Slow News Month, But Not For God

At least to me, it's been a rather slow month in the news. There have been a few stories here and there that have sparked my attention, such as the institution of Sharia law in Pakistan, but other than that not much to talk about. Well, to be honest there is plenty to talk about, but what else is there to say about the economy? Not to mention I have been unusually detached from the world of those over the course of the past, say four to six weeks, but I digress here. What has been on my mind is the concept of a god. It's something the enters my mind quite frequently because I find it one of the most cryptic things to understand amongst human ideas. It's not hard to understand the the reasons why so many believe in a higher power, but it's very difficult to comprehend why it persists, and how so many people can rationalize their faith a la carte.

Anecdotally, it seems that Americans like their ideology like their lunch, a la carte. They pick and choose what fits their needs or particular lifestyle, and to hell with the rest. While this is good for lunch, I'm a fan of all you can eat bonanzas just as much as the next person, I find it disturbing in the context of religion and belief.  Sure we all pick and choose from various streams of thought to form our value and belief systems, so it is not that incorporating many ideologies into one conglomerate is wrong. But what this does to the concept of god and religion is it undermines it. Or at least it should. The religious like to allude to the "word of god". But what is that? First of all there is no word of god because it was all written down by men. Second, there are so many conflicting opinions about what the word of god represents that it is watered down to the point of being meaningless. 

Another thing that I find hard to digest is that many only seek the advice and guidance of a god when it is convenient. Drug addicts will lie, cheat, and steal to provide for a habit, yet look to god to get them about of a bind when they're bad habits come back to haunt them. Mean, rude, and malicious people will make the lives of others miserable, then on their death bed plead to a god that he sees that deep down they are a good person. The dishonest and unscrupulous reek havoc upon the public and individuals, yet describe themselves as "Christians" and "god-fearing men". It seem to me that many use religion as a tool first, and also as a futile attempt at justifying their worth and virtuosity. What really gets me is when politicians or celebrities try to make their case to the world that they are good by proclaiming faith in a religion; And people eat this up. So what does it mean if they are religious? That they are good and honest? Well what does it mean if I am atheist? I remind you that George Bush was a god-fearing man who is a committed church goer. I'm amazed at how religion perseveres despite the inherent fallacies and inconsistencies in the teachings and practice of all religions. What I believe is that human beings are fallible, and inconsistent, and prone to wrong doing, but lets get over it, I'm not going to burn in eternal hell for being a human being.

Which brings me to another thought. This weekend I heard that since I don't accept Jesus Christ as my savior, I will not find peace after death. Or so they think. I find funerals and deaths an awkward thing because I don't believe that the deceased go to a better place, I believe they're dead. This is not cold or heartless, I am anything but, this is just the truth. I still feel compassion for those who have lost loved ones, but as an atheist I don't speak to the deceased, because frankly they can't hear me. This is how I have come to terms with death around me, and the prospect of I myself dying. It happens. Sadness surrounding it is no less profound, I simply believe that life ends at death. 

Back on topic...In the scientific community and idea starts as a hypothesis, develops into a theory, is then challenged, and then is eventually either deemed a fact or a fiction. Religion is the only thing that will not be challenged by those who adhere to it.  Despite our resistance, most human beings cannot help about adjust their thinking when their ideas are bombarded by counter-evidence, but the religious can stare logic in the face and wag their finger at it. It is in effect, incapable of challenge, because it would challenge their beliefs, and questions their faith, which could unleash a the inner apostate. The same reasoning that buttresses religion would not survive in science or the courtroom. So why the double standard? Human beings love the superlative. They love thinking there is always a higher power. In fact they desire control, because if there were not the almighty controlling them (the government is controlled by believers and thus the almighty!) what would happen to the world. Utter depravity most seem to think. Additionally, they can find comfort knowing that if they sin, the almighty will punish them, and they will have penance for their human iniquity. It almost justifies the wrong that humans are capable of.

I'm not advocating dogmatism here. I certainly don't want religion to be any more dogmatic than it already is. So when I say assail the religious for their "a la cartism", do not confuse what I am saying. Ideas need to be challenged. For that to happen one must seek alternative thoughts. It promotes healthy intellectual inquiry and should engender new ideas which are more substantively sound. Religion and god does not promote any of this. The so called faithful live lives that conflict with the teachings of their faiths, oblivious to the conflict. Their faith endures despite a multitude of logical reasons for why they should question it. They react to questions by squelching healthy dissent to their beliefs. The constitutions protects my right to speak out on this issues. Thankfully the founders were practical, for I fear had they not been, my voice would be silenced. I love debate, most would say debate is healthy, but their is no debate to the faithful, because they believe.

Michael Phelps and Michael Steele

I'm sitting here watching some CNN before bedtime and I originally intended to write solely on Michael Steele and the Republican philosophy toward the stimulus bill, but first a few words on Michael Phelps.

So the kind of the swimming world, whatever importance that holds, smoked a little dope from a bong. Get over it. More of an uproar is being cooked up over this rather than, I don't know, say the fact that we are pulling business out of debt while our own personal debts will never see the same kind of treatment. Smoking a little marijuana doesn't make someone a bad man. Redistributing wealth toward the top and being the citizen to continue to condone such practices does make one a bad person. Well certainly ignorant, maybe not bad, unless you're the one pulling the proverbial wool over the eyes of the populace.

So a hopefully quick note on Michael Steele. As I watched him defend his position toward the proposed stimulus bill, I could not help but feel a little perturbed. He says that more and more tax cuts will stimulate the economy as if it is self evidently true; like it's axiomatic. I have a hard time understanding and swallowing this position. First, these tax cuts Republicans propose usually don't benefit those at the bottom. Understandably so, since I do understand their whole theory, cut taxes for the business class so that they'll expand business, open up credit, altruistically create jobs, yada yada. But I do not accept this position since many people I feel are duped into supporting this nonsense because they think those tax cuts are going to apply to them. Second, what tax cuts do, versus the alternative of spending, is essentially redistribute wealth upward. What a little spending on infrastructure, green transitioning, and social programs will do is put people back to work, preserve their dignity, and redistribute some of the wealth downward. And though I take issue with the our super-consumer based economy, how much can a government fleece from the people before there is no many left at the bottom to buy all of their silly items; But if you want them to spend, they need money, and for money to be had they need jobs.

Governments should work for their people. I find it awfully disheartening that so many people are willing to support programs that work to the direct opposition of their interests, as individuals and communities. No, a bill full of nothing but spending will not solve our problems, but I believe more in the Democrats' proposed plan to create jobs than the Republicans'. Smart tax cuts can work, but I don't think tax cuts unequivocally work better than spending on programs to put people back to work directly. What government spending does is guarantee is that money would be put directly toward putting people back to work, keeping people in their homes, and giving them a little boost until the economy recovers. Tax cuts assume that rich people sprinkle fairy dust on the country creating jobs out of the kindness of their heart so that butterflies and good cheer fill citizens' hearts. Can you say chimera? 

However much the Republicans irk me, both parties still support many disheartening programs like bailouts. Bailout is the word of the year and is on the tongue of every informed citizen. I think bailouts do more harm than good, and display the pure ignorance and enmity that this country displays toward socialism for the people. I wish the government would do what is right; if these banks and businesses are that important to THE PEOPLE, then in the name of the people you take them over and steward them instead of some fat cat. 

I'm getting tired and thus ambiguous, I'm supporting sleep for recovery at this point.

Why I Don't Support the Troops.

I've been thinking about this for quite some time, and just now being inspired to write, I'll try to elaborate on my thought here about why I don't support the troops. First, it seems to be the "cool" thing to do, like popped collars and fleece jackets, support the troops is everywhere, only with far more severe repercussions. Supporting the troops is an easy way for someone who is not normally civically engaged to feel like they are making a difference, after all, the troops see your bumper sticker transmitted to the front lines from thousands of miles away. I'm almost inclined to create a bumper sticker that says, "Don't Support the Troops", just to see what some local jingo does about it. It could be like that guy at the Dunkin' Donuts drive through at 4am who knocked on my window almost warranting a left cross, who noted my bumper sticker that said "Freedom of Speech Means Freedom to Disagree" he thought I was a staunch conservative (I don't get that), but anyway I digress.

On a more serious note, I don't support the troops because of the sense in which most people wave the flag and write, type, and paste "support the troops".   What does supporting the troops really mean? Does it mean supporting their mission? Does it mean supporting them unquestionably no matter what the individual character of the soldier is? And does "support the troops" sometimes mean that if you disagree with the missions in Iraq or Afghanistan, or the myriad other places our troops are, that you are Anti-American, and that you want them to fail, in essence die? 

I don't support the troops because I want them out of most of the places they are in. To me that is supporting the troops. It's taking them out of harms way when they don't need to be. It's supporting the ones who have done their job when they come back home, instead of letting them fall into physical and psychological despair. It's prosecuting the ones who savagely murder innocent civilians, or who defile and debase their remains. Supporting the troops is not just pasting a bumper on your car, and instead voting, canvassing, and lobbying for more support for veteran's hospitals and health care. It's supporting just causes and judicious use of the military, not as a tool for imperialistic expansion, and world hegemony. It's not supporting crazy gun toters who get a thrill off of shooting innocent civilians like they are white tailed deer.

Support the Troops has become a mantra for the right and the propaganda that they have spread. We are in the midst of a new era ( I hope) in America, it will take years to overturn the civic regression this country has been experience lately, but there is just something about "Support the Troops" that really really bothers me. This country is obsessed with guns, the military, and beating up the rest of the world. Call me a pacifist, but I find every war debatable from a "just cause" standpoint, and I think this mantra only fuels the fire.

What is it about the soldier that they have always been glorified. The American worker does just as much, if not more, than the American soldier to help build this country (Though they are essentially in the same category; Soldiers are workers) Why not a "Support the Worker" bumper sticker. I must say I greatly respect the World War II generation, even the Vietnam vets, because most of those soldiers had no choice. The one's who were drafted just put their heads down and went to war as a duty, there is something that a person has to respect about that. Though the world politics that surround these events are disgraceful, and wrongful on both sides, you have to respect a man or woman that does something they may not want to because they are called up.

So maybe I do support the troops, I just don't "support the troops". I support the troops like I support my mom or dad going to work, nobody wants to do it really, but they have to in order to survive.  And who doesn't want those men and women to come back safely? And leaving a quagmire isn't disgraceful for the troops. That prospect is nonsense, but what isn't is the fact that it is dishonorable that they have been used like pawns for all of history, especially in recent American history. Rich men and women make war, and the poor generally fight them, and then they are cast aside like the dispensable worker in civilian society. You want to support the troops? Stop saying it with a bumper sticker, and start questioning the pretense for any war, question authority, and just think about the power "support the troops" had for our incompetent former president. It squelched dissent and honest debate, it was used as a weapon, and that's why I don't "support the troops".

Socialism and Supporting the Hangman

Ok, on a trivial note, I had to go through this convoluted, overly difficult process just to retrieve my blog password. It's a blog, this isn't a password to access files which will lead one to the burial plot of Jimmy Hoffa. Google, Blogger, make it more simple for crying out loud. Or, I could take personal responsibility and remember it, eh, I'll take the former.

So, I'm going to try hard to make this short and sweet. The latest rant from the McCain camp is that Obama is a Socialist. My first response to that is, and the problem with that is???? Socialism gets a bad reputation from countries that have practiced Socialism in name only, much like the United States preaches Capitalism, yet is far from a pure capitalist state. What I love, is how the Republican base at these rallies are swallowing this nonsense and licking their lips afterwards. They love it!!! I've heard Palin and McCain deride and chide the "redistribution of wealth" to their supporters with not a single cry of opposition. Let me lay this out very simply. The majority of America would benefit from a tax plan that wants to cut taxes for those making less than two hundred and fifty thousand  dollars. Plain and simple. What's wrong with giving more people a shot at simply living. You fat cats out there will still have your private jets, palatial estates, and high end call girls, don't worry about it!!! The important point here though, is not the obviousness of the wealthy's opposition, but the sheer abandonment of self interest by those who are supporting McCain and Plain. When they're cheering for the McCain campaign's tax plan, they're celebrating the destruction of their own well being. 

I would say I can't believe it, but I can, because the Republican formula has worked before and we have seen perceptible failure from their brand, yet folks continue to support it. There is nothing wrong with helping those below you out when you have extra resources to do so. There is nothing wrong with the altruism, community, and humanity that is represented in socialist doctrine and Obama should not have defend himself if he so chooses to call it socialism.  I find this self evident, but unfortunately in America it is not always such. American's love their ideology, and they blindly adhere to it much like Communists, Fascists, Socialists, etc. The important maxim should be what does the most good for the most people. Call it whatever you want, as long as it improves the well being of everyone. I suggest that American's look inward, and think more deeply about their ideas and what they support. It's appalling, that with nooses around their necks, American's still support the hangman. 

"Ya Gotta Believe in Something"

"Ya gotta believe in something", that's what I was told yesterday is I entered into a political discussion with one of the novices I work with. The issue of believing in something came up as we were having a discussion, albeit a frustrating one, about the presidential race and who we were voting for. The woman I was discussing this with started repeating like a parrot all of the platitudes that FOX tv likes to propagate about Barack Obama.  

One that came up, in particular, was the comment about Obama being Muslim and his apparent unwillingness to put his hand on the bible. I"m not aware of the bible one, but I"m fully aware that Obama's opponents like to cast him as a Muslim due to his name, and his short experience as a student of a Muslim school in Indonesia. I'm so tired of hearing this one that it brings me to the point of pure anger towards those who repeat these lies which are simply veiled racism. For those who have a problem with his middle name, I have this to say, you are a narrow-minded racist, plain and simple. What's wrong with his middle name you ask? Well it sounds Muslim right? and what's wrong with Muslims? Well they hate America and they aren't Christian right? Well if you follow this line of reasoning, which some of Obama's opponents do, then it naturally should lead to some self-realization of one's own racism. However, it doesn't because nobody in America is racist right? And certainly not those who have a problem with Obama's middle name, or the fact that he has Muslim roots. 

I think it's purely sad that people still think like this. They vote values, not policy or which candidate will do the most for them. Strange twist of irony that some of those who profess to have their values are selfish, calculating, and only looking out for their own interests? Furthermore, the religious always like to describe themselves as peace loving, accepting individuals, yet they hate those who are unlike them, and yes, this is hate when you shun someone for not looking like you, not having a name like you, or for not being monocultural like you. We hate what we don't understand right? And I think that this woman that I was talking to, and other like her, simply don't understand the world on a broad scope. 

So after refuting her notion that Obama is a Muslim, he's actually a self-proclaimed Christian, I then turned to the notion of why is this even important. I responded that I could not care less what Obama's religion is, and that I was an Atheist. I then asked her am I a bad person because I don't believe in a god? She was noticeably shocked and struggling for words. Then she says, "well, uh, you gotta believe in something." You're right, I do, well said, but that doesn't mean I have to believe in a fiction. I learn valuable lessons from movies, tv, and literature that are works of fiction, but I know they aren't real, they're stories. I didn't say this to her, but I always think it when this topic gets brought up. What I did tell her was basically that I believe in treating human beings with respect and dignity simply because of their intrinsic worth as people, not because a god tells me I should. She was still shocked at this proposition. 

What  I find in all of this, and people who think like this woman, is a bunch of hypocrisy, narrow-mindedness, and self proclamations of superiority. And what this all equals to me, is sadness and disappointment that people actually think like this. I'm not saying all of this simply because I'm an Obama supporter, I'm an Atheist, I don't hold it against Obama, or McCain, that they are religious. So the difference comes down to how I think they will treat the multicultural and multiple class composition of American society. Unfortunately there are those in our society who are still full of ignorance so they hate those that are unlike them. They vote how they select their acquaintances, which is to say that they select people who look and think like they do, carefully nesting themselves in a social grouping that will never challenge their ideas. 

What makes this even more disconcerting is that in politics, somebody with a broad perspective is needed to run a national government, since after all, we are a very diverse nation. Unfortunately this woman will vote for a man who represents a small portion of American society, and will disregard the rest. She will fall for the dirty tricks that keep rich, white men in power. The wolf in sheep's clothing. 

So yes, you should always believe in something, but one should not be dictatorial about one's opinions. And when it comes to politics, one should be concerned with practical issues, tangible results, not some incorporeal value that doesn't always project itself onto the job an elected official does.  This woman is perfectly entitled to practice and believe what she does, but she should choose to use her mind to reach whatever conclusions she reaches. And she should stop being narrow minded and as arrogant to think that everyone thinks like she does, or that everyone who thinks like she does will do what is best for her in government. I know plenty of Christians that are corrupt, and I know plenty of Atheists who don't lie, cheat, and kill. So what's more important? Believing in common values like honesty, respect, and tolerance, or believing in a certain religion? Is it more important that someone profess to be a Christian? or actually practice a morally sound lifestyle? 

Could Republicans Have Something Right Here?

I have to admit, in recent years I have become polarized toward the left when it comes to my political beliefs. It's amazing what an inept, ideological president can do to ones political philosophy, but I digress. I once associated more with the Republicans' politics, but my beliefs have since been reformed to the point that I can barely conceive of a Republican doing anything right (and Democrats only get things partially right, but that's the choice I have to make), but I think the Republicans are on to something here with this financial recovery package being debated. 

As previously noted, I question the severity of this economic crisis. But, I must defer to those leading this country because they have much more access to economic knowledge and how our system works than I do. So that being said, there seems to be no question of if we should pass some sort of bailout, but rather what should be included in any bill that gets past to prop up our failing financial system. The debate is complex, it is melded with presidential year politics, partisanship (which in a party system will happen, I don't use it in the pejorative sense here), and class affinities/aversions. So that being said, ostensibly the Republicans don't want Americans to foot the bill completely here. I agree. That should not happen, unless of course Americans seek to reap some sort of return from their tax dollars going to fix an ailing financial system.  Now, I don't fully understand their plan, or to what extent there is support for such a plan, but from what I understand they want other businesses to buy up these bad mortgages, and those businesses will then purchase insurance for them. Sounds good in some respects, but I also worry about more monopoly, and more consolidation, because I believe those two trends are, in part, responsible for our current crisis. I"m just left wondering, could the Republicans be on to something?

I'm beginning a thoughtful, prudent bill must be develop, quickly of course, but not too rashly at the same time. It must make not allow profit to come to financial institutions receiving tax payer dollars, unless of course we see some return equally. That would be a compromise of sorts, since both parties would pay to cure the economy. I certainly concede that regular Americans benefit from a healthy economy, so we need a strong economy, but I just don't want to see in increase in the maldistribution of wealth in America. And I want answers to the question; If the government can propose spending 700billion to pay for an economic bailout passage, than why is it so odious, and antithetical from the perspective of lawmakers, to pass bills paying for education, health care, and unemployment benefits? Some believe that social welfare fosters dependency on government. Well, then I must ask, what does bailing out the financial sector do?  Ideas are powerful, and not asking such important questions do not challenge a double standard of ideals that the American people are spoon fed. I'm glad that the House didn't pass the current bill, but something does need to be done. This is a watershed moment for American politics and society, one which could irrevocably change America forever. An exciting time for political pundits, a precarious time for Americans.

If There Were No Angels....

...would there be no sin? I believe I heard it first in a Pearl Jam song, but at the time it didn't resonate with me. To me, at that time, it was simply a "cool" question. Well, would there be no sin? What constitutes a sin? Is something a sin because some religious figure dubbed it such, or because it is a commonly agreed upon standard for moral conduct. Think about this; do you not kill your mother/father because Jesus says it is wrong, or because you are aware of the moral and legal complications surrounding the issue? Let me put it to you this way (and I"m posing this question to believers, not Atheists like myself); If there were no God would you still refrain from lying, cheating, stealing, killing, etc? This is the conundrum of all time if you are a religious person. To answer the question "yes, I would refrain from all of the above even in the absence of a God," would undermine your religious doctrine in a profound way. But to answer "no, I would decline into a state of utter depravity", would expose you as an immoral person, and somewhat of a lunatic. It's the type of question that is described as a "conversation stopper" when debating this issue (if there is such a thing) with a believer. So to answer the question set forth above; Yes, if there were no angels, there would most certainly still be sin because sin is not just about religion. The word sin itself may be a religious derivative, but ultimately it comes down to scruples and a society's values. We often are made to believe that religion is about "higher principles". I, however, believe it is a higher principle to do what is right not because some "higher power" tells you what is right, but because it is simply the right thing to do. These are just a few simple thoughts I had on religion.

Partisan Positioning

So we're in the midst of an economic crisis. Or are we. That's my take at least, since I have this deep suspicion that things at the top aren't as bad as we're being told they are. What I find most alarming though is the Bush administration's response to the Democrat's opinion that any economic bail out should include regular people, the so oft repeated "main street." The administration's response put succinctly is thus; we don't have time for partisanship, we need to overcome political rancor and division in order to save the economy. What is the economy anyway? Is it yours or my economy? Or is it the economy of Wall Street and Big Business? In an ideal world it would be a discourse that includes both since they both are truly a part of the collective American economy. 

However, the Bush administration's response to the Democrats insistence is emblematic of their position toward class and the economy in general, that is to say a biased one in favor of the monied interests. I'm a bit skeptical that the financial structure is in such danger in the first place, but any bail out attempt should include regular people. In my humble opinion the economic woes we're experiencing are a result of irresponsibility on all levels: government, personal, social, etc. Therefore, if we're going to bail out one party, we should bail out all. Think about what a bail out really is. As I heard Naomi Klein, author of the Shock Doctrine, describe it, and I'm paraphrasing here, think about waking up in the morning and having all of your debt erased. Think about that. No school loans, no credit cards, no home mortgage, no debt whatsoever. Now that is what the government is striving to do here. I'm not arguing that perhaps or economy needs some help right now, but I think there is something dubious going on here, especially when Bush calls helping the lowers classes partisanship. Why aren't businesses held accountable? They are after all made up of individuals right? The very same individuals that people like Bush and his lackeys declare should be more fiscally responsible. And shouldn't the economic puppeteers of our economy be held to an even higher level of responsibility and probity?

I am no economic expert, but I certainly find it awfully suspicious that when a group of Democrats wants to include a safety net for regular individuals in an economic package the president retorts, "that's partisanship." He treats it like an encumbrance. Screw you mom and pop, you put yourself in your own dire situation, but Mr. Wall Street let me take you inside, wash you off, feed you a nice hot dinner, and let you sleep in my bed. That's the essence of what is going on here. When you are I go into debt, irresponsibly or not, we're up the creek without a paddle. As actors in the economy, we all share responsibility to make sure we have a sound economic foundation from which we can all prosper. If that system begins to falter, we have a responsibility to help out as tax payers. I'm ok with that. But what is troubling is that so many times, Americans are told to work harder, to save, or to be more responsible when they are finding themselves in an economic hole, instead of being on the receiving end of 700 billion dollars. 

The American Dream

A while back I was engaged in a debate about American Politics, class issues, and basically what it means to work in America. The topic of the American dream rose and became a source of disagreement between my adversary and I. First I would like to try and define what exactly the American dream is. According to my interpretation, the American dream consists of "making it": finding a good job, having a family, buying a house, and living comfortably. This is a basic definition that by no means applies to every single person in American society, but that is the gist of it. For example, I may be comfortable with a thirty thousand dollar a year job, a beat up used car, a wife and cat, and a one room apartment, but hey I'm paying my bills and I'm not in debt up to my eyeballs; For somebody else, this may not suffice, that somebody else may want a six figure salary with stock options, a trophy wife, and a four bedroom two bathroom home on the lake. We're both living the American dream it's just that our relative concept of that dream is different in terms of material concerns. There is a much different definition though that permeates society on a much different level.


It seems to me that the concept of the American dream that is propagated by mainstream media, politicians, and others, is the one about getting rich if you work hard enough. And what I take the most opposition to, is that part about working hard enough. I feel this implies a couple of things: One, that if you do in fact work hard enough, and nothing else, you will be able to achieve some economic security, and two that if you are struggling to make it that you obviously are not working hard enough. I completely disagree with this. There are so many other entities that are working against someone who is trying to succeed that simply working hard enough does not always cut it. Sometimes you need to know people, or you need to catch a break and get lucky, or you need to be born into a favorable situation. This favorable situation could be being born into a wealthy household, being born white, or simply being born into a middle class family with parents who are the consummate parents greatly increasing your chances of success. These are just a few example, there are certainly others, but what the emphasis is on is that working hard enough is not the only factor that contributes to success.


The debate I was engaged in lead from this to the basic question of, "What should we do to help the poor and economically disadvantaged, if anything at all?" I posited that everyone is entitled to a certain base standard of living. It is our humanly duty to do so since every honest and law abiding person has some intrinsic worth. Actually every human life has some intrinsic worth even those who break laws. But, what I believe is that if you work in America you certainly should not have to struggle; The term "working poor" should be an anomaly and it should be an oxymoron or a paradox. If you are not working, I believe you should not be trampled upon and treated like subhuman, because as an onlooker, how can any of us know what another person's life circumstances have been? These people are also entitled to some help. Those who work contribute to the overall economic health of this country, and thus to the enormous wealth that some Americans possess. Though it may be too idealistic to insist that we all should be rich, I don not believe that it is out of the question that we insist that every working American should be able to have a roof over their head, food to eat, good health care, and education for their children. The basic question is about security, and does not security impact happiness or wellness? I've seen what economic insecurity can do to a struggling family, and there are other examples beyond my own. If you work you deserve security, and if you are out of work, aid should be available.

Why should security be only available to those with enormous wealth? The answer seems obvious to some purported realists who believe that since they worked for that wealth they have earned it; But, where would that wealth have come from if it had not been for the rest of us workers? Wealth is not just accumulated because some great man has a great mind. Wealth is something that is collectively developed, thus we should all be entitled to the fruits of that wealth. It would be simple of wealth was created in this country simply because somebody chose to work hard, be frugal, and had the intelligence and skill to acquire it; But some acquire it by dishonesty, unethical behavior, government help, AND/OR because they worked hard, were frugal, etc. Some also don't acquire it because they were ripped off by their leaders, born in to poverty, a disadvantaged situation, AND/OR because they did not work hard.


The question would be easy of wealth was simply a measure of hard work, but it is not that simple. There is also the issue of humanity. What's so wrong with helping each other out once in a while?

Knowing Too Much a Political Sin?

I was reading Politico.Com today and a particular article I was reading entitled, "Obama: The know-too-much candidate" sparked some thoughts. I touches upon the issue of elitism in American society and politics and how this is seeming to work to the detriment of the Obama campaign. From there I thought about what it means to be considered "elitist". To me, there are two kinds of elitism that we need to talk about: economic and intellectual. They often oppose each other, but at times can work together because as we know, or are taught to believe, knowledge is power and power is money, therefore, knowledge is money. However, they do diverge and there are actually intellectuals out there who aren't focused purely on money, but rather on changing society and uplifting minds.

Unfortunately, economic elitism reigns supreme and often impacts the hearts and minds of those in every economic strata of society. This pains me because this is how we have Presidents like George W. Bush. He tells people, "I think like you", "I feel your pain", or just plain "We're the same people" because he speaks plainly, off the cuff, and often in painful vernacular. However, underneath he is not like the average middle class, or working class American. The guy is filthy rich, came from a privileged family, and doesn't know the kind of struggle that the rest of America generally has to endure to get ahead. America is very often duped by rhetoric instead of paying attention to the substance. Appearance if everything since whether personally culpable or not, individuals don't search for deeper information on the issues. We read our NY Times and watch our CNN and that is it. But, as much as I like these news sources, I realize that even these institutions feed into establishment thought which takes an omniscient and often presumptuous tone; And maybe that is to be expected, after all you're relating news, you want to sounds like you know what you're talking about, but this leads people to believe one news source is enough to provide themselves with the necessary perspective to have an accurate opinion.

What this means is that a large segment of the American population disregards economic elitism, the result being the widespread belief that there is no class war in America. America is middle class right? So there is no class war because there is no class in America - WRONG. Then Americana, particularly those at the lower levels of the economic strata, loath what they regard as intellectual elitism; the elitism that we generally speak of when the word is invoked. They don't like being told what to do, they don't' like being told what is right or wrong, and they certainly don't like being told that they don't know what they are talking about. More often than not they are just perceiving things this way, though I will admit there are some pretentious, arrogant, intellectuals out there.

What is more dangerous to society, economic or intellectual elitism? I would have to say economic elitism, since we've elected a President who is an economic elitist, but plays that part of average joe, but behind the scenes he is working to the detriment of every American's interest, except for of course the upper 1% of the population. The above mentioned article touches upon Obama's fault of sounding like he knows what he's talking about, of sounding smart, of knowing too much. This is incredulous. Knowing allows one to have various perspectives and to understand the various kinds of Americans that there are. That is the kind of President I want. Not one like George W. Bush who only knows, rich, white, and southern. Sure Obama might not know what it's like to be layed off and without health care, but at least he attempts to empathize in some way, which is more we than we can say for many other politicians.

I don't know what the answer is. I understand the working class to some extent since I am an outgrowth of it. I still harbor some of the defensiveness and anxiety when you are confronted by somebody who is educated, or who may know more than I, but we all serve to benefit from moving away from this. Knowledge is power, and it allows working class folks on up to not be duped by people like George W. Bush who talk the talk, but walk a different walk that we will never experience. Intellectuals disseminate information thus uplifting all Americans who choose to listen, even if they disagree. We learn from challenging our assumptions, our ideas, and our beliefs. We need a leaders who challenge their own. Most importantly though, we need to become class conscious, shun economic elitism, and absorb more information as individuals so we can fight the way our country is going. Is America a Democracy or a Business? Democracy is about freedom of thought, belief, and understanding, it is about being our own intellectuals. Business is about competition, profit, greed, and riches at whatever cost. Right now it is confusing, but it's up to Americans to stop being duped.


The above opinions are associated with the following article.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9925.html

Carter Meets With Hamas Officials

Ok, so I'm not going to profess to be anything near an expert on middle east affairs, in particular the contentious situation between Israel and Palestine; I do however, try to pay attention to what is going on and I find he animosity and opposition expressed toward former U.S. President Jimmy Carter to be both provocative and disagreeable. United States officials have condemned Carter for, "engaging in diplomacy with a group they consider a terrorist group." I'm sure this is an outgrowth if America's very close relationship with Israel, their key ally in the region, and it's also a very predictable one for various reasons.

Carter has been quoted as saying thus, "I'm not a negotiator. I'm just trying to understand different opinions and communicate, provide communications between people that won't communicate with each other," WOW, what an idea! How dare he try to bridge the communication gap between the United States and an organization that they classify as an enemy! I don't think we should ever view diplomacy or dialogue with an "enemy" as being detrimental to anything other than this inexorable push the United States always has for war and bullying opposition. Too often our country turns a deaf ear to anybody who disagrees which only compounds the problems and contention that we face from other countries. Establishing a discourse between two opposing parties is always beneficial since it can build a rapport between nations, and possibly even lend itself to more amicable relations. Hamas may be conducting terrorist operations, but who the terrorist is and who the victim is will always be a matter of perspective and is completely subjective. To some nations we are terrorist are we not? Terrorism should be defined by the act, not by the pretext which it is operated under, or the nation that commits it.

So where does this leave us? We should laud Carter for trying to understand the opposition. Often when complaints are raised, even in our own personal lives, you can pacify the opposition simply by holding them with some regard, by taking them as legitimate grievances. Think about it; Do you listen to someone when they assign universal labels to you in an assuming and pretentious manner? Absolutely not, one takes offense and shuts down their senses of logic and reason. Of course it is much harder to control one's self than to drop bombs and call out the troops. This where it is important for us as citizens of this country to not buy in to the beat of the war drum, to denounce rhetoric that fosters distance rather than diplomacy. Idealist yes, but not unreal or impossible if you think about it.

Now I know what you're thinking you jingoistic flag waving patriots! Remember 9/11! Kill the terrorists! You're supporting terrorism! No, my friends you're supporting terrorism; whether it's state sanctioned or not, the United States is guilty of terrorist acts much like other countries and non state organizations out there. Think about our activities in Latin America....the U.S. has conducted operations on innocent civilians, killing numbers that would pail in comparison to those who died in the World Trade Center attacks. And no, I am not condoning their actions, these people didn't have it coming, our government maybe, but not the innocent civilians, but they're the ones who are caught in the middle of these squabbles and who end up dying, not our leaders or rulers. So appreciate what Carter is doing, he could be saving your sons and daughters from going to war.

Again, I don't condone terrorism from any country, including my own. I would denounce it no matter what the country. I find it irritating when those in our country paint others terrorist in complete disregard for our own troubled past. To disagree is understandable and expected between members of the world community, but what is wrong with talking things out? Yes it takes more time, yet it may mean that the U.S. has to give something up to find that happy medium, and yes it is very very hard work, but the results are much longer lasting than war. War and distrust begets much of the same. So thank you, Jimmy Carter, for trying to understand an issue before drawing conclusions and making judgment calls, I wish our leaders currently in office would take your lead.

All quoted material is from the following article from CNN.COM.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/18/carter.hamas/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

I've found the recent protestations over the host country for the Olympic games to be quite intriguing. On one hand I feel, like those opposing or disagreeing with the protesters, that we should not politicize the games, that they should be about competition, togetherness, and brother/sisterhood. One the other hand I appreciate what these protesters are doing because they are drawing attention to an important blemish on China's records; their human rights record. I love seeing this kind of fervor developing for another country because it shows that we can transcend national boundaries and show empathy and heart for our fellow human beings, no matter what their nationality. Citizens of the world are coming together on this and it truly is enjoyable to see.

I envy these protesters in certain ways. I envy their zeal, commitment, and audacity. It takes immense heart and passion to turn against the current of mainstream society, to stand up and "yell out in defiance, your rules not for me" as a favorite Pennywise song of mine goes. To me, bravery or heroism is not hitting two free throws to win a championship or nailing your wide receiver between three defenders to win a Superbowl, real heroism are these people who stand up for what they believe in despite criticism and potential ostracism by those around them. I laud these protesters and scorn the disrespect they are shown by the "authorities". I always find it interesting how untouchable official ceremonial proceedings are. There is this diligence about ensuring that they are seen through to the end; they are viewed as tainted or spoiled if a few people try to highlight their concern over a lack of humanity within the borders of a growing world power. The central issue here is thus; Why did the Olympic committee grant China, a country that does not represent the spirit of the games, the privilege of hosting the games? Yes, the games should not be politicized, but this isn't about politics, this is about humanity, and is that not what the games are about?

A small note on the presidential race...The recent revelations about the lies, and skewing of the facts by Hillary Clinton is emblematic of her character. Many politicians use indirectness and inflationary tactics to boost the perception of their character, but the obviousness of her lies has been scandalous. Come on Hillary, you touched down in a war zone with bullets whistling all around you? Really? I know you're trying to play the tough gal on defense, but conservatives are suppose to be the delusional ones here.

One final note. If you are a gun toting red neck who feels that guns are a central issue in today's political world, you're wrong! The obsession some Americans have with guns truly is troublesome, and indicative of the paranoia and tough guy complex some are sick with, but Uncle Sam doesn't want your guns; And if you're going to invoke the Second Amendment, know it's damn context and what it means. The Second Amendment is outdated, it was initially inserted into the Bill of Rights because Americans needed guns to hunt for food, and protect themselves because they're weren't any real institionalized law enforcement agences or national military. Guns should be a privelege, not a right. We don't need to hunt for food, and we have law enforcement and an military to protect us. Sorry Jonny Reb, but Al Queda doesn't give a shit about you or your Dog so you don't even need a gun to protect you from them. Find something else to compensate for your insufficient manhood.

Obama is Capturing My Heart

I apologize for not writing this response to an article I read yesterday earlier, for I have definitely forgotten some of the details; But, the gist of the article was on some of the issues that the Democratic presidential candidates have been debating. OH! Now I remember, Hillary and Barack were arguing over their respective social security plans. Hillary would like to increase SS taxes on incomes over a certain level, as long as there was a gap between roughly $97,000 and I believe it was $180,000 where these "middle class" families aren't burdened by any new taxes. While on the other hand, we have Barack Obama who wants to raise taxes on incomes over that ninety seven grand level. This doesn't mean new taxes for those below that ceiling, it's rather, raising the ceiling to increase the liability for those more affluent citizens.

Kudos to Obama on this one because I certainly agree with his plan more so than Ms Clinton's. Why give a tax break to those between $97,000 and $180,000 but, not those below $97,000? This absolutely boggles my mind, aren't we suppose to be helping those people with Social Security benefits, not increasing the tax burden on them, thus increasing their need for welfare and social security? There are many in society who like to chastise the working poor for using social welfare yet much of the onus of taxes falls upon their shoulders. As I write this my extra set of hands is typing because I'm PULLING MY HAIR OUT! Without going into one of my class diatribes I'll leave it at this; We all benefit from a socially organize, civic, economic civilization, certainly the wealthy do, and I believe they should help take care of the rest of the Americans who are oppressed by the shortfalls of Capitalism, the same shortfalls that our opulent benefit from.

So on the substantive issues I'm starting to lean toward Mr. Obama. He talks the talk, and I am more than willing to see if he'll talk the talk. He has experience as a community organizer, he's been on the shit, he's talked to real people, I think he may be on to something with a fresh perspective that is practical yet visionary. Maybe he doesn't talk the unabashed class talk of John Edwards, but he certainly addresses the class issue.

On a side note, I was amazed that $97,000 grand was considered middle class. I guess I have been living a lie, my family has never made half that, and that would be if one calculated ever working person's income together under the roof. I must note, I think those who work hard deserve the fruits of their hard labor....but that goes for the working poor just as much as the wealthy. As much as big business and the wealthy like to complain about government, they sure do benefit from regulation, economic stimulus, and subsidies, all of which are paid for by hard earned workers in America. Yes, that means all Americans rich and poor. So why not help your brothers and sisters selling that T-Shirt for 19.95 which basically turns them into a walking advertisement which only further fattens your pockets Mr./Mrs. Bigwig?

Enough for tonight....

Word of the Day: Intransigence

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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