Vicious Circle

Just one rogue socialist's take on what's wrong with the country

2008-10-21T18:28:00.002-05:00

In 21st Century Democracy class this morning, we had a rousing argument about Barack Obama's proposed tax plan. It boiled down to me advocating progressive taxes (with occasional backup from two people) and pressing the need for the wealthy to give back to the community, while several others argued that such measures would punish people who have worked for their wealth and that "the American dream is not a government program." One person even said that those whom the tax increase would affect (with personal incomes of $250,000 or more) would wind up living "bill-to-bill."

First: The proposed tax increases aren't enough to make that much of an income tight to live on. If the people with said incomes are living beyond their means already, that was bad judgment on their parts, and they ought to scale down a bit. Overspending got the entire economy into this mess in the first place.

Second: There's a difference between being paid to live by the government, and being treated by the government in such a way that getting out of poverty or bettering oneself isn't impossible.

Third: Those who have gotten much from the system and can afford to give back should. It's what taxes and tax brackets are all about. Today's richest citizens have it better, tax-wise, than those in any other era. In 1955, the top 400 earners made an average of $12 million and paid over 51% income tax on it. In 2005, the average income of the top 400 was $213 million (that's covering a wide range because the top 5 hedge fund managers each earn about $5 billion) and income tax paid on it was just 18.2%. See The Nation's article "Plutocracy Reborn" for charts, graphs, and lovely data-like things. The upshot is that, basically, today's ultra-wealthy are spoiled rotten.

I think that there's a disease in this country. We fundamentally lack a sense of community responsibility. That is what socialism, true socialism, is all about: taking care of society as a whole, and not just taking as much as possible for any one individual. Yes, success should be rewarded. But if you've gotten so much from the community, you have a basic human responsibility to give back. Somebody's got to pay taxes! Otherwise we'd have no infrastructure, no public utilities, no garbage collection! It makes no sense whatsoever to place the majority of the burden on those who barely have enough to scrape by as it is. Those who can afford to pay more ought to. It's that simple. Otherwise we'll wind up with this ever-widening wealth gap becoming insurmountable. The majority of the population won't have any chance at all at the American dream. That's not a future this country can face.

Out of the mouths of babes

2008-09-30T08:02:00.002-05:00

The following is an email I sent to Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut regarding the massive bailout plan currently festering in Congress.

---------------------------------------------------

Dear Senator Dodd,
I desperately wish to propose a solution to the current financial maelstrom. Rather than buying packages based on bad debt, as the bill which just failed in the House allowed, why can the government not pay off the bad mortgages that caused the failure? The mortgage-backed securities will be secure again, because all will be paid off; thousands if not millions of Americans will be able to stay in their homes; and if my calculations are anywhere near the mark it will cost several hundred billion dollars less than the current bailout plan. As a final provision, rather than making taxpayers foot the bill, the CEOs who made these corporations fail should be made to pay for at least part of it. I understand that the FBI is investigating, among others, Lehman Brothers and AIG. Should those investigations find any scurrilous behavior, the executives should be made to pay even more to stabilize the companies they drove into the ground.

I believe that burning golden parachutes and increased financial regulations are essential for keeping this sort of thing from recurring, as well. Reinstatement of usury laws would help prevent fraudulent lending. Perhaps certain members of Congress will complain that such measures would "stunt growth" or "encourage socialism," but what we have is not growth, it is a cancer. It must be removed so that real, measured, healthy growth may resume.

Thank you very much for your time, and please consider sharing these ideas with your fellow Congresspeople.

Sincerely,
Ariel S. Hyre
Hopkins School class of 2009

facepalm

2008-09-01T18:55:00.005-05:00

So, to begin, I repeat my disclaimer from my first ever post in saying that the following is MY OPINION and MY OPINION ONLY. I am a raging liberal and if you disagree with any of this that's fine, although I wonder what you'd be doing reading my blog in the first place.

Sarah Palin.
FAIL.
Aside from the fact that I disagree with her on basically every front, this business with her daughter is, quite frankly, horrifying and repulsive. Kudos to Obama for refusing to touch the issue---for a man of his standing, that is good and proper. But that doesn't mean I can't rant about it.

First: I feel awful for the poor kids. Especially the father! I can't imagine what he will be going through. It's not his choice to marry little miss Palin, I'll bet. And I doubt that the situation is his fault, either. Here's why.

Governor Palin is, by all accounts, a violent opponent of abortion and birth control. Abstinence only! She also had no intentions to change the laws about sex-ed in Alaskan schools. As it stands, it's not required or even funded! So this mother of five (yep, she sure doesn't like birth control) expects her children to go through adolescence as completely chaste little angels. ...Yeah. That always works. Do these abstinence proponents even remember their own childhood? When kids aren't taught about this sort of thing, they usually find a way to learn about it themselves, and don't go about it safely either. Then, as evidence of "family values," there's going to be a shotgun wedding as soon as these kids turn eighteen. The fact that they're keeping the baby is being held up as a shining example of Compassionate Conservatism, but given Sen. Palin's record, there's no chance in hell that her daughter would be allowed an abortion. And the whole mess would have been prevented by a little pill, a scrap of rubber, or a bit more attention from mommy.

Here, then, we have three ruined lives: two too young to have experienced much of it yet, and one not even begun. And the cause of it all is nominated to be Vice President, who, if elected, is more likely to have to assume the primary role than any other VP in history. The McCain campaign is trying to use the issue to show that its choice is going through the same difficulties as normal Americans. Well, you know what? I don't want a "normal" American in the White House. The "have-a-beer-with-him" argument got the current schmuck where he is (that and some rigged machines), and I'll be damned if that works again. We need somebody special, somebody who can understand but not be mired in the hardships we face.

You'd think that the Republicans would wise up a little, really. Were I the type to believe such things, I'd say that it's pretty obvious that God doesn't want McCain elected. He's been badly upstaged at every turn: the South America tour while Obama was in Berlin; Hurricane Gustav resulting in his convention being postponed (to what end is unclear, because the attendees are partying like crazy); and now this. There are other examples but I can't recall them because he wasn't as important. Take a hint, seriously.

I shall conclude this with a cry heard more and more often around my house.

I HATE STUPID PEOPLE!!!!!

The only word is WTF

2008-07-31T17:38:00.003-05:00

Exxon-Mobil earned almost TWELVE BILLION DOLLARS in THREE FARKING MONTHS???? And its stock goes DOWN???? Because expected profits were HIGHER?!?!?!? Can you hear my voice rising as I say this??

No single major oil producer profited less than $4 billion in the last quarter. Exxon now holds all top ten places for biggest corporate quarterly profits in HISTORY.

Okay, so, there's a disconnect here. If the big companies are low on supply, and "passing on the cost to consumers," then where the hell is all this profit coming from? Profit by definition means income that wasn't used in the process of doing business. Extra left over after breaking even. That means that gas companies are, plain and simple, overcharging. Who the hell could even SPEND fifteen hundred dollars every second? Something's rotten in the state of Texas. Either use that cash to improve energy efficiency and increase production or don't charge so farking much!

My Term Paper: Black Days Coming (How the New Elite are Recreating the Great Depression)

2008-07-28T18:08:00.002-05:00

Sooooo this is what I wrote for my history class. It's not as good or as long as I'd been aiming for, because my files and backup got corrupted so I had to rewrite all but 2 pages from scratch in two days. Please note that because of formatting issues I can't put my actual footnotes in, but they cited everything from the Associated Press to the United States Treasury to Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States and I left the little markers in. Rest assured, I did not make this stuff up. The Nation magazine was particularly invaluable and I encourage you all to go take a look at it.

This is dedicated to my incredible boyfriend Jack, without whom I would have had a complete breakdown and never re-written it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When Americans need a reference for the worst of times, they choose the Great Depression. The crash of 1929 and the destitution of the ‘30s represent perhaps the lowest point in American history with respect to living conditions, lack of prosperity, and hopelessness. Iconic images have survived to remind us all of the poverty of the era, but very few people recall anything else. Its origins are most noticeably forgotten, if in fact they were known by ordinary citizens at all. The majority of people, completely trusting of the economy's stability, were caught entirely off-guard when the Stock Market crashed in the last days of October, 1929. Then again, these people did not actually work on Wall Street or in the great financial firms, and did not have access to knowledge of what was actually happening behind the scenes. While most of America saw huge growth and prosperity, much of that was actually a bubble, soaring affluence borne up by excitement over nothing at all. When the bubble burst, and it was revealed that a lot of the money that had kept the economy going was nonexistent, millions of people lost everything they had invested. Some of the reasons for the rampant, unstable growth were valid, like the introduction of affordable motor cars that opened a whole new branch of production. However, the key reasons for the crash were bad policy decisions, lack of regulations, and pure greed. This will sound familiar to anybody who pays attention to economics in the modern age, particularly in America. The conservative administrations in power since Franklin Delano Roosevelt have rebuilt the corporate monster responsible for the Great Depression. In a terrifying revival of the Gilded Age of robber barons, Reagan and the Bushes have brought the country to the brink of a second economic catastrophe, and this time, it will be much, much harder to repair.

In the wake of Black Tuesday, politicians wrangled over whom to blame. Calvin Coolidge balked at taking responsibility, claiming that most causes “had their origin outside of the United States” where the administration could not reach.1 The International Chamber of Commerce cited a host of causes including the fall of silver, Soviet treatment of goods, and a decline in commodity prices.2 Republican congressman Fiorello LaGuardia of New York believed usurious banking practices were the problem,3 but the Democratic Party's official statement tore into failed post-war policies and business monopolies. In a 1932 statement, the party blamed the Coolidge administration for “encouraging the indefensible expansion and contraction of credit for private profit at the expense of the public.”4 Part of the problem was, in fact, poor administration on the federal level; during most of the '20s, a man named Daniel Crissinger was in charge of the Federal Reserve Board as chairman. He had no true credentials for the post, having been General Counsel of an Ohio-based steam shovel company in the past, without any other economic experience whatsoever.5 The director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Charles E. Mitchell, was appointed in January of 1929 and had a personal stake in the booming market which left him disinclined to suppress the violent growth with regulation.6

The principal underlying causes of the unsafe boom, though, were touched upon by President Herbert Hoover, United Mine Workers president John H. Lewis, St. Lewis Post-Dispatch correspondent Charles G. Ross, and state representative William Randolph Hearst.7 Hoover brought attention to the problem of speculation,8 the practice of buying the rights to a certain product in expectation of an increase in price, then selling with no intention of using the product in question for its own sake. Buying and selling stocks for profit is one kind of financial speculation. A more dangerous form, however, evolves when the product is something tangible. Commodities speculation can and does drive the price of that commodity up at incredible rates, making the product unavailable to those who would like to buy it for use. This type of speculation ran rampant in Florida during the mid-1920s in the real estate market. The concept of owning beachfront property in Florida was so appealing to the newly affluent middle class that lots in the state began selling like hotcakes. Speculators bought land, even if it was not on the beach, because it would sell again for twice or three times what they had paid for it, sometimes only days later. People accepted down payments as small as 10% on lots because the buyers would want to sell in “a fortnight.”9 As prices spiraled higher, actually buying the properties to live on became untenable, and even those who had made huge profits by repeatedly buying and selling could not afford to purchase or hold the land. The disillusionment was helped along by hurricanes during 1928. By that year, bank clearings on loans and transactions had fallen to $143 million from over $1 billion in 1925.10

This sort of cycle caused the huge collapse of the market. Buying stocks on margin, a form of trading in which each holder receives the sale profit without any costs of ownership, meant that prices could spiral ever higher without anybody actually having the money to back it. The banks which originally supplied the capital were being loaned to from all around the country because rates of return were so high. The origin of all the capital became lost in the tangle of lending and trading.11 Then, “When prices stopped risingwhen [people capable of buying ran out]then ownership on margin would become meaningless and everyone would want to sell. The market wouldn't level out, it would drop precipitately.”12 And drop it did; lack of consumer confidence in the values of everything from housing to hats resulted in the enormous crash. The process had, in fact, caused numerous small recessions and depressions before 1929, yet nothing was ever done to curb the practice.13

Other serious financial issues, raised by Lewis, Ross, and Hearst, concerned the disproportion between corporate profits and the rest of the people in the country. These were what caused widespread poverty after the initial collapse of the stock market. Lewis blamed the owners of corporations, saying that “a horde of small-time leaders in industry and finance looted the purse of the population,”14 referring to the astounding gap between the top 0.01% of Americans and the bottom 90%. In 1928, the top hundredth earned 892 times as much as the rest of the country.15 Ross commented in a Pulitzer-Prize-winning article in 1932 that “the wealth created by the machine has gone, in appalling proportion, to the owners of the machine.”16 Hearst took the analysis a step further when he declared that “if profits had been distributed in wages, prosperity would have been maintained and increased.”17

This entire situation has been remade in the context of the 20th and 21st centuries. For about twenty-five years, largely conservative administrations have worked away the underpinnings of Roosevelt's New Deal and the regulations that helped the American economy stabilize. Rather than increasing power to supervising bodies, policy has favored market discipline, which has failed to keep the country running smoothly.18 While regulation does raise the question of who is to regulate the regulators,19 lack of oversight causes worse problems. Calvin Coolidge, whose administration set up the environment that spawned the Depression, based his economic policy on noninterference and tax cuts.20 In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan's “Reaganomics” were based on the same ideas. The regulations on businesses were halved during his term, and the government lost $750 billion to tax cuts while increasing defense spending, a move that sent national debt through the roof even as corporate profits soared.21 Reagan's successor George Bush increased that debt, his Democratic successor Bill Clinton created a budget surplus―and then George W. Bush came along. In his eight years in office the nation has gone from a surplus to over nine and a half trillion dollars in the hole.22

Terrifyingly enough, the government is still spending more than what it gains in taxes, and not just on wars that traditionally were funded by increased tax rates.23 The regulations Reagan did away with have not been restored. Bush has continued to follow the “trickle-down” hypothesis, increasing regulation in the wrong sectors that put the majority of burden on small businesses, promoting speculation in the oil market, and increasing corporate income exponentially.24 CEOs make hundreds of millions of dollars per year, and oil giant Exxon-Mobil earns $1,300 per second in profits.25 The mess made of the economy is now becoming visible in the skyrocketing costs of all goods because of the outlandish price of fuel. In a domino effect, gasoline's record highs have sent shock waves through every corner of America because “almost everything is made out of petroleum” and everything that isn't is transported by it.26 Car companies that had previously focused on building sport utility vehicles and trucks, like General Motors and Ford Motors, have lost billions and are struggling to change their production lines.27 At the other end of the spectrum, household products as benign as diapers are getting more expensive because they are made from petroleum,28 and dairy products cost anywhere from 6.5% to 40% more than previously because the corn used to feed animals is being diverted to make ethanol.29

As if paying more for everyday necessities was not bad enough, thousands of families are losing their homes as well. Around the country, foreclosure rates have risen incredibly—one in every 43 homes were foreclosed on in Nevada in the second quarter of 200830—and defaulting on loans and mortgages is nearly commonplace. Predatory lending practices, which had gone unnoticed due to lack of oversight, are taking their toll. Although certain banks made huge initial profits by giving loans to those who could not keep up with post-teaser-rate interest, the obvious problem struck and those loans became worthless.

The repercussions of this are similar to the crashes and failures of the Depression. Two large financial institutions were hit hard recently; Bank of America's profit dropped 41%,31 and Citigroup actually lost $2.5 billion, but their stocks rose because the hits were not as bad as expected.32 Financial giant IndyMac's failure, the fifth in 2008, prompted the first bank run in America since the Great Depression, sending people scurrying in fear to withdraw their savings.33 The seizure of major banks by the government and the bailouts like those of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac also draw parallels to the 1930s, and to the Reaganomics of the '80s that the Bush administration models itself after. Banks that failed during the Depression were allowed to pay off their debts with as little as ten cents on the dollar, while “hundreds of thousands of individuals” had to pay off theirs completely.34 Some government officials say that these institutions are “too big to be allowed to fail,” because they carry so many of America's mortgages. Should they go under, so would the entire real estate market, taking a large chunk of the global economy with them.35

Why were these single banks allowed to get so big to start with? Is not the cardinal sin of investing to put all of one's eggs in one basket? Yes; but the new aristocracy is rich enough to take huge risks with other people's money. Hedge funds in particular are a popular way to do so. Often they include things like mortgages and loan debts that are to be paid to the fund. They carry huge risks, but give enormous returns.36 The top five hedge fund managers in America earn over 13,000 times more than the top five American military leaders combined, about $12.5 billion per year. This, as the vast majority of people cut down on driving and try to make their budgets stretch. The top hundredth of a percent has surpassed the level of wealth it reached in 1928 and now earns over nine hundred seventy-six times what the bottom 90% does.37 There simply is no more oversight to keep the elite from taking advantage.

How, then, can the tide be stopped before the full effects of a true depression hit the nation? In the '30s, Roosevelt created dozens of programs to get the newly destitute working again, preceded by grants that gave hungry families enough money to eat until the Works Progress Administration, National Recovery Act, Civilian Conservation Corps, and other initiatives got off the ground.38 However, it was not until the enormous economic defibrillation of the Second World War that America's infrastructure could operate under its own power again. Millions of men went to war, and millions of women suddenly had factory jobs producing arms, parachutes, and planes for them.39 How would that play out in today's world? Even in Roosevelt's time legislation such as that in the New Deal was considered to be too lenient, “handouts” that gave the poor incentive to stay unemployed. The president himself was not all that happy about the unemployment relief he himself designed40—but it passed.

Today, after years of systematically taking apart the fabric of the New Deal, even Social Security is under threat from hard-line reactionaries who want to privatize it, completely defeating the purpose of a social safety net.41 Fortunately the outcry was great enough, including voices as respected as those at the Brookings Institution, that the deed has not been done. Those who desire it, however, are still in power, and the attitude required is still prevalent among many politicians who are a little too friendly with the super-wealthy. The probability of another New Deal being implemented is low. The chances of the economy being kick-started by another huge war are even lower. For one, America is in a war of sorts right now, although it is not against an established nation. Another World War is practically out of the question, given the nature of the global economy and diplomacy. If, somehow, an enormous conflict were to spring up, the draft is no longer in effect, which means that millions of men will not suddenly have jobs as soldiers. Even if the draft were to be reinstated, there are no longer enough factory jobs to bolster employment if a huge influx of weapons became necessary. Not only does the United States already have an utterly unbelievable arsenal, including an estimated 5,500 nuclear warheads,42 but the factories that produce such weapons are largely mechanized. Lockheed Martin Corporation employs only about 140,000 workers (most of these researchers and scientists rather than assembly line hands), yet it is one of the largest manufacturers of weapons technology in the world.43 And again, even if millions of new laborers were required all of a sudden, the production would not spur competition or prosperity. Only the leaders of the corporations who gain no-bid contracts with the government would benefit, like Halliburton did in 2004 because its former CEO Richard Cheney had become Vice President and got a nice share of the profits.44 Everything always comes back to the money and the “good ol' boys,” just like it did in the nineteenth century when the robber barons reigned supreme.45

Clearly the populace has not learned much from history, and the top echelons of society have chosen to ignore it in pursuit of personal wealth. This cycle cannot continue without spreading ruin across the country and the world, perhaps leaving billions destitute and repeatedly destroying multiple economies. We are well on our way to another crisis of epic proportions. Despite sporadic dips in the price of oil, despite the frenzied fuss over green alternatives, the cost of living will continue to climb until America falls again into the awful quagmire of a true Depression.

In praise of Metro North

2008-07-14T13:53:00.006-05:00

With oil prices the way they are, and ethanol production not going so well, I really have to wonder why trains aren't making a comeback. Sure, ridership (If that's actually a word?) is up considerably, but not much is being done to expand service. As airlines flounder and actually lose money on flights, spending more time on the tarmac than it would take to get to the destination some other way, public transportation becomes more and more sensible.

As a resident of the sixth borough of New York City (Connecticut; you know it's true) I take the train a lot. When I do, I ride Metro North. Unlike Amtrak, Shore Line East, and other carriers, I've never seen an MT train marked as "late." While the Connecticut line cars are a little old, there is a plan in action to replace them with new ones like the Hudson line has. I got to check out a sample car a while ago; they're shiny and comfy and very sleek. Also properly air-conditioned. If I remember correctly, the engineer said that each new car costs $1.6 million. I think it would be worth it, though, particularly if they increase the number of cars and trips as well. Since last year I've noticed that each time I go into the city, the number of people on the train increases a little bit. I'm lucky to go from end-to-end of the line, because people getting on at Stamford have to squish in. And I only ever take off-peak trains!

The only problem with the system right now is that the fares are still a little too high to make riding in cheaper than driving. For one person it's a no-brainer; $28 round-trip for an off-peak would only pay for parking once you're in the city and gas would cost much more. But for three or more, it's still more economically viable to carpool and split the cost. It's possible that with the new fleet, which is also supposed to be more efficient, ticket prices will go down a bit. This would be awesome, but it isn't guaranteed, and it will take a while to incorporate the new cars. However, I think it's a shame that public transport is still more expensive for families and groups than driving. It's far cleaner, more fuel- and space-efficient, and safer. There's also the fact that taking a train has a mystique all its own. For a lone passenger, like me, there's the feeling of being in a movie, staring out the window pensively with my iPod on. For groups, we can sit and face each other and talk without distracting the driver. Admittedly some people don't know proper train etiquette, but then you can move to another car. And sometimes you meet somebody nice! The last time I came home from the city, I spent half the ride talking with a young woman named Kate who was very nice, smart, and liked many of the same books that I do. You never get that kind of socializing on the highway.

Living in Connecticut, I'm privileged to have access to this kind of resource. Because we are, basically, a suburb of the City, reliable and regular train service is all but necessary, and it's also highly profitable; people less fortuitously placed have trouble finding train stations. But with the price of flying going up exponentially, and delays on the tarmac exceeding seven hours in some cases, rail travel is looking more attractive by the day. Even if the flight itself only takes two hours, once you spend three in the airport and five on the runway it takes just as long to get to, say, Chicago as it would to take a train there. What I'm supporting is a revival of nationwide railroads, on the scale of the 1800s, to replace or relieve both air travel and driving. It is unlikely that oil prices will fall significantly any time soon, so if an economy of scale is built back into the train system, it will become much less expensive to use the rails while still being profitable to the entity in charge of them. In fact, widespread rail use could possibly cause a fall in oil prices because of decrease in demand. Extrapolating from all this, imagine changing transport systems from trucking to train cars. The prices of goods would fall too, because the price of gas would not have to be passed on to the consumer.

Admittedly the original cost of rebuilding the tracks and manufacturing cars would be expensive; but think of all the jobs it would create! We'd need people to lay the tracks, operate the equipment, coordinate the effort, build more stations, and of course drive the trains. And this is the sort of thing that can't be outsourced! You can't lay a Colorado railway from China, and somebody in India can't check tickets in Florida. I'm actually quite shocked that nobody has thought of this. If someone has, more power to her! Reviving the railways would do wonders for the country, the environment, and the consumer. What are we waiting for?

A completely rational thought

2008-07-11T17:28:00.003-05:00

Whilst I assemble a properly researched argument (If I can do any research not related to my term paper; ugh), I would like to voice the following opinion:

THE WORLD IS SCARING ME!!!!!!!!

...That is all.

Doomed to Repeat It

2008-07-08T18:42:00.007-05:00

Here I go again. Clearly I am not very good at keeping up with things. And shame on me, with so many interesting and horrifying things going on!

Today I am in the middle of a new history class, which covers world events from the Great War up to the present. Currently we are studying the Cold War, which means we've done both World Wars and the Great Depression, decolonization, and United States involvement in South America. I've also started reading Winston Churchill's history of World War Two.

Tonight at 6pm Eastern Time I watched the BBC World News broadcast like I do almost every weeknight, and was horrified. Because of the modern history I'm learning now, I've started to see patterns and similarities in current events. For example, foremost in the report was the state of the American economy and its effects on the British home market. The BBC compared the credit, housing, and fuel crises to the Great Depression; and they aren't the only ones. Practically every article regarding the economy nowadays makes some reference to the 1930s and the terrible state of economics during that time, in the States and across the world. Many say that this is fearmongering, but clearly these people have not read Churchill. In the second chapter of The Gathering Storm he addresses the causes of the Depression and its effects on pre-Nazi Germany. Regarding the cause, he writes,

"The whole wealth so swiftly gathered in the paper values of previous years vanished. The prosperity of millions of American homes had grown upon a gigantic structure of inflated credit, now suddenly proved phantom. Apart from nationwide speculation in shares which even the most famous banks had encouraged by easy loans, a vast system of purchase by installment of houses, furniture, cars, and numberless kinds of household conveniences and indulgences had grown up. All now fell together."

Sound familiar?

And then there's this Russia issue. Today Condoleezza Rice signed an agreement with the Czech government, authorizing the States to base a missile defense shield there. Russia is a tad miffed, to put it lightly, at the concept of American arms so close to its borders, and has threatened military retaliation. The BBC reported that

The Russian foreign ministry statement said: "If a US strategic anti-missile shield starts to be deployed near our borders, we will be forced to react not in a diplomatic fashion but with military-technical means."

Rice responded that the system was designed to protect Europe and the States from Iranian nukes, and that the Cold War was over.

Is it?

So now I'm thinking, huh. Isn't that just great. Haven't we done this before? But in the '40s, the economy was reinvigorated by war manufacturing, whereas today there can be no such boost. Manufacturing is mechanized, meaning that there will be no influx of factory jobs. The companies themselves are privatized, limiting any benefit to the country as a whole by sale of arms to the government. And of course there won't be any competition because the friends of the administration get no-bid contracts. All the rest of us would be needed for is tax money and coffin fodder. That's assuming another large(r) war breaks out at all, and of course, it was a war that partially got us into this mess to start with.

I'm hoping fervently that Obama can win the election and rein in the worst of what's quickly becoming complete ruin.

Insurance

2007-06-03T18:03:00.000-05:00

Hi all, if anyone's left reading this after so long. Sorry for not posting. I just haven't had the angst and energy required to rant properly for a while, not to mention all the billion and one other things in real life that I had to take care of. Anyway, here we go again.

Tonight I saw a piece on ABC News that made my blood boil. I guess I've always known that health insurance has been a problem, and I've always wanted to do something about it. Well, lately that knowledge has hit a little closer to home because my family has lost our insurance since my dad lost his job. That means my mom's been stressing even more than usual. What if I got hurt at school? What if I caught the flu? How will we pay for the shots and checkups I need as a growing teenager? So she signed me up for the state's childrens' insurance plan, HUSKY. The confirmation came through two days ago, so now I'm covered and we don't have to resort to buying medicine from Canada, which is for some reason illegal.

The article on ABC is part of a new series on the health care problem in the states. Tonight was a "quick survey" of a few of the nine million uninsured children and their families living between the "Medicaid" and "Private Insurance" levels of income. Wait, what? NINE MILLION?? Yes. And that is just the number of children. Their parents don't have insurance either unless their jobs cover it, but come on, who gets health coverage from their employers these days? The stories the reporter told were awful. The girl with a bone disease who has no doctor. The boy whose mother couldn't get antibiotics for his toe infection because no doctor would see him to prescribe any. The boy who DIED because no dentist would care for his abcessed tooth, which became a brain infection.

After the report I realized that all of these families were African American. My mom mentioned this, too. She said, "I think we got you covered because we're white and well-educated. I knew how to fill the forms out. I did everything they asked, everything they probably think they aksed, and extra. When I went to turn it all in the people at the desk asked what I was doing there."

The whole thing (pardon the expression) makes me sick. Private insurance is rediculously expensive for any sort of decent coverage. Medicaid only applies to the very poor. There's a gap between the two and far too many fall through the cracks. Keeping Medicaid for the poor supposed to save tax money, or so I'm told. But that boy with the toe infection? By the time his mother got Medicaid (which took five months of desperate phone calls), he required an operation costing a quarter of a million dollars. That was covered by tax money. Don't you think it would be a lot cheaper to get the kid an antibiotic?

Then there are the underlying social issues. Blacks just don't get what they ought to when it comes to social services. Employers are less likely to hire, because few get enough education, because state-sponsored schools are terrible, because of the siphoning of funds from social programs. Then there's just plain prejudice. So many factors combine against people who are poor and black that few ever get any chance to not be poor anymore. The whole scenario is disgusting. It's not just the health care program that needs to be fixed, it's the whole damn social system.

Something (more) to think about

2007-02-08T10:54:00.000-05:00

Firstly, hello again everyone! I apologize for my absence and hope to post more consistently in the future.

Something scary happened at school today. Today is the day that the ski trip to Stowe, Vermont was supposed to leave, giving us who didn't sign up a four-day, no-homework weekend (except for term paper work). This morning, though, the whole school was called into an assembly instead of the usual Thursday advisor meetings. The principal stood at the podium and told us that she had recieved two anonymous threats claiming to bomb the Stowe trip if it was not cancelled. The first letter, recieved "about a week ago" was studied and discussed, and it was decided that the trip would proceed due to lack of solid evidence of a bomb plot. The second threat changed that and now, she said, the trip would be postponed. She told us that it is likely the sender of the letters was one of us. We also now have armed policemen present on campus "to make sure everybody is safe. If you have any suspicions regarding who sent these threats, tell somebody, a teacher, [the vice principal], me, or one of the policemen."

Needless to say, this caused quite a stir in the community. I feel somewhat like a public school student now, with all the rumors flying over who did what last week, and the policemen looking around everywhere, guns on hips. I hate guns.

It's kind of scary. I'm not sure what to think. I feel that I am safe, but not because of the police presence. I just figure that the threats probably were sent by somebody who either was going on the trip and really didn't want to, or really wanted to go but couldn't. Either way I doubt that the trip would have been bombed. But this incident brings the terrorism issue just a little bit closer to home. Speaking from a purely tactical standpoint, it's a good way to get people to do what you want them to do. Blackmail has been around for eons, after all. That does not excuse it and it does not mean I understand why the threats were made. I'm angry at whoever sent them because they ruined what should have been a great, fun vacation for a hundred kids who never did anything worthy of getting blown up. These are seventh and eighth graders, for crying out loud!

For the record, none of this makes me agree with anybody's policies regarding terrorism. Whoever is nuts enough to do stuff like this needs to be put in counseling, not get shot to death.

Which oppressive regime am I?

2006-09-20T18:11:00.000-05:00

What would you say if it was revealed that there was an organization in the world that killed innocent people? What if this organization kidnapped random civilians, no matter what their nationalities, and spirited them away to be tortured in secret? How would you take the news that those who trusted their safety to this power because they have no other choice were spied on and suspected, without any cause? And suppose this organization committed its heinous acts in the name of "justice." What would you think? If you're anything like me, you'd be appalled. You'd wonder why nobody has stopped these people. You'd wonder how to make it stop.

But you'd also want to know what kind of a human being would do such things in the first place. Many people promptly think of radical groups such as Al-Quaida, Hamas, and Hezbollah. While it is true that these organizations do engage in despicable activities, the paragraph above is meant to describe the American administration. Collateral damage from Iraq and Afghanistan aren't even mentioned in the news anymore because the numbers of civilian dead are so huge. At the very least, there have been Britons, Afghans, Iraqis, Americans, and Canadians interrogated and in some cases tortured simply because they have Middle Eastern blood. How many Americans are under surveillance in the name of security, when the vast majority of us have done nothing worse than despising the administration and its actions? And then the right-wing wackos try to pass it off as "security," or try to push some Biblical quote in our faces. The parallels to certain other religious fanatics scare me.

A System of Checks and Credit Cards

2006-09-14T15:19:00.000-05:00

In history class we're studying the Enlightenment of the 16-1700s. This means that we get into discussions of Voltaire, John Locke, and other such notables. A recurring theme is that these are the people who shaped modern governments such as ours in the States. The values that these men defined are central to America and our freedom. However, as much as this was true even ten years ago, it isn't so much anymore. In Locke's Two Treatises on Government, he outlines the fact that the governing body is there to protect the rights and property of the people. When the government no longer fulfills this function, the people have the right to do away with it, just as they would do away with a thief robbing them of their things. Also emphasized is the value of keeping too much power away from one person or governing body---the origin of the modern check-and-balance system.

We definitely need Locke today. The current administration is not serving or protecting us as it should. It is not adhering to the check-and-balance system; rather, lawmakers seem to be chosen and legislation passed by a system of checks and credit cards. They promised to make us safe. Now, in the name of security, fairness and freedom are being sacrificed. What do we have to show for it?

RIP: Innocence

2006-09-11T06:15:00.000-05:00

Some say the end is 666,
The date of armageddon.
But the day the world will never fix
Is known as 9-11.

Just think about it

2006-09-07T18:15:00.000-05:00

Interesting conspiracy theory:

-The elections are coming up in November.
-The administration's most acknowledged weak point has been oil prices.
-Gas prices have dropped nearly forty cents per gallon over the last few weeks.
-Now, a month before the elections, a vast new oil reserve was discovered in the Gulf of Mexico.

Hmmm...

The Pitfalls of Being Pretentious

2006-09-04T10:04:00.000-05:00

At the moment I am in the middle of a pretentious phase, thinking about life, the universe, and everything (42), and trying to come up with ways to explain it and cope with it. Many musings focus on the corporate takeover of civilization.

It is the epitome of the Establishment. The neon and plastic signs lining the roadways. McDonalds, Nike, the Gap, Starbucks, Burger King, and hundreds of others. All of them want us, the citizens, to buy their products. Being the politically minded cynic, I often think of how industrialized these products are. Fast food is, for the most part, disgusting, because the companies substitute cheap mass-produced chemicals for real food products in order to maximize profits. Clothing made half a world away by people working for pennies a day costs about $100 per item, just because of the brand name. A pair of jeans for forty dollars is considered a huge sale. Now, I happen to like Gap jeans because they fit well. However, I get them when they filter down to the Goodwill, because then they are less than $5 a pair, the money goes to homeless shelters instead of millionaires, and my family has enough left over to pay the mortgage.

I was also considering copyrights and trademarks. For instance, a if a company has a "secret recipie" that they use, people at home are allowed to use it if they know it as long as they do not then sell the product. However, if a company makes it so that they own that recipe through patents, it's illegal for ANYBODY to use it, for at-home consumption or otherwise. This gives me nightmares. Imagine, some time in the please-don't-let-this-happen future, when EVERY action is patented by some company or other. We wouldn't be allowed to make spaghetti sauce because Kraft would own all the recipes. We couldn't sew our own Halloween costumes, because various clothing manufacturers will have patented every design. The act of writing a webcomic will be restricted by the writers who claim a certain style of art. All we would be allowed to do is sit around and be advertised at.

I support small businesses, often because the quality is so much better and because the policies are fairer by a long shot. But the problem with a kitten is that eventually it becomes a cat. Small businesses usually grow. And then they buy or force out little guys. Not all big companies are jerks, but a lot are. In America's quest for convenience we homogenize ourselves. No variety is left. It's just a number 2 with large fries and a Coke, or a Ventri Mochachinno with a triple shot before plunking down on the La-Z-Boy couch to watch the game sponsored by Gatorade, Shell, Reebok, and Ford, with Britney Spears as the Home Depot Halftime act.

Such bleak outlooks are depressing. What's worse is that we need these companies. I don't know how to make a pair of jeans. I can't build a bike or a car or a pair of shoes. I am a crappy gardener and I certainly don't own any livestock. I am not self-sufficient in today's society. Unless I go live in the wilderness and survive by natural resources, I need to buy things in order to live. I am saddened that this is the case, and I wish the state of things were otherwise.

Plan B

2006-08-24T19:16:00.000-05:00

Hey look, a happy post! Plan B (a.k.a. the Morning After Pill) is now approved for over-the-counter distribution to women 18 and over in the US. So what? many of you may think. Well, there's a big what. Plan B is a super-strong contraceptive, which if taken up to 72 hours after sex, can prevent pregnancy by either stopping the egg from accepting sperm or by preventing a ferilized egg from attatching to the wall of the uterus. Okay. There is a lot of controversy over this because some people see this type of contraceptive as an abortion. Which it isn't, but I'll get there later. These opponents of Plan B wanted it removed from drugstores even if the woman seeking it had a prescription. Some pharmacists even refused to distribute the pill to clients. The short of it is that some women who did not want to have a child, and in many cases had taken other precautions, were forced to become pregnant and seek full-scale abortions. These occurances became the most important battlegrounds for women's rights and medical science to fight against religious ideals that were harming them.

This issue and religion are inextricably intertwined. Many people believe that an abortion is murder because a human life is extinguished. I will not offer my opinion on that at this time. However, the facts as I understand them stand thus:

-An abortion is the removal of a blastocyst, embryo, or fetus from a woman's womb before it is capable of surviving in the outside world.

----BLASTOCYST

A blastocyst is a cluster of cells that are in the process of dividing, but have not begun to become specific to their jobs (i.e, skin cells, bone cells, muscle cells). It is therefore not remotely human or aware of anything yet.

----EMBRYO

An embryo is in the first stages of development, beginning to show arm- and leg-like protrusions, and posesses a rudimentary form of nerve tissue. An embryo is identifiable as such until it is old enough to be deemed a fetus.

----FETUS

A fetus looks somewhat like a human baby and is developing or has developed a nervous system, and is therefore theoretically aware of its surroundings. This term is usually used for the eighth and ninth months of pregnancy.

Plan B stops pregnancy before even the blastocyst stage. It is therefore not an abortion.

If a woman is not given access to emergency contraceptives such as Plan B, and she does not want to have a child, she will either have a full abortion or be forced to give birth anyway, which depending on the situation, could have severe repercussions on the mother's physical and emotional health, economic status, and/or job security.

Often, and completely naturally, a fertilized egg will not lodge in a woman's uterus and will be expelled during the woman's next menstrual cycle. Plan B makes this natural process happen, just with more certainty.

I believe I've just proven that Plan B is neither an abortion nor a "murder weapon."

The other major issue at stake is women's rights. Our ability to control our bodies and what we do with them. Things that don't harm other people or involve illegal substances ought not to be meddled in by the government. Which is largely comprised of men, who wouldn't know what it's like to be a woman embroiled in all this. While I am not sexually active yet, there is an aura about the years ahead that I am not comfortable with. I worry about things that men will never have to. If, sometime in the I-really-hope-it-doesn't-come-out-like-this future, abortions and contraceptives are illegal, what will I do if, say, a condom breaks? What if I would not be able to support a child? Would the lawmakers and judges huff and puff and say "Well, you shouldn't have had sex"? In America, one is supposed to be able to do what one wishes with whomever one wants. That's one aspect of freedom. Unfortunately, sexual freedom in particular is getting a battering. Homosexuals and women find themselves attacked, for reasons that frankly I don't understand. The approval of Plan B as an over-the-counter medicine is a step forward for women, and I hope that when I grow up people will have learned to keep their laws off our bodies.

Getting Hopeless

2006-08-16T10:42:00.000-05:00

What I have to say can be said in a song. Unfortunately, I don't know how to embed a music file in here, so go download "Dear God" by XTC. That pretty much says it all.

I heard on the news that some of the funding for the terror cell planning to blow up those planes over the Atlantic came from diverted charitable donations to Pakistan for earthquake recovery. What gets me, even more than the fact that some of that was my money, is that the Taliban and other such groups are considered heroes in the Middle East. They claim to defend the people, to kill those who would destroy Islam, and help the faithful from the ashes of what the west has done. While they do aid some people whose lives have been ruined by one thing or another, I get angry when I see how many people still support Hezbollah or Al-Qaida, even when it is the actions of these groups that spur the west to counterattack and make situations for civilians bad, at which point the militant groups play the savior, and the whole thing starts all over again. It's a... wait for it... VICIOUS CIRCLE!

Bleh. I need to read the Koran, just to see where people get this stuff. If there are as many contradictions as there are in the Bible (both testaments), then I swear I am going to jump off a cliff. The world needs a large-scale logic class.

Put a rock in the way

2006-08-10T11:44:00.000-05:00

With all the mess in Sudan, the Gulf area, and everywhere else, with the political rhetoric about the tiniest issues while people around the world starve, and with the flat-out war between Israel and Lebanon, you'd think I'd have lots to say. Well, I don't. Not now. There's there's a limit to how much one can rant about it. All in all, the situation is flat-out depressing. I don't understand what makes people do the things they do. I'd hoped that my Cog-Psych course would help, but it didn't. Everyone is perfectly free to beleive whatever s/he wants, but this is crazy. It makes me so sad that people can't let others be. The world is going downhill so fast that my head spins when I think about it. I wish somebody could put a rock in the way.

Newsflash!

2006-07-15T09:17:00.000-05:00

Hey! Something neither political nor depressing! What is this post doing here? Oh right. It's informing you that you can now view the real me, without all the attempts to be serious, on my new blog, Random Insane Bloggage of Doom. Strange name? Wait 'til you see what's in it.

Also. I mentioned this before... I'm going to be in Pennsylvania for three weeks, starting tomorrow, and I'll be studying Cognitive Psychology. So, I might not have much time to update this blog. Sorry, folks! I'll try my best but I can't promise anything. Barbaras both, please check the new blog, I left a message for you.

Adieu, adieu! I'll miss you all!

-Ariel S. Hyre

Not in this House you don't!

2006-07-13T07:38:00.000-05:00

You know how the righties are always plugging "down home family values?" I have to wonder what the hell kind of psychotic houses they grew up in. The values emphasized by my mother, and hers, and so on through the generations are as follows:

1-Be responsible for your own actions
2-Don't waste your money
3-Clean your room
4-Don't do drugs
5-Treat the elderly with respect
6-Be nice to little kids
7-Respect other people's views
8-Don't start fights
9-Eat your vegetables, they're good for you

So that's how I grew up. Now let's see how the Neo-Cons DON'T stack up.

1-Obviously everyone ducks responsiblitity. ALL THE TIME.
2-Nearly two hundred billion (non-existant) dollars spent on Iraq EACH YEAR with no end in sight.
3-I don't know how their living rooms look, but the floor of the House has gotten very nasty (this applies to everyone, not just the Republican side of the aisle)
4-The Republicans back huge pharmaceutical companies that charge outlandish prices for the medicines people need to live.
5-Veterans are getting screwed over, retirees don't have enough to live on, and don't even get me started on Medicare...
6-Although blastocysts count as people, children's education is going down the tubes, as is foster care.
7-I don't have to say anything, do I?
8-*points to Middle East*
9-Actually that one I threw in for fun. I don't know how the Senators and Congressmen eat, although Dick Cheney could definitely do with less cholesterol.

So there you have it. Apparently "family values" count only as praying to Jesus 24/7. Which I for one find offensive. Religion is a personal matter, not a public one, and I don't care how many times the Bible says that the world is Christ's domininon---Leave it out of politics and schools. I'm not saying I disagree with every single little thing that Christianity stands for. Turn the other cheek, faith as relief and comfort... That's fine, I have no problem with that. It's when the government starts shoving their perverted interpretations of it into my face that I start getting angry. And when they make out like it's good family values, especially when they're systematically screwing families over... That's simply inexcuseable.

Mushrooms taste good, but...

2006-07-10T11:40:00.000-05:00

It's everywhere these days. The non-existant WMD's in Iraq. Iran's new energy program. North Korea's missile test. Nuclear technology is useful---It can produce enough energy to power millions of homes and businesses. But always, the threat of the most deadly weapon in existance hangs over the world. With the potential to kill millions of people in a single blast and millions more in the aftermath, whoever is backed with nuclear technology is feared. It is this fear that makes so many so desperate to get their hands on nukes. As the president of Iran is doing, one can use the mere implication of a peaceful energy program to draw the international community out in a frenzy. The most powerful countries in the world are falling over each other to offer Ahmedinejiad help with energy production, as long as his country doesn't make a bomb. The president is now free to pick the best treaty he can, and get billions of dollars to aid Iran's energy production. North Korea's dictator Kim Jong Il has said that his country has the bombs, which is why so many countries are terrified that the long-range Taepodong missile tests may give North Korea a means to deliver them.

Of course, this all started with WWII. The strikes by the US on Hiroshima, Japan showed the world exactly how devastating nuclear bombs can be. Since then, the international community has feared and been jealous of any country in possession of nukes. What bugs me is that the US is the main opponent to other people's nuclear technology, even though we're the ones packing the most heat. If nobody else deserves to have it, why should we? Maybe because the States are supposed to be trustworthy. Or nobody wants to mess with us because we have such advanced military tech. Perhaps other world leaders don't want to lose the possibility of an alliance. Whatever the reason is, the reality is unfair. If people want nuclear energy, fine. Be my guest. But for the love of all things good, can we get rid of the bombs already? Calling them a peacekeeping tool is a terrible misrepresentation. Bombs have a single purpose: to kill lots of people at once. The threat of nuclear attack by the United States is an empty one, because after Hiroshima, nobody wants to have so much death on their hands. If some terrorist group decides to pull off another 9-11, a nuke isn't going to stop them. And so many innocents would be killed and maimed, so many children yet unborn would be mutilated, that nothing would ever be worth it. Everyone in the world would suffer. The brewing crisis in Asia highlights the horrible mess the human race has gotten itself into. Doom, doom, death and destruction everywhere; And it won't stop, until it all ends in the smoke of a mushroom cloud.

What would you die for?

2006-07-07T17:37:00.000-05:00

Today is the one year anniversary of the bombings in London. It is always a terrible thing when people want to kill, but more so when those people are willing to take their own lives as well as those of others. I can understand the idea of giving one's life for a cause one belives in---I would gladly die to save any of my friends. What I don't get is why the cause should be killing. It causes an incredible amount of grief. The concept of a suicide bombing makes me wonder: What were they thinking? Did they hope to become martyrs purely for the sake of fame? Did they die with their victims because they were too cowardly to face the aftermath? Or did they believe in their cause so fervently that all other reasons to live were forced aside? If this last was the case, what about the cause evokes such mindless loyalty? I am scheduled to take a course in cognitive psychology, in about a week. I hope that it will shed some light on the subject.

In the meantime, what would you die for, and why?

Cultural Differences

2006-07-06T10:07:00.000-05:00

I'm currently streaming CBC Radio One through the web. The news is reported every half hour, along with the weather. The announcer just relayed the weather: partly cloudy and 20° in Toronto. The temperature, of course, is in degrees Celsius. The thought rose unbidden, "Hmm. The USA must not import Canadian thermometers..." I don't know why this idea occurred to me. It's probably not right; I mean, just because they use a different system doesn't mean the manufacturers can't put different numbers on the edge of a piece of plastic. But this thought served to highlight the rift between Canada and the United States. Speaking from south of the border, it really is a different country up there. Not just because it actually is... But there's been a mystique about Canada ever since the Vietnam War. It's the stereotype that Canadians are different, so it makes the differences that do exist seem larger.

This realization of my true perspective disgusts me. As much as I try to be open-minded, I do have that element of the "ugly American" in me. Fundamentally, I have to see things from an American perspective. I haven't had the chance to develop any new ones. Just listening to one Canadian radio station isn't that much at all. For one thing, the CBC itself is only one side of the story. There are other radio frequencies out there.

However, taking what I've heard into account, Canada seems as close to Utopia as any place can be. One morning, the news reported "a terribly bloody day in Toronto," because two people were shot dead in the streets. I remember thinking, "Only two?" Murders are so common around here that they don't get that much attention anymore. So much for the Right to Bear Arms. On Canada Day, three men were photographed urinating on a war memorial. The pictures caused a national uproar. This makes me both sad and somehow nostalgic. Memorials can be covered in toilet paper and silly string and other junk, and the maintenence people just sigh and clean it up. I feel like it would be wonderful to live where people care about respecting war dead.

But the other half of the report featured people saying, "Set an honor guard, like America does at the Tomb of the Unknowns! They take care of their heroes." Excuse me while I scoff. It's all political, trying to make it look like the government cares. Under this administration, people are worth more dead than alive. Send soldiers into war without adequate protection, and then make a huge fuss when they come back draped in the flag. Veterans get left to make it on their own, when many have lost their jobs because of the length of time they've been overseas, and others from previous conflicts get screwed over by this new Medicare thing. And still, the news about the war in Iraq usually only reports American casualties. Nobody says anything about the thousands of civilians who have died, unless it's "Another terrible attack, forty dead including three Americans and another seventy wounded," and then some clips of parents who have lost children, crying and screaming. It's sick.

One day I will travel. I will meet people and learn things. Canada seems like a good place to start.

Is the Left wing really pink? Oh, Colonel Sanders, what a bore...

2006-07-02T12:14:00.000-05:00

Have you ever really listened to C-Span? I mean really, really listened, and took notes of who said what. No? Me neither. All I get is what's on The News Hour, because I usually don't have the time to watch enough C-Span to hear anything useful. Now that Washington's on summer vacation, it's a good time to look at rhetoric on both sides of the isle.

I'll start with the Republican side. Most of their "reasoning" for what they do is done in the name of freedom, God, and you-aren't-American-if-you-disagree-ism. If you want to bring troops out of Iraq so that the people have to get serious and figure stuff out for themselves, you're "cutting and running" and "disrespecting our troops." If you want to raise taxes on the top 1% of the wealthy, you're damaging our economy. If you want to increase funding for schools, you're taking away from national security. If you want to raise security funding for New York City, you're being stupid because there aren't any national icons there. The demands of the red side are phrased in such a way that those who oppose them come across as unpatriotic and stupid. For example, "Operation Iraqi Freedom." If you vote against that, you look like you don't want Iraq to be free. Or the "Clean Air Act." Oooh, you don't want clean air, ooooh...

This macho, holier-than-thou attitude is very annoying. And for the most part, these "patriotic" resolutions help only the wealthy. Look at this Medicare mess. All these new individual plans were, supposedly, created to make sure that the participants would pay less for the medications they need. But no; instead, the consumer pays more, the prices of medications go up, and the pharmaceutical companies rake in the billions. If you ask me, medicines should be free. Period. Labs should be funded by the state. I mean, these are life-saving drugs here. Thousands of people would just up and die without their meds. Then again, if I could, I'd abolish money. Everything would be free, and everyone takes turns doing menial labor. Those who specialize would stay put, like scientists and chefs. Everyone would be supported by the state, and there wouldn't be poverty because everyone could have the basics of life, and more if they wanted. From each accoring to ability, to each according to need. Yep, I said it. Communism. The kind that works. But as everyone learns in freshman English class, humans don't work that way. Lord of the Flies and all that. Because of the corrupt, communism has accuired the worst rap in the world. Quite literally. Evil red commies. Even socialists get smeared. I'm what is known as a "pink diaper baby." I grew up with a socialist family and I believe in socialist ideals. Such as free healthcare and a stable platform, so that nobody gets stuck living below the poverty line. So sue me for wanting everyone to have a chance.

The other side of the isle, the Democratic party, used to be my party of choice. Then this new breed of Neo-Conservative cropped up, and the Democrats shattered. Previously, the reason that the blues didn't agree was because they all respected the fact that people have slightly different opinions. Now, though, they disagree because they want more political leverage. Some side with the Republicans in order to get more approval, but they wind up being labeled "flip-floppers." Because the democratic image practically expects representitives to change their minds, there isn't one solid model of argument to follow. Where most of the Republicans form a stubborn wall of "agree or else" attitude, everyone else is scrambling for cover. Those members of Congress whom I respect fight back with what I see as common sense. To combat the "you don't respect our troops" response to the idea of a pullout, several speakers pointed out that you haven't been to war so you can't talk, and this strategy obviously wasn't working, and people are dying, and don't you dare lecture us on respect when you won't even approve money for freakin' body armor.

Go get 'em, guys.

I just wish the Dems would get their act together enough to present a feasible alternative come November. 'Til then, I'm registering as an Independent.

How to Make a Bomb-No Ferilizer Required!

2006-06-29T18:22:00.000-05:00

And the people came around, on Independence Day
And the children let go their balloons and flew away...

So, July 4th is next week. Freedom from tyranny day. Declaration of Independence and all that jazz. I wait, with eagerly bated, sarcastic breath, to hear what words of wisdom the revered Commander-in-Chief has to say. Anyway. Happiness, liberty, and hot dogs all 'round, eh? Let's all sit on the beach with our sparklers, set off a Roman candle or two, and watch the big fireworks display tonight!

Hold it.

Hold on just one fuse-burning minute. Sparklers? Roman candles? Bottle rockets? Cakes, missiles, tubes, wheels, firecrackers, and hundreds of other types of amusing explosives, available for anyone to buy and use? Let's back up a little. This is, supposedly, a time of war when the "enemy" is all around us. Homegrown terror. People who hate. People who kill. People all around, with homemade bombs and backpacks, looking for targets to blow up. There have been numerous sting operations that expose rings of people hoarding fertilizer and nails and chemicals. These operations are supposed to stop attacks before they happen.

Now, this is where it gets confusing. I could easily drive around and stop at the twenty-someodd different places that sell fireworks near my house. I could buy a medium-large amount of explosive material at each store. If I peel off all the bright, colorful paper and stuff the powder into one big sack, I've got myself a fairly powerful bomb. Maybe not enough to actually take down a building, but definitely enough to start a fire and a panic. A friend of mine has a pyrotechnic license---What if I use it to buy higher grade powders, the kinds that are used in big displays?

The point is, with all this security and worry about homemade bombs, it's interesting that explosives are so easily available. I should think that access to fireworks would be more closely controlled. After all, it would really suck if your hamburger cookout ended with a human barbeque.

Flags: Symoblic or Sacred?

2006-06-27T19:00:00.000-05:00

Earlier this afternoon the Senate held a vote on whether or not to make the act of burning the American flag unconsititutional. The bill was defeated by a single vote.

First off, they're all steamed up about this as if there's nothing better to be worried about. *points to rest of blog* I rest my case. It's stupid to be fighting about it, especially now. Those who voted against the amendment say that it violates the Rights to Freedom of Speech and Expression. I have to agree with this. They might as well say we can't wear clothing that shows the flags of other countries. Making flag burning a Consitutional offense would send a message of superiority, intolerance, and, in some ways, censorship. But it also reveals fear. Fear that America is losing its standing. Fear that it is growing weak. If there's one thing that those who subscribe to the down-homesy real-man tough-guy image hate, it's even the suggestion of appearing weak. Making it illegal to desecrate the flag is the act of those who feel they have to react to every teensy little threat, because they actually can't handle the big ones.

The ironic thing is, people desecrate the "flag" every day. The motif is on t-shirts, table cloths, bunting, napkins. To quote an article written by Jian Ghomeshi just after the 9-11 attacks, entitled A Dove in the Land of the Eagle, "Our lunch is served on, well, the flag -- in the form of paper placemats. I remember the debate over the legality of burning the flag in the United States. It's not appropriate to burn it, but apparently it's okay to spill gravy on it and throw it out when a customer leaves." I have to say, the irony of this has meaning today as well. It's fine to use the flag to wipe up barbeque sauce or slide into home in a muddy field on, but it's not okay to burn it.

I'm confused.

A Region Broken

2006-06-27T17:47:00.000-05:00

The Israeli-Palestinean conflict has been raging for... Well, let's face it---ages. Eventually Israel uprooted its citizens from the Gaza Strip to appease the Palestinean people. But then there was sniping, and retaliation. And now a kidnapping. The terms that the soldier's captors have put forward involve the release of prisoners from Israeli jails. The Israeli government has flatly refused to comply, but threatens an invasion of the Strip if Cpl. Gilad Shalit is not returned alive and in one piece. The 19-year-old Corporal's kidnappers have said that he is in a "secure place" where Israel "cannot find him." The captors have been linked to the Hamas government.

This whole situation disgusts me. I have Jewish blood on my mother's side, true blue from Vienna. Having grown up in a Jewish household (before winding up atheist), I learned about the millennia of rejection and persecution that the Jewish culture has endured. James Joyce puts it very aptly in his novel Ulysses. "Ireland, they say, has the honour of being the only country which never persecuted the Jews. Do you know that? No. And do you know why? . . . . Because she never let them in." If Israel is destroyed, those who follow the religion and the culture of Judaism will have absolutely nowhere to go. The Palestineans say that there is nowhere for them. But looking at a map, the enire area is surrounded by Muslim countries with thousands of kilometers of empty land. Israel holds a special meaning for those with Jewish blood. We know that as long as Israel exists, we have somewhere to run to. If the world goes insane, Israel will be there. Now, that security is threatened by those who are prejudiced. During the pullout, Palestinean settlers insisted that even Israeli graves be dug up and removed, to take the "contamination" away. This kind of hatred makes me sick. Leave Israel alone. Leave everyone alone.

Lament for Australia

2006-06-26T16:45:00.000-05:00

(This post is not political, I've got plenty of things to say but I'm trying to make them coherent in TextEdit at the moment.)

I weep for Australia's loss. It's not like I have anything against Italy, but I really really like the Socceroos. Who else wants to stab that ref? I mean, come on!!!! He gave the Italian the foul call first, so right there, play should have stopped and the ball should have switched possession. Then, Neill goes to tackle the ball, right? He was not in the way purely to be in the way, and the replays did not look like he was actually trying to trip the Italian up. The other guy hit him. It's just... NO!!! No, no, no, no, no. *fumes* That ref should retire and hide in some volcanic cave, or something, 'cause I will never forgive him. Say I'm irrational, but are there any other Aussie fans out there who are as pissed as I am?!?

I now fall back onto England, who (which?) made it to the Quarters. Lessgo Beckham. Oh yeah, I finally saw that movie, Bend it Like Beckham? It's an interesting film but there's not much about actual soccer. That was kind of a letdown. Oh well.

And I'm also reading---or trying to read---Ulysses by James Joyce in accordance with the Ulysses Challenge (See jian.ca for more about this---Jian-speak #1). I'm on page 29. Just before chapter 3. I turned in my library copy and bought my own from a used bookstore, 'cause this puppy needs dissecting. I'm talking highlighters. And the nice librarian ladies get annoyed when you turn in a book all yellow. Or blue, or green, or whatever your favorite Hi-Liter color is. I'm sorry, I went and mentioned Jian and now I sound like him. O.o

All's Fair in Love and War

2006-06-22T16:29:00.000-05:00

Before I start this entry: Go Socceroos!! Australia advances to the next World Cup round with a draw against Croacia!

Now. There has been quite a bit in the news lately about eight American military personnel who are accused of murdering an Iraqi man named Hashim Abrahim, planting a gun on his body, and pretending that he was an "insurgent." (Let me say first, I strongly disagree with that term. We, as in international troops, haven't been helping much with the "making order" thing.) Abrahim was physically disabled, and those who attended his funeral said that he never joined any militant group in his life. All of the news reports I've seen have censored the photos of the body. Witnesses said that Abrahim had been bound, dragged across the ground, and shot many times. The seven marines and one sailor involved in this mess face counts of premeditated murder and other capital charges. This means that if they are found guilty, they could face the death penalty.

This is what I have heard. I am not sure what to believe. What really makes me sick is that years after this war started, despite the thousands of innocent lives that have been lost and the many atrocities that have been committed, this one gets attention. With the exception of the Guantanamo Bay court-martials, this is the only issue that has gotten significant media coverage. I have to wonder about the reason it didn't go unnoticed like so many other murders have.

I have so many questions, but I can't put them into words. Except this one: Why must people kill? I understand rage, and I've had my fights. One year, my highschool nickname was "The Violent Child." But now that I've gotten older, I see the value of life. Taking another life purely for revenge degrades your own. I agree that the world would be better off without some people. But I can not in good conscience support the death penalty, or the indiscriminate killing that has characterized the last few years. Whether or not the accused are found guilty, I hope that more attention will be drawn to the horrors of war.

Abrahim's brother said that Americans do not respect the people of Iraq, and do not treat them as humans. Let me say that I am trying to stop the superiority complex that runs rampant in this country. You will hear this from me many times: Think globally, act locally. YOU, whoever you are, reading this, can help. Judge people by how they treat others. Learn as much as you can before making a decision. Respect people for who they are. Show the world that a country should NOT be characterized by the behavior of its government.

The World Cup in North America

2006-06-22T09:30:00.000-05:00

I'm sitting here watching the Ghana v. USA match. It's 35 minutes into the first half, and Ghana has scored. You may think I'm cheering for the US, even though they're not advancing to the second round. Well, I'm not. Not because they're out of the running for the Cup, or because the coach scores very high on the "creepy" meter, or because I hate all things American---I don't. But if you go out into any random city here, most of the people you can talk to have no interest in the World Cup. Some don't even know what it is. Now, there are exceptions, such as the neighborhoods of immigrants or the sports bars. But most everyone else is more interested in the NBA finals. Of which I know nothing, not even which teams are playing. Or if it's over yet.

The rest of the world, however, considers the World Cup a bigger deal than even the Olympics. In a recent issue of National Geographic Magazine, only twenty-four countries in the WORLD are shown as having a sport other than soccer as the national favorite. Canada and the US were among them. Of course, hockey and American football take priority, but why? It seems to me that for the US, the need to be totally, completely unique and independent has shoved such petty things as comraderie and common interests aside. It appears that being disconnected is "patriotic" and "bold" and "real" and all the other stuff that is popular these days. It doesn't help that plenty of other countries hate our guts right now. The lack of interest is reflected on the TV screen. On English language channels, the World Cup gets about as much hype as, say, curling. Sure they play some games, but it's not reliable. Just now, on ABC, they're running some court show. On Univision, one of my local Spanish-language channels, 90% of commercials have something to do with soccer and they play three games a day, every day. I suppose I just feel that if the US won the Cup, it would send a message something like, "Hey, we're so cool we can beat you all even though we really don't care."

I would be cheering for Canada, but their team didn't make the cut. In fact, they haven't played in a Cup for the last two decades, even though they hosted the FIFA youth cup in 2002. I can't speak with any authority about it, but here's a link you should follow if you want more. It may take a while to load. It's a bit from a Canadian news show, called "The Hour," on how people feel about soccer north of the border. Jian Ghomeshi, the guy whose site I link to under my profile box, reports on soccer sentiment across Canada before the last World Cup. It's very interesting, so check it out.

The score is now 2-1 Ghana at halftime.

"Support Our Troops"

2006-06-21T17:57:00.000-05:00

Support Our Troops. A deceptively simple phrase. For some it is a patriotic statement and little more. For others, it means standing by the cause and staying the course, come hell or high water. For me, it's neither. When I see those little yellow-ribbon magnets stuck to the bumpers of Hummers, it really ticks me off. This person in front of me in the traffic line, claiming to support those in uniform, is driving the type of vehicle that the troops should be. While the army doesn't have adequate armor for its far-too-few trasnsports, Joe Blow in Kansas can buy a Hum-V with his tax cut. Bullshit. The Iraq war budget is nearly half a trillion dollars. That's right, trillion with a T. Where is all this money going, if not to the troops or reconstruction?

Support Our Troops. Send them into battle with inadequate equipment, send them to die and be kidnapped and tortured, send them to become one more number on a headline. Send them to die, because the government doesn't bother to craft a functional strategy. Send them to kill innocents, because you never know who's a terrorist. Send them to die at the hands of the families whose brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, and children were killed in crossfire or by shrapnel. Send them away, never to come back.

If I could, I'd restart all of this. If Iraq's government was in connection with the Taliban and Al'Quaida, why couldn't we have sent in the troops as friends, to learn about the people, gather information, make connections, and root out those who would kill innocents, using tips forged with trust? Why did His Fraudulency, the Commander in Chief, send them in with guns blazing, sowing hatred and fear and death? I don't understand it. I support the withdrawl of troops to regroup. Although our international image is that of a bully, we should try to earn some trust back, try to save any last vestiges of honor we have. I wish I could make something happen, but I can't. I'm not old enough, prominent enough, or rich enough to get any attention today. The best I can do is try to learn, and speak out.

The first of (hopefully) many

2006-06-21T16:01:00.000-05:00

Greetings, all ye who enter here. Welcome to this little blog of mine, which will primarily discuss politics and such but currently will also be used to comment on the World Cup. At the moment, I am supporting Australia and England. Costa Rica and Iran are out of the running... *tear*

Anyway. I shall begin soon. When I can get my thoughts together. Hah! Thoughts... That's funny... But first, in this welcome post, I hereby lay down my own little laws.

1) Any comments left must be coherent, relevant, and spelled properly. Anything reading remotely like "hey i like j00 wanna go too de mal or sumpin" will promptly be deleted and the user placed on my ignore list. The occasional typo will be forgiven.

2) Feel free to leave me comments containing your own opinions, whether you agree with me or not. I always enjoy hearing somebody else's point of view. However, do not swear more than is prudent, use degrading language against any religious, ethnic, sexual, or political group, or take the opportunity to threaten anybody.

3) You may include insults in your comments, as long as they follow rule #2 and have sound reasoning behind them. For example, you may not write "I hate Americans because they're stupid," but feel free to say "My view of America has been damaged because of the government's incompetence as evidenced by the war in Iraq and high gas prices."

4) Remember to vote.

If I come up with anything else later, I'll add it. Thanks for visiting, and come back when I have something provocative to say!