Ruminations on the Role of Government and the Power of Collective Systems, Pt. 1

Maybe this is just me, but if the government has a job, IMO, it is to allow the people a functioning, beneficial, diverse and expressive society. I think of it like a helium balloon, people are the helium. It is limiting, but that limitation is with reason, like the pressure building in the balloon - it has a purpose, to gather enough of the helium, contained in one place to allow the balloon to float. Within the confines of the balloon is where we exist and if every country is a balloon, we exist tethered together in a bunch. I think there's more exchange between countries than is possible with balloons, so the metaphor basically stops at the individual level or the bunch of balloons are all contained with a larger balloon - if little balloons pop, then the big balloon suffers. If the supply of helium is extended to represent not just people but resources, then it should be recognized that the supply is limited and the distribution unequal. I also understand that part of a government's existence is the preservation of a specific way of life (which is often interpreted militarily in the United States, though there are 'softer' options pursued by other nations), including but not limited to the values of that group of people. Values I might add that are rather diverse and at times contradictory; re: freedom and equality.

Ok, so that out of the way, if the purpose of government is to allow the people space to exist as freely as remains mutually beneficial and functioning (a basic social contract, guaranteed rights, known, mutually accepted limitations and restrictions), it is an open system, one of constant discussion and revision - and while I may hold the opinion that our representative bodies are neither truly representative or in-fact competent - this dialogue is how I understand the lengthy deliberation of our (US) legislative branch. Like when they couldn't figure out whether the US should continue on course or collapse into a debt crisis. By an open system I mean that it is a system that is not set in stone, though it is still a system and therefore contains a few mostly immutable aspects, like the specifics of the social contract mentioned above. In many ways, this is exactly what our constitution is, the base from which we operate. Sometimes the base needs to be changed, sometimes the base needs to be updated, sometimes the base needs to be cleaned up, reorganized and shined - the amendments to the US constitution are an example of this.

The problem with systems seems to lie with their inability to find expression in their idealized form. Socialist systems work on paper but socialism has a mixed track record and derivatives of it have failed miserably. But I'd like to explore a different example, beating up on socialism is played out. It's too easy, and so details go overlooked and only the overall critique stands out. Instead, I'd like to explore the example of a meritocracy in application. I feel that human social groups tend towards meritocracy. We follow leaders that lead because their leadership is successful, even if it's only successful in corralling us and keeping dissent at a manageable level. Capitalist economics is a fantastic example of meritocratic expression, but it does not live up to the ideal. In capitalism, what is profitable succeeds and profit is pursued - the side effects of this system include rapid technological advancement, a ton of crap, an exponentially expansive system and both the scarcity and plenty of resources - but my point is that it falls within the realm of pursuing profits. What is profitable is successful, but I would argue that all that is profitable is not mutually beneficial, and not all that is mutually beneficial is profitable. That capitalist systems create the opportunity for philanthropy is beneficial, however if that opportunity is gained at an unjustifiable expense to another group of people, or the environment, giving a little back to your pet projects doesn't justify the system as mutually beneficial. I believe that philanthropy exists in a meritocratic system, which I believe betrays an aspect of our humanity - that we feel compelled to take care of each other, or at least our in-groups. My point is that the expression of a meritocracy as capitalist economics, does not live up to the idea of an idealized meritocracy, either because we're too 'weak' and wind up helping each other out or because the meritocracy itself becomes too focused on the pursuit of the rewards and becomes corrupted from the grand purity of ideology.

I find the theory of evolution to be another meritocratic system, one that also cannot remain pure in its application. As the species adapt, they adapt to the needs of their environment and what works, lives and survives, possibly thrives - but it's only in relation to that, to survival. Ultimately, while certain aesthetic traits come into and out of vogue, representing potential mates as capable of providing/thriving and/or creating offspring that will be preferred breeding partners (sexy son hypothesis), what works is what stays alive, not necessarily the prettiest or the smartest or the strongest (anything "-est" seems to have mertocratic implications) survive, survival itself is the meritocratic expression of evolutionary theory. Again, it's a limited application that does not find itself living up to the idealized meritocracy.

Bringing up mate selection also opens the door to discussing kin/family bonds and the idea that part of what drives an individual human being is to care for his/her mate and progeny - this is not universal, as across all species attractive mates are not always as attractive in the long term as they look in the short term - it is however rather undeniable that many human beings (and I mean many by percentage not merely sheer quantity of numbers, though the percentage does give it that) do in fact care greatly for their offspring, hope for a better life for their children, and attempt to provide some form of privilege (from college savings to inheritance), familial education and enculturation. This is not meritocratic, it is something else and the effect that this has on a capitalist economic system is further corrupting, as it creates disparity between privilege and unprivilege. Like the old adage, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer - this is the effect on a system that should sound more like the American dream where anyone can make it big if they're talented and dedicated enough.

Idealized systems do not work in reality, they are dreams that must be realized and seldom live up to such lofty standards. Socialists are used to hearing this, but it seems to me that it is seldom applied to more successful* systems, like capitalism. Capitalism is highly functional, but it is completely self-absorbed - odd how this can also be used to represent those who succeed in capitalist systems as they must be driven to a certain extent and driven people are certainly absorbed with their purpose, which seems related to the concept of self-absorption. I'm not saying it's a negative quality, though I would point out what the big picture effects can be; re: collateral damage, systems that perpetuate inequality for no other reason than the interplay of horded resources held by small groups, and the constant movement of the remaining resources.

The overarching point here is that we cannot look to realized systems to save us from ourselves, they cannot, we have to find new, better ideas to bring into reality - to bring about and then try to improve upon. Government cannot save us from ourselves, and we are everything. We are corporations, we are homeless, we are the freeloaders, the workaholics, the leeches, creeps, vampires and golden gods of our economies, our world, of our countries, of our balloon(s). Applied government is as much a failure in it's transition from ideology to reality as anything else, and perhaps this is a part of the reason the US government was set up as a vacuum, a negative space where the government limits itself - and in this respect I completely understand and agree with the calls for a smaller federal government, it fits right into my idea of what government is/should do. Even fits my metaphor, as the balloon should be flexible but ultimately no matter how big the balloon gets you never get more balloon, gotta take it easy, let it stretch out slowly so it doesn't pop. My problem with the call for smaller government, less taxes, and blah blah blah is that it is in direct opposition to what I believe the government should do (to allow the people a functioning, beneficial, diverse and expressive society) and what our government actually does and how our government is actually put together.

The two party system creates unrealistic majorities by pre-lumping diverse groups together (as opposed to letting them self-bond over issues - though some of our current party system has roots in exactly those sorts of alliances, ultimately the US' two party blanket is nearly as old as the US) and a stagnant pond in terms of corruption (it's easier to influence 2-5 candidates than it is to influence 13-17). One problem with democracy is the threat of mob-rule, majority rule without thought or sentiment for the minority group. The past decade has been a horrid example of this on both partisan sides, each side with such a different agenda and radical minorities within the parties who are dissatisfied with the actions of their party at large. It's impossible not to be dissatisfied with the party at large, it's a false and imposed alliance of ideologies at best, there will always be dissent - but not only is the dissenting minority being rode roughshod and overlooked in general in the United States over the past decade, but the minorities within each political subgroup are experiencing the same. This is a failure of democracy, a failure of the people to uphold their social contract and a failure of the government itself.

The tremendous influence of business and capital in the US government, at both the state and federal level, is another issue of contention. What is good for business is supposed to be good for the people, so in essence trickle-down economics and low regulation seem to be the order of the day to create a better world, or at least a better America - but as good as that idea might seem, the records of the past three decades show otherwise and in fact contain strong echoes of earlier financial catastrophes. In a democracy, of, by and for the people, I would ask, who should have more influence over the representatives - people or other entities and interests? I would say people, as ultimately, they are what a country is about and comprised of and what government is supposedly in place to protect and preserve, but without seriously revamping our economic and social systems, government action against business and the free/open-market is mostly counter-productive. The breakdown lies here: that the power-structure functions for a small group of people and grants them incredible influence over each other and over the society in general is a failure of democracy, a failure of the people to uphold their own social contract and a failure of the government itself.

The pull of the military/industrial complex is my final point. While the industrial aspect is seldom worried about, many people on both sides of the aisle, from nobodies to somebodies, are concerned with the military actions and investments of the US government. While some see it as a necessary action, others deride it as extravagant or downright excessive - and while the idea that our soldiers are fighting so I can live free is heartwarming and inspiring, I personally find that our military has been applied to protect economic interests (and not necessarily those of the US people) more often than simply standing in defense of freedom, as it did in the Cold War with communism. Seems there was less actual fighting (at least by the two actual opponents) as well. As the industrial aspect has already been addressed as the influence of capital and business on our government, it nearly goes without saying that the military aspect is even more frightening as it is quite literally, embedded in both our government and our economy, which gives it tremendous influence over both, and winds up sitting on a tremendous mountain of the resources of both. Oddly enough, our constitution stands opposed to a free-standing army (and by that implication and other isolationist sentiments, against world-wide military hegemony) though it does provide for the necessity of a strong navy (and in modernity, I'd also say air force) - blah blah blah, this isn't the problem, the problem is the application. Military and intelligence spending make up a massive amount of the US military budget, but how much of that is a waste of resoruces? (Ex: intelligence failures promoted as honest truth being instrumental leading the country to war, that proved to be costly, inaccurate and suspect.) And how much of what they're being applied to winds up being a waste of life and purpose, as if the soldier's are not actually fighting for the government to be able to allow the people a functioning, beneficial, diverse and expressive society, isn't that a waste of government and individual resources? This is a breakdown of democracy, a failure of the people to uphold their social contract and a failure of the government itself.

So, when I say I'm all for raising taxes it's within this framework - and comes with the caveat that I can't really support it now, as I don't agree with even half of how those tax dollars are spent. And when I say that I'm afraid of corporations and corporate power, it doesn't mean that I don't see the benefits of capitalism and the dangers of less functional systems - what I really mean is, the system isn't working well (income inequality is growing, boom-and-bust bubblenomics is constantly threatening whatever success we have, the national debt is growing by leaps and bounds by the second, etc.) the way it is and we should find a better way of doing things - but before we can even get to that point, we should at least uphold our end of the bargain now, and fight fight fight for that social contract that was so carefully crafted. The one American soldiers really did fight and die for.

So, yeah, I'm all for public works (schools, roads, public transporation, hell, even non-profit healthcare option) but I'm disappointed in their quality and presence (even our roads are kind of a joke) - and I'm all for more taxes/obligations when it comes to our corporations and those who are incredibly, filthy, to the extreme, have more than they could ever really spend in ten generations, wealthy (I really think we need upper tax brackets for those who make more than $350,000 a year and/or that those in those groups should feel compelled to do incredible things for their surrounding communities - whether that's achieved with the threat of extreme-higher taxes for those who don't or perhaps a shift in consciousness. While I can't necessarily support corporate sponsorship of regions the way things stand (I'd like see to kinder, gentler corporations that were more democratic and cooperative), it'd be foolish not to point out that it happens and is happening.

Things have changed tremendously, and much for the better over the last two hundred and thirty years - but there are problems and BS partisan politics aren't a solution. They are a method of keeping us occupied, like treading water, while hoping things work themselves out. In the history of US politics, the government has taken hands on and hands off approaches, from raising the bar on the lower end of the quality of life for unskilled workers, to busting up (some) monopolies, to laissez-faire economic strategies - we go from extreme to extreme, like this girlfriend I had where she'd blast the A/C and then the heater, and then repeat again and again because she was hot, then cold, then hot, then cold. Maybe it's time to roll down the window, even just crack it instead, to try something different or at least try some things differently.



* - successful, meaning that they can currently be seen at work and are functioning well for at least some humans; but it should be noted that by this applied definition of successful, socialism could be included as it is/has work/ed for some humans.

this is my life:

Me: I want you to marry me.
Girl of my dreams: yes.
Me: I'm going to Spain for a semester.
Girl of my dreams: that sounds incredible, see you when you get back! Have fun.
Me: Come visit.
Girl of my dreams: we'll see how it works out.
Me: I went to Morocco!
Girl of my dreams: I love you so much.
Me: so when do you want to come visit?
Girl of my dreams: I'm sorry, it's over.
Me: what changed since yesterday?
Girl of my dreams: (after a three week silence) I need to take risks. Don't wait for me.

the story since then takes three forms:
Me: hello.
A girl I might be interested in: I have a boyfriend.
Me: great, so does that mean you're telling me this to get me to back down or because you want to see how far I'll go for you? Because all I did was say hello, and attempt to engage you in intelligent conversation. I haven't even complimented you, yet.

Me: hello.
A girl I might be interested in: I want to find a hot spanish guy to fuck the shit out of me.
Me: well, good luck with that.

Me: hello.
A girl I might be interested in: I like to read.
Me: me too! I'm a fairly prolific reader, I like non-fiction and satire, I also really enjoy some historical fiction. What kind of books do you like?
A girl I might be interested in: well I just finished Dan Brown's new book, and I love Twilight!
Me: umm, well.

What's Wrong with a US Government Shutdown

or, how I learned to love my security state; or, who needs any regulation, really?; or, wars around the world and anarchy at home; or, we should be so lucky; or, pork-barrel, why not just make me a sandwich; or, because we just can't agree about anything these days; or, "Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth, None of them along the line know what any of it is worth."

so, here's my big problem and I want it to be yours too: the US government continues to face the threat of "most non-security federal operations" coming to a halt after Friday, April 10th. This is not a late April fool's day joke, this is the straight verdad. Now, maybe if you're not a big fan of the US government, this doesn't sound so bad. Maybe if you believe that our budget problems have to do with programs for the elderly and unlucky, it sounds even better. Maybe, if you believe that these gd politicians and lazy a-holes are trying their damnedest to shuck the budget up with loopholes, amendments, unnecessary inclusions, and other pork, you might also be thrilled. Maybe that's how you feel, and maybe you're not all wrong, but I cannot abide it. Here's my problem with the budget "debate," stop reading now if you don't want to know, I am petrified of two things in the United States: a security state and unregulated corporate interests. And I'm particularly scared of them, together.

The economic collapse was rooted in the unregulated, shadowy world of derivatives and the collapse of the housing bubble - and were largely beneficial for the richest people in the country (the same people all those bloated budgets are trying to appease on both sides of the aisle). It's not common knowledge but it is a documented fact that citibank release a memo addressing "American Plutocracy," aka, rule of the super rich and how to continue this trend.

A government shutdown doesn't change this, in fact, unless economic regulation is included in the national security apparatus that stays active during the shutdown, what limited regulation has been placed on the super-rich since the economic downturn is basically being turned-off. This "freedom" to be greedy, coupled with the rising security measures taken to protect our "freedom" (PATRIOT Act, Bush's NSA wire-taps, etc.) seems absolutely terrible for the average American and is going unspoken of, buried beneath the partisan strife of our largely divided country. Since the PATRIOT act, we've moved closer and closer, above and below the board, towards being an American security state, and that seems less like freedom than a little danger.

What's the fear of the shutdown, that we'll be invaded or attacked? No, of course not, that's why the security apparatus must remain engaged. Homeland security costs 50 billion dollars, we spent 43.5 billion dollars on "intelligence" in 2007 and it's estimated at 80 billion for 2010 (the actual spending remains classified at this time). Those are big numbers, China spends 70 billion on their entire military. Yet, in the midst of this "security" our soldiers would cease receiving their paychecks? Our military bases are one of our many means of national security and global hegemony, so much so that we refuse to close them even in this age of globalization and free, open markets. And while I am ecstatic about the hits that defense contractors are going to take in the event of a shutdown, I'd be even happier if we simply cut them out of the budget and out of the picture completely - but then they'd just sell to somebody else right? But the question is, is anyone else willing to pay them like we do? Because nobody does and besides, plenty of arms and ammunition get sold anyway.

So what's my problem with the gov't shutdown? That it is not about the people, about the lay constituent. It's about BS. It's about big money controlling our government and getting their way with or without the government there to watch. It's about our bloated idea of what it means to be secure and "free" at the same time. But it could be about self-collapsing the empire, withdrawing our troops, closing our foreign bases and worrying more about improving life at home, and it could start with redesigning the tax codes to reflect the difference in equity and lifestyle between a guy who makes $373,651 and a guy who's getting a million dollar salary and a four million dollar bonus; let alone the corporate tax rate, which, while it might be one of the highest in the world, topping out at 35% for the highest earners, apparently has plenty of loopholes so some of the highest earners don't have to pay any taxes at all! (I'm looking at you GE.) While medicare, medicaid and social security eat up much of the national budget, military spending (past and present) eats up most of the rest, what if that didn't have to be the case? What if instead of handing the reins to the security apparatus and giving the carte blanche back to the richest criminals in the world we could see a bigger picture?

If government is so expensive, why not try something else instead, like crowdsourcing? But that might be too transparent, too wikileaks. And why isn't this model more indicative of the direction our government is heading? 'cause it could be.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin

and, I don't mean to bring up old news (if there is such a thing) but this fits again:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson

An Interplay of Correlations and Differences

Soccer and Other Reasons America is Fat
It's the cheapest sport in the world, and while that's not why people don't really like it in the states, it does explain why we don't play it. I mean, there's nothing to market. And while we might not be afraid to swing a bat, swoop in for a big catch or crush somebody else covered in similar equipment, we're really not chasing the ball around the field. As for Soccer and Basketball, I'll only say this: Soccer is more inclusive, though Basketball is probably our most athletic sport. And while Europe is getting fatter we're getting fatter still. No, I don't blame our lack of interest in Soccer for this - because it doesn't stop there.

food and subsidies
It's not the fast food, it's the bottomless cup. The fast food isn't good for you but the bottomless cup makes you fat. Soda is so different in Europe. First, they don't have mad corn subsidies here so their soda-pop is still made with sugar. While they might eat a lot of bread, they have a cultural eating tradition and there's so much home cooked food. Not to say that people don't eat out, but there does appear to be some sort of cultural pressure with their giant lunches here, to eat them in the privacy of your home with family and people you can trust. Eating lunch out, eating tapas, it's more of a shared experience more of a communal act and people don't eat as much. And we're not afraid to pig out in front of anybody. What's cheap in America is bad for you and what's cheap in Spain is bread and seasonal food. What strikes me in this is how the food has been dictated by the culture, as opposed to the food being dictated by lobbyists and government policies.


But here it is then, what is "freer?" To focus on playing sports that require equipment over activity or to play what's affordable and easy to start - a sport that also teaches you to keep your eye on the ball and hone some quick feet. To eat what your culture has been eating for five hundred years or to let some lobbyists and the government dictate what's affordable.

To Live and Die in the Social Network

It's not the first thought I have in the morning, but it happens in the first five minutes of my day just about every day and pretty much without fail. I ask myself, "Why am I on FB?" I have answers for this question, but most of them aren't anything I'm particularly proud of. I started a FB account years ago because the girl I wanted to date was on FB and FB is/was more aesthetically appealing than myspace. Because of my age, I have a hard time understanding what the major difference is between FB and classic AOL from back in the day. I have a profile, people stay in touch with me through the service, and that's pretty much that. I have more than three hundred odd friends, but of those friends I really only keep up with a few of them. Facebook has allowed me to preserve more single serving friendships than I knew was possible. In the scope of this, I still don't feel that my political rantings and ravings have reached anyone, changed any mind, or touched any heart that wouldn't have already been influenced by what I have to say. I still haven't gotten a couch to sleep on that wasn't from a friend close enough for me to call and ask over the phone.

A month before she left me, my ex-fiancee took some time off from facebook after a party she threw had three people show up and she felt as though she didn't want to confuse and delude herself, she didn't have three hundred friends, she had three. When she quit, I felt compelled to do the same. "But my family connections," I say to myself, and I didn't. Facebook is the only place I connect with my family - who are scattered all across those estados unidos - but the phrase loses all it's power when you actually say it out loud or type it out and read it - because then it just sounds lazy and cheapens the very idea of "connecting with family" if not the concept of what "family" itself should mean.

Now, I'm in Spain and there's even more fuel on the fire. I don't have a super-smart-phone here and I pay for every call and every text I send. Many of my fellow students have been using Facebook as a tool for planning everything from a night out or a weekend of traveling in Europe. It's cheap and convenient, but ultimately, again, it is the kind of convenience that just seems lazy when I really sit down and think about it. But what of the alternatives, and in the situation where one is looking at alternatives, if they're an inadequate substitute (email chains, telephone chains, word of mouth) and the superior option is free and already being utilized by everyone (Facebook) does it make any sense to move away from Facebook? Doesn't seem like it does, but Facebook brings it's own laundry list of problems.

Facebook is like looking in the mirror, peering into an echo chamber or worse looking into people's windows (some of which may not even realize that they left that "window" open in their security settings). If you do any of those things too often you are acting outside the bounds of what is considered good social etiquette. If you spend too long staring at yourself in the mirror, you don't have any time for anyone else. If you just listen to what's being said in an echo chamber, you'd be warned that you're not getting all the information. And if you wander around and get caught peeping into other people's windows you're just about guaranteed a fine, a night in jail and a date with the court. Yet, this is what Facebook is.

This is the most well-documented age ever and most of what's being documented isn't even worth taking note of. How many pictures have to be taken before you reach a saturation point? When is it more like reruns or syndication than real life? When I think about Facebook in terms of being a waste of time, it seems oh so useless. But without Facebook, I wouldn't have any easy way to stay in touch with so many people, and without knocking them (because they span quite the range of amazing and not) I just wonder how useful it really is.

age already alternatives anyone chains chamber connect convenient date echo email facebook fail family fb felt fine friends guaranteed hundred keep lazy life looking minutes mirror night odd open people political power preserve pretty quit reach really saturation seems sit social sounds stay taken telephone think threw took touch windows

created at TagCrowd.com

Scott Walker and Wisconsin

or, Who the Hell Voted for This Guy? - or, Why am I even worrying about this, I'm in Spain - or, The Most Useless and Uninformative Wikipedia Page I've Ever Seen - or, No Really, It Should Have Been A Stub - or, The Imaginary Interrogation of Scott Walker - or, Are Your Actions Indicative of Your Time With and Opinion of the Red Cross - or, I Don't Mean to be an Elitist, but You Seriously Don't Have A College Degree? Not Even a Bachelor's? (Because I Don't Either, But I'm Not the Governor)

I want to know where your money came from, Scott Walker. I want to know how a guy who left college for the Red Cross could turn out to be such a raging douche - because that seems pretty cool to me though I think you're supposed to go back to college before you start trying to run a city or a state. And since when does working for a non-profit turn out to be so lucrative? I want to know about your campaign finance violations. I want to know how a guy who's all about jobs turned down eight-hundred million dollars of government money to BUILD A RAILROAD. (Because, I mean, there's no jobs in that, right?) I keep hearing that Scott Walker is a Millionaire but I can't find where he made his money! I hear he gave some of his salary back when he was County Executive (well, more at first because apparently he fell on some hard times, if only with his wife), but I want more information about that too because there are plenty of technicalities and loopholes and tax breaks that he could be ducking behind and he never did actually lower the salary of the position. How about now, how much of his governor's salary should we expect him to "give back?" Is that a part of the budget cuts? Scott, by all accounts you're a multi-millionaire why do you need a salary at all? Especially since you're going to score a pension larger than the salaries of the teachers you're asking to take a pay cut if (and hopefully when) we ever pull our heads out of our asses and CHOOSE not to reelect you!

What of the complaints about his work with the Criminal Justice system in Milwaukee? By the DA no less. Put an end to prison profiteering? Naw, let's bust up the prison gurds union instead. And why go straight for the Unions but exclude the Police and Fire Unions? I mean, they're our real heroes and all, and I appreciate the work they do, but what about teachers? What about Higher Education? What about the UW as a premiere research institution? How do you research without researchers? And why pay those guiding researchers?

Damnit Scott Walker, it can't just be about the bottom line, sure that's how you probably got rich (or you married it, either way it's pretty well hidden from the interwebz) but it's not how you run a state! You don't bust up the unions to cut taxes for the richest! And while I'm all for frugality in the face of abundant wealth, even though he is, according to his wife, "fiscally conservative when it comes to his personal finances. Scott drives a 1998 Saturn with 100,000 miles on it and packs the same brown bag lunch before heading to the office to save money: two ham and cheese sandwiches on wheat with mayo." Why does it have to come at the cost of Wisconsin's workers?

And while the Scott Walker Biography page on his campaign website lists (a trite) three "small town values and common sense principles"

1. Don't spend more than you have.
2. Smaller government is better government.
3. People create jobs, not government.

I'm having trouble seeing how this relates to his campaign promises and constantly restated purpose as Governor, to create jobs? And what does small government have to do with Unions and collective bargaining? Sure, let's not spend more than we have, but WTF, why are we not increasing the taxes on the wealthy? And why can't we lower the corporate tax rate (which in essence is supposed to create jobs; or not) AND increase the tax rate on the wealthiest Wisconsintes? I mean, why not eat the rich - or at least get them to pony-up and put some food on the table? People have done just fine with incredibly high taxes - the rich still get richer. But, but, but, then there's no incentive to get rich... well f'n shucks. But don't tell me that those post war years weren't booming! (And look at those taxes.) I mean, we were choking out the Ruskies and giving birth to the Military-Industrial Complex!

If you ask the majority to get paid less and give more, while you cut taxes for the wealthy aren't you basically creating a situation where the rich get richer and the poor stay f'n poor? I mean, if you cut the teachers salaries but you don't cut into the beneficiaries of the profits from the University, and in fact lower their taxes, aren't you baking a nice cake for the already rich? Aren't you creating a situation where the minority pays less and gets more? How the f is that fair? But I guess it doesn't have to be, 'cause it's a "free-country." A free country where the middle-class is disappearing, where the overwhelming demographic majority is becoming a sociological minority.

The American Myth

or, Freedom and Equality as Oil and Water - or, my time as an expat - or, why I sometimes wish I wasn't so in love with a city in Wisconsin - or, how, sooner or later everything can go wrong - or, if only I knew how to make a decent shit sandwich - or, Putin, is that you?

Tell me friends, why is it that American students study abroad to cut themselves loose? Because the legal drinking age is 18, and even before these Spanish kids reach that age, you'd be hard pressed to find a day that they're not drinking forties and liquor in the streets and parks here? Perhaps. Because all the puritans left Europe for America and after three hundred and fifty years the cultural differences caused by this exodus are palpable? Maybe. Because the cops don't really seem too interested in stopping anything they don't absolutely have to? Possibly. Because the Catholics seem to be huge fans of excess and their pagan roots? I answer my question with another question, who knows?

But I know this much is true, I feel freer here in Spain and maybe it's just because I can hardly speak the language. Maybe it's because I have few ties to, no vested interest in and I don't know all the BS that's going on as I can barely understand the past tense in Spanish - which makes reading a paper a labor of love - but maybe there's something else going on. There's a complacency in America and there's a complacency here but I posit that they are of a different breed. If you want to talk freedom I say why not start by talking about puritanism and prohibition? (Key moments in American History.) Why is it the law for in so many American states for bars to close at 2 am and why is the drinking age 21? How come you can vote at 18, kill and die for your country at 18, legally smoke tobacco at 18, go to jail for life by 16, but you can't drink until you're 21 or rent a car until you're 25? I'm not saying that freedom is just about alcohol consumption, tobacco, murder, and vehicle rental, but I am trying to make a point about freedom. So far as vice, and possibly vehicle rental, is concerned it's hard not to make the claim that the roots of our policies have some relationship to our Puritan ancestry.

And what of religious freedom? So long as you're a conservative, protestant you're free to believe whatever you want. After much tribulation we have also (at least partially) come to accept catholics and jews, and maybe someday we'll find a place in our hearts for Muslims too. I mean, we talk about the oppression of women in Islam like it's so radically different, but women have only been allowed to vote in the US of A for less than the last hundred years (and ask a Muslim woman how she feels about western women and you'll get a pretty interesting counter-point; and let's not talk about racism and the voting bloc), and if we're talking about the prohibition of alcohol there's plenty of ammo in the Qur'an. What of freedom from religion? Is that a constitutional right? Ultimately, what was the purpose of separation of church and state? Was it solely to prevent creeping theocracy, or was there maybe more to it? Or less? Nobody talks about it, but at least one of the founding father's of the United States felt that the country couldn't function without a bible based morality, at least one other was regularly attacked for his faith, or lack thereof, in his day as well as mine. (And then, of course, there was this guy.)

So, land of the free, home of the brave, tell me about your freedom because now that I've left I fail to see it. In Wisconsin, the new Governor is proposing to use the national guard to quell unrest and dissent to his proposals while the state erupts into protest over his budget and plans. Meanwhile, Egypt overthrows their dictator through massive protest - a (if not the) key to their victory (besides persistence)? The refusal of the military to attack the protestors. And yet, in Wisconsin, the actions of the democratically elected governor are being accurately reported with autocratic sounding words like "unilateral," "contemptuously dismissed" and "power grab." And my question becomes, where will the national guard stand, with or against the people? Interesting how the police and fire unions are exempt from this big union bust-up. With what force will they come with against the protests? (It's happened before) I see riot shields and fire hoses in a possible future that looks more like 1967 or 1984 than the change we're supposed to believe in. Were the citizens of thes United States, at her inception, more, less or as free as we are today?

But with all of that on the table, I must refer you to Citizen's United (though I'd prefer if you paid more attention to either of these accounts of the ruling than cuvfec.com's, except for the Keith Olbermann spot around 9 min. in) - and say what you will about cuvfec's orthodox story, show me how my boy Russ Feingold wasn't affected by the corporate money spent against him (and keep in mind the possibility of a tremendous difference between a corporation giving to who they want to, and who will benefit them, and to an honest collection of citizens pooling together to speak out against a candidate - and if you want my honest opinion, I'm AGAINST TV ads in general and especially when it comes to elections because nothing could be a greater waste of money) Feingold had been a bulwark against corporate power, so tell me that his lack of reelection is not related to the way he votes and the corporate money spent against him. 2010 was the most expensive midterm election ever, and this has nothing to do with corporations having the locks taken off the dam(n) against their spending? Just wait until 2012...

My point about Citizen's United is this: I don't have much money to give to a political campaign, and I assume this is pretty true for many, if not most, lower to middle class Americans, who make up the overwhelming majority of the country, but how much money does a corporation that makes a billion dollars in profits every year have to donate? Ask yourself what kind of favors that money can buy? Ask yourself how that money can affect "opinion" in our bodies of representatives when, if it doesn't go for you, it will go against you, depending on how you vote (re: Russ Feingold). And think of the votes that cash buys, if that decision has to do with what you want or what's better for the corporation, which way do you think that vote's going to go?

Now, let me bring this in from left field and let's talk about Abortion for a moment. We can argue about the morality of Abortion until we're blue in the face and ultimately, the conservative moralist will probably retain the moral high-ground and disagree, while the lefty murderer will still feel justified, and both self-righteous, but it's a law, it happened. It was a supreme court decision and honestly it's probably not going anywhere any time soon. Still, we expect our candidates to take a stand on it, perhaps some have even lost elections because of their stance on it (Kerry, 2004; Gore?), which by implications means others have won (Bush II, 2000 & 2004).

Abortion is old news, Citizens United is brand spankin' new. Abortion is a hot-button issue every election, but tell me, morality aside which one of these supreme court cases has more bearing on the actuality of our representative government? Just incase you're on the fence with this let me break it down for you, abortion rights doesn't swing how somebody votes on anything but Abortion rights, whereas Citizens United has the potential to determine not just election, but by proxy the votes cast on every issue brought up in our representative government - which in turn means WE don't have any say, dollars do. It's a zero sum game, if you vote the way your corporate sponsors want the money goes for your campaign, if you don't, it goes against you! Ultimately, it goes against the people - and on that note, the official, orthodox cuvfec.com story is a f'n joke and I don't mind saying so (though, the alternative they mention, media control is also fairly real - the difference is that media is a choice, nobody is making you watch TV, and there's plenty of alternative press).

That said, which one do you think we should be talking about as an election issue?

So now let's return, life in the states isn't as "free" as we think it is - don't buy the hype - though I'm certainly not saying it can't be. It just takes work. Hard, fearless work. Look at Civil Rights in the US, look to Women's suffrage, look to fledgling democracy in Tunisia and Egypt. And while you're there think about this too, think about the western world's inability to support democracy in Africa, and the corporate reality of the economics of arms sales (from WMD's sold to Saddam, to tear gas sold to the Egyptian police), and the economics of power. Who's really in control? The body politic or the corporate masters? We were warned about big Government by our founding fathers, but they had a really different view of Corporations than the McWorld we call modernity in the west.

We're supposed to protest. We're supposed to rebel. We're Americans and it's time to remember what that means because if we don't wake up and smell the BS we're being served we're going to find ourselves at best under the Ataturk that we apparently need, and at worst an American version of this guy, neither of which seem superior to the idealized American dream we all pay lip-service to while we blindly keep complacent time and fall into step in the open air prison our country has become.

"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." - Thomas Jefferson

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson