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
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:
"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.
Showing posts with label society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label society. Show all posts
Monday, February 8, 2010
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Enough Already!...
Would someone please come along and take away my "choices" in life so I can know definitively where I stand?
I walked into work this morning and noticed a flyer for a continental breakfast. The flyer touted a muffin, a yogurt, and a beverage, and in order to participate in said breakfast, one would have to make a "donation" of $5. The "choices" of yogurt were vanilla or strawberry, and the "choices" of beverage were juice or coffee. Of course, it's not really a choice of yogurts, it's "you're only getting one of these that has been made available - but you get to decide which one". They've made the decision to only provide you with two options, and that's not much of a choice - especially if you love peach yogurt, as I do. In addition, the definition of donation is a non-required payment, so their "donation" is not really so.
But before you decide this is trivial and petty (which it is), I want you to know that none of this really mattered to me in the context of this particular breakfast because it was for a charity - Harvest for Hunger. But it made me reflect on the larger society we live in; the society that tells us we have the freedom of choice.
We are made to feel happy as long as we have a choice between things, so the powers that be give us pointless choices, while they make the real decisions that affect our lives. Paper or plastic? Dress or skirt? Coffee or tea? These choices matter, of course, but we've been made to be content with these limited choices and made to feel they are really important, while the decisions "War or peace?", "Life or death?", Rich or poor?" are made for us, by others. We happily give up those choices to choose between brands of jeans or strength of coffee.
None of this will seem new to anyone who truly knows me, and indeed, I feel there are few, if any, who will find this new at all, but freedom of choice (within our current society) is an illusion. We happily buy into this illusion, placated by useless things and pointless freedoms and empty ideals - all of which are contradictory in nature - much like the wonderful but flawed constitution that supports them. We have the "freedom" to pursue a vague happiness, toward an empty American dream, but not the choice to smoke marijuana - which, consequntly, makes many people happy. We have freedom from illegal search and seizure, but not the choice to defend yourself from the authorities when they want to illegally search and seize you.
One may argue, "well, the smoke from marijuana causes a contact high, which infringes on others' rights not be drugged". So legalize it within homes. You can smoke all day in your house, but not outdoors. Of course, this still provides a limitation; much like the cigarette smokers who huddle in the cold and rain to enjoy their vice. How do you have a society where one's rights never infringe on anothers'? If smokers are returned their right to smoke any and everywhere, then shouldn't I have the right to knock that cigarette down their throat if they refuse to put it out in my presence? And if that punch draws blood, should they not have the right to draw blood from me? And then it continues to escalate until one of us is dead. Then we're back to Dodge City.
So, the answer is not to have everyone do whatever they want, but to get to a point where everyone can do what they want within reason and without infringement on others. Forcing smokers outside is OK, because second-hand smoke is dangerous and infringes on others' right not to contract cancer. As well, smoking indoors is a fire hazard. The proper way to resolve this has been to let smokers smoke in designated areas - usually outside - or to restrict it to the smoker's home - which I am also in favor of. One should not be barred from doing whatever they want to do on their own property, but they should be restricted on public or others' property if it infringes on others. Despite smokers' objections, I think we've reached the perfect middle ground with smoking: smoke at home or in a designated public area. Now smokers can still smoke, all they want, but I don't have to spend my day passing through rank clouds that stick to my hair and clothes, therefore leaving me other avenues of cancer contraction to explore.
Now, despite my ramblings, this is not about smoking, this is about pure liberty. According to our Constitution here in the United States, you have the freedom of "life" and "liberty", but in reality, this is only as long as you follow the rules and do what the authorities say is "right". Otherwise, you have no freedom-of or right-to anything. Instead, you have the freedom to shop for the limited "choices" you are presented. You have the freedom to work, and the government has the freedom to take 30% of your earnings (more if they're angry at you - see AIG CEO bonuses).
But truthfully, your freedoms, choices, rights, etc. are all an illusion. You only have them within a limited set of circumstances and those that you have, are largely (though not wholly) worthless. We "defeated" communism because the people supposedly didn't have rights and freedoms. What rights and freedoms have they gained? The freedom to own a Fendi purse and a Porsche? Are they worth it? I don't doubt that to many they are, but if those people don't awaken to realize that their freedoms have not truly returned, they may wind up in a middle-class Marie Antoinette position - completely unaware of what is happening around them until it is entirely too late.
In many cases and places, it is already too late. In the U.S. the government can legally tap your phone and read your emails and monitor everything you do now. I'm under no illusions. Truthfully, they've done this ever since they gained the capability, nearly 80 years ago, but they couldn't tell you about it. Now they can tell you they are going to do it, and then do it, and then tell you they are doing it while doing it, and you can do nothing about it. If they don't like that you received a four million dollar bonus, they can just raise the tax on it to 90%. If you are non-violently protesting something you disagree with, they can tear gas you. If you're standing in front of a store waiting for a friend, police can stop you and check your ID - even if you're doing nothing but standing and staring into space.
But, of course, you can always go to the mall.
I walked into work this morning and noticed a flyer for a continental breakfast. The flyer touted a muffin, a yogurt, and a beverage, and in order to participate in said breakfast, one would have to make a "donation" of $5. The "choices" of yogurt were vanilla or strawberry, and the "choices" of beverage were juice or coffee. Of course, it's not really a choice of yogurts, it's "you're only getting one of these that has been made available - but you get to decide which one". They've made the decision to only provide you with two options, and that's not much of a choice - especially if you love peach yogurt, as I do. In addition, the definition of donation is a non-required payment, so their "donation" is not really so.
But before you decide this is trivial and petty (which it is), I want you to know that none of this really mattered to me in the context of this particular breakfast because it was for a charity - Harvest for Hunger. But it made me reflect on the larger society we live in; the society that tells us we have the freedom of choice.
We are made to feel happy as long as we have a choice between things, so the powers that be give us pointless choices, while they make the real decisions that affect our lives. Paper or plastic? Dress or skirt? Coffee or tea? These choices matter, of course, but we've been made to be content with these limited choices and made to feel they are really important, while the decisions "War or peace?", "Life or death?", Rich or poor?" are made for us, by others. We happily give up those choices to choose between brands of jeans or strength of coffee.
None of this will seem new to anyone who truly knows me, and indeed, I feel there are few, if any, who will find this new at all, but freedom of choice (within our current society) is an illusion. We happily buy into this illusion, placated by useless things and pointless freedoms and empty ideals - all of which are contradictory in nature - much like the wonderful but flawed constitution that supports them. We have the "freedom" to pursue a vague happiness, toward an empty American dream, but not the choice to smoke marijuana - which, consequntly, makes many people happy. We have freedom from illegal search and seizure, but not the choice to defend yourself from the authorities when they want to illegally search and seize you.
One may argue, "well, the smoke from marijuana causes a contact high, which infringes on others' rights not be drugged". So legalize it within homes. You can smoke all day in your house, but not outdoors. Of course, this still provides a limitation; much like the cigarette smokers who huddle in the cold and rain to enjoy their vice. How do you have a society where one's rights never infringe on anothers'? If smokers are returned their right to smoke any and everywhere, then shouldn't I have the right to knock that cigarette down their throat if they refuse to put it out in my presence? And if that punch draws blood, should they not have the right to draw blood from me? And then it continues to escalate until one of us is dead. Then we're back to Dodge City.
So, the answer is not to have everyone do whatever they want, but to get to a point where everyone can do what they want within reason and without infringement on others. Forcing smokers outside is OK, because second-hand smoke is dangerous and infringes on others' right not to contract cancer. As well, smoking indoors is a fire hazard. The proper way to resolve this has been to let smokers smoke in designated areas - usually outside - or to restrict it to the smoker's home - which I am also in favor of. One should not be barred from doing whatever they want to do on their own property, but they should be restricted on public or others' property if it infringes on others. Despite smokers' objections, I think we've reached the perfect middle ground with smoking: smoke at home or in a designated public area. Now smokers can still smoke, all they want, but I don't have to spend my day passing through rank clouds that stick to my hair and clothes, therefore leaving me other avenues of cancer contraction to explore.
Now, despite my ramblings, this is not about smoking, this is about pure liberty. According to our Constitution here in the United States, you have the freedom of "life" and "liberty", but in reality, this is only as long as you follow the rules and do what the authorities say is "right". Otherwise, you have no freedom-of or right-to anything. Instead, you have the freedom to shop for the limited "choices" you are presented. You have the freedom to work, and the government has the freedom to take 30% of your earnings (more if they're angry at you - see AIG CEO bonuses).
But truthfully, your freedoms, choices, rights, etc. are all an illusion. You only have them within a limited set of circumstances and those that you have, are largely (though not wholly) worthless. We "defeated" communism because the people supposedly didn't have rights and freedoms. What rights and freedoms have they gained? The freedom to own a Fendi purse and a Porsche? Are they worth it? I don't doubt that to many they are, but if those people don't awaken to realize that their freedoms have not truly returned, they may wind up in a middle-class Marie Antoinette position - completely unaware of what is happening around them until it is entirely too late.
In many cases and places, it is already too late. In the U.S. the government can legally tap your phone and read your emails and monitor everything you do now. I'm under no illusions. Truthfully, they've done this ever since they gained the capability, nearly 80 years ago, but they couldn't tell you about it. Now they can tell you they are going to do it, and then do it, and then tell you they are doing it while doing it, and you can do nothing about it. If they don't like that you received a four million dollar bonus, they can just raise the tax on it to 90%. If you are non-violently protesting something you disagree with, they can tear gas you. If you're standing in front of a store waiting for a friend, police can stop you and check your ID - even if you're doing nothing but standing and staring into space.
But, of course, you can always go to the mall.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
A Greater Society?
I was bothered yesterday when I found out that my co-worker didn't vote. Her reasoning was that the election was too racially charged and that she didn't feel it would have any impact on her daily life. Well, though both of those may be true, to me, they are not good reasons. You don't just vote for you, you vote for the nation. She believes that most who voted, voted only on race. She said that she talked to people who voted for Obama just because they were black.
This is true; there were many black voters who voted for him just because he was black. I've heard them in the street and on the bus. I actually overheard part of a conversation while walking, where a black woman said she voted for Obama because he was black and nothing else. However, she didn't come across as a regular voter, or the most educated voter. Rather, it seemed, she saw an opportunity and pounced on it - but without taking the time to learn about the man. But statistics say that had she been educated and voted regularly, she still would have voted for Obama - because he was a democrat.
The numbers say Barack Obama garnered over 90% of the votes of black voters. However, as my fiancee' pointed out, democrats have garnered at or near 90% of black votes since the 1970's. Obama is a democrat. Surprise, surprise. So, his being black is ultimately a bonus - not a reason.
The other reasons my co-worker gave for not voting were that she didn't feel it would have a practical effect on her life, and that politics don't interest her. In addition, she didn't live during the civil rights period, so she didn't have any connection to the history being made. Well, on the last point, I made a similar argument on this blog. However, my argument didn't cite that as a reason not to vote. Furthermore, my argument on that point was critical of young hip-hoppers who have exploited street culture, giving it synonymy with black culture, then claiming they did something great when they had nothing to do with Obama's election - in terms of their similarities of view and lifestyle.
On her first point about practicality in her life, my response to that is, what about the future of her children? It will have a practical effect in their daily lives. It will have a practical effect on whether they get to go to college affordably, buy or rent a home affordably, and on even smaller things like whether they can grocery shop affordably.
Granted, I also made the argument that I don't know that Obama's presidency will have an effect on my daily life practically - but I know it may have enough of an overall effect on the nation that I still voted. I didn't just vote for me, I voted for the nation.
I'm not trying to make the argument that I'm better than her because I voted and she didn't. In fact, I don't believe that, and couldn't care less about who's the better person, because neither of us is better than the other. I'm only expressing my annoyance that someone takes no part in the political process, then complains that things never change. My co-worker mentioned that politics do not interest her, but you don't have to have an interest in politics and follow 24 hour news coverage to cast a vote for what you feel will be a good leader. It's true; one vote doesn't make a difference - but all of those "one votes" add up - and that's where the difference is made.
I wholeheartedly believe that the same negative and divisive politics, as well as world strife and tension, war, famine, oppression, etc., will continue as long as humans are able to continue it. My fiancee' and I had an argument about this. She believes otherwise. But what we both agree on is that you can say nothing to complain about it if you do absolutely nothing as it happens. So why try to change things if you believe they won't? Because the difference ultimately lies in your character as a person, not in the change you failed to effect. And as long as you're trying, you may be surprised that you actually win sometimes.
I was at a family dinner with my fiancee' and my immediate family, when a man collapsed unconscious at a nearby table. He was at dinner with his wife and two other couples. The two other men informed all at the restaurant that they were "doctors". A couple of people jumped up to help, but they were told by the two doctors to not bother. The "doctors" also told the staff not to bother calling the paramedics. They were told that "he does this all the time". The people returned to their dinners. The staff, though attentive, returned to work. After a minute or two of the two doctors failing to wake their friend, I decided to tell the staff to call the paramedics anyway, and they did so. The "doctors", unbelievably, were not too pleased with me. Before the paramedics finally arrived, the unconscious doctor finally woke up, but was dazed and confused, and they ultimately made use of the paramedics' stretcher to wheel him out,if nothing else.
Beyond the use of the stretcher, I don't know if the paramedics were sent on their merry way when they got outside, or if they ultimately took the formerly unconscious doctor to the hospital. Clearly, if he passed out like that "all the time", he had a pre-existing condition and I'm sure his friends and wife knew of it. Still, had this been something different, or an escalation in his condition, and I somehow found out later that the man had died, I would not have been able to live with myself. It's not enough, to me, that I am "off the hook" because the "doctors" told me not to call the paramedics. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not off the hook, because if something had happened to him and I may have been able to help but did nothing, then I failed to act, regardless of what the "doctors" said.
"It happens all the time" is no excuse not to act. Women are raped all the time. Children are kidnapped all the time. Police brutality happens all the time. Should we not act when we happen upon those instances? A woman raped in Kansas, a child kidnapped in Florida and a police beating in California have no immediate impact on me. But if I had the chance to vote for a law against it, should I not? And what if the time came when it did affect me? I would like to know that I tried something to prevent it. This is what is necessary to strive toward a great (or greater) society.
What's the difference if you vote and nothing changes? What's the difference if you support a law banning or supporting stem cell research? What's the difference if you pull a violent man off of a screaming woman and he gets no jail time anyway?
The difference is you.
This is true; there were many black voters who voted for him just because he was black. I've heard them in the street and on the bus. I actually overheard part of a conversation while walking, where a black woman said she voted for Obama because he was black and nothing else. However, she didn't come across as a regular voter, or the most educated voter. Rather, it seemed, she saw an opportunity and pounced on it - but without taking the time to learn about the man. But statistics say that had she been educated and voted regularly, she still would have voted for Obama - because he was a democrat.
The numbers say Barack Obama garnered over 90% of the votes of black voters. However, as my fiancee' pointed out, democrats have garnered at or near 90% of black votes since the 1970's. Obama is a democrat. Surprise, surprise. So, his being black is ultimately a bonus - not a reason.
The other reasons my co-worker gave for not voting were that she didn't feel it would have a practical effect on her life, and that politics don't interest her. In addition, she didn't live during the civil rights period, so she didn't have any connection to the history being made. Well, on the last point, I made a similar argument on this blog. However, my argument didn't cite that as a reason not to vote. Furthermore, my argument on that point was critical of young hip-hoppers who have exploited street culture, giving it synonymy with black culture, then claiming they did something great when they had nothing to do with Obama's election - in terms of their similarities of view and lifestyle.
On her first point about practicality in her life, my response to that is, what about the future of her children? It will have a practical effect in their daily lives. It will have a practical effect on whether they get to go to college affordably, buy or rent a home affordably, and on even smaller things like whether they can grocery shop affordably.
Granted, I also made the argument that I don't know that Obama's presidency will have an effect on my daily life practically - but I know it may have enough of an overall effect on the nation that I still voted. I didn't just vote for me, I voted for the nation.
I'm not trying to make the argument that I'm better than her because I voted and she didn't. In fact, I don't believe that, and couldn't care less about who's the better person, because neither of us is better than the other. I'm only expressing my annoyance that someone takes no part in the political process, then complains that things never change. My co-worker mentioned that politics do not interest her, but you don't have to have an interest in politics and follow 24 hour news coverage to cast a vote for what you feel will be a good leader. It's true; one vote doesn't make a difference - but all of those "one votes" add up - and that's where the difference is made.
I wholeheartedly believe that the same negative and divisive politics, as well as world strife and tension, war, famine, oppression, etc., will continue as long as humans are able to continue it. My fiancee' and I had an argument about this. She believes otherwise. But what we both agree on is that you can say nothing to complain about it if you do absolutely nothing as it happens. So why try to change things if you believe they won't? Because the difference ultimately lies in your character as a person, not in the change you failed to effect. And as long as you're trying, you may be surprised that you actually win sometimes.
I was at a family dinner with my fiancee' and my immediate family, when a man collapsed unconscious at a nearby table. He was at dinner with his wife and two other couples. The two other men informed all at the restaurant that they were "doctors". A couple of people jumped up to help, but they were told by the two doctors to not bother. The "doctors" also told the staff not to bother calling the paramedics. They were told that "he does this all the time". The people returned to their dinners. The staff, though attentive, returned to work. After a minute or two of the two doctors failing to wake their friend, I decided to tell the staff to call the paramedics anyway, and they did so. The "doctors", unbelievably, were not too pleased with me. Before the paramedics finally arrived, the unconscious doctor finally woke up, but was dazed and confused, and they ultimately made use of the paramedics' stretcher to wheel him out,if nothing else.
Beyond the use of the stretcher, I don't know if the paramedics were sent on their merry way when they got outside, or if they ultimately took the formerly unconscious doctor to the hospital. Clearly, if he passed out like that "all the time", he had a pre-existing condition and I'm sure his friends and wife knew of it. Still, had this been something different, or an escalation in his condition, and I somehow found out later that the man had died, I would not have been able to live with myself. It's not enough, to me, that I am "off the hook" because the "doctors" told me not to call the paramedics. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not off the hook, because if something had happened to him and I may have been able to help but did nothing, then I failed to act, regardless of what the "doctors" said.
"It happens all the time" is no excuse not to act. Women are raped all the time. Children are kidnapped all the time. Police brutality happens all the time. Should we not act when we happen upon those instances? A woman raped in Kansas, a child kidnapped in Florida and a police beating in California have no immediate impact on me. But if I had the chance to vote for a law against it, should I not? And what if the time came when it did affect me? I would like to know that I tried something to prevent it. This is what is necessary to strive toward a great (or greater) society.
What's the difference if you vote and nothing changes? What's the difference if you support a law banning or supporting stem cell research? What's the difference if you pull a violent man off of a screaming woman and he gets no jail time anyway?
The difference is you.
Monday, September 29, 2008
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)
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)
Friday, September 26, 2008
Real Life Makes for a Painful Movie
I thought I was in a bad comedy this morning by the creators of Scary Movie (3 and onward), Epic Movie, Date Movie, Meet the Spartans, Superhero Movie, etc., (yes, worse than those), when, on my way to work, I was passed, in succession, by two young black women, unrelated to each other, who were both pregnant. It's not that two is a lot, it's just that they were walking not more than 15 feet apart from each other in the same direction, and came off of the same bus. I was walking in the opposite direction. It was as if someone had just made a throwaway comment in one of those movies and this was the related descriptive scene.
I work in a poor neighborhood, which in some twisted way, makes me feel good, because though the neighborhood is black, there is not a high incidence of crime. Certainly there's plenty of niggerish behavior, but fortunately, it hasn't (largely) degenerated (yet) into violence and theft. But what I hadn't thought about before, is the high incidence of teenage pregnancy. These women were no more than 18, probably right at 18, and likely 16 or 17. I call them women because once you bear a child, unfortunately you can be a child no more. But make no mistake, in terms of age and mental maturity (if not innocence), these were children; teenagers.
I realized I had no idea how high the incidence of teenage pregnacy was in the black community - my community. Sure, I've read the statistics, but numbers on a page are not the same as living something day to day, and day to day, I see many pregnant mothers, as well as mothers with born children, and in many cases, mothers with both. For some reason it never dawned on me until this morning (which I know makes me an idiot), but this is a huge problem. Let me correct myself - I knew this was a huge problem. Several years ago I even began the process of creating a photoessay that deals with this issue (among many others in the black community). However, what I mean to say is, I had never experienced the problem on a daily basis like this.
Now, frankly, it's the mothers who really experience this, and I'm not trying to make their hardships and experiences about me. But what I mean is, I've never been around it to this degree, and it is troubling.
It has me thinking, again...
I work in a poor neighborhood, which in some twisted way, makes me feel good, because though the neighborhood is black, there is not a high incidence of crime. Certainly there's plenty of niggerish behavior, but fortunately, it hasn't (largely) degenerated (yet) into violence and theft. But what I hadn't thought about before, is the high incidence of teenage pregnancy. These women were no more than 18, probably right at 18, and likely 16 or 17. I call them women because once you bear a child, unfortunately you can be a child no more. But make no mistake, in terms of age and mental maturity (if not innocence), these were children; teenagers.
I realized I had no idea how high the incidence of teenage pregnacy was in the black community - my community. Sure, I've read the statistics, but numbers on a page are not the same as living something day to day, and day to day, I see many pregnant mothers, as well as mothers with born children, and in many cases, mothers with both. For some reason it never dawned on me until this morning (which I know makes me an idiot), but this is a huge problem. Let me correct myself - I knew this was a huge problem. Several years ago I even began the process of creating a photoessay that deals with this issue (among many others in the black community). However, what I mean to say is, I had never experienced the problem on a daily basis like this.
Now, frankly, it's the mothers who really experience this, and I'm not trying to make their hardships and experiences about me. But what I mean is, I've never been around it to this degree, and it is troubling.
It has me thinking, again...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)