The Café au Lait

Why Race Matters in our Democracy

2014-10-26T08:50:00.000-07:00

I've studied anthropology. Unlike in political scientists (and pretty much everyone else), the vast majority of anthropologists don't believe in the term "race." It is an artificial, a priori term. The proper term is "ethnicity." But, either way, ethnicity or race - it doesn't matter what term you use - matter in American politics.

Politics is all about the issues. How many jails we build. How many schools we build. Where we drop our bombs. Where we make our bombs. We are essentially electing people to decide these things for us. It is a division of labor. Certainly, we would be happen to choose for ourselves, but we have other shit to do.

So it becomes necessary to elect people who are most like us, people who are more likely to do what we do. And, to this extent, race matters.

We make decisions based on our socialization. We are socialized based on race. And thus, we make decisions based on our race. It is that simple really.

Socialization forms a world view. Based on what we've experienced in school, at home, at work, in Church, Synagogue, Temple, Mosque, we have a sense of what we are here to do on this planet. We form a sense of good and bad, beautiful and ugly, friend and foe.

Many people still believe that "Islamic" terrorism or "radical Salafism" is a religious movement. Those who are trained in politics understand that there are more secular forces at work in the formation and organization of certain violent social movements in the Middle East. This difference in understanding alone is a starting point for two divergent policies.

But just as education can create this division in worldview, race can too. I don't necessarily mean in understanding the culture and history of the American ghetto - although that is a very real example. An example that points to necessity for racial representation. No. I'm talking about something more sinister.

Logic and emotion guide along the policymaking process. Some policies (and social movements) are forged with too much logic and not enough emotion or too much emotion and not enough logic. Though it certainly is better to err on the side of logic, the best policies come from a place of high intensity, a place of solid reasoning and immense need.

High intensity is completely lacking in our current representation. Where have the activists gone? There are only paper-pushers and democratic royalty left under the dome in DC.

This is why race is so important in the American democratic process. There is only very little about Social Security that can get people riled up. What's left in taxes? Foreign policy is completely an arm-chair game.

No white man or woman knows of the pains of being a black male in the United States. No third- fourth- fifth-generation American understands the humiliation of imperialism. Yet these are the people who continue to write our policy. What does a 60-year old white man born into wealth know about random searches in airports or on the highway - what will stop him from diluting his bill and boasting his support for colored America? What does anyone who is running or will be running know about forced subjugation, occupation, culture-termination?

Good sound policy is more than about logic. It is about emotion. Not only on the side of the policymakers - to fight to the end for full measures. But to understand how policies will effect the powerless, the helpless. The source of this emotion is race. There are certain things that only black men understand, things that only Muslims understand, things that only people from the colonized world can understand.

Enough of this rule from the top. It is about time for more color in DC. Not the Ivy Leaguers. Not the blue bloods. But the bearded man who is repeatedly hustled in airports. The black man who is stopped randomly in middle of the street.

Why Gun Bans Aren't Enough

2013-02-08T16:56:00.001-08:00

Many people under-estimate the value of psychology (or psychiatry) in the gun violence debate. The mainstream is concerned with gun control - and not simply banning of all weapons (or even all guns). The debate has skidded off to this disturbingly moderate conversation about whether or not to check a gun buyer's criminal background. Not only are these moderate reforms shaky, they also suggest that there's a/are bigger problem(s) in our society. Problems that we as a society seem to be ignoring -- or obfuscating.

The fact that we don't have this kind of reform - moreover, the fact that anyone would be against it - is perplexing, troubling but not all that surprising, nonetheless, considering that we're in the 21st century (a century chalk-full of not just violence done in far away lands). Our century - and our country - has plenty to offer in terms of domestic terrorism, murder, suicide, and the like. For all ends and purposes, however, let's assume this reform is taken and, taken a greater risk, let's assume it is fully enforced.

In this case, people with criminal records - kids who've done pretty serious crimes and who've lived pretty disturbed lives aside, since their records would have been expunged - wouldn't be able to buy guns legally (chances are: gun dealers on the black market will not obey the law). People who don't have criminal records will, however, be allowed to buy guns. So what're the assumptions we're making, besides the first two, which perhaps are risky. People without criminal records will not use weapons to commit crimes. As we've touched upon, this means children, even if they have done some serious crimes and lived seriously disturbed lives, (or even adults who lived such a life as a kid) would be allowed weapons, despite the risk they pose upon themselves and the people around them. The second: all, or at least the majority of, people who perpetrate gun violence have committed a prior crime. This is a little broader then the our previous assumption, but it is a little different. To build such a claim, or to believe in such an assumption, we'd have to go into statistics, and yet numbers aren't enough. We'd have to prove that the numbers actually mean something. But to disprove it, we can take a few logical steps. Why do people who commit previous crimes commit them? There is a motive. Perhaps, and indeed this is a possibility, people with this motive will use said motive to commit a crime. But if we follow with this logic, then we shouldn't forget one slight detail. If a person has a criminal record, then they were processed by the the criminal justice system. This means, an attempt has been made to push them away from ever committing a crime again. Nevertheless, recidivism is a real issue. And plenty of ex-cons commit a crime again. But how many of these criminals commit a more violent crime the next time? How many ex-cons shoot out a school or a college or take down a military base or kill their 2-year-old son or kill a cop's family after committing a first crime? Indeed, not only have these ex-cons faced the criminal justice system (and hopefully have been pushed from recidivism) their motive has been reduced to shreds. Suppose their motive hasn't been destroyed - makes you wonder what they're doing in the public. Criminal background checks are necessary - but they're also a cop out maneuver. Not only does this obfuscate and perpetuate the true problems in our society - our bad criminal justice system, economic deprivation, perhaps Cornel West's "nihilism" - they don't necessarily detract potential killers from doing gun violence. This, statistics prove.

In addition to the "criminal checks" debate are others: e.g., the NRA's proposal to arm everyone. Not only would they be arming the dangerous, they arm the potential victims. But, alas, they create victims - and this is a paradox they don't understand. But, there is a striking story - or, since I'm paraphrasing, case - we need to study. Two men attempt to break and enter a house. In the house, a mother is serving dinner to her kids. She supposedly hears the men, gets up, grabs her gun. She shoots one fatally and the other, noticing the violence, runs away. The woman and her children were saved, perhaps only because she had a gun. But, as a society, we must ask not wonder about the saving, but the preventing. How do we prevent not only the breaking and entering but the death of a man. In other words, we must ask: why did the two men break and enter in the first place? To rob the woman, to rape the woman, to kill the children? Who knows? But one thing is for sure: the issue is either economic - the criminal is a have-not - or psychological. The criminal is a psychopath, perhaps a sociopath, clearly psychologically abnormal.

This fits this scenario but is this a general rule? To answer this, we must go back to statistics. But what's the alternative? Are there killers who are psychologically stable? 15 percent of US adult population has some kind of mental disorder. And according to an interview of Paul Appelbaum by HuffPost's Jefferey Young: "'Most gun violence is just not committed by people with mental illness,' he said." Appaum, like most Americans engaged in the gun violence debate and well people in general, seems to be too focused on one issue, the way things are. And, indeed, this creates some serious fallacies, logical and statistical. Are we just interested in people who perpetrate gun violence, or in the concocted motives to use such a violence, what makes people dangerous, what makes people likely to use gun violence? The logic is very clear. Most people don't want to kill little kids. Most people don't want to kill their kids. Most people don't want to "terminate your families" - from Christopher Dorner's Manifesto. But they do. And they do because they clearly have mental illness. But Appelbaum knows this. He's not referring to the baby-killers, the child-killers, or even the family-terminators. By "most gun violence," Appelbaum is perhaps referring to the vast majority of such violence: kids in gangs, domestic violence, and the like. But, alas, no, he's not. Young write: "No thorough study exists establishing a connection between mental illnesses and mass shootings, Appelbaum said. Neither does a database of mass shootings that would allow researchers to flesh out a useful profile of those seemingly prone to horrific violence." This doesn't mean anything! And Young explains one reason why, but the larger reason is this: if they had been diagnosed and treated for mental disorders would they, the killers, have committed such a crime? For the most part, no. Similarly: if the criminal justice system does it's job, would there be so many repeat offenders? By definition, no. If curing crime, i.e., preventing crime (or at least those who've committed crime) from committing it again is not the purpose of the CJ system -- what is?

Let's go back to Appelbaum's first observation: there aren't any studies being conducted/have been conducted to connect mental illness with gun violence. Is there no research being conducted on the matter? Lo and behold, there is. On Feb. 11, 2013, in Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA there will be a conference, entitled "Facing the Crisis: Mental Illness and Gun Violence." Among those speaking are dozens of police officers, psychologists, and directors of public agencies. Perhaps we won't have a solid answer until we hear these members of the Pasadena community speak but one thing is certain as of now: there might be a link between mental health and gun violence. It is, according to Dr. Appelbaum, an unexplored area. Regardless, there is nothing much else we can do. No amount of checks or bans will tackle the source of the issue: the motive -- which, coincidentally, begs what sounds awfully like a psychological question: why do people kill others? There seem to be two explanations: economic and psychological. Either way, the real method for change seems to be something bigger and broader and, yes, more difficult than what's on the table. Perhaps we'll have to make serious reforms in the CJ system. Perhaps we'll have to improve our public psychological care. Or maybe it's a matter of totally economic transformation. Regardless, as we've found out, it's bigger than taking a bunch of guns off the street.

And the battle continues - Good thing for Egypt

2012-12-05T05:09:00.003-08:00

Revolutions and reform need good guys and bad guys. The good guys fight the bad guys who're engaged in wrongdoing. This is a matter of accountability. Having an establishment at which fingers can be pointed gives it, the establishment, neat steps to take to improve. If there isn't a distinct two-group divide, such as the one between protesters and the establishment - that is, if there is a milieu of protesters in a society or a population full of the government's men - there is no engine of change, no object that can change; in all, there will be no change. Egypt under Mubarak gave us a glimpse into what good guy vs. bad guy looks like. With the "president" deposed and Egypt then under military rule led by former vice-president Shafiq, protesters were given a target, sure. Shafiq's reformation of the constitution, for instance, which gave executive, judicial and legislative powers to the military council, indeed, even after the election, constructed this target. But the military council as a target was forgotten or, at least, was put on the back-burner as various political factions formed, the two most prominent of which are the party led by ElBaradei and the Muslim Brotherhood. But there were other clashes, as well. Salafi Muslims attacked the Coptic churches of Imbaba neighborhood, Cairo. Regardless, there was a distinct drop in solidarity from the days of Tahrir Square - though, like the 21 November protests of solidarity, in which Coptic Christians stood in guard as Muslims did prayer, there were glimpses. In the post-Spring Egypt, or at least in this new Egypt that has passed through this phase of marked solidarity forged by a clear sense of accountability and another phase of antagonism with a semi-fixed accountability, the people have become creatures of democracy - while acting to preserve and/or create policy they desire, activists are not calling for the destruction of a part or the whole government - while the establishment refuses to do it's part in the democratic process.

Much like before, today's Egypt has a target, an accountable establishment, the Mursi government, i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood political party. However, the mechanism for holding it accountable has been far less organized or built-in than promised. Mursi, in his early days as President of the nation, had promised to build a cabinet that crossed Egypt's vast demographic spectrum. In return, he had appointed a Coptic intellectual, Samir Morcos, and Sukaina Faud. Whether or not the math suggests it, this sort of representation in the cabinet does not hold water for many Egyptians. Mursi's promise of tolerance has been dramatically cut short. Despite his appointees to cabinet, the PM and his government has distanced itself further from this goal. Mursi has given himself a tremendous set of powers, while pinning a referendum of a hastily drafted constitution.

In this political climate, a movement has emerged against Mursi and the MB. Led by the likes of former IAEA chief ElBaradei and former presidential candidates, Sabahi and Moussa, the secular left has formed the Salvation Front, gathering within it not just the elite, as MB has claimed. Indeed, SF has become a popular force, evidenced recently by the protests it organized outside the presidential palace. Shockingly enough, the reaction of the MB and the establishment as a whole has been to repress these movements, much like their ancestors, rather than to allow them, the movement's people, to help forge policy and reforms. The state police had thrown tear gas and engaged in violence against a growing body of protesters in front of the presidential palace. Yet, more importantly, the prosecutor-general of Egypt has indicted the chief architect of the SF movement, ElBaradei, with espionage and a Zionist-inspired conspiracy - all in all, a plan to overthrow the president of Egypt.

Egypt's people have risen in democratic fervor against their still backwardly authoritarian government. While the people engage in the SF movement and hold protests demanding a policy, the government refuses to pass said policy. Certainly, complacency is the essence of democratic government. Philosophical and more rigid principles aside, this is also perhaps the most logical reaction to such an overwhelming movement, notwithstanding its simplicity. Yet the establishment purposefully does the more difficult, complicated and even expensive action. It represses the dissenters. Thus, the government continues a tradition long held in human history, repression, a more complicated reaction than complacency that does only one thing and Egypt is an exemplar of this phenomenon. While repression perpetuates for a limited time the government's agenda, the cigar finally goes to the people. Indeed, once they fight, the people win, so good guy/bad guy is the basic template required of a good revolution/reformation. But there is a certain second phase: governmental complacency. Though MB's Egypt is yet to see this, it sure is a-coming. It's in the Egyptian people's blood, their recent ancestry

Mursi and the Egyptian Parliament

2012-07-08T10:27:00.000-07:00

In an essay, "Here Comes the Sun," that I wrote for the Hands Along the River essay contest, I attempt to explore the Egyptian Revolution to find a message, a calling, a lesson of some kind for Americans. The best American counterpart, the vessel for the lesson, if you will, that I could find was Occupy. Anyway, in this essay I stated that there are three things to consummate the spring revolution - that is the revolution by reform, a revolution by accountability, a transition between the dark winter and the liberated summer. And indeed since the election of Mursi as the president of Egypt, this transition has been re-established - after, of course, the Tahrir Movement (remember when all those students, those housewives and lectures alike gathered in the al-Tahrir (Freedom) Square last year?). Many have doubted this conclusion. They cite the apparent illegitimacy of the new president - listing out stats and making the boldest comment: voters simply didn't want Shafiq. Whatever, the case, Mursi's election is the third segment of the Egyptian Revolution - following the period when the revolution was in danger and reflecting the period in which the Revolution was born.

It's simple really how Mursi's been able to do this, how the Muslim Brotherhood's been able to do this. They grasp the biggest vote-gatherer - after all, aren't political parties vote-based corporations - accountability. That's right. They hold themselves accountable. And this is all that the Egyptian Revolution, at least in its heyday, has been about. It is a point that I've made in my essay. Was it a coincidence that the Revolution snaked down after Mubarak's resignation? No. The people simply didn't have anyone to hold accountable. With everyone thinking he could rule the country, why would there be a reason to hold anyone accountable. And with Tahrir becoming a ground upon which to protest the election outcomes and not the establishment's policies - it is obvious why there was such a depression in the success of holding Shafiq's Military Council accountable. No one was.

And whether the Brotherhood has visualized this or not, it is using it as a weapon in engaging in Egyptian politics. Mursi has promised to have non-Islamist, i.e. members of opposition parties, in his cabinet. Essentially, they will be in charge of telling the Muslim Brotherhood that they are doing so-and-so wrong. And being in such a high position to do so, surely the media will be their backing, if it comes to that.

But what's especially astonishing about this development is the practiced theoretical principle in political science - that a plurality in contesting parties is the key to democracy. The idea is obvious, and it is also one similar to that of the sort of omniarchy I've discussed innumerately on this blog. With so many parties waging electoral war against one and another, opinions are forced to optimize - meaning that the best solution to the worst problem will be the end result. And this doesn't necessarily have to be a thing about the majority or really any part of the population. But it is also something to do with the liberal nature of the democracy. With competitive elections, accountability is assumed. There is a challenge to the majority party and, moreover, that challenge comes from the party. Thus, there are two points to be made. This sort of economy of elections that we've discussed that forces the Brotherhood to hold itself accountable has compelled it to take into consideration the opposition's opinion. But if the Brotherhood for some reason becomes a monopoly, that opposition would be able to contest for seats and, again, by rule whoever promises accountability will win.

That said, I believe the revolution in Egypt can been re-initiated. As soon as Mursi puts in the opposition members in his cabinet and his order for the parliament to be re-established are fulfilled, accountability will be king. The aforementioned cycle - if the Brotherhood gets to comfortable and neglects accountability, accountability will, without fail, show its head - will be consummated and thus there will be no such thing as an autocracy. But, alas, this is still a tall order. Politicians are politicians. And politics are politics. Even if parliament is re-established, it is still a Brotherhood majority. And, beyond his word, there is no guarantee that Mursi will include non-Islamists and women in his cabinet. It hasn't happened yet. But it is something to look forward to and, thus, Mursi is certainly in a way the Groundhog - whose shadow may very well bring an end to these terrible past months of back-steps. It could bring Egypt forward - to where it was - and more.

Motyl's Conception of an Empire and its Global Implications

2012-05-13T01:41:00.002-07:00

Admittedly, I haven't read my professor's book "Imperial Ends." But it supposedly deals with the rise and fall of empires through theory. Wikipedia writes:

"This relationship he describes as an incomplete wheel: there are hubs and spokes, but no rim. Empires, in this theoretical concept, depend on this relative absence of relationships in the periphery, the core's power partly dependent on its role as a neuralgic center...
Motyl also posits varying degrees of empire: formal, informal, and hegemonic. In a formal imperial relationship, the core can appoint and dismiss peripheral elites, obviate any external agenda or policies, and directly control the internal agenda and policies. In an informal imperial relationship, the core has influence but not control over appointing and dismissing peripheral elites, direct control over the external agenda and policies, and influence over the internal agenda and policies. Finally, in a hegemonic relationship, the core has no control over appointing or dismissing peripheral elites, control over the external agenda, influence over external policies, and no control over the internal agenda or policies.
Empire ends when significant peripheral interaction begins, not necessarily when the core ceases its domination of the peripheries. The core-periphery relationship can be as strong or weak as possible and remain an empire as long as there is only insignificant interaction between periphery and periphery. Many empire observers make the distinction that most of them end through some policies or strategies based on arrogance or national hubris, accounting for a popular opinion that empires implode on themselves as opposed to suffering defeat from an outside enemy."

I was curious - so I asked, "how's this relate to the British Raj?" In regards to the core-periphery relationship vis-a-vis the Raj, say we mean the whole Empire. By asserting - and, of course, keeping in mind these aren't Dr. Motyl's exact words - "[e]mpire ends when significant peripheral interaction begins," does that mean the whole empire must fall once "peripheral interaction begins?" If so, how do we explain the gradual deterioration of empires - a deterioration that all of the European colonial empires underwent at one time or another?

If this is what Dr. Motyl's theory implies, then it contradicts history. Consider the British Empire. The Americans won their independence in 1783, the Egyptians in 1867, the South Africans in 1910, India/Pakistan (Bangaldesh) 1947/8, and Nigeria 1960. There are, however, certain observations that are to be made. First, these latter colonies weren't British colonies at the time of America's colonial period. There couldn't have been any "peripheral interaction," and, even if there could have been, it wouldn't be of much use. Second, there was very little interaction between African and non-African colonies, yet, it seems, the British empire fell with the toppling of Hong-Kong, the only British colony in that part of the world albeit Malaysia and Fiji.

But, based on this brief synopsis of "Imperial Ends," there seem to be at least two elements missing - what is interaction between peripheries and what is a periphery. Even if peripheries exist in continuous empires just as they do in discontinuous or hybrid ones, then the peripheries of the British Empire (even if you'd like to make a distinction between the American-age one, call it the first empire, and the Indian-age one, call it the second one) do not seem to be abiding by this rule. Motyl's theory makes more sense if it is interpreted to mean empire ends when continuous peripheries - meaning, peripheries that share borders - interact. Or, in the case of India, when distinct peripheries are made.

As we all know, India during its colonial era wasn't considered by mainstream opinion to be dual or to contain0 two British peripheries. Nonetheless, these peripheries were made - be it by British policy, nationalist politics, or communal opinion. Bose and Jalal in "Modern South Asia" go so far as to say the British became desperate to quit India before nationalist demands become more radical or communal violence becomes more dangerous. Indeed, these things can successfully be traced to a distinct divide, the cultural creation of two nations - Hindustan aka India and the new periphery Pakistan.

That's not to say, however, that these two peripheries hadn't been interacted all that time before the violence and the nationalist politics. Upon the arrival of the British, paintings of Rama and Krishna were being done in the Persian styles practiced in the Mughal court. The only thing that the 20th century added to this relationship was an overdose of violence, an antagonism instead of cooperation.

This might just be a "fair enough" conclusion to Dr. Motyl's lofty conclusions, but Empires end not when the wheel invests in a hub - though this might be a companion development. Empires end when those in the driving seat (the core) fear that its days of dominance are limited or are unnecessary. Certainly the Americans, the people of the former Soviet Union, and the Indians interacted with their respective continuous peripheries; however, they interacted in different ways.

All of them brought down the Empire in question. The Americans fought a war. The non-Russian members of the Soviet Union de-legitimated Moscow and the central party. The Indians fought within themselves into such a state of chaos that the British no longer saw this land as the land of plenty. But what describes England's revoking its African empires? It certainly was not an interaction between peripheries. The British had political issues that needed to be dealt with and, more importantly, Nigeria just was more of an expediture than an income. Indeed, Empires fall when their core is in danger, finds no need in continuing the empire, and, third, when it simply is unable to rule - as was the case of the Russian Empire in the 20th century.

Obama's 'Emancipation Proclamation' - Universalizing Early Omniarchic Theory

2012-05-10T23:21:00.002-07:00

"The real

India

has Muslims and Hindus in every village and in every city." These are the words that Roshan Seth, playing Jawarharlal Nehru, utters in Richard Attenborough's Gandhi. It is the retort he wages against Alyque Padamsee's Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who opens the scene addressing Gandhi - "I'm concerned about the slavery of the Muslim people."

North Carolina has proved to be a state enslaved by a certain kind of master. A state senator drafted and the people have passed what would restrict the rights and interests of a certain population. Granted, the two sides, majority and minority, cannot be so well discerned as their early-20th century Indian counterparts. They, nonetheless, exist in North Carolina. Refer to A First Amendment. And the majority, who posted such a law, mandates the life choices of a minority - the essence of slave-master conduct.

Jinnah proposes a majority-Muslim state to be

Pakistan

and the rest "is your

India

." Gandhi drops his head in annoyance as Sardar Vallabhai Patel questions the possibility of

Pakistan

- a geographic one. (Bengal and Punjab - the regions containing Muslim majorities - were on opposite sides of

India

). Jinnah calms his colleague - "Let us worry about

Pakistan

. You worry about

India

." As per the set up Jinnah suggests,

Pakistan

would represent "the Muslim-majority provinces [and] Hindustan...the Hindu-majority provinces" in compromises whereby the "minority Muslims outside the Muslim territory would be protected" just as "non-Muslims inside it."

Despite, or maybe in spite, of what happened in NC, president Barack Obama has decided to adapt a pro-Gay policy. The

United States

is driven by the "

Pakistan

" idea.

There are two states in the

United States

- the Federal one and the local one, the "State" state. Their relationship is what Jinnah had analyzed and sought to make happen in

Pakistan

. Though by no means is there a Gay majority in either North Carolina or the

USA

as a whole by numbers, there is a voice stronger when taken from the nation as a whole.

There are Gay Americans everywhere. However, their voice isn't heard or is being muted by the straight or, in many cases, homophobic majority. On the national level, however, the gay voice is being heard and isn't being muted by the homophobes. Neither one is necessarily a majority on the national level. Half of all Americans support gay marriage. Meaning, half of Americans don't support gay marriage. Regardless, this doesn't reflect the 60-40 vote cast in North Carolina ushering in the homophobic policy.

If North Carolina is a gay-minority state and the

USA

a gay-majority state and Jinnah's negotiations principle was followed, the rights of the gay-minority in NC should be advocated for by the majority in the

USA

- and they certainly are. Many people point to Obama's speech the other day cementing his unequivocal support for the Gay cause. However, like his predecessors (Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and Kennedy's Civil Rights' address), Obama is just a device of this larger principle - a federalist system. Seeking the vote of pro-gay Americans, even if isn't his primary goal, Obama says what he said.

Indeed, there are gay Americans everywhere; however, their rights aren't being protected everywhere. Thus, their interests are being protected by the majority state, in our case, the federal state.

Certainly this speaks to the potential for American omniarchy. This communication between the majority and minority is there; however, it is dependent on the politician and his representative way of government. The President bridged the gap of an American pro-gay majority and a North Carolinian anti-gay majority. Yet politicians aren't the solution. Though, we must remember, that it was a politician who mobilized the anti-gay North Carolinian majority to begin with. To reiterate what was said in A First Amendment, the power-oriented nature of these politicians, or at least that which universalizes them, must be shunned and, in their ashes, must rise the cause-oriented political elite.

A First Amendment: North Carolina's Wasn't a Referedum

2012-05-10T00:27:00.001-07:00

We've all heard it. We all know. The people of North Carolina have made their call. It is now not only illegal for gay couples to get married or have legally acknowledged domestic relationships. Straight couples can't either. However, this was a move made by the people...right?

There are referendums, and then there are elections. Amendment One was conceived by the latter. Let's first understand how a referendum-initiative works. A group of people who are well-versed on a publicly-affective subject (the political elite) writes up a draft/bill. This bill is voted by the people. Essentially, this process serves to combine the "minority" and "majority" in an attempt to include all citizens in the legislative process. What has happened in North Carolina is, however, simply a device of majoritarian politics.

Sponsored by Republican State Senator Peter Brunstetter, the Bill began its journey in the hands of a whole another kind of political "elite." Interestingly enough, proponents of the Bill had repeatedly argued their case as so - "the amendment was needed to keep 'activist judges or politicians' from overturning the state's 1996 law" (Zucchino, "North Carolina Passes..."). Indeed reactionary forces aren't any less "activist" than their progressive counterparts and, in this case, undemocratic, too.

We can argue the constitution all day. A person has a right to privacy certainly (but how far is that going to go) and let's not forget the preamble. Civics 101: the Constitution is a terrible source for political theory. Let's deal with democracy as I have defined it (stole more like - refer to Robert Dahl's thoughts on democratic theory; also read my article Omniarchy: the days for "representative democracy" are over) and the way the referendum-initiative works to further it. All of this, of course, is to understand just how North Carolina has shown to us that their process is majoritarian - how its "election of law" not people is just a facade.

The law was manufactured by a politician, Peter Brunstetter, not the political elite. What's the difference? Well, first of all, the political elite isn't a power elite. It is a cause elite; meaning, it is on the forefront of a "cause" and is made up of experts in that elite's subject area. Certainly, Brunstetter is not an expert in the area of Gay studies. He isn't fighting a Gay or even an anti-Gay cause to be considered a member of the political elite. "Brunstetter currently serves the Senate as co-Chairman of the Appropriations/Base Budget Committee, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary I Committee, Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Rules and Operations of the Senate, and as a member of the Finance, Commerce, and Redistricting Committees." (Wikipedia, Peter Brunstetter). Saying he wrote Amendment One as a power move wouldn't be wrong - it couldn't be wrong.

But the wider and more painful difference between such a politician as Brunstetter and the political elite is pluralism and hole in the definition of a "minority." Certainly one man cannot be a representative of the "minority" to represent the gap between "majority" and minority. (The idea of the omniarchy is to create an all by combining a majority and minority). If anything, this is just a majority times two development. Not only did the majority vote in the law (as omniarchy would suggest) they also voted in the one-man "minority."

A politician's penned Bill cannot be the subject of a true referendum. That politician is the emobiment of the representative system and, thus, the persona of the majority. For him to "strike a deal" makes no sense. He is in debt to the majority. Certainly, then, there is still no reason to believe that the mechanisms of an omniarchy, the processes of a referendum-initiative would fail; that is to say - referendums will create omniarchies and everyone will have a say in the creation of laws. Though, one must ask - where were the LGBTQ-ers when North Carolina needed them so badly? Perhaps it was too engaged in power-orientated political attacks against a severely misguided happens-to-be son of immigrants. How the wheel in the sky turns.

The Inadvertent Rebellion: How to out-maneuver the guarded establishment

2012-04-03T20:21:00.003-07:00

Unintentionally, people are becoming activists. In a nation accusing itself of political apathy, political activism is being outsourced into the anti-social ranks of America. Certainly, policymakers have to take into consideration this potential for a secondary citizenship.

The Oikos University shooting is "the nation's biggest mass school shooting since Virginia Tech." "Goh, who was born in South Korea...bought a gun and a few weeks later open[ed] fire at the college on Monday in a rampage that left six students and a receptionist dead and wounded three more, authorities said."

Now terrorist protest has been looked down upon for a while now ever since a little brown man defeated the largest empire in the world. But what can we do if it is a natural phenomenon? That is, Goh's attack on Oikos, as tragic as it may be/has been, is not something that was planned to be a show against the remarkably unfair system we have today.

The man, "who," according to police Chief Howard Jordon, "couldn't deal with the pressures of life," slaughtered seven and wounded three more to irrationally get back at his bullies.

Certainly, this is the short-term cause, but there is more at play. This sort of action is what non-violent and violent revolt strives to simulate. Whether through bussing, hunger strike, or assasination, the revolutionary seeks to bring to the forefront problems that are otherwise ignored by the mainstream. Goh has, however inadvertantly, done this.

These "pressures" should not be pushed to the side, as Howard Jordon does. They are important, and, if for no other reason, for the one presented by Goh.

But first, what are these pressures? "Goh...felt disrespected by teasing about his poor English skills at the Oakland school." Indeed, bullying is a serious issue in our society.

Goh has shown us that bullying will cause people to become anti-social, to take up arms against the society that so haunts them. It is a crime, but it is also a disease, whose virus can be killed.

Goh's case follows the book. "He was chased by crediotrs. He grieved the death of his brother," and then there's the bullying. Sure, Goh will more than likely be given the death penalty. It is legal in California. But we must ask ourselves, will killing Goh rehabillitate him? Will looking at Goh's case as an independent, isolated one prevent this sort of crime?

Crime committed by those who "who couldn't deal with the pressures of life" is the oldest kind. But let's take a recent example. Jared Lee Loughner killed six in an assasination attempt against Congresswoman Giffords. There is no single reason for Loughner's mistake, but the one that makes the most sense is because he was ignored by the Congresswoman.

These reactions are inherent in certain personalities.These men who murder are toyed by the emotions of injustice, of one form or another. Had they strategized the best way to achieve their agenda, attempting to kill the congresswoman or actualling killing six or seven people totally uninvolved would not be on the top of the "to do" list.

Then, their actions are sure to repeat if these "pressures of life" are imposed on another like-minded individual.

We cannot changed people's reactions to injustices. Some people have more "radical" reactions to injustices. To the things that Goh encountered, many immigrants, speaking from first hand experience, just shrug their shoulders and walk away.

Every now and then people inevitably will come and react to injustice, some in pacifist ways, others in more violent ways; however, as nature tends to snap back into equilibrium, the establishment, to perpetuate these injustices through the illusion of serving justice, creates the police force.

Consider the following hypothetical, keeping in mind that I am, in no way, advocating for violence against bullies, or murder in general.

Suppose that we were living in a society controlled in every way, but anarchy ruled bully-related crime. There is no punishment for killing someone, whether a bully or not, if that killer is a victime of bullying. And suppose if there it is unconstitutional to make it a law to illegalize murders caused by bullying. What will happen? Bullying itself will become illegal.

So why isn't bullying illegal now? Why isn't direct democracy void of middlemen congress members made? There is no pressure.

The establishment pacifies the demos by convincing them that 1) rendering the "criminal" unable to commit further "Crimes" - or inadvertant motions of revolution against injust established policies, and 2) it conveys to the public a message: that, by the powers vested in the police force, such actions will not be taken, but they inevitably will as they have.

As the people, however, we must end these murders. Jailing and killing - no doubt, murdering and thereby becoming the "evil" we see to destroy - these already victimized persons does not solve the problem.

I am not suggesting that we take policy just to stop killers, as if killing should be a form of policymaking. Rather, this form of inadvertant murder is caused directly by an implication or effect of the issue, which said policy will try to solve. Only this sorts of murder can be solved by policy, but, nonetheless, it can be solved by policy.

Quoted material: AP News. Terry Collins, "CA Attack Suspect upset about expulsion, teasing." http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jL76F6RHY_VQ3GHjlnZ_RMbbaFaw?docId=a85e2b95ff08411fb5bf87e03a6b3f09

Omniarchy: the days for "representative democracy" are over

2012-04-02T19:52:00.000-07:00

What is democracy? "The rule of the people." Well, who are the people? This is a tricky question, and because of this ambiguity, we should forget the term all together.

Certainly, ditching Aristotle's terms isn't new. Monarchies have been modernized into dictatorships. Of course, there is a small difference between the two. Monarchies are the archaic things of queens, kings, sultans, emperors, etc. Dictatorships refer to the rule of those who seize by force Republican political office.

So from the ashes of this ancient term, "democracy," must rise the phoenix of a new people's political system. Try omniarchy, the rule of all.

But before we get into that, let's consider today's political system - the "representative democracy," if you will. In this blog, I have mentioned multiple times the polyarchy. Indeed, representative democracy (also Republican form of government) is a polyarchy, the rule of the many. Now, why is it the rule of the many? Well besides de facto disenfranchisement caused by local governments screwing around with ballots and engaging in gerrymandering, there are two other points to keep in mind in terms of our Republic being more like a polyarchy than an omniarchy.

It certainly is not the rule of all. In terms of elections, the majority is king - whether we're talking electoral college stuff or popular elections. But, for argument's sake, let's deal with presidential elections.

We shouldn't forget the disaster that is our two-party system. Not only is it requisite for parties to accumulate a certain number of pre-ballot votes in each state across the nation, the race between the two major parties and any "third" party is a joke. The race comes down to which party can gather the most votes - electoral or popular. The electoral college is not even based on the majority. Though the candidate who wins the majority of a state's electoral vote wins the state, some states have more "electors" than others. Certain states have are more decisive than others.

In this system, there is one element that is by majority and one that is by minority. Certainly, then, the rule by all must be established, right? No. These two procedures are disjointed. The popular proceedings before the general elections - note, only the primaries of one of the two parties are the only ones really ever given any sort of attention - have very little to do with the electoral college elections. Presumably, the majority chooses the parties and their nominees. The electoral college, a rubber stamp for the voters, chooses the winner of the state. It isn't required for the winner of the race to win all the states, but he must win the majority of the electors, still a matter of majority.

Then there's the policymaking procedure, which still nurtures this rule of the many. Proponents for Republican government will tell you that the elected officials are the gateway between the peoples' voice and legislation. They may be gateways for the majority's voice, but not for the minorities. The Kony 2012 campaign shows us the "power of the many." Flooded by mail from IC supporters, the Obama administration in 2009 sent troops into Uganda to aid the Ugandan army. As many political pundits will tell you, this was a terrible idea. And it is for this reason why the minority must play a role in guiding public policy. The American population is pretty much divided into two camps: the political elite and everyone else.

Now, the political elite is not a group of politicians and Party workers as many in the latter camp may presume. The political elite consist of activists, political theorists/writers, professors, and others who understand politics, specifically, American politics and have strong, usually ideological, stances on various political subjects. The writers of the Constitution thought our politicians would be a part of the political elite. If this premise were true, there would be nothing wrong with our Republican government. But, as we've just discussed, the voters do not elect activists and theorists. They elect puppets who do as they are told by the majority.

Certainly, then, the importance of the political elite, the minority in our American population, is only obvious. They are independent thinkers, in the words of Republican democracy - "non-partisan." They believe in laws because they have personal conviction in those laws. However, the Republican way of government undermines this elite, despite their greater understanding of politics.

Consider the referendum initiative in New York City. Who are the ones who submit laws in this form? That's easy: the elite. However, to be successful, the elite must not only gather popular consent - it has to log thousands of signatures - but their bill and petitions must also pass through the watchful eyes of the city clerk and the city council, both of which will actively seek to destroy the bill.

However, policy by popular shouts, working outside of the government structure itself, are heard. In addition to the 2009 deployment of American troops into Uganda, the Bully Bill in New Jersey was essentially the result of an LGBTQ-led popular campaign to petition the government. Note: the LGBTQ is still a member of the political elite. They sought to do pass a policy measure, gained popular support, and followed through. This process has two elements: the few and the many. Thus, this could be an example of the rule of all. But just what number is consider the many? Did the majority of the New Jersey population agree with the law? Certainly not. Indeed, this is not an example of omniarchy.

What is omniarchy? The rule of all. Elections must follow the procedure produced by Robert Dahl. The principles of fairness and intrinsic equality must be followed - that is, everyone who must obey laws must have a say in their creation, and, because "all men are created equal," everyone must have a say in the creation of laws. Now how does everyone have a say in the creation of laws? Simple. There are two elements: the minority and the majority. (Simple addition, the minority plus the majority equals all). The minority, more often than not, the political elite, will write a law. Submit it to a database of some kind. A website connected to the database allows citizens to vote on the laws. The majority of citizens must vote "yea" for the proposal to pass. Ideally, the law becomes active the minute the majority votes yea, but, of course, in our world of power-hungry politicians, the bill would be passed to legislatures for approval. Naturally, the legislatures would erode as people begin to see no need for them.

Many of us, when we say "the people," mean everyone, all. The democracy we call "democracy" today is far from this omniarchy we all seek. So, forget the term democracy. It means nothing. Its sanctity has been lost in the Republican form of government, which so likes to call itself a representative democracy. We all have the right to make our own laws and chose them. We don't need to vote people to serve as obstacles for our passing policy, to serve as obstacles to our omniarchy.

For more information - go to http://lowercased.org/p/

The Final Stretch

2011-12-16T10:27:00.000-08:00

An AP piece, published on Fox, calls this very last Iowa debate "the final stretch." But how final is it? There have been three turnovers in the leading number one position: from Perry, to Cain and now to Gingrich. And every since his tax plan came into some serious scrutiny, even Gingrich is, slowly but surely, lose his position, as well. So what better way to describe this than "the final stretch?" Who knows who's going to win the nomination. If Gingrich's support deteriorates at the rate its going right now, I wouldn't be surprised if Romney's last-minute sprint would cast him the nomination.

But sure enough, there is more to consider.
"...candidates are hitting the ground in a mad dash to meet and greet voters before their minds are made up and they tune politics out. "

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/16/gop-candidates-enter-final-iowa-stretch-after-tense-debate/#ixzz1girWFflr
This would be true, but since when was it ever about "politics." (An all too common Republican degradation of proper political terminology - ISSUES not "politics"). These sort of primaries are never about the politics but about the personalities. The question comes down to: who is more Republican. Why else did Perry, Cain and now Gingrich slip? They weren't Republican enough. Perry was too liberal in his handling of Texas's DREAM Act: he was for it. Cain - well, he was a child-molester. And Gingrich is a big government type of guy. (An image, propelled by Glenn Beck, that has been sitting with Republicans all over the country and no doubt degrading Gingrich's already disgusting track record).

With the last pre-caucus debate in the rearview, the Republican presidential candidates are hitting the ground in a mad dash to meet and greet voters before their minds are made up and they tune politics out.

So, yes, its a final stretch but it is also almost over. The "lower-tier" candidates have no chance and, as history shows, the only candidate that has a chance to "win" - besides Gingrich - is Romney. Again, if a big government advocate and a Mormon are topping the Republican charts, how in God's name can this be about "politics?"

Here's the article:

The Fox News debate Thursday night in western Iowa was a critical opportunity for the candidates to make their closing arguments on a host of issues ranging from foreign policy to the economy to sheer electability. The next two and a half weeks will be about the personal touch, as the candidates pack their schedules in Iowa and beyond with visits to every pizza parlor and diner they can find.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/16/gop-candidates-enter-final-iowa-stretch-after-tense-debate/#ixzz1giuiz0co
The second-tier candidates are making a big push. As Texas Gov. Rick Perry set out on a statewide Iowa bus tour, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann followed an aggressive performance at Thursday night's debate with an aggressive schedule of stops at restaurants and coffee shops across western Iowa.
The leaders of the pack, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, have the leeway to look a bit be

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/16/gop-candidates-enter-final-iowa-stretch-after-tense-debate/#ixzz1giueMG9r

The Final Stretch

2011-12-16T10:26:00.000-08:00

But sure enough, there is more to consider.

"...candidates are hitting the ground in a mad dash to meet and greet voters before their minds are made up and they tune politics out. "

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/16/gop-candidates-enter-final-iowa-stretch-after-tense-debate/#ixzz1girWFflr

This would be true, but since when was it ever about "politics." (An all too common Republican degradation of proper political terminology - ISSUES not "politics"). These sort of primaries are never about the politics but about the personalities. The question comes down to: who is more Republican. Why else did Perry, Cain and now Gingrich slip? They weren't Republican enough. Perry was too liberal in his handling of Texas's DREAM Act: he was for it. Cain - well, he was a child-molester. And Gingrich is a big government type of guy. (An image, propelled by Glenn Beck, that has been sitting with Republicans all over the country and no doubt degrading Gingrich's already disgusting track record).

With the last pre-caucus debate in the rearview, the Republican presidential candidates are hitting the ground in a mad dash to meet and greet voters before their minds are made up and they tune politics out.

So, yes, its a final stretch but it is also almost over. The "lower-tier" candidates have no chance and, as history shows, the only candidate that has a chance to "win" - besides Gingrich - is Romney. Again, if a big government advocate and a Mormon are topping the Republican charts, how in God's name can this be about "politics?"

Here's the article:

The Fox News debate Thursday night in western Iowa was a critical opportunity for the candidates to make their closing arguments on a host of issues ranging from foreign policy to the economy to sheer electability. The next two and a half weeks will be about the personal touch, as the candidates pack their schedules in Iowa and beyond with visits to every pizza parlor and diner they can find.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/16/gop-candidates-enter-final-iowa-stretch-after-tense-debate/#ixzz1giuiz0co

The second-tier candidates are making a big push. As Texas Gov. Rick Perry set out on a statewide Iowa bus tour, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann followed an aggressive performance at Thursday night's debate with an aggressive schedule of stops at restaurants and coffee shops across western Iowa.
The leaders of the pack, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, have the leeway to look a bit be

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/16/gop-candidates-enter-final-iowa-stretch-after-tense-debate/#ixzz1giueMG9r

The Gay Application

2011-12-15T18:56:00.000-08:00

You've heard of the Declaration of Human Rights, the International Court and, I'm sure, the UN. Now, prepare yourselves for the application of all these ideals on gay people. See, I wouldn't have a problem with this but its just the way they handle it. The separation and degradation. It's unbelievable and, honestly, counter intuitive. Why would the UNITED Nations promote nationalism. This is nationalism of sorts isn't it. Isn't the "gay culture" a culture of its own. Can we not apply Marx's no country for a workman to gay people? Aren't they more similar to eachother? Unbelievably cosmopolitan, gentlemen.

15 December 2011 –
The first ever United Nations report on the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people details how around the world people are killed or endure hate-motivated violence, torture, detention, criminalization and discrimination in jobs, health care and education because of their real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.The report, released today by the UN Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva, outlines “a pattern of human rights violations… that demands a response,” and says governments have too often overlooked violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
The report, released today by the UN Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva, outlines “a pattern of human rights violations… that demands a response,” and says governments have too often overlooked violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Read more>

Distrurbed democracy

2011-12-15T18:41:00.000-08:00

Tell me if you get this.

Everyone knows the disasters of the Iraq War. The massive loss of human life. The endless end. The corrupt ambitions of the wagers. The unjustifiable injustices. Its all known. Its all out there. But despite this obviousness, the Secretary of Defense stood up in a Baghdad airport and uttered these words: "not in vain."

I don't think he knows the meaning of the word vain. It doesn't matter if there is any sort of bullshit "advantage," which there certainly isn't. Say he meant that the Iraq War wasn't all in vain. Then, the question is of weight. Does the good outweigh the bad? No.

Let's understand, right of the bat, democratic assistance - even if it leads to the most successfully democracy - IS NOT worth more than human life. There is a hierarchy of rights and, I don't know about you, but for me the right to life ranks lower than any sort of civil right or liberty guaranteed by a democracy. It makes no sense to me to lose life over civil rights. What is the whole purpose, even if the civil right or liberty is mandated, if there is a loss in life? It makes no sense.

So in that case, it is obvious that Panetta's assessment - which is based on a horrible ideology - is deranged. How can you possibly say that millions of lost lives didn't go in vain because of a still-failing democracy. Oh, Panetta, don't you dare go into saying western "democratic" culture can possibly be transplanted in the east. Fuck you and your propaganda.

LA Times' David Cloud and David Zucchino wrote a piece discussing this unbelievably disgusting faux pas. Fortunately they took the right stance. I understand ignorance but NOT representing 300 million and a whole lot more...

Reporting from Baghdad—But violence continues to roil the Mideast nation, and its political destiny is far from certain.
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and other top U.S. officials conducted a low-key ceremony on a military base at theBaghdad airport Thursday, furling the flag to signal the official conclusion of one of the most divisive wars in American history.
PHOTOS: U.S. military formally ends mission in Iraq
Panetta did not address the controversial origins of the conflict or Iraq's continuing troubles. Instead, he paid tribute to the sacrifices of U.S. troops, nearly 4,500 of whom were killed and 32,200 wounded since President George W. Bushordered the March 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. Read More>

On Understanding the Context of Tax Policy: Race, Tax and 2012

2011-12-13T00:41:00.000-08:00

"If you have a big government progressive, or a big government progressive in Obama... ask yourself this, Tea Party: is it about Obama's race? Because that's what it appears to be to me. If you're against him but you're for this guy, it must be about race. I mean, what else is it? It's the policies that matter," -Glenn Beck

Is Glenn Beck justified in what he is saying?

Well, before we go into the details, we have to understand one thing. Beck compares Obama to Gingrich. Both love the idea of big government. He is justified when he says this, no doubt. But we cannot sit here and try to castigate these men, whether we are talking about Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich or even Glenn Beck. That’s not the point of Glenn Beck’s analysis. Obama and Gingrich are but the pawns in his logic. We must understand that the main question we must ask to assess Beck’s words is: Would/Is the battle between Obama and Gingrich one of race? That is our purpose in regarding Beck’s words, but, nonetheless, it involves understanding both men’s policies – that is unavoidable.

I argue that that race would not solely be about race simply because Gingrich and Obama differ in beliefs, beyond just “big government.” Their tax policies differ. But, mind you, I am not saying one man’s policies are better. That is left for you to decide. So let us understand that both men are supporters of “big government,” that is a belief in allowing governmental institutions to spend the public dollar to serve the public’s problems. But it is the way each man goes about doing it, spending the public dollar.

Obama is a prolific spender of the public dollar for more “liberal” policies and Gingrich is one for more “conservative policies.” But there is no better field to compare the two upon than tax reform. It is here that they differ drastically. Obama is totally pro-middle class. In the recent speech Obama gave in Osawatomie, Kansas he talked about the mid-20th century America, “an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried.” He suggested that – whether by causation or by simple correlation or maybe even by infinite regression – “ Every American shared in that pride and in that success—from those in the executive suites to those in middle management to those on the factory floor.” But now, “Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments -- wealthier than ever before. But everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren't”

So what does he suggest? Well, he’s already made an attempt to solve this problem. In a White House summary of the The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, the 2010 Act “Extends middle class tax cuts to prevent a typical working family from facing a tax increase of over $2,000 on January 1.” But his suggestion is both explicit and implicit. According to Jackie Calme’s NY Times article from last September, “Obama Tax Plan would Ask More from Millionaires,” the President was going to mandate “a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year to ensure that they pay at least the same percentage of their earnings as middle-income taxpayers, according to administration officials.” It is implicit in how it contradicts Gingrich’s plan.

Newt Gingrich is the current GOP front-runner, who, according to Gallup, leads the polls with a 33% ballot support, in front of Romney’s not-too-shabby 22%. You should remember: Gingrich brought back the Republican House majority in the 1994 elections, dubbed the second Revolution. Working alongside the Clinton administration, he helped build and pass the Welfare Reform Act (1996), which sought, according to Amy Goldstein’s 2008 San Francisco Chronicle article “Jobless Crisis Strains Shrunken Welfare System,” to “transform the old system of welfare, once considered an open-ended right, into a finite program built to provide short-term cash assistance and steer people quickly into jobs.”

Indeed this surprisingly unbiased interpretation of the Welfare Reform Act very well still defines Gingrich’s tax plan. Gingrich’s plan, as per “[t]he analysis” done “by the” independent “Tax Policy Center,” will see to it that the taxes placed on “households making more than $1 million a year would…drop by an average of 62 percent.” And what does he say about the middle class? In this very same Washington Post article (“Study: Gingrich tax plan would provide big breaks for rich, blow huge hole in budget deficit”), Gingrich’s plan apparently has an “optional 15 percent flat tax on income,” which “would apply to income at all levels, but there would be a variety of tax deductions and credits.” But how does this compare with Obama’s plan?

Well, first we must understand that both men agree on big government. And this agreement can be seen in the area of tax policy. Any sort of tax cut is based on the idea of a pro-deficit ideology. Deficit spending is nothing more than spending the public dollar, which brings us to big government. But it is beyond this agreement that the two differ. And, again, this can be seen in the area of tax policy. Obama, according to his rhetoric, believes in reviving the middle class by taxing the rich thru government spending; whereas, Gingrich, as per his plan, strives to revive the economy by cutting the taxes for the wealthy, thereby encouraging business and improving the job economy. (Note: Gingrich’s plan would have been a Reaganisque small government policy had it not included the various tax deductions and credits for accepting the 15 percent flat tax.) Certainly, then, Glenn Beck was wrong. It is NOT about race, the competition between Obama and Gingrich. It is about the same ideological difference that has resided in tax policy since a very long time ago: government activism versus trickle down. That is what the race would be about, not race.

On Metal: Fighting Ignorance.

2011-12-05T11:34:00.000-08:00

Many people don't listen to metal. This paucity is a breeding ground for stigma. And people have not let us down. Indeed there is a set of stereotypes associated with metal. They are angry, screaming, screeching, Satan worshipping rebels who scream, screech (and not sing) just for the sake of rebellion. Oh and also there is that whole "cidal" idea that has been dragged into metal: homicidal and suicidal crazymen.

But this is not the point of metal. By thinking of metal in this sort of way, you have done yourself a great disservice. Metal is not a sort of "dumb" genre like those that have taken form in our modern day. If you are aware of the things people dare call music today, you will know what I'm talking about. Friday? Caillou? Beiber? Do any of these ring a bell? But, mind you, I'm not trying to disparage these songs. No. If you have a purpose to your listening, like entertainment, and these songs serve this purpose for you, by all means, do listen to them. But if you seek to attain a higher level of truth in your music, an intellectualism of sorts, I suggest you listen to metal. Metal provides the gateway to intellectual enlightenment to break away from the socially conditioned chains that entangle us to the dogma of the conformists and force us to accept, not think. Any other genre is simply a form of anti-intellectual Civil Society, which in and of itself is a paradox. Metal is the only form left today whose sole purpose is progression!!!!

Metal is a legacy of 60s and 70s counterculture. It is appropriate therefore that metal is but a subculture, lost in the labyrinth of intellectualism, away from the mainstream, today. For what has happened to counterculture? What happened to appreciating difference? It has gone underground. Our society has become more conformist. But it has become more tolerant only BECAUSE of this conformism. And it has become more accepting of other cultures only because it is socially unacceptable to not. Why else are there, demographically, more homophobes among rural areas than more-urban areas. There is a tendency to conform. Note: I'm not saying being tolerant is wrong, but being a conformist (9 of 10 times) is.

Being a conformist puts you in the dark. It may be proven by science (since, for some reason, a result of our advertising world, I guess, objective rhetoric is worth more than subjective reasoning) that people live in their subconscious when in a conformist world. They don't think outside of the box, indeed that is the definition of conformity. So, I ask, how is progress supposed to arise from this system? The only way is if thought is obsolete. Are we done with normative thought? Are we in a post-normative world in which the only way to progress is technical?

If this were true, mainstream music has definitely reflected that. In our modern mainstream music, the top-of-the-chart music, hahaha the successful songs, are ones with advanced engineering and complicated mixes. Indeed this is the result of millions of dollars and wonderful technology (which are not mutually exclusive).

But what happened to intellect? Thought? The Aryan Cause--to destroy ignorance? (If you think I'm talking about 20th Century Fascism here, I have no words for you). Is there no place for that in our modern ever so advanced market place? Obviously not. They are weird. Who would ever want to listen to them? Or my favorite: "they're depressing."

Yes, they are. And they need to be. How else can you break ignroance? If "ignorance is bliss," isn't the only way to attain the light, or at least one way, to shed this bliss, to realize that this bliss is just a farce? That the real bliss will come when we rid ourselves of these problems, instead of just ignoring them. This is true even for black metal and death metal. The main purpose of these controversial pieces is not a hatred for life, necessarily, thought such a hatred can be implied, and even if it can be implied, such a hatred only comes after a love for death. Metal goes beyond just conditioned thought, in a very intellectual way.

For the sake of comparison, consider Jay-Z. Shawn Carter, his original given name, grew up in the Marcy Projects of Brooklyn. And, no doubt, he had suffered. He says so himself. But despite a few lyrics (like those from "Success" on American Gangster, "truth be told I had more fun when I was piss poor" and "I got watches I ain't seen in months/Apartment at the Trump only slept in once") there is this sort of pro-capitalist feel, by which he puts his back on his past. Instead of being the self-professed "mail man" that he claims to be on the very same album, he instead has become the very evil he sought to destroy, an effect that has clearly been cast by this whole conformist mentality. I have never heard anyone who shares his background utter anything even resembling "Get a job, my nigga." (from Jay-Z's "Say Hello," another song from American Gangster) This ideological incongruency, a neglect of constraint, is nothing more than just a practice of an all-too-real theory embodied in James Madison few words, "Those who stand for nothing, fall for anything." What does Jay-Z stand for? What does rap stand for? What is their purpose? To state verbatim the many things we hear in objective independent film? Or to make cash? Indeed metal goes beyond this.

The lyrical prowess of metal music operates on a higher plane than any of these "modern" forms, at least in comparison to their mainstream elements (metal has no mainstream form!!!!). It has literary merit and philosophical constraint not seen by other forms of music, especially in other music, which does exactly what Jay-Z says it does. It serves, ironically, as a "mailman," an aloof entity. Metal, however, delves into the depths of thought, from existentialism into Vedic Hinduism. If I were to throw an umbrella generalization, no doubt, I would be the biggest sort of hypocrite. Moreover, I would not like to make the arguments that just seem so obvious because they don't work. Not all rap is about "bitches, cars and cash." I give you Damian Marley's "Stand a Chance." But, lyrically, the literary merit of metal is on a higher plane than our "modern" music. It practices constraint because it based on a strict ideology.

So let it be known that metal has no sort of mainstream involvement. The reason is paradoxical. Metal is being hurt by the thing it is trying to destroy. Metal, in its obsession with destroying ignorance, is hurt by ignorance. The ignorance of the truth behind the art, behind its philosophy. This is a scary concept. How can people listen to you, your call to arms against ignorance, if they are filled with a bias - a result of ignorance. It takes no genius to realize that ignorance causes a LOT of problems, but ignorance cannot be fought if is a part of the status quo.

That being said, and being obvious enough, no matter how "deep" rap may go, it doesn't go enough. This is because of their accepted ideology. A nothing ideology. An ideology that doesn't constrain itself to anything. There is a ignorance in these artists that is a result of ignorance. They are not educated and they are obsessed with the sort of "street smarts." As compelling as it may be, "street smarts" is nothing without "bookish" smarts. It can, at best, be a supplement. How can people like fucking Kanye West and Jay-Z be wearing Occupy Wallstreet shirts and saying shit like "What do you think I rap for, to push a fucking Rav-4?" This ignorance is embazed in all they do. They are not furthering our society but pushing it back. They have become the same politicians that they so disdain. They do not believe anything but mirror all the shit they hear to appease to audiences. They clearly aren't even helping their cause. The right looks to THEM to make anti-poor and anti-Black policies. What the fuck ARE you rapping for?

But this sort of ignorance reaches beyond just the chart-toppers. And delves deeper into the crevices of the underground. Some will argue that literary merit is all that is required of an artist's lyrics. This is wrong. Universality is a key component, essential to the most basic elements of music: understanding. And what better way than to manifest in your piece the thoughts of Men before you. Ask any of these "modern" artists who Nietzche, Kant or Orwell are. They don't know. Its stupid to ignore all this great thought and "start fresh." What happened to "standing on the shoulders of giants?" THIS IS REGRESSION!!!!

And people will even say that metal's high level thought is esoteric or elitist. It is not. Intellectualism is not a bourgeios take. Intellectualism is not a bourgeios construct. It is a human construct. Thinking is everyone's right. And the self-inflicted punishment that people today sentence themselves to is shocking. It is what is destroying our society. There is no reason to listen to it. Music played by ignorant Men amounts to just the very thing we are inevitably progressing towards: a world run by ignorant Men. To progress we must stray off the ignorance people dare call an aberration and blaze our own path. A path of intellectual righteousness. One that doesn't have to look and say I don't know. The one that is true to itself. It is not about appeasing to anyone. It is about doing what is right because it is right.

So if you look at me weird when I'm listening to my Bathory, Necrophagist or Rudra, keep in mind that, at the end of the day, I'm living on the cutting edge. I tear the chains that enslave everyone else: be it intellectual or economic, though they are not mutually exclusive. And the beauty of all this is: I want to free you to.

On Mr. Newt Gingrich

2011-12-04T18:49:00.000-08:00

I have a certain opinion of Newt. Newt is "truly" an idiot. See, I have never liked to use that word before. Being a believer in the philosophical ideals of Socratic debate, I honestly think that a person can become smarter just by asking himself or herself questions, attempting to answer these questions and seeking reference to answer these questions. (Note: this is something older than Socrates. This way of education was first preached by the Upanishads, a volume in the Vedas, that literally translates to "under the foot of," meaning knowledge comes from studying under a Guru or teacher.) But Newt's mind totally boggles me. How can you be so stupid? This man, a well-educated man with a Ph.D., how can he possibly stand up in the midst of the American eye and say: "'Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works,' he asserted in an ignorant barrage of stereotypes in Des Moines. 'So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday?'"

Underneath it all, underneath the maze of complications, is a paradox that is very well entrenched in our unfortunate system that is, unfortunately, not limited to Mr. Newt Gingrich's mind. This is American exceptionalism. Contrary to popular belief, this American exceptionalism is not just a foreign policy, but also a domestic one. It not only compels people (not naming names...ah, fuck, Herman Cain) to say unablingly stupid shit like, "When they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I'm going to say you know, I don't know." But at the same time, it operates in a very local way, as well. Consider what Newt said a few weeks ago about poor kids and their good-for-nothing parents. Its all one in the same.

“Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works,” he asserted in an ignorant barrage of stereotypes in Des Moines. “So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday.”Has he not heard of the working poor? The problem isn’t that these kids aren’t working; it’s that they don’t have time with their parents, who often toil day and night, at more than one job, and earn next to nothing.Newt’s the kind of person whom child labor laws were created to curb. He sounds like a benign despot with a colonial subtext: Until I bring you the benefits of civilization, we will regard you as savages.He’s Belgium. The poor are Congo." Read More>

On Egypt's Election

2011-12-03T22:58:00.000-08:00

Like a good American, I have been following Egypt and its parliamentary elections. There aren't any child-molesters or Mormons running this year. (Or at least we hope so). But there are some very "scary" tendencies within the electorate.

There are two Blocs within the electorate. There are the Islamists, represented by the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) and the Nour Party, on part of the Salafi Muslims. According to leaked data, the parliamentary representation cast by these parties is close to 60%. The rest of the electorate has chosen to represent themselves with the "Egyptian Bloc," which is, according to our good friend Matt Bradley from the Wall Street Journal, " the largest list of liberal parties." Sure enough, they are expected to win 15% of the vote. Indeed the Islamists, as they are called, have a clear victory in Egypt.

But this does not please Mr. Bradley. Despite their " popular support," apparently, these Islamist parties are not proper for Egypt. His entire article - entitled "Egypt Secularists Face Hard Choices" - resonates with this sort of pro-Liberal bias that is just too American, mainly because the Liberal that is thought of in America is not the type of Liberal that Mr. Bradley is so fond of. Is it really a belief of American liberals to interfere with a sovereign nation's democratic practices? No. By Liberal, Mr. Bradley means to say secular. However as attractive as that word may seem, that word "secular" should not ring bells - no pun intended - with the real American left.

What if I told you that democracy is based on the ideal of consideration? Indeed, complying with Dahlian democracy, consideration is the most important thing in a democracy. It is how civil rights are met. It is a consideration of all people--that means, a real democracy must consider the majority and the minority. And the current system is doing just that. Indeed the Egyptian parliament is based on a mix of proportional (that is party based) election and individual elections, similar to that of the US, It does take into consideration the interests of everyone. So if the "conservative Nile Delta region, which is considered Salafi heartland," wants to vote for the Salafi party, let it. It is for the interest of the Society, the culture that is so present in that area. If the Cairo area wants to elect a "liberal" party...it has that right, as well.

But that doesn't mean the consideration for a minority must be neglected. It should not. But what is a minority. What is the threshold between an "individual" and a minority? Is there such a threshold? Indeed there must be. Does it make sense for 99% of a population to follow laws made, in part, becauseby the representative of the 1%. Sure, this may be an exaggeration, but it is not that great deal of an exaggeration when it comes to Egypt or at least Egypt's way of handling things. For two reasons:

1. Regions: Indeed there are pockets of representation that represent a certain person better than others. If representation is what they want, why mustn't these people move there? Wouldn't that, then, serve the leftist principle of communalism better? After all, in areas like Egypt or, specifically, the Nile region, where 2% of the population are "different," does that 2% really count as a minority, or at least one deserving a significantly unproportional amount of representation? Must one-person, one-vote really be compromised? Indeed the political system is good as it, Mr Bradley. Thank you.

2. Redistricting and Gerrymandering: Though thought of as a problem here in the United States, these practices might actually be very helpful in Egypt. They would drastically improve the representation of the "minorities" who may become majorities if placed into a correctly gerrymandered area.

Simply put, there is no reason why we must be afraid, scared of Egypt voting in Islamists. If that is what they want, so be it. If things don't go the way the people want, they'll change their government. WE should only be concerned if anything goes fundamentally wrong. If democracy is not practiced properly.

Indeed, if anything, the electoral policies in Egypt have only become more "transparent." "Mr. Ibrahim, the election chief" read out the results of the individual races, despite his earlier stance: "Last week, Mr. Ibrahim, the elections chief, told reporters that the results of the party voting would be released only after all voting closed," However, Mr. Ibrahim had neglected to "read the anticipated party-slate results, he said he had 'run out of gas.'" But the progress should not be under-estimated. Egypt can only move forward. But if the West were to interfere and somehow support the Liberals--that would be dangerous. It would derange the entire democratic process. If there no one supports them, they have no legitimacy. They won't be able to stand. This would force Islamist tensions - supported by public opinion - to take a violent turn, a definite turn for the worst. On such a stage as this, the two sides (the 98% and the 2%) have a stage upon which to do political contemplation. It seems as if I always end up closing this way, but indeed, the pen is stronger than the sword. And, if left alone, Egypt will epitomize this ideology, bringing it further than the United States herself.

The Muslim Brotherhood: "Islam is the Answer"

2011-11-25T14:16:00.000-08:00

In a recent Guardian article, Amina Nowaira grapples with the Muslim Brotherhood's decision to not participate in Egypt's tumultuous Revolution. The reason why it wouldn't is rather obvious. Imagine the Democrats participating in Occupy. Not only would that entail an anti-establishment stance (which would destroy their standing with Conservative Democrats), but there are some very practical holes in just how they would participate. Would they send a shadow police force to battle the tear-gas wielding NYPD? I think not.

So what would the Muslim Brotherhood, an international Islamist party founded in Egypt, do? Should they send protesters to protest on the side of the Egyptians? Well, that would be taking an anti-Establishment stance. How would that play on the ballots? Not so well, indeed. Nowaira suggests that the Brotherhood hasn't been doing anything. But it has. Badie in an interview on State TV said, in his own words, "We refused to sit in a meeting that is filled with remnants of the National Democratic Party and old regime." There is a strong tendency within the Muslim Brotherhood to fight the old regime, filled with its anti-democratic sentiments, despite its name. (Eerily similar to the National Socialist Party).

But before we discuss the Muslim Brotherhood in any more detail, we must first clarify a few points. Despite all that certain rightist editorialists have to say about it, the Muslim Brotherhood is actually the best option for the Middle East. In his Daily Mail article "Arab Spring Aftermath: Netanyahu Finally Makes His Move," Thomas Fleming exposes, unintentionally of course, the most prominent misconception of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Every time we hear about a democratic uprising in the Arab world, whether in Iraq, in Palestine, or in North Africa, the movement is either taken over by an Islamic extremist group like Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood, or sectarian fighting breaks out, as it did in Iraq. Somehow Christians always end up getting targeted.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2066298/Arab-Spring-aftermath-Netanyahu-Finally-Makes-His-Move.html#ixzz1ekvmnFUB

How is Mr. Fleming, and all those who believe in this conviction, any different from those groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and other Islamic-centrist inflamants? They aren't. Christians are not "the victims" in all cases. They are just the minority. Dare such a thought be constrained with British society. Dare I allude to the "Sharia Neighboorhoods?" Please, Daily Mail, don't go there. Minorities are always being suppressed, that does not mean they should become majorities. (God forbid such a status be given to English Muslims). Rather they should be better incorporated into the system. But there is a specific semantic err in Mr. Flemings article. He dares put Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood on the same plane.

This couldn't be further from the truth. Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood differ on a very important matter. The Muslim Brotherhood is actually the oldest party rooted in the Islamist ideology. Hamas is an "offshoot" formed in 1980s. It was formed as a pro-Palestine party with a one-item agenda: "liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation," a very justifiable cause that no foreigner has a right to pass judgement on. But there is a fundamental difference between Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood that requires a closer look. The Muslim Brotherhood has been criticized time and time again by various terrorist groups, even al-Qaeda itself, for being to democratic and non-violent; whereas Hamas is known to pair itself with these terrorist groups. In fact, Hamas is so well-affiliated with these groups that many novices actually consider it to be a terrorist group. But the word of the novice should never trusted, anyway.

Indeed the Muslim Brotherhood is the very progressive prophet of the Islamist ideal. But many critics, like Norwairia, point to its choice to remain a third-party in the Arab Spring as a way to limit its legitimacy. However, this policy should be seen as move towards legitimacy. First, to prove by contradiction: consider what Hamas would have done. Like its very charter narrates, Hamas would have to interfere in this civil dispute, thereby, taking advantage of civil unrest for political benefits. What does this do for the party? It opens its legs to the gun-wielder, instead of the penman. And once this happens, the party goes to hell (literally). But this is a sign of legitimacy and it can be proven as such in a more direct way. The Muslim Brotherhood's inaction is a very non "third world" party move. No other "third world" party would do that. This shows that the Muslim Brotherhood lies above guns, tear gas and dust-thrust protest. It has taken on a name for itself as a "peace by order" type party like many of its "first world" counterparts. This is the future of the Islamist goal.

To say Islamism is wrong because non-secular democracy is not a democracy is a very ignorant and narrow conception of democracy. Alluding to Dahlian democracy, it becomes clear that Western democratic tenents like "separation of Church and State" cannot work in all democratic states. The main purpose of democracy is consideration, that is the consideration of majorities and minorities, of everyone. Policy must be the result of negotiation. Because Middle-Eastern countries have overwhelming majorities in one religion, saying that Church and State must be separate in Middle Eastern democracies is ignorant, if anything. How can the considerations of the Muslims (who are, on an average, 98% of the population in Arab nations) be made if Islam is not embraced. Indeed Islamism is key to Middle Eastern reformation. (Read Relgious Remnants of a Protest Past for more info on this matter).

On Bearing Witness to Fight Injustice

2011-11-24T13:03:00.000-08:00

To my last post, there have been some very critical comments because they had misunderstood a very important assumption that I had neglected to narrate. It is the idea of bearing witness. It is a newer type of theory that has been established, for the most part, in the writings of Fuyuki Kurasawa from the York University. The following passages are from his book A Message in a Bottle: Bearing Witness as a Mode of Transnational Practice.

So there are two questions that arise:
(1) What is bearing witness?

"Using Celan’s allegory of the poem as a message in a bottle, we can come to understand bearing witness as a web of transnational testimonial practices structured around five dialectically related tasks and perils: giving voice to mass suffering against silence (what if the message is never sent or does not reach land?); interpretation against incomprehension (what if it is written in a language that is undecipherable?); the cultivation of empathy against indifference (what if, after being read, it is discarded?); remembrance against forgetting (what if it is distorted or erased over time?); and prevention against repetition (what if it does not help to avert other forms of suffering?). These testimonial practices are Sisyphean in character, for actors perpetually encounter such perils without transcending them; fragile and unfinished, the work of bearing witness merely parries threats and difficulties integral to the expression and communication of limit-experiences (see Figure 1). In other words, drawing on Ricoeur’s (2000) argument about the work of memory and Derrida’s (2001) use of Freud’s notion of the work of mourning, I am contending that the labour of witnessing such experiential crises is aporetic, for it simultaneously confronts their pure alterity and their normalization, while putting into play – rather than resolving – the tension between these two tendencies."

(2) How does it work? How does "bearing witness" fight injustice?

"To underscore the analytical specificity of the conception of bearing witness employed here, I want to denote two of its defining features: intersubjectivity and publicity. First, witnessing is an intrinsically dialogical process of recognition involving two parties, namely, eyewitnesses and their audiences, who are engaged in processes of address and response through which they establish and negotiate each other’s roles.4 Both primary eyewitnesses (victims and survivors who experienced atrocities) and their secondary counterparts (who witnessed such atrocities first-hand but did not directly experience them, such as journalists and international observers) pursue the representational task of attempting to reconstitute and transmit their first-hand experiences of catastrophe in order to initiate struggles against silence, incomprehension, indifference, forgetting and return; they write messages, place them in bottles and send them out to sea. However, contra monological or monistic paradigms that present testimony as merely an act of personal conscience or of a solitary, heroic individual, we should insist on the inter-subjective character of the transnational labour of bearing witness. Integral to testimonial performances is an appeal to audiences that must in turn respond to it, for both the positions of addressee and addressed are constructed through mutual recognition of each by the other. Those having lived through a particular situation or event only become eyewitnesses to it if and when institutional sanctioning or popular acknowledgement of their status occurs; the bottle must reach land, and others must both read and understand the message it contains. At the same time, testimonial practices vitally depend upon the constitution of audiences, who become such by accepting the moral asymmetry and political responsibility that binds them to those who directly witnessed a limit-experience. Social actors become testimonial audiences by heeding eyewitnesses’ narrative appeals, and responding to their calls for reflection and action about a particular instance of situational or structural violence. Bearing witness requires that addressees pick up the bottles washed up on land, decipher the enclosed messages, ponder them and intervene accordingly with the aim of alerting the world, making sense of what has taken place, cultivating empathy, remembering and preventing the reoccurrence of the immediate or structural circumstances that are at the root of mass suffering."

So by supplementing bearing witness with history, we can fight injustice. We must accept all the injustices that have happened before we can fight them and we fight them by showing the oppressors all that they have done wrong and still do wrong. We fight without guns or, even, risking tear gas. We fight with pens...is the pen not stronger than the sword? It is. And we will prove it is.

Why I Eat Meat

2011-11-23T19:40:00.000-08:00

Today I was eating a "mutton kabab" roll minding my own, talking to my sister, in Jackson Heights. Did it taste good? I have no idea. I have no idea because as I was eating it, there was this woman who passed by and couldn't keep her eyes of me. She looked at me as if I was indeed subhuman. So low on the chain of things that I dared to eat meat. And she wasn't the only one. Another woman, as she was entering the restaurant, looked right at me and dipped her eyebrows as many an Indian mother would to scold her child. Oh, yeah, I forgot. I was eating this "mutton kabab" roll at RajBog, a strictly vegetarian sweets shop.

In Hindu India, there are many castes. But they can all be categorized into two varieties: "forward" and "backward" (yeah, there is no bias there). There is also a level lower than "backward" called scheduled caste and scheduled tribe, but that can be seen as just an extension of the backward castes, though it includes non-Hindus. The way these castes work is quite simple: the "forward" castes are those who were more integrated in power and, a result of power, "studies" or academia, so the lower castes consist of anyone who either are "not educated" or not powerful. The forward caste members pride themselves in their traditions and customs, assuming a higher role and duty in society; whereas, the lower caste, shunned by schools, remained obedient, blindly, to this system, quite literally for the same reason as the higher castes: to pride themselves in their own customs and traditions. I could go into further detail, but this all that is required for me to answer the question: why do I eat meat?
See, I am from a "backward" caste. I don't know what my ancestors did, but we do know at some point they were, judging from the name of the specific caste veeramushthi, farmers. Now indeed in spite the socioeconomic differences between the forward and backward (and scheduled) castes, there are some higher-ground implications. The forward castes consisted of, among other things, Brahmins, the priest caste. They were the educated bunch, those with access to the "schools" that sustained, among other things, a study of morals. In their doing so, and early on in Hindu culture, they decided the consumption of animals was immoral. This resulted in an acceptance of vegetarianism by forward caste Hindus. To this day, it is considered un-Hindu to eat meat. (Let it be known: my mother does not let me eat meat with my "rudraksha" beads on). And so Hindus of more backward castes are more “liberal”in their consumption of meat.

Hinduism and Vegetarianism

Indeed, this is very distasteful. Pun intended. Despite this seemingly pedagogical call to vegetarianism by these priests, they had no intention of "helping" the lower castes as they were adamant about the fact lower caste Hindus were intrinsically below them and in no need of their help, that is to assume that Hinduism is rooted in vegetarianism, in the first place. There is no piece of acceptable Hindu literature that should persuade someone to stop eating meat. People are quick to quote Krishna's words in the Bhagwat-Gita, when he says that food must be offered to Him before it is eaten. But by the interpretation cast by Meher Baba, this would mean that one must think of giving before taking (note: God is nothing but the collection of souls). But even if this interpretation were to be cast aside, the mainstream interpretation is still greatly flawed. Krishna suggests that

"The devotees of the Lord are released from all kinds of sins because they eat food which is offered first for sacrifice"

and only

"a leaf, a flower, fruit or water"

may be permissible. Indeed, if one were to argue that this leaf, flower, fruit or water are literally the only things man can eat, he or she would be very narrow minded. (Or, as Meher Baba said, "No one sitting here is so very important that God is standing behind your chair watching what you are eating.")

But besides that, there is no direct "do not eat meat" argument in the Bhagwat Geeta. Of course, the Vedas make direct reference to the eating and slaughtering of animals. But, by virtue of the Upanishads, these arguments can be set aside because a blind sacrament is not a justified one. So I argue that these sort of Brahmin-advocated belief systems are simply devices of caste-based powerplays, similar to those made by the bourgeois in economic policy. They wanted power despite the passage of Upanishads, which suggested that sacraments are not important. It was similar to the 15th century Christian revolutions. It sought to bring about the normative thinking process into religion, abandoning blind religion that seemed to and still does keep religion behind the more progressive secular thought. (But I'll leave that argument for another day). If all the lower caste members would have followed this sort of belief, then the Brahmins would obviously lose a great deal of accumulated power. Ha, great moral beings, indeed. The alternative was only obvious: create a sort of moral hierarchy.

Why we must not stop at vegetables

In the spirit of the Upanishads, we must look at eating meat in a normative way, that is by asking and answering questions. (Note: this sort of structure was established in the East years before Socrates and his Socratic circle). There is the question of killing and eating meat. It is a long practiced one...but can the practice be justified by its longevity? Of course not. War cannot, why should eating meat? Why must we not eat meat? It kills life. Killing life is the only thing the Vedas says that could possibly support vegetarianism. But do men not kill plants in eating vegetables and living a very vegetarian life? Yes they do. So therein lies the catch-22 of eating. If we can eat vegetables, we must be able to eat meat.

Why we must eat meat.

When it comes down to it, unfortunately, it is the only lasting thing we have. It is the last pride of Hindu Proletarianism. Tourists from around the world flock to Hyderabad to taste the world-renown Hyderbadi Biryani, a symbol of Indian Hindu-Muslim unity. The streets of Hyderbad itself are lined with biryani shops, none of which can even think of going out of business. It is a part of our culture, indeed, a part of India.

Eating meat more than just a socio-economic tradition. It is religious We eat it, not to be immoral, but just the opposite: to fight the injustices done to us by those who did not, a protest against all those who said it was the wrong thing to do. Those who greedily passed along the resources to "their own" and left the rest of us in the dirt. It is worst than authoritarian politics--to turn your back. Neither is it salutary neglect. It is a disregard for your very bretherin. Is that what Hinduism teaches? No. Hinduism rests on a belief that all souls are one in the same and a part of the greater force, the brahman, the paramahtma. Eating meat is an act, symbol and ritual of religious revolution. If we were to stop, it would be to accept these injustices as virtues. Vegetarianism is probably the closest thing to incorporating morals if we are to eat something, but there is no reason not to eat meat if it means you are unwilling to accept the barbaric practices of past wrongdoers. So let her scold me, I care not. I carry on the toil of my ancestors. I perpetuate my culture, not alienating my brothers. I am accepting of my brothers. I eat meat, but - mind you - I care not if you don't.

On Bystanders

2011-11-22T10:53:00.000-08:00

What is a bystander?
He (or she) is a person who stands by (not to be repetitive) and watches as something goes on. Of course, like every other word in the English language, it has become something else. It is no more irrelevant in terms of aloofness and involvement. Indeed, a bystander is apathetic. If it is not, then my argument depends upon such a definiton. If you deny this defintion, so be it. My argument does not change. Just replace the damn word.

The basic mentality of a bystander is accepted. He (or she) does nothing because "someone else will." So from where does this mentality come from? An innate evil in every person's soul? For one thing, this explanation is inadequate if, for no other reason, because how can every human be evil if no two humans are the same. If experiences make human personality, a theorem agreed upon by many a post-Freudian psychologists, then there is no denying no two experiences are the same, so two two personalities are the same--all humans cannot possibly evil.

I think this mentality extends from elsewhere, a philosophy that is the only philosophy followed by today's politically-challenged generation. So, I will attempt to describe this said set of ideas. Accordingly, there exists a dichotomy: one's "vocation" and one's "private life." No doubt, these sphere's are seen everywhere. Just look at your local grocery store's magazines. No celebrity, at least when it is negative, wants the paparazzi to invade his (or her) private life. But from where does this private life come from but the ubiquitous capitalist presence. Having 9-to-5, most citizens of a capitalist society have reason to separate the two. But just how far can this separation extend?

Considering a few philosophy majors, how many American college students actually read or, for that matter, are well-read in principles and how many of those actually apply learned philosophies? Not enough students apply what they learned in school to their "private lives." The reason is quite very simple. Education lies in the realm of vocation. People learn to promote what "they want to do for the rest of their life." Why else do we continuously hear "but I don't need this for what I'm going to do."

Not only is this dichotomy very well defined, it is applied. Consider the democratic right to vote. Why don't most citizen's of a democracy vote? If I do well in the vocational realm, I will do will in my private life. To this I will surely face criticism from the very people who fit it. But there are of course more explicitly stated reasons. "My vote won't matter." Why, it does. At least as much as it needs to. No one person's vote is to matter more than another's or the whole's. But that doesn't mean its purely majoritarian--there are many election in which the victory is dependent on a minority. But the root of this mentality is in another principle: "someone else will do it." If I don't do it, there nearly 100 million other people that will. But, in fact, only 53% of them do. The other 47% just depend on one another, each of whom does nothing. So from where does this dependency come from but the marketplace? If I do this - my vocation - I won't have to worry about anything else as I will simply use the money - or other sorts of capital - that I get from working and get it anyway. Indeed, someone else will do it.

Citizens of capitalist society encounter an apathy that democracy theorists have been describing since the 19th century. But this apathy is not innate in mankind. When we face problems we will do something about. Why else do we war? Why else do we protest? But these sort of realities are obfuscated by the capitalist ideal. Progression is dependent on adaptation, a dynamism that results from thought. Thought allows us to choose between things so it create choice. Choice is the basis of adaptation: the proper choice is the difference between successful adaptation and failed adaptation. And, the most obvious connection, adaptation is the basis for evolution. It is the one thing you cannot deny in all that Charles Darwin discusses. Evolution, progression is dependent on movement, dynamism. The sense of comfort that capitalism provides - do this and keep doing this and someone else will do everything else for you - stagnates society. Why must we protest the government? Why must we challenge the status quo? Why must we not study politics, economics and history if they are the basis of society? Because someone else will.

"Blacks in Silicon Valley"

2011-11-19T18:08:00.000-08:00

Silicon Valley...the West Coast's answer to Wall Street and fast food chains. When given its name, we go googly eyed with images of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. These are the guys who made it, right? Those guys who may not have had the parents to march down Zuccoti Park (and not get hit by tear gas). But they had their brains right or, like this one guy said, "the brain size." They donated billions to causes ranging from fighting AIDS in Africa and bettering education in Newark (I can tell you first hand that Zuckerberg's 100 million is not enough). Indeed this is "America's last hope." To rise above its car slump, it real estate slump and, yes, even its financial slump.

And its this sort of haze - capitalism's heaven, the ideal capitalist kingdom, the playground for compassionate capitalism - that resides in the Sillicon Valley that has spawned these sort of liberal capitalist-legends, the entrepreneurs that knew a thing or two about the world outside their Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford or Berkeley dorms. So its not a big surprise that Americans have given them the go-ahead. But, oh man, are they wrong.

In her special, Soledad O'Brien goes into great detail about a bunch of entrepreneurs, who made it in the Silicon Valley, that decide to give back to their community, or so it seems. I can't go into great detail, as to what the guys said and such as there has not been a transcript published and, quite honestly, I don't feel like rewinding this shit on my DVR, so as to hear it again. But, to give you the gist, he said something along the lines of...America is kind of in a economic slump right now and we need to try our best to get out of it, we must all work towards this goal. WE MUST ALL WORK TOWARDS THIS GOAL. This is sick. The way he promotes what would have been an otherwise greatly satisfying cause, he dirties it with an ignorance of utilitarian politics. Indeed, helping AFRICAN-AMERICANS OR BLACK AMERICANS enter the workforce would be great for the economy, but what kind of a sick bastard puts that on his poster, as a slogan? It is disturbingly reminiscent of the fertile Southern fields toiled over by hard black muscle. It is disgusting.

But, of course, he didn't mean it. That is is the scary part. These are the guys that America has chosen to somehow lead us to a better tomorrow. They come out with degrees in Computer Science and, out of the blue, because they are multi-billionaires, they think they are the leading scholars in political science and economics. What do they know about such topics? What gives them the right to delve into such topics? Unfortunately, I don't know...but I do know why they don't. Just ask that racist Soledad interviewed...he'll tell you.

What the world needs now, more than ever, are the educated. Those who spend their lives dedicated to the study of humanity. Many a youth would point to the Silicon Valley...hey, they aren't Conservative Republicans who hate poor people. Yeah, maybe they're not, but they are taking away from our political and economic future, not just of the United States, but of the world's. They have millions and billions of dollars in their pockets and make rash decisions that professors and Ph.D. students take years and lifetimes to simply theorize upon, not because the latter are slower or stupider than them, but because of the opposite. Their decisions carry the weight of centuries-worth of study. These Silicon Valley hoarders are not only - whether intentionally or not - keeping the money to themselves, but are also revoking a Society's right to free intellectualism as well. Why must they spend their money on such narrow scoped, if not greatly misjudged, projects furthering the Tech field and, thereby, sinking the Humanities further and further into the shithole its been in since like forever? Oh, and the arrogance! Why, then, do we go to school to learn political theory and normative philosophy if everything was self-explanatory? Who the hell do these people think they are? So what if you made that much money? If these people are the ones making our policy, then it is no surprise that centuries-worth of liberal democratic theory has evaporated. It would make much more sense to me, judging from this pretext, if they donated that money to think tanks, public universities and school districts, who are closing down, cutting off the Humanitarian cause from their campuses. But, then again, I'm just a ranting freshman political science major from a virutally unknown public school in the middle of New Jersey. What do I know?

Religious Remnants of a Protest Past

2011-11-18T22:48:00.000-08:00

Since when was it ok to use the word Islamist? There's the religion Islam. There's the adjective Islamic, but what in God's name - no pun intended - is Islamist. What is a Islamist? Indeed it is not a new term. Its been used over and over again and, for some reason, no one in the mainstream media has, at least effectively, thought for a minute before using it so freely.

Just today, WSJ dared to publish a new article entitled "Islamists Lead Massive Protest in Cairo." Discussing the recent Al Sami Document - which is supposedly to "replace" the Egyptian constitution, as in giving power to the military through a confidential and unchallenged budget, and providing rights to minorities - gives the word anti-semantic a whole new meaning. Matt Bradley writes:

"Though the crowd drew heavily on Islamists, the message of the day was on that many liberals and secular-minded protesters could support."

Could there BE any more bias in his writing? "Islamists?" "Liberals and secular-minded protesters?" How are
these MUSLIMS any less liberal than their "Liberal" counterparts? Oh, because they are more religious, does that make them less politically Liberal? Since when? Aren't they marching alongside these "liberals and secular minded" Egyptians? Oh, you meant RELIGIOUSLY conservative - that is to assume Islamists ARE religiously conservative. Ok, then. Since when was it a bad thing to be religiously conservative?

The story of Islamism - as it is apparently called - is a combination of the religious and political philosophies of Islam. Islamists are radical Muslims, no doubt. They believe Islam should be used as a way of governing. But They are not extremists. Sayed Khatab, a professor at Monash University, in his "Democracy in Islam" argues that Islamism - that is Islamist Democracy (yes such a thing exists) - is rather a counter to extremism. The extremism that usually blossoms in the "top tier" of Islamist polities would be, according this type of Sunni Islamist political theory, balanced out by the "lower tier" - first the scholarly class, now everyone. The all too infamous Shia model is the exact opposite. As libertarian as the Sunni model is, the Shia model is authoritarian. As communal as the Sunni model is, the Shia model is individualized. With the power in the Sunni model residing with the people, more laws are created with the people's interest in mind, the more "liberal" the policies. On the contrary, under the Shia way of doing things, the power class (the "priests" and "descendents of Muhammad") capitalize on a religious populus. So to keep them from political and religious protest, the lower classes are kept away from a "liberal" interpretation of Islam and "Islamism."

So suppose we make a comparison. This won't be ideal because it is not an apple-to-apple comparison, nor an orange-to-apple for that matter, but rather a Granny Smith-to-McKintosh. If we look at Egypt's current demographic as a filling for the Sunni Islamist democracy framework and compare that to the Sunni Islamist democracy model in Iran, we can see for sure that the "Islamist" cause does not have to be either a politically conservative or a religiously conservative one. (All the data is from the CIA World Factbook).

Iran

Education expenditures:

4.7% of GDP (2009)
country comparison to the world: 71

Unemployment, youth ages 15-24:

total: 23%
country comparison to the world: 38
male: 20.2%
female: 34% (2008)

School life expectancy (primary to tertiary education):

total: 13 years
male: 13 years
female: 13 years (2009)

Literacy:

definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 77%
male: 83.5%
female: 70.4% (2002 est.)

Egypt

Education expenditures:

3.8% of GDP (2008)
country comparison to the world: 109

Literacy:

definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 71.4%
male: 83%
female: 59.4% (2005 est.)

School life expectancy (primary to tertiary education):

total: 11 years
male: 11 years
female: 11 years (2004)

Unemployment, youth ages 15-24:

total: 24.8%
country comparison to the world: 32
male: 17.2%
female: 47.9% (2007)

Indeed these numbers tell us about the Societies of Iran and Egypt. There is a higher literacy rate in Iran. Iranians stay in school longer than Egyptians. Their youth employments is almost the same. But here's the kicker: Iran spends more on its education. An entire 1% of its GDP. That may not sound much that is an additional 3.3 billion USD. Yeah...that's plenty. And, oh, another thing...Iran does not allow certain religious minorities to enter college. Hmm...I wonder why?

Egypt is the produces the most Ph.D.s in Africa, more than South Africa. It is truly the Academic's playground. And there cannot be a better way to use this for the country's good than the Sunni model. After all, "pursuing a doctoral programme in Egypt is almost worthless, except for those already working in universities and research centres." The creation of a Islamist Democracy would call for pressure groups and think tanks that would employ the power of these Ph.D.s, not to mention the call for change by the Tahrir Square protests. Indeed this involves a sort of "thougtful" and dynamic government, not a comfortable government that only seeks to preserve its power. So why exactly does the Iran populus remain in power? There have been protests in Iran.

Consider how Iran and Egypt line up in religion:

Egypt

Religions:

Muslim (mostly Sunni) 90%, Coptic 9%, other Christian 1%

Iran

Religions:

Muslim (official) 98% (Shia 89%, Sunni 9%), other (includes Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i) 2%

There is an obvious difference. The majority of the Iranian population assumes the Ayatollah is the rightful ruler of Iran. In Egypt it couldn't be far from the truth.

Indeed Egypt has the potential for becoming the model Islamist Democracy . The moral righteousness of such, though, must be questioned, first of all...would it really consider every citizen who must obey its rules and laws? Obviously not, there is an entire 9% of the population who are ethnically Egyptian but Christian...tracing their roots to the Christians of Roman Egypt, when Egypt's majority was, in fact, Christian. In fact, it is very much their nation. This is a question Egypt must consider...the Islamist potential. It should not be shunned to curry favor from an ignorant Western media. The West does NOT know everything, as dear Mr. Matt Bradley from the WSJ has proved.

What's better, the Islamist Democratic model does not have to necessarily not consider minority interest by default. The Egyptian revolution has evolved to describe the Coptics as "dahaya, victims, of the" rogue government to "shohada', martyrs." Indeed the Coptics have been accepted by their Muslim counterparts. But Marc Michael of Al-Jeezera makes a different argument, that is the Coptics are actually adopting an " Anglo-Saxon liberal thought" that "cheer[s] them to embrace their estrangement from Egyptian society, to value their alienation as an end in itself, and to seek the legal support of the state in establishing their difference as a social fact." So the future of a righteous Islamist Democratic state in Egypt, to live up to its potential as the ideal Islamist state, depends on a few conditions: 1. the Al Sami document must fail so the Egyptian constitution is preserved 2. the Coptics must compromise with the Muslims to create a fair Democratic state that is based on Islamist theory but considers equally the interest of the minorities, the Coptics. (After all, consideration is the most important thing in a democracy). 3. the West must stop making these assumptions that "Islamism" cannot be democracy. 4. Iran must reform its education system. Islamist democracy will allow for academics read in Islam and political, economic, etc theory will be able to optimize democracy in the middle east. If anything, it is the only hope for Middle East peace via an enlightened not passion-driven demos. This is key to the Tahrir Square revolution and, if successful in Egypt, the Arab Spring.

Turkey's Isolation

2011-11-17T08:47:00.000-08:00

Syria's voice is being muted. And even those voices, those screams, that resonate from this hub of violence and humanitarian neglect that somehow pass through the watchful eyes of its overtly uber-authoritarian regime is being ignored. The Syrian people are being ignored. The World is turning its back on the thousands of bloody mangled bodies that line the streets of Damascus, the bloody hands of Assad and his combattant. And the questions this inherency draws aren't new ones either. Why has the United States - the world's so-called democracy police, the "city on a hill" - turned its back to this outrage? Why has it so willingly taken up projects like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, but turned its back to such apocalyptic desperation? The excuses that attempt to answer these questions, as much as they may vary, are neither sensible or rational, but at least practice constraint in terms of precedent: America's penchant for the "American interest." But what about Turkey?

That's right. Turkey. Syria's neighbor and European Union member-hopeful. In light of the "civil war" - as Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister suggests - in Syria, Turkey has taken measure to do exactly what the rest of the world has already decided on doing, that is doing nothing. Instead of, at least, relating to the problem in Syria and taking up the Syrian people's problem as its own - as it already is, ostensibly, by the mutual economic problem the Syrian civil war presents Turkey in terms of transport - Turkey's Economy Minister has decided to "weigh new transport routes to the Middle East," despite a "10 percent drop in exports."

At this point, there is no rational argument to stay put and do nothing about Syria. But the only argument that makes any sort of sense is the American argument. That is, we cannot do anything because it does not lie in our interests, the interests of our nation. (This argument neglects the fact that the defending of humanitarianism is the duty of every global citizen.) But Turkey is unique, different from America, in this respect. It does have a national interest at hand. It must do something. In Turkey's case, the most obvious argument would be..we're not a "first-world" country with a top-5 global economy so we cannot do anything. This is one of the many insensible arguments that governments obsessed with the economic and political problems of today make to avoid any sort of real change. But it doesn't take this sort of worldly status to bear witness to slaughter. If this is the case I strongly urge the policymakers from every single nation around the world to read Fuyuki Kurasawa's "Message in a Bottle" for "witnessing is an intrinsically dialogical process of recognition involving two parties...eyewitness and their audience." There is no reason to go guns-blazing, or tanks rolling...then what would be the difference between the so-called intervening angel and demon? It is about empowerment. It is about encouragement. That is how problems are solved and that is how humanity is saved. For how can we save humanity by destroying it?

On Spiritualism and Drugs

2011-11-04T18:03:00.000-07:00

This guy has a compelling argument affirming the use of marijuana: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6fsdOroelE

But Baba suggests otherwise: "The state of ecstasy brought about by music or by some extraneous influence like drugs does not mean spirituality. It is a state in which the mind overpowers itself, and is a weakness to be guarded against. Instead of running wild, the mind should be self-composed. This comes through control."

Yet, Baba says "I believe in self-control, not in coercion. Coercion is based on oppression, and results in fear and hatred. Self control requires courage, and may be induced by love. We will do many things for those whom we love which we would not ordinarily do — which we would not ordinarily have the strength of mind and power to do. How many habits have we been able to break through love, which we would never have had the strength to break without love? And when the love is universal love, all habits which are detrimental, either to the individual or to the social order, will be dissolved in its light." We shouldn't bar people from using marijuana. That involves the use of violence. That is the reason why we have gangsters and room for police abuse. Indeed, barring them would be a violation of the First Amendment right to religion.

But I wish Baba would have gone into detail, suggesting the reasons, point to point, exactly why marijuana is bad. Hanuman Baba, as he calls himself, sets up a very convincing argument. He combines the two streams of religious thought: the western and eastern. Moses saw the burning bush, which according to this guy was a bush of "kush," and spoke to God, as in by getting high. Whereas, the yogis have been using "ganja" to meditate for years. But what really punctuates his rhetoric is his reference to the ayurveda. Marijuana has no negative medical implications. It cures many a disease. He actually lists the various diseases. It is good for your lungs, a counter-effect of tobacco.

Sure, Baba said intuition is a higher reckoning system than reason. And Baba's argument against LSD and other man-made hallucinagens makes sense. But I still cannot grasp the logic behind Baba's argument.But whatever it is, at the end of the day, just by Baba uttering it, it is enough for me.