The Golden Rule

Well, one week down, fifty-one to go. I said I'd update more regularly, and so far I've kept my word, now it's just a matter of how long it will last. All this consistency might be getting to me. I've been procrastinating more and more lately, as I have yet to file my taxes and homework is increasingly falling into the to-do pile. On the other hand, I always get lazier as the semester goes on and I haven't sent my taxes in before the fifteenth in three years.

Anyways, like I said in a previous post, there have been a lot of topics on my mind as of late, and because of my brevity vow I can no longer cram all of them into one essay-length post. I'll start with a bit of a follow-up, lately on Nightly News they've been running these segments highlighting people who have been giving of themselves to help others through this economy. Although I do applaud those who help others, the longer the segment goes on the more I feel it might be helping people to lose perspective. The viewer e-mail that started it all talked a lot about needing to hear some good news and hearing too many dismal things in the news about the economy. I mentioned in my last post how I don't believe that is the best thing to want right now, and how people can isolate themselves from what others are going through in this crisis. NN ran a segment last week that finally seemed to let up on the feel-good tone and bring us back down to earth. This segment was about a tent city that has formed, made up of people who have lost their jobs and their homes. I really liked it because I think it's important to keep perspective, and to not just try to make yourself feel better constantly. People are suffering in this recession, and we need to be cognisant of what they're going through. You can watch the segment here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619

One more bit of news before I move on, the captain who had been kidnapped by Somali pirates was returned safely today. If you haven't been following the story, it's a little unbelievable. During a pirate hijacking, a commercial boat captain decided to offer himself up as a hostage to save his crew, and last night he was saved from his captors by Navy SEAL snipers. The situation still proves to be dangerous, as pirates still hold an estimated 230 sailors from around the world hostage and have promised retribution against the rescue. The U.S. has promised action, but I don't know that military might is necessarily going to solve things. Like insurgents in the Middle East, these pirates have resolve. I think that with the evolution of global societies and armed conflict, we need to be aware not just of the military implications but of the socio-ecnomic implications. Of course we cannot lay down for these pirates, but we also need to be mindful of why they commit these acts and how global poverty is affecting these coastal countries that are becoming havens for pirates.

In other global news, President Obama has promised to work with Russia towards mutual nuclear disarmament. Some people have been criticizing the move, but I think it's not only a good move, it's pragmatic. People have been bringing up that one of the largest factors contributing to the lack of a nuclear strike since Nagasaki is the threat of mutually assured destruction. Basically, if any country launches a nuclear strike they can be pretty sure that some country will respond in kind. I'm not denying this, in fact I completely understand and support the concept. I have heard a lot recently about Iran and North Korea launching nuclear strikes, and I just laugh. No country, as long as there is a chance of retaliation, not even Iran or North Korea, is going to launch a nuclear attack, period. Generally, I wouldn't agree with using the threat of attack to repel attack, but the threat of nuclear strikes is so great, the potential loss of life so high, that in this case mutually assured destruction may be the only thing preventing lives from being lost and the only sure-fire way to do so.

So why, then, am I supporting the President's pledge to step down nuclear arms? First of all, because we do not need extremely large nuclear stockpiles to keep the threat of mutually assured destruction alive. Second, total disarmament is not going to happen in my lifetime, fact. It's probably not going to happen in the next generation's lifetimes. I do hope, though, that eventually all countries will be able to step down their arsenals at least to the point that no one has one large enough to do anything but assure they are not attacked by a nuclear strike. At any rate, we'll never make any progress on the issue if we don't set goals and mindsets. Obama's promise is just that, setting a goal and a mindset of eventually being able to live without the threat of nuclear arms, even if that will never happen in his lifetime. I don't see anything wrong with saying that, especially considering the comment was made in an attempt to reach out to Russia. If we can make collaborative efforts with other countries on issues like nuclear policy, we will be one step closer to undoing the damage that was done to our national reputation in recent years.

Now, finally, value issues. I've got a lot of them, so I think I'll tackle them one by one. Today, gay marriage. A few states have made gay marriage legal, and California's challenge to Prop 8 is coming up soon. I have to be honest, I was pretty disappointed with where the country's laws stood after the recent elections. Like I've said before, it's hard for me to think of all that homosexuals in this country have gone through just to be treated as equals and then look at a situation like what happened with Prop 8 without being a little disenchanted. I've approached the issue in many ways, and I don't think anything I have to say won't be repeating something I've already said, but we keep revisiting the issue so I guess I'll just repeat myself: I see no reason why anyone should be allowed to restrict anyone's rights based on their personal beliefs. What right do we have? It is just hypocritical to the nth degree for these religious zealots to go around complaining about the government restricting their rights over the smallest things, then turn around and think they have a right to use the government to enforce their own personal beliefs. Like I said in a previous post, would it be okay for me to get a group of voters together and outlaw straight marriage? "But that's different," people say. Alright , fine, how about a ballot proposition to outlaw marriage between people who give each other oral sex, or between two heterosexuals who have anal sex? Why can't we go into straight people's personal lives and pass legislation based on their sexual preferences? I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's hypocritical to say you believe in personal freedom and then turn around and think you can vilify people and restrict their rights based on their personal lives.

I am glad, however, to see that some states are getting it. I'm glad to see that more people are finally coming to their senses about this issue and realizing the futility of trying to make the law reflect one group's values. Hopefully this kind of thinking will start to spread and those people who think they can legislate Christian values to the rest of the world will start to get the message that we are a global society and we are going to have to learn to get along with each other, despite our personal qualms about certain behavior.

I was in a conversation recently with someone who implied that being raised a Christian makes you a better person, gives you a sense of values. I've been in many of these conversations and it never ceases to amaze me how often I have to show to people that atheists and agnostics are not bad people who are devoid of values. This conversation was going a little differently, though. It eventually came to why this person believed being a Christian made you a better person, and the answer they finally arrived at was because of the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I found that answer very ironic, as I don't believe many of the Christian movements in this country seem to take that too seriously. Christians are constantly legislating their values to others, saying we need to be a Christian country, and so forth. Is this adhering to the golden rule? If they think it's alright to ban gay marriage, would they be offended if Christian marriage was banned? Would they like it if instead of the Bible being taught in public schools, as some of them propose, the Koran was taught? Would they be alright with mandatory abortions, except in certain cases where it was deemed necessary to keep the population up? No, they would be vehemently opposed to it, so why are they alright with being on the other end? That person said that the golden rule is the cornerstone of Christian values. If that is true, then I think some of these Christian political movements need a refresher course.

Dollars and Sense

It seems like lately I'm stuck on economics. I'm in a tricky situation because there have been some big articles and political happenings with social issues that I tend approach with passion and enthusiasm, but there have also been some big economic happenings as well. I could get a new post on the social issues out as early tomorrow, but for now I'll stick to the economy.

First off the SEC has instituted new regulations against short selling. Wall Street is admittedly a weak point for me, but the move looks to be solid from where I stand. What they did was re-instate a rule which had been in place since the Roosevelt administration during the depression, one which was repealed in 2007. Ever since the days of Regan, Republicans have been waging a war against the New Deal and repealing whatever they can, and I have said before how I believe this to be counterproductive to goals of social equality and economic stability. Again, I'm not entirely sure what this means to the market, but most analysts believe short selling had something to do with Wall Street's inability to stop it's downturn.

Also touching on economics, the Republicans released their revised budget. I have a suggestion for helping the American people, why don't we take the Republican budget draft and all copies and donate them to families who are experiencing financial trouble? That way, at least they don't have to worry about buying toilet paper for their families for a while. I'm not really sure that anyone in the Republican party knows that they're the minority party, because they're acting like they can demand anything they want and be taken seriously. This is extremely counter-productive and even more hypocritical considering how much they talked about bi-partisanship during the elections. During Republican years, Democrats were willing to negotiate on issues and have some dialogue, something their candidate for president talked about excessively during the campaign, reaching across the aisle. Now that the elections are done, though, their tone is a lot different. There's no reaching on the part of the Republicans, just demands to do things their way or else.

The budget, frankly, is ridiculous. It proposes an overhaul of the tax system that basically turns the tax system into a flat one. It's still progressive, but the way it's scaled is such that there are only two categories, and the benefits are substantially higher for the people who fall into the richer category. They propose freezing spending on domestic programs, which is exactly what we don't need right now, and although they propose large spending cuts, the tax cuts they propose exceed $500 billion. In case you didn't know, tax cuts are a form of spending in that the government still loses money, only with tax cuts the money goes primarily to the wealthy as opposed to spending, where the money goes directly to industries and consumers who use it to create jobs and put money back into their local economies. I don't see how there is still an argument about this right now. People aren't spending money, and that is a prime reason why many companies are feeling the effects of this crisis. Instead of helping people get back on their feet and companies to hire more employees, you want to give tax cuts. No requirements that say you have to use a certain portion of the money for hiring, just take the tax cut and do whatever you want with it. Cut jobs, renegotiate union contracts, ship jobs overseas, do whatever you want, as long as it's profitable for your company. That, as opposed to creating green jobs, encouraging small business, and getting consumers to spend more money.

That brings me to something else that I think is absolutely ridiculous, companies who are experiencing profit cutting jobs, shipping them overseas, and trying to leverage against unions in negotiations. Despite posting impressive profits, telecommunications provider AT&T is approaching upcoming union negotiations with the mindset of the union needing to scarifice for the company, aiming to pass health coverage costs on to the employees. IBM, another company seeing significant profits, is going through some significant layoffs here in the U.S., all the while shipping jobs overseas to countires with cheaper labor. This is exactly the type of thing that creates social disparity. Americans, particularly the working class are struggling. There are still some areas that are recession-proof, but those companies are trying to use this recession as an excuse to villianize unions and pass more costs off to their employees. When are we going to realize the way we affect each other in this country? This is the failing of free markets, when given total free run a company will always do what gets them the most profit. This is why self-regulation failed, this is why we need to put regulations and programs into place to safeguard these people. These people are the working class, the largest segment of consumers. Passing off costs onto them should not be an option. When there is a segment of the population that is so wealthy and does not have to worry about health care and the quality of their healthcare, why do we accept that people who provide that wealth for other people should have such a disparity in coverage? Why is it acceptable, when unemployment numbers are reaching all-time highs, that profitable companies are shipping jobs overseas? We shouldn't, and it isn't, period.

I'm not even going to go into their plans for medicare, which most everyone have labeled as ridiculous. What I want to touch on now is one tactic the Republicans are using that seems to be working on some people. They keep saying how much spending there is and how much debt that will create. Some people I have been talking to lately go for this hook, line, and sinker. We're spending too much, we're creating debt, that's not good, right? What they don't emphasize, what they don't want you to realize, is the difference between government debt and spending and the public crisis. By emphasizing spending, they are trying to juxtapose government spending with the current economic strife, which just isn't right. Many governments are in debt, all spend money, and it does not affect the public in an adverse way. Right now consumers are not spending money, business are not making money, they are laying people off, and that is the core of the public crisis. The federal government is largely unaffected by this in the strictest sense. Spending government money will make this better, it will provide relief, and it will jump start certain industries. What it will not do is worsen our economic crisis. We've already gone fairly low, it's hard to imagine it getting much worse, and it got there by a lack of regulation and a growing gap in quality of living between the poor and rich. Those are two things we desperately need to fix. Fixing them will prevent a crisis like this from happening again, and it's only going to happen with the help of government spending. It's a large sum, no doubt, but it's a better alternative to letting this economic crisis get worse and, unlike struggling businesses and families, the federal government can afford to spend some money and take on a little extra debt.

Also in the news, President Cheney says America is less safe. Apparently agreeing with him are the Republicans drafting their budget, because they call for increased spending. This is what I talk about with Republican stubbornness. There is a general consensus among even many Republicans that defense spending is out of control, and yet while the Republicans want to cut programs that directly benefit small businesses and manufacturers in need of help, they want to increase defense spending. We need to be smarter about how we go about exercising our global power. Just spending money is not the answer, especially when it comes at the cost of money that businesses, taxpayers, schools, and other government programs that directly benefit those in need of help desperately need. On a side note, Carlos Santana recently suggested legalizing and taxing weed, and putting the money directly into health care and educational programs. I love this idea, the issue is something I've been meaning to address, and hopefully I will soon get to it.

Back to Cheney, he says Bush Administration policies safeguarded America. First, I'd like to address some fickle logic I've heard used. Some defenders of the Bush Administration have said that there hasn't been another attack since 9/11, so what the Administration has done since then has worked, which is a prime example of specious reasoning. In all the years this country has gone without a major attack, we go eight years without an attack and suddenly what we were doing in the past eight years has all worked? Please, you'll have to do better than that. I would argue to the contrary, and just point to the perception of the two presidents in the Middle East. Our past president left office with Middle Eastern reporters throwing shoes at him, our current president is making public visits and being accepted by the people. Being overly aggressive and imperialistic only serves to increase the number of enemies we have. Even if we keep them at bay for a certain amount of time, we only invite attacks down the road. By being diplomatic and not completely alienating the Middle East with his rhetoric, President Obama has done what Bush couldn't do in eight years with Guantanamo, Iraq, and all the money he pured into those ventures, and that's give America a reputation of being conducive to negotiation and peaceful co-existence.

I'd also like to touch one something else I've heard a lot of, people complaining about hearing the words economic crisis. This, to me, is representative of how we let things go this far in the first place. For as long as I can remember in this country, we've had this idea that we are a true meritocracy and everyone is where they're at because of how hard they've worked. Thankfully, many people are starting to see past this charade. You can say what you want about Karl Marx and communism, but he was a highly intelligent person and he was right about certain things. For one, his ideas of those who control the means of production and those who provide labor. People do not get rich out of nowhere, it always comes at someones expense. If you receive money, you are getting it from someone. Who provides the labor that drives wealth and prosperity? Who buys electronics, cars, and other items that are not necessary for everyday life? Who goes to the movies, who provides the audience that make certain TV programs so lucrative for advertisers? The working class. The working class make up the largest part of America, they put the most money back into the economy, and they provide the wealthy elite with their wealth. This is not inherently bad, but when people who work full-time and need to provide for their families are living in poverty, when the people who benefit off their labor are living in extreme prosperity, and when the mismanagement of corporations and systematic disenfranchisement of the working class by unregulated opportunists causes an economic meltdown, there is a problem. Capitalism is not inherently a bad thing, but it must be reigned in so as not to create a society where the wealthy live like hogs and those who supply their wealth are doomed to an existence of labor and servitude.

What causes this misconception, or at least contributes to it, is the separation of the classes. Those born into prosperity do not see how the other side lives, they don't learn about their struggles or what caused them. They can live isolated from the rest of society, believing the half-truths they've been taught since birth. In the same way, people who say that we should stop using the crisis rhetoric seem to be very disconnected from the struggles of those who have lost their jobs, homes, businesses, and general livelihoods. Those lucky enough to remain unaffected can be apathetic about the crisis because they have the privilege of doing so. Those living out of their cars, those desperate for work, those in danger of losing their homes might not see it the same way. Do you really think you could look them in the eyes and say this isn't a crisis? How far do living conditions have to drop for it to be considered a crisis? The unemployment numbers are staggering, they're the worst this country has seen in many people's lifetimes. Yes, it has not hit every last corner of the country, but how far must it go before some people call it a crisis? How much further can it go? Do we wait until we're in a depression, then call it a crisis? We need to deal with this now, people's entire way of life depends on it. As rich a nation as we are, we can not continue to ignore the middle and lower classes that drive this country's prosperity, and now more than ever we have to make sure we safeguard their chances at prosperity.

It's How You Use It

I recently went back through many of my older entries for editing purposes and I realized something, some of them are LONG. Now I'm not a big believer in condensing for the sake of format, and I'm a huge opponent of the TLDR mentality, however I do realize that I could perhaps benefit by being a little more into the whole brevity thing. So, today I am making some private resolutions to myself and to my audience regarding this blog. First off, I do not update nearly as often as I should, and I sincerely hope to change that. I also hope to get a plug-in counter that keeps a tally of how many times I've resolved to do just that. Second, I hope to abandon the essay format and keep the reading a little lighter, just a little.

Something else I've resolved to do is go back through some of my old entries and offer a personal commentary on them. I believe I mentioned in one of my recent posts (relatively speaking, of course) that my views have evolved greatly since I started this blog. Sometimes when I go back and read older entries I say to myself, "what the hell was I thinking?" Sometimes I read them and, even though think my logic was erroneous, think that they bring up valid points. At other times, I read them and think that they still hold up, but that the writing style or rhetoric I employed turned them into a very sharp and dangerous sword, but one brandished by a drunk, metaphorically speaking, of course. I've already gone back and deleted some of my more useless posts, and I am resolving right now go offer commentary on the ones I've decided to keep in order to get their point across better. When this will happen, though, only time will tell.

Anyways, I do love my last couple of entries. Accountability, it keeps coming up time and time again. You know, before 2007 I had a decent amount of respect for John McCain, at least more respect than I had for most other Republicans. I figured that he was just trying to, "electrify the base," as they say, during his campaign for Presidency. I assumed he revert back to his normal self once the campaign ended. Maybe it's the fact that Boehner, McConnell, and Steele can't seem to stop tripping over themselves, and that the party has no real leader so to speak of, but it seems like the election has just served to push McCain further towards the right and keep him there, although it's not that he was all that far left in the first place. Either way, his little rant on the hill the other week rubbed me the wrong way. If you didn't know, he criticised the federal removal of the GM CEO. Although I do consider myself a Marxist, I do not consider myself a centrist. I think some of communism's biggest failures came about because of too much centralization. However, I keep talking about accountability, I keep talking about how a lack of it has helped us into this crisis. The thing that keeps getting to me is how the people who are largely responsible for this economic downfall, the people whose increased fortunes came at the price of economic parity and security, are the ones who continue to profit.

GM has been spiraling since the crisis hit, and they were close to dire straights before the shit hit the fan in the first place. GM's CEO has seen a 96% decrease in GM's share price. These executives need to be held accountable for their actions, for the failure of their companies. Wagoner was making over one and a half million dollars a year, his company was seeing a steady decline that only got worse with the economic crisis. Why? What did he do that warranted that salary? These executives are supposed to make decisions that help their company's profitability. The new big thing right now is to blame the unions, say they're to blame for companies downfalls. If it's the union workers who are making too much, the ones who have families to support, mortgages to pay, who don't have wealth to fall back on, who are actually concerned about the success of the company they work for because their livelihoods actually depend on it, then why do CEO's who lose money, lose profitability, and put their company in jeopardy not only make almost two million dollars a year, but walk away after being fired like nothing ever happened. How long do you think Wagoner can last without experiencing even a noticeable drop in standard of living? How long before a union line worker who has lost their job starts having to choose between medical coverage or food for their family? Better yet, if Mr. McCain is so outraged over this, then what does he suggest? When the head of the company can pull down million plus salaries for years, and his company can be pushed to the point where it needs government intervention to save it, meaning all those workers are also dependent on government intervention, who is going to hold those CEO's responsible? They obviously aren't very willing to change their company to improve profitability, they aren't going to voluntarily step down, who is making sure they make the right moves not only for themselves and their portfolio, but for their company, their workers, and the taxpayers who are giving their company the money it needs to survive?

Mr. McCain, if the government shouldn't be overseeing them, who should? Should they be self-regulating, like the political right has been suggesting for years? That's obviously not enough. Why should we trust these executives to do the right thing? Is there any reason? These people can act in their own interests, they have no one they have to answer to, and executives, in the past, have shown a willingness to put themselves above their company. Why go on like this? We need someone to be looking over the shoulder of executives, they need to be held accountable the same as anyone else. They work a job, when they perform below the standards expected of them they should be reprimanded the same way a line worker would be. If no one else will assume that responsibility, if there is no system of checks set in place by the company, then it should not only be acceptable for the government to step in and assume the responsibility, it should be necessary. I talked last time about libertarianism and free markets, and it sounding good. It does sound good, but like I said it's not a simple matter of freedom and a lack of freedom. What is more important, economic freedom, or personal freedom? Free markets, or democracy? These companies have great influence in our lives. We stop spending money, they start losing money, they start laying people off. With that kind of influence in people's lives, there needs to be something that ensures it doesn't all fall apart, that people who work for a living will have job security. If that means firing a CEO whose company has tanked, so be it. Why is that wrong? Would any other employee be fired if they cost the company profitability? Absolutely. It should be no different for any employee no matter what their position in the company, and if that means the government needs to be the entity that enforces that, so be it, as long as it is being enforced.

Part II, Do Unto Others

Alright, I have been just itching to finally address the main issue of this post here in my blog for a while, and I will DEFINITELY get to it today. First, though, I'd like to keep up with current events. [I actually don't end up addressing that issue, only touch on it, typical. I will, though dedicate the entirety of my next blog to it and it will rock the shit.]

I've been talking a lot lately about standards, about accountability. What I said last time, I keep seeing the relevancy of it every single day in the issues that affect this country. For a long time I have had to listen to the conservative right shout their accusations of liberal bias. Never mind that 98% of the time these accusations are complete bullshit. Never mind that conservatives scream bias every time a liberal publication is called on, or a liberal editorial is printed, or a small-time liberal journalist gets seated at the front of a press conference, or a story that could potentially harm a conservative candidate is printed. It's all bias, they're out to get us, lies and blasphemy! Well, guess what? Vindication is nigh.

If my interpretation of these claims is correct, conservatives feel attacked by the media. They feel that these so-called attacks (what most sane people call journalism) are directed primarily at them, and these attacks are unwarranted. Normally, I'd say something about the conservatives needing to take a hint, and that if everyone is pointing their fingers at them then maybe, just maybe, there's a good reason for it. Alas, I have both been there and done that, and the issue is getting old. That doesn't mean it's going away anytime soon, and the best way to further my point without retreading familiar ground is to look at the issue in a new perspective. How about, oh I don't know, in relation to my musings on accountability?

Let's look at this recent issue over an insensitive cartoon published by the New York Post. Recently, a political cartoonist published a cartoon likening President Obama to an ape. Whether the cartoonist was being overtly racist or just completely ignorant of the connotation this comparison brings with it is not the issue. The issue here is that the likening of certain minorities to specific animals, apes included, is a despicable tactic that has its own ugly place in history. Just because a separate tactic of linking politicians to apes has been used in the past does not justify it in this instance. The journalist should have known better and should have had a little more integrity than he did. Even if it was an oversight in the first place, not only has the Post not since issued an apology, but they have been indignant in saying that the issue is being blown out of proportion. Whether you agree with that or not, you should still have the sense and decency to see that Obama is our first African-American president, that the comparison of blacks to apes has a sad precedence in our society, and that regardless of if you meant it or not that connotation of racism still exists. The cartoon was directed straight at Obama, it used imagery that was at best reminiscent of a hateful period, and the people who published it don't even have the decency to say that maybe it was a bad decision to publish it regardless of what it was really intended to mean.

What does this have to do with the press? Well, it's an attack. It's clearly directed at Obama, it uses racial imagery, it's the lowest form of a personal attack that you could possibly use. But wait, it's coming from right wing media. The same right-wing media that complains every time a story is run about a conservative, the same right wing media that cried bias during the campaign when publications ran stories about Sarah Palin's political history, the same right-wing media that say there's a liberal bias because the media dares question the President with the lowest approval rating ever. But you know what, this isn't even about trading tic for tac. This isn't about saying, "look, we have universal standards that we can all agree to, now let's stick to them." Fuck universal standards, how about sticking to your own personal standards? You're going to accuse the liberal media of running personal attacks and then turn around and publish shit like this?

Speaking of personal attacks, Do I even need to go any further than this? You see where I'm going with this, correct? I am knee deep in conservative pundits these days. Bill O'Reily, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, have all popped back up on my radar just when I thought people were starting to realize them for what they really are: sensationalistic morons. Sadly, it now seems that they might be starting to gain traction. When things start going bad, those without direction turn to the loudest. It's not like their message has changed. They were saying the same things when Bush was in power, when Clinton was in power, when Bush was in power, etc. When the economy was doing well under their free market principles, government had too much power. When the economy took a turn under free market principles, government still has too much power. Never mind that deregulation hasn't slowed down since the eighties, regulation got us where we are.

Anyways, I will get to the others later as I do have yet to address some of what they've been saying, but the man at the forefront of my concerns right now is Mr. Rush Limbaugh. Yes, Mr., "I want President Obama to fail," Limbaugh. The first question I have about this issue is a simple one, did liberals treat Bush the same way when he took office? I don't recall anyone wishing for Bush to fail, nor do I recall any very heavy criticism against him until after 9/11, at least none on the same level as President Obama is receiving from the political right. You can talk about bi-partisanship and media bias all you want, but this is vehement. The same people who throw out accusation of media bias for reporting on a vice presidential candidate's political history are now saying they hope the president fails just because they don't agree with his politics.

In my opinion, you should always have a reason for believing in what you do. My reason for believing in the policies that I do is that I believe they will help the greatest number of people. I believe in spending money on health care because I know that is a big expense for many Americans and that shouldering or helping to shoulder that burden will free up more money for average Americans to spend in our faltering economy. I believe in spending money on electric cars because not only will it help the environment, but it will create American manufacturing jobs. I believe in tax credits for people who buy those cars because it will stimulate that industry at a time when many Americans are weary of buying electric cars. I believe in spending money on new power sources like geothermal, solar, and wind and building a new power grid because it will help the environment, save Americans money by wasting less energy in delivery, and put thousands of Americans to work. I support cannabis legalization because, among many other reasons, an 8% tax on nationwide sales of cannabis could generate 6 billion dollars a year or more in revenue. I also support legalization because cannabis' illegal status is currently prohibiting and impairing market research on the practical applications of hemp, which range from bio-fuels to power generation, from clothing to eco-friendly building material, and from health supplements to eco-friendly oil products.

What's the common thread here? A purpose, a reason. What does Rush Limbaugh have? Feelings, labels. "I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation," said Limbaugh. Now I'm going to have a field day with this in a minute, but for right now I'm going to focus on the capitalism part. Limbaugh describes his ideals, but only with buzz words. "We believe in individual liberty," he says, "capitalism...limited government." He also says, of the differences between liberals and conservatives, "I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals."

This is my biggest problem with him. This isn't being unsure, this is being objective and open-minded. Searching for the truth and changing certain aspects of your ideals as your understanding grows is nothing to be ashamed of, indignantly sticking to dated ideals and refusing to debate in an objective manner, on the other hand, IS something to be ashamed of. Mr. Limbaugh wants to change that, though. That's supposed to be a point of pride, that you don't ever listen to anybody, that you spew propaganda in order to play on people's emotions. Concerning capitalism, what if our capitalist practices serve to hinder individual liberties? Is blindly sticking to those practices the right thing to do? What if there's a way to keep capitalism in tact and protect those individual liberties, but it requires a small bit of socialism, one that won't threaten the operation of our capitalist economy? Oh no, that's going too far, that's going to lead to the downfall of America, that's selling out your beliefs. No it's not, it's this little thing called compromise.

The worst part of this, though, is his timing. He doesn't wait until Obama's program has been given time to fail or succeed, he doesn't wait until the program has been passed into law, he doesn't even wait until details are released. As soon as talk starts about spending he goes on this rant. Rush Limbaugh doesn't care if the President's policies might do some good or not, he wants him to fail anyways. What if this eventually leads to a stronger economy? What if this improves social parity while keeping capitalism in tact? What if this creates jobs and strengthens industries? Nope, he still hopes it fails. Rush Limbaugh is hopelessly attached to his ideals no matter of if they're supported by facts or not. Every economist out there is blaming deregulation for the current economic position, and Rush is screaming for more deregulation. Apparently the liberals are responsible for the current state of things. he doesn't know how or why, he won't offer theories on that, but he does know that those elitist liberals with their anti-American agendas are responsible. That, "magic negro," is responsible. Everyone is responsible except for people whom he supports. He is living in his own fantasy world. He's the Trainman in The Matrix, he built this place, he makes the rules. In his fantasy world, Rush Limbaugh is god.

The funny thing is, this all wouldn't be a problem if it was just Rush and his ego. He can live in his fantasy world all he wants, the problem is that he has a national audience and that he uses his platform to brainwash people using his propaganda. He plays on emotions. "I believe in AMERICA, and the liberals don't. I BELIEVE in my principles, liberals are weak." I spoke, in the first part, about accountability. Now, keeping what I said in mind, I'd like to talk about responsibility. We live in America, Rush has the right to say whatever he wants. I hate to quote the corniest movie line ever, but with great power comes great responsibility. Just because Rush CAN doesn't mean he SHOULD. He is put in a position of power. He has a sway over the opinions of a good deal of people, and keeping that in mind he should hold himself to a greater degree of accountability. That's not saying anything about his views, it's saying something about his methods. Can we have a political discussion in this country about operation rather than the typical partisan shouting matches? Instead of branding his opinions with words like, freedom, America, and liberty, can he, just once, talk about how his theories operate in the real world? Can he discuss pros and cons, or how issues affect different groups in different ways? That is what America needs, serious discussion. Every day, when he goes on the air, he fights against that in the manner in which he argues.

Now on to the titular issue of this blog. One reason I believe people like Rush Limbaugh can argue the way they do for the issues they do is because they've never experienced life on the other side of things, they've never taken the time to view life through their opposition's perspective. Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reily, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, all are part of at least two dominant groups. Two of them are part of a minority, but they're all white, all Christian, and mostly male. Regardless of gender, they've all been raised in sheltered white environments, by other white people who are part of that same environment. Could Rush Limbaugh throw the, "N," word around as generously as he does if had a black relative? Could Bill O'Reily talk about lynchings so easily if he had witnessed one, or had someone he cared about be lynched? I should hope not.

What these people talk about sounds good, I will admit that. Libertarianism sounds great. No taxes, no government intrusion, it's what America's all about, right? But if you look at how the economic structure would change without progressive taxation, democracy itself could erode. If industry is allowed to grow unchecked, and personal wealth is able to be stockpiled without repercussion, and the people with the most wealth control means of production, that means they control the economy. If they control means of production, they also control prices. In addition, they control salary and wages because there's no government protection for unions. Libertarians also control media because, of course, they have the most wealth and can control the most news outlets. They also can spend unmatchable amounts of money on lobbying, and have a distinct political advantage because they can afford education easier than anyone else. They also control the economy and wages, so anyone that they don't want to receive the same education as them basically can't.

And, of course, how do you determine who constitutes this RULING CLASS? Well, the buildup of this class came from being able to pass on wealth without taxation and from repealing income taxes. Therefore, the people who already have the most wealth and the largest salaries constitute this class, no matter how they got there. Because African-Americans have still not recovered economically from slavery and years of discriminatory practices like red lining, they do not hold a significant position within that class. because Latinos have emigrated more recently than most other ethnicities, they don't hold reputable status within that class. Single mothers who have been abandoned and must work constantly to support their children, they don't get admission because they haven't been able to stockpile wealth. Working class citizens, gee, you almost made it, but unfortunately the system you were previously a part of was set up so that the people at the top got paid inordinately more than the people who constituted their work force. Religious minorities? Huh, yeah right. There may be freedom of religion, but people Like Limbaugh and O'Reily support CHRISTIAN values, because everyone knows those are the best. This is not America, this is not meritocracy, this is an Aristocracy disguised as a Democracy.

So yes, it sounds good at first. After all, freedom, how can you argue against that? Well, freedom can lead to a lack of freedom. If we followed Libertarian philosophy, something like the previous scenario would undoubtedly take place if allowed to continue long enough. Like I said, that is not freedom, that results in a lack of freedom for all but the hegemonic order. it is born out of freedom, though. if you allow people total economic freedom, they will use it in a way that suppresses individual freedom. It has always worked out that way in every iteration of free market economics. in the case of France, it led to a wide-scale rebellion that turned out to be one of the bloodiest in European history. Back to my original theme, would these people be taking the same positions if they were in one of the classes that would be unfairly suppressed? If they were born in a ghetto, or in the projects with little hope to get an education? If they knew that the best they could hope for was to die of old age in poverty and the worst was to die before reaching puberty because of violence, with an outside chance of going through high school and going on to a university or getting a job that paid them well enough to move to a better area, would they have the same outlook? If their father's first home had lost the majority of its value, condemning him to live in poverty, and their grandfather had been lynched, all because of the color of their skin, would they still say that everyone who lives in poverty does so because they don't work hard enough? If someone dragged them from the back of an automobile because of their sexual orientation, or took them in to custody for wearing the traditional garments of their culture, would they still hold such radical views? Again, I should hope not.

What really brought my interest to this subject at this time was something I heard on the radio today. I heard a legal analyst run down the State Supreme Court of California challenge to Prop 8. While he was a liberal analyst, he admitted that the court was dominated by Republicans, that the case that made gay marriage legal in the first place passed by only one vote, and that, and this is the one that really gets me, in all probability the court would decide that because the people voted and the majority was in favor of Prop 8 they would rule that Prop 8 was constitutional. When I talk about the failing of democracy, this is what I mean. Are we going to revert to strictly majority rules? Fine, then how about we go down to a deep south state and try to pass an amendment that allows for slavery, or maybe one that brings back Jim Crowe laws? If I can get a majority of people to vote in favor of public school segregation, does that make it right? FUCK NO! Any asswipe that justifies discrimination on the basis of popular opinion does not only deserve to not be allowed to hold a seat on any Supreme Court, they don't deserve to hold public office at all. I know I talk a lot about emotions and not bringing them into politics, but I can't help but look at an issue like this and not get emotional. When you look at this in context and see all the hurdles homosexuals in this country had to leap over just to be treated like average citizens, to avoid police brutality, to be able to hold down a job, to be able to hold public office, and, in the case of California, to hold legal marital status just like any other couple in America, and then see all of that momentum pushed back by one vote I don't see how you can possibly keep your heart from sinking a little. Fuck if you're comfortable with gay marriage, fuck what you think about homosexuality, this is supposed to be America. This is supposed to be the land where there is no discrimination, where someone who's been thrown out and disreagarded can find a place for themselves, and where no opinion is too small to make a difference. In that same America, a minority group has been fighting for decades for fair treatment, come all this way through muders and institutionalized brutality, through public humiliation and systematic exclusion, and finally found one place in the country where they can almost be treated with the same respect as everybody else, and because of a majority rules vote their entire movement takes a huge step back. That is disheartening, that is a failure of the democratic proccess and everything this country stands for.

And why does this happen? Because people do not understand empathy. I recently saw an episode of Frontline concerned with advertising that brought up a crucial point of how the democratic process in this country works. A political activist stated a truth in an interview that I think is all too commonly covered up, that advertising in political campaigns, instead of making you think of the common good, makes you think of your own needs as key. You're not worried about the basic civil rights of homosexuals, you're worried about your own problems like how you explain this to your children, or more accurately, how you're going to hide it. If it's legal then it becomes almost impossible to hide, and what happens then? You can't acknowledge their lifestyle as acceptable, that just isn't Christian.

What this country needs is empathy. Like I've said before, democracy is born out of the oppression of one or more groups. If all democracy breeds is more systematic opression, then what's the point? If we just continue the cycle, if we use a fair system to create unfair conditions for select groups, then why even have a democracy? We need to be concerned about the needs of our fellow citizens regardless of if we share those needs or not.

It is a lack of empathy that allows this type of behavior, a bi-product of the hegemonic order. Those who control our politics have not been subject to the same type of discrimination as those who are fighting for equal rights. Heterosexuality has always been dominant, therefore heterosexuals have never had to know what it's like to suffer discrimination for their orientation. How would heterosexuals react to a straight marriage ban? Not very well, I would think. I think that would cause a major uproar, possibly even uprisings. Why, then, is it acceptable to treat homosexuals in this manner when most heterosexuals probably can't even fathom the possibility of a straight marriage ban, much less accept it? Is there any good reason why homosexuals cannot be treated with the same basic civil rights that every heterosexual expects to be garunteed to them?

This is not even about public ceremonies or openess about homosexuality. Homosexuals still have commitment ceremonies, they still live together openly, and they might even have a minister preside over the ceremony whether there's any official power in his words or not. This is not about public exposure, this is about status under the law. Homosexuals cannot file joint returns, they cannot be co-head of a household, they cannot legally enjoy the benefits that every other American couple takes for granted, including, in some states, raising a child. This is not socially ostracising them, nor is it limiting their right to express themselves as they please for the supposed sake of the children [cue Helen Lovejoy]. This is simply legal discrimination. It is saying that because of their orientation, homosexuals cannot be considered equal under U.S. law. There is no good excuse for it. If heterosexual couples were told that they couldn't raise a child, would they stand for it? No. If they were told that they wouldn't be entitled to having a marital tax status or couldn't name their partner as a benefactor, would they stand for it? No. Anyone suggesting something like that would probably have to fear for their life, so why it is considered not only accpetable but commonplace to advocate similar positions in regards to homosexuals? If you would never in your entire lifetime consider it alright for others to treat you a certain way, can you possibly justify treating others the same way? No, you cannot.

Part I, Accountability Defined

I don't know about all of you, but I have been feeling better for the past few days. Maybe it's the weather, maybe it's being back in school, or maybe it's the new feeling of a new year. I'm sure those all might have something to do with it, but I think the biggest reason I'm feeling better is the change we are witnessing in Washington. Yes, we are only a few days in and already I can feel the difference, can't you? People said not to expect much, that change would be slow, but already this administration is moving to change the climate of politics in our nation's capital. On his first day, President Obama took steps to limit the scope of lobbying and introduce vital reforms to a corrupt system. On his second day, Obama ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay, enacted policies banning torture and ordering a review of methods condoned by the Bush administration in dealing with detainees, and just today President Obama repealed a ban on funding for abortion and abortion counseling services. There's a lot to get to, and I plan to delve into each of these actions today, but I've decided that I would like to end on a high note for once, so I'll get the ugly shit out of the way first.


For the past few weeks, I've been having a conversation on one of the forums I'm registered at with a certain individual. Our conversation started out as a small argument over semantics, and has since grown very bitter. Rude things were said by both sides, some deserved and some not. That is not the point anymore, and neither is the point that we were originally arguing. In fact, I wouldn't even be arguing anymore if not for the way that the argument has proceeded recently. Let me be a little more clear, we were arguing about a story plot when insults were exchanged. After our volley of insults was over, we continued to argue about the plot. The other poster's argument became this, "I believe things happened this way, and you can't argue against me because that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it." This is what I take exception to. Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Yes, in the case of our argument there could be no concrete winner because we were theorizing on if the lack of concrete facts is an unexplainable oversight or an intentional omission. What I disagree with is the poster's saying I cannot argue against his opinion, and his saying that when I based my argument on factual evidence and extrapolation on gaps in plot that it was nothing more than opinion.



Now, why bring this up here, you ask. I'll tell you why, accountability. This is an isolated incident, but it is not the only one. To be perfectly honest, I don't have many similar experiences on a personal level, but I do see this type of behavior very often. I'll get to that in a minute, but first I'll elaborate upon my views on accountability. Like I said, I was basing my opinion on facts and logical thinking that is based upon those facts, and yet my opponent tried to reduce what I was saying to opinion. My opponent did not act in an expository manner and expected his opinion to be taken seriously because, well, it's his opinion, we all have to respect it, right?



This is my issue. Everybody is entitled to an opinion, but that does not mean everybody else has a responsibility to take it seriously. This is what I see very often, the leap from the sovereignty of one's opinion to the validity of one's opinion. Here in our society, the former is accepted to be inherent, a natural truth if you will, and I don't disagree. The issue here is free will, and I won't argue against that. The latter, though, is not a matter of free will. It is a matter of exposition, validity, and accountability. Every individual is free to have an opinion, but every other individual is just as free to reject that opinion's validity. Does that, then, mean we should accept or reject an opinion's validity on our own whims? Of course not, that's the very definition of anarchy. Should we accept validity based on the fact that someone took the time to state their opinion? No, that's idiotic. In the words of the great Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn, "The ability to speak does not make you intelligent." No, we judge validity based on a set of universal standards. Do we have facts to back up our opinions? Can we make a reasonable argument based on those facts? Are we able to exhibit sound logic? These are the factors that determine accountability. Accountability is not subjective nor is it self-evident.


So then how does one make the leap from the sovereignty of their opinion to the validity of their opinion without taking accountability into account? This is the penultimate question. I don't have a penultimate answer, but I don't think I will go my whole life without answering. I believe the answers are out there if we try to look for them, and we already have some very good answers to this question. For the first, I will go to one of the most ancient thinkers we know of, Socrates. Now, first and foremost, I am not, at this point, interested at all in the Socratic Problem. Plato, Socrates, who said it is not pertinent to this discussion, the fact that an intelligent philosopher said it at one point in time is. Socrates and Plato lived in ancient Athens, a technically democratic society. While the democracy was layered and did not provide for an equal say in all matters by every class, it was, nonetheless, a democratic institution. Socrates, according to the Republic, did not believe in a true democracy. He rather believed in a society ruled by so-called philosopher kings, men who valued philosophy and higher knowledge above political ambition. He believed that a society could not survive if it was to operate based on the whims of the people. Now, the Republic is largely an operational theory on the nature and workings of government, one which I am not interested in discussing right now. What I am interested in discussing are the values behind these views. Was Socrates right? Is democracy subject to the whims of a majority consensus? Can a majority be wrong? Yes. The question now is can the fallibility of the majority have a major impact on the workings of a society? The most commonly accepted answer in our society, I believe, is no. We accept this fallibility, we acknowledge it, and we even acknowledge that it can have great consequences. What I don't believe most people accept is that this fallibility can lead to a large-scale breakdown of society, possibly even democracy itself. Whatever happens, Democrat or Republican, whatever choices they make, our system and our way of life is still safe, right?


Let us assume, for right now, that the answer is yes, our way of life will remain intact. Whatever decisions that are made, then, are trivial in comparison, right? Here's where it gets tricky. You see, "our way of life," is a bit of a misnomer. Our way of life varies from person to person, family to family, subculture to subculture. What I should really have said is that the hegemonic order is safe, things will always stay constant for the most part, for better or worse. So then, if you fall into the hegemonic order your way of life is indeed safeguarded. If you do not fit, however, you have no such guarantees. The decisions that are made are not trivial, not to you. Now we're getting to the real meat of the matter, but we must first take one more detour: the nature of democratic politics.


Democracy is born, in most cases, out of inequality. There are one or more groups of people who feel mistreated, and they demand equal representation and opportunity. Out of this is born my theory, the nature of democracy is not derived from democracy at all. Democracy is born out of conflict, out of one group trying to further its own means, and indeed this trend continues. Let's look not to democracy, but to values and behavior. Look at organized crime: it is born out of economic inequality. Cosa Nostra has its roots in Italian ghettos in America, and used to be made up of people who saw their status in society as unfair, a veritable band of Robin Hoods. What they became, however, is far less romantic than our notions of a noble-minded English bandit. Today they are famous for murdering, extortion, gambling rings, fraudulent business activities, hijacking, drug trafficking, among other things. And who gets the profit from these activities? While most bosses are said to be community-minded to some degree, the distribution of wealth often resembles that of medieval society, with the bosses taking most of the money, the perpetrators taking a hefty cut, and the rest distributed as the bosses see fit. Perhaps an even better example would be that of the American gang. In his in-depth study of a real-life American gang, Gang Leader for a Day (Which I highly recommend) Sudhir Vankatesh witnessed the every day workings of a gang first hand. He noticed how, although many communities leaders, including but not limited to gang leaders, often talked about equality and being of service to the community, every one of them showed no hesitation when taking their cut. Police, building supervisors, gang leaders, all made themselves their first priority, all the while defending their actions on the basis of community importance.


This is what I'm getting at, democracy is born out of conflict and continues to operate out of conflict. How many politicians would be such vehement defenders of democracy if they were not able to manipulate it to further their own economic means? How many of them would defend it if it were used to create an unprecedented level of economic equality? Now, I am not taking a Social Darwinist viewpoint here. I am not saying it is survival of the fittest, nor that it is right to vie only for your own benefit, just that it happens, and very frequently. Even further, this IS the failing of democracy that Socrates, Plato, who-the-fuck-ever was talking about. If everyone is fighting only to further their own means, then how do you determine who is right and who is wrong? Our answer, you don't. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, no opinion is invalid. And just like before, pulling a trick out of Socrates bag and using a small-scale causality to determine a proportional one, this notion is idiotic. It signals a complete breakdown of democracy, that hegemony is the ultimate rule of law, not equality. If no one is wrong, what's the point of arguing? Well, no agreement can be reached, and we have accepted the necessity of our co-existence, so we must argue in order to reach an agreement, but no one is wrong, so how can you argue? It's an insane cycle, broken only by the anarchy of operating based on whims, which leads not to agreement but to arbitrary change, which sets the stage for a beginning of a new insane cycle. This is the futility of the democratic argument. By saying that everyone has an equal say in the operation of society is to say no one's argument can be wrong, because how can one argument be wrong if it supposedly equal? This is the failing of democracy, the juxtaposition of the equality of people with the equality of their arguments. This is the jump in logic I was previously describing, from sovereignty to validity. Not everyone's arguments are valid, they must be held to a certain standard.


And we are back to accountability. It is vital in the smooth operation of a democracy. If we allow democracy to operate based on the decisions of those without accountability, we lose it. This is why accountability is vital, why we need to more deeply instill it into the hearts of our younger generations. I see a lack of accountability everyday. I see it every time I hear the word, "elitist," every time I hear accusations of universal media bias. On one of the Chicago public TV stations, there's a weekly airing of a conservative radio talk show. I watch occasionally because they do tend to focus on issues rather than just throwing around unsubstantiated crap like a few talk shows do, and because they always have a liberal contributor who is very knowledgeable and presents liberal opinions in a good manner. That doesn't mean, however, that there isn't a good share of baseless accusations. I was watching one program and my least favorite contributor, a hardcore backlash conservative, started going on about how society had lost its morals. Eventually his rant came to Bill Ayers and how a society could allow a terrorist like him to have a job and be a respected professor, and how he should rot in jail [cue eye roll]. Mark this point, I will come back to it, but for now I want to focus still on accountability. WHY do you say, sir, that Bill Ayers is a terrorist and WHY do you feel he should be treated as a criminal? There's no answer to that, the answer should be self-evident in the contributor's opinion. He did this and this, he's a terrorist, case closed. Ah, now we get to the real point, the term, "terrorist." His use of the term is a subjective application. He's not providing any evidence to back what he says up, he just applies because he believes it fits. Well, let's look at if it really fits. Webster's defines terrorism as the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion. Let's look at what Bill Ayers did. Did he use the threat of death or injury to manipulate people to do what he wanted? No. Did he actively threaten anybody? No. Did he ever intentionally harm anybody or put them in harm's way? Only if you don't believe him about the Greenwich Village explosion, and only then by accident. Even if you believe he was the mastermind of that project, his actions still never went past intent. At any rate, the federal government decided not to charge him and he is not actively participating in any terrorist activities. He has earned his degree, earned his place at the university, and is a functional member of this society, so why does this man think Bill Ayers should be subject to constant ridicule at best and arbitrarily imprisoned at worst? Feeling. Emotion. This man feels threatened by what Ayers represents, and he responds to this feeling with a typical fear response: posturing. Before we move on, let's just make this one point clear: this attitude can only be described in one way, anarchy. We have a system of laws that is agreed upon in one way or another. We lose that if we start going around imprisoning people based solely on our emotions. That's a complete circumvention of our laws, that's basing laws on nothing standard or factual, that's anarchy, period. In my opinion, if this is the type of crap you're going to go around spewing then you should not be given the platform to do it on a public level.

Back to posturing and on to politics, how 'bout that Republican party? Look, I don't always agree with Republicans, in fact I almost never do, but that doesn't mean I necessarily hate them, that I will never listen to what they have to say, and that I can't respect them if they conduct themselves in a manner worthy of respect. What they have been doing lately is NOT worthy of respect. Say whatever crazy thing you want. Be like the crazy idiot I talked to who thinks you can have a totally anarchistic society with an economy based on the gold standard. Be like Sarah Palin who thinks planned parenthood is evil and hunting endangered species should be a natural right. The least, and I mean the absolute least you can say about these people is that at least they're consistent. You can't even say that about the Republicans. Once it became evident that Barack Obama was going to win the national election, the word you heard coming from the right the most was partisanship. We can't have one party dominating, the thing this country needs most right now is unity, we need to cross party lines, blah, blah, blah. Where is that now? John McCain, Mr. reaches across party lines, declined to attend a White House Superbowl party on the grounds that he wasn't going to negotiate on the stimulus package. When President Obama (Man, that feels good!) called a meeting between Republican and Democratic leaders to discuss the bill, Republicans leaders told their cohorts to vote no on the bill before the meeting ever started. How's that for bipartisanship? Oh wait, did you mean bipartisanship as in getting together in a meeting and ironing out certain differences in order to reach a consensus? Oh, I'm sorry, we Republicans took that to mean we're going to pout and not budge on any issues because we're angry that the American people voted us into a rather substantial minority. This is a slap in the face. Earlier this week, Republican cabinet nominee Judd Greg resigned as a member of Obama's cabinet due to, "irresolvable conflicts," with Obama. Pardon me for asking, but isn't the whole point of bipartisanship to resolve conflicts?

This is posturing, plain and simple. The cold hard fact is that President Obama has shown an unprecedented degree of bipartisanship in selecting his cabinet members and reaching out to Republican leaders. Republicans say they're worried about not having enough influence in Washington, that they won't have direct access to the President. Well here, have these cabinet positions and that will solve the problem. Well, screw you, I don't wanna. They complain about not being involved in decision making. Well here, come to this meeting so that we can resolve our differences. Well, screw you, we don't wanna listen to what you have to say. This is the definition of partisanship. This is what the Republicans were going red in the face arguing against in the elections, and now they're the biggest perpetrators. Did Regan ever ask for Democratic cooperation, or did either Bush? Didn't Clinton fight tooth and nail with Congress to get his legislation passed? Didn't Bush Junior veto almost everything the Democratic-led congress sent to his desk? And now the Republicans are the ones crying partisanship, all the while refusing to acknowledge almost any Democratic positions? This is what I'm talking about with a lack of accountability. If you're going to play partisan, play partisan, but don't act in a partisan manner and then go around crying partisanship every time you need to shore up some votes to stay in office.

Let's go this economic stimulus bill that the Republicans have been fighting so hard against, to no avail. There's pork in the bill they say, some even say it's almost all pork. Here we go again with the sensationalistic rhetoric. By definition, there's no pork. There are no earmarks, there are no pet projects, nothing of the sort and a good deal of effort was put into making sure this was the case. But yet they keep crying pork, and why? Oh, there's spending in the bill and that's pork, right? I heard a sound clip on the radio today of the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell saying that the only thing in the bill is spending. Let me see, what word am I searching for, ummm...DUH! They keep saying it's not a stimulus bill, it's a spending bill. Tell me please, how do you stimulate the economy without spending? Oy, head explosion is imminent. Yes, that's exactly what we're doing, we're spending because if we don't then where do you expect the money to rejuvenate the economy to come from?

During the election, the Republicans talked a lot about creating American jobs. Now with the spending bill one of their biggest arguments is that a spending provision to purchase electric cars for public and government institutions is frivolous spending. Well, let's see now, the company that manufactures the cars is based in the U.S. Hmmmm...that means that the spending will create jobs for this company and provide them with money for them to expand their operation through the profit they make. I also believe the company is part of the Daimler-Chrysler family, and there's been a lot of talk about keeping American car manufactureres in business, so this would help with that. Oh, but that's frivilous spending, right?

Well, what's the Republican answer then? That's my biggest problem with all this shit, they don't have one. Tax cuts, lots and lots of tax cuts. Guess what geniuses, tax cuts are a form of spending. You're taking money out of government and putting it back into the taxpayers' pockets. The only difference between tax cuts and government programs is who the money goes to. With government spending, and specifically with this bill, the money is going to those who need it the most, it's going to create jobs, it's going to keep people in their homes. Where do tax cuts got to? Well, first off to the people to whom you give them, which according to Republicans should be the upper class. So all these CEO's pulling down upwards of half a mil a year get tax breaks, the same people receiving government bailouts for their companies. But apparantly we're still supposed to expect that the trickle-down theory works. The same people whose companies are faltering, who are asking and receiving taxpayer money to stay alive, they're supposed to get tax cuts and we're supposed to expect that eventually we'll see some of that, right?

But that's not all tax cuts do. Tax cuts also benefit the welathy substantially more than they benefit the poor. If you're reading this blog, I'm assuming you're familiar with progressive taxation. If you cut taxes, even if you do it across the board, the money gained by tax cuts pales in comparison lost by the middle and lower classes by way of the operation of the system. So, in an economic recession you want to offer no aid, no spending, because that's pork. Instead you want to cut taxes, which benfits the upper class more than anybody. The same upper class who have become increasingly wealthy during the last two centuries by way of political influence, the same upper class who are begging and begging for government money, the same upper class that constitutes, what, 8% of the population? If you want to increase economic spending, wouldn't it make sense to give more benefits to not only the largest portion of the population, but the portion that spends more money per person in the local economy?

Not according to Republicans. Apparantly, they still think free market politics work. For almost thirty years this country has operated under free market politics. Greenspan economics, Reganomics, lassiez-faire, free market, all the same things, and even under Clinton things didn't change largely. So for twenty-nine years we've operated under the same economic policies, we've pursued de-regulation, we've given tax breaks, we've repealed so-called liberal agenda programs, and now we're in the worst recession ever. What caused it? Was it the eight years of Clinton? Are we all saying that 12 previous uninterrupted years of Republican policy before Clinton, 6 years before that with a one-term Republican break between Ford and Regan, and eight concurrent terms of Junior could not prevent the damage that was done in those three Democratic terms? In the past forty years only twelve have seen a Democrat in the White House, and both of those Presidents had diminished power. Now, please tell me whose fault this recession is. Does this go back to Johnson and Kennedy? All those damned civil rights agendas crippled our eceonomy, but not until more than fourty years later, and absolutely no one saw it coming, correct? Or does this go back further? That damn cripple and his New Deal. You see, you give workers fair treatment and wages and close to eighty years later it comes back to bite you in the ass. Please, the fact is that we handed our economy over to free market thinkers for twenty-nine years. Those thinkers have to take their responsibility for their part in this recession, and they have. Alan Greenspan admitted that expecting markets and companies to self-regulate was naive. This hasn't stopped Republicans from getting behind free market policy once again, though. This is what is going to save our economy, huh? The same exact thing we've been doing for he past three decades? That notion is ridiculous, and if Repbulicans can't wake up and realize what is going on around them then they are going to be left behind, and I say good riddance.

Before I get to value issues, I'll touch on one thing. Something I hear said a lot is that irresponsible people got us into this mess. People shouldn't be lending to people with bad credit, people with bad credit shouldn't be taking loans. Let me ask one thing, what is the American dream? To own a house, raise a family in that house, correct? But people with bad credit shouldn't be lent to. Not only that, people who don't have the assets to back up a home loan shouldn't be lent to, correct? Then to whom is it acceptable to loan money to? People who already have money? People who have the assets to back up their loans? What's the point of loans then? What about those people who work their whole lives in order to afford a home and can only attain one through low-interest financing? Should we just not loan to them anymore? Suddenly the American dream starts to become just that, a dream. If that really is the American way, if that is really what makes our country great, shouldn't we continue to try to extend credit to those who need it most to attain that dream, or is it acceptable that this dream is unattainable to many no matter how hard they work? It's easy to live in a bubble, say you earned your place in society, say people who haven't made it as far as you just haven't earned it. That's far from the truth, though. The truth is that most everyone in this country works hard, that many are subject to the whims of those who are better off than them, and that no amount of hard work is a garuntee of success. The problem is not that we lend too frivolously, the problem is that when things start going bad the people who are affected the most are the ones who owe money, who are subject to the people who control their loans. When those loans get called in, people have to cut back on spending. When people cut back on spending, businesses lose money. When businesses lose money, stock goes down. When stock goes down, consumer trust goes down. When consumer trust goes down, people cut back on spending even more. Then come job cuts, which causes less spending, which causes more uncertainty and less trust in the market, and now you're in a tailspin.

The problem is not just irresponsible lendees, the problem is that lenders were left unregulated and unchecked. They could do whatever they wanted with loans when things went bad, and when people couldn't pay they could collect without repercussion. This is not just people spending beyond their means, this is also a matter of the reality of meritocracy. If we want meritocracy, we have to be more open to redistribution of wealth, to tighter controls that benefit the consumer, to pay and bonus caps for executives, and to a society that does not cater to the wealthy. If we want Aristocracy, free market is the best way to get there, but if we want real democracy then we need to assure economic stability for everybody.

Lastly, values. I'll just touch on this first point, but in debates concerning the stimulus bill the Republican Senator from South Carolina, Jim DeMint, wanted to remove language from the bill that prohibited the funds from being used to benefit religious organizations. Thank god his proposal was shot down, but this is an example of exaclty what does not belong in American politics. This is an idea that has been included in the very first language detailing our country, seperation of church and state. This has been integral to our country from its inception, yet there are still a good many politicians who feel it is their duty to carry out religious agendas through their positions. This, frankly, is bullshit. You are a publicly elected official, you are supposed to represent the entirety of your portion of the population that you represent, not just the people with whom you identify and not just your base. This is America, we are supposed to show equal treatment to people from all walks of life. What I think some religious people don't get is that freedom of religion is extended to people with all types of beliefs. It's not religious freedom for us because we were persecuted in Europe way back when, it's not religious freedom for those whose beliefs we can tolerate if not accept, it's not religious freedom for all but we're still going to fight to supress those who are different from us. It's religous freedom, period, get used to it.

Speaking of religous nuts, guess who's bacik in the news? That's right, Caribou Barbie herself, Sarah Palin. I had quite a laugh the other day when I Wikipedia'd Caribou Barbie and got redirected right to her page, no interruptions (just tried it again, there's now a redirect=-(. Anyways, back to the matter at hand, she is now sponsoring the systematic killing of Alsakan wolves. Well, it's hunting for sport, an American passtime, right? WRONG! The most common practice is killing wolves with high powered rifles from helicopters, and indiscriminately I might add. There's no discretion to if they're killing a pack leader or a member on whom the pack might depend. It's just go up into the air, spot a wolf, fire. Carl Spackler would be so proud.

Oh, but it doesn't stop there. No, it is now a state-approved practice to go into wolves' dens and slaughter young pups, and I'm just positive this is done in the most humane way possible. There are also stories of capturing pups so they yelp to their parents, then killing the parents on arrival. Doesn't this just scream good, old-fashioned, Christian values?

Now, here's the kicker. Caribou Barbie, or, if you don't like that, the [con] artist formerly known as Sarah Palin, is publicly defending herself. The reason they're killing off wolves systematically, well those darned things are killing innocent caribou, we gotta do something galdarnit! But C.B., why do you care about the caribou, you don't care about living things, unless of course you're talking about living things that aren't necessarily classified as living things, then it's a federal emergency, but these caribou are actual living things that have been born, what's the deal with the sympathy? Well, you see, tourists who come to Alaska to hunt can't kill the caribou because they might diminish their numbers to an unsafe level. So it's those damn wolves who are the problem. Ungrateful mongrols, killing caribou in order to survive. Don't they know that nothing should ever be killed for any reason except sport, and in that case humans have first dibs! I don't care who was here first, we called it! I don't care if the evolution of you brain doesn't allow you to comprehend our language or communicate with us in a way we can instantly understand, we called it first!

Ah, but I digress. Yes, the wolves, who kill for survival, do not take precedence over tourists, who kill for sport. In addition, they're not killing select sickly wolves, they're killing whatever unlucky mutt happens to come across their path that day. At least the wolves have a tendency to kill the weakest prey first allowing for survival of the fittest, what Palin is authorizing can only be described as slaughter.

But there is some proof that the whole world has not gone insane. Contributions and support for both animal rights groups and planned parenthood advocates have gone up since Palin's media exposure. In fact, some of these groups have sent thank you notes to her for her contributions to the rise in support of organizations that oppose her. More proof that Sarah Palin's a bigger boon to her opposition than to the side she's on. Anyways, she's pretty frustrated about this. She publicly asked them to stop sending her these notes, saying the joke has gone far enough. It's no joke, Barbie. You're an idiot, people realize that you're an idiot, and when they do, they do all they can to make sure your idiocy won't spread. Besides, you wanted national exposure, you got it, welcome to the American press!

Speaking of media exposure, here we go again. The evil liberal media, controlled by Hitler's brain and intent on destroying all that is good is at it again! Hold on a second while I dispose of my previous meal in a most unpleasant manner. President Barack Obama, at a press conference, called on a member of the Huffington Post, a liberal online news site. The journalist called on asked a question that was critical of the Bush administration. Now every conservative news outlet is going apeshit over this. There's a liberal bias, they're trying to supress conservative media, everyone is out to get me, ahhh! It's times like this that make me want to punch Bill O'Reilly in the face, although that is a recurring urge. Speaking of the madman himself, O'Reilly had, in the past, criticized the Post for allowing members to post what he called hateful comments in their comments section. First off, these hateful comments were comments aimed at the Bush administration's efforts in Iraq, human rights violations, and other perceived abuses of power. There was also some criticism of Nancy Regan's politics when she fell and was admitted to a hospital. Let's not focus on the fact that most of these comments were not hateful, that hateful comments were moderated, and that the Post didn't condone these comments. When considering the validity of a statement, look first at the source.

When has Mr. O'Reilly ever been hateful? Oh, well there's his treatment of Cindy Sheehan, ridiculing her for vocing her opinion on the war and being distraught over the loss of her son. There's him verbally abusing Jeremy Glick, a 9/11 survivor, for asking O'Reilly to stop using the event as propoganda to further his own purposes. There's his fabrication of a story about homosexual gangs that try to force people into becoming homosexuals. There's the time he said that Stockholm Syndrome doesn't exist, and that a kidnapped child who had developed it really only hated his parents. There's his insinuation that African-Americans don't value education. There's the time he used the term, "lynching party," when discussing Michelle Obama. There's the time that O'Reilly told a Jewish caller that, "If you're offended by Christmas then you've gotta go to Isreal." Yeah, O'Reilly's really in a position to criticize other people for being offenseive. Here's a man who invokes the Holocaust at will for any reason he feels like, talks about African-Americans as though they were thugs, insults people for voicing certain opinions, among other things, and he has the audacity to not only accuse others of being offenseive, but he tries to discredit them by going around yelling media bias because one liberal publication was called on once? Bill O'Reilly, there's a time and a place to be offensive. Acting in the manner you do in front of the audeince you do is neither the time nor the place for that. The time and the place for being offensive is in situations like right now when people like me tell people like you to blow it out your ass.

That's all I got for right now. Stay tuned for the thrilling conlcusion!