So today I read an article about the recent National Intelligence Estimate which contradicted the White House administration's official stance that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program. On this issue, I've always felt that Bush has needed to tone down his rhetoric over Iran, the battle drums beat in his heart endlessly, and this is just another example of how loud they beat. Instead of reassessing his position on Iran's purported nuclear weapons program, Bush is simply reaffirming his stance that Iran is dangerous, and that America should continue to pressure them diplomatically, and of course, our country should not rule out preemptive military strikes if they don't acquiesce to America's demands.
Instead of taking a more conciliatory stance toward Iran, Bush had this to say, "So, I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program. And the reason why it's a warning signal is that they could restart it." This reasoning, seems faulty and completely intransigent since no matter what we find out about Iran Bush will craft an argument which portrays Iran as a threat. One would think that a logical, reasonable individual would reach the conclusion that perhaps pressures have worked against Iran, and that this should be a hopeful sign; But, we're not dealing with a logical, intelligent individual here, Bush only understands violence, and he doesn't understand compromise or what diplomacy really means.
Now of extreme importance here, at least to note, is the blatant hypocrisy of the United States ostracizing a country for developing nuclear weapons, when America has a hefty arsenal of nuclear weapons itself, and always important is that this country is the only one to have actually used the devastating weapon. So who is more dangerous to world stability? This isn't to say that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons, but neither should the U.S. or Russia or Pakistan or Britain, etc. Violence, destruction, devastation is not subjective, it's all wrong.
The always unyielding Bush responded to criticism over the increased credibility gap he faces with the American people by saying thus, ""No, I'm feeling pretty spirited — pretty good about life." Fantastic, our president feels great about life, of course he wouldn't have to worry about a surreptitious terrorist attack on himself, it is usually civilians who feel the impact of war or terrorism.
There are so many things wrong with this man, this issue, and this country's stance toward the rest of the world. What's so wrong with saying, "hey, we had it wrong, let's go to the bargaining table and bring about a practical, long term solution to this situation." Well, there a few things that are wrong with it, mainly that the United States is not sincere about any non military solution to problems with countries such as Iran. The United States does not know the meaning of compromise and must have all diplomacy conducting under its own terms, how can this be an effectual way of conducting international relations, it's not possible. It's is extremely suggestive of America's stance on diplomacy when one of the conditions for talks is suspending of a nuclear program, and after information is revealed which dictates that that program was suspended three years ago there is no attempt at pursuing a peaceful solution. Instead, Bush is stronger in his resolve to portray Iran as a threat, which means further fabrication of disinformation.
Power is the fundamental element of our leaders intentions. I'm not sure how else this could be explained. I think it's perfectly clear that this country needs to be more conciliatory, and genuinely so, toward the rest of the world if our government really wants to make its citizens safer. Think about personal relationships, if you constantly talk down to a friend or significant other, disregarding their opinions and concerns; if you constantly bully them and preach to them ideals you yourself do not follow, what chance is their that they'll listen to you? Not good. Generally, they will get angry and all reason and logic will go out the window and there will then be no rectifying the problem. However, the effects in the international realm are much different, and the grudge of far greater consequence. The grudge doesn't take the form of an ignored phone call, but an increase in mistrust resulting in further misunderstanding, which in the case of some countries leads to radicalism, violence, and terrorism toward the United States.
We're victims right now of one man's stubborn nature; but, this is a sickness that many in this country suffer from. This uncompromising attitude permeates American society. We're taught almost from the moment we're born that it is our way or no way. Their needs to be fundamental changes about America's arrogance, and intransigence before the world will be safer. If I were a citizen of any other country I would be petrified over the United States. Heck, even as a citizen of this country I am frightened, since I see no radical change occurring over this sort of war mongering in the near future.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Monday, December 3, 2007
Domestically Deceived.
I just finished reading an article entitled "Bush and Democrats Renew War of Words" on the New York Times website. A particular quote by Senator Harry Reid caught my attention and raised a few issues. Harry Reid was quoted as saying that "War costs have come at the expense of American priorities at home." Yes! Now what will be done about the confusion over what the real priorities should be for our government. I'm inclined to say, well, nothing for the time being because we have an administration who has their priorities grossly mixed up; but, that simple statement is important because it draws a direct connection to what this war is doing to the domestic agenda in America, that is to say that it has drawn attention away from it.
This is a primary reason why get so upset over the extensive coverage of the Iraq war in the media. Yes Iraq is important, it is one of the most critical issues of our time, but not because of what Iraq was and is, but rather because of what it represents. It represents American imperialistic tendencies and their desire to have hegemonic domination over the rest of the world at the expense of the citizens in the international community as well as at home. Quick disclaimer; by "American" I mean the government and those high on the hierarchy in America, not your average everyday citizen. This is crucial to understand, because it underscores certain ideas about what it means to have a "national interest." To some national interest means federal policy concerning the rest of the world or policy concerning our country as sort of one citizen of the world among the many. Think of it as we are America collectively, it's our individual identity that connects us all as Americans.
This concern of the national interest as I see it conceived above leaves many Americans out of the loop, so to speak. Bush and his cronies irresponsibly attempt to impose their neoconservative agenda on the rest of the world, while they vigorously engage in propaganda efforts at home to gain compliance of the citizenry of the United States. Part of the neocon agenda is protecting American business interests through the use of military supremacy. War is money, and furthermore, there are American business interests across the globe which want global stability with America dominance, two contradicting ideals. This impacts seventy five percent of Americans in a significantly detrimental manner. The people will have to fight their wars, all to often with a myopia, and compliance, that is extremely frightning.
Which brings me back to the New York Times article. Although I believe we are at the cusp of a potentially new, more democratic America, we (the people - not the establishment or government) fight the wars which are the cumulative effect of policy aimed at furthering the "national interest." And we do so while casting aside domestic agenda to our own detriment. We have a common plight in America, I think if we addressed the anger and disillusionment associated with the inattention our needs receive, then we may have a happier country which doesn't seek to make the rest of the world pay. I think a comprehensive overhaul of policy, coupled with a refocus on domestic agenda, to be cliche, kills two birds with one stone. You actually take care of the people of this country's needs, and address some of the extreme hatred for Americans throughout the world, which makes us (those below) safer. (Isn't this what neocons profess, an America safe from terrorism?, ah but they seek out military solutions which compound the problem, so it must be asked, is this what they truly desire?) Ultimately I feel it is the people's obligation and duty to serve as the catalysts for the change we need. How much to we have sacrifice the our own fulfillment for some ideological, self important group of individuals leading our country. Class warfare? Ha, most certainly, but there is already one being waged from above, but that is a topic for another discussion.
This is a primary reason why get so upset over the extensive coverage of the Iraq war in the media. Yes Iraq is important, it is one of the most critical issues of our time, but not because of what Iraq was and is, but rather because of what it represents. It represents American imperialistic tendencies and their desire to have hegemonic domination over the rest of the world at the expense of the citizens in the international community as well as at home. Quick disclaimer; by "American" I mean the government and those high on the hierarchy in America, not your average everyday citizen. This is crucial to understand, because it underscores certain ideas about what it means to have a "national interest." To some national interest means federal policy concerning the rest of the world or policy concerning our country as sort of one citizen of the world among the many. Think of it as we are America collectively, it's our individual identity that connects us all as Americans.
This concern of the national interest as I see it conceived above leaves many Americans out of the loop, so to speak. Bush and his cronies irresponsibly attempt to impose their neoconservative agenda on the rest of the world, while they vigorously engage in propaganda efforts at home to gain compliance of the citizenry of the United States. Part of the neocon agenda is protecting American business interests through the use of military supremacy. War is money, and furthermore, there are American business interests across the globe which want global stability with America dominance, two contradicting ideals. This impacts seventy five percent of Americans in a significantly detrimental manner. The people will have to fight their wars, all to often with a myopia, and compliance, that is extremely frightning.
Which brings me back to the New York Times article. Although I believe we are at the cusp of a potentially new, more democratic America, we (the people - not the establishment or government) fight the wars which are the cumulative effect of policy aimed at furthering the "national interest." And we do so while casting aside domestic agenda to our own detriment. We have a common plight in America, I think if we addressed the anger and disillusionment associated with the inattention our needs receive, then we may have a happier country which doesn't seek to make the rest of the world pay. I think a comprehensive overhaul of policy, coupled with a refocus on domestic agenda, to be cliche, kills two birds with one stone. You actually take care of the people of this country's needs, and address some of the extreme hatred for Americans throughout the world, which makes us (those below) safer. (Isn't this what neocons profess, an America safe from terrorism?, ah but they seek out military solutions which compound the problem, so it must be asked, is this what they truly desire?) Ultimately I feel it is the people's obligation and duty to serve as the catalysts for the change we need. How much to we have sacrifice the our own fulfillment for some ideological, self important group of individuals leading our country. Class warfare? Ha, most certainly, but there is already one being waged from above, but that is a topic for another discussion.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Double Standard of Workplace Ethics
My job stinks, and generally I think about things at work to pass the time, many of them pertaining to the nature of the workplace, work itself, and the cumulative effect thereof and how they impact society, the family, etc. Today I got to thinking about how ethics are applied differently to different individuals, depending on what level of the work place hierarchy they exist on.
There are many ways that managers, CEOs, executives, and others skirt around labor law and commonly held principles about what is ethical or just, in order to achieve the bottom line of profit. Is this not unethical or immoral? I think it is, but rarely does the general public think about this double standard. We're held to a very tight moral compass which may range from dress restrictions ( conservative clothing only, no visible tattoos, no piercings) to having our personal lives used against us which may result in the loss of employment or general workplace condemnation resulting in ostricization or other unfriendly actions.
I simply don't understand why our employers can nickle and dime us, rob us of sick, overtime, or holiday pay, but it's wrong if a person has a moment of weakness and has a DWI, or if they show a tattoo, or they engage in other unethical behavior. Standards need to be applied more universally with fewer exceptions. Am I condoning unethical behavior? Certainly not, although I do believe in second chances, everybody makes mistakes in times of weakness, so I do accept the notion of one second chance. However, whoever is cooking the books, top or bottom of the ladder, all need to be held to the same level of moral demand.
Furthermore, is it not unethical or a detriment to society that Americans are working more and more at the expense of family and personal relationships? Ethics extends beyond the law, beyond institutions and government. Is it lawful to make a person work? Certainly. But, is it ethical and moral to make them work to the brink of insanity? Individual psychological well being, as well as fulfilling relationships suffer at the expense of the greater demand that is being placed on the American worker. And that is just it, we're viewed as little worker bees, not as human beings who have needs beyond the workplace. Until this notion is challenged however, we will not make any headway on these issues. It's not a privilege to be able to spend time with your kids, or wife, or close friends, or whoever makes you're life fulfilling, it is a right. The reduction of humanity in this country is astounding. Bottom line, as is exemplified by the double ethical standard, employer needs trump those of the employed, because among other reasons, the number employed or in need of employment will always outnumber the employers. Thus, we are more expendable.
With this being said, I refuse to remain quiet when this double standard is applied to myself, or to those that I care about. Power is not something that should be demanded, it should be commanded and it should be legitimate. This means that "power", and i use the term loosely, should be conferred upon the holder by those being lead with the realization that it can be revoked. In the workplace this is relevant because power is often abused to hold the worker hostage in a precarious state of fear, and uncertainty over when their boss is going to strike them next. This is unfair, and the anxiety that results from this authoritarian structure in most workplaces is extremely alarming.
In conclusion, ethics do not need to be abolished, they simply nee to be applied universally and equally. And the bottom line should not always take precedence over family, community, and friendship. But, I guess it's hard when as an employer that fat bonus at the end of the year depends upon it.
There are many ways that managers, CEOs, executives, and others skirt around labor law and commonly held principles about what is ethical or just, in order to achieve the bottom line of profit. Is this not unethical or immoral? I think it is, but rarely does the general public think about this double standard. We're held to a very tight moral compass which may range from dress restrictions ( conservative clothing only, no visible tattoos, no piercings) to having our personal lives used against us which may result in the loss of employment or general workplace condemnation resulting in ostricization or other unfriendly actions.
I simply don't understand why our employers can nickle and dime us, rob us of sick, overtime, or holiday pay, but it's wrong if a person has a moment of weakness and has a DWI, or if they show a tattoo, or they engage in other unethical behavior. Standards need to be applied more universally with fewer exceptions. Am I condoning unethical behavior? Certainly not, although I do believe in second chances, everybody makes mistakes in times of weakness, so I do accept the notion of one second chance. However, whoever is cooking the books, top or bottom of the ladder, all need to be held to the same level of moral demand.
Furthermore, is it not unethical or a detriment to society that Americans are working more and more at the expense of family and personal relationships? Ethics extends beyond the law, beyond institutions and government. Is it lawful to make a person work? Certainly. But, is it ethical and moral to make them work to the brink of insanity? Individual psychological well being, as well as fulfilling relationships suffer at the expense of the greater demand that is being placed on the American worker. And that is just it, we're viewed as little worker bees, not as human beings who have needs beyond the workplace. Until this notion is challenged however, we will not make any headway on these issues. It's not a privilege to be able to spend time with your kids, or wife, or close friends, or whoever makes you're life fulfilling, it is a right. The reduction of humanity in this country is astounding. Bottom line, as is exemplified by the double ethical standard, employer needs trump those of the employed, because among other reasons, the number employed or in need of employment will always outnumber the employers. Thus, we are more expendable.
With this being said, I refuse to remain quiet when this double standard is applied to myself, or to those that I care about. Power is not something that should be demanded, it should be commanded and it should be legitimate. This means that "power", and i use the term loosely, should be conferred upon the holder by those being lead with the realization that it can be revoked. In the workplace this is relevant because power is often abused to hold the worker hostage in a precarious state of fear, and uncertainty over when their boss is going to strike them next. This is unfair, and the anxiety that results from this authoritarian structure in most workplaces is extremely alarming.
In conclusion, ethics do not need to be abolished, they simply nee to be applied universally and equally. And the bottom line should not always take precedence over family, community, and friendship. But, I guess it's hard when as an employer that fat bonus at the end of the year depends upon it.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Random thoughts on John Edwards
I just read a good article on John Edwards, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, and how he is trying to represent a fresh perspective on American politics and society. As the article notes, he describes Hillary Clinton as a candidate of the status quo. Now, I like Hillary Clinton, I think she's done a lot of good things for the State of New York and America throughout her life. She has the right stance on issues, but I do agree with the articles assessment of her. I like John Edwards, and if it weren't for our broken electoral system, I would vote in the Democratic primary for him, unfortunately I am not a registered Democrat therefore I am rendered rather irrelevant. Whether or not John Edwards is simply trying to distance himself from the other candidates I don't know, but I do like somebody who is able to tackle the class issue in America, and to actually comment on the status quo.
It's refreshing to hear somebody talk about issues that need to be talked about in America, primarily the maldistribution of wealth in America, and the lack of focus on domestic issues such as health care and education. However, my cynicism does creep in and tells me to not trust this man because how will anybody truly change a system, and invert the power structure, without engendering a tremendous backlash from those currently in more? Well I'd rather vote for somebody who is at least talking the talk, and I'll take my chances on whether or not they walk the walk, rather than vote for somebody who doesn't even say the right things. Edwards, more so than Hillary or Obama, is willing to address one of the core issues of our time. His populist rhetoric is incredibly important. We need to stop fooling Americans into believing that there is no aristocracy in America, and that there is no problem with our economic system that all too often leaves people behind. This is not fomenting class rebellion, and if you argue that it is, so be it, because class warfare is waged on the lower and middle classes on a daily basis, by the media, the affluent, corporations, and many of their elected representatives. Well actually, those in power simply impart Americans with their personally selected and prepared ideas, and then let Americans divide themselves. Think about it.
So in the upcoming electoral hoopla, seriously consider who you'll vote for. The media feeds you Obama, Clinton, Giuliani, Romney, but what about the other guys? Republican and Democratic candidates aren't getting the proper treatment they deserve, at least not on par with that of the big four. What America needs is change. I think Edwards represents that. I guess I'll leave things at that for now.
It's refreshing to hear somebody talk about issues that need to be talked about in America, primarily the maldistribution of wealth in America, and the lack of focus on domestic issues such as health care and education. However, my cynicism does creep in and tells me to not trust this man because how will anybody truly change a system, and invert the power structure, without engendering a tremendous backlash from those currently in more? Well I'd rather vote for somebody who is at least talking the talk, and I'll take my chances on whether or not they walk the walk, rather than vote for somebody who doesn't even say the right things. Edwards, more so than Hillary or Obama, is willing to address one of the core issues of our time. His populist rhetoric is incredibly important. We need to stop fooling Americans into believing that there is no aristocracy in America, and that there is no problem with our economic system that all too often leaves people behind. This is not fomenting class rebellion, and if you argue that it is, so be it, because class warfare is waged on the lower and middle classes on a daily basis, by the media, the affluent, corporations, and many of their elected representatives. Well actually, those in power simply impart Americans with their personally selected and prepared ideas, and then let Americans divide themselves. Think about it.
So in the upcoming electoral hoopla, seriously consider who you'll vote for. The media feeds you Obama, Clinton, Giuliani, Romney, but what about the other guys? Republican and Democratic candidates aren't getting the proper treatment they deserve, at least not on par with that of the big four. What America needs is change. I think Edwards represents that. I guess I'll leave things at that for now.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Cynicism
So I was going to leave a rant on AIM about how silly I find away messages. Sure, I've done that thing before where you leave a message about some frivolous activity, or important life crisis, or professed love to some gal. Don't lie to yourself, you've done this. Why do we do this? Well, my first inclination is to say that we like to think that people care about what we're doing. OR we want to feel in touch with the world, so when I leave a message that says "In the Shower", well, now you know that I"m in the shower and because you're in the know about what I'm doing then I'm not completely alone. Sure that last statement is a stretch, but I think there is an element of truth to it. So what I"d like to say is that, nobody gives a hoot about what you're doing. Go take a shower ok?, don't announce it to the world. And I'm going to end this fairly quickly here because this is nothing about a response to my cynical, caustic mood. I"m sorry....I'm sure somebody does care that you're in the shower, I apologize for being so heartless...I kid, I don't apologize.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
So as if I don't have enough on my mind, I've decided to write a new blog. I'm currently reading Profit Over People by Noam Chomsky, and yes, I am proud of the fact that I've delved into some Chomsky...next up Rushdie. In any case, Chomsky is great if you're into progressive polemical discussion. Sure, Chomsky comes of to the uninformed as excessively cynical, but maybe that is simply because we as Americans are so used to simply acceping ourselves as number one ( which isn't the case and is extremely childish...this isn't a major sports team we're talking about) But, I digress.
Chomsky is able to say many things I've always thought, but he is either able to say them more succinctly, or more intelligbly, I'm not completely sure which. Either way he does it better. I must note one particular quote which was something to the effect of the Untited States churns out, "consumers and not citizens." I feel like this is the chief issue of our times because it directly affects so many other facets of society. The reason American apathy toward politics and the world outside their own personal lives has increased is because of this. Civics is extremely important in a world where despotic regimes and totalatarianism lurks in the shadows everywhere we turn. The United States, and by the U.S. I mean the people as physical beings, not corporations, needs to get back to this basic maxim.
How can we do this? I feel grassroots activism is key, the media is also key, and the world outside of the United States is extremely important as they must not acquiece to our hegemony. The people need to be tought objective nationalism, not the blind kind imposed on them from the top of the power structure. The individual needs to be taught to love the institutions we have in this country, to love democracy and republicanism, yet to view the world through a relative and objective lense. Question authority, re-evaluate your assumptions, and constantly challenge yourself to justify your ideologies and beliefs. Complacency in intellect is dangerous, I feel this breeds the good vs. evil mentality this country has since complacency means you're feel comfortable you have the world figured out. This will never be so.
I haven't addressed what it means to churn out consumers. Business rules all right now in this country. From ethics to social programs, corporation's interests dictate policy of the government. The sad thing is that average citizens buy right into this idea that if it's good for business, then it's good for society, which is rarely so. I feel democracy and capitalism are mutually exclusive, that is to say that capitalism erodes free thought and free politics. Capitalism preaches order, stability, and voracious growth in the economy (note the growth in the "economy" means at the top, not in the form of increased wages for those below). So when profit takes importance over people, we all lose. However, Americans need to wake up and stop lapping up the liturgy of business that the bottom line is all the matters. Believe it or not, I am hopeful we can at least redirect the debate to issues that matter so that we have a society that values people over profit.
Chomsky is able to say many things I've always thought, but he is either able to say them more succinctly, or more intelligbly, I'm not completely sure which. Either way he does it better. I must note one particular quote which was something to the effect of the Untited States churns out, "consumers and not citizens." I feel like this is the chief issue of our times because it directly affects so many other facets of society. The reason American apathy toward politics and the world outside their own personal lives has increased is because of this. Civics is extremely important in a world where despotic regimes and totalatarianism lurks in the shadows everywhere we turn. The United States, and by the U.S. I mean the people as physical beings, not corporations, needs to get back to this basic maxim.
How can we do this? I feel grassroots activism is key, the media is also key, and the world outside of the United States is extremely important as they must not acquiece to our hegemony. The people need to be tought objective nationalism, not the blind kind imposed on them from the top of the power structure. The individual needs to be taught to love the institutions we have in this country, to love democracy and republicanism, yet to view the world through a relative and objective lense. Question authority, re-evaluate your assumptions, and constantly challenge yourself to justify your ideologies and beliefs. Complacency in intellect is dangerous, I feel this breeds the good vs. evil mentality this country has since complacency means you're feel comfortable you have the world figured out. This will never be so.
I haven't addressed what it means to churn out consumers. Business rules all right now in this country. From ethics to social programs, corporation's interests dictate policy of the government. The sad thing is that average citizens buy right into this idea that if it's good for business, then it's good for society, which is rarely so. I feel democracy and capitalism are mutually exclusive, that is to say that capitalism erodes free thought and free politics. Capitalism preaches order, stability, and voracious growth in the economy (note the growth in the "economy" means at the top, not in the form of increased wages for those below). So when profit takes importance over people, we all lose. However, Americans need to wake up and stop lapping up the liturgy of business that the bottom line is all the matters. Believe it or not, I am hopeful we can at least redirect the debate to issues that matter so that we have a society that values people over profit.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Apply Liberally
So happy am I about this small glimmer of hope that I just read on the New York Times web-page that I decided to blog about it. Polls are polls, and you can only take so much away from them, but in an increasingly hopeless world, people like me need hope in polls that show that the youth of America are finally smartening up. The articles url will be posted at the end of this blog, because I can't figure out to outfit this page with a beautifully stylish link that says something like "Glimmer of Hope - America's youth are using their heads", but on second thought, that is neither beautiful nor stylish, but I digress. Anyway, it basically says that Liberal thought is more popular, albeit by an incredibly small margin, than Conservatism. Rejoice!!! The intellectual coup of America's higher education system must be working, and I like to think that is a good thing. Although blind adherence to any one ideology is inherently evil, Liberal thought in my opinion isn't so dangerous since it can encompass so many different ideas, perhaps even Conservative thought? Conservatism certainly can't absorb liberal thought because the ideology itself is naturally restrictive, and requires strict obedience, aka no free thought which is conflicting. I'm not strictly a "liberal" myself but I none the less see a population moving toward the left as in incredibly good thing. I associate liberal with free thought, with questions, and challenging assumptions, and those my friends are all imperative to the health and vigor of the American nation and humanity at large. So enjoy the article. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/washington/27cnd-poll.html?ex=1340596800&en=bfdc2d073ae6de01&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Wow, two posts in two days, well I guess I've been given a fair amount of food for thought. So I was told today that I, "think too much". Is there such a thing? I would have to answer in the negative. My general response was something to the effect of, If we do not thing then we become complacent. Complacent to whom? Complacent to any person or group of persons who wishes us to follow their ideology in any form. Blind allegiance to ideology can be worse than no allegiance or belief at all. Which is why I get so angry when I hear people spout off about their politics, yet when you challenge them they are at a loss of words because they don't know why the believe what they believe.
So when I hear someone say that I think too much I think of such connotations as excessive or that I over think or that I"m obsessive about it - all negative connotations. So what if I think less? Sure ignorance may be pure bliss, but is it real happiness? Is it good to de-construct the world to a shell of what it really is in order to achieve this artificial happiness? No it is not. I've come to terms with the complexity of the world although it is still a source of great anxiety. Yet I choose to continue to think deeply and critically about the world because when I cease to think is when I cease to become a free person.
In conclusion, I will not comply and I will most certainly not be happy with the world at face value. Yes it causes anxiety with the complexity, but once we understand this complexity our possibilities are completely endless. Human beings less than a century ago had a less complex understanding of the world than we do today. We've made progress because of those who "think too much". This just boggles my mind. Perhaps this person is simply a mind in the stages of its intellectual infancy, and this is what I believe, I can only hope this view changes.
So when I hear someone say that I think too much I think of such connotations as excessive or that I over think or that I"m obsessive about it - all negative connotations. So what if I think less? Sure ignorance may be pure bliss, but is it real happiness? Is it good to de-construct the world to a shell of what it really is in order to achieve this artificial happiness? No it is not. I've come to terms with the complexity of the world although it is still a source of great anxiety. Yet I choose to continue to think deeply and critically about the world because when I cease to think is when I cease to become a free person.
In conclusion, I will not comply and I will most certainly not be happy with the world at face value. Yes it causes anxiety with the complexity, but once we understand this complexity our possibilities are completely endless. Human beings less than a century ago had a less complex understanding of the world than we do today. We've made progress because of those who "think too much". This just boggles my mind. Perhaps this person is simply a mind in the stages of its intellectual infancy, and this is what I believe, I can only hope this view changes.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
It has been a while since I have written on this thing, so I'm just writing to see what comes to mind. Oh well here is a good one, I was sitting in the mall food court on my unpaid half hour lunch watching CNN. I saw that our fearless leader George W. Bush ok'd some covert operations which were to be aimed at undermining the Iranian government. I really am an opponent of this sort of sabotage and warfare. It goes to the heart of my argument against war. Well, I suppose I am not completely against war, but I feel it should be an absolute last resort. This means take into account all diplomatic means to secure an agreement or solution before war. Yet even now I am doubting my support for war. I feel like human beings try to draw cut and dry lines too much; they want win or lose, black or white, right or wrong...unfortunately this is rarely the case. Thus human beings always draw themselves into the realm of competition (ie, war) where winners and losers can more easily be distinguished.
Is it possible that we can really give diplomacy a chance instead of undermining governments? I certainly hope so. I think Iran has some honest complaints. For example, they have a legitimate beef with our militarism and bolstering of our own nuke programs while at the same time condemning that of other nations. Would it be so hard to demilitarize in exchange for the same from Iran? Wouldn't this show a much more conciliatory attitude toward the rest of the world and perhaps improve our tarnished international image? It may be idealistic to hope for world peace, but it is not so to hope for a less arrogant and condescending United States of America.
So back to covert operations. What happens when we undermine the Iranian government? I should not that I believe the method of choice was attacking their financial institutions which doesn't just impact the elite in Iran but the poorest of the poor, some who already struggle to get by. So what we'll create in Iran is an increasingly unstable country, while fueling the already masses of religious and anti-west zealots. Iran need only to point out that the reason the easily convinced masses are struggling is because of the evil United States...and is there not an element of truth to this? I love my country, I love our ideals and what they stand for, but the people need to continue to force their leaders to live up to those ideals. Ideals, although we may not live up to them always, challenge us to a higher state of existence, which is why idealism is important. An apathetic America has allowed our leaders, in particular the right, to become increasingly bold, unyielding, and myopic on the world stage. The answer to Iran is not covert operations or military chest thumping in the gulf. It involves listening and diplomacy...talking. These are things Americans struggle with.
Is it possible that we can really give diplomacy a chance instead of undermining governments? I certainly hope so. I think Iran has some honest complaints. For example, they have a legitimate beef with our militarism and bolstering of our own nuke programs while at the same time condemning that of other nations. Would it be so hard to demilitarize in exchange for the same from Iran? Wouldn't this show a much more conciliatory attitude toward the rest of the world and perhaps improve our tarnished international image? It may be idealistic to hope for world peace, but it is not so to hope for a less arrogant and condescending United States of America.
So back to covert operations. What happens when we undermine the Iranian government? I should not that I believe the method of choice was attacking their financial institutions which doesn't just impact the elite in Iran but the poorest of the poor, some who already struggle to get by. So what we'll create in Iran is an increasingly unstable country, while fueling the already masses of religious and anti-west zealots. Iran need only to point out that the reason the easily convinced masses are struggling is because of the evil United States...and is there not an element of truth to this? I love my country, I love our ideals and what they stand for, but the people need to continue to force their leaders to live up to those ideals. Ideals, although we may not live up to them always, challenge us to a higher state of existence, which is why idealism is important. An apathetic America has allowed our leaders, in particular the right, to become increasingly bold, unyielding, and myopic on the world stage. The answer to Iran is not covert operations or military chest thumping in the gulf. It involves listening and diplomacy...talking. These are things Americans struggle with.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Long Time No Blog
In part due to my long absence from blogging, and also in part due to a recent conversation I had, I have returned to rant, write, or whichever you choose to describe this. I will leave the details of the conversation out in order to protect those involved, but basically the issue was raced over financial policy in this country; You know, interest rates, banking policy, etc, and what the mean for the poorer citizens. The person I was conversing with felt that it was just to have extremely high rates for poorer folks because they shouldn't try to live beyond their means. My basic response to that sort of question is that it is delusional and wrong. There are forces beyond ones control that can dictate their economic standing. Sure, some people are in fact lazy and have no initiative, but I fail to believe that is a majority. Rather, there are those who get demoralized from the lack of opportunity and upward mobility presented before them. It's not laziness, it's called depression. Some people just can't get ahead because they start several paces behind the starting line that others begin it economically.
So is it right to have high interest rates for high risk borrowers? Economically maybe, morally absolutely not. A problem in society is that we use our wallets and pocketbooks to think more than our hearts. I think there needs to be avenues to help the poor with things that matter, like education, health care, and getting a home. Maybe we should lower our rates when it comes to borrowing for those purposes. I"m against the sort of reckless borrowing meant to buy needless things such as big screen tvs and plastic surgery, or what have you, but to help individuals live healthy fulfilling lives; it's not always wrong to give them a boost with more friendly borrowing terms.
And lets not forget that debt terms are often constructed to milk more from the borrower. It is a business, which means profit is the motive, not humanity. Lenders want you in debt, but not too much; They want you just enough in debt so that you can pay your monthly payment, yet not pay it off so that you can accrue more interest. Once again, the money is in this country to help everybody. We should be searching for ways to live a more virtuous lifestyle, which does not always translate into an economically more prosperous one. Humanity NOT profit should be our motives.
So is it right to have high interest rates for high risk borrowers? Economically maybe, morally absolutely not. A problem in society is that we use our wallets and pocketbooks to think more than our hearts. I think there needs to be avenues to help the poor with things that matter, like education, health care, and getting a home. Maybe we should lower our rates when it comes to borrowing for those purposes. I"m against the sort of reckless borrowing meant to buy needless things such as big screen tvs and plastic surgery, or what have you, but to help individuals live healthy fulfilling lives; it's not always wrong to give them a boost with more friendly borrowing terms.
And lets not forget that debt terms are often constructed to milk more from the borrower. It is a business, which means profit is the motive, not humanity. Lenders want you in debt, but not too much; They want you just enough in debt so that you can pay your monthly payment, yet not pay it off so that you can accrue more interest. Once again, the money is in this country to help everybody. We should be searching for ways to live a more virtuous lifestyle, which does not always translate into an economically more prosperous one. Humanity NOT profit should be our motives.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
The Church and Homosexuality
I usually write about class and economic issues so I thought I'd throw a bit of a curveball and write about an article I read this past week about Ted Haggard, the pastor who had homosexual relations with another man. I couldn't finish the article because I was completely angered by one comment that said something to the effect of; Ted Haggard after intense therapy was now 100% heterosexual. First of all, it's not something that is in need of therapy, it is something the church needs to realize has existed since the dawn of time. It is not a sickness, but a perspective, just like everything else in life, and who is to say which is the superior way of life? I'm a heterosexual male who has known several homosexuals and I am not in any way threatned by them. Sure, I am guilty of having judged them before, but college shed light on many things for me including what it means to be a homosexual.
Now for Ted Haggard to all of the sudden be 100% heterosexual is absurd. It's not something that can simply be rationalized away. The man had homosexual relations and that is just fine, but the church has to save face and create a stance that completely is out of touch with mainstream thought. In addition, just because somebody has homosexual relations does not mean they are a homosexual. It happens in prisons, in the military, and of course in church circles across the globe. It existed in Native American societies when men were away at war. The point is we need to make these distinctions, but this is in no way, shape, or form a denunciation of homosexuality. If Ted Haggard simply had homosexual realtions, or if he is in fact a homosexual, either way that is fine.
I am very critical of established religious institutions and this is just another example of why. They always try to deny human nature and the progression of society. Many religious fundamentalists, and many religious types in general, seem to denounce any way of life, or perspective, that is not in line with their ideas. This is not restrictive to religious believers though, it happens in politics and any other belief based system. However, established religions have done far more harm than good in this world. The wars, the death, and the harm all done in the name of religion boggles my mind, but I digress.
So Ted Haggard and the rest of the faithful, step outside the box you live in and see yourselves for what you really are. A product of humanity, a creation that is molded by its surroundings. God didn't create the world, the world created God and people don't choose to be homosexuals, but they deserve to be treated rightfully and justly as human beings, not as a social misfit.
Now for Ted Haggard to all of the sudden be 100% heterosexual is absurd. It's not something that can simply be rationalized away. The man had homosexual relations and that is just fine, but the church has to save face and create a stance that completely is out of touch with mainstream thought. In addition, just because somebody has homosexual relations does not mean they are a homosexual. It happens in prisons, in the military, and of course in church circles across the globe. It existed in Native American societies when men were away at war. The point is we need to make these distinctions, but this is in no way, shape, or form a denunciation of homosexuality. If Ted Haggard simply had homosexual realtions, or if he is in fact a homosexual, either way that is fine.
I am very critical of established religious institutions and this is just another example of why. They always try to deny human nature and the progression of society. Many religious fundamentalists, and many religious types in general, seem to denounce any way of life, or perspective, that is not in line with their ideas. This is not restrictive to religious believers though, it happens in politics and any other belief based system. However, established religions have done far more harm than good in this world. The wars, the death, and the harm all done in the name of religion boggles my mind, but I digress.
So Ted Haggard and the rest of the faithful, step outside the box you live in and see yourselves for what you really are. A product of humanity, a creation that is molded by its surroundings. God didn't create the world, the world created God and people don't choose to be homosexuals, but they deserve to be treated rightfully and justly as human beings, not as a social misfit.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Race and Ethnicity
This may not be a totally clear blog since it was written with my professor as the intended audience, but I thought I'd post a response paper I wrote for one of my history classes recently. I love reading, and debating, the questions of race, class, and ethnicity. I tend to think class trumps all other social categories, because it encompasses all others, but I digress. So here is a short paper on race, and the idea of post ethnicity.
This idea of post-ethnicity is first all a very difficult one to fully grasp without significant study on the subject. It is not the first time I’ve been exposed to this type of idea, in fact, over the past two years it has found its way into many of the classes or books I have read in some way shape or form. It falls under this idea of the social construction of race, ethnicity, and gender which can make one feel very uncomfortable at first. These sorts of ideas force a person to reformulate what they perceived as being fact, truth, or reality in many senses, and this can be extremely discomforting. I sometimes wonder if we will ever be able to fully reach beyond our concepts of race and ethnicity to reach a post ethnic society, but I’m not sure there is a positive answer to that question. It many ways it would involve the transformation of history as we know it, because even though I truly believe there are no inherent inferiorities amongst particular groups, they have been given meaning; and further meaning will be yet another imposition by an outside entity within the context of previously held notions of race or ethnicity.
Labels that we use to describe races or ethnicities are meaningless until they are prescribed a meaning by communities both within and outside of a given group of individuals. That being said we need to change the meanings that we give to somebody who is for example, Asian or African-American. I think how we teach history is crucial in this aspect. I think if academia can find a way present the historical forces that have assigned second class status to certain groups which is easily understood by the masses then we can make some headway in terms of our understandings of these subjects. Without knowledge individuals simply follow their senses of sight and hearing. I have seen it with my own eyes. People see a poor African American and automatically assign them as lazy and then they assign lazy as a characteristic of the whole race. This can change though and I’ve seen it change with myself. I come from a working class family who made these assumptions and therefore they became a part of me. However in college I was taught to rethink my notions about race, ethnicity, and gender. However, this raises another interesting question about the so called positive meanings that we assign to race and ethnicity. I think those are just as harmful as the negative meanings, but I think it is important to note if we are to re-negotiate our understandings of the negatives then we must also do so with the positives.
I find the question of post-ethnicity the most important in terms of our readings for this class. This question of race and ethnicity as being socially constructed, thus susceptible to being socially deconstructed is an extremely intriguing one. As I alluded to earlier, it involves in a very real sense, they creation of a new reality. Reality is not fact or even truth, reality is what we make it, but that is not to say it is what we intentionally make. It is completely out of our control in what reality is because so many forces act together to create it and there is no way we can control it. When I say we will never get past the point where we view differences among races and ethnicities I feel some people consider me to be a racist which would be incredibly faulty thinking. I think it is natural for a human being to see and acknowledge differences between their fellow human beings. I see darker skin than mine and it registers in my mind as so. Just as I see a female and realize that they are not male like me. In both instances almost immediately certain ideas pop up about they register as darker skinned or female.
We simply need to celebrate our differences. Differences are good; they make the world exciting and a more interesting place. I think in the United States, and the world, we have this problem with differences in physical and intellectual make up. In my world view it is because government fears what it would due to certain allegiances to their particular institution of rule. People fear the unknown; they fear what is different because they feel that person or thing is a threat to their personal reality. They also fear differences because they can constitute a political and social force and impose their own ideals on the rest of us. I honestly believe these beliefs exist, even if they’re subconsciously. So with all that I think we need to celebrate the good things about our differences and seek to understand the negatives to prevent them from occurring in the future. This may seem to imply that I find hope that a post-ethnic world can exist. This would mean changing history, changing government, changing economy, and basically negating everything up until now, which is impossible.
As I think is shown by my comments here, which I’m sure have many contradictions, this topic is wildly complex. We may be able to become post-ethnic in a social sense where people are allowed to determine their ethnic identity so a limited extent, but I fail to see it happening broadly, especially when it comes to social and governmental institutions. I always seem to tie things to class, but I believe class is the more important issue because the reason there is a concern for race and ethnicity is because of the economic implications. Of course I see power, both political and social, in this economic analysis because money certainly means power in this world. I think if we are ever to reach a post-ethnic world we would have to see our conceptions of wealth and economy do a complete 180.
I’m still fighting to understand these issues, and I will continue to do so even though I think nobody will ever find an answer. I love this topic and I love thinking about it despite the many headaches it gives me. I do think we need to make an effort to see each other as human beings, not as black and white, Christian and Muslim, or American and Chinese. That may make me a bit of an idealist, but I think hope must be kept alive and efforts must be made to do so.
This idea of post-ethnicity is first all a very difficult one to fully grasp without significant study on the subject. It is not the first time I’ve been exposed to this type of idea, in fact, over the past two years it has found its way into many of the classes or books I have read in some way shape or form. It falls under this idea of the social construction of race, ethnicity, and gender which can make one feel very uncomfortable at first. These sorts of ideas force a person to reformulate what they perceived as being fact, truth, or reality in many senses, and this can be extremely discomforting. I sometimes wonder if we will ever be able to fully reach beyond our concepts of race and ethnicity to reach a post ethnic society, but I’m not sure there is a positive answer to that question. It many ways it would involve the transformation of history as we know it, because even though I truly believe there are no inherent inferiorities amongst particular groups, they have been given meaning; and further meaning will be yet another imposition by an outside entity within the context of previously held notions of race or ethnicity.
Labels that we use to describe races or ethnicities are meaningless until they are prescribed a meaning by communities both within and outside of a given group of individuals. That being said we need to change the meanings that we give to somebody who is for example, Asian or African-American. I think how we teach history is crucial in this aspect. I think if academia can find a way present the historical forces that have assigned second class status to certain groups which is easily understood by the masses then we can make some headway in terms of our understandings of these subjects. Without knowledge individuals simply follow their senses of sight and hearing. I have seen it with my own eyes. People see a poor African American and automatically assign them as lazy and then they assign lazy as a characteristic of the whole race. This can change though and I’ve seen it change with myself. I come from a working class family who made these assumptions and therefore they became a part of me. However in college I was taught to rethink my notions about race, ethnicity, and gender. However, this raises another interesting question about the so called positive meanings that we assign to race and ethnicity. I think those are just as harmful as the negative meanings, but I think it is important to note if we are to re-negotiate our understandings of the negatives then we must also do so with the positives.
I find the question of post-ethnicity the most important in terms of our readings for this class. This question of race and ethnicity as being socially constructed, thus susceptible to being socially deconstructed is an extremely intriguing one. As I alluded to earlier, it involves in a very real sense, they creation of a new reality. Reality is not fact or even truth, reality is what we make it, but that is not to say it is what we intentionally make. It is completely out of our control in what reality is because so many forces act together to create it and there is no way we can control it. When I say we will never get past the point where we view differences among races and ethnicities I feel some people consider me to be a racist which would be incredibly faulty thinking. I think it is natural for a human being to see and acknowledge differences between their fellow human beings. I see darker skin than mine and it registers in my mind as so. Just as I see a female and realize that they are not male like me. In both instances almost immediately certain ideas pop up about they register as darker skinned or female.
We simply need to celebrate our differences. Differences are good; they make the world exciting and a more interesting place. I think in the United States, and the world, we have this problem with differences in physical and intellectual make up. In my world view it is because government fears what it would due to certain allegiances to their particular institution of rule. People fear the unknown; they fear what is different because they feel that person or thing is a threat to their personal reality. They also fear differences because they can constitute a political and social force and impose their own ideals on the rest of us. I honestly believe these beliefs exist, even if they’re subconsciously. So with all that I think we need to celebrate the good things about our differences and seek to understand the negatives to prevent them from occurring in the future. This may seem to imply that I find hope that a post-ethnic world can exist. This would mean changing history, changing government, changing economy, and basically negating everything up until now, which is impossible.
As I think is shown by my comments here, which I’m sure have many contradictions, this topic is wildly complex. We may be able to become post-ethnic in a social sense where people are allowed to determine their ethnic identity so a limited extent, but I fail to see it happening broadly, especially when it comes to social and governmental institutions. I always seem to tie things to class, but I believe class is the more important issue because the reason there is a concern for race and ethnicity is because of the economic implications. Of course I see power, both political and social, in this economic analysis because money certainly means power in this world. I think if we are ever to reach a post-ethnic world we would have to see our conceptions of wealth and economy do a complete 180.
I’m still fighting to understand these issues, and I will continue to do so even though I think nobody will ever find an answer. I love this topic and I love thinking about it despite the many headaches it gives me. I do think we need to make an effort to see each other as human beings, not as black and white, Christian and Muslim, or American and Chinese. That may make me a bit of an idealist, but I think hope must be kept alive and efforts must be made to do so.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
The Richer Rich
This one should be short and sweet, but it angered me quite a bit to read about the distribution of wealth and income in America in a more thorough manner in Perfectly Legal by David cay Johnson. I think the distribution of wealth needs to be studied and exposed to a much greater extent than what it is because it impacts so many other things such as health care, social security, community services, etc etc. One of the great things to complain about today is the current state of our Social Security System and our desperate need for a good health care system, well the answer lays in the distribution of wealth. The top 10% of Americans make 50% of the income. Yep, that's 50%. The most elite families in America have seen their income rise by a good 500% while the rest of America has seen their incomes decline when adjusted for inflation. Don't let the numbers fool you that you may get from more conservative sources, families may be making more, but that is because more households have both parents working, and working longer hours...and the right likes to portray themselves as the proponents of values. Some values party when parents are less involved with the lives of their children.
With a president that assures us that privatization of everything is the answer for what ails us one has to consider what privatization will to further fatten the pockets of the rich. Furthermore, if Americans are forced to pay for even more services out of their own pockets that will make their wages decline even further, a dollar will be worth even less, and they will have less disposable income. And yes the rich continue to get tax breaks, so combined with privatization I'm sure the rich will be doing very very well in a horrible understatement.
Another thing that I found amazing is how much the IRS goes after the middle and working classes, but the wealthy get away with millions by way of tax evasion and fraud. What makes more sense?, to go after a factory worker making twenty thousand dollars a year, or the corporate CEO who is making millions, and getting away with millions, millions in the form of taxes which pay for services.
The sad part of this all as that it does not get out enough, and not enough people care to do anything about it. I find this extremely scary. The American dream does not exist, it never existed. Money goes to money. When the Astors are still fabulously wealthy hundreds of years after John Jacob Astor swindled Native Americans for furs which he used to make a fortune in real estate, then I think we have an aristocratic problem. A country is a social pact, an agreement that we'll all live and work together for the good of the entire nation. That's not how it exists in America right now. To steal a term from Laurence Gronlund, the lower classes are getting "fleeced" of what the justly deserve. The businessman takes their wool and does great things with it, and the rest of America gets to work longer and harder to get by.
With a president that assures us that privatization of everything is the answer for what ails us one has to consider what privatization will to further fatten the pockets of the rich. Furthermore, if Americans are forced to pay for even more services out of their own pockets that will make their wages decline even further, a dollar will be worth even less, and they will have less disposable income. And yes the rich continue to get tax breaks, so combined with privatization I'm sure the rich will be doing very very well in a horrible understatement.
Another thing that I found amazing is how much the IRS goes after the middle and working classes, but the wealthy get away with millions by way of tax evasion and fraud. What makes more sense?, to go after a factory worker making twenty thousand dollars a year, or the corporate CEO who is making millions, and getting away with millions, millions in the form of taxes which pay for services.
The sad part of this all as that it does not get out enough, and not enough people care to do anything about it. I find this extremely scary. The American dream does not exist, it never existed. Money goes to money. When the Astors are still fabulously wealthy hundreds of years after John Jacob Astor swindled Native Americans for furs which he used to make a fortune in real estate, then I think we have an aristocratic problem. A country is a social pact, an agreement that we'll all live and work together for the good of the entire nation. That's not how it exists in America right now. To steal a term from Laurence Gronlund, the lower classes are getting "fleeced" of what the justly deserve. The businessman takes their wool and does great things with it, and the rest of America gets to work longer and harder to get by.
Thursday, January 4, 2007
A band you need a dictionary and encyclopedia for
I was first exposed to Bad religion in a freshman english class in college. It was actually by reading an article that the lead singer, who just so happens to have a phd, wrote. I highly suggest checking out their website www.badreligion.com where you'll find some of the lead singer Greg Graffin's essays and other good stuff. Anyway, they are a very political, intelligent, and socially conscious band, which I like to see. They are what I like to call real punk, but as Graffin points out in his "Punk Synopsis" you have to be careful in excluding certain people or groups that you may feel are NOT punk. Regardless, when I think of punk I think of Bad Religion, they aren't the cookie cutter, manufactured music that is put out under the label of punk or that horrible word EMO (which is to me like scratching ones fingernails on a chalkboard).
What is special though about Bad Religion is they write about things that matter, and in a very intelligent and informed way. They're a band you need both a dictionary and encyclopedia for. I picked out a excerpt of the lyrics for "American Jesus" just as an example of their work, but I suggest listening to their music and the messages they put out. I like seeing a band that is not interested in falling into any certain framework, they define themselves, and they put out great music with a purpose....very refreshing considering the musical times we live in. Not all their songs are cynical, but this one certainly is, but it is also the truth. Just a small example of Bad Religion expressing the arrogance of many Americans...think foreign policy with this particular song...ENJOY!
"American Jesus" by Bad Religion
I don't need to be a global citizen,'Cuz I'm blessed by nationality.
I'm member of a growing populace,We enforce our popularity.
There are things that seem to pull us under and,
There are things that drag us down.
But there's a power and a vital presence,It's lurking all around.
We've got the American Jesus,See him on the interstate.
We've got the American Jesus,He helped build the President's estate.
I feel sorry for the Earth's population,
'Cuz so few live in the U.S.A.
At least the foreigners can copy our morality,
They can visit but they cannot stay.
Only precious few can garner our prosperity,
It makes us walk with renewed confidence.
We got a place to go when we die,
And the architect resides right here
Monday, January 1, 2007
Death in the Haymarket
So I have been reading a book called Death in the Haymarket by James Green for one of my independent studies for college and I thought I would just write down some thoughts on it. I've read a little bit about the Haymarket riots throughout the course of college and in some of the books I have consumed lately, but this is the first that really focuses on the historical context of all the different elements which culminated in what is known as the Haymarket riot. I've yet to finish it, but it is phenomenal; An easy ready for anybody who is not a huge fan of history books because it is written as a narrative. I always see these books as more than history books because any history is actually a part of the present, and it can serve as an intellectual foundation for understanding today.
I caught myself judging the anarchists of the late 19th century and I thought, well, should I really be judging them? Should I be judging the manifestation of their anxieties over the destructive nature of cooperative, monopolistic capitalism and what it was doing to the lives of workers? I guess I have no answer for that since I will never be able to feel or understand the anxiety and worries they had over their changing world. The anarchists were the most militant, and angry of those who spoke out against industrial capitalism, and although their advocating of dynamite and terrorism is undoubtedly wrong, I can still empathize with their disdain over the power of the capitalist.
I believe the power of businessmen and capitalists is the strongest it has ever been today, it is just not as visible as it was back then. Sure we don't have the massive slums, but they do still exist, they just aren't given as much attention. Also, in relative terms, all of American society has a higher rate of affluence, but in absolute terms the majority of people are still left out of the massive economic growth of this country. Real wages have gone down while corporate income has skyrocketed, the laws favor the rich was much as they ever have, and government is still the tool of the capitalist. More than ever the capitalist is the politician and the politician is the capitalist. They work together, so why can't working people?
Individualism is only espoused by the businessman who wants his workers to fight against one another so they do not unite against his autocratic power over society. Yes, I am intensely against the extremes of wealth we have in this country. And I'll cut it right here, I'm sure I will come back to this another day....So to judge the anarchists who fought back against the oppression of the government, militia, and police....I never believe violence is the right way, but was it understandable in their case? ABSOLUTELY. You should all read more about labor history and you'll find that many MANY times the police and militias, even hired goons, have murdered probably thousands of average citizens simply because they wanted the fruits of their labor. Haymarket was the result of a beaten and demoralized group of militants, but be careful to pin them as radical or crazy. Although my allegiance would fall upon the working class, I think we all need to work together more politically, socially, and economically. This nation and world has the capability to give everyone food, shelter, and health. They should their be a monopoly on these things because we are restricted by the unequal nature of the theory of capitalism and individualism?
I caught myself judging the anarchists of the late 19th century and I thought, well, should I really be judging them? Should I be judging the manifestation of their anxieties over the destructive nature of cooperative, monopolistic capitalism and what it was doing to the lives of workers? I guess I have no answer for that since I will never be able to feel or understand the anxiety and worries they had over their changing world. The anarchists were the most militant, and angry of those who spoke out against industrial capitalism, and although their advocating of dynamite and terrorism is undoubtedly wrong, I can still empathize with their disdain over the power of the capitalist.
I believe the power of businessmen and capitalists is the strongest it has ever been today, it is just not as visible as it was back then. Sure we don't have the massive slums, but they do still exist, they just aren't given as much attention. Also, in relative terms, all of American society has a higher rate of affluence, but in absolute terms the majority of people are still left out of the massive economic growth of this country. Real wages have gone down while corporate income has skyrocketed, the laws favor the rich was much as they ever have, and government is still the tool of the capitalist. More than ever the capitalist is the politician and the politician is the capitalist. They work together, so why can't working people?
Individualism is only espoused by the businessman who wants his workers to fight against one another so they do not unite against his autocratic power over society. Yes, I am intensely against the extremes of wealth we have in this country. And I'll cut it right here, I'm sure I will come back to this another day....So to judge the anarchists who fought back against the oppression of the government, militia, and police....I never believe violence is the right way, but was it understandable in their case? ABSOLUTELY. You should all read more about labor history and you'll find that many MANY times the police and militias, even hired goons, have murdered probably thousands of average citizens simply because they wanted the fruits of their labor. Haymarket was the result of a beaten and demoralized group of militants, but be careful to pin them as radical or crazy. Although my allegiance would fall upon the working class, I think we all need to work together more politically, socially, and economically. This nation and world has the capability to give everyone food, shelter, and health. They should their be a monopoly on these things because we are restricted by the unequal nature of the theory of capitalism and individualism?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)