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.

No Chivalry in Drone Bombs

When someone asks me what time period I would like to have lived in, I always claim I would have liked to live in Medieval Europe. I love the style of clothing, I love castles, the notion of chivalry is fascinating, but what I always say mostly in jest is that the warfare was so much more personal. Especially in the early Middle Ages before the longbow, knights and infantrymen would have fierce battles face to face fighting for their lords. I guess these fantasies I had of being a knight came from my love of playing Age of Empires 2 while growing up (and still today!). The reason I bring this up is because of a fairly new modern warfare tactic used by the US: Drone bombs.

If you watch Democracy Now, or read other independent media you see almost on a weekly basis that numbers of innocent civilians are being killed by drone bombs in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Well what are these? They are basically bombs piloted by Americans stationed in Nevada and California killing people 7,500 miles away from the people doing the killing. This always makes me think of my fantasies of Knights, and how sad we have become as a species. The ability to kill other human beings 7,500 miles away, get out of work and then go play with the kids at home while you may have killed other peoples kids on the other side of the world is astonishing, and despicable. Not that my beloved Knights were justified in the killings they did, but when they killed they were right up front putting their own lives on the line, seeing the brutality of war. Our current warfare and where it seems to be headed detaches humanity from killing more and more.

There's a great article on this on the LA times: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-drone-crews21-2010feb21,0,5789185,full.story

The article notes that more pilots are being trained for drones, than for real aircraft. These people are usually quite young as well most are around 19 or 20 operating these drones. So people who grow up killing in video games, have the opportunity to do the same thing, only with real lives at stake. The thing that gives me a sense of hope is that so many people have suffered psychologically from operating these drones. That says to me that even though they aren't up close doing the killing like the Knights did, they still feel for humanity and perhaps understand that this new form of warfare is so detaching. My fear is that future generations will be so used to this that they will loose all sense of compassion and think it to be acceptable to kill people that live 7,500 miles away and call it something so heartless like "collateral damage."

Credit Card Crisis

http://www.cracked.com/funny-4179-credit-cards/

Now, I thought this was a really funny and sad graph of American debt, but the article that follows puts all the blame on banks. I certainly am no fan of banks, but how can you blame them for wanting to make as much money as possible? That is the game. Our current system is one that embellishes greed. Both the banks and the consumer are victims of this.

It's totally irresponsible for anyone to only pay the minimum balance, but people are not educated on this matter. Anyone can get a credit card. We also have to think about how our education system works. Our students are not taught about responsible consumerism in high school, and in order to get a college education most people need to take out loans!

Credit cards are one thing, probably more of the blame does go to the consumer. As for student loans and mortgages how can you blame someone for wanting an education and a home? So many people are screwed because of college loans. I think as a country we are irresponsible for not providing affordable, if not free higher education in the 21st century, as well as shelter for poor people. But I guess the problem is that those who own everything do not want educated peasants who could rebel against a system that is geared to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Public Dissent on Campaign Finance Rule

Post from Gary Langer blog at ABC News

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/02/in-supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-finance-the-public-dissents.html

My question is: Why the hell don't we do something about it!

Here's a repost of the article:

In Supreme Court Ruling on Campaign Finance, the Public Dissents

February 17, 2010 7:00 AM

Memo to the Supreme Court: President Obama isn’t the only one who’s annoyed.

Obama raised eyebrows at his State of the Union address last month by criticizing the high court’s ruling throwing out limits on corporate spending in political campaigns. Turns out he’s got company: Our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that 80 percent of Americans likewise oppose the ruling, including 65 percent who “strongly” oppose it, an unusually high intensity of sentiment.

Seventy-two percent, moreover, support the idea of a legislative workaround to try to reinstate the limits the court lifted.

The bipartisan nature of these views is striking in these largely partisan times. The court’s ruling is opposed, respectively, by 76, 81 and 85 percent of Republicans, independents and Democrats; and by 73, 85 and 86 percent of conservatives, moderates and liberals. Majorities in all these groups, ranging from 58 to 73 percent, not only oppose the ruling but feel strongly about it.

Even among people who agree at least somewhat with the Tea Party movement, which advocates less government regulation, 73 percent oppose the high court’s rejection of this particular law. Among the subset who agree strongly with the Tea Party’s positions on the issues – 14 percent of all adults – fewer but still most, 56 percent, oppose the high court in this case.

The court, in a 5-4 ruling Jan. 21, said federal restrictions on corporate spending in elections constituted a violation of free speech. Critics called it wrong to equate corporate "speech" with individual speech and said the ruling would allow special-interest money to flood election campaigns. The ruling did not explicitly include spending by unions, which also was restricted in the law, but is expected to apply to them as well.

In addition to overwhelming opposition to the decision, there’s also bipartisan support for Congress to try to reinstate restrictions on campaign spending by corporations and unions. Seventy-one to 77 percent of Republicans, independents and Democrats alike favor the idea. Ideologically, support for a legislative workaround ranges from 63 percent among conservatives to more than three-quarters of moderates and liberals.

One response to the ruling was proposed by Congressional Democrats last week – a measure that would, among other elements, bar campaign spending by companies with substantial foreign ownership or control, or by government contractors or bailout recipients; and require chief executive officers of companies that pay for campaign ads to appear on camera saying they “approve of this message.”

Click here for the poll questions and results.

The Middle Class Facade

American politicians always talk about the Middle Class. "We need to create jobs for the middle class" they will claim, talking as if their duty revolves around a middle class without acknowledging any class warfare. I believe our economic crisis is highlighting that the idea of a middle class is false. The Middle Class does not exist.

There was a report on the BBC about homelessness in the US having a new personality. These new homeless are people who lived in suburbia, what we'd all consider the middle class average American family. This is the new homeless. In a year people who we thought of as Middle Class are out on the streets. That is how volatile the economy is for the so called middle class. In reality, there is no such thing as a middle class. There are two classes, the owner class, and the worker class, akin to the Patricians and Plebeians of ancient Rome. The worker class, of all walks of life, work more and more and get less and less for their labor. This is a pattern across the country.

Class seems to be based on how much a person has, right? Wealth. But what is wealth? Wealth is based on labor. Labor is the only way to create real wealth. The so-called middle class had to labor at an obscene rate to be able to afford what we consider a "comfortable life." But a white collar worker, who works 80+ hours a week, maybe multiple jobs, is just as much in the lower class as a Taxi driver in Thailand working the same amount of time. This is a comfortable life? The white collar American and the taxi driver both do not have control over their own created wealth, their own labor. The only way to really get out of the working or lower class is to own your own land, or business. According to the American Chronicle, 80 percent of new businesses in the US fail. That was a report from 2006, I bet that number is much higher now. Since land is scarce and very expensive it would take many years of hard labor and frugal living to be able to become a significant landowner. This is no different from ancient Rome, or any other ancient civilizations that made it extremely difficult for the lower class to have any "real" wealth. Yet, we claim to be so much more advanced than any of these people because of our "middle class."

We tend to think we have a middle class because we have a lot of people that can afford I-phones, and computers, and cars. But the only reason that these things are affordable are so those on the top can profit. The people have to labor longer and harder in order to buy these things, and if they still cannot they go into what we call debt. The so-called Middle Class is the Debt Class. Most of this debt is not from frivolous spending as those with all of the wealth would like us to think. It's for things like a home, a car (with the main purpose of commuting to work!), education, health costs, things that should be considered necessities for all people of our society. That is why people are in debt, because they can't afford those necessities, despite all of their labor. This is pure economic slavery, and to think otherwise denies the true nature of credit. Credit and loans are ways for banks to make money without contributing anything to society. In fact, what they do is take those necessities away from people. It is a facade to say we have a middle class, when the gap between the "poor" and the "middle" is like the difference between a D- and a D in school, while the gap between the "middle" and the "upper" class is like the difference between a D and an A+.

Random Thoughts: On Youthful Rebellion

I have not wrote anything about my Thailand adventure yet, I think that is a result of laziness and a reluctance to blog about anything specific until I am done with the experience of student teaching in Bangkok. However, one thing occurred to me today. I noticed as soon as I arrived in this school that the students were considerably more "well-behaved" than students in the US. An immediate presumption was the varying cultures of respect for adults, a type of filial piety that seems to have spread through Asia and still has an impact on the youth.

Some of the things we do with the 6th graders here at the International school would never be able to happen with American kids (letting the roam wherever they'd like for lunch, giving them free time during the day, various activities that involve going around the school and giving them so many general freedoms.) If these occurred in the US we would think all hell would break loose.

So I had a thought on all of this today. Perhaps this difference is a result of how both cultures convey the obedience issue. I thought a little about where ideas of obeying your parents and other authority figures came from in a concrete way for both cultures. For the west it seems to be from religion, mostly the Judea-Christian tradition of honoring thy mother and father. In the East it seems to be more from a philosophical form. Where Confucius came up with filial piety, and legalism taught about strict adherence to laws. I find that these philosophies in itself are more powerful than a religion in terms of obedience to your parents. It's easier I think for the youth of today to reject religious beliefs and in doing so perhaps they also reject the dogma. In the philosophies of the east, there is nothing based on faith. It is really all logical conclusions made by ancient philosophers. What I find by living in Thailand for the last two months, is that people still speak of these philosophies and act on them in their every day lives, and the students are very respectful to authority. The same can obviously not be said about Western students.

This is not necessarily to portray the west in a negative light. Obedience to authority has its pluses, especially if you're a teacher! But the rebelliousness of the west can lead to important skills in questioning authority. Now, the west seems to question smaller levels authorities, like parent's rules, or doing homework. But I am disappointed to see that it does not transfer to the larger society. We obey what the people in power tell us and do to us, mostly because we are told we can obtain the same wealth and power. Youthful rebellion seems to die in the west by the time we get to college age. This part I can barely make sense of.

Howard Zinn: Historical balance

It has been about a week since I heard the news that Howard Zinn passed away of a heart attack at 87. Although Zinn had a long and fulfilling life it was a bit shocking to me as I found him to be someone who would live forever. For the next two hours I searched the web for any material, articles, news stories, anything relating to the late historian. I found some heart-felt reflections by many people, historians and other s who felt the world’s moral spirit got lighter as Zinn left our world. Unfortunately, and not surprisingly his name was not mentioned on any mainstream media outlet. Some op-ed pieces in a few major newspapers, but that was about it. Along with the praise for ZInn, came a flood of people taking the opportunity to bash the historian for his biases and his “abuse” of a scholarly field. I found this to be especially disturbing. Not only because the man had just died, but because they were full of such contempt for a man who has changed an entire generation’s view of American history.

Anyone who knows me well enough knows that Zinn is the reason I want to teach history. I am not unique in this story. I have met many people at school and elsewhere that have had their entire minds changed by Zinn’s famous book, “A People’s History of the United States.” I’ve also met many people, including myself who have been led to become activists based on Zinn’s work and inspiration. For those who don’t know much about Zinn, his message was clear: Throughout US history there was a whole ton of racism, class warfare, sexism, and other forms of oppression. People often fought these obstacles and sometimes they won. Without radicals in our history we would not have had abolition when we did, women would not have had the right to vote, black people would still be segregated, we would have stayed in Vietnam much longer ect ect. To me, that is the most important thing to take from Zinn.

Yet, as the week went on I found just as many Zinn bashings as I did Zinn accolades. The most alarming of the bunch was an article called “America the Awful,” by a historian named Ron Radosh. His premise was that Zinn was not a historian at all, he was a “propagandist.” He says this due to the fact that Zinn claims to serve a higher purpose with his writing. Rather than presenting some analysis of the past that only scholars are going to read, Zinn uses the past to urge people to solve the problems of the present. He does not do this in a way that distorts history, nor lacks evidence, or anything else that he is accused of by the intellectual right. Zinn presents this like any historian would. Those who disparage Zinn act like the left historians are the only ones to use their craft for some political purpose. I also find it obnoxious that there is this idea that because someone lets their bias be known in historical writing that they are writing "bad" history. That's nonsense. Every piece of writing has a bias and I commend Zinn for having been up front about it.

He never once said this is the be all end all of American history. The title of the book is "A People's History of the United States" not "A Complete History of the United States from Everyone's Perspective" It's also a fleeting history, and intended for non scholars, so he inevitably is going to have to leave stuff out and make it accessible to the public. Any mainstream history does the same thing. It does not make him a "propagandist.” Zinn used history for something much greater and more meaningful than most "scholars” and that is the most courageous thing I find anyone in academia has done.

Every historian interprets history differently, something you learn in your intro classes. Zinn's work shows the voices of the past that are usually left out of our historical memory. Radosh says he presents the people as weak and always succumbing to the will of those in power. To me that says he has not read anything written by Zinn, and it suggests that his view of Zinn is solely based on Zinn’s reputation.

Our textbooks and most other mainstream history present our leaders and powerful businessmen as heroes and idols. Zinn brings them back to earth and shows that, like those in power today, they were often not willing to give up their power and wealth for the sake of the people. Howard Zinn brought balance to mainstream American history. His work indeed needs to be complemented with other works. It should not be taken as the definite history, but there is no history that should be taken as a complete history. Unfortunately, not everyone is a scholar, and they indeed do take certain books as the only historical reality, but there is no reason to bash Howard Zinn for this reality.

Howard Zinn will always be in my heart, not just as an aspiring historian, but as an activist and an intellectual who had the courage to practice what he wrote about. His legacy is comprehensive, his spirit will be with an entire generation of activists and writers. Howard Zinn’s death not only shocked me as I thought he could live forever, but it also put two contrasting emotions in my heart: fear that there wouldn’t be anyone to take the torch, but also hope. His death has given me hope that people will start talking about him again and will pick up his book and read his message. It gives me hope that they will see the wretched position of our ancestors and see that they often responded by breaking unjust laws, and fighting back in the masses. We need that today as much as we needed it in any other period of history. Our politicians are bought off by corporations, we continue to wage war for resources and markets, we have something called drone bombs where people in the US control remote bombs that indiscriminately kill innocent people on the other side of the world. We lose aspects of our democracy daily and it seems like most people don’t care. They don’t care because they flood their brains with mindless entertainment, and are misinformed about their own society.

I had the pleasure of being able to see Howard Zinn speak at The College of New Jersey in 2007. I wasn’t even officially enrolled in the school yet, but I snuck in to the lecture room to hear the man speak in person. His lecture was entitled “Bringing Democracy Alive.” His idea was that those who organize and break unjust laws are the most patriotic of all. We don’t currently have a true democracy. We have a corportocracy. My hope is that we use Zinn to look in the past at those who were fed up with their oppressive situation and rebelled. As Zinn put it, when people without any guns, power, or wealth organize and get together for a certain cause they can create a movement that no government can suppress.



-Greg