Cultural Poverty

What is it about America that is so unaccepting of poverty?  Is the country such a competitavely based 'meritacracy' that it not only turns a blind eye, but actually shuns the poor - the 'losers'?  Is it only America?  Think of the concept of state assistance.  Does one on assistance share their plight with anyone, do they tell everyone about it?  Most people don't, culturally it is frowned upon.  Why must there be shame in this admonition?  Is it that American culture sees no reason or holds no compassion of the less fortunate, or do they see simply see it as 'their own fault'. 

If you tell someone that you are on food stamps or the like, the reaction is humbling - like you shoud be ashamed of being on them.  Does each and every person actually hold the keys to their own fate.  This is simply a falacy.  Look at today's systemic collapse.  There are simply no jobs.  The world economy is a mess, and it is a result of its own large-scale self.  Yet it is the individual selves throughout it that are truely suffering as there really is no support for them.  And the saddest thing about this suffering is that it is worst when they have to look culture in the eyes and act like there is something wrong with them.  This is wrong.  It should be the responsibility of a civilized society to look after and protect all of its citizens - after all, isn't the true measure of a 'civilization' how it treats its poor?  There should be no shame in taking assistance.  If life really is a team game, don't some players pick up the slack for other players that aren't at their best that day or are playing hurt?  The best teams have different players stepping up every night.  If one is off do you look at them like they are a pity case?  No, they contribute when they can and you respect them for it - at least good teams do this.  They win as a team and lose as a team.  But we are not a good team, we are a bickering, infighting, self obsessed group of individuals looking only to ourselves to make the final shot, to be the star. 

We should be proud of who we are, be proud that we have the courage to look society in the face and reject its stereotypes, rise above snide remarks and dirty looks.  Why can't we all look at each other as commonly human, commonly oriented, and on a common journey. 

Think Local, Act Global

In a conversation the other day I was trying to describe some of my viewpoints and some of my aims. The person I was speaking to came back with, “sounds like the 'think global, act local' concept”. I agreed in short before a quick pause and then said, hold up. That is not what it is, it is exactly the opposite. While I greatly appreciate and support the 'think global, act local' movement, I definitely come to it from a different point of view.

If we spend all of our time thinking about things on a global scale (and it is wonderful to realize that our small footprints can have a large impact on the world as it exists beyond our typical site line), then we never really learn the intricacies of the multitude of varying 'locales' in the world. This is the problem with thinking globally, is that what exactly do we really know of the globe? How many of us have really been out and about it? Most likely our 'think global' concept comes from someone else's concepts, someone else's viewpoints. Not that this is all bad, but think about it in the terms of you letting someone else interpret the world for you and then giving that already digested info to you for your usage. The world as we see it is shaped entirely by the information that is presented to us after someone else has already picked and chosen how to see it and explain it.

Now think about it locally in your 'line of site.' You know the people, the culture, the norms, the generally accepted practices, the niceties, etc. You understand the area, you understand the people, and you know how they 'function'. Now think about humanity in general. We have an infinite amount of cultural nuances and variances, yet we all still wake up in the morning and all pretty much put one foot in front of the other, we look to eat, to keep ourselves clean and warm, search for company in others, etc. The world is not such a different or mysterious place, people like it when others are nice to them, they like to be able to control their own interactions with others, live in a secure setting, etc. On a grand scale these things make sense to us all as we ourselves are human, and we know what human emotions and situations feel like.

The variances really come in different ways of doing things, different cultural conclusions and different view points. So in this way I would say that what we really need to be doing is to be thinking about the local things that go on in the world – everywhere. We should all be striving to go to as many places as possible, to learn as many things as possible, and then try to draw our own larger ideas from this. We should figure out how it is that people all over the world do the same things and then try to find a global system that allows for the most inclusive and amicable system to allow people to be people. Take ideas from all over the world (not just the ones that are presented to us through they eyes of an opinionated journalist, an over educated academic, or an adgendaed politician), but those of local people, dealing with a multitude of locally unique, yet humanly similar, issues to those seen all over the world. There are some many brilliant ways of doing things that we don't even no about. We need to find them, search them out locally, and then try to incorporate them into our global ideas and actions.   

Avatar (based on a true story...)

So the only issue I had with the movie Avatar was that that's not really how the story ends.  I mean, here we are, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not the Federation of Native Americans.  It would be lovely to think that the native american tribes would have been able to fend us off and be able to defend their homeland like in the movie, but then again, I guess that's why its a movie - it's a fairy tale.  I just wish that the people making decisions, which in a democracy should theoretically be US, the people, would learn from these types of films.  But more realistically, as democracy in this country leads a lot to be desired, it is the people in positions of power (governmental and corporate) that need to learn a leason from this movie. 

The cultures of the world are all beautiful in their own way, and everyone that grows out of each one has the right to keep and enjoy that culture without social, cultural, economic, or militarily being pushed in a different direction.  So how abotu if the West stops pushing the world around.  Think of how sad you felt as the human 'skypeople' killed and destroyed the Na'vi and their homeland, now picture that happening in the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa, South America, Asia, wherever we decide is a place of interest for us and our companies.  This is the story of Western history.  European expansion, colonization, globalization - whatever you want to call it - 'The West' (both its countries and its commercial interests) has been playing Avatar for centuries, while the rest of the world has been playing the Na'vi.  To bad the Na'vi's first real victory was on the big screen only within the last couple months rather than in real life.  How many have died?  How many have suffered?  When will we learn?    

Democratic Voice, A Third Party

What is it that makes American politics so disgusting? Is it the way that it has become so polarized, is it the special interests and the money that so thoroughly influence elections, maybe the capitalist power/finance based system, or more pointedly is it simply America's version of representative democracy itself? I think the real answer is all of the above factor in and more still of course. But there is one short-term thing that could jolt the system a bit off its downward spiral. Creating a means for a third or even more political parties. There is a simple fix for this, and one that is tried and tested in other successful democracies. Carrying out two rounds of elections.

I know it can be a dirty word in much of American politics – “Europe” – but the Europeans have a thriving electoral system that allows for countless party affiliations, yet still boils down to just a few more powerful players. Granted parliamentary styled democracy is different than the US version, but one profound key to their multiparty system, is that many of their electoral processes offer two rounds in each election. In the first round, the electorate can vote for whomever they wish, and then if no one candidate attains a 50% majority, the top two candidates from the first round run off in a second round about a month later.

This does several things, one, it allows more ideas and voices to be heard and supported, allows the run up to the election to be more about issues than person attacks, and it allows for people to actually be able to vote for who/what they want in an 'ideal scenario', but then to vote for the eventual 'realistic' options (same as today, just with more knowledge). Today's system wouldn't change much and most likely not the outcome as entrenched money and power will still rule the show, but more voices would be a huge boon for the public.

Obviously when we think third parties in the US we think Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. Both men made huge strides towards a more encompassing electorate choice. But the biggest legacy of them will be that no one will vote for a third party again as the 4% that voted for Nader brought possibly one of, if not the most polarizing political figure in recent memory to power. Most of that 4% would have been much happier with a democrat in power than a Republican, but there was no real option to express this productively then or now. As a result America got a president without a proper mandate as neither Bush nor Gore even had 50% of the American population's support, and more importantly we gained a lesson in 'wasting' a vote. This is a democratic disaster.

Think about the choices in front of us today. One or Two, Republican or Democrat. These two parties stand for and do certain specific things and look at specific issues in specific ways, but for the most part many of the views within each of those parties are ideologically opposed. What if you are a highly religious person and you believe strongly in compassion and social safety nets for the poor, the unemployed, and the otherwise less fortunate? The Republican platform does not allow for this as economically they espouse free markets, less governmental intervention, and decreasing federal programs (the same unemployment, health care, welfare, and other governmental programs that directly affect these people in need). And say you are an environmentalist and basing your desired policies on green initiatives, or a member of the working families party looking for stronger unionization and support for blue collar workers, neither party will stand up to corporate interests to really push for these policies. Maybe you want state ownership of some aspects of corporations – more revenue to the state and more governmental intervention in business. The Democrats don't support this, only greater expanse of state funded programs, not ownership. Simply put, democracy should be about all voices being heard and promoted, not activating people of like mind to vote in certain ways.

The bottom line is that someone that doesn't want any state intervention should be able to vote libertarian. Some one that is an environmentalist should be able to vote Green, a religious based political standpoint should have its own party. A socialist platform, an anarchist party, pick a political ideology and they should have an opportunity to cast their voice. We do not currently allow this. With two rounds of elections, people could vote for the issues and parties that they truly wanted in their hearts, and then for 'reality' in the second round.

Give us a multiparty system. It will allow for a greater understanding of the voices of the electorate. Now I know there are people that would be against it as their interests could suffer, parties could be splintered, and campaign funding be lost. There is also of course the concept of compromise and allegiances that would have to arise. But look at the system now, we simply have the choice between two dysfunctional and contradictory ideological and political machines. This is not democracy, it is a one or the other where both sides are so grossly influenced by special interests and me versus you, that there is no real dialog and no real time to think about what the people truly want.

Yes, it would be difficult to form alliances, but they would fall along present day lines for the most part. Republicans, religious parties and libertarians would form a coalition. Just as the Democrats, greens, and the working families party would. We'd get most of the same functionality, but with such a greater understanding of what it was that the actual electorate REALLY wanted, where their hearts really lay. What it was and who – if in a vacuum – the people would vote for, what issues they really cared about – not which compromise they felt more comfortable making. And this, compromising, should be left to the professional politicians – that's their jobs – not to the constituents and/or to democracy itself.

Freedom of the Press

The freedom of the Press seems to us to be an uncontestable right of society, especially if it is expected to be seen as 'free'.  But is this freedom really what we want?  think about all the things written on the internet, or in the media.  How much of it is disputed, or derided as partial, or incorrect?  Anyone can publish anything if they have the means, and it can then be read and believed by anyone, no matter as to its validity.

I have the freedom to write and say whatever it is that I want - truth or not.  Now of course there are laws that tell me I can't say certain things that harm people or slander them.  But what of concepts, of grey areas, or of the fact that this type of lawsuit may just be to late to change an oppinion already entrenched by the misinformation?  The bottom line is that in today's society if you have the money or the platform to print something, you can print whatever it is that you want.  It is great that the internet gives a platform to a poor person such as myself, but what is to say that what I am saying is fact or fiction, as both are subjective for the most part given point of views and perspectives.  This is no great threat to society as there are as of yet very few people reading this.  But think about it in terms of Fox News, MSNBC, and all of the other thousands of partisan publications and messages out there (think swift boats).  The bottom line is, that in my hands an observation - even when written online for anyone to see - does not have much power, but in the hands of someone with capabilities, money, and establishment these things can change the course of elections, the path of society, and public opinion.  Now of course I could subject myself to an investor and try to make my voice more visible, but then I become beholden to the investor's wishes.  Would I then be able to say things that ran against their principle profit maximizing motivation?  Which is likely a big part of why they have the ability to invest.

Freedom of the press is a wonderful thought, and it would work phenomenally if there were equal resources for everyone to promote their ideas.  But this is not the case, the system is actually set up in a way that those who have the financial means to publish can make their message heard.  However, those without the means, do not ever get their voices heard (at least not yet;).  This is not freedom of the press, I am not free to publish whatever I want.  I can't walk into a publishers house and say, ok, I want 20,000 copies of this book printed and destributed.  They either have to come find me and say my work is good (or good with certain 'changes'), or I can self publish at a huge price in both publishing and marketing.  This is freedom within the confines of capitalist economic constraints, not real freedom.  Within current day context this basically allows for people with money to get their voice heard and those without to most likely not, especially if it is not the type of message those in positions of power want heard and will fund. 

But the true kicker of all of this, is that even with this system, it doesn't say that any of the information being published has to truely be accurate.  I just saw a commercial about the republican senate victory in Massachusetts and said that as Massachusetts had 'government-run' health care, that this loss meant that Mass voters had "just said no" to this type of health care.  Now how is it possible to sum up an entire election in this one issue?  Like there was nothing else invovled? No unemployment, no economy, no candidate personalities, electoral funding, whatever.  This election wasn't performed in a vacuum, yet the freedom of the press allows an organization to project conclusions upon the national electorate (on CNN) that needless to say leave a little bit 'wanting'.  Yet, its unlikely anyone is going to take it off air.  More likely it is just going to promote an equally biased response from a democratic leaning organization.  Neither side is innocent.

Things certainly are going to get worse now that the supreme court has declared corporate money ok to use in elections.  Think of all that money spent 'freely' by people with specific agendas, and interests in twisting information towards their specific cause.  All the money in the world, and the freedom to print whatever it is that you want.  Dangerous.  And not going to help empower anyone but those who already have it.

Quick note on the Profit Maximizing motive...

So with an AT&T messaging package you get 30 days to use it. Today is the 31st of January. Purchased today, what days would you think this would last till? Now don't forget, February has 28 days. So... 28, plus two should give me today and the 1st of March no? The entire day I would think. If they were really doing it properly, they would go thirty days from the exact time of purchase – which should be 12:30pm on the 2nd of March. However, in actuality, they only give me until 12:01AM on March 1st. So they call all of today as one whole day and then they give you until March 1st (the 30th day), great - EXCEPT - they only give you ONE minute of that day!?!?! So in essence, I got about 28 1/2 days of usage. Hmmmm.... And this system is best for me and the consumer? No, they want us to give them the most money possible, while they give us the least service for that price... And the system rewards them for it. They achieve a higher profit margin, and their share price goes up, yet the customers get shorted. How is this right? Yeah I could go to another carrier, but they would have some other tricky little quirk just like this one. They are after all in competition for investors – who are of course after the same returns and the same profits... and in competition to see who can get the most out of us for the least effort and cost. I just don't see how that is ultimately a good motivational foundation for a system to be based upon.