New Russia: A reassesment

Proponents of capitalism will often remark that the free market meets the needs of the masses. Unequalities in society will be fixed by the all-powerfull "invisible hand" to quote Smith. Far too often, proponents of socialism or other alternatives will be derided with "facts" about the backwardness and ineffciency of any rival of the free market. I was heartened to recently read an article published in News

The Parliamentary Socialist, and Glenn Beck has a point?

I am currently reading Trotsky's Terrorism and Communism, which is an extolment of a revolutionary, one party state over a parliamentary democracy. The piece was written in 1920, right after the end of the Russian Civil War. In it, Trotsky points out the negatives of attempting socialism through democracy. I thought after last blog's rather controversial point, I should clarify a bit on my opinion on democracy.

A political theory is the most relevant to the time it was created in, given certain circumstances. The situation in Russia during the early twentieth century, or China during the 1940's called for a true revolution. The possibility of realizing socialism through a democratic establishment was slim to none. The leaders of these revolutions were dealing with an unlearned, feudalistic populace. Obviously, here in America, such a unilateral undemocratic revolution would not be supported, and should not be attempted. The way to achieve socialism in the "First World" is through democratic elections. So while I support Trotsky and co. in theory, given their time in history, applying their teachings to our present society is not a good idea.

On another topic, I was watching Glenn Beck last night, and he was arguing the usual conservative mantra of cutting taxes and spending being the key to fixing the economy. I realized that I agree with him. Cutting taxes and spending is probably the most effective way of rebounding the economy, and returning to the same system of deregulated, rat -ace capitalism that got us into this mess to begin with. Our government should not be searching for ways to return the economy to the status quo, but to improve its practices to ensure another catastrophe like this never happens again.

True Democracy and the One Party State

Disclaimer: Although I may often criticize her policies, I am by birth, an American. That being said, I was conditioned in an environment that allowed me to study other political systems, and my idea of "freedom" may reflect that ability.

Most Americans, if asked what they love best about their country, would answer their freedom. Their freedom to open a business, vote for a candidate, or speak freely without fear of repercussions. Some of these freedoms help me be able to write this blog, for instance. However, when looking deeper into the fabric of American, or more importantly, Western society, one can't help but notice the shocking lack of true freedom. Does the child born into the extreme urban poverty we are only too familiar with have any true choice of education? Any real chance of owning or operating a business? Perhaps, in some rare cases, they do. But far too many people born to the lower class stay that way, poor, hardworking, and overlooked by a society obsessed with materialism. This sense of freedom degrades even more when considering that although allowed to vote, too often the people's choices are between similar candidates, operating without any working class principles or cares. Does one's vote really matter when choosing between two ideologically concurrent parties? Certain Democrats, I believe, have a concern for the working class, but all too often, they're corrupted by the power, money, and prestige.

Even though beset by all these problems, most Americans, as well as leftists, would balk at the idea of living within a socialist, dictatorship of the proletariat. They decry this idea of being authoritarian, Orwellian, etc. Would a multi-party, western, socialist society be able exist? That is, would a socialist nation be able to function with a viable opposition? Historically, every Marxist society that came about due to revolution has not allowed political opposition. Some may attribute the downfall of the USSR, for example, to their banning of any organized political opposition. I disagree. In my opinion, if a socialist state were to come about, allowing political opposition to take root amongst the unlearned masses would spell destruction for the movement. This is due to the fact that socialism requires a complete rewiring of society, and one's ideas and perceptions of it. I have faith in the people, faith in their ability to popularly choose socialism eventually, however once that happens, it would be far to dangerous to allow an active opposition immediately. Socialism brings massive improvements, but only after tearing down the pre-existing system of exploitation and degradation. The people must be given the chance to witness the positive changes, and then let them contemplate an opposition.

If, for example, a popular movement were to take power, under the leadership of a vanguard party, which I believe is necessary, and that party was to stay in power, allowing democratic centralist elections to party posts, would that not be true democracy, provided this party was truly acting on the will of the people? And would not the people's decision to allow this party to continue to rule constitute as legitimizing its rule? By this logic, I would argue that it is possible to have a democracy, even a more effective democracy, within a one party state.

Unnecessary Dividers in the Marxist Community

I've written often of the multiple factions that plague the left. Specifically, these can include the difference between anarchists, trade-unionists, Marxists, anarcho-syndicalists, etc. Today, I will focus especially on the divisions that split the Marxist community.

The origins of the divisions in theory and practice debated among today's Marxists can be traced back more than seventy years. These differences can be extremely small and seemingly insignificant, and yet they never cease to cause controversy amongst leftists. I believe that these rows are caused more by managerial differences and the debate on modes of practice than any real ideological debate between Stalin, Trotsky, etc.

A good example of the needless debate between Marxists centers on Stalin's "National Question" and its place in Marxist thought. Self-described Trotskyists and Stalinists continue to be split by their opinion of this piece, often needlessly. The real focus on the "National Question" centers on state-craft, which is more or less useless to America's fledgling Marxist community.

Since the 1917 October Revolution, revolutionary politicians have understood that the theory of Marxism is a tool to be applied to oppressive governments in the hope of building a more egalitarian society. This point, that Marxism is a tool to be applied to a particular situation seems to have been lost on many revolutionary Marxist parties in the "First world." Deep down, every politically conscience progressive person has a inner-revolutionary, fighting to take over and foment some sort of a people's war for the betterment of mankind. But, as mature beings of current western society, we must put down this craving, and work for a true democratic revolution, within the political system we currently have. The concept of violent revolution in America, or the western world for that matter, is currently impossible and unsupported by the masses, and thus working towards one must be considered opportunist defeatism.

Revolutionary giants of the past provide a good example of thought, theory, and practice, and must be used often as a guiding light. There is nothing wrong with learning history, or admiring the likes of Lenin, Mao, or Che. The real problem starts in failing to understand that these men used Marxism as a tool in their time, and in their unique historical context. The failure to update Marxist action, and the refusal to take part in the current democratic political process dooms any Marxist movement to failure.

The myth of American exceptionalism

Recently, and against better judgement, I opened up an issue of the ultra-conservative magazine "NewsMax." Now if I were to write a blog post for every utterly confounding thing in that magazine, it would be safe to say I wouldn't have any spare time to update my other blog, or even write angry Op/Eds to "The Post" for that matter. After seeing one particular phrase in an article about Obama's foreign policy however, I couldn't resist a rant. Near the end of the article was this well crafted claim: "Obama denies American exceptionalism, insisting that American is just another country like Uganda or Spain, except with more land."

What blasphemy! What lies! I honestly can't believe there are many Americans that believe his nonsense, and yet I know it to be true. I suppose the writers of NewsMax believe that by birth we Americans are better than the other people's of the world? By divine mandate we reserve the right to rule? These xenophobic and nationalistic writers believe they are actually superior.

There is nothing wrong with being proud of one's country, but such feelings often lead to dangerous nationalistic sentiments. These feelings create an atmosphere of lazy self-assurance, and are threatening the growing progress of our country. The conservatives are feeding Joe Citizen what he wants to hear, along with fatty foods and useless products. Eventually, without a new attitude, our country will continue to decline in world rankings for literacy, health care, knowledge, and freedom. These arrogant Americans can only shrug at the anger of the world for so long, before they utterly destroy our country. America's suffering and hard work decades ago gave us our pride, and these people are continuing to live off of it like a fat thirty year old in his mother's basement. Only a new commitment of hard work and global responsibility will cure the disease of "American exceptionalism." The sooner we all realize we're citizens of the world too, the larger the chance of positive development in our crumbling society.

Further musings on fellowship amongst leftist groups

Recently, the problem of factionalism amongst leftist has been growing even more profound. On the UWM campus there exists at least three separate groups touting a similar ideology. The main problem seems to be a lack of leadership, and idea of purpose amongst these groups.

Here on campus, SDS takes the role of the only major "revolutionary" group. They can boast the largest members, and yet groups such as "Progressive students of Milwaukee" and the "Revolutionary Students Union" and the SDS-splitter "Act Everywhere" still regularly hold meetings, rallies, etc. While these groups are filled with bright, charismatic students, and they generally put on a good protest, their stubborn refusal to take part in the legitimate affairs of UWM continue to damn them to inefficiency. In a sense, they are paper tigers.

At first glance, one would assume these rebellious groups are filled with the "typical college hippie," at once as equally taken with the movement as the image. They are in fact, filled with well-meaning and seasoned student activists. The man-power SDS can call up for a protest or speak-out is impressive if not a bit frightening.

These groups suffer from what I'll called "left revisionism." Their hatred of "the system" causes them to shun any chance of gaining legitimate power on campus, thus doing more harm to the leftist movement than any conservative group could do. While many paramount leaders are arguing whether or not to even vote in the student elections, conservative groups on campus are running, and electing their candidates to powerful positions within the government.

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.

A struggle in Brew City

Here in Milwaukee, poverty is a large problem. Along with the issue of poverty comes segregation and disenfranchisement of minorities. 50% of black males between 18-29 in this city are unemployed. Teen pregnancy is already a large problem, and the numbers are growing. A large percentage of these pregnancies are with men over 18. The Milwaukee public school system is about to be taken over by the mayor. A solution is needed.

While Milwaukee has its flaws, there sure are many people willing to kick the horse when it's down. Many people are opposed to the way the city is run, including the large portion of residents on welfare. When even hearing the word welfare, they clam up, picturing the stereotypical "welfare queen" who abuses tax payers by living off of the monthly checks, and producing nothing of worth for society. These ideas are prevalent amongst blue-collar whites who live just outside the city, convinced their less-than-ideal living conditions are the fault of some community of lazy minorities in Milwaukee, sucking the state's funds dry. Many in Wisconsin are quick to blame any deficit in the state budget on "lazy Milwaukee," and of course, their solution is to take away funding from the biggest city in the state. These people and their representatives demand concessions in funds for the school system, and public works projects around the city, and expect those funds to be directed into their no-name, manufactured villages. Alone, these people can't challenge the power of Milwaukee, but when you take into account that most every other small city and town in Wisconsin shares these pseudo-racist views, along with the senators and the governor, it isn't surprising that funds for our slowly dying city are constantly on the chopping block in the state senate.

The coming gubernatorial election pits Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker against the mayor of Milwaukee, Tom Barrett. Walker is at the lead of anti-Milwaukee feelings in state legislature, and never fails to invent new ways to cut city funding. For the last year, Walker has been taking motorcycle trips around the state to court the conservative vote for the upcoming election. He has devoted large portions of working time to these trips, in spite of concerns by citizens that he isn't spending enough time doing the job he was elected for.

Walker has pledged to cut busing in Milwaukee, and work to privatize most public works, in an attempt to cut costs.

Although Barrett isn't the shining example of political genius, the fact that he's the mayor of Milwaukee means if he enters the governorship, it will be with the knowledge of our city's needs and desires. Come election time 2010, I will be first in line to cast my vote for Barrett, and hopefully the solution for Milwaukee's problems will begin to form.

An in-depth study of my political compass

There are many ways to describe my political beliefs. One may think that being such a politically-minded person, my views would be easy to state. I suppose the opposite is true, the more involved in politics one is, the more complicated his or her opinion on world events becomes. I can no longer reference a single political ideology when talking about my beliefs. I consider myself an economic Socialist, and a social progressive, yet hold no allegiance to the SPUSA, nor the SWP. Let's analyze where I stand.

My social stance isn't all that hard to understand, like most other progressives, I believe in equal rights for every man, as well as strong social development programs. In terms of economics, I advocate for a strong centralized system of state enterprise for primary goods. Rephrased: I believe the government should control the means to produce and sell certain products deemed necessary for the common good. This would remove the profit incentive from human needs. For example, in certain countries in Africa, foreign private companies own the only readily available supply of water. If one wants water, they must insert money into the local pump. I believe most Americans on both the right and left would agree this is wrong. Although maybe not as harmful, here in America, certain industry needed for the good of the country should be nationalized. This would include the ever-failing auto industry, and of course, health care, if that could be called an industry. Foreign produced goods should be heavily taxed, and large tariffs should be installed to ensure production stays inside the country. Besides the auto industry, there are many more institutions in the country that should be brought under governmental control, such as lumber production, and oil drilling. These can be discussed at another time. Many would claim that the profit incentive helps foster new ideas, and streamline business, I don't disagree, however when the profit incentive is introduced into the production of goods essential for human well being, the only new ideas fostered are more ways to extract money from an impoverished population.

Many critics would call these ideas tyrannical and overbearing, they live in a fantasy world. The American "Right" today believes in a country of independent contractors. To them, every man is in charge of gathering the items he needs for survival, and may charge any fee for the things he produces, since they are, inherently, his. This "survival of the fittest" concept breeds not only a fearful civilization, but one unable to be bothered with the concern of his brother. It incorrectly presumes that each idea, or good, is the product of only one mind, and runs contrary to the communal ideas of man that have ensured human survival since the Neolithic Revolution.

I consider myself a proud Socialist, and I will continue to fight for decisions I believe will improve the way this country operates.

America's double standard on Sexuality

It seems not a week goes by nowadays without some minor celebrity getting naked, either in a badly shot sex tape, or a photo "leak." My first memory of this was the Paris Hilton sex tape, it seemed the public was so blown away by the fact that this media whore had filmed herself having sex. For years on end now, the tapes and leaks have continued. Newscasters interview media experts, books are written, and lawsuits abound when the celebrities decide to sue for the rights to their images. Throughout the process, the masses are obsessed.

Flashback: The 38th Superbowl: Halftime, Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson are performing a "medley" of songs, including Timberlake's "Rock your body" during the last line of the song, I'm gonna have you naked by the end of this song, Jackson's nipple is shown for 9/16's of a second. This simple act resulted in over $500,000 worth of fines from the FCC, not to mention mainstream America's horror, resulting in talks of society corrupting the youth of the country. After this, the means of broadcasting were changed, resulting in signal delays, more laws against nudity, and a general crackdown. What I find so damn appalling, is that these puritans who couldn't stand the sight of a nipple, said nothing about the constant sexual gesturing, subliminal sexual messages, and suggestive clothing worn by the performers throughout the rest of the performance. Every frazzled soccer mom had absolutely no problem with her son or daughter listening to Timberlake's CD, with its songs about sex, bondage, etc, yet as soon as a nipple was shown, society is indecent.

I'll agree with those who say this generation is growing up in the most morally destitute society in America's history, yet brief harmless nudity isn't to blame. On European television, it's no surprise to see male and female nudity, yet their culture isn't filled with hyper-sexualized celebs or a culture of perversion.

There's such a double standard here. Americans are obsessed with sexuality, yet punish small amounts of harmless nudity in public. To sing about oral sex is acceptable, to watch glorified porn on Cinemax after 10:00 is acceptable, to talk endlessly about the most recent celebrity sex scandal is perfectly normal, yet to show breasts on television? It's indecent for the children! The same tikes whose eyes are shielded from the hideousness of the naked body are busy pretending to blow each other up in video games that cheer death, gore, and debauchery.

I can't help but feel that this trend is just one of the standards left unturned by the sexual revolution. Although most baby boomers would like to say their generation paved the way for equality amongst genders and sexual rights, all it seems to have did was create an unhealthy, yet delicate balance in society. No nudity in public, but let repressed sexuality abound.

I'll leave with a question, what is so indecent about our bodies, that we have to impose laws against letting them be seen?

America needs a friend like Abu Dhabi

A strange sounding headline got my attention on the BBC website today, "Abu Dhabi gives 10bn to Dubai to help pay debts." I was confused since I've never heard of Abu Dhabi before, turns out it's the Capital of the U.A.E. Since Dubai has lost so much money in the economic downturn, its neighbor came to the rescue. Dubai had loans to repay, but not the accumulating interest kind America has with China, turns out Dubai was afraid of coming up short on repaying a special "Islamic Loan" which doesn't accrue any interest according to Islamic law. A story like this makes me envious that America doesn't have a friend like that. Would Canada hand over billions if the U.S was in danger of defaulting on its loans? I doubt it. I believe there is little sympathy in the world for the suffering of the U.S during this downturn, and maybe that's a sign that we need to work harder to foster bonds with our neighbors of the world.

The Pope and population Control

Today in HIST1015 a discussion opened up on the use of contraceptives in society, primarily among people of the third world. A document that Pope John Paul II wrote claiming that modern civilization was turning into a "society of death" was debated. Obviously the abortion discussion can be had over and over again, mostly with no real ground taken by any side. The question of abortion and its legality seems to be stuck at the 38th parallel. The topic of this debate didn't focus on abortion however, it centered on the usage of contraceptives to prevent birth.

The class seemed to be mostly in support of contraceptives, yet one student in particular seemed to defend the pope's irresponsible comments by blaming the hyper-sexualized culture, in which the U.S and much of the so called "developed world" live in, for most of the unwanted pregnancies. The question then became whether or not humanity should strive for a solution to over-population.

Many Americans are quick to demonize China's One Child Policy as tyrannical. In their eyes, each family should make an individual choice of how many kids to have, the consequences be damned. It then becomes a question of at what point does your expression of freedom infringe upon mine? This "freedom to die" thought process is fairly easy for many Americans who have never even dealt with food shortages, much less starvation. During the Great Leap Forward, when Red China was experimenting with homemade steel production, a large crop failure spread claiming the lives of around 30 million Chinese. In many high population developing countries, a small failure in the food supply ends up killing hundreds if thousands of people. Such a event could be triggered by something as minimal as a few extra days of the monsoon rains.

In the next fifty years, the population of the world will double. One would assume in today's society of science and real world solutions, ideas about how to stem the ever growing population of the world would abound, unfortunately this isn't the case. Most of brightest minds are busy coming up with new products to sell, or solving the humanitarian problems in the present, instead of the near future.

I saw a statistic a couple weeks ago. In the next twenty years, water in dry parts of the world will become more valuable than oil. An answer to the growing population, which takes place almost entirely in the developing world, needs to be found. The last thing that the world needs is the leader of the world's largest religion condemning condoms and birth control.

Healthcare in the grand ol' USA

The senate is currently in session debating the health care bill. While this statement would have been cheered in the Clinton years, when the nation's hopes for universal coverage were dashed, now the concept has grown stale. The House passed a version of health care reform with something like a four vote margin. Obviously, the senate has one fourth less representatives, and will most likely be even harder. The shocking part of this process isn't that conservatives and the multi-billion dollar health care industry are in the trenches fighting it, its the honest-to-god stupidity of the American people who are against it.

The television commercials are saturated with ads of old folks asking why the government would want to hurt them, to deny them coverage. Opinion polls show that almost half the population, when asked if they support the bill, say no. In a country in which the top 10% of the population con trolls 90% of the wealth, its absolutely amazing that any common citizen would vote against something conceived to help the common man. We're not talking about 30% of the population that could stand to gain from this, or even 40%, but every single person not currently ensured by expensive, "elite" health coverage."

Although the Conservatives are certainly to blame, the democrats aren't blameless either. A group of democratic congresswomen will not vote if it doesn't include coverage for abortions. Of course the fact that most current health care plans don't include abortion coverage either seems to have no affect on their opinion.

If it were up to me, the single payer option would be the only option, and to hell with the costs, or the profit incentive. Hopefully the bill will pass, as it will be a big step forward. Maybe then the American people will awaken to the truth.

West Bank settlement and Mob Mentality

Today the BBC reported on intense Israeli protests over the ever controversial West Bank settlements. Many of the settlers are protesting over the halt of further expansion on the bank. Obviously their own boundaries aren't enough, and they must expand forward, gobbling up Palestine, or as the U.S and Israel would have us call it, the "Palestine territories." What makes the situation so historically ironic, is that the reason for the settlements, "there's not enough room to live, so we must expand" is the same reason used by the Third Reich for the Lebensraum action that annexed Poland, Austria, and the surrounding area. The fact that the U.N. itself deems these settlements illegal says a whole lot about arrogance of the Zionist state. That the Jews, after their Holocaust, would elect a ultra-nationalist leader, and impose themselves on an innocent people makes the sickest joke out of such a terrible event in history. The U.S. should recognize Palestine as a state, and cease funding the military of such an oppressive government.

On an unrelated note, a discussion in POL1201 on Tuesday brought up an interesting discussion on the forms of democracy, specifically, if a violent mob is democratic. Some of the students claimed that democracy mostly is a peaceful movement, and though the professor disagreed, I couldn't agree with his acknowledgement that a mob is undemocratic. Democracy does not mean "informed, calculated judgement of the people" it only means rule of the majority, and hence, if a mob is created, with no real leader, it is a democratic mob, its destruction cannot be pinned onto one person or idea, each person taking part is making a choice for themselves, regardless of whether or not it is a good one. Such a concept could explain why the founding fathers put barriers to true democracy into the constitution, and are we safer because of it? I don't really know.