On Capitalism, Rousseau, Burke, and the American Jobs Act

Written September 16, 2011 when I thought I knew better than anyone. Still not a terrible piece of writing.

     Here's the deal: regardless of the economic plan (whether it be a liberal or conservative measure), if no spending happens, this plan will stop dead in its tracks. Being that we're still in a recession, despite any jobs that are created, all money earned is not going to be money spent. People will save and conserve because it is the fiscally responsible thing to do as an individual. This is the problem I have with capitalism; the collective depends on the individual abandoning self-interest. This is a living, breathing example of Rousseau-ian philosophy; to appeal to the General Will, the Particular Will won't necessarily prevail. This leaves room for the possibility that NO ONE'S Particular Will will be fulfilled. All at the cost of what? The current organization/structure that dictates actions day in and day out just because it works? This is also another example of modern conservatism: the only reasonable action for the individual is to save and conserve, but the good of the whole depends on the individual abandoning reason. This is what Burke, the father of conservatism, asks us to do; abandon reason as our motive to govern.  

     In conclusion, the American Jobs Act will not work because people will continue to save and conserve. I know I will. Once the failure of this is realized, then all we have left are lower taxes, inflation, and perhaps an even wider margin of debt. I suggest we do what billionaire Warren Buffet has suggested: raise taxes. There's no need to lower taxes for the rich, and that is what this plan entails. If we want to save capitalism (which in my personal opinion any effort would be in vain), then taxing the rich is a good place to start. Like the corporations our government loves so much, we need to be looking at the bottom dollar.

Who is guilty in the Trayvon Martin case?

     The sentiment among most people is that Trayvon Martin was up on trial— on trial for being African-American— and not George Zimmerman for being a murderer. What this means is that the question is no longer "did Zimmerman have to kill Martin?" or "was Zimmerman racially profiling Martin?" but it is now "did the court process racially profile Trayvon Martin?" In addition to that question, may we also ask if the court, and a large portion of America, also conducted themselves in a racist manner?
     When we are told by the 18th Judicial Circuit court of Florida that George Zimmerman is found "not guilty", what that means in our legal system is that there was not enough evidence to find him guilty, not that he wasn't guilty. Though many are frustrated and angered that the case didn't end the other way, we have to realize that a verdict finding Zimmerman guilty is not necessarily a verdict in favor of Trayvon Martin anymore.
     Let's face it, George Zimmerman could be guilty and he could not be guilty, but that's not what the case was about. It was about whether or not he had the right to engage in deadly force based upon the color of his attacker's skin. Yes, if he was attacked— by anyone of any color, for that matter— then he had the right to save his own life. As for whether his actions were warranted and as for whether or not the story was as he told it, that is the job of a court to decide. But to take those as a given and question Martin's level of danger for being black is abhorrent to say the least.
     So as insensitive as it may sound, we shouldn't be making this about the character of a man who was possibly acting upon instinct or possibly acting out of pure malice; we should be making this about how the court conducted itself, how the media conducted itself. For how can we know the truth behind the case, behind the man on trial if the court can't even consider the victim a human being?

     There are three very important things that everyone should see in light of this case. The first is the video to the left; it's a segment from ABC's show "What Would You Do?" It's shows how people will react to suspicious behavior in different circumstances. The second, is the video segment below from the film "A Time To Kill". You can also find the text version here: A Time To Kill Closing Argument. The final link that is so important for everyone to read, can be found here: Questlove, drummer of rock/hip-hop group The Roots, gives his take on the Trayvon Martin case. This essay deserves its own review and article and, to be honest, it should make the front page of every major newspaper in the United States.

Palestinian population rising, settlements declining

     For the hell of it, I decided to look up "Israel Palestine statistics" because I felt like writing a small article on the happenings in Israel and my own take on them. Well, I found a graph showing the rise in population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and it made me question how in the hell this graph even works compared to a map of Israel that I found illustrating how both areas are becoming smaller and smaller in recent years.

     If both figures are true, then we can see how easy allegations of genocide would be. Think about it: if the settlements of Palestinians are falling while the population is rising, how would anyone ever keep track of a hypothetical mass disappearance? Now, I'm not saying I believe the Israeli military is exactly that hypocritical, but with Palestinian populations rising as drastically as the respective loss of land, it is hard to imagine these people not living in a shoulder to shoulder environment. Furthermore, if living conditions are forced to be as bad as concentration camps or low budget military housing, then it is equally as hard to imagine how these people find the opportunity to make a living.

     If I haven't committed "anti-Semitism" (as it seems lately to loosely be thrown around by Israeli government officials) in this article, then I will no doubt offend politically conservative Jews twofold by addressing the ultimate hypocrisy in this whole issue. When asked what Israel's problem is— economically, politically, religiously— the answer that is typically given is "the Palestinians". The sentiment among conservative leaning Jewish Israelis is that Palestinians are deserving of death, of being driven off "land that isn't theirs" (note: this land was settled by non-Jews, the same people who resided there until this past century. Also note: the people who settled this land weren't even Muslims when they originally settled it); they tend to believe that Palestinians are completely below them and that it's an Israeli's duty not to be merciful, but relentless in removing these people. I know it's quite cliche at this point to ask it, but I will ask it anyway: doesn't this sound all too familiar? Can we recall a place in recent history that we were forced, as a globe, to address such an issue? I'll let the reader read between the lines, there. 

     A more subtle similarity is to the former apartheid regime in South Africa that was overcome by Nelson Mandela, the African National Congress, and other African socio-political revolutionaries. From 1948 to 1994, the National Party ruled and enforced laws that gave priority to the Caucasian majority and subjected the Afrikaner minority to a second class status. 

     To mark the process of Palestinian voting opportunity as being a "difficult" and "sensitive" issue is quite the understatement. Besides making a trip to the voting booth next to impossible for the average Palestinian, walls have been built not only around Palestinian settlements, but through more and more which is why we see the West Bank breaking apart like ice sheets in the Arctic Sea. In addition to all the unfortunate living conditions being imposed upon the Palestinians, they are also subjected to a version of racism comparable not even to racism of the 1960's in the United States.

     So I will ask the most obvious question there can be: if the numbers of Arab-Israelis and Palestinians are going up, then why have the living conditions gotten worse only for these people? Why have elections not favored a growing minority even in the slightest (proportionately)? Furthermore, why is everyone standing by for this?
~Joe

A Day of Martial Law

     If you ask a conspiracy theorist about the recent bombing in Boston, one of the first things they may tell you is that it was set up by the government to practice Martial Law. Since I love this country and I have faith in our government to conduct itself fairly and legally, I'm willing to let the first part of that theory go. It is the second part, however, which is causing me to question what happened exactly.
     If there were an untested protocol, a method of conduct for a dangerous situation how would we know it would work? Obviously, such a method must be used in practicum to rule whether or not it will work. In Boston, we saw a very intricate response to the two bombing suspects and it should cause us to think about how necessary it all was.
     For those fateful days in April, people in Boston were asked to stay in their homes and lock their doors while the Federal, State, and local police hunted down the nineteen-year-old suspect. I do not believe any information on the total number of police involved, artillery, and equipment have been released, but judging by the looks of Boston for those days in question, it seems to be overkill for a single person. Yes, it is a dangerous situation and, as an acquaintance pointed out to me earlier, the last thing we would want is a manhunt in Boston's rush-hour traffic. Not to mention, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Governor Patrick, and the state and local police only asked people to stay indoors; that is to say that unless Martial Law was officially declared, the people were allowed to follow their government's suggestion at their own discretion.
     This is what is so worrying to me. The day of and the days following the bombing, we witnessed how people will react to a certain type of response to terror on our own soil. Compared to 9/11, the terror at the Boston Marathon, though tragic, was a minimum; it wasn't the chaos and temporary anarchy that New York was for the weeks following the attack. New York was practically a battlefield while Boston, though in peril, was tame— well, as tame as Boston can be. Had Martial law been declared in both situations, New York would have been next to impossible to control while Boston would have been a cakewalk, and not because Boston is smaller, but because it was compliant with the requests of the government.
     This is not to say that the people should not have been compliant or that they had any reason to distrust their government, though efforts to capture the culprits were drastic and perhaps over the top, it was probably just as easy allowing the police do what they do without getting in their way. My personal concern, however, is that people will grow used to allowing this anytime for anything. We must stand against violence in every form and, in avoidance of siding with either Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcolm X, suffice it to say that violence should be battled with intolerance— however you, the reader, may take that notion.
~Joe

The Tea Party: Guardians of the Constitution

     The very nature of our country's design was to raise the bar of forward thinking-- that is, liberty, equality, and justice for all. The disagreement between the right and the left lies within what ought to be considered civil liberty and/or what we guarantee as rights to be protected through our government.
     The Tea Party is a group of conservative thought who pride themselves as scholars of the United States Constitution and for defending it against the whim of the collective leftist. In other words, Tea Party people are textualists-- people who take the original document how it was written, word for word and not for what it may or may not have meant. Any claims made about the intent of the original document are promptly stomped out by the simple and indiscriminate idea that the written word means what it means as it lies written on the page.
     When the liberal attempts to provide a justification for something in the Constitution-- whether provable or not-- there is a deterioration of thought and argument, thereby belief, thereby reality. The conservative will defend the Constitution by providing a textual argument from a part of it and the liberal therefore submits his own textual evidence to the contrary and it only creates confusion when we cannot conclude a winning argument because we have essentially created conflict in the Constitution itself.
     The difference between the two sides is that the liberal finds a need to be inclusive while the conservative maintains that there can be no need. While we can fault the liberal for attempting to trace the original meaning of our forefathers, the conservative— who does not consider the need already being accounted for— attempts to use anything but the prejudice that rules their being to seek an end to the argument. Furthermore, we should consider the liberal at fault simply because he or she attempts to engage in the same prejudices as the forefathers (which may or may not be even worse than the prejudices of present conservatives).
     In the end, both parties, both philosophies tread on a most freeing ideology by attempting to defend it. One makes the mistake of objectifying his philosophy and the other by subjecting all to his own prejudice. If nothing could not possibly possess contradiction, then the Tea Party is a group of people not interested in having a logical and practical government and society (in fact, if the Constitution was meant never to hold contradiction, then amendments would never have been possible).
     The Tea Party is as much a guardian of the constitution as New York was any practical help to establishing independence from Britain. Comfort in the ways of the old makes it such an easy argument to prevent forward moving and forward thinking.
     How is a nation forward moving when the ideals it is built on are immovable and non-progressive? People concern themselves with how slow the economy seems to be moving and how unproductive our political representatives seem to be on all different fronts, but no one seems interested in the notion that nothing moves because no one attempts to test both figurative and literal inertia.
     The art of forward thinking is overcoming historical prejudice and that requires not a change in the Constitution, but actually defining what liberty and equality mean today. It will force those who embrace textualism to resort to none-other than their prejudices and, as Burke said, wait until the prejudice dwindles to a minority. Our current duty is not to continue our forefathers' thought, but to parallel it in the context of the present for the sake of liberty and equality.
~Joe

A very, very brief comment on liberty: meaning and common usage

     "I have the liberty…"— this is something most of us hear all too frequently, and it's usage is usually attached to a negative. That is, when somebody feels the need to state their "liberties" to something, it's because someone has informed them otherwise. It is a fact that the reader must acknowledge, however, that people have their mortal and socio-political "liberties" at stake when they refer to liberty and freedom as one in the same. Let it be clear that liberty and freedom are not one in the same.
     If we use etymology to trace the origins of the words, we find that liberty comes to mean the condition of a free man, the absence of restraint— in positive and singular terms: permission. Freedom is more or less a compound of Olde English/Old Germanic words; "free" means to be exempt from, not in bondage, or joy, peace, kinship, love while "dom" means statute or judgment. To draw the difference between liberty and freedom, the former means permission while the latter means a statute of exemption or peace. Furthermore, as we have already gone over, liberty historically means the condition of a free man, so we can draw such a distinction: liberty is a condition dependent on how free man is.
    Modern western philosophy (from the pre-Declaration era to the post-French Revolution era) left liberty highly in debate. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau could agree on few things, but one agreement was that the establishment of government is natural to human nature and a necessity. The weak need protection from the strong in the state of nature which is, in a nutshell, the anarchic state of affairs before society comes to this consensus (an all too brief definition of "state of nature" for those not privy to it). In essence, the social order rising from the state of nature sacrifices certain freedoms for some to ensure basic freedoms for all.
     We can see, now, that because liberty (permission) necessitates some freedoms (statutes of exemption) to be exchanged, that there may be some actions that cannot be had on part of the individual. So the next time someone tells you that "they have the liberty…" you can tell them one of two things: you can be a coy smart-ass, cut them off at those words and say, "oh, so do I!" or you can be equally as bodacious by correcting them, "what you mean is that you have the freedom… and, actually, chances are, you don't." However absurd the law may be, no one is exempt from it, and it seems our definitions of freedom and liberty have made confusing issues for us ever since civil liberties have been an issue in this country (separately, any debate on the definitions of "liberty", "freedom", and "equality" leads to an undermining of what, or who, defines a human).
     To the First Amendment lovers— a professor of American Government or Civil Liberties would know right off what a brief Google search refreshed my memory of, but not anything can be said (much less done). Among the "speech" not protected by the amendment are: hate speech, speech/coercion leading others to commit illegal activity, material support, public speech made in the conduct of public duty, slander/libel/defamation, plagiarism or publishing confidential information, and true threats. Like most of our mothers tell us when we are young, it would be most advisable to think before we say— in the case of most, if one feels as though they ought to remind others of their freedoms, there is a good chance that they may not actually have the freedom to do so (though this often goes unpunished— think of all the arrests that would have to be made if everyone stating President Obama is not an American were to be punished!)
     The subject of liberty is a very broad one which cannot truly be addressed on all the levels required to clarify for everyone once and for all. Liberty is sometimes seen as a very individual concern, a subjective matter, and as much as so many wish this were not true, it, in fact, may be. Considering the vastness of what liberty actually is and, ironically, the limitation of its understanding, it would come as no surprise that mastering the meaning would come differently to every person as snowflakes do to the ground. If we also consider the aforementioned "state of nature" argument, then this can only make more sense in that if everyone has their own sense of justice, then they will conduct themselves according to their own sense of liberty— morality not being a universal will show action on the part of others in a variety of ways.
~Joe

Democracy a no go in Cairo

     “You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain”; Mohamed Morsi is officially irrelevant in the lives of Egyptians. “Come here O Sisi,” a protestor's flag beckoned the attention of the military's general, “Morsi isn't my president.” General Abdul Fattah al-Sisi lived up to his promise just two days ago that the military would aid the protesters in overthrowing the president; he announced only hours ago that Morsi is no longer in office, that the constitution is now suspended, and that the head of the Supreme Constitutional Court, Adli al-Mansour will act as interim head of state. Sisi stated that while Mansour will temporarily serve as the head of state, he wishes to quickly move forward with early presidential and parliamentary elections, a panel to review the constitution, and a national reconciliation committee designed to bring all groups together to move the country forward.

     The last four days in Cairo outside the Presidential Palace have marked record breaking protests with millions of people in attendance, but statistics of a different nature have indicated a digression from the main purpose of the movement; around 46 sexual assaults have been reported as well as the death of sixteen people and around 780 people sustaining injuries. Despite the alarming statistics, protestors have proclaimed that this is a resistance held in civil disobedience and that such actions are unacceptable and damaging in Egypt's new fight for a fair democracy.

     As Morsi supporters— who happen largely to be proponents of the Muslim Brotherhood— have illustrated, the voices of the people were answered when Morsi was elected by over 13 million votes last June. However, as emotions tend to run wild when freedom and liberty can be just as easily lost as they are won, Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood were seen as the necessary option for presidency considering their large role in reclaiming the country in 2011 from Hasni Mubarek, former dictator of Egypt (recall the evolution of France's 3^rd, 4^th, and 5^th Republics).

     A year to change not only a political climate, but a socio-economic climate is a very small time frame for a very large task. But is this movement against Egypt's first democratically elected president in years a show of restlessness and rejection of democracy or is it a period of enlightenment for the people of Egypt? That is, have the people of Egypt come to the realization that their revolutionary heroes may not necessarily be suitable to lead their new government? This is a consideration that democracy has not at all failed, that, in fact, it has not yet prevailed for Egypt. For a people who are still used to and who are still in reminiscence of dictatorship, perhaps graduality is a bit much to ask and a more radical change is in order when leadership fails.

     President Morsi's only response to his expulsion is rejection— that the military has formed a coup against him and that he is still Egypt's leader. In addition, President Morsi explicitly instructs the people of Egypt to abide by the constitution while matters are being settled. Though General Sisi has suspended the constitution and though Morsi may not realize the implications of his words, this indicates to the people that their inalienable rights are still to be taken seriously. Such a message seems to be exactly what the leaders of every great nation convey whether they continue to hold power or not. In essence, Morsi is conveying to the people that their rights are more important than his dispute with them and the military.

     What we are seeing in Egypt right now is the failure of a cabinet much like failures we have seen in our own political history (the Nixon and Clinton impeachments). This does not necessarily mean Egypt is becoming anti-democracy or anti-government— they are simply anti-Morsi-government. They have found that the elections of June 2012 were a grave mistake and their civil demonstrations should show that they wish to correct this mistake.

     After nearly a week of unrest, Mansour will be sworn in tomorrow, Thursday, July 4, and a new, albeit brief chapter will begin for Egypt and its people.

~ Joe

On the Boston Marathon Massacre

     In the twenty-first century, evil hath no face. The general prejudice of Americans— particularly white Americans— causes us to picture brown skinned, turban wearing individuals who believe in Allah (simply Arabic for Yahweh, which is Hebrew for God). 

     Prejudice aside, we have absolutely no idea who is guilty of the terror at the Boston Marathon. Earlier today, I saw a picture of the child who was killed on Boylston Street and I found myself haunted not by the death of a child holding a sign that says "No more hurting people; peace", but by the apathy toward this tragedy and my own struggle with a severe disconnect to the violence. For the sake of brevity, in the case this act of terror is found to come from an individual who is domestic, American born, and perhaps even white, what I propose is that we as Americans are to blame for we have become entirely unmoved by violence and the horror violence creates. 

     It will be easy to condemn a foreign entity with foreign agents of terror, but what are we going to say if it happens to be an American? Furthermore, what are we going to say when we are forced to ask ourselves how different this is from the Colorado Shooting or other atrocities especially if those involved do not suffer from mental health issues, but from indoctrination? 

     A second set of questions: "who do we blame?" and "who do we kill?" The killing cannot stop at Boylston Street if we seek justice as we understand it in the law books  But in a spiritual sense, are we willing to send these individuals to their virgins? Or, if that was not the case, how many should be sent to their deaths to obtain justice for those who have been murdered? The pursuit of justice, in this case, should be inflection and change in our hearts, to stop violence when we see it, and to put a stop to the ever increasing sociopathic tendencies toward violence. We should confront ourselves with these things in the attempt to dissolve them completely. 

     President Obama referred to this attack as a tragedy and he has been hounded by news syndicates to condemn it further, to upgrade it from "tragedy" to something else— an "act of terror" or some such over used, over glorified phrase. That is the problem. We are already so disconnected from the tragedy, we seek to call it something else and to defend it to the end simply because we are becoming less and less able to empathize with the victims. This is a tragedy and people need to get upset over it and grieve for humanity as a whole rather than letting it fuel their prejudices and serve as entertainment to their boredom. 

     In the twenty-first century, evil begets apathy, thus evil reigns with a swift dominance of the globe. It coasts effortlessly like a feather in a vacuum gives way to Earth's gravity. The compassion we once had as a species, though still present in certain circumstances, was once a friction to violence and the evil born from it.

~ Joe

Solar energy and "chemtrails"

     A recent Fox News article about leaks from six nuclear tanks in Washington State had momentarily sent my thoughts back to a certain article I had written about before, the premise being that America shouldn't go to solar energy since Germany gets more sun exposure than North America. This sent my mind spiraling into a certain line of reasoning and logic which is probably false, but an interesting notion all the more.

     It seems as though there is much sentiment against solar power above nuclear; even when talking with very left leaning individuals, when asked about solar power, they always seem to think it's a good idea, but that it isn't necessarily marketable next to petroleum, coal, and nuclear. If German solar power is putting out, on average, twenty times the amount of energy a nuclear plant does, the cost of creating a solar plant must cost an arm and a leg! Alas, Germany seems to be the most sound economy in Europe during this recession, so we know that this can't be true since such a cost in this industry would have put Germany below France and England, the European Union would be in shambles, and the American Dollar would be worth much, much more than the Euro. (Note: Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has stated that Germany's economy is unsustainable. If we consider solar power's eventual environmental and economic sustainability, then we know it will one day leave the market; eventually electric power will become nongovernmental and non-corporate which means it yields no economic opportunity for anyone and that there will be nothing like it to replace it. If Germany does not address this issue in an environmentally and economically friendly fashion, then it follows that Germany's economy will one day fail. In essence, the Chancellor's stance on energy is not pro-petroleum, pro-nuclear, or pro-coal per se, or even that it is anti-solar, but it is on the economic ramifications of complete independence and that living “off the grid” will essentially become living “on the grid.” Be that as it may, practical application of solar power shows that it is the environmental and microeconomic answer to our problems, and it needs to be used, here, in America).

     Considering the dangers of solar power would surpass even the dangers of nuclear power— since we must obviously bury the dangerous, ozone piercing, ultraviolet rays to lie dormant for thousands of years— maybe it's best we just make due with what we have and what we know. However, this sarcasm started me off on another tangent of thought. . .

     I'm not sure if anyone remembers the conspiracy theory about “chemtrails”: exhaust-like trails from aircraft. If you know even the least bit about aircraft, you'll know that such an exhaust in the upper atmosphere is unlikely, so, naturally, you may ask yourself what it is. (Note: I am not citing anything thus far, so I may not be completely accurate, but my memory usually serves me well with these things). The thesis of the conspiracy assumes that the chemtrails contain inoculations and anti-viruses which a majority of people refuse to take (the most radical of the conspiracy assumes the trails contain mind-numbing or controlling solutions). In order to quell these alarming theories, the United States government came forth and stated that the chemtrails were an attempt to release aluminum oxide into the upper atmosphere to combat global warming. What aluminum oxide does, in theory, is act as a second “ozone layer”; it deflects/absorbs energy coming from UVB and UVC rays. If this is in fact what the chemtrails are for, it means that the damage CFC's (typically, in aerosol) have been doing to the ozone layer are worst than previously imagined.

     What aluminum oxide does to the human body, however, should be of more concern. It has been known to cause cancers and other developmental issues in infants and children such as autism and aspergers. If it wasn't enough that damage to the ozone layer has been causing subjection to UVB and UVC rays which cause cancer, we have essentially been dumbing down the world population by accident.

     It's evident, now, that the disregard of solutions to economic and environmental issues, such as solar, stem from the “accident” of trying to manufacture the solution rather than resurrect it. In essence, the only way to attribute intelligence to this “solution” is by discovering that the “solution” was worked out of malice; if we decide it was worked out of benevolence, unfortunately, this means it came from ignorance.

     In many less words, my working thesis is this: maybe we aren't making the right choices because of the consequences of our wrong decisions. Maybe we don't pick the correct solution because we are, in fact, growing stupider, as it were.

~Joe

An American response to Winston Churchill on conservatism

     Without accusing what was possibly one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century as being nothing more than a drunk, excusing the fact that his diminishing popularity was likely due to an ever increasing conservatism (which will be explained shortly), and outright ignoring the fact that this phrase is mistakenly attributed to him, Winston Churchill makes a grave mistake in saying: "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."
     What this quote ignores is the natural and historic tendency of political and economic leanings and how they relate to the morphing society's affect on the aging individual; in essence, progressivism naturally challenges “the lifestyle” being that enhancement of all facets of society and of living means a change at all the levels of living— a perpetual alteration. The discomfort with this grows when we become accustomed to a certain living style; as we are all members of a culture or of a subculture, the “we” knows no bounds of economic status, thus, the discomfort of change affects the poorest of us as well as the richest of us. Where the commodity becomes a fetish, the tendency of progressivism is a turnoff because we consider the prospect of stagnancy (at best) or steady decline (at the worst) to be greater than the idea of change at every turn (— interestingly, this attitude seems to be contrary to the way the capital market is designed to work).     This is essentially psychology on a grand scale; how does time affect the individual's perception of reality? My grandfather once told me that when he was my age, he thought that at his age society and government would be entirely different, that it would be more forgiving to “the small guy.” Working for decades at General Motors in Connecticut, he understood the powerful infrastructure that he and his parents were preparing for the future: technology, money, social programs, new age culture, drive, service, specialty, wealth with no poverty, a unified class. Now, he can't believe what he is seeing; things have not just gone stagnant, they have become worse, and reality seems to be very surreal for him and people of his generation.
     My grandfather is a liberal; he supports strong government programs for the poor and working class, strong taxes for the rich, foreign diplomacy over war, and large spending and reform in education. He went into retirement for less than a few years after the plant closed only to come back out to raise two of his grandkids with my grandmother, and suddenly he needed to continue finding work (which he was fortunate enough to do). No one has had to adapt to change more than my grandparents, and they are just fine doing that. Why can't change in our government and society serve people like this and, more importantly, change the work ethic and education of those who aren't so driven?     The reason why Churchill's quote is considered correct is because it is always attributed to a single divine and/or logical truth when the fact of the matter is that the prospect of attaining the individual, single self interest (a la state of nature) guides the destiny of the society— the idealism and societal goals set forth by not only our forefathers, but our younger minds are trampled by the insecurity and comfort of our elders. The idea and ideal of progressivism becomes taboo along with what younger minds have to offer and sacrifices made by hard working people are either ignored or considered expected of everyone including those who are not equipped to do so.
     So when you find yourself growing increasingly defensive of the policies and practices of yesteryear, reflect on your life choices and ask yourself why. Do you have something to gain by putting a stop to change in your society? If you don't have anything particular to gain, ask yourself who does; if we can consider that, traditionally, the bottom line is the dollar, then those who would not profit from societal and political change are those who will fight the change. And those who fight the change use propaganda to capitalize on the discomfort that change inevitably creates in an individual. Instead of empowering people to “do what feels right”, people are being forced to react negatively to things that make them uncomfortable rather than to facilitate the change and to acclimate.     Close your eyes for a moment and picture your life between the years of twenty-five and forty (even if you fall into or beyond the range, imagine how things have unfolded); you have to imagine all the complexities of early life: first or second career or your fourth or fifth dead-end job, college debt is in it's young years if you have it and if you don't, maybe you have a slightly nicer apartment or car than the average college student, but essentially you are in the same position; in fact, maybe you're simply unemployed and desperate for even a part time, minimum wage employment. By the time you're forty you are settling into a routine, a specific kind of lifestyle; now you probably have a serious relationship or partnership and you are beginning to make good money— enough to buy a home or take on debt to buy a home (if you haven't already).
     Now open your eyes. In your later years, things become easier in some ways and harder in others and your memory starts becoming selective; it begins to ignore moments or sentiments of the past because they no longer serve your self-interest. Even if life isn't as you've imagined it would be, you start accepting your disposition and you become comfortable with it— in fact, you reach the point of defending it.
     Any change to serve those currently in the position you used to be is threatening if you're lead to believe it will only reduce you back to that position or at the very least make your current state of being unsustainable without further effort; a small part of you feels no responsibility for those who are like you once were as those who used to be where you currently are did for you. Ritual and habit becomes easy and the added responsibility of the future generation and less fortunate threatens the simplicity and/or comfort of your living.
     This is entirely justifiable; you are here, now, and you're not entirely happy, but you are safe and comfortable. Future generations will be able to do the same and the less fortunate will be able to follow suit when they change the ways they make choices— voila, you are now conservative.
     That being established, it is a sound assumption that the simplicity of your living (or at least the comfort) is, in fact, threatened by change. Social issues begin to take precedence in your political leanings simply because this is not how things used to be, and things used to be just fine for everyone. Some of the changes being made aren't necessary at all, so shunning new ideas becomes second nature.     Change is inevitable, imminent, and perpetual whether we like it or not, whether we are ready for it or not. Preservation of tradition and tradition itself are admittedly important to the identity of a culture and society, but sacrifices must be made to preserve the underlying values and necessities that make the good society what is good. A “get-what-you-deserve” society cannot exist within the conditions our forefathers set before us because we already accept that a life void of liberty and of the means to life is not representative of the American dream; in other words, the most successful and comfortable of us all must make sacrifices to allow the less fortunate to thrive. Separately, to mark self-preservation as an individual concern is foolhardy since the purpose of our independence as a nation was its guarantee.
     This is the fallacy I find in Winston Churchill's supposed phrase. Though it may only pertain to our society in the framework of my argument, I still find us to be the greatest society of all, and all those wanting for the good society should consider this argument.
~Joe

Math needs better marketing

     "What is your measure for support of science? Is it what anybody says, or is it where money gets spent? Basically, in Washington, it's where money gets spent. Sensibly.... the only point of Congress is to spend the three trillion dollars of the budget each year, and how you spend it is the portfolio of what defines this nation. Period." That's Neil deGrasse Tyson speaking about how important science is to America. The video is titled "Who's More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats?"
     Dr. Tyson goes on to explain that, historically, Republicans have been kinder to science than Democrats. He states, specifically, that under the Bush administration, different science communities received more money from the government like NASA who received a 20% increase. Under Clinton, however, NASA's budget dropped by 25%. However, Dr. Tyson reveals his disdain for the Republican party when he explains that increases to science education on behalf of the party usually include creationism which is ultimately more deadly to education than a small budget.

     "The innovations and creativity in science, engineering, technology, and math will be the drivers of tomorrow's economy— jobs.” In a separate interview with CNN, Dr. Tyson explains why math and science are so important in education despite some scholars “never using math again”; "Whether or not you ever again use the math that you learned in school, the act of having learned the math established a wiring in the brain that didn't exist before, and it's the wiring in the brain that makes you the problem solver... Even if you don't want to become a scientist, the minimum you should ask of yourself is that you become scientifically literate... and mathematically literate because therein are the engines of problem solving in the world... Now you're valuable to an employer [who seeks to innovate]."

     It appears that those, like me, who have busied themselves so much with argumentation, logic, reasoning, and progressivism and left math and science as a field of "other study", as a non-facet of the issues at hand, are gravely mistaken and lacking in our endeavor for answers and solutions. And it saddens me that this makes out to be the most sound argument I have ever made. 

     I draw out the example of showing one's work in affirmation of an answer. Any and all arguments made without the structure required for proof aren't good enough even if it provides the correct answer. What Dr. Tyson is saying that math and science can do is help us understand all the "why's". A socialist can be so convinced that heavy tax on the rich and national social programs reaching into the hundreds are what will save this nation and, similarly, a libertarian can be so convinced that stepping completely out of peoples' lives is the ultimate solution for prosperity, but without a body of evidence and proof between the introduction and conclusion for each argument, all we have is a sales pitch. 

     Without further ado, I shorten Dr. Tyson's argument to a single, simple statement: "Math and science directly lead to the innovated and perfected world of tomorrow," but as Dr. Tyson puts it, "math needs better marketing."
~Joe

The credibility of Fox News is sinking and why

     Stating that Fox News is the least trusted news source for Americans is generally accepted as “stating the obvious” (even some conservatives must make up the 46% of people who outright condemn the network). But a recent poll by the New Public Policy Polling finds Fox News Network at a four year low in approval rating; in addition to this, those who do not trust Fox News Network are most likely to trust any alternatives to the network for their news (even renowned liberally leaning networks such as MSNBC).

     We have to ask ourselves, though, why are less and less people buying into the conservative bias? A liberal might say “because people are becoming more enlightened” (a less polite liberal may say “because people are becoming less and less stupid”). In any case, the intelligence of Fox News viewers and former viewers likely has nothing to do with this outcome.

     Consider this: the Republican Party, specifically, is changing— it is most likely breaking apart, at best, or outright falling apart, at the worst. If we consider the conservative-Republican favoring bias which Fox News Network represents, we have to ask ourselves how is Fox breaking apart and/or in which direction is Fox News heading?

     Sparing ourselves the liberal sentiment (“Fox News is going down”) and taking the question seriously— as though bias is a neutral or good thing— we can see that Fox News is becoming less and less popular amongst Republicans and conservatives in general because it is only appealing to the neo-liberals and ultra conservatives (remember, neo-liberal and ultra conservative are essentially the same thing nowadays).

     Now we ask why Fox News is appealing to a specific grouping of conservatives rather than the entire body of conservatives. The answer is actually quite simple: an agenda must go to extremes in the hopes that falling short may result in the desired outcome. When such a rift occurs in the same movement, all that agenda can serve are the targets that have clung to those extremes.

     Therefore, it's my prediction that as Republicans in the socio-political realm separate themselves as “Tea Party” members or right leaning libertarians (as well as some conservatives setting themselves apart from those identities), Fox News will continue to crumble until the bias it presents is so thickly riddled with the radical that it will seem “Onion”-ish to Democrats and a majority of Republicans alike (as it already appears to be doing).

     On a slightly separate note, I'd like to address the conservative concern for liberally biased media. If we consider the number of folks who prefer any other network to Fox, what we have is not a plurality of news viewers who prefer a liberal network, but a plurality of news viewers who prefer not to watch a specific network for a specific reason. MSNBC may be notoriously liberal, but that's not all people are watching. The only people who seem to continue watching Fox News Network are those who refuse to watch anything else because they deem nothing conservatively appealing enough, and it is the pursuit of a bias which should not matter in the face of receiving truthful and factual information and that fact is ultimately the reason why the network is failing. (As far as the reliability of American news in general— only a separate article can address that concern). 

~Joe

Notable links:

Fox News Credibility at Record Low

Public Policy Polling

Case Point

A short thought on education

     I must admit to an embarrassing fact: in my last post, I incorrectly referred to the late Christopher Hitchens as "Dr. Hitchens". I have since corrected it, but it has sent me on an interesting train of thought. 
     It used to be that success was not necessarily defined by the education behind an individual. In the 1980's and 1990's it was apparent that the opposite was becoming true; if you wanted a secure and well paying job, you went to school, and, of course, if you wanted to go through trade school to learn how a specific trade, there was always that option. 
    Now it is 2013 and Haley and I are sitting here willing ourselves through the graduate school application process. It's just as tedious, if not more-so, than the undergraduate process, and the monotony is admittedly killing me as it is many of those whom I know are subjecting themselves to the same thing. I ask myself, "why not give up? Why not just get a job and work towards a lifelong career like Hitchens did?" 
     The United States Department of Labor states that in 2012 employment tenure was at an average of 4.6 years which means the average working adult will have between seven to ten (7-10) jobs in their lifetime. We can see, already, the disincentive of dropping straight into the work force. After all, even if education serves less of a purpose in obtaining success, if I stay in school for the next two to five years, maybe I'll only have to subject myself to between four and seven separate careers instead of up to ten.
     But why is it now so hard to find a career to enjoy? For example, it's now been roughly sixty six days since I graduated from college and I am still unemployed. Taking winter breaks into consideration as well as not having moved into a new apartment until the beginning of January, we can chalk it up to a solid two months of hunting jobs. The jobs I've been avoiding are fast food service, cashier attendance, restaurant service, and the like, but it appears that what I have been avoiding is going to be my only option, in the end, when one of us can no longer carry both. But I digress.
     Back to the issue of "why education?" As I said, trade jobs used to be highly popular before the turn of the century. We could even say that trade jobs are the sole reason (ahead of education) why this country is as great as it is, but as we see less and less people going into trade to live with a job they love, we see society brooding more and more about a monotony in life. 
     Yes, I did refer to the graduate application process as monotonous, but it's not exactly the same thing. This type of discouragement is temporary; eventually the applicant receives word back from the institutions he or she applies to and chooses the best option (even if it is applying again for the next semester). The type of discouragement in society to which I refer is not temporary; it is permanent, perpetual, and it forces those who are stuck in it to indoctrinate themselves with new reality. 
     Thus, the new age of education is in selflessness. Yes, one could pursue education merely to put off the horrors of "the real world", but the proper function of education nowadays is to attempt changing the way the world works, to making the "dream" something that can actually be realized. Some of us are making this attempt in writing, art, theatre, business, and by becoming an educator, but I am making this attempt in politics and hopefully journalism because the struggle is, ultimately, convincing people not only that change should come, but that it can and it takes individual effort and cooperation— the same individual effort and cooperation that created this great country.
~Joe

Death of Intellect and Reason: what does it mean for us?

     Considering the death of the late Christopher Hitchens, as an enthusiast of great modern thought I feel obligated to share one of my many concerns— which will no doubt digress into at least a few of these said irrelevant concerns. Along with Hitchens, in the past decade we've lost the likes of Professor Carl Sagan and comedians Bill Hicks and George Carlin. Right now, on the fringe of greatness are celebrities such as Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Al Franken, and even activists such as George Clooney and Ashley Judd (who is currently vying to replace Senate Minority lead Mitch McConnell). What concerns me, however, is not the possibility that the conversation, so to speak, won't be held anymore or even less that intelligence will shrink out of the equation, but that people will stop listening (if they ever were listening to begin with). There is no joke about Jon Stewart's claim to have the number one trusted news source with his Daily Show; the show mocks political and social interactions and points out the absurdities of our political institutions and social interactions yet it reaches as much of an audience as any mainstream news source and defeats its competition.

     Even more alarming is the fact that great writers and essayists such as Christopher Hitchens are overlooked simply for the fact that they write for the likes of Vanity Fair. However valid the question may be— “why should I read a fashion magazine?” or “why should I waste my time with satire?”— such is the platform that so many who have so much to say must operate on.

     I must admit that my recent found appreciation of Hitchens doesn't stem from the many arguments, essays, and books of his that I have not yet read, but it is found in his final work “Mortality” which is proclaimed to be the most self-indulgent of all his work (and understandably so). As Hitchens divulges some of his very mortal fears and general worries— and as he also revisits some of his prior arguments in this process— I am learning something about myself in his coming-to-terms with death and his vain attempts to put it off.

     Regret is natural and regret is inevitable; we will demonize ourselves for things we have done or have not done, and others will disrupt our desperate search for solitude in life by blaming us for things that are petty, at best, or completely irrelevant, at worst. In a swift and hilarious motion, Hitchens dismisses the hypothesis that his esophageal cancer has come due to blasphemy stating that the cancer has come only because decades of cigarette smoking is finally catching up with him. He further states that even the many notoriously christian doctors he has debated with and looked to for advice have also come to that same conclusion.

     Perhaps the most powerful part of this book, however, is when Hitchens explains how through the tribulations of Christian right-wingers, there are a number of folks who had written to him saying that despite their inability to find common ground, their moral philosophy is one in the same, that he is a man in their prayers, and a man “worthy” of saving. It's here we can identify those who find the conversation instrumental in pinning down the good life; these are people of faith who aren't willing to ignore the speak of reason and one of a different faith.

     But that is where the problem lies; with the death of Hitchens comes a blow to intelligence in our media and in society because such few use reason, eloquence, and non-accusatory manner in their attempt to explain something they see so differently from other people. And, we all know, without a good argument, people will cease to listen.

     I was told over and over again in grade school and high school math classes that if I didn't provide the work proving the answer correct, then I could not ensure myself full points for that answer. Naturally, I have struggled with this logic the entirety of my short life, but human nature appears to have given me a good reason why. Coming to an answer by brain-work is only good enough so long as the answer does not apply to anyone else; when it comes the time that the answer must be presented in a broad aspect, not all are going to understand it, so it must be simply explained and defended with concrete evidence.

     To explain in other words— or reiterate if I have communicated my thesis well enough already— it's my fear that this common form of explaining the perceived world is coming to an end. It is my fear that fact will become something akin only to science and not to everyday life and how people conduct themselves and how people should conduct themselves. What Hitchens represents in society is the evolved thought, the voice of reason that everyone is capable to find growing within themselves.

     Ultimately, what I fear, is that the world does not recognize it has lost another Martin Luther King Jr., another Mahatma Ghandi, someone who does not claim virtue or prophecy, just merely insight. For those who find the wisdom to cease speaking and listen, I am afraid there is less and less to be heard.

     Perhaps Hitchens would say that the era of listening is over. After all, one of his greatest peeves has been inaction, and action is the only evidence of a “listener” in fact “hearing” the message. But how should the listener conduct himself or herself as they face the end of the era of listening? Following the footsteps of those before us, however much sensibility the individual may have possessed, is not progressive, but stagnant at the least and conservative at the worst. That said, we must ask ourselves a more serious and important question: how do the “listeners” distinguish themselves from the “followers”?

     This is where we are at now. With “current issues” being a term understating its own definition, we struggle with global hunger, war, poverty, and other entirely feudal problems, and these are struggles of our own making. Too many of us authentic listeners fail to make actions of our own, and its what makes us less than followers and what perpetuates the problems at hand.

     This is where I bid Professor Christopher Hitchens a very late farewell. I hope that if his theory of the afterlife (which I share) is incorrect, I am not judged too harshly.
~ Joe