any other philosophy/technological period in history.

The Ivory Tower

The ivory tower is a place where my generation and the one before it have gathered desensitized to the tragedy of our world. They try to act as though they are separate and even superior to the entertainment side of our culture when in fact they are part of the same problem. That of apathy, and defeat. The generation or two before mine may have actually physically felt that defeat, but my generation is desensitized. This new generation of scholars have even less of an urgency to solve the worlds pressing problems. The great minds of the last twenty years have gone into finance, manipulating numbers in order to make more money for themselves and those who are already rich. They are complemented by those who enter the academic world within a specific area of study. They look at their discipline as separate from the outside world. As if their ideas and sphere of influence dies once it hits reality, yet they want to distinguish themselves in front of their family and peers with titles and awards. Like the entertainment business and finance industry, these professional academics are just as selfish. The point of our existence should be to enlighten the others, to expose them to the truth: that there is no self, inasmuch as the self being the center of any one's existence. We are a collective bunch and we cannot allow human body's separate us from the fact that every human being shares the same molecules. What we study at universities is all very important and I respect many fields of scholarly research, but if we cannot feed every human in the world, I see no need for further research in theoretical physics, in mathematics, in history, in sociology, in any of those fields unless they are aiming to fix the biggest tragedy of our known existence: That most people in the world do not have sufficient access to food, water, shelter, and medicine, and that the earth is perpetually being polluted by corporate interests who exacerbate the human problems at every chance of making a profit. Until that problem is solved I see no need for an ivory tower just for the sake of an ivory tower.

My Tax Compromise

I don't understand people who trust corporations over government. Government as it is in the US certainly should not be trusted, but even when people talk about the idea of a corporation and the idea of a government they seem to have more faith in corporations. The corporation is not elected by people, it is not concerned about the welfare of society; it is simply concerned with maximizing profits. The notion that we should trust our health, education, and general well-being to those that ferociously seek a profit is absurd, and the flaws in that trust should easily be recognized. Perhaps at one point, in an ideal world where everyone is born on the same level playing field this anarcho-capitalism idea that's been going around is a lovely thought. But, once a gap develops and you have winners and losers the gap only widens, and it is much harder for the losers to get enough leverage to make up for lost ground. In that scenario the government should act as the equalizer. The world is not black and white, there is no good and evil, and idealism in the sense that there is a pure economic structure that will save the world does not exist. That is why we need to view taxes in a different way. We need to look at taxation, not solely just as a way for government to pay for "entitlements" or public projects, but as a way to create economic equality.

It absolutely should be the job of government and taxation to be the great equalizer, but this also needs to collaborate with what we spend our tax dollars on. We need to cut military spending AT LEAST in half and end imperialism for good. We need to feed people and seriously push to educate them on eating healthy and making those healthy options available, while at the same time sanctioning instead of rewarding corporations that load their food with harmful amounts of fat, chemicals, salt, and other cancer and obesity inducing ingredients. We need health care. That is, free health care for every person. It's being done in several countries. The fact that those countries have flaws in their system should not render the idea defeated. Instead, we need to build upon that idea and perfect a system where no one has to choose between health and bankruptcy. If the Obama health care plan was what we all wanted to begin with (a single payer system, or at least a public option) republican judges would not have as much momentum with declaring Obama's plan as unconstitutional. We also need homes for people. There should not be one homeless person alive that wants a home. Keep in mind, if we have this capitalist system the way we can compromise is to provide healthy food and comfortable shelter to every human being. It is not socialist, but it is compromising with those ideologically opposite.

On top of that, we need education. Our descendents will not forgive us if we do not start investing in education for all aspects of intellectual capacity. We need smart critical thinkers, and no person should be left behind, not one race, not one gender, not one person who is neurologically different. Every single person deserves a college education, and it is in our interests as a society to have the next generation be smart critical thinkers. On my list of needs that a functioning and sophisticated society should provide for its people the top four are food, health care, shelter, and education. That is in no particular order. Obviously, we need food to survive, and shelter and health care also often precedes education for survival, but I believe a society in this modern world should have by now worked out a system that grants these rights to every single human. These are not handouts. This is human beings, perhaps the most capably beautiful creatures to ever roam this earth, coming together as one and creating a brotherhood of people. This should start here, in the US, or heck anywhere. I only say the US because I live here and it has the most power globally at the moment. But these are not handouts, far from it. It is a compromise. For those of you who see the world in a Social Darwin way and think that dog eat dog should apply to every aspect of life, and that we are nothing but animals trying to have as much power and wealth as possible and that should be celebrated, my plea is to compromise. I contest that ignoring our social problems and thinking some invisible hand will solve everything is pure laziness, but I am here to compromise. I am willing to keep this capitalist system for most things, but not when it comes to people's well being and education. The gap is too wide now and the invisible hand on its own has been proven to be quite ineffective for getting people out of poverty, and creating a society of intelligent human beings. But again I am willing to compromise.

President Obama did not compromise this last weekend with the tax deal; he gave in to Republican demands that the wealthy hoard more for themselves. We need to make them compromise with us, we are already a far right country. We are practically an oligarchy, some may even call the US fascist. And even if Obama didn’t compromise this weekend, it would only be a start in making the right compromise to our political ideas, (As I mentioned earlier we don’t only need higher taxes on the super rich, but we need to spend our taxes in a better way). I do not suggest we revolt and take all of your wealth. I only suggest we tax a portion of it, so instead of you making 30 million dollars a year, you make 10 million. So, instead of you buying 5 cars and 2 yachts and 2 mansions, you buy 3 cars, a yacht and a mansion, and allow the rest of us to eat, be healthy, experience the beauty of widening our intellectual capabilities, and collectively do something amazing. Instead of you 1% owning 90% of everything, you share some of it, not ALL, not even most! But some of it so we can end hunger, prevent people from dying of curable illnesses, and become educated. And yes we need a government to regulate and administer this task because they are not for profit, they are inherently for the people. Yes, some lovely billionaires are sharing their wealth now, but those are the limelight wealthy, the super rich of finances and corporate multinationals are not giving up their wealth or even creating jobs, they are hoarding it. On top of that we cannot rely on private charities to always do what is right. Private organizations often discriminate. The Salvation Army does great work, but they also do not give to homosexuals, or allow Harry Potter books to be donated. Government should and could have no restrictions on who they serve, because they are made up of all people. There is no way to make private charities give to everyone equally, but we can do that to a government because we should be the government. We the people need to start this, the government as we have it will not do this unless we get money out of elections. The people need to see that my idea is a compromise and not communism. It is taking a country that is far right and bringing it to the center of the true political spectrum.

Answer to the World's Problems

My last post focused on what I believe to be the cause of the world’s disruption. I attribute the lack of education, and a culture of apathy, greed, and idolatry of the materialistic to be the foundation of our modern troubles, or at least that is what is hindering any real change in our world’s economic political and social woes. At the request of my wonderful and eloquent girlfriend I am going to attempt to explain my solution to the identified problem. She may very well be the only person that reads this, which is fine for now.

I look at the world through a harsh critical lens. I examine the perfidy in our world affairs and I see the feckless public too drugged to care. Yet, I am truly an optimist and I believe that there is a solution. That solution is not easy. If you think it is easy to change the world then you are sadly mistaken. If you think you can sporadically make attempts that you feel can make a difference and it will one day lead to bigger things, I’m not sure I agree with you. I believe that the greatest power human beings have is our ability to come together and organize ourselves for the good of others. Now, there is a plethora of organizations nationwide that strive for helping others and bringing necessities to those less fortunate. The West can have all of these humanitarian efforts they want, but as long as billions of dollars a year are spent to fight wars of conquest, these efforts are merely cheap band-aids for a gunshot wound to our world.

I am no messiah, and I cannot fathom the “perfect world” but what I do know is that education is the key. Education does not have to come from public funds, expensive technology, or professional teachers, it can come from parents, public forums, engaging with people, and demonstrating on the streets. My solution is this: To have those that are enlightened to the worlds troubles to engage with someone in a serious discussion, particularly someone who does not have a deep ideological stance already. Those who are set in their ways are not worth trying to change, but those who may have not thought about political, economic, and social issues can be reached. It must start small, but over time after networking, organizations can form. Organizations that should be aimed to educate, petition, whistleblow, and practice what they preach in terms of volunteering their time for the greater good. There are already organizations out there with great ideas for our future, and work to educate, like the Venus Project, but groups like that are still too ideological and are reaching too far too quickly. The website Wikileaks, that has been in the news so much for its tremendous leak of the Afghanistan War documents should be looked at as a model for those who wish to expose and challenge the status quo. This leak is a great first step, to show the public how our military carries out secret operations with zero concern for civilian lives. I might add, that this is the real war. Our military endeavors are being run by profit seeking corporations that sometimes show allegiances to other countries, and sometimes even our “enemies.” Unfortunately the mainstream media has neglected to focus on what these leaks mean in terms of how we structure our world, and instead have wondered if the leaks “put American soldiers and Afghani’s at risk.” The utter idiocy of that is beyond me, when the civilians that are dying are being killed by our secret operatives, and our soldiers are put in to harms way to make the wealthy more money.

Now, what does this mean for our solution? I hope we will see a resurgence in the anti-war movement. I for one will be working on that. A new poll showed that the wars popularity has fallen nearly 20% since the beginning of the year, so that could lead to some action. But again, this should go beyond US involvement in the middle east, Palestinian injustice, immigration, and gay rights.

All of these progressive issues are important, but without some sort of education movement they will just be scattered causes that are only focused on by those that are most deeply affected by them. I know this all still sounds vague and may be difficult to imagine in a concrete way, but as a student of history I have studied the incredible things that people have done to make change in this world. There was a time in this country when the majority of people thought the enslavement of black people would last forever. The abolitionist movement started off small, but became so relentless that it led to the unthinkable for the American economy and society. All around the world throughout history the people have stood up to the rich and powerful and ended useless wars, freed slaves, defeated colonialism, won rights for women, rights for minorities, rights for workers, ended child labor, and overcome fear. Certainly these are not ubiquitous around the world, but in many places these victories were won, and they were not granted to the people by those in charge, they were demanded and fought for by the people. So, I do not see any reason why our generation, and generations to come cannot work to end our political and economic captivity, and put an end to the culture of apathy, and the culture of greed. Of course, it begins with education. It will take teachers, and parents who dissent from the status quo, and who are unafraid of the consequences of teaching without censorship, and giving our children the gift of critical thinking in order to build a future of socially minded people capable of transforming the world for the better. What does this future world look like? I do not think I am ready to completely envision that world as of yet (believe me I do envision it, but that vision is a rampant oscillation in my mind). What I promise myself at this point in time is to engage with others, build small movements of people, and connect to larger calls for justice and peace in our world. Taking one issue at a time for now, but teaching and acknowledging the fact that there IS an underlying problem, and that all of the injustice and horror in our world is related. That is my solution right now, as I approach twenty three, and I look forward to my contributions.

What is wrong with the world?

What is wrong with the world? I feel that in the deepest areas of my heart I know the answer to that question. From my empirical view of the world and careful consideration of multiple ideologies compounded with economic, social, and cultural facts, I can begin to at least write a scattered response to the question of what has been so baleful to this world. Our political economic discourse revolves around two ideological camps: those who want the “free market” to have control of the economy, and those who want a sizable amount of government intervention and regulation. This is at least the discourse of the western world, most notably contentious in the USA.

It is estimated that by 2015 the USA will be in $18 trillion of debt. When looking at the view of conservatives and government overspending, that estimate can easily be manipulated for their cause. But if we examine the root of that deficit, it stems from our days of living beyond our means that began in the early 1970s, when the “free market” was in full swing. Compared to our tea-baggers of today Richard Nixon would have been considered a Commi, but his economic policies were rather centered on small government and free market capitalism, straying away from the Keynesian approach begun by FDR. It was thought, and still is, that our excessive debt would be corrected in the world economy through the free market. What happened? We just sunk in to more and more debt. The free market made it much more profitable for American corporations to use cheap labor in other countries to make their products. The result: Americans don’t make anything anymore… that is, except debt. Consumer culture under free market ideologies made it not only tempting to live beyond your means, but practically impossible to live otherwise. As corporate profits rose, the wages for an American worker stagnated. Corporations found a way to save on labor, meanwhile financial institutions found ways to milk as much as possible out of the American that needed to borrow money in order to live up to the culture of consumption.

Can we blame the consumers? Many will say yes. Corporations certainly try to push some of the blame away from themselves and on to the consumer. But when the American Dream is pounded in to your head, and you work hard but do not reap from the benefits of your labor because of that wage stagnation (even though the overall economy is growing) the only sensible thing to do for a person who strives to meet that middle class American dream is to borrow and live that life with the belief that your hard work will pay off. The hard work seldom paid off, and now those Americans who created what they thought would be only a temporary artificial version of the middle class dream, never brought the dream in to reality. Instead, their picket fence dreams turned in to a homeless nightmare.

Will this teach people to live frugally? It seems to have taught some, but the majority of people are still obsessed with accruing material wealth. That is a cultural facet that has been rooted in us since the end of World War II and the rise of the Disneyland dreamworld. It has carried in to 2010 as Americans watch and invest their time thinking about rich housewives on TV bicker about petty nonsense. Our obsession with rich celebrities, including these useless people on sickening reality TV, grossly overpaid athletes, and greedy CEO’s who have no regard for human welfare and the environment, may just overshadow the lessons we should learn from the economic crisis, and the problem of living beyond your means.

So, what is wrong with the world? Well I answer this rather superficially and of course with an Americentric attitude, but I believe that the American culture, economy, and political system is so pervasive in the world that it is difficult not to focus on the west when answering such a vague and interpretive question. When it comes down to it, the problem facing the world is that the vast majority of the people are uneducated, and those that are partially educated through western school systems are not taught to think critically about the world. They are not taught that every component of their life has been molded by political and economic policies of the past and how they interact with popular culture. It is no wonder that most Americans would rather watch what I consider pornography (a word that is defined as obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit), than watch or read anything that has to do with complex ideological debate.

We can go even further and say that this lack of education is caused by the out of wack system of profits and unregulated global capitalism protected with guns and nuclear weapons. However, there are people, many people, who can see the world critically and attempt to develop solutions to our problems. Complaining about the fundamental issue of the entire social system is useless. It’s too big to change immediately. In fact, I’m not even sure a ubiquitous social system even exists. But there are many macro and micro systems that are in dire need of reform. It is up to those that have been blessed with the education in not only knowledge but in critical thinking as well to teach the broader public. The internet has been a great tool for this, but it is often countered with backwards, ignorant, and racist ideology as well. I may have defined what I think is wrong with the world, but I can merely come up with possible answers. But I don’t think the answer is going off the grid as some of my friends have insisted. That will not solve anything. Part of the answer is to confront these demons that have ruled this world for far too long. These demons are fear, ignorance, apathy, and greed. We can fight those demons with unsullied education, exposure through non-profit journalism, and care for all forms of life. It is not one person or group of people we need to confront, it is a culture that rewards greed, stupidity, and glorifies apathy, and edaciousness. I believe it can be done, and I will work for my entire life to find others who feel the same way, and to teach others that accepting the world as it is, is the greatest demon we face as a species.

Valens

"His father had bought a hundredweight of books from a trader. When Valens was fifteen, he'd told him he could choose five books for his own; the rest would be burned. Valens had read them all, desperately, in a hurry, and made his choice. Varro's "On Statecraft," Yonec's "Art of War," the Sude "Encyclopedia," Statianus on revenues and currency, and the "Standard Digest of Laws & Statutes;" five books, Valens reckoned, that between them contained the bare minimum of knowledge and wisdom a prince needed in order to do his job properly. When he announced that he'd made his choice, his father had had the five books burned and spared the rest; books should be a man's servant, he declared, not his master. Valens wasn't quite sure he saw the point, but he'd learned the lesson, though not perhaps the one his father had intended to convey: that to value anything is to give it an unacceptable degree of power over you, and to choose a thing is to lose it."

The Endless Fruits of Development

I was reading a book called "Deep Economy" and I came across a quote by FDR while he was running for president in 1932 and it relates perfectly to some of the debates going on today:

"Our industrial plant is built... our last frontier has long since been reached...our task now is not discovery, or exploitation of natural resources, or necessarily producing more goods. It is the soberer, less dramatic business of administering resources and plants already in hand... of adapting economic organizations to the service of the people."

I think this shows so many lessons that we can take from the Great Depression, the end of World War II and the rise of mass consumer culture at the start of the Cold War. Interestingly enough, during that campaign Hoover argued just the opposite of FDR: "we are yet on the frontiers of development, a thousand inventions in the lockers of science... which have not yet come to light."

As we all know FDR won the election by a commanding margin. To me, this points to the mentality of the Great Depression American who was fearful of overproduction and consumption. It also drastically differs from what political leaders were telling the public during the Cold War. Cold War era politicians were telling people, like Hoover did in 1932, to consume more and more and that the fruits of capitalism were endless.

Further, I think it shows how when the system is shown to be vulnerable, as it was from the Great Depression, a culture of saving is generated and even sold to the public. In contrast, during times of economic prosperity culture is shaped by consumption. The boom of the 1990s created a culture of Americans that were so caught up in spending money, which also spilled over into the early 2000s. Buying bigger and bigger houses while the size of families decreased, buying all the new expensive digital technology, Iphones, LCD TV's, bigger gas guzzling cars all defined the middle class American of the last twenty years. Once the economic crisis hit, the government started telling the people to be more careful with their money and getting into debt. This is typical of our country and its history. Most social and economic problems are not addressed until it becomes a huge problem. During times of prosperity the leaders who get elected are those who want to expand that prosperity by deregulating and ignoring any future consequences (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush). In 2008, Obama was elected on a similar platform that FDR ran on in 1932. As a country, we need to be educated about the past and learn about the cycle of the economy, and how to assuage recessions. We also need to know how politicians of the past responded and understand that what we do in the present can have an incredible impact on the future. Jimmy Carter, although had several of his own failures, did warn the country about its excessive spending. He was really the first president since FDR to depart from encouraging mass consumption... and lost reelection to someone who supported complete unregulated capitalism and "advancement." The first president since low and behold Herbert Hoover to be defeated after one term.

Total growth and technological advancements are not always signs of progress. In fact, they often lead to distracted individuals, greater divisions and gaps between classes. It may provide better lives for the 1% on top, but that kind of thoughtless growth can ultimately depreciate the masses and causes the so-called middle class to be pushed out on to the streets.

Are We Just Stupid?

I was reading an article called "Blame Americans First," about how liberals are losing ground because people at the NYT and WashPO have been unable to note any of "Obama's achievements" and are worried about Conservative dissent. Matthew Continetti claims that liberals are blaming Americans for being stupid and voting against their interests. He writes, "Just because the public says the economy is important does not necessarily mean it has to support a stimulus measure that has added massively to the debt without much benefit."

I agree with this... somewhat. If the peoples main priority is the economy they should challenge what their government is putting out there. We have every right to be weary of any government plans, especially when most are in the pockets of wealthy corporations. Some Americans do have these concerns and are educated about the policies and theories of economic models, but most are not. It seems most people are completely misinformed about the current debates on health care and the economy. This is due to the mainstream corporate media, along with the so-called "Tea Party Movement." Claiming such extremes like the President aims to turn the US into a socialist society accomplishes nothing but putting fear in to people's minds. So instead of looking in to the benefits of a health care option run by the government, they cower out of a fear of a word that carries a lot of emotional baggage. The economy is much deeper than this, and I'm afraid that people are not being informed about just how complex these issues are. The only way to do it is to dig through the nonsense, which is hard for our fast paced, disinterested society. Articles like the one by Matthew Continetti reflects the dumbing down of information that exists to create fear among an already panicky nation.