United States of Dumberica....

Obama spoke today about the rise in unemployment and the slow in hiring for June, and I can't help but wonder about his clarity. Is he really this dense? Or, is it just the hard fight the republicans are giving him? Is it a combination?

I realize "there are no easy answers" and "those who think there are easy answers don't fully understand the situation", etc., etc., blah, blah, blah...

That said, here's the two step solution / easy answer to fixing the economy:
1. HIRE PEOPLE.
2. PAY PEOPLE.

There. Done.

Pressure companies to hire people by using penalty taxes or reduced business incentives, as well as higher tariffs on products produced by American companies that import their goods due to overseas production. That is, treat American companies that outsource our jobs overseas, like foreign importers.

When companies hire more Americans AND pay them more (reducing profits from the high billions to the low-to-mid billions - therefore STILL generating huge profits), Americans will have more disposable income to then turn around and spend on all the useless junk and bullshit you want them to buy. This, in turn, will allow companies to continue to turn profits, which will, in turn, allow companies to continue to pay people a TRUE living wage, which they, in turn, can spend on more useless junk and bullshit, etc., see how this works?

Turns out, hiring people and paying them is actually pro-business and pro-American - imagine that?

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.2

The Truth About Socialism (and by Extension, Communism)...

Not terribly long ago, I read a comment posted online by a man who claimed that, as a student, his university professor, in an effort to explain why socialism was so bad and capitalism so good, offered to give everyone in his class an "A" regardless of effort or ability. This would make everyone equal and this, he said, was socialism. When he asked the students if this is what they wanted, many, of course, declined. Those who were doing well, didn't want other, less-hardworking or less intelligent students, to have the automatic privilege of what they felt they had worked so hard for. Conversely, (and predictably) the not-so-hardworking students said they didn't mind the new system if they were guaranteed an A. Finally, the students who were hardworking but who weren't doing so well said they didn't want it because they wanted to earn their grade on merit. The person who told this story on the forum, stated that from that point onward it was clear to him that capitalism was the best system and that he wanted no part of socialism.

If this story is true, then I shudder to think that there are such simple-minded professors in our academic institutions and that these men and women are molding our future minds, but I will give the professor the benefit of the doubt, and assume he or she only did it this way to stimulate discussion - to get the students to think. Unfortunately, with at least this one student, he failed.

Firstly, let us be clear about some terms. Capitalism is NOT synonymous with democracy. Socialism and communism are NOT synonymous with authoritarianism. Both are political AND economic systems (whether you want to believe that or not, we see this in practice everyday).

First, let's define socialism and communism, because there is a difference, and few people seem to really know what either one is to begin with.

Basically, and straightforwardly,
1. SOCIALISM is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their DEEDS".
2. COMMUNISM is "from each according to their ability to each according to their NEEDS".

Of course, the value of labor cannot truly be measured, however, socialism is NOT a welfare state; it is clear from human history that those who do the least will not be gleefully supported by the remainder, and that's just a fact of human nature.

1. Socialism is a redistribution of wealth to those who do little or nothing.
This is one of the most heinous statements about socialism I hear - routinely. The part of the statement concerning redistribution of wealth is true, but it is framed in a misleading way. Redistribution is not what FOX News and conservatives would have you believe. Redistribution is an equalizer, akin to affirmative action (which they also hate), where nothing is handed out to anyone. Instead, incomes are raised and costs are cut in order to allow people who have less to be able to do little things in their lives - like eat food and see a doctor. Now, yes, taxes in general, and particularly on the wealthy, are higher in a socialist economy, but by no means are these crippling or anti-business. Many of the world's billionaires were and are made in socialist economies that you may have heard of - like England and France. And, likewise, many of the businesses in those countries are small businesses. You have many wealthy or well-living people, but fewer large corporations and more individually-owned businesses. France practically invented the "boutique". Regulation obviously plays a part in that as well. The problem the wealthy have is not that they will no longer turn a profit, but they won't turn as large of a profit. Instead of corporations making forty billion in a year, they will make thirty-two billion in a year. Boo hoo. However, that eight billion would be redistributed by law in higher wages, health care for all, free college education, social security, child care, subsidies for lower food prices, etc., etc., etc., so that the people who make the least money (because socialism still creates class division) are still able to pay their bills, have a car, take a vacation every so often, and live the life that western conquest should now have provided for all of its citizens.

The second misleading and inaccurate part, is the idea that this redistribution will go to people who do "little or nothing". The only people who do little or nothing as a general rule and get rewarded financially for it in any system, are the wealthy. Many working class people see little reward day in and out for all the hours they toil away in service of another. Many of the wealthy enjoy "legacy wealth" - earning income from the work of their forebears and not their own hands and/or minds. Legacy wealth also includes getting into a university because your dad contributes money or getting a bank executive job because you know the CEO. Not because you're smart enough to get into the school or because you have earned the job on merit. The same people who decry socialism and welfare make continuous use of these methods to not only get ahead, and stay ahead, but to keep people like you (reading this) from getting where they are. I can't imagine a bigger system of welfare. These are the people who are getting privileges redistributed for doing "little or nothing".

Most people on state-provided welfare are using it to try to get on their feet - not attend a social function at a ritzy new hotel. Welfare reform in this country needs to be drastically reformed - drastically - but that includes corporate welfare. Likewise, the attitudes toward welfare recipients needs to change. The way we look at "legacy wealth" welfare should be the same way we look at state-provided welfare. The legacy wealthy have the right to receive their family's money because they are members of that family. State-provided welfare recipients have the right to their welfare as well, because they are members of society, and if a member of society needs something, it is society's job to help them obtain it.

One of the ways we can reform state-provided welfare is by making college tuition free for all (with the "redistributed wealth" from taxes, reduced profits, etc.) as well as child care, and mandate that anyone receiving state-provided welfare MUST either have a full-time job OR have a part -time job and be in school OR be in school full-time. Of course there will be individual circumstances and those will have to be considered on a case by case basis. I have written a more detailed outline of my ideas for welfare reform here.

2. Socialism is Stalinism (or "authoritarian" in a broader sense)
Socialism does not require authoritarianism. Authoritarianism has come to be synonymous with socialism and communism, but the problem in those situations was not the system - the problem was the few people in power who were greedy. Much like in Capitalism. The system is not corrupt - the people are. The difference is, those authoritarian regimes eventually fell. Capitalist regimes don't fall. However, this is not because capitalism is inherently better or noble. It is because capitalism rewards greed and corruption and dishonesty. Socialism does not. So eventually, when socialism is used to further personal gains, it fails - even if over a long period of time. However, in capitalism, those attributes are rewarded and sought after - and so it gains strength over time. In failed socialist states, the term socialism is used by the totalitarian government as a way to seize property and assets and use them for the benefit of the few. It's not true socialism - it's actually authoritarian capitalism. However, executed properly, socialism can work equally as well as capitalism (see: England, France and Canada), and I would argue it works far better, because it works to the benefit of the citizenry, not just a concentrated few, as capitalism does. Now granted, those nations - particularly England and France, are hybrid economies, but they lean much more to the left than our system, and do so enough that they can be considered socialist.

Furthermore, proof that capitalism is not based on hard work can be heard in the very language that capitalists use to talk about capitalism. "We need businesses that take risk" or "business owners make more money because they shoulder the risk of the business" and "the market crashed because of too much risk or bad risks". So there it is. Capitalism is not predicated on hard work and "pulling oneself up by their bootstraps". Socialists do those things as well, except everyone involved sees the reward of their effort. In capitalism, only the "risk-taker" sees reward. In a socialist model, everyone is invested in their company's success. In capitalism, only the risk-taker is. Therefore, capitalism is predicated not on hard work, but rather on risk. Casinos are a great place to take risks, and one of the many reasons people cite for not wanting a casino in their town is the seedy underbelly that comes with it - much more so than other industries. The market is (and has been treated as) a casino environment. Why would we expect any difference there? With greater risk comes more unsavory characters who are looking to get rich quick at the expense of others.

Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying all capitalists are unsavory and dishonest, but what I am saying is that there are more of those types per capita than among socialists - just by the nature of how it operates. Answer this - would you want a casino erected adjacent to your home? Now, would you want me to invest your future there? The people who take zero risk at a casino don't lose anything. The ones who do may win everything, but they may also lose what they already have. Should we operate our economy and mortgage our futures in this manner? We roll the dice with our finances in capitalism and give it a fancy name "investing", but the odds and outcomes are no different. Very few reading this would take their entire life savings to the casino and pin all of their hopes for their future on getting lucky and winning big. Yet we do it everyday as capitalists. We call it an IRA or a 401k, but you may as well call it "Blackjack" or "Roulette", as the most recent crisis has reminded us. Be aware of that - "most recent" because it has happened before, and if capitalism continues to be the dominant system, it will happen again. And again. And again.

One of the more amazing things to me is that the United States is a de facto protestant Christian nation, yet few of the protestant Christians here adhere to the supposed teachings of Christ. Yes, we know about the people who party hard on Saturday and fall out praising God on Sunday, but that's not what I'm talking about. That's just humans being human and the hypocrisy that comes with that - for all of us. No one is perfect, and so that behavior is acceptable as long as those same people don't start trying to tell me how immoral I am. What I'm talking about is American Christianity linking with capitalism as a group. Capitalism is held up by most American adherents of Christianity, yet, as evidenced by the teachings of Christ they promulgate, as supposedly related to us by the Bible, Christ was himself a socialist. In fact, he was likely a communist. One of the major requirements of following him was that one give up all of their worldly possessions. American Christians fight to get more possessions.

Christ supposedly frowned upon taking advantage of others, money (remember the temple?), not helping those in need (Good Samaritan parable, anyone?), and generally all the things we aspire to do in modern day capitalist society. Jesus supposedly stated that a camel can pass through a needle's eye more easily than a rich man can get into heaven. So, then why all of the "prosperity ministries" of Creflo Dollar, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, and many, many more? Mohandas Gandhi noticed this almost a century ago. I have my own issues with Gandhi, but I agree with him here:

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. The materialism of affluent Christian countries appears to contradict the claims of Jesus Christ that says it's not possible to worship both Mammon and God at the same time." - Mohandas Gandhi

<sup>One doesn't expect the individual to be perfect - even if Christian - but capitalism should not be treated as inherent in the teachings of Christ.

Next, and quite importantly, capitalism is not democratic. It amazes me that this one isn't clear to all who can think, but capitalism has been incorrectly and inappropriately aligned with democracy. Socialism seeks to create equal opportunity for all involved, in every aspect of their lives. Capitalism seeks to concentrate power and resources in the hands of a few. How does that match up with democracy? In a democratic system, everyone has equal input. One man, one vote. That sounds socialist to me - the idea that you put everyone on an even playing field. One of the things that we pride ourselves on in the United States (perhaps quite falsely) is that "all men are created equal". The idea is that every man woman and child has the same rights and opportunities as the next man, woman, or child. We realize this doesn't always bear out, and indeed the nation was founded (in practice) on the antithesis of that idea. Thomas Day, an abolitionist at the time the Declaration of Independence was signed pointed out the hypocrisy of the nation at that time:</sup>

"If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves." - Thomas Day

So, from the very outset, the nation was founded on the idea of saying one thing and doing another. But if we really want to live in a true democracy, then that means we have to allow everyone to have equal opportunities to liberty, health and happiness - not just in word, but in deed. Equal access to jobs, education, health care, and whatever else individuals need in order to allow themselves to contribute to society.

Any person you pull aside in the United States will likely tell you that "every man deserves a fair chance or an equal opportunity". Then if you ask if they would support socialism, they'll tell you "no". Ask them how that makes sense. Actually, first ask them to define socialism. We enact socialist principles every day of our lives with no problem. Ask salaried employees if they would give it up to work on commission. Don't be fooled - salary is socialist. The company would love to pay you on commission but we as a society have realized that employees should, at the very least, be guaranteed enough money to make ends meet - even though many of us still can't. Yes, commission jobs exist, but you don't have to take them. Imagine if only commission jobs existed.

Here's the real idea - when a loved one dies, and everyone at work takes up a collection or creates a fund that everyone contributes to, to help you through the rough time - that's socialism. Helping each other when times are hard and building together when times are easy is socialism. The very root of the word is the word "social". We live in a "society". Cooperation encouraged.

I CAN'T Be The Only One...

So, now that we have a black man as president, 'racism is over' you say?

Having nothing to do at work, I decided to drop a letter in the outgoing mail in our building's mailroom, and on the way back to my desk, I'm greeted by the security guard. This security guard is very clear about his right-wing affiliations, and likes to engage in political / social (or pseudo-political / pseudo-social) conversations, in which he predictably categorizes everyone on welfare as lazy, everyone in law enforcement as heroes, every non-white person with a gun as a gangbanger or terrorist, and every wayward child as needing a (literal) kick in the proverbial "ass". Everything is black and white and there is little or no gray area. Good is good, evil is evil, there is little or nothing in between.

He considers himself a republican, but note that I call him "right-wing", not republican or even conservative, because I've known many true conservative republicans (not RINO's) and they don't necessarily agree with this guy. I feel "right-wing" is more appropriate to the sweeping extremity of his views. So, of course, he pulls me aside (because after having talked multiple times, he knows me as not having straight-laced, conventional views on a lot of things, and also knows I don't get argumentatively defensive in controversial conversation) and opines about an at-the-moment breaking news story on television (we have a CNN feed on a flat-screen in our lobby - where he sits, presumably waiting for lazy, gun-toting, terrorist, welfare-mothers to congregate and launch their "evil" plans).

Apparently, a US ship that was hijacked off the coast of Africa was re-taken by its crew, and as we watched the reporter discuss it with a "pundit", our ever-vigilant and ever-creative security guard intimated his idea for stopping pirating once and for all. Befitting the rest of his views, he tells me: "I have a real easy way to stop pirating; find out the surrounding villages these people come from, and wipe all of those villages out." He proceeded to walk away from the screen after dropping that gem with all of the finality of Horatio Caine opening an episode of CSI:Miami.

Now, at first, of course, as you likely would also, I was pretty sure that he was kidding, so I went along with it (to a degree) and added "If only it were that easy" - with a smile - pretty much expecting it to end there. Why? I don't know. Perhaps I'm an idiot - I doubt it, but it's not an impossibility. So, past experience should have told me otherwise, but who does history think it is, that I should learn from it, right? Anyway, his reply to that was (dead seriously, stopping in his tracks and with a finger pointed at me) "No, it is that easy." Well, in addition to being thankful that he is not the Secretary of Defense (or of anything for that matter), I decided (for once) to call him on his comment, because I have to say, it struck me as one of the most racist comments I'd ever heard. Would he have said the same if this was happening off of the coast of Ireland? That's number one.

Number two, apparently he still has it in his head (thanks to good, old, non-biased "American!" education) that "these people" only live in "villages" and that they couldn't possibly be from developed cities or advanced agricultural backgrounds. They're just a bunch of mud-hutters running around in loin cloths with spears (in 2009; who somehow managed to hijack a 508-foot ship using the relative equivalent of a life boat, no less) and so, let's just wipe out the people they descend from (who have nothing to do with this) as well as their innocent women and children, for once and for all, so no more can be birthed. Because we shouldn't address the problems in Africa that cause for rampant piracy, instead, we should just kill all the Africans. That'll do it!

And of course, we should do this because they're not white, and so innocent or not, they have no intrinsic value anyway.

Number three, pirates are a diverse group of people and come from all over. They don't congregate off the coast of Africa because they're from Africa, they congregate there because those are the least protected trade routes and there is an extensive black market in the surrounding area. If the least protected routes and largest black markets were in and around Ireland, they'd be there too. And they would look the same as they do now.

Of course, this wiping-out wouldn't be genocidal or a terrorist act (in his opinion) because it's the United States doing it with a full-on state-supported military, which makes it OK. "Terrorists" are rag-tag middle-easterners. It doesn't matter that they have had their rights systematically trampled (yes, often by their own kind) over the past several centuries, and who, despite the abhorrent and disagreeable means to their end, may have a legitimate cause underlying it. Terrorism to protect commerce is OK, but not to protect (or even obtain) human rights.

Got it. Terrorism by the US; good. Terrorism by Arabs; bad. But that's a different conversation. Back to the pirates.

So, as I said, I decided to call him on it, but just as I was about to, finger raised, mouth agape and vocal cords at the ready, he was called away to make his rounds (as security guards do).

Of course.

So, left to my own devices, I began to think about other problems within the area of fighting piracy and I came to a real conclusion for the companies involved- hire those "contractors" (read: mercenaries) that everyone hates. Xe (formerly Blackwater Worldwide) comes to mind first (AirScan & Revomatica are a couple of others), but there are a number of these private "security companies" out there, that are more than happy to supply highly trained, ex-military mercenaries, er, security personnel and technology to combat this problem - to do their duty to protect the United States, her citizens, her commerce, and her interests, both at home and abroad, and further the progress of our "good, American" goals - and, ahem, for a price, of course.

But the thing is, whatever you think of these "contractors", piracy would be over. End these pointless "wars", bring our troops home or deploy them to meaningful conflicts, and use these companies to fight the lesser wars on the trade routes.

The ship that was hijacked and re-taken is owned by a company called Maersk. If the US releases these contractors from service, they'll be available for companies like Maersk to hire. If Maersk sends out its cargo ships with a small compliment of these highly trained, ex-military types on board, armed to the teeth, mind you, they'll take out these pirates on first contact. And with all of the money they'll be getting paid to do so, they will continue to develop technology and fighting techniques to outwit and outmatch the pirates. Fighting pirates is not like fighting elusive terrorists - the enemy is clear and they always go after the same targets. It's much more like a traditional military engagement, except the private mercenaries will far outpace the pirates. The pirates WILL evolve and adapt - and the companies will stay ahead of them because they'll have more money to hire more people and develop more and better technology and assets, and other companies will see how much success they're having and hire them as well.

Private military should be hired by private companies to protect their private property. The United States Navy should not be tasked with hunting pirates, and private military should not be fighting US wars. We're all mixed up. I CAN'T be the only one to see this...

Note: Didn't think I'd go the military route after the racism opening, eh? :)

The Incivility of the Many...

"Doesn't he ever get tired of writing about society and politics?" you may ask. The answer is yes. I do. But when I see so much that is wrong, I can't help but say something about it. After all, if you see something, say something, right?

I was recently reading an article on gay marriage on CNN's Website, and there was a post at the bottom from a citizen in response to the article. Among many other incorrect and incoherent things in his post (and other posts), this caught my eye:

"There was a vote, the majority does not want gay marriage. That's how it works in America. The Bible clearly states that marriage is between and man and a woman."

What? Firstly, of the many things wrong with this statement, let's pick on the pettiest first. This is not America, this is the United States of America, meaning the United States is in America. Mexicans, Brazilians, Ecuadorians, Canadians, Jamaicans, and anyone else in the Americas can ALL, with complete accuracy, call themselves Americans. If there were a law in France barring the baking of baguettes on Tuesdays, you would say "that's how it works in France", not "that's how it works in Europe." It would be a French law, not a European law. It's a European law in that France is in Europe, in the way that a Frenchman is a European, but a European is not necessarily French.

Secondly, what the Bible says has little to do with legislature (in principle). Our system of government was specifically designed that way. It would seem (from the many embarrassing statements over several decades) that many of those who believe we should legislate religion, have not ever actually read the Constitution of the United States of America, or any part of it. Nor, it seems, have they paid any attention in any American history class that they have attended. The United States was founded specifically ON (among other things) the principle of separation of church and state. No legislator, executive, or judiciary figure should EVER make a determination on the law based on their religious beliefs, but rather, only in the best interests of the nation. Of course, in practice this is not easy and it certainly has not worked perfectly. If you believe Issue X is morally wrong based on your religion, how can you write Issue X into law? But that is why we have the checks and balances - which also are not perfect, but this was all set up with the idea of making the church and state as exclusive of each other as possible. This is for good reason. Remember when the Catholic church controlled 80% of Europe? And that's just one (widespread and historically prominent) example.

Thirdly, and for me, the worst of the wrong, the idea that "the majority does not want gay marriage. That's how it works in [the United States]." Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. And, this is where terminology gets dicey, because the United States (as many people incorrectly believe) is not a "democracy". It is a republic. A "democratic republic", yes, but nonetheless a republic. This distinction is important, because though they operate in an EXTREMELY similar manner, they have some important differences. A pure democracy is "majority rule". All of the citizens in that democracy gather someplace and a poll is taken on a particular interest. If half plus one vote one way, that is what is implemented. If the United States were that, the person who wrote that post on CNN would be correct. However, they were wrong because the United States is not a pure democracy.

Without going into encyclopedic depths, The United States of America is a democratic republic, which means a representative form of government, which already eliminates pure democracy, AND the Constitution of the United States establishes a republic, which is based on protecting the civil rights of the few from the tyranny and incivility of the many, by use of the majority. Becauise if all are protected, the majority is protected. That incivility may be racism, sexism, or any other "-ism", but our government is designed to protect the oppressed minority from the tyranny of the masses. It can be complicated, and obviously, has not worked perfectly. Slavery, of course, comes to mind most easily. This contradiction was "corrected" by slave owners with the "3/5th's of a man" rule, where a slave was not a full person, but property. This allowed for slavery to exist without legally contradicting the principle and law of the Constitution, though in spirit of course, it still did, because one doesn't take property to church and teach it Christianity, one does that to (or forces that onto) a person. Because, at the time, since one did not have robotic aides with interactive voice recognition software, one didn't ask their property to clean their house and work their fields, one asked (or forced) another person to do that.

The structure of the United States government, as set forth in the Constitution is the great genius that allows for this nation to correct its past mistakes. From slavery, to women's suffrage, to the release of Japanese-Americans from our concentration camps, etc., etc., etc., it is the structure of our government as a republic that not only requests, but requires us to protect the rights of the few over the tyranny and incivility of the many. As a "white-talkin' ", black male atheist, I know all too well what it is like to be an outsider and a minority, and I'm thankful that our forefathers forethought this point. By the way, many of the forefathers that created this genius-in-principle, imperfect-in-practice system were the antithesis of the people who invoke them when they discuss this great country. Many of them were the progressive, LIBERALS of their time. The same CNN poster said the "... fore fathers are probably turning in their graves..."

They are. Because of him.

It is true, we are one nation "under God", but that statement is meant to make the point:

"Aided by our religious beliefs, we as men will do what is best for men to get by, but we will not infringe on the rights of others to do as they will. We are all under God; Let God judge us and them accordingly",
not
"Our God is the end all for all".

Let God judge us and them accordingly.

Rappers for Obama...

Hypocrites. Manipulators. Liars. Fools.

These are just some of the nouns that could be used to describe the majority of rappers that supported Barack Obama in his presidential campaign. Why? Well, let's examine that.

Most rappers drive large, gas-guzzling, air-polluting SUV's and often travel in motorcades of multiple large, gas-guzzling, air-polluting SUV's.

Many rappers have clothing lines. These clothes are produced overseas in China for slave wages. They often employ black designers, but if you're a black person just looking for a job sewing the clothes together to make your ends meet, hope you can afford a long-term move to the Far East.

Most rappers support the degradation of women. Period.

Most rappers vehemently denounce homosexuality.

Obama ran on:
Energy reform - new and reusable sources of energy and the decrease of our dependence on foreign oil.

Penalizing companies that ship jobs Americans need to overseas locations to save a buck.

Respecting women and personal responsibility - financial and social.

Fighting for the rights of homosexuals (save for marriage).

Hmmm.

Clearly, rappers don't subscribe to Obama's platforms.

So why did rappers support Obama? Just because he was black?

Anyone have an answer?

The Noble Ambition

Presidents aren't noble; they're just ambitious.

Or, so goes the conventional wisdom. Many agree that to run for the president of any nation, especially a western, world-leading, industrialized nation, and particularly the United States, takes a great amount of ambition, and says something about the ego of that person. No argument here. That's why I'm an artist. No ego required.

Or is there? Okay, so maybe you knew I was going there. Well, that still makes the question no less sensible. The question being: Are we, who pursue the arts, any more noble or any less ego-driven, than a presidential candidate?

Well, frankly, I don't know. But let's at least try to examine it.

At first glance, the answer may seem to be no. Many artists work in obscurity, and never seek the limelight. They are happy trading sketches or prints, etc., with fellow artists, or providing work for their family's enjoyment. Many simply create art for their own enjoyment. They make something, then they admire it themselves. Some try to sell their work, not because they want fame and fortune, but because they only want to do art full-time, and so would prefer to have their income derive from what they love. But they seek no more than enough profit to live without worry and to continue to afford to make their art.

Likewise (believe it or not), many politicians are very similar. Whatever their views, they believe that they have something to offer their community, and many politicians, though getting plenty done, happily work in relative obscurity. Who's the city councilperson for District 12 in New York City? Who's the mayor of Minden, Nevada? Did you know a state senator in Nebraska makes just $12, 000 a year? Chances are that you know none of the three. And there's nothing wrong with that. Nor do I (or, at least I didn't before writing this).

However, there are a substantial number of artists working toward eminence, and they are probably not greatly disproportionate to the number of politicians doing the same. I (for a time) was working toward notoriety, and I am friends with several very talented artists in many different disciplines doing the same. Obviously (or maybe not) we are not doing art just for fame. There are many other things we could do to more easily achieve that goal. We all love art, and do it because we love it. As well, we all feel that we have something important to say about (or to contribute to) the world we live in, and we all think this is information that we need to get out there, or no one may ever hear / see / feel it, etc. However, we would like some notoriety and financial stability to accompany it.

So, are our goals 100% noble? Of course not. We are human. We change our minds on issues. We learn. We grow. We're stubborn. We regress. We're cynical; all of those wonderful things that human beings are and do.

So why shouldn't a politician be expected to do the same? Granted, a politician's ambitions are probably more dangerous than an artist's. The great oppressive regimes in the world weren't created by artists. Now, before you get up in arms, I know Hitler was an artist, but people didn't follow him on those merits. However, it would be naive of me to say that art and its control didn't play a very important role in those regimes. Art absolutely swayed people. If oppressive leaders were the premise, arts were the supporting argument.

Still, politicians can't be expected to be completely noble, in fact, just as artists, they can often times be quite ignoble, and that is why the checks and balances system is so important. Artists don't need a checks and balances system (at least these days) because no one cares about us until it's too late. But politicians do, so we can avoid the "too late" scenario.

So, the looming, slightly rephrased, question remains: Are we, who pursue the arts, any more noble or any less ego-driven, than a political aspirant?

Short answer: No. But given power, we're likely less dangerous.


FYI:
Minden, NV has no mayor. It is governed by five elected advisory Town Board members.

NYC District 12 Councilman - Larry Seabrook (as of 9/29/08)

Fight Club '08

Another day, another post. With the (tantamount) collapse of the investment banking industry, and the conversion of the United States into France (or some similar semi-socialist Western European republic), I think of my fiancee'. She says we should have just let the banks collapse and started over again. I wholeheartedly agree. It would have hurt many, including the international markets, but maybe then, we could have some sort of moratorium on greed and the (huge) negative side of laissez-faire capitalism. Maybe then (maybe), poor, red-state people would finally start to see the Republican party for what it currently is - the party of the rich red-state people.

So, what am I, (country accent) "Some sorta damned communist?" Well, yes, frankly, to a large degree. But that doesn't mean I'm wholly against the "on paper" Republican philosophy. By the tenets of the REAL Republican party, I could be a Republican. I believe in small government. I believe in "pull yourself up by your bootstraps...". I believe in low taxes. I believe in self-determination and I believe in free AND FAIR trade. In fact, I believe in no government, everyone pulls his weight, no taxes, completely open trade and completely individual determination. Much like life would be on a small commune. So, I guess that makes me a Republican Communist.

But ay, here's the rub. In reality, the Republicans are all about big government, higher taxes, restricted trade, and party determination of what the individual should do. And we can look at all of this. So, let's do so.

SMALL GOVERNMENT
The Republican party, as it exists currently, advocates some of the largest, and sweeping government, and the least individual determination that the nation has seen. The party wants to determine whether gays (individuals) can be married to each other by passing legislation opposed to it (government). The Republican party, as it exists currently, wants to determine a mother's (individual) right to choose to have an abortion by passing legislation banning it (government). The Republican party, as it exists currently, wants to determine whether or not a citizen without insurance (individual) receives medical treatment by passing legislation against universal health care (government). Republicans are the very ones who support the legislation that bans the individual's right to decide when he / she should die. If you are in the hospital, in unimaginable pain, with a terminal illness, the Republicans want the government to tell you (the individual) that you are not allowed to have assisted suicide. Yet, if they lose millions in the stock market and pull the trigger on themselves, that is acceptable. They can have what they want. You can't. Each of these examples is an individual, and very personal right.

The Republicans, as they now sit, want to take these from you. They want the government to legislate whether two individuals who sincerely love each other can have the benefits a marriage certificate provides. They want the government to legislate an individual mother's right to carry a child to term, when that mother is no more prepared to take care of that child than she was to make it in the first place. Further interesting, is the Republicans' nearly unwavering support of the death penalty which, it is well documented, disproportionately affects poor, underprivileged Americans, and especially blacks. The current Republicans know that the child will have little opportunity in life, but in the apt and cogent words of my fiancee', Republicans want to punish any woman who conceives a child - even in cases of rape and incest, so they'll have someone to sentence to death in 17 years - or less (in Texas, a 15 year old was once sentenced to death). This way they can guarantee the further existence of prisons and we all know prisons are big business. Apparently, dooming a child to a life of little opportunity and much distress is perfectly acceptable.

So, the republicans want the government to determine who gets married, who gets to live, who gets to die, who gets health care, and let's not forget the famous "Patriot" Act, which allows the United States government to spy on ordinary American citizens domestically, supposedly in an effort to fight foreign terrorists internationally. That makes perfect sense, right? Oh, and by the way, if, in the future this is found completely illegal and unconstitutional (you know, like it is right now, but the conservatives have loopholed their way out of prosecution for now), they want the companies who assist in it to be immune from prosecution, under the guise of "They were just doing what they were ordered to do." Nazi troops only did what they were ordered to do. The American soldiers at Abu Ghraib only did what they were ordered to do. Let me also add that this is a major point where I diverge from Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama (along with his position on the death penalty).

This all sounds like a lot more and a lot bigger government intrusion on our daily lives - at least to me.

LOW TAXES
Which party now wants to use taxpayer money to bail out the private financial companies that their buddies run? Where will all that taxpayer money come from? Well, taxpayers, of course. Let me appendix that by saying this is another point where I diverge from Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama. He agrees with the bailouts (at least as of now). he only reason the republicans voted the measure down (despite it being introduced by their party) was that there were too many concessions for the average American. Go figure that one out: We're giving too much to the victims and not enough to the perpetrators.

As well, Republicans are known for (and proud of) being the party that spends the most on the military and weapons and war technology. More money for more spying on Americans and more weapons to keep them in place if they get out of line, as well as to assert our military dominance over the rest of the world. Where does that money come from? Taxpayers. So the Republicans are comfortable with corporate welfare but not individual welfare. Billion dollar corporations need the government's help, but not the impoverished individual. That sounds like the party that has lost focus on what the government's role is supposed to be. To stand up, help and defend those who can not do so for themselves. Indeed, instead of defending the weak, they build the military to suppress them.

PULL YERSELF UP BY YER BOOTSTRAPS
Well, the current Republican party has made this all but impossible. As Sen. Obama quipped, most no longer have boots to put straps onto. Additionally, many are in health states too poor to allow them to even lift their own weight, and lack adequate insurance coverage to help them get the care they need. Frankly, if the previous two sections of this essay were taken into account by the party, one could pull themselves up.

FREE TRADE
Laughable. It should actually be called: Free Trade Among Nations (including oppressive totalitarians) That Support the United States.

CONCLUSION
So why did I title this post: Fight Club '08? Well, one, it was an effort (I believe successful) to be cryptic. Two, because I envision a Marxist revolution (adapted to the time) to be the answer; the failure of the banks and credit companies, and the collapse of the investment banking industry, and a "reboot" if you will, of the United States' and world's economy. The difference is, I don't get to plant dynamite at the base of these institutions' headquarters.

Small Town Values: Who Cares?

Can anyone really tell me what, exactly, "small town values" are, and why they are so important? Often, in an election year, or any other time the "issues" are discussed, the idea of "small town values" or "small town America" are heralded as some sort of great principle or set of principles upon which all decisions should be founded. Well, frankly, who cares what small town America thinks? Now, I'm acutely aware that no politician with any national aspiration - in the current climate - could dare utter such a sentiment and hope for anything less than a very public (and hopefully symbolic-only) evisceration, but I don't have any national political aspirations, and therefore am free to be honest about the reality as I see it. Small town America knows nothing that big city America doesn't.

Many of our presidents, and indeed, many of our greatest, have come from small towns. Small towns are some of the humblest, down-to-Earth and hospitable places in the country. Likewise, small towns can also be some of the harshest places for those who are different from the people in those small towns. Cities are often known for being some of the harshest places, but likewise, they can be very rewarding and hospitable as well. The difference is, cities often breed the more worldly, sophisticated of us who can not just tolerate, but embrace the differences in the world around us. Many who have come from small towns, have gone on to willfully live in cities because they "want to experience more". Is this not what we should want, and even expect from our representatives? I neglect to say leaders because, make no mistake, they are our representatives first. And, despite all the charms small towns have to offer, it is our big towns that make for big decision making and big ideas. Even small townspeople get to the world of big politics through big cities.

When we take small town politicians, and encourage them to retain small town ideas, then set them loose on the big world, we get George W. Bush. When you take a small town politician and encourage them to learn about the big world and place them in the public arena, you get Bill Clinton. Granted, many would dispute how great of a president he was (not me), but it's hard to debate that he is greater than George W. Bush. When you take small town politics onto the world stage, you get a nation built on the principles of individual liberty invading the sovereignty of another, for its own gain.

So shouldn't we stop marginalizing the city-dwellers? Granted, I am biased as an enthusiastic city-dweller, but I believe that enthusiasm holds merit (of course). The majority of the nation lives in cities as it is. Cities are polluted, dark, and isolationist. Cities are also cultural centers, diverse, and a melting pot for ideas. Cities act as ports for the small towns, with ships of knowledge arriving at their docks. Without cities, small towns would know nothing of the outside world. Perhaps that is what they want. But that is not what we need.

We need representatives who are used to diversity, and who not only tolerate it, but embrace it. We need people who can operate in a world and climate that is diverse and ever-changing, not holding rigidly to isolationism and the past. We need men and women who have access to ideas and varying points of view. We need representatives with vision, and vision means seeing the picture, not just my corner of it. I am sure to be lambasted for this city-centric view, but I am personally exhausted of the small town-centric view. Small town values are fine and well for Cassville, Wisconsin vs. Baraboo, Wisconsin, but when it comes to United States vs. Germany on Russia, we need a representative and leader who understands the world they are dealing with.

Small town values = small time ideas.