Re: Occupy Movement

The trouble with any regulation is that when it's working, the good that is done is unnoticeable. And, it's within human nature to assume that when there is no apparent good, there is no good being done. Finally, it's common to believe in the good intentions of others within our social sphere─ really that's the underlying assumption which allows society to function at all─ so when a friend / lobbyist comes in and pleads for some (de)regulation or other, it's natural to accept their requests and act on their behalf.

Meanwhile, all of animal life has evolved to do what is expedient for survival. In humans, this base instinct is applied not only to personal survival, but to group preservation; which means in almost all aspects of our life, we seek to do what is cheap and easy.

However, we also have an understanding of quality, and in times of abundance we willingly expend more energy | time | money in order to attain higher quality goods | foods | services especially for those within our inner circles.

The trouble is, the corporate system necessarily divorces producers from end-consumers and in a global economy from workers─ as the corporate goal is to make a product | service appealing to either the desire for quality or the more basic desire to conserve energy | time | money. The American-capitalist system and even corporations are not inherently evil, but are fundamentally flawed by virtue of being a human invention divorced from the individuals they service and employ. This leads to the need for regulation, as corporations seek to minimize expense and maximize profit, without regard to the human cost.

We need to realize, we as Americans, are free people─ we can speak of revolution─ but I think the solution lies in personal choices. Buy local. Choose public or alternative means of transportation. Live closer to where you work. Participate in politics: vote or run for office. And yes, work for corporate America: infiltrate the system to instigate change.

Weekly Address: Priorities on Taxes

Basically, the President's plan for spending was to let the Bush tax cuts expire, for the wealthy, and freeze discretionary spending. Republicans, meanwhile, want to extend the Bush tax cuts for all citizens, and underfund or outright un-fund large portions of government, in order to return discretionary expenditures to 2008 levels ─ as if we weren't running a deficit before Obama took office. Neither plan is good, but Obama's is about $200billion better.

2 things currently not on the table:

Defense Spending
Nationally, we need to acknowledge that while it's unfortunately necessary to maintain a standing military, the defense budget is bloated and certain programs very likely deserve to be on the chopping block, as much as anything else in the budget. Pay and benefits for military personnel and veterans ought not be touched, but anything else can and should be looked at.

Tax Increases
The tax code needs a solid review & simplification ─ loopholes need to be closed, effectively raising taxes ─ after that, taxes may still need to be raised as a second step. The conventional wisdom says, any tax increase is political suicide and conservative ideology states taxes undermine personal liberty or the free market economy. Still, I believe a new tax, with a finite duration of no more than 10 years, dedicated exclusively for the elimination of the national debt and coupled with comprehensive reform of the congressional budgeting process & the Federal Reserve Bank. Deficit spending shouldn't happen.

Since I'm talking about raising taxes, I should address the accusations of class warfare, socialism, and wealth redistribution ─ frankly, by enabling and fostering trade through the railways, interstate highways and airports the federal government has disproportionately benefited the rich, without mentioning corporate welfare in the form of government contracts & subsidies ─ compared to what the poor get from Medicaid or welfare and the middle-class gets from Medicare and Social Security (a traditionally & deliberately self-sustaining program).

Whether it was intended to, the federal government now exists as the only means to fight the oligarchical interests of Wall Street; while maintaining the infrastructures which have enabled modern business to prosper.

Disappointment With The Oregon Electorate

I'm a bit perturbed with the election results ─ not on the federal level, though I find the punditry's response mildly peeving ─ Oregon Measure 73 passed, while measure 74 failed.

Measure 73 increases minimum sentencing for 2 x Sex Offenders and makes 3 x DUII a felony. I whole-heartedly support harsher sentencing for repeat sex predators, and better education and prevention initiatives, but the latter was missing from measure 73. However, I can't see how turning a DUII into a Class-C felony will benefit the state ─ though the increased spending on prisons seems a clear detriment to Oregon ─ and I also resent that the 2 issues were presented as a single ballot measure, which to me represents a clear manipulation of the electorate. Finally, the measure didn't include funding, and the last thing we, as voters, should have done this election is mandate more state-level spending.

Measure 74 would have created a cost-neutral, state-regulated distribution system for medical marijuana. Currently, medical marijuana users need to either grow their own medicine, locate and rely on a certified grower, or turn to the black market. This measure would have partially undermined the power of gangs and cartels, thereby leading to safer neighborhoods and reduced spending for law enforcement. Although, I do believe full-on legalization is a fiscally sound move for Oregon, partially by reducing crime & gang violence, but especially if a hemp industry were able develop and augment our disappearing logging industry. Ignoring the implications for public safety and the state's financial well being, I believe we are entitled to vices, particularly when they present no harm to others: alcohol provides a strong precedent.

I'm left to wonder why people vote the way they do; it's tempting, but I think fallacious, to assume ignorance or fear. Personally, I consider the implications of a ballot measure in terms of costs and benefits for myself and the state. So, I voted no on 73, because were it in already in effect, it absolutely would have negatively impacted people I care about, who've had DUII convictions ─ plus the cost of enforcing the measure potentially takes away from education and prevention initiatives. I voted yes on 74, because easing access to medical marijuana has no negative impact on me, may in fact (someday) benefit me or someone I know, and potentially reduces crime & therefore government spending. I realize, part of the opposition to measure 74 came from a desire for a more comprehensive system, but the first challenge for legislation is getting something on the books, then comes refinement: all law represents social experimentation.

On The National Results For The 2010 Midterm

The primary metaphor, expounded by the Republicans and the Punditry, to describe the election results was that of a "Red Wave," washing over America. If the left had an equivalent to Beck, Limbaugh or Fox News, the imagery of the "Red Wave" would have been associated with the threat a new Communism. The parallels between the current iteration of conservative methods & ideology, especially as espoused by the Tea Party strain, with the populist movements which led to communism revolution, are easily laid bare. I'm not advocating that liberals use the equivocal rhetoric embraced by conservative media outlets: I'm simply establishing that the liberal bias does not exist in the same way  as the conservative media bias.

Meanwhile, the failure of Democrats to retain the House and Senate, was almost universally attributed to a failure of President Obama to communicate with the electorate. However, Conservative news outlets, attribute the Democrat's failure to public disdain for Obama's policy and Democratic ideology. I agree with both, to an extent: I believe that the last 2 years of policy changes weren't accurately communicated to the majority of the electorate and many votes were cast in a certain ignorance. But, that's speculation on my part.

I think, what actually occurred was that the legislative progress of the last 2 years, was typically reported with a negative spin. To those on the Left, it was never comprehensive enough and to those on the Right it was just evidence of the over-reaching power of government. To the pragmatic and the independent, the view is that whatever the hell is happening, just isn't working.

The Obama administration, at all levels, has been exceedingly accessible to the press, so I don't think we can accurately attribute the loss to a failure to communicate. The problem is, the supposed media-cabal, that some claimed led to his election, doesn't and never did exist ─ decidedly pro-Obama stories probably get bad ratings at the moment, and thus don't carry traction in the news cycle ─ the Administration and therefore the Democrats as a whole, lack prominent media advocates of the Republican and especially the Tea Party strain of Conservativism do.

One final perturbance, Oregon, and other states which stand against the "Red Wave" metaphor of this election cycle, have thus far has been largely unacknowledged by the punditry. This is an ongoing frustration of mine, as the media unscientifically glosses over seeming outliers and counter-examples to their narrative. Meanwhile, it's common to hyper-focus on alternative scenarios and prognostications, which truly add nothing to the dialog.

Further Development of a New Progressive Rhetoric, In Response to an Ill-reasoned Chain Message

I was forwarded a chain email ─ I'm fairly certain I've received it before ─ a cursory search shows the cited figures date back to 2005 and the email made the digital rounds following Obama's inauguration in 2009. The version below has been updated to indict the current Congress and President Obama over the Health Care Reform Act.

The message is interesting for it's inconsistent logic per an argument that government is too expansive and taxes are too oppressive, but that government ought be run by the people operating the most expansive business in the nation and for profit.

The email begins by listing a series of impressive figures relating to Wal-Mart, which is an undeniably successful business ─ controlling a pseudo-monopoly, but not of any particular good or service, instead dominating the shopping experience of a certain financial class.

The message then points to various governmental agencies, indicating how long they've been in operation, then states "you had [so long] to get it right, and it is broke," mostly devoid of other facts. The USPS is mentioned, although that was cut off from tax-support in 1983. A false statistic is presented: $1 Trillion (which is roughly half the federal budget and which) is supposedly misappropriated for "The War On Poverty." The only way to arrive at those figures, is to include SS and Medicare/Medicaid, while ignoring almost 30 years of legislation which reduced and fundamentally changed how "Welfare" type/related entitlements function in the US.

Weekly Address: Working Together on the Economy

Obama's rhetoric switched back toward an advocation of bipartisanship, something he'd seemed to abandon early in Aught-Nine. He's also rocking a violet tie and deep-purple suit, while the video itself has slightly purple cast to it ─ I don't want to call it subliminal messaging ─ but, the tie and suit definitely offer a subtle and deliberate statement, combining the Republican Red and Democratic Blue, whereas the skewed colour in the video may be incidental or just my eyes. I'm genuinely impressed and optimistic after this weeks address, something Obama hasn't inspired in me for a while.

The President's rhetorical shift itself, is coloured by his Wednesday interview with Jon Stewart, and perhaps Jon Stewart's Rally To Restore Sanity. But, the looming contextual punctuation is the 2010 Midterm Election results ─ common wisdom is that Republicans will regain the House and the Democrats will lose their super-majority but maintain control of the Senate ─ the overall message is, therefore, conciliatory.

What I like, is that this address seems to pick up on the tone which national politics have been taking on at the local level. There seems to be discordant harmony among conservatives and heavy dejection among the liberals, both of which play into an apathetic malaise afflicting the non-affiliated and centrists. It feels like it doesn't matter who you vote for ─ not because there's no substantive difference between the parties ─ not because there are fascist cabals controlling the government ─ but because the House and more especially the Senate, follow arcane & defunct rules of procedure.

If the President finally gets it, and if the Democratic party follows his lead, and if the Republicans understand that their victories represent a referendum on the state of politics and government (not on their Democratic opposition), maybe we will see some cooperation, leading to long-overdue institutional reforms in the Congress.

Vote.

A little bit of hypocrisy never hurt a political movement

Some months ago, Dr. Laura Schlessinger decided not to renew the contract for her syndicated radio show, after backlash to her use of a particular racial epithet in response to a Black caller's query. At the time, I defended her, and specifically the notion that we, as citizens, shouldn't take actions (e.g. boycotts or lawsuits) in order to impinge the First Amendment Rights of others. I do believe that deliberately and continually undermining the right of others, diminishes our own, personal liberty.

I didn't realize at the time, that from then on, some on the right would call foul whenever some pundit lost their soapbox ─ as happened with Juan Williams, formerly of NPR, now of Fox ─ more recently to Dan Fagan, an Alaskan radio commentator, currently suspended for allegedly advocating some potentially illegal electioneering scheme. Sarah Palin commented via a note on facebook, redacted below, full text here:

Answering Charges of Elitism

Image via Wikipedia

I'd intended to let the parody video in this post stand on it's own, but then I read this article on Politico: essentially arguing, democrats are condescending elitists and therefore will lose control of congress, this election cycle, and deservedly so. The article points to all the likely culprits ─ Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert, Rachel Maddow, President Obama, etc. ─ as the voices of condescension.

Elitism is the belief in the superiority of some class of people, and their consequent entitlement to privilege: I don't see this from the democrats, so I have no choice but to call shenanigans.

The essential message of modern liberalism is that cooperation leads to shared prosperity and government is a legitimate tool for building consensus. American Conservatism, conversely, argues that government essentially inhibits liberty and destroys individual prosperity, while gripping firmly to protectionism, a political theory itself necessitating government of considerable size and complexity.

President's Weekly Address: Letting Wall Street Run Wild Again

An integral part of candidate Barack Obama's presidential platform, was a promise to maintain a transparent administration; with the predictable caveats (for national security & etc) in place. Undoubtedly, this President and his Cabinet, have been more readily accessible to the news media, than his predecessor was. Meanwhile Organizing for America ─ the grassroots organization behind Obama's election campaign ─ has been leveraged to trumpet his message across the landscape of new media.
[Facebook Likes: 15,172,983 | Twitter Followers: 711,666 | YouTube Views: 154,149,236]

Rape is a societal issue

I was reading Politico's Daily 10 Winners, this item impacted me viscerally

3. COLORADO — Democrats moved swiftly to extend the legs of the Ken Buck “global warming hoax” story, with the League of Conservation Voters holding a press conference call to “correct his denials.” The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee piled on with a new ad tailored to women that capitalizes on his decision to pass on prosecuting the case of an alleged rape victim. Sen. Michael Bennet’s campaign feels like they’ve won the week by keeping all the attention on Buck.

Who Won Friday: Bennet 

Latest Poll: Buck 48%, Bennet 45% (Reuters/Ipsos 10/15-10/17, 405 likely voters) 

Recent Rasmussen polling shows similar results to what Politico reported. It's revolting that Buck is the favorite in polling and it's sickening that he's even in serious contention for a US Senate seat. It's possible that the rape case indeed wasn't prosecutable ─ but, the essence of the issue isn't simply his refusal to prosecute ─ his statement that the alleged victim had "buyer's remorse" and expressed opinions on other "women's" issues, indicate a lack of empathy and, at worst, exemplifies the crypto-misogynistic fascism which seems endemic to the American Right ─ typically disguised as "Christian Morality" or "Family Values". We, Moderates and Liberals, need to understand rape, domestic violence, birth control, et cetera, and the whole of feminism as societal issues with broad implications, not uniquely affecting women: just as Conservatives do.

Here, Ken Buck addresses the subject on Meet The Press:

Here is the DSCC ad, mentioned by Politico:

President Obama: It Gets Better

I've nothing to add to this, myself, but here is Rachel Maddow's  response.

White House White Board #2

At present, the flow of the "mainstream media" has shifted to the right. Conservative voices tend to dictate the daily news narrative, with unabashed bias. The liberal punditry ─ possibly in an effort retain some air of neutrality ─ is critical of both the President and democrat-led congress, with the unfortunate consequence that the liberal/progressive agenda is weakened.

What's lost in the din of republican rage and democratic dismay, is that President Obama has been successful on several levels and multiple fronts, despite numerous Republican roadblocks and Democratic defections. The fact is we, liberals and progressives, should be jubilant and ready to double-down in support of our party and president: there ought not be an "enthusiasm gap" in this election.

Please share this post, if you agree at all.

Concise Manifesto

Image via Wikipedia

I've been living through an existential funk ─ we could call it depression ─ regardless, finding some purpose for myself has been a life-long struggle. I'm not so conceited, as to think I'm unique or special: i.e. I realize everyone deals with this.

I've reached the point in my life, where I need to do something. Anything? But, I can't bring myself to settle in some corporate hierarchy, with which I fundamentally disagree. Again, I'm neither unique nor special. So, why do I hold out? Why have I let myself sink into this rut?

I know that I can't live with myself if I feel I'm a cog in a machine. I realize my role, I understand life goes on without me, as it would without anyone else and even without our species. I fear, this is the fundamental issue.

To survive we need adequate food, drinkable water and security from destructive aspects of nature. As a whole, we have been marvelously successful in achieving all 3 essentials. Food exists in such abundance, that obesity has become a problem and anorexia a bizarre & twisted reaction to that unnatural abundance. Potable water exists in such quantity, that we create golf courses in deserts. Finally, throughout the developed world, we're essentially divorced from the natural world, living in cities of steel and concrete.

Basically, we've reached a plateau, where the human race has moved beyond barely eking out survival and is in fact thriving. This may not be the land, but this is assuredly the time of milk and honey. Each of us living today and that will be born in the foreseeable future, lucked into this abundance and relative security.

Yet, we are not born with equal access to the benefits of this era ─ wealth is largely inherited ─ many of us are (seemingly) systemically denied the bounty of the time ─ however we consistently yield to the standing corporation-centric economy, despite our personal interests being at odds with the current structure.

We do this (in part) out of fear: socialist and communist revolutions have ultimately yielded fascist states, so that any notion of socialism seems to be inexorably linked with totalitarian fascism. The capitalist system, as it stands, also offers a certain naïve hope, that we (or our heirs) might be able to bootstrap our way out of poverty into the middle-class, or from the middle-class to the rich-elite. Never-mind that the odds of this are approximately the same as our odds of winning the lottery ─ besides which, in a capitalist nation, one persons good fortune is nearly always dependent  upon another's bad fortune ─ the essence of capitalism being the uninhibited flow of wealth between individuals.

Trouble is, wealth doesn't flow without inhibition. In fact, wealth tends to pool amongst a small minority ─ controllers of industry and their families ─ while the common man works for a pittance.

Modern Western law and culture, is predicated upon beliefs in the innate equality of individuals, their right to self-determination, balanced by personal accountability. The current capitalist financial structure, seems to run contrary to these ideals. Inheritable wealth undermines individual equality, disparate pay negates individual liberty, while the poor and working classes are often held to higher standards of accountability.

I was born middle-class ─ I could embrace that lot ─ go to college ─ work my life away ─ generating wealth for others, while barely scraping by myself. Experience tells me, that way yields naught but frustration, personal anguish and a languishing of the spirit: while such complicity with the capitalist status quo, is in utter violation of my conscience, even if seeming inevitable.

Ultimately it seems unconscionable, that we allow such disparate divisions between economic classes, let alone hunger and homelessness, to persist. Imperatively: I retain some degree of self-determination, the freedom of expression, and the right to vote. So, I can choose for whom I work and from whom I buy. I can publish my blog. I can work and vote for change and shared prosperity. As we all do, can and ought.

Doctor Laura and the First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Image via Wikipedia

The inspiration for this was a “rant” by Dr. Laura Schlessinger, the typical backlash and her response, which led to a second backlash. All along the predictable, liberal v. conservative dispute over political correctness v. common sense. In this era, there were countless reactions online, on television, in print- it's just the way of things.

My feelings on this: she was [mostly] right, while being terribly wrong on a couple points.

To begin, nigger is just a word. Contextually it can be an inflammatory, derogatory, hateful, dreadful, despicable, deplorable, no-good word. Her use of it, altho questionable was ultimately justifiable, whether or not you agree with her reason for using it. Some of her other remarks during the rant were [borderline] racist. End of the day, right or wrong, her gaff should have been cause for discussion, not condemnation.

Dr. Laura, herself, attempted to tie this back to The First Amendment to Our Constitution, but she made a second gaff in her attempt to do so.

“With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility”
-Stan Lee
With any right given explicit provision in Our Constitution, there are implicit responsibilities. We have freedom of speech and freedom of the press, guaranteed to us. The typical reaction to anyone making claims similar to Dr Laura's (about the repression of those rights) is that Our Constitution does not guarantee the right to be heard or the right to earn money from speech.

The thing is, these freedoms are utterly meaningless if we, as an audience, don't put the necessary effort into understanding what's been said and the context in which it was said. That is our responsibility and our challenge, in the era of the sound bite and instant, online publication.

We undermine our values and ultimately our country when we don't step-back, sit-down and figure out what has been said and (perhaps more importantly) what was meant by it, before reacting. This is because, we close the door on important dialogues, we insulate ourselves and our ideologies, undermining our ability to participate, cooperate and realize our potential.

Remember, the punditry within the old-school press, the majority of the blogosphere, talk-show hosts on TV and radio earn a living from having an opinion. They aren't paid to be informative, they aren't paid to be right. They are paid to draw an audience, to sell opinion and to incite controversy. There is not much money in being earnest and rational, so we, the audience, need to be.

Hear.
Understand.
Think.
React.