What You Might Have Missed...The Third-Party Presidential Debate

 One of the biggest complaints anyone has with almost any aspect of the sociopolitical status quo in America is that the powers-that-be—namely those with controlling interests in the way things are—tend to silence the voices of dissent…or at least those voices in the wilderness we tend not to pay attention to. And one of the reasons I began this blog is to give an airing to items and issues in the news that are either overlooked, or not even considered within the context of critical (as opposed to ideological) thinking.
As an example, I cite the presidential debate from this past Tuesday. No, I’m not talking about the presidential debate between Democratic and Republican nominees President Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. What I refer to is the lesser-known, barely-covered in the media debate between the third party candidates for the White House in Chicago earlier this week. The Chicago-based Free and Equal Elections Foundation sponsored the event, which was moderated by former
 Click on the video to watch the third party debate in its entirety

CNN talk-show host Larry King (See, "Third-Party Debate" for the background to this debate)
The event was arranged to counter the rules of the Democratic and Republican-controlled Commission on Presidential Debates that exclude political parties which do not fall within the parameters of their rules, which include:

Rule 1: The candidate must be constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the President of the United States. Rule 2: The candidate must “have achieved ballot access in a sufficient number of states to win a theoretical Electoral College majority in the general election.” 

Rule 3: The candidate must have achieved “a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate, as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations.” 

In regards to Tuesday's debate, the rule that only parties with at least 15% of popular support was used to exclude the third party candidates. What’s more, it seems that many of us ordinary citizens are complacent with the way the two major political parties dominate the political voting process. The Green Party candidate for the White House, Jill Stein was arrested outside the venue of this week’s major political party debate when she showed up with her running mate, Cheri Honkala, to protest the Democratic and Republican virtual monopoly on the debate and election process in America. Stein was taken away to a detention center and handcuffed to a chair for several hours as the Republican-Democratic debate carried on without her…or any third party candidate (See: "Our handcuffed politics: What The Arrest of Jill Stein, The Green Party Candidate, Tells You About America").  And then we wonder why we have legislative gridlock at both the federal and state levels across the country…!
And if such efforts to limit the level of participation of those who would bring a different political view to issues, there is a call from some within established circles to streamline the process even more. Many conservatives during this year’s primaries complained that “that entirely too many candidates were invited to take part, including hopefuls who were consistently polling around 2 or 3 percent.”
What most defenders of the current electoral system don’t know is that some of our nation’s Founding Fathers were not only against the notion of organized political parties, but warned Americans against their control of the political process. Consider their words:

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

- GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

  --John Adams

Even activist the Tea Party Movement, which might have sprang from noble intents, was a cause (or series of causes) that eventually became co-opted by right-wing neoconservatives, and has become representative of the very type of candidates that they were trying to keep from being elected…purveyors of a big corporate government!
And despite the reality that some of our most revered Founding Fathers’ thinking on political parties assert the opposite, many political party activists make attempts clothe their contribution to the gridlock of our current political process in the notion that they are “the party of…,” implying some level of legitimacy or being representative of the idea of a real America!
When I think of the current two-party political system and the resulting political polarization it has influenced, I think of the of Thomas Jefferson:

Men are naturally divided into two parties,'' he wrote, "those who fear and distrust the people and wish to draw all power from them into the hands of the higher classes [and] those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public interests.''

Ask yourself, "Where do you stand?"

Read More

Superstorm Sandy...Devestating Everything But The Politics

Most readers to Beyond The Political Spectrum know that I am critical of both political parties for different reasons. I find the Democrats to be too incompetent, and in many ways enabling when it comes to crafting policies are which meant to help those who need it the most…and too liberal when it comes to social policies. Republicans I find to be too self-righteous, too ideologically-rigid and in denial about their ideological double-standards (that’s not to say that Democrats don’t have their own double-standards).
However, I must say that I have gained a newfound respect for Republican New Jersey governor Chris Christie. In the past few days since the destruction wrought on his state as well as other neighboring states in the Northeast, he along with Independent New York mayor Michael Bloomberg put aside political partisanship (Bloomberg to a lesser degree) to address the effects of “superstorm” Sandy on their respective communities.

My respect for them is not based on Christie’s complementing President Obama for his administration’s take-charge approach in securing federal assistance for those residents most affected by the storm. Neither is my newfound respect for Mayor Bloomberg based on his endorsement of President Obama this week for president in next week’s elections. No, my respect of them comes from their pushing aside their ideological beliefs and any animus they might hold toward their ideological foils and engage in political pragmatism rather than political partisanship. Christie has been seen multiple times with Obama since the storm ravaged many areas of his state, coordinating the efforts of recovery…a mere 2 months after giving a keynote speech at the 2012 Republican Convention blasting Obama's policies (See: "Transcript of Chris Christie's speech at the Republican National Convention"). Bloomberg, for his part gave Obama (a lukewarm) endorsement on the strength of the issue of climate change/global warming, and how the phenomenon can adversely affect weather patterns, resulting in the damage we saw this week in the Northeast (See: "New York Mayor Bloomberg endorses Obama"). It truly is a nice change-of-pace to see that there are some in the nation’s political quarters who can not only look, but see beyond partisanship and ideological allegiances to create opportunities for the American people rather than their political parties. But all is not joy in political Mudville.
 The haters have come out to play. The extreme right-wing of the Republican Party has begun slamming both Christie and Bloomberg for their embracing of independent thinking and daring to challenge sacred conservative orthodoxy. Christie has been panned for daring to break ranks and actually cooperating with Obama, even for the sake of securing federal assistance in helping the people of his own state. Perennial microphone meathead Rush Limbaugh has called for listeners on his inexplicably popular radio show “Don’t listen to Governor Christie. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” adding that Christie is “fat and a fool.” Conservative writer Matt Lewis has gone so far as to call Christie “a prop for Obama’s re-election” (See: “Conservatives Bash Christie For Cooperating With Obama Post-Sandy”). Such a practice of intolerance for independent thinking and/or actions among Republicans (and Democrats) is indicative of why our country’s political landscape has become more polarized in recent years that at any time since the Civil War. In extreme cases, extreme right-wing Republicans reserve the moniker of “RINO” (Republican In Name Only) for those who they have a particular disdain for when it comes to adherence and promotion of conservative mantra; Democrats have “DINOs.”
This criticism reflects a major cause of government gridlock we have been witnessing and experiencing in Washington over the last 10 years; individuals putting political party allegiance over initiating effective policy benefitting the American people—and yes, Democrats are guilty of this too. When I think of examples of such political intransigence and intolerance for dissent—even in the interest of the people who elect them—all I can think of are those episodes of “Star Trek” featuring the alien species known as The Borg. Similar to bees, he Borg conquer and take over other species and force them into their collective “hive mind," where they are forced to share thoughts, ideas, and feelings (or lack thereof). The Borg preface every act of assimilation of other species into their collective by prefacing every conquest with the ominous phrase, “We are the Borg. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.”

Superstorm Sandy’s arrival apparently blew apart more than sandy beaches, boardwalks, and homes of New Jersey, New York, and the Northeast. It blew away the camouflage of what’s masking the reason as to why anything resembling cooperation can’t occur among and between the Republican and Democratic Parties.  Extreme right-wing Republicans and left-wing Democrats basing their actions on (their) adherence to ideology and party allegiance rather than pragmatism of need is the problem. Surprisingly, there are still one or two politicians still around who prove that resistance is not futile.

Read More

The Sequester Cuts...Be Careful What You Ask For!

As of midnight, two points became more or less salient; sequestration is here, and Americans seem to be expendable pawns in the game of politics between the Republicans and Democrats in Washington. Hardly any surprise if you haven’t been in a come for the last 20 years or so.
Because of the legislative impasse between the White House and the both parties in Congress, the much-vilified automatic across-the-board spending cuts—compiled back in 2011 as a means of motivating each party to address the federal deficit—became a reality after President Obama signed the order triggering the cuts to every federal government agencies.
To the lawmakers involved, the effects of the cuts probably seem abstract, especially since the paychecks, the government-sponsored healthcare, and retirement packages of these lawmakers enjoy won’t be affected. However, for those less secure in their well-being, the effects of the sequestration are very real. One prime example is the unemployed. In an estimated 2-3 weeks, unemployment payouts will be cut by about 10% for those receiving them. In many cases, such an amount can make the difference between a utility payment and a shut-off notice.
In many other places, the sharp budget cuts have the potential to touch us all in some way. Other programs facing the budget knife due to lawmakers’ inability to strike a budget compromise are:

$633 million cut from the Department of Education’s Special Education programs

$71 million cut from administration at the Office of Federal Student Aid

$116 million cut from Higher Education

$86 million cut from Student Financial Assistance

$79 million cut from Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance

$604 million cut from National Nuclear Security Administration

$928 million cut from FEMA’s disaster relief money

$6 million cut from Emergency Food and Shelter

$70 million cut from the Agricultural Disaster Relief Fund at USDA

$53 million cut from Salaries and Expenses at the Food Safety and Inspection Service

$20 million cut from the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Programs

$10 million cut from the World Trade Center Health Program Fund

$168 million cut from Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

$199 million cut from public housing

$96 million cut from Homeless Assistance Grants

$17 million cut from Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS

$19 million cut from Housing for the Elderly

And given the recent attention given to certain issues tied to these cuts (the cuts to embassy security & construction being the most obvious in light of the Benghazi affair), one has to wonder whether any political issue is of genuine concern to Congressional lawmakers outside of the political value they might gain from invoking and using them against their across-the-aisle archrivals.
So why did it come to this? The usual cross-finger pointing by both parties.

The White House places the blame for the impasse and budget cuts on Congressional Republicans. According to President Obama, "They've [the Republicans] allowed these cuts to happen because they refuse to budge on closing a single wasteful loophole to help reduce the deficit." The Republicans’ stance was summed up in the words of House of Representatives speaker John Boehner. Boehner chided that, “the president got his tax hikes on Jan. 1” ("Obama Signs Order to Begin Spending Cuts").
Needless to say, the American people are already placing blame on one party or the other, the President and/or Congress. This reveals the political schizophrenia that plagues the minds and hearts of the American people. We complain about federal spending, but now that the cuts starting, some of us are already crying “foul.” We want our cuts, but apparently only insofar as they affect other people…not the particular program that benefits us. We want our elected representatives to represent the ideas that we hold dear, but whine when our legislators cannot reach a compromise. Apparently our individual idea of “compromise” is when the other guy caves in to our point of views.
We cannot have it both ways. Either we allow our elected officials to address the issue of government spending, or we sit back and enjoy the fruits of the spending. If we actually want to curtail government spending, then every program must be on the chopping block…the programs we like individually as well as the programs the other guys like. And yes, all of us must be willing to pay!
Be careful what you ask for...

Read More

...And The Winner Is...!

BREAKING NEWS: News Outlets Project President Obama To Be Re-Elected!

Although it's a little early in the evening (just before midnight as I write this), I thought I'd get in on the ground floor and extend a big congratulations to President Barack Obama on his re-election win in today's general election (of course, I had this same posting prepared in the event either candidate won this year's election). So, after almost 2 years, some $6 billion dollars spent, and an even more polarized electorate (there's a chance Mitt Romney might narrowly win the popular vote, while the President will take the Electoral College), the fight is finally over!
So why does this bode ill for a continually (and politically) divided country? Because among the results of this particular election cycle:

-A noticeably  (and painfully lengthy) primary process which reveals intra-party ideological fracturing (in both parties).

-The election of the first openly gay U.S. Senator in Wisconsin (a controversy to be sure).  In addition, it looks like the legalization of same-sex marriage will pass for the first time on statewide initiatives in three states (Maryland and Maine being the most prominent).

-The ideological entrenchment of the two major parties, neither of which will move toward the rational political center.

-A Congress that remains both numerically and politically divided (the Democrats retain control of the Senate, while the Republicans have the House).

-Divisions along ethnic/racial lines (non-white for one candidate, whites mostly for another).

-Political interests ability to stoop to using the legislative process (and marginally logical arguments) to justify suppressing voter turnout (despite there being no statistical proof of fraud).

-Political infighting between cliques.

Beyond any doubt, other divisions will be made apparent in the upcoming days, weeks, and months ahead.  As a result, we shouldn't expect the newly re-elected President to give a Sally Field Academy Award-like speech ("They love me...they really, really love me!"), as his victory--combined with a divided Congress--was hardly a mandate. 
Maybe the realization of how truly divided a country we have become will wake the politicians in Washington (and in state legislatures across the country) to the need to work together, and put the needs of the people ahead of political party, ideology, or personal prejudices.

Read More

A Few Items In The News…

The Mid-Term Elections

Years ago, Adolf Hitler said that if you tell a big enough lie often enough, it will eventually become the truth…and that truth will eventually not matter. Keep that in mind as reality has declared the mid-term elections of 2010 to now be history. And after all of the usual pre-election insanity of campaign lies, slanders, half-truths, opponent misrepresentations, and shifty campaign contribution, we have projected winners and losers.
Now that America has a divided Congress—between the now Republican-controlled House of Representatives and the Democrat-controlled Senate—as well as a Democratically-controlled executive branch (i.e., that’s the White House to those of you who failed Civics 101), we can expect ideological intransigence, political gridlock, party-bashing, and ultimately legislative inaction to run Washington for the foreseeable future.
Even as the landslide-victorious Republicans are preparing to take control of half of the federal government’s legislature, the presumed new Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH) had already started to engage in the usual Washington political hyperbole by declaring that “there seems to be some denial on the part of the president and other Democratic leaders of the message that was sent by the American people."





Last week’s election victories on the part of the Republicans (in both national and local races across the country) were not so much as bringing the Democrats face-to-face with some presumed denial on their parts as much as it was greater organizing among the conservative rank-and-file, a more effective public relations machine, and better image-projecting. Combine this reality with the fact that Democrats were ideologically split over support for policies promoted by the White House and you get the pasting that Democrats suffered at the polls almost 2 weeks ago.
Most informed Americans already know the conservative platform of the Republican Party, so to call this election “the most historic election in over 60, 70 years” is something of a stretch of reality, and reeks of political spin…trying to make more of the elections than they were (come on…the election of the first African American president and the accompanying one-party control of the federal government during the previous election cycle doesn’t count as more “historic?” Even the Republican shift of Congress in 1994 was more meaningful historically). More to the point, its not as if the American electorate has much of a choice when it comes to party/ideological representation in Washington anyway…Brand X or Brand Y.
Taken altogether, these events harbinger what is to come for the American people…the ultimate loser in the elections of the past couple of weeks. Until either one party effectively (the key word here) controls one aspect of the legislative process, decides to work in the interests of their constituencies—us—and not instead hold allegiance to their political parties and their respective ideologies, or until both parties either learn to work together or the American people opt to create a viable third political alternative (the Tea Party totally withstanding), we can expect the same a three-ring circus in Washington in the coming term instead of functioning three branches of government.

Corporal Punishment In Schools

A high school basketball coach in Jackson, Mississippi is in legal hot water after images of him “paddling” students during a basketball practice went viral over the ‘net this week, courtesy of another student’s cell phone camera.
Coach Marlon Dorsey defended his practice of paddling basketball team members who failed “to run basketball plays correctly" as a way of trying to "save these young men from the destruction of self," according to court documents filed recently.
In further defense of his actions, Dorsey issued a statement which read,

"I paddled my students... today, some of [sic] students have lost pride in their school and in their (sic) selves. Students are disrespecting teachers, administrators and other students by stealing cell phones, leaving off campus without permission, disrupting classroom teaching time, late for class and not following dress codes by wearing the pants on their butts and house shoes to school and on-court behavior. I took it upon myself to save these young men from the destruction of self and what society has accepted and become silent to the issues our students are facing on a daily basis."

As of this writing: Dorsey is still employed with the district, but is on active suspension without pay for 28 days; students who were alleged to have been paddled still attend classes and are still playing on the boy's varsity basketball team; and a lawsuit has been filed in court naming the school district, Dorsey, and the school principal as defendants who failed to safeguard the rights of the players (http://mw.cnn.com/snarticle?c=cnnd_us&p=0&aId=20101111:mississippi.coach.whippings:1).





Having worked with young people myself for over 10 years (including currently as a counselor for at-risk teens), I not only empathize with Dorsey’s position, but support it 110%. Today’s youth are simply out of control, especially urban youth. Part of this is because we as a society have adopted an overly liberal attitude toward dealing with both their issues and their actions. We have adopted a New Age form of thinking which asserts that paddling, whippings, and other forms of “abuse” are more harmful than helpful to youth in dealing with their delinquency. But an argument can be made that removing these (and other such) sanctions as options when it comes to bringing up our children does more harm to society as a whole.
Most of us who comprise Generation X, Baby Boomers, and prior generations received such sanctions regularly in both the home and in schools (from 3rd grade through high school), and we are no worse for our experiences. In fact, it could be argued that such actions reinforced our generation’s superior social value of duty, while the absence of such actions has resulted in this current generation’s sense of entitlement.
Even if you don’t agree with bringing back corporal punishment in public schools, one thing no one can disagree with is that there was no where near as much violence, disrespect for teachers, and lack of self-respect back in my public school days as there is today with the absence of such measures. Also, people were not chomping at the bit to sue for any perceived violation of one’s “rights” back in the day as they are now…as if awarding monetary “compensation” somehow miraculously gives one back his/her dignity.
In fact, who needs Corporal Punishment? I say bring in Sergeant Slaughter!


Black Unwed Motherhood Reaches A New High

This week, the Washington Post featured a story about the extremely high—an understatement to be sure—rate of unwed motherhood among black women in America. According the both the article and the latest government figures, black single motherhood among black women is an astounding 72%, far and away shadowing the demographic group, Native Americans at 66% (“Blacks Struggle With 72% Unwed Mothers Rate,” The Washington Post.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/06/AR2010110602362_pf.html ).

To emphasize the point, the article focused on the experience of a Houston-area OB-GYN and her low-income–serving practice. The government’s statistics closely mirrors the daily experiences of Dr. Natalie Carroll, who gives a level of personal counseling emphasizing the need for single mothers to bring stable male figures into the lives of their children…in addition to medical care she provides to expectant mothers.
For many within the black community, this fact is no surprise, although the numerical percentage is still shocking. The black community also knows all-too well the correlative outcomes that such a high rate of single-parent households tends to yield—children of unmarried mothers (of any race) “are more likely to perform poorly in school, go to prison, use drugs, be poor as adults, and have their own children out of wedlock.”
It’s a well-know but little-discussed norm within the black community that, even when is criticized for the sociological pathology that it is by high profile figures such as entertainer Bill Cosby on the left and former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes on the right, it becomes a matter of loping off the head (s) of the bearer(s) of bad news rather than an issue to be addressed.
It’s a complex problem with equally complicated solutions. Yes, black males could learn to step up and accept more responsibility insofar as family and their children are concerned, but when the economic climate creates more impediments than opportunities, how is he supposed to become “marriage material” if he cannot even acquire gainful employment? And what woman is going to “take care of a man” (a prospective taboo among many black women)?
And what about idea of marriage as a solution to this problem? Given the almost daily reports about how many high profile couples such as entertainers—individuals of more-than-adequate financial means—are splitting up almost as soon as they get together, how is any man supposed to take the institution of marriage seriously when it seems no one else is? As a solution to the high rate of single motherhood in and of itself, marriage seems to be an outdated institution that no one takes seriously. Indeed, depending on whose numbers you buy, more than half of them will end up in divorce anyway. So there is obviously no sense of security in matrimony. More so, if it comes down to divorce, the man is far more likely to receive the short end of the stick insofar as rulings (spousal/child support, the dividing of assets, etc.) are concerned, so where is his incentive to get married?
It would seem that many aspects of the socioeconomic system in America have to change in order for facilitate an incentive for black males become more responsible, and for black women to accept them as potential marriage partners. Then again, these were non-factors for black family cohesiveness during both slavery and in the century of Jim Crow following slavery. As mentioned earlier, it’s a complicated issue.

Read More

Closing Out 2012...Issues (Still) In The News!

In less than 24 hours, we will welcome in the New Year 2013. As we prepare to say goodbye to 2012, it’s time to look back at the events that shaped the year in both politics and pop culture, as well as the underlying issues they illustrated.

The Fiscal Cliff:
Here we are, nearing the 11th hour of the impasse between the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and the Democrat President, negotiating to create a mutually satisfactory legislative compromise to avoid the automatic tax increases and spending cuts that are set to kick in if no deal is struck. Diehard Republicans in Congress are sticking to their political mantra of no tax increases as being a component of any remedy to cut government spending, while Democrats seem to be resisting Social Security and Medicaid restructuring as part of any negotiated settlement to slow their (or lower) their contribution to runaway government spending. Needless to say, these two opposing parties don’t seem to be nearing anything in the way of an agreement.

This ongoing political drama has real-life implications for everyday Americans that neither party is willing to acknowledge—outside of bumper-sticker statements made in front of the television cameras as they jockey to paint the other party as the villain. The politicians involved are only part of the problem…we the people are just as polarized as our political leaders, and they know this. No one is willing to be the bigger person and set aside their ideological beliefs for the greater good. And as long as this remains a reality, nothing is ever going to get done to any benefit. This is one of those instances where those involved need to forsake their outside-the-Beltway political pledges, ignore what they perceive to be the often-as-wrong opinions of their political constituencies, ignore their narrow dogmatic “principles,” and put the good of the country ahead of their political parties, and do the right thing. But then, that would involve people actually agreeing…and we know that’s not going to happen before the end of the year (See also: "Why I'm Not A Republican...Or A Democrat.")

Here Comes Honey Boo-Boo: 

The “reality” television craze, spotlighting the misadventures of pint-sized Southern corn-pone child beauty pageant Alana "Honey Boo Boo" Thompson and her family, is one of those phenomenons that make one question the sanity of Americans. Stereotypes. Child exploitation. The anything-for-fame ethos. Irresponsible parenting. Unhealthy dieting. Questionable programming by money-grubbing corporate interests. This was one of those multi-faceted experiences that reflected everything wrong with our collective mindsets. It shows how—for a few bucks and airtime—we are willing to surrender our both our dignity and good sense to become “famous;” that we are willing to do anything to get a piece of the limelight. We are willing to exploit our children as well as ourselves, jeopardize their/our health, and reinforce negative cultural beliefs on the mistaken belief that just because half the nation is willing to pollute it minds by being fixated on such insanity validate that this is “what the people want.” In fact, such pop culture dysfunction is not “what people want;” it’s what television executives force us to watch because they are too cheap to invest money necessary to produce the quality and artistically redeeming programming most of older types grew up with. The more obsessed we are with wanting to become individually famous for no reason that its own sake, the more we reveal how famously self-absorbed and mis-prioritizing we are (See also: "The Great Balloon Hoax And Our Obsession With Fame," and "Adults...Children's Worst Enemy! Conclusion").

Aurora, Oak Creek, Sandy Hook, et al.:
The sad thing is despite the numerous incidents of mass shootings this year, there are people on both sides of the argument who continue to ignore common sense in favor of assuming their customary retreating positions when the issue of gun control comes up. Those on the political left ignore the danger of the new “normal” that some individuals will seek notoriety (there’s that “fame-seeking” angle again) or even infamy as a way deal with whatever demons haunt their souls. Something radical has to be done to protect the law-abiding and innocent among us as Americans, particularly males, embrace the distorted notion that spreading their pain to others in some way creates a sense of balance within their narrow universes. Maybe there needs to be armed officers in the public schools, seeing as how most of these mass shooters are not choosing targets where armed protectors are on duty (police stations, military bases--not counting Fort Hood--, National Rifle Association meetings, etc.). They are ignoring the new reality of a society which has adopted way of dealing with personal problems. Those on the political right want to maintain the near-open availability of semi-automatic weapons which are better served on the battle field than in the homes where citizens already own multiple weapons. Many among them defend their intransigence with regards to the Second Amendment right to bear arms as a way of being able to “defend themselves against a government tyranny.” Needless to say, this is pathetically weak excuse in the face of a government which is not really obligated to allow them any gun possession at all…if in fact such a government were truly out to “get their guns.” Finally, there are those who are not able to factor in that the siphoning away of money and community resources formerly used to confront and treat mental illness as an ingredient in such tragedies. For whatever reason, we don’t want to admit that guns in and of themselves—which have always been available to some degree are not as much of the problem as our shifting values.

President Obama shortly after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings

We don’t want to admit that we use unreasonable excuses based on paranoid fears to maintain a obviously crippled status quo with regard to virtual open access to weapons…even weapons that have no place in a civilized society where we have reasonably armed police officers as a first-line of defense. We also don’t want to admit that there is a stigma attached to mental illness which prevents those suffering in silence from seeking redress…and those in the seats of power from providing funding to ensure that those who suffer can get assistance. When paranoia can be justified and weakly explained away by those who are not willing to set aside their petty desires and/or dogmas for the greater good; when we count pennies and cut budgets to fund a growing problem of mental illness; and when we favor rhetoric over actions, we should prepare to gear ourselves up for even more of these sad tragedies (See also: "Sandy Hook, Guns, And Questions," "Gun Control...No! Responsible Gun Control...Yes?" and "How To Stop School Shootings").


Gungnam Style:
South Korean rapper was Psy sure made the ‘rounds on the internet and television circuits…but not for his catchy You Tube breakout video dance craze “Gangnam Style.” At the height of his probable flash-in-the-pan notoriety, it came to light that Psy made some rather off-putting anti-American remarks which he rapped during the height of the Bush Administration’s ill-fated invasion of Iraq. That 2004 performance was widely circulated online once it came to the attention of Westerners, who were still dancing to the You Tube sensation’s video hit.
That performance included lyrics calling for the death of American troops serving in Iraq after two incidents involving South Korean citizens and the American military. Psy’s statements reflected the general anti-American sentiment expressed by many South Koreans at the time, relating to the brutal killing of a South Korean hostage by Iraqi insurgents, and the killing of two Korean schoolgirls who were struck and killed by a U.S. military vehicle.
The lyrics in question went as follows:

“Kill those f--ing Yankees who have been torturing Iraqi captives and those who ordered them to torture," and going on to say, "Kill them all slowly and painfully," as well as "daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers."

Naturally, the lyrics were inflammatory to those with a sensitive soft spot for love of America. However, we forget in this country that those who our policies adversely affect have hearts and soft spots too. It’s not for us as a country to judge the anger of another people, especially our allies. Other people, groups, and countries, and hurt too, and their anger is just as much justified as our own when our citizens are hurt or killed by others.

South Korean rapper, Psy

So Psy spoke out of anger...who hasn't...or doesn't? We're supposed to be a nation that favors and promotes freedom of both speech and expression. We can also be a nation of extreme hypocrisy.  As long as Psy was entertaining us with his feel-good lyrics and dancing, we had no problem with him.  The minute he says something which steps on the toes of overly sensitive people, he becomes the Anti-Christ! Let him have his minute in the sun...without the narrow judgments of his opinions.
We in this country are quick to make a big deal out of our right to freedom of expression, but don't seem willing or capable of tolerating it in others.  As I look in retrospect at this issue, I can't help but wonder--especially as a blogger--that is speaking one's opinions, thoughts, and observations all it takes to be hated in America (See also: "Here We Go Again - Ozzie Guillen, Free Speech, And American Foreign Policy," "A Nation of Whiners - Part 2," and "A Nation of Whiners - Conclusion")?

Read More

Why I'm Not A Democrat...Or Republican! (...Or, "Who Am I?")

In the past week of expressing my opinions in and on various forums around the internet, I have come across a great deal of criticism, mostly from conservatives who accuse me of being a closet liberal (when they pick and chose postings which criticize aspects of their ideology), and of being “self-righteous” when others actually read instances where I slam both ideological branches (thus, not leaving them with a leg to stand on when then cannot accuse me of being “liberal”). And because I’m forced to deal with such narrow-mindedness from the intellectual Peanut Gallery on a daily basis, I thought this would be a great time to express my disdain for both Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans…and why.
In order to understand why project a certain amount of perceived arrogance in my observations and conclusions, you have to understand a thing or two about my background. Politics were rarely discussed on my house growing up, so there was not the direct influence of traditional political allegiances which tends to shape the thinking of many of my fellow Americans. Growing up as a black male within a fluctuating but limited range of class identities—between lower working-to lower-middle-classes—I came from a mostly single-parent structured household. Most of those around me tended to vote Democrat…with the assumption that my parents did too (although it was not really a certainty). Because of my always shifting economic and social stations, I have had the fortune—or misfortune, depending on one’s perspective—to have lived (or would that be “survive”) a myriad of experiences which helped to shape my outlook and perspectives on a great many issues.
Just to provide a frame of reference for those of you with limited life experiences, I will post a bit of chronology. The day I turned 13, my mother quietly woke me and my siblings up around 4 in the morning, and we were told to quietly bag our clothes, and stole away from the home we had known…leaving our father behind (you do the math) in Michigan, and headed to Chicago, where I was born and raised part of my life. We stayed with relatives, and needless to say, public housing in a large Northern city is nothing like life in gated suburbia (where oddly enough, some people still feel the need to carry guns in such relative tranquility). Later the next couple of years, when my mother was forced—much to her bitter resentment—to accept food stamps, I found myself working alongside my other and younger brother in the fruit and vegetable fields back in Michigan…which is how we would pay the rent, and keep the lights on (to this day, I have nothing but respect for Migrant workers, who we’d peacefully worked side-by-side with). Growing up with economic uncertainty, I’d been forced to take a series of jobs, and to be honest, I thank my lucky stars for having the fortune of learning flexibility. I ended up signing up for the U.S. Army—infantry (when you’re 18 and poor, a $2,000 signing bonus sounds like manna from heaven), working on another farm for another 3 years (enduring the weather extremes alone is enough to make me more arrogant than most people), a series of factory jobs, and then long-term unemployment, courtesy of the late 80s, early 90s recession.
I’d gotten into community volunteering and voter registration during a time when I was particularly depressed about my economic situation, which led to my enrolling in local college courses…with the intent to enter law school and practice Human Rights and Civil Rights law (I was the first and only college graduate in my family, graduating with more honors and academic distinctions than you can shake a stick at. I recall during this time, I how myself and a friend managed to con our way into a closed affair to see the first George Bush. I was also proud to have had dinner with Cornel West in Detroit later in my college tenure). My stint in law school was all-too-brief, much to my regret. But afterwards, I had had a series of other nowhere jobs, including waste hauler, long-term substitute teacher, teacher’s assistant, truck driver (yes, I possess a Commercial Driver’s License), rest area cleaner, janitor, grant writer, and a host of other experiences which life forced me to adapt to via economics. And I am totally leaving out the best, most impacting experiences (such as having been a practicing Buddhist, despite growing up Christian, brief marriage, being victimized by feminism, personal loss, working 2 years as a youth counselor in the woods of the South, temporary homelessness, etc.).
The upshot is that I have lived a rather rich—if not regrettable in some circumstances—life. And as you would expect, having lived such a life where I was not afraid to try new things, step outside my personal comfort zones, and adapt to changing fortunes, I’ve learned to see the world with so much clarity…sans the ideological rhetoric of those who adopt confined political (and social) thinking. And as someone who spends his time writing and reading (while most others are hanging in bars, on dance floors, and basking in dream vacations), who better to make objective observations about life than someone who’s managed to cram the experiences of 2, possibly 3 lifetimes in only 45 years? So, with the background having been laid, allow me to chronicle how my experiences have shaped my outlook on social and political policies—more objectively than I believe most have been.

Democrats:
There is a great bit of truth to the conservative view that the black vote has been taken for granted by Democrats. This is part and parcel of a larger issue that I have with Democrats, namely that the coalition of multiple (group) interests that comprise the Democratic Party leaves the organization politically impotent at times. Affirmative Action is often at odds with the values and beliefs of Middle-Class white voters, especially males. President Obama and the NAACP’s stance on gay marriage has divided black thinking and given support on the issue pause (yes, I am against gay marriage. The black family, as many other families in America has enough problems with dysfunction without having the notion gay marriage try to redefine the definition of a traditional family…please don’t bother posting nasty comments with this regard; it won’t change my mind). Race-baiting (while ignoring personal responsibility)? I could talk about this ad naseum, but since the Republicans do it too (and like with many things, with a great bit more subtlety and style), I will just say that Jesse Jackson can be as every bit of a racial opportunist as Newt Gingrich.
And unquestioned defense of entitlements is a bit problematic for me (entitlements should be limited to the neediest of individuals, not to anyone who shows they have a splinter which keeps them from working).
Liberal attitudes with regard to child-rearing have created a generation of monsters and defiant ne’er-do-wells. For liberal Democrats, the world tends to stop whenever an issue with a child comes up. All logic and reason goes out the window, and emotions take over (not only do I believe in the power of the hickory switch in order to help a child maintain discipline and respect, but that paddlings should be brought back into schools…and no parent should be allowed to sue unless it’s a situation where discipline crosses the line into obvious abuse).
Democrats have to perform more of a balancing act with regard to these often competing interests than Republicans. They have so many individual platforms that they have no general platform whatsoever.
Democrats have terrible selling points (Republican are far better at shaping arguments and selling BS), some I find personally antithetical to clear thinking and a sense of morality, such as the case with abortion. I believe all life to be sacred, and abortion should be outlawed every bit as much as capital punishment (yes, I believe in women's rights, but not at the expense of men' rights. In reproductive policy, men typically have no rights, and are at the mercy of the courts and women motivated purely by self-interests.
Extremist elements within the party have exemplified this by reframing domestic violence as federal hate crime against women [see: The Politicization of Gender of Gender]. Common sense dictates we cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. Placing a higher value on gender, or race, than the ability to make rational decisions is inherently biased, and potentially disastrously. However, rational adults should be allowed to end their life on their own terms in cases of unbearable incapacitation and/or terminal illness.
And despite having grown up among gunplay to the extreme, I still cannot abide by talk or discussion of gun control; I wouldn’t feel safe living in a house without a gun given what I’ve witnessed in life (obviously, lunatics, fanatics, criminals, children, and paranoid-fearful neighborhood watch volunteers should be exempt from gun ownership). Limiting gun ownership will only limit access to legal gun owners...criminals don't follow the laws anyway.
Democrats seem to want to defend to the death the failing American educational system. Our schools lack discipline, partly because irresponsibly apathetic parents are flooding our schools with undisciplined children with distorted, pop-culture-fed values who then infect other children (who actually want to learn). Every child with even a hint of a “disability” (that includes insane “diagnoses” such as Oppositional Defiant Disorder…are you kidding me?) has “rights,” while the children of responsible parents have to content themselves with getting what they can from a day’s instructions because teachers are forced to spend inordinate amounts of time trying to maintain discipline in the classrooms rather than actually teach (want to blame teachers? While granted some are not competent, you try teaching a room full of brats who’s parents think each is individually “special…”).
Liberal attitudes about political correctness go way too far at times (I want to be able to say what I want...when I want...and without censor or sanction. Don’t like what I have to say? TS!).
I’ve always been a rabid proponent of universally affordable health care and I sympathize with aspects of the Occupy movement, but Democrats have failed to sell it properly. They've also failed to seize on the discontent the Occupy movement represents and parlay it into an intra-party movement like the Republicans have the Tea Party discontent (although the extremists within the Occupy movement need to leave the destruction and aggression alone).
And let’s not go into government spending...
No, I don’t fully trust government, but I trust the unforgiving market even less. Sometimes, government has to tinker with the market in order to ensure some stability. No, I don’t buy that nonsense that if you allow the market to “correct itself,” it will all balance out in the sweet By-And-By. We tried that once. And what did we get for our laissez faire mentality? The Great Depression.

Republicans:
What can I say about Republicans that I haven’t said before? Conspiracy theories among the extreme right of the party (e.g., Birthers, One-world governments, Trilateral Commissions? And I thought liberals were supposed to be the potheads…).
I like the idea of protecting the rights of gun owners, but just because we’ve elected a black president doesn’t necessitate a run on guns and ammunition. There has been no talk of curtailing gun ownership, despite the recent mass shootings so please stop with the hair trigger rhetoric, thinking, and actions you rabid gun owners!
On that note, conservative Republicans have far better mastered the art of political language, rhetoric, and propaganda with the skill of a Joseph Goebbels. Even every day people who identify with the political conservatism which Republicans are supposed to represent have adopted their politicians' penchant for selective memories, denial of facts, and favoring ideology over reality (the Democrats as a group look woefully inept by comparison when it comes to framing a coherent argument).
Trickle-down economics wasn’t very successful under the Reagan Administration, and just because it’s a new century doesn’t mean it will work any better…despite you’re dressing the notion up in the garb of “job creators.” With the very rare exception, there are no such thing as job creators; they are profit-creators who, if it were possible to create and turn a profit without incurring the labor costs in creating employment, they would in a heartbeat. The market is not sacrosanct. It is not above reproach or questioning. It is a man-made institution, subject to the same level of maintenance requirements as that of any man-made institution.
As an agnostic, I find the way Republicans have allowed Christian fundamentalists to co-op the Christian faith to be every bit as disturbing as the way Muslim fundamentalist (i.e. radical Muslims) have co-opted Islam. The Bible states, “Judge not least ye be judged.” The same hold true for those who would paint the religion of Islam (or any other religion) with a broad stroke; some of us are just as willing to do the same with your beliefs! Your perspectives and perception of the Christian interpretation of spirituality is just that…your perceptions. And no…not every political candidate for office is “told by God” to “run for the office of president" (get real…take your meds, and stifle the sanctimony while you're at it).

On a similar note, just because someone isn’t a conservative doesn’t automatically makes them a “liberal.” It’s one sociopolitical ideology among many. Conservatism didn’t come into being with the Big Bang. It’s not a flawless ideology, and following it’s beliefs to the letter will no more bring about a utopia than liberal Kumbaya-ism will. Stop with the dreaming and ideological delusion. Most of the current crop of Republicans have more of an allegiance to conservative ideology and the Republican Party than to reality. Sensible Republicans like the late Jack Kemp, Alan Keyes, and Colin Powell have no influence on this current brand.
Government spending…you want to stop it? Then let’s end pork barrel/pet project spending on both sides of the aisle. If local districts want another park or museum dedicated to lima beans, then let the locals fund it. If you’re going to talk about cutting spending…all spending must be on the chopping block. Also, every American must be willing to share sacrifice if the federal deficit is such an issue…that includes the 1-Percenters/”job creators.” Cutting taxes will not yield a balanced budget, nor has there ever been any proof that it will spur economic growth except under a particular series of conditions (that’s an unproven economic theory, much like that other theory conservatives can’t seem to swallow, that of evolution, which rank-and-file conservatives love to repeat without the benefit of research or context).
“Limited” government? You can’t claim to want “limited government” when it comes to matters of the market and/or economic equality, but then want to use the power of government to interfere with matters of social policy, such as gay marriage, abortion, and end-of-life determination. Either you’re for limited government or you’re not…otherwise, be as prepared to be labeled “hypocrite” as you are quick to label Democrats (for example, extremist Tea Party elements within the G.O.P. have called for privatizing entitlements, such as George Bush's 2005 proposal to tie Social Security to the stock market. Can you imagine how many people would have suffered if social security pensions were tied to, say the hot commodity of the market then, mortgage-backed securities? You say "You don't trust government?" Well, I don't trust the market!).
Climate change? If you are willing to believe in an all-seeing, all-knowing, invisible man hiding somewhere in the sky—without proof other than “faith”—then why is it hard to believe the science (which, by the way has been winning over skeptics) of man’s impact on the environment?
I could continue, but I will shorten my list of gripes with both parties due to fact that I know most of you will who are dedicated to these particular political parties will want to get started on you denials and finger-pointing towards the other camp.

The fact is that ideological views of these two parties have polarized our political system, almost beyond the prospect of repair. Government gridlock has paralyzed the legislation process. Many discontented individuals such as myself view both political parties as being, corrupt to their respective cores, and no longer capable of governing. The politicians of these entities have teamed up with corporations to place profit and the market above people and have decided that the richest 1% deserve tax breaks and preferential treatment while the rest of us pay the unbalanced tax burdens and are forced to live on less and less.
Some of us have had rich experiences in life, which have given us a unique insight and perspective on reality. because of that, some of use understand that ideology is often a smokescreen to clearer perceptions. That is why I write.

Now that that's been said, let’s not hear any more of this BS about how some of us cannot think beyond the spectrum...that's probably your hang-up!

Read More

What's Wrong With American Politics?

Maybe there is something to be said for dictatorships as a form of government. Things have a tendency to get done…fast. The passage of laws—even if they are by decree—makes gridlock a non-factor. There is no partisan wrangling between competing political parties or branches of government. And there is none of the upheaval that has come to symbolize what politics in America has come to.
President Obama’s approval ratings are at an all-time low for his tenure in office. The Mississippi Tea Party is in an uproar after its U.S. Senate primary candidate lost to mainstream Republican opponent Thad Cochran—who in turn appealed to a non-traditional base of African-American voters to beat the T-Party’s candidate. Democrats are set to use populist wedge-issues—immigration and a potential raise in the minimum wage—to beat back predicted Republican gains, while walking on broken egg shells on other issues to protect endangered Democratic candidates. And the list goes on…
What can I possibly say, reveal, or speak to in terms of the broken state of politics in contemporary America that most clear-thinking individual don’t already know? The political—as well as the voting—process has been corrupted by the influence and infusion of money; we know this. The ideological and political gulf between opposing belief-holders has never been wider…much to the detriment of the legislative process. The disdain that many of us Americans have for our political leadership finds most of us ranking their appeal generally somewhere between toilet film and a root canal. And the few optimists who remain loyal to one side or the other are more adherent to party-lines, talking points, and platforms than to rational thinking and objectivity. Why is the American political apparatus so broken?
To list a complete analysis of why politics in America is at such a level of unproductive impotence would take bandwidths of terabytes of Internet bandwidth; even a summary would take volumes. However, the conclusion—as painful as it might be for those wishing otherwise—is that America’s system of politics is broken because we are a nation moving toward an oligarchy rather continually engaging in the ”great experiment” of (a) democracy. What’s more, the basic reasons for the emergence of government by the powerful (and not in fact, “We the People”) can at least be listed inasmuch as those with clearer minds would be open to considering both their reality and validity.

The Voting Electorate. 

I will be blunt here; the American voting electorate is pretty dumb. This is to say that we are very uninformed as a people responsible for picking and choosing our leadership. Most of us do not bother to engage in objective research on the issues in any given election…and those of us who do bother to do what passes for research only look up “facts” that support already-held positions. Those who identify with Republicans (or conservatives) will usually refer to Fox News, The Daily Beast, The Drudge Report, The Bible, or any number of “objective news” sources, while liberals (i.e., Democrats) will go to Mother Jones, The Huffington Post, NPR, or other similar news sources considered “unbiased.” Most American voters start our approaching any issue with a liberal or conservative foundation, and then “research” the “facts” from that point. The problem is that most of these “sources” are little more than platforms for ideological talking points and/or already established beliefs. In other words, most Americans obtain their beliefs of certain issues from propaganda rather than objectivity. We don’t seem capable of suspending our preconceived beliefs and ideas to approach an issue based on the merits rather than their ability to support our individual political ideologies.
What’s more, there are simply too many nuts running loose in our country who lack psychiatric supervision. This is to say that many of the things that “informed voters” believe are beyond the pale. September 11th was a government conspiracy. Abortion is part of a planned genocide against the black community. The female body has mechanisms to “protect against that sort of thing.” Obama is not an American. Political correctness reflects “cultural sensitivity.“ There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Global warming is a hoax. Money is “Free Speech.” The Constitution protects abortion.  Universally affordable health care is akin to slavery. …and these are the “rational” thoughts. We believe anything our elected “leadership” tells us, no matter how insane, how irrational, or how counter-intuitive to reality. These virtual lunatics on both the political left and right share the same voting booths as you and I, and are able to pass themselves off as part of the “informed” electorate, who share the responsibility for putting into office other such “rational” individuals who are only too happy to polly-parrot these extreme beliefs in the name of voter support (just listen to the things that come out of the mouths of Michelle Bachmann or Barney Frank).
We’re also fickle to no end. We have a “Mac-Mentality;” we want “solutions” hot, fast, and now…forgetting that it took years for many of the issues facing the country to make themselves known. We are quick to overlook the fact that our politicians are not magicians…they cannot fix any problem as fast as we would like. Because of this, we will vacillate between election-year political party candidates as often as we change underwear. And quite understandably, our politicians don’t know what issue to support or where people actually stand on a given issue—unless said issues are being spoon-fed to the voting electorate. So they too bounce back and forth between “for” and “against” certain policies. Our political leadership’s inability to stand on one particular aspect of an issue may be irritating, but it’s also a reflection of our own ability to stand still on an issue in a realistic sense. We tend to take sides, as if either side wears the white hats. As I’ve often said on so many occasions, we are too quick to attack the other guy, and reject the worst possibilities of our own political affiliations.

Big Money Influence 

In the last few years, Supreme Court decisions have all-but eviscerated the notion that the voting public effects both legislation and voting rights. Rulings like Citizens United have opened the floodgates for the infusion of endless amounts of cash “donations” into the political process by both private and political interests seeking to influence who makes the laws and how they are made. Under the veneer of “Free Speech,” connected political, financial, and organized private interests groups—those usually tied to business—are now able to purchase public policy (and/or its handlers). Private and moneyed interests are not able to shape and mold a government virtually according to their own design.
And since most of us, the voting electorate, tend to accept and heed the talking points of our political affiliations rather than reason and individual thinking, we buy into this dynamic. Too many Americans—who we only have our votes as an instrument of gaining a say in the political process—are too quick to defend the Big Money interests who have more sway over our lives than we like to think because they can influence how our legislators think and behave. We are literally voting and supporting a status quo that works against our self-interests when we protect and defend the infusion of [the] obscene amounts of money into the political process. This is true whether it be in the legalized form of bribery we call “lobbying,” or when we allow shadowy political groups to throw tons of money into campaigns that call for voting for an issue or candidate that we support simply because it reflects our political affiliations.

The startling takeaway is that we as American citizens now have little impact on governmental and legislative policy by way of our voting. The only exception to this is when highly organized and motivated individuals like those in the partisan Tea Party movement are able to affect a small number within a larger party. But the effect of the Tea Party’s ideological intransigence is also part of the problem in why our politics have become so dysfunctional—they are too wedded to the belief that they are right in what and how they believe government should function. To this effect, many of the movement’s supporters and candidates have often invoked the phrase “no compromise” when it comes to getting legislation passed. This in turn creates the gridlock that stymies current system of governance —such as it is—and destroys any chance for passage of any form of legislation. We now have a system where private, moneyed, and politically-connected interest groups, as well as their lackeys in the various levels of legislative halls, are a law unto themselves. Simply put, the majority doesn’t rule. I know that special interests do not have my interest at heart when they lobby (i.e., pressure) my Congressman or state legislator to either think or vote on their behalf. I’m still waiting to the rest of my fellow Americans to catch up to this fact…but I won’t hold my breath.

The Changing Economy 

Oddly enough, when America had a stable Middle Class, and when we were a nation that actually produced manufactured goods, we had a stable voting electorate. There were fewer socioeconomic and political divisions by which our politicians could drive a wedge through to exploit for personal gain. In fact, quite the opposite; we were more willing to overlook both the political decisions and indiscretions of our elected leaders because the effects of either didn’t seem to have an overt consequence to the public at-large. Iran-Contra didn’t turn into a general clamor for impeachment (except from the extreme Left). Former Washington D.C. mayor Marion Barry’s conviction for drug use during an FBI sting—one caught on video—didn’t affect his eventual re-election to that same position. And despite his allusions that his contentious congressional confirmation had racial overtones, Clarence Thomas was eventually confirmed as a Supreme Court justice.
Our tolerance for decisions weak and/or questionable political decisions was far greater, relegated to the “all politicians lie,” or the “It doesn’t affect me and my family” ethos. As long as gasoline was cheap, jobs that actually paid the bills were still available, financial institutions were not overtly greedy (and corrupt), and our economy was still the envy of the world, why would any of us have complained…much less organize enough to take sides. But along the way, the economy and our political sensitivities started to change. While good-paying manufacturing began moving offshore in an effort to compete with the invasion of cheaper foreign-made products, a lower-paying service-based economy took over. Organized labor—unions—was assaulted from two points; the reduction in their numbers due to the off-shoring of jobs, and an assault on laws meant to protect union practices by business-friendly Republicans. This assault included curtailing laws that made it easier for Democratic-leaning to fund Democratic candidates and worker-friendly legislation. With unions (and their political money) weakened to historical levels, a supportive money supply to the Democratic Party was dried. This forced the Democrats into bed with the same kind of Big Money and private interest groups that the Republicans had cozied up to years earlier in order to raise party fund money (see: Lobbying Spending By Sector). Although many of those supporting legislation responsible for weakening organized labor will usually make references to “election fairness,” “economic concerns,” accusations of union “corruption” as justifications for doing so, make no mistake about it—attacks on unions were more about securing political advantage for benefitting political parties (and candidates), and not for the greater good (although one would be hard-pressed to deny that denials of such provide for the most elegant of rebuttals).
What's worse, many rank-and-file Americans have started to buy into the political narrative (put forth in part to defend the actions of those jockying for political fund-raising advantage) that "union greed" is what was responsible for the transformation of the American economy rather than the natural and inevitable drive by manufacturers to drastically find a way to increase profits in the face increasing global competition. We have forgetten that it was the labor-friendly demands of unions—higher wages, benefits, and reasonable hours to name a few—that helped to create a stable Middle Class in the first place.  This leads into the final factor contributing to our sad state of politics in America...

The Political Class

When I talk about the political class in America, what I am generally speaking to are not only career lobbyists, but career politicians, elected members of both major political parties, 501 (C )(4) political organizations (associated non-disclosed donors), and regular corporate economic entities—all of which/who form what can be unarguably considered the new ruling oligarchy in America. This is the say that these groups and individuals are so politically active and themselves informed about the inner workings as well as the mechanics of the legislative process that they can literally shape laws that benefit each entity and individual within this ruling political class. Our politicians are merely a means to this end. In most cases, these people and/or groups can be recognized by their constant presence in politics, their last names—especially in the cases of political “dynasties” (e.g., families that constantly produce career politicians)—and the influence they wield in affecting the legislative process.
Regardless of political party affiliation, most of the ruling oligarchy tends to be mainstays in the halls of power in this country, with some 50% of retiring or electorally defeated Congressmen taking up with lobbying firms in continuing to influence the legislative process on behalf of the highest bidder.
Even in the case of the few who aren’t as personally motivated by monetary gain, they are too beholden to their ideological (and by extension, their political party’s) beliefs to be effective legislators. This means that they tend to embrace party-lines and baseless thinking in order to appeal to their respective bases and remain in power for the sake of careers in “public service.” This is why climate change deniers, race-baiters, proponents of immigration “reform,” and those who think all taxes are “bad” tend to maintain their popularity among their respective supporters. This means that many of our elected leadership will literally say and promise anything in order to protect their political positions. Many have conned the American voting electorate into thinking we actually have a choice—via our votes—over which direction our country should go when it comes to the legislative process when in reality, the politically-connected ruling oligarchy makes these decisions.

Admittedly somewhat cynical, our American oligarchs have designs to pull the strings of political system in order to suck as much wealth as possible from the nation (and its people) by ensuring cheaper labor, government subsidies, and other favorable legislation that ensures greater profits and the free flow of capital among and between each other. Additionally, political oligarchs in this country seek to hoard the wealth they collect by saving money in the form of tax cuts and favorable tax rates. To enable these designs, political oligarchs employ a army of lawyers, image consultants, and public relations too sculpt favorable images of politicians who work to protect the wealth of their fellow oligarchs.
Politicians and other members of the political class all-but crippled the Middle Class by sucking all the wealth and promise out from it via usurping the political and legislative process. And without a strong middle class, America cannot offer its citizens a chance to improve their lives, to maintain the infrastructure required for commerce and growth, or support those citizens that need a safety net thanks to lower-paying employment (See: “How the Middle-Class Got Screwed”). The political class cheats the system as it was meant to be in order to steal the wealth of our nation and hoard it for themselves.
But in order to keep attention off of themselves and their designs, oligarchs will often sow the seeds of dissent among competing groups of Americans. Liberal vs. conservatives. Immigrants vs. native-born citizens. Ethnicity vs. ethnicity. We blame each other for “ruining the country,” while the political class benefits. The fact is, when you look at the military, you will find both liberals and conservatives in uniform. I would like to believe that both liberals, conservatives, as well as those in between love that the American Constitution is supposed to reflect the will of the people, not the special interests, and certainly not the interests of the political (and economic) ruling class in America. However, as much as we would like to believe that our vote counts, it seems that our country is being controlled and manipulated by the moneyed and politically-connected elite—and not We The People!

Read More

The Politicization of Gender In America

I was recently motivated by a reader (thank you MLJ1219) to write about an issue that I have touched on on previous occasions, but have failed to articulate with any level of explicit understanding. It’s one of those issues which female readers of Beyond The Political Spectrum are not going to agree with me on, which is fine.
Recently, I posted a couple recent issues in the news—in addition to past postings—regarding the politicization of gender as a campaign issue, especially in this election year (Ex: "Contraception: It's Easier Than You Think," "Issues In The News (For Dummies!)," and "Contraception As A Political Issue...Does This Make Too Much Sense? (Part 2)").
In retrospect, I can see why some readers would have thought that I side with the Democrats on most women-related issues, seeing as how most of what said or indicated in previous posts seemed to reflect defending women’ rights on various issues.
However, a bit of clarification is in order. I feel compelled on this 40th anniversary of the Federal Title IX legislation to state that what I was attempting to showcase previously was the absurdity of gender-specific issues as campaign issues which at a time when jobs, the economy, and national security should take primary focus. I don’t defend issues such as abortion and contraception in and of themselves. What I object to is the politicization of gender as a campaign issue, which both parties—the Democrats in particular—are guilty of. To this point, conservatives—although in error to focus on individual decisions such as abortion as a practice (as well as other side issues) to be regulated by government—are right to criticize how Democrats are quick to pander to the emotionally volatile concerns of women among the voting electorate.
Take the recent debate surrounding the reauthorization of the 18-year-old anti-domestic violence law known as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Passed in 1994 the law, which among other things makes “crimes of violence motivated by the victim's gender" a federal civil rights violation, has been reauthorized on 2 previous occasions, with little fanfare. However, this year renewal of the bill faces opposition from conservative Republicans in the Senate due to added provisions which extended recognition, protections, and availability of resources (allocated in the initial bill) to cover Native Americans, lesbian, gay, and transgender Americans as well as illegal immigrants.
Democrats have smeared the Republicans’ opposition of the bill’s renewal to the “War on Women” they accuse the Republicans of engaging in as they erroneously focus on issues of reproduction and sexuality as campaign issues. They have, to some limited success, framed the Republicans’ effort to block passage of the reauthorization proposal as part of a greater conservative strategy against women, when it fact they are only opposed to the protections which women already benefit from extended to other groups, most of which are indeed questionable given their lack of legal total legal recognition.
Logic dictates that any federal law ostensibly created to protect women against domestic violence simply follow its inherent mandate. The addition of gay partners to this bill smacks of partisan one-upsmanship in using a female issue to gain political advantage, stretching the law’s initial credibility as a protection against, and recognition of male-on-female domestic violence. Furthermore, adding protections against battered female illegal immigrants is almost laughable; doing so validates the presence of illegal immigrants in a way which seems to focus on one particular crime—violence against female partners—while ignoring the larger issue of their illegal presence on American soil (yes, it’s acknowledged that previous versions the VAWA protected female immigrants from abusive spouses, but only insofar as pertains to their legal opportunity to obtain permanent immigration status based on the claim of abuse; it doesn’t impact the overall argument).
Additionally, there is more than enough law at the state and local levels which protect women against abusive partners. In fact, given the disproportionate way in which women are not only protected, but somewhat elevated in aspects of treatment in our contemporary culture, politicizing gender only further empowers women…at the expense of men. Take the issue of reproductive rights in America.
Despite the perception by many that there is an assault on women’s reproductive rights, women in a sense, have the overwhelming amount authority when it comes to deciding establishing the general rights and guidelines of parenthood (I can attest to this personally, see “Women Reproductive Rights...and Wrongs!”). Under the current socioeconomic and legal dynamic, women decide whether to become parents, not men. I know that presumes that men have no responsibility in the process, but strictly speaking, it is her body. A woman can opt to decide to have unprotected sex, knowing full well that under most normal circumstances, pregnancy can be the result. If the woman doesn’t want to actually have a baby, she has the right to invoke a type of mulligan...a do-over in the form of the right to either abort the baby, or to put it up for adoption (sorry to shatter the illusion, but despite laws on the record books that gives a biological father say-so in cases where a mother wants to put a baby up for adoption despite his objections, the level of stipulations and statutory requirements makes a father taking presumptive automatic custody renders this an unrealistic reality). In matter of abortion, the man has no input, and—for all intents and purposes—in matter of adoption he has very little.
On the other hand, the woman also chooses to whether or not to impose parenthood on a male, and has the ability to leverage the power of the state to compel him to financially contribute to a child’s upbringing in the form of pursing child support. If a man doesn’t want to be a father, it’s pretty much Tough ****. A man who doesn’t want to be a father is a “deadbeat dad” or “sperm donor,” and will be pursued with the conviction of hunting down Al Queda, while a woman who doesn’t want to be a mother has the benefit of the state protection of her rights. And of these men, more than a few of wouldn’t even have criminal records if not for an otherwise lackadaisical sense of priorities, while for mothers, only the most extreme cases of neglect would qualify as “criminal.”
And should I have to even mention how typically weighted proceedings, judgments, and (conditions of) “settlements” are in favor in women in family and divorce court? Toss in the subjective judgment by wife seeking divorce of “mental abuse” (or domestic abuse) and you get a system which makes the woman’s word in such legal proceedings beyond reproach (and no, I’m not speaking of actual cases of domestic violence where there is a tangible trail of evidence and history of such. I am speaking of the way in which many women allege such “abuse” when submitting a laundry list of accusations as reasons for a judge to rule against a man in impending divorce proceedings). The reason this happens is because in this particular arena of jurisprudence, “the standard of evidence (known as "preponderance of the evidence") is the lowest allowed by law,” and family court hearings are often heard by a panel of commissioners…and often “with no witnesses beyond the parties themselves” in order save time and lower strains on this area of the judicial system. (See: “Ripped Apart”).
To further emphasize this point of this judicial bias which is tilted in favor of women, consider the following:

Rhea Rolfe, an attorney who once taught a "women and the law" class at the University of Washington, recalls sitting with a male client in a commissioner's courtroom one day. There were maybe seven or eight cases heard. "She ruled against every single man," Rolfe recalls, "and two of them were unopposed."

In many cases, the accusation of abuse is the marital equivalent of a rape accusation without an actual rape having taken place…an occurrence which happens more than we’d like to think, thanks to (you guessed it) the socio-political power we give to a woman’s sexuality. The upshot is that considering how much our society—by way of our institutions, if not our thinking—have empowered women at the expense of men, politicizing gender-related issues is not only unnecessary, it’s another example of more than political pandering to particular demographics which politicians from the two main political party engage in…at the expense the general voting electorate. In the case of politicizing gender issues, it’s an obvious appeal by the Democrats to women…at the expense—in many respects—to men. Men have no reproductive rights, no male-issue-specific Washington lobby, and can be forced to pay child support—even in some cases where he is not the biological father. Women have far more advantages in seeking court-based redress in matter of marital discord, parenting rights, and general paternity. As one reader put it so well, “women have the upper hand. When men had the upper hand, it was called ‘oppression.’ Now that women have the upper hand, it’s called ‘equality.’”

Read More