The following entry was inspired by a blog entry on Richard Engel's MSNBC site: http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/06/12/1962913.aspx.
Allegedly, Iran's voter turnout was around 70%. Let us suppose, for a moment, that this is true.
According to the 2008 United States Elections Project (http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html), voter turnouts for the federal election ranged from 78.2% (MN) to 50.5% (HI), based upon voting for the highest-elected office. The United States total was 61.7% of the voting population. In 2004, the number (for the United States as a whole) was 60.1%; in 2000, the number was 54.2%. However, the turnout has never breached the 65% threshold, since statistics were gathered back in the '50's. This means that the United States, as a nation, has never voted in the numbers that Iran has.
Why is that Iran -- a nation that politicians villify as "backwards" and "anti-democratic" -- can turn out a better voting percentage than a nation that has long been associated with the "ideals" of "democracy"? Democracy is not merely a set of rights and protections for the power; it is the actual exercise of power by the people to effect national or regional policies. A democratic nation in which the people do not exercise their power is a nation that is run by the Power Elite and special interests; idle tools become instruments of mischief when not guided by the proper persons. Our government has failed to protect the American people not because it is inherently evil or unscrupulous, but because the people have failed to use it as it was intended to be used. We do not hold our government as accountable for its actions as it should be; we do not hold our politicians as accountable for their decisions as they should be.
Is it the people's fault? Unequivocably, no. The failures have come from all sides: (1) the failure to properly guard against the spreading of false information; (2) the failure to properly educate our children to intelligently exercise their right to vote; (3) the failure of those entrusted to keep the nation's best interests in mind; (4) the failure to guard against predation by corporate interests; etc. As Robert Kuttner wrote in The Squandering of America, the problem is a failure of agency: the people's agents have failed to work in their best interests -- from the government world to the corporate world. Regulators have failed to regulate; trustees have failed to faithfully protect shareholders against CEOs. The result: a confused people, unsure of who to trust and of what direction our nation should head in.
As much as health care reform is an important issue, so is the issue of direction with regard to the United States. Our duly-elected President has a tough road ahead.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
For better or for worse?
This entry is based upon the following posting on Greg Sargent's blog: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/economy/robert-gates-and-hillary-to-republicans-youre-putting-our-security-at-risk/ To sum it up: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are accusing Congress of putting the country at a security risk by not providing the International Monetary Fund with capital.
The Executive Branch has a point. Failing to contribute to the IMF is a bad political move. Originally born out of the Bretton-Woods convention, the IMF is a global lender created to provide liquidity to nations who are deemed to be "uncreditworthy", but who desperately need money for important social projects. Considering that the IMF is a legacy of Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency, it would seem to be controversial for the United States to not support an organization that it has helped to establish. Further, the lack of United States support would erode international confidence in the ability of the IMF to provide needed funds to desperate countries. However, the lack of support might actually cause the international community to support the United States, and increase its reputation.
Clearly, neither Secretary Gates nor Secretary Clinton spent time in Seattle in 1999. Neither of them are aware of the global and national unrest with regard to international organizations born out of Bretton-Woods, like the WTO (although that came about later), the IMF, or the World Bank. Neither of them are aware of the general international discontent with regard to the policies pushed by the IMF as conditions of loans. Neither of them are aware that the IMF has, historically, caused greater damage to the international economy than it has healed, and that many countries have learned that the IMF is not to be trusted, the IMF is just an imperialist wing of the United States government, and the IMF is a tool of corporate interests. For more information, you should check out Joseph Stiglitz scathing criticism, Globalization and its Discontents.
Financial hardship breeds global discontent, but that discontent is often directed at the IMF. The Republicans may block it because they think the money may be spent on countries that foster terrorism, and the Democrats may block it because ... well, let's face it, Pelosi and Reid aren't exactly the best spokespeople for the Democratic Party. The funding should be blocked because the United States needs to reverse direction with regard to its imperialistic tendencies if it wishes to continue to repair its international reputation. The IMF has long been an instrument of corporate interests that have ruined economies, and the United States must recognize that the only way to effectuate policy change in the IMF's practices is to cut their supply lines. Or, in a twist of irony, place conditions upon the funds to force the IMF to change its practices.
If you're interested in learning more, you should read Stiglitz's book, or see the documentary This is What Democracy Looks Like.
The Executive Branch has a point. Failing to contribute to the IMF is a bad political move. Originally born out of the Bretton-Woods convention, the IMF is a global lender created to provide liquidity to nations who are deemed to be "uncreditworthy", but who desperately need money for important social projects. Considering that the IMF is a legacy of Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency, it would seem to be controversial for the United States to not support an organization that it has helped to establish. Further, the lack of United States support would erode international confidence in the ability of the IMF to provide needed funds to desperate countries. However, the lack of support might actually cause the international community to support the United States, and increase its reputation.
Clearly, neither Secretary Gates nor Secretary Clinton spent time in Seattle in 1999. Neither of them are aware of the global and national unrest with regard to international organizations born out of Bretton-Woods, like the WTO (although that came about later), the IMF, or the World Bank. Neither of them are aware of the general international discontent with regard to the policies pushed by the IMF as conditions of loans. Neither of them are aware that the IMF has, historically, caused greater damage to the international economy than it has healed, and that many countries have learned that the IMF is not to be trusted, the IMF is just an imperialist wing of the United States government, and the IMF is a tool of corporate interests. For more information, you should check out Joseph Stiglitz scathing criticism, Globalization and its Discontents.
Financial hardship breeds global discontent, but that discontent is often directed at the IMF. The Republicans may block it because they think the money may be spent on countries that foster terrorism, and the Democrats may block it because ... well, let's face it, Pelosi and Reid aren't exactly the best spokespeople for the Democratic Party. The funding should be blocked because the United States needs to reverse direction with regard to its imperialistic tendencies if it wishes to continue to repair its international reputation. The IMF has long been an instrument of corporate interests that have ruined economies, and the United States must recognize that the only way to effectuate policy change in the IMF's practices is to cut their supply lines. Or, in a twist of irony, place conditions upon the funds to force the IMF to change its practices.
If you're interested in learning more, you should read Stiglitz's book, or see the documentary This is What Democracy Looks Like.
Where's my handout? Part I
This entry is inspired by the following article: http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff06112009.html. The website for CounterPunch is a reliable site for some good, well-thought criticism of government policy.
Unlike Mr. Lindorff, I don't think that Obama's health care plan is a bad idea. However, that is all it is right now: an idea. There's no real plan, aside from a mission statement. It's like announcing plans to colonize Pluto, but not drawing up the blueprints for a ship to get there, or a lander. And, much like a plan to colonize Pluto, there's a better chance that the plan will be a disaster than a success. That does not mean we should not head in that direction, though; many government plans to provide services are imperfect, yet they still provide sufficient quality that Americans realize a net benefit.
Here's a fact: you cannot really control what corporations are going to do with money that you hand to them. You can legislate or regulate, but some lawyer in some law firm is going to try and find a hole to drive the bus through. In the end, the money is gone -- likely to executives and cronies that were responsible for the mess in the first place -- and the American people are left to foot the bill. The lesson to be learned: you cannot effectively control what a private party is going to do with money once you hand it to them.
Now, here's a radical idea: if you cannot control what a private party is going to do with the money, then you should put it into the hands of people who are likely going to do something productive with the cash. The billions of dollars that were given to the banks and the corporations were supposed to make it to the common person; however, much like Reaganomics, the trickle-down effect is a bald-faced lie. Those billions of dollars could have been placed immediately into the hands of state or local governments for the purposes of needed road and bridge re-construction, or to the Department of Transportation to create a working American rail system, or to the Department of Energy to fund alternative energy initiatives. Those billions of dollars could have been given to the Department of Housing and Urban Development to bailout distressed mortgages (which, by the way, would also help the lending situation), or to the Department of Commerce for the purpose of creating a small-business initiative program. Hell, those billions of dollars could have been used to create new jobs in education, thus hitting two birds with one stone.
What will the common person do with the income from a job or from a government grant? Pay off their mortgage. Get out of foreclosure. Buy shit. Or, hell, maybe they'll even start saving money. Politically, this would have been far smarter too, for it would cement Obama's position as a populist President, apply political pressure to Congress to cater to his plans, and let the economy figure out its own destiny without further government interference (isn't that what they wanted in the first place?).
Unlike Mr. Lindorff, I don't think that Obama's health care plan is a bad idea. However, that is all it is right now: an idea. There's no real plan, aside from a mission statement. It's like announcing plans to colonize Pluto, but not drawing up the blueprints for a ship to get there, or a lander. And, much like a plan to colonize Pluto, there's a better chance that the plan will be a disaster than a success. That does not mean we should not head in that direction, though; many government plans to provide services are imperfect, yet they still provide sufficient quality that Americans realize a net benefit.
Here's a fact: you cannot really control what corporations are going to do with money that you hand to them. You can legislate or regulate, but some lawyer in some law firm is going to try and find a hole to drive the bus through. In the end, the money is gone -- likely to executives and cronies that were responsible for the mess in the first place -- and the American people are left to foot the bill. The lesson to be learned: you cannot effectively control what a private party is going to do with money once you hand it to them.
Now, here's a radical idea: if you cannot control what a private party is going to do with the money, then you should put it into the hands of people who are likely going to do something productive with the cash. The billions of dollars that were given to the banks and the corporations were supposed to make it to the common person; however, much like Reaganomics, the trickle-down effect is a bald-faced lie. Those billions of dollars could have been placed immediately into the hands of state or local governments for the purposes of needed road and bridge re-construction, or to the Department of Transportation to create a working American rail system, or to the Department of Energy to fund alternative energy initiatives. Those billions of dollars could have been given to the Department of Housing and Urban Development to bailout distressed mortgages (which, by the way, would also help the lending situation), or to the Department of Commerce for the purpose of creating a small-business initiative program. Hell, those billions of dollars could have been used to create new jobs in education, thus hitting two birds with one stone.
What will the common person do with the income from a job or from a government grant? Pay off their mortgage. Get out of foreclosure. Buy shit. Or, hell, maybe they'll even start saving money. Politically, this would have been far smarter too, for it would cement Obama's position as a populist President, apply political pressure to Congress to cater to his plans, and let the economy figure out its own destiny without further government interference (isn't that what they wanted in the first place?).
The Real Disaster: The Failure of FEMA
This entry is based off of this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31243608/ns/us_news-life/
It was not too long ago that Hurricane Katrina victims had to wait 7 days for federal emergency aid to arrive. Now, here we are, and people have had to wait for a lot longer for assistance on a smaller scale.
When the Federal Emergency Management Agency was created, it was intended to bring together different pieces of other federal agencies to form a single, cohesive agency with a single purpose. FEMA was an independent agency, for the most part, until 2003, when President Bush decided to throw it under the umbrage of the newly-formed Department of Homeland Security. When this was done, severe changes were made; even its first director, Michael Brown -- you know, the guy that turned out to be the fall-guy for Bush -- warned that the agency would not be able to work as well as before. Funds were drawn away from natural disaster relief and put into counter-terrorism efforts. So, when Hurricane Katrina blasted into the Gulf Coast, the agency was ill-prepared to meet the demand, and was clogged by the bureaucratic machine known as the DHS.
There are many different solutions that could have been applied to the situation in Cedar Rapids. FEMA could have coordinated an effort to buy out the flood-damaged houses, thus relieving home owners of their mortgage obligations. FEMA could have worked with lenders, insurers, and other interest holders to repair the homes. Instead, FEMA's response was to provide a lump sum of money, and expect homeowners to figure out how to stretch it over time and fix their own problems. Naturally, the money ran out.
The people of the United States, by and large, fear government interference in their lives. At least, this is what they fear when they have the luxury to do so. People fear the government until they need the government to help them. In recent history, the banks and auto-makers pushed for de-regulation and the destruction of the traditional economic safeguards that had protected workers and the American people for two generations. Once they began to reap what they sowed, they came crawling back to the government for assistance in the form of bailouts. Thus, you have the American oxymoron: everyone wants what the government can provide, but do not want to the government to interfere with their lives. The American people want the services of the world -- health care subsidies (Medicare), good public education, a strong military -- without having to pay for it. When that kind of dysfunctional mentality enters the government itself, you have FEMA: an agency that has the duty of doing too many things, and funded with too few resources.
This is not intended to be an attack against the United States or its citizenry. Rather, I want to point out that the failure of FEMA is, in fact, a reflection of the failing of the American attitude towards government. Historically, when the government had regulated the economy, it performed beautifully despite competition from abroad. Now, with de-regulation, the United States struggles to compete. If the government such a great impediment to the economy, why is it that, in its absence, the economy failed? The answer is elementary.
We cannot afford to stand against the government, when we, the people, still control the government. This power was evident when the people nominated a junior senator from Illinois over the ailing Clinton Democrat regime, and when the people strongly voted in favor of letting this junior senator lead the nation over the more-senior Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain. The government is the strongest corporation in the market, providing services to the entire nation, and every American citizen has a voting share (unlike with regard to Freddie Mac or GM). And, like any good investor or shareholder, we should make our voices heard, and our opinions known.
It was not too long ago that Hurricane Katrina victims had to wait 7 days for federal emergency aid to arrive. Now, here we are, and people have had to wait for a lot longer for assistance on a smaller scale.
When the Federal Emergency Management Agency was created, it was intended to bring together different pieces of other federal agencies to form a single, cohesive agency with a single purpose. FEMA was an independent agency, for the most part, until 2003, when President Bush decided to throw it under the umbrage of the newly-formed Department of Homeland Security. When this was done, severe changes were made; even its first director, Michael Brown -- you know, the guy that turned out to be the fall-guy for Bush -- warned that the agency would not be able to work as well as before. Funds were drawn away from natural disaster relief and put into counter-terrorism efforts. So, when Hurricane Katrina blasted into the Gulf Coast, the agency was ill-prepared to meet the demand, and was clogged by the bureaucratic machine known as the DHS.
There are many different solutions that could have been applied to the situation in Cedar Rapids. FEMA could have coordinated an effort to buy out the flood-damaged houses, thus relieving home owners of their mortgage obligations. FEMA could have worked with lenders, insurers, and other interest holders to repair the homes. Instead, FEMA's response was to provide a lump sum of money, and expect homeowners to figure out how to stretch it over time and fix their own problems. Naturally, the money ran out.
The people of the United States, by and large, fear government interference in their lives. At least, this is what they fear when they have the luxury to do so. People fear the government until they need the government to help them. In recent history, the banks and auto-makers pushed for de-regulation and the destruction of the traditional economic safeguards that had protected workers and the American people for two generations. Once they began to reap what they sowed, they came crawling back to the government for assistance in the form of bailouts. Thus, you have the American oxymoron: everyone wants what the government can provide, but do not want to the government to interfere with their lives. The American people want the services of the world -- health care subsidies (Medicare), good public education, a strong military -- without having to pay for it. When that kind of dysfunctional mentality enters the government itself, you have FEMA: an agency that has the duty of doing too many things, and funded with too few resources.
This is not intended to be an attack against the United States or its citizenry. Rather, I want to point out that the failure of FEMA is, in fact, a reflection of the failing of the American attitude towards government. Historically, when the government had regulated the economy, it performed beautifully despite competition from abroad. Now, with de-regulation, the United States struggles to compete. If the government such a great impediment to the economy, why is it that, in its absence, the economy failed? The answer is elementary.
We cannot afford to stand against the government, when we, the people, still control the government. This power was evident when the people nominated a junior senator from Illinois over the ailing Clinton Democrat regime, and when the people strongly voted in favor of letting this junior senator lead the nation over the more-senior Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain. The government is the strongest corporation in the market, providing services to the entire nation, and every American citizen has a voting share (unlike with regard to Freddie Mac or GM). And, like any good investor or shareholder, we should make our voices heard, and our opinions known.
And so, it begins
It has been more than three years since the death of my first blog. Lots of things have changed since then. Details are not necessary.
I became interested in re-starting my blogging "career" because I have come to realize that many of the perspectives I presented in my last blog were too naive. This is not to say that I am no longer an idealist; rather, I mean to add to those ideas, and expand upon them. Now that I am a full-time American citizen, I have come to realize how important it is to not only be political, but to express political views. These include my own, and those of others.
I consider myself neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I do not consider the traditions of the past to be the only answer for the future, and I do not consider the current solutions to be the most ideal, or even "the best we can do for now". I have been accused of being both a socialist and a conservative, a hard-line right-winger and a liberal nut. All of this means one thing to me: very few people are politically-grounded, including myself, and, as a result, the labels that may have had meaning in the past no longer apply to the American condition. As one of my friends and colleagues has told me, it's best just to forget what actual or traditional political terms mean when discussing American politics.
In the end, this blog is being written to criticize -- and debate -- particular perspectives on issues currently facing the United States. For those readers who visit, please feel free to comment or discuss what is presented (as long as I can figure out how to get that option to work properly). I may sometimes make reference to academic figures, books, or studies, so please ask for clarification or connections if I become vague.
And if my humor offends, I will try to make amends.
Now: on with the show!
I became interested in re-starting my blogging "career" because I have come to realize that many of the perspectives I presented in my last blog were too naive. This is not to say that I am no longer an idealist; rather, I mean to add to those ideas, and expand upon them. Now that I am a full-time American citizen, I have come to realize how important it is to not only be political, but to express political views. These include my own, and those of others.
I consider myself neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I do not consider the traditions of the past to be the only answer for the future, and I do not consider the current solutions to be the most ideal, or even "the best we can do for now". I have been accused of being both a socialist and a conservative, a hard-line right-winger and a liberal nut. All of this means one thing to me: very few people are politically-grounded, including myself, and, as a result, the labels that may have had meaning in the past no longer apply to the American condition. As one of my friends and colleagues has told me, it's best just to forget what actual or traditional political terms mean when discussing American politics.
In the end, this blog is being written to criticize -- and debate -- particular perspectives on issues currently facing the United States. For those readers who visit, please feel free to comment or discuss what is presented (as long as I can figure out how to get that option to work properly). I may sometimes make reference to academic figures, books, or studies, so please ask for clarification or connections if I become vague.
And if my humor offends, I will try to make amends.
Now: on with the show!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)