The Socialist Agenda

A Great Animation on the Education System

2010-10-27T16:22:00.000-07:00

Also:

What Democracy Looks Like: Debates

2010-09-09T10:31:00.000-07:00

I'm trying out a new idea on my blog that I am awkwardly titling "What Democracy Looks Like." I can't help but feel that democracy in America is a lie and that (as George Carlin put it) we are given the illusion of choice. So, with the idea that visualization is the first step in enacting change, I've started trying to imagine what democracy would actually look like, if we had it.

Since it is now the election season, I have been thinking about what debates would look like in a true democracy.

Currently, the way debates work is that the two major parties argue about the format of the debate. This is (to use a colloquial expression) like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. This is why in many debates over the past dozen years or so (particularly presidential debates) the candidates were not allowed to address one another directly. It also has enabled strong restraints on the number of debates, the topics raised, and the time given for a response. These rules often favor the ignorant who can more easily express a sound bite than a logical, reasoned response.

I wrote a paper on this in junior college where I suggested a reform specifically for presidential debates. These debates used to be conducted by the League of Women Voters, but was taken from their control by the two major parties in the eighties.

It is vitally important to the health of the country that we have a non-biased third party set the standard for debates. In my essay, I proposed five debates to address different concerns. In particular, there were two debates specific to addressing the needs of the elderly and the youth vote. The rules would be standardized to allow lengthy responses and direct address.

However, as I have become more interested in house and senate seats, I have realized that we need reform to publicize and standardize these debates as well.

Is there any debate for candidates for congress? If so, where can I see it? Every election season there should be notices everywhere to come and witness the candidates in order to make an informed choice about local politics. It should be held in a large public place like a county fairgrounds and every flyer should also have a website and the names of any channel carrying the debate.

Hell, how about just a weekly debate forum for every issue that comes out? Instead of attending biased news programs to get out your sound bites, how about a formal debate forum to discuss the issues of the week in a neutral environment?

Is that so crazy? Or is it just the bare minimum that we should demand in the "greatest country in the world?"

Perhaps the most blindingly obvious sign that we do not have a true democracy is the fact that Election Day is not a national holiday. This would seem like the best way to encourage most voters. Many other nations have this policy. I can only conclude that actually getting people to vote is not a priority.

Anyway, here is a couple clips from The West Wing to show what a debate should look like:

California fires healthcare company

2010-09-09T10:25:00.000-07:00

This is why there is no faith in the democratic party. They are claiming that they reformed healthcare, but they caved to pressure by businesses and right-wing fanatics.

We don't have an actual liberal party. Just conservatives and moderates.

This is why I'm a socialist.

Class warfare

2010-09-08T11:14:00.000-07:00

We are going down the socialist toilets

2010-08-20T08:05:00.000-07:00

[Note: This was not written by me. I'd credit the writer if I knew who it was.]

I'm mad as hell and I ain't gonna take it any more. Please let me tell you about what my day was like.

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy. I was in the house that I purchased with no down payment, thanks to the GI Bill.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture- inspected food and taking the drugs that have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration- approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.

On the way out the door I deposit the mail I need to send via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school. I have to remember to stop by the public library to return the books we've used to plan our vacation to Yellowstone National Park. (We will drive mostly on interstate highways.) I also make a note to check out a book or two about how the United States military planned the D-Day invasion in 1944 and how NASA planned and carried out the landing of two men on the moon in 1969.

On the way to work I look at the bay and the worlds Greatest Navy heading out to sea to protect the interest of the USA anywhere on the planet .The white contrail in the crystal blue sky assure me in the skies over, the USAF is on duty to protect the USA.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

I will sign up for Social Security and Medicare on the very first day I am eligible. I will ensure that all my assets are placed in the names of my wife or children so that the state and federal government -- through Medicaid -- can support me in a nice private room in a nursing home for the last five or six years of my life, without sacrificing a dime of my children's inheritances. Before that, I will attend my 25-year reunion at the college I attended, thanks to the GI Bill paying my tuition and most of my expenses for the full four years.

And then I log on to the Internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic. com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

Like I said before, I'm mad as hell, and I ain't gonna take it anymore!

GOP Wants You To Work To Death

2010-08-10T12:36:00.000-07:00

They must be desperate if they are risking alienating senior citizens.

I agree that what we have in place isn't sustainable, but the answer is not to work the populace when they should be enjoying what little time they have before death. The answer, as usual, is to go where there is a surplus of money and that means taxing the rich.

The Cost of the War in Afghanistan

2010-07-30T15:04:00.001-07:00

Report on the War on Drugs in Mexico

2010-07-29T12:49:00.000-07:00

The big problem with both drugs and illegal immigration from Mexico is the crippling poverty. America has a relationship of exploitation with this country and its only getting poorer due to one-sided American business interests.

The real solution to our problems with Mexico is to support the Mexican economy until it is able to support itself. Mexicans will be less inclined to come to America if they are making a good living at home. Less people will be involved in drug dealing if they have other profitable jobs available.

The GOP's "Grassroots" Campaign

2010-07-26T15:06:00.000-07:00

The Philosophy of George Carlin

2010-07-23T16:33:00.001-07:00

Glenn Beck blends uses racism to denounce socialism

2010-07-20T11:10:00.000-07:00

Loving Submission: A Guide to Christianity and BDSM

2010-07-20T08:04:00.000-07:00

Although I am not a Christian and have never been one, we have quite a bit in common. We are both submissives.

Submission is an interesting idea. With our rebellious, independent cultural values, we generally think of submission as a bad thing. We associate it with an abused spouse or the citizens of a dictatorship. It is the will of someone else that supersedes your own will.

In our culture, we are taught that our will is paramount. It drives democracy through individual freedoms and choice; it also empowers us as consumers. But there is certainly something to be said for losing one's will.

In truth, everyone from a janitor to President of the United States is both submissive and dominant. The president must submit to the wishes of the people (in theory) and the janitor can impact the ability of others to do their job.

Loving submission is the concept of holding power over someone for their own good. We are all familiar with this idea if we had parents growing up. In a sense, being submissive keeps us child-like. It keeps us innocent.

Again, this is in theory.

In Christianity, you submit yourself before God. You fall to your knees, bow your head, and clasp your hands together in a position of contrition. Prayer is the ultimate submissive pose. It is also very similar to how people approach royalty, which makes me wonder which came first.

This position is completely defenseless. Anyone in this position would find it difficult to attack or defend anyone, which I believe was the original point. But the more practical point is that it creates a feeling of humility. From this restrictive and formal position, you look up at your benefactor, accepting that they are... well, holier than thou.

Even prayer in solitude is submitting oneself to God. A large part of Christianity is about accepting that you are a sinner and can only be redeemed through the son of God (which I think is just a technicality to keep out the Jews).

These concepts actually form the basis for BDSM, but in this practice, instead of worshiping an abstract God, you worship a flesh and blood person. This requires one person who is willing (even eager) to be deified and one person who is eager to submit to them. Although this can be a 24/7 arrangement, few people have that sort of commitment, so usually this arrangement is limited to a period of fantasy roleplay.

Although the context is incredibly different, the motivations are very similar. Both are looking from freedom of the harsh uncertainty of every day life. They are looking for someone they believe in, who they can trust implicitly, who will take care of them. In BDSM, this is done through a sexual partner who exhibits sexual control. In Christianity, this is done through an abstract deity who exhibits spiritual control over you.

Essential to each is the loss of control. When the control is displaced to another person or idea, there is a feeling of relief from responsibility that is intensely attractive. There is the underlying thought is that everything else in the world can go to shit and you may do a lot of stupid things, but as long as you are devoted to those ideals, you will be alright.

We don't often get this kind of reassurance as adults... and when we do, we don't often believe it. Nor should we. The world is a big, bad, unpredictable place. In church, there is certainty about the way things work, but even better, there is the promise that it will all be worth it in the end. In BDSM, their are no rewards in the after life, but there may be quite a few offered on a regular basis.

Too much of the focus in BDSM is on the abuse, the graphic degradation. In part, this is because we are attracted to the extremes, but even this should be viewed like a fan of horror films. The fact that someone feels a rush of adrenaline and finds comfort in the "dark" end of the spectrum is not so unusual, just taboo.

Conversely, the warm and austere environment of the church makes this sort of submission seem natural and healthy. It initiates an individual in their community under a single figure of worship. But I would argue that the simplicity and uniformity of this process exploits the ignorance of the adherent in multiple aspects of their life.

Where a pastor might champion a political cause (such as ending gay marriage), there is usually a distinction in BDSM relationships of where the power is exercised. None but the most extreme relationships would dictate control over political issues (of course, this would be difficult to enforce). In most relationships, this control would be exhibited in purely sexual situations, but it could extend itself from that into more casual relationship territory. The point is, there are boundaries to this control in BDSM because it is recognized that the power exchange is voluntary and dependent on a context. Christianity doesn't have this limitation and so extends from the church to the bedroom and everything in between.

I started writing this post after hearing a version of the Warrior's Prayer that was rooted in lush submissive terminology. It was passionate in a way that I would find appropriate for sex, but inappropriate for religion. There is a certain kind of passion in love and sex that is appropriate to a person, but when you mold it on to this abstract, manipulative ideological construct, it becomes perverted (irony).

I guess I find that arena of spirituality and politics to be sacred and individual. I don't think that this sort of submission is healthy. I think it erodes the spirit and brings us all down with it. Submission to a person, although it may complicate the relationship, really only exists in the context of that relationship... and while there is doubtless the potential for abuse, there isn't the illusion that this relationship is embedded in the nature of the universe.

Yet, if I may continue to stretch this metaphor, there are many different kinds of sexual submissives just as their are many kinds of Christians. There are casual practitioners who don't really delve into why they do it; it just feels good and its not a life consuming practice. There are those who take is very seriously until they have taken all of the fun out of it and are just unwaveringly obedient. And there are those who study deeply, walking the line between casting aside old beliefs and finding new interpretations.

I'd like to be the wide-eyed, curious student eager to learn... but really I would say I'm more the skeptic. I'm like the biblical student who lost god because he saw all the inconsistencies in the bible. I'd like to be hopeful and faithful, but while there is a church in every town, some belief systems are less open and widespread.

The State of Things

2010-07-09T16:56:00.000-07:00

I'm not a big Bjork fan, but I like the message.

Democrats VS Republicans

2010-07-02T11:28:00.001-07:00

Pros and Cons of Financial Reform Bill

2010-06-29T12:38:00.001-07:00

Canadian banks vs American Banks

2010-06-29T09:44:00.000-07:00

How many millionaires are in the world?

2010-06-29T09:36:00.000-07:00

Another Young Turks video:

Heaven and Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism

2010-06-28T15:22:00.001-07:00

A full-length documentary about socialism.

I'm not sure I like this documentary. It seems to have an agenda suggesting that socialism is an experiment destined to fail and it doesn't acknowledge the many different ways socialism has been organized, particularly by distinguishing it from Communism.

But there is some good information.

UPDATED:
This is from a review of the book that this documentary is based on. It was published on Amazon. The facts check out. I started questioning this documentary as soon as I saw the smug look on the writer's face. It's the same look they have over at Fox News. The look of someone with something to prove...

This book was written by Joshua Muravchik, who works for the American Enterprise Institute. The same AEI that is one of the major architects of Bush IIs policies. It is also the same AEI that's mission statement says that it's aim is "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism -- limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate." In other words the author here is an employee of a conservative, neo-liberal think tank. Prima facie, he would not seem to be unbiased on Socialism... upon reading the book, it becomes obvious.

Also, don't let the fact that Mr. Muravchik was the former chairman of the Young People's Socialist League give you any false pretense of a balanced historical view. He seems as enthralled with Socialism as an ex-smoker is with cigarettes, i.e. he looks back longingly at the ideology, albeit with much self-loathing and then preaches the failures of socialism with all the vigor of a born-again (non-smoker, etc.)

Long story short, taking everything in this with a grain of salt and a discerning mind.

Wealth distribution

2010-06-21T12:41:00.001-07:00

Enjoy.

Notice how the line graph illustrates a direct and inverse correlation between the income of the rich and the income of... well, not the poor, but the majority.

If you aren't studying economics, you can't understand our problems or how to get out of them. And if you are studying economics with the goal of exploiting it, you have no interest in facts, but only perceptions.

This is the equivalent of the church monopolizing the "truth" of God and the universe. We need economic scientists devoted to facts rather than an agenda of exploitation.

Colbert Interview: God Is Not One

2010-06-16T08:16:00.000-07:00

This book sounds fascinating to me. I'd love to pick it up.

Embeds for Colbert still aren't working. **sigh**

Grandma Shot For Being A Radical Idiot

2010-05-28T11:07:00.000-07:00

Here is a story from my neck of the woods.

This is about an hour's drive from where I live.

Some people are calling this a tragedy or police abuse... I'm calling it fucking retarded.

1) You do not pull a gun on a census worker. That is some fucked up psycho shit. They are doing a job. If you hate the census that much, refuse to answer them.

2) You do NOT pull a gun on a cop. If you do, you better be prepared to (A) die or (B) go to jail for the rest of your life. Because chances are that one of those things is going to happen.

This is what happens when fascist radicals like Glenn Beck make people afraid of something as harmless as a census form.

The census is written into the constitution of this country. It is the foundation of our democracy. In order to represent the citizens, we have to know who they are. That is what the census is for.

But these assholes clearly thought that it was part of some socialist Obama conspiracy.

I hope this is the only time in my life when I don't have sympathy for a grandma being shot by the cops.

She pulled a gun. Never pull a gun on a person unless you are prepared to use it and/or die... especially when you pull it on other people with guns... and ESPECIALLY when those people have the law behind them.

Jesus Christ.

Is the population declining?

2010-04-22T18:40:00.000-07:00

I just watched an interview on the Daily Show which espoused a theory I have heard a lot recently that the population will stabilize in 2040. They say people are having far less children everywhere in the world and this is going to peak in roughly 2040.

I suppose we will find out soon enough, but I am skeptical of this theory. It doesn't seem to take into account certain artificial motivators of population growth. In the show, they do mention the Catholic church, but more than that, I was thinking about business.

Business growth is dependent upon stock going up and the only way you can consistently do that on any measurable scale (i.e. the GDP) is by having a larger and larger consumer base to exploit.

Interesting.

Joseph Pine on what consumers want

2010-04-02T16:50:00.000-07:00

What we need and what we want

2010-04-02T12:20:00.000-07:00

If you have twenty-minutes, check out this awesome lecture:

If you don't have 20 minutes, let me break it down simply. There is a big difference between momentary happiness and long-term contentment... and very little correlation between the two. People often chase one expecting the other to follow.

But the most interesting part to me was at the very end where he says that basic human happiness costs about $60,000 per year. That is, if you make $60,000 or more, your statistical likelihood of happiness does not change. If you make less than that, your chance for happiness decreases.

I make roughly $25,000... and I think that is before taxes.

So it seems that should be a societal goal... to raise the minimum wage until we are all making $60,000 per year.

Let me work out some quick math. 52 weeks in a year... 40 hours per week... assuming paid vacations... 2080 hours per year.... That means for ideal utopianism, the minimum wage should be $29 per hour.

More importantly, that means no one really needs more than that.

Food for thought.

Industry Contributions to Political Parties

2010-03-31T12:10:00.000-07:00

Political donations by industry separated to reflect the major US political parties from 1990-2010. Based on information from OpenSecrets.org.

I have highlighted the outliers to show which political party receives most from which industry. Industries are sorted by total contributions with major investors first.

Laywers/Law Firms: Dem 73% Rep 26% ($1,078.4 M)
Health Professionals: Dem 43% Rep 56% ($488.1 M)
Insurance: Dem 37% Rep 63% ($327.4 M)
TV/Movies/Music: Dem 70% Rep 29% ($266.7 M)
Oil & Gas: Dem 24% Rep 75% ($248.8 M)
Banks: Dem 41% Rep 59% ($222.7 M)
Computers/Internet: Dem 55% Rep 45% ($194.7 M)
Pharmaceuticals: Dem 37% Rep 64% ($181.7 M)
Education: Dem 73% Rep 25% ($180.1 M)
Lobbyists: Dem 54% Rep 46% ($173.9 M)
Telephone Utilities: Dem 44% Rep 55% ($119.9 M)
Accountants: Dem 41% Rep 58% ($119 M)
Casinos: Dem 56% Rep 44% ($92.3 M)
Tobacco: Dem 26% Rep 74% ($63.4 M)
Hedge Funds: Dem 65% Rep 34% ($41.2 M)
Gun Rights: Dem 14% Rep 85% ($21.8 M)
Pro-Choice: Dem 81% Rep 18% ($19 M)
Pro-Life: Dem 4% Rep 95% ($7 M)
Gun Control: Dem 94% Rep 6% ($1.8 M)

The big surprises for me were law firms and hedge funds donating to Democrats. I don't know what that entails exactly.

Interestingly, big pharma overwhelmingly supported Republicans until 2006 when their contributions leveled and actually began to favor Democrats. I wonder why...

WTF Podcast with Marc Maron

2010-03-25T12:54:00.000-07:00

So after seeing him on John Oliver's new stand-up show, I've become a fan of Marc Maron. He has a great podcast called WTF Pod that features Marc talking extemporaneously or interviewing someone... usually a comedian. He's had Patton Oswalt, Sarah Silverman, Jon Benjamin, David Cross, John Oliver, and many, many others that I would rather listen to than whoever is in right now. I definitely recommend it.

But I wanted to share this excerpt from Episode 14 from this "libertopian" nutjob. It got so bad that I thought he was a comedian playing a role, but blogger won't accept my video/audio uploads.

Taglines for the Republican Party

2010-03-18T13:28:00.000-07:00

The Republican Party
No problem too complex to simplify or too simple to complicate

The Republican Party
For people who hate taxes and diversity

The Republican Party
What are you a fag?

The Story of Stuff

2010-03-11T08:03:00.000-08:00

Check out this awesome 20-minute video tracking production in this company from resource harvesting and processing through sale, consumption, and finally to disposal. Each step has a non-monetary cost to our society in many ways that we can't clearly see. This video does a great job of demonstrating the process simply but accurately.

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

Also, check out the cap and trade video. Great stuff!

Six Things That Should Be Manditory In Public School

2010-02-23T09:40:00.001-08:00

The purpose of this blog has always been about not only identifying the problems of society (which in Marxist fashion I lay at the feet of capitalism and religion), but also in providing solutions.

When thinking of society as a machine, we create plans or programs designed to refine operations for a specific function, but a machine is something that is definitively unnatural and prone to periodic breakdowns due to nature. Better instead to think of society as a plant that must be nurtured to encourage natural growth. The "down side" is that you can't control growth, which is a magnificent defense against ego and unnatural conventions.

Education is about promoting change by providing nutritious ideas and allowing the individual to determine their own growth. In other words, the best revolution is not about promoting an ideology, but encouraging thoughtfulness. When deciding what to teach children, our first thoughts are usually of the needs of our society (scientists and mathematicians) but we do not adequately address their needs as individuals.

Below are six classes that I believe should become as ingrained in the American educational system as reading, writing, and arithmetic. They are classes that would not only benefit the students enormously, but in the long run, they would benefit the country as a whole.

Psychology

Why: Psychology is the basest exploration of the brain, which is the entire focus of learning. By understanding our minds and the minds of others, we are better able to express ourselves. When we can express ourselves, we are better able to find equitable solutions to our problems. Psychology teaches us to identify our own harmful behavior while, at the same time, learning empathy for others. Even at the elementary school level, learning basic psychology would help the child to express their issues with parents, teachers, and classmates in a more constructive manner.

In junior high and high school, psychology would be even more valuable. These are, in many ways, the hardest years of their lives and they feel like they are going perpetually crazy. Understanding their own minds would go a long way toward easing their frustrations.

Opposed by: Hell if I know. This is probably most likely to offend people who think psychology is just a bunch of bull or people who think school should just focus on the essentials... but they are going to have a problem with everything on this list.

Nutrition/Health

Why: America is suffering from an obesity epidemic. That is sad on so many levels, but not surprising in a country where it is more natural to eat Cheetos than carrots. Part of the problem is that people know dick about proper nutrition. When I was a kid, you just were supposed to avoid fat and sugar... so people ate a lot of bread and potatoes as filler and stayed fat because they were loading up on carbs. I'm not saying we should put kids on Atkins, but they need to understand what they are eating and what it does. Considering the "super-science" that is the America food industry (produced in Mexico), this class has been a necessity for quite some time.

Not sold? Did you know that the majority of health care expense is due to obesity-related complications like diabetes, high cholesterol, and cardio-pulmonary disorders? Whether we have a government-run or privately-run health care system, the fatties are costing us all more money... in addition to killing themselves.

Opposed by: Big Agra (or the corn lobby) producers of high-fructose corn syrup and the health insurance companies who profit from the aforementioned health care costs.

Philosophy/Religion

Why: Philosophy and religion address questions that no one is capable of answering, but pretty much everyone asks at some point or another. While philosophy itself is not limited to a religious (or anti-religious) context, it explores much of the same area of human experience such as the meaning of life or the nature of God.

Religion, on the other hand, is a bit different. The approach to religion must be from an objective viewpoint as a cultural study rather than a subjective exploration of truth. The reason why religion (more so than philosophy) should be a necessary part of our educational system is that the world we live in is shaped by religion.

In American politics, religious values are central to debates ranging from gay rights to environmentalism. The values central to the religion form the basis for how people think and act. The current (and perpetual) situation in the Middle East also demands an understanding of Islam because understanding is the first step toward peace (this also applies to intra-national political parties).

Opposed by: The religious right, of course. Public schools don't want to teach religion in schools. They have a hard enough time teaching things like evolution or geology ("The Earth is only six thousand years old! The Bible says so!") without talking about the pros and cons of religion, but it deserves honest discussion.

Engineering

Why: This one might seem a little weird, but do you know how your vacuum works? How about your car? Or your computer?

We kind of exist in a world that we take for granted full of magical technologies that we don't really understand. We have become okay with that, but we really shouldn't be. With understanding technology, we are able to make informed purchasing decisions and fix problems. If you let kids leave without understanding how computers or cars work, you are letting them leave without a basic understanding of the two most important pieces of technology in his or her life. That's inexcusable.

Engineering classes should provide class projects designed to educate students to the technology around them including light bulbs, plumbing, electrical generation and distribution, television, computers, cars, and cell phones. There should be particular attention given to the technologies that tend to break down regularly (i.e. cars, computers, and plumbing).

Opposed by: Those who think understanding technology is beneath them. Those who hire people to fix their things while they go to their bigger, more important job. Those who want their children to focus on the marketable skills that will get their kid into a good college so they can tell their friends what a good parent they are.

Also... repair men?

Economics

Why: I think it is positively criminal that in a supposedly capitalist society, economic classes are not mandatory in high school. Economics is central to our lives in both a day-to-day sense and a long-term sense. Aside from the personal budget balancing that all of them will need to do for the rest of their lives, they also need an understanding of macro-economic theories.

Our economy is currently in crisis and major decisions have to be made both on how to save the current financial market and promote long-term stability. The average American has no fucking clue what any of that means, much less how to do it. This isn't to say that they are stupid, but they have no concept of the money at that level. They understand money as a day-to-day necessity, not as an abstract conception made further abstract by dangerous speculation. Why else would they so vehemently oppose any form of taxation, especially when it is a graduated income tax designed to draw money from the wealthy to reduce the contribution of the poor? Because all they know is that "taxes means they takes my monies."

Opposed by: Big business. Just... all across the board. An informed consumer is the enemy of business when business is based on deceit and manipulation. Business studies indicate that consumers are most likely to buy when they are irrational and confused... particularly if they think the product will resolve this condition. Informed consumers make informed decisions.

Also, the "fiscally conservative" because that's just a big line of bullshit.

Life Skills

Why: I was part of a few unique programs in high school and one of them had a class called "Life Skills." Half of the class was just about learning to deal with others (and sometimes, yourself) but the other half of the class was just mind-numbingly obvious things that every adult should know, things like how to look for a job or an apartment.

There are some basic skills that are so necessary that I cannot for the life of me figure out why there isn't a mandatory class to cover it. Most obvious in this should be skills involving looking for a job, a place to live, and how to do your taxes, but this could just be the beginning with other classes involving buying property, how to find different loans, moving long-distances, and whatever else most people do at some point in their life but don't know how. It should also discuss college and (more importantly) alternatives to college.

Opposed by: Again, I don't really know who would oppose this except for people wealthy enough that they aren't going to worry about these things. Some parents might object to college alternatives being taught, but college isn't for everyone and our approach to public education should change to reflect that.

Great Daily Show interviews

2010-01-22T15:32:00.000-08:00

Two great interviews on The Daily Show this week covering economics. Check them out!

Jim Wallis (Comeback America)

David Walker (Rediscovering Values)

Fucking hopeless

2009-12-16T08:50:00.001-08:00

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.

Just Do It

2009-12-04T14:57:00.001-08:00

Scapegoating

2009-11-21T08:36:00.001-08:00

The Basics of Socialism

2009-11-04T12:33:00.001-08:00

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.

TYT: More Alan Grayson

2009-10-23T13:06:00.000-07:00

Excellent work, sir.

TYT: Franken in the Senate, Grayson in the House

2009-10-23T11:10:00.000-07:00

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.

Huxley vs Orwell

2009-10-21T09:36:00.001-07:00

Click on the image to view at full size... or go here if you actually want to see it.

Fox News declares White House declares war on Fox News

2009-10-15T16:37:00.000-07:00

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.

Camille Paglia

2009-10-14T15:20:00.001-07:00

"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."

Economic Systems

2009-10-07T11:45:00.000-07:00

Click on the image to view it at full size.

From imgur.com

Education

2009-10-06T18:00:00.000-07:00

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.

Weed Humor

2009-09-29T10:50:00.000-07:00

DMT: The Spirit Molecule

2009-09-29T10:32:00.000-07:00

DRUGS!

2009-09-29T10:22:00.001-07:00

Bill Mahr, Mos Def, Salmon Rushdie, and Chris Hitchens discuss Obama's marijuana policy

2009-09-29T10:15:00.000-07:00

The Evils of Socialism

2009-08-25T16:45:00.000-07:00

The difference between...

2009-07-29T16:51:00.000-07:00

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.

Free the Bird

2009-07-27T12:47:00.001-07:00

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.

Arguing with their imaginations again

2009-07-24T12:42:00.000-07:00

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.

Rushkoff on Colbert Report

2009-07-16T07:58:00.001-07:00

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

Buzz-Words: Condescending & Patronizing

2009-07-15T15:29:00.000-07:00

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.

A Pitiful Delaying Tactic

2009-07-15T11:52:00.000-07:00

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.

Classic Fox News Racism

2009-07-08T14:28:00.000-07:00

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.

Too many books!

2009-06-25T16:44:00.001-07:00

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

2009-06-25T15:33:00.000-07:00

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

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Mark Sanford

Ladies and gentleman, Mr. Peter Schiff

2009-06-10T17:54:00.000-07:00

Well done, sir. Well done.

Having trouble with the embed so here is a link.

Byron Dorgan: Awesome

2009-06-02T17:55:00.000-07:00

Just... just awesome.

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Byron Dorgan

colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Keyboard Cat

Exit strategy economics

2009-06-01T14:09:00.000-07:00

"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.

Profit without risk or product

2009-05-15T12:21:00.000-07:00

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.

Who wants to study Karl Marx?

2009-05-14T09:56:00.000-07:00

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.

I.O.USA

2009-05-13T14:30:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-13T14:16:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-13T11:41:00.001-07:00

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.

Dr. Peter Breggin on Anti-Depressants

2009-04-17T15:28:00.000-07:00

I'm reading one of his books right now. This guy is great.

Try not to vomit

2009-04-08T14:35:00.000-07:00

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.

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

The Colbert Coalition's Anti-Gay Marriage Ad

colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

NASA Name Contest

Jon Stewart tells Conservative Pundits to Shut the Hell Up

2009-04-08T09:42:00.001-07:00

This show is so very cathartic.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Baracknophobia - Obey

comedycentral.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Political Humor

MJ: A Conclusion of Sorts

2009-04-08T09:25:00.000-07:00

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

From the Seattle Times

2009-04-06T12:29:00.000-07:00

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.

By David Sirota

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

Obama's Marijuana Buzz Kill

2009-03-30T08:42:00.000-07:00

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.

Jon Stewart bitch-slaps Jim Cramer

2009-03-23T10:12:00.000-07:00

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

comedycentral.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor

Howard Zinn on YouTube

2009-03-19T10:46:00.000-07:00

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:

Joe Rogan on atrocity and the internet

2009-03-13T15:07:00.001-07:00

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.

Stephen Colbert bitch-slaps Ayn Rand

2009-03-13T14:27:00.000-07:00

This was so very satisfying. Ayn Rand is to philosophy what Mike Tyson is to ballet.

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

The Word - Rand Illusion

Colbert Report Full Episodes
Political Humor

Rap Battle
NASA Name Contest

What I would socialize...

2009-03-13T11:22:00.000-07:00

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.

Screw bipartisanship

2009-03-11T16:41:00.000-07:00

Frank Schaeffer

New York Times best-selling author

Posted February 20, 2009 | 04:02 PM (EST)

Why Obama Must Not Work With Republicans

Ever wonder why the Republican Party's foreign "policy" got so off the wall and bellicose? Want to know why we're in two wars? Want to know why so many evangelicals hate Obama for saying he'll negotiate with Muslims? Want to know why President Obama should not try to work with Republicans?

All you need to know is that the Republican/Sara/Palin base of evangelical support is rooting for war, death and killing as a longed for -- even prayed for -- conclusion to human existence. No kidding! Understand what I'm going to tell you here, and you'll understand what went so wrong with America with W. Bush and why we are the most dangerous country on earth. Shorthand: we have nukes and risk being run by kooks. And, until the election of 2008, an evangelical born-again kook was running our country.

Disclosure: I'm the son of one of the evangelical's foremost thinkers, the late Francis Schaeffer. And until I left the fold in the mid 1980s I was intimately involved with the Religious Right and have been (until quite recently) a life-long Republican. I knew Jerry Jenkins' and Tim LaHaye personally and both are followers of my father.

The wild financial success of Jerry Jenkins' and Tim LaHaye's Left Behind series of sixteen novels is about belonging to the winning side. The books have made hundreds of millions of dollars while spawning an "End Times" industry, inclusive of Left Behind wall paper, screen savers, children's books and video games. The evangelicals -- and hence, from the early 1980s until the election of President Obama in 2008, the Religious Right as it informed US policy through the then dominant Republican Party -- are in the grip of an apocalyptic "Rapture" cult centered on revenge and vindication.

This End Times cult is built on a literalistic interpretation of the book of Revelation. The book was the last to be included in the canon of the New Testament. It was only recognized gradually as canonical late in the process -- after the year 400 AD -- of collecting the gospels and various letters included into the New Testament. The historic Church remained so suspicious of the book Revelation that to this day in the Orthodox Church it has never been included as part of the cyclical public readings of scripture. In other words the book of the Bible that the historic Church found (and finds) most problematic and dangerous is the one that American evangelicals have latched on to like flies on spilled jam.

According to Jenkins and LaHaye the "chosen" (in other words born-again evangelicals) will be airlifted to safety in the "Rapture" when the "End" comes. At last evangelical Americans will know "we" were right about everything and "they" were wrong. We'll know that because Spaceship Jesus will come back and take us away leaving everyone else to ponder just how very lost they are because they failed to say the words: "I accept Jesus as my personal savior."

Evangelicals not only wish to be proved right they also want revenge on all other religions and peoples. Not unlike Islamic terrorists who behead their enemies, the evangelicals relish the prospect of God doing the messy killing for them as they watch from on high. It isn't enough for them to cast the individual "apostate" out of their midst, or to denounce the Roman Catholics as the "whore of Babylon," they want revenge on all people not like them. The Left Behind novels provides access to vicarious revenge . No need to wait for the End Times, you can get your violent jollies now!

Jenkins and LaHaye describe various deadly scenarios proceeding and following believers being "snatched away" to safety leaving the infidels to their punishment. The authors cash in on years of evangelical paranoia and imagined victimhood. (A strange belief imbued with losers' self pity by people who have run Congress and the White House until this election!)

Jenkins and LaHaye provide an entertaining book version of a cosmic I-told-you-so from the backward earthly losers (as evangelicals perceive themselves in this the age of science and secularism) to the earthly winners (as evangelicals think of all those clever big city, over-educated progressive secular "elites"). Glory be! As God kills them, including those "secular Jews" running the New York Times who will have to admit we were right all along just before Jesus blasts them!

The promotional copy for one of the books -- Shadowed -- promises plenty of we-told-you-so entertainment; "After God intervenes with a miracle of global proportions, the tide is turned on international atheism!"

God Is Great! Kill them God! Kill those "international atheists!" They made fun of us because we refused to believe in evolution and built a creationist theme park! They laughed at us for opening our Friday night football games with prayer! They even laughed at Billy Graham, our one and only saint, when his son Franklin raised 28 million dollars to build the Graham theme park! Strike them Lord!

Jenkins and LaHaye are End Times revenge pornographers. Reading about violence against unbelievers is the evangelical Viagra. Take this passage from Glorious Appearing in which Jesus slaughters unbelievers;

The riders not thrown leaped from their horses and tried to control them with the reins, but even as they struggled, their own flesh dissolved, their eyes melted, and their tongues disintegrated... the soldiers stood briefly as skeletons in now-baggy uniforms, then dropped in heaps of bones as the blinded horses continued to fume and rant and rave. Seconds later the same plague afflicted the horses, their flesh and eyes and tongues melting away, leaving grotesque skeletons standing, before they too rattled to the pavement.

Evangelicals can't get enough of this trash. The video game Left Behind: Eternal Forces was developed by a publicly traded company, Left Behind Games. The player controls a "Tribulation Forces" team and allows the player to "use the power of prayer to strengthen your troops in combat and wield modern military weaponry throughout the game world." The game blesses and encourages religious violence.

Guided by a literal reading of the prophetic sections of the Bible the expanding Left Behind entertainment empire also feeds the delusions of Christian Zionists who are convinced that the world is heading to a final Battle of Armageddon. Christian Zionists led by the likes of John McCain's Jabba the Hutt lookalike and big fan -- the Reverend John Hagee -- believe that war in the Middle East is God's will. Hagee predicts in his book, Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World, that Russia and the Arabs will invade Israel and then will be destroyed by God. This will cause the Antichrist -- the head of the European Union -- to stir up a confrontation over Israel between China and the West. Armageddon will ensue and the Second Coming of Christ.

This would all be a joke except for the fact that sixty million Americans identify themselves as evangelicals. That's a lot of crazy voters -- as McCain proved he recognized when he nominated the religious Right's pet evangelical goof Sara Palin to be his running mate to re-energize the army of goofs who gave us the 8 years of W that brought us to war and economic ruin.

Note to Jews: the evangelicals say they are the State of Israel's friend, love Jews etc., etc. Wake up! In the evangelical "game" Jews are just apocalyptic Jesus fodder! With friends like these you don't need enemies. Friends of Israel -- and I am one -- don't see Israel as nothing more than a pawn in the End Times. Dig under the surface and you'll find Hagee, Jenkins, LaHaye are profoundly and fatally anti-Semitic. Follow their uncompromising "Rapture logic" and Israel will be destroyed. These people will always push the US government to take the hardest line against the Arabs. That is no long term favor to Israel. Eternal war is no answer. Check out the area's demographics. Make peace while there is time!

Christian Zionists support all violent actions by Israel for any reason because in the fevered evangelical mind the nation of Israel is presently standing in for Jesus-the-avenger-on-evildoers everywhere, i.e. Arabs, all of whom (according to the born-again porn peddlers) are soon destined to burn anyway! So, who cares if 10 Israeli deaths from Hamas' rockets fired into southern Israel are avenged by the killing of 1,300 men women and children in Gaza?USA! USA! Go Jesus! Time for another godly session on my Left Behind: Eternal Forces video game! Hurry Jesus come back and kill em' all.

And that is the Republican's base. Good luck to President Obama trying to find bipartisan solutions to our world wide problems with these folks.

Frank Schaeffer is author of Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back Now in paperback.

Douglas Rushkoff

2009-03-07T11:17:00.000-08:00

I think that, in many ways, the further you look back in time, the clearer things become. Sort of "Hindsight is 20/20 multiplied by time to the power of infinity." Basically, the idea holds that as we become more intelligent and more evolved, we can look back and point at things with our evolved sensibilities and say, "That was good and that wasn't." It doesn't work for everything and there is a cultural bias involved, but when it comes to artists, philosophers, scientists, and social leaders, the proof is in their results. Not only have their ideas stood the test of time, we have seen their influences and analyzed them to death. Consequently, while it can be fairly easily to look back on anything before the 20th century with an objective gaze, everything after that becomes a lot murkier. Add to this the fact that our contemporary issues are more closely and causally linked to the events, people, and culture of the past 100 years, it can be especially difficult to gain enough emotional and intellectual distance to even begin to look at it objectively.

But when we look to history for wisdom and inspiration, the language is awkward and unnecessarily verbose by our modern standards of language economy (obviously not my standards) and the state of the world was so extremely different that we have to question its value in the modern age. John Locke, for example, held that nothing was unnatural; that man, being a natural creation, was in capable of doing or thinking anything unnatural. That's all well, good, and logical, but since Locke died in 1704, he never saw a horseless carriage, much less nuclear bombs, space shuttles, the internet, and Michael Jackson.

For those in Generation X, heroes, great men and women, are confined to the history books. Einstein is dead. John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and John Lennon were all killed. We were left with Reagan and Clinton... and that footnote president in-between. Bush the Lesser just about strangled our last remaining hope for the human race, but I like to think that we will take our horror from the last eight years and turn it into something good. I'm not pinning all of my hopes on Obama, like some people are. He is in a position to do a lot of good, but what we really need are people to bring about change for themselves with their own vision and their own voice.

All of this is to say that it is rare for me to find many contemporary voices which speak with intelligence, wisdom, clarity, and (on top of all of that) actually try to push forward with something they believe in. For me, Douglas Rushkoff is one of those voices. I originally discovered Rushkoff watching a DVD called Disinformation, a controversial television show which never aired. Disinformation has a policy of reporting everything that you don't hear from the mainstream. Some of it is just fucking nutty as all get out, but a lot of it is just common sense. Some of the contributors include Howard Zinn, Howard Bloom, Arianna Huffington, Peter Breggin, Grant Morrison, Neil Gaiman, and Douglas Rushkoff.

In the DVD's special features, Rushkoff was at the Disinformation Convention addressing the counterculture audience with a mixture of self-identification and a healthy dose of humble skepticism. In a room full of angry countercultural types, he spoke about finding the humanity in others. I was stunned and knew I'd have to find out more about this guy.

I picked up his book, Media Virus, about how subversive messages are used in pop culture, followed by his brilliant novel Ecstasy Club (currently out of print, but available used on Amazon) and the equally brilliant Exit Strategy. He has written two comic books: Club Zero G and Testament. He is a frequent contributor to NPR and a documentarian for PBS. In his day job, he is a professor of media theory at NYU.

Check out these videos when you have some time to spare. Rushkoff brilliantly analyzes the destructive effect of living in a world consumed by advertizing and led by greed. Check out the PBS documentaries: The Pursaders and Merchants of Cool here.

Buddhist Socialism

2009-03-06T15:18:00.000-08:00

The words of the Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso:

Q: You have often stated that you would like to achieve a synthesis between Buddhism and Marxism. What is the appeal of Marxism for you?

A: Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes--that is, the majority--as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism.

As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.

I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is nor much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.

The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.

Why Socialism?

2009-03-06T14:55:00.000-08:00

by Albert Einstein

(unedited)

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has -- as is well known -- been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed toward a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and -- if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous -- are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half-unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.

Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supranational organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?"

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society -- in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence -- that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society."

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished -- just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human beings which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time -- which, looking back, seems so idyllic -- is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor -- not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production -- that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods -- may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call "workers" all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production -- although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. In so far as the labor contract is "free," what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the "free labor contract" for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present-day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

On religion

2009-03-04T12:19:00.000-08:00

Most of my friends are atheists. Most of my family are agnostic. Most of my neighbors are Protestant. I am a product of the secular left surrounded by the religious right. Personally, I don't feel comfortable identifying with any of these, but I feel that it is important to talk about if only because religious values influence politics and politics effects everyone in the country... and American politics effects everyone in the world.

Strangely, although my dad is rabidly anti-Christian today, growing up we didn't really talk about religion. My mom was (and still is) Christian in name only. This is the kind of Christian that doesn't subscribe to most of the ideas, but likes the idea of a benevolent Santa-God rewarding the good and punishing the bad (and everyone gets into Heaven, except maybe Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer). Naturally, it didn't take me long to notice that God didn't seem to be very good at his work, at least not on this planet.

My schools always had Christians and some of them were close friends... others hated enemies, but both fun to talk to. As a child, I believed in the Christian conception of God... probably for no other reason than so many others were certain of it. However, that idea went with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I could never reconcile the idea that good people working for a good lord would produce the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the slaughter of the Native American people (amongst other things, but I only had a fifth grade education). When I found out that Christianity and Islam were just off-shoots of Judaism, that settled it. No just God would create a belief that could be splintered into such divergent conflicting beliefs. And if such a God did exist, He was certainly not insuring that His church was acting in His name. AND if I was still wrong and God existed and supported His church (which was the Protestant church, as far as my young self knew), I could not feel morally comfortable blindly supporting a God who acted with such cruelty.

Now, I believe that almost everything in life comes down to a decision. You aren't born a Republican, a Democrat, a Socialist, an atheist, an agnostic, a Christian, a Muslim, or what have you. At some point you choose to believe in a set of values and ideas while rejecting others. The thoughtful person constantly questions his or her own beliefs no matter how well-founded. To ignore other ideas is to admit that your own ideas cannot withstand scrutiny. This is the root of the word "ignorance." Christianity (and many other religions, I imagine) champions the idea of faith. But what is faith other than ignorance? It is the willful decision to ignore conflicting information to preserve the pre-existing idea.

If I were a Christian, would I have faith in God, the Bible, or the church? To have faith in the church, I would have to accept either that every act of church-sponsored atrocity is good and necessary... or I would have to show foundation why the Protestant church is more likely to be the church of God than the Roman Catholic church (although Manifest Destiny was a product of the Protestant church). To have faith in the Bible, I would have to accept the literal truth of every word, but as Joe Rogan pointed out, Noah's Ark doesn't even make sense to kids. Add to that the fact that the Bible is virtually unreadable, there are thousands of different translations, and they were meant to be read in Ancient Hebrew which no longer exists. I could have faith in God (the way my mother seems to), but once you have divorced God from the church and the Bible, God can be whoever or whatever you want it to be.

So I decided that God, at least as I was told about him, did not exist leading me to the number one philosophical condition afflicting teenagers: existential angst. Does the universe have an order? Does life have a purpose? Is there life after death? If so, what kind of life? If not, why bother doing anything? How we face this question says a lot about us and there are just as many ways to face it as their are people on this Earth. For the religiously devout, there is ignorfaith - the decision to view conflicting ideas as the work of an evil trickster who is trying to remove ideas of comfort. In other words, they don't face this question.

Have you ever had a Christian say to you "If you don't believe in Heaven and Hell, why don't you just kill someone?" What this says to me as that the only reason these people have decided to be "good" is for fear of punishment. These are people who think that morality is about obeying rules and law. I have always found that morality is doing what you believe in despite rules, laws, punishment, or reward.

And then there is nihilism, often associated with Nietzsche, goths, and generally depressed people. This is the idea that there is no God, no meaning, no morality, no order, and no purpose. Anyone who thinks there is meaning is deluding themselves. I call this the pit of nihilism because people either get trapped in it or avoid it altogether. Although it's hard to argue with the rationality of this statement, I've never found it particularly useful. Add to this the fact that I have met far too many nihilists who use their "beyond good and evil" philosophy to justify being a total asshole.

It is clear to me why so many prefer faith to nihilism. I spent a good deal of time in existential angst living a life of purposelessness and depression. I used to fantasize every single day about killing myself, even though that was just as pointless as living. This consumed my life for pretty much all of my teenage years. It was very much like the Christian concept of Hell, but by this point, I could not simply fool myself with ignorfaith to escape. I didn't know if this self-inflicted hell would end. As far as I concerned, people just didn't notice or didn't care, but no one had any answers.

Unwilling to escape the same way I had came in, I tried to find a way to get past nihilism through education desperately searching for scraps of wisdom in a world which ignored the foundation of reason itself. Tumbling through nihilism, nothing is certain. It feels like you are falling and twisting in a dark abyss from which there is no escape. You reach for every possible handhold and it all dissolves through your fingers. The first thing which didn't dissolve, my first stepping stone in an uncertain world, was the Tao Te Ching (pronounced, and sometimes spelled, "dao de jing").

The Tao is not a religion. It is a philosophy. It translates as the "way" or the "path" without any pretensions. Unlike the Bible, the Tao Te Ching is only 38 pages written in short, simple phrases meant to be contemplated, but not accepted. Unlike the Bible, it does not say that it is true. In fact, the first phrase is "The Tao that can be written is not the eternal Tao." It even says that you should learn it, embody it, and then forget it. The writer, Lao Tzu, was smart enough to know that any belief can be taken out of context and used to support any belief no matter how contradictory it runs to the original intention.

And it is upon this foundation that I continue to build my belief system. Not on a shaky foundation of faith straddling the pit of nihilism, but within nihilism itself and reaching outward, from absolute skepticism toward what seems to be becoming an acceptance of everything. I quickly embraced some transcendentalist ideas, particularly the work of Ralph Waldo Emerson, which taught meaning not from the purification of the soul, but by the establishment of one's own values and character based on their own experiences. This existed neither in compliment or in contradiction to the idea of a spiritual universe and, in fact, left that for the individual to decide. Furthermore, it suggested that one should encourage the development of individual personal beliefs in others regardless of whether or not those ideas were the same as yours since their beliefs had to be true to their experiences.

René Decartes was a philosopher most famous for his solution to existential angst. He doubted everything, even the idea that the sun would rise in the morning. He did not accept the idea that, just because something had always happened, it always would. He also knew that reality could be incredibly deceptive and everyone's conception of reality was at least a little skewed, his own included. If he could not trust himself, who could he trust? His most famous breakthrough was "Cogito ergo sum" - "I think, therefore, I am." The idea behind this simple phrase is that although one can question the existence of god, life after death, and reality as a whole, one could not question thought because to do so requires the act of thinking. And if thought was being had, someone had to have it, therefore, he reasoned, he could be certain of his own existence. Although that doesn't seem like much, in the suffering of existential angst, it's enough.

As for where my philosophy and beliefs are now, I currently subscribe to a way of thought called subjectivism (which stands in contrast to Ayn Rand's deplorable objectivism). The essential idea is that while there may be such a thing as objective truth, since we live as very, very limited subjective beings we cannot ever know objective truth. We can only develop subjective truth. Knowing that our reality is subjective makes it much easier to reconcile other beliefs. It is basically an awareness that we are all equally ignorant and an acknowledgment that our beliefs are based on our individual experiences.

As someone who has had experiences that I would call supernatural, my subjective experience does not support atheism and that, in large part, is why I am writing this blog. My two best friends are atheists and I have been listening to some prominent atheists recently including Richard Dawkins, Bill Mahr, and Penn Jillette. And while I am 95-99% in support of what they say, I feel like they lump spirituality in with religion a bit too easily and are not humble in front of the vastness of the unknown. As Shakespeare once said, "There is more in heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy," and I think that's just as true today as it was then.

This post also serves to illustrate where my conception of modern socialism differs from Marxism. Karl Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses. I would agree with that (although I'd add spectator sports to it). But while talking with the Dalai Lama of Tibet, General Mao expressed this bigotry toward the Dalai Lama's beliefs. Like many Communists before him, he put his own beliefs before others and as a consequence, another beautiful culture is being wiped off of the Earth.

I recently read a book about Tibetan views on the ability of the mind to influence reality which I found fascinating. Whether true or not, the idea made me think of thought in new ways. Did you know Sir Isaac Newton was an alchemist? Unlike conventional science, alchemy believed in the influence of invisible forces which could act on the material world. Now this idea is not only common place, but we have managed to harness the power of invisible energy fields to send complex information across the globe instantly. To declare spirituality pointless is to strike at the very heart of imagination and creativity... at least for me.

To me, Christianity is religious, but not spiritual. I realized this while talking to a Christian friend when he said that Christianity holds that the individual is not divine. The individual is a sinner. They are freed from sin by the divinity of God (or Jesus, same diff). But in my experience, spirituality is about forming a connection between yourself and the universe. It is about exploring the universe by exploring yourself. The opposite is true as well. By learning about the universe, you learn how you came to exist and how the world around you functions. The Tao teaches that you should follow the way of the universe, and what better way to learn what is and is not in tune with the universe than to study science and history? By denying their own divinity, Christians deny an exploration into their self and the universe, but perhaps more importantly, they deny their place as a natural part of the universe. This can be harmful in the development of the individual and destructive to their environment.

Maybe spirituality isn't necessary. Maybe completely rational atheism is a better belief system, but science and reason have yet to explain many of the things which make life worth living: things like love, art, and beauty. Science may provide great insight, but where it does, it is called "soft" sciences like psychology, sociology, and philosophy.

So what do I advocate? Well, to borrow a phrase from Star Trek: "Infinite diversity in infinite combinations." I believe that all people should explore their spiritual selves and come to their own conclusions. I think we should value those who have different beliefs than our own, but I also believe that those beliefs should be tested. Faith is no more than ignorance. Enlightenment comes from a lifetime spent changing and refining your ideas. And science, for all of its broad applications, does not have the monopoly on wisdom.

Assembly Bill 390

2009-02-27T09:48:00.000-08:00

Will Legalizing Pot Save California from its Cash Crunch?

By Bruce Mirken, Marijuana Policy Project
Posted on February 25, 2009, Printed on February 27, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/128963/

California state Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) has announced the introduction of legislation to tax and regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcoholic beverages. The bill, the first of its kind ever introduced in California, would create a regulatory structure similar to that used for beer, wine, and liquor, permitting taxed sales to adults while barring sales to or possession by those under 21.

Estimates based on federal government statistics have shown marijuana to be California’s top cash crop, valued at approximately $14 billion in 2006 — nearly twice the combined value of the state’s number two and three crops, vegetables ($5.7 billion) and grapes ($2.6 billion) — in spite of massive “eradication” efforts that wipe out an average of nearly 36,000 cultivation sites per year without making a dent in this underground industry.

Ammiano introduced the measure at a San Francisco press conference this morning, saying, “With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move towards regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense. This legislation would generate much needed revenue for the state, restrict access to only those over 21, end the environmental damage to our public lands from illicit crops, and improve public safety by redirecting law enforcement efforts to more serious crimes,” said Ammiano. “California has the opportunity to be the first state in the nation to enact a smart, responsible public policy for the control and regulation of marijuana.”

“It is simply nonsensical that California’s largest agricultural industry is completely unregulated and untaxed,” said Marijuana Policy Project California policy director Aaron Smith, who also spoke at the news conference. “With our state in an ongoing fiscal crisis — and no one believes the new budget is the end of California’s financial woes — it’s time to bring this major piece of our economy into the light of day.”

Independent experts from around the world, from President Nixon’s National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse in 1972 to a Canadian Senate special committee in 2002, have long contended that criminalizing marijuana users makes little sense, given that marijuana is less addictive, much less toxic, and far less likely to induce aggression or violence than alcohol. For example, in an article in the December 2008 Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Australian researcher Stephen Kisely noted that “penalties bear little relation to the actual harm associated with cannabis.”

Bruce Mirken is communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project.

Bonus:

The Union Movie Trailer

On drugs - Marijuana

2009-02-11T08:58:00.002-08:00

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."

John Stuart Mill

I didn't get high until I was 23. I had smoked pot twice before without feeling much of any effect. Prior to this point in my life, I had many opportunities to smoke pot, but I always politely refused. I was never "peer pressured" and several pot smokers actually complimented me on my ability to make my own decision.

When I was fifteen or sixteen, I was in a very private and difficult part of my life. At the time, I was opposed to drug use of all sorts including marijuana, alcohol, tobacco, and psychological medication. Although I've always been philosophically inclined, this was this period in my life in which I realized I had questions that no one had answers to, my homework was more for the benefit of others, women were as desirable as they were unattainable, and the entire world doesn't give a shit about my problems. Naturally, this began my depression. My mother, who had recently divorced from my father, was very disturbed by this and recommended anti-depressants. I thought about it long and hard, whether I wanted to be freed of this self-inflicted psychological agony, but ultimately, I refused. My reasoning was that if I needed to enter an altered state to manage my feelings, I wasn't really managing them. I was ignoring them. If I was able to handle my feelings on my own, I knew I would be stronger for it. At the same time, I realized that this was a personal choice and didn't push this belief on others.

Up until the age of twenty-three, I got drunk maybe three times and smoked cloves... maybe five times (never regular cigarettes). I had talked to a lot of people about their drug experiences and, unsurprisingly, the people who had done the most drugs also knew the most about them (granted, I also surround myself with intelligent people). I also read a lot of books, not so much about drugs but influenced by drugs. Then I would read what the writer said about his drug experiences.

My studies on spirituality, the history of spirituality, spiritual development, and spiritual practices also dovetailed into my studies on drugs. I came to discover that hallucinogens helped to influence all of the world's religions. Even more interesting, hallucinogens were often considered exclusively for spiritual leaders including the Catholic clergy. Of course, everyone knows about the role of hallucinogens in Native American cultures (particularly peyote), but anthropological studies have shown that virtually all shamanic cultures practice the safe use of hallucinogens. (Of course, that's not for us logical white folk. *dripping with sarcasm*) In any case, it became clear to me from my studies that for a person on a path of spiritual development, a hallucinogenic experience is vital... although this is an experience I have not yet had.

For the purposes of this blog, I will be focusing on several different drugs. First, I will be looking at marijuana, it's effects, legal issues, medicinal value, associated risks and history. Second, I will spend some time looking at the effects of psychiatric medication with a particular focus on anti-depressants and ADD/ADHD medication and the prevalence of use for treating minors. Third, I will be looking at hallucinogens including psilocybin, amanita muscaria, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), mescaline, ayahuasca, peyote, and salvia divinorum. Finally, I will be looking at methamphetamines, particularly crystal meth and ectasy, and opiates, particularly cocaine, heroin, and their legal cousin, oxycotin.

Disclaimer: I'm not advocating anything except sound judgment and education. Although I try to be as accurate as possible, don't take my word for this. Do your own research on both sides of the fence and decide for yourself what you believe. Most importantly, be safe and be smart.

Cannabis sativa

Cannabis sativa is the scientific classification for the plant which can be harvested in two very different ways depending on the intended use (there is also cannabis indica, but sativa is by far the dominant breed for both hemp and marijuana). Cannabis grown for drug use is commonly referred to as marijuana while cannabis grown for fiber, seeds, or oil is referred to as hemp.

Cannabis grows very quickly and easily, well-deserving of the nickname "weed." Technically speaking, cannabis is a weed which is why it is highly resistent to both weeds and drought. It can grow in virtually any environment. Due to it’s long roots, cannabis replenishes soil with nutrients and nitrogen and helps control erosion of topsoil. Through a process known as phytoremediation, cannabis actually removes and purifies toxins from the soil. (Little known fact: Cannabis sativa was used to clean the ground after the Chernobyl disaster.)

How Marijuana Works

The primary psychoactive component in marijuana is delta-9-tetrahydrocannibinol or THC. THC develops in crystals concentrated on the flower and small leaves of the plant, so the strength of marijuana can more or less be judged by amount of crystals present on the flower buds. These buds are harvested and dried for consumption. Most commonly, the drug is smoked, but it may also be used as a tea or infused with butter for cooking.

When consumed, the THC bonds with cannabinoid receptors which are designed to respond to similar chemicals called "endocannabinoids" which occur naturally in the body (endo meaning internal). The body's primary endocannabinoids are anandamide (from the Sanskrit word ananda meaning "bliss") and 2-arachidonoyl glycerol (2-AG).

Cannabinoid receptors are surprisingly abundant in nerve cells and have the highest densities in the cerebral cortex, hippocampus, hypothalamus, cerebellum, basal ganglia, brain stem, spinal cord and amygdala. This distribution explains marijuana's diverse effects. Its psychoactive properties come from its interaction in the cerebral cortex. Memory impairment is rooted in the hippocampus, a structure essential for memory formation. The drug causes motor dysfunction by acting on movement control centers of the brain. In the brain stem and spinal cord, it brings about the reduction of pain; the brain stem also controls the vomiting reflex which marijuana has been known to suppress. The hypothalamus is involved in appetite and the amygdala in emotional response.

Recent studies have shown that cannabinoid receptors are essential to depolarization-induced suppression of inhibition (DSI). Temporarily dampening inhibition enhances a form of learning called long-term potentiation, the process by which information is stored through the strengthening of synapses. Such storage and information transfer often involves small groups of neurons rather than large neuronal populations, and endocannabinoids are well suited to acting on these small assemblages. As fat-soluble molecules, they do not diffuse over great distances in the watery extracellular environment of the brain. Avid uptake and degradation mechanisms help to ensure that they act in a confined space for a limited period. Thus, DSI, which is a short-lived local effect, enables individual neurons to disconnect briefly from their neighbors and encode information.

In 2003 Giovanni Marsicano of the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich and his co-workers showed that mice lacking normal cannabinoid receptors are less likely to recover from anxiety than mice with functional cannabinoid receptors indicating that endocannabinoids are important in extinguishing the bad feelings and pain triggered by reminders of past experiences. This raises the possibility that abnormally low numbers of cannabinoid receptors or the faulty release of endogenous cannabinoids are involved in post-traumatic stress syndrome, phobias and certain forms of chronic pain, thereby supporting the belief that marijuana can be used to treat anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, or just to help cope with profoundly negative memories.

The Recreational Effects

The effects of cannabis vary depending on the person, the amount consumed, and the manner in which it is consumed. It is most often smoked through a glass pipe, paper (a joint), or a water pipe (bong). [Contrary to some of the propaganda images below, marijuana is not an intravenous drug.] Many users do not feel any effects the first, second, or even third time they consume cannabis. Effects generally last between one and three hours. Like alcohol or any psychologically altering drug, it is safest and most rewarding when taken amongst a group close friends. It should not be taken while driving or performing any action which requires a clear head.

The Positive: Reduced stress levels, muscle relaxation, mild to intense euphoria, metacognition, introspection, increased sensuality (all or some senses may seem slightly enhanced), possible very mild visual or auditory hallucinations

The Neutral: Increased appetite, decreased awareness of time

The Negative: Paranoia, lethargy, temporary short-term memory loss, dryness of the eyes and mouth, possible over stimulation of the senses

Unlike alcohol and many other drugs, marijuana does not promote violent or destructive behavior. Alcohol use in particular has been linked to 72% of college rape cases, 66% of domestic abuse cases, 75% of spousal abuse cases, and more three million violent crimes in the United States annually.

Despite rumors to the contrary, marijuana has an extremely relaxing and peaceful effect as well as certain non-quantifiable social and intellectual effects. It often enables the user to connect disparate ideas and promotes abstract thinking. Due to the effects on short-term memory, it discourages fixation and forces the mind to wander. Both the euphoric and contemplative properties of marijuana encourage conversation and engagement. The disorientation can also make it easier to overcome social awkwardness.

It is also worth noting that marijuana has two important natural means of controlling its effects: If too much is inhaled at one time, the subject may grow tired and fall asleep; and one cannot stay at the peak of their experience for prolonged periods of time no matter how much marijuana they smoke. A breaking period is necessary to lower tolerance levels. For infrequent users, this may be six to twelve hours; for frequent users, several days.

A primary accusation against marijuana use is that it causes people to become lazy and unproductive leading some to suggest that marijuana causes Amotivational Syndrome. While it is true that the euphoric and relaxing effects of the drug encourages the user to be less active, the same can be said of television. People who are intoxicated constantly, regardless of the drug, are less likely to be productive members of society. There is nothing about marijuana specifically that causes people to lose their drive and ambition. In laboratory studies, subjects given high doses of marijuana for several days or even several weeks exhibit no decrease in work motivation or productivity. Amongst employed adults, marijuana users tend to earn higher wages than non-users. College students who use marijuana have the same grades as nonusers. Among high school students, heavy use is associated with school failure, but school failure usually comes first.

The Legal Issues

The issue around the legalization (or criminalization, depending on your perspective) of cannabis is actually three issues commonly reduced to a single issue. Those issues are:

The legalization of cannabis for industrial purposes only without producing psychoactive material.
The legalization of psychoactive cannabis for medicinal purposes.
The legalization of psychoactive cannabis for recreational purposes.

Currently, marijuana is listed as a Schedual I narcotic under the federal Controlled Substances Act. While some states have passed laws allowing the production and distribution of industrial and medicinal cannabis, these laws are technically in violation of the Controlled Substances Act meaning that someone who legally produces and/or consumes cannabis at the state level may still be charged at the federal level. Arrests for marijuana possession and trafficking have been on the rise reaching new heights with every year:

2001 - 723,627
2000 - 734,498
1999 - 704,812
1998 - 682,885
1997 - 695,200
1996 - 641,642
1995 - 588,963
1994 - 499,122
1993 - 380,689
1992 - 342,314

(Please forgive the outdated figures. It was the best I could find.)

Possession of less than an ounce is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of $2000. Possession of an ounce or more may result in a felony charge which, amongst other things, carries a one to ten year sentence, a $5000 fine, and permanently strips the individual of the right to vote.

The Netherlands is well-known for its decriminalization of marijuana for people over 18 years of age. This has not led to a dramatic increase in marijuana use and, in fact, Dutch rates of drug use are lower than U.S. rates in every category, but particularly in the use of marijuana amongst minors.

Cost/Benefit Analysis

In 2005, Jeffrey Miron, Professor of Economics at Harvard University, conducted a study titled The Budgetary Implications of the Marijuana Prohibition. In this study, Professor Miron concludes that legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion dollars annually on the cost of enforcement ($5.3 billion in state and local, $2.4 billion in federal). Additionally, if marijuana was taxed the same as all other goods, it would yield $2.4 billion in annual revenue. If it were taxed comparably to tobacco and alcohol, it would yield $6.2 billion in annual revenue.

That's $13.9 billion dollars wasted every year. $7.7 billion being spent to persecute American citizens for a victimless crime. And that $6.2 billion, instead of going to schools and roads, goes to criminals.

Medicinal Uses

Fourteen states currently have medicinal marijuana available to those in need including Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Vermont.

Although many claim that marijuana has no proven medicinal value, medical groups have overwhelmingly supported legalization of medicinal marijuana and have, at times, broken the law by prescribing the illegal drug to patients. (Technically speaking, I think that any doctor who recommends marijuana is in violation of federal law.) The American Medical Association has actually been the strongest voice of decent during earlier efforts to tax and later ban the drug.

Marijuana has been shown to have medicinal value in the treatment and/or relief from the following conditions: cancer, stroke, glaucoma, chemotherapy, migraines, chronic aches, clinical depression, ADD, ADHD, Tourette's, hypertension, gastrointestinal disorder, constipation, inflammatory bowl disease, fibromyalgia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, anorexia, bulimia, insomnia, sleep apnea, epilepsy, schizophrenia, abdominal pains, nausea, vomiting, PMS, asthma, AIDS, HIV, atherosclerosis, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's. In California alone, marijuana treatment is indicated for over 250 medical conditions. There is also evidence to show that marijuana may be used to help break addiction to more harmful drugs including alcoholism and heroin.

Addictiveness

The addictiveness of marijuana is a matter of some debate, but legitimate debate holds marijuana at somewhere between a little addictive and not at all. Take a look at this addictiveness rating chart from a study done by the University of Chicago:

Nicotine                                 100
Ice, Glass (Methamphetamine smoked)      99
Crack                                    98
Crystal Meth (Methamphetamine injected)  93
Valium (Diazepam)                        85
Quaalude (Methaqualone)                  83
Seconal (Secobarbital)                   82
Alcohol                                  81
Heroin                                   80
Crank (Amphetamine taken nasally)        78
Cocaine                                  72
Caffeine                                 68
PCP (Phencyclidine)                      57
Marijuana                                21
Ecstasy (MDMA)                           20
Psilocybin Mushrooms                     18
LSD                                      18
Mescaline                                18

Nicotine, a completely legal and uncontrolled substance, has the highest addictiveness rating above crack cocaine and crystal myth. Alcohol is more addictive than heroin and cocaine. Even caffeine scores 68% thereby blowing marijuana (at 21%) out of the water.

Health Effects

Unlike alcohol or more serious drugs, it is impossible to overdose on marijuana. The dosage required would be thousands of times stronger than a recreational dose. Alcohol, on the other hand, requires only ten times that of a recreational dose to overdose. The only widely acknowledged risk associated with marijuana is in the way it is typically consumed. Any smoke, when inhaled, presents a cancer risk as well as presenting risks of respiratory problems. However, there have been no cases of lung cancer which have been conclusively or even strongly linked to marijuana use.

Some have suggested that marijuana may be more harmful than tobacco due to a relatively high tar and ammonia content, but the jury is still out on that one. Two important things should be considered. First, tobacco cigarettes usually contain eighty-one carcinogenic additives including nicotine, ammonia, arsenic, benzene, beryllium, cadmium, chloroform, formaldehyde, and lead. These may or may not be taken into account in these studies. Most studies are unspecified leading me to believe that they are done using pure tobacco, not commercial tobacco. Second, tobacco smoking often leads to binge consumption behavior commonly referred to as chain smoking. There is no equivalent with marijuana. Recreational marijuana users generally range from one deep inhalation per hour for a novice to roughly ten inhalations per hour for the habitual user. This, of course, is only during the periods in which they wish to be intoxicated unlike tobacco which may be smoked at any time of day before, after, and during complex tasks.

In 1995, based on thirty years of scientific research editors of the British medical journal Lancet concluded that "the smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."

Annual world death rates
Tobacco: 435,000
Alcohol: 85,000 (not including accidents, suicide, or murder while intoxicated)
Prescription drugs: 32,000 (from adverse effects while used as directed)
Marijuana: 0

That's right. Zero. Let me say that again: zero. Nada, zip, zilch. There has not been one recorded death in all of human history due to marijuana. It is the safest intoxicating substance known to man.

The Gateway Drug

Marijuana is commonly referred to as the "gateway drug," a phrase that I always found suspect. In fact, it isn't true. Most drug users start with alcohol and tobacco. Tobacco in particular has demonstrated a stronger causal link to harder drug use later in life. Marijuana has gained this reputation because it is usually the first illegal drug people try. This makes sense, not only because it is the most prolific and abundant illegal drug, but also because it is the safest and most mild. (After all, you wouldn't want LSD, meth, or cocaine to be the gateway drug, would you?)

In some ways, the anti-marijuana campaign actually contributes to further drug use. Like any form of propaganda, when it has been invalidated, people no longer trust the source of information. When young people try marijuana and find that it does not result in murder as some commercials have suggested or when they research it and find out that most of what they've been told is untrue, they tend to distrust everything they've been told and take drugs that are far more dangerous including hallucinogens and opiates.

The Hemp Distinction

Hemp is one of the most versatile plants on Earth. Hemp fibers are ideal for cloth and paper. Cotton fibers are only a fraction of an inch long while hemp fibers can be several feet in length making them far more durable and useful. The fibers are longer, stronger, more absorbent, more mildew-resistant, and more UV-resistant than cotton. Hemp is also naturally resistant to most pests and weeds reducing the need for pesticides and herbicides. By comparison, cotton production is responsible for fifty percent of the world's pesticide use.

Hemp fiber is commonly referred to as "biomass" or "farm waste" in studies or legislation to dissociate it from the negative connotations of marijuana. These long fibers enable hemp paper to be recycled considerably more than wood-based paper. Hemp is 77% cellulose to wood's 60%. Due to its low lignin content, hemp paper can also be produced with far fewer chemicals resulting in less pollution. Due to its lighter color, hemp paper can be lightened using simple hydrogen peroxide instead of the harsh, expensive, and toxic chlorine bleach. Hemp can yield 10 tons of fiber per acre; that's four times what you get from an average forest. Also, unlike a forest, a crop of hemp can be harvested in only four months.

Hemp seed has been called the most nutritionally complete food source in the world. It not only contains every single essential amino and fatty acid necessary to maintain a healthy life, it contains them in the appropriate ratios. Many of these nutrients are lacking in the regular American diet leading to heart disease and cardiovascular disorder. Hemp seed is 65% globulin protein, the highest known concentration in the plant kingdom. Globulin is an important component in the human immune system. In fact, antibodies (AKA immunoglobulins) are globulin proteins designed to destroy bacteria and viruses.

Hemp oil is the richest known source of polyunsaturated essential fatty acids including Omega-3. It is also quite rich in essential amino acids including gamma linoleic acid (GLA), a very rare nutrient also found in mother's milk. It has shown promising results in the prevention and treatment of heart disease, hypertention, kidney disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, rumatoidarthritis, and more.

Henry Ford and John Diesel originally intended for their engines to run on hemp oil. Petroleum was cheap at the time, so by refining the oil, they were able to re-engineer it to function like hemp oil. An acre of hemp can yield 1,000 gallons of oil; three times what cannot be collected from corn and similar products. When burned, this oil is almost completely pollutant free making it an excellent alternative to standard fuels. It is already being mixed with standard diesel in other countries like Canada where many buses run on B20 (20% biodiesel).

In hemp cultivation, plants are grown extremely close to each other, as little as four inches apart, to encourage maximum height of the stalk. Consequently, they grow tall and thin up to 20 feet high. Marijuana is grown to be short and fat with as much as six feet between plants to give them room to spread. Marijuana is bred for a high THC content. Marijuana is bred to produce flowers and leaves in great abundance with a high THC count as opposed to hemp which, when harvested properly, is cut down before flowers develop.

Both members of the cannabaceae family, cannabis is actually a cousin of humulus (commonly known as hops, a main ingredient in beer).

In hemp, THC is not desirable because it decreases seed count, so plants are bred to have a low THC content (between 0-2%) as opposed to marijuana which is bred for a high THC count (roughly 6%-15%). Hemp plants also have a high CBD (cannabidiol) content; CBD is a THC blocker. (Between the low THC content and the high CBD content, it would be nearly impossible to smoke enough industrial hemp to get high and the result would likely be more unpleasant than anything.) Cross-pollination between hemp and marijuana will result in lower THC levels in the marijuana, but not higher THC levels in hemp.

The History of Cannabis Sativa

Historically cannabis has had many names and many uses. The ancient Romans coined the term cannabis, later adopted as the scientific term. In the Middle East, ancient Semites adapted the term as kannab. East Indian cultures called the plant ganja while in China, hemp dates back to 2700 BC where it was named Ma. In the third century AD, sacred Buddhist documents were made from hemp paper. These are the earliest known paper documents. Around 1000 AD, the plant's name was changed to Ta Ma, meaning “Great Hemp,” to emphasize its cultural importance. Furthermore, archeologists have found remnants of hemp seeds and fibers amongst the relics of Neolithic cultures 12,000 years ago.

The earliest reference of hemp in Western culture is from the Greek historian, Herodotus, who praises the Thracian cloth as being nearly indistinguishable from linen. He also mentions that the hemp seeds are burned in funeral rites as incense which produce a state of euphoria when in contact with it. Hemp has a long tradition as a part of religious ceremony dating back to ancient matriarchal belief systems and their pagan descendants until it was outlawed by the Inquisitions of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. In 1484, Pope Innocent VIII declared that users of cannabis were heretics and worshippers of Satan.

By the sixteenth century, the process of creating hemp paper had made its way from China, across the Middle East, to Spain and quickly to the rest of Europe. This was a huge asset to the burgeoning printing business and contributed dramatically to the rise of education and rise of the Renaissance. Sailing ships were also using hemp almost exclusively for rope and sails. The word canvass is actually derived from the word cannabis.

In eighteenth and nineteenth century India, the use of cannabis as a drug was common place, although the British authorities spread rumors that the drug caused insanity, crime, and violent behavior. These rumors were supported by the British Temperance League who lobbied for the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission to conduct a one year investigation into cannabis. They reported no serious problems with the substance and advised against prohibition.

In America

In colonial America, hemp was a standard agricultural staple grown both by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson while Ben Franklin ran a hemp mill. Washington once wrote to his farmers, "Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, and sow it everywhere!" while Jefferson is quoted, "Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth and protection of the country." In this context, its hardly surprising that hemp paper was used for the Declaration of Independence. By 1810, hemp was America's third largest agricultural industry produced mainly by southern slaves for their landowners. Cannabis was also an ingredient in many medicines of the period.

After the Civil War and with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the hemp industry declined due to the invention of mass production practices which enabled cheaper cotton, wood-based paper, and the decline of sailing in favor of steam technology. Machinery at the time could not easily strip hemp fiber.

In 1908 and 1910, with the effect of tree farming for paper resulting in deforestation, the Department of Agriculture started looking for alternative sources for paper. Several articles were published suggesting the use of hemp, referring to it as “one of the most promising alternatives.” Jason L. Merrill, a Department of Agriculture chemist noted that the forests were being cut down three times faster than they could be regrown suggesting that wood was an infeasible source for paper. He reported:

“Every tract of 10,000 acres which is devoted to hemp raising year by year is equivalent to a sustained pulp-producing capacity of 40,500 acres of average pulp-wood lands. In other words, in order to secure additional raw materials for the production of 25 tons of fiber per day there exists the possibility of utilizing the agricultural waste already produced on 10,000 acres of hemp lands instead of securing, holding, reforesting, and protecting 40,500 acres of pulp-wood lands.”

Between 1914 and 1931, local movements, beginning in El Paso, Texas, succeeded in banning non-medicinal use of marihuana in twenty-nine states beginning in the Southwest as part of an effort to control the Mexican immigrant population which was, of course, being used as a sub-minimum wage source of labor keeping the immigrants at the poverty level. White workers, independent farmers and unionists, were threatened by the cheap source of labor prompting local law-enforcement officials spread the same rumors about crime and violent behavior that the British used to describe the Indians. One officer is quoted as saying, “Under its baseful influence reckless men become bloodthirsty, terribly daring, and dangerous to an uncontrollable degree.” In 1915, authorities from El Paso filed a complaint against marihuana with the federal government leading to a ban on importation of the drug for all purposes other than medicinal.

Two years later, Dr. Alsberg, the Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry, dispatched his personal assistant, Reginald Smith, on an eleven city tour along the southwest Mexican border to gather information about marihuana and marihuana use reporting that it was used infrequently to treat the pain of child-birth, asthma, and gonorrhea. He also found that the drug was used recreationally by Mexicans, “Negroes,” and “lower class whites.” Based on testimony from local law enforcement, he concluded that the drug was harmful to the user and often caused the user to commit heinous crimes. This was based on no scientific evidence, but merely second-hand accounts by law enforcement officials. Smith concluded that the prohibition against non-medicinal importation of the drug was completely ineffective and recommended that the more stringent Harrison Act be amended to include cannabis.

Meanwhile, in 1916, American military authorities stationed in the Panama Canal Zone received reports that army personnel were smoking the drug leading to a 1925 investigation into the Canal Zone marihuana problem. Based on a series of first hand experiments and personal testimony, the committee reported, “There is no evidence that marihuana as grown and used here is a 'habit-forming' drug in the sense in which the term is applied to alcohol, opium, cocaine, etc., or that it has any appreciable deleterious influence on the individual using it.”

In 1926, Dr. W.W. Stockberger of the Bureau of Plant Industry supported the Panama Canal Zone report and contradicted the reports coming out of El Paso: “The reported effects of the drug on Mexicans, making them want to 'clean up the town,' do not jibe very well with the effects of cannabis, which so far as we have reports, simply causes temporary elation, followed by depression and heavy sleep.”

Marihuana had long been a recreational pastime amongst poor black communities of New Orleans after the drug was introduced by Caribbean sailors and West Indian immigrants. Marihuana use was especially prevalent in the jazz community of the 1920s and traveled with it as the popularity of the music spread into urban communities across the country. Naturally, the drug again found its way predominantly into the lower-class ethnic communities where local white law enforcement officers blamed the drug for contributing to violent behavior that was clearly a result of the dire conditions in which these people lived.

In the cities, marihuana began to be defined by layman as a narcotic. This is an important distinction because the Progressives' temperance movement which had passed the Harrison Narcotic Act in 1914 to prohibit the use of opiates and coca products due to their addictive properties. To pass this act, they engaged in a campaign designed to depict the drug addict as society's most evil criminal. Cannabis was not included in this act because it was determined to lack the negative effects associated with these other drugs. However, with the rise of the jazz scene and the corresponding marihuana use, the white middle- and upper-class were in fear of a cultural revolution.

It wasn't until 1929 that the federal government even formally acknowledged the existence of marihuana. Senator Morris Sheppard of Texas introduced the first federal anti-marihuana legislation proposing that marihuana be included in the Narcotic Drugs Export and Import Act, but since Congress was largely ignorant of the drug, the Surgeon General was asked to conduct a study of the drug which was entitled “Preliminary Report on Indian Hemp and Peyote.” This report ignored the 1925 Panama Canal Zone Report and the British Indian Hemp Commission Report and concluded that marihuana was a narcotic, addictive, and induced criminal behavior based on rumor and lacking all scientific fact. Additionally, the report reiterated a popular myth that Marco Polo gave marihuana to his Assassins to invoke a bloodthirsty, berserker state.

In 1930, the Federal Narcotics Control Board and narcotics division of the Bureau of Prohibition were disbanded to form the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Harry J. Anslinger was appointed by his future uncle-in-law Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon to head the Bureau. Andrew Mellon of the Mellon Bank was the DuPont company's chief financial backer. The DuPont company had patents on methods of creating plastic from coal and oil as well as processing wood into paper. At that point, machines for processing hemp fibers were becoming a practical reality making the use of hemp fiber and hemp oil a serious risk to the future of their business.

Anslinger immediately pushed for a total prohibition of marihuana. One of the first actions of the Bureau was the enactment of a uniform state narcotic law including cannabis in its provisions. They engaged in a campaign of misinformation linking racial minorities, crime, and marihuana. A source within the Bureau is quoted in the Christian Science Monitor as saying, “Instances of criminals using the drug to give them courage before making brutal forays are occurrences commonly known to the Narcotics Bureau.”

Meanwhile, the American Medical Association continued to oppose the inclusion of cannabis in the UNDA which determined which drugs would be prohibited. When the UNDA was finally passed in 1932, marihuana was considered optional leaving the issue to be decided at the state level. The Bureau relaxed its position on marihuana, apparently having faith that states would exercise the optional marihuana clause, but due to lobbying by the AMA, only five states prohibited marihuana. In 1935, the Bureau responded with a misinformation campaign far greater than they had previously.

Media mogel William Randolf Hearst was a lead voice in the campaign to demonize marihuana. Hearst was the Rupert Murdock of his day and his papers were about as fair and balanced as Fox News, and like Fox News, Hearst didn't hesitate to lie or propagandize to incite expanding use of military colonialism. He well-known for saying, “You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war,” and he repeatedly tested this idea. According to Upton Sinclair in his 1919 book, The Brass Check: A Study of American Journalism, Hearst employees were “willing by deliberate and shameful lies, made out of whole cloth, to stir nations to enmity and drive them to murderous war." He also asserted that Hearst newspapers lied “remorselessly about radicals," excluded "the word Socialist from their columns" and obeyed "a standing order in all Hearst offices that American Socialism shall never be mentioned favorably."

Hearst had a vested interest in the paper industry. Aside from his newspaper empire, he owned hundreds of acres of tiber and a vast number of paper mills. The concept of using hemp for paper seriously undermined his business interests and he had a convenient method of swaying public opinion, often publishing many stories that Anslinger had fabricated for the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

This resulted in the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 which made the possession or transfer of cannabis illegal excluding medical and industrial uses which were taxed exorbitantly. The AMA opposed this act because it imposed a heavy tax on physicians prescribing cannabis, retail pharmacists selling cannabis, and the industries of cultivating and manufacturing cannabis. New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, who was a strong opponent of the act, started the LaGuardia Commission that in 1944 contradicted reports of Hearst's papers and their accusations of addiction, madness, and overt sexuality... but by then it was far too late.

In 1942, the United States military was facing a severe shortage of cloth, rope, and cord. To combat the problem, the US government produced a film entitled “Hemp for Victory” to encourage the farmers in the heartland to grow as much hemp as possible. After the war, this film was suppressed. The USDA and Library of Congress denied its existence until it was finally recovered in 1989.

Also during the war, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), a precursor to the CIA, used marijuana as a truth serum at OSS labs in St. Elizabeths Hospital in Washington DC. It is reported that the drug caused the subject "to be loquacious and free in his impartation of information." In 1943, head of OSS counter-intelligence operations Major George Hunter White spiked a tobacco cigarette with THC concentrate to get information about Lucky Luciano's heroin operation from Augusto Del Gracio. It was extremely effective.

1952 saw the passage of the Boggs Act followed by the Narcotics Control Act of 1956 which made first time cannabis possession offense a minimum of two to ten years in prison with a fine of up to $20,000. This was not changed until 1970 when Congress repealed mandatory penalties for cannabis offenses.

In 1972, President Richard M. Nixon, at the direction of Congress, appointed the bipartisan Schaffer Commission to investigate marijuana and the governments current stance. The Commission determined overwhelmingly that there was not a substantial health risk and recommended decriminalization. The report was ignored.

In 1975, the Supreme Court ruled that is was “not cruel or unusual for Ohio to sentence someone to 20 years for having or selling cannabis." The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 reinstated mandatory sentences. A later amendment created a three-strikes law which created mandatory life sentences for repeat drug offenders and a possible death sentence for “drug kingpins.” In 1989, President George H.W. Bush declares his War on Drugs. In 1996, California voters passed Prop. 215 allowing the sale and use of medicinal marijuana.

Further research

The Hemp Revolution - Documentary
Cannabinoids and cannabinoid receptors
Did Jesus Use Cannabis?
Hemp Seed: The Most Nutritionally Complete Food Source in the World
More on cannabinoid receptors
PBS Marijuana Timeline
Jack Herer: Former Goldwater Republican and hemp activist
Unraveling An American Dilemma: The Demonization of Marijuana
Schaffer Library of Drug Policy
How Marijuana Works

Next

A look at the legal side of drug use with anti-depressant and ADD/ADHD medication.

On sexuality

2009-02-11T08:58:00.001-08:00

One of my biggest annoyances of the present are gay people who discriminate against bisexuals. I don't care what your personal theories or experiences have told you. I don't care if you have a friend who says he's bisexual, but only dates women when there are no men available. I don't care if you are sick of "bisexual" girls who can't commit to a lesbian relationship. That's your problem, not theirs.

The sheer hypocrisy is staggering. Over the past fifty years, homosexuality has made incredible strides to become a recognized alternative lifestyle. When ever I get too upset about the stupidity surrounding the "gay marriage" issue, I remind myself that the question fifteen years ago was not whether or not they should be able to get married, but whether or not they should exist. It relieves a huge burden on the logic centers of my brain that I no longer hear the phrase: "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." (Actually, it's neither, you brainwashed Bible zombie.)

I understand that a lot of gay people, when coming out of the closet, have this big scary cliff to leap off of where you go from pretending to be straight to embracing your gayness, but it isn't an either/or proposition for everyone.

Personally, I'm of the belief that we are not born with a switch in our brain that points to straight or gay. I think sexuality is a lot more complicated than that. I also think that socialization has distorted the way we perceive sexuality. In Western culture, the insinuation has long been that sex is only acceptable in terms of vaginal intercourse by a married couple. I can't imagine how many lives this idea has ruined. Only in the latter half of the twentieth century with the sexual revolution did premarital and homosexual sex begin to be considered an acceptable alternative.

When moving from the idea of a single acceptable lifestyle, it is natural for a single alternative to become dominant, particularly in the case of gender preference where there are two clear distinctions. This gives root to binary thinking where individuals gravitate between two possible options. In our American culture, this includes heterosexual/homosexual, conservative/liberal, Christian/atheist, pro-Life/pro-Choice, pro-gun control/pro-gun rights, capitalist/socialist, PC/Mac, Coke/Pepsi... and so forth. This naturally excludes bisexual libertarian agnostics who use Unix, drink Hansen's, believe in some abortion limitations, and more control on assault weapons but not handguns. You know, non-conformists.

As for "faux-bians" (a derogatory term for straight girls who experiment with their sexuality), deal with it. Sexual experimentation is a healthy part of psychological development. If you are frustrated that a girl seems really interested one day, then not at all the next, welcome to dating girls! It sucks, but it's nothing that straight men haven't had to deal with.

It's only natural that women would be more likely to experiment sexually because male bonding is based on machismo... particularly in youth. We define ourselves by our fighting ability and sexual prowess. To be intimate with another man, you have to stop thinking of each other as competition and be emotionally vulnerable to him. That which is subordinate (read: a bottom) will be regarded (if only on a unconscious level) as weaker.

Girls have less of a compunction to be intimidated by homosexuality. There are no tops and bottoms in lesbianism (there can be, but then you can reverse the standard roles in heterosexuality as well). Also, women are generally able to emotionally bond with people much easier than men do. Theirs is a culture which promotes crying, hugging, sharing, and interdependency while male culture involves more emotional distance and competition. Women are also generally more aware of beauty and how to create it. Heterosexual, homosexual, or other, women tend to notice and emulate the beautification behavior of other woman. (The art of male heterosexual beauty is to look good without looking like you are trying to look good.)

All this is to say that those who come out of the closet have to overcome social pressure that stigmatizes them and brands them as other. In order to make this leap, they either have to be incredibly determined to express their natural impulses whatever they may be or (and this is the key) unable to happily live in a heterosexual lifestyle. Since I have met few people in life that fit this first category, I'm compelled to think that most fit into this latter category. Therefore, I imagine that there are many people with homosexual impulses happily living heterosexual lives because their sexuality is capable of encompassing both the male and the female, but they are not willing to claim homosexuality and not comfortable in the ambiguity of bisexuality.

Personally, I think sexuality encompasses a range of attractions which may have absolutely no relation to gender. Although I don't hear it talked about much any more, a lot of attention used to be placed on women's hair color including men who would limit their sexuality to a particular shade (usually blondes or redheads). Sexuality is often determined by behavior with some preferring innocence and others aggressiveness (personally, I can find both very attractive, although I have a preference for the latter). And we've all seen that sexuality can conform to race, notably Asian women, black men, and Native Americans of both genders. I had a blond-haired, blue eyed friend who was only attracted to Latino women. I've also known plenty of white people only attracted to other white people, but I don't regard them as racist.

If studies on sexuality are to be believed, there may be a biological reason for some forms of sexual preference. Using the earlier examples of Asian women and black men, Asian women tend to be smaller and have higher pitched voices which is unconsciously interpreted as being more feminine while black men tend to be taller with deeper voices indicating more masculinity and more testosterone. Generally speaking, we are attracted to the extremes because they indicate better genetic stock.

Although the biological reason for homosexuality is not known, it is clear that homosexuality exists in nature and is not a man-made invention, as some have claimed. My brother-in-law mentioned once that every large family he knew, about half of them were gay. My sister jokingly suggested that this might be a natural reaction to overpopulation. I don't know, although I do believe that psychological factors may contribute to homosexuality or at least to the open expression of this desire.

My theory is regarding sexuality simple: Sex feels good, having sex is a bonding experience, therefore sex has a social function which promotes harmony. The homosexuality of the Greeks is considered by historians to have created better soldiers because (1) they weren't sexual frustrated and (2) they had an intimate interest in each other's well-being.

I also believe power has a great deal to do with sexual interest and compatibility. No relationship that I have witnessed is entirely balanced. One person ultimately has more power over the other, although they express their power in different ways and this power dynamic may change due to circumstance. Part of being in a healthy and happy relationship is trusting the other person to have power over you. Traditionally, the men would have ultimate power in a relationship while women would exercise whatever power the men allowed them to have... such as religious moral authority, influence over children, and the network of gossipy housewives. Although women officially have the same rights as men, in practice, men are still overwhelmingly dominant, however whether this is a societal construct of dependency or a biological imperative is still up to debate. Homosexuals, lacking in defined roles, have had to create them for themselves leading to the oversimplification of the "bitch or butch" theory.

But as with all dualistic issues, there is small minority that throws the entire concept into disarray and defies all previous definitions. This is sometimes very loosely referred to as "the third gender," but it encompasses many distinct groups including hermaphrodites, transsexuals, and crossdressers. Male-to-female crossdressers create a particular problem for most straight men because their macho programming encourages an extreme embrace of heterosexual behavior and an absolute rejection of homosexual behavior. Therefore, if he sees a sexy crossdresser, he will usually engage in several sexual acts mentally before realizing that this individual is biologically male resulting in confusion between his penis (which actually sends chemical signals to the brain when stimulated which impair rational judgment and increase perceived attractiveness) and the logic center of his brain which is programmed to reject males as suitable sexual companions.

Personally, I am comfortable eroticizing a cute crossdresser. I don't see another penis as a threat to me, or in modern parlance, I could tap that. I doubt I could date a male-to-female crossdresser, however, as I would be uncomfortable with their lack of commitment to femininity... which I feel is an intrinsic part of my sexuality. A transsexual woman, however, might be different. And of course, I wouldn't be attracted to a crossdresser with masculine features (i.e. drag queen) any more than I would a woman with masculine features.

Therefore, while I admit that my sexuality crosses the line of heterosexual behavior, I do not believe that this makes me gay nor does it make me bisexual. Furthermore, bisexuality implies an equal interest in men and women, but I have trouble imagining that this is true for most. Surely there has to be a lot of people with a 60/40 interest one way or the other. If someone is 75% heterosexual, is that enough to be considered straight? If someone is 75% homosexual, is that gay or bi?

Then there is the pornography industry wherein both males and females who identify as straight and live out their lives with a partner of the opposite sex will engage in homosexual behavior for money. This is referred to in the industry as "gay for pay" because pornographers generally find gay porn, male or female, to be more rare and therefore more profitable. And if you were to ask them how they felt about performing homosexual acts, most would say it was fun. Period.

Part of the problem is that we wrap up three very different concepts in sexuality: love, physical attraction, and sexual compatibility. It is possible to have a deep and rewarding monogamous love with someone you are not physically attracted to or interested in having sex with. It is also possible to have intense physical attraction to someone without love or sexual compatibility. Really, any combination of the above is viable. Our modern conception of the romantic ideal is to have all three of these qualities in one person which, as we all know, is extremely difficult. Many people who are bisexual find this lifestyle not only satisfying, but logical, since you are more likely to find your perfect match if you have twice as many people to choose from.

Of course, then we enter issues of monogamy and whether or not this is a natural practice, but I will save that for another conversation.

Quotes

2009-02-10T11:11:00.000-08:00

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labour...I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.

Albert Einstein, "Why Socialism?" (essay originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review, May 1949)

Socialism accepts... the principles, which are the cornerstones of democracy, that authority to justify its title , must rest on consent; that power is tolerable only so far as it is accountable to the public; and that differences of character and capacity between human beings, however important on their own plane, are of minor importance when compared with the capital fact of their common humanity. Its object is to extend the application of those principles from the sphere of civil and political rights, where, at present, they are nominally recognized, to that of economic and social organization, where they are systematically and insolently defied.

Richard Henry Tawney, 1931, page 197

I am a Socialist not through reading a textbook that has caught my intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition, but because I believe that, at its best, Socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral. It stands for co-operation, not confrontation; for fellowship, not fear. It 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.

Hansard, House of Commons, 6th Series, vol. 45, col. 316. Maiden speech by Tony Blair as MP for Sedgefield, 6 July 1983.

Whether or not people believe in the practice of socialism, I hope that one day we can agree that a society of co-operation is preferable to a society of conflict.

The issue is Socialism versus Capitalism. I am for Socialism because I am for humanity. We have been cursed with the reign of gold long enough. Money constitutes no proper basis of civilization. The time has come to regenerate society — we are on the eve of universal change.

Eugene V. Debs, Open letter to the American Railway Union, Chicago Railway Times (January 1, 1897).

Money should be a means to an end, not the basis for anything. Every society should have human values as their basis... hence the Bill of Rights.

"From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need."

Karl Marx

The essence of socialism... also the essence of not being a dick.

Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.

Adam Smith

Adam Smith is considered one of the greatest economic experts in history and I think this is a wonderfully succinct explanation of the role of government. The question then becomes, to what extent should the "haves" be protected from the "have-nots?"

Bureaucracy and social harmony are inversely proportional to each other.

Leon Trotsky

This is for those who think that communism creates more bureaucracy than capitalism.

It is just as difficult and dangerous to try to free a people that wants to remain servile as it is to enslave a people that wants to remain free.

Machiavelli

It is important to remember that people have to want to embrace social change. This begins with education and cannot be forced by a mandate by the state.

No government, of its own motion, will increase its own weakness, for that would mean to acquiesce in its own destruction ... governments, whatever their pretensions otherwise, try to preserve themselves by holding the individual down ... Government itself, indeed, may be reasonably defined as a conspiracy against him. Its one permanent aim, whatever its form, is to hobble him sufficiently to maintain itself.

H.L. Mencken

The problem to be solved is, not what form of government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect.

James Madison

Recognizing that no form of government is infallible is the first step to creating a better government.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Unknown

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.

John Stuart Mill

This one is worth memorizing and considering in relation to every law.

Economic history is a long record of government policies that failed because they were designed with a bold disregard for the laws of economics.

Ludwig Von Mises

The number one law of economics I see consistently violated is the idea that wealth can be consolidated in the hands of the few. Money, like water, needs to spread in sufficient amounts to all members of society for that society to be economically healthy or the businesses undermine their consumer base, their work force, and long-term prosperity. The goal of modern economics is to make so much money that when the economy collapses, you can ride it out.

Congress is so strange. A man gets up to speak and says nothing. Nobody listens and then everybody disagrees.

Boris Marshalov

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.

Edward R. Murrow

A reminder of the importance of vigilance and accountability.

You can only govern men by serving them.

Victor Cousin

Any role of leadership should be viewed as a form of servitude. The only reason for leadership is to best serve those that are led.

I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but people. And if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take the power from them, but to inform them by education.

Thomas Jefferson

Republican Hypocrisy or Privatize the Profits, Socialize the Losses

2009-02-04T20:26:00.000-08:00

I remember doing a project in my political science class one day. We were supposed to guess how the federal budget is divided by percentage. I remember that the military budget was much less than expected and welfare was much more. But that just didn't make sense to me.

If there were really that many billions of dollars invested in welfare, wouldn't there be fewer poor people? And if we spent that little on the military, how is it that our military budget increased so dramatically over the course of the Cold War and continued to rise through the Clinton and Bush administrations? If that were true, what the hell did we fight World War II with?

So I did a little research. The budget is actually very flexible depending on how you interpret it, which is why you never really see a simple breakdown of the budget. Basically, the cost of war and a lot of military spending goes into our national debt, which is not a part of our yearly budget. Since China is buying up our national debt, we are basically taking a military loan from China.

Heh, don't support Communism, Republicans? Maybe you should add "except when there is profit to be made."

As for welfare, I found out that by far the majority of welfare is corporate welfare. That's when the government takes tax payer money and invests it in a private business. This might sound familiar because its happening right now with these controversial corporate bailouts. It is also where the titular phrase comes from: privatize the profits, socialize the losses.

It's a phrase I found a few months ago that describes the Republican economic position perfectly. The idea goes "When a business is doing well, it is wrong to interfere with their business practices because the free market has decided that they should prosper, and to control the way they run their business in any way would be a violation of their freedom," but when the business is doing poorly, we have to bail the company out so that people don't lose their jobs and other businesses that are dependent upon them are not impacted.

Now, I've never been one to take a person at their word since what someone says rarely has much relation to what they think, much less what they do. Rather, I try to find the motive that matches the effects. The effect of Republican economic values is to maintain the wealth of the rich. That's it. Period. The whole thing about self-reliance and pulling themselves up by their bootstraps is the same bullshit that every ruler has said since the beginning of time to justify their position.

To this end, the Republican position has always been that businesses must have as much freedom as possible including zero regulation on executives (whose pay and perks have absolutely no relation to their performance), lax regulation on pollution (see Kyoto Protocol), eliminating socialized institutions (i.e. communications, energy, and education), and promoting the idea that private business can do anything better and cheaper. The problem is IT DOESN'T WORK!

Executives live by the creed "It is only business." Given a choice between polluting and not polluting, they will go with whatever produces the most profit. Only if there are potential lawsuits or negative publicity associated with the action will they choose to do a moral thing when it is easier and cheaper to do the wrong thing.

The energy companies were deregulated during the Reagan administration to the praise of the party, but after Ken Lay and those other fuckers at Enron withheld power to drive up prices during the energy crisis, the blame was laid on the Democrats in power at the time of the scandal including Bill Clinton and California Governor Grey Davis... which led to the special elections that put Arnold Schwarzenegger in office.

Republicans have also undermined the educational system by bad mouthing the teacher's union. (Does anyone actually think teachers have it easy? They are paid crap and have to try to get kids to learn.) They have tried to promote school vouchers to use tax money earmarked for public schools to be diverted to private and parochial schools. Again, tax money going to private businesses (and economically speaking, schools are businesses). They have starved public schools of funding, tried to replace sex ed with abstinence only (a program that has been shown to contribute to teenage pregnancy and the spread of STDs), tried to promote intelligent design as a legitimate alternative to evolution, and declared the American educational system a failure that should be turned over to private hands.

How could anyone in their right mind believe that a private enterprise, with absolutely no accountability to facts, is more capable of teaching children than a democratically accountable institution? And if schools are privately run, how will the poor become educated? Yes, I know. You will hand out vouchers, but can you guarantee that these vouchers will consistently be able to pay for a quality education? Of course you can't. Nor can you guarantee that they won't be taken away entirely.

As far as I'm concerned, any party which seeks to undermine public education has something to be gained from having a stupid population. This isn't just political bias. This is the party that elected a C-student whose daddy got him into Yale to the presidency because they wanted to have a beer with him. This is the party that admires a bad actor who had Alzheimer's and increased the national debt by 1000%; the party that put the world's fifth largest economy (Yes, California has a larger economy than most countries) in the hands of a roided-up action star with no political experience whatsoever; the party that invited a man they call Joe the Plumber (who is neither a Joe nor a plumber) to a political strategy meeting.

So if you aren't ashamed of being a Republican, I sure as shit won't be ashamed of being a socialist.

An Overview

2009-02-03T08:36:00.000-08:00

It isn't until the white middle class feel the pinch of a recession do we start talking about socializing things. As soon as the Republicans hear a whisper of this kind of talk (or imagine it might exist somewhere), they start channeling Joe McCarthy on the old Ouija board. Suddenly, they are intentionally dense about the distinction between communism and socialism (except for the genuine morons who don't even understand how our government works). They cite the Soviet Union and Cuba as examples of the evils of ~~communism~~ socialism ignoring the successful, peaceful socialist capitalist democracies such as Sweden.

The essential idea behind socialism is simple. In a capitalist system, wealth and power will inevitably be owned by a few people since having money enables you to make more money. And since money represents work and property, you are able to buy more property and make more people work for you. Socialism says that before we accumulate this wealth, we should make sure that people's basic needs are taken care of... just as democracy is designed to make sure that people's basic rights are taken care of.

The fear of socialism (aside from the big red herring that was the Cold War) is based in the Protestant work ethic or what I call "fear that someone else is working less than you and is happy about it." This is why the conservatives talk about welfare and the lazy poor. (I could never understand why, if the poor were taking all of our money, they weren't rich. Maybe they just watched Brewster's Millions and think that if they spend the money fast enough, they get more. Either that or they are stashing it with the fabled Hobo Gold.) And yet no attention is given to the wealthy elite who don't work nearly as hard as the rest of us do for far more. The only answer is that makes sense is that conservatives want to become the exploiters instead of the exploited.

Conservatives talk a lot about small town values, but to me, nothing expresses small town values as much as taking care of your neighbor. You didn't do a background check to see if they worked hard enough, you just figured that if they were struggling to survive and you could do something to make it better... you did. No questions asked.

Now, don't get me wrong. I ignore the homeless just as much as the next guy... which is why I'm such a strong believer in food and housing for the poor because I have absolutely no faith that the change in my pocket is going to stop the problem. I don't know that they aren't blowing that money on alcohol, cigarettes, or drugs (not that I'd blame them), so why not have a handful of change (and that's all it would take) removed from my taxes to provide for the basic needs of the poor? After all, what chance do they have of becoming anything other than poor if they are dirty, smelly, wearing bad clothes, have no place to sleep, no medication, and no car? And I'm one good breakdown or another recession away from joining them.

Add this to the fact that every job is a small part of a business. Every employee has both cost and work value associated with it. The goal of every business is to make the most profit for the least cost. Whenever possible, a business will hire as few employees as possible for the least amount of money as possible without impairing the workload.

Therefore, the business does not need to consider the needs of the employees who depend upon their employment for survival (unless you count the fact that employees are also consumers and vital to the continued distribution of wealth, but as a rule, people value short-term personal benefits over long-term societal benefits). In fact, they don't have to be concerned with anything aside from the prosperity of the business which is why you will find amoral business behavior is usually echoed with the phrase "It's just business" as if that justifies any action.

This is not to say that a business can't be moral, only that the motivation to be moral is so abstract and relative that most people don't even think of it. Even then, in a climate where greed is considered normal (or even good according to Ayn Rand and Gordon Gekko), the morality of business is in contributing relatively small amounts of money to the very types of problems which socialism seeks to eliminate.

Granted, the practical applications of socialism are much more complex than the conceptual ones, but the same potential for abuse is not only possible in capitalism, but rampant as numerous recent scandels have yet again demonstrated. The purpose of this blog is to suggest that the inherent concepts behind socialism are ones that the United States must adopt in order to live up to our promise as leaders of the free world and moral people. I do not wish to be a "me first" nation.

Someone once said that a nation should be judged by how it treats its weakest citizen. I couldn't agree more, and I don't think anyone can claim by this standard that we are a great nation.