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."
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
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.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
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+.
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+.
Friday, February 12, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
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
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
David Brooks' idea of Populism in the US
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/opinion/26brooks.html?hp
This is a very interesting assessment of populism, but my issue is that as long as corporations are given more and more power over politics (ie the recent supreme court decision) then none of this will matter. The more closely a corporation is thought of as a person in te...rms of the constitution, the more freedom they really have in our political system. They inherently have more money than the individual citizen, so even though they don't have voting power, it doesn't matter because they now have more power to get politicians elected than any individual or groups people with limited funds.
In a perfect fair system it is not right to wage a war on the M.B.A's, but that's not the system that is in place. That sort of populism does exist because corporations have the economic power over policy-making. Our voting power is very limited to what candidates corporations will allow to be exposed on a mass scale.
This is a very interesting assessment of populism, but my issue is that as long as corporations are given more and more power over politics (ie the recent supreme court decision) then none of this will matter. The more closely a corporation is thought of as a person in te...rms of the constitution, the more freedom they really have in our political system. They inherently have more money than the individual citizen, so even though they don't have voting power, it doesn't matter because they now have more power to get politicians elected than any individual or groups people with limited funds.
In a perfect fair system it is not right to wage a war on the M.B.A's, but that's not the system that is in place. That sort of populism does exist because corporations have the economic power over policy-making. Our voting power is very limited to what candidates corporations will allow to be exposed on a mass scale.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Fruitless Optimism
Those who study history are bound to possess a rotten judgment of human beings. Those who study the present will have that same judgment, but they will carry an additional feeling of fruitless optimism.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
If You Won't Get Rid Of Our Economic Enslavement, At Least Reform It
As the country is divided on and debating the health care bill in congress, little attention has been given to the real problem of our country. “It is not about whether the government is too little, or too big, it is about if government works,” Barack Obama cleverly put it during his inauguration speech in January. I completely agree, but unfortunately our government cannot work unless we rid money from politics. It is possible, but would take a huge grassroots effort. Nonetheless, money in politics is not the prime focus here. In my wonderful world where money is eliminated from politics, and the laws are not given to favor big corporations, banks and insurance executives we could not only have a functional public health care system for all, but also a banking system for all that would simplify our economy and create more time for social and as well as scientific progress.
This may come off as being incredibly Marxist, but the whole idea of banks, loans and interest is absurd. Banks make a profit off of collecting interest. This contributes absolutely no wealth in real terms to the economy: Nothing is produced, nothing is bought or sold. It does not take very much research to understand how the banking system has caused, or exacerbated recessions and depressions. In fact, our entire financial system was at the heart of last year’s economic meltdown. Maybe it is the result of greedy individuals trying to manipulate the system, but if we are all inherently greedy in some ways how could this crucial aspect of our economy ever be a function of social good?
Maybe capitalism is the root of the problem. I am personally not prepared to go that deep. I suppose I take a strict Keynesian approach to this issue and will suggest that there are certain functions of our economy and society that should be run by the public. This is not to propose that the federal government run our banking system. Instead, I believe local public institutions can effectively provide the essential services that banks do. In this way, people who need loans and have decent credit can get loans from these public institutions without any interest and a reasonable payment plan. This would allow people to spend their money on other things, which would in turn stimulate the entire economy.
One of the biggest reasons the United States got into so much trouble last year were subprime loans. These were loans given to people who had horrible credit, but given to them with enormous interest rates that they would never be able to pay off. A public banking system would prevent loans to people who have such bad credit, but would allow room to improve easily. Therefore, we would be smart with the treasury stored for these loans, and also set up some support for those with bad credit. Since it would also boost the entire economy, those with bad credit would have more opportunity to build up their funds and improve their credit situation.
Furthermore, a public system would help create a less volatile economy. It would lessen the effects of big recessions. For instance, India’s Congress party, which had previously denounced their public banking system, praised the institution and said that nationalization was one of its greatest achievements. Congress president Sonia Gandhi argued “Public sector financial institutions have given our economy the stability and resilience we are now witnessing in the face of the economic slowdown.” (http://www.stwr.org/india-china-asia/the-importance-of-public-banking.html) Banking, and the entire financial institution for that matter has become an increasingly complex sector that as a private profit seeker does not serve any practical use for society. All it does is further our enslavement to the current economic system.
Where would the money for this program come from? Well our federal government recently gave the private banks over $750 billion dollars because they were about to collapse (from their own incompetency I might add!). Thus, we can assume that with a public system, there would be an elimination of a middle man and there would be little need to increase taxes.
Our economic system is large and complicated, but most of it is needlessly intricate. The financial institution is one of those structures in our society that only benefits the few who have been in charge for a long time. I write this to merely provoke some thought. Many people have protested the bank bailouts. In fact, most people on the left and right opposed the bailouts in some way. Yet, they continued, under the guise of “too big to fail” Indeed, they might be too big to fail. So why should we continue placating a system that in the end screws over the mass population? I don’t think we should, I think we need to drastically reformat that system. Unfortunately, if we do not get money out of politics we won’t be able to successfully reform anything.
This may come off as being incredibly Marxist, but the whole idea of banks, loans and interest is absurd. Banks make a profit off of collecting interest. This contributes absolutely no wealth in real terms to the economy: Nothing is produced, nothing is bought or sold. It does not take very much research to understand how the banking system has caused, or exacerbated recessions and depressions. In fact, our entire financial system was at the heart of last year’s economic meltdown. Maybe it is the result of greedy individuals trying to manipulate the system, but if we are all inherently greedy in some ways how could this crucial aspect of our economy ever be a function of social good?
Maybe capitalism is the root of the problem. I am personally not prepared to go that deep. I suppose I take a strict Keynesian approach to this issue and will suggest that there are certain functions of our economy and society that should be run by the public. This is not to propose that the federal government run our banking system. Instead, I believe local public institutions can effectively provide the essential services that banks do. In this way, people who need loans and have decent credit can get loans from these public institutions without any interest and a reasonable payment plan. This would allow people to spend their money on other things, which would in turn stimulate the entire economy.
One of the biggest reasons the United States got into so much trouble last year were subprime loans. These were loans given to people who had horrible credit, but given to them with enormous interest rates that they would never be able to pay off. A public banking system would prevent loans to people who have such bad credit, but would allow room to improve easily. Therefore, we would be smart with the treasury stored for these loans, and also set up some support for those with bad credit. Since it would also boost the entire economy, those with bad credit would have more opportunity to build up their funds and improve their credit situation.
Furthermore, a public system would help create a less volatile economy. It would lessen the effects of big recessions. For instance, India’s Congress party, which had previously denounced their public banking system, praised the institution and said that nationalization was one of its greatest achievements. Congress president Sonia Gandhi argued “Public sector financial institutions have given our economy the stability and resilience we are now witnessing in the face of the economic slowdown.” (http://www.stwr.org/india-china-asia/the-importance-of-public-banking.html) Banking, and the entire financial institution for that matter has become an increasingly complex sector that as a private profit seeker does not serve any practical use for society. All it does is further our enslavement to the current economic system.
Where would the money for this program come from? Well our federal government recently gave the private banks over $750 billion dollars because they were about to collapse (from their own incompetency I might add!). Thus, we can assume that with a public system, there would be an elimination of a middle man and there would be little need to increase taxes.
Our economic system is large and complicated, but most of it is needlessly intricate. The financial institution is one of those structures in our society that only benefits the few who have been in charge for a long time. I write this to merely provoke some thought. Many people have protested the bank bailouts. In fact, most people on the left and right opposed the bailouts in some way. Yet, they continued, under the guise of “too big to fail” Indeed, they might be too big to fail. So why should we continue placating a system that in the end screws over the mass population? I don’t think we should, I think we need to drastically reformat that system. Unfortunately, if we do not get money out of politics we won’t be able to successfully reform anything.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Why We Are Not Getting Real Health Reform: Financial and Political Capital
It’s rather fitting that I am writing a piece about health care while I am fighting a cold and unable to sleep at 2 in the morning. So, I apologize in advance if any of this is incoherent. The following is a product of my inability to sleep as well as the failure to breathe out of my nose. Fortunately for me, I am in the middle class and can afford to go to a public college that gives me decent health insurance for very limited costs. Regrettably, most of the country is not this well off.
According to a recent study Harvard University linked 45,000 deaths in the United States to inadequate health insurance (http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/?scp=2&sq=harvard&st=cse). That’s roughly three September 11ths a year. I’m not too sure how anyone can read this study and not be outraged. It is an apparent indication that we need serious and pragmatic health care reform in this country, and very quickly. Instead of honest debate and legislation we have gotten the same political jabbering and lobbying that is at the core of all of our Country’s problems.
Now, what makes this debate even more frustrating is the combination of public and media controversy. We have seen people on the right going to town hall meetings, marching in D.C., opposed to any reforms put out by the Democratic Party. At the heart of all of this I do not see angry American’s fearful about “socialism,” rather, I see a bitter Republican Party, and Conservative movement trying very hard to get political vengeance. Let’s think back to the eight years prior to Barack Obama’s presidency. In the white house was George W. Bush, who was perhaps one of the most controversial and impugned presidents in United States history. He was slammed by the left at every opportunity, conceivably, most of all regarding the war in Iraq. From the start of that war, the left had used similar tactics that the right is currently using against the Democrats about health care (with smaller numbers indeed, but with the same, if not more media attention). In my opinion, Afghanistan is not “Obama’s war” right now. Although later Afghanistan might be his defining foreign affairs moment, it is health care that has taken national stage and will define the beginning of Obama’s presidency.
With that in mind, look at what the right is doing. Some on the far right have berated the President as a Nazi. Joe Wilson, a member of congress, has interrupted a major political speech on reform. Last but not least, right-wing media personalities such as Glenn Beck have gone as far to call Obama a racist. All of this leaves me rather skeptical when I see genuine conservatives out on the streets, many of which are clearly uneducated about politics, and history. For instance take a look at this YouTube video documenting the 9/12 rally in Washington:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y&feature=topvideos
People referring to the president as “socialist,” “communist and “fascist” interchangeably reveals my concern. Even in the 1960s Obama’s proposed reforms would not have been chastised by the right with such false proclamations such as “socialist.” What these protests led me to think was how closely they resemble some of the protesting against Bush regarding Iraq. I was certainly part of those protests, and truly believe in such a right, but I find the root of the current protests to be very disingenuous.
I believe that those who lead the right are bitter about the Bush years. Bush was so widely scrutinized that it truly hurt the Republican Party. This is what I mean by political capital. Therefore, in an attempt to counter attack, the right has chosen to do the same that the left did to Bush, this time it’s about health care reform. The problem here is that Bush’s invasion of Iraq was based on clear lies, sent American troops into harm’s way, and killed countless innocent civilians. Obama’s health care reform, although far from perfect, is an attempt to save lives.
The Republican politicians, and leaders (not necessarily the people doing the marching, I don’t want to completely chastise them), are bitter about losing the election and about the left tearing apart its previous leader. In the case, the media has taken on a huge role in this. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’reilly, our good buddies, have thrown out disastrous lies about health reform. These include claims of death panels, socialism, destruction of Medicare, ect. In essence they have built a right wing army that hold up posters of Obama as Hitler, and call Obama a racist. This leaves the legitimate educated right who have real helpful concerns in the dust.
So why is this happening? Well, like I said before the right is bitter, but they also need to gain political capital. Unfortunately, the leaders of the right are TV and radio pundits looking for ratings, and people like Joe Wilson trying to get reelected. The right needs to be legitimate again, and this is how they are doing it: through hysteria, lies, and anti-intellectualism.
I do not believe that those on the ground actually protesting Obama are disingenuous. I believe they are misled patriots. They are misled by people seeking political capital in order to get reelected at a time when conservative ideology is not very popular in the United States. The Democrats are far from innocent in this debate. They had an opportunity to give us real reform proposals, but due to their own concern for political capital, and insurance lobbyists that fund campaigns they gave us limited reform proposals. I guess they did not count on the right garnering so much momentum, because now it seems like we are getting practically no reform. Personally, I wish to see a single-payer system, but the Democrats blew that one, so my hopes were for some step toward caring for every single American.
What breaks my heart about all of this is that intrinsically, health care should be about helping people. Instead, the debate has been run by corporate lobbyists, conservative celebrities seeking ratings, political capital, and left wing ineptitude. We are supposed to be the freest, most democratic, and wealthiest nation on earth, yet we allow nearly 45,000 to die each year because our politicians and corporatocracy have too much financial and political investment in our current system. Yet, there is hope. The left can fight back. The true left. Those who were always skeptical about Obama, those who pay attention, and those who desperately want real health care in this country must fight back
According to a recent study Harvard University linked 45,000 deaths in the United States to inadequate health insurance (http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/?scp=2&sq=harvard&st=cse). That’s roughly three September 11ths a year. I’m not too sure how anyone can read this study and not be outraged. It is an apparent indication that we need serious and pragmatic health care reform in this country, and very quickly. Instead of honest debate and legislation we have gotten the same political jabbering and lobbying that is at the core of all of our Country’s problems.
Now, what makes this debate even more frustrating is the combination of public and media controversy. We have seen people on the right going to town hall meetings, marching in D.C., opposed to any reforms put out by the Democratic Party. At the heart of all of this I do not see angry American’s fearful about “socialism,” rather, I see a bitter Republican Party, and Conservative movement trying very hard to get political vengeance. Let’s think back to the eight years prior to Barack Obama’s presidency. In the white house was George W. Bush, who was perhaps one of the most controversial and impugned presidents in United States history. He was slammed by the left at every opportunity, conceivably, most of all regarding the war in Iraq. From the start of that war, the left had used similar tactics that the right is currently using against the Democrats about health care (with smaller numbers indeed, but with the same, if not more media attention). In my opinion, Afghanistan is not “Obama’s war” right now. Although later Afghanistan might be his defining foreign affairs moment, it is health care that has taken national stage and will define the beginning of Obama’s presidency.
With that in mind, look at what the right is doing. Some on the far right have berated the President as a Nazi. Joe Wilson, a member of congress, has interrupted a major political speech on reform. Last but not least, right-wing media personalities such as Glenn Beck have gone as far to call Obama a racist. All of this leaves me rather skeptical when I see genuine conservatives out on the streets, many of which are clearly uneducated about politics, and history. For instance take a look at this YouTube video documenting the 9/12 rally in Washington:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y&feature=topvideos
People referring to the president as “socialist,” “communist and “fascist” interchangeably reveals my concern. Even in the 1960s Obama’s proposed reforms would not have been chastised by the right with such false proclamations such as “socialist.” What these protests led me to think was how closely they resemble some of the protesting against Bush regarding Iraq. I was certainly part of those protests, and truly believe in such a right, but I find the root of the current protests to be very disingenuous.
I believe that those who lead the right are bitter about the Bush years. Bush was so widely scrutinized that it truly hurt the Republican Party. This is what I mean by political capital. Therefore, in an attempt to counter attack, the right has chosen to do the same that the left did to Bush, this time it’s about health care reform. The problem here is that Bush’s invasion of Iraq was based on clear lies, sent American troops into harm’s way, and killed countless innocent civilians. Obama’s health care reform, although far from perfect, is an attempt to save lives.
The Republican politicians, and leaders (not necessarily the people doing the marching, I don’t want to completely chastise them), are bitter about losing the election and about the left tearing apart its previous leader. In the case, the media has taken on a huge role in this. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’reilly, our good buddies, have thrown out disastrous lies about health reform. These include claims of death panels, socialism, destruction of Medicare, ect. In essence they have built a right wing army that hold up posters of Obama as Hitler, and call Obama a racist. This leaves the legitimate educated right who have real helpful concerns in the dust.
So why is this happening? Well, like I said before the right is bitter, but they also need to gain political capital. Unfortunately, the leaders of the right are TV and radio pundits looking for ratings, and people like Joe Wilson trying to get reelected. The right needs to be legitimate again, and this is how they are doing it: through hysteria, lies, and anti-intellectualism.
I do not believe that those on the ground actually protesting Obama are disingenuous. I believe they are misled patriots. They are misled by people seeking political capital in order to get reelected at a time when conservative ideology is not very popular in the United States. The Democrats are far from innocent in this debate. They had an opportunity to give us real reform proposals, but due to their own concern for political capital, and insurance lobbyists that fund campaigns they gave us limited reform proposals. I guess they did not count on the right garnering so much momentum, because now it seems like we are getting practically no reform. Personally, I wish to see a single-payer system, but the Democrats blew that one, so my hopes were for some step toward caring for every single American.
What breaks my heart about all of this is that intrinsically, health care should be about helping people. Instead, the debate has been run by corporate lobbyists, conservative celebrities seeking ratings, political capital, and left wing ineptitude. We are supposed to be the freest, most democratic, and wealthiest nation on earth, yet we allow nearly 45,000 to die each year because our politicians and corporatocracy have too much financial and political investment in our current system. Yet, there is hope. The left can fight back. The true left. Those who were always skeptical about Obama, those who pay attention, and those who desperately want real health care in this country must fight back
Thursday, May 14, 2009
If You Want to Stop Terrorism, You Have to Stop Being Terrorists
I was thinking on writing up a piece on Afghanistan and why I oppose the current militaristic approach in dealing with this country. Afghanistan has essentially become “Obama’s War,” and the same mentality of dealing with terrorism has changed very little from the policies of the Bush administration. This lack of change comes as no surprise because as much as the two major parties claim to be distinct representations of the American people, they are both nothing more than accessories to corporate competitiveness. The standard belief on the left and even some on the right, for why we invaded Iraq is that we wanted to control their oil. In a way that is true, but oil was even more of an incentive for invading and occupying Afghanistan.
America has wanted a new government in Afghanistan since at least 1998, three years before the attacks on 11 September 2001. The official report from a meeting of the U.S. Government's foreign policy committee on 12 February 1998, available on the U.S. Government website, confirms that the need for a West-friendly government was recognized long before the War on Terror that followed September 11th:
"The U.S. Government's position is that we support multiple [oil] pipelines...
The Unocal pipeline is among those pipelines that would receive our
support under that policy. I would caution that while we do support the
project, the U.S. Government has not at this point recognized any
governing regime of the transit country, one of the transit countries,
Afghanistan, through which that pipeline would be routed. But we do
support the project.” [ U.S. House of Reps., "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 ]
I don’t want to go too much into the evidence regarding the true motives for invading Afghanistan because there is a ton out there (if you want to look this up, look at UNOCAL and the issues surrounding the Afghan government’s refusal to give them the pipeline contract), but the point here is that the United States’ purpose in Afghanistan has never been innocent. The control of that country is about a politically, military, and corporate strategy, mostly involving the control of oil. That is not to mean so American people could have more access and less expensive oil, it is so oil companies can control the price and distribution of oil around the world.
Perhaps President Obama is sincere about his fight against terrorism (though I doubt this). But even if he is sincere this method of fighting terror has clearly failed and needs to be reevaluated. The West has such little understanding about Middle Eastern culture and mentality. Certainly, there are many who wish to do Americans harm today, but in their eyes they are very much justified. Terrorist activity in the region has increased on an incredible scale since we have invaded the region eight years ago. What happens when a country who has been the victim of a terrorist attack (a terrorist attack, not by another country, but by a network of rogue religious fanatics) fights back by invading and occupying a country that may contain bases for these groups, kills hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and destroys the country’s infrastructure? What happens is that more people, who were not part of the minority of religious fanatics, become very angry at the United States, not because they “hate liberty” but because this country has killed members of their family, or destroyed their town.
There is no society that desires to be taken over by a military power. Even if Afghanistan is one day stabilized was it worth the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people who had to die in order for this western stabilization? In history we often struggle with the concept of “progress.” What is progress? Would American friendly governments in the Middle East be considered progress? Would the sacrifice of all these people be worth it? I personally believe that if any group of people must make a sacrifice in the name of progress, that group of people should be the one to decide if they will indeed make the sacrifice, and furthermore, they should be the ones to decide what “progress” means. I highly doubt the people of Afghanistan have the same definition of progress that the American government has.
Those who oppose my view may ask: well then what do we do? Just leave Afghanistan and let the country be run by terrorists? Well not exactly. I’m very much practical in that I understand pulling every troop out of the Middle East immediately is inconceivable. However, a gradual removal of armed forces, and a replacement of food, medicine, and other infrastructure help would be the best solution. As the famous historian Howard Zinn said, “If you want to stop terrorism, you have to stop being terrorists.” …and that’s what war is, it is terrorism. To the Afghan people, we are the terrorists, and all our presence will do is to continue the endless cycle of terrorism and counter-terrorism that has plagued the modern world.
America has wanted a new government in Afghanistan since at least 1998, three years before the attacks on 11 September 2001. The official report from a meeting of the U.S. Government's foreign policy committee on 12 February 1998, available on the U.S. Government website, confirms that the need for a West-friendly government was recognized long before the War on Terror that followed September 11th:
"The U.S. Government's position is that we support multiple [oil] pipelines...
The Unocal pipeline is among those pipelines that would receive our
support under that policy. I would caution that while we do support the
project, the U.S. Government has not at this point recognized any
governing regime of the transit country, one of the transit countries,
Afghanistan, through which that pipeline would be routed. But we do
support the project.” [ U.S. House of Reps., "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 ]
I don’t want to go too much into the evidence regarding the true motives for invading Afghanistan because there is a ton out there (if you want to look this up, look at UNOCAL and the issues surrounding the Afghan government’s refusal to give them the pipeline contract), but the point here is that the United States’ purpose in Afghanistan has never been innocent. The control of that country is about a politically, military, and corporate strategy, mostly involving the control of oil. That is not to mean so American people could have more access and less expensive oil, it is so oil companies can control the price and distribution of oil around the world.
Perhaps President Obama is sincere about his fight against terrorism (though I doubt this). But even if he is sincere this method of fighting terror has clearly failed and needs to be reevaluated. The West has such little understanding about Middle Eastern culture and mentality. Certainly, there are many who wish to do Americans harm today, but in their eyes they are very much justified. Terrorist activity in the region has increased on an incredible scale since we have invaded the region eight years ago. What happens when a country who has been the victim of a terrorist attack (a terrorist attack, not by another country, but by a network of rogue religious fanatics) fights back by invading and occupying a country that may contain bases for these groups, kills hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and destroys the country’s infrastructure? What happens is that more people, who were not part of the minority of religious fanatics, become very angry at the United States, not because they “hate liberty” but because this country has killed members of their family, or destroyed their town.
There is no society that desires to be taken over by a military power. Even if Afghanistan is one day stabilized was it worth the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people who had to die in order for this western stabilization? In history we often struggle with the concept of “progress.” What is progress? Would American friendly governments in the Middle East be considered progress? Would the sacrifice of all these people be worth it? I personally believe that if any group of people must make a sacrifice in the name of progress, that group of people should be the one to decide if they will indeed make the sacrifice, and furthermore, they should be the ones to decide what “progress” means. I highly doubt the people of Afghanistan have the same definition of progress that the American government has.
Those who oppose my view may ask: well then what do we do? Just leave Afghanistan and let the country be run by terrorists? Well not exactly. I’m very much practical in that I understand pulling every troop out of the Middle East immediately is inconceivable. However, a gradual removal of armed forces, and a replacement of food, medicine, and other infrastructure help would be the best solution. As the famous historian Howard Zinn said, “If you want to stop terrorism, you have to stop being terrorists.” …and that’s what war is, it is terrorism. To the Afghan people, we are the terrorists, and all our presence will do is to continue the endless cycle of terrorism and counter-terrorism that has plagued the modern world.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Arlen Spector and the Two-Party System
The big political news of the last few days is the switch of Senator Arlen Spector from a Republican to a Democrat. The reason why this is so important is that it gives the democrats 60 votes in the Senate (baring the ongoing recount in the Minnesota senate race). This of course gives the Democrats the power to break a filibuster, and more easily get their legislation passed.
Indeed, this continues to signify the shift in American politics and perhaps the public to the left. However, our country has created such a dichotomy of Democrat and Republican or Liberal and Conservative that the shift just goes back and forth. After 8 years of clear policy failures we are seeing the cycle shift back to the left. This cycle seems to me to be a function of an educated majority. Let's face it, we don't really have the best education system in the world. In fact, it's quite inefficient. While our children are not being effectively taught math or science, we have also neglected to provide them with a real and honest education in history, civics, and economics.
Our lack of history allows for the public to easily get swept up with war rhetoric, our lack of economic education allows for an uneducated mass of people scratching their heads at a very complex but important economic crisis. Finally, the lack of civics has allowed us to continue to elect incompetent and corrupted leaders from the same two ruling parties.
Now this may be a generalization, but there is something fundamentally wrong with a two party system, especially when the public is so uneducated and apathetic toward the process. One of the biggest issues is local and congressional elections. In 2006 80,975,537 people cast their votes for the mid-term elections. The number of people eligible to vote was nearly 220,000,000 people (and the voter turnout that year was good relative to recent congressional elections before it). This means that well over half of the eligible population does not vote for our lawmakers, and an even smaller amount actually voted for the person who is suppose to represent a large portion of the public.
So here we are with a Republican switching to become a Democrat and most of the country doesn’t care. Why? Is it because they are lazy and apathetic? Many certainly are, but the majority of the people are just not educated very well. Many see two parties that do not realistically relate to most working class people. Democrats and Republicans are fundamentally the same, with small deviations on certain issues. Neither party represents or even tries to carry out the will of the people. Yet, these people remain in our government mostly through an ever-exhausting tradition.
The election of Obama put a lot of faith in the Democratic Party. In the end, as we are already seeing, the message of hope and change was a fabulous marketing strategy by the Democratics. To give credit to Obama, he has not deviated from his campaign. The issues that were discussed (although very rarely during the campaign), have been addressed consistently. The problem here is that elections are never about the issues because both candidates seldom have the same ideas as the majority of the public. The problem is that the majority of Americans want to fully leave Iraq (as oppose to keeping “non-combat” troops), they want the government to look into a single-payer health care system, most want the Bush administration to be brought to justice for torture. They want better education, more regulation and to address climate change. And the list goes on. The problem here is that many think that the president is the one to look to in order to carry out these initiatives. People need to have a better understanding of the democratic-republican process, and to make informative votes for congress. I don’t mean to suggest that voting is the main answer, in fact I think voting is somewhat useless in a two party system, but the two party system is not permanently embedded into the legal structure of the country. We do have the ability to create more parties; it will just take a deeper grassroots effort. We saw a huge grassroots effort with Obama, but once most of those people realize how Democrats and Republicans are all part of a very similar agenda, they will hopefully put their efforts towards real change in American politics.
Indeed, this continues to signify the shift in American politics and perhaps the public to the left. However, our country has created such a dichotomy of Democrat and Republican or Liberal and Conservative that the shift just goes back and forth. After 8 years of clear policy failures we are seeing the cycle shift back to the left. This cycle seems to me to be a function of an educated majority. Let's face it, we don't really have the best education system in the world. In fact, it's quite inefficient. While our children are not being effectively taught math or science, we have also neglected to provide them with a real and honest education in history, civics, and economics.
Our lack of history allows for the public to easily get swept up with war rhetoric, our lack of economic education allows for an uneducated mass of people scratching their heads at a very complex but important economic crisis. Finally, the lack of civics has allowed us to continue to elect incompetent and corrupted leaders from the same two ruling parties.
Now this may be a generalization, but there is something fundamentally wrong with a two party system, especially when the public is so uneducated and apathetic toward the process. One of the biggest issues is local and congressional elections. In 2006 80,975,537 people cast their votes for the mid-term elections. The number of people eligible to vote was nearly 220,000,000 people (and the voter turnout that year was good relative to recent congressional elections before it). This means that well over half of the eligible population does not vote for our lawmakers, and an even smaller amount actually voted for the person who is suppose to represent a large portion of the public.
So here we are with a Republican switching to become a Democrat and most of the country doesn’t care. Why? Is it because they are lazy and apathetic? Many certainly are, but the majority of the people are just not educated very well. Many see two parties that do not realistically relate to most working class people. Democrats and Republicans are fundamentally the same, with small deviations on certain issues. Neither party represents or even tries to carry out the will of the people. Yet, these people remain in our government mostly through an ever-exhausting tradition.
The election of Obama put a lot of faith in the Democratic Party. In the end, as we are already seeing, the message of hope and change was a fabulous marketing strategy by the Democratics. To give credit to Obama, he has not deviated from his campaign. The issues that were discussed (although very rarely during the campaign), have been addressed consistently. The problem here is that elections are never about the issues because both candidates seldom have the same ideas as the majority of the public. The problem is that the majority of Americans want to fully leave Iraq (as oppose to keeping “non-combat” troops), they want the government to look into a single-payer health care system, most want the Bush administration to be brought to justice for torture. They want better education, more regulation and to address climate change. And the list goes on. The problem here is that many think that the president is the one to look to in order to carry out these initiatives. People need to have a better understanding of the democratic-republican process, and to make informative votes for congress. I don’t mean to suggest that voting is the main answer, in fact I think voting is somewhat useless in a two party system, but the two party system is not permanently embedded into the legal structure of the country. We do have the ability to create more parties; it will just take a deeper grassroots effort. We saw a huge grassroots effort with Obama, but once most of those people realize how Democrats and Republicans are all part of a very similar agenda, they will hopefully put their efforts towards real change in American politics.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Freedom and Love
I was going through some of my writings and I found a poem I wrote a few months ago:
“Freedom” is a term such as “love”; it carries many truths, but also many delusions. Both are used with such ambiguity, yet they also carry a variety of concrete meanings for many different people. Both terms are merely a construction, which have elusive definitions depending of course on who is defining it.
‘Freedom’ and ‘love’ are terms that can be easily compared
Both are used with such ambiguity,
Yet carry concrete ideas for a variety of people
Both terms are human constructions
That serve a multitude of functions
The idea of freedom keeps the people in check
As the idea of love keeps human survival in tact
Whatever one considers about these words
Is a consequence of past experiences
And a product of their social systems
Nevertheless, the true beauty in freedom and love
Is that regardless of one’s experiences
We all possess one invaluable freedom:
To revoke and reform external notions of ‘love’, as well as ‘freedom’ to fit our own preferences.
“Freedom” is a term such as “love”; it carries many truths, but also many delusions. Both are used with such ambiguity, yet they also carry a variety of concrete meanings for many different people. Both terms are merely a construction, which have elusive definitions depending of course on who is defining it.
‘Freedom’ and ‘love’ are terms that can be easily compared
Both are used with such ambiguity,
Yet carry concrete ideas for a variety of people
Both terms are human constructions
That serve a multitude of functions
The idea of freedom keeps the people in check
As the idea of love keeps human survival in tact
Whatever one considers about these words
Is a consequence of past experiences
And a product of their social systems
Nevertheless, the true beauty in freedom and love
Is that regardless of one’s experiences
We all possess one invaluable freedom:
To revoke and reform external notions of ‘love’, as well as ‘freedom’ to fit our own preferences.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Lessons from the Great Depression
I decided my first post should be this essay I wrote about the Great Depression and our current economic crisis. It's very broad, but it touches upon a lot of ideas that I will most likely write about more thoroughly at a later date. Enjoy:
United States New York University
The most important thing to note about the Great Depression, as well as this crisis, is that there was no one single cause. Both affairs occurred due to many factors occurring under adverse circumstances. Even then, some may try to pinpoint “main” causes, but historians continue to dispute what factors should be emphasized when evaluating the causes of the Great Depression. Likewise, it is impossible to identify a prime cause for the current economic situation, especially since it is still unfolding. In mainstream thought, the Great Depression began after the stock market crash of 1929. This is dangerously short-sighted. If this were the only cause, we would be in an even more vulnerable position now because the stock market is considerably larger than it was in 1929. Thankfully, that was not the only cause of the Great Depression. Some historians may suggest that the origins of the Great Depression began during the industrialization of the late nineteenth century, but for our purposes we will begin immediately after World War I.
Just like our current economic crisis, there were those who predicted the Great Depression, but were ultimately ignored. John Maynard Keynes was one of those disregarded prophets. In The Economic Consequences of Peace, Keynes warns that the harsh penalties given to
The economic ties of the 1920s, just like today, were essentially based on loans. After World War I the
The interconnectedness of the global economy was a main reason why the depression was so vast in scope, but historians have calculated many other causes for the downturn, and these causes are very comparable to today’s crisis. Four main factors that are considered are: consumption, investments, net exports, and government policies. The main argument for the “underconsumption” cause is that during the 1920s, labor production grew rapidly as a result of technological advances, but this increase was not reflected in rising real wages. Therefore, as productivity increased and more products were put out into the market, but people no longer had the means to purchase the products, there became a waste of capital and production. This argument for a Great Depression cause is very much comparable to today’s crisis. A study by the New York Times showed that real wages were at their lowest share of G.D.P. on record in 2006, while corporate profits were at their highest share since the 1960s. This disparity between real wages and corporate profits is significant, but certainly not the only cause of either economic downturn.
Like the current economic situation, the Great Depression had some roots in the housing market. Investment began to decline as early as 1926 following a housing boom. As Attack and Passall point out, this decrease in the housing market was in part caused by the slowing of immigration and the fewer number of families. Although the current crisis has much to do with the housing market, where it differs from the Great Depression is that this housing bubble burst due to the complicated and risky behavior of financial institutions. Another factor discussed by Attack and Passall is net exports. This factor more than any other shows how interconnected the Depression was. The
As mentioned earlier, the Great Depression was not solely provoked by the stock market crash of 1929. These other factors allowed the crash to be so devastating, but it did not end there. The government understood that there was a significant recession and that they needed to take some action to ease the economic downturn. Unfortunately, the model that was used was the recession of 1920, which was very short and not exceptionally damaging. The thought at the time was that the 1929 recession would be very similar and the same policies would relieve the situation. Like other explanations for the depression there are contending views. Usually this falls into two different camps: the government did too much, or the government did too little. Under President Hoover, there were indeed public works projects and other government spending to try and offset decline in private consumption. In addition the government cut taxes to help stimulate the economy. These measures may have alleviated the situation at first, but by cutting taxes while spending, the government loses revenue. This led to a budget deficit of $2.7 billion in 1932. The solution to the deficit was to raise taxes, and to raise taxes in a time of recession ultimately makes the recession worse. According to this view, the failure of governmental policy exacerbated what might have been a less sever recession.
Since the current crisis is still uncertain, it is practically impossible to fully compare the eventual recovery of the Great Depression with today, especially since this is indeed only a comparison and not a suggestion that we are heading toward another Great Depression. However, the attempts that are being taken today to solve our economic problems certainly resemble the measures that were taken during the 1930s. The Obama stimulus plan, which is inevitably political, has taken measures to funnel money into education, environmental and energy issues, public works, and other spending that parallels the New Deal. Some of the New Deal spending is what created much of the infrastructure that we have today. The biggest lesson to learn from this is that the
Economics ultimately ends up being political. The current economic crisis is very much at the whim of how the
Why Blog?
I decided to start this blog for several reasons:
1) I want to keep up on writing while I'm out of classes, and this gives me a great outlet.
2) I feel as though I have an interesting outlook on history, politics, economics, and culture, that I would like to share with others and hear other opinions outside of my own.
3) This is a much better use of the internet than looking at videos of people playing with feces, or following other nauseating aspects of our culture.
So, with that in mind I hope I can attract some readers, and that I can offer an interesting perspective on life, or at least what our collective consciousness calls reality. I also hope to hear opinions and feedback on my writing and ideas. To those who will read, enjoy!
Cheers.
1) I want to keep up on writing while I'm out of classes, and this gives me a great outlet.
2) I feel as though I have an interesting outlook on history, politics, economics, and culture, that I would like to share with others and hear other opinions outside of my own.
3) This is a much better use of the internet than looking at videos of people playing with feces, or following other nauseating aspects of our culture.
So, with that in mind I hope I can attract some readers, and that I can offer an interesting perspective on life, or at least what our collective consciousness calls reality. I also hope to hear opinions and feedback on my writing and ideas. To those who will read, enjoy!
Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)