A Great Animation on the Education System

Also:

What Democracy Looks Like: Debates

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

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

We are going down the socialist toilets

[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

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

Report on the War on Drugs in Mexico

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

The Philosophy of George Carlin

Glenn Beck blends uses racism to denounce socialism

Loving Submission: A Guide to Christianity and BDSM

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

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

Democrats VS Republicans

Pros and Cons of Financial Reform Bill

Canadian banks vs American Banks

How many millionaires are in the world?

Another Young Turks video:

Heaven and Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism

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

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

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

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