So the Democrats compromised on the public option, lowering the medicare age, and abortion restrictions.
I just want you to understand what that means. Instead of creating a government run healthcare option that would force insurers to offer competitive plans and options thereby keeping them somewhat honest, we have a law forcing citizens to choose between private companies which the tax payers will subsidize.
You people are fucking retarded. Honestly.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Friday, December 4, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The Basics of Socialism
What is Socialism?
Socialism is a political philosophy based on sharing the fruits of labor more equitably to reflect the contributions and needs of the individual. The essential presumption is that those with money (and property) are in a position to sustain their wealth with a minimum of personal labor by hiring others to work for them on their land and with their resources.
The Socialist contends that the owners (referred to by Marx and Engels as "the bourgeois") typically profit from these systems far more than those who work for them and this imbalance of power becomes greater as the owner's wealth grows at a far more rapid pace than the workers who, due to their socio-economic status, are usually forced to spend money as quickly as they accumulate it. This institutes sustained poverty.
In order to function effectively and in a more egalitarian manner, the wealth and the benefits of production should be distributed to those most in need. Naturally, this can be very difficult to determine what is "most in need" so this is usually done through broad social programs accessible to everyone. The most obvious example is universal health care, referred (mostly by its detractors) as socialized medicine.
The theory is that as production efficiency increases, the product of that efficiency should create more luxury for the general public. While modern capitalism promotes Adam Smith's concept that "the invisible hand" of the market will naturally spread wealth and resource to the populace, the relative difference of wealth from rich to poor has continued to increase consistently since World War II. While many capitalists claim that modern inventions (i.e. the television, the automobile, the computer) would not have been invented without corporate influence, capitalism has not been successful in providing health care, financial security, or a decrease in work hours for the general public.
How does Socialism differ from Communism?
Both Socialism and Communism function on the belief that wealth must be distributed in order to obtain social equality, however Socialism focuses on distributing wealth (or resources) through social programs. Communism, instead, places the means of production (i.e. the factory or farming equipment) in the hands of the state allowing the state to send the means to those it determines are most in need.
Many Socialists reject this model because they do not trust the state to determine where the resources are most in need. Even in the most egalitarian society, most politicians represent the upper class and their decisions will reflect those values. Furthermore, the distribution of resources can also be used to curry favor for the individual rather than reflecting the true needs of the general public.
How is Anarchism related to Communism and Socialism?
Anarchism is more of a theoretical model for government than a political philosophy like Socialism or Communism. The word anarchism comes from the Greek anarchos meaning "without rulers." Historically, the word anarchism has been synonymous with libertarianism and is still used that way in most of the world.
Anarchism is primarily about deconstructing and simplifying our government rather than becoming increasingly complex. It discourages centralized leadership preferring small community action. However, it is commonly associated to punk rock revolutionary elements due to the modern common definition of the word.
Are Socialism and Capitalism inherently incompatible?
No. Capitalism merely provides the basis for an economic system while Socialism provides a method to distribute "excess" wealth. Sweden is a prime example of a state that has embraced both capitalism and socialism. Capitalism creates a strong economic system which produces great wealth and resources which is then distributed through social programs, mostly financed through a graduated income tax. This method has proven popular in Sweden as well as other countries.
If Socialism is altruistic, why was the Soviet Union representing a brutal dictatorship?
It is important to remember, when discussing the former Soviet Union, China, or North Korea that these are all Communist states, not Socialist states, however the ethos of their leaders often did not reflect a truly Communist position.
There are many theories as to why these states developed a brutal tyranny. Staunch Capitalists often assert that the philosophical ideals of Communism do not work in practice while some historians have pointed toward cultural causes, purely physical forces (i.e. limited resources), or a market limited by Capitalist international politics.
In my opinion, Communism puts considerable faith in the goodwill of the state to distribute resources fairly, yet even in the most functional democracy, there is often favoritism and abuse by those in power.
Furthermore, Communism (as defined by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels) advocates in the violent overthrow of the bourgeois by the worker (called "the proletariat"). Marx says that only in violent, global revolution is Communism truly possible because Capitalism has the benefit of forced labor and could successfully undercut goods manufactured in a communist state. This has shaped the philosophy in the rejection of an upper class, but since an upper class cannot be entirely eliminated (remember, even in a Communist state, those more privileged will rise to positions of power), scapegoating can easily be placed as political rivals are said to "represent the bourgeois" while other upper class individuals can claim to represent the proletariat.
Communism, when you get down to it, is a very elitist philosophy. It claims the superiority of the working class but it frames this superiority in specific values. For example, both America and the Soviet Union rejected homosexuality in the 1950s and 1960s. Americans often claimed that homosexuality was a result of intellectual liberalism, which was linked with Socialism. Soviets, on the other hand, claimed that homosexuality was a product of the bourgeois and their hedonistic lifestyle, an offensive affront to proletariat values.
Marx is also well known for saying "Religion is the opiate of the masses" and Communism has taken a decidedly anti-religious stance. While I am a strong proponent of the separation of church and state, I do not support a government that practices religious oppression. One very clear example of this is Chairman Mao's invasion of Tibet. Believing that Communism is "the right way" and that religion is definitively wrong and immoral, the Chinese government did not hesitate to invade this land and continues to subvert their religious practices to this day.
What is the Red Scare?
What we commonly refer to as "the Red Scare" in the fifties is actually the second Red Scare. The first Red Scare was between 1917 and 1920 during the first World War and during the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. This predated the Soviet Union by two years and the Cold War by twenty-five. It was defined by the oppression of Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists many of whom were immigrants and/or union workers. Many Americans (motivated by the print media) were afraid of a similar revolution occurring in America.
Largely, the Red Scare was motivated by corporate interests in discouraging unionization. Before the Great Depression, labor standards were extremely harsh. Keep in mind, this is after slavery was abolished and following the industrial revolution. America was going from an agricultural society to an industrial society, so working standards became far more regulated and centralized. The industrial revolution mechanized labor both through machines and labor practices designed to get the most work for the least cost. Since there had been relatively little labor exploitation possible in an agricultural society, the laws were insufficient to protect the growing class of factory labor which included many women and children, mostly immigrants. Unionization was the only form of protection available from exploitation.
However, there was legitimate fear of Communist terrorism as 1919 and 1920 saw a number of prominent bombings including the killing of Attorney General Palmer and the bombing of Wall Street on September 16, 1920. Actions such as these were used as justification of raids on immigrant populations and mock trials such as the famous Sacco and Vanzetti case.
The second Red Scare began immediately after World War II as America was moving from an industrial to a post-industrial society. In 1940, Congress passed the Alien Registration Act which, amongst other things, made it a crime to "knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association." The problem with this, of course, is that the works of Karl Marx directly advocates violent overthrow of any and all capitalist governments. This law effectively made owning a Communist piece of literature an act of treason.
Although there was genuine fear of espionage as demonstrated in the case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the hysteria was used as an opportunity by right-wing politicians to criminally persecute state officials and members of the media with more left-wing values. Most of these individuals were first or second generation Jewish immigrants. Many were immigrating from Eastern Europe where they were escaping persecution which was often demonstrated through exploitation and discrimination of labor. In this environment, Communist thought proved very popular. Xenophobia or racism directed toward the Jewish immigrants could easily be associated with Communism as well. Furthermore, the House of Un-American Activities (or HUAC) persecuted not only Communists or suspected Communists, but Socialists, Anarchists, and anyone who socialized with them. Anyone suspected of Communist activities, regardless of how unfounded the accusation, was forced to deny that they had ever been even loosely associated with any communist or socialist organization or risk becoming blacklisted.
America is Capitalist, not Socialist... right?
Actually, there is absolutely nothing in our Constitution or other founding documents that determines this country's economic model. The terms capitalist and socialist didn't exist in the same context back then.
Although certain elements have claimed this to be a capitalist country, this is merely a certain point of view that focuses on capitalist activity. You might as well say I'm an eating, walking, and sleeping machine, as this seems to define my behavior.
It is important to keep in mind that America does have socialist elements that we agree are necessary for a functioning society. In fact, government itself can be seen as a method of consensus for the redistribution of wealth. This includes road maintenance, public education, mail, hospitals, Medicare, social security, the military, police, and emergency services. All of these are socialist services.
In a rational society, we should not argue between Socialism and Capitalist, but ask which model works best for what purpose. In my opinion, utilities (i.e. water, gas, electricity, oil, and communication) and insurance are best provided by a socialist organization because it won't reduce the quality of the service to serve the profit motive. Capitalism, on the other hand, may be the best model for technological development, food distribution, and certainly for luxury services.
Socialism should serve as a control mechanism to prevent unequaled distribution of wealth. The word currency is rooted in the idea that money functions in society as a current. Much like water must flow in adequate supply to every cell of a plant to keep it healthy, so must money flow to every person in an economy (from the manager to the worker to the consumer) in order for the individual parts to be healthy enough to keep the process running. Social programs create a minimum standard of living for all people. When properly utilitized, this can prevent economic collapse by insuring a functioning society even in the worst economic conditions.
Calling America a socialist nation is about as accurate as calling it a capitalist one. It all depends on how you look at it and where you place you priorities.
Is Obama a socialist?
NO! The first (and arguably, only) thing he has done since taking office is give a massive and unprecedented bail out to the country's largest banks. This is completely antithetical to socialist values. A true socialist would happily watch these banks fail in order to allow small, more responsible community banks a chance to flourish.
Obama is a capitalist, pure and simple. Universal health care is not a purely socialist interest. It has many practical applications that are important to business interests, most importantly in creating and preserving a strong work force/consumer base.
Socialism is a political philosophy based on sharing the fruits of labor more equitably to reflect the contributions and needs of the individual. The essential presumption is that those with money (and property) are in a position to sustain their wealth with a minimum of personal labor by hiring others to work for them on their land and with their resources.The Socialist contends that the owners (referred to by Marx and Engels as "the bourgeois") typically profit from these systems far more than those who work for them and this imbalance of power becomes greater as the owner's wealth grows at a far more rapid pace than the workers who, due to their socio-economic status, are usually forced to spend money as quickly as they accumulate it. This institutes sustained poverty.
In order to function effectively and in a more egalitarian manner, the wealth and the benefits of production should be distributed to those most in need. Naturally, this can be very difficult to determine what is "most in need" so this is usually done through broad social programs accessible to everyone. The most obvious example is universal health care, referred (mostly by its detractors) as socialized medicine.
The theory is that as production efficiency increases, the product of that efficiency should create more luxury for the general public. While modern capitalism promotes Adam Smith's concept that "the invisible hand" of the market will naturally spread wealth and resource to the populace, the relative difference of wealth from rich to poor has continued to increase consistently since World War II. While many capitalists claim that modern inventions (i.e. the television, the automobile, the computer) would not have been invented without corporate influence, capitalism has not been successful in providing health care, financial security, or a decrease in work hours for the general public.
How does Socialism differ from Communism?
Both Socialism and Communism function on the belief that wealth must be distributed in order to obtain social equality, however Socialism focuses on distributing wealth (or resources) through social programs. Communism, instead, places the means of production (i.e. the factory or farming equipment) in the hands of the state allowing the state to send the means to those it determines are most in need.
Many Socialists reject this model because they do not trust the state to determine where the resources are most in need. Even in the most egalitarian society, most politicians represent the upper class and their decisions will reflect those values. Furthermore, the distribution of resources can also be used to curry favor for the individual rather than reflecting the true needs of the general public.
How is Anarchism related to Communism and Socialism?
Anarchism is more of a theoretical model for government than a political philosophy like Socialism or Communism. The word anarchism comes from the Greek anarchos meaning "without rulers." Historically, the word anarchism has been synonymous with libertarianism and is still used that way in most of the world.Anarchism is primarily about deconstructing and simplifying our government rather than becoming increasingly complex. It discourages centralized leadership preferring small community action. However, it is commonly associated to punk rock revolutionary elements due to the modern common definition of the word.
Are Socialism and Capitalism inherently incompatible?
No. Capitalism merely provides the basis for an economic system while Socialism provides a method to distribute "excess" wealth. Sweden is a prime example of a state that has embraced both capitalism and socialism. Capitalism creates a strong economic system which produces great wealth and resources which is then distributed through social programs, mostly financed through a graduated income tax. This method has proven popular in Sweden as well as other countries.
If Socialism is altruistic, why was the Soviet Union representing a brutal dictatorship?
It is important to remember, when discussing the former Soviet Union, China, or North Korea that these are all Communist states, not Socialist states, however the ethos of their leaders often did not reflect a truly Communist position.There are many theories as to why these states developed a brutal tyranny. Staunch Capitalists often assert that the philosophical ideals of Communism do not work in practice while some historians have pointed toward cultural causes, purely physical forces (i.e. limited resources), or a market limited by Capitalist international politics.
In my opinion, Communism puts considerable faith in the goodwill of the state to distribute resources fairly, yet even in the most functional democracy, there is often favoritism and abuse by those in power.
Furthermore, Communism (as defined by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels) advocates in the violent overthrow of the bourgeois by the worker (called "the proletariat"). Marx says that only in violent, global revolution is Communism truly possible because Capitalism has the benefit of forced labor and could successfully undercut goods manufactured in a communist state. This has shaped the philosophy in the rejection of an upper class, but since an upper class cannot be entirely eliminated (remember, even in a Communist state, those more privileged will rise to positions of power), scapegoating can easily be placed as political rivals are said to "represent the bourgeois" while other upper class individuals can claim to represent the proletariat.
Communism, when you get down to it, is a very elitist philosophy. It claims the superiority of the working class but it frames this superiority in specific values. For example, both America and the Soviet Union rejected homosexuality in the 1950s and 1960s. Americans often claimed that homosexuality was a result of intellectual liberalism, which was linked with Socialism. Soviets, on the other hand, claimed that homosexuality was a product of the bourgeois and their hedonistic lifestyle, an offensive affront to proletariat values.
Marx is also well known for saying "Religion is the opiate of the masses" and Communism has taken a decidedly anti-religious stance. While I am a strong proponent of the separation of church and state, I do not support a government that practices religious oppression. One very clear example of this is Chairman Mao's invasion of Tibet. Believing that Communism is "the right way" and that religion is definitively wrong and immoral, the Chinese government did not hesitate to invade this land and continues to subvert their religious practices to this day.
What is the Red Scare?
What we commonly refer to as "the Red Scare" in the fifties is actually the second Red Scare. The first Red Scare was between 1917 and 1920 during the first World War and during the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. This predated the Soviet Union by two years and the Cold War by twenty-five. It was defined by the oppression of Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists many of whom were immigrants and/or union workers. Many Americans (motivated by the print media) were afraid of a similar revolution occurring in America.Largely, the Red Scare was motivated by corporate interests in discouraging unionization. Before the Great Depression, labor standards were extremely harsh. Keep in mind, this is after slavery was abolished and following the industrial revolution. America was going from an agricultural society to an industrial society, so working standards became far more regulated and centralized. The industrial revolution mechanized labor both through machines and labor practices designed to get the most work for the least cost. Since there had been relatively little labor exploitation possible in an agricultural society, the laws were insufficient to protect the growing class of factory labor which included many women and children, mostly immigrants. Unionization was the only form of protection available from exploitation.
However, there was legitimate fear of Communist terrorism as 1919 and 1920 saw a number of prominent bombings including the killing of Attorney General Palmer and the bombing of Wall Street on September 16, 1920. Actions such as these were used as justification of raids on immigrant populations and mock trials such as the famous Sacco and Vanzetti case.
The second Red Scare began immediately after World War II as America was moving from an industrial to a post-industrial society. In 1940, Congress passed the Alien Registration Act which, amongst other things, made it a crime to "knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association." The problem with this, of course, is that the works of Karl Marx directly advocates violent overthrow of any and all capitalist governments. This law effectively made owning a Communist piece of literature an act of treason.
Although there was genuine fear of espionage as demonstrated in the case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the hysteria was used as an opportunity by right-wing politicians to criminally persecute state officials and members of the media with more left-wing values. Most of these individuals were first or second generation Jewish immigrants. Many were immigrating from Eastern Europe where they were escaping persecution which was often demonstrated through exploitation and discrimination of labor. In this environment, Communist thought proved very popular. Xenophobia or racism directed toward the Jewish immigrants could easily be associated with Communism as well. Furthermore, the House of Un-American Activities (or HUAC) persecuted not only Communists or suspected Communists, but Socialists, Anarchists, and anyone who socialized with them. Anyone suspected of Communist activities, regardless of how unfounded the accusation, was forced to deny that they had ever been even loosely associated with any communist or socialist organization or risk becoming blacklisted.
America is Capitalist, not Socialist... right?
Actually, there is absolutely nothing in our Constitution or other founding documents that determines this country's economic model. The terms capitalist and socialist didn't exist in the same context back then.
Although certain elements have claimed this to be a capitalist country, this is merely a certain point of view that focuses on capitalist activity. You might as well say I'm an eating, walking, and sleeping machine, as this seems to define my behavior.
It is important to keep in mind that America does have socialist elements that we agree are necessary for a functioning society. In fact, government itself can be seen as a method of consensus for the redistribution of wealth. This includes road maintenance, public education, mail, hospitals, Medicare, social security, the military, police, and emergency services. All of these are socialist services.In a rational society, we should not argue between Socialism and Capitalist, but ask which model works best for what purpose. In my opinion, utilities (i.e. water, gas, electricity, oil, and communication) and insurance are best provided by a socialist organization because it won't reduce the quality of the service to serve the profit motive. Capitalism, on the other hand, may be the best model for technological development, food distribution, and certainly for luxury services.
Socialism should serve as a control mechanism to prevent unequaled distribution of wealth. The word currency is rooted in the idea that money functions in society as a current. Much like water must flow in adequate supply to every cell of a plant to keep it healthy, so must money flow to every person in an economy (from the manager to the worker to the consumer) in order for the individual parts to be healthy enough to keep the process running. Social programs create a minimum standard of living for all people. When properly utilitized, this can prevent economic collapse by insuring a functioning society even in the worst economic conditions.
Calling America a socialist nation is about as accurate as calling it a capitalist one. It all depends on how you look at it and where you place you priorities.
Is Obama a socialist?
NO! The first (and arguably, only) thing he has done since taking office is give a massive and unprecedented bail out to the country's largest banks. This is completely antithetical to socialist values. A true socialist would happily watch these banks fail in order to allow small, more responsible community banks a chance to flourish.
Obama is a capitalist, pure and simple. Universal health care is not a purely socialist interest. It has many practical applications that are important to business interests, most importantly in creating and preserving a strong work force/consumer base.
Friday, October 23, 2009
TYT: Franken in the Senate, Grayson in the House
I've been watching these videos from The Young Turks. Essentially, these people made their own news show and put it on YouTube. The host is a bit obnoxious, but the content is fantastic.
Anyway, here is Al Franken rockin' health care reform.
UPDATED
Alan Grayson also rocks health care.
Anyway, here is Al Franken rockin' health care reform.
UPDATED
Alan Grayson also rocks health care.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Fox News declares White House declares war on Fox News
According to Fox News, the presidency is "declaring war" on Fox News because they believe its politically biased. Fox News claims that the White House can't distinguish news from opinion.
I would claim that neither can Fox News.
The whole self-supporting pity-play can be read here.
This will probably be the only link I'll ever send out to Fox News, but it is pretty funny.
I would claim that neither can Fox News.
The whole self-supporting pity-play can be read here.
This will probably be the only link I'll ever send out to Fox News, but it is pretty funny.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Camille Paglia
"Sex is metaphysical for men, as it is not for women. Women have no problem to solve through sex. Physically and psychologically, they are serenely self-contained. They may choose to achieve, but they do not need it. They are not thrust into the beyond by their own fractious bodies. But men are out of balance; they must quest, pursue, court, or seize.... How often one spots a male pigeon making desperate, self-inflating sallies toward the female, as again and again she turns her back on him and nonchalantly marches away. But by concentration and insistence he may carry the day. Nature has blessed him with an obliviousness to his own absurdity."
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Education
I've been hearing a lot of people advocate a longer school year as a solution to our education problems.
Let me just say this, it will cost lives. I swear to God. I'm not lying. I'm not exaggerating. I'm saying that you will kill children.
Here is why. Teenagers are stressed the fuck out, confused as hell, and their hormones are raging. Most of them are depressed, many are suicidal, and quite a few are violent.
Increasing the workload is not the answer. The problem isn't the volume of education, it's the quality.
I'm not blaming teachers for a second. There are good teachers and bad teachers. If anything is to blame for poor teachers, it's the lack of a competitive salary to encourage more people to become teachers.
But there are serious problems to the educational structure because it is based in an industrial model. Study and lectures are used to condition the product (the student/developing worker), regular assignments are used to provide regular assessment of the effectiveness of the conditioning, and tests are used to.. well, test the product and make sure it is up to code. If not, it is reprocessed.
Basing education on a work model is a very, very bad idea. First of all, it instills the idea that education (despite all the claims to the contrary) is not fun.
Second, the entire school system is used to normalize the five-day, 40-hour work week. The children are conditioned to think this is how it is. Now they'll be conditioned not to expect the summers either.
Do you think they don't know that this school system isn't for them? It's so that American economy can have a workforce.
History is the biggest failure in the American educational system, in large part because it is so self-absorbed and politically manipulated. American history does not spend adequate time explaining the true social causes in many issues because it has a bias towards being "child friendly," which essentially equates to convincing them that America is the greatest country in the world and a bastion for freedom. Culturally, we choose to wait until college to drop the bombshell on them. But more than that, when you are testing for historical knowledge, tests have a bias for absolute measurable answers including dates, people, and places, but the meaning of history is contained in its relations, not its fixed points.
Also, the categorization used to separate knowledge creates a problem in and of itself. Using a simple example: without adequate understanding of chemistry, it is difficult to understand the fundamentals of biology, but biology is taught before chemistry. Why? Because it's taught in alphabetical order. But there is also a problem if the children come to think of biology and chemistry as entirely different things because then they will have trouble seeing the patterns between them and how biology is entirely based on chemistry.
Furthermore, history is integral to all disciplines because knowledge evolves. The shape of modern science or modern literature is based on not only its own history, but it's interactions with other social events. Science, art, war, economics, religion... These aren't separate concepts when they all build and respond to one another like how Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was a response to Darwin's The Origin of Species. Or the intimate relationship between philosophy, physics, and religion.
Our discipline based studies are not healthy. The harder we try to force this information into them, the more they will resist. Some are even saying that ADD and ADHD are actually a defense mechanism built to resist programming. They are going to reject it on a very fundamental level, but if they embrace it, they may be even worse off.
If we aren't taught to love learning instead of fear it, we will not embrace true education later in life. If we are taught to think of things as separate instead of integral, we won't see the damage we are causing in one realm of human interest (i.e. industrialization) effecting another (i.e. the environment). This is a shame because education is probably the field most capable of making effective, positive change in every realm of human interest. If we are taught to love America while hiding its faults, we won't recognize the problems that desperately need to be fixed to hold up to those American ideals that we are taught to cherish. If we are taught to obey the standard forty hour work week, we are making the alternatives feel unreal and unobtainable.
But most important, children will die... by their own hand or by their classmate. Of that, I do not doubt.
Let me just say this, it will cost lives. I swear to God. I'm not lying. I'm not exaggerating. I'm saying that you will kill children.
Here is why. Teenagers are stressed the fuck out, confused as hell, and their hormones are raging. Most of them are depressed, many are suicidal, and quite a few are violent.
Increasing the workload is not the answer. The problem isn't the volume of education, it's the quality.
I'm not blaming teachers for a second. There are good teachers and bad teachers. If anything is to blame for poor teachers, it's the lack of a competitive salary to encourage more people to become teachers.
But there are serious problems to the educational structure because it is based in an industrial model. Study and lectures are used to condition the product (the student/developing worker), regular assignments are used to provide regular assessment of the effectiveness of the conditioning, and tests are used to.. well, test the product and make sure it is up to code. If not, it is reprocessed.
Basing education on a work model is a very, very bad idea. First of all, it instills the idea that education (despite all the claims to the contrary) is not fun.
Second, the entire school system is used to normalize the five-day, 40-hour work week. The children are conditioned to think this is how it is. Now they'll be conditioned not to expect the summers either.
Do you think they don't know that this school system isn't for them? It's so that American economy can have a workforce.
History is the biggest failure in the American educational system, in large part because it is so self-absorbed and politically manipulated. American history does not spend adequate time explaining the true social causes in many issues because it has a bias towards being "child friendly," which essentially equates to convincing them that America is the greatest country in the world and a bastion for freedom. Culturally, we choose to wait until college to drop the bombshell on them. But more than that, when you are testing for historical knowledge, tests have a bias for absolute measurable answers including dates, people, and places, but the meaning of history is contained in its relations, not its fixed points.
Also, the categorization used to separate knowledge creates a problem in and of itself. Using a simple example: without adequate understanding of chemistry, it is difficult to understand the fundamentals of biology, but biology is taught before chemistry. Why? Because it's taught in alphabetical order. But there is also a problem if the children come to think of biology and chemistry as entirely different things because then they will have trouble seeing the patterns between them and how biology is entirely based on chemistry.
Furthermore, history is integral to all disciplines because knowledge evolves. The shape of modern science or modern literature is based on not only its own history, but it's interactions with other social events. Science, art, war, economics, religion... These aren't separate concepts when they all build and respond to one another like how Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was a response to Darwin's The Origin of Species. Or the intimate relationship between philosophy, physics, and religion.
Our discipline based studies are not healthy. The harder we try to force this information into them, the more they will resist. Some are even saying that ADD and ADHD are actually a defense mechanism built to resist programming. They are going to reject it on a very fundamental level, but if they embrace it, they may be even worse off.
If we aren't taught to love learning instead of fear it, we will not embrace true education later in life. If we are taught to think of things as separate instead of integral, we won't see the damage we are causing in one realm of human interest (i.e. industrialization) effecting another (i.e. the environment). This is a shame because education is probably the field most capable of making effective, positive change in every realm of human interest. If we are taught to love America while hiding its faults, we won't recognize the problems that desperately need to be fixed to hold up to those American ideals that we are taught to cherish. If we are taught to obey the standard forty hour work week, we are making the alternatives feel unreal and unobtainable.
But most important, children will die... by their own hand or by their classmate. Of that, I do not doubt.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
The difference between...
I'm tired of being called a pessimist. I'm an idealist.
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optimist sees it as half full. An idealist tries to fill it.
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optimist sees it as half full. An idealist tries to fill it.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Free the Bird
I want to start a campaign to eliminate censorship of the middle finger.It is the only gesture you can't show on television. I googled "fcc middle finger" and found that there was some hubbub during the Golden Globes when director Darren Aaronofsky flipped someone the bird. Apparently, they received 18 complaints.
18? Really? Is that all it takes to make a stink? How many thousands of signatures will it take to get the law changed?
Is this really so offensive? Is the vague resemblance to an erect phallus an affront to dignity? And if so, how does it compare to, say, anything on South Park?
Apparently, "the FCC can restrict [the finger] from airing during child-sensitive hours -- 6 a.m. to 10 p.m." but I've noticed it blurred out on The Daily Show more than once, and that show airs at 11 PM.
So I want to create a campaign to legalize the one illegal gesture on American television. Considering that the finger is merely the suggestion of a dirty act or word rather than a forbidden body part or the word itself, this has been long overdue.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Arguing with their imaginations again
I love this. Watch this guy criticize a flow chart made by a Republican to mock the Democratic health care program.
[Still having trouble with Comedy Central embeds. Here's the link.]
Even Republicans have to realize how retarded this argument is. You aren't criticizing the health care program, you are criticizing the charts you developed to parody it!
And equally high on the Obliviometer is the press once again making an issue of something that is not an issue. "Every body is talking about it" they say. You are the morning news the day after it happened. YOU are the one who is talking about it. YOU are the moron obsessing over an innocuous comment.
Media: Stop thinking that you are the people. You are just our loud, malformed bastard child.
[Still having trouble with Comedy Central embeds. Here's the link.]
Even Republicans have to realize how retarded this argument is. You aren't criticizing the health care program, you are criticizing the charts you developed to parody it!
And equally high on the Obliviometer is the press once again making an issue of something that is not an issue. "Every body is talking about it" they say. You are the morning news the day after it happened. YOU are the one who is talking about it. YOU are the moron obsessing over an innocuous comment.
Media: Stop thinking that you are the people. You are just our loud, malformed bastard child.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Rushkoff on Colbert Report
Well, Stephen mispronounced his name a few times, but otherwise it was a good interview.
You could say that by reposting his Colbert interview on Blogspot, I'm just using two forms of centralized media to justify a decentralized position...
... but to me, I'm just happy to see two people I admire meet and hope that this exposure will encourage more people to read Rushkoff's book... because it really is great.
PS - That run-on sentence will make a lot more sense if you read the book.
PPS - I tried to embed the video, but Colbert embed code seems to conflict with Blogspot's parameters so I had to use the link. I'm sure if I knew more about coding, I could fix it, but all I'm qualified to do is bitch about things. I'm sure this means something, but I don't particularly want to unpack it.
PPPS - An exclusive, bonus, behind the scenes clip. Enjoy
You could say that by reposting his Colbert interview on Blogspot, I'm just using two forms of centralized media to justify a decentralized position...
... but to me, I'm just happy to see two people I admire meet and hope that this exposure will encourage more people to read Rushkoff's book... because it really is great.
PS - That run-on sentence will make a lot more sense if you read the book.
PPS - I tried to embed the video, but Colbert embed code seems to conflict with Blogspot's parameters so I had to use the link. I'm sure if I knew more about coding, I could fix it, but all I'm qualified to do is bitch about things. I'm sure this means something, but I don't particularly want to unpack it.
PPPS - An exclusive, bonus, behind the scenes clip. Enjoy
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Buzz-Words: Condescending & Patronizing
You know what pisses me off?
Everything?
SHUT UP!
...
It's supposedly "objective" journalism dripping with judgmental attitude and little information. By conventional standards, the following might be described as positive coverage of the marijuana issue, but the undisguised (and largely pretend) incredulousness of the narration is such condescending bullshit.
"Can you believe that people want to legalize a common plant that has extreme euphoric effects and no detrimental side effects?"
Yes. Yes, I can.
Now instead of acting like a gossipy housewife, how about you put a little information in your coverage?
Television news is to education what fortune cookies are to literature.
Everything?
SHUT UP!
...
It's supposedly "objective" journalism dripping with judgmental attitude and little information. By conventional standards, the following might be described as positive coverage of the marijuana issue, but the undisguised (and largely pretend) incredulousness of the narration is such condescending bullshit.
"Can you believe that people want to legalize a common plant that has extreme euphoric effects and no detrimental side effects?"
Yes. Yes, I can.
Now instead of acting like a gossipy housewife, how about you put a little information in your coverage?
Television news is to education what fortune cookies are to literature.
A Pitiful Delaying Tactic
Check out this site for both a great video and insightful commentary... from another site.
It is a casual moment of lunacy from the senate floor. Republicans made amendments to the health care reform bill just so that they could contest their own fucking amendments and delay the bill.
I honestly believe it's not governments that make people bad; it's people that make governments bad. And the worst people, by far, are Republians. They are selfish, ignorant, fearful, and they will stop at nothing to justify their beliefs and promote their own agenda. Murder and mass murder included.
Need evidence? See Cheney's hit squad and Vietnam.
It is a casual moment of lunacy from the senate floor. Republicans made amendments to the health care reform bill just so that they could contest their own fucking amendments and delay the bill.
I honestly believe it's not governments that make people bad; it's people that make governments bad. And the worst people, by far, are Republians. They are selfish, ignorant, fearful, and they will stop at nothing to justify their beliefs and promote their own agenda. Murder and mass murder included.
Need evidence? See Cheney's hit squad and Vietnam.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Classic Fox News Racism
This little neo-Nazi is the host, not a guest.
Did you notice that the first thing he cites is interspecies marriage? It's almost funny the way Conservatives buy into their own propaganda.
There is no interspecies marriage agenda, crazy racist man. You guys just made it up because you're afraid that if two guys kiss in public you might get a stiffy.
Oh, and for the record, interracial marriage is actually healthier. The further apart the parents are genetically, the more likely they will produce strong traits. I'm guessing this isn't something your father considered when marrying his sister.
Did you notice that the first thing he cites is interspecies marriage? It's almost funny the way Conservatives buy into their own propaganda.
There is no interspecies marriage agenda, crazy racist man. You guys just made it up because you're afraid that if two guys kiss in public you might get a stiffy.
Oh, and for the record, interracial marriage is actually healthier. The further apart the parents are genetically, the more likely they will produce strong traits. I'm guessing this isn't something your father considered when marrying his sister.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Too many books!
Right now I'm reading Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, Peter Breggin's The Anti-Depressant Fact Book, and Douglas Rushkoff's Life Inc. This in addition to H.G. Welles' Time Machine and Raymond Chandler's The Big Sleep.All good books, but I can't concentrate on just one. This doesn't even count the comics and art books that I'm reading.
Still, it's good to be reading things that I want to read for a change.
Howard Dean Rocks the Healthcare System
A great argument for the importance of the government healthcare system. This cannot be compromised by the Democrats. We need a smart alternative.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | ||
| President Obama's Health Care Plan - Howard Dean | |||
| www.colbertnation.com | |||
|
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Byron Dorgan: Awesome
Just... just awesome.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Byron Dorgan | ||||
| ||||
Monday, June 1, 2009
Exit strategy economics
"As above, so below." - Old saying
The prevailing philosophy of a society is always based in justification of that society's behavior. The Christian hierarchy of God and his choirs of angels was meant to reflect the monarchy, thereby justifying the king's "divine right" to rule. But anyone whose brain hasn't been addled by fantasy novels should realize that the king has always inherited power achieved not through God, but through military conquest. However, "as above, so below" is present in all societies. It is part of a sociological justification system not too dissimilar from a personal justification system.
In my estimation, justification accounts for at least 50% of human behavior. Whether right or wrong, everyone needs to believe that they are justified for their behavior (or lack thereof). The more accomplished an individual becomes in self-justification, the more they are able to justify and the less they are aware that they are doing it. The justification process isn't linear, developing from a single issue, but rather it forms a complicated web of reinforcing beliefs. Therefore, it can be very difficult to address specific issues when they are just a small part of a tapestry. Religious and political ideologies are simply some of the most obvious examples. But social ideologies (or justifications) are inevitably reflected in the populace. One thing about ideological justification is that it is so much easier to justify something when it is the norm, the idea being that it needs no justification because it is "common sense."
Have you ever been in a situation with your friends when you knew they were doing or saying something wrong, but just didn't want to be the outsider? That's pretty much a universal experience. It's especially common amongst groups with a large disparigy in power. Phillip Zimbardo did a study at Stanford University where he created a mock prison to test guard/prisoner behavior using a random sample of volunteers only to cancel the study after three days due to extreme adverse psychological reactions. This same behavior is exhibited on a massive scale at a lot of prisons, particularly where abuses have taken place such as Abu Graib and Guantanamo. The point is, we internalize the behavior of our society and it is very difficult both to recognize this and to act against it, if necessary.
I've been doing a study on economics, so that I can both define my "socialist tendencies" as well as defend them, and I've been increasingly of the opinion that individuals are mimicking the behavior of corporations and internalizing corporate values. As I was taking a walk at lunch, I was listening to Douglas Rushkoff on Media Squat on my iPod when I heard him describe dot-com-ers as people who want to start a business to make as much money as possible and retire as quickly as possible... when it suddenly occurs to me, that's the American dream!
Rushkoff was advocating a different approach; that is, starting a company that you want to work for as long as possible... where retirement isn't the goal, but instead something to be avoided. This reminded of an argument I had just had with my roommate. I argued that everyone wants to make something. Maybe not the world's greatest novel, a clean burning engine, or a popular album, but maybe a house or fine furniture. Maybe they don't want to "create" in the traditional sense, but want to be surgeons, teachers, therapists, or nannies. Maybe not everyone wants to change the world, but I believe that everyone wants to look back on how they spent their time and show something for themselves.
If I worked my entire life at this job, I honestly couldn't tell you if I made the world any better. If you asked me if I took pride in my work, I would say, "Sometimes." Sure, I help some people figure out their internet problems, but I also help a lot of people listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Billy Graham, thereby indoctrinating them in the exact kind of thinking I am entirely against. Furthermore, a lot of the professionals I do work with are advertisers which, if I have not made clear, I believe is poisoning our psyches. A lot of the videos are mindless, corporate training videos which perpetuate blind obediance to the bottom line.
I'm disconnected from the value of my work, I'm depressed, and I'm not alone. We live in a post-industrial age and that means we are two degrees of separation from the value of our work. The industrial revolution segmented a job to an individual task in order to minimize the necessity for skilled laborers, who were defined as expert craftsmen who take pride in their work. Consequently, these individuals were in great demand, cost more to hire, and had a degree of control over their work. By segmenting the jobs out to uneducated laborers, the employer had full control over production and a disposable work force... but unlike the skilled craftsman, the employer was disconnected from the work. The work itself only served as means for profit. Consequently, that's what it became for the workers as well. Not being a skilled craftsman, the individual laborer takes pride in their work to the extent that it facilitates their continuing income, but like the employer, he is there only for the money.
I try to point out that the dangers of corporatism aren't just in the realm of economics. Although the current recession has been caused by flagrant corporate abuse ignored (or perpetuated) by those in power, the real dangers to society are those aspects which are internalized. By perpetuating the "freedom" of corporatism, we allow the corporate ideology to seep into every aspect of life. The fact that our meaningless jobs take up the majority of our waking hours and anchor us to a specific location are endemic of that fact... not to mention pollution, urban development, and the gradual decline of food quality.
But what this all comes down to for me is that people are more concerned with their economic needs than virtually anything else and believe that the best way to be happy is to be rich and lazy. It is a value that they have learned from all of those harsh life lessons that we are supposed to take in stride, but reinforced through countless commercials and television shows (or even movies) that serve as delivery vehicles for commercial propaganda which (I will remind you once again) is developed by trained psychologists for the express purpose of getting you to buy something whether you want it or not. The lesson repeatedly drilled into everyone is "Money can solve your problems."
This has become a get-rich-quick nation, completely pandering to the individual at the expense of the community for the benefit of the corporation. The abuse of power has become justified and normalized so that dissent with the concept of the free market is itself considered anti-American. The idea of communism or socialism has become synonymous in the American consciousness with an anti-work, anti-self-reliance, anti-meritocratic agenda so much so that whenever I hear about socialism from anyone with a closed mind, the first concern is that it would create an environment that rewards laziness at the expense of hard workers. Again, there is the assumption that the ideal life comes not from a job well done, but rather through pure laziness. This has become the American ideal. Again, I would argue that the ideal state is not unemployment without consequence, but the freedom to pursue a calling that you are passionate about. In many lives, this issue takes on a personal significance when choosing a life between fulfilling ones passions with the strong possibility of destitution or choosing an unfulfilling life making really good money.
There is fear that communism will destroy our meritocracy by making everyone the same... which seems to confuse communism with a magical wizard's talisman. I would argue that we do not have a true meritocracy and are not even remotely close to having one. As Tony Blair once said, "[Socialism] stands for equality, not because it wants people to be the same but because only through equality in our economic circumstances can our individuality develop properly." After all, how many managers do you know who got their job only because they were there long enough to get promoted? If your work experience has been anything like mine, more than not. I know too many writers who get good assignments because they take orders well, not because they are good writers. I've also seen great writers vanish from publication because they don't work well with the corporate structure. Maybe that's legitimate business decision, but it's not a meritocracy; it's a business.
I recently learned that corporate leaders have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make a profit by any and all legal means. This means that if the company has a choice whether to dump 50 tons of toxic sludge in a river at no cost or dispose of it safely at a premium, the CEO can be sued for choosing the later. Similarly, insurance companies have a fiduciary responsibility to pay out as little as possible so their employees are told to do everything legally possible to prevent claims from being processed. Again, it's not the product, the company, the employees, or the customers that are given priority, but the money. Whether or not the product, company, employees, or customers profit is irrelevant as long as the shareholders profit. This isn't my interpretation. This is the law.
Rushkoff has a story about posting on a local community website after he was mugged. The first two responses, rather than being concerned, were replies from people angry that he posted the exact location of the incident for fear that it would bring down property values. We have reached the point where we would rather live in denial if there is a profit to be made in it. We are more concerned with our own fiscal security than the physical security of ourselves and our neighbors.
This reminded me of a Hunter S. Thompson article I once read called "A Southern City With Northern Problems." In the article, Thompson refers to a form of de facto segregation whereby (as Thompson puts it) no one is a racist, but their neighbor is. Essentially, if a black family moved into a white home, it would bring down property values so home owners were harshly condemned by the community for selling to non-whites. Not that much, though, because it rarely happened. More like the black family would be ostracized for bringing down housing values.
No one was racist. They didn't have to be. They just had to be spineless and bend to the will of the masses.
We no longer want to make society better. We just want an exit strategy. We have made our lives so intolerable that we find peace only from escape. Now, my theory is that finding peace as individuals and as a society are two very different things. Yes, we can struggle individually for our own desperate and ultimately unsatisfying hope of fiscal freedom by obeying the corporate machine or we can invest in each other. We can find ways to better ourselves by bettering each other and facilitating more ways to be involved in each other's lives.
One idea I've been hearing about lately is local currency (check out Ithaca Hours for more info) which is designed to support local businesses through the use of custom made currency exchangeable only through local businesses. Another idea came from a co-worker who flew in from New York City a couple months ago and told me about an inner city gardening project based around recommissioning empty lots and creating a co-op to feed fresh fruits and vegetables to the community... in New York Fucking City! And it isn't theoretical. It's happening.
The point is, we are just beginning to learn how to bypass the corporate system and give back to the community. What we have to figure out is how we can restructure society to put the value of a job in its product rather than in the end result of capital. I believe this can be done by re-empowering the individual to create their own jobs. Only then will we have an economic system that is not based in indentured servitude.
How this is done, I'm not exactly sure, but setting a goal is the most vital step in any project.
The prevailing philosophy of a society is always based in justification of that society's behavior. The Christian hierarchy of God and his choirs of angels was meant to reflect the monarchy, thereby justifying the king's "divine right" to rule. But anyone whose brain hasn't been addled by fantasy novels should realize that the king has always inherited power achieved not through God, but through military conquest. However, "as above, so below" is present in all societies. It is part of a sociological justification system not too dissimilar from a personal justification system.In my estimation, justification accounts for at least 50% of human behavior. Whether right or wrong, everyone needs to believe that they are justified for their behavior (or lack thereof). The more accomplished an individual becomes in self-justification, the more they are able to justify and the less they are aware that they are doing it. The justification process isn't linear, developing from a single issue, but rather it forms a complicated web of reinforcing beliefs. Therefore, it can be very difficult to address specific issues when they are just a small part of a tapestry. Religious and political ideologies are simply some of the most obvious examples. But social ideologies (or justifications) are inevitably reflected in the populace. One thing about ideological justification is that it is so much easier to justify something when it is the norm, the idea being that it needs no justification because it is "common sense."
Have you ever been in a situation with your friends when you knew they were doing or saying something wrong, but just didn't want to be the outsider? That's pretty much a universal experience. It's especially common amongst groups with a large disparigy in power. Phillip Zimbardo did a study at Stanford University where he created a mock prison to test guard/prisoner behavior using a random sample of volunteers only to cancel the study after three days due to extreme adverse psychological reactions. This same behavior is exhibited on a massive scale at a lot of prisons, particularly where abuses have taken place such as Abu Graib and Guantanamo. The point is, we internalize the behavior of our society and it is very difficult both to recognize this and to act against it, if necessary.I've been doing a study on economics, so that I can both define my "socialist tendencies" as well as defend them, and I've been increasingly of the opinion that individuals are mimicking the behavior of corporations and internalizing corporate values. As I was taking a walk at lunch, I was listening to Douglas Rushkoff on Media Squat on my iPod when I heard him describe dot-com-ers as people who want to start a business to make as much money as possible and retire as quickly as possible... when it suddenly occurs to me, that's the American dream!
Rushkoff was advocating a different approach; that is, starting a company that you want to work for as long as possible... where retirement isn't the goal, but instead something to be avoided. This reminded of an argument I had just had with my roommate. I argued that everyone wants to make something. Maybe not the world's greatest novel, a clean burning engine, or a popular album, but maybe a house or fine furniture. Maybe they don't want to "create" in the traditional sense, but want to be surgeons, teachers, therapists, or nannies. Maybe not everyone wants to change the world, but I believe that everyone wants to look back on how they spent their time and show something for themselves.If I worked my entire life at this job, I honestly couldn't tell you if I made the world any better. If you asked me if I took pride in my work, I would say, "Sometimes." Sure, I help some people figure out their internet problems, but I also help a lot of people listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Billy Graham, thereby indoctrinating them in the exact kind of thinking I am entirely against. Furthermore, a lot of the professionals I do work with are advertisers which, if I have not made clear, I believe is poisoning our psyches. A lot of the videos are mindless, corporate training videos which perpetuate blind obediance to the bottom line.
I'm disconnected from the value of my work, I'm depressed, and I'm not alone. We live in a post-industrial age and that means we are two degrees of separation from the value of our work. The industrial revolution segmented a job to an individual task in order to minimize the necessity for skilled laborers, who were defined as expert craftsmen who take pride in their work. Consequently, these individuals were in great demand, cost more to hire, and had a degree of control over their work. By segmenting the jobs out to uneducated laborers, the employer had full control over production and a disposable work force... but unlike the skilled craftsman, the employer was disconnected from the work. The work itself only served as means for profit. Consequently, that's what it became for the workers as well. Not being a skilled craftsman, the individual laborer takes pride in their work to the extent that it facilitates their continuing income, but like the employer, he is there only for the money.I try to point out that the dangers of corporatism aren't just in the realm of economics. Although the current recession has been caused by flagrant corporate abuse ignored (or perpetuated) by those in power, the real dangers to society are those aspects which are internalized. By perpetuating the "freedom" of corporatism, we allow the corporate ideology to seep into every aspect of life. The fact that our meaningless jobs take up the majority of our waking hours and anchor us to a specific location are endemic of that fact... not to mention pollution, urban development, and the gradual decline of food quality.
But what this all comes down to for me is that people are more concerned with their economic needs than virtually anything else and believe that the best way to be happy is to be rich and lazy. It is a value that they have learned from all of those harsh life lessons that we are supposed to take in stride, but reinforced through countless commercials and television shows (or even movies) that serve as delivery vehicles for commercial propaganda which (I will remind you once again) is developed by trained psychologists for the express purpose of getting you to buy something whether you want it or not. The lesson repeatedly drilled into everyone is "Money can solve your problems."This has become a get-rich-quick nation, completely pandering to the individual at the expense of the community for the benefit of the corporation. The abuse of power has become justified and normalized so that dissent with the concept of the free market is itself considered anti-American. The idea of communism or socialism has become synonymous in the American consciousness with an anti-work, anti-self-reliance, anti-meritocratic agenda so much so that whenever I hear about socialism from anyone with a closed mind, the first concern is that it would create an environment that rewards laziness at the expense of hard workers. Again, there is the assumption that the ideal life comes not from a job well done, but rather through pure laziness. This has become the American ideal. Again, I would argue that the ideal state is not unemployment without consequence, but the freedom to pursue a calling that you are passionate about. In many lives, this issue takes on a personal significance when choosing a life between fulfilling ones passions with the strong possibility of destitution or choosing an unfulfilling life making really good money.
There is fear that communism will destroy our meritocracy by making everyone the same... which seems to confuse communism with a magical wizard's talisman. I would argue that we do not have a true meritocracy and are not even remotely close to having one. As Tony Blair once said, "[Socialism] stands for equality, not because it wants people to be the same but because only through equality in our economic circumstances can our individuality develop properly." After all, how many managers do you know who got their job only because they were there long enough to get promoted? If your work experience has been anything like mine, more than not. I know too many writers who get good assignments because they take orders well, not because they are good writers. I've also seen great writers vanish from publication because they don't work well with the corporate structure. Maybe that's legitimate business decision, but it's not a meritocracy; it's a business.I recently learned that corporate leaders have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make a profit by any and all legal means. This means that if the company has a choice whether to dump 50 tons of toxic sludge in a river at no cost or dispose of it safely at a premium, the CEO can be sued for choosing the later. Similarly, insurance companies have a fiduciary responsibility to pay out as little as possible so their employees are told to do everything legally possible to prevent claims from being processed. Again, it's not the product, the company, the employees, or the customers that are given priority, but the money. Whether or not the product, company, employees, or customers profit is irrelevant as long as the shareholders profit. This isn't my interpretation. This is the law.
Rushkoff has a story about posting on a local community website after he was mugged. The first two responses, rather than being concerned, were replies from people angry that he posted the exact location of the incident for fear that it would bring down property values. We have reached the point where we would rather live in denial if there is a profit to be made in it. We are more concerned with our own fiscal security than the physical security of ourselves and our neighbors.This reminded me of a Hunter S. Thompson article I once read called "A Southern City With Northern Problems." In the article, Thompson refers to a form of de facto segregation whereby (as Thompson puts it) no one is a racist, but their neighbor is. Essentially, if a black family moved into a white home, it would bring down property values so home owners were harshly condemned by the community for selling to non-whites. Not that much, though, because it rarely happened. More like the black family would be ostracized for bringing down housing values.
No one was racist. They didn't have to be. They just had to be spineless and bend to the will of the masses.
We no longer want to make society better. We just want an exit strategy. We have made our lives so intolerable that we find peace only from escape. Now, my theory is that finding peace as individuals and as a society are two very different things. Yes, we can struggle individually for our own desperate and ultimately unsatisfying hope of fiscal freedom by obeying the corporate machine or we can invest in each other. We can find ways to better ourselves by bettering each other and facilitating more ways to be involved in each other's lives.
One idea I've been hearing about lately is local currency (check out Ithaca Hours for more info) which is designed to support local businesses through the use of custom made currency exchangeable only through local businesses. Another idea came from a co-worker who flew in from New York City a couple months ago and told me about an inner city gardening project based around recommissioning empty lots and creating a co-op to feed fresh fruits and vegetables to the community... in New York Fucking City! And it isn't theoretical. It's happening.The point is, we are just beginning to learn how to bypass the corporate system and give back to the community. What we have to figure out is how we can restructure society to put the value of a job in its product rather than in the end result of capital. I believe this can be done by re-empowering the individual to create their own jobs. Only then will we have an economic system that is not based in indentured servitude.
How this is done, I'm not exactly sure, but setting a goal is the most vital step in any project.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Profit without risk or product
I've come up with a new phrase that I am enamored with: "profit without risk or product." This is my easy way of identifying companies which are a drain on the economy and exploit the common man. For example: insurance.
Insurance does not produce anything. It's "product" is purely bureaucratic; that is to say, they pay people to fill out forms and talk to customers, but they don't actually make anything. They are just involved in the redistribution of money (much like banks).
An insurance company then determines its rates based on likely claims. Like a casino, they mathematically calculate their their risk so that it is practically impossible to lose money and, unlike a casino, they can change the rules on individual customers whenever they want.
Can you think of any other company that fits this description?
Here's another one to watch out for: profit greatly exceeds product. Personally, I think there should be a limit to how much of a mark-up you can give a product. Soda or designer clothing, for example, sells for hundreds of times production cost. Or how about "product greatly exceeds profit?" This is a good way of describing sweatshop labor.
The basis of a functioning economy is a fair market. "Free market" is another term for capitalist anarchy. It returns us to a state of survival of the fittest. But what we have is not a genuinely Darwinist economy if we are willing to bail out companies that fail. What we have is a little closer to selective breeding -- capitalist eugenics.
Insurance does not produce anything. It's "product" is purely bureaucratic; that is to say, they pay people to fill out forms and talk to customers, but they don't actually make anything. They are just involved in the redistribution of money (much like banks).
An insurance company then determines its rates based on likely claims. Like a casino, they mathematically calculate their their risk so that it is practically impossible to lose money and, unlike a casino, they can change the rules on individual customers whenever they want.Can you think of any other company that fits this description?
Here's another one to watch out for: profit greatly exceeds product. Personally, I think there should be a limit to how much of a mark-up you can give a product. Soda or designer clothing, for example, sells for hundreds of times production cost. Or how about "product greatly exceeds profit?" This is a good way of describing sweatshop labor.
The basis of a functioning economy is a fair market. "Free market" is another term for capitalist anarchy. It returns us to a state of survival of the fittest. But what we have is not a genuinely Darwinist economy if we are willing to bail out companies that fail. What we have is a little closer to selective breeding -- capitalist eugenics.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Who wants to study Karl Marx?
Professor David Harvey has his entire course on a close reading of Marx's Capital available on his website, if you'd care to take a look. I'll be following along.Remember, our economy is based on who and what you vote for so whatever your source of information, please try to educate yourself on the economy. The future of our country depends on taking responsibility for ourselves, both as voters and consumers.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
I.O.USA
I just saw this movie and it explained so much about the US economy. It's a non-biased PBS documentary that I highly recommend to anyone who plans to vote or have children that are not suffocated by debt.
Dangerous Minds w/ Richard Metzger featuring Douglas Rushkoff
Check out this Douglas Rushkoff interview by Richard Metzger. He gives a striking analysis over the state of the economy and how the central concern is really an issue of faith. Be sure to check out the other parts in this multi-part interview.
Life Inc: The Movie
Life Inc: The Movie
Check this out for the trailer to Douglas Rushkoff's new book on how to invest in your community directly instead of faceless corporations.
Check this out for the trailer to Douglas Rushkoff's new book on how to invest in your community directly instead of faceless corporations.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Try not to vomit
If the McCain/Palin campaign taught us anything, it taught us that we no longer live in a world where bigoted idiots can "narrowcast" to other bigoted idiots. Now when you say something dumb and offensive, everyone will see it.
PS: A Colbert Report response.
PS: A Colbert Report response.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| The Colbert Coalition's Anti-Gay Marriage Ad | ||||
| ||||
Jon Stewart tells Conservative Pundits to Shut the Hell Up
This show is so very cathartic.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Baracknophobia - Obey | ||||
| ||||
MJ: A Conclusion of Sorts
I have taken to perusing the news daily on the marijuana situation because not only has my own research made me more passionate about legalization, but I feel that a change is coming. As other articles have pointed out, it's getting harder and harder for the usual anti-marijuana activists to spread their propaganda when half of the population has tried it and they have access to all of the scientific studies through the internet. At the same time, I don't want this blog to degenerate into a bulletin board for every article I like or it will just become a stoner blog thereby undercutting the broader social message. So let me just ask one thing:
Why doesn't all of this talk about marijuana legalization and the stimulus to the economy not include hemp? I would assume that if marijuana was legalized, it's non-intoxicating cousin would be legalized as well, but not one single article I've read considers the effect of hemp on our economy which could be far more profitable than a marijuana tax.
Just food for thought.
Although I will doubtlessly come back to the issue of marijuana legalization in the future, I think there are enough marijuana advocacy sites out there.
Coming up: Anti-depressants and attention deficit drugs, a functional perspective on economics, and solving homelessness
Why doesn't all of this talk about marijuana legalization and the stimulus to the economy not include hemp? I would assume that if marijuana was legalized, it's non-intoxicating cousin would be legalized as well, but not one single article I've read considers the effect of hemp on our economy which could be far more profitable than a marijuana tax.
Just food for thought.
Although I will doubtlessly come back to the issue of marijuana legalization in the future, I think there are enough marijuana advocacy sites out there.
Coming up: Anti-depressants and attention deficit drugs, a functional perspective on economics, and solving homelessness
Monday, April 6, 2009
From the Seattle Times
Finally, a little honesty about America's inept war on drugs
Through pot legalization, we can bring the marijuana trade into the safety of the regulated economy, consequently eliminating the black market the drug cartels rely on. We can do so without fearing any more negative consequences than we already tolerate in our keg-party culture.
Syndicated Columnist
Finally, a little honesty.
Finally, after America has frittered away billions of taxpayer dollars arming Latin American death squads, airdropping toxic herbicide on equatorial farmland, and incarcerating more of its own citizens on nonviolent drug charges than any other industrialized nation, two political leaders last week tried to begin taming the most wildly out of control beast in the government zoo: federal narcotics policy.
It started with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stating an embarrassingly obvious truth that politicians hardly ever discuss. In a speech about rising violence in Mexico, she said, "Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade," and then added that "we have co-responsibility" for the cartel-driven carnage plaguing our southern border.
She's right, of course. For all the Rambo-ish talk about waging a "War on Drugs" that interdicts the supply of narcotics, we have not diminished demand — specifically, demand for marijuana that cartels base their business on.
According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Americans spend about $9 billion a year on Mexican pot.
Add that to the roughly $36 billion worth of domestically produced weed, and cannabis has become one of the continent's biggest cash crops. As any mob movie illustrates, mixing such "insatiable" demand for a product with statutes outlawing said product guarantees the emergence of a violent black market — in this case, one in which Mexican drug cartels reap 62 percent of their profits from U.S. marijuana sales.
That last stat, provided by the White House drug czar, is the silver lining. Every American concerned about Mexico's security problems should be thankful that the cartels are so dependent on marijuana, and not a genuinely hazardous substance like heroin. Why? Because that means through pot legalization, we can bring the marijuana trade out of the shadows and into the safety of the regulated economy, consequently eliminating the black market the cartels rely on. And here's the best part: We can do so without fearing any more negative consequences than we already tolerate in our keg-party culture.
Though President Obama childishly laughed at a question about legalization during his recent town-hall meeting, his government implicitly admits that marijuana is safer than light beer. Indeed, as federal agencies acknowledge alcohol's key role in deadly illnesses and domestic violence, their latest anti-pot fear mongering is an ad campaign insisting — I kid you not — that marijuana is dangerous because it makes people zone out on their couches and diminishes video gaming skills.
(This is your government on drugs: Cirrhosis and angry tank-topped lushes beating their wives are more acceptable risks than stoners sitting in their basements ineptly playing Halo ... any questions?).
Despite this idiocy, despite polls showing most Americans support some form of legalization, and despite such legalization promising to generate billions of dollars in tax revenue, Clinton only acknowledged the uncomfortable reality about demand. That's certainly no small step, but she did not address drug-policy reform. Confronting that taboo subject was left to Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va.
Last week, this first-term lawmaker proposed creating a federal commission to examine potential changes to the prison system, including a relaxation of marijuana statutes.
Webb hails from a conservative-leaning swing state whose criminal-justice laws are among the nation's most draconian, so there's about as much personal political upside for him in this fight as there is for Clinton — that is to say, almost none. That isn't stopping him, though.
"The elephant in the bedroom in many discussions on the criminal-justice system is the sharp increase in drug incarceration," he said in a speech, later telling the Huffington Post that pot legalization "should be on the table."
Finally, a little honesty — and now, maybe, some action.
David Sirota is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future. Find his blog at OpenLeft.com or e-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com
Monday, March 30, 2009
Obama's Marijuana Buzz Kill
Obama's Marijuana Buzz Kill
by Kathleen Parker
March 30, 2009 | 9:25am
The formerly cool president could have given a reasoned response to a question about legalizing pot. Instead, he was dismissive and insulted his stoner constituency.
Barack Obama’s first online town-hall meeting may have been a new media success, but he lost the stoner vote.
Asked whether he would seek to legalize marijuana as a strategy to boost the economy, the usually long-winded president—who famously admitted to his own youthful inhalations—answered with little more than a dismissive “No.”
Whereupon America’s laid-back lobby recoiled in, well, withdrawal. Where was the love?
Obama may rue his decision to offend America’s no-longer-so-mellow cannabis consumers.
More than 64,000 viewers posted about 104,000 questions online for the virtual meeting, the topic of which was the president’s budget. Of those questions, Obama answered seven that were preselected based on interest as measured by online votes.
Apparently, a significant portion of those casting 3.6 million votes wanted to talk pot.
Obama joked that he wasn’t sure what the question’s popularity said about his online audience (snarf, snarf), but said he doesn’t think legalization is a good strategy to grow our economy.
Dude.
While a live audience applauded approvingly, Obama’s virtual audience sank into despair. Internet threads in the days since have reflected disappointment and disillusionment. What happened to the president they thought they knew? You know, the cool one who once said that inhaling was “the whole point”? What happened to the guy who loves online audiences? You know, the ones who put Obama in office?
The pot questions—there were variations on a tax-and-regulate theme—had been stoked by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. Within hours of the president’s rebuff, NORML got to work organizing reform-minded Americans in a letter-writing campaign. Obama may rue his decision to offend America’s no-longer-so-mellow cannabis consumers.
Just what’s so funny about marijuana-law reform, asks Paul Armentano, NORML’s deputy director. An American is arrested for pot every 38 seconds, he says. Since 1965, more than 20 million Americans have been arrested for marijuana offenses, 90 percent of them for simple possession.
And despite baby boomers being in charge in recent years—the relevance of which can be enumerated as 1-9-6-8, otherwise known as the year America turned on—annual pot busts have tripled since the non-inhaling Bill Clinton took office.
It isn’t only marijuana consumers who want to see weed legalized. (None other than William F. Buckley was for it.) Ending prohibition is also a popular cause for at least 10,000 cops, narcs, judges, and others who make up the membership of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.
From LEAP’s down-and-dirty perspective, prohibition exacerbates rather than ameliorates America’s drug problem. Prohibition not only diverts resources from the pursuit of more-serious crimes, it empowers criminals and enhances black-market incentives. Money spent fighting what adults seem to want could be better allocated toward education and rehab.
The argument, meanwhile, that pot is a gateway drug to harder substances is true only to the extent that kids who try pot realize they’ve been lied to. If the pot-will-make-you-insane warning is so obviously false, then kids may figure that warnings about more serious drugs must also be so much smoke.
Far more dangerous to pot consumers than severe munchies, or the risk that one may become temporarily riveted by the charms of tiny things, is the gateway marijuana now serves to the criminal world. Legalization (or at least decriminalization) may not eliminate the black market, but it would severely diminish its power and appeal.
Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron recently urged legalization of all drugs, not just marijuana, as the only way to eliminate violence associated with the drug cartels now moving into the United States. More border patrol and more narcotics agents are more likely to exacerbate than reduce violence, he argues. Did we learn nothing from Al Capone?
As for the economic ramifications of legalized weed, there can be little doubt that marijuana would provide a welcome cash transfusion for a financially anemic nation. By Miron’s estimates, federal, state, and local governments spend roughly $44 billion a year to fund prohibition. Through regulation and taxation at rates akin to those on alcohol and tobacco, those same governments could collect $33 billion a year.
And that’s not good economic strategy?
As a bonus, we’d empty court logs of frivolous possession cases; redirect resources to deal with, for instance, 400,000 rape kits that today sit unopened (and in many cases useless as the statutes of limitations have passed) because the cops were too busy busting adults for gazing too long at sunsets. We might also minimize the attraction of the illicit and make kids less likely to visit the black market.
All while raking in billions! Put a smiley face on that bailout.
Obama’s tone-deafness Thursday was unaccountably odd, given that the success of his virtual town-hall meetings depends on an online audience. And given that a healthy chunk of the online audience is youngish, possibly potheadish, and voted Obamaish, why not toss the marijuana lobby a crumb, preferably chocolate chip?
How hard would it have been to say something like: “Cool idea, brah, but...” OK, maybe not. But why not something reasonable and presidential, such as:
“Look, I’m not ready to legalize marijuana tomorrow, but I do think it’s time to take a fresh look at the effectiveness of some of our criminal justice policies. And I support Sen. James Webb’s current efforts to do just that.
“I also don’t mean to make light of this issue because I know that a lot of kids wind up in jail who shouldn’t. And I know from personal experience that smoking marijuana is not a career-ender. But I do want to study this issue carefully before I suggest any broad changes in policy. Thank you for your question.”
Everyone would have gone home reasonably satisfied, if not quite ready to celebrate. Instead, Obama enjoyed a brief flashback and insulted his merrier minions.
As pot smokers blanket the White House with letters of protest, Obama may want to rethink his position. He not only has ticked off a portion of his grass-roots, so to speak, but, when the Chinese come to collect interest on those trillions, he may find it preferable that more, rather than fewer, Americans be mellow.
Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group and author of Save the Males.
by Kathleen Parker
March 30, 2009 | 9:25am
The formerly cool president could have given a reasoned response to a question about legalizing pot. Instead, he was dismissive and insulted his stoner constituency.
Barack Obama’s first online town-hall meeting may have been a new media success, but he lost the stoner vote.
Asked whether he would seek to legalize marijuana as a strategy to boost the economy, the usually long-winded president—who famously admitted to his own youthful inhalations—answered with little more than a dismissive “No.”
Whereupon America’s laid-back lobby recoiled in, well, withdrawal. Where was the love?
Obama may rue his decision to offend America’s no-longer-so-mellow cannabis consumers.
More than 64,000 viewers posted about 104,000 questions online for the virtual meeting, the topic of which was the president’s budget. Of those questions, Obama answered seven that were preselected based on interest as measured by online votes.
Apparently, a significant portion of those casting 3.6 million votes wanted to talk pot.
Obama joked that he wasn’t sure what the question’s popularity said about his online audience (snarf, snarf), but said he doesn’t think legalization is a good strategy to grow our economy.
Dude.
While a live audience applauded approvingly, Obama’s virtual audience sank into despair. Internet threads in the days since have reflected disappointment and disillusionment. What happened to the president they thought they knew? You know, the cool one who once said that inhaling was “the whole point”? What happened to the guy who loves online audiences? You know, the ones who put Obama in office?
The pot questions—there were variations on a tax-and-regulate theme—had been stoked by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. Within hours of the president’s rebuff, NORML got to work organizing reform-minded Americans in a letter-writing campaign. Obama may rue his decision to offend America’s no-longer-so-mellow cannabis consumers.
Just what’s so funny about marijuana-law reform, asks Paul Armentano, NORML’s deputy director. An American is arrested for pot every 38 seconds, he says. Since 1965, more than 20 million Americans have been arrested for marijuana offenses, 90 percent of them for simple possession.
And despite baby boomers being in charge in recent years—the relevance of which can be enumerated as 1-9-6-8, otherwise known as the year America turned on—annual pot busts have tripled since the non-inhaling Bill Clinton took office.
It isn’t only marijuana consumers who want to see weed legalized. (None other than William F. Buckley was for it.) Ending prohibition is also a popular cause for at least 10,000 cops, narcs, judges, and others who make up the membership of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.
From LEAP’s down-and-dirty perspective, prohibition exacerbates rather than ameliorates America’s drug problem. Prohibition not only diverts resources from the pursuit of more-serious crimes, it empowers criminals and enhances black-market incentives. Money spent fighting what adults seem to want could be better allocated toward education and rehab.
The argument, meanwhile, that pot is a gateway drug to harder substances is true only to the extent that kids who try pot realize they’ve been lied to. If the pot-will-make-you-insane warning is so obviously false, then kids may figure that warnings about more serious drugs must also be so much smoke.
Far more dangerous to pot consumers than severe munchies, or the risk that one may become temporarily riveted by the charms of tiny things, is the gateway marijuana now serves to the criminal world. Legalization (or at least decriminalization) may not eliminate the black market, but it would severely diminish its power and appeal.
Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron recently urged legalization of all drugs, not just marijuana, as the only way to eliminate violence associated with the drug cartels now moving into the United States. More border patrol and more narcotics agents are more likely to exacerbate than reduce violence, he argues. Did we learn nothing from Al Capone?
As for the economic ramifications of legalized weed, there can be little doubt that marijuana would provide a welcome cash transfusion for a financially anemic nation. By Miron’s estimates, federal, state, and local governments spend roughly $44 billion a year to fund prohibition. Through regulation and taxation at rates akin to those on alcohol and tobacco, those same governments could collect $33 billion a year.
And that’s not good economic strategy?
As a bonus, we’d empty court logs of frivolous possession cases; redirect resources to deal with, for instance, 400,000 rape kits that today sit unopened (and in many cases useless as the statutes of limitations have passed) because the cops were too busy busting adults for gazing too long at sunsets. We might also minimize the attraction of the illicit and make kids less likely to visit the black market.
All while raking in billions! Put a smiley face on that bailout.
Obama’s tone-deafness Thursday was unaccountably odd, given that the success of his virtual town-hall meetings depends on an online audience. And given that a healthy chunk of the online audience is youngish, possibly potheadish, and voted Obamaish, why not toss the marijuana lobby a crumb, preferably chocolate chip?
How hard would it have been to say something like: “Cool idea, brah, but...” OK, maybe not. But why not something reasonable and presidential, such as:
“Look, I’m not ready to legalize marijuana tomorrow, but I do think it’s time to take a fresh look at the effectiveness of some of our criminal justice policies. And I support Sen. James Webb’s current efforts to do just that.
“I also don’t mean to make light of this issue because I know that a lot of kids wind up in jail who shouldn’t. And I know from personal experience that smoking marijuana is not a career-ender. But I do want to study this issue carefully before I suggest any broad changes in policy. Thank you for your question.”
Everyone would have gone home reasonably satisfied, if not quite ready to celebrate. Instead, Obama enjoyed a brief flashback and insulted his merrier minions.
As pot smokers blanket the White House with letters of protest, Obama may want to rethink his position. He not only has ticked off a portion of his grass-roots, so to speak, but, when the Chinese come to collect interest on those trillions, he may find it preferable that more, rather than fewer, Americans be mellow.
Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group and author of Save the Males.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Jon Stewart bitch-slaps Jim Cramer
I think most people have seen this already, but I am consistently amazed by Jon Stewart's ability to hold people accountable for things no one holds them accountable to... especially since he is comedian. I wasn't even thinking about being angry at the business news network, I was just mad at the jack-offs who read it, but they should bare responsibility for promoting a system that is so unapologetically greedy.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Jim Cramer Pt. 1 | ||||
| ||||
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Howard Zinn on YouTube
I just read the comic that this is, more or less, a trailer for. It was fantastic and I'm looking forward to reading his A People's History of the United States as soon as I can commit myself to such a dense book.
Also, Howard Zinn on democratic socialism and anarchism:
Friday, March 13, 2009
Joe Rogan on atrocity and the internet
Check out this latest post on the Joe Rogan blog for details on Christian missionaries conducting genocidal witch hunts on children in Africa, the cost of the War on Drugs in Mexico, and the effect of the internet on global awareness.
My two cents: The internet increases the ability of individuals not only to be aware of the news, but to offer the resources to connect the current news to old trends. Rogan references how quickly Blackwater would have been exposed back in the day, but few people really know what Blackwater is.
You've heard of the School of the Americas right? SOA was a Latin American-based private army training corporation which developed military outfits to support American business interests in the third-world without "direct" American involvement. This way you can overthrow a democratically elected leader in a foreign country without dirtying your hands. It was closed in 2000 due to protests in the United States and reopened on January 2001 as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.
The internet does not expose everything.
My two cents: The internet increases the ability of individuals not only to be aware of the news, but to offer the resources to connect the current news to old trends. Rogan references how quickly Blackwater would have been exposed back in the day, but few people really know what Blackwater is.
You've heard of the School of the Americas right? SOA was a Latin American-based private army training corporation which developed military outfits to support American business interests in the third-world without "direct" American involvement. This way you can overthrow a democratically elected leader in a foreign country without dirtying your hands. It was closed in 2000 due to protests in the United States and reopened on January 2001 as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.
The internet does not expose everything.
Stephen Colbert bitch-slaps Ayn Rand
This was so very satisfying. Ayn Rand is to philosophy what Mike Tyson is to ballet.
What I would socialize...
Socialism is not an either/or proposition. Being socialist, I do not think that EVERY business would be better run by the government. Of course not. What I believe is that people are dependent upon certain industries which are capable of gross abuse of power which must have government control in order to be ethical. These are the industries which I think could be better run by the government:
Medicine - This is the most obvious and while I'm pretty much required to make a post about it sooner or later, let me just say that opponents to socialized medicine are selfish idiots. Every other first world country has universal health care. It is not, in anyway, controversial to those who have it. By offering universal health care to everyone who needs it, we can more efficiently protect ourselves from outbreaks, have a stronger work force, prevent the spread of STDs, and start cutting off pharmaceutical companies who are pushing their products into doctor's offices to supplement their income. We've needed this for a long time and the only reason we don't have it is Republican propaganda and fear mongering.
Banking - I know of no industry that is so restrictive, manipulative, and necessary for average Americans. They sneak in additional charges and restructure plans to exploit the ignorance of their customers. They make money off of our investments and pay back an extremely small percentage. They are inefficient and most often provide poor service. There is nothing to be lost by nationalizing the banking system and a whole lot to be gained. Imagine if your credit and loan payments could be deducted from your taxes? Maybe not the whole thing, but if you are swamped with debt, wouldn't it be nice to know that money was going to possibly help improve roads or pay for schools instead of just going to a bunch of rich guys? What about school loans? I pay to a company called Direct Loans... which I know nothing about. When I took out a federal student loan, it defaulted to this private business. I know nothing about the politics of this business which obviously has an fiscal interest in higher education rates and less scholarships and grants. If I were paying directly to a government institution, they might not spend it wisely, but at least they would be accountable.
Insurance - As far as I'm concerned, insurance is a scam. I will talk about auto insurance since this is the only kind I have. The first problem with it is that you are legally required to have insurance if you have a car. While I understand the necessity, part of the reason is to make sure that others are covered for medical damage which wouldn't be an issue if medical coverage was provided by the state. But the insurance companies can discriminate against you based on information that no other businesses would be able to including age and marital status. They are able to do this because they have convinced married adults that their rates will go down if they don't have to pay for the statistically higher damages associated with young, single people. Well, fuck you. We have anti-discrimination laws to prevent judgments based on these kinds of gross generalities, but you think that just because it isn't racial or sexist, it's okay? Or what about neighborhoods? Sure, different neighborhoods have more traffic accidents, but this policy discriminates against people who live in poor, inner city environments leading to more uninsured drivers and more hit-and-runs. But insurance companies don't take the same risks that we do. They have statistical experts (not unlike casinos) who can assure them that the gains are greater than the losses. While we take the risk, they just cash the check. Maybe that is how it needs to be, but let's make it a government institution so that (A) their discriminatory practices can be held to scrutiny and accountability, and (B) those profits can go to the government and not the rich business owners who don't have to do anything to earn it.
Energy - Energy is not a private concern. It is a public concern and private businesses have abused their power far too often. In the wake of eight years of scandals, it can be easy to forget the California energy crisis of 2000 and the abusive manipulation of the Enron corporation. Small businesses went under because they couldn't afford rising energy prices. Millions of Californians were paying increased rates based on manipulation of energy production. Many people suffered so few could benefit. The failure was laid at the feet of California Governor Gray Davis leading to his impeachment and the election of Republican puppet Arnold Schwarzenegger. I often hear companies say that coal and nuclear power produce so much more energy than solar, but solar is clean and infinitely renewable. What they really want is the most energy for the least expense. And if you have ever driven along I-5, you know that there is no shortage of empty land to build solar plants on. Our energy concerns should be placed in the hands of the people who have to deal with the long-term reprecussions of our environmental policies. Businesses look at the bottom line and the short-term needs of their investors.
Communications - The communications industry is another big capitalist scam. Their rates are entirely determined by one another and bear absolutely no relation to their actual spending cost.
Cell phones, cable, and internet were a fantastic market to try to instigate new business practices which had already been rejected by their parent land-line telephone services and broadcast television. AOL charged (and still charges, as far as I know) internet services per hour. Cell phones give you packaged plans, yearly commitments, free text for people under certain conditions. It's all bullshit and they get away with it because they can. Communications are vital to the public health and public interest which is why I think this industry should be nationalized under a single, low annual payment for all calls in the US and Canada including cell calls, text messages, and land-lines. Private businesses can market their own hardware including cell phones and modems, but these hyper-inflated plans need to go away.
So there you have it. Five industries which I believe should be nationalized for the good of the people and the strength of the government. Am I worried that nationalization could make these industries as frustrating to deal with as the DMV or USPS? Absolutely, but let's face it, are they any better now? These are incredibly powerful businesses who have consistently demonstrated a selfish abuse of their power over the citizens. By nationalizing these businesses, we would not only help to defend ourselves from present and future monopolistic practices, but enable us to dictate responsible future growth while providing desperately needed income on the federal, state, and local level which could, amongst other things, be used to supplement tax income and lower overall rates.
When I have time to do more research, I will analyze the reasons for and benefits of nationalization for each of these industries in greater detail in a later post.
In the meantime, are there any industries which you would nationalize? Why or why not? What about the opposite? Is there anything that you would privatize? I would like to know.
Medicine - This is the most obvious and while I'm pretty much required to make a post about it sooner or later, let me just say that opponents to socialized medicine are selfish idiots. Every other first world country has universal health care. It is not, in anyway, controversial to those who have it. By offering universal health care to everyone who needs it, we can more efficiently protect ourselves from outbreaks, have a stronger work force, prevent the spread of STDs, and start cutting off pharmaceutical companies who are pushing their products into doctor's offices to supplement their income. We've needed this for a long time and the only reason we don't have it is Republican propaganda and fear mongering.
Banking - I know of no industry that is so restrictive, manipulative, and necessary for average Americans. They sneak in additional charges and restructure plans to exploit the ignorance of their customers. They make money off of our investments and pay back an extremely small percentage. They are inefficient and most often provide poor service. There is nothing to be lost by nationalizing the banking system and a whole lot to be gained. Imagine if your credit and loan payments could be deducted from your taxes? Maybe not the whole thing, but if you are swamped with debt, wouldn't it be nice to know that money was going to possibly help improve roads or pay for schools instead of just going to a bunch of rich guys? What about school loans? I pay to a company called Direct Loans... which I know nothing about. When I took out a federal student loan, it defaulted to this private business. I know nothing about the politics of this business which obviously has an fiscal interest in higher education rates and less scholarships and grants. If I were paying directly to a government institution, they might not spend it wisely, but at least they would be accountable.
Insurance - As far as I'm concerned, insurance is a scam. I will talk about auto insurance since this is the only kind I have. The first problem with it is that you are legally required to have insurance if you have a car. While I understand the necessity, part of the reason is to make sure that others are covered for medical damage which wouldn't be an issue if medical coverage was provided by the state. But the insurance companies can discriminate against you based on information that no other businesses would be able to including age and marital status. They are able to do this because they have convinced married adults that their rates will go down if they don't have to pay for the statistically higher damages associated with young, single people. Well, fuck you. We have anti-discrimination laws to prevent judgments based on these kinds of gross generalities, but you think that just because it isn't racial or sexist, it's okay? Or what about neighborhoods? Sure, different neighborhoods have more traffic accidents, but this policy discriminates against people who live in poor, inner city environments leading to more uninsured drivers and more hit-and-runs. But insurance companies don't take the same risks that we do. They have statistical experts (not unlike casinos) who can assure them that the gains are greater than the losses. While we take the risk, they just cash the check. Maybe that is how it needs to be, but let's make it a government institution so that (A) their discriminatory practices can be held to scrutiny and accountability, and (B) those profits can go to the government and not the rich business owners who don't have to do anything to earn it.
Energy - Energy is not a private concern. It is a public concern and private businesses have abused their power far too often. In the wake of eight years of scandals, it can be easy to forget the California energy crisis of 2000 and the abusive manipulation of the Enron corporation. Small businesses went under because they couldn't afford rising energy prices. Millions of Californians were paying increased rates based on manipulation of energy production. Many people suffered so few could benefit. The failure was laid at the feet of California Governor Gray Davis leading to his impeachment and the election of Republican puppet Arnold Schwarzenegger. I often hear companies say that coal and nuclear power produce so much more energy than solar, but solar is clean and infinitely renewable. What they really want is the most energy for the least expense. And if you have ever driven along I-5, you know that there is no shortage of empty land to build solar plants on. Our energy concerns should be placed in the hands of the people who have to deal with the long-term reprecussions of our environmental policies. Businesses look at the bottom line and the short-term needs of their investors.Communications - The communications industry is another big capitalist scam. Their rates are entirely determined by one another and bear absolutely no relation to their actual spending cost.
Cell phones, cable, and internet were a fantastic market to try to instigate new business practices which had already been rejected by their parent land-line telephone services and broadcast television. AOL charged (and still charges, as far as I know) internet services per hour. Cell phones give you packaged plans, yearly commitments, free text for people under certain conditions. It's all bullshit and they get away with it because they can. Communications are vital to the public health and public interest which is why I think this industry should be nationalized under a single, low annual payment for all calls in the US and Canada including cell calls, text messages, and land-lines. Private businesses can market their own hardware including cell phones and modems, but these hyper-inflated plans need to go away.So there you have it. Five industries which I believe should be nationalized for the good of the people and the strength of the government. Am I worried that nationalization could make these industries as frustrating to deal with as the DMV or USPS? Absolutely, but let's face it, are they any better now? These are incredibly powerful businesses who have consistently demonstrated a selfish abuse of their power over the citizens. By nationalizing these businesses, we would not only help to defend ourselves from present and future monopolistic practices, but enable us to dictate responsible future growth while providing desperately needed income on the federal, state, and local level which could, amongst other things, be used to supplement tax income and lower overall rates.
When I have time to do more research, I will analyze the reasons for and benefits of nationalization for each of these industries in greater detail in a later post.
In the meantime, are there any industries which you would nationalize? Why or why not? What about the opposite? Is there anything that you would privatize? I would like to know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
