The problem with "liberal"

Too often journalists, news commentators, writers, and politicians have taken to describing the common liberal as a "bleeding heart," a "tree hugger," or some other description that conjures an idea of a Starbucks-frequenting pacific northwest hipster who subscribes to Amnesty International's email listserve, while decrying the tyranny of "the man." Allow me state the fact: most everyone can agree upon, nobody likes that person. That guy or girl is annoying, touts a holier than thou image, and generally makes everyone around them feel insecure, as well as apathetic to their causes. In labeling liberals as this, the conservative movement does more to harm the left's appeal to the working man than almost any other ploy used. The great irony here, is that it is the conservative who should invoke feelings of bitterness from the middle class, it is the conservative who should be seen as the bane of a happy medium of income, and yet the working man hates "the liberal."

I avoid calling myself a liberal. When a more common descriptor is needed (in the place of "Socialist," democratic socialist, etc) I call myself a "progressive." I believe it conveys a less haughty meaning. The American left, as people see it, has been branded, and this most likely won't change. As long as people continue to believe it, the conservative populist movement will continue to condemn leftists as "latte-sipping" liberals, and the people will continue to agree. It is time for the Socialist to rise. The word has been tainted for so long in the past, and yet it is ready for rebirth. Let it now be used to describe the hard working, meager living, champions of the people, those who actually have something to gain from a change in our political system. The "liberal" has won us nothing, and his time is over, let the Socialist now rise to foment true change in America.

Scott Brown's victory / Why I don't have faith in the people

A couple of hours ago, Republican candidate Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's senate seat in a special election. This is a man who vowed to become the 41st vote against health care reform. This is also a man who claimed that "Americans should see their tax dollars spent on weapons to fight terrorists, not on lawyers to represent them." This is a man who advocates the use of water boarding, and one who has posed nude in Cosmopolitan. Besides the choice to show his genitals in a women's magazine, most every judgement Brown has made has been contrary to the good of the people.

Brown's victory provides more evidence that there is no hope that voters of the commanding generation know what's good for them. Although Brown's victory came only because of one state, this confirms those facts that Fox News is always throwing around, the ones I thought were fabricated. These statistics claimed the majority of Americans are against health care reform, and I guess they were right. There couldn't be more proof of this than the seat of America's biggest health care reform proponent going to a man who wants to return America to its old system. There's really not much to say anymore, I've already argued for health care reform so many times, and to see it struck down after so much progress because of one state, just breaks down the last bit of faith I had in our political system. Without proper education, the masses of America will fail to realize something the Russians realized almost a century ago, the Chinese sixty years ago, and the Europeans decades ago, that the government needs to take steps to improve the quality of life for its citizens, instead of relying on the all powerful market to straighten things out. Multiple arguments can be made for these other systems having flaws, but the fact is, citizens across the world grew a backbone and attempted to forge a new government which would truly work for the people.

Maybe it will take another period of governmental stagnation for people to realize that it takes time and a majority in congress to achieve change. I fear that instead of coming to this conclusion however, the uneducated masses of our country will decide the Democrats can't push a successful agenda, and vote in the Republicans once again. This will lead to Obama failing to push any important legislation through, and may result in his failure to be reelected. I can do nothing now but write, speak, and hope, hope that the people will wake up, and soon.

Gender-Neutral bathrooms take over?

Recently I was walking in the Sandburg Commons on the UWM campus. Near the computer area I saw a colorful sign plastered near the entrance to a small bathroom. Its rainbow-emblazoned typeface told me proudly that this was now a "gender neutral bathroom." The familiar stick figures on the main sign showed the man next to the woman in perfect harmony. I thought that maybe this was just a one stall bathroom UWM decided to make open to both genders. Upon entering, I realized I was wrong, this was now a multi-gender, multi-stalled bathroom.

For those of you not familiar with the concept, gender neutral bathrooms are designed for use by men or women, and put in place by LGBT groups worried transgender and gender confused people won't be comfortable in normal bathrooms. Now I understand how it must be awkward to identify as a woman but be born as a man, and have to use the men's room in a public place. I also understand how these people, through no fault of their own, face daily discrimination from ignorant and cruel people. I support all reasonable means to protect the rights of everybody in our society, for without equality for all, there is equality for none. However, I am not willing to agree with a policy that erases the boundary between what is male and female in our society. I personally have no problem with gender confused people using the public restroom while I'm there. I wouldn't freak out or throw a fit, I honestly don't care. On the other hand, I doubt many males and surely mostly all females would not feel comfortable using a restroom open to the opposite gender. What annoys me the most is that we don't live in a society where transgender people take up a large percentage of our populous, in fact it is estimated that transgender people account for anywhere between 0.25 and 1 percent of people in America. That averages to about 1 in 2,000 people.

I understand many might not think this is a pressing issue, however the Minneapolis state legislature is considering changing most city multi-stalled bathrooms into gender neutral ones. This would not only cost the state a large sum of money, but force the gross majority of people to come to terms with sharing such a private place with members of the opposite sex. When attempting to please everybody, legislatures must be careful to avoid enacting a tyranny of the minority. There are better ways to ensure that transgender people are treated with respect in public, changing the make up of public restrooms and blurring the line between male and female is not the answer.

The religious right, or: The destruction of the seperation of church and state.

I watched "Jesus Camp" yesterday for the second time, and seeing it again sure didn't make it any less shocking. The documentary focuses on life at an Evangelical bible camp in North Dakota, while also playing important political clips from the year the film was made (2006) as well as interviewing the host of an anti-fundamentalism radio show. While the film takes an objective viewpoint, as it doesn't express any specific view on the camp's indoctrination of kids, it's not hard to understand why most who see the film end up feeling scared and angry that the nation's children are being exposed to such brainwashing material from such a young age, all with their parent's full knowledge and consent.

What can be called the "Religious Right" in this country is mostly made up of people who identify themselves as "Evangelical" Christians. These people believe that to be saved, one must be "born again" a process that involves confirming Jesus Christ as your savior, usually done at a young age. The Evangelicals also practice speaking in tongues, which ends up somewhere between ridiculous and truly frightening. The religious right is responsible for the ever growing blur of the line between church and state. By indoctrinating kids, these people are breeding the next generation for a religious war.

The problem that a mobilized group of people who put their biggest belief in something spiritual creates is much too big to be discussed in its entirety here. What I believe needs to be focused on, is the creeping flippant control these people are amassing. In America, the Evangelical sect is a virus, slowly killing our laws, beliefs, and traditions. Is there a place in modern society for religion and spirituality? Yes, I believe so, but this warped sub-sect of Christianity has no place in a country that markets itself as a place free from religious doctrine in the governmental area. Camps like the one shown in "Jesus Camp" teach children to hate abortion, praying together to end the practice, although obviously these children can parrot back their pastor's over simplified ignorant view, I doubt they could even begin to understand the socio-economic black lash of outlawing pregnancy ending practices in a modern post industrial country with a population of 300 million.

These groups of ultra religious adherents spare no effort in becoming active citizens, their members run for political office, as well as vote frequently for the dismissal of civil rights for gays, as well as economic programs for the poor. They often mix their message of Christian superiority with flagrant nationalism, a deadly mix that assures the destruction of anyone not supporting their agenda.

Marx said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" and although I see cultural place for peaceful practice of it, I sadly have to agree. The religious right teaches its kids that global warming is no big deal, and that growing resource depletion doesn't exist. Why anyone would want to hoodwink the next generation into such views is confounding until one realizes that these people have no care for the earth, since they believe soon they'll be off to a much better place. This ideology allows them to commit all sorts of crimes against the earth and its peoples, all because they believe in the end, it doesn't really matter. By telling the poor and sick not to fight, because in the end, they will go to heaven, they make sure the exploitive system in places for centuries continues to push on.

These sects need to be discredited asap, and adherents need to be removed from government because as long as the insane man is allowed to steer the ship, the chances of running aground grow.

Class-based consumerism in the Windy City

I started my two day vacation in Chicago today. I usually don't buy a whole lot of things in the space of a couple days, so I knew on this trip, I'd be more of a spectator to my friends rather than a big spender. One of the first stops we made was to the Polo Mansion, the three story Polo mecca decorated like a Viscount's estate. When I looked at the prices I was appalled, I spotted a $1,600 pea coat, as well as a $5,000 suit, the suit happened to look exactly like one I bought from a second-hand store for thirty bucks. I suppose it's the right of any store to set their prices at whatever they believe people will be willing to buy them for, but when I see these otherwise regular looking clothes priced in the thousands, I can't help but feeling that this is the way our society shows class, rather than proclaiming someone a duke or baron.

Sadly, this wasn't the only store with outrageous prices, almost all the stores along Michigan avenue price their items outside the reach of the common working man. I imagine the employees can't keep from wondering why middle-class looking kids like my friends and I even bother coming into their stores, just to come out feeling disappointed. I know that the materials Polo clothes are made from aren't mixed with gold, I don't believe they're much better than normal clothes, so the only reasonable solution is that "the pony" is a status symbol meant to show how rich one is, how lucky, how skilled, how extra fucking better they are than the rest of us. Some may say I'm jealous of the rich, yet I don't really want the Polo items myself, I'm just sick of seeing the little club for the rich everywhere in our society.

Chicago is a good example of what capitalism does to a society. Driving into downtown, one notices the grimy outskirts, while moving around the city, it's quite easy to take a step off Michigan avenue and end up a couple blocks away next to a trash filled gutter and a 7-11. The amount of homeless people abounds on Michigan, harassing scared shoppers who clutch their Burberry bags a little bit tighter. Such a juxtaposition in wealth makes one ask what bad karma the down and out must have provoked for life to treat them so spitefully.

When the time comes, and I start my career, I'm sure I could afford to splurge on these overpriced goods, I don't think I will though, I wouldn't feel right wearing a thousand dollar sweater when the guy walking next to me asks for some change for the bus. In our society, everyone has the right to spend their money how they choose, I just hope that in the future, people worry more about the quality of life of their neighbors, and less about seeing how many ponies they can fit into their closet.

Human Nature: Good or Evil?

The answer to such a question can help one to understand how they view society, and the people around them. Personally, I usually reject the idea of true black or white so to speak, however if I had to answer, I would say human action in the past has shown a trend of behavior that could definitely not be considered compassionate or caring. Although there are many communities that work together without exploitation, and there has been since recorded history, the selfish instinct amongst people is present in most, and is usually acted upon if they are given the chance to. I would argue that the reason why we see such greed and debauchery amongst western society, but not as much in let's say, American Indian culture, is that members of the tribes weren't or aren't given the same freedom to act outside of the community's wishes.

Marxism, or any political system aimed at insuring success for all runs against this instinct amongst people, and therefore cannot be expected to be accepted readily amongst all peoples. This explains why such a logical train of thought, one that ensures comfort for all, has still not been realized in the entirety of human history.

The answer, seems to be to make it in people's best interest to help their common man. If there is a socialist government in place, surely it is easier for a person to go along with it, pay their taxes, and work for the good of all while receiving what they desire, to some extent, than to organize a uprising in an attempt to change the entire system. In this way, I doubt the effectiveness of socialism working in a complete democratic system, at least while the people are so uneducated.

Socialist collectivism before Marx (and Engles)

For the last couple of years, I've always associated all forming thoughts of collectivism and social communism to Marx and Engels. My incorrect assumptions (and hobby of reading history) have lead me to focus mainly on history as a way to witness Marxist transformation of society. I have ignored other philosophical and political outlets that not only go hand in hand with what can be called "Marxism" but also the works and ideas that may have helped guide the bearded ones.

I recently started reading Utopia by Sir Thomas More, and was quite surprised to see that in the first few pages, a quite commanding argument against capital punishment for theft is laid out. This book was written in the sixteenth century, and yet the same argument of society being to blame for crime of necessity, (as it continues, if not expects poverty and theft, and then severely punishes those it almost built to break the law) exists strongly today in those who disagree with the strong jail time for such crimes as drug possession and petty theft.

Further on, More claims that an answer to the rate of theft in English society is to put all the unemployed to work at honest jobs, and also to implement an almost Norwegian punishment system that makes convicts work off their debt to society in relative productive comfort. This seems especially shocking as we tend to remember the "dark ages" when Utopia was written as particularly bloody and cruel.

Such arguments in the beginning chapters, (and the fact that Lenin built a statue of More in Russia after the revolution) make me believe that Utopia is an important book for anyone interested in the concept of a perfect society, and what freedoms must be given up to achieve it.

The new year seems to be a good time to ponder one of my biggest inner questions. If the political system I believe in preaches every person equal in worth, yet also demands productivity from everyone in society, how does one account for the differences in motivation, ambition, and intelligence? And how should one such as myself, who holds such small faith in the proletariat of my country, "trust and believe in the masses"? I currently believe that the burden of making progressive decisions for our society falls on those willing to make them on behalf of the masses instead of with the masses, until the system changes, and allows all to be educated properly.

Hopefully as I continue searching for the answer, I will learn more and grow more. I know I can count on authors like More to point me in the right direction.