“Changes, Changes”, the People Cry

“Renovate health care, remodel education, expand social security, makeover the military, change EVERYTHING!” Or at least that’s what everyone seems to want these days, especially when it comes to our government. The people have made as many changes as they can, putting the Democrats back in office, almost creating a senate that is in alliance with Democrats so that something might get done. This is all very good, but the real problem seems to be the quantity of problems. There are just too many issues that are just too darn big to expect any real change anytime soon.  This of course isn’t poor Obama’s fault, he didn’t design the system, but of all this “Yes we can!” business, what can we really do?

Many Americans aren’t ignorant to the fact that it simply takes a long time to pass legislature through into effect, especially these days.  How can the public expect such drastic changes overnight, or suggest that changes so swiftly would be good or reliable? It would seem that innovation is at a loss, barricaded by systematic malfunctions crafted into steel pillars of public disarray. Are Americans even sure of what it is they want? The changes people cry for are vague and without detail, how can it be expected that any attempt at a solution would not lead to as much controversy and turmoil as the original problem?  It would seem that some serious outlining is in order before even a rough draft is attempted. Obviously there is a median, a conceivable resolve that could at least satisfy the majority of Americans from all walks of life, but what is it?

This is obviously not a simple question for any major political topic, and nay deserves a simple answer. However perfect or flawed the results may be, time is no doubt necessary and the implementation of such developed results should be tedious and deliberate as to avoid any greater outcry. But can our precious system do it?

A Polite Response

After reading “What are texas good for?” by American Politics and Other Such Nonsense, I felt very much in accord with the general argument; pinpointing the negative effects of large corporation and the unrelenting misdistribution of wealth.

Certainly government regulation has never been so needed for the taming of the not-so-gentle giants that command most of the nation’s capital. However, has the government really gotten too big, or just off balance? Also, if balance were to be restored, what would be the balance? Most Americans these days cry for federal intervention to promote closing the income gap, but would those same people be willing to sacrifice the necessary freedoms to avenge their paycheck? If taxing those with wealth, especially those who made it themselves, is the answer, what will be the product? There was once a saying in this country that one has to “pull themselves up by their own bootstraps”, which did a fair job of capturing the independent and self-made spirit that this nation was founded on.

 The beauty behind capitalism is that everyone, rich or poor, has the right to property, prosperity, and wealth. Those who prosper have the privilege of owning more or nicer stuff which can be translates to wealth. In a socialist society this is not the case. Those who prosper have the privilege of having to taken away by government to allow for those who don’t to have more or nicer stuff, which can be translated to no wealth.

This is no way a defense for the structure and operations of the current economic monarchy, simply a revision of the alternative’s reality. If knowing that your next business decision could lead to a million dollar profit in one year, but that 85% of that profit would be collected by the government and distributed back amongst the poor; or instead lead to a hundred thousand dollar profit over 10 years in which the percentage that you keep is much higher, and the “wealth” that is distributed would be consequently much less, which would you do? I’m not saying that one would chose the latter simply out of greed or to intentionally prevent others from benefiting from your prosperity, but is it really fair for those who cannon prosper on their own to claim entitlement to your? I don’t think so. Obviously some economy engineered, people powered, hybrid of the two systems would be the most ideal solution.

To build an economy in which the rich were required to partake in the government and overall processes in a positive way, but not via an indiscriminant tax that strips away the incentive to become great.

Once it was Simple

Being asked to write an original critique of the American government seems almost impossible without creating a novel. So many challenges face this nation and its government, both currently and in the past; and certainly in the future.  This system of democracy has seen its shining moments of exemplary performance, but is not without black marks of utter failure. Health care, environment, oil, global warming, the economy, Iraq, social security, taxes, farm animal cruelty, over population, immigration, China; the list goes on and on.

However, this government has had but one predominant reoccurring flaw that only becomes increasingly more noticeable as time goes on: the ability to do something. Certainly there is an answer to many of these problems, (not that everyone would be satisfied of course) but plausible solutions that could hold the support of at least most of everyone. But sadly, just as one plus one does not equal four, a government without problem solving capacity does not equal results; and obviously a system not designed to make changes cannot correct itself in that way. But this is democracy; a nation ran by the people for the people, right? Shouldn’t the public be able to take notice of such a fundamental flaw and swiftly and decisively correct it? How simple that would be, but of course they don’t want that, they want the public to stay dumb and obedient servers of consumption. They are not vague notions of some made up group used to justify an invalid point, we all know who they are, we talk about them, we know their effect on the population and their participation in the growing gap between the classes; but no matter how much we know, we let them to continue to gamble away our freedoms and rights with big red, white, and blue poker chips and dumb grins. They are the people that have purchased our Senate, Supreme Court Judges, and the president. Any bells ringing yet? IBM, General Moters, Exxon-Mobil, etc. and of course our government itself, or the people the head them you could say. Big business, big corporation, we know what’s going on, there’s no attempt to hide it anymore because of one fatal truth: NOTHING IS GOING TO HAPPEM! Every fat, lazy, debt ridden, obsessive consumer afflicting this country is going to continue to do just that, while they sob crocodile tears about their b.s. jobs and depressing lifestyles and say “someone should do something about all this”. However, they’re not entirely wrong in feeling helpless against the never ending stream of undecipherable legislature that makes up our system. And clearly the lower class is not responsible for the extreme ill-distribution of wealth; but alas… capitalism, once the healthy heart that gave life to the most powerful and innovative country has become riddled with disease, choking and crippling the very limbs it once fed.

We the people know the problems facing us, we the people HAVE the power to decide who we give power to, and we the people need to stop cluttering our minds with useless feeds of crap from television screens and shopping malls, so that we the people can take back our country.

Largest Corporation

Which Comes First, the Chicken or the Egg?

The New York Times published an article by Jesse McKinley on October 23^rd of this year, discretely targeting the large egg manufacturers (or harvesters) in California. Apparently, in early November the public will vote on an animal rights ballot measure called Proposition 2. The author does a remarkable job of presenting the arguments for and against the ballot; however, hints and winks throughout the article suggest that McKinley leans a little to the pro-animal side. Generally it would be safe to say that animal rights supporters also have a bluish, liberal tint to them; suggesting that those groups are also his intended audience.

McKinley appears very thorough with persuasive language and easy-to-read structure. Each point is made clearly, and supportive material follows directly after.  After reviewing some of his other works published in the NYTimes, credibility does not come into question.  The author incorporates anit-Proposition 2 arguments in such a way, that the reader alone can see through the preposterous claims themselves.

 For example:

“Opponents have pressed a line of attack that suggests that Proposition 2 — which would require that animals be provided room to turn around, lie down, stand up and fully extend their limbs — could expose birds, via contact with their own waste and that of other animals, to such dreaded diseases as salmonella and avian influenza. They also argue that standard egg-laying cages — a little more than eight inches square — actually protect hens from aggression by other birds and predators,” McKinley writes.

He follows up with a quote (just in case the reader wasn’t capable of thinking this on their own) from Wayne Pacelle, the president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, who refers to such arguments as “far-fetched and ridiculous.”

I think this is a brilliant article exemplifying a kind of new age wave of reform and progressivism, with a different style and flare. Also, just as a personal observation, I believe that those opposing Proposition 2 who directly control and profit from the current system of confinement and cruelty fear that a ballot such as this will cause the prices of their eggs to increase; which it will. This will consequently bring their prices into less completion with “free rang” eggs that can already be purchased at any grocery store. Therefore, the public will be less hesitant to just go ahead and do the moral thing by supporting the more humane method of mass food production, possibly forcing those against reform out of business.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/us/24egg.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

What’s the Password?

An article arguing in favor of legal immigration appeared in the New York Times on October 3rd by the paper’s Editorial Board. From the stat, it becomes obvious to the reader that the article speaks to a generally liberal, left-wing audience, encouraging a smoother path for immigrants to become citizens through legal processes; at the same time making an example of those who would stand guard on the other side of an impregnable fence. However debatable, the supposedly honest members of our House and Senate are there because the majority of the population in the regions of this country decided that these people best represented their views; this would indicate that there are simply more people accountable. The article mentions specific names that both oppose and support the idea of “legal immigration,” but those people alone hold no power to either hinder or help anyone who wishes to become an American, properly or not. The NYTimes seems to agree by concluding that “The blame for its (a smoother path to immigration) failure to do that lies squarely with the hard-liners who rage against illegal immigrants, but are strangely uninterested in helping people who “play by the rules” and “wait in line.” I agree that this is a peculiar point. I have painfully listened to many a moron who seem to prefer a display of predigest and ignorance over even an iota of original critical thinking, or more importantly, problem solving. This leaves me with but one question, “So what the f@#$ is the password?” If a majority of people tend to agree that due process is the correct procedure in which to become an official American citizen, why the hell are we trying to prevent even those applicants from full admission? If a person cannot gain access to the States via “the immigration system,” then what choice have they? The sad fact of the matter is that our system has failed its people, (not to mention those who would be its people) and that we are subject to a biased disposition shameless of its vindictive and false preaching’s. The truth is that ignorance is still the most grandiose problem in the United States of America and most are not willing to do ANYTING about it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/opinion/03fri2.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Petraeus leaves Iraq

This is an interesting article about the recent change in command concerning our dealings in Iraq. General David Petraeus handed over the responsibility of inner Iraq dealings to General Ray Odierno. The article goes on to idolize both men, giving a detailed resume for Odierno which outlines his related experience and capability for the responsibilities he has adopted.

What I find interesting is the newfound conclusion that, "This struggle is theirs to win," according to Petraeus meaning the Iraqi people and government. This seems strange to say considering the original reason for the extremity that the United States infiltrated Iraq was to establish a Democracy according to our standards and ideals. This leaves the reader with a very disturbing question: "If this battle is 'theirs' to win, why the hell did we get so involved in the first place?" There are obvious answers when one relates our countries dependency on oil and our president's personal vendetta, but is such contradiction acceptable? Not only does the article make hero of Petraeus, but boldly states, "(Petraesu's) strategy for countering the Iraq insurgency is credited by many with rescuing the country from all-out civil war," which is a bold statement indeed.

The idolizing language is enough to make an American wonder just how much spoon fed crap one country can take. The article demonstrates the media's role in the misguidance of the American public at large, and shamelessly no doubt.

I encourage anyone who wishes to read with an open mind, and to speculate the credibility of the information we receive.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-09-16-petraeus-departure_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

I Politically Believe

I politically believe that to achieve
A democracy without hypocrisy,
A nation without inflation,
An a society with capitalist sobriety
We need the implication of blunt honesty.
Deceit and lies are all around
To which our country’s policies are bound.
Yet we beg for more to be assured
That it is a politician that we serve
With power beyond original intent.
A country controlled by a cabinet?
How can it be, that we can’t foresee
The pending death of Democracy?
“Changes, changes!” the people cry
Yet will they fail to answer why
A great nation is falling to its knees
Yet looking up no one sees
We have none to blame one another
Through mass consumption we have done it together.
For tell me brother; where does the power lie?
With the Public brother, you and I.