What, Exactly Do They Produce?

One of the things that really make me laugh hysterically, to the point of slapping my knee, then leaning back and falling out of my chair, is the relentless whining that corporate America does when they hear that the public criticizing their extreme sense of entitlement to wealth. So, we're stuck with this sentiment that it's so unfair to criticize those that have supposedly worked so very hard to attain their entitled positions, and have earned their wealth because they are the only ones in society that effectively "produce" (1). The comedy stems from the mere absurdity of how people who confess to huge success, remain victims of the criticisms of society, as if society looks at corporate America and literally says that being successful is bad, but corporate America is avoiding the point being made. Being successful is not bad at all, but the method by which that success was attained, if corrupt or damaging to the public good and even the markets, does in fact make it bad, especially when success is directly linked to the ability to persuasively furnish things for the market, and literally be a "very productive" member of society.

So, what I have to ask you, corporate America, is, in a time of crumbling economies, markets that tread barely above deep recession levels, a large number of unemployed, the lack of new and innovative industry, discontent mobs in the streets chanting down Wall Street, large financial institutions receiving taxpayer funded bail outs, the government rescue of the American auto industry, and more, what have you actually produced? In what matter is corporate America actually being "very productive"? It's a very mocking behavior, to claim that public criticism of corporate America is destructive, when there is greater income inequality in America, than in China or India before the recession hit (1). Corporate America, you subsist off the lowest taxed nation in the world, so you cannot possibly use the age-old conservative excuse that high taxes prevent you from producing jobs (5). Even though it claims to have its hands tied by too much regulation and high taxes when it wants to create jobs, it still doesn't produce a significant amount of jobs to make up for those lost. What is it? What is the missing ingredient? What else can the American people provide for you in order to avoid any criticism? The American public is still waiting for an answer, and a payback on their bail out investments. If corporate wealth keeps increasing, while the rest of working America sees no exceptional result, how can they effectively label themselves as "very productive"?

Financial institutions around the world, especially now in Europe, while creating an environment for austerity in nearly every nation, in order to buffer the collapse of market stability, have shocked investors with the "sheer amount of money" that banks have demanded, while those investors notice their shares deplete in value, with minimal gains, and a complete lack of growth instilled. So even after a Euro-zone near collapse, a U.S. collapse that's been patched up, and still flounders, and the looming threat of another recession, I reiterate to also the global corporate producers, where is the product (2)?

When it comes to corporate production, the only thing worth noting that gets "produced" are bets against the growth of the economy. Basically, unregulated financial capital companies work hand-in-hand with Senators in Washington D.C. They produce profits for themselves, by getting non-public information from our publicly elected representatives, in order to place bets on elements of the market that are detrimental to creating growing markets, like health care, and banking regulation. These are called hedge funds, and more often than none, these days, hedge fund brokers are looking for bets against growth. If they know that a particular market will fail, or go negative, they will heavily bet on that failure, instead of placing financial resources in growth markets. It apparently doesn't matter to financial corporate America whether or not a business or policy will "produce" for the gain of the markets. It doesn't really factor into that fact that these monied interests that are well connected in American politics will go to no-end, in order to gain profit, yes producing money for themselves, but failing to fill the void created by betting on failure. What is getting produced here, if a particular market no longer exists to produce anything (3)?

This mechanism of investing is bad, and very non-productive, except for those who exploit it. And, that is just what these so called "producers" are doing is manufacturing exploitation. As an author, Henry Mintzberg, puts it, there are two sides to every economy: exploration; and exploitation. Our current economy and political sphere, for whatever reason favors exploitation. It is the bets and the bailouts that are true to the form of exploitation, because it sure isn't those powerless and stigmatized Occupiers who have the leverage to attain fortunes through non-productive means. It is Wall Street, and the political power brokers who do, and they are simply exploiting our markets, leaving the rest of the economy to wonder why everything is out of control and there is nothing they can do about it. In contrast to exploitative enterprise, there is the exploration version, and this is what is disabled in the current economy. It is a feasible way of having monied private interests invest in risky ventures, because they are not bad ideas, but just new, and have an undetermined course, but they can easily succeed as much as they can easily fail (4).

When Mintzberg mentions economists, and how they boast about America's "great productivity", he emphasizes that it is great, because it is the enterprise of exploration, not of exploitation. Exploitative enterprise is what we have now, and that has been and continues to be very destructive to our economy, because unlike exploration, it does not aim to "do things better". It only preserves the current market we have now, that doesn't produce, but instead sells supply, which is only manufactured outside of our markets, and why, because production comes in the form of near slavery -- cheap foreign labor.

Corporate America is not producing anything. In fact all they do is sell. Home Depot doesn't produce hand drills, and hammers, it sells them. Staples doesn't produce staplers, and reams of paper, they only sell them. Best Buy doesn't produce electronics, they are manufactured overseas, and shipped here, and simply sit on a shelf. But even that's not even the worst case, because this holiday season, even after successful sales, Best Buy didn't even have any product on the shelf to sell (6). Hedge fund brokers don't even produce money, they just sell faulty market mechanisms that tempt desperate investors away from exploratory investments, and place value on non-productive facets of our economy. The scenario we have now in America, is just a bunch of overpaid, over-valued, salesmen, and even though they stake claim to production, they have nothing really in production, just a lot of leftovers to sell. Mintzberg puts it like this, if "a company that fires all of its workers and then ships its orders from stock", and economically that may seem like production, but what happens when the supply runs out? Mintzberg, simply, states, "America is running out of stock" (4).

The only other thing left to do is produce, and that can only be effectively done by the explorers of enterprise, who will invest in new industries, or those that create new, efficient, and progressive forms of production.When all corporate America is doing is enabling the the mechanisms, like "disruptive day trading and other exploitative speculation that crowds out sustainable investment and disrupts regular business activities", then productivity by definition and practicality are non-existent. So, how can they possibly claim that they are productive?

1. Bankers Join Billionaires to Debunk ‘Imbecile’ Attack on Top 1%
2. Stocks Subdued After European Lending Move
3. Inside Capitol, Investor Access Yields Rich Tips
4. Who Will Fix the US Economy?
5. GRAPH: Contrary To GOP Claims, U.S. Has Second Lowest Corporate Taxes In The Developed World
6. Whoops! That Stuff You Ordered Weeks Ago from Best Buy? It’s Not Coming

Horizontal Governance: The Evolution of the Social Mind

So now that the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement seems to have fallen off the major media radar, most of its non-participating supporters are now left to wonder, not only where did it go, but what now? It is very important for OWS to send a clearer message, about what change it wants to implement. If this message is not soon delivered, the movement will deteriorate, and be forever discounted as a senseless complaint.

The first thing that I noticed, as the OWS movement peaked, was a lot of the organizers were talking about it having a horizontal structure. For those, who don't understand what that is, or those who believe that a leaderless horizontal political system is just another phrase describing socialism, or in right-wing perspective, a communist takeover, the horizontal hierarchy finds its strengths in being leaderless. It enables every voice to rise to the top of all decision-making procedures. Unlike any of the aforementioned labels, horizontal-ism is a facilitator of efficient information, for the purpose that leaders could make more effective decisions when drawing up policies, that directly effect society, but with a focus on the needs of the individual.

So, why a horizontal, leaderless decision-making process? When asked, what was the funniest thing that he witnessed during the OWS protests in New York City, Dr. Arthur Chen of Oakland, California, responded with an action by protestors that wasn't as funny as it was purposeful. He noted that the effect of our generation's sense of inclusiveness, while watching the protestors take part in a General Assembly. This inclusiveness he witnessed is what the information age has brought us. Put simply, we have the tools that grant us the knowledge, that we don't have to "screen" each other, when it comes to having our voices heard, and that all of the information we gather from these assemblies are their to better inform us of all of our needs, rather than a pigeon-holed perspective provided to us by the measures of antiquated D.C. politics, and corporate media. The information age demands a place for those venues that would not screen all of our points of view (7).

Well, as complex as the OWS movement's demands are, so is the political process in our modern society, especially when you consider the pace at which information retrieval and gathering is accomplished in contrast to the current method  of implementation of ideas, and policies in current governmental structure on the basis of information acquisition. Basically, there is no political structure in the world today, that is capable of keeping up with the mobility of information. So, it is incompetent in providing a highly informed society with the necessary laws and leadership that will improve lives across the economic spectrum. "The style of communication, decision-making and planning taking place in Zuccotti Park, and in Occupy protests across the country, mimics much of the way we have learned to talk to one another online." (1)

As a society, we are all psychologically geared to consume and produce information at a much faster rate today than in the past, when the only avenues to the most current information were institutionally supplied media. Now the flow of information, being less authoritative, and more unrestricted, enables the general populace to shift opinion and consensus through its own mechanism of verification and truth (i.e. mic checks, tweets, Facebook statuses, etc.). Take for instance Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton's statements back in March 2011, where she stated that the U.S. is losing when it comes to information distribution (3). She was saying this even at a time of the greatest usage of the internet as an information sharing resource. With the rampant sharing of information, and the low cost to produce it, media centers have propped up elsewhere, globally, while the U.S. makes cuts to major propaganda facilities, it is apparent that the U.S. government even recognizes its failure to effectively create or even maintain an effective infrastructure to inform on a new playing field.

The pattern of rapid information sharing, and the shift away from powerful or concentrated information centers, is beginning to find its way into politics and governance. If there is any debate contrary to this concept then, that thinking is as archaic as the political system that exists today. It is a failing system, slowly collapsing under its own weight, because it is either resistant, or incapable to changing its structure, in order to meet the needs of the people it is supposed to represent, and coordinate with those who are more aware of the concordance of the highly informed public.

What we're missing today in policy making is a leadership machine that runs efficiently, and that efficiency should stem from its ability to easily discover consensus among a representative body. Horizontal-ism was born out of the political leadership's incompetence to connect, network, or even embed itself within the ranks of a more informed and people, that exists within a nexus of economical, and political awareness. If we are to successfully regain economic and civil control of not just our own nations, but to assure that in the future there exists a global mechanism by which all informed voices can be heard at the level of the representational parts of our governing structures, then horizontal governance must become a compulsory branch of government.

Political leaders remain indifferent, well, at least those who support it. Those that don't support a new amendment to the governing structure, simply understand that they exist in a system that isolates them from common needs, while symbolically upholding that they are representing the people, when in fact they have latched onto a more concentrated, financially apt body of constituents: corporations. Since the decision of the Supreme court to classify corporations as persons, our representatives have shut the true people out of government, and even governing themselves. Through well financed lobbying, it is extremely easy to market popular opinion that is biased in favor of business' agenda, and marketing is not necessarily fact or even truth. The rate of information is faster, because it is smaller, concise, concentrated, and easily facilitated. Instead of having to wait for the true popular message, from veritable people, senators, congressman, and statesman, refuse to recognize the time, the patience or the capabilities to hear an ever-growing population's demands. So through corporate person-hood, the ears of representative governing have only been listening to the minority of the population. Even if it isn't a minority below the surface, it is a highly concentrated, single body, that portrays skewed data, information, and opinion to our leaders, and has basically hijacked the democratic process. If our leaders were competent enough to embrace new technologies as tools to reconnecting the bridge of representation to their people, the need to consolidate information through the pipe of false person-hood, the corporations, then OWS would have never had the need to exist.

I bring all this up not to belabor the issue of corporate person-hood, but to emphasize one aspect why our politicians turn to corporate lobbying first, instead of the mass of people they are really supposed to represent, if they are even doing so at all. It is really a matter of "voice" as information, and a conflict between that and the speed at which it flows into government from the people, and the amount with which they are inundated. Ask, any successful businessman, if a business grows beyond its capacity to produce, the business' production infrastructure needs to change, in order for it to satisfy that growth. The same thinking should be applied to governing. What OWS is attempting to offer up to its leaders is governing system by which the people can regain their voices in government, and "produce" policies that directly stem from that voice, and not from the concentrated minority of voices that are isolated from the people by financial means and sheer totalitarian information marketing committed by the corporations and wealthy elite.

The most important thing to recognize about the corporate person-hood and its new found tight relationship with political leaders is that it is authoritarian in nature. This convenient relationship is severely evident in the doctrines of right-wing politicians, who have plenty of private interests lobbying them, and also support an extreme version of capitalism that caters to the corporate person-hood status. Instead of gathering consensus from veritable persons, the information pipe is diverted, and the flow of information into government has become unchallenged, simply by changing the definition of a person.

In education, the lack of leadership's capacity to adapt to the information age is strongly evident in its complete ignorance of improving the learning environment in general education. In the U.S. classrooms still contain the educational tools of 50 years ago. How would our leaders expect students to compete on the global playing field, if the real world expects learning and skill gains through an information highway, while the primary learning environment is only stocked with only #2 pencils and dry erase boards? If the leaders in the U.S. need an answer to why students are not ranking higher in the global education standings, they should ask themselves, "why hasn't there been a massive R&D effort to understand how to use computers to develop customized reading-learning strategies for kids with different learning styles." (4) If our leaders realize the technology is more about a new way of thinking, and decision making, and less about entertainment (i.e. video games, and Tweeting), then they would discover that educating our kids along these lines would enable them to govern themselves better, teach each other more efficiently, and basically share ideas in order to effectively innovate.

There is a concerted yet unspoken effort to suppress this new mode of information sharing by only the most powerful elements of our society, and their political cohorts, that realize the benefits of not just guiding media output, but excessively controlling it. If schools are not funded adequately enough to utilize the technological tools of now, if legislation is written in order to selectively expose our privacy, take away our right to free speech, and prevent us from seeking out the right information, then it is absolutely evident that controlling the masses comes in the form of authoritarian restraint. If gaining information is a race, those capable of buying policies, and those making them, are slowing the greater majority of people down with uncertainty and unprincipled policies. If ordinary people are adapting successfully to information exchange, and that progression is being even slightly restricted or presided over, then it would suffice to say that not just media, but also the flow of free information is controlled.

In order to paint a picture of the entities that control the flow of information, it must be emphasized that the avenues by which we receive information are highly restrictive because of two factors: 1) the private industry's inability to embrace change;  and 2) the failure of policy makers to stimulate change (5). It's all about speed really. Not about the ability of businesses and politicians to keep up, really, but more about their reluctance to change, even increase, speed at all. If the flow of information is sped up, then change in any system is inevitable, and to ignore it for the sake of security, or preservation of pre-existing systems, is simply put, a failure. Here's a scenario that makes no sense, in this matter, when Google Health (a resource for users to store and analyze their health information) decides to discontinue it's service. Within the same month, Qualcomm Life plans to sell a health device hub, that connects up to servers, in order to continuously share a patient's real-time health information with medical professionals via the "cloud" (6).

Now, you read that last paragraph, and say, "so what, it's the nature of the market, and it's competition for these companies to make changes". But, if looked at from a non-business perspective, and more so from the information architect, it would make sense to have multiple arenas of data, that could be used in conjunction, in order to create a larger data pool, which in turn would enable medical doctors and patients as well as healthcare insurers a more efficient tool to analyze medical risks and factors. Basically, business, because of profit loss, has taken away one source of health data aggregation, and isolate it via a paid for service, that limits the flow of information. The argument here is, why not have it in multiple ways? Why not just have a horizontal information structure, like the format that the OWS's movement has instituted for the purpose of sharing information among working groups?

It is second nature for us to produce information. In fact we produce information as fast as we interact with one another, yet most of it goes undocumented, or is placed in a data-accessible format. Discovering the point at which human interaction on the social level transitions into information provision to those who need to analyze it, or use it as a way to make sound policy decisions, is most likely the intention of the horizontal political structure, that OWS intends to implement. Most people may think, that polls or surveys may be the tool by which all of this is done, but often surveys can be too specific to a certain research need, and cannot be easily digested by the average person, and polls are either too biased or skewed to provide a non-partisan assessment of any policy stance. This, in no way, is a justification for the gathering of information of individuals, but rather, having our political structure take a more determined approach to gathering a sense of what the public needs are.

1. Occupy Wall Street’s ‘horizontal hierarchy’ seen through prism of the Internet
2. The Authoritarian Personality
3. Hillary Clinton: US Losing Information War to Alternative Media
4. Miller, Matthew. The Tyranny of Dead Ideas: Letting Go of the Old Ways of Thinking to Unleash a New Prosperity. New York: Times, 2009. Print.
5. Arndt, Rachel Z. "Google Health to the Guillotine." Fast Company Dec. 2011: 32. Print.
6. Box Sends Health Data Right to the Cloud
7. Why I Protest: Dr. Arthur Chen of Oakland, California

The Global Citizenship? Why Not?

There exists, an untapped concept: the concept of declaring our global independence. Having read many accounts of a flattening world, or a shrinking one (the internet and the technology provided to us, that enables us to communicate/interact more effectively over great distances), and observed the habits of some larger institutions within our society that carry out their business on a global scale, I have failed to find any avenue by which the individual has gained the rights or the capacity of freedom to live under laws unbound by national borders. Today, we have the ability to communicate and share information by way of technology, but we are restricted by compartmentalized international state laws, to move about the globe, participate in global business as individuals, and are not even provided civil rights on a global level.

The concept of global citizenship is so insignificant to the policy makers and the populace. It remains, that a national sentiment, or pride is the foremost ingredient of our individual character. If this type of citizenship is such a minor consideration, then why the sudden shift of momentum in popular protests in the Middle East? The European people in Spain and Greece have also taken measures to challenge their own governments, that have taken austerity measures to the point of becoming an oppressive character, like that of tyrants. Foreign policy in the U.S. constantly is chasing down global disruptions, and patching holes in international relations. Why, do conservatives in the U.S. instantly latch on to the sentiment that government is oppressive, and at the same time liberals tout that mega-corporations are destroying their economy? People across the globe are in fact economically oppressed, and this is the single most crucial component that links all these cultures together, because while one small percentage of the ruling elements of society participate in economic globe-trotting, a preponderance of individuals are bound by the lack of fair global rights, and are enraged at all those responsible for making the global environment less receptive to their societal and individual needs.

A Global Redefining of Welfare: Who Really is Benefiting from Free Markets?

Globalization has only enabled limited and more powerful elements of society, like those of corporations, the private military industrial complex, and more powerful elements that have the financial capacity to corral rights to an international presence. This arrangement seems to emphasize the incongruity and underlying injustice that the greater population must endure, in order to maintain the stability of the upper levels of class. For instance, in the United States, immigrants that have not yet acquired full citizenship, yet have the ability to attain public benefits in the form of welfare (1). The first question that arises from this, is why do people emigrate to the U.S. in the first place? One could propose that they come here for the opportunities of prosperity, those that their former nation could not or would not provide. On the other hand, who is to assume the prior predicament of an immigrant? There could be a slight chance that they came from a livelihood of sustainability, and did not have to wholly depend on the state for the bare necessities. Until there was a point in time that free trade, a product of global free markets, destroyed their sustainable life. So, then they arrive to the U.S. and the job markets may not be so open to newly arrived immigrants, and the economy is bad on top of that, so they have only to turn to welfare.  The best the most free country in the world has to offer to the rest of the world, is a hand out?

Fine! I can understand that social programs like public benefits offers a certain level of economic stability, and is a social tool by which American citizens can fend off poor or unhealthy living conditions on a larger scale. In most cases it is beneficial to all of us, citizen or not, richer or poorer, but we are dealing with a crisis of failed global leadership, and their inability to improve economic conditions for those that have no national status, unlike the status of large corporations who spill over into other countries on the backs of their domestic taxpayers, with the protection of the taxpayer's soldiers or their hired military contractors. Ask yourself, who pays for this level of privileged welfare? The answer is a globally compartmentalized majority of citizens who are isolated by domestic rights and laws, yet have no ability to participate on the same playing field as transnational corporations or traders, who transgress the world suppressing human rights at the national level, by way of practicing business exceeding international laws, that lack regulatory effectiveness, and simultaneously depend on the welfare of nationalized taxpayers.

Take for instance, the small farmers within the United States! If they choose to sell their product on the market, they are required to meet an endless regiment of regulations put forth by domestic legislation. They are also hit by business contracts and the threat of agricultural intellectual property infringements, brought upon by huge agribusiness companies, when they've been enabled by the government to place patents on genetic modification of plant seeds. In contrast to the small farmer, large agricultural companies have the means by which to move certain elements of their business offshore, in the case that their practices fail to abide by the standards of regulations stateside. The U.S. government has provided no avenue for non-corporate agriculture to thrive in the same sense that the large corporations have.

There is an intrinsic failure when two elements so powerful as a developed nation's government, and a very financially endowed corporation team up to create the perfect scenario for creating excessive profits, especially when that gain is provided at the cost of a greater element of society's loss. This advantage is not some well crafted strategy, but rather a disposition that can only be attained by isolating lower class citizens (which does include the middle class) from any functional financial apparatus, such as those provided on a global scale, and forcing the lower realms of business to obey the limits of those isolated national laws or regulations. So, if capitalism's message is all about unbound free markets, it is beyond comprehension that the more enabled elements of any economy, by way of lacking international laws or regulation, combined with the absence of rights for the individual at the global level, a majority of the world has been disabled from participating in "free" markets.

Governments, very powerful ones, have a consistent desire to create a perfect economic environment for international businesses. If provided with the perfect conditions of enterprise, by which to maximize profits without contention, there is no limit as to how far these powerful entities are willing to make sacrifices in preservation of either sustainable economy, sound environment, the well-being of the average to below average citizen, or laws that are fair enough to those who cannot afford to purchase their way into legal favor. It is evident that "foreign capital creates incentives for states to establish an investment climate that is attractive to transnational corporations". This makes entering within a nation's border very enticing, and if the authority ignores its own laws, in order to persuade corporations to enter its country, that authority is no more, and it "may choose not to monitor or enforce laws and regulations that would increase the cost of operating within their borders" (3). If this is beneficial to the state at all, then why is there so much austerity taking place in the Western world? Were these corporations not successfully emigrated into the states, in order to create jobs? If this is correct, then why the need for providing welfare to lower class individuals, immigrants, that continue to struggle against a plethora of legal obstacles, and economic despair?

Creating borders that only exist for one element of the global society, and then erasing them for others is a fabrication of advantage. If the U.S. government, for example, is going to enter certain countries with a presence of force, in order to provide a secure environment for multinational companies to carry out trade, the single most characteristic principle of capitalism is missing: competition. In contrast to concepts presented by Thomas Friedman in his book, The World Is Flat, where everywhere around the globe, we all compete on a level playing field, the U.S. government has consistently preserved pre-globalization inequities. If the field of competition is going to be level, then individuals and smaller businesses will all need to be able to shed the shackles of national laws and begin to demand that their domestic leaders provide balanced legislation that grants them global rights and regulates those who have taken advantage of a system that has been looking the other way when it comes to global regulation.

Iraq and Afghanistan: Nations Made of Walls

 A very good example of how individuals and small businesses are compartmentalized and are regulated from participating in global profit mechanism is the Iraq war, or more in general the need to economically control the Middle East. Here you have two compartments: the U.S. citizenry on one side, and the citizens of Middle Eastern nations (what is often labeled as the the insurgency) on the other. Both segments are powerless to function, operate, or overcome the force that Western coalitions bear upon them, as well as the lesser visible Western multinational corporations that swing in behind occupational forces, in order to gain business from this action, through lofty priced contracts. The U.S. enters a country rich in oil resources and attempts to sustain the limitations and the hazards of this resource. No matter the cost, whether it be lives or money, the powerful nation continues to force containment through economics and occupation. Instead of providing investments domestically for engineers, inventors or business persons to develop, research or design new forms of energy consumption, U.S. leaders find it befitting that the masses remain stagnant economically, and receive the resources that they have been consuming for almost over a century.

Many of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan faced an occupier that was interested in many things, other than to provide civil legislation that would elevate the peoples' rights, their ability to participate alongside the "civilian provisional authority", in a peaceful manner (even the name alludes to compartmentalization of Iraq itself by way of provisioning the economic infrastructure, instead of offering it whole). For example, there were no efforts by the CPA to have responsible elements of society compete alongside non-military contractors, and the only visible participation that individuals had to provide stability to their nation was to join the war effort and create more of an element of violence against Iraqis with Iraqi troop and police training. Obviously there is a good reason to have this, but it is not the single solution to stabilizing country or any other part of the region.

In Afghanistan, private contractors that financially subsist off of American tax revenues have consistently operated under a shroud of secrecy, and have been enabled to do so because they reserve the rights of privacy as recognized by U.S. constitutional laws, and not the laws of the nation of Afghanistan or the United Nations. They took on work within the war torn country, providing services meant to rebuild its infrastructure, but to this day, the American taxpayer has yet to see evidence of sweeping improvement in this realm. Yet, while both Afghani as well as American citizens await a solution, a rudimentary element of the economy has been sidelined by the occupation's failure to acknowledge the farming community, and the coalition-driven Afghan government's ignorance of any form of effective economic policy.

As noted by the Atlantic Monthly, "Afghanistan's economy is heavily agricultural, the health of the country's economy is directly tied to the mission of rolling back Taliban influence, and the U.S. has been sending farming consultants there for years" (2).With the destruction of most of Afghanistan's agricultural irrigation infrastructure mostly caused by combat, the farming community has had to rebuild it, or come face-to-face with economic fallout, being that agriculture "is the mainstay of Afghanistan’s economy", from where "eighty-five percent of income" derives (5). So, if one considers the reason for occupying Afghanistan was initially for hunting a single terrorist organization, and that this mission was responsible for completely destroying the main ingredient to thriving agriculture in this country, U.S. efforts, to re-stabilize the economy through something they initially destroyed, are simply a misgiving.

The same article addressed how the Pentagon is now in search of "secret farmers". To put this into definition, a secret farmer would be a private contractor hired as a agricultural consultant to advise local communities along the same lines as previously mentioned, where consultants would teach farmers how to farm. In a country where eighty-five percent of income is derived from farming, the U.S. military, of all agencies, feels the need to send in high-priced consultants to advise individuals who have spent their entire lives farming? The best way to control the economic development of a nation is not just secure by military means, but to also send in consultants to attempt to improve the economy, and yet the taxpayers in the states as well as the Afghan government and its citizens would have no insight as to why this is needed, and what it is these advisers would be doing. It is evident that secrecy breeds compartmentalization of society, and the mere fact that farmers need special clearance to farm, it is obvious that "this latest farming mission is about more than just the usual subsistence farming" (2). These farmers, if they held global rights, and the ability to import the needed resources on their own, without having to depend so much on either their own failed government or the profiteering mechanism drawn in by developed powers, they could just as well prosper and provide on their own. With the secrets of the powerful and advantaged, this is not part of the wider plan.

The exorbitant amount of security enacted in the Middle East as well as domestically for the U.S. is a symbol that explains that this is a conflict to contain, and to isolate the powerless from powerful potential and capacity, because what the occupation did was become "an operational norm for innumerable local, regional and sectional interests all intent upon acting as their own more-or-less equally inept ‘civilian provisional authorities’ within their respective neighborhoods, clan areas, ethnic homelands, sectarian zones or provincial jurisdictions" (4). It allowed private contractors, and other foreign profit makers to enter Iraq, with more freedom than what was granted to individual Iraqis, in order to access the resources of war and the natural landscape. The occupation was considered a "restoration" to the damage and violence that the occupying force had generated in the first place, and this was the primary justification to walling off Iraqi citizens from participating in the so called restoration, and the occupying force took full advantage of billions upon billion of American taxpayer dollars to fund this effort (compartmentalized by physical distance, homeland security, and national borders). Both Americans and Iraqis faced economic ruin.

How could an under-developed country like Iraq even need to step up from local economic strength, directly to the international market's competitive level? Why would that even be necessary, and why couldn't it slowly take steps to improving its economy on its own? If it had something that valuable to offer the world's developed nations and their own markets, it would make a lot of sense that the Western economies would push through Iraq militarily, in order to tunnel through the chaotic economic mess of conflict. The Iraq war was simply a "political strategy for isolating the ‘enemy’ element, engaging ‘supportive Iraqis’ and building ‘new institutions’ in pursuit of a security strategy for clearing areas of enemy control, holding areas seized from enemy resistance, and building new Iraqi security forces to nurture civil society. This which would underpin an economic strategy of restoring neglected infrastructures, reforming the economy, and building national market capacity" (4). But the Western coalition did not fully succeed in "nurturing" a civil society at all. Instead it contained it, and put in security to preserve its own interests from being torn down again by the interests of the Iraqi people.

The enemy was only defined as an insurgency, that was basically rebelling against the doctrines of a foreign state, not the pre-existing state that was Iraq. The Western coalition did not offer anything but the option of insurgency, isolating all factions of Iraqi society from one another through the single agenda of security. There was and still is no intention to break open the compartmentalized national sentiment through religious freedoms, civil rights, and practical constitutional foundation. What still is present is the huge amount of war profiteering that is being committed by transnational corporations, by way of the American taxpayer unable to restrict the use of tax revenue for defense, yet the Iraqi people still await even their nationally recognized citizenship.

It is apparent that the U.S. leadership, and leaders of the Western world have this aim to isolate national citizens of any country for the sake of preserving government and transnational corporate interests. It is purely a game, and a rigged one, at that. The scenario between Native Americans and American colonists has been turned inside-out, where instead of dominating a new world of a less advanced society, we are committing ourselves to domination of the old world that lacks a more advanced economy, that exists within globe of disconnected sustainable economies. It is the old world attempting to grasp at as much of its past's powers and wealth and draw that same dominance into a new world, future. By drawing apart the greater elements of society, the veritable citizens of the world, the powers that be are conquering by division, making the greater elements of the globe, much, much smaller, and therefore incapable of economically overcoming an empire of bogus competition. If the citizens of each nation were granted a global citizen status, they would gain a better foothold in this rigged game, not so much an advantage, but more of an ability to fairly compete, participate, and make provisions for themselves, and not be misguided by profit-schemes enabled by government policies that restrict only the citizens.

Free Trade, Bound Global Citizens

One of the greatest ironies or should it be called a double standard, are the policies of free trade agreements. Political leaders of developed nations have sought to take advantage of underdeveloped nations by tapping their cheap labor sources, and allowing the products made in those countries to come back through their borders for free. Yet, again, transnational corporate elements are easily granted the privileges to move freely about the globe, driving wages down, therefore driving the quality of life downward, and that becomes an economic advantage only to those elements of the corporate global society, and not the individuals who make up the economic cultures of each nation. Very powerful corporations have been granted a common law right to move freely about the globe without regulatory measures or laws to restrict their activities, meanwhile citizens of either nation are bound by strict, if not oppressive, immigration laws, the inability to move about the globe, in order to enterprise in the same fashion as transnational corporations.

Global free market capitalism is unequal, or unbalanced in a world without global citizens. It does not favor the individual economically in the least. Therefore, citizens all over the globe tend to migrate, based on what is called the "push-pull model", migrating from developing to developed nations. This is happening because instinctively people have the need to live where they can have a better quality of life, they want to remove themselves from environments of poor social, economic and political exposure, thus moving to environments of the same elements, it is attractive to want to earn higher wages and have a higher standard of living, and improved social conditions, that offer a higher sense of personal freedom (6). This is the right of every citizen throughout the globe, regardless of their national status, but its principles have only been granted to very powerful elements of our society known as the corporation (comprised of many individuals who have already attained a better quality of life), because they have the financial capacity to either drive regulatory legislation out of global policy making, or to ensure that their ventures are not restricted by any laws that would diminish their unrestricted colonial practice of market takeover.

Bound citizens have no options when isolated from global maneuvering, like that which is practiced by corporate elements. It is not like several hundred years ago, where an element of society that was overwhelmed by an oppressive leadership, could just pick up and flee to a new world, because there is no more unsettled places in the world. So, the only thing left to do is to counter the oppression. But, in a highly controlled global market, attacks on the system, in the form of reform, are not warranted, and must be contained through higher levels of security. This is not in the form of an obvious police state, but something more along the lines of inspection of the citizenry, so as to preserve the sentiment of personal freedom, but below the surface there is much more being done. It is extremely unfortunate that acts of terrorism have removed certain freedoms from American society, the most free people in the world. Through no fault of their own, the average citizen can no longer travel in or out of the country without being thoroughly inspected. Not a single person is an exception, and every item on their person is exposed and/or scrutinized. This is representative of a higher sense of personal freedom, and a quality of life? There is no place in a sustainable and developing economy for highly sensitized security that takes its citizenry for granted for the sake of satisfying fear. Confidence in an economy stems from the mere fact that there are no castle walls to be protected, and that if one group of citizens can interact freely with a separate group of citizens without fear of the unknown, then that is truly representative of global prosperity. That is a free market for all, and not a select few who can afford to be free.

"Growth comes from innovation driven by individuals", and not the massive structures that succeed at sequestering the capacity of the individual to compete at the global level (7). As long as citizens remain constrained by national borders, they will never reach the capacity to compete or innovate on the global scale. Free market global capitalism is an annihilator of societies, because its sole focus is growth through competition. It represents globalization in the form of crusade, but it does not ensure preservation of society, because in concept it destroyed the security of market reciprocity, where one individual receives an item of value in trade for another, "market relationships were destroyed", and while it created the perfect environment for "rapid accumulation" it, over the long-term, "consumed the social and human fabric of society" (7). On one hand those who participate in markets globally, must have the financial capacity to do so, therefore they have inherited a freedom that, without global representation for each individual, goes beyond the extension of national laws. Deregulated markets will travel the globe consuming elements of society without ensuring the rights of global individuals, and at the same time, the society of individuals have no legal recourse to ensure that they are receiving a fair deal. Of course, most free market capitalists have a eugenic attitude about how great the concept, that there will always be many losers for every winner in global capital markets, and this is the crux at which confidence in global markets today is lost.

It would be more of an advantage if global citizenship was a reality. If individuals were capable of moving about the globe with minimal regulation, performing trade in the same manner as corporations, it would benefit all of the elements of the economy. Instead of this elegant scenario, the citizens of the world are limited to the faulty economic structures bound by primitive national policies, that only support the upper levels of society in a brute and clumsy manner. If the world's corporations are incapable of creating thriving markets for even themselves, then states should collaborate on creating the global citizen. Global citizens would provide not just the man-power to enable more production, but would also be a presence for new ideas and concepts on how to manage the world economies in an effective, as well as an efficient manner. The modern world is getting too complicated, and moving much too fast for the masters of the old world order to keep contained anymore.

REFERENCES:

1. BHUYAN, R. (2010). Reconstructing Citizenship in a Global Economy: How Restricting Immigrants from Welfare Undermines Social Rights for U.S. Citizens. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 37(2), 63-85. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
2. Fisher, Max. "Pentagon in Search of 'Secret' Farmers for Afghanistan". The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly, 15 June 2011.
3. Anderson, Rachel J. "REIMAGINING HUMAN RIGHTS LAW: TOWARD GLOBAL REGULATION OF TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS." Denver University Law Review 88.1 (2010): 183-236. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 15 June 2011. 
4. Luke, Timothy W. "The insurgency of global Empire and the counterinsurgency of local resistance: new world order in an era of civilian provisional authority." Third World Quarterly 28.2 (2007): 419-434. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 23 June 2011. 
5. Glasse, Jennifer. (2011, June 15). Americans Work to Modernize Afghan Agriculture. Lincoln Tribune. Retrieved from http://lincolntribune.com/?p=14117.
6. Varma, Roli. "Changing Borders and Realities: Emigration of Indian Scientists and Engineers to the United States." Perspectives on Global Development & Technology 6.4 (2007): 539-556. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 2 July 2011. 
7. Taylor-Gooby, Peter. "Introduction: Open Markets versus Welfare Citizenship: Conflicting Approaches to Policy Convergence in Europe." Social Policy & Administration 37.6 (2003): 539. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 4 July 2011.

Lessons in the Real Politic

When I was in college, I majored in both Classic Civilization and Early American Literature, and contrary to popular belief, that Liberal Arts education was the most valuable knowledge experience anyone could ever receive. Of course, it's not as practical or glorified as let's say pre-Med or getting a business degree, but from a critical thinking standpoint, the lessons I have learned from history as well as the philosophical truths spilled out by some of the world's greatest writers has offered up the best understanding of how the world works. The perspective we gain from having a critical viewpoint of the functions of society can only be gained from this type of education, of which is limited, when you look at the more prized elements of conventional education. What does a business-minded professional know about the needs of society compared to its desires? How can a doctor guide the principles of the "greater good", rather than being concerned about an individual's well-being? Even though these professions have intents to improve society, often times they are so trivial in focus, that they cannot endure the scope of sustaining humanity.

Anyone who has gained a liberal arts education, especially one geared towards history or literature, is the person who is most capable of having a universal viewpoint of human nature. It is the type of education that would best be suited for policy making, as the lessons taught in these areas, as well as the ability to sharply critique or interpret the elements of stories, the single process by which human beings can portray their experiences to the world. It is simply a direct exposure to humanity, and not some isolated, unilaterally tuned training. What government, as well as the public, needs is more professionals like this who have paid ample attention to the philosophical exploration of the human experience among other members of mankind, through the analysis and interpretation of literature or history. All of these things are lost or cast aside in science, business, or any practical education. Our culture has become too business oriented, enabling these professions to ridicule those who have studied humanities, and relentlessly divulge to the rest of the working world that their knowledge of literature and art is only good enough for the confines and lowly pay rates of a Starbucks coffee shop. Who is better at guiding the policies of humanity, than one who has studied, analyzed and critiqued it?

People need to address the true meaning of politics, and what its purpose truly is. Often times it is viewed as some negative association to their lives, as if it is some extension of all the bad things that either government, big business, corrupt politicians commit. It is an interpretive science, though, and extends beyond just being some element of gossip, out of reach of the academic stature of more accepted intellectual institutions. This interpretation is utterly wrong, and is detrimental to our well-being as a properly functioning society. Politics is simply the vehicle we drive on the road to something as close to utopia as we can achieve. A road to nowhere, but a road nonetheless.

From one of my favorite essays, titled Self Reliance, by Ralph Waldo Emerson, comes the most relevant quote to the discussion of political participation, "Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense..." The interpretation goes, that we must speak our minds no matter what, politically, if you will. This is the core of self-reliance. It is the only capacity for any man, regardless of intellectual stature to put forth that which is unique, and pure, and because it originates from a mind of a member of the human race, it is inherently universal. We cannot fall victims to forced appeasement, whether through being made to feel stupid, ignorant, unheard, or misrepresented. If we do descend to this level of denying ourselves to speak our minds, then we all fail to recognize the true meaning of free speech. We treat free speech these days as an avenue to fulfilling individual desires, yet it is meant for much more than that. Free speech is the not meant for those seeking instant gratification or self-fulfillment. Instead it is provided as a tool to build an enduring society; a civilization that can meet the needs of all its participants.

We solve nothing by ignoring our need to seek out civil truths. For, that is what politics aims to achieve, whether it be truth in individual rights, economic gain, or just preserving the integrity of your very own great society. If we cast aside participation in politics, then we are not free men. Try to convince yourself all you want, that it is a corrupt system by its very own nature, and that changing it is futile. The mere fact that you have not even taken the step to participate, to have even the smallest effect, is merely your own defeat. You have not seen the result of even trying. We leave it to those that are willing to contend with policy discussion and legislation, and that grants them the ability to wield power over those of you who will have no part of it.

It is a normal human instinct to abhor that which we do not understand, or at least resist it. If not hate it, at least cast it out of our minds or any chance to participate in it. The mind will not voluntarily endure those things which it rejects, and this is a failure to recognize truth. When it does so, the mind is limited in its perspective, and we view the world only with self-reflection or inward thinking. Currently political thought on a global scale is entirely inward. In other words, each state considers only its needs, and fails to recognize the greater scheme of things, through the acknowledgment of the direct effects that failed external states may have upon their own.

The lack of new ideas stems from the neglect of participating in politics. If the discourse of legislation and execution in policy is only provided by a select group of individuals, then the guidelines of society become skewed in favor of those willing to partake. Today, we are dealing with a revolution on a global scale, while most of us withdraw our thoughts to self-fulfilling policies and debate. So, there is no better time to turn our political thinking upon those things which lie beyond the borders of states, and begin to inject into the global conscientiousness the possibilities of global citizenship. This cannot be accomplished by a limited group of thinkers or politicians.

On the note of politicians, with all the negative, corrupt, and ineffective leadership we have received from them, there would be no better solution to correcting them, than to initiate your very own political deliberation. I'm of the opinion, that if more people carried out a significant amount of political discourse, more so than is done today, our elected officials could not escape explaining their policy decisions through difficult high-flying language, the installation of public fear, or the sanctity of national security. Everything will be explained, because we have either gained insight through our own discussion, as if we were are very own branch of government, keeping our representatives in check.

Politics is simply discussion. Without discussion, we would fail to gain any understanding of our freedoms, and the attainment of such freedoms, through the conversation of policy. Conversation without debate is only observing. If we cannot will ourselves to even dabble in politics, or embrace it, then we are just observers of legislation that is foreign to us. Instead, we should all take part in the conversation with all of our own opinions, and experiences, and make the laws that guide us our very own.

Voter Dissuasion

The trouble with dissatisfied voters is they never vote. If they never vote, there is an element of effective representation lost on the part of the people. The main argument expressed by opponents to voting is that the system in which they participate will never change regardless of how much their vote truly counts. To make this kind of justification for not voting is absurd, and it is the equivalent of saying the best way to heal the wound is to let it fester and become infected.

Young voters, especially, are those so opposed to voting, as if it was their own unique form of snubbing the establishment, but in their lack of presence at the polls, the establishment could wish for nothing better than to have a larger number of voters against it to simply not show up. Consider the 2008 presidential election, where a record number of minorities and youth turned out to vote, and the result was creating a significant lead for the Democratic candidate, a gap so large between the winner and loser, that was seen in neither of the two preceding elections, that elected a Republican president. One could argue that it was simply the people being utterly dissatisfied with what the former administration had done to the economy and how it handled conflicts overseas, but there was a significant increase in voters that created a voting lead so large, there was no need for a recount (Blacks, Young Voters Not Poised for High Turnout on Nov. 2 - http://www.gallup.com/poll/142877/blacks-young-voters-not-poised-high-turnout-nov.aspx). In the 2000 and 2004 elections, the turnouts were significantly lower, and the election results were difficult to decipher, because the balance of the votes were almost even. Fast forward 8 years, add in the factor of a large turnout, and it was apparent that in former elections, there was a closeted majority not utilizing their votes. If these voters were not dissuaded from voting in the past, it is quite possible previous elections would have created a different historical course. In other words, the second-guessing that occurred in 2000 and 2004, and in one election, where the Supreme Court overrode the votes of the people, could have been avoided altogether, and a true majority would have selected the president in a way that was constitutionally correct.

Money and steep financial funding of political figures is another factor. Political endorsements create or foster a false majority. When so much money is concentrated on a particular political faction mostly by way of media, and the most effective form being television, because that is the best way to facilitate political information to the general public, who needs something simple to digest, in order to understand who they are voting for, or which political platforms to which they can relate. In a complete irony of how the media currently plays out in relating political viewpoints upon the general public is that of comedian Jon Stewart, who is by all means a comedian, and not what most suppose an authoritative news source. The irony stems from the fact that most serious news and media gurus look to his satirical news show as respectable form of news dissemination, while Stewart consistently emphasizes that it is anything but that, and that his show is meant to point out the facade that most media giants (as well as politicians and pundits) construct, in order to cater to some element of the establishment. Stewart was even so far as questioned by genuine news reporters, seeking some form of empathy from Stewart, by stating, "Boy, I wish I could say what you're saying." And Stewart's response to that is why can't they ask the question they want to ask? What could possibly prevent a professional newscaster from breaking from the script, and generating thought provoking or objective questions or statements...? Wait! That's the problem. The mere evidence that something as amendable as a new story or policy expression is not authorized by the main people responsible for asking the question, but instead some external as well as partial element. (1)

This external element is the point at which media begins to deteriorate the foundation of Constitutional representation of U.S. voters, because this element exists, disabling journalists and newscasters from approaching policy making and legislation with a investigative mindset that is not inhibited by whatever mysterious interests are out there heavily influencing or reshaping the content by which most U.S. voters get their information. What is it that reporters, journalists, or newscasters cannot say? Who or what is placing restrictive measures upon the free flow of news information? Some may perceive this as a product of strict editing, and that most effective sources of news are watered-down, in order to meet the certain formats, but that is a naive concept. Most editors of news may only answer to the owners of the news agency, and that alone is a private interest, that is generating a diversion of information for the purpose of gaining capital or favor from related interests. In other words, the general public is immediately receiving a biased viewpoint from self-interested parties, and that is why reporters or journalists cannot talk about the politics they genuinely wish to talk about.

So, the voter is constantly misinformed, or is receiving information about candidates that is manipulated by partisan forces, and quite possibly private interests. Through mediums like television and internet news feeds, presented by media conglomerates, the information is very easy to digest, and a much larger percentage of the population will accept the less complicated presentation of voter information, that is simply too filtered. More intellectual sources will be less appealing to the general public, and leads to disinterest. In Jon Stewart's case, the news and opinions may be simple, yet thought provoking, and offer the public an intimate perspective of political realities, but one must consider that this can be viewed by the intellectual elite as simply satire, and therefore not accepted as an authoritative source.

Most of the current news sources are seeking ratings through sensationalist stories. These are stories that play off of people's emotions. Stories that evoke emotion, a lot of political figures embrace, in order to gain more votes through those elements of an incumbent's background that may either be questionable or lacking in performance in the bureaucratic realm. Sensational news is also non-authoritative, because it places too much emphasis on characterization of a topic, and covers less of the intrinsic content, like the ethical, moral, historical or philosophical aspects of the content. Granted, the latter type of coverage may be boring and unacceptable to the average user, but how hard would it be to present the facts in a simple form, rather than have to listen to endless and repetitive stories based on slander, failure, complaining, and simply uninformative context? Emotional dialogue lends voters to turn away from voting because it fails to provide firm answers, and aids in avoiding the facts behind a certain platform or politician.

In this case, voter dissuasion is a product of discontent with how politicians and current leaders are portrayed on all sides as baseless, incongruous, and failing to meet society's needs. A society of voters needs to embrace political leaders, and by being provided a public image through the disintegrated lens of popular mass media, it is fair to say, that this relationship never comes to its fruition. It may be possible that by portraying political leaders in a sensational light, that presents negativity and apathy towards public servants, the voter feels, in a sense, betrayed, and instinctively turns away from participating in realm of politics, especially voting. It's like being a bystander in a room full of arguing people. Who would want to participate in something of that nature? If individuals weigh in the current political sphere, it is a horrendous two-party system in which one side is constantly criticizing the other, and policies take a back seat to sensationalized bickering, puritanical morality hunts, and self-fulfilling character jostling. Voters grow weary of this inane behavior, especially when the source of it is supposed to be leading by example, and not distracting the public with irrelevant communications. The voters are seeking solutions to social problems, not elaboration on faults.

Take for instance Robert Reich's recent article (http://robertreich.org/post/1285369087) on the Democrats building up blame upon China concerning the reasons for economic fallout in the U.S. and its assumed cause of high unemployment domestically. What the politicians are beginning to do is tout a platform of fear and anger against China, as a means to grasping more votes come this November, conveniently only a month away. Mr. Reich states that in no way are the Chinese responsible for the high rate of unemployment in the U.S., and that the politicians that are using this type of rhetoric, are simply utilizing an external component of politics to place the blame outside the realm of American society.  He goes on to state that the real cause of recession was that the middle class was no longer able to support the economy, after experiencing an inability to borrow. So, the true cause of the recession is internal, and closely linked to the failures of domestic financial institutions, and not foreign entities. This is geographically isolating the voting public from information about the true causes of the economic downturn, and it fosters emotions, in order to get the vote out against those politicians that support Chinese foreign policies in any form or manner. If the voters cannot assess the causes of their economic problems, because the information exists beyond the capacities of international citizens' rights, and therefore the focus of inequality, like Reich notes as being domestic, has now been placed out of the control of the voting citizen base, and placed upon a global insignificance.

American voters live within a democracy, but fail to vote like citizens of one. It is not a democracy if the larger number of voters are not turning out, due to varying forms of dissuasion (whether it be intentional or not). If the people of a democracy are not voting in large numbers, then reaching the identity of the majority is never grasped, and it would lead voters to question whether it is ever possible to have their greater voices heard in Washington D.C.. This factor in itself is a form of dissuasion, and shows that there is a tremendous underlying psychology at work against the American voters, where it is acceptable to have a smaller number of people voting, and therefore, successfully disguising the minority within a smaller collection of votes.

References:

1) Smith, C. (Sept 20, 2010). America Is a Joke; The worst of times for politics and media has been the best of times for The Daily Show's host--and unfortunately things are getting even funnier. New York, p.NA. Retrieved October 08, 2010, from General OneFile via Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodId=IPS&userGroupName=orange_main

The Leaders Who Cry Wolf

There has been an ever present strategy in Washington to lead us down a road of fear and despair, if and only if America doesn't respond immediately to any threats that surface. Being wary is alright, but there is a key ingredient missing in the practice of informing people of looming crisis or failure: information. Many government leaders inundate Americans with headline statements that infuse fear and strong emotions in folks that gives leadership a "blank check" on policies that they want implemented.
Now, in today's economy, we've been confronted with statements from the U.S. Treasury secretary, Paulson, President Bush, and leaders of Congress, all having cried that if Congress doesn't make a decision on the housing mortgage bail out, then the U.S. would face a major economic fallout, a depression. What needs to be done is stop this fear mongering, and begin to "connect the dots", so that Americans can understand what this bail out will do to benefit the taxpayer. The fear of terror, the fear of financial crisis, the fear of voting for the wrong candidate, the list goes on, when it comes to unresponsive and irresponsible political leaders. If the current economic crisis is considered, even after instilling the fear of losing jobs, and credit and coming face to face with those elements of financial failure, this "crisis has had little effect on most Americans" (Lesson From a Crisis: When Trust Vanishes, Worry). Throughout history, people fear what they don't understand, and the Economic Stabilization Act, not only disables confidence, but places emphasis on bailing out the rich, simply because the populace doesn't understand how it works.

It would make more sense to publish a brief summary of how this act works online on a government website, maybe citing bits and pieces of the 110 page act, so that Americans can see how it helps them, and will benefit them in the long run. This is an age of information, and what the current administration fails to recognize is that more and more people take it upon themselves to be more informative with a tremendous library of information at their fingertips. There is no excuse anymore for politicians and leaders alike to propagandize on crisis, and force policies upon the public by instilling taciturn fear.

The leadership in government is simply not working, or should it be said that it isn't doing its job collectively. The average taxpayer, even if they could access the Library of Congress' THOMAS, he or she would not have the patience or diligence to sit down and plow through 110 pages of legislative jargon. It's not a document that can be easily digested by the public, and it shouldn't be the only avenue to getting more information about a government plan. It is the responsibility of government to make this information readily and easily available, and should be preceded by any language of dread from leaders who desire swaying the people into brash decision making.

Propaganda is a thing of the past. The information age is enabling individuals to define the truths that exist behind "the interests of those in power", or those simply seeking to persuade the majority. What propaganda does is takes slices of truth, not the whole truth, but part of the truth, and becomes a fog of information, called mystification. So in other words they are truthful lies, but are lies all the same (Propaganda 101: How to Decode Political Ads).

Due to the large amount of readily available information via the Internet, media or libraries, mystification of the general public is attainable, because the true information, the contextual information is difficult to decipher, and filter. So why not make it the responsibility of the U.S. leadership to do the filtering for the public? It should be policy that legislation cannot be voted upon until the taxpayers can supply feedback to policy makers about the legislation, in order to inform leaders that the average citizen comprehends the rudiments of this legislation. Also, legislation should not be voted upon, until a consensus is studied by our leadership of this legislative feedback.

Fear is that which we don't understand. So learn!

You Can't Run, Then Don't

Granted there is a major crisis occurring in the U.S., but McCain's move to suspend his campaign, and bypass the presidential debate is in very bad taste, as far as leadership is concerned. How about, when you become president, and we go to war, you just suspend your presidency when you see fit. Mr. McCain, we want to hear what your thoughts are on topics, especially now, in a time when a firm sense of leadership is most important.
These days, I wouldn't think that a politician in one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, could not correspond with Washington via email, or phone, or Blackberry device. But, oh yeah! I forgot, McCain, can flip barbecue ribs, but he can't click send for an email. (watch this!)
On a separate note, regarding the financial crisis. Have you ever experienced trying to contact congressional members online. I spent a good part of Wednesday afternoon, submitting messages to congress via web forms, and more than three quarters of them were restricted by zip code. So, in other words, if you don't live in that congressional district you can't inform members of Congress of anything. I don't desire a response, so there is no taxpayer money going into dealing with my email, and it cost near nothing to receive an email. So, why is contacting our government so restricted? The email address of a Senator or Congress person is not private information, and should be made readily available for any American citizen.
So what I was forced to do was look up the coverage area of each member's district, locate a city, and find a business address that was located within this district, and use that zip code. I had to reference three separate sites to do so (conservativeusa.org of all sites; good old faithful, Wikipedia, the U.S. Postal Service, and lastly, Google maps). The first site, lists all the Senators and Representatives of the current Congress. In Wikipedia, you can search for a state's district, simply by putting in, for example, "Alaska's 1st congressional district", and it will return a plethora of info, and a map. From there I picked a city name, and went to Google maps to find a business that was located in that district, copy and paste it's street address into the USPS's zip code finder, along with state and city name, and it will return a proper zip code for the congress person's district. Sorry folks, spamming is nearly impossible, but if you have the time, I would definitely follow through with some emails to the only people in our government who can actually listen to us.
Okay, so back to my rant on McCain. Bush made the request to have McCain and Obama come back to Washington to has out some ideas on moving Paulson's grand scheme to save our economy forward. This is the most absurd political maneuver I have ever witnessed, and not only is it disruptive to the process of selecting a new president, but it is evident that Bush, and McCain, are completely incapable of running a nation based on slew of mixed messages, unstable political stances, and the inability to aptly inform the American public what their true intentions or plans are. In an interview with Katie Couric, Palin, stated, "'America may find itself on' the road to 'another Great Depression.'" (Couric, Letterman too much for McCain and Palin). Then last night with McCain, when asked about Palin's statement, he responded, "I, I don't know if, if, if it's exactly the depression...". Come on! What the fuck is going on here? Do these candidates even communicate with each other? I, mean, really, if they did, maybe they could actually get their stories straight, and deal with the real issues, not ones that don't even exist.
The only consistent politician in this mess, the only figure who has acknowledged the failures of our current government, and the out of touch ideologies of the Republican right wing, that has destroyed our nation's welfare to thrive, is Obama. It is evident because, McCain, has not only bailed on his constituents, but has advertised himself as a person, who can only get the job done when the circumstances are beneficial to his political needs, and not the needs of the people. The debate should go on. Why would McCain suddenly bail on Letterman, and instead do an interview with Katie Couric? Because, McCain, and his GOP vote thieves, probably thought that since Couric is a morning show host, and most at-home moms are watching at that time, then it would make sense to grab hold of that demographic in the evening, and present himself in a better light, pulling the old female card again. I loved Letterman's reactions. How do you blow off Letterman?
Anyhow, I'm done griping for today. I just wanted to note this mess. You conservative big boys can dodge the truth all you want, but sooner or later it will come to the surface, and people will not tolerate your scheming, the secrecy, and the candy-coated baloney you keep dishing out.

Who Does She Think She Is?

So on my Sunday afternoon, I decided to catch up on my New York Times reading, and I was easily distracted by an article regarding the Republican's vice presidential candidate, Sarah "Goody Goody" Palin. Lipstick or not she still reflects a lot of the current administration's blatant disregard for the law, and ethical governance. Now I know all you die hard Republicans out there are going to tell people like me that it's not fair and that more respect should be given to her, but you know what folks, you need to look at the facts here.
She is not a policy maker, because she does not understand the importance of democracy, and a government that runs itself. Instead her background is loaded with ruthless personal vendettas, and running government the way she and her close friends see fit. This is not my America, nor should you accept her vision as yours. How would you feel if you local government had put forth a code or some legal restriction, that you and others did not feel was acceptable, and not in the best interests of the people in that area? How would you then feel, if that governing entity discovered your opposition, and even though you did nothing to argue the point, they decided that your position was null, and removed you from your job, not because you incompetent, but because you had a different point of view? It's quite simple. You wouldn't feel anything, because it doesn't matter to people like this. They are not concerned about your feelings, your well being, and your ability to have any say in how your world and your existence is preserved.
Sarah Palin does not represent in any way the free America we once knew. She has governed a very isolated part of the world, and does not understand the greater need of the American people, because in all the words she's been spilling forth, not once has she expressed the need to address the crises that many Americans face on a day to day basis. She's never discussed how to make our economy better, she's never spoken about how she plans on addressing the cleaning up of our environment, she doesn't deal with the issues of energy, and lastly she still hasn't address to us how she plans on dealing with threats to our national security. I mean she didn't even know what the Bush Doctrine was. Her idea of foreign relations being able to see an island in Russia 2 miles off the coast of Alaska, that she's never even been to.
Palin has stated regarding her economic policies, that "it's not government to be looked at to solve all the problems." But it's only one problem, and it seriously needs to be solved. We are not dealing with some small town fiscal crisis, this is a major national nightmare. A politician cannot possibly take a huge number of issues, and spin them into a single item. Then there's the fact that she has fired numerous people under her for personal reason, and could not provide a professional reason for ousting these people from their positions. Now this willy-nilly firing of people is great if your dealing with people who cannot fulfill their responsibilities, but when you go about firing people without warrant, or because they have acted in a manner that counters your beliefs, or your political stance, you are doing a disservice to the economy, and the confidence of the market. What would happen if a large worker's union opposed her presidential will? Would Palin just decide that these people don't deserve a job, because they disagree with me, and then fire thousands of people for personal reasons? That, folks, is not the representation of a good national leader. We're losing enough jobs already in this country, and we do not need a leader who will practice employment genocide due to personal feelings.
Now, her stance on environment is just outright ignorant. She has stated on the topic of what is main cause for global warming, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.". If it's not man-made, then what else would it be? In my state of California, from 1990 to 2004, hydro fluoro compound emissions (gases derived from manufacturing, and commonly used on aircraft, ships and large vehicles as well as in computer facilities, that is the main cause of global warming) went from 7.1 million metric tons to 14.2 million metric tons. So you tell me whether or not it was man-made! (see here)
On the environmental note, Palin, will drive our environmental concerns into the ditch, because she is a huge supporter of big oil in Alaska, having fostered the allowance of big oil to drill in ANWR. If we are to effectively save our environment from energy consumption, we need to yield our addiction to oil, and stop thinking it is our only way to solve our dependency. It is not the only energy resource available to us, and in all reality, opening up more drilling in Alaska is not a long term solution. Of course it's all about who is lining her pockets, because giving us more oil doesn't necessarily make it cheaper, it gives the oil companies more money, and does not in any way help our environment. If anything this shallow attempt to persuade us into a pseudo effective energy plan is a joke. This may have been a viable platform for her to stand back in 1990, when the world consumed 66 million barrels a year, but I got news for you maverick Palin, we consume 83 million barrels a day now. Do you think Alaska can cover that? This just goes to show that she has no idea what the reality of the energy situation is.
The final thing here I want to address is Palin's approach to Foreign policy, and how that ties into national security. First, it is worth noting that in her interview with Charles Gibson, she balked at his question on what her stance was on the Bush Doctrine. She had no idea what it was. It's all about foreign policy, and the protection of U.S. borders. So what, Russia is close to Alaska! Anyone who can read a map knows that, and one Russia is not a direct threat to the U.S., and two, what does that have to do with the threat terrorism. Other than this Palin has got nothing else when it comes to dealing with foreign entities and national security.

The Global Bloc

Okay, I got two wonderful bits of information for you guys today. First off, I read an interesting article from former CEA chairman N. Greg Mankiw (however you pronounce that), who conveniently slipped an op-ed piece into the New York Times today, regarding the similarities of Obama's tax policies to those of George W. Bush. Now I'm not really up on my high level economics lately, but it seems that this article was a bit of a reach a former White House economic adviser to slam Obama on his tax policies, being that Bush was such a screw up, Mankiw sets Barack at his level, stating that he has "embraced a central element of the Republican agenda", regarding corporate dividend tax.
So now that I've made up my mind about who I want to vote for, some economic guru comes along, and casts a shadow of doubt on my prospects, and for what reason? Now, for some of you not up on their Economics 101, based on the Wikipedia, dividend tax "is an income tax on dividend payments to the stockholders (shareholders) of a company." In other words, the profit made by stockholders on stock, is taxed on top of tax deducted from the company's profit. So, now that that is laid out for you, in 2003, Bush proposed to Congress to eliminate dividend tax, saying, it was a form of "double taxation", and that it would cause our economy to falter.
Now, Mankiw, is stating in his piece that in 2008 Obama plans on proposing "only a modest increase in the top tax rate, to 20 percent from 15 percent." He goes onto say that this would appeal to Bush's policy.
I simply am not getting this. If Bush planned on cutting the dividend tax, and then moved Congress forward with bills to do so, how is that following in the footsteps of a president, whose policies from every angle have sent the economy into a downward death spiral. The increase would put more pressure on those who reap heavily from investments (mostly upper middle class, and the rich), not those who are poor, and in most cases don't even own stock. Obama plans to draw from sources that have resources of money. It is a way to open up the economy from the top, instead of throwing a tax blanket over the general revenue base in the U.S.
Also noted, in an LA Times blog entry, it links to an Obama campaign plan document, that lays out in print, that even though he is raising the dividend percentage to 20%, "the rate on dividends will be 39% lower than the rate president Bush proposed in 2001." This is a smarter way to deal with the upper echelon of taxpayers, who have over the past eight years played an unfair game of fiscal irresponsibility, costing the middle class, and the poor more than they could pay out to the government (reflections of Enron and Anderson Consulting). There is absolutely no connection between Obama's plan for policy, and Bush's policies that have proven a failure to the American people. Mr. Mankiw, you are an outright propagandist, and you have sold out your own people for the sake of having another hack elected to office, John McCain.
I also wanted to address something I've been noticing over the past year or so, and that is how much effort the Bush administration has put into trying to pull the wool over our eyes, when it comes to globalization. In The World is Flat by Tomas L. Friedman, I found a passage that struck me, stating, "At the precise moment when the world was being flattened…requiring some very important adjustments in our own society and that of many other Western developed nations-American politicians not only were not educating the American public, they were actively working to make it stupid." Is that not a slap in the face as a wake up call or what? On this note, I shouldn't single out the Bush administration, because it had a lot to do with our Congressional leaders as well, who fought ferociously to keep the Republican bills to pass that fostered NAFTA. Then to come full circle, in this passage in Friedman's book, our good friend Mankiw shows up having been lambasted by the media, and his own administration tucking him away from the media, for supporting the gains that could be made from outsourcing, which would be a major part of NAFTA, and a "manifestation of the gains from trade that economists have talked about..."
I for one support outsourcing, and I see it as a way to open our country up to some new business and manufacturing concepts and applications. We are flailing in a sea of offshoring and outsourcing, and our leaders, Republican and Democrat, have purposefully set the course for hiding globalization from the American public. Why? Is the conservative wing and wealthy Democrats of the U.S. attempting to stay ahead of the rest of the competition, by eliminating public knowledge of the globalization effort, of which corporate strongholds in the U.S. are taking full advantage, by outsourcing jobs, offshoring production, and benefiting from these elements? It seems that the political/economic right in the U.S. does not follow a fair policy of capitalism, and by not leveling the playing field for all entities in America, it seems they are controlling the economy (a.k.a. Communism).
Call it what you will.

Obamanated!

Yeah I know, another Obamanym, but I couldn't resist. Anyhow, I just got done watching the speech given by Obama at Mile High Stadium, and up until about 5 minutes into his 45 minute speech, I was convinced that he's going to be the greatest thing to happen to this country in a long while. Now I say this from a former Republican standpoint, because I come from a conservative background, and tend to not have a lot of tolerance for extreme liberalism. I am starting to see a swing to the right a bit more in the Democratic party with Obama getting the presidential nod. I like that he has called McCain, and the GOP out on the floor, and is demanding that they start getting in touch with the reality of governing the United States of America, instead of their political mumbo-jumbo, full of empty promises to the American people. He has made it clear that Republicans do not govern, but instead they let the country ride the dangerous wake of their disorganized, unplanned, and threatening foreign and domestic policies. All of which have left the American people out in the cold and harsh realities of economic despair, employment hardships, and a government toward whom they cannot turn. I think my decision has been made based on Obama telling us, that we have come the crossroad, "a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more."
Obama has brought in both parties and even an awakening third, the Independents, by not only making note of them in his speech, but recognizing that McCain was a true war hero, and a political hero for breaking away from his party when he felt that his beliefs and views were in contrast to those of his out of touch, and failing party. This is what I like about Obama, because unlike a "celebrity", he puts his political ego aside to recognize his opponents strengths as a non-partisan player. Unlike the GOP, that constantly bashes Obama and the Democrats, nit-picking at every last detail of their platforms, moral fiber, and even their family members. If we consider how Bush in his 8 years of false "compassionate conservatism", we can see that the Republican party is not at all compassionate, and really has no sense of understanding the deep rooted suffering that Americans have faced during his presidency. Where's the compassion in that? Where is the compassion in their foreign policy, when they decided to go to war? Where was the compassion, in letting hurricane victims drown, and be permanently removed from their homes? Where is the compassion in even showing up to your own party's national convention? What is so compassionate about lying in order send our men and women into battle?
Anyhow, McCain is steeped also in that lack of compassion, because in Obama's words, he just "doesn't get it." The Republicans are out of touch, and when this is the case, they really can't comprehend the needs, and the hardships of the people they are supposed to serve. The Republicans don't get it simply because, when the Democratic National Convention occurred, 84,000 people packed into a football stadium to hear Obama accept his nomination. Obama had the full support of all his former Democratic contenders. The streets were filled with more protestors than there were police forces, and there was no need for showboating. The show came to Obama, and Denver was raising the roof.
In contrast to this, the Republican National Convention, was held in a much smaller venue, the current president, for the first time in the history of the RNC, didn't show up to support his party's candidate, and McCain scrambled for a female president absolutely incapable of running a state, let alone an entire country. The Democrats didn't need to desperately seek out an individual to leech off the Republican's female support. And what respectable presidential candidate of a conservative party selects a running mate without even a glance at their political background, which contains numerous discrepancies. On top of this have you seen the amount of police force used in St. Paul over the passed few days, in response to peaceful protests? It just goes to show, whether they were violent or not, there were a lot of people there who were not just angry, but absolutely fed up with the Republican party's failure to effectively govern.
Effective governing comes from the people, and not from its leadership. The masses know what is good for them, and what will provide them safety from the cold threatening world. We will not stand to be fearful of things that we cannot control. We will not let a small handful of powerful men control our thoughts, freedoms, and livelihood. We will decide the fate of our country, not the Republicans, not the Bush administration, not the rich, not the police, and we will decide who will make our country stronger, and a fruitful place to live. We have withstood way too much passive aggression from the current administration, and it's conservative supporters, and Obama hit it home for me when he said, "change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it - because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time."