I had a recent argument with a young conservative woman; you know, one of those basic arguments of left-wing economics vs. right-wing economics. I took the position of a Keynesian rather than a socialist or anarchist because, like many Americans, this individual's idea of the right-left political spectrum went from Right-wing libertarianism to Left-liberal, and any mention of the word "socialism" by me would be met with ridicule and most likely a refusal to seriously listen for many reasons. The word "anarchism" would probably be met with even more ridicule, and the label "libertarian socialism" would probably sound to her to be an insane oxymoron. Sometimes you have to break it in first by proving that even within the realm of capitalism, we can do a hell of a lot better; this task is easy enough, and is, most of the time, the only way to get someone from today's right to even listen to an argument from the left because there are a wealth of examples from modern American history you can use for support. Indeed, many of the instances I noticed her attention drift off in the discussion are when I brought up historical examples from other countries, like the southern cone of South America or India, for my support. In any case, this argument was easy enough, all I really had to do was illustrate when the US economy did well and when it didn't (such as right now), and show what our economic policies and trends were at whichever period, for example: progressive taxation, strict regulation, and large union membership during the long post-war period of unparalleled prosperity and economic stability (World War II to the mid 1970's); low taxes on the wealthy, mass deregulation, and union busting from the 1980's to the present, a period when wages have not risen (and actually fell for most of us) and the perpetuation of financial crisis after crisis dominates.
In any case, one thing that this individual brought up, kind of as a "secret weapon," to prove that the wealthy are benevolent and would do more for society than the public sector if they were just allowed to, was the fact that she knows, personally, and knows of many wealthy people who give "millions, even BILLIONS" of dollars to charity all the time. I once heard this argument from Glenn Beck on his now-defunct Fox News show, where in a "discussion" (the kind that only Fox News can do) with the head of the American Communist Party he bragged about how much money he gave to charity annually. I don't remember how much it was, maybe like 20%, something like double what the CP leader's annual charitable contribution was. Of course, the CP leader's salary was like less than $20,000 a year, while Beck is a multi-millionaire.
Now, there are many obvious flaws with any argument by the right or the wealthy centering around how much money they give to charity, usually brought up when responding to the topic of progressive taxation. I do believe that if you give money to charity, no matter how much money you make, you are doing a great and noble service to humanity. And I always assumed that the rich, because they have money to spare whereas the poor have hardly enough money to survive, gave more money. Maybe even in proportion. I think especially of people like Bill Gates, this sort of ruthless-CEO-turned-philanthropist, who is giving away his whole life's massive fortune before he dies to many worthy causes. Obviously, you can only become one of the world's richest men by being one of the world's most exploitative men; after all, this is capitalism. But the fact that he's working to give it all away is enough to redeem Mr. Gates in my eyes, and I will always respect him more than the late Steve Jobs, who gave hardly nothing and hoarded his multi-billion dollar fortune, built by child labor in Southeast Asia, to his grave.
However, I recently discovered that actually, the argument that the rich give more to charity is a complete falsehood. The rich don't give more than the middle class nor the poor, in fact, many studies show that the average amount of giving between the rich and the poor are almost indistinct, and proportionally the rich actually give less than the poor. This is not a new story, just new to me, and I'm sure many already people know it so forgive my ignorance. But obviously many people don't know it. Indeed, the fact that there is a wide "giving-divide" between the rich and the not-rich has been well known and well-studied for decades now, so I'm really late to the party. In any case, in a 2001 study carried out by Independent Sector, a non-profit that studies charitable contributions, households with incomes under $25,000 annually gave away an average of 4.2% of their income, whilst households earning more than $75,000 gave away, on average, only 2.7%.
So why is this the case? Aren't we all good people? Aren't the rich just good people with more money? In my opinion, in essence, yes. But for the wealthy, there seems to be a problem with solidarity between classes, and probably just as prevalent a factor is how, or what kind of mentality, in a capitalist society, you need have or acquire in order to become wealthy. A New York Times Magazine article from August 10th, 2010 entitled "The Charitable-Giving Divide" expands on this question briefly, and cites a study done by University of California Berkeley social psychologist Dr. Paul K. Piff, that shows that the poor are "more generous, charitable, trusting and helpful to others than were those with more wealth. They were more attuned to the needs of others and more committed generally to the values of egalitarianism," whilst the rich "clung to values that 'prioritized their own need.'"
The rich "clung to values that 'prioritized their own need.'" This is how you become rich, after all. Maybe not in every case; in rare cases, some just get lucky, and in rarer cases, some get wealthy through hard back-breaking work. Many are just born rich (only something like 5% of people who are rich came from a poor background in America), but if an individual is raised in a wealthy family, s/he is likely to be taught and conditioned with those very values of pure-self-interest, whether by their wealthy parents or by the their wealthy community.
The poor and the disenfranchised, on the other hand, know what it's like to be poor and disenfranchised. How could you not give to those in need if you are able to put yourself in their shoes? To not do so would require one to be void of empathy.
Today we live in a world run by the uber-rich, this indisputable. In today's world we have record amounts of productivity but at the same time, in a phenomenon that would seem impossible just 35 years ago, we have record poverty. People are working more and more for less and less. This is the world ruled by the wealthy. Now tell me: Do you think a world run by the working class could be any worse? A world run by those who know what it's like to be down-trodden, a world run by those who feel for the down-trodden: A world run by those, the majority of us, who would, and always have, sacrificed their own meager resources to help others who are in just as great of need. Empathy. Egalitarianism. Giving. These are principles we must strive for a better world, principles of which those of us who work and live as wage-slaves on the perpetual hamster-wheel, expected to take part in, but reject blind consumerism and religious zealotry, live by.
Which world would be better?
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
The myth about Unions and the Free Market; some other updates
Of course, I don't believe in the "free" market for so many reasons it's hard to count. Nor do I believe that any sort of right-wing libertarianism has any actual propensity toward liberty (though I do believe that there are many right-wing libertarians who are sincere, just wholly misguided), as capitalism and liberty are natural enemies of each other, contradictory to each other by definition. However, I found this post from a right-wing libertarian blog entitled "Liberty for All" to be very interesting. It discusses an issue I have always wondered about (to an extent), about why so-called free marketeers believe that unions are a scourge to the market and should not be allowed to participate; that workers should never be allowed to assemble, use their power in numbers (the only power they have) to collectively bargain for better wages, benefits, safety conditions, and generally higher standards of living and working. What principle of right-wing libertarianism does this concept go against? Isn't liberty supposed to be first and foremost (in theory) to these people? How, then, is it unacceptable for workers to freely associate and organize?
I only wonder about this issue to an extent, because, well, my impression is that right-wing libertarianism in practice is just hardcore capitalism, which means it is inevitably supportive of corporatism, and thus really has nothing to do with liberty. But in the realm of philosophy and theory, there is a contradiction, which the post at "Liberty for All" addresses. The right wing should have nothing against unionism, as they should theoretically be "Part of the Market," which the blogger elaborates on. Every right-winger who happens to stumble upon my page should take the time out and read this piece.
"Unions: Part of the Market" - Liberty for All (Blog)
Anyways, I know I haven't updated in a little bit, I've been quite busy and well, the truth is I do have a bunch of half written or nearly complete posts but I just keep going back and adding to them over and over again until I realize that they are either going in a direction I no longer want them to or are overly exhausting to read. I feel that I am in the middle of the realization of lots of things I've never thought about or learned about before and its causing a sort of creative and mental paralysis; in other words, I am reformulating my opinions, not in any spectrum-shifting way (don't worry, I'm not turning into a neocon or anything), but more like a deepening way. It is always exciting when you find something new to consider that has the potential for a huge impact on your own core of beliefs.
In any case, there has been a lot of great news as of recently; The day before yesterday saw some great legislative victories for the sensible majority of this country: Probably the most exciting is that the people of Ohio have repealed Republican Governor Kasich's repressive anti-working people legislation, showing the Republican Party and the right that no, it's not OK, we don't support your efforts to destroy our labor rights and to destroy the livelihoods on many hardworking people. This repeal has many implications for the future and it indeed sends a very clear message to Republicans and Conservatives and the whole country: The leftist majority of this country will no longer tolerate this nonsense.
Also sending a signal to the right and very exciting, as well, is the rejection of the anti-choice, anti-contraceptive, anti-religious freedom proposition by the good people of Mississippi. This is certainly a cultural victory and a step toward the right direction, particularly for the South, which, the day before yesterday, showed that it's not made up of just a bunch of intolerant religious zealots. It's also shown that neither is it just made up of xenophobic bigots, as Arizonians recalled and replaced the state legislator who was the self-proclaimed father of the infamously draconian anti-immigration law in the state. Moving over to the west coast, the forces of racial tolerance have also helped to elected San Francisco's first Chinese-American Mayor.
And, of course, up in the Midwest, in my own state of Michigan, we had a successful vote to put Grand Blanc's Republican State Representative Paul Scott's seat in jeopardy, as, by a narrow margin, the voters approved a recall election.
And last, but certainly not least, the reign of Silvio Berlusconi is done for. The people of Italy are now finally free of this corrupt neo-fascist pervert. It was a hard fought battle for them but the fruits of their struggle have finally ripened.
Lots of good news. World, pat yourself on the back. And then get back to work and fix up the mess you've made in Turkey; two consecutive earthquakes, in the same poor town, less than a month apart? We must always show our solidarity to those who are struggling around the world. Keep the people of Turkey in your hearts.
I only wonder about this issue to an extent, because, well, my impression is that right-wing libertarianism in practice is just hardcore capitalism, which means it is inevitably supportive of corporatism, and thus really has nothing to do with liberty. But in the realm of philosophy and theory, there is a contradiction, which the post at "Liberty for All" addresses. The right wing should have nothing against unionism, as they should theoretically be "Part of the Market," which the blogger elaborates on. Every right-winger who happens to stumble upon my page should take the time out and read this piece.
"Unions: Part of the Market" - Liberty for All (Blog)
Anyways, I know I haven't updated in a little bit, I've been quite busy and well, the truth is I do have a bunch of half written or nearly complete posts but I just keep going back and adding to them over and over again until I realize that they are either going in a direction I no longer want them to or are overly exhausting to read. I feel that I am in the middle of the realization of lots of things I've never thought about or learned about before and its causing a sort of creative and mental paralysis; in other words, I am reformulating my opinions, not in any spectrum-shifting way (don't worry, I'm not turning into a neocon or anything), but more like a deepening way. It is always exciting when you find something new to consider that has the potential for a huge impact on your own core of beliefs.
In any case, there has been a lot of great news as of recently; The day before yesterday saw some great legislative victories for the sensible majority of this country: Probably the most exciting is that the people of Ohio have repealed Republican Governor Kasich's repressive anti-working people legislation, showing the Republican Party and the right that no, it's not OK, we don't support your efforts to destroy our labor rights and to destroy the livelihoods on many hardworking people. This repeal has many implications for the future and it indeed sends a very clear message to Republicans and Conservatives and the whole country: The leftist majority of this country will no longer tolerate this nonsense.
Also sending a signal to the right and very exciting, as well, is the rejection of the anti-choice, anti-contraceptive, anti-religious freedom proposition by the good people of Mississippi. This is certainly a cultural victory and a step toward the right direction, particularly for the South, which, the day before yesterday, showed that it's not made up of just a bunch of intolerant religious zealots. It's also shown that neither is it just made up of xenophobic bigots, as Arizonians recalled and replaced the state legislator who was the self-proclaimed father of the infamously draconian anti-immigration law in the state. Moving over to the west coast, the forces of racial tolerance have also helped to elected San Francisco's first Chinese-American Mayor.
And, of course, up in the Midwest, in my own state of Michigan, we had a successful vote to put Grand Blanc's Republican State Representative Paul Scott's seat in jeopardy, as, by a narrow margin, the voters approved a recall election.
And last, but certainly not least, the reign of Silvio Berlusconi is done for. The people of Italy are now finally free of this corrupt neo-fascist pervert. It was a hard fought battle for them but the fruits of their struggle have finally ripened.
Lots of good news. World, pat yourself on the back. And then get back to work and fix up the mess you've made in Turkey; two consecutive earthquakes, in the same poor town, less than a month apart? We must always show our solidarity to those who are struggling around the world. Keep the people of Turkey in your hearts.
Friday, September 16, 2011
UN Palestinian Statehood Bid
In a few days, The UN General Assembly will vote on a resolution, proposed by the Palestinian Authority, for Palestinian statehood. It is extremely imperative that we all support this bid for statehood by the Palestinians, especially us here in the US. The bid for statehood has an overwhelming international consensus of support but unfortunately the US response is quite predictable; it follows an old pattern of rejectionism of which we have followed since the early 1970's. This path has put us squarely on the side opposing the rest world on this issue as well as the wrong side of history. Furthermore, in terms of national strategic and economic interests, it can be argued that this path is incredibly counterproductive, particularly in the post-Cold War world. Even in regards to more Right Wing priorities, it can be argued as counterproductive because of the Israel-Palestine conflict's effect on so-called War on Terror.
This is all well known to anyone who is sincerely interested in the truth of such matters; that the US-backed Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories has always been considered an illegal venture, ever since the initial invasion in 1967, that the human rights of the Palestinian people have been continually and deliberately violated since that initial invasion (and beyond), and that the US-Israeli coalition has held a position of rejection throughout. This newest happening is no exception to the rule. However, with the advent of the Arab Spring and the recent unification of the West Bank's Fatah and the Gaza Strip's Hamas leadership, amongst other factors such as increased international pressure and domestic unrest, the Palestinian side of the table has created a momentum that is hard to ignore. For better or for worse, Israel's reaction to this has been one of complete rejection. We'll see how this plays out.
In any case, I find it extremely important to point the hypocrisy in all of this. Aside from the obvious hypocrisy like the hypocrisy regarding Israel's refusal to negotiate with the Palestinians due to the unification with Hamas when before they refused to negotiate because the Palestinians were not unified, there are two I especially want to point out that are relevant to the upcoming UN vote. Both have to do the with the behavior of the United States.
Firstly, I want to point out the last vote in the UN regarding the conflict which took place in the UN Security Council, a body in which the US has veto power. The US essentially opposed its own national policy when it vetoed a very uncontroversial Security Council resolution condemning illegal Israeli settlement activity. Opposition to illegal settlement activity is already the official policy of the US government, so why veto a resolution reconfirming it?
Ambassador Susan Rice had an answer to this question, explaining that the UN Security Council is not the right forum for such a resolution, and that such things should be worked out through negotiations of the parties involved. Now, when I heard this answer I really thought about it; what exactly, then, is the function of the UN Security Council, if its not the correct forum for a resolution regarding something such as illegal settlement activity?
The answer lies in the Charter from which it was created and empowered, and you can find it right on the UN's official website. Indeed, the relevant information is immediately noticable, as it encompasses the two very first bullet points given:
-(From the UN's official website's Security Council's "Functions and Powers" section.)
It becomes clear after reading just these two points that the UN Security Council is exactly the right forum for such a resolution and that Ambassador Rice's answer was at least misinformed if not intentionally misleading. Indeed, if she was misinformed as to what the UN Security Council's purpose was, then obviously its time to find a new ambassador.
This, of course, takes us to the next great hypocrisy, and it is regarding the upcoming UN General Assembly vote on the Palestinian statehood bid, which, as stated earlier, the US is determined to oppose. The excuse by the Obama Administration is along the same lines as the excuse for the opposition to vote condemning settlement activity: Not the right forum. That Palestinian statehood should only be the outcome of negotiations; In fact, one spokesman for the Obama Adminstration recently stated that Palestinian statehood WILL only be the outcome of negotiations. Perhaps that was out of arrogance, or perhaps that was prophecy.
Regardless, it would be a good idea to check to see whether the bid for Palestinian Statehood is being carried out in the right forum; for this all we need to do is look at the UN's website once again, this time where the General Aseembly's powers and functions are located. Immediately, three points standout:
-(From the UN's official website's General Assembly's "Functions and Powers" section)
Those three bullet points make it very clear that the bid for Palestinian Statehood is being carried out in the right forum, the General Assembly. So the statement that this resolution is inappropriate by the US is completely baseless. The real reasons for opposition are obvious to those of us who understand the issues and the history of the US's policy towards the Palestinians, as this has always been a US-Israeli occupation and nothing less than that. So the question is, why can't they at least be honest about it, rather than creating these red herrings about "right forum" or "wrong forum?"
In the realm of Israeli opposition, there is one very important element that shouldn't be ignored; one that shows incredible hypocrisy. Indeed, one only needs to recall the birth of Israel. One only needs to recall what was regarded as Israel's birth certificate by the nation's founding fathers: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181. If a UN General Assembly resolution was viewed as a legitimate way of creating the Israeli state out of the home of the Palestinian people by the founding fathers of Israel, why are the same standards not applied to the Palestinians? Are they not merely following in the same, exact, footsteps as Israel did in 1948? Let's also not forget that the Partition Plan did not just call for an Israeli state but also a Palestinian state; one that never found its way into existence. If 181 was a "birth certificate" for the state of Israel, how come it wasn't for the Palestinians?
The hypocrisy is palpable. All this just further proves the US and Israel's rejectionist position towards the Palestinian cause. How do you handle a superpower and it's regional nuclear power client when they go rogue? It is important to remember that Abba Eban, a founding father Israel and the author of Israel's "birth certificate" Resolution 181, said Israel "tear[s] up its own birth certificate" whenever it ignores the UN. In this sense, by now Israel's 181 should be in shreds, as it has ignored General Assembly Resolution 194, Security council Resolution 242, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and Security Council Resolution 446.
The most unfortunate part is that the people of the Occupied Territories continue to suffer, continue to be shackled, and continue to feel absolutely no security in their lives and futures. Lets keep them in our hearts and minds, show our solidarity and hope that one day soon they, too, will be free.
This is all well known to anyone who is sincerely interested in the truth of such matters; that the US-backed Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories has always been considered an illegal venture, ever since the initial invasion in 1967, that the human rights of the Palestinian people have been continually and deliberately violated since that initial invasion (and beyond), and that the US-Israeli coalition has held a position of rejection throughout. This newest happening is no exception to the rule. However, with the advent of the Arab Spring and the recent unification of the West Bank's Fatah and the Gaza Strip's Hamas leadership, amongst other factors such as increased international pressure and domestic unrest, the Palestinian side of the table has created a momentum that is hard to ignore. For better or for worse, Israel's reaction to this has been one of complete rejection. We'll see how this plays out.
In any case, I find it extremely important to point the hypocrisy in all of this. Aside from the obvious hypocrisy like the hypocrisy regarding Israel's refusal to negotiate with the Palestinians due to the unification with Hamas when before they refused to negotiate because the Palestinians were not unified, there are two I especially want to point out that are relevant to the upcoming UN vote. Both have to do the with the behavior of the United States.
Firstly, I want to point out the last vote in the UN regarding the conflict which took place in the UN Security Council, a body in which the US has veto power. The US essentially opposed its own national policy when it vetoed a very uncontroversial Security Council resolution condemning illegal Israeli settlement activity. Opposition to illegal settlement activity is already the official policy of the US government, so why veto a resolution reconfirming it?
Ambassador Susan Rice had an answer to this question, explaining that the UN Security Council is not the right forum for such a resolution, and that such things should be worked out through negotiations of the parties involved. Now, when I heard this answer I really thought about it; what exactly, then, is the function of the UN Security Council, if its not the correct forum for a resolution regarding something such as illegal settlement activity?
The answer lies in the Charter from which it was created and empowered, and you can find it right on the UN's official website. Indeed, the relevant information is immediately noticable, as it encompasses the two very first bullet points given:
- to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;
- to investigate any dispute or situation which mightlead to international friction;
-(From the UN's official website's Security Council's "Functions and Powers" section.)
It becomes clear after reading just these two points that the UN Security Council is exactly the right forum for such a resolution and that Ambassador Rice's answer was at least misinformed if not intentionally misleading. Indeed, if she was misinformed as to what the UN Security Council's purpose was, then obviously its time to find a new ambassador.
This, of course, takes us to the next great hypocrisy, and it is regarding the upcoming UN General Assembly vote on the Palestinian statehood bid, which, as stated earlier, the US is determined to oppose. The excuse by the Obama Administration is along the same lines as the excuse for the opposition to vote condemning settlement activity: Not the right forum. That Palestinian statehood should only be the outcome of negotiations; In fact, one spokesman for the Obama Adminstration recently stated that Palestinian statehood WILL only be the outcome of negotiations. Perhaps that was out of arrogance, or perhaps that was prophecy.
Regardless, it would be a good idea to check to see whether the bid for Palestinian Statehood is being carried out in the right forum; for this all we need to do is look at the UN's website once again, this time where the General Aseembly's powers and functions are located. Immediately, three points standout:
- Consider and make recommendations on the general principles of cooperation for maintaining international peace and security, including disarmament;
- Discuss any question relating to international peace and security and, except where a dispute or situation is currently being discussed by the Security Council, make recommendations on it;
- Make recommendations for the peaceful settlement of any situation that might impair friendly relations among nations;
-(From the UN's official website's General Assembly's "Functions and Powers" section)
Those three bullet points make it very clear that the bid for Palestinian Statehood is being carried out in the right forum, the General Assembly. So the statement that this resolution is inappropriate by the US is completely baseless. The real reasons for opposition are obvious to those of us who understand the issues and the history of the US's policy towards the Palestinians, as this has always been a US-Israeli occupation and nothing less than that. So the question is, why can't they at least be honest about it, rather than creating these red herrings about "right forum" or "wrong forum?"
In the realm of Israeli opposition, there is one very important element that shouldn't be ignored; one that shows incredible hypocrisy. Indeed, one only needs to recall the birth of Israel. One only needs to recall what was regarded as Israel's birth certificate by the nation's founding fathers: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181. If a UN General Assembly resolution was viewed as a legitimate way of creating the Israeli state out of the home of the Palestinian people by the founding fathers of Israel, why are the same standards not applied to the Palestinians? Are they not merely following in the same, exact, footsteps as Israel did in 1948? Let's also not forget that the Partition Plan did not just call for an Israeli state but also a Palestinian state; one that never found its way into existence. If 181 was a "birth certificate" for the state of Israel, how come it wasn't for the Palestinians?
The hypocrisy is palpable. All this just further proves the US and Israel's rejectionist position towards the Palestinian cause. How do you handle a superpower and it's regional nuclear power client when they go rogue? It is important to remember that Abba Eban, a founding father Israel and the author of Israel's "birth certificate" Resolution 181, said Israel "tear[s] up its own birth certificate" whenever it ignores the UN. In this sense, by now Israel's 181 should be in shreds, as it has ignored General Assembly Resolution 194, Security council Resolution 242, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and Security Council Resolution 446.
The most unfortunate part is that the people of the Occupied Territories continue to suffer, continue to be shackled, and continue to feel absolutely no security in their lives and futures. Lets keep them in our hearts and minds, show our solidarity and hope that one day soon they, too, will be free.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Suicidal Bombers
Foreign Policy Magazine's Adam Lankford recently wrote a piece on the mental states of the 9/11 hijackers, and it argues something, based on scholarly research and evidence from many of the hijackers' lives, that should have been obvious to all of us since day one: The 9/11 suicide bombers had mental health issues, including depression and suicidal tendencies. This conclusion is in direct conflict with the conventional assessment that the suicide bombers of 9/11, and suicide bombers in general, were painfully normal individuals who expectedly "subordinated their individuality to the group. And whatever their destructive, charismatic leader, Osama bin Laden, said was the right thing to do for the sake of the cause was what they would do," as former CIA analyst and behavioral psychologist Jerrold Post explained in 2006.
However, the evidence does not support Post's conclusion, as an investigation from Israel that studied 15 arrested individuals who attempted to carry out suicide bombings shows. This study showed that more than half were depressed, nearly half had suicidal tendencies, 20 percent had post-traumatic stress syndrome, and more than 10 percent had actually attempted suicide in the past. Based on this, Adam Lankford concludes that out of the 19 9/11 hijackers, 10 would be clinically depressed and 7 or 8 would have been suicidal. The Israeli study is compounded by testimonials of people who had known the hijackers and their email correspondences with friends and family, which undeniably show signs of an ill mental state.
I have always been bothered by the line of thinking that generally, suicide bombers were not mentally ill but rather just brainwashed. I had the sense that, though one may commit acts of violence under the influence of an authority (as we see in every military force in the world), I found it unlikely that merely a charismatic leader like Osama Bin Laden could drive one to suicide. I am always reminded of the mass Jonestown suicide where the victims were kept in the dark about the content of the Kool Aid and where the ones who did know about the cyanide proved to be defiant and had to be forced to drink it; Here we have a cult essentially based on devotion to one man and even he couldn't get his followers to knowingly accept his order to commit suicide.
So why were we lead to believe that those who kill themselves to kill others in the name of God were not mentally unstable? There are several different factors that we could speculate about, but two immediately stand out to me. The first one is that to talk about the psychological problems of the 9/11 hijackers would be to humanize the enemy and risk the potential for sympathy. The attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Flight 93 were undoubtedly incredibly heinous, and when something like this happens we all need someone to blame; its only natural. However, there were forces at work that had great interest in portraying a colorful, nuanced, and intricate world as black and white. Partly these were interests in self-preservation; to make sure we blame the right party, namely, Islamist terrorists and not US foreign policy. People who are able to think critically will undoubtedly come to the conclusion that Islamist terrorism, such as on that tragic September morning, is, in no small part, the effect of a long history of disruptive US intervention in the Middle East. This is not a controversial statement and I do believe most Americans know this today to an extent, whether they want to think about it or not. However, when the world turns black and white, when global relations turn to an "us vs. them" dynamic, cause and effect are suspended from public consciousness and an institution of power like the US government can escape blame, and thus no changes are needed to be made in policy as long as the same people still benefit.
Not only did policy not need to change direction, but it could expand. In addition to self-preservation, making the world monochrome was also an instrument used to exploit a crises to the gain of the few. Simply, without the tragedy of 9/11 there would be no War in Iraq, or at least no easy path towards it. Here, the Bush Administration and its allies overreached, as it wasn't so long after the Iraq War was under way that majority public opposition mounted against it. But, the exploitation of 9/11 did its basic function and cleared the path to war, and aside from the War in Iraq, it also gave opportunity to the Bush Administration to consolidate more power in the executive than was ever acceptable to pursue other avenues.
Making the world black and white was conscious decision made by those in power in order to escape blame and achieve otherwise unpopular goals. However, there was an unconscious current that continuously ran beneath that made it easy to not consider the obvious mental health-related questions raised by suicide bombing. This was a result of conditioning that has created deeply ingrained, distorted views of Muslims and other formerly colonized peoples by peoples of former colonizing nations. This undercurrent influence, extensively researched on by scholars such as Edward Said, has been dubbed Orientalism. In the Orientalist viewpoint, the Middle East is a region of unchanging, irrational, and primitive people; they are not civilized like their western counterparts and are prone to zealotry and violence. The majority religion of these people, Islam, is seen to be a root cause of this backwardness.
I say this is an unconscious current because I do believe most westerners do not consciously make a choice to be bigoted, for lack of a better term, but are ultimately informed about the "Muslim World" by, for example, "experts" like Judith Miller and other so-called authorities on the Muslims who's opinions are sought by the media as well as the intellectual mainstream. Just as significant are the portrayals of the Middle East, Muslims and Arabs in western literature and film that ultimately, in a not-so-subtle way, shape our understanding.
Orientalism provides a certain outlook on the world that can be easily boiled down to a good-guy-bad-guy story. It provides assumptions that are usually wholly false. One important assumption is that everything people in Middle East do has everything to do with Islam, completely discounting the fact that the "Muslim World" is composed of countless different people of several different ethnicities with a countless set of different experiences, and that first and foremost, they are people and not mindless drones. However, by asserting that Islam dictates the lives of every Muslim to the breath one is able to completely eliminate an issue like mental health from the picture. Thus, there can be no room to even question why a Muslim would run a plane into the World Trade Center and kill himself along with several other innocent people, because the answer becomes obvious: Because he is a Muslim.
Instead, should we not be asking why any person would run a plane into the World Trade Center killing himself and several other innocent people?
The hypocrisy in the media is, as usual, out of this world. Particularly the right wing media, where a right-wing Christian fundamentalist terrorist in Norway can kill something like a hundred youths or a right-wing terrorist can open fire on a crowd and shoot a Democratic congresswoman, as well as killing a child, and immediately he is thought to be mentally handicapped. And I'm not disagreeing with that. But what if we replaced both of those people with Muslims? What do you think Bill O'Reilly would be saying?
Or how about when a Christian terrorist does something heinous, he or she is not considered a real Christian, just a crazy. However, when there is a Muslim terrorist, there is the expectation for the Muslim community to take responsibility and speak out. Could it be that, likewise to Christians, Muslims don't consider such people as real Muslims either, and probably just crazy as well? Or are all Muslims implicated and considered accomplices?
Bottom line: This is very dangerous thinking. Muslims have been continuously wrongly perceived and thus persecuted and alienated continuously since 9/11, as recent polls on Americans' attitudes towards Muslims confirm. It's as if 60 or so of those who died on that traumatic day were not Muslims just as innocent as the others who lost their lives far too early. Unfortunately, its only when we come to terms with our mistakes as a nation that we will ever be truly safe.
You can read Adam Lankford's piece here (Foreign Policy Magazine)
However, the evidence does not support Post's conclusion, as an investigation from Israel that studied 15 arrested individuals who attempted to carry out suicide bombings shows. This study showed that more than half were depressed, nearly half had suicidal tendencies, 20 percent had post-traumatic stress syndrome, and more than 10 percent had actually attempted suicide in the past. Based on this, Adam Lankford concludes that out of the 19 9/11 hijackers, 10 would be clinically depressed and 7 or 8 would have been suicidal. The Israeli study is compounded by testimonials of people who had known the hijackers and their email correspondences with friends and family, which undeniably show signs of an ill mental state.
I have always been bothered by the line of thinking that generally, suicide bombers were not mentally ill but rather just brainwashed. I had the sense that, though one may commit acts of violence under the influence of an authority (as we see in every military force in the world), I found it unlikely that merely a charismatic leader like Osama Bin Laden could drive one to suicide. I am always reminded of the mass Jonestown suicide where the victims were kept in the dark about the content of the Kool Aid and where the ones who did know about the cyanide proved to be defiant and had to be forced to drink it; Here we have a cult essentially based on devotion to one man and even he couldn't get his followers to knowingly accept his order to commit suicide.
So why were we lead to believe that those who kill themselves to kill others in the name of God were not mentally unstable? There are several different factors that we could speculate about, but two immediately stand out to me. The first one is that to talk about the psychological problems of the 9/11 hijackers would be to humanize the enemy and risk the potential for sympathy. The attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Flight 93 were undoubtedly incredibly heinous, and when something like this happens we all need someone to blame; its only natural. However, there were forces at work that had great interest in portraying a colorful, nuanced, and intricate world as black and white. Partly these were interests in self-preservation; to make sure we blame the right party, namely, Islamist terrorists and not US foreign policy. People who are able to think critically will undoubtedly come to the conclusion that Islamist terrorism, such as on that tragic September morning, is, in no small part, the effect of a long history of disruptive US intervention in the Middle East. This is not a controversial statement and I do believe most Americans know this today to an extent, whether they want to think about it or not. However, when the world turns black and white, when global relations turn to an "us vs. them" dynamic, cause and effect are suspended from public consciousness and an institution of power like the US government can escape blame, and thus no changes are needed to be made in policy as long as the same people still benefit.
Not only did policy not need to change direction, but it could expand. In addition to self-preservation, making the world monochrome was also an instrument used to exploit a crises to the gain of the few. Simply, without the tragedy of 9/11 there would be no War in Iraq, or at least no easy path towards it. Here, the Bush Administration and its allies overreached, as it wasn't so long after the Iraq War was under way that majority public opposition mounted against it. But, the exploitation of 9/11 did its basic function and cleared the path to war, and aside from the War in Iraq, it also gave opportunity to the Bush Administration to consolidate more power in the executive than was ever acceptable to pursue other avenues.
Making the world black and white was conscious decision made by those in power in order to escape blame and achieve otherwise unpopular goals. However, there was an unconscious current that continuously ran beneath that made it easy to not consider the obvious mental health-related questions raised by suicide bombing. This was a result of conditioning that has created deeply ingrained, distorted views of Muslims and other formerly colonized peoples by peoples of former colonizing nations. This undercurrent influence, extensively researched on by scholars such as Edward Said, has been dubbed Orientalism. In the Orientalist viewpoint, the Middle East is a region of unchanging, irrational, and primitive people; they are not civilized like their western counterparts and are prone to zealotry and violence. The majority religion of these people, Islam, is seen to be a root cause of this backwardness.
I say this is an unconscious current because I do believe most westerners do not consciously make a choice to be bigoted, for lack of a better term, but are ultimately informed about the "Muslim World" by, for example, "experts" like Judith Miller and other so-called authorities on the Muslims who's opinions are sought by the media as well as the intellectual mainstream. Just as significant are the portrayals of the Middle East, Muslims and Arabs in western literature and film that ultimately, in a not-so-subtle way, shape our understanding.
Orientalism provides a certain outlook on the world that can be easily boiled down to a good-guy-bad-guy story. It provides assumptions that are usually wholly false. One important assumption is that everything people in Middle East do has everything to do with Islam, completely discounting the fact that the "Muslim World" is composed of countless different people of several different ethnicities with a countless set of different experiences, and that first and foremost, they are people and not mindless drones. However, by asserting that Islam dictates the lives of every Muslim to the breath one is able to completely eliminate an issue like mental health from the picture. Thus, there can be no room to even question why a Muslim would run a plane into the World Trade Center and kill himself along with several other innocent people, because the answer becomes obvious: Because he is a Muslim.
Instead, should we not be asking why any person would run a plane into the World Trade Center killing himself and several other innocent people?
The hypocrisy in the media is, as usual, out of this world. Particularly the right wing media, where a right-wing Christian fundamentalist terrorist in Norway can kill something like a hundred youths or a right-wing terrorist can open fire on a crowd and shoot a Democratic congresswoman, as well as killing a child, and immediately he is thought to be mentally handicapped. And I'm not disagreeing with that. But what if we replaced both of those people with Muslims? What do you think Bill O'Reilly would be saying?
Or how about when a Christian terrorist does something heinous, he or she is not considered a real Christian, just a crazy. However, when there is a Muslim terrorist, there is the expectation for the Muslim community to take responsibility and speak out. Could it be that, likewise to Christians, Muslims don't consider such people as real Muslims either, and probably just crazy as well? Or are all Muslims implicated and considered accomplices?
Bottom line: This is very dangerous thinking. Muslims have been continuously wrongly perceived and thus persecuted and alienated continuously since 9/11, as recent polls on Americans' attitudes towards Muslims confirm. It's as if 60 or so of those who died on that traumatic day were not Muslims just as innocent as the others who lost their lives far too early. Unfortunately, its only when we come to terms with our mistakes as a nation that we will ever be truly safe.
You can read Adam Lankford's piece here (Foreign Policy Magazine)
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Looking Forward (Vol II): Energy Democracy
Disclaimer: I am not even close to an expert. These are just some ideas I've been having, unrefined and I'm sure, amateurish. I realize that there are probably inconsistencies, flaws, and errors from whichever perspective you look at it from. But this is my blog so whatever.
It is clear and obvious to most of us rational and reasonable people that we are on an utter collision course with the fury of nature, as storms and erratic weather becomes more and more common. Indeed, it is well known by the climate science community that we are near a tipping point and unless we reduce our carbon emissions significantly in the next 20 or so years we will melt vast regions of permafrost in the arctic that have enormous stores of Methane gas hidden beneath, a gas that is far, far worse for our atmosphere than Carbon Dioxide in its effect. This melting will release these stores of Methane into the atmosphere and essentially, no matter what we do beyond this point, whether we reduce carbon emissions or not, climate change will become self-sustaining and an action of nature, all at a far more severe pace than we could ever imagine.
Its hard to educate on this matter because by its own nature it is frightening and can be, and has been to a great degree here in the US, interpreted as pure fear tactics. Fear tactics are able to spark short term public submission, as illustrated by the Bush Administration following 9/11, but ultimately always leads to mass disillusion and rejection. I don't believe the majority of the environmental movement wants public submission to their cause unlike the Bush Administration, but unfortunately, just the effort to raise awareness and to educate has been increasingly rejected by the American public in recent times. This is partly because of the scare-mongering interpretation of the effort, but also in large part also because of a major propaganda effort by the world's energy companies, which hit an all-time high during the "Cap and Trade" debate a couple years ago.
The corporate reaction to the noble cause of environmentalism is completely expected; I would be greatly surprised if the energy sector did not fight. Corporations are not moral, they don't care about the welfare of humanity, particularly if its in contradiction with their bottom line. And it must be emphasized that we are talking about their short term bottom line, because in the long term it would do them all well to change. This all illustrates a great problem that all of us should focus on; something that is, in a sense, completely separate from the problem of climate change.
You see, I find it very disturbing that because of corporate opposition from one sector of our economy, we have been completely paralyzed as a country from going forward and doing what is the interest of all of us. The fact is, the solutions to our climate and energy problems do not lie in the executive offices of those corporations, nor do they live in the hearts of our legislators. The solution must come from a decentralized effort; from a purely democratic effort. Much is said by the right wing of government decentralization and in principle, as a libertarian socialist, I agree; to rid our society of illegitimate authority and oppressive power structures is a noble cause and one worth supporting, given that it is for the right reasons and done in the right fashion. However, very little has been said about decentralizing the other sources of illegitimate authority, specifically one that has proven increasingly in the modern era to be far more devious and damaging: the profound concentrations of power held in private hands. It is because of the rampant corporatism of the modern world that we have been continuing on this collision course with our planet, whether it be by the buying off of our federal and state legislators and other public officials, by the indoctrination spread through our powerful corporate media, by puppet think tanks and universities that funnel corporate interests into superficially credible academics and ultimately into policy proposals, or by a combination of all three. This is how a liberal democracy inevitably turns into a corporate plutocracy. This how we have been paralyzed.
The great error of our society has been to assume that the enormous energy conglomerates of our world would obviously be the driving force behind the clean energy transformation, when there has never been an inkling of support for this conclusion. In a sense, we assume this because any other way forward almost seems impossible. Energy today is completely centralized, stemming from an oligopoly on fossil fuel resources, and thus since energy has always been centralized in our lifetime its somewhat difficult to imagine the world working otherwise. When even just an ounce of critical thought is worked into the assumption of where the change will come from, we can realize the flaw of it all. The fossil fuel-based energy sector has an obvious interest against clean energy. Particularly when you factor in the fact that corporations act in the interests of the shareholders, most of which are floating and short term, you will find that their interest will be focused on maximization of profit margin in the short term. Indeed, we all know that in the long term it would do these conglomerates a lot of good in terms of their bottom line(and their survival) to focus on clean renewable energy, but alas this is not a possibility in a capitalist society. However, there is hope in all this doom and gloom; there is something we can do, as a population, to spearhead the change needed, not just regarding our environment and energy, but also the growing cancer of corporatism in general.
The beauty of some of these renewable sources of energy lies in the fact that energy can be harvested without massive amounts of capital or land. To use solar energy, for example, you don't need a large mine or deep water rig. Solar and other sources of renewable energy are still far more expensive than conventional sources, but lessons can be taken from Europe, and particularly Germany, which has done much to reform renewable energy costs and efficiency through its German Renewable Energy Act and Feed-In-Tariffs, both of which were products of the movement lead by the late Dr. Hermann Scheer. These are, of course, matters of policy that have to be done by the government; seeing as how the energy conglomerates have a stranglehold on our policy makers, this may not be a possibility in the near future. In any case, a lot of the reason why renewable energy like solar is expensive is partly because it is still a young technology that isn't getting nearly the amount of investment it should be getting, but also because there is a lack of mass demand, thus a lack of bulk purchasing, etc. However, the prices have been going down at an increasing pace and the lower the prices become, the more demand, the lower the prices, and so on and so forth. Perhaps capitalism can work in our favor, for once.
Solar is currently an expensive way for the individual to become self-sustaining and clean, sure. However, when it becomes a community wide effort, things become much more plausible. More well off neighborhoods or communities could pioneer the effort and create completely clean and self-sustaining small communities. As more of these neighborhoods join in and create their own respective energy pools, the costs of solar or wind power will decrease (and the technology will become more efficient due to an increase of capital for the producers to invest in R&D) and increasingly less wealthy communities will be able to leave the grid and become energy-autonomous. This is Energy Decentralization.
Eventually it will get to the point that Energy Decentralization becomes so widespread that it will begin to threaten centralized energy. This may lead to energy companies changing their strategy and focusing on renewables; at this point, however, it would have to be very important to keep the movement spreading. The last thing we should ever do is let energy become centralized again because what would be happening would be revolutionary; a key service created by the public, for the public, in a completely decentralized and autonomous fashion, free of coercion, all in addition to saving the planet. As energy companies become less powerful, issues dealing with climate change in the public square will become more open, and concerted efforts for reform in other areas regarding environmentalism (and corporatism) will follow, most likely following in a similar, democratic fashion as Energy Decentralization, as we will be a changed country. Indeed, the implications of decentralizing such a large and necessary industry are enormous and would undoubtedly have destructive consequences for other concentrations of private wealth and power.
Idealistic? Yes. However, I believe it is something we should strive for. The environmental problems of our world today are too dangerous, and we have too much at stake for us not to try. I approach this the same way I approach anything dealing with ideology: see the possibilities and work towards a better future, one step at a time, with those ideas in mind.
It is clear and obvious to most of us rational and reasonable people that we are on an utter collision course with the fury of nature, as storms and erratic weather becomes more and more common. Indeed, it is well known by the climate science community that we are near a tipping point and unless we reduce our carbon emissions significantly in the next 20 or so years we will melt vast regions of permafrost in the arctic that have enormous stores of Methane gas hidden beneath, a gas that is far, far worse for our atmosphere than Carbon Dioxide in its effect. This melting will release these stores of Methane into the atmosphere and essentially, no matter what we do beyond this point, whether we reduce carbon emissions or not, climate change will become self-sustaining and an action of nature, all at a far more severe pace than we could ever imagine.
Its hard to educate on this matter because by its own nature it is frightening and can be, and has been to a great degree here in the US, interpreted as pure fear tactics. Fear tactics are able to spark short term public submission, as illustrated by the Bush Administration following 9/11, but ultimately always leads to mass disillusion and rejection. I don't believe the majority of the environmental movement wants public submission to their cause unlike the Bush Administration, but unfortunately, just the effort to raise awareness and to educate has been increasingly rejected by the American public in recent times. This is partly because of the scare-mongering interpretation of the effort, but also in large part also because of a major propaganda effort by the world's energy companies, which hit an all-time high during the "Cap and Trade" debate a couple years ago.
The corporate reaction to the noble cause of environmentalism is completely expected; I would be greatly surprised if the energy sector did not fight. Corporations are not moral, they don't care about the welfare of humanity, particularly if its in contradiction with their bottom line. And it must be emphasized that we are talking about their short term bottom line, because in the long term it would do them all well to change. This all illustrates a great problem that all of us should focus on; something that is, in a sense, completely separate from the problem of climate change.
You see, I find it very disturbing that because of corporate opposition from one sector of our economy, we have been completely paralyzed as a country from going forward and doing what is the interest of all of us. The fact is, the solutions to our climate and energy problems do not lie in the executive offices of those corporations, nor do they live in the hearts of our legislators. The solution must come from a decentralized effort; from a purely democratic effort. Much is said by the right wing of government decentralization and in principle, as a libertarian socialist, I agree; to rid our society of illegitimate authority and oppressive power structures is a noble cause and one worth supporting, given that it is for the right reasons and done in the right fashion. However, very little has been said about decentralizing the other sources of illegitimate authority, specifically one that has proven increasingly in the modern era to be far more devious and damaging: the profound concentrations of power held in private hands. It is because of the rampant corporatism of the modern world that we have been continuing on this collision course with our planet, whether it be by the buying off of our federal and state legislators and other public officials, by the indoctrination spread through our powerful corporate media, by puppet think tanks and universities that funnel corporate interests into superficially credible academics and ultimately into policy proposals, or by a combination of all three. This is how a liberal democracy inevitably turns into a corporate plutocracy. This how we have been paralyzed.
The great error of our society has been to assume that the enormous energy conglomerates of our world would obviously be the driving force behind the clean energy transformation, when there has never been an inkling of support for this conclusion. In a sense, we assume this because any other way forward almost seems impossible. Energy today is completely centralized, stemming from an oligopoly on fossil fuel resources, and thus since energy has always been centralized in our lifetime its somewhat difficult to imagine the world working otherwise. When even just an ounce of critical thought is worked into the assumption of where the change will come from, we can realize the flaw of it all. The fossil fuel-based energy sector has an obvious interest against clean energy. Particularly when you factor in the fact that corporations act in the interests of the shareholders, most of which are floating and short term, you will find that their interest will be focused on maximization of profit margin in the short term. Indeed, we all know that in the long term it would do these conglomerates a lot of good in terms of their bottom line(and their survival) to focus on clean renewable energy, but alas this is not a possibility in a capitalist society. However, there is hope in all this doom and gloom; there is something we can do, as a population, to spearhead the change needed, not just regarding our environment and energy, but also the growing cancer of corporatism in general.
The beauty of some of these renewable sources of energy lies in the fact that energy can be harvested without massive amounts of capital or land. To use solar energy, for example, you don't need a large mine or deep water rig. Solar and other sources of renewable energy are still far more expensive than conventional sources, but lessons can be taken from Europe, and particularly Germany, which has done much to reform renewable energy costs and efficiency through its German Renewable Energy Act and Feed-In-Tariffs, both of which were products of the movement lead by the late Dr. Hermann Scheer. These are, of course, matters of policy that have to be done by the government; seeing as how the energy conglomerates have a stranglehold on our policy makers, this may not be a possibility in the near future. In any case, a lot of the reason why renewable energy like solar is expensive is partly because it is still a young technology that isn't getting nearly the amount of investment it should be getting, but also because there is a lack of mass demand, thus a lack of bulk purchasing, etc. However, the prices have been going down at an increasing pace and the lower the prices become, the more demand, the lower the prices, and so on and so forth. Perhaps capitalism can work in our favor, for once.
Solar is currently an expensive way for the individual to become self-sustaining and clean, sure. However, when it becomes a community wide effort, things become much more plausible. More well off neighborhoods or communities could pioneer the effort and create completely clean and self-sustaining small communities. As more of these neighborhoods join in and create their own respective energy pools, the costs of solar or wind power will decrease (and the technology will become more efficient due to an increase of capital for the producers to invest in R&D) and increasingly less wealthy communities will be able to leave the grid and become energy-autonomous. This is Energy Decentralization.
Eventually it will get to the point that Energy Decentralization becomes so widespread that it will begin to threaten centralized energy. This may lead to energy companies changing their strategy and focusing on renewables; at this point, however, it would have to be very important to keep the movement spreading. The last thing we should ever do is let energy become centralized again because what would be happening would be revolutionary; a key service created by the public, for the public, in a completely decentralized and autonomous fashion, free of coercion, all in addition to saving the planet. As energy companies become less powerful, issues dealing with climate change in the public square will become more open, and concerted efforts for reform in other areas regarding environmentalism (and corporatism) will follow, most likely following in a similar, democratic fashion as Energy Decentralization, as we will be a changed country. Indeed, the implications of decentralizing such a large and necessary industry are enormous and would undoubtedly have destructive consequences for other concentrations of private wealth and power.
Idealistic? Yes. However, I believe it is something we should strive for. The environmental problems of our world today are too dangerous, and we have too much at stake for us not to try. I approach this the same way I approach anything dealing with ideology: see the possibilities and work towards a better future, one step at a time, with those ideas in mind.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Repression of the Serbian Anarcho-Syndicalist Movement
Rata of Libcom.org has posted a great analysis of the current Serbian war against its working people. Show your solidarity and demand justice!
Monday, July 25, 2011
Debt Ceiling Madness
In the White House and Capitol Hill, as well as all the corporate media airwaves, the number one issue today is the Debt Ceiling and whether or not Congress and the President are going to come to some sort of deal on "deficit reduction" in order to raise it. I will explain why I put "deficit reduction" in quotes a little later, but first let's be absolutely clear: the US can and will only ever be able default on its debt obligations if it wants to. Thus, only if the US has the political will to default can it There is no obligation for us to default, evidence by the fact that we are still able to borrow money at a very low interest rate. So what is the obstacle?
The Republican Party.
It is the GOP who is holding the American economy hostage by threatening to have the will to lead the US into default unless it's demands are met. In fact, there are around 60 House Republicans who don't even believe raising the Debt Ceiling is a good idea, much less imperative. Of course, that is a problem with ideology; the rest of the GOP Congressmen and women do know that a default would have catastrophic consequences, yet they are continuing this course of action of no compromise. I can't help but think of the frustrating irony when I hear Speaker Boehner talk at his various press conferences of the necessity to raise the Debt Ceiling and all the terrible implications resulting in a failure to do so, as if he doesn't hold the key. Indeed, this should not even be a political matter if we really have two parties looking out for the good and the will of the American people, which, by a majority, support the President's side of the battle. Again, there is a frustrating irony in recalling that after a barrage of propaganda and false information from the GOP and its constituent moneyed interests during the health care debacle, popular opinion was swayed against the President's health care reform bill, a fact that the GOP used to great ends in rhetoric in opposition to the bill. But now, when the public, by a large majority, supports raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires, they ignore it. The same with the public's whopping 7% of belief that the debt and deficit should be a priority.
The point is, of course, is that Republicans don't really have the interests of the American people at heart, as wouldn't anyone who would push for a default of the American economy. The result of such a default would make the markets plunge, interest rates sky rocket, inflation balloon, and much more. Indeed, we don't actually have a short term debt crisis at the moment, contrary to popular perception, but the Republicans could create one by not raising the debt ceiling. Maybe then they would have a real justification for their economically destructive support for austerity.
And what of this current debacle over austerity, or as we call it here in America, "deficit reduction?" It's, of course, a complete farce. I put the words deficit and reduction in quotes because there is no way the right actually wants real deficit reduction, especially when reflecting on the fact that they fought to keep the Bush Tax Cuts in place, fought against health care reform (as the long term debt and deficit crisis is at heart a health care cost crisis), and won't budge on cutting military spending. And this is just what they've done under Obama's tenure, I will be soft on them and not even go into the fact that it is Republicans who incurred more debt then Democrats in the last 30-40 years. Nor will I go into the fact that the only two times in that period we ever had a budget surplus was under Democratic administration. Let's not forget about fiscal conservatism poster boy Reagan's deficits, either. Regardless of those small, insignificant pages of the the history book, we can just focus on the here and now and see the hypocrisy of the GOP's narrative; they want to cut on programs that they don't like, and spend on programs that they do. Programs they don't like being programs for the middle and working class, programs for the elderly and disabled, insurance for the unemployed, etc., and programs they do like being tax cuts for the rich (which is a form of spending, let us not forget), subsidies for big industries such as oil and agriculture, and military spending/war-making.
The ultimate fact is that we should not even be thinking about cutting federal spending on programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, Food Stamps, and the like because cutting such measures will slow our economy down further, which is something we should trying to avoid at all costs in our currently depressed economy. If we don't have enough revenue to continue these programs or expand them to include the growing need, we should gain more revenue by increasing taxes on those who can afford it the most: the rich and corporations, many of which benefited from the financial meltdown that hurt the rest of middle and working class. The only way to recover from a deeply depressed economy such as the current one is to grow our way out of it; by keeping taxes unfairly low on the rich and corporations(who, by the way, would rather hire your counterpart in China) we are starving such programs that keep money in those in needs' pocket, thus deteriorating demand even further.
And, of course, anyone who knows anything about the current state of our economy knows that the problem is the lack of demand; ask any business owner what their major roadblock to making a good profit is and they will tell you it is the lack of demand. Small business lobbyists are fighting against any raising of taxes on the rich because many small businesses file personal income taxes, which put them squarely in the same tax bracket as the rich. But, as pointed out, they are voting against their interests, so to speak. By keeping taxes unfairly low, you are deteriorating demand. If you, say, raise taxes on the rich, you will increase revenue for such welfare measures as unemployment insurance, thus keeping money in the unemployed consumer's pocket, who will then buy more products and hire more services, thus stimulating demand. This stimulation of demand will help the small business owner's bottom line more than any tax cut, which will end up hurting more than helping, in any case. If a small business has a better bottom line, that will allow them to grow, and thus hire. This is how recovery happens. This is how, along with large scale federal investment in direct job creation, from 1933 to 1937, FDR slashed unemployment from 25% to 14% until forces from the right pressured him to make an effort to balance the budget by slashing New Deal spending and raising taxes on the working people, thus creating a double dip depression.
And what of corporate taxes and subsidies? The Republicans have been firm on this end as well, and in fact, want to lower such rates because they claim rates are too high and cannot compete with other countries. Which is only half true, at the most. Yes, our corporate tax rates are higher than many other countries, but when you account for all the loopholes, tax credits, and subsidies, they actually come out to much lower. How else do you think GE was able to not pay ANY taxes last year? The simple fact is, the Conservative theory on corporate tax cuts is wrong and destructive. They claim that if you cut taxes on corporations, they will have more money that they will then use to hire more people. What we've seen thus far since the financial collapse goes directly contrary to this, where corporations are making record profits and sitting on record amounts of cash, all whilst they are paying hardly any taxes. So where are the jobs? One word: "Globalization." Corporations are not hiring as much as they supposedly should be, and when they do, they are hiring off in China and Indonesia. Trickle-Down economics has been proven wrong over and over again, as the rich have always been more likely to save money then spend, but now in a "Globalized" world, such a theory holds even less truth, as any investing occurring will most likely be occurring in countries with cheaper labor. We won't even go into the devastating effects this has on the inhabitants of such countries.
On the other hand, if you raise taxes on corporations, you can create more revenue, thus strengthening our social safety net, thus staving off the deterioration of demand, thus ultimately saving jobs. And if there is political will, which, sensibly, there should be, for the government to provide real stimulus and investment into the economy a la The New Deal, there will be the means to do so, thus creating jobs.
I am not saying we don't have a long-term debt crisis, because we do 10 years down the road, and it is serious. But we do not have a short term one, and any measures taken right now to address such an imaginary issue in any other way than serious investment into growth (which, by itself, will be the single greatest solution to our long term fiscal problem, other than lowering health care costs) would seriously hinder our economic recovery, which is already moving at an incredibly slow rate because of the continuation of the same Bush economic policy that resulted in a net loss of jobs during Bush's tenure. No cutting of federal spending on the social safety net should be implemented until 2014, at least. If there is still worry about the short term fiscal situation, which is really just invention of GOP, another Bogeyman so to speak, then there are some things we can safely cut without hindering our economy too seriously; those are the three ongoing military operations we have in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, the various, expensive military bases we have sitting, wastefully I might add, all around the globe, subsidies for big oil, coal, and natural gas, and the military aid we provide to countries such as Israel and Columbia.
The Republican Party.
It is the GOP who is holding the American economy hostage by threatening to have the will to lead the US into default unless it's demands are met. In fact, there are around 60 House Republicans who don't even believe raising the Debt Ceiling is a good idea, much less imperative. Of course, that is a problem with ideology; the rest of the GOP Congressmen and women do know that a default would have catastrophic consequences, yet they are continuing this course of action of no compromise. I can't help but think of the frustrating irony when I hear Speaker Boehner talk at his various press conferences of the necessity to raise the Debt Ceiling and all the terrible implications resulting in a failure to do so, as if he doesn't hold the key. Indeed, this should not even be a political matter if we really have two parties looking out for the good and the will of the American people, which, by a majority, support the President's side of the battle. Again, there is a frustrating irony in recalling that after a barrage of propaganda and false information from the GOP and its constituent moneyed interests during the health care debacle, popular opinion was swayed against the President's health care reform bill, a fact that the GOP used to great ends in rhetoric in opposition to the bill. But now, when the public, by a large majority, supports raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires, they ignore it. The same with the public's whopping 7% of belief that the debt and deficit should be a priority.
The point is, of course, is that Republicans don't really have the interests of the American people at heart, as wouldn't anyone who would push for a default of the American economy. The result of such a default would make the markets plunge, interest rates sky rocket, inflation balloon, and much more. Indeed, we don't actually have a short term debt crisis at the moment, contrary to popular perception, but the Republicans could create one by not raising the debt ceiling. Maybe then they would have a real justification for their economically destructive support for austerity.
And what of this current debacle over austerity, or as we call it here in America, "deficit reduction?" It's, of course, a complete farce. I put the words deficit and reduction in quotes because there is no way the right actually wants real deficit reduction, especially when reflecting on the fact that they fought to keep the Bush Tax Cuts in place, fought against health care reform (as the long term debt and deficit crisis is at heart a health care cost crisis), and won't budge on cutting military spending. And this is just what they've done under Obama's tenure, I will be soft on them and not even go into the fact that it is Republicans who incurred more debt then Democrats in the last 30-40 years. Nor will I go into the fact that the only two times in that period we ever had a budget surplus was under Democratic administration. Let's not forget about fiscal conservatism poster boy Reagan's deficits, either. Regardless of those small, insignificant pages of the the history book, we can just focus on the here and now and see the hypocrisy of the GOP's narrative; they want to cut on programs that they don't like, and spend on programs that they do. Programs they don't like being programs for the middle and working class, programs for the elderly and disabled, insurance for the unemployed, etc., and programs they do like being tax cuts for the rich (which is a form of spending, let us not forget), subsidies for big industries such as oil and agriculture, and military spending/war-making.
The ultimate fact is that we should not even be thinking about cutting federal spending on programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, Food Stamps, and the like because cutting such measures will slow our economy down further, which is something we should trying to avoid at all costs in our currently depressed economy. If we don't have enough revenue to continue these programs or expand them to include the growing need, we should gain more revenue by increasing taxes on those who can afford it the most: the rich and corporations, many of which benefited from the financial meltdown that hurt the rest of middle and working class. The only way to recover from a deeply depressed economy such as the current one is to grow our way out of it; by keeping taxes unfairly low on the rich and corporations(who, by the way, would rather hire your counterpart in China) we are starving such programs that keep money in those in needs' pocket, thus deteriorating demand even further.
And, of course, anyone who knows anything about the current state of our economy knows that the problem is the lack of demand; ask any business owner what their major roadblock to making a good profit is and they will tell you it is the lack of demand. Small business lobbyists are fighting against any raising of taxes on the rich because many small businesses file personal income taxes, which put them squarely in the same tax bracket as the rich. But, as pointed out, they are voting against their interests, so to speak. By keeping taxes unfairly low, you are deteriorating demand. If you, say, raise taxes on the rich, you will increase revenue for such welfare measures as unemployment insurance, thus keeping money in the unemployed consumer's pocket, who will then buy more products and hire more services, thus stimulating demand. This stimulation of demand will help the small business owner's bottom line more than any tax cut, which will end up hurting more than helping, in any case. If a small business has a better bottom line, that will allow them to grow, and thus hire. This is how recovery happens. This is how, along with large scale federal investment in direct job creation, from 1933 to 1937, FDR slashed unemployment from 25% to 14% until forces from the right pressured him to make an effort to balance the budget by slashing New Deal spending and raising taxes on the working people, thus creating a double dip depression.
And what of corporate taxes and subsidies? The Republicans have been firm on this end as well, and in fact, want to lower such rates because they claim rates are too high and cannot compete with other countries. Which is only half true, at the most. Yes, our corporate tax rates are higher than many other countries, but when you account for all the loopholes, tax credits, and subsidies, they actually come out to much lower. How else do you think GE was able to not pay ANY taxes last year? The simple fact is, the Conservative theory on corporate tax cuts is wrong and destructive. They claim that if you cut taxes on corporations, they will have more money that they will then use to hire more people. What we've seen thus far since the financial collapse goes directly contrary to this, where corporations are making record profits and sitting on record amounts of cash, all whilst they are paying hardly any taxes. So where are the jobs? One word: "Globalization." Corporations are not hiring as much as they supposedly should be, and when they do, they are hiring off in China and Indonesia. Trickle-Down economics has been proven wrong over and over again, as the rich have always been more likely to save money then spend, but now in a "Globalized" world, such a theory holds even less truth, as any investing occurring will most likely be occurring in countries with cheaper labor. We won't even go into the devastating effects this has on the inhabitants of such countries.
On the other hand, if you raise taxes on corporations, you can create more revenue, thus strengthening our social safety net, thus staving off the deterioration of demand, thus ultimately saving jobs. And if there is political will, which, sensibly, there should be, for the government to provide real stimulus and investment into the economy a la The New Deal, there will be the means to do so, thus creating jobs.
I am not saying we don't have a long-term debt crisis, because we do 10 years down the road, and it is serious. But we do not have a short term one, and any measures taken right now to address such an imaginary issue in any other way than serious investment into growth (which, by itself, will be the single greatest solution to our long term fiscal problem, other than lowering health care costs) would seriously hinder our economic recovery, which is already moving at an incredibly slow rate because of the continuation of the same Bush economic policy that resulted in a net loss of jobs during Bush's tenure. No cutting of federal spending on the social safety net should be implemented until 2014, at least. If there is still worry about the short term fiscal situation, which is really just invention of GOP, another Bogeyman so to speak, then there are some things we can safely cut without hindering our economy too seriously; those are the three ongoing military operations we have in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, the various, expensive military bases we have sitting, wastefully I might add, all around the globe, subsidies for big oil, coal, and natural gas, and the military aid we provide to countries such as Israel and Columbia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)