Hey look…another Occupation Rant…

The biggest problem with something that matters to people, is that sooner or later it is going to have to mean something real to all of them. And while it may be easy to whip people en mass into a frenzy with just the right words and syntax, the ambition to hold them there and channel their collective rage into a single constructive or destructive force is not only bold, it is almost outright mad. But it can be done. It has been done and will, provided the right pieces fall into the right places, be done again.

A mass movement. A populist uprising against a faceless institutional oligarchy, where one’s collective dollars can suit the will or whim of a select handful of people at the expense of everyone else. One where the popular political factions of the true republic stand against those to whom they are held captive, and a system which is engineered to not only divide them, but own them entirely beneath a faux intellectual veneer of “left and right.” And yet, despite its commonalities and despite its internal divisions of ideology, it thrives in an underground network of popular dissent.

The media, being a simple tool of this corporate state, delivers nothing by skewed hyperbole, calling it wasteful, disrespectful of property, liberal communist and even racist in some circles. All deny the true and diverse nature of this thing that has begun. All dismiss it as a fad. I for one, do not.

Some time ago, before writing this, I used to be an organizer. That was the last title I held. Union organizer. Prior to that, it was political consultant or political contractor. Either way, it all meant that it was my job to persuade the general public, as much of it as I could, to come together beneath the banner I presented them with.

“Save our schools!” “Save the environment!” “End the war!” “Give us healthcare reform!!!” Etc…you get it I’m sure. I not only worked on such campaigns, but most times ran them. Most came in the forms of contracts from political action committees (PACs,) Unions or when I could find the work, commercial political contracting firms, who specialized in field campaigns and “voter outreach.”  At one point, I even literally spied on another private contractor’s operation and ran my own ops to kill it. All in all, they were sometimes grand experiences that I’d never give back and sometimes, awful wretched things I’d wished I’d never done. But one thing I know how to do is organize.

In my tour through the occupation, despite my attempts to take literary license with the tale (and all of that actually happened. I just made it sound more interesting than it was in parts…) I told the truth of my observations. Beyond merely watching how they functioned and what they thought, I sought, in part, to organize them as best as I could. To my surprise, most of the conclusions I came to on day one, they had already come to, or were in the process of doing so. Things like multi-city delegations to convey GA wills and communications, rotating volunteer committees to manage logistical and operational aspects of the occupation protests and even to a slight extent, ideological and factional delegations within camp sites.

What many fail to realize in watching the news or passing by their local Occupations, is that these are not hippy camps, festival sites for Phish heads, compounds for communist revolutionaries or the home of the black flag. These are truly broiling melting pots of what is generally regarded as fringe philosophies and ideologies. By “fringe,” I mean of course not orthodox democrat-progressive or republican-conservative…whatever those might be at time. But rather the true rooted, multi-faceted, admittedly arguable political philosophies that make up this republic. The Libertarians, believing in individual sovereignty over government rule, as well as the Socialists, who are committed to seeing a robust and healthy system of public services, serving the needs of the masses, possibly at the extent of the few. There are Anarchists, who believe it is time to tear the entire broken system down and allow an organic, natural regrowth of human order from the topsoil and there are Constitutionalists, who swear so long as we adhere to the words of the document, we as a nation will be restored to our ‘god given majesty,’ or whathaveyou.

The point is that its a pot, filled with volatile but flavorful and necessary ingredients which are bound to compete with one another, as well as the environmental toxins of established PACs, Unions and DNC affiliates trying either take over or ride the coattails of this thing. So what is an organizer to do?

Well, I listened. Intently, for days on end. Talked a great deal, can’t help but do that, its just what I do. But I listened. I listened to tales from travelers like myself, devoted activists who’ve been in the fight for decades, curious press crew, the homeless…whoever would talk to me. And so far as I can tell, the one uniting factor is the rage. But again, what is an organizer to do with such things? Perhaps, I thought, discover the core of the thing.

To which I now come to this…again. Election reform. Lobbying reform. Not the sexiest issues, but one everyone can get behind.

The truth is, THIS MOVEMENT WILL NOT LAST FOREVER. It simply won’t. It can’t. Between the internal divisions of philosophy and ideology, to the very nature of popular politics, it simply cannot last indefinitely. And when it crashes or breaks up or whatever, it will be its message and its impact on popular discussion which will matter most.

My union organizer friends often give me hell about my enthusiasm for this thing. They keep asking what is the point? Without politicians paying attention and without the media, what is the point? But the point is this; Its not what politicians discuss that they’re seeking to speak to, its what you and I discuss. Its what average working people who would never, despite our possible untapped brilliance, ever have a chance to have more than a voice in a sham election in this world the way it is.

We’re dominated by interest groups. We’ve known it for a long time. We still know it now. Why haven’t we spoken about it?

Been round the way on flag burning. Made high and holy the sanctity of marriage in our various means and definitions. We’ve argued endlessly over whether or not our broken healthcare systems are indeed broken. (Little hint…they actually are.) We’ve gone up and down and around on every issue but these. The essence of influence, the machinery of power.

When I as a billionaire super corporate person as such, bankroll an electoral campaign, I’m doing to because I’m the only one with the money to do so and I know I’ll get what I want when I do it. If one of my “competitors,” (whom incidentally I am close friends with, attend trade groups and lobbying firm sessions with and probably play golf with at least once a month to discuss “trade issues and personal business”) happens to be funding one candidate, I’ll fund the other. We’ll both know we want the same things out of him generally, unless its a contract fight…

After I elect this sell-out, my industry and company lobbyists will own him from top to bottom by the end of his second week. Beyond simply reelection cash promises, we can threaten or sweeten job levels in his district, run PAC and SUPERPAC campaigns for or against him and even happen to have the perfect positions in Government Relations for them should they decide to leave office. I mean really, if that was me, I wouldn’t have a question in my mind as to what all of those rabble in the streets of my cities were out there for. Its because I kept them from ever having their voices heard.

And thus do we come back to the voices. So many different voices, with so much to say. And they’ll all scream it at the top of their lungs at these Occupations. We need to “End the Fed,” “Redistribute Wealth!” or any manner thereof in between while ending wars, global warming, taxes and the ban on pot. This mishmash of ideas which if brought in any measure to considerable power respectively, would simply piss off the opposition.

If MY ideas were carried out in full I’m sure that they would be wholly effective in making a perfect world. However enough people would disagree with me to such a point that it would never be possible anyway. Instead, my arguments must carry weight and win over those who might oppose out of reflex. And that is the true nature of this fight.

This is not a struggle to see a particular vision brought to power. It is no more communist than it is “free market.” It votes no more for Dennis Kucinich than it does Ron Paul. It is multi-factional and without specific ideology. What it represents is the fury of an entire subset of popular ideas and the general desires for security and stability of those who are not politically or socially science oriented, manifested in a collectivist, communal series of autonomous mass demonstrations.

The culmination of a population no longer satisfied to eat the bullshit lines of those who have sway and power. The fight is to level the playing field. To establish a new environment where new/old ideas can be argued freely, without interests from the corporate, PAC , interest or labor sectors buying out the debate. Elimination of private financing in American elections is the first step. The second is simply reforming the procedures of lobbying public officials to become an immediately available part of public record. For if we eliminate the incentives to play their bullshit ballgame, there will be less to worry about for everyone should they approach an elected representative with a particular grievance.

For just as it is important to observe and record law enforcement in this fight, it is equally important to hold our elected representation and executive officials to the same standard in terms of how they carry out their duties.

For more information on where YOUR elected representatives get their campaign cash, visit http://www.maplight.org and be sure look over their records. Short of that, get back out into those parks, tents, streets…make this worth the effort and show me that my professional orthodoxies don’t mean a thing in the world we’re looking to create.

Of species, nation and tribe…

Tonight, while driving home, a radio news show came on the air discussing how the Chinese were sending parts into space for construction of their own space station. With the booming economy and nationalist pride on the line, China is now looking to develop and expand its space program, hoping to surpass the US and Europe. Plans were mentioned for the moon and Mars with an exuberance and (possibly just the appearance of) a groundswell of public support.

My first reaction, mirrored my third reaction, but conflicted with my second and forth.

At first, I thought “how wonderful! Human beings returning to active space exploration on a national level! This could take us into the stars!” It was a great feeling. Thinking that I was alive in an era where I may be seeing the continuation of the very beginning of our spacefaring age, where we took offworld travel and exploration seriously and spread the wonder of our impossible existence elsewhere. A pleasant dramatization of theory perhaps, but pleasant all the same.

However as I listened and heard the foreign, unusual name to the rocket carrying the parts, heard the words “leading” and “determined” applied to a nation other than my beloved(?) America, and listened as a foreigner spoke with honest joy at the achievements of his nation, while mine remained a once(?) great society in honest decline. I thought of ancient empires at the heights of their glory and then on them now, selling themselves as tourist destinations, passively observing events in the world now greater than their control.

But then again, I thought of how simply ignorant it is to think on the accomplishments of one’s species in a hostile and impossible universe such as this, in terms of the nations and cultures which push them forward. Should it be Chinese, Americans, Indians, Russians or (should the world of the future look entirely different than I imagine) Mexicans who bring us off this world and into the stars, where I personally think we’ll one day belong, than so be it! Besides, the formality and individual humility of Chinese culture very well could make a better interstellar ambassador than some brawny American with a high-and-tight offering beef jerky and classic rock records.

However again, I came back to a nagging personal sensation of loss. I was raised with “greatest nation on Earth” repeated to me ad-nauseum, and for a long time, I really believed it. I had always imagined that should a nation exist to carry the world into the glorious science-fiction future I’d imagined, it would be my home country. My America. And now, it seemed that this was not the case. For such great and massive advances in the past, for such power and progress, our empire days are over. Our days of being the cock of the walk are though and its time to let this new global multi polar paradigm take shape. Sad, but a sign of progress nonetheless.

Human is human is human. Language and culture and nation are meaningless in the dark and cold of space. Life has no reasonable place in this universe, save for the places that are perfect and particular and those we create ourselves. Nationalism is a dying tradition in the long run and so should it be the Chinese, who I’ve been somewhat indoctrinated to fear as a tribal adversary with a different culture and competitive goals, who bring us as a species into the future than so be it. The “west” did not invent sailing, but it explored and “discovered” the entire world as it tells itself. It did invent space travel and now the next successor of things in the world adopts the practice to be the next bold leader on the global stage.

We will retain our cultural value and even our innovation and brilliance. Our productivity and contributions to the world have only begun. But our time as an imperial powerhouse, leading the way is coming to a close. It is sensible to feel odd about such things as this in my eyes. To have one’s home and one’s kind surpassed after such a run of dominance, but looking at things in the bigger picture, I welcome progress and achievement no matter where it comes from as each giant step draws the world together just a little more than it was before. And taking steps forward is more important than one’s tribal pride.

Notes from a wandering radical

I’ve been traveling for quite some time. Running really. While not advisable generally for one whose past refuses to die, I’ve been running for a long time. When it started, ages ago it seems, on my first venture out, I picked up a journal in a traveler’s shop. I’d always wanted to keep one, but until being cast out of a life I was up-to-then certain was meant to last forever, I simply never did enough that warranted such. But beginning with that first run out to the seacoast, which itself was a mix of whim and frantic distraction, the journeys have been of an epic quality, worthy of record and remembrance.

I do still keep a journal. On volume two now. Flipping through the pages, it becomes a veritable atlas of the eastern US. This year alone I’ve been to NOLA twice, New York a half dozen times, Philly over a dozen, New Jersey, Atlantic City, Baltimore, DC, Potomic, Hartford, Miami, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Chicago and even managed to spend a few days in upstate NH by the Canadian border. A couple weeks ago, I took a tour through the occupations to learn what I could and lend a professional’s hand in their organizing. Three cities in four days. Started by camping the night in Boston down on Dewey Square. The protest there is more than a simple campsite I found, but practically an outright village. They have their information tent, a logistics and supply tent filled with every odd and end you can imagine. A pantry and kitchen, dish station, religious services section, library, media and IT tent, medical station…everything to keep the village running.

As I made my way through the camp, I found a mishmash of ideologies, philosophies and issue groups, ranging from Libertarian Ron Paulogists, to The American Communist Party, with smatterings of anti-war, anti-federal reserve, environmental, social justice and economic issue advocates in between. Social-Democrats, Libertarians, Socialists, Anarchists…everyone and everything you can think of in terms of ideas, short of pro-corporate conservatives and evangelicals. These groups, generally so diametrically opposed to one another, sleep and eat and speak and dance together even in the freezing rain day and night, all in support of this single movement. Whenever I’d engage them, by group or individual, they’d begin by discussing their pet cause or central philosophies.

“End the fed,” “protect the planet,” “end the war,” “end corporate greed,” etc… But, and this may be me plying my old tradecraft, the conversations would soon turn to the general. The question of why they would join with those who are their otherwise political opposites. As we would continue to talk, no matter if it was under a Dont Tread On Me flag, or through the black masks of the American Anarchist, the conversation would progress to one of corruption and influence and the broken nature of our current systems. By the end, the point would be recognized or adopted, that despite the validity or strength to their arguments, that it was the corrupting influence of money in our elections and by way of it, the influence peddling of secret lobbying and horse trading that kept such arguments from being held anywhere other than the protests and the internet. By the end, all accepted that this movement must be about curtailing the power of private interests, be they political, corporate, religious or even those of major unions, by eliminating their ability to fund campaigns and reducing their lobbying power to those of the average citizen, who is best heard according to the strength of their argument and not the size of their billfold.

As I continued along that night, hecklers, generally wealthier, suburban college grads and ignorant “meatheads,” would stroll or drive by shouting “get a job! Take a bath! Get off my streets!” If one was simply walking by, I would ask what would become my standard opening question “Do you have a specific problem, or do you just feel the need to be an asshole?” They would generally accept my challenge, issuing a litany of pedantic talking points about why such dirty hippy liberal communists had no reason to be upset, etc, etc. I would listen, then ask if they could look me in the eye and tell me the system was not broken. They would admit they could not and soon a discussion would begin as to what and why and how is broken, ultimately leading to a discussion as mentioned above and more often than not, end with them walking off expressing genuine support for the effort.

After spending two days and one night on these conversations, along with literally fixing broken tents and stations throughout the camp, I boarded a Chinatown line to New York and set out to find the original occupation, down in lower Manhattan. There, I found no tents or shelters, as structures were illegal. Instead, it was simply a sea of radicals, young and old, beneath sleeping bags, emergency blankets and tarps. The same pantry, library, medical and logistics centers were there, but were instead tables, where all that was present was free to all. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. As in Boston, hecklers, many of whom were young wealthy terks who literally worked for Goldman Sachs or Merrill Lynch, would stroll by drunk and issue the same lines. One time, a group of them wandered by shouting “one percent and proud,” almost coming to blows with a young socialist contingent who emerged to confront them. With the help of another drifter I met on my way to Zucotti park, we diffused the situation, bringing the socialists and Wall Street goons together into a discussion of overall common goals, such as clean government and sound regulation. By the end, they were backslapping one another, the socialists wishing the wall streeters well on their night out, the streeters telling them “keep it up man! I was wrong about this…”

That night, contented I had done my part, I slept on the concrete, my wool coat serving as a fine blanket and my pack, a pillow. The next day I rose and continued the conversations over coffee and cigarettes, and shortly after, bidding my farewells, set off across town to catch the final Chinatown line in my trip, to Philly. My stop there was, in honesty, not entirely occupation related. Over the summer, I had a romance with a beauty from South Philly. One who I had traveled back from NH many times to see. Some time ago, after a bout of frustration and depression in her had migrated from personal finances to our relationship, she asked me for space and sent me back north to Manchester. We had remained in touch, she expressing continued affection, while I misinterpreted just about everything. Arriving there that day, haggared and tired, hoping to see some spark still alive, I found her instead to have moved on and generally disinterested in any renewal of our former relationship.

Leaving her apartment dismayed, I made my way to one of my old South Philly watering holes, O’Jungs. A seedy sort of corner bar, with cheap drinks where one can smoke, filled with old timers who would come to tell tales of their times at war, their work at ports along the river or what the city was like in times gone by. The bartender, who had grown to take a liking to me over the summer and who hadn’t seen me in some time, expressed her sympathy for my breakup and coupled it with several glasses of Jameson on the house, having come to known my drink of choice. As the whiskey and Yuengling flowed, my mood soured further, forcing me to issue my good-byes and leave before it was too late. I walked then. Miles and miles, from South Philly, to Center City, where the protests had ringed city hall.

Unlike New York, theirs was a city of tents and hooches and unlike Boston, there was no need for the People’s Microphone (wherein when a speaker, denied the ability to amplify through a microphone or bullhorn, would have their lines repeated by the crowd who listened, sending the message throughout the camp in a wave of monotone popular droning.) Arriving just as a speaker was finishing, my discontent after my encounter downtown growing, I listened as the question was asked; “Does anyone else have anything to say?”

I shouldered through the crowd and approached the stage, taking the microphone. Hopping up onto the platform, I dropped my pack and turned to face the crowd of around three hundred or so. Between the haze of the drink and the mild heartache which nibbled at my sense of self worth, I began with the Occupation’s standard opening line. “Mic CHECK!”

The crowd remained largely silent, looking at me with interest and curiosity. “I’m sorry, I thought I was occupying Philadelphia. So again…Mic check!” This time, they replied in kind, their voices echoing my words in chorus. Mic check! From there, knowing I had their attention, I improvised a speech of solidarity from Boston and New York, spoke with passion about the unity between factions in pursuit of the single goal of attacking corruption and restoring popular sovereignty and issued a warning to those who would seek to corrupt or co-opt the people’s movement to further their own political agendas. I couldn’t tell how long I spoke. Could have been a minute, could have been ten. But finishing to applause, I handed over the mic to the musician who was scheduled to follow and hopped down to my pack, strolling out into the back of the crowd. As the songs began and the dancing commenced, young activists and radicals approached me to give thanks for my words, asking if I had written or rehearsed them. I simply shook my head and told them that when one speaks the truth, preparation is unnecessary.

After some brief conversations, I looked around at the same midtown area I had previously worked in for SEIU. What had once felt so familiar, now felt like a shell, filled with ghosts to me and I knew then, that not only could I not stay the night with them, but that it would most likely be my last time in Philadelphia. Logging into the Megabus website from my phone, I purchased a one way ticket back to Boston and began the long walk up Market Street to the 30th Street transit station. It wasn’t until I was a block away from city hall, that I realized I was being followed.

Generally when in Philadelphia, late at night, this feeling is accompanied by a readying of one’s self for trouble. An urchin looking to roll you, a homeless person looking for a handout or perhaps just a curious mad person identifying a person of interest. This time however, it was simply a blond. Young, with the wide eyed look of an aspiring activist seeking to change the world on a spiral notebook. I stopped and allowed her to catch up to me. She asked where I was going and why I wasn’t staying, seeing as how I’d just arrived. I told her that it was just time for me to go and that my business in Philly was complete. With a look in her eye, she asked then if she could accompany me to the bus station.

I knew right away what it was as I’d seen it before many times. This young, possibly naive do-gooder, who’s mind was positively brimming with solutions to all the world’s problems, had me speak and imagined a kindred nature between us which simply wasn’t there. Had I stayed, the all too familiar pattern would again restart itself and I’d find myself again with an unwanted protege, seeking a insight I simply didn’t possess, to carry onward and change the world, as well a possible infatuation with a revolutionary character which would dissolve as soon as my natural human flaws became apparent. Seeing little harm in allowing the company for the ten or fifteen blocks which remained, I agreed.

As we walked, we spoke of what the life of a political or union professional was like. The endless hours, unpredictable workload, the constant struggle to reach the masses with whatever message one was paid to convey and the personal costs to those seeking to maintain a life outside of the game. We spoke of the potential and the perils faced by the occupation movement and the mixed bag of ideologies which comprised it. And then, towards the end of our walk, the troubles of her love and sex life, as I had known it would come to eventually. I tried to assure her that for all the pain and problems involved in balancing the carrying of a romantic flame and a social cause, that in the end, even alone, she would in time, find it all well worth the while. Then, arriving at the bus, we exchanged contact information, despite knowing we’d likely never speak again, and said our farewells, one stranger to another.

I boarded the bus with mixed feelings. An adventure so grand as this, tainted slightly by mild heartache, was as so many before, now over. Awaiting me was the long ride back to the closest thing to a home I had left, and the adventures I was sure were still to come. As I scribbled the details in my journal beneath the dull yellowish glow of the overhead reading light, I tallied the personal benefits and cost to my venture and with something of a chuckle, decided that overall, it was a grand experience. Because short of the misguided encounter with my former lover, the positive ratio of my Occupation excursion was an easy 99%.

The Death of American Conservatism

In their constant efforts to revive the mythical ‘good ol days’ of early America or the phony bologna golden age of the 1950’s, I’ve noticed some rather interesting changes in the way dime store conservative “thinking” seems to approach matters…that is to say, changes from the times that they seem to want to return.

In early America, what we might consider ‘conservative thinking’ meant a variety of things in a very short time. Initially, at the very beginning, conservatism was loyalty to the crown. In this sense, the claims made that most of our founding fathers were conservative is correct, to a point. The Adams (both John and Samuel), Mr. Franklin, Mr. Washington and for a short time, even Mr. Jefferson all demanded, as statesman, not liberty from mother England, nor independence as a nation, but simply what they viewed as their rights as Englishmen.

The wanted representation in parliament, fair trade and the right to claim land in the west without immediate need for approval from the Crown. Washington especially, given that he had been a soldier and commander in the King’s army originally and was in his private professional life, a land surveyor and speculator. But then the tides turned and loyalism was no longer politically fashionable…or realistic given the rising tide of insurrection in the population.

However its important to note a few interesting things. Samuel Adams did not lead the Boston Tea Party, nor was he the legendary rabble rouser he is painted, for these were both British lies published and promoted through propaganda. Much in the way Yankee Doodle Dandy was a song written in mockery of colonial insurrectionists, much of the legend surrounding Mr. Adams is a British lie taken on by historians to sex up a prominent figure who in reality, rode (as opposed to lead) the wave to independence.

But the long and short of it is, original American conservatism was loyalty to the crown despite maltreatment by great Britain. And yet modern conservatives look to what were essentially loyalists, as their heroes, thanks largely to the popular mythologizing of their character and the romantic notions now associated with them. Still, in either case, one school of thinking would say that loyalists would be the modern nationalist-conservatives biggest historical enemy, despite their views having been conservative for the time. Likewise, were they true revolutionaries seeking an abandonment of the old ways and adoption of new ideas, they are by definition, liberal. Moving on…

Another stark change in conservative “republican” thinking, is the view of the military as an essential and fundamental part of American culture. The militarization of our history and the military band tattoos which accompany most civic patriotic activities these days, is not truly rooted in our real national history, as much as it is implanted in our popular historical mythology. Original republican philosophy not only declared that a standing army was unnecessary for a civilized nation, but that it was a threat to popular sovereignty and the soul of a republic.

Throughout history, standing armies played not only a military role in societies, but political ones as well. In times of crisis, be it real or manufactured, the military would often assume control, either partial or total, of the country they served and if not a direct coup, would be used as an instrument of imperialism and authoritarianism by whoever sat atop the political food chain (or whoever wished to.) Early Americans with any degree of education in political history or philosophy were aware of this and in their forming of a free republic, most found the concept of maintaining a military when not in time of war antithetical to the dreams and aspirations to create a true democratic republic.

It was largely General and later President Washington who pushed to maintain said military after the surrender of Cornwallis and the withdraw of British forces from American territories. This was not entirely without reason of course. Cornwallis was but one general in the King’s army and the total forces still in country during the time of his surrender could have easily overtaken and eliminated the revolutionary forces, however as America was not the only active conflict zone at the time, but rather one of almost a dozen world wide for Great Britain, an end to hostilities here was taken on by the crown as a strategic and intelligent move. Afterwards, Washington remained wary of British presence in Canada and at sea and also desired a military force with which to capture further western lands, should the native tribes and nations not relent to colonial demands.

However, despite the President/General’s desires to continue westward expansion and his mistrust of the British army still nearby, many political thinkers and activists of the time often demanded that the standing army of the new republic be disbanded and that state militias maintain responsibility for national security. Essentially, by modern standards, conservatives of the day advocated for nothing more than national guard units, while calling for the US Military to be disassembled in the name of popular sovereignty and true republicanism.

In our modern world, ardent support for the military in almost any endeavor or aspect is a hallmark of “conservative” thinking. In a manner of temporary abandon to their small government, reasonable taxation and spending philosophy, the modern conservative sees the military as something that can do no wrong and can never be too big. To them, the concept of any nation without a standing army is absurd and despite the now long history of the US military being used generally for imperialist efforts to secure foreign resources and American interests abroad, the steady beat of the war drum never fails to rouse the cockles of the new conservative heart.

Now, for a third and final example in the shift of right wing thinking, its best to look modernly and historically to wall street. Now granted, wall street did not exactly exist in its modern form in post-colonial America, however among the great debates of the time was the nature of American economy and what roots it should hold.

Conventional, conservative thinking of the time called for production based economics which was more centered and rooted in individual colonies and localities, while on the flip side, their political opposition at the time sought a debt based multinational economy with trade and exchange being largely centered in the north. The latter got their way to a respectful degree and the banking and lending industry in the agriculturally disparate north came to dominate the economies of the rich and bountiful south, much as it does today.

In modern times, Wall Street and the financial industry dominates almost all aspects of the American economy with the stock market now becoming like a tempermental pet which must be tended an appeased to regulate its often bizarre behavior. And while recent partisan political developments (the election of Democrats) has turned the right wing in part against the banking establishments, the free-market conservative minds of today and the “business friendly” conservatives of recent decades have traditionally been Wall Street’s best friend. And rather than laying blame for economic turmoil on the banking industry and its endless collusion with government officials, generally via campaign donations and support, the modern conservative instead generically blames the government and ignores the classic arguments against the centralized debt and credit economy once decried by their forefathers.

So in essence, it is my position that modern partisan conservatives are not actually conservative, nor republican in any conventional aspect. They beat the drums of war with a frothing excitement whenever possible, they support with reckless abandon, anything with the label of “free enterprise” regardless of its potential pitfalls and problems and in their considerations of historical precedent, they are all too often so keen to revise and relabel the classic philosophies at work throughout time to support their modern ideas.

To me, the label of “conservative” or “republican” is at best, reserved for only the mildly libertarian thinkers, while the Sarah Palin, George Bush style “thinker” can really only be described as militant ultra-nationalists. Add to this the single concurrent theme of racial and ethno-centrism which not only fought to preserve slavery and segregation, but modernly focuses on Latino immigrants as the bane of our society as a whole and the threats from foreigners as cause to hold fast and stay armed and one might be tempted to say that the only legacy adopted by modern right wing advocates is a somewhat racist ethno-centric world view.

Land of the who and home of the what?

Land of the free, home of the brave. Sounds good doesn’t it. Sorta stirs images of bold, steely eyed patriots looking off into the horizon as though awaiting the grand destiny that Americans are all entitled to. But when one super-imposes this admirable set of ideals onto our current culture, its hard to see things as any less than just a little off the mark.

At the risk of sounding overtly libertarian, our freedoms seem to have taken a vacation recently and have left a police state to house sit our once great society.* With an increasing level of required documentation for even natural born citizens, social controls which seek to regulate individual behavior down to simple communication and more recently a veritable police state clamp down on many civil liberties, all in the name of “protecting our freedom,” it would seem that our freedom is more of a slogan or tagline to reinforce our preconceived notions of national superiority in the world.

And yet regarding our “bravery,” this too seems to be out to lunch as from nearly every angle and every side of any given political standpoint there are cries for protection from boogey men. Be they the ever present terrorists who lurk in the shadows waiting to kill us and forcibly convert us to Islam,** the sex offenders who lie in wait around every corner waiting to snatch our young and molest them to death or even the undocumented latino workman who despite seeking only to build home additions so as to feed his family, is generally regarded as a drug dealing criminal who hates America, these constant fears and paranoia have driven many Americans completely batty.

No longer do we boldly look to the future, but rather now we insist on limitless “security” and seem willing to sacrifice nearly anything in our national character to achieve it. We trust no one, believe everyone to be a potential threat, insist on continuing the arms buildups which have gone on since the cold war***. There seems to be no end to lengths we’ll go to protect ourselves from threats that we personally have no direct knowledge of and threats which we presume via often faulty logical leaps.

Yet despite these failings and faults in our adherence to national principles, we still seem apt to wave the flag and stomp on the terra while we declare ourselves the freest, bravest, best people in the history of mankind. So…does anyone else see problems with these assumptions?

FOOTNOTES:

*regarding the “once great society,” it should be noted that much of our idealized past is little more than a self ingratiating fantasy. In truth our history has since our founding, been beset by many overreaching and often irrelevant trespasses upon individual freedoms ranging from religious, racial and ethnic persecution to authoritarian moral code enforcements which ultimately served little to no real beneficial purpose.

**regarding Islamic terrorists, it should be noted that while the simple bomb in a public waste bin in downtown Main Street America would be far more terrifying than yet another airline hijacking or bombing, this has yet to happen, even though it happens around the world on a regular and daily basis. Additionally, modern concepts of Islam by the more fear mongering of us are wildly off base as the religion itself shares more in common with the mainstream egalitarian Judiasm or Christianity than it does with Al Queda.

***regarding arms buildups, it is important to acknowledge that the proliferation of small arms and military technology has created greater security and stability threats throughout the world than any other natural or man made phenomenon in history.

Defense Industry Influence and Corruption of Policy: An Analysis of The Political Money Train

When conflict and war become an openly and unabashedly lucrative private marketplace, we as a nation have a problem. In his farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower in no uncertain terms outlined the perils of an unchecked military industrial complex[1]. Acknowledging the need for a strong defense, he issued an eloquent yet stern warning against the merging of private, profit driven industrial forces with the newly created international superpower and it’s mighty military forces. Yet less than fifty years later we find that this warning has gone unheeded as the influence of the United States defense industry has saturated nearly every aspect of our government and policy.
Until the United States involvement in World War One, her military forces were primarily defensive in nature, with limited influential combat deployments overseas, however upon recognizing the gap between the German war machine and their own offensive capabilities, an effort to bolster the armed forces went into effect. By the beginning of World War Two the US’s military forces had grown considerably and with America joining in the fight against the Axis powers in Europe and Asia, it became obvious that a greater system would be required for adequate military hardware production. Looking to the private industrial and manufacturing base which had been in serious need of assistance after the troubles of the stock market crash and dust bowl depression, the government reached out and formed a bond which would last for decades to come.
Beyond the Springfield Arms company who in large part produced the bulk of the conventional small arms used, other companies that one would not often think of as “military contractors” assisted the war effort as well, with La-Z-Boy halting production of recliners and instead making seats for tanks and air planes. Though a great deal of patriotism was involved in the corporate efforts to support America’s fighting forces, another prime factor was the profit potential that a constant and urgently needed production request would garner. As the war came to an end and the Cold War tensions began their half century lifespan, the arms buildup experienced during World War Two would soon be dwarfed by the arms race which was to come.
Seeking to battle back the Communist Russian empire and establish an unquestioned dominance in the world of it’s own, the United States began expanding it’s weapons and defense programs to cover not just the present threats but any potential threats lurking in the future. As this desire for blanket security and universal military superiority continued, the collusion of the military and it’s private sector industrial support base flourished. By the nineteen sixties the billions of dollars being spent on national defense got yet another boost when the United State’s presence in Vietnam escalated into full on war.
As the business of the defense industry increased, it soon found as many industries do, that a certain level of influence comes with top dollar government contracting. Between the billions of dollars appropriated federally, the massive labor and production bases they created as well as the increasing intimacy with elected officials, the military industrial complex is a political creature born of bloodshed, corruption and good wholesome capitalism.
Today at the dawn of the twenty first century, the reach and influence of the defense industry and it’s peripheral support industries is greater than ever. Eisenhower’s worst fears have become reality, as the United States of all other precedents, currently holds as one of the world’s most prolific arms dealers. On a daily basis missiles, strike fighters, bombs and small arms are sold to foreign nations through the United States government and produced by way of cost-plus-fee-award[2] contracts to the very defense contractors who broker the requests in the first place.
CIA documents and declassified foreign affairs records show that these such foreign sales can be made and finalized regardless of political, regional or humanitarian issues and unless an active state of war is declared, they can and often are also brokered with enemies. The first Iraq war, known as Desert Storm, officially began it’s military operations in theatre on August 2nd, 1990 and came as little surprise to those paying attention. However what was less apparent during the run up to war was that the United States had continued selling Saddam Hussein weapons, including helicopters with chemical weapon delivery systems, short and medium ranged missiles and even surplus Soviet hardware purchased on the open market after the fall of Communism in the Eastern block of Europe.
As it was, Hussein had previously been an ally. Set up in the midst of Operation Gladio[3], Hussein had previously worked for the United States as a secular military power block set in a region populated by unfriendly Islamic nations. After assisting him in the seizing of Iraq by way of a coup, the United States began flooding Iraq with weapons technologies for the proxy war with Iran. Turning a blind eye as Saddam turned those weapons on his own people, these considerably arms contracts continued throughout the nineteen eighties, until the beginning of the United State’s war in Kuwait and Iraq.
In a region with as much conflict as the middle east, one would wonder why in the midst of over three decades of attempted peace negotiations, that the United States would see fit to flood the area with so much military technology, yet still in addition to Israel, the US continues to sell weapons to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, many of whom have less than sterling human rights records.
Now it is widely known that in American politics money is the root of influence and with the millions of dollars forked over by major industries for the funding of political campaigns, the power and influence of those whose industries are tied to national interests becomes greater with every dollar. Currently Congressman Thomas Davis from Virginia’s 11th Congressional District is being billed as one of the top defense industry campaign contribution recipients with over $165,280 having been accepted from the defense aerospace, defense technology and other defense related industries for an incumbent congressional campaign in a district of 444,234 registered voters. Of the companies contributing, BAE Systems stands as both one of the largest contributors, as well as one of the largest employers in the area, with more than eight facilities statewide. Among the others who were likely donors were undoubtedly Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Boeing.
Though it could be argued that the participation in our democratic process and the providing of stable, high paying jobs within American industry are the actions of good corporate citizens, the fundamental quid-pro-quo aspects of the defense industry’s relationship to government and the means in which these jobs and contributions are used as a manner of securing corporate interests can also be seen as a great deal less than ethical. This is best demonstrated in the way in which their research and development (R&D) and production bases have been broken up and the labor diffused throughout the country. For nearly every contracted developmental weapons technology program put into production, each corporate contractor who participates will generally break up the work which they are given and spread it out among numerous facilities nationwide.
This broad based industrial labor force would be a wholly beneficial nuance of the defense industry, were it not for the manner in which it is used. As a great number of jobs depend on the industry’s ability to keep production running, the amount of leverage that an individual defense contractor can exert on a member of congress when the question is jobs in his or her district, combined with the financial dependency which campaigning politicians have for soft money assistance, speak strongly as to whether our elected officials see the production of arms and weapons technology as a matter of civil interest or simply big business.
It is by way this balance of political capital and soft money that a good number of defense industry proposals are fast tracked. From international sales of aircraft, missile and small arms technology, to the funding and perpetuation of wasteful multi-billion dollar pet projects, such as the V-22 Osprey Gunship, billions of dollars are sunk into the pockets of executives for what is often sub-par performance.
With missed deadlines, cut corners and sometimes even outright fraud on behalf of the developmental research teams, many times defense industry projects will become embattled when brought into the light of public discussion. Often times the projects themselves will come under scrutiny simply for their effectiveness and usefulness. A recent debate over the purposed missile shield in Europe has begun rehashing an old debate within the guided weapons R&D crowd as to whether or not multiple kill vehicles and kinetic energy interceptors are even feasible. Many of the detractors will point out that with anything less than a one in four hit rate for missile to missile testing usually denotes a broken system and a money pit.
Now up until this point the focus has been primarily set on the more conventional aspects of the Military Industrial Complex, however since the events of 9/11, a considerable amount of fear has driven the nation to passively accept and in some cases even actively support an enormous expansion of the private sector role in America’s national defense. Whereas once the military industrial base was relied upon primarily for R&D and production, it has more recently adopted a new role providing on the ground logistical support for military forces in theatre. As yet another new war arrives, so does yet another new war profiteer.
From delivering supplies to out of the way outposts to the very bathing and feeding of the troops, nearly every non combat support role has either already been privatized or is in process of doing so currently. And while US soldiers and marines risk and often lose their lives while safeguarding KBR or Halliburton cheesecake convoys, the US State Dept. currently relies on contracted, civilian para-military security teams for the protection of their diplomats and employees. In essence the current, unspoken position of the US Government is one in which the “heroes” of our armed forces are brave and respected enough to guard corporate commodities, yet either regarded as either lacking in the skill or the trust required to protect US State Dept. envoys.
Now though once again on a theoretical level, much of this would seem a prudent approach to assisting the military in streamlining combat support operations, the depth and diversity of controversy and sometimes downright corruption surrounding these emerging enterprises causes one to stop and ponder the nature of outright profiting from international conflict. With the recent controversy and resulting media scrutiny of Blackwater USA, a private contract security firm whose methods and personnel amount to what many feel is a mercenary outfit, questions regarding the government’s vetting of military support contractors and beginning to enter popular discussion. Yet even these questions and concerns only serve to scratch the surface as it is the type of contract and manner in which they are awarded which leaves the impression that the overall vetting process relies mainly on reviews of who scratched who’s back during a given election season.
But with such corruption, or at the very least with such exertion of influence, one must not look solely at the elected federal government alone. With a rather extensive list of retired or otherwise separated military officers serving as corporate executives and board members, the defense industry carries significant clout within the armed services themselves. Often time weapons platforms or other proposals for new defense projects are made to congress directly by the pentagon. Many times such proposals are floated initially from the private sector through the military by senior officers or even commanders, who after receiving final approval for funding, will often abruptly retire from the military and accept civilian jobs making millions of dollars as executive advisors to the same companies who are awarded the development contracts.
Duty, honor and service not withstanding, in the Army’s 2008 budget appropriations request, over half a billion dollars has been requested for the aforementioned V-22 Osprey (p. 256 – House 2008 DoD Appropriations Bill), while at the same time requesting zero dollars for laundries, showers and latrines (p. 199 – House 2008 DoD Appropriations Bill). It would seem that in their haste to support the very troops who fight the wars, they found an overpriced, aerial gunship which in test after test has been shown to neither shoot, nor fly straight, to be more valuable than a soldier’s ability to stay clean and sanitary. In addition to the Osprey, a whole host of expensive and often baffling project proposals were submitted in the request.
Among them are;
• $75,754,000 for High Energy Laser research and development (laser guns), which was awarded in full.
• $78,704,000 for Advance Military Spacecraft (space fighters), which received twenty million more than the initial request.
• $3,035,222,000 for classified DARPA projects, the most recently declassified of which includes remote control moths and neural implant impulse control technology. (Mind control and remote control bugs.)
These are but three of hundreds of long term, cutting edge productions contained within the House DoD Appropriations bill which serve no immediate purpose and yet still no contracts have been secured for the procurement of Dragonskin body armor, which has been shown in conclusive tests to be both more tactically wearable as well as greatly resistant to the standard 7.62 mm rounds fired by the AK-47. Nor for that matter has the military begun mass scale production requests for the new Barrett M468 assault rifle, which though retaining the technical and structural aspects of the M4 and M16 rifles, has been shown to has greater stopping power, accuracy and range as it uses a 6.8 mm round as opposed to the 5.57 mm round used currently.
As these billions of dollars in defense contracts are brokered, additional millions are spent in operational costs for the Air Force and Air National Guard training exercises in which F-22 and F-35 advanced strike fighters are sent to do battle with imaginary Soviet bomber wings and Mig-21 escorts. Though the intense training of our airmen is how we maintain dominance in the air, the long distance engagement of phantom Soviet threats could seem almost as wasteful as the Pentagon’s expensive desire for laser guns and space fighters, and as we send soldiers to fight what is unanimously referred to as a “new kind of war,” we send them out lacking the innovative and cutting edge technologies offered by the smaller manufacturers like Pinnacle Armor, largely as many suspect, due to their outsider status in the realm of mainstream industrial defense contracting. In essence, while missile projects which are still in development are bought multi-million dollar tech upgrades, the upgrading of rifles and body armor for the actual troops are put on the back burner.
Ultimately the issues surrounding the Military Industrial Complex are those of priorities and values. As the leading superpower in the world, we do have an inalienable need to maintain a strong defense and with the threat of international terrorism looming on the horizon, this is even more so. However as the business of warfare and war machine technologies has changed from a vital national interest to financial one, the motivations of those at the top remain highly suspect and given the close ties to legislators, military brass and even the intelligence community, the potential for a corporate push to war to increase market shares is something that must be examined closely. As a matter of principal, war should always be a nation’s last resort when in conflict with other nations, yet as long as there are those in power who’s pockets grow fatter as innocents die, the influence and power of this industry will remain frightening at the very least.

Cabalena, Juan. “Congressional Contact Listing.”
November 27, 2007 http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/downloads/ContactingCongress.txt

House of Representatives. “Alphabetical Member Listing.”
November, 2007
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml

Pinnacle Arms. “Dragonskin Body Armor”
http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-armor/dragon-skin.php
© 1998-2007 Pinnacle Armor. All Rights Reserved.

Barrett Arms Co. “M-468 Assault Rifle”
http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifle_468.aspx
©2006 Barrett Firearms

Why We Fight. Dir. Eugene Jareki
BBC Storyville. 2005

Specialist Sorensen, Jared. United States Army – Interview with Nicholas Goroff. 29 Nov, 2007.

Wikipedia. “Military Industrial Complex.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex
27 Nov, 2007
House of Representatives.
“2008 House of Representatives Department of Defense Appropriations Bill.”
July 30, 2007

Maplight.org. “Congressional Campaign Contributions.”
http://www.maplight.org
28 Nov, 2007

Borgen Project. “Comparitive Spending Data.”
http://www.borgenproject.org/defense_spending.html
18 Nov, 2007.

________________________________________
[1] Initially written as military-industrial-congressional-complex, the term was reduced in an effort to placate the legislature.
[2] Cost-plus-fee-award – A style of government contract wherein the net profit expectations of the contracting corporation(s) are paid in full in addition to cost expenditures which are also paid for in full with tax revenue.
[3] Operation Gladio – A massive CIA operation which promoted foreign regime change by way of false flag operations, political and military coups and even on occasion assassinations.

Gender and Society: Nature versus Nurture

“Gender roles are taught. How wonderful it would be to have a genderless society…” This was the position I was presented with from a less than informed, former colleague of mine, made while discussing the place of gender roles in society. I found this exceptionally odd, especially considering that it was coming from one of the staunchest gay/gender rights activists I’ve met in recent years. I say it’s odd because typically the gay rights community is the first to jump out of their seats and proclaim that gender identity and sexual orientation are something a person is born with.

The conversation arose when discussing the matter of a couple in Europe who have decided that they will raise their child without gender recognition. With all of the toys, activities and interactions they will obtain or participate with for their child, they have taken intentional steps to eliminate gender differentials in an effort to give their child the “opportunity to grow without being blinded by gender identity.” While many may see this as a progressive and almost enlightened approach to parenting in the modern world, I do not. In fact, I’d go as far as to call it dangerous and irresponsible.

Now I’ll point out that I firmly believe that matters of gender and sexuality are in fact natural to a person, be they gay, straight, trans-gender or some variation on any of them and that I also firmly support equal rights for all people regardless of their sexual orientation or lifestyle. I believe that homosexual couples should have the same rights to suffer the burdens and enjoy the rewards of marriage and family as any other consenting adults. Furthermore, I am even inclined to hold the belief that polygamous marriages should be legally recognized, although I will point out that I believe this all to be true, while also holding the position that tax incentives and such should be removed for all marriages and that the matters should be personal and/or religious in nature, according to the individual’s particular preference.

Regardless, the discussion of gender identity and gender roles left me with the feeling that something very wrong is going on within the ranks of the gender equality advocacy base. Much akin to the way early feminism gave rise to the modern femtocracy and womynist movement, which seeks equality through preferential treatment of women in matters of law and business while also advocating for an almost total teardown of classic societal family structures, it would appear that many of the modern calls for equality have given rise to implied calls for societal preference and a total social restructuring. These calls of course are made despite the natural state and evolution of gender and sexuality in society, however in what I can only assert to be a shortsighted and emotionally driven ideological fight, these fringe elements of our modern civil rights movement seem to be all to eager to ignore the scientific and cultural realities which govern our norms and relations.

Though women’s suffrage and the inequality faced by homosexuals in the United States is a matter which does strike right to the core of our national identity as a free country with equal protection and respect for all citizens, the fringe elements which seem to be claiming that family unit paradigms such as the classic ‘dad goes to work, mom stays home with the kids’ are fundamentally corrupt, are in my opinion making short sighted arguments rooted in zealous emotionally driven ideology. These elements, which claim that women should not have to face a choice between a career and a family seem to be seriously overlooking very fundamental matters of sociology and basic biology in that whereas denying women professional success is counterproductive to both business and social progression, the needs of children and families are in themselves, too great to be properly maintained, should they need to compete with the “go-go, get yours and win at all costs” mentality needed to succeed in business or industry. Throughout history, men have typically worked to provide for the families that women care for. While this has been institutionalized by society and while the institutionalization thereof has created environments where women have become second class subjects to a male dominated world, the core matter of the family dynamic cannot be thrown aside so readily if true equality and social benefit is to be realized. In this, I mean simply that while women should have all of the same opportunities as men and are entitled to equal pay and treatment, the assertion that there need be no choices made between family and career are outright false.

A family requires a great deal of hard work and time. Children need more than parents who park them in front of the television or drop them off with sitters. Children need stable, loving, nurturing environments where they can grow and learn. Most of all, they need parents who are both around and active in their lives, beyond merely attending recitals, games or activities.

By nature, women are more nurturing and emotionally available. They take to the raising of children with a more passionate enthusiasm than that of men. This is not because they have been taught to be so, nor is it because society demands it (although this last point does factor in, but just not in the ways many in the feminist lobby would like to claim,) but because by basic biological makeup. The human being, in its most fundamental biological sense, is in reality, simply a vessel by which to reproduce, as this is the natural core purpose to any living creature.

Biological organisms are survivalists, be they the grand and intelligent humans who build the homes, drive the cars and listen to the iPods we all appreciate or simply the viruses that spread and infect other living things and mutate whenever possible to increase their ability to carry on their existence. However as humans, with our rich history of socialization and technological advancement, we often forget that we are not the homes, cars and iPods we strive for, nor are we as a society entirely the products of our own choices and desires.

Social structures, especially family structures, are not solely the product of our own design. The institutions which have sprung up around them may be, but at their very core, the dynamics of the human family are more biologically inspired than emotionally. Recent theories regarding human sexual evolution have proposed that love itself and our capacity for emotional devotion are themselves tricks of evolution. As we discover the bio-chemical and neurological triggers, we find that beyond basic physical attraction that draws two people together and often gets them in bed with one another, that other triggers such as serotonin rushes inspire two who have bred together to remain together, which with the exception of a handful of other mammals, is an almost exclusively human phenomenon.

The theory states that as the early humans began walking upright, the birth canal and female reproductive organs shrank and shifted in the body, causing the human infant to be born weaker and more venerable than most any other mammal and through the process of natural selection, those infants whose parents remained together after their birth were given a greater chance to survive. As such, their increased chances of survival contributed to an increased chance of breeding and thus the grand and often cliché cycle of life continued. At any rate, I’m getting off topic.

The point is that the development of the classic family archetype wherein mom raises the kids full time while dad hunts, gathers, works or fights to provide for them is not rooted in the modern ideas about male dominated society, but rather are products of our natural and evolutionarily inspired breeding and reproductive processes. Males by design are generally larger, stronger and more inclined to engage in physically demanding manual or technical activities, while women, by the product of physiological makeup and hormonal inspiration are generally more naturally inclined to emotionally rewarding matters such as the raising and teaching of children. The male dominated work force is not dominated as such due to a piggish, chauvinistic mentality, but rather due to a long and well traveled road, paved by our biologically inspired, social evolution, (although said mentality does and has developed as something of a side affect of this evolution.)

In the ancient world, while male domination was in even greater force than it is today, other social norms were accepted which are not presently. In the ancient Greek and Roman worlds, love and sex between two people of the same sex was commonplace and commonly accepted. In ancient Sparta, relations between husbands and wives were more a matter of protocol, with the homosexual relations between men being seen as virtuous and pure and those of straight people being seen as lustful and impure. And while we in our modern “enlightenment,” may see these behaviors as antiquated or outright silly, they too had their roots, not entirely in chauvinist mentalities, but in natural biological impulses.

Sex and sexual attraction between human beings did not evolve for our leisure. The pleasure humans derive from sexual activity exists not to fulfill or gratify us, but rather to add incentive to reproduction, which as we’ve already determined in the course of this piece, is the core purpose to our existence. As we grew more intelligent and began intellectually considering the different parts to our nature as human beings, we, as we have with all other needs, desires and impulses, developed structures to promote and manage our habits. The original roots of homophobia and hetero-preferential social consideration for example, are not really rooted in theological mandates or matters of morality, though they have been framed that way throughout the centuries. In reality, when Emperor Constantine of Rome implemented the first social tax incentives for heterosexual married single unit families, his aims were not as much religiously inspired as socially inspired, seeking to increase the raw numbers of Rome’s citizenry as any good old world leader would while utilizing the existing religious fervor as a means for public marketing of the ideas.

In reality, almost all of our social structures and developments have been made in an effort (be it consciously or subconsciously) to create a more suitable environment to survive in so as to reproduce and multiply. As we’ve already discussed the obvious advantages that family units provide to our species over the habits of other species, it is only fair to acknowledge the benefits that social structures have provided to our species as a whole. The developments of agriculture and social networks within cities and states are in their most fundamental purposes, social constructs by which we improve our abilities to survive and in turn, reproduce.

Essentially, all efforts made by mankind throughout history can be linked back to the needs to improve conditions for reproduction and proliferation of the species. From the individual desires for prosperity, to the social frameworks such as the family unit and the gender roles which have played into them, all of humanity’s advances have their roots in this most basic and fundamental human instincts for survival and replication. And despite what our philosophical objections or considerations may be regarding this matter, the old adage that “he only has the nice car to get laid” is in reality one of the truest and more human truths to modern sexual dynamics.

And so this brings us back the matter of gender identity and its place in society. While issues with an individual’s gender and sexual identity can vary greatly from person to person and while many of the old conventions regarding women’s places at home and men’s places in the workforce are rather antiquated, the modern efforts to address them are all too often disregarding of some very basic and elementary aspects of science and human nature. Women, by nature can better serve children emotionally, while at the same time men, by nature, are better suited to provide for the family.

Though this dynamic can be and often is inverted quite successfully, the calls to abandon the natural order which both preceded and developed the framework for the modern gender based family structure are both dangerous and irresponsible. The psychological affects that the creation of endless gray zone in regards to gender dynamics can have on a child can be destructive in both that they leave the child in the dark regarding the established social norms in society, as well as leaving them even more confused as to their own naturally occurring gender identity. In times of development such as puberty, these frustrations and confusions can be overwhelming, especially when the social norms of the society of young people (such as peer pressure, teasing, taunting, bullying, etc) are considered. The analogy of throwing fuel on a fire in a room full of petrol soaked kindling and newspaper clippings may be fair in this case and as such, in our efforts to create a more just and verdant society, we should…no, we must keep the natural order of things in mind and take to matters with caution and comprehensive consideration.

While the fight is a just one and while equal rights and treatment should be afforded to all people regardless of their sexual, racial, ethnic or gender identities, the efforts by some have become overreaching in their applications. A “genderless society” is not only a social impossibility, but the efforts to create one can in many instances, such as the case originally discussed, create greater social problems than they seek to address. As with so many well intentioned efforts by social interest groups, the modern gender rights movement seems to have come off the tracks just a bit and I can only hope for their sake and the sake of those they seek to support, that they find their way back to common sense and societal reality, lest we find the very fabric of our society torn asunder and the replacement met with conflicted confusion by the masses we have created.

A Coyote in the Chicken Coup

Would you ask a vegetarian the best way to cook a steak? Of course not. Would you leave a coyote in charge of a chicken coup? No…thats just stupid. But why then, with this pattern of logic being so obvious, do we continually trust wealthy pedigree elites to watch out for the common man?

Be it our elected officials or the champions of social issue PACs, the leadership in almost every case is generally comprised of wealthy, well to do elites who having generally had their way paid for them by a generous benefactor (usually mom and/or dad) haven’t a leg to stand on in terms of sympathizing or empathizing with the middle or lower classes. In every election season (especially this one) the sloganeers and marketing specialists of political campaigns go to great lengths to paint a divisive “Wall Street versus Main Street” picture for the public in an effort to bring about the appearance that they truly understand the plight of the working class, yet despite the apparent victories for the champions of the common man it seems that the plight of real people is conveniently forgotten once the polls have closed. And then, with a stupendous hurrah the status quo is preserved for yet another term, with yet another perfect smiling face carrying on the same game as the one who came before.

So why do we continue to look to the rich to take care of the poor? Certainly it isn’t their track record. Despite their supposed “best efforts” we still find ourselves in the midst of an economic depression, where the hard working and honest Americans are finding basic survival more and more difficult, while those at the top continue to reap the benefits of our labors, even when their stewardship and leadership is shown to be sorely lacking. Our cost of living continues to rise as wages remain stagnate and for every measure taken by Government to supposedly help those in need, two steps are taken against it in the endless compromises and back scratching that our elected officials engage in with narrow minded ideological and industrial interests.

We find our health care continually laid upon the altar of profiteering industries with the only suggestions for reform being a Government corporatization scheme wherein they become yet another insurance company who can bleed us dry for limited assistance. We find trillions of dollars being borrowed against our taxed labors and blindly thrown at the failing industries and banks who through poor stewardship and shortsighted profiteering, have brought this once mighty economic powerhouse to it’s knees. And despite all the promises made, we still find countless pervasive inequities both financially and legally which reward the crooked and punish the upright.

In this the “greatest country in the history of the world,” we still have malnourishment, homelessness and skyrocketing unemployment. Average Americans need to work two, sometimes three jobs just to get by, all the while being told by those in power, that they’re fighting to lighten to the load. Yet at the same time, we also continue to host some of the most wealthy individuals and trillion dollar industries all of whom still thrive from the desperate labors of those beneath them, while throwing meager wages and limited benefits like scraps from their tables to beggars in the streets.

And through all of this, the economic, legal and political inequities, through it all, once the votes have been cast and the offices attained, we have only the PAC and advocacy groups to look to when seeking a real voice. Yet even these are beset by the clubhouse mentality of the wealthy and pedigreed. With wided eyed idealism, they file into their partisan lines and follow the leader whenever possible, ignoring the true facts of what needs to be done and instead taking ques from the sellouts they whole-heartedly support. With staff comprised of other ignorant elites, they too set out to “help the common man” all the while, not even realizing they know little to nothing about the problems they seek to address.

So why then, do we the real Americans, seek leadership from those who know nothing beyond classroom academia when it comes to real political reform? Why do we tolerate the same old club of insiders who have shown time and time again to be clueless about what suffering and struggle is like while having thrived solely from the efforts and labor of others? Why do we expect real change when we continue to keep these coyotes in our chicken coups? And why has it taken this long to do anything about it?

The Roots of Partisanship: Arguments within arguments

One of the core arguments throughout political history has been that of the role of Government. Is it a defender, provider, enforcer, breadwinner, lawmaker, all of these things and more or just one or none at all? Currently this debate is again rearing itself along partisan and ideological lines as it is in many cases the fundamental issue which draws these lines in the first place, yet thanks largely to popular media applications and the inherent love of sensationalist, bombastic claims, theories and proposals, the lines drawn this time seem to branch in many more directions than they have in times past.

I’m talking of course of factionalizing. The formula is one of individuals’ ideas bringing them together under separate banners, while others rally to oppose them. In the past, the two major parties of Democrats and Republicans have generally served as umbrellas, under which these factions can find symbiotic support, with the party adopting their positions on matters formally, and they adding general support to the party platform.

For the Republicans, the factions (or interests in this case) are primarily those built into a coalition by Presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan. With moralist and evangelical Christians, who opposed liberal social policies and industrial support from corporate and industrial entities seeking to maintain a low level of regulation and taxation, the Republican Party for a long time stood as the party of small Government with a conservative tendency to stick to tradition and existing social norm.

The Democrats find themselves also taking on both social and industrial interests, between the special activist groups such as gay rights and feminist groups as well as labor unions and organized state employees. They have taken on most every liberal cause in the last century all in the name of progress and equality. However neither of these parties or their factions are without inherent contradiction, and if one looks with the right kind of eyes, it can often be seen that the arguments presented on the surface in regards to the role of Government are far from accurate when the real objective policy goals of a given faction may be analyzed.

As the classic conservative doctrine goes, smaller Government and less public spending is the best way to maintain a stable and secure nation. The individual’s liberty is preserved, business is free to fuel economic growth and the right to self government for towns, counties and states throughout the United States is ensured. Yet when the practical application of conservative Government is analyzed as it has been throughout modern history, one finds distinct trends which are in many ways counterintuitive to real conservative thought.

If for instance, religious values from a mainstream faith are taken into consideration in matters of law and civil code, the Government is acting in a proxy fashion as a religious institution. This means social controls, moral code enforcement and the public endorsement of a particular religion. History is full of examples of just what direction a Government with religious influences goes in and it is anywhere but towards a smaller, less restrictive system.

Likewise so-called “conservative” Republican Governments have generally presided over the largest arms buildups and foreign military sales figures in history. While many argue that it was Reagan’s oratory gifts and statecraft which won the cold war, it can just as easily be argued that he simply spent the Soviet Union to death as when all was said and done, we sat atop a larger pile of weapons while they were bankrupt and without resources to continue. To this day, defense spending continues to climb most voraciously under Republican administrations who while promising for smaller government usually deliver not only a more massive military than they arrive to command but a greater and more powerful authoritative law enforcement system.

But to say that law and order as a matter of political hypocrisy is an exclusively right wing phenomenon would be dishonest, as the left and its Democratic party are equally as guilty of talking out of both sides of their mouths. No greater example of this exists than the gender, race and sexually biased legislation they’ve fought hard not only to pass but to maintain. I’m talking of course of the Violence Against Women’s Act and modern hate crime legislation.

Whereas calling these items into question after having slammed the right wing on their policy contradictions will inevitably bring down the label of abuser or racist, I will take this moment to assure you that I am no such thing and that my objections are rooted in the legal practicality and fairness of such pieces of law. Having said that, the reason that hate crime and gender/sex/race/ethnically based legislation is hypocritical is that they are all enacted in the name of fairness and equality.

Since the first organized civilization we have had laws against murder and assault. In our modern times, we’ve taken legal science to great heights in our defining and specific redefining of law to address matters of violent crime. Yet despite these laws, there now are on the books, special laws which create protected classes of people who, if a crime has been committed against them, are entitled to see the accused prosecuted for additional charges based on what the defendant may have been thinking during commission of the crime.

I am no fan of racism friends, by no stretch of the imagination. I am the third generation born after the Nazis wiped my family and our history from the world in the Holocaust. But to punish criminals for criminal acts and then again for what become in essence criminal thoughts is not only un-American, its an outright Orwellian nightmare. Likewise, the other piece of liberal social engineering known as the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) is also stretching and blurring the boundaries of what is fair and what is gratifying to an interest group.

Under VAWA, should a woman simply register a complaint against a man with the state, he is subject to have his home searched without warrant and any weapons he may own confiscated. He is subject to automatic arrest should in the time prior to his hearing date the plaintiff register another complaint of contact, even without evidence. On simple statement alone, a man can be placed under arrest, jailed and held without bail until set by a judge.

Should he go without said complaint until the hearing date arrives, he will walk into court with the deck still stacked against him as unlike an actual criminal proceeding, criminal charges can be leveled at a man with only the civil burden of proof being required as evidence. This means rather than needing to find that beyond a reasonable doubt that XYZ act may or may not have occurred, the plaintiff simply needs to meet the preponderance of evidence level, in which they simply have to argue convincingly, without evidence actually required.

After the order is issued, which the courts are incentivized to do under VAWA, regardless of the hearing, the rights to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to due process and equal protection under the law are all thrown out the window, while a restrictive set of parameters are placed on the defendant, even though no evidence may have been presented at all. After issuance, another unfounded complaint with no evidence at all can still have a man thrown in jail and held until a judge rules. This can result in misdemeanor and even felony charges all based often, simply on a woman’s word.

But I’m no chauvinist. This is not my intention. However in the pursuit of fairness and equality, creating special protected classes of people is far from the best means to achieve it. So here, despite the best of intentions, the road to hell is still paved.

So where does the proper level of Government action lie? Can we really tell? As it is now, the conservative movement and the coalition of interests which make it up is fracturing. With Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Neo Conservatives, Evangelicals and the paleo-conservative groups who worship the ideals of Jefferson, all either grabbing for what they can get in the remainder of the Republican base or attempting to strike out on their own, the champions of small government are all clambering for attention from the American public and quite often, they are talking over each other to such a degree, no one can make out clearly what they are saying.

Inversely the left wing liberal/progressive movements are beginning to show like signs of the very early stages of fracture, with the greens, the social justice movements, the anti-corporate groups, organized labor and various social interest groups all demanding that the new Government put their plans into action. With the deeply entrenched interests from labor, civil rights, anti-war and environmentalists rooted deep in the left wing of American politics, the ability for governments they support to promote and push forward their agenda often become embattled, not against right wing opposition, but from the inherent natural contradictions and conflicts which exist between these interests.

Add to these conflicts, contradictions and outright hypocrisies the additional matter of public ignorance and there lies the surest way toward ruin. As we’ve all seen, the explosion of information technology and IT communications have allowed everyone to voice their opinions and, just as with this blog, many are capable of doing so very directly. Analysis and perspectives come from every angle these days and most of the time it’s impossible to get past the bias. With ideological catch phrases, talking points and all of the other new tools of mass media political theatre, the once dusty trails of partisan division are now outright muddy waters, with hyperbole and ad-hominem being used not only to supplant weak arguments but to sell air time. Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, take your pick, but each is endlessly guilty of using sensationalism and spin to sell ad space.

Now only a fool would say a nation can survive without government as only a fool would say we can only survive on government. For something like that, a society would need to be universally enlightened, lest it be one engulfed in total anarchy or should the inverse latter part be true, we would all need to be docile likeminded creatures, which we are most certainly not. In terms of domestic and foreign action alike, it can be argued evenly that too much or too little action by government can be disastrous as matters of social and diplomatic natures require responses one way or the other.

So, should the two parties fracture in the coming decades and should we find ourselves surrounded by new factions and parties all promising a road to national paradise, what should we do to prepare? The answer is simple. We must study.

We as a nation and as a people must learn to move beyond not only what the talking heads on televisions and radios trumpet as their holy truth, but must move beyond our own biases as well. We must learn to study laws and political matters for what they are and how they are written as opposed to what our pundits and partisans might claim them to be. It is of paramount importance that we do this and do it quickly, for as  in this age every moron can have a soapbox, we must make sure not to gather round the wrong one simply because we may consider it to be our side.

The Leader, The Charlatan…

Show me a leader and I’ll show you a charlatan. I’ll not come out and say that men who rise to power are all inherently evil. Just that the power they assume is often so corrupted that they find themselves without as many choices as they’d like. One might think that the root cause to the development of a civil society is a basic need for order and prosperity. Man always achieves more when he works within a group, but when those ideas and groups become institutions, they seem to take on an entirely different practice altogether.

A single person can, if given enough time, form an opinion on anything and everything and can even work to rationalize all of their opinions even when the inevitable conflicts and contradictions to them become apparent. However if there is one thing, one specific issue or problem or cause or purpose that they feel is of the utmost importance, the only way for them to gain any traction on it is to attract the aid of others. Likeminded on the topic or topics selected, they will come together and will try to attract more.

Yet for every two or three or more of these likeminded individuals who come together, the same kind of naturally occurring contradictions or conflicts of opinion multiply, but for the sake of the core common interest are often set aside or compromised. As the rallying spreads the ideas and opinions themselves at some point give way to a general common philosophy which, once adopted by an individual, becomes an almost automatic process of opinion making and claim staking.

So now you have an ideology; a general principle under which positions and ideas are predisposed to a somewhat specific arraignment for the core purpose of supporting the general philosophy and the movement which represents it to the masses. The idea has become an institution. Yet as with all opinion and thought on matters social or political, it is not a universally accepted institution and as such is perpetually bound to face opposing institutional philosophies and ideologies on a constant basis.

This is of course due in part to the naturally occurring contradictions which develop within any given ideology such as; pro-life supporters of wars and capital punishment, or those chanting for freedom while willingly sacrificing their civil liberties. Or for another example a party of free speech advocates who also pass censorship and ratings laws. The lists go on…

However beyond the individual contradictions and hypocrisies themselves, the formation and organization of an ideology or philosophy will almost always end up polarizing people, if for nothing more than they offer so much to disagree with. And so out of this disagreement, a single issue or argument can in effect add support to both sides of a bigger fight. The worse the fight the greater the spoils for the victor.

Now it has inevitably been said by smarter people than myself that the worst part of any revolution is the revolutionaries. Generally the hardest of the hard liners from a given side in a political or social issue fight, these leaders usually serve one of two destinies. The first is reserved for the true believer. This young pup usually arrives with chips on both shoulders and an admirable spirit. Their eyes wide, they look to the future and marvel at the potential power of their ideas.

But usually the true believers end up being face men. Puppets, either knowingly or unknowingly of a small group with a specific agenda usually tuned to the specific interests of specific parties. These parties can represent special ideological tenants, philosophic or societal mentalities or even industrial private interests. Whatever they are, the power the leader finds themselves in is usually supported by such a vast ideological umbrella, that the likeminded have managed to factionalize under the leadership’s nose and have now began mini-coalitions to influence the direction of the party, or movement or revolution. If they play along, they are continually hailed by the top leadership behind him as a great leader and is rewarded well for his participation. Should he start to dissent, an easy martyr may be made of him or a marginalization with whatever name recognition that exists used to perpetuate the core goals of the real power. In either case, the charlatan is exposed in that for all their leadership and charisma, they are but a cog in a machine whose place in power is brought not by the virtue of their ideas, but by the weakness and exploitable nature of their character.

The second fate of a charlatan leader is that of the player, the manipulator, the power hungry narcissist who longs for their own legend to live on so bad that ends can always justify the means. These types usually do everything in their power to blend in with the scenery. They’ll pick up lip service causes and throw themselves before the public as champions of the common man, exemplifying this claim with the great steps and efforts they’ve put in to supporting this or that cause. For these men, achievement is but a stepping stone to further personal exaltation.

Often beginning with true beliefs, the machines which function within parties and factions to promote specificity within a veritable grab bag of causes and ideas will often grind out the idealism in the true political player, making them a symbiotic partner with the often narrowly focused causes that give them the capital to reach for higher offices. After enough time or enough concurrent successes in rising to power, the charlatan player will take the narrow middle road on issues as often as possible as once the power and influence is maxed out in one party, there is nothing left but to court the opposition. If successful, they become a uniter and hero to all, despite their ultimate failure to actually win any victories or make any changes.

In this the charlatan is exposed in that the player stands for nothing but themselves. The attaining of power, the adoration of the masses and the preservation of their name and legend in history takes precedence over the true dynamic of the individuals actual thoughts and opinions. So for all their legend and all their glory they serve as but processor mediocre half hearted measures designed to keep people generally complacent while the established mechanisms set up by previous powers and the real powers that be continue rolling along.