I'm Mad as Hell

Network is a hell of a movie. There is one scene where Howard Beale goes into a tirade, he is “mad as hell and cannot take it anymore.” Yes, the movie is set in the 70’s. Yes, it is a bit overdramatic. But, this tirade has relevance to our current situation.

It seems like the world is crumbling at the seams. Nothing seems to be working. The economy is sputtering, Washington is marred in partisanship and unaccountability, federal and state courts are viciously split based on ideology, news has lost its integrity, people have become largely drones. I’m mad as hell and can’t take it anymore.

We are stuck in a cultural vacuum and are in over our heads. We lost sight of our priorities. Our leaders are not accountable, the population is not responsible. Everyone is blaming someone else for his or her problems. For example, in this economic crisis, which is complex beyond my wildest dreams, the bankers are blaming the people for taking irresponsible loans, the people are blaming the government for not being vigilant enough, the government is blaming the bankers for being to greedy. Could it be that everyone is at fault?

What we need is progressive, sound social policy. Our collective knee-jerk reaction to events are proving to be problematic. As things get worse, people get more extreme, and so does our politics. Nowhere is there a cry for moderate approach. It’s just talk. For example, many on Wall Street are upset with the recent passage of a federal finance regulation bill. Their reaction is – all regulation is bad. But is this the case? Why not advocate for responsible legislation, as opposed to fighting it? Similarly, liberal stalworks want excessive regulation, perhaps stifling free enterprise. But isn’t too much regulation problematic? The simple point is that both sides of the debate in the most pressing of issues are so enveloped in their position that they fail to see the need for compromise.

I haven’t written on this blog in a while, and I apologize for that. I plan to write more in the coming months in response to the myriad of problems we are facing. It’s time for a paradigmatic shift in our way of thinking. Without it, I fear that we that will continue to fall susceptible to this problematic cycle.

Politics of hope, the politics of fear

There is a real dichotomy between the messages of the two major political parties. The Republicans play the politics of fear. The Democrats play the politics of hope. Which will win out?

People vote out of fear, and Republicans realize this. The issues of illegal immigration, terrorist attacks, nuclear holocaust, and abortion all play to fears. Especially in the post 9/11 climate, people are scared of what will happen. But, when an electorate votes out of fear, they lose sight of what really matters. The past eight years are indicative of this fact. Yet, there is hope on the horizon.

Sometimes, just sometimes, people vote out of hope, and Democrats play to this. The issues of health care, the economy, education all inspire the idealist in us. The positive tone of the Democratic campaigns seem to be generating interest. The voting turnout in the early primary states are indicative of this fact. After all, shouldn't politics be about bettering our future? Shouldn't we focus on fixing a broken health care system, bettering education, improving our economy? Why can't our polity push an agenda that betters our domestic situation, while protecting us abroad?

Only time will tell which politics will win. However, the American people are fed up with the past eight years of fear mongering by the Bush administration. Maybe, just maybe, hope will win over fear

A European Lesson

Undoubtedly, healthcare (or lack there of) in America is one of the biggest problems facing our society today. On my most recent trip to Berlin, I have sought out to learn more about the German public health care system. After much examination, I have concluded there is much to take away from the German (And European Model)

For one, healthcare is guarantteed for all. Unlike the US, people are seen regardless if they have the financial means to see a doctor or not. Furthermore, one gets the healthcare they need irresepetive of approval from the government (Unlike the US, where even if you have health care, you have to get things approved by HMO's). The funding comes from German taxes, which makes it possible to give the healthcare that is needed.

This is not to say that German healthcare is perfect. Like other systems, it has problems and challanges to overcome. I am not advocating the incorperation of the exact German system, but rather the advancment of the idea of a minimum standard for healh care in the US. There should be a two-tier system: one for those who can afford to pay for health care, and one for those who can't (Similar to what Hillary Clinton is proposing). It is time to provide a universal healthcare system for the tens of millions of Americans who are uninsured. Lets learn a lesson from the European model on healthcare.

Americratic Incation on Climate Change

Alexis De Tocqueville is right: apathy leads to governmental paralysis. This became evident today at the UN Bali Climate Change Conference.

People do not care enough about the world around them. If they did, they would see the grave danger posed by Climate Change and Global Warming. There is nearly a scientific unanimity that human produced green house gases(GHG) are the chief culprit of Global Warming. The good news is that we can stop Global Warming through reducing GHG emissions. The bad news is that citizens are not speaking up about it. Inaction on Climate Change is intolerable and threatens our biological existence. Yet, Washington carries on as normal because citizens allow it to do so.

The US is balking at mandatory caps on GHG's. At the Bali UN Conference on Climate Change, proponents of an international agreement (Replacing Kyoto, which expires in 2012) are pushing to include mandatory carbon reduction standards: zero emissions by 2020. The US, and other major producers of GHG's do not want to take responsibility and agree, at the very least, to have some target reducing carbon emissions. Thus, talks are stalled, and the EU is threatening to pull out if a framework of an agreement is not reached by the end of the conference.

De Tocqueville warned that citizens will get too caught up in physical gratification, retreat from democracy, and in turn, democracy would become static. This is becoming all but true. We are valuing 'the now' over 'the future'. We are putting physical gratification and materialism above ensuring the surivial to our biological existence.

What can you do? You can start by calling your member of congress and demanding action. Furthermore, you could get involved with the many organizations spearheading this fight, vote for candidates who will promise action on climate change, and start to personally reduce your carbon out put. Believe it or not, one person can make a difference. A little in abundance is a lot. Imagine if one million individuals were to make an effort to address climate change through personal action. Americratic inaction on Climate Change is not acceptable, what are you doing to do about it?

. . . And 'they' say they're pro-family

One cannot turn on the news without hearing cliché Republican catch phrases. Turn on a Republican debate, and you'll hear how pro-family the Republican party is. During the 2004 presidential campaign, President Bush professed that he was pro-family: "President Bush said a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage will "strengthen families" and prevent "activist" courts from allowing same-sex couples to marry." So, when it comes to the issue of giving poor children health care, something that will truly 'strengthen families', where does the Republican party, and specifically Mr. Bush stand? Apparently not with the family.

Today, President Bush vetoed the second version of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as Schip. The plan would have cost 35 billion dollars over four years, and would have added roughly six million needy children to the four million that are already covered under the program. Moreover, the plan would have been funded by increasing the cigarette tax to 1 dollar from 39 cents per pack. Mr. Bush professed: ``Ultimately, our nation's goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage, not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage,'' Bush said in his veto message to Congress. ``As a result, I cannot sign this legislation.'' The last time I checked, denying poor children healthcare is not a 'pro-family' position.

Its time to be truthful with American people, Mr. Bush. At the very least, be honest about what your core values are. You'll spend 141.27 billion next year on wars, but not 7 billion on strengthening families??? I urge for you and the Republicans to put your money where your mouth is, truly strengthen families by helping those families and children in the most need. Otherwise, we'll keep on saying . . . 'and they say they're pro-family'.

Congress: Static and Immoble

The American political system is contingent upon having a multitude of parties, in our case two political parties, rubbing up against each other, and each branch checking one another. This is a necessary part of the checks and balances system crafted over three hundred years ago. Yet, our current system finds itself in jeopardy.

In 2006, democrats won control of congress. They pledged to end the War in Iraq, bring what they claim as respectability and integrity back to congress. What have they accomplished?

Nothing. They have not gotten bills passed ranging from war spending to energy to healthcare. They have not stood up to President Bush. Worse off, they have lost the respect of the American people. The latest polls put Congressional job approval as high as 32%, and as low as 21%.

I am not advocating a position on what the democrats believe, rather I am critiquing there inability to stand up for what they believe in. If your going to put up a fight, you better use every resource at your disposal to win that fight. If it means not coming to a compromise because your demands are not being met, then follow through. At the very least, the Republicans are unified in standing up for what they believe in.

A recent New York Times article, entitled G.O.P. Flexes Their Muscle in The Senate, illustrates the Democrats inability to get bills past, and the G.O.P. strength in sticking to their guns. The most recent democratic effort to reduce a war spending bill has failed. The republicans are offering a 70 billion dollar spending bill for the war in Iraq, which will probably get passed given the recent trends in congress. This has chilling implications for the state of checks and balances.

The Democrats must put up a stronger fight in order to preserve the very little balance that exists in this system. They must do what ever it takes, even if it means getting even less bills passed. On the same token, the Republicans must continue to fight for what they believe in. It is through these battles that compromises are reached, and the interests of the American people are fully represented.

Ameritocracy

Ameritocracy is what I define as the American style of democracy. Its creation was like no other. At the constitutional convention, our founding fathers created a nation contingent upon it citizens participating within the system. Furthermore, no other political system created the dynamics created by Ameritocracy. As written in the preamble of the consitution, all men are created equal. And, the American democrat has an insatiable thirst for equality. Throughout our history, movements have developed, and civil wars have been fought in the name of equality. This begs the question, are we living up to this responsibility?

A great French political philosopher by the name of Alexis De Tocqueville once wrote about the potential problems Ameritocracy would once face. Namely, this great philosopher predicted that apathy will plague the masses. This apathy would cause Ameritocracy to become stagnant, and immobile. This immobility, in turn, would make the American democrat susceptible to what De Tocqueville deemed as 'soft tyranny'. That is, Americans will become so removed that a small group of people will be able to take control of the government through the guise of free elections, and this will strip the American of their political liberty. Has De Tocqueville's forecast come true?

Partially. Apathy, both political and non-political, is widespread amongst America, specifically the younger generation, my generation. More and more, I observe my fellow peers removed from the state of affairs, caught up in there own small circle, disinterested in issues that confront this great nation. A problem arises. How are we supposed to combat the possibility of a Tocquevillian soft tyranny if many of the members of generation x are apathetic?

The answer is neither clear nor simple. It is going to take a collective effort by society to combat this problem. We, somehow, must cultivate a society of action. It is the mission of this blog to explore ways to encourage the development of a society of action. This will be done through examining the current American polity(There will be many posts about the election of 2008), and other topics that arise out of this examination. I look forward to blogging over the coming weeks and months, and sincerely hope that I can contribute to increasing awareness and participation in my generation.